Wednesday

American Journalist Chris Freind shows the Brits how to do it


British excuses for 'journalists', Martin Brunt and Mike Gunnill


By Chris Freind

Madeleine McCann: Forsaken By Gerry And Kate---Again!

Being in the media is pretty cool, especially when you run your own news bureau, as I now do (www.FreindlyFireZone.com)

I recently flew in an F-16 fighter jet, accelerating vertically from zero to 12,000 feet in under ten seconds. Shortly after that, I also flew with the U.S. Air Force Hurricane Hunters, flying directly into the eye of the beast for 12 hours.

I have interviewed world leaders, presidential candidates, and the owner of a World Series winning baseball team.

And I’ve had a ball exposing hypocrites and bad guys in politics, business, sports, and yes, the media.

Yet the more I think about it, I’m still in the wrong business.

I should have been a British cardiologist or general practitioner.

Either way, I’d be in a great position to become an international celebrity, one that could mingle with presidents, popes, paparazzi and the press. I could globetrot to my heart’s content, write sweet-nothings on my blog, threaten people’s right to free speech, and bully anyone into silence who dare oppose me.

Now THAT’S a really cool gig.

And to think, all I’d have to do is abandon my three children, with a combined age of seven, night after night in a Portuguese resort while I went carousing on the town with friends. And if my three-year old daughter --- who, for sake of this story, we’ll just call….Madeleine --- happens to disappear (with, or without my knowledge and complicity), then so be it.

While it wouldn’t be easy, it’s a sacrifice I’d be willing to make. Come on--- it’s a private audience with the Pope we’re talking about here!

**********
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not referring to anyone in particular.
Ok, ok. You got me. That one was a lie. I am.
But in good faith, while I won’t mention these people’s names, their initials are Gerry and Kate McCann.

**********
Life is still rockin’ for the killers….of the spirit of goodwill.

Despite millions around the world who’ve come to realize the awful truth that the McCann’s gross negligence destroyed an innocent little girl’s life, both figuratively and, in all likelihood, literally, the McCanns continue their quest to stay in the headlines, soak in the limelight, and impugn the integrity of good people courageous enough to ask the tough questions.

Quite simply, the McCann’s are desperately trying to stay…relevant.

The latest chapter in this nearly three-year saga is their championing of a woefully bad ruling by a Portuguese court upholding a ban on the book written by former lead police investigator in Maddie’s disappearance, Goncalo Amaral. Mr. Amaral is also prohibited from discussing his theories in the book, and cannot give interviews about the same.

Additionally, Gerry and Kate are suing Amaral for defamation, seeking 1.2 million Euros in compensation. And who can blame them? The millions they have raked in as globetrotting celebrities just doesn’t go as far as it once did.

Why the ban on Amaral? Because he makes the extremely small leap of suggesting that Maddie might be dead. And, according to Team McCann, the book defames them.

Three points:
1) The McCanns don’t need a book to defame them. They have done that perfectly themselves.
2) I know it’s the European Union, where personal rights and national sovereignty go out the window, but a book ban? I thought we emerged from the Dark Ages.
3) While by no means should hope be abandoned, the overwhelming odds are that Maddie is dead. With the incredible worldwide attention given to the case, the fact that no substantial leads have emerged since Maddie disappeared from the Algarve resort in May, 2007 speaks volumes.
3A) A point of clarification: Actually, there were substantial leads, all leading to Gerry and Kate.

Cadaver dogs, trained to detect the scent of death, reacted positively to many items, from Kate’s clothes to Maddie’s favorite stuffed animal. Blood was detected in their rental car. And there were many conflicts in Gerry and Kate’s stories. Quite simply, the McCanns have done more to cast doubt on themselves than anyone else.

And by the way, you will NEVER see Maddie’s disappearance referred to as a “kidnapping” here, since there is absolutely NO evidence to that theory.

But the best part of all is the statement of Gerry and Kate, who said, "The court case has demonstrated, once again, that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm.”

Wrong again.

By definition, when a three-year old is deliberately left alone by her parents in a foreign land with the door unlocked --- in effect, charged to care for her two-year old twin siblings--- THAT is bringing harm to a child.

And yes, when that child disappears (at whose hand we don’t “officially” know yet) because of that abandonment, that is “harmful.”

Always making it about them, the McCanns continued, "It has also clearly shown that no police force is actively looking for Madeleine, even, shockingly, when they are presented with new information and leads.”

Yes, the entire world of law enforcement should drop everything every time a “lead” arises. Too bad the leads making the McCanns “arguidos”--- official suspects--- were never followed through.

Lastly, the McCanns forcefully criticized those who dare ask the logical questions.
"The motives of those who have tried to convince the world that Madeleine is dead, and who've disgracefully and falsely tried to implicate us in her disappearance, need to be seriously questioned."

A) Bad use of the King’s English. The evil-doers either implicated you, or they didn’t. But by definition, they couldn’t, “falsely implicate” you. It’s kind of like being a parent. Either you are…or you aren’t.

B) The only serious questioning that needs to occur is that of Gerry and Kate. The Portuguese police tried, but were pressured to stand down. The Brits fell way short of their due diligence, and at the least, should have charged the McCanns with negligence.

C) The McCanns ARE guilty, and they always will be. Of murder or accidental death as so many think, I cannot say. That may, or may not, ever be proven.

But one thing is certain. Gerry and Kate McCann are unequivocally guilty of destroying three lives--- Madeleine’s, of course, but also that of her siblings, who will carry severe scars for the rest of their lives. The McCann’s actions of child endangerment and gross negligence, so easily avoidable if they just acted like….parents, could have spared a little girl the pain and anguish which she surely experienced --- a girl who would still be with us today, living out a life she richly deserved.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but NOT to their own set of facts.

Just remember, Gerry and Kate. The authorities may be looking the other way, but some of us are not. Sunshine is the best antiseptic, and you need some more light in your lives.


Chris Freind is an independent columnist and investigative reporter whose news site, The Artorius News Bureau, is slated to launch in this month. Readers of “Freindly Fire” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. Freind also serves as a weekly guest commentator on a Philadelphia-area talk radio show, WCHE, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances.

He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/index.php/national-news/item/8-madeleine-mccann-forsaken-by-gerry-and-kate-again#itemCommentsAnchor

Monday

Madeleine McCann case review by Shannon Matthews 'hoax' police: 'Pass the Parcel' begins


Can a private meeting between the Home Secretary and the McCanns really be ‘the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’?

By Tony Bennett, Secretary Madeleine Foundation

Article filed Sunday 28 March 2009 by The Madeleine Foundation

On our website is the long letter we wrote to the Home Secretary, Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson M.P., about the news that the Home Secretary was considering a ‘review’ by a British police force of the investigations about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann (see ‘Articles’ section on our website http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/).

The Home Office has a tracking system for incoming letters. We wrote our letter to him on Friday 12 March. The letter should have been received by the Home Office on 15 or 16 March.

