30 December 2009

Gonçalo Amaral interviewed by Rita Ferro Rodrigues



Sic morning show 'Companhia das Manhãs' 28.12.09



Video Transcript

Rita Ferro Rodrigues - RFR
Gonçalo Amaral- GA


RFR: (...)Our program is going very well. Now it's time to receive a very special guest that all of you at home know, the former inspector of the Judiciary Police, Gonçalo Amaral, who has launched his second book. The first one was removed from the market due to a temporary injunction imposed by the McCann couple, and Gonçalo now counteracts with another book. But before we're going to see a report, and then we are going to speak with Gonçalo Amaral.

00.25'' video report on the McCanns at the Lisbon Civil Court (archive footage)

Voice Over: The McCann couple came to Lisbon but the hearing was postponed. Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer is in a quarantine, in question are suspicions of influenza A [swine flu]. Kate and Gerry McCann say that they were not disappointed and they're going to do their best to return in January.

Cut to Kate McCann: "Why would we be disappointed? Hum...I mean, today was really for the benefit of Mr. Amaral and his team, and the full team wasn't here [for the record: 3 Inspectors were called for that 11th December hearing, just one PJ officer didn't appear as he already knew that the hearing would be postponed]. Hum.. As it stands the judicial decision remains so we have no reason to be disappointed." