'A sickening breeze'
It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “Madeleine has gone!”
“Kate must have tried Jon’s mobile once as we stirred when it rang at about 03h20. Jon spoke briefly with Kate and then called her around 03h30. I knew that Kate and Gerry were on holidays in Portugal. Kate was very anguished and on the telephone and told me that she had checked on the children every half-hour. It was around 22h00, and when she went to check on the children she found that someone had entered the apartment and taken Madeleine from where she slept; that Madeleine had been abducted. The person must have entered, passed by the twins and taken her.
Kate continued that when she entered the apartment via the patio doors, a breeze hit her in the face as if a door or window was open. When she entered the children’s room, the window was open, the blind had been forced and Madeleine had disappeared.
Michelle Thompson in a statement to the Leicestershire police, april 2008
Erm, and I know there’s been a lot, when Kate, the night when we came back and Madeleine was gone, and I think that was something that had, erm, there had been some discussion about, because she’d, the door had slammed, erm, when she’d gone in, had slammed shut, and she’d gone back to look, thinking she’d left the French doors open and, in fact, they were shut and she thought, well where’s the breeze coming from, and it was then that she’d opened the door to realise that the window was open and that’s why the door had slammed”.
Fiona Payne in a statement to the Leicestershire police, april 2008
DW: "Err well at that point I can’t, I can’t remember, a lot, a lot of what I’m saying is perhaps some of what was said on the night or seen on the night and also what was spoken about later, the fact that you know she, it was the fact the door had, had slammed shut that drew her attention to something not being right in the room, you know when she went to check on the children.”
DW: "And err and that, that draught through the window had, had caused the door to slam.”
PC: "Is that the bedroom door that you understood it as?”
DW: "The children’s bedroom door.”
Diane Webster in a statement to the Leicestershire police, april 2008
And because I was looking for, you know, well people say, well why didn’t you go in the room, why didn’t you check on Madeleine, you were, you said you’d go and check, but it was just that, we were just satisfying ourselves that nobody was upset and awake and crying, we didn’t expect that if I checked each three beds somebody, it just wasn’t sort of something that you thought about, you just thought, you know, is somebody, you know, upset, do they want their mum or something, you can say, you know, somebody might have vomited and you wouldn’t know about it, but there was, you know, nobody was awake, you thought, if something, just one, it’d be, it’d sort of feel a bit odd, you know, from the draughts, you know, when Kate went in something about the door shutting, there was, I presume, a through draught. So I just sort of went towards the doorway, I didn’t step over the threshold, I didn’t see Madeleine and I didn’t check, I turned round and came back out, said all was quiet when I got back to the table and then we went on with food.
00.29.11 4078 “So you weren’t, just to clarify what you have said, you weren’t conscious of any draught?”
4078 “The curtains were drawn and weren’t blowing around?”
Reply “No, no, we’ve talked about that before, I didn’t smell anything, I mean, I could see the children breathing, but I didn’t clock it as abnormal, erm, it’d be completely to speculate to say whether their breathing was fast or, I couldn’t say, I mean, they were breathing and that’s what, you know, and that was what I was there to check, erm, no, no funny sort of smells, no sort of funny draughts, no sort of funny sort of noises, no, erm, nothing that I can think of for that. I mean, it was a complete just a shock out of the blue when, you know, I’d been in and then suddenly somebody’s saying Madeleine’s missing, there was nothing that made me think, oh”.
4078 "Okay. And then just to mop up the questions that were outstanding from the Portuguese, when you went into check Madeleine, Sean and Amelie the evening that Kate asked you to do that on the third of May, when you went in through their patio door did you close that after you went in?”
00:03:44 Reply "Err I, I’m fairly sure I would have closed that, if not completely to, I’m pretty sure the more I think about it though I would have closed it to, because I wouldn’t have wanted there to be err a sort of a funny draught or, or some noise, or something that made the door slam that would have woken them up so I pulled it to, behind me, but I can’t guarantee it was completely shut, but it would have been there or thereabouts.”
Matthew Oldfield in a statement to the Leicestershire police, april 2008
Kate: Yeah, so I thought well I'll just close it over again, and as I went to close it over it slammed shut and I thought and it was like sort of you know a draught had caused it to shut so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed and I thought well that's strange so then I opened the door thinking I'll open it ajar a bit again and that was when I kind of looked into the room and when I just looked and it was quite dark and I was just looking and looking at Madeleine's bed and I was thinking is that her that I was looking for why isn't Madeleine there? And then in the end I walked over and thought oh, she's not in bed and then I thought maybe she's wandered through to our bed and that's why the door's open so I went through to our bedroom and she wasn't there and then I kind of see then I'm starting to panic a bit and I ran back into their room and literally as I went back into their room the curtains that were drawn over just "foooosh" flew open and that's when I saw that the shutter was right up and the window was pushed right oper. And that was when I just knew that erm someone had taken her. So I, I mean I ran to the window and I didn't know what I thought was going to see but I ran to the window and then I quickly hmm quickly looked through the wardrobes I had I suppose this temporary thought she was cowering in a wardrobe or something anyway she wasn't there and I just ran out and soon as...
Kate McCann on the Oprah show, may 2009.
K: I did my check about 10.00 ‘clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it. I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see S and A in the cot and then I was looking at M’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that M or is that the bedding. and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and cuddle cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.
Kate McCann in C4 Cutting Edge documentary - Madeleine was here, april 2008
At 10pm, Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment, using her key and saw that the bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open. The doors were locked except the one at the back as already noted above.
Gerry McCann, in a statement to the Policia Judiciária, may 4th, 2007
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.
Kate McCann, in a statement to the Policia Judiciária, may 4th, 2007
Regarding the apartment: windows were closed but she doesn’t know if they were locked. Verandah window closed but not locked, curtains closed. The second window in the living room was probably closed, she did not touch it and does not know if the blinds were closed. The kitchen window was probably closed but with the blinds open as there was light in the kitchen.
The window in Madeleine’s room remained closed, but she doesn’t know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine’s room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.
Kate McCann, in a statement to the Policia Judiciária, September 6th, 2007
Related: Index of Official Files & Statements
Discussion at the 3 arguidos: Joana Morais blog: 'A sickening breeze'
Surgeon is criticised but GMC dismisses case
By Nina Lakhani
Sunday, 31 May 2009
An NHS trust faces possible legal action following its partial rejection of a damning report into the care of a woman who died after an operation at Glenfield Hospital in Leicester.
Beryl Walters, 68, died in July 1998, 28 days after her windpipe was accidentally cut during an operation to her throat for the removal of a small tumour; she had been expected to make a full recovery.
Her surgeon, Mr Andrew Hall, was criticised after a detailed investigation by the Health Ombudsman into his procedures.
Following her death, Mrs Walter's daughter, Susan George, complained about the surgeon to the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust which later rejected parts of the Ombudsman's findings, particularly that the outcome could have been different.
Lawyers have advised Mrs George that an ombudsman's findings can only be disputed through the courts and that the trust should not have rejected parts of the report.
Her action against the trust follows a decision by the General Medical Council (GMC) to dismiss a disciplinary hearing against the surgeon on a "procedural technicality", leaving her with little hope of further inquiries.
Lawyers have asked the trust to refer Mr Hall to the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) for assessment.
John Halford, partner at the law firm Bindmans, which is acting pro bono for Mrs George, said: "This sad case shows that, some four and a half years after the Shipman Inquiry was decommissioned, the GMC remains a body that does not command patient confidence even when grappling with serious questions about doctors' performance that are raised by respected, independent bodies like the NHS Ombudsman.
"Worse still, in this case the NHS Trust, which the ombudsman is specifically empowered to investigate, itself rejected key findings on a highly questionable basis. We are waiting to see whether the trust will belatedly take steps to assuage Mrs George's concerns including involving the NPSA. In short, we have a system where the response to the most serious of patient concerns can very easily become a macabre game of pass the parcel."
The GMC referred Mr Hall for a fitness-to-practice hearing in 2004 after the Health Ombudsman criticised him for using inappropriate surgical techniques, failing to get proper informed consent, and failing to seek specialist advice when Mrs Walters developed complications – from which, ultimately, she died. The case was dismissed in October 2008, days before the hearing was scheduled to start.
Peter Walsh, head of Action Against Medical Accidents, said: "Here we have a situation where it is the GMC's own arcane rules which have prevented them from focusing on their main role of protecting the public."
Dr Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital who has written extensively about the GMC, said: "The GMC has a difficult job dealing with so many complaints, which it is not doing very well. It... is run by amateurs rather than legal experts. It needs a complete overhaul so that disciplinary matters are considered by a completely independent body."
The GMC denied any wrongdoing and said the case was "concluded on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction".
A spokesperson at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust said: "We continue to be confident in Mr Andrew Hall's performance and clinical competence. The case has also been seen by the Health Ombudsman and the GMC and neither found that further action against Mr Hall was necessary. We are sorry that despite all of this Mrs George doesn't feel any closure."
Source: The Independent
University Hospitals Leicester also kill members of their own staff:
Hospital staff have apologised for errors in treating a dying patient – including thinking she was another woman of the same name.
Lynda Greatorex, from Wigston, died aged 59 at Leicester Royal Infirmary after being admitted with heart problems.
The grandmother had been a medical secretary at the hospital for nine years before retiring a year before her death.
Leicester NHS Trust also brush off damning complaints of deadly misdiagnoses, paedophilia, fraud, child neglect and concealment of a childs body
And here's a team of killer cardiologists from Glenfield Hospital : Sir Professor Peter Bell (centre) with Doctors Manuel Galinanes and Rob Sayers, who all diagnosed a man as inoperable and terminal even though he wasn't.
And here's another cardiologist from the same hospital who is also being protected by the Leicester NHS Trust and GMC - Dr Gerald McCann, suspected of the involvement and concealment of his own daughter's death, seen here with a film crew inside Glenfield Hospital for the Cutting Edge documentary "Madeleine was here"
And then there's the suspected paedophile who also works at Leicester Royal Infirmary, Dr David Payne, seen here being interviewed by Leicester police regarding the mysterious disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Leicester Royal Infirmary hospital worker filmed himself sexually assaulting a female patient as she lay in a coma
David Jones - Daily Mail, 29 May 2009
By Nigel Moore
30 May 2009
If Clarence Mitchell believes there are 'eerie similarities' between Raymond Hewlett and the man seen by Gail Cooper, commonly known as 'Cooperman', then it would surely be a worthy exercise to compare and highlight the similarities.
When one considers these descriptions, it is difficult to find any similarities at all, let alone any 'eerie' ones. In fact, the only similarity appears to be that they were both pictured with their hands in their pockets.
The last word, in theory, should go to Gail Cooper, who told the News of the World, on 20 January 2008, that: "I'd recognise him immediately if I saw him. His appearance has really stuck in my mind."
However, not one media outlet - nor the McCanns private detectives - has sought out Mrs Cooper to ascertain her opinion on whether the man she saw was Raymond Hewlett.
And that probably tells us all we need to know.
By Tony Parsons 30/05/2009
As the hunt for Madeleine McCann steps up again, Portuguese police are telling anyone who comes forward with new information: “The case is closed, she is dead.”
And they know this – how? No body has ever been found. So Madeleine’s parents refuse to give up hope.
The Portuguese plods have no right to take that hope away. Paedophile Raymond Hewlett says he “knows nothing”.
<------- But somebody does. The McCanns are right to keep searching. From the start, the Portuguese cops have been more hindrance than help. British detectives say the Algarve is awash with paedophiles. Of course it is. Because there’s little chance of them being nicked by local coppers who couldn’t find their own bottoms with sat nav. ----- Source: The Mirror
Tony Parsons: A case of asinine xenophobia
Portrait of Bad Journalism
More on Tony Parsons and the McCanns
Discussion at the 3 arguidos: Be proud of your press
Rotten reporters, jerk-off journalists, pathetic presenters
The Maddie case is taboo for the PGR and the PJ
“Many people linked to the Maddie case and the investigation made in Portugal, were or are still the target of tapping and surveillance,” said a source of the Home Office to 24Horas in answer to the affirmations made by the ex-coordinator of the Department of Criminal Investigation (DIC) of the Judicial Police (PJ) of Portimão.
Gonçalo Amaral said that he was “under surveillance” and he knows that his “phone is being tapped.” The former head of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann “does not know who is watching him”, but he affirms that his email has been the target of a constant curiosity and that part of this information has been transmitted to the McCanns.
“At the moment, there is information which has to be developed regarding the localisation and what might have happened to the body of the young girl,” said Amaral, accusing the Public Prosecutor (PGR) and the management of the PJ of making a taboo of the Maddie case, where “nobody does anything” allowing “that people external to the Portuguese justice and police force investigate crimes under the PJ’s responsibility”.