On Friday 19 March, we enquired about the progress of our letter. A member of the staff of the Home Office’s Direct Communications Unit confirmed two details for us. First, the matter was being dealt with by the Home Office’s ‘PPPU’ - which we were told stands for the Police Powers and Procedures Unit. Second, we were told that ‘a reply to you is now being prepared’.

All well and good. We also asked for advice on where to send a further letter asking 12 questions of the Home Secretary under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) about the Madeleine McCann case. We were given that advice and promptly sent off an e-mail and hard copy letter to the ‘Direct Communications Unit’ as suggested (since then, we understand that a few dozen others have also asked the same 12 questions of the Home office).

Now, both our first letter on 12 March (and our subsequent FOIA request) dealt with matters clearly within the responsibility of the Home Office. These included:

1) Reports that the Home Office was about to, or had already, begun a ‘scoping exercise’ to assess the nature of any review that might be carried out by a police force in the U.K.
2) Further reports that the Home Office was considering (or had already embarked upon) such a review
3) Several reports that Home Secretary Alan Johnson had had a private meeting with the McCanns on these matters
4) Several reports that staff of the Home Office had also had meetings (in the plural) with the McCanns about the possibility of a review
5) Reports that the McCanns had originally approached the Home Office for their help on the above issues
6) Reports that the Home Office had already appointed West Yorkshire Police to carry out a review
7) Reports that the Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Mr Jim Gamble, had recommended West Yorkshire Police as the best force to carry out any review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Well, a reply has been received, quite quick by government standards. Dated 22 March and received late last week, its reference number, for the record, is T4753/10. Perhaps more typically, the name and rank of the sender was not given, no specific e-mail address nor telephone extension number was given, and the signature of the person who signed the letter was illegible. It could be: ‘Pat Cramp’. Or it might be: ‘P.T. Crane’. Or it might be ‘Pot Craig’.

No matter, the contents were what really mattered. A holding letter saying that our letter and questions would be answered in due course was what we expected. But, instead, we got this:

*******

Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
Fax: 020 7035 4745
Telephone: 020 7035 4742
E-mail: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/
Our Ref: T4753/10
Date: 22 March 2010

Mr Tony Bennett
The Madeleine Foundation
66 Chippingfield
Harlow
CM17 0DJ

Dear Mr Bennett

Thank you for your letter dated 12 March 2010.

I would like to advise you that the matters raised are the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I have therefore transferred your letter and its enclosures to that department at King Charles Street, London, SW1A 2AH, telephone 020 7008 1500. They will arrange for a suitable reply to be sent to you.

Yours sincerely,

*******

That now gives us the task of both tracking down where our letter and its enclosures have gone to in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and making sure that it gets back to the Home Office to make sure it is answered.

Can a private meeting between the Home Secretary and the McCanns really be ‘the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’?

We don’t think so.

We’ll keep you all posted. In the meantime, many thanks to all of you who sent off your FOIA questions to the Home Office. They’re very important questions and we await the replies with a great deal of interest.
-----
Related: Review By Uk Police. Nonsense Or The Thin End of Of a Proposed Whitewash?


Saturday

Freedom of Information Request - Review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

From: Anthony Bennett 66 Chippingfield

Tel: 01279 635789 HARLOW

e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com Essex

CM17 0DJ



Home Office Friday 19 March 2010

Head of Freedom of Information Act Section
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
LONDON

SW1P 4DF


By e-mail to public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

And by hard copy


Dear Sir/Madam

re: Questions to the Home Office Freedom of Information Act Section - Involvement by the Home Office with the McCanns regarding a possible review or re-investigation into the disappearahce of Madeleine McCann

During the past two weeks, several newspapers have referred to the following matters in relation to the Madeleine McCann case:

a) one or more meetings between Home Secretary Alan Johnson and the McCanns

b) several meetings between the McCanns and staff of the Home Office

c) the commencement of a ‘scoping exercise’ to evaluate what form any review or re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance may take

d) the appointment of the Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Mr Jim Gamble, to advise the Home Office as to which police force should carry out any review or re-investigation

e) the reported decision by Jim Gamble and the Home Office to appoint West Yorkshire Police to carry out a review or re-investigation.

It is evident that there remains huge public interest in and beyond the U.K. in what really happened to Madeleine McCann, which was described as recently as 19 February by the McCanns’ chief public relations adviser, Mr Clarence Mitchell, as ‘a complete mystery. The clear public interest will therefore be served by your section providing full answers as soon as possible to the following questions under the Freedom of Information Act. We would add that the answers to these questions must be readily available to officials and so the cost of providing them should be minimal. Here are the questions:

1. On what date or dates has the Home Secretary Alan Johnson had meetings with one or both of the McCanns?

2. Who else was present at these meetings: in particular, was any lawyer or othert adviser for the McCanns present?

3. On what dates did meetings take place between one or both of the McCanns and staff of the Home Office?

4. Please identify all the staff who met with the McCanns and again identify whether the McCanns had legal or other representatives with them.

5. On what date did the McCanns first approach the Home Office asking for a review or re-investigation by a British police force into Madeleine’s disappearance?

6. Is the Home Office carrying out what the Daily Telegraph called ‘a scoping exercise’ to evaluate what form any review or re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance may take’ and, if so, on what date did that scooping exercise commence?

7. Why, according to the press, was Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Mr Jim Gamble, given the role of advising the Home Office as to which police force should carry out any review or re-investigation?

8. On what date did the Home Secretary ask Mr Gamble to perform this role?

9. On what date did Mr Gamble make his recommendation?

10. Did he, as reported, recommend West Yorkshire Police to carry out a review or re-investigation?

11. Has West Yorkshire Police, as reported, been asked to carry out a review or re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

12. If so, what is the brief or remit that the Home Office has given to West Yorkshire Police?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely



Anthony Bennett

Friday

West Yorkshire Police to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann: A good thing or a bad thing?


By Tony Bennett, Secretary of the Madeleine Foundation

On Friday 12 March this year, The Madeleine Foundation wrote to the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, making a number of points in relation to any proposed review of or re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

One of our key points was that any review or re-investigation should not be carried out by Leicestershire Police, as we believed them to be wholly discredited in terms of their failure to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance without fear or favour. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph last week: “A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann. Leicestershire Police stand ready to co-ordinate and complete enquiries if further information comes to light in the UK; or if requested to do so by the Portuguese authorities, who continue to lead on the overall investigation’.” We strongly advised the Home Secretary to select an independent police force to carry out any review or re-investigation, not Leicestershire.

The Daily Star report

Yesterday's [18 March] Daily Star carried this report (below), announcing that West Yorkshire Police had been approached by the Home Office to carry out some kind of re-investigation into the Madeleine McCann mystery.

