The 48 questions that remained unanswered

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.

425 Responses to “The 48 questions that remained unanswered”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 » Show All

  1. 201
    Chris Says:

    Anyone know where this has gone?


    I had the sense to copy it into word so have the complete version in English in one document. It was FREE.

  2. 202
    G1 Says:

    Thanks. Chris, for reminding that the book is available free online. I’d come across that before some time ago, was surprised as I’d expected I’d need to be paying when ordering, and then forgot to return to it. Now I can continue reading it.

    Wherever your link was – maybe where G. Amaral published the book online – it’s available here anyway. It may be available in a number of places in The Web, this was the top Google search result I found:

  3. 203
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    If you follow your link where is the English free version? It’s not showing for me anymore. You can buy a Portuguese or German copy. Looks to me it’s been ‘got at’.

    As I say I have the full version in MS word.

  4. 204
    Chris Says:

    Went in under Firefox and the book is there on the front page – ta

  5. 205
    Taytocrisp Says:

    Look Its quite normal for British parents to give their children sleeping drugs and go out to dinner out of sight and earshot. It is also quite normal for British parents to protect themselves by hiring a high profile legal team. British rights are paramount when questioned by any investigative authority so questions do not have to be answered., Finally its quite normal to have an official investigation closed down in favor of a private one that produces the answer that the parents want to see.
    Another well known fact is that he British cadaver scent dogs are notoriously unreliable only indicating when their handler tells them to. The phrase “we’ve let her down” is in common use in British families where a child goes missing. The only possible reason for a previously highly respected police officer to write a book of lies is to make money. So please will the great American people try to understand British customs and culture, all examples found in Kate McCanns book Madeline.

  6. 206
    G1 Says:

    “Look Its quite normal for British parents to give their children sleeping drugs and go out to dinner out of sight and earshot.” (Taytocrisp)

    That might seem rather “normal” to you, but it seems that what you are saying is not legal if the children in question are the ages the three McCann children were in Spring 2007.

    I’m not saying that the McCanns’ behaviour itself is illegal – I might be sent to prison for suggesting that now. But anyone who is not checking every 15, 20, or 30 minutes or more often and genuinely & reasonably thinks they are in good site of the childrens’ position and that it is also a secure place, is very likely indeed to be breaking the law.

    Just going “out to dinner”? Like that? “Normal”? With children not much older than babies?

    Oh dear. You’re not in the real world. The only exception would be dinner in a neighbours’ house, with working baby monitor equipment, and / or frequent checks.

    The British social services seem to have accepted that the McCanns differentiated their position from what Taytocrisp seems to think is a “quite normal”, and illegal position: because of the couple’s claimed belief in their view of the holiday flat and the whole team’s alleged regular checkups.

    There are 2 things to note:

    1. As I’ve said without those things, and without missing a single checkup on time, the McCanns would have been breaking British laws. Anyone doing what you’re suggesting, Taytocrips, without the checks every 20 to 30 minutes or less would be acting unacceptably in law, and even then, it is not possible to make a statement saying that making such checks when leaving the property (and leaving it open) would guarantee legally acceptable behaviour. Not at all.

    2. We didn’t really know in 2007 if the McCanns’ activities were legal or not. The social services merely decided not to press with a charge against them. Without a court decision, it was only possible to guess at if the McCanns acted legally or not. Many, many people think they did not.

    3. There are clearly things worrying about the McCanns’ reputed acts in respect of child responsibility. The most striking of these is that they seem to have left both doors open on a street corner, easy ground access unit. The glass, sliding doors – completely unlocked and maybe not even fully closed. And they seem to have stated that the front door was left open also.

    This is NOT leaving children just older than babies securely. How can you make the mistake that it was?

    They can NOT have been watching the glass doors all of the time, and in fact the view was quite remote, despite their “back yard dining” claims, and hampered by vegetation, later cleared.

    It is a very natural thing to suggest that it seems likely that, despite the social services not making a charge, their reputed child reponsibility acts easily may have fallen short of legal requirements. Consider the child minding options open to them (which they claimed was one major reason they chose the resort in the first place – apparently). Consider that the couple’s companions were using child monitoring equipment, and so the couple were made aware of the importance of this kind of thing, but they chose not to, leaving the very young children a couple of yards from a street, with large glass doors. THEY DIDN’T EVEN LOCK THE DOORS AFTER SOME TIME, THEY CLAIM – if you believe them. (We don’t know what this means, if they even had to claim that because of lack of other options. Their story changed. We don’t know.)

    Taytocrisp, if your statment about the McCanns’ reputed child minding acts was made to suggest they did nothing abnormal (but you seem to think illegal can be normal, generally) and that Tony Bennet had no grounds to challenge it, you are wrong. There are very good grounds to suggest that the McCanns easily may not have acted legally. That the Social Services did not take action can just suggest sympathy for a mistake in circumstances where, whatever happened, their daughted has gone from them. It is any person’s right to petition to have such a question examined in a court, as Tony Bennet has done.

    ” It is also quite normal for British parents to protect themselves by hiring a high profile legal team. ” (Taytocrisp)

    Normal for anyone to hire a respected legal team in a certain field. Innocent people set upon wrongly, train robbers, murderers, satanic ring members, etc. etc. It means nothing in itself.

    I don’t think it is quite normal for British parents to hire “high profile” legal teams – for example THE most expensive legal teams in their fields in the whole of the UK. It’s something at least a bit unusual – a fact – perhaps nothing that means anything in itself, perhaps something that does. But it is at least a bit unusual. Why pretend something unusual is totally normal?

    “The only possible reason for a previously highly respected police officer to write a book of lies is to make money. ” (Taytocrisp)

    Taytocrisp, you’ve decided to post that bit of nonsense directly after a bit of discussion which points out that Mr Amaral had published online his book for anyone to read for free. I’ve heard him say he’d rather anyone could access it, rather it be read, than the preventitive effect of ordering by post and paying online.

    You think Mr. Amaral was waiting to pounce upon some unsuspecting couple to earn money off them? His book only reports his professional findings and opinions continued as from when he was the man in charge of the police investigation. He’d have to have been cowering, ready to ambush unsuspecting British couples in advance, ready to get sacked, ready to lose his job with the plan to publish a book in a get rich quick scheme, according to your belief.