Gonçalo Amaral, who, until now, has not received any notification regarding the complaint for defamation announced by the McCanns, confirms that he will sue Kate and Gerry McCann and will prove that an “agreement existed” between the couple and the British police during the investigation, which supposedly influenced the end result of the investigation.
Maddie’s parents want to prevent the publication in English of the book “Maddie: The truth of the lie”, in which the ex-coordinator of the PJ reveals many details of the investigation he was leading in Praia da Luz and where he sustains the theory of Madeleine’s death. The decision of the couple was supposedly taken as a consequence of the disclosure of the documentary based on this book that TVI (Portuguese TV channel) broadcasted and is available on internet with English subtitles.
Amaral shows the Public Prosecutor to have “trapped” him in the Leonor Cipriano case.
“I haven’t got any doubt that there was a trap from the Public Prosecutor which then led him to say during the judgement that I made a false testimony, because I should have been made arguido the first day, at the first hour, like my colleagues,” said Gonçalo Amaral on TVI (see video) on the fact of having been condemned in the lawsuit of Leonor Cipriano, confirming that he is going to appeal against the sentence.
The ex-coordinator, talking about his most recent experience made with law in Portugal, gave the example of two complaints presented around the same report worked out by an association in the Joanna Cipriano case: the complaint presented by Amaral over a year ago is on standby, whereas the second, presented by the opposing party, already has some arguidos.
Duarte Levy also on “24horas”
Dr David Payne, suspected paedophile, working in a hospital in the UK, has never denied any involvement and prefers to have a 'pact of silence' which is no ones elses business
Drs 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.
Gonçalo Amaral: "there were gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people"
Gonçalo Amaral: "It would be interesting to know the reason why Mr David Payne is not taking part in the reconstitution. He might explain for how long he bathed the children and at what time."
Yvonne Warren Martin further states that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers to see if David Payne is on that list.
DC 1485 Messiah: "Okay. I’d like you to describe Madeleine to me. What sort of a child she is and you know how you see her.”
Dr David Payne reply: "Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine err and you know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry’s, you know pride and joy. They’d had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and everything and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she’d got the, you know the iris defect err but you know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily and you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun.”
DC 1485 Messiah: "Mm.”
image courtesy of Textusa
Innocent until proven guilty
Guilty until proven innocent
How Alex West of The Sun confronted Raymond Hewlett
THE SUN: Can you speak to us about Madeleine McCann?
HEWLETT: I don't know what you're talking about.
SUN: Did you have anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
HEWLETT: No answer
SUN: Could you tell us where you were when Madeleine McCann disappeared?
HEWLETT: It's got nothing to do with you.
SUN: Why don't you eliminate yourself from the inquiry for the sake of the McCanns?
HEWLETT: I don't have to speak to you. F*** off.
SUN: Why haven't you spoken to the detectives?
HEWLETT: I will. Just f*** off out of here. I've done nothing wrong.
SUN: Well, you've been on the run for more than 30 years and you're wanted for questioning by West Yorks Police.
HEWLETT: What for? I don't believe it.
SUN: A sexual assault on an eight-year-old girl in 1975.
At this point Hewlett, who lives in Aachen with partner Mariana, 33, and their six kids, let fly with another four-letter volley before leaping from the wheelchair and dashing inside the hospital.
Hewlett, did you kill Madeleine McCann behind the sofa in apartment 5a whilst her parents were out having a meal and getting drunk?
Did you sedate her home-alone twin siblings so that they would be unaware of you killing their sister?
Did you leave Maddie's body behind the sofa for 90 minutes to develop cadaver odour?
Did you then put her in a blue sports bag, which wasn't big enough to hide a tennis racket, and put her in the McCanns wardrobe before making off with her through the jemmied window that wasn't jemmied?
Hewlett, did you leave Kate's fingerprints all over the shutters when you took Maddie?
Were you wearing gloves and entirely wrapped in clingfilm during all this time as you didn't leave any of your own fingerprints or DNA?
Did you wear Kate's black and white check trousers whilst you carried out this dastardly deed?
Did you then return 3 weeks later to put Maddie's DNA in the McCanns's hire car?
Why don't you incriminate yourself in this inquiry for the sake of the McCanns?
Article from the Toronto Star, 2006, looking into the future of microchipping. See the paragraph I've highlighted in red.
One generation is all they need
Spencer Wynn/Toronto Star
One day we will all happily be implanted with microchips, and our every move will be monitored. The technology exists; the only barrier is society's resistance to the loss of privacy. An expert on surveillance and society lays out how corporations and governments are progressing towards microchipping everybody
Dec 10, 2006 04:30 AM
By the time my four-year-old son is swathed in the soft flesh of old age, he will likely find it unremarkable that he and almost everyone he knows will be permanently implanted with a microchip. Automatically tracking his location in real time, it will connect him with databases monitoring and recording his smallest behavioural traits.
Most people anticipate such a prospect with a sense of horrified disbelief, dismissing it as a science-fiction fantasy. The technology, however, already exists. For years humane societies have implanted all the pets that leave their premises with a small identifying microchip. As well, millions of consumer goods are now traced with tiny radio frequency identification chips that allow satellites to reveal their exact location.
A select group of people are already "chipped" with devices that automatically open doors, turn on lights, and perform other low-level miracles. Prominent among such individuals is researcher Kevin Warwick of Reading University in England; Warwick is a leading proponent of the almost limitless potential uses for such chips.
Other users include the patrons of the Baja Beach Club in Barcelona, many of whom have paid about $150 (U.S.) for the privilege of being implanted with an identifying chip that allows them to bypass lengthy club queues and purchase drinks by being scanned. These individuals are the advance guard of an effort to expand the technology as widely as possible.
From this point forward, microchips will become progressively smaller, less invasive, and easier to deploy. Thus, any realistic barrier to the wholesale "chipping" of Western citizens is not technological but cultural. It relies upon the visceral reaction against the prospect of being personally marked as one component in a massive human inventory.
Today we might strongly hold such beliefs, but sensibilities can, and probably will, change. How this remarkable attitudinal transformation is likely to occur is clear to anyone who has paid attention to privacy issues over the past quarter-century. There will be no 3 a.m. knock on the door by storm troopers come to force implants into our bodies. The process will be more subtle and cumulative, couched in the unassailable language of progress and social betterment, and mimicking many of the processes that have contributed to the expansion of closed-circuit television cameras and the corporate market in personal data.
