Kate McCann “How Do You Prove Innocence?”

Gerry McCann “It Was Like Dining In Your Backgarden”

The 48 questions that remained unanswered

Posted by on Aug 3rd, 2008 and filed under Correio da Manhã, Featured Stories. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Source: Correio da Manhã, 03.08.2008, paper edition. Translation by Astro

Investigation – What the PJ inspectors wanted to know

When she became an arguida, Kate stopped talking to the inspectors

September 7, 2007. Kate McCann entered the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão in the morning and the questioning extended into the evening. She was heard as a witness, but the tension in the air was evident. For the first time, people were concentrated at the PJ building’s door and murmured words of mistrust regarding the couple.

On that day, CM had reported that the dogs had detected cadaver odour on Maddie’s mother’s clothes. A piece of evidence that the authorities intended to use as a trump, during a questioning that only changed course on the next day, after the PJ failed to see their doubts clarified.

Kate began by replying all the questions, but when she was made an arguida, she stopped talking. She went silent, in the company of her lawyer, and accepted all the insinuations in a provocative manner. Less than 48 hours later, Kate and Gerry travel to England with the twins, leaving the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter, who meanwhile had become four, behind.

They later guaranteed that they would return if necessary – which they never did, although they were never formally requested to return – and they are no longer arguidos for the suspected involvement in concealing the child’s body. Today, CM reveals the 48 questions that Kate did not want to answer during the interrogation and which reflect the investigators’ doubts. More than a year after Maddie disappeared, many of these questions remain unanswered.

Jeers for the McCann couple

The day that Kate and Gerry went to the PJ’s offices in Portimão marked a turnaround in the relationship between the local people and the couple: the curious bystanders that spent the day on the street jeered at Maddie’s mother and father, mainly criticizing the “absence of visible suffering” from Kate. The foreign press also attended in great numbers.

The Judiciária’s 48 questions that Kate did not answer

  1. On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when you entered the apartment, what did you see, what did you do, where did you search, what did you handle?
  2. Did you search in the couple’s bedroom’s closet? (said she would not reply)
  3. (Two photographs of her bedroom’s closet are exhibited) Can you describe its contents?
  4. Why are the curtains in front of the side window, behind the sofa (photograph is exhibited) ruffled? Did someone pass behind that sofa?
  5. How long did the search that you made in the apartment after detecting the disappearance of your daughter Madeleine take?
  6. Why did you say straight away that Madeleine had been abducted?
  7. Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins alone at home while you went to the Tapas to raise the alarm? Even because the supposed abductor could still be inside the apartment.
  8. Why didn’t you ask the twins at that moment what had happened to their sister, or why didn’t you ask them at a later point in time?
  9. When you raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly did you say and what were the words?
  10. What happened after you raised the alarm at the Tapas?
  11. Why did you do to warn your friends instead of calling out from the balcony?
  12. Who contacted the authorities?
  13. Who participated in the searches?
  14. Did anyone outside of the group learn about Maddie’s disappearance during the following minutes?
  15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
  16. What does the expression “we let her down” mean?
  17. Did Jane mention to you that she had see a man with a child that night?
  18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was called?
  19. During the searches, and already with the police present, in what locations was Maddie searched for, how and in what manner?
  20. Why didn’t the twins wake up during that search, or when they went to the upper floor?
  21. Who did you call after the facts?
  22. Did you call SKY News?
  23. Did you know about the danger of calling the media, because that could influence the abductor?
  24. Did you request the presence of a priest?
  25. How was Madeleine’s face publicized, with a photograph, or other media?
  26. Is it true that during the search you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
  27. How did you behave that evening?
  28. Did you manage to sleep?
  29. Before the trip to Portugal, did you comment on a bad feeling or a bad premonition?
  30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour?
  31. Did Maddie suffer of any disease or did she take any kind of medication?
  32. What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings?
  33. What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings, her friends and her colleagues at school?
  34. Concerning your professional life, in how many and in which hospitals have you worked?
  35. What is your medical specialty?
  36. Did you work by shifts, in emergency rooms or in other departments?
  37. Did you work on a daily basis?
  38. Did you stop working at a certain point in time? Why?
  39. Do your twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, are they unruly and does that upset you?
  40. Is it true that at certain times you were desperate over your children’s attitude and that left you were upset?
  41. Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative?
  42. In England, did you give your children medication? What type of medication?
  43. Within the process, you were shown films of cynotechnical inspection of forensic character, where the dogs can be seen marking indications of human cadaver odour and equally human blood traces, and only of human origin, as well as all the comments that were made by the responsible expert. After the visualization, and after cadaver odour was signaled in your bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, you said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said?
  44. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood behind the sofa by the detection dog
  45. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of cadaver odour in the boot of the vehicle that you rented a month after the disappearance?
  46. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood in the boot of the vehicle?
  47. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, upon being confronted with the result of the collection of Maddie’s DNA, which was analysed by a British lab, behind the sofa and inside the vehicle’s boot?
  48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in the disappearance of your daughter?

The question that she answered

Are you aware of the fact that by not answering these questions you may compromise the investigation, which is trying to find out what happened to your daughter? She said “yes, if the investigation thinks so.”

Process becomes public tomorrow

From tomorrow onwards, the entire investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine will be made available to the arguidos, to the witnesses, to the lawyers and also to the journalists, because it is a case of manifest public interest.

The process, which was archived on the 21st of July, will also be available to the general public, a situation that will allow for an authentic scrutiny of the work that was developed by the Polícia Judiciária. This decision, which came as a surprise due to the fact that the case involves a child, was only announced at this point in time, after the Portuguese lawyers for the McCann family, Carlos Pinto de Abreu and Rogério Alves, requested the Portimão Court for priority in the access to the process.

Last Wednesday, the Court had requested the interested parties that had already asked for the consultation of the process to leave a CD at the secretary’s office, given the fact that the process will be supplied in a digital format.

The archiving of the investigation into the little girl’s disappearance, which happened on the 3rd of May 2007, in the Algarve, precipitated the lifting of the judicial secrecy, which had been extended precisely until the month of August.

389 Responses to “The 48 questions that remained unanswered”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] Show All

  1. 351
    Chris Says:

    I like the conclusions :-

    “Amaral and his many supporters completely reject the notion that Madeleine was abducted – and, indeed, there is no hard evidence to support the theory.

    In using the term ‘abduction’ or ‘kidnapping’ of Madeleine McCann, the mainstream media rarely qualify this assertion with words such as ‘alleged,’ ‘possible’ or ‘suspected.’

    Nor were such words used when Redwood said last week: “The Metropolitan Police Service continues to offer a reward of up to £20,000 for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3rd, 2007.”

    Twenty thousand pounds! It’s a far cry from the £2.5 million reward offered within days of Madeleine’s disappearance, and a drop in the ocean compared to the millions Kate and Gerry have since received in donations, on top of the amount the Met has spent so far in its fruitless search.”

    Clearly the MET are not looking in the right place………….

  2. 352
    Chris Says:

    Gi

    Like to pick up on one point you raised:-

    ” Hi Chris. I’d just like to ask you about another theory I’d been thinking of, if you can set aside thoughts of an accident for a moment. I know you’ve had some reckoning that Madeleine wasn’t there on the 3rd May, or at least evening of that date.”

    Exactly, who says she was alive on the evening of the 3rd May? If she was not then their was ample time to plan and dispose of the body. It would also explain the strange/stupid remark ‘she has been abducted’.