  7. 207
    G1 Says:

    … It’s hard not to wonder if you’re being sarcastic in your comment, Taytocrisp, and making fun of the notions you state, in the context of the McCanns and the missing little girl.

    Where’s the evidence for the “notorious” cadaver scent dog errors, indicating upon command?
    Just how regular is it for parents of missing British children to say “We let him / her down”? Yes, I’ve heard it before, once or twice in the last couple of decades, no more. It’s quite weird to point out that there can be a kind of “marked” or “standard” thing to say. Perhpas it’s significant.

  8. 208
    Chris Says:


    I think you totally misunderstand ‘Spud’. It a clever view of exactly what has gone on.

    I would like to add to his comments that it is typically British to get the publicity seeking Government to exonerate you, particularly of neglect, and then spend £10m of the taxpayers money susposedly investigating the case without properly investigating the prime suspects.

  9. 209
    Mum Says:

    Imagine the scene. Child accidentally dies, and there will be drugs found in the bloodstream, as in the bloodstream of the other twins. Father sits upset wife down. Yes, it’s sad to lose child, but if we tell the truth about this, we lose the other two children, we lose our two jobs, and we lose our home. We lose everything. We will only triple the pain on everyone. Father thinks up Plan B (he’s a cold customer, and being a doctor is used to death). Mum doesn’t think she can hack it, but goes along with it, because he says it’ll be alright. The friends go along with the story, because some of them have used the same drugs on their kids, and they don’t want to lose their jobs or kids either. Our only hope is that when the twins grow up, that Mum will split up with hardman Dad, and tell all to the papers. Why do you think she asked the Pope to bless the bible a short time after her child died? A committed Catholic, it was the only thing that touched the body and was as close as a priest’s blessing as she could get. Do you know what summed it up for me – what Mother, grieving for your lost child, would go jogging “to clear my head” with hubbie with matching hair woggle and Tshirt (that was the absolute clincher), when your child is likely to be being savaged by some killer somewhere….. I hope she owns up sometime, but Dad definitely won’t.

  10. 210
    G1 Says:

    No, I don’t really understand, Chris.

    Unless you were letting me know’Spud’ was being sarcastic – which he may well have been – I can’t agree with ‘Spud’. obviously. Because those who speak loudly to try to “defend” the McCanns generally are much more subtle that he is being, rather than blaringly obvious about a few things which DO suggest a few basic elements of abnormality in the affair.

    But, as there have been prominent McCann supporters, it’s not evident to conclude Taytocrisp is either being sarcastic and showing up strange elements. Or, somehow, genuinely suggesting the McCanns are typical and normal with those words.

    I don’t think it’s really nice or helpful to bring everyone down as well – a typically ‘British’ thing. It’s normal for every country to have particular elements in society – the world is just like that. Yes, in the UK certain elements often seem kind of louder and more staunchly kind of proud and “in your face” and shameless about it – you might say “very hard” (“or very hard indeed”). In the UK it can seem these elements have thought of everything to confuse and stun and fob you off before anyone with any humanity could ever have got there (while you find this elsewhere, too). But there can be few differences between this country and others when it comes to certain elements of society.

    Also – the kind of thing you mention, Chris, is what anyone would be doing in the circumstances – guilty of something or not guilty. Those are the natural routes, routes which anyone would go down, again, guilty of something or not guilty. That is, apart from the abnormal elements – the highest charging solicitors in that area in the country with some of the highest charging lawyers in Europe; instantly when their daughter disappears focussing on lawyers concerned with extradition etc.

  11. 211
    G1 Says:

    209 – ‘Mum’

    I don’t want to force my view upon you or others, but I think it’s a good idea for me to suggest you have a rethink about the ‘accidental’ death involving drugs alone view. It seems not really feasible at all, for one thing judging by how the couple have acted since the disappearance. I’ve written a lot about this – very long coments before in the comments to this article (also ‘The Truth of the Lie’ and others).

    If you can cope with such long comments, have a read. Because I really feel the accidental death scenario that unfortunately Mr. Amaral went with is a real red herring (and perhaps only because of lack of evidence making conviction of the couple for other involvement too unlikely). While, it can seem that it is maybe not as likely that it’s an accident that it hangs about so much. (People often have blind, over-sympathetic emotions to situations they have no involvement in.)

    Discrepancies in early statements were made which, it is known, can have helped the accidental death scenario come about. I think, yes, this is how it arose – pretty early, in the media and in many people who suspected the McCanns of involvement. Many people suspected them, and certain early elements in the investigation and strange acts by the McCanns meant that many of those people put their suspicions down to accidental death. Whatever happened to the little girl, Madeleine McCann, everything says to me that accident is by far the most unlikely situation and quite an outlandish one, considering everything.

  12. 212
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    Spud I read as being Tongue in Cheek. He claims to be American (I think). So a question for him what would America do to the McCanns?

    As for Mum, I am not sure why you are so convinced it was not an accident followed by a cover up.

    I’m sure Spud would say ‘ask the dogs’. Now that is tongue in cheek from me.

  13. 213
    G1 Says:

    I’ll never forget the tone of voice those very words were “spoken” in (more shouted, agressively crowed or barked, actually might be a more appropriate term for the holder of these ears), by Gerry McCann himself, “Ask the dogs, Sandra.”

    Chris, if the “not an accident” part is meant for me, I’ve written SO much here about that. If you’ve read a lot of the comments of the last 6 months or so in the more popular articles on this site, you can’t have missed it. Have a look, if you have.

  14. 214
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    ok re ‘not an accident’. Which of your posts – they are all numbered – best explains your theory?

  15. 215
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris.

    Hmmm! I don’t know.

    I think I’ve read that you’ve at least skimmed through the many paragraphs I wrote about that before. I see I linked for you before, but it was, is (and will be) a lot to read!!! Yes, I know. It’s a bit more intense and maybe emotionally written than I’d prefer. It came just when I was seeing strongly how unlikely the strangely hovering ‘accident’ scenario actually is, how it doesn’t seem to be able to placed with everything else, how it is so out of place, if you take time to think.