A series of tried and tested strategies will be marshalled to familiarize citizens with the technology. These will be coupled with efforts to pressure tainted social groups and entice the remainder of the population into being chipped.
This, then, is how the next generation will come to be microchipped.
It starts in distant countries. Having tested the technology on guinea pigs, both human and animal, the first widespread use of human implanting will occur in nations at the periphery of the Western world. Such developments are important in their own right, but their international significance pertains to how they familiarize a global audience with the technology and habituate them to the idea that chipping represents a potential future.
An increasing array of hypothetical chipping scenarios will also be depicted in entertainment media, furthering the familiarization process.
In the West, chips will first be implanted in members of stigmatized groups. Pedophiles are the leading candidate for this distinction, although it could start with terrorists, drug dealers, or whatever happens to be that year's most vilified criminals. Short-lived promises will be made that the technology will only be used on the "worst of the worst." In fact, the wholesale chipping of incarcerated individuals will quickly ensue, encompassing people on probation and on parole.
Even accused individuals will be tagged, a measure justified on the grounds that it would stop them from fleeing justice. Many prisoners will welcome this development, since only chipped inmates will be eligible for parole, weekend release, or community sentences. From the prison system will emerge an evocative vocabulary distinguishing chippers from non-chippers.
Although the chips will be justified as a way to reduce fraud and other crimes, criminals will almost immediately develop techniques to simulate other people's chip codes and manipulate their data.
The comparatively small size of the incarcerated population, however, means that prisons would be simply a brief stopover on a longer voyage. Commercial success is contingent on making serious inroads into tagging the larger population of law-abiding citizens. Other stigmatized groups will therefore be targeted. This will undoubtedly entail monitoring welfare recipients, a move justified to reduce fraud, enhance efficiency, and ensure that the poor do not receive "undeserved" benefits.
Once e-commerce is sufficiently advanced, welfare recipients will receive their benefits as electronic vouchers stored on their microchips, a policy that will be tinged with a sense of righteousness, as it will help ensure that clients can only purchase government-approved goods from select merchants, reducing the always disconcerting prospect that poor people might use their limited funds to purchase alcohol or tobacco.
Civil libertarians will try to foster a debate on these developments. Their attempts to prohibit chipping will be handicapped by the inherent difficulty in animating public sympathy for criminals and welfare recipients — groups that many citizens are only too happy to see subjected to tighter regulation. Indeed, the lesser public concern for such groups is an inherent part of the unarticulated rationale for why coerced chipping will be disproportionately directed at the stigmatized.
The official privacy arm of the government will now take up the issue. Mandated to determine the legality of such initiatives, privacy commissioners and Senate Committees will produce a forest of reports presented at an archipelago of international conferences. Hampered by lengthy research and publication timelines, their findings will be delivered long after the widespread adoption of chipping is effectively a fait accompli. The research conclusions on the effectiveness of such technologies will be mixed and open to interpretation.
Officials will vociferously reassure the chipping industry that they do not oppose chipping itself, which has fast become a growing commercial sector. Instead, they are simply seeking to ensure that the technology is used fairly and that data on the chips is not misused. New policies will be drafted.
Employers will start to expect implants as a condition of getting a job. The U.S. military will lead the way, requiring chips for all soldiers as a means to enhance battlefield command and control — and to identify human remains. From cooks to commandos, every one of the more than one million U.S. military personnel will see microchips replace their dog tags.
Following quickly behind will be the massive security sector. Security guards, police officers, and correctional workers will all be expected to have a chip. Individuals with sensitive jobs will find themselves in the same position.
The first signs of this stage are already apparent. In 2004, the Mexican attorney general's office started implanting employees to restrict access to secure areas. The category of "sensitive occupation" will be expansive to the point that anyone with a job that requires keys, a password, security clearance, or identification badge will have those replaced by a chip.
Judges hearing cases on the constitutionality of these measures will conclude that chipping policies are within legal limits. The thin veneer of "voluntariness" coating many of these programs will allow the judiciary to maintain that individuals are not being coerced into using the technology.
In situations where the chips are clearly forced on people, the judgments will deem them to be undeniable infringements of the right to privacy. However, they will then invoke the nebulous and historically shifting standard of "reasonableness" to pronounce coerced chipping a reasonable infringement on privacy rights in a context of demands for governmental efficiency and the pressing need to enhance security in light of the still ongoing wars on terror, drugs, and crime.
At this juncture, an unfortunately common tragedy of modern life will occur: A small child, likely a photogenic toddler, will be murdered or horrifically abused. It will happen in one of the media capitals of the Western world, thereby ensuring non-stop breathless coverage. Chip manufactures will recognize this as the opportunity they have been anticipating for years. With their technology now largely bug-free, familiar to most citizens and comparatively inexpensive, manufacturers will partner with the police to launch a high-profile campaign encouraging parents to implant their children "to ensure your own peace of mind."
Special deals will be offered. Implants will be free, providing the family registers for monitoring services. Loving but unnerved parents will be reassured by the ability to integrate tagging with other functions on their PDA so they can see their child any time from any place.
Paralleling these developments will be initiatives that employ the logic of convenience to entice the increasingly small group of holdouts to embrace the now common practice of being tagged. At first, such convenience tagging will be reserved for the highest echelon of Western society, allowing the elite to move unencumbered through the physical and informational corridors of power. Such practices will spread more widely as the benefits of being chipped become more prosaic. Chipped individuals will, for example, move more rapidly through customs.
Indeed, it will ultimately become a condition of using mass-transit systems that officials be allowed to monitor your chip. Companies will offer discounts to individuals who pay by using funds stored on their embedded chip, on the small-print condition that the merchant can access large swaths of their personal data. These "discounts" are effectively punitive pricing schemes, charging unchipped individuals more as a way to encourage them to submit to monitoring. Corporations will seek out the personal data in hopes of producing ever more fine-grained customer profiles for marketing purposes, and to sell to other institutions.
By this point all major organizations will be looking for opportunities to capitalize on the possibilities inherent in an almost universally chipped population. The uses of chips proliferate, as do the types of discounts. Each new generation of household technology becomes configured to operate by interacting with a person's chip.
Finding a computer or appliance that will run though old-fashioned "hands-on"' interactions becomes progressively more difficult and costly. Patients in hospitals and community care will be routinely chipped, allowing medical staff — or, more accurately, remote computers — to monitor their biological systems in real time.
Eager to reduce the health costs associated with a largely docile citizenry, authorities will provide tax incentives to individuals who exercise regularly. Personal chips will be remotely monitored to ensure that their heart rate is consistent with an exercise regime.
By now, the actual process of "chipping" for many individuals will simply involve activating certain functions of their existing chip. Any prospect of removing the chip will become increasingly untenable, as having a chip will be a precondition for engaging in the main dynamics of modern life, such as shopping, voting, and driving.
The remaining holdouts will grow increasingly weary of Luddite jokes and subtle accusations that they have something to hide. Exasperated at repeatedly watching neighbours bypass them in "chipped" lines while they remain subject to the delays, inconveniences, and costs reserved for the unchipped, they too will choose the path of least resistance and get an implant.
In one generation, then, the cultural distaste many might see as an innate reaction to the prospect of having our bodies marked like those of an inmate in a concentration camp will likely fade.
In the coming years some of the most powerful institutional actors in society will start to align themselves to entice, coerce, and occasionally compel the next generation to get an implant.
Now, therefore, is the time to contemplate the unprecedented dangers of this scenario. The most serious of these concern how even comparatively stable modern societies will, in times of fear, embrace treacherous promises. How would the prejudices of a Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, or of southern Klansmen — all of whom were deeply integrated into the American political establishment — have manifest themselves in such a world? What might Hitler, Mao or Milosevic have accomplished if their citizens were chipped, coded, and remotely monitored?
Choirs of testimonials will soon start to sing the virtues of implants. Calm reassurances will be forthcoming about democratic traditions, the rule of law, and privacy rights. History, unfortunately, shows that things can go disastrously wrong, and that this happens with disconcerting regularity. Little in the way of international agreements, legality, or democratic sensibilities has proved capable of thwarting single-minded ruthlessness.
"It can't happen here" has become the whispered swan song of the disappeared. Best to contemplate these dystopian potentials before we proffer the tender forearms of our sons and daughters. While we cannot anticipate all of the positive advantages that might be derived from this technology, the negative prospects are almost too terrifying to contemplate.
If your child could wear an implant – a microchip that could tell a computer where he or she was at any time to within a few metres – would you buy it? After the horrific snatch of three-year-old Madeleine McCann from her bed in Portugal, the answer from many parents seems to be “yes”. Professor Kevin Warwick, who developed the technology that made it possible for the first child in Britain to volunteer to be “chipped” in 2002 – after the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman – has been bombarded with e-mails over the past few days from parents desperate to keep tabs on their children. As we talk, another e-mail drops into his inbox from a mother of two young children who says that she is deeply anxious about Madeleine’s disappearance and wants to know more about the chip technology.
Discussion with links on the 3 arguidos: Madeleine McCann and the Microchipping Agenda
Psychologist David Canter and Paul Ekman examine footage of these and others who made appeals on crimes to the media but who later were found guilty themselves, including Ian Huntley and Fadi Nasri, to explore their behaviour and look for telltale signs of their dishonesty.
Transcript of ITV's 'Tears, Lies and Videotape'
Should anyone wish to contact them with information then they will find nothing works - except the Paypal donation button.
The Madeleine Foundation
Combating child neglect
66 Chippingfield HARLOW
Tel: 01279 635789
Bates Wells & Braithwaite Monday 11 May 2009
2-6 Cannon Street
Attn: Ms Rosamund McCarthy, Solicitor to Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann. Sent by e-mail and hard copy
re: Find Madeleine website: Ineffective link for members of the public wishing to supply information to the McCanns’ private investigators
We write to you as Solicitors for the Find Madeleine Trust. You will be aware that we have corresponded with you before, raising many issues about the operation of the Trust.
It has come to our attention that, until the last few days, the website http://www.findmadeleine.com has been configured in such a way that it appears to have prevented the gathering of intelligence from members of the public about the possible whereabouts of Madeleine McCann. The configuration directly threatens two of the major objectives of Madeleine's fund, namely: 1) "To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann" and 2) "To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated”. If there was any major fault in that configuration, it must therefore be treated very seriously.
It appears that similar configurations have also been identified on the 'sister' websites to http://www.findmadeleine.com - namely, http://www.bringmadeleinehome.com and http://www.procuremadeleine.com.pt.
At the time of writing, whilst we are aware that some changes have been made to the website recently, the errors are still present on http://www.bringmadeleinehome.com. Any mis-configurations will be documented through publicly accessible internet archives.
Dealing mainly with the http://www.findmadeleine.com site, it appears from reports we have received from several technical experts that major corrective work took place on the website on 2 and 3 May. However, it is still far from certain that the Find Madeleine website can in fact receive anonymous information.
It is clear from the technical experts who have been in touch with us that people wishing to provide new and vital clues who clicked on the very prominent link labelled "email@example.com" (which is presented at the top of each page on the http://www.findmadeleine.com website) will have, in fact, sent an email to an address "firstname.lastname@example.org".
Enquiries by a number of people have concluded that the e-mail addresses associated with the domain madeleine.com are in no way connected to the McCanns, the Fund or any of their agents and consequently any information sent to those addresses will have, effectively, disappeared into a ‘black hole’, at least so far as the investigation is concerned.
In addition to the e-mail configuration error, there has also been a question mark about the integrity of the anonymous information submission form on the 'contact_us' page. It appears that the Captcha device (the collection of partially scrambled letters that is used to verify that a human, rather than a computer, has submitted the information) was not operating correctly. This would be very likely to prevent potentially useful information reaching you. In any case, any confusion that might deter the offering of genuine information is surely unacceptable.
In addition, .the bringmadeleinehome site still has a form that does not work and a ‘fake’ Captcha anti-spam device. The two addresses, email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org, return error messages that the address is unresolvable. That means those addresses do not exist. If you were a person who really did have information, and you didn't want to go to the police, you would get a message back, telling you your e-mail has been rejected. That is bound to deter potential informants.
At present, the two main sites run by the Find Madeleine Fund seem to capture string information from their forms, but there continues to be no verification or error handling at all on this form. It's perfectly possible to send them a completely blank form. You get no error message telling you that you haven't filled in a field correctly. That suggests that despite recent changes made to the website, the
‘email@example.com’ address remains, in essence, a fake.
The McCanns and their chief public relations spokesman Mr Clarence Mitchell have repeatedly stressed that one, single communication, from an anonymous source or otherwise, could be all that is needed to secure the safe return of Madeleine to her parents. It follows therefore that since people were invited by the McCanns to send potentially useful information via this link, that link needs to be 100% reliable.
In case you are in any doubt that the configuration of your website has indeed been unable to accept anonymous information, here are comments we have received about your website from a range of technical experts:
· I tried leaving some information, but nothing happened, I was just told to input the code. It shows that it is fixed/a picture and NOT a self-refreshing code
· A message should be sent to Leicestershire Police that there is no longer a reason for them to link to the page as it is not possible to supply anonymous information
· I cannot believe that it is simple incompetence, surely if someone constructs a web page the very first thing they do is try it out?
· I remain convinced that this is an important discovery, not just a minor cockup in the web site code
· I have just checked both the British and the Portugese websites and they both look similar. They have an input command for the captcha text but not for the message window so they are both not set up for sending a message back
· This is unforgivable. A website promoted on all their posters, and across the media as being where new information can be left doesn't work...unforgivable.
· http://www.madeleine.com is registered to a guy called James Marciano in New Jersey
· here is the MX record for http://www.madeleine.com:
fenzi are based in California and my guess is that the domain name itself is 'parked' pending a good cash offer. So the title of this thread is 100% correct: ‘Contact us’…IS A FAKE. Let me spell it out. Clicking on the email link firstname.lastname@example.org in the pink banner at the top right of the page will NOT send critical information to the McCanns. It will create an email that will go to some web development agency in California.
In summary, even if, since the work done on your website on 2 and 3 May, the website is able now to receive such information, it is clear that there has been a wholesale failure of the previous mis-configuration to allow useful information to be received and that this has possibly persisted for many months.
If there is even a possibility that any single clue from a member of the public has been lost, what action does the Fund propose to take to ensure that that information is finally captured? Given the scale and significance of this failure, we suggest that the McCanns or their chief P.R. spokesman should appear on television to acknowledge the mistake and appeal for information to be re-submitted.
Accountability for the choice of all service providers used by the Fund for helping to find the whereabouts of Madeleine McCann lies with the Fund Directors and yourselves as the Solicitors advising them. Having observed the high calibre of litigation and extradition lawyers engaged by the fund, an outside observer might view the Fund’s choice of web-designer to be disproportionately inexperienced, if it is the web-designer's inability, carelessness or negligence that is responsible for the mis-configuration.
We await hearing what action you propose to take.
Discussion at the 3 arguidos: Contact us - a fake!
All the witnesses who came forward offering information about the missing youngster were waved away by indifferent officers in the Algarve.
The revelation was described as a 'disgrace' by friends of Kate and Gerry McCann, who are spearheading a renewed appeal to find their daughter two years after she vanished in Portugal.
Yesterday two private detectives employed by the couple were rebuffed as they tried to question paedophile Raymond.
So says Daily Mail
What's a "disgrace" is these two NHS doctors who staged a fake abduction and concealed Maddie's body and then set about to blame everyone else for their own crimes and raked in millions of pounds from the generous public which helped pay their mortgage! It's also a disgrace that the McCanns have demonstrated time and again that they are the ones with something to hide by refusing to answer police questions, refusing to take part in the official police reconstruction and refusing to request that the investigation remains open.
Don't these fraudsters know when to stop?
Senior Prosecutor of Aachen: 'There is No connection with the Maddie Case'
The McCanns, a dodgy Portuguese lawyer called Marcos Alexandre Aragão Correia, and a brilliant detective, Gonçalo Amaral
"Who is this ‘lady’ who claims to have been beaten up by Amaral’s detective? Well, her name is Leonor Cipriano, a name that should send shivers down all our spines."
Have the McCanns been using the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Trust Fund’ to pay a dodgy Portuguese lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, (a) to promote the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a gang of paedophiles and (b) to bring a politically-motivated prosecution against Gonçalo Amaral, the detective who brilliantly solved the murder of Joana Cipriano and who for the first five months led the investigation into why Madeleine McCann was reported missing?
There is no evidence that Madeleine McCann was abducted. However, there is much forensic and circumstantial evidence that she died in Apartment 5A in Praia da Luz, the McCanns’ apartment, and that her parents, possibly with help from some of their friends, hid or disposed of her body.
A dodgy, possibly corrupt, Portuguese lawyer called Marcos Aragão Correia was contacted by the private detective agency, Método 3, allegedly investigating Madeleine’s disappearance and supposedly trying to find her. Between them, Método 3 and Mr Aragão Correia cooked up a story saying that they had received information from the underworld that Madeleine had been abducted, raped and killed - and her body dumped in a ‘murky lake’. Mr Correio then also claimed to have had a ‘supernatural indication’ or ‘vision’ that pointed to the Arade Dam as a place to look for the body. A very public search was conducted there with the media on hand to record every discovery, for example a 17-foot ‘knotted cord’ and the ‘a bag of bones’. These ‘discoveries’ helped to promote the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile. Later - in mysterious circumstances - the same dodgy lawyer was appointed by Leonor Cipriano, the evil murderer of her 8-year-old daughter Joana Cipriano, to represent her in her claim that she had been tortured and beaten by four police officers under the control of Gonçalo Amaral, who was the senior investigating officer who secured her conviction for murdering - together with her brother and the girl’s own uncle - her own daughter. The lawyer told a court in Faro that he had been asked by Método 3 to represent Leonor Cipriano and in particular to ‘get’ Gonçalo Amaral. Método 3 denied this.
The Helping to Find Madeleine Fund was ostensibly set up to find Madeleine. It raised millions of pounds from the general public. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were used from that fund to pay Método 3, on the pretext that they were using that money to try to find Madeleine. In fact some of that money was being used to fund Aragão Corriea (a) to make a bogus claim that he ‘knew’ Madeleine had been raped, killed and then thrown into a reservoir (b) to conduct a bogus search for Madeleine with the media on hand to record discoveries allegedly made during the search and (c) to use every endeavour to ‘nail’ Gonçalo Amaral on a bogus charge of being directly involved in torturing and beating Leonor Cipriano.
It is probable that the McCanns knew how the Helping to Find Madeleine money was being spent and that they knew it was being used to fund the various activities of Mr Aragão Correio.