  3. 353
    G1 Says:

    You’ve been quiet about the shadow analysis shared of the last photo. To me this looks like real, hard evidence of something. (However there will always be the potential angle for it to be said that the photo was adapted and planted on the McCanns. Was this the one in the camera that had made it back to the UK and Gerry had to go fish out, supposedly, when he says his credit card was stolen?)

  4. 354
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    Not really looked at this

    Gi
    “You’ve been quiet about the shadow analysis shared of the last photo. To me this looks like real, hard evidence of something.”

    I’ve not really seen the significance of this except it looks like it has been ‘brushed’. My question would be where was the arm/hand? In an improper place? If not why brush it out?

  5. 355
    G1 Says:

    There’s too much for me to say about that at the moment. I mean I wouldn’t know where to start, but also feel silly because the photo suddenly seems to make the whole situation like something from an involved thriller. How can you edit such important evidence to remove a shadow of a body part? And why on earth would it be done?

    The missing arm / elbow shadow in the purported last photo os SO important, hugely important. (Indeed it is also containing whole conspiracy theory possibilities in itself, which I wouldn’t normally pay attention to. But that I have to here. I can’t just throw them away as silly or pointless because there will be no answer to be found, however much my normal instinct is to. Because the blatancy of such important evidence having been doctored or fabricated in a photo editing program won’t allow anything that could seriously relate to it to be easily dismissed.)

  6. 356
    G1 Says:

    Oh, Chris, so you think the missing arm or elbow shadow was because it had to be removed for some offending reason, but the situation was real and photographed otherwise.

    I was coming from the point of view of the large number of people, some photo specialists (while also other photo specialists disagreed), saying the last photo is a cut and paste kind of job.

    So, I’d read that for years, it was suggested by so many people. But, though I always though the photo was really strange looking, I had to conclude it could easily be genuine because I couldn’t pin down anything. Until I saw the simple photo shadow analysis I linked to above.

    My simple assumption was, if the shadow should be there – HAS to be there – in a normal photo, but is missing, the photo has been concocted somehow. Other fake shadows would be likely to be added then, “drawn”, for the alleged time of day there. But one was just omitted. Because of the missing shadow, you can suggest – all of the persons in the photo were pasted in to that pool background, or one or some of them.

    A missing shadow can suggest so much when the photo seems to be the real evidence of something. The photo has been taken as evidence that the young girl was alive, present, normal or happy and hadn’t suffered evident bodily harm on the afternoon of the 3rd, hours before the reported missing time.

  7. 357
    G1 Says:

    Chris, so you thought the missing arm or elbow shadow was because it had to be removed for some offending reason, but the situation was real and photographed otherwise.

    I was coming from the point of view of the large number of people, some photo specialists (while also other photo specialists disagreed), saying the last photo is a cut and paste kind of job.

    So, I’d read that for years, it was suggested by so many people. But, though I always though the photo was really strange looking, I had to conclude it could easily be genuine because I couldn’t pin down anything. Until I saw the simple photo shadow analysis I linked to above.

    My simple assumption was, if the shadow should be there – MUST be there – in a normal photo, but is missing, the photo has been concocted somehow. Other fake shadows would be likely to be added then, “drawn”, for the alleged time of day there. But one was just omitted. Because of the missing shadow, you can suggest – all of the persons in the photo were pasted in to that pool background, or one or some of them.

    A missing shadow can suggest so much when the photo seems to be the real evidence of something. The photo has been taken as evidence that the young girl was alive, present, normal or happy and hadn’t suffered evident bodily harm on the afternoon of the 3rd, hours before the reported missing time.

  8. 358
    G1 Says:

    Sorry for repeated commenting. The first didn’t seem to be published for a while.

  9. 359
    Chris Says:

    Hi GI

    Can’t see the photo proves anything. It certainlty doesn’t prove she was alive at anytime that afternoon.

    Perhaps you can explain to me why if anyone puts forward some constructive comments on places like the Huff post, they all eventually get deleted!

    What do the McCann Mafia have that makes this happen.

    Why be interviewed on BBC by Katie Durham (a whimp) and not say Paxman. The answer is obviuos.

    I see Kate is going back to the holiday home —– bluff not a chance. She will need a police escort and not get one….

    Must be time for another money raising book!

  10. 360
    Chris Says:

    Fox News today 5th May 2014

    “British police plan dig around resort area where Madeleine McCann was last seen”

    Interesting it says LAST SEEN. No mention of an abduction.

    My money is on one of the Tapas 7 has broken. Now if you take out the McCanns that makes Tapas 5

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/05/british-police-plan-dig-around-resort-area-where-madeleine-mccann-was-last-seen/

  11. 361
    G1 Says:

    “Can’t see the photo proves anything.” (Chris)

    Ok, Chris. I just thought the blinding lack of a shadow where there needs to be one in a photo does say something big.

    That was one of two things, because a very doctored photo has to be doctored by someone, and for a mighty important reason.

    The first possibility was that the McCanns were involved in doctoring or consented to doctoring the photo. (Because it’s their photo, published as evidence of whereabouts of themselves and the missing daughter at a certain time, on a certain date.)

    The second possibility was that the photo was removed from their digital camera and doctored by someone else who wanted to try to scapegoat the McCann parents, and saved in the camera or memory card again, back where the original was deleted from. I know, writing to Chris just here, you’re not likely to agree with this possibility, but it’s important – if a credit card was stolen, or if it is possible the camera could have been taken and replaced within a day, in Portugal, UK, wherever.

    The second possibility IS very important because it seems to me the photo is so evidently doctored. The missing elbow shadow. If this were the McCanns photoshopping a photo – it can seem quite unlikely the family would submit as evidence something so blatantly doctored. Wheras, if an organised group of abductors stole & replaced the camera, photoshopping the photo to try to put serious suspicion on the McCanns, a whole, evident missing elbow shadow is a likely target.

    The thing is, but for these two possibilities, I can’t thing of any other legitimate possibility as to why there would be a missing elbow shadow in this supposed piece of evidence. So, surely one of the two possibilities must be true?

    I’ve gone on about this, from the photo analysis link posted in comments above, quite a lot. But it’s the most important thing I’ve come across in all of the evidence, I think. It does say one thing or the other happened. But it has been ignored by police and most of the media.

  12. 362
    G1 Says:

    To reply to your comment, 360, Chris, the Fox News article – that’s an interesting article.

  13. 363
    Chris Says:

    Hi GI

    Well, I find this even more interesting. From another website:-

    Gonçalo Amaral:
    There are other expressions. Mr Gerald McCann said, a few years ago, two or three years ago, “if she is dead then show us the body”. He will know why he says “show us the body”. There are other elements that point towards the fact that no body exists. Those elements should be taken into account. Those that are in the investigation should think how a body could disappear, how it is possible for this body to disappear under those circumstances.

    Anchor:
    Gonçalo Amaral, let me ask a final question for a quick reply. Will we ever find out what really happened that night?

    Gonçalo Amaral:
    Yes, we will. When MI5 opens the case files, we will find out. Don’t forget that the British secret services followed the case right from the beginning. On location.

    Anchor: So only in ten, twenty years…?

    Gonçalo Amaral:
    I don’t know if that information will be made available, but if it’s like in the United States, it takes years to have access to that kind of confidential information. I’ll just tell you this. I recall that – this is not conspiracy theory. The searches that we made with Eddie, with Keela, with the British police, with the planning that is being carried out now, with the British forensics experts, and everything else, there was one person that was responsible for those searches, a British citizen.