SHANNON MATTHEWS COPS DRAFTED IN TO SEARCH FOR MADDIE

18th March 2010 - By Jerry Lawton

THE police team who found hoax kidnap victim Shannon Matthews are to probe Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. West Yorkshire Police’s Homicide and Major Enquiry Team (HMET) will study Portuguese police files.

Madeleine’s doctor parents Kate and Gerry, both 41, are said to be “delighted’’ at the move. It follows a meeting with Home Secretary Alan Johnson at which they begged him to relaunch the official search for their daughter.

He asked the Child Exploitation Centre And Online Protection Centre to appoint a new investigating force. They have called in HMET, whose officers found Shannon, then aged nine, alive 24 days after she vanished in Dewsbury, West Yorks, in February 2008. Detectives worked out her disappearance was a plot to claim reward money dreamed up by her mum Karen, 34, and stepdad’s uncle Michael Donovan, 40, who were jailed for eight years.

Portuguese and British police forces have been at odds since Madeleine vanished from her family’s Algarve holiday apartment in May 2007, days before her fourth birthday. A source told the Daily Star: “It’s hoped we can clear the decks and start over again.”

The case was archived as unsolved in July 2008, and the McCanns, of Rothley, Leics, have had to hire private detectives to search for her.

[ Source: http://dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/126788/Shannon-Matthews-cops-drafted-in-to-search-for-Maddie/ ]

Is this move to be welcomed?

After all, a source is quoted as saying: “It’s hoped we can clear the decks and start over again”

The report in the Daily Star included this quote: "The Home Secretary Alan Johnson…asked the Child Exploitation Centre and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) to appoint a new investigating force. They have called in the Homicide and Major Enquiry Team of West Yorkshire Police".

The relationsip between the McCanns and Jim Gamble of CEOP

It’s clear from this, if the Star report is accurate, that the decision to appoint the West Yorkshire Police Force was made by CEOP. And that means it was made by its Chief Executive, Jim Gamble.

CEOP is an unusual type of organisation. It has the powers of a police force, yet is not subject to the usual types of regulations covering the actions of a police force. Notably, CEOP is exempt from the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. It is something of a law unto itself, though answerable, certainly, to the Home Office, who appointed Mr Gamble.

There appears to be an unusually close relationship between the McCanns and Jim Gamble.


Most recently, Jim Gamble invited Dr Gerald McCann to speak at a CEOP-organised conference on abducted children. Held on 26 January at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, Bloomsbury, London, the closing speech of the conference at 4.00pm was given by Dr Gerald McCann. The welcome address was of course given by Jim Gamble himself. The press release about the conference hailed its purpose as: “To explore the issues associated with a variety of child abduction cases, predominantly focussing on sexually motivated stranger abductions”.

Mr Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ chief public relations adviser, admitted on 19 February in a Channel 4 interview that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was ‘a complete mystery’. In addition, the final Portuguese Police report in July 2008 said that they had been examining two alternative theories side by side: (a) abduction and (b) death in the McCanns’ holiday apartment. Given the absence of any compelling evidence of an abductor, still less an abduction by a ‘sexually motivated stranger’, it is reasonable for us to ask: “Why was Dr Gerald McCann chosen to make the final address to this conference?"

Late last year, Jim Gamble featured in the worldwide dissemination of what was called a ‘viral video’, titled ‘A Minute for Madeleine’ which, once again, drew attention to the fact that Madeleine was still missing, and urged people to search for her. Speaking at a news conference to launch the video, Gamble said:

“The person we are looking to reach is likely to be a partner, family member, friend or colleague of the person or people who were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance. The video is a message aimed at prompting the conscience of the individual to remind them that it’s never too late to do the right thing.”

He went on to compare the disappearance of Madeleine to the snatching off the street at the age of 11 of Jaycee Lee Dugard case, who then spent 18 years in captivity in a Californian backyard before being found by officials. The commentary in the video is by Gamble, who asserts that ‘Madeleine is now six’ and then shows an artist’s impression of what she might look like now. He went on in the video to emphasise that ‘someone out there’ is holding a secret and should come forward.

Incidentally, the ‘Minute for Madeleine’ viral video brings out the uncanny resemblance between the CEOP logo and the coloboma defect in Madeleine’s right eye. This similarity can be seen very clearly towards the end of the video as the CEOP logo is seen to move ever closer to Madeleine’s right eye ( Link: Home page on http://ceop.police.uk/ ).

At the same time, he toured TV studios with the McCanns giving interviews on SKY NEWS and on ITV’s ‘Good Morning’. The McCanns and he had clearly pre-arranged what each would say, as Dr Gerald McCann parried a question and said ‘Jim will be answering that”.

On the ‘Good Morning’ programme, Gamble came out with a strange statement: “It is the first time [a viral video] has been done…it has the potential to get to the person we are looking for. We are not looking for someone who has seen this girl particularly. We are looking for the person who knows or strongly suspects the individual or individuals involved in Madeleine's disappearance - the person who for a long time has perhaps struggled with their conscience keeping a terrible secret”.

Why did he not want the person who has ‘seen’ Madeleine, only the person who might ‘know something’ about those involved in Madeleine’s disappearance?

Will the West Yorkshire Police conduct a fully independent re-investigation into all possible explanations for Madeleine’s disappearance?

We’ve seen that there is a close nexus between the McCanns and Jim Gamble, who has personally selected the West Yorkshire Police to carry out this re-investigation, We question therefore whether that police force will truly be given a remit to ‘start from scratch’ and be permitted to examine not only the abduction scenario but also the possibility that Madeleine died in her parents’ holiday apartment. For example, will the West Yorkshire Police talk to Goncalo Amaral, the original senior investigating detective in the case, whose book ‘The Truth of A Lie’, which outlines the evidence that Madeleine died in Praia da Luz, has sold half a million or so copies throughout Europe?

Before taking up his current job as the head of CEOP Gamble was a superintendent in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and then became Head of the National Crime Squad. Whilst there, he set up the National Crime Squad's specialist response cell - the Paedophile Online Investigation Team (POLIT) - and was involved in the creation of the first international law enforcement partnership to combat child abuse online - the Virtual Global Taskforce.

As head also of NCIS (the National Criminal Intelligence Service), he headed the highly controversial Operation Ore investigation into those downloading images of child sexual abuse. Operation Ore is a topic we may revert to in a future article. It was criticised by some for wrongly accusing individuals of downloading child portnography just because they had accessed a certan website with a credit card, whilst others were certain that Operation Ore had discovered a number of prominent people who had been viewing extreme child sexual abuse but was refusing to prosecute them.

Mr Gamble says he first became involved with the McCanns as a result of receiving a letter from them which ‘deeply moved’ him and prompted him to offer to help. But his views have been controversial. He has suggested a number of times that even people viewing extreme images of child sexual abuse should not be sent to prison, which prompted this response from Michelle Elliott, director of the childrens’ charity, Kidscape. She told the BBC: “They are just as guilty as the people taking the photos. If they didn't view, the child wouldn't be abused. Therefore I think those people deserve prison”.

Conclusion

The fact that Jim Gamble has an extremely close understanding with the McCanns, actively promoting the theory that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile at every opportunity, and is the person who has recommended West Yorkshire Police Force to carry out any review or investigation, is of very great concern.

Whoever is entrusted with re-investigating this difficult, sensitive and highly controversial case must be given a full brief to go wherever the evidence leads, and not simply adopt the abduction theory and continue merely to follow up a procession of claimed ‘sightings’ of Madeleine.


Thursday

Madeleine McCann case: Faked Abduction: Interview with Brian Johnson


The interview which discusses the Government cover up of Maddie McCann's disappearance, much like the Government cover up of Hollie Grieg's abuse by paedophiles, can be heard here:


The book can be purchased here: http://fakedabduction.com/


The transcript of the interview can be read here on Little Morsals:

Monday

Kate and Gerry McCann: The Pearls of the Babysitter

The party is in full swing as childminders from the resort where Madeleine McCann vanished let their hair down. Link


Gerry McCann: We have been advised our babysitters behaviour was legally well within the bounds of responsible babysitting.

Kate McCann: Hasn't the babysitter suffered enough without all these new lies coming out?

Gerry McCann: The babysitter has to concentrate on her own well-being now.

Gerry McCann: It could have been worse, the babysitter could have lost the twins too.

Kate McCann: Well it was her holiday too.

Kate McCann: It cannot be considered a crime. Someone committed one, but it wasn't the babysitter.

Clarence Mitchell: If Maddie's dead, then she's dead, but not by the babysitter's hands.

Kate McCann: I think that it is only a small minority who is criticising the babysitter.

Clarence Mitchell: The babysitter doesn't cry in public, but there's plenty of tears backstage.

Kate McCann: There's not a day goes by when the babysitter doesn't think "Was that ok. Was she wrong in thinking that was ok?"

Babysitter: "This is my job now. I can see this becoming my full-time career, with this whole issue of child welfare and opposing paedophiles."

Gerry McCann: "One good thing to come out of all of this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't."

Gerry McCann: "The babysitter has done nothing against the law."

Gerry McCann: "Kate and I are totally 100% confident in the babysitter's innocence."

Gerry McCann: "The babysitter is being absolutely stitched up."

Kate McCann: "Whoever Madeleine's with she'll be giving them her tuppence worth."

Gerry McCann versus David Beckham: You should take up tennis instead


AC Milan confirmed last night that Beckham had snapped the tendon in his left leg and he is now expected to be out for six months, missing the World Cup.

Achilles victims

Beckham is not the first leading footballer to suffer from an Achilles tendon injury.

NEIL WEBB: Weeks after completing £1.5m move from Nottingham Forest to Manchester United, Webb ruptured his Achilles in England friendly against Sweden. Sidelined for eight months.

JOHN BARNES: Suffered a torn Achilles while playing for England against Finland in final warm-up game for Euro 92. Missed the tournament and injury blunted his pace for remainder of career.

YAKUBU: The Everton forward was sidelined for nine months from Nov 2008 after suffering a ruptured Achilles while playing against Spurs.
-------

DR GERRY MCCANN: Timesonline reported: "Gerry had knocked up at the start of the 4.30pm tennis-drills session, but had decided not to exacerbate an injury to his Achilles tendon, so had dropped out and waited around by the courts until the children came back from the kids’ clubs at 5pm for tea".

However, the remarkable Dr Gerry McCann was up and jogging 3 mile runs within days of his daughter Maddie's 'disappearance', a priority which, unfortunately, prevented him and his wife from searching for her.



Paedophile Ring Protected By The State - Petition


The text of the Petition:

Robert Green, a journalist, and MP candidate for Aberdeen Scotland, has been pursuing the case of a paedophile ring consisting high level state officials, including a Judge, police officers, social workers, nurses, lawyers and "child rape" swinger families, involving the ritual abuse of a child called Hollie Grieg and others. He has systematically been halted in his progress to spread the message of truth, by magistrates, politicians, and senior police officers in Aberdeen.

Robert was arrested by Grampian Police on Feb 12th for "breaching the peace" and upon being released the following Monday 15th, was legally prevented by the very people he seeks to expose, abusing their positions of power, from informing the public on these matters.

Journalists from the BBC took up this story only to later drop it when they were threatened from higher ranks that they would be fired if they pursued the case. The same situation has arisen with police officers trying to investigate, who have been ordered by senior officers to drop the case.

The appalling implications of this case are profound and disturbing as it is now obvious it involves people at the highest levels.

This despicable abuse of children and authority is now well known and we are not prepared to sit idly by while the perpetrators get away with it, whilst using the "law" to punish Robert Green as an example to those who will practice free speech in their pursuit of justice.

We, the mothers and fathers and children of Scotland and the United Kingdom demand that those who are guilty of these crimes are brought to justice and that those who seek to expose them for their crimes are not abused themselves by corrupt members of the Law establishment.

And justice for Hollie Greig and Robert Green, and all concerned human beings who know right from wrong.

Source:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/holliegreig/
------
Article by Stephen Armstrong in The Telegraph, 13 March 2010: "The dark side of Swedish society" where, he says, state-sanctioned violent sexual abuse, paedophilia, rape and the trafficking of children for sex is facilitated by highly placed lawyers and doctors.

Saturday

Madeleine Foundation request to Rt Hon Alan Johnson M.P. re Madeleine McCann 'Scoping Exercise'

The Madeleine Foundation

Asking the questions about what really happened to Madeleine McCann


Friday 12 March 2010

Rt. Hon. Alan Johnson M.P.
Home Secretary
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
LONDON
SW1P 4DF


For the personal attention of the Minister:

BY RECORDED DELIVERY


And by e-mail (without enclosures) to:

public.enquiries@HomeOffice.gsi.gov.uk

And by fax to: 0207 035 4745



Dear Mr Johnson

re: Secret Home Office plans to hold a ‘review’ of the investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

We write to express our concern about the recent meetings between yourself and your staff with Madeleine McCann’s parents, apparently with a view to carrying out a ‘review’ of the case. Our concerns centre on whether the review will examine lines of evidence that point away from the abduction scenario promoted by the McCanns and their friends, and also on the possible role of Leicestershire Police Force in this initial review and in any further investigations that may be carried out in the United Kingdom.

The Madeleine Foundation is a membership organisation, currently with over 40 members, whose objects include assisting in the process of establishing the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann, a matter which the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell stated in a Channel 4 interview on 19 February was ‘a complete mystery’. We also campaign on child welfare issues.

Background

Madeleine McCann’s parents and their seven friends who were with them in Praia da Luz in 2007 have consistently promoted the claim that Madeleine McCann was abducted. On their own account, the alleged abductor would have had to remove Madeleine from the bedroom in which she and the twins were sleeping in the dark, without being seen or heard, without leaving any forensic trace whatsoever, and between approximately 9.10pm and 9.15pm.

As I am sure you and your staff are fully aware, the McCanns initially, in a series of telephone calls to their relatives and to the press, very strongly promoted the claim that an abductor had jemmied open, or forced open the shutters to the children’s room, and climbed in through the window. Furthermore, as accounts from their relatives reveal, when they (the relatives) tried to offer reassurance to the McCanns and suggested that maybe Madeleine had ‘wandered off’ and would soon be found, Dr Gerald McCann insisted that it was absolutely imperative that their relatives believe that Madeleine had been abducted.

Again as you and your staff will know, the staff of Mark Warners, the holiday company who had arranged the holiday, and the police, found within a matter of hours that the shutters had not been jemmied open nor tampered with in any way and, furthermore, that the only fingerprint on the window frame was one from Dr Kate McCann. This led to the McCanns rapidly changing their story to suggestions that they probably left the patio door unlocked and that the abductor may have entered by opening this unlocked patio door. This change of story was one of a great many factors which led many people in the U.K. and elsewhere to question the McCanns’ claim of abduction.

In the only survey of public opinion in the U.K. on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in the Sunday Times in September 2007, just 20% of respondents believed the McCanns were telling the truth about the disappearance of their daughter. Similarly, when, the following month, a long interview with the McCanns was shown on Spanish T.V., viewers were invited to say whether they thought the McCanns were telling the truth, or lying; 70% were of the view that they were lying.

On top of all that, the initial investigation led by Goncalo Amaral and his senior colleague Tavares de Almeida, assisted by British police who shared their view, came to the provisional conclusion by September 2007 that Madeleine McCann had died in her parents’ holiday apartment and that her body had been hidden. That conclusion was set out in a lucid report by Tavares de Almeida dated 10 September 2007 which has been widely circulated on the internet, though it has merited not even one mention in the British media, so far as we are aware. This report is one of the documents included in our latest book on the case: ‘The Madeleine McCann case Files: Volume 1’. We are pleased to enclose for your perusal a complimentary copy.

Goncalo Amaral was then removed from the enquiry on 3 October 2007 amid credible allegations that the British government had petitioned the Portuguese government for him to be removed from the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. The fact that Dr Gerald McCann disclosed, and the British government subsequently admitted on the record, that there had been a series of long ’phone calls between Dr McCann and Gordon Brown also suggested top-level government interest in the case.

The speculation that the British government was keen to see Mr Amaral removed from the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance was not helped by the news that the former Head of the government’s ‘Media Monitoring Unit’, Clarence Mitchell, had been seconded from May 2007 to assist the McCanns, along with other government officials, and was then allowed to leave his government post in September of that year to work full-time as the McCanns’ Chief Public Relations Adviser. When in government, Mr Mitchell boasted that he was the head of a 40-strong unit whose role was ‘to control what comes out in the media’.

Following Mr Amaral’s departure from the investigation, together with two other top detectives who had been assisting him, the Portuguese Police’s provisional view that the evidence pointed to Madeleine McCann’s having died in her parents’ apartment was quietly dropped.

In July 2008, the Portuguese police submitted a final report to the Portuguese Attorney-General stating that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with any criminal offence in relation to Madeleine’s disappearance. This was despite the highly trained Springer Spaniel, Eddie, trained by top police dog handler Martin Grime, having detected the lingering scent of a human corpse in no fewer than ten different locations connected to the McCanns: four places in their apartment, two places in the McCanns’ hired Renault Scenic, on two of Dr Kate McCann’s clothes, on one of the children’s T-shirts, and on the pink soft toy, ‘Cuddle Cat’. Another Springer Spaniel, Keela, detected traces of blood or body fluids at some of these locations. Eddie did not alert to the scent of a corpse anywhere else in Praia da Luz, nor in any of nine other vehicles in the compound he was taken to. His handler, Mr Grime, reported that in 200 previous outings, Eddie had never once given a ‘false alert’ to the scent of a corpse. Whenever he has alerted, it has always been in locations where a corpse was known to have once been present.

Forensic evidence appeared initially to confirm that Madeleine’s blood or body fluids were found in some of those locations, but the Forensic Science Service later claimed that these results should be deemed ‘inconclusive’.

Although the final report of the Policia Judiciara and the Attorney-General’s response were widely hailed by the McCanns, their public relations advisers, lawyers and supporters as ‘clearing’ the McCanns; on the contrary, they left open the twin possibilities that Madeleine had either been abducted or had died in her holiday apartment.

From the above it must be clear that any valid re-investigation by either the Portuguese police or the British police, or both, would, out of necessity, have to pursue lines of enquiry that might point to Madeleine’s having been abducted or, equally, might point to her having died in her holiday apartment.

We have covered the matter of the problems created by the McCanns’ account of the alleged abduction of Madeleine from her room in the McCanns’ holiday apartment in the following article by Barbara Nottage, under the ‘Articles’ section of our website:

(www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk): “How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of no more than 3-4 minutes?”

Other problems with the abduction scenario

There are many further points to make in relation to the claim that Madeleine McCann was abducted. Firstly, we have by now had a bewildering variety of artists’ sketches of possible suspects responsible for the alleged abduction of Madeleine shown to us in the media. Altogether there have been no fewer than 14 male faces shown to us as possible suspects for having been involved in the alleged abduction of Madeleine.

Here are the 14 sketches so far:



Not only have we had these 14 sketches offered at various times to the public, which as you and your staff can see are hugely inconsistent one with another, but we have also seen the McCann Team produce two sketches of possible female abductors. One of them, said to be a ‘Victoria Beckham-lookalike’ by Clarence Mitchell, is pictured on the next page:


We might also note at this point that the artist’s sketch of the ‘Victoria Beckham-lookalike’ was first revealed at a press conference in which Clarence Mitchell appeared together with the current Head of the McCanns’ team of private investigators, former Cheshire Detective Inspector Dave Edgar.

At this press conference (see picture below), there was widespread astonishment when Mr Edgar claimed that the person Jane Tanner claimed she had seen on 3 May 2007 taking a child, whom she later presumed to be Madeleine McCann, away from the McCanns’ apartment could have been a woman, not a man:


As again we are quite sure that you and your senior staff are well aware, Jane Tanner’s description of an alleged abductor was already being questioned by many. She had changed her description of what she claimed to have seen over time. There was a clear conflict of evidence between her statement to the Portuguese police and those of Dr Gerald McCann and film producer/photographer Jeremy Wilkins about whether she was indeed in the lane that night where she claims to have seen the abductor.

In addition, during her statements, she had shortened the distance at which she said she had seen the abductor from 50 metres to 5 metres. She did not tell the McCanns about what she had seen for 24 hours even though her partner Dr Russell O’Brien had torn off the cover from Madeleine’s Activity Sticker Book soon after the alarm was raised at 10.00pm on 3 May and written down on this book cover that his partner Jane Tanner had seen an abductor walking away from the McCanns’ apartment at around 9.15pm.