Full article on Only in America
Chapters from the article:
Madeleine McCann wasn’t abducted
Solving the murder of Joana Cipriano
Gonçalo Amaral is stopped from investigating the ‘disappearance’ of Madeleine McCann
The allegations against Gonçalo Amaral by Leonor Cipriano
Marcos Aragão Correia says he knows how Madeleine died from an underground source
The Press Association Report of 4 February 2008
DIVERS HUNT FOR MADELEINE MCCANN’S BODY IN A REMOTE RESERVOIR
Marcos Aragão Correia - from ‘Good Samaritan’ who funded a diving team, to prosecutor of Gonçalo Amaral, funded by the Helping to Find Madeleine Fund
A dirty deal to frame Gonçalo Amaral
The involvement of the Lawyers' Order
False evidence by the authorites to help frame Gonçalo Amaral
The failure of the British press to report the trial
The parents of children who have disappeared have marked International Missing Children's Day with a special service.
The ceremony was held at Leicester Cathedral - the day particularly poignant to the city because of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal two years ago.
According to the charity Missing, since then 1,200 young people have disappeared.
Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry, launched the event last week but were not at the service. Other members of the McCann family were - all working together to try and raise the profile of all missing children.
On Friday, Mr and Mrs McCann met with parents of other youngsters who have disappeared.
At an event on London's South Bank, the couple spoke of how they could not bear to meet other families in their situation in the weeks after Madeleine vanished from Praia du Luz in 2007.
But they explained they now draw strength from sharing their experiences.
Mrs McCann said: "It's easy to meet families where the children have been found because that gives you hope.
"But, obviously, emotionally it is quite difficult to put yourself in a situation where a child has been missing for years and years. Obviously now it is easier, and I have to say it's been a comfort."
Her husband added: "Early on Kate and I couldn't even entertain the idea of speaking to another family whose child was still missing, particularly for a long time, because you think, 'I just hope we don't get there'."
The McCanns appeared alongside the relatives of Katrice Lee, who was two when she disappeared from a supermarket in Germany in November 1981.
Mr McCann explained that speaking to the Lee family had been especially helpful because of the similarity of their situations.
He said: "What they have gone through is very similar, and the whole experience is similar, particularly the barriers that they faced. And an abduction in a foreign country adds a different dimension to everything that you face."
The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, made a heartfelt plea for the public to keep thinking about missing children even after they slip out of the headlines.
The event also heard from ChildLine founder Esther Rantzen and experts who spoke of moves to improve information-sharing about missing children both within the UK and abroad.
Kate and Gerry McCann are re-writing the Law for their own agenda and the Leicestershire Police and Government are letting them get away with it - and indeed are fully supporting them as can be seen from the Police website which tells members of the public to pass information directly to the McCanns rather than themselves.
Will this bizarre concept now apply to all criminals or just Kate and Gerry McCann because when FOI requests are put to the Leicester Police about the McCanns the police simply refuse to reply.
A few headlines today:
The Sun: DNA test on perv Maddie suspect
McCanns want paedo quizzed although they refuse to co-operate with police themselves
And a discussion or two at the 3 arguidos:
Comment: "Not the Leicester Police!! They will very likely be tampering with the phone records to make them 'show' that Hewlett was in PDL on that day! They will probably 'tamper' with his camper van too. I just pray that the Portuguese police get there first I had to laugh at the bit that says 'Leicester police say they will pass on all the details to the PJ' Yeah right! Just like they 'passed on' the Gaspars statements??"
And a little something from Clarence: Lies, Crimes & Videotapes
And a bigger something from Amaral: Goncalo's documentary with English narrative
Gordon Brown has called Tony Blair into Downing Street as he desperately tries to rescue his leadership from a series of crises. The meeting on Thursday lasted more than an hour, coming amid the continuing outcry over MPs' expenses and warnings from ministers that Labour faces its worst performance in decades at next month's local and European elections.
There was also continued speculation that Mr Brown could face a challenge to his leadership in the wake of the double poll on 4 June.
The timing of the meeting, with Mr Brown's future in doubt, triggered talk in Westminster that the premier was asking Mr Blair for help. Sources said that they did not discuss election timing or strategy, but the conversation did cover domestic politics. The day after the talks, it emerged that Mr Brown will launch a "national plan for Britain" as part of his fightback.
Full article here
Mr Brown please sort out this domestic political fiasco before you go
Outside court Amaral told Portuguese reporters he was not surprised by the verdict and hinted he would appeal.
He said: 'I wasn't surprised, I was expecting to be convicted. There is a lot of political pressure on the case.
'We trust in justice and this does not end here.'
The collective of judges considered that Leonor Cipriano was tortured, even though it could not be proved by whom. In the verdict read today, two PJ inspectors were accused, António Nunes Cardoso to document forgery and Gonçalo Amaral for simple false testimony, he was acquitted in relation to the crime of omission of denunciation of the aggressions suffered by Leonor Cipriano. The other three arguidos [defendants], Leonel Morgado Marques, Paulo Pereira Cristóvão and Paulo Marques Bom were absolved of the crime of torture.
It wasn't proved who ordered the aggressions to Leonor Cipriano in 2004.
Gonçalo Amaral was sentenced to one year and six months of suspended sentence, and António Nunes Cardoso to two years and six months of suspended sentence also.
Gonçalo Amaral was convicted for simple false statement, since the version of the alleged fall on the stairs of Leonor Cipriano wasn't proved. Thus, the court considered that Amaral had lied, in order to cover the actions of his unknown colleagues.
The court concluded that António Nunes Cardoso falsified a document, which reported the fall on the stairs of Leonor Cipriano. The sentence for Cardoso was aggravated, given his position as a police officer, "of whom is required to fight the crime."
The lawyers for Leonor Cipriano, Marcos Aragão Correia and the assistant representing the Bar Rodrigo Santiago will appeal as well as António Cabrita, Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer.
Gonçalo Amaral interview outside the court to follow
Transcript from 1'00''
Gonçalo Amaral: I was expecting to be convicted.
Marisa Rodrigues: Why?
Gonçalo Amaral: Why? Because there is a lot of political pressure on the case, there are various matters which are surrounding this, so this couldn't have ended with everyone being absolved. The court was sovereign...
Marisa Rodrigues: Do you believe that there were scapegoats? You could have been a scapegoat, is that it?
Gonçalo Amaral: During my life as a coordinator of the Police I was a scapegoat for various things, and I don't know if for this one I'm one as well.
Leonor confessed the crime on the 13th of October and alleged being beaten a day later
Leonor Cipriano, confessed all of the facts related to her daughter's murder to the PJ on the 13th of October 2004, in the presence of her lawyer, who at the time was Célia Costa. Leonor's brother, João Cipriano, had previously confessed the crimes a few days before, on the 8 of October.
Leonor Cipriano and the brother João were condemned by the Portimão Court to sentences of 20 and 19 years, respectively, for the crimes of qualified homicide and for hiding the cadaver. The appeals to the Supreme ended up reducing the sentences to 16 years each. The Cadaver of Joana, 8 years old, was never found.
Marinho Pinto, the actual head of the bar [Ordem dos Advogados] wrote the Expresso newspaper article which denounced the aggressions suffered by Leonor Cipriano, using photographs which were under the secrecy of justice at the time.
Marinho Pinto was requested in an appeal by the defense as a witness, however his testimony was prevented since the OA decided for the first time in the Portuguese legal history to become as an assistant against the 5 PJ inspectors. In the same appeal it was also referred the 'direct contact' between Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia and Marinho Pinto.
'Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted'... Marcos Aragão Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer
More details on Joana Morais
Discussions at the 3 arguidos:
GONCALO AMARAL - SUSPENDED SENTENCE (3rd Edit)
Sky news reporting on Goncalo
The Trial in Faro (Part I) - What Happened to Leonor
There be ‘Ore’ in them thar Irish Hills.
LET US SHOW OUR SUPPORT FOR MR AND MRS AMARAL
The Trial in Faro (Part I) - What Happened to Leonor
The Trial in Faro (Part 2) - Why the Verdict Makes No Sense
Please take time to read this!!
What did GA do wrong and what was his defence?
Related links from Joana Morais' blog:
Analysis of the Verdict : The Way Ahead
Cipriano Case: Court of Faro - Latest Videos
PJ inspectors acquitted
The family of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann and the former lead detective appointed to investigate her disappearance have this week drawn the battle lines and are set to have their day in court in what will most certainly be the most watched courtroom battle this decade. While Kate and Gerry McCann will seek to clear their name, Gonçalo Amaral says he is raring to have the opportunity to further substantiate his claims that Madeleine died in the apartment where she and her parents were holidaying more than two years ago.
According to sources close to Kate and Gerry McCann, their anger has been simmering for some time, and while the family has been reluctant to seek legal recourse, recent visits by Gonçalo Amaral, most notably to France, where he explained his theory, have spurred the McCann family into taking legal action.
In a statement sent to the press, Kate and Gerry McCann said: “We - together with our three children Madeleine, Sean and Amelie - are taking this legal action against Gonçalo Amaral over his entirely unfounded and grossly defamatory claims - made in all types of media, both within Portugal and beyond - that Madeleine is not only dead, but that we, her parents, were somehow involved in concealing her body.”
The former detective, who was taken off the case in 2007 by his superiors before retiring from the force a few months later, has insisted that Madeleine died in apartment 5A and has alleged that her parents were involved in concealing, then disposing, of their three-year old daughter’s body.
“This decision has been taken to prevent any further publication of Gonçalo Amaral’s deeply offensive book ‘The Truth Of The Lie’, his so-called television ‘documentary’ and any repetition of his disgraceful thesis that we are somehow involved in the disappearance of our much loved daughter, Madeleine”, the statement continued.
The Portugal News understands that Mrs McCann was also extremely angered at a news report last month claiming that one of the so-called Tapas 7, who had reportedly been accused of child abuse in the past, was most eager to assist her in bathing her children.
The family was also particularly angered at a TVI documentary, which was also distributed by a Portuguese national newspaper as a DVD at the beginning of the month, which showed Amaral talking to viewers through the broadcast, repeating opinions stated in his book.
The Truth of the Lie, which was published in 2007, has not yet been printed in English.
Meanwhile, in their statement circulated this week, Kate and Gerry explained: “The primary reason for our legal action is simple: to stop any negative effect that these absurd and deeply hurtful claims may be having on the ongoing search for Madeleine. We can no longer stand back and watch as Mr Amaral tries to convince the entire world that Madeleine is dead. Nor can we allow this blatant injustice to Madeleine, with its obvious risk of hindering our attempts to find her, to continue.
“Mr. Amaral’s entirely unjustified claims have not only brought indescribable devastation and suffering to our lives, they have hugely compounded the already immense pain and anxiety we have endured since Madeleine’s abduction.
“Our three children are joint complainants in this action because of the detrimental effect Mr Amaral’s continued assertions will undoubtedly have on their future lives. Sean and Amelie require protection as they prepare to start school this autumn. Madeleine requires protection from those who are obstructing the possibility of her being found.”
In the first ever interview granted in English, Gonçalo Amaral told The Portugal News following the publication of his book that he would welcome any attempts for his views and opinions to be challenged in a courtroom.
“My book is based on facts. It could be a good occasion to take all the case files to court and compare what I wrote with that which is contained in the files.”
He backed up these claims earlier this week when he was quoted as saying: “My lawyers are working on the case and we will take the McCann couple to court and perhaps other people for defamation, slanderous denunciations and false statements,” he said, adding: “We will see who has spoken the truth in this case.”
Earlier this month it emerged that an agent acting on behalf of Gonçalo Amaral demanded “80,000 euros plus VAT”, after an e-mail request by Channel Five to appear on British television, a proposition which was refused.
The channel had apparently also asked that no derogatory comments be made against Kate or Gerry McCann in their request.
In the meantime, the McCann family can expect further litigation as sacked staff at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz from where Madeleine disappeared, have announced they intend suing the couple for the “lies they told” and which have destroyed the resort and as a direct consequence, resulted in their jobs being lost.
This news comes as Thomas Cook, Europe’s second largest travel company, revealed yesterday that package holiday bookings to Portugal are down by 30 per cent for this summer, admitting that this drop is partly due to Madeleine’s disappearance.
“It is such a strong family destination,” said Thomas Cook group chief executive Manny Fontenla-Novoa.
He added that the Portuguese tourist board had done what it could to boost visitor numbers, but that “Anything more would be insensitive,” he said.
Questioned further by reporters whether the drop in Portugal numbers was down to the ‘Maddie effect’ he agreed that it was, adding that bookings to Portugal had been “decimated”.
Should the staff at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz be successful in their claim against the McCanns, it could set a precedent for other tourist-orientated business in Portugal to seek damages from the family, perhaps using Thomas Cook, among others, as witnesses to substantiate their argument for compensation.
Source: Portugal News Online: Edition: 1011
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...