    And at the end of those searches, at the end of that result, he returns to England, and he’s at the airport in Faro, waiting for the plane to return to England, and he receives a phone call. He is accompanied by one of our colleagues. And he then explains to our colleague that there was a member of the MI5 at the airport, waiting for him, to talk with him about the result of the investigation.

  14. 364
    Truth Says:

    June 2014

    OPERATION JUSTICE – Campaign to OUT the McCanns and bring them to JUSTICE!

    CHARGES (see points below):

    1. MURDER of their daughter MADELEINE McCANN (2007).
    2. MANSLAUGTHER OF MADELEINE.
    3. CHILD NEGLECT.
    4. Participants in possible MASONIC-PAEDOPHILE RING.
    5. CHILD ABUSE.
    6. Perverting the course of justice for MADELEINE.
    7. DEFRAUDING the general public.

    (i) The McCanns themselves, have given evidence that they left their three children alone in apartment 5A for six consecutive evenings. Holiday neighbour reported to Warner Management that children in apartment 5A were crying for approx. one hour in the evening.

    (ii) Strong likelihood that the McCanns belong/have connections to a top level paedophile ring: Both GM and KM are registered on the CHILD SEX OFFENDERS’(CATS System) REGISTER – File 19309. GM convicted in 2002. The details of offence(s) have been wilfully removed.

    After Madeleine “abduction” alert, GM is suspected of telephoning a certain Belfast University professor (paedo involvement?) who was a top consultant in Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments BEFORE Pria de Luz police were informed. Rupert Murdoch (paedo involvement?); Murdoch’s Sky News broke the story first. David Payne,close friend of the McCanns, holidayed with them in Pria de Luz; suspected paedophile.

    WHY did MI6 meet the McCanns at the airport when they first returned from Pria de Luz? WHY have the McCanns not been criminally investigated in the U.K.? WHY are the Secret Service protecting them? WHAT do the McCanns KNOW that, if revealed, would do so much damage to the British Government?

    (iii) Justifiable suspicion that Madeleine was sexually abused by her parent(s)and Payne – at the very least! Was she made to su.k their nonce di.ks? Did they have their f.ngers up her?!

    The McCanns (both doctors) were ILLEGALLY dosing their children with a sedative (to send them to sleep, enabling the McCanns to go out partying), which is believed to have been a children’s hospital pre medication to be given prior to surgery.

    Justifiable suspicion that ‘hyperactive’ Madeleine was overdosed, woke up, climbed on the settee to look for her parents out of the window and fell to her death, banging her head on the hard floor. Blood traces and corpse scent behind the settee were picked up by highly trained sniffer dogs that had a 100% accuracy record.

    (iv) Justifiable suspicion that GM initially hid Madeleine’s corpse in nearby church/grounds. GM description was seenby The Smiths carrying small child at the significant time. Suspicion that either GM or accomplice(s) subsequently buried Madeleine at another location or disposed of her at sea.

    KM refused to answer 48 questions put to her by Pria da Luz police. The Cocky B*tch: “We’ve done nothing wrong! You should be out there looking for her!” answered only one:

    Q. “Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?”

    A. “Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.”

    ‘The Tapas Nine’(all doctors) refused to do a television reconstruction and clammed up (as hospital doctors notoriously DO when there is a suspicious death accountable among them).

    (v) The McCanns have hired spin doctors – suspicion of DELIBERATELY defrauding millions of pounds out of the general public by ‘sympathy commercialising’ the “abduction” of Madeleine.

    CHECK IT OUT:

    truthformadeleine.com (and the hundreds of responses).
    Main Crime Unit – Info on Gerry McCann a RECAP from Steel Magnolia.
    Gonçalo Amaral: “Maddie: L’Enquête Interdite” – The Forbidden Investigation”
    Madeleine: The Truth Behind the Lies.

    Etc. etc. etc.

    TELL THE PEOPLE YOU KNOW!

    COPY and paste, and forward email to as many as possible! Primary school websites, creches, nurseries, charities, Girl Guides, Scouts, Parent & Teacher Associations, childminding agencies etc. etc.

    SPREAD the knowledge to the GENERAL PUBLIC! It is useless to inform authorities who already know, yet are powerless to act!

    In the interests of Justice for Madeleine, getting the McCanns’ other two children safe from their parents, OUTING the McCanns and their connections, doing YOUR BIT to protect children at large from sick paedophiles….

    Public outrage is overdue!
    WE are the ones who will bring them down!
    ACT NOW!!

  15. 365
    G1 Says:

    To respond to your point (ii) above, “Truth”, I’m genuinely interested how you know or believe you know that Gerry McCann has a CATS file entry, and one which is a “conviction”, from 2002.

    Yes, it’s known that there is a CATS file entry in the file reference you gave against the name of Gerry McCann, father of Madeleine. But I don’t know how people are aware this is from 2002. Do you have a definite source?

    The two main points, questions really, about the existing CATS file entries are, firstly, was this registry in the system created when Madeleine disappeared, or before? If the entry was created for and at the time of the initial investigation of Madeleine’s dissapearance, it doesn’t mean anything conclusive, perhaps even suspicious about Gerry. As, in the UK, no abuse or negligence allegations were formed seriously then about the parents by the authorities. However, a child interference issue is known because the child is missing, so a file may have been opened in the father’s name at this time, for any associated information that might appear. But it would not be any mark alleging blame against the father in that case.

    “Truth”, you state the year 2002, though. This has been stated numerous times on the internet in the last 6 or 7 years and you can find people repeating this. But there is no source at all for it, none! There is nothing in the internet or in the printed media which backs it up even slightly. It may be true, it may be a legend (another forum legend). People have repeated what someone alleged once, but there is no proof of that the CATS file entry was made in 2002 or that it was not just made for the missing Madeleine case.

    Secondly, even if Gerry McCann’s referenced CATS file entry did appear before May 2007 and is not to do just with his daughter’s appearance, there is no source to say that this entry carries any blame. There is just no source nor knowledge about this CATS registry for Gerry. Although CATS file entries need to have information connected, this one didn’t have any relevant information, as passed between two elements of the police.

    So, I could guess that Gerry as a doctor, maybe in 2002, came into contact with an abused child and the police made an entry connected with his name. It’s not an unlikely scenario – doctors are usually, if not always, connected officially when a child abuse victim is discovered.

    Again, maybe indeed Gerry McCann had a child abuse conviction in 2002. Maybe not. There is no known evidence, however, to support that his CATS file entry is either innocent or criminal (or potentially criminal).

  16. 366
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris. Amaral’s information about the UK secret services, and their control over the early investigation in the UK (perhaps ongoing still), is really interesting indeed.

    I don’t mean to turn things around which you have brought up to my own theories which are often different to yours, Chris. But it’s worth noting this info of Amaral’s is very interesting whichever way you look at the possible truth of what happened to Madeleine – isolated killing by her parents and / or their holiday partners, or, abduction.

    There is a distinct possibility that abductors took Madeleine, a group. But rather than being unknown, they are well known to British secret services for past (maybe present) relations with politicians and other VIPs. Such a group involved in abduction I suggest might hold parts of the British establishment by their throats, keeping catalogued blackmail material collected over the years. I believe it was the secret services which were ultimately involved in trying to hush most of the child abuse scandals in the UK over the years which involved public figures, from Angell Road, Brixton and Kincora Home to numerous others.

    The sheer bewildering nature of the phenomenon of the McCanns and friends might be explained by their very involvement with the same group prior to the child going missing (where the extent of how much any involvement was consenting or as victims may be vague).

  17. 367
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    Well the MET admit they are back to square one.

    Why do they not interview the prime suspects?

    That has to be Kate and Gerry McCann and their dubious frinds.

  18. 368
    G1 Says:

    I’m beginning to think Operation Grange could be a whitewash, but not to cover up that Kate and Gerry McCann killed their daughter. (Why would police do that?) But, to cover up police involvement / political involvement in people who were involved with Madeleine or took her, people known to the McCanns, perhaps. But also to certain police members.

    If you find information on the Elm House abuse scandal in Barnes, basically a gay brothel featuring politicians, high ranking clergy, and numerous policemen, the police element is coming out strongly now. The police are said to have taken protection money from the owners to hush it up and allow it to keep going. Victims of abuse there report that policemen threatened them to keep silent about everything. Police officers were involved in sexual activity there, frequent visitors. One of the policemen who raided the premises in the investigation that ultimately came had been known there for sex, and returned a few weeks after he raided it, a worker reports. The same masseur reports many police were involved in sexual activity at the den of abuse of boys. Over a hundred police files made over the abuse, probably containing some names of people in authority, have been disappeared, with all of the evidence, witness information and other connections left unknown.

    Because, as others have said, why would police and politicians cover up the death of Madeleine, child of two simple doctors in the Algarve, with nothing of their own interest involved? It seems not enough that Gerry vaguely knew Gordon Brown and a few other connections. Whether he was a mason or not, it seems not enough on its own for a cover up.

    Interestingly, a consensus is rising in places that the reason Jill Dando was murdered was because she was adamant she was going to delve into deep peadophile activity in the authorities as a journalist. I’ve posted before here clear evidence that, not only did the Met ignore strong witness evidence in Dando’s murder, it was basically suppressed in order to allow them to bring about the miscarriage of justice against Barry George.

    It’s no light thing, it’s a huge thing for police who are supposed to genuinely investigate.

    As mentioned before, the head of Operation Grange was the head of the Dando case, Redwood, who reports Madeleine case info to his superior, a former head of the Dando case. After such a miscarriage of justice on a stooge (authorities seem to further somehow bend the law in not compensating Barry George) HOW could these policemen be REWARDED by investigating and leading the most famous case not only in UK in much of the world?

    It seems a good guess at least that there is something to cover up, and that cases might be linked. Why the same men? The same knowledge, the same pursuit? The same thing being covered up?

    The coincidences in the two cases are there. The question, why all the covering up if there was just an accident or Gerry had a bit much to drink and knocked Madeleine over with smack?

    I suggest covering up does not go on without strong concerted interests which those doing the covering up have to make (or, they or someone’s they stand with, go down in a big way).

    Jill Dando wanted to expose corruption in the authorities involving child abuse. I think the Madeleine case is connected to organised child abuse, people connected to it in big, big ways. And where there is a cover up, it is likely to be similar to the Dando case, where there may bigger interests than G and K McCanns at stake.

  19. 369
    chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    That was a very interesting post of yours thanks for the trouble.

    Reminds me locally of the last Bishop of Chichester in charge from 2001 to late 2012.

    Under his watch loads of child abuse was going on by most of his guys in cloth.

    So what do ‘we’ do, we give him Freedom of the City of Chichester.

    I hope for his good he doesn’t come across me, as I will tell him what I think of his perverted religion.

    So what do you think about this comment?

    “Kate McCann tells libel trial of moment son asked about police chief’s claims she hid Madeleine”

    My view:-

    Well of course a 9 year old is going to ask questions. He probably remembers what happened and his pictures of the event will out.

    I think the McCann’s again, are being pathetic.

    Over to you………..

  20. 370
    G1 Says:

    I don’t know what to say, beyond that it’s very sad and whatever happened, anyway, the McCann parents are in such a sorry position. I concluded a long time ago anyway (even when the disparities of the holiday group had me very suspicious) they’re so troubled, so disturbed whatever happened, blameless or guilty, sympathy is appropriate.

    Chris, re. Bishop of Chichester, abuse & freedom of the city. I understand this kind of timeline is typical.

    I’ve heard also that people were placed in the media in advance who were involved in large scale abuse, infiltrated somehow, to ‘deal’ with it if / when it should appear in public. Remember that next time you’re watching whichever present for producer on BBC etc. argue strangely ‘isn’t a historic inquiry just a complete waste of time when things are wrong now?’ ??!!??? (Just watching today Kirsty Wark and her strangely picked guests on about this immensely strange desire to let sleeping peadophile politicians lie, or at least to just keep working as politicians in parliament. Do police do that with other crimes – murder, serious bodily harm? No they don’t, even many years later. This request to leave child abuse inquiries into major public figures alone is inexplicable in the normal way of things.)

  21. 371
    G1 Says:

    Here we go again. It seems to have been the same methods all the way, and they tried again. Why would they not?

    Theresa May hires the politician child abuse review head. Who? The “baroness” who allegedly told an abused child victim she couldn’t name a high-up clergy member who was the victim’s abuser because society needed protecting against such a reality, even a true reality! What would the press do, she wondered! This is just ignoring the less important story in the press just now about Butler-Sloss’s brother “containing” child abuse by politician information from going anywhere court bound (or media bound) in the past.

    May tells the political committee questioning her decision that this woman was THE perfect person to head the review.

    Through the Wilson Doctrine, MPs enjoy a right not to be spied on by police or secret services – meaning have any communications intercepted, recorded or held. It seems thd Houses of Parliament may be really a beneficial place to be if you have secret criminal interests. For another thing, separately, it could never be discovered now who, with May, proposed or furthered Baroness Butler-Sloss head the child abuse review.

  22. 372
    G1 Says:

    Butler-Sloss was also the author of law forbidding warning being given about peadophiles.

    What better pedigree for May, or anyone else wishing a review for containment, could be found?

    The other thing is, the way this kind of procedure has happened, typically, is by a daring, threatening blatantness. It’s “in your face”.

    I see the member of clergy who Butler-Sloss tried to keep a secret (even pretending this coukd be reasonable to the child abuse victim) turned out to be the same Bishop of Chichester you mentioned, Chris. The man later to be given “Freedom of the City”, as you say. I remember the situation now.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10964530/Baroness-Butler-Sloss-was-behind-controversial-paedophile-ruling.html

    I know I’ve been getting away from the 48 questions which the article is on. But, as sbown above, I am thinking this is all a part of a certain culture that could be related to Madeleine’s disappearance. Anyway, I’ll stop this line here, probably.

    I know I questioned ” Truth”‘s post, 364 above, about the CATS file. But this was not suggesting that Gerry McCann was not involved in child abuse at some time, only making clear that, from the information available, this can’t be known, unfortunately. You can guess what you like, but the facts aren’t available, only this ambivalent, inconclusive fact that Gerry’s name has a CATS file entry for it (while maybe this is only because his daughter was recorded presumed abducted.) It may be the most important element of the case, to know about that, I don’t know.

    The Jill Havern site removed a lot of new comments about the CATS file last month. So you have to wonder if that’s coming from Carter Ruck warnings, or if the site is just being cautious. (While with many of the comments there which don’t get removed, they’re very far from cautious.) It depends on what was said in the comments, but I’d have thought Carter Ruck would ignore most comment about the CATS entry if Gerry actually had a black spot, personally, somehow for abuse of a minor, from some time. Perhaps they’d be more likely to litigate or warn if the CATS entry carried no blame around Gerry personally.