Her detailed observations of frills on the pyjamas of the child alleged to have been carried and of the colour and type of clothing this man was supposed to be wearing were undermined by the facts that (a) the village was dark and poorly lit at the time and (b) on her own statement, that she could not have seen this man for more than 4 seconds at the most. Despite all these problems with her various accounts, Dr Gerald McCann read out the first-ever description of an alleged abductor, based on Jane Tanner’s changing statements, on 25 May 2007, which clearly referred to a male abductor. The claim by the Head of the McCann’s current private investigation team, that this abductor might have been an abductress after all, served to further undermine what little credibility was left in Ms Tanner’s statements about what she claimed to have seen on the evening of 3 May.

On Sunday 13 May, we know that Jane Tanner spoke to Detective Superintendent Bob Small of Leicestershire Police and to two men from Control Risks Group, Kenneth Farrow and Michael Keenan. Later on that very same day, from inside a police van with one-way darkened windows, she adamantly insisted she could identify the abductor. As Robert Murat walked past the police van, she told police that she could tell by the way he was walking that this was the very man she had seen on the date Madeleine disappeared.

Mr Farrow is the ex-head of the Economic Crime Unit in the City of London Police and Mr Keenan an ex-Superintendent from the Metropolitan Police with specialist fraud and investigative experience.

Jane Tanner undermined her own story, in stages, later that year, by stating, first, that she was ‘not sure’ whether or not the person she had seen was Robert Murat, and finally saying that she ‘no longer’ believed that the man she had seen was Robert Murat. This particular incident raises issues in relation to the conduct of Leicestershire Police, which we deal with below.

We referred above to the current team of investigators employed by the McCann Team and led by Dave Edgar. There have been huge concerns about the highly controversial nature of the investigation agencies employed by the McCanns since 2007, of which there have been at least seven. They employed a Spanish detective agency with a very chequered history, namely Metodo 3, whose boss, Francisco Marco, declared before Christmas 2007 that his men ‘were closing in on the place where Madeleine was being held alive; and that ‘she will be home by Christmas’. These claims were soon exposed as bogus.

Next, the McCanns spent an estimated £500,000 employing the services of intelligence personnel under the control of hard-drinking Kevin Halligen, a man now wanted by the United States for serious fraud offences and whose application for extradition is apparently being held up by the British government. We will examine the role of Leicestershire Police in promoting these controversial and possibly corrupt private intelligence agencies further below.

There are many other problems with the abduction scenario.

Being realistic, on the rare occasions that children as young as Madeleine are abducted by strangers, they are rarely found alive. In the very unlikely event that the abductor, if there is one, is keeping Madeleine alive, for whatever purpose, how likely is it that s/he would be out on the streets with Madeleine for all to see? S/he would know of course that Madeleine has green eyes with a visible coloboma defect in her right eye. That would be an additional reason for keeping her out of sight. Even if the abductor/abductress were prepared to take the risk of Madeleine’s being seen in public, would s/he not disguise her in some way, for example by dyeing her hair a different colour? And how difficult would it be for the abductor/abductress to keep a child, now aged nearly seven, away from public services, such as the school, and the health centre?

How would Madeleine look now, anyway? It is not easy to project what a three-year-old will look like three to four years later. A photo-sketch has been produced by the McCanns which shows her to be a happy and smiling child, of about 9 to 11 years of age in the opinion of those who have seen the photo-sketch (the one specially produced to coincide with the McCanns’ appearance on the popular Oprah Winfrey Show, televised world-wide). Does that photo really narrow down the search? It has already caused people to report children to the police who look like the new photo-sketch of her. A man was taken into police custody in Devon when a passer-by thought his step-daughter must be Madeleine McCann, while the police were also involved in Canada when many people watching a children’s choir on TV thought they recognised her and telephoned to say so.

On top of all that, where are we supposed to look? We have no guidance whatsoever from the McCann Team. All manner of places over the world have been mentioned, and there have been claimed ‘sightings’ of Madeleine from several dozen countries. Last year, the McCanns’ current lead investigator, Dave Edgar, stunned many people by claiming in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph that he was ‘convinced’ that Madeleine was being held alive in a ‘prison lair, within 10 miles of Praia da Luz, somewhere in the lawless hills around’. If he and the McCanns really believed this claim, then, so far as we are aware, they did not follow up their being ‘convinced’ by ensuring that a proper search was conducted for such a ‘prison lair’ in and around Praia da Luz, and still have not done so.

In addition, both the McCanns and their spokesman have recently made references to the death of Madeleine.

Clarence Mitchell, speaking to the press and defending himself against accusations that he had lied about aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, said: “Can I suggest that, actually, you quote me back accurately? I said: ‘I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine’s death’.”

Months later, on 11 December 2009, at a Court hearing in Lisbon in connection with their 1.2 million euro claim against Goncalo Amaral, Dr Gerald McCann told a group of reporters: “There is no evidence that we were involved in Madeleine’s death”.

The claim that the McCanns’ backer, Brian Kennedy, frightened potential witnesses into refusing to give evidence’

Another matter which clearly requires investigation by any review or re-investigation team in this matter is the claim made by Mark Hollingsworth in an article in the Evening Standard dated August 2009, in which he directly accused Mr Kennedy and those employed by him of interfering with witnesses and making some of them so frightened that they would not give evidence to the Portuguese police. Hollingsworth gave a devastating critique of the Kennedy-led private investigation. He wrote:

“An investigation by the Evening Standard shows that key mistakes were made, which in turn made later enquiries far more challenging. The Evening Standard has spoken to several sources close to the private investigations that took place in the first year and discovered that:

• The involvement of Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick in the operation was counter-productive, notably when they were questioned by the local police [in Portugal] for acting suspiciously while attempting a 24-hour ‘stake out’

• The relationship between Metodo 3 and the Portuguese police had completely broken down

• Key witnesses were questioned far too aggressively, so much so that some of them later refused to talk to the police

• Many of the investigators had little experience of the required painstaking forensic detective work”.

To interfere with potential court witnesses in an investigation is a criminal offence punishable, we understand, by a maximum jail term of 14 years. Madeleine was a British girl. This was a joint investigation by British and Portuguese police. So far as we are aware, no police force in the United Kingdom has yet investigated these serious allegations against Brian Kennedy, and we suggest that such an investigation should be mounted without further delay. We believe it can and should be mounted by British police - but not Leicestershire Police, who it appears have failed to pursue this serious issue. Brian Kennedy is the man who has wholly or largely funded the McCanns’ private investigations. He has appointed most of the agencies and individuals used in the McCanns’ private investigations and does so from a base in Cheshire near the headquarters of his own Latium Group, also based in Cheshire.