    If you mean I should link to this for other people, you’re right (thanks). Because I couldn’t keep on repeating this. And no-one needs to repeat anything here. I can repeat a simple link for people who want to consider my theory – that the supposed death of the little girl could not have been an accident by her parents.

    I really went on about this, because I feel the accident theories amount to kind of like a veil that has settled, found its way somehow to covering over normal, accurate and sensible thinking here.

    Many people seem to be convered by it, and I felt it too before I really started thinking about things. It’s natural – you think ‘I don’t know’, and the kind of child abuse or sect worship / torture thing is so divorced from most peoples’ lives and so terribly hard for people to deal with, even just to place in your mind for a brief moment. When you connect this possibility with what would seem then very, very brazen people indeed on the screen, in newspapers, it can be natural that the ‘accident veil’ remains strong. The more disgusting theories are, yes, very hard to take.

    My thoughts are at:

    “The Facts v The Fiction” – posts 98 to 102

    I know it’s so much to read, so probably the first post is the best place to read. (I think, I may change this. For now, it’s good. I think I’ve also written more in comments for another article in this site, but I can’t find them at the moment.)

  16. 216
    G1 Says:

    … I want to be clear, my thoughts that the accidental death covered up scenario is too unlikely is unconnected to any further theories. This theory doesn’t suggest any guilt by, or that there was no guilt by, Gerry & Kate McCann in itself, or what anyone was or wasn’t involved in. Or could be or couldn’t be involved in. It just says – it seems too unlikely that there was an honest accident, even an accident involving some negligence, covered up. It’s important to get that clear. It doesn’t in itself suggest anything else, just that there was no honest accident. It does not consider who was responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, how it happened, or reasons why.

    I think I may have said everything I could about the case of the disappeared young girl from England in Portugal.

    Maybe I’ll post again though, I don’t know.

    Just a last note – latest news reports that the British investigation is looking for 6 to 8 British cleaners associated with a white van in Praia da Luz during the time of the disappearance. The news articles report it’s thought they were cleaners for the Ocean Club itself, but haven’t been tracked down or identified, and would become suspects if they couldn’t be found.

    I found this a bit surprising. Nearly 6 years later, the people reported 6 years ago by some people as British workers seen in a white van (as I’d read in newspapers back then), thought to work for the hotel itself, haven’t been identified by either investigation. (The articles seem to say this is leaked rather than official investigation information). The situation can seem like something strange, like a cursed kind of enterprise.

    One article:

  17. 217
    Chris Says:

    From the papers today:-

    Scotland Yard has identified several people who may be “of interest” in the case of Madeleine McCann, who was abducted in Portugal in 2007.

    Investigators conducting a review have drawn up a list of people who could be properly explored if the Portuguese authorities re-opened the case.

    Detective chief superintendent Hamish Campbell, head of Scotland Yard’s homicide and serious crime command, said there were a “good number” of individuals who should be questioned.

    So £5m/£6m down the drain and where are we? The Portuguese are not interested no wonder – they know who did it.

  18. 218
    Liz Y Says:

    I knew from the very beginning that this would be a whitewash, the ‘good number’ of inviduals who should have been questioned are the McCanns themselves, and their strange companions. When The Met. didn’t START by questioning them seperately, I knew it wasn’t going anywhere. I am certain the McCanns wanted an out and the situation now will be ‘Well The Met have proved us innocent’ As you say Chris £5/£6m down the drain and nothing. I am heartened by the fact that Yahoo are allowing anti McCann comments on their news pages, and to see that the anti-McCann comments are scoring far more ticks than the sentimental ‘Don’t you think they’ve suffered enough’ brigade So Gerry and Kate, far from being a few evil, dangerous people on the internet (Kate’s words) there are obviously more of us than you think, or want to admit to. I fervently hope that justice will prevail and these awful people will get their just rewards. Meanwhile I’ll just keep popping in.

  19. 219
    G1 Says:

    A follow up to my comments, numbers 186-189 (on the previous page of comments to this article, p4).
    Those comments are about the court decision against Tony Bennett earlier in 2013.

    The judge in the recent Tony Bennett trial, who declared Mr Bennett guilty of contempt of court for breaching an order about what may not be said about the McCann couple, was Judge Tugendhat.

    Tugendhat has very recently concluded in the Sally Bercow libel affair that Ms Bercow was guilty of defamation against Colin McAlpine for publishing (in Twitter), “Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*.” This “tweet” came just after the BBC’s program accusing a man who had been a senior Conservative politician in a sexual abuse situation, but not naming McAlpine.

    Again, I find Tugendhat’s reasoning completely bewildering. Earlier in my life, I have learned at a law college in England and therefore studied the law of defamation and general civil law liabilities and duties. I just cannot see at all how Tugendhat can make guilt from those few words of Ms Bercow.

    Tugendhat makes huge leaps of personal assumptions (and new definitions of legal and actual, social meaning) that I would or could never, ever make myself. These are very strange assumptions which I think the ordinary person could never make, and I’d imagined the law could never, ever make. I find it very frightening.

    Re. “Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*.”
    To quote the BBC:

    “After publishing her comment about Lord McAlpine, Mrs Bercow apologised in four subsequent tweets but denied that her original tweet had been defamatory.

    Mr Justice Tugendhat dismissed Mrs Bercow’s argument that the question she had posed was entirely neutral.

    Her inclusion of the words “innocent face” revealed that the question was “ironical”, the judge ruled.

    The tweet therefore amounted to an accusation that the Conservative peer was a “paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care”. ”

    That is wild.

    The BBC interpret “Justice Tugendhat’s reasoning” (BBC’s words):

    “[Ms. Bercow’s] inclusion of the phrase *innocent face* told readers that she was being “insincere and ironical”, not asking a straightforward question as she had argued.

    It was therefore reasonable to infer that she meant Lord McAlpine was “trending because he fits the description of the unnamed abuser”.

    The tweet was therefore, by implication, a repetition of the accusations of sexual abuse broadcast on Newsnight.

    Due to “repetition rule” in law, Mrs Bercow is treated as if she had made the original allegations herself, but with the addition of Lord McAlpine’s name.

    The tweet therefore amounted to an accusation that the Conservative peer was a “paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care”. ”

    It’s wild.

    Tudendhat is able to lay down that the words “innocent face” meant by the very fact of their use, the very opposite of what “innocent face” honestly denotes, and hence that someone can be convicted on this basis.

    Very, very Kafka indeed. It’s really, really scary.

    “Mrs Bercow said she had learned her lesson “the hard way”, adding that the ruling should be seen as “a warning to all social media users” because comments could sometimes be “held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intend them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation”.

    Again, Tudgendhat is the man responsible for the case with the verdict against Tony Bennett, a case which I could not understand in comprehensible legal terms either. That verdict appeared to me to issue new laws as regard what a UK citizen can and can’t say or write to other people.

  20. 220
    G1 Says:

    [ … Sorry. I see I’d mistakenly written Colin McAlpine in the last comment. The man who sued Ms. Bercow is Alistair McAlpine.]

  21. 221
    Chris Says:

    Today ……Madeleine McCann News: ‘Weird Stranger Seen Lurking Near Apartments A Day Before Disappearance’

    How long do we have to put up with this rubbish.

    Liz keep smiling

  22. 222
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Chris, Sadly it wasn’t the weird stranger that Madeleine had to fear, it was her even more weird, slimy family and friends. How long do we have to put up with this….. as long as it takes!! I will try to keep smiling, very difficult to do so when thinking of Madeleine.

  23. 223
    chris Says:

    Hi liz,

    The more I think about this Madeleine’s body has either been cremated or subjected to an acid type bath. Both parents are Doctors so they know exactly how to dispose of unretraceable remains.

    As I have said before my father a Dr. mother a nurse. Dad was very impressed with Worthing Crem. one of his responsibilities, many years back, and is where he chose to depart.

    So the McCann charades, has a long way to go yet. There will be no body………..

  24. 224
    Liz Y Says:

    You’re right Chris, for me, the McCann’s confident demeanour is evidence that Madeleine’s remains, in whatever form, will never ever see the light of day. Bastards!!

  25. 225
    G1 Says:

    I’m writing something as follow up to my comments about the court libel convictions against Mr Tony Bennett

    (see my comments numbered 186-189, on the previous page of comments to this article, page 4,
    and also my comment 219, 6 comments above this).

    Tony Bennett was ordered to pay damages in two cases, £52,713 in favour of Mr Edward Smethurst, and £370,000 in favour of Gerry and Kate McCann. (A total of £422,713, going near to half a million pounds, but with thousands of pounds more for legal fees and expenses.)

    I’ve said previously how I can’t make sense of Justice Tugendhat’s decision in the McCann case (similar to another seemingly nonsensical decision in an unrelated case by the same man against Ms. Bercow in favour Alistair McAlpine.)

    I report from The Campaign from the committee of The Campaign for Opressed Libel Defendants (COLD 2012 – ) Tony Bennett has accepted an purposive offer by both parties, after negotiation. The demands to pay upon Mr Bennett in “both these costs have been reduced substantially, by 93% in the McCann case and 86% in the Smethurst case.”

    The specific and very, very significant demands upon Mr Bennett within what became agreed clearly highlight the desperate position he was in. Mr Bennett has outlined how his financial position falls remarkably short of being able to cope with the McCann’s original demands of payment by going through the court system.

    It is Mr Bennett’s legal right to lodge and have heard an appeal hearing to the decided McCann’s case against him, and indeed, Mr Bennett had had his papers lodged for the appeal to come.

    An appeal hearing would have happened, it seems. However, it seems Mr Bennett was faced with demands from the McCanns in their negotiations, enabling Mr Bennett a vastly lower amount to pay (the 93% reduction) on the McCanns’ conditions:

    1. That Mr Bennett withdraw the request he has made to the court for a court decision on whether 3 of the 16 undertakings he gave to the High Court in 2009 be allowed to be varied.

    2. Most significantly, that Mr Bennett DOES NOT make an appeal hearing against the recently decided case brought by the McCanns which was decided by Justice Tugendhat.

    As Mr Bennett’s appeal papers had been lodged and accepted already, for the 93% reduction in what Mr Bennett would be forced to pay it has been required by Kate and Gerry McCann that Mr Bennett withdraw that legal appeal application. The McCanns further require Mr Bennett commits by agreement to a position of never making a further appeal to a court.

    I know, or believe (as very often the party with the advantageous position in such a situation demands the other party is forbidden from telling about it) that this kind of agreement as to court proceedings, including that one party is forbidden to take the natural court action, occurs not so infrequently. I believe that it is something to be found.

    However, I’ve always thought it to be wrong, to forbid a court action by a person or party, for any reason, to mandate that the party must agree to that in order to receive a benefit they may need.

    The situation always seemed to be something similar to, if it did not actually amount to, the crime of blackmail.

    Blackmail means demanding something unwarranted with menaces to make a gain or cause a loss for someone else, or both. Menaces in law means a threat, which may, in the least sense, mean any vague threat to cause “something bad” to happen to some other person, except when certain demands are met. The law of Blackmail has been developed incorporating that even vague threats of “bad things” should not be able to affect the mind of an ordinary person.

    It seems clear that the law would not include in what could be a blackmail threat the conditionaly offer remove a huge debt that the other party has been made to pay by a court of law of the same country.

    So, of course, no blackmail, by law.

    But, for one thing, I have always felt this was quite close at least to that criminal situation.
    And secondly, when a party makes an offer after a legal demand of a large amount of money from another who does not have that amount of money, saying that the other need not pay what he can’t afford, if he foregoes his legal right to a court hearing, does not seem right to me.

    It has been recorded in the past that blackmail in English Law can typically come about when someone is attempting to deprive another person of a benefit or normal part of life which they can be assumed to have as of right. While that is what is happening here, where someone is being deprived of their legal right to simply have a case and decision examined, as the law sets out is standard and available. Again, it seems that the law is not really going to conclude that one party offering the other party that they don’t have to pay what they can’t pay, if they forego their citizen’s right to a court hearing, could be menaces (as the court issued the payment demand anyway).

    So, this is kind of agreement which the McCanns demonstrate here could not be blackmail on the evidence. I wasn’t suggesting it was, but, this kind of thing always seemed to be, at least not distant from the waters of wrong and untenable behaviour which ought to have criminal sanction against it. I’ll try to explain why.

    I have long thought that the law should never allow someone in such an inferior and desperate position to be preyed upon in the respect that his legal right to have a court case looked over once more is relinquished because of desperation. How frequently are first instance cases overturned – not infrequently, appeals are a benchmark, an inextricable part of the fairness of the legal system? Without the appeals procedure, and based upon the quite frequently occurring evidence of appeals being successful for a plaintiff, many would claim there is not a fair or acceptable legal system.

    This would mean that the opportunity of one party to be able, legally, to manipulate another person in a desperate position with the removal of that person’s ability for a normal, appeal hearing (legally available to any citizen) to be brought – TAKES that person OUTSIDE OF the standard, FAIR and ACCEPTABLE and COMPLETE legal system. The court system does not exist without only first instance trials, without access to appeal hearings. There is no such court or legal system here. I don’t know where there is such a system, but here it has been decided that that would not equate with, not just a fair legal system, but a legal system.

    It seems to me that no-one should have the ability or opportunity to do this to another person, in this case involving Kate and Gerry McCann, or any other case.

    It seems to me that it ought to be criminally prohibited.

    It seems to me that, by all means, parties should be able to negotiate as they wish, before and after court decisions. But that the law ought to enforce that any private agreement reached between two parties to an court action, be made with the provision of having to be subject to what may occur upon the appeal decision, if applied for. And that any agreement between parties CAN NOT exclude the right of any party to go through the full court process. For the presence of the appeal option, if taken or being decided to be taken, means the full court process would be interrupted.

    An appeal hearing is different to a first instance hearing. The court action has already been brought, but can be considered not concluded where one party sees the relevance of appealing, and indeed lodges an appeal.

    I feel that people can be allowed to agree between themselves, rather than choosing to go to court in the first instance. After that, where one party seems to be have been successful yet the legal action has not really finished because an appeal is pending or to be pending, yet that party seems to have the other “over a barrel”, they ought not be allowed to offer based upon condition of the other must withdraw appeal.

    It may be that (again, beyond what I, personally, could see as sensible or even imaginable, I believe) an appeal court would still find for the McCanns and such a high amount of money to be payable to them.

    However, it ought not to be possible in any event, ever, for the party who becomes in a desperate position after the first instance decision, to find themselves too afraid or desperate to exercise a legal right to appeal. Because of an offer made by the party who has been awarded damages during only part of the full legal system process.

  26. 226
    G1 Says:

    The web link in the last comment to the Campaign for Oppressed Libel Defendants should have read:

    The news about the agreement administered by the McCanns with Tony Bennett is currently given on this page (I don’t know how long it will stay there):

  27. 227
    G1 Says:

    To wind up about this – something I feel very strongly about, something I feel should be realised generally by the courts in this country – just some words for Mr Bennett.

    I am very sorry he has been subject to all of this in the courts. I am very sorry then he has been put in a position, after years of distress and financial burden, where it seemed beyond a chance too far for him to go with the full court process and taken his appeal hearing, and felt he had to accept the McCann’s offer for a reduction in damages payable.

    Finally, I am very pleased for Mr Bennett personally, that he is not subject to such a huge demand for money, of coming up to a half a millions pounds (when considerable amounts from the legal actions have already been paid by Mr Bennett). Of course I see rightly the wisdom in his choice in the circumstances. Especially where, in the harsh way the world can be, there may not have seemed any choice, practically. His choice seems to have been the most sensible, and I am very pleased for this retired man who has done so much, that things have worked out such that his future personal life will not suffer complete financial ruin.

    Mr Bennett did all that he could, and it is harsh to hear of what he has been subject to, especially as of the part in his belief he had been complying with what the law allows and suggests for as a citizen, to inquire as of the potentially negligent acts of parents upon children in their care.

    The concerned Mr Bennett believed as his legally sponsored and seemingly encouraged right to inquire into the very most high profile acts by parents regarding their children, which must seem as examples to British persons and further afield. Subsequently, Mr Bennett found the law wished to stop him in this concern, ending up that he was ordered to pay a huge sum of money and then found it seemed clear he was not able to continue to completion of a full, standard legal process.

    You can still support retired Mr Bennett in the thousands of pounds he has to pay through the COLD 2012 web link given. The organisation states that if it would get donations of help above the amount that Mr Bennett would have to pay, their general concern of libel defendants in bad positions will still be maintained by the donations.

  28. 228
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    From your link I found this:-

    “According to evidence at the Leveson enquiry, Mr Cameron was ‘bounced’ into setting up a £3½ million ‘review’ into the disappearance of Madeleine by former CEO of News International, Rebekah Brooks. She threatened Cameron with ‘a week of negative headlines’ about his Home Secretary, Theresa May. The review, headed by D.C.I. Andy Redwood, has been widely criticised and now lacks credibility. Redwood appeared on TV to coincide with the publication of the paperback edition of Dr Kate McCann’s book, ‘madeleine’. His ineffective performance and claims that his ‘review’ could go on for years, costing millions more, have led some to suggest that Redwood and his team of near-retirement-age detectives are not looking at all the available evidence and are biased in favour of the abduction theory.”

    If it is true and I have no way to prove it, then it STINKS. Just confirms my suspecisions.

  29. 229
    G1 Says:

    Mr Bennett explains everything in his

    “Additional Statement from Tony, 3 May 2013”

    which is someway down this webpage (JillHavern Forumotion)

    It shows the sad state of affairs which has been brought about by attempts to stop people asking what can be right and what ought not to be right, in fact involving the courts.

    I have mentioned that “the law” ought not to allow persons who appear to have gained a huge (or indeed any) position of advantage by the end of a first instance trial, to use their position unfairly. This means to use their new position against the other party at their time of apparent desperation by being allowed to act to bring about that the full court process, including appeal, may be made practically unavailable. As the first instance unsuccessful party is too daunted by the damages to appeal in the face of the potential of reduced damages.

    However, Mr Bennett points out in his statement that, he is considered by the law as someone with insufficient funds to: 1. be represented in court as everyone is entitled by law (though Judge Hugendhat seemed to ignore this and perhaps pretend otherwise), 2. honour significant libel damages awards.

    He points out that “Legal Aid is simply not available to defendants in libel proceedings, despite rulings by the European Court of Human Rights stipulating that defendants who cannot afford the high costs of defending themselves in defamation cases should be entitled to state aid.”

    Mr Bennett points out that “All High Court judges who rule on libel cases are aware of this situation.”

    Mr Bennett was forced to defend himself in court without the legal, professional defence that the law states needs to be available to a plaintiff as standard.

    In this context, and in the light of the particularity of High Court Judge Tugendat’s decisions (including the bizarre, bizarre decision explained in comment 219 again, against Ms. Bercow) one must be aware of the seeming inappropriateness of such concerns as having the law changed to forbid first instance successes from using their position to keep the other party “over a barrel” in legal terms.

    In this day and age, in this nation, the law can seem to develop not in a positive way generally, but more towards a more ancient age, perceived less right and less fair. That has been my general view of the law within the last decade in this nation, and it seems to get worse. (Such that, I must note, my actual surprise when British judges had to decide and try to make clear to Home Secretary Teresa May quite recently that they may not decide against the existing laws based upon a “direction” by the Home Secretary to do the opposite, without Parliament making new statutory law. I suppose things can seem to have gotten so bad, I may kind of have expected them even to go with it!!! Anyway, they didn’t.)

    I’m sorry if this seems rambling or not so relevant, but I believe the Tony Bennett affair to be very important and in terms of more than just the missing child, Madeleine McCann, but in terms of how determined people can appear to use the law at will to their advantage, and how the law in the UK seems primely disposed to allow or encourage this.

  30. 230
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris, I just saw your response after posting my last comment, where I coincidentally mentioned also about the mad Teresa May in her desire to declare how the judiciary will decide in court cases.

    Considering this is rather typical behaviour of May, it would not be at all surprising if Cameron had been threatened in this way. It can be quite funny how Cameron and his cronies want to shut her up, but publicly show the only way to deal with her is celebrate her and her “difference”.

    Whilst, there’s nothing really different about Cameron and his inner circle – they’re the ones who started the whole class wars in modern British society which have come to even define the place large respects. The people who work against those who can’t find work and subsist on £65 or less per week (made out to seem like some kind of palatial reward for nothing), the workers against those unfortunate people who are disabled and unable to work and no doubt would love to work.

    All because the government decided to start this class war, using a tiny fraction of people who rely on benefit when they shouldn’t (much, much less than those avoiding tax) instead of quietly improving the system it is their job to pull together and be more effective.

    Anyway, it’s getting side tracked, but more and more, as you say, there is a great “STINK” coming around in this country it seems from people who are there to make sure THE RIGHT is THE RIGHT and actually occurs, and as normal, and is seen as normal.

    That latter notion seems to have been lost in this recent age. Of course, with people like those in authority, all types, generally, more and more, THE RIGHT begins not be seen as normal or even desirable by many people. And things get worse.

    You mention the initial British police review of this high profile case. How strange that it would be headed by a man who was head of the team who engineered to have falsely convicted and imprisoned in another high profile case, not so long after it. The Jill Dando murder. I understand he wasn’t the only member of that Jill Dando investigative team in the Madeleine McCann review, and one can’t suppose everyone gets it right all of the time. But to put the head of that chronically mistaken or abused high profile case as the head of this high profile chase into a child’s disappearance surely is doing something provocative. Is that how rewards happen and professional respect occurs in the authorities in this age?

    Just have been watching the first two programmes in the BBC’s “The Iraq War” series. And I have to conclude neither Labour, nor the Tories are desirable because they either want to destroy this society or carve up millions abroad. And at best the Liberals come out as wetter than anything. How did the country get like this, with those people seeming to show us daily “there are no options”? What a country!

  31. 231
    Chris Says:

    Maddy had a lot of publicity last week. Was it 28 or 38 leads the MET want to follow up.

    All promoted on TV, we have spent over £4m and a Maddy could be still alive they say.

    So where were her parents? Surely they should have gone live on TV but they turned it down!! Maddy might be watching……………dream on the dogs say she’s dead.

    Clearly they don’t give a 4X. More likely frightened of being found out as any TV interview would have been MET minutely analysed.

  32. 232
    Chris Says:

    from the Telegraph – Kate McCann faces former police chief in £1m libel trial over Madeleine’s disappearance.

    Kate McCann will come face to face with the former police chief when their libel case against him starts in Lisbon today Thursday 12th September 2013.

    Not quite sure where the libel is? He stated facts and a conclusion.

    One thing is for sure Kate will get a poor reception from the people of Portugal. Gerry has whimped out!

  33. 233
    Chris Says:

    Madeleine McCann Parents To Make TV Appeal As Police Trawl Through Mobile Phone Records

    The McCanns will appear live in the studio during an episode of BBC Crimewatch on Monday October 14, which will also feature a reconstruction and pre-recorded interviews with the couple.

    From a book…..

    “Between April 27th and May 4th, Kate did not make any calls. Hum…

    – None either, between 11.22am and 11.17pm on the night of the disappearance.

    – Kate mustn’t like making telephone calls…

    – For Gerald, there’s nothing before May 4th at exactly 12.15am

    – What does that mean? They never made phone calls then?

    – On her telephone, her husbands’ number is logged: she called him on May 3rd at 11.17pm, but on Gerald’s, nothing, no trace of that call!

    – How can that be explained?

    – It’s simple as anything: the list of calls has been deleted.

    – Always the same old question: why?

    Summing up: the first phone calls were exchanged one hour after the disappearance. It could be imagined that in that lapse of time, they were busy looking for their daughter. Nevertheless, it’s astonishing that they didn’t need to speak to each other at such a difficult time.

    Later I learn that the English secret service had already placed the couple under telephone surveillance. If that’s true, the Portuguese police were never informed.”

    So will they appear live on Crimewatch? As one who enjoys the odd bet I know where my money will be.

  34. 234
    G1 Says:

    The statement about the secret service telephone surveillance, Chris, where was the source?

    Even in hypothetical cases where security services are certain that a child has been kidnapped, it could be standard protocol to monitor the relatives’ phones in case kidnappers try to make contact. The relatives may be informed of this, but they may not.

    Did you understand this could not be the reason for the McCanns’ phones being monitored, Chris?

    It’s another very strange thing – the deleted call records.

    Where the McCanns don’t explain this adequately, the possibilities are only:

    1. Calls were deleted by the McCanns and they have their own reasons why they would be covering this up / covering it over.

    2. Someone else interfered with the phones. Were there others around to intervene in the immediate day / days after the child was declared missing?

    There are no other possibilities.

  35. 235
    Chris Says:

    G1 Says:
    October 4th, 2013 at 9:03 am
    The statement about the secret service telephone surveillance, Chris, where was the source?

    Gonçalo Amaral book Chapter 3 under the subtitle:-

    From the book:-

    “Later I learn that the English secret service had already placed the couple under telephone surveillance. If that’s true, the Portuguese police were never informed.”

    Surely, the English secrtet service should have informed the Portuguese police?

  36. 236
    G1 Says:

    Thanks. (I’ve read that a number of times but had forgotten.)

  37. 237
    Chris Says:

    G1 Says:
    October 4th, 2013 at 5:54 pm
    Thanks. (I’ve read that a number of times but had forgotten.)

    Deleting telephone messages reminds me of Cowboys.

    That’s what they did when they were being chased!

  38. 238
    Chris Says:

    For those that don’t understand my train of thought and Cowboys.

    Cowboys would cover their horses tracks when being followed. If they had had mobile phones they would have deleted the records!!

  39. 239
    G1 Says:

    Two things I found interesting at the moment, from early to mid October 2013.

    1. I thought it is interesting that as the police announce publicly their development in investigating something close to every phone call possible in the area around the claimed time of the disappearance of a child, the McCanns announce they believe the police seem likely to be very close to finding perpetrators and potential arrests.

    2. The police announce they will be investigating all phone calls in the area, while many people are aware that the strangeness in the call details / lack of call details of the parents ought to be cleared up first anyway. Surely the police are aware that people are aware they are aware of this? Still, this development is healthy.

    In this age when there can be a norm of people acting to kind of thwart peoples’ natural tendency to point out what seems interesting, I’m just glad I’m able to do that here. It is not saying it means something in particular. Because I need to know I don’t know the truth about this case with so many clues but no results.

    I’m glad the police are looking at all the phone calls of the time, and I really hope it leads somewhere. I’ve never alleged the McCanns were the perpetrators of their daughter’s disappearance, at least on their own. I’ve never alleged specifically that they must have been involved, as I don’t know, but, like the others, find so much that is strange and intriguing and wonder why it all was never officially explained. I’ve always thought that, in the event that the parents were involved somehow in the disappearance of their daughter, it could not have been either unplanned or without involving other, experienced people.

    Comments such as mine are not meant to be hurtful against the parents. Naturally, people read, investigate, wonder, think, communicate, discuss. It’s a criminal case being talked about, it’s no personal thing and, of course, for genuinely uninvolved parents everyone would sympathise.

  40. 240
    Tayto the Crisp Says:

    Post 209, Mum
    You’ve nailed it exactly. The disturbing thing is that they have got the support of some high level people within the Government and also the BBC. Someone high up in our establishment is guiding this, I just hope there is enough revulsion in the international community to vilify their actions

  41. 241
    Tayto the Crisp Says:

    How shockable are the members of this forum. I have made suggestions in the past on other media and have been told it is too graphic, yet I am only quoting from the bewk Madeleine with some different emphases.

  42. 242
    Chris Says:

    The McCanns have a lot to answer for. This subject matter is “The Judiciária’s 48 questions that Kate did not answer”.

    They are certainly guilty of neglect, they left their children alone when a nanny service was available.

    They refuse to answer probing questions yet they are happy to take a fortune of public money. They come across as a most unpleasant couple so many assume the worst for Madeleine.

  43. 243
    G1 Says:

    Chris Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 10:40 am

    “They are certainly guilty of neglect, they left their children alone when a nanny service was available.”

    There are many who would, actually and do agree with that Chris, it has been communicated by great amounts of people for years, it being a separate issue entirely to any question of what happened to Madeleine.

    While, after all that has happened, I know you kind of mean guilty of neglect in the sense of a basic meaning, rather than laws. For look at what happened to Mr Tony Bennett (a trained solicitor who was a specialist working in social care for year) when he attempted to put that basic meaning in the context of laws.

    With that point it’s entirely impossible for me, personally, however I try, to see how anyone can’t agree with this part. That is, that leaving children alone in a secured unit if visiting neighbours next door, with frequent, careful checks is one thing, and might be OK (perhaps even if 120 metres or so walk away). Doing that with two doors unlocked, one 2 metres from an unfamiliar, unknown public street where especially the door is glass and easy for anyone to look through and try, is another entirely. It’s hard to see why that has been kind of ignored officially, when it is so high profile and the most eminent example. Is that what the authorities want families doing all of the time?

    OK, the authorities might conclude not to punish the parents in the circumstances based on that it can seem that the couple may be suffering enough. But to simply ignore the facts, to particularly not acknowledge the nature of the activity seems bizarre. Then there is what happened to Mr Bennett, in part for speaking about this, which is every step further.

    It seems to me you and I Chris have every moral and legal right to make our opinion here, and anyone else, such as Mr Bennet. The opposite, it seems, could only be against morals and legal principles.

  44. 244
    G1 Says:

    … I should add – that’s all if what we’ve been told by those people paid to communicate things to us (in more reliable sections of the media) turns out to be true.

    Todays’ and yesterdays’ headlines were about the British police saying that previously communicated information about the disappearance of the little girl has been wrong, particularly the timeline. And that a fresh timeline will be presented tomorrow night on Crimewatch on BBC 1.

    You have to suppose this is very recent news inded to the police themselves, otherwise, why would they not have communicated it publicly at all, through the papers or in a press release? For that would only have harmed the public hunt for the little girl.

  45. 245
    Chris Says:

    From extracts of the Crimewatch schedule:-

    McCanns live!!

    “Crimewatch presenter Kirsty Young will speak to the McCanns live in the studio during the programme, while presenter Matthew Amroliwala has been to Praia da Luz to explore the new focus of the police investigation.”

    Well she won’t be allowed to ask any probing questions. If the McCanns turn up and don’t like the questions they will walk out.

    A new time line……..

    “We know at 8.30 that was the time Mr and Mrs McCann went down to the tapas area for their dinner and we know that around at 10pm that was when Mrs McCann found that Madeleine was missing.”

    Here is the chronological sequence of visits to the apartment:

    – 21.05: Gerald McCann (the children are fine);

    – 21.10/21.15: Jane Tanner (states having observed the alleged abductor with a child in his arms);

    – 21.30: Matthew Oldfield: (goes into the apartment, but doesn’t go into the bedroom. He only sees the twins);

    – 22.00: Kate Healy (goes into the apartment, and finds that Madeleine has disappeared).

    So what is new or were the Portuguses police given false time lines and by whom?

    I still think the MET are trying to justify our/their £10m+ jolly.

  46. 246
    G1 Says:

    “Speaking on tonight’s Crimewatch, Madeleine’s mother, Kate McCann, said:

    “We are not the ones that have done something wrong here. It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.””

    Ian Johnston article, The Independent, Monday 14 October 2013.

    The first part of that statement has been difficult for many to take. Whatever sufferred, and whyever that very unfortunate, troubled couple have suffered, it has for a long time just been very hard to see why, exactly, someone would make the first part of that statement. I suppose there is something in meaning behind the need to say that, maybe only covering up shame because the couple do not mean it. The most evident reason (again, given that the information communicated to the public has been true) I put 2 comments above here, and is clear. It has been reported the street (more or less) doors were completely unlocked.

  47. 247
    G1 Says:

    “Well [Kirsty Young] won’t be allowed to ask any probing questions. If the McCanns turn up and don’t like the questions they will walk out.”

    While we don’t know what the McCanns have been like with the British police (who quite quickly deemed them not suspects beyond everything that happened), who has ever been allowed to ask any probing questions? You’re right, Chris.

    Even just to clear up a lot of the confusion and gladly shut us confused, concerned people up. I still comment from great confusion and concern rather than any specific suspicion that the McCanns killed, or were somehow involved in the death of, their daughter.

    One would hope the passing years could mean Kirsty Young could be given better treatment than the Portuguese police in the days after a disappearing child. But the estimation lies on the side of that rational, true and genuinely concerned parents would prefer to answer the investigating police’s questions in detail within days of a child being missing, rather than a TV journalist 6 years later.

    It’s a bit strange for me, anyway, I often got the impression that Kirsty Young seemed somehow afraid of, or at least ready to butter up, many of her interviewees, from TV to Desert Island Discs. But I hope it goes well, objectively, not knowing what the truth is about the little girl and that the truth could still be found. (While, personally, I estimate this is much more unlikely now than it ever was, contrary to the news stories).

  48. 248
    G1 Says:

    Chris, we shall wait until after everything has been released, in the program and more if it comes, to see what the changes are, what was “wrong” as the police have said with the previously held information.

    Here I know there are much more alert people than myself who have come to these discussion pages a long time ago. People who knew or remember the details of the old information much better than I would, who I hope could post.

  49. 249
    Chris Says:

    Well Gi

    They have released two identity pictures. One looks remarkably like Gerry. The hair, the nose and the face size and shape are like his. The other has a hair cut and nose remarkably like his too.

  50. 250
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris. I watched the Crimewatch program but had a migraine and couldn’t pay too close attention, so I’ll try to watch it on the iPlayer before it goes.

    About the E-fit identity mock-ups, a serious news journal was saying before the program something like – the police allege that the two pictures may be of the same man. But it didn’t categorically say it was. That article, I thought was leaving it open, because I thought there were two pictures from different sources, and they may not know if they were indeed of the same man.

    While on the Crimewatch show I got the impression that the police were more or less stating it was supposed to be the one man. So, it’s a bit bewildering. Especially when the relative watching the program with me said that they don’t look at all like the same man.

    I don’t know, people look different in different views. There you go. It’s just maybe not so clear if they are saying it’s the same man or they’re not sure.

    I didn’t think there was anything different at all, timeline wise, but these different identity shots. But things were a bit more odd, as in the near full withdrawal of the old long haired Gringo-carrying-girl, Jane Tanner’s artist’s drawing as a suspect.

    That was a bit strange. The police said they were nearly certain that, after 6 years, in the latest investigation by the British police, “that man” was ruled out a suspect. I thought it likely to rule a person out as a suspect they would have had to have found that man himself. If they had indeed found the long haired, thin man himself, why were they only nearly certain, rather than certain, he is not a suspect (if he exists). It seems an odd thing to say. If they were trying to say they don’t believe a man with such a likeness was in the area around that time at all, it came out the wrong way completely, and suggested the opposite.

    Perhaps Jane Tanner’s evidence has broken down as completely unreliable to the police. I don’t know what to make of it.

    It was a means for the McCanns to present their story with very little development news indeed from the police. Nearly nothing had changed. I suppose, in the circumstances, Kirsty Young may have taken the most reasonable route. Her interview was mature enough in the circumstances. The police are guiding how things are going, the program only follows the police, ever. In that case, giving the two parents a platform was the only possibility. I see there was never a chance of an interview that would clear up all the confusing, contradictory and bizarre elements that have been published from the McCanns’ accounts of events. I think nearly all of what the couple said is repeating what they’ve said before, also.

    Were the two newly published identity pictures from the Smith family (the rest of the Smith family, rather than the father who previously gave a high likelihood that he identified Mr McCann in the lane)?

    Oh, I think the fair haired man or men sightings, if not new, were newly collected. Which is a good idea. But all that’s known is someone’s hair was fair. In some of the acting shots they looked quite dark. Was the man slim? Strange that they didn’t say, I don’t think I heard that, while the actor or main actor of a fair haired man or fair haired men was a standout slim man. You don’t know if they know that or not.

    Overall, I got the impression the couple may want to wind down now. Despite the news articles about developments and potential arrests, all I can see is that there are huge numbers of possible clues the police have, but in the end they seem to “have” close to nothing on the case which leads anywhere. It seems there may be a large difference between what the recent news articles were saying and what the police were presenting.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 » Show All

Leave a Reply

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.


Log in | Designed by Gabfire themes