    It’s a mystery that may never be known.

  23. 373
    G1 Says:

    More historical evidence of the British police putting a clear stop with threats to anyone talking about peadophilia and child abuse in the authorities.

    (I think the secret services were typically very closely connected with the police in these public figure abuse situations. So the information Goncalo Amaral gives about an MI5 figure being behind everything in the British inquiry, and seemingly pulling strings with politicians in the Portuguese enquiry is something very significant.)

    From: http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jul/15/daily-star-sunday-cyril-smith

    …former newspaper editor, Don Hale, was handed a dossier at some time in the early 1980s about 16 high-profile political figures who appeared sympathetic to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

    The document was given to Hale, the then editor of the Bury Messenger, by the late [MEP] Barbara Castle, the veteran Labour politician.

    an astonishing operation kicked in to silence the claims.”

    First, Hale said he was visited by the Liberal MP for Rochdale, Cyril Smith, who tried to persuade the journalist that it was “all poppycock”.

    Second, Hale said special branch officers arrived at the Messenger’s office, showed him a D-notice and warned him of imprisonment if he failed to hand over the dossier.

    Hale had agreed with Castle that he would run a story the week after she handed him her documents.

    Then came the special branch visit. Hale said: “I was sworn to secrecy by ­special branch at the risk of jail if I repeated any of the allegations.

    “When I met Barbara again, she apologised for the ‘hassle’ caused and reluctantly admitted she was fighting a formidable foe.”

    The revelations follow revelations about a dossier compiled by the late Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens detailing an alleged Westminster paedophile ring.

    [end of article copied text]

    Just to be aware, the police forces do operate child abuse and peadophilia operations all of the time. The current Operation Notarise and, from 1999, Operation Ore are prominent examples. There was a great deal of fuss about Operation Ore being to a large extent a great bungle. You have to be aware, with police covering up child abuse inquiries into authorities including policemen, to what extent can they be thought capable or honest in such matters anyway? (No doubt there are many, honest, passionate specialist police force members, but one supposes their data can be controlled by people above them. In any case, a simple D Notice can put certain public figures outside investigation.)

    The current Operation Notarise specialised in arresting people who had child pornography, a very worthy pursuit for the authorities. But there will always be questions. Such as – how many actual child abuse rings, involving authorities, perhaps including those that made the pornographic images have been and are being covered up? And, how many people involved in such rings and activity who have been known personally or professionally to members of the police and other authorities have been hidden, or removed from suspicion or arrest?

  24. 374
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi,

    Gerald McCann CATS system registration number 19309

    “Gerry McCann was convicted for child sex abuses in 2002, althought the evidence has been hacked and emptied from the case file by someone who has access to the National Sex Offenders Register, namely Jim Gamble though the CEOP mainframe connected to every police station crime files in the UK, the reference for this conviction still exists in the judiscial reference files and confirms that Gerald P McCann was placed on the Child Sex Offenders Register following conviction in court, and is still on that register today! ”

    That came from:-

    http://thelostmarketingploy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/empty-file-gerald-mccann-cats-system.html

    So his case did go to court and he was found guilty according to the above. Gi anyway of getting that confirmed?

  25. 375
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris.

    I did a lot of looking about the CATS issue, and after a lot of effort, some time ago, concluded what I’ll put below. When I get a chance, I’ll have a look at the articles and forums which come up from your link. But I suspect I’ve already been there before, and there is nothing new to learn. I may be wrong, though, which would be very interesting. I’ll give it a go in a while. In the meantime, as I did spend a LOT of time researching this on the Web before now, here is what I learned from searching and reading a lot in the past:

    I’ve read that claim you’ve quoted so many times from around 5 or so years ago in the internet. And I suppose I probably more or less believed it, took it at face value, for a while, not really thinking about it. I mean I guessed it was probably true as I hadn’t seen anyone say it wasn’t. Then I realised I hadn’t really looked around, and indeed I did find numerous people questioning it, and then I’d also found what others were saying was the original source of the claim.

    Firstly, it had become repeated from some unknown source, blindly, by many. People were just repeating the same quote, like a viral Tweet or something. But a reliable or official source or means of confirmation wasn’t found. As far as I know, no official information is available about Gerry & CATS other than the tiny, very ambiguous mention by British police in the Madeleine case.

    I think this is the only, sole piece of verifiable evidence linking Gerry to CATS which is and has been available for those of us who’ve spent a lot of time looking on the web, over the years. There is no court record, no actual police record that can be verified as to contents (Eg. conviction or investigation, perpetrator, witness or doctor, year), no local, regional or national press report about police inquiry, arrest, charge or court session, no witness reports. There is nothing reliable indicating anything at all, which I or anyone else (probably a lot of people) were able to find and share.

    As before, all of this doesn’t mean that what you quoted is wrong, for sure. It’s just that it is unable to be verified as anything other than someone’s forum allegation which has been repeated a lot.

    However, if I remember rightly, I believe the claim came from someone simply and openly putting numerous things together, snd just wondering if the 2002 CATS conviction claime were the right conclusion.

    Although many people have taken it on face value, I remember reading a number of other forum conclusions over the years where, after debate, the posters have all agreed to discount the quote you made as there is nothing to say it is anything other than the typical suggestive claim or theory made about many people and acts around the disappearance of Madeleine.

    One discussion once whittled its origin down to a forum made up of two elements, and indeed I had also read the original source they pointed too, some time before then:

    1. The ‘source’ online forum had people ESTIMATING when exactly and why Gerry was ‘sacked’ or left his job in the UK and moved to The Netherlands (I believe for a couple of years or so). They “worked out” that this “meant” that the CATS entry made in the Madeleine case could be calculated to have come from 2002, and must be a conviction of abuse if Gerry “had to leave” the country after it, for work. (Maybe true, maybe not, no way whatsoever of knowing, though, from everything I’ve read.)

    2. The same forum had people with conspiracy allegations, but no clear information or sources, against Jim Gamble (I understood based upon something else ‘disagreeable’ it was said to be known he’d done). The whole discussion was made anyway on the knowing premise of making suggestions, trying to work things out “as the police do”, one said, meaning just the guesswork stage.

    So, some posters went down a road in what’s thought to be the original ‘source’ forum of just making suggestions or guesswork or simply asking questions. Then someone posting summed up suggestions and things questioned in the quote you copied, Chris, which so many people have copied on the web. The other, later forums I read concluded, from what can be found, that’s all the claim amounted to, and that there is no other source to be found for what the claim alleges.

    As far as I’ve been aware, from the reliable information available, you can toss a coin as to what the Madeleine case mention of the CATS file refers, and you’ll be none the wiser! Whether it points to a past child abuse connection with Gerry McCann, or that the Leicester Police (or other force) opened a CATS file in 2007 in Gerry’s name because his daughter was missing (meaning an abuse case in itself if abducted, OR a possible child neglect issue yet to be investigated by social services), who knows?

    After much research on the web, I and others concluded, there’s really nothing to know from the CATS entry.

    I’ll apologise if what you’ve linked to is a real source I and others had missed! :) But I just wanted to get this all down first – as well as to tell you, to allow me to be clear for myself and remember before I go and get myself lost in more forums and claims and suggestions which may or may not have reliable sources.

  26. 376
    G1 Says:

    As far as I remember, one claim that holds no water, as found by a number of others and myself who searched and read some official people who had been involved in the implementation of the CATS system explain: a CATS entry did not have to be made before March 2007. It could be made afterwards, depending on which police force made it. (And I believe I remember Leicester was one which could make it after that date.) The system for registering illegal or suspected illegal child interference changed in different regions / forces of the country at different times. But CATS was, and I believe is still used by a good number of forces, and certainly, I remember was used in May ’07 and after.

    The thing about the CATS and Gerry McCann issue is a lot of wrong things were claimed. It took me a great deal of searching and reading to find them utterly debunked – reliably and in some cases, officially. This included being dismissed by social workers explaining their knowledge or the system and in one case a clerk who worked up the CATS system for one or more police forces. I don’t have links, unfortunately, but I am very clear in what was said. And, again, I remember other discussions featuring numerous questioning posters, concluded the same thing, all together. These weren’t “pro-McCann” forums, but long, detailed, questioning, intelligent, balanced discussions wanting to get to the truth – to what could be said of the CATS issue and what was seemed just to be pure or wild speculation.

    I can’t see anything new in the link you gave, Chris, and the links from there. The quote you copied has been concluded by many not only to be a much copied forum legend, but it seems was actually written in the first place as plain, open guesswork from a line of theorising on a thread. It looks authoritative, but as far as I’m aware it was written in just putting a number of previously stated suggestions, questions and estimations together during a forum thread. As the final post in the Jill Havern thread goes, linked to from your link, there again someone suggests the claim of the quote can’t be taken seriously, being speculation at best.

    Who knows what the CATS issue means? Honestly, we’ve no idea. It could be the most innocent thing, a police force’s sharp reaction to a missing child in Spring ’07, it could be very serious. It seems there’s no way of knowing.

  27. 377
    G1 Says:

    Phew, long replies / comments! Sorry about being so long!

    The last posts had everything seeming probably hunky dory in the land of the police regarding child abuse investigations: You tell the police, they kindly make a CATS or similar system record, and go about catching some really, really bad guys – abuse of children being one of the most heinous things.

    And at times that does happen. And at times police will arrest and charge and imprison actual historic abuse victims for speaking out, often depending on who the perpetrators were, I’ve been reading recently. Others, I remember including some people who made allegations against Savile just after the abuse, were either warned they’d be put into asylums if they didn’t shut up, or actually were, at least until they agreed to stop the “nonsense” against Savile. Which, perhaps is not as bad as being arrested and jailed for telling authorities of your sexual abuse, I don’t know. (The latter linked with Welsh care homes in one case.)

    One thing to add to what I shared about the police and Secret Services covering up public figure child abuse in post 373 above, involving Barbara Castle’s and Don Hale’s attempt to make it public in the 80s… In this article, Don Hale says that the police who came to stop the abuse scandal news getting out were Londoners and,

    “It was obvious this was a Metropolitan Police raid, planned in the capital.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2697947/Chilling-day-Special-Branch-swooped-seize-ANOTHER-dossier-VIP-abusers-16-MPs-names-mentioned-1984-report-paedophile-lobby-s-influence-Westminster.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

    So there, historically, is testimony of the Met police involved in the powerfully arranged covering up politicians and public figures paedophilia in the 1980s. It is known the Met police, or some members able to, were actively involved in this before then, keeping things contained in the London child abuse ring involving the Krays (which included policemen) and other historical “VIP” child abuse rings in London going back to the 1950s, and I think before. I read a long article on the pedigree of those in the Met police in this way over the decades a year or two ago. I’ve mentioned members of the Met illegally covered up Elm Guest House abuse scandal in the 80s, including threats against abuse victims, and some were involved sexually in the business of the place.

    This is all precedence to the strange approach by The Met to the murder of Jill Dando who had told some people of her determination as a journalist to delve into public figure paedophilia, involving the miscarriage of justice with hushed evidence police had to the contrary. They ignored the issue of who really killed Jill Dando, and more strangely still, seem to have continued to have ignored it years after their prosecution ‘error’, not doing much since then.

    … Then there is the Madeleine McCann case and the Met and MI5, and some of the same faces connected with the Dando “bungle” they never talk about, and a little girl who did suffer some terrible kind of abuse, whatever it is. Do they know the ring, or people involved, whoever they are, whatever happened to Madeleine? How?

    Very worth considering, in any case. The historical record is not questioned by those who know the situations.

    Politicians and journalists today, in an absolutely huge, growing by the day historic “VIP” child abuse situation, say it’s the place of the police, not the politicians with vested interests, connections or involvement, to do the inquiring. Do they just forget there are many victims and witnesses saying police members have long been involved?

    Is there any answer?

    This article thread is about 48 questions unanswered by the parents of a missing girl. They never had to be put these questions again, over 7 years, including in the current, large scale, high profile British case. People disagree about what they suppose happened to the little girl. But, you have to ask, whatever it is that happened to the child, is there something that The Met police know, something which means they are not going to ask those 48 questions of the parents, or any others?

  28. 378
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi,

    Thanks for all the detail. The question is why was the case file wiped? Smacks of dirty deeds.

    You say:-

    “People disagree about what they suppose happened to the little girl. But, you have to ask, whatever it is that happened to the child, is there something that The Met police know, something which means they are not going to ask those 48 questions of the parents, or any others?”

    Met say:-

    They are back to square one.

    So that being the case with the Met, surely they have to start asking at least the 48 questions. They must have hundreds.

    I say, like you:-

    What makes the McCanns untouchable.

    ……………………………………………….

    One thing that has to happen is the McCanns lose their so called libel case against Goncalo Amaral.

  29. 379
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris.

    “The question is why was the case file wiped?”

    I think you’re talking about the quote you made which also suggested there was a 2002 “conviction”.

    Again, I don’t think there’s any evidence there was a wiped CATS file, this was part of the random claim which popped up and has been copied.

    I know that CATS entries system regulations state that a file has to include details, and the police described the CATS entry connected with the McCanns as being just a file reference. But I’ve also read people who worked with CATS say that in some cases with no clear information available, an entry would be made for the description to follow afterwards. Although this wasn’t strictly what the CATS procedure guide directed, there was no way around this.

    In some cases this would happen because there was no other way of officially recording child interference information – CATS was the only available system within a police force – yet there wasn’t information yet beyond a names or names in connection, maybe not of the perpetrator. Where an abuser was not known, but there was evidence or serious concern of interference, the entry would be made against another connected name – who reported the abuse, relative, or doctor involved etc.

    This could also mean the CATS entry could have been opened in 2007 after the girl went missing, when the British police knew nothing apparently, and were barely doing any investigating as this was thought to be the Portuguese police’s job.

    Copied CATS info from the Madeleine case, police letter in May 2008:

    “Searches made of the local section of child abuse investigation shows a registration number 19309 in CATS (system of action location). A consultation with the DC Soand from the department in question confirms that this is just a file reference, but as a complement to Operation Task system for the purpose of reference, if any investigation should be necessary by the department. No work has been done on the basis of this file.

    An examination of all other police files using a search system does not reveal any information about [Gerry or Kate McCann].”

    The other thing is we don’t even really know at all what the police letter means.

    Does it mean there is just a near empty file made in the CATS system?

    Or does it mean that there is a CATS file which might contain significant information – but Operation Task (the original, sparse British Madeleine enquiry) only contains a simple file reference to this past CATS file, which may or may not become freshly investigated within the Madeleine case?