The role of Leicestershire Police

We dealt with the need for an enquiry into the role of the British Police in general and Leicestershire Police in particular in a letter we sent to Prime Minister Gordon Brown last year on 13 July 2009, and to which we respectfully refer you. It may be helpful, however, if we summarise our concerns and the concerns of a great many others:

a) What was the role of the Leicestershire Police Officers who were despatched to Praia da Luz immediately Madeleine was reported missing? In particular, what liaison did they have with the men from Control Risks Group, and what other discussions did they have with the McCanns and their friends? Especially, what role did staff of Leicestershire Police, notably Detective Superintendent Bob Small, play in the events of Sunday 13 May? Did he in any way influence Jane Tanner in her identification of Robert Murat as the alleged abductor? She later admitted that she was wholly wrong to have identified him as the abductor, yet it led directly to his arrest and being given ‘arguido’ status.

b) Why before, during and after the time the McCanns were ‘arguidos’ (which the McCanns insist means ‘persons of interest’ but is more usually translated ‘suspects’), did Leicestershire Police:

(i) Link their website to the McCanns’ fund-raising website, and

(ii) In doing so, encourage those who might have relevant information, to give this not to Leicestershire Police nor to the Portuguese Police, but to the McCanns’ own team of private investigators?

In the view of many, this set a dangerous and wholly new precedent in the history of criminal investigations anywhere in the world. A police force, openly and in a high profile manner, invited the public to donate to the fund-raising campaign of two suspects in a serious criminal investigation and helped them by diverting people who wished to supply information away from official police investigators and to their own private investigators, some of whose controversial history we have demonstrated above.

c) The highly irregular and cosy relationship between Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior and the McCanns and their friends. This can clearly be seen from the e-mails between Prior and the McCanns and their friends, which have now been made public by the Portuguese police.

d) The decision by Leicestershire Police not to release significant witness statements by Dr Katharine Gaspar and Dr Arul Gaspar to the Portuguese police for a period of six months, and then only after Mr Amaral had been removed from the investigation.

The background to the Home Office review

We were aware of course from hints dropped by the McCanns’ Chief Public Relations Adviser, Clarence Mitchell, that the McCanns were pressing for some kind of re-investigation or review. We also support an appropriate review and re-investigation (see end of our letter), but not one that is being pursued in the manner being suggested by recent reports in the Daily Telegraph and Leicester Mercury.

We know that there have been meetings between the McCanns and your staff (from leaks from the McCann Team) and at least one meeting between the McCanns and yourself, though we are not told whether the McCanns had lawyers or other advisers with them and perhaps you also had at least one civil servant with you at that ‘private’ meeting.

The Daily Telegraph began its report on 6 March by stating: “The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann”. We write to enquire (a) whether this is meant to be a ‘secret’ review? - if so why is it ‘secret’? (b) why it is being apparently conducted at all? - and (c) how news of this ‘secret review’ was leaked to the press. Were your staff responsible for this leak to the Daily Telegraph, or was the McCann Team responsible? The latter seems more likely in the light of this quotation from the Telegraph report:

“According to sources close to the McCanns, Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, has ordered officials to examine the 'feasibility' of British or Portuguese detectives looking afresh at all the evidence”.

As there was no adverse reaction by the Home Office, however, we must assume that this ‘leak’ was authorised by you. It is also clear from the following statement in the Telegraph that any review by your office will be conducted (a) only on the McCanns’ terms, (b) at their request, and (c) will focus only on alleged evidence that Madeleine was abducted: “Kate and Gerry McCann met with Mr Johnson last year to plead for help in their search for Madeleine”.

The McCanns and their public relations and legal advisers only want this review and any subsequent re-investigation to look at evidence that Madeleine was abducted and not at evidence which might point in a wholly different direction. The McCanns’ own statement merely confirms this. They said: “It is an international case, and always has been…Madeleine's rights should be put first. She's missing, she's innocent and whoever's taken her is still out there, and that has to be of paramount importance”.

The Daily Telegraph report also adds this: “The couple have also met with John Yates, the Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner, who has headed up a number of high profile inquiries in recent years. He is said to be ‘sympathetic’ and to have made ‘general offers of assistance’.” It is not the duty of an investigating officer to be ‘sympathetic’. In the view of many, this might sound like pre-judgement, in the same way in which large numbers of the public believe that a previous enquiry lea by Mr Yates in the ‘Cash for Honours’ enquiry was similarly predetermined.

We are therefore very concerned at the suggestion that John Yates should have anything to do with the review of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Mr Yates was appointed to investigate the obvious links between a number of high profile people obtaining peerages and large donations made not long beforehand by those involved, in each case, to the coffers of the Labour Party. It was clear to virtually the entire country that these peerages were given as a reward for donations to the Labour Party. As such, they were in flagrant breach of the law which strictly prohibits the selling of peerages (The Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925).

John Yates arrested a number of individuals, like Lord Levy, and reports appeared in the press suggesting that the investigation was being taken ‘very seriously’. But - as most of us realised would probably happen - no prosecutions resulted. If John Yates is involved in any way with a review or re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, the public will lack confidence that the review/re-investigation is a genuine enquiry into the truth.

The Telegraph report refers to a 'scoping exercise' being carried out ‘to look into the possibility of a review of the case’. It adds: ‘They are looking at all the options. It is basically a feasibility study’. The purpose of this letter is to contribute to your ‘scoping’ exercise/feasibility study.

The Telegraph report continues: “Pressure is now being put on Portuguese authorities to agree in the first instance to a three-day review of the case that could be held at Interpol's headquarters in Lyon in France. The McCanns will hope the Home Office can persuade their Portuguese counterparts to co-operate in a case review.
The review - were it to go ahead - would involve British police working with Portuguese counterparts as well as experts in child abduction”.

The last few words of this paragraph confirm our view that any review or re-investigation, as currently being proposed, will examine only the option that Madeleine was abducted and will close its mind to any other possibility, despite the final report from the Policia Judiciara explicitly leaving both possibilities open; abduction, or Madeleine’s death in her parents’ apartment. No review or re-investigation could be complete nor could satisfy the massive public disquiet over this case unless all possibilities for what really happened to Madeleine McCann are reviewed and re-examined.

The Telegraph report added: “But with the senior officer in charge Goncalo Amaral now widely discredited and facing financial ruin after being sued for libel by the McCanns over a book he wrote, it may become harder for the Portuguese to refuse the request for a thorough review. The revelation that possible leads - many passed to Portuguese police by the McCanns' own private detectives - had apparently been ignored will add to the clamour”.

We would respectfully point out that Goncalo Amaral is far from ‘discredited’. On the contrary, he is honoured in Portugal for his successful prosecution of Leonor Cipriano and Jose Cipriano, the mother and uncle who cruelly murdered eight-year-old Joana Cipriano and then falsely claimed she had been ‘abducted’. Mr Amaral’s book ‘The Truth About A Lie’, giving his thesis on what really happened to Madeleine, has been read by a million-plus buyers of his book across Europe and his documentary about the case on Portuguese TV was seen by one of the highest-ever TV audiences in Portugal’s history. The recent conviction of Mr Amaral, now being appealed, for allegedly having filed a false report in the Joana Cipriano case, is seen by many in his country and further afield as a ‘political’ prosecution of him with no substance in fact. The fact that his main prosecutor, lawyer Marcos Aragao Alexandre Correia, has received payments in the McCann case in respect of his trawling of the Arade Dam for Madeleine’s body (in early 2008) is a fact that must be weighed when evaluating Mr Amaral’s conviction, along with the clearly fabricated evidence of at least two witnesses in the case.

We might also note that the McCanns recently claimed that Mr Amaral’s thesis had been ‘disproved’, a comment which all the British press recycled without challenge. By no stretch of the imagination could it reasonably be said that his thesis had been disproved, indeed his witnesses in the Lisbon court in January said otherwise.

The Telegraph report went on: “A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We can confirm that the Home Secretary had a private meeting with Kate and Gerry McCann. Leicestershire Police stand ready to co-ordinate and complete enquiries if further information comes to light in the UK; or if requested to do so by the Portuguese authorities, who continue to lead on the overall investigation’.” For reasons we set out above about the manifest lack of independence of Leicestershire Police, it would be wholly inappropriate for them to be involved in any review or re-investigation, except for handing over to any re-investigators their entire file on the matter.

The involvement of MI5 and possibly MI6, as mentioned by David James Smith in The Times

Another factor which suggests the need for a fully independent re-investigation, if not a public enquiry as we called for in our letter to Gordon Brown in July last year, is the possible involvement of MI5 and MI6 in the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. David James Smith, in an article in The Times dated 16 December 2007, hinted at this:

“I heard that a PJ officer had been surprised to find a member of MI5 at a UK meeting about the case, and this made him suspicious that shadowy forces could be at work. The Sol journalist Felicia Cabrita mentioned the ‘mysterious Clarence’ - Clarence Mitchell, the former government PR officer turned McCann spokesman - and I was told there was suspicion too about another government official, Sheree Dodd, who had acted as a PR officer for the McCanns briefly in the early days - had she come out from MI6 to help dispose of the body? These theories might seem preposterous, but for those involved in the case in Portugal, they fitted a pattern in which the Portuguese government and in turn the PJ had felt the heavy weight of diplomatic pressure from the UK - a pressure that the police and the journalists very much resented, with its implication that the police were not doing their job properly”.

An independent review should be able to look without fear or favour at the possibility of MI5 or MI6 involvement.

The requirements for a genuinely independent re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

We suggest that the following steps should be associated with any re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance:

a) That Dr Kate McCann should agree to answer the 48 key questions that she refused to answer when first interviewed by Portuguese Police on 7 September 2007

b) That the McCanns and their friends should agree to take part in the reconstruction of events on 3 May that the police requested but which the McCanns and their friends all refused to take part in

c) That any investigation by British police should not involve Leicestershire Police, which has been thoroughly discredited in this case, not least by its continuous linking of its website to the McCanns’ fund-raising website and the McCanns’ private investigators, despite their very poor reputations as we have seen above

d) That any re-investigation must look at possible reasons for Madeleine’s disappearance other than just the McCanns’ claim that she was abducted; in particular any re-investigation must pursue all possible lines of enquiry into Mr Amaral’s thesis

e) That there must be an immediate investigation by an independent police force of the credible claims by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard that Brian Kennedy and some of his team of investigators intimidated or ‘frightened’ more than one potential witness into refusing to give evidence to the Portuguese police.

If a re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann were to take place under those circumstances, we would support it.

Finally, in view of the importance of this subject-matter and the need to ensure that no stone is left unturned in the search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann, we intend this to be an open letter and will in due course, therefore, publish this letter and your reply to all the points in it.

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett

Secretary

The Madeleine Foundation


Enclosures:


1. Complimentary copy ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1’

2. Letter from Madeleine Foundation to Gordon Brown 13 July 2009

3. Article by John Whitehouse on the McCanns’ private

investigators



Image created by 'Himself' of the McCann Gallery

Sunday

Madeleine McCann: Faked Abduction: Book On Sale: Tuesday March 9


Update by Brian Johnson

After getting off the phone with the printer this morning (Friday March 5), we have been assured that the first deliveries of the book will be here on Thursday March 11.

The first orders will be shipped on this date and apologies for the long delay.

The online store will become active from Tuesday March 9. The postage and packing considerations have been complicated, and for now, European customers will be served from the USA. We are looking to source printing companies in the UK, Germany and Portugal. Once that is established, post & packing costs should be more economical. As the book is over 500 pages, it is quite a weighty tome!

To order from the store, customers will have to register with this site and the books will be shipped on a first-come, first-served basis. To register, use the link in the sidebar over there on the right hand side. There is no charge for registration but when the online store is activated, you must register with the site first.

The Book Contents
Here is the chapter listing:

British Establishment Cover-ups
Maddie: A Name the Media Invented
The Police Conclusions
How the Story Unfolded
Experts in Propaganda
The Locations and People
A Neighbor Hears Crying
An Obsession with Lawyers
The Five Photographs
Payne & McCann Allegations
Dogs Don’t Lie
The Weekend of June 9 – 10
McCanns on the Oprah Show
Letter to the Madeleine Fund
Gerry’s Blogs and Kate’s Diary
The Official Fund
The Arguido Interviews
Dealing with a Corpse
Flaws in Gonçalo Amaral’s thesis
Interesting Details from the Files
The Author’s Conclusions
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Timeline 2007-2010
Appendix B: Timeline May 3, 2007
Appendix C: Tavares Almeida’s Report
Appendix D: Mark Harrison’s Report
Appendix E: Martin Grime’s Profile
Appendix F: Documentaries & Interviews
Appendix G: Kate Healy’s Bible
Appendix H: Justice Hogg’s Judgment
A few book Highlights:

Copious footnotes and cross references to verify sources
Correspondence from Peter McCann of Castle Craig about his relationship with Gerry McCann
The statements deliberately held back from the Portuguese police by Leicester Constabulary
The blatant discrepancies in the Tapas Nine witness statements
Jane Tanner’s conflicting statements
Did Kate falsify legal documents?
Where did Gonçalo Amaral go wrong?
Correspondence from the Masonic law firm entrusted with setting up Madeleine’s Fund
Gordon Brown’s wife and the fellow Bristol University graduate behind the Madeleine Fund
Information about other appalling British Establishment cover ups including Dunblane, Omagh and the recent shock Hollie Greig case
But remember…

According to Clarence Mitchell in the Sun newspaper on January 27, 2010, all the allegations in Faked Abduction are entirely untrue.

Find out for yourself.


http://fakedabduction.com/