    The letter refers to a mention of a CATS file as “a complement to Operation Task system for the purpose of reference, if any investigation should be necessary by the department”.

    It’s not clear if the policeman means a CATS case investigation may be made more or less from scratch if necessary where there is a near empty CATS file so far. OR if he means there is already an investigated CATS case for which a basic file reference alone has been transferred into Operation Task records, and he is talking about investigating stuff from an old CATS file stuff within Operation Task.”

    “No work has been done on the basis of this file.”

    Again, it can’t be known if he means no work was done for a CATS case which has just a basic file reference; OR if there was a CATS case with work done, but no work has been done yet in connecting it with Operation Task.

    Though we can read the words of the police letter, we don’t even know the context at all, and so, nor what it is saying. It is a basic personal data search request. But is it sending information about a past CATS file connected with the McCanns that hasn’t been looked at yet by Operation Task, and might have work done on it? Or does is just outline that the disappearance of Madeleine – illegal child interference whatever happened to her – has led to the opening of a fresh CATS file, but it has no information yet.

    I’m really going on about this CATS thing, but two things I learnt are: what it means could be really important to the disappearance of Madeleine; and, however, it’s important to see that it’s not possible currently for members of the public to know anything at all about what the CATS information means. The web is full of guesses and claims, but I suppose that no-one publishing really knows.

    Here’s something else…

    From The Mail on Sunday, 3 Sept 2007, article by Sam Green hill:

    “The McCanns are campaigning for political action after learning that great swathes of Europe are havens for sex offenders.

    They want an EU-wide register of sex offenders and greater sharing of information about those banned from working with children.

    Mrs McCann said: “Over these past terrible months, Gerry and I have learnt much about missing and abducted children. We have been shocked to learn the truth. Sex offenders can roam around with no checks.” ”

    http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/5sep7/03_09_2007.htm

  30. 380
    G1 Says:

    “Met say:-

    They are back to square one.

    So that being the case with the Met, surely they have to start asking at least the 48 questions. They must have hundreds.”

    Unless they already have the answers, or kind of know, and they’re to keep them to themselves. I don’t know. Or, MI5 or someone has the answers, as Amaral says, and are ok to have Operation Grange go on a wild goose chase.

    Perhaps my instinct is being clouded by what’s topical in the news – decades of covering up paedophile linked histories of the authorities, including police and The Met. Perhaps OG is working away earnestly and is also not hindered by powers beyond their own authority.

    Perhaps not. I wonder if anyone mentioned on D Notices has been linked to the disappearance of Madeleine. Perhaps there’s a lot of the case covered by a D Notice and even police are prevented from investigating where they should be looking. It might explain some things.

    Now it’s known with what’s been in the news recent!y that this is how the police have operated, whether forced to, or by command from within police.

  31. 381
    Chris Says:

    This won’t be published in the British Press from Gonçalo Amaral:-

    “21 Jul 2014

    Dear friends,

    Upon reading the news about the most recent trial session, I am certain that the vast majority of journalists don’t know what is being discussed in court, and have not reported correctly.

    Let us be clear. What is at stake is to find out:

    - Whether the writing of my book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” was a lawful or unlawful action;

    - Whether or not the plaintiffs have suffered damages and whether or not there are facts to prove it;

    - Whether or not it is possible to establish a causal nexus between the book and such damages.

    This is what is at stake.

    Concerning the book’s lawfulness, I suggest to anyone who has doubts to read the Lisbon Appellate Court’s decision within the injunction that preceded the current action. The truth is that for the Appellate Court’s Illustrious Judges, as can be concluded from that decision, the lawfulness of the book’s publication is indisputable.

    With proof of the lawfulness of the book, the matter should rest here, without the need to investigate anything further, namely concerning the damages that the plaintiffs complain about.

    Nonetheless, we should note that even if the lawfulness may still be at stake, there is still the need to establish a causal nexus between the publication and the damages that the plaintiffs complain about, such as deep depression, social isolation, etc. And, of course, to prove that said damages, no matter where they originate from, really exist.

    Concerning the social part, it seems obvious to me, if we pay attention to the countless social events that the plaintiffs have participated in, including speeches at the British Parliament, interviews on television shows like Oprah Winfrey’s, gala dinners with illustrious personalities, namely British, among others, that said social isolation is totally false.

    Concerning the depressions, although they are in no way proved within the case, in my opinion, in fact it would be very strange if they didn’t exist. The disappearance of a daughter, whether she is dead or alive, whether or not she was abducted, has to originate enormous consequences of that kind. How strange would it be if that wasn’t the case! But about this issue I won’t say anything further, given that the plaintiffs seem to attribute to me and my book all of their pain, as if said disappearance, followed by their arguido status and other circumstances that surround the case, were of no importance, or weren’t more than enough!

    Unfortunately, due to clearly dilatory manoeuvres from the plaintiffs, that have once more forced a postponement of the hearing, I am afraid that the trial will drag on – as they clearly wish – and we won’t have a sentence soon, as I wish would happen, and as I long for. Furthermore, the judicial holidays have already started and, as the Illustrious Judge explained, with the new judiciary organisation coming into force on the 1st of September, the process’ slowness will be considerably increased.

    However, my trust in Portuguese justice remains steadfast.

    All that is left for me is to recognise and thank you for all the support that I have received, from all those that believe in justice and in truth, without which it would have been impossible for me to fight this lawsuit. Or to lead me to ponder, as I do, to file a lawsuit against the McCann couple and others, in order to be compensated for the enormous damages that they have caused me already, on all levels, such as moral, professional and financial.

    The time to judicially react to all those who have put my privacy, my intimacy, my freedom of expression and opinion, and my survival conditions at stake is approaching.

    They have tried to assassinate me civilly, but due to the support and solidarity of all of you, they were not successful.

    Thank you very much,

    Lisboa July 21st, 2014

    Gonçalo Amaral”

  32. 382
    Chris Says:

    Here is an interesting comment from above:-

    “The time to judicially react to all those who have put my privacy, my intimacy, my freedom of expression and opinion, and my survival conditions at stake is approaching.”

    New lawyers, new approach, maybe no win no fee. Has my full support. Would shut the McCanns up, then again ………….. would that be a good idea?

  33. 383
    Chris Says:

    This is the link referred to in Gonçalo Amaral’s letter above

    jga.blogspot.com/2014/07/aphttp://ppelate-court-of-lisbon-decision-about.html

    This is decision in 2010:-

    III – Decision

    In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

    The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

    Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

    Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children].

    Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

    The Appellate Court Judges,

    Francisco Bruto da Costa

    Catarina Arelo Manso

    Antonio Valente

    I cannot see how the McCanns expect a different verdict.

  34. 384
    G1 Says:

    I’ll have a go at the legal meanings of the trial in a bit, but one important thing is, even if Amaral might be found against in the case, he ought not to be in any position of fear regarding his financial position.

    Amaral’s letter, the sum of everything in it, shows he is in a good position, much better than I thought, to be successful in court.

    “Concerning the book’s lawfulness, I suggest to anyone who has doubts to read the Lisbon Appellate Court’s decision within the injunction that preceded the current action. The truth is that for the Appellate Court’s Illustrious Judges, as can be concluded from that decision, the lawfulness of the book’s publication is indisputable.

    With proof of the lawfulness of the book, the matter should rest here, without the need to investigate anything further, namely concerning the damages that the plaintiffs complain about.”


    To me, this means, even if there were a ruling against Amaral, he should not be compelled to pay any damages. He should also have his fees, costs and damages for hardship from the McCanns’ legal pursual, including loss of income potential, paid to him. This would be paid by the state, if he loses, and maybe paid by the state if he wins, if the McCanns might be thought to have a good point, worth challenging, so might or might not have to pay fees / damages if they lose.

    It could not be right for a court to hold that the man could not rely on the prior court’s decision, even if they decided freshly that, in law, what he did is not sanctioned. This would seem to breach fundamental human rights, and whatever the court verdict, if Amaral would be told to pay damages and costs, that should be appealed in a higher European court.

    It’s a very important legal area indeed, though.

    Amaral is distinguished from other people the McCanns sued or threatened to sue because, obviously, in theory, a person can feel it important to query how right and acceptable it is for someone to make firm, ongoing acusations about others from official work done as a police officer. (And to make money pesonally from that)

    The question is always there, shouldn’t that information be confidential? If the state prosecutes a one time suspect, the state prosecutes. But if not, and a policeman personally pursues the subject, making his own public arena, can’t ongoing public accusation breach a fundamental human right to be assumed not guilty of an offence unless proven guilty? The state isn’t saying the McCanns committed an offence. But should officers or former officers of the state, using their privileged, official position or former position (including official information), be allowed personally to pursue ongoing, firm accusations of guilt against the legal right to be publicly assumed not guilty unless convicted?

    On the other hand, the other consideration is at least as important or more important here. Theorrtically, a police investigation appears unusually and suspiciously stalled to an involved or once involed officer. In this theory, he or she understands there is vrry good reason, with evidence, to continue and very probably prosecute. But that route is unusually and suspiciously declined by the autborities. It’s a very special situation in law, always. And it is right that in such cases his right to open, free, public speech about this (such as through the media, or whatever appropriate waya are open to him) will be something he can clearly rely upon in law? (Otherwise, in a legal system there can be easy systematic abuse of power, the law and the authorities may not be clear, open and transparent, and the rule of law itself may be invalidated.)

    Thinking about it, I think the need for free speech by persons about legal systems and cases and details is much, much more important.

    (The countless organised paedophile cases in the press now, involving public authority figures from wardens up to councillors through to police and politicians have proved this and have shown its great importance. Where “the word” is given by a higher command not to make or proceed with a police case, or events are hidden altogether, there MUST be an inalienable right for present or past members of the authorities, police included, to freely express their experiences and opinions, including their knowledge, as relevant.)

    Personally, I think defamation should be limited to cases of intentionally hurting or harming people with no related, genuine, subjective, understandable reasons. Therefore, I suppose, that Amaral would have done nothing wrong in the general way of his intentions.

    Though Amaral might not have been so thoughtful in how he has chosen to express his concerns, I don’t know.

    In ay case, I think it couldn’t be acceptable for damages against him to be found in the light of his right to be able to rely on the former court’s advice.

    Yes, the right to freedom of expression where someone is not representing the state’s opinions is a lot more important than that he may be thoughg interfering with others’ right to be assumed not guilty unless convicted. All Amaral is doing is making personal claims, at the end of the day. He was never speaking for the state after he was released from his position. Of course – they made sure of that.

    Personally, I think Amaral’s theory that Madeleine was killed in the apartment, involving the parents, are wrong. (Which is not saying that I think the McCqnns have been telling the truth, necessarily, I don’t know.). But I think his situation, a really important one which a proper legal system needs to recognise, means he has the right to make that theory, legally. And I do see the distress it can cause, but he is a human being and can make theories, I suppose. So, earlier I said “accusations”. Maybe the semantics of this is what the whole court case will boil down to. I also said Amaral has not been subtle or overly thoughtful in his presentation of things. Everything may rest on that.

  35. 385
    G1 Says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2707366/Former-Portuguese-policeman-sued-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-claiming-faked-abduction-planning-sue-BACK.html

  36. 386
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi,

    From your link:-

    Former Portuguese policeman being sued by Madeleine McCann’s parents for claiming they faked her abduction is planning to sue them BACK

    ………………………….

    No win no fee, sounds good to me!!

  37. 387
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chria. It’s gone really messy, but I guess it always was for Amaral, and also, if the McCanns are innocent, for them. It’s just a really sad situation.

    Amaral is kind of much more ruined, though, in terms of his financial and related parts of his personal life. The McCanns don’t have that part. Whether suffering undue emotional distress or not, it seems they’re in solid positions otherwise. I thought it was likely Amaral would counter-sue. I expected it. It makes sense, probably, for someone in his position who thinks he understands the law based on advice, research and the existing court judgement.

    Defamation can be very often a really troubling, perplexing area of law anyway, which can heinously wipe out normal, free speech of the most basic, necessary part of the human right.

    (Look at Judge Tugendhat’s decision about Sally Bercow I wrote about above last year. People were talking on Twitter, Bercow asked why they were talking about someone, Alistair McAlpine, because Twitter listed the name as “trending”. Tugendhat ordered a new law saying, somehow, that very question itself was a repetition of the BBC’s suggested defamation of McAlpine, and as bad as making allegations against him. Even though the BBC were never sued. Tugendhat is, on the face of it, wildly insane, but happens to be a high court judge, unfortunately.)

    But this is a troubling, duel like situation. It’s a shame.

    There are 2 serious considerations in the Amaral McCann case, though, very important ones, which I went on about above. I think the Portuguese legal system is probably much better than ours, though. I may not have much hope of British authorities making anything sensible out of the situation anymore. This place is a madhouse, legally, I find rather consistently.

    So, perhaps the cases are being decided in the best place. But I guess this may be going to last a few years.

    The article says about the McCanns:

    “If successful, the family stand to gain around £1million in damages. A judgment is not expected in the trial until later this year.”

    I don’t know how, I don’t think Amaral has that kind of money. The McCanns may want to show a suing for principle more than damages picture though, like they did to Tony Bennett. But, crucially, only on condition the financially crippled man relinquish his human and legal right to appeal the decision. But he was also emotionally rather crippled by that time, I think. And anyway Bennet didn’t think he had the financial option anymore after the McCanns got him into a corner with the terrifying, draconian dragon Tugendhat and threatening him severely not to use his right to appeal. (Amaral is learning from the McCanns past tactics, setting up to counter-sue in advance.)

    I’m so disgusted and appalled our country can allow people to do that to others, the Bennett tactics. It is to “use”, manhandle, play games with the legal system like wary vultures, interfering with such a basic legal right which defines the legal process.

    “No win no fee, sounds good to me!!”

    Is that the legal deal which Amaral has, Chris?

  38. 388
    Liz Y Says:

    Gi, Post 368, Absolutely agree on every point.

  39. 389
    Chris Says:

    Hi All,

    This is certainly worth watching. I’m afraid it’s about 4 hours in total.

    Forgive the adverts at the begining. Wait a minute or so and the films will start.

    The presenter has gone to a lot of trouble.

    http://blip.tv/richplanet/buried-by-mainstream-media-the-true-story-of-madeleine-mccann-part-1-6997432

    http://blip.tv/richplanet/buried-by-mainstream-media-the-true-story-of-madeleine-mccann-part-2-6997459

    http://blip.tv/richplanet/buried-by-mainstream-media-the-true-story-of-madeleine-mccann-part-3-6997478its

    http://blip.tv/richplanet/buried-by-mainstream-media-the-true-story-of-madeleine-mccann-part-4-6997508

    Each part is around 1 hour.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] Show All

Leave a Reply

*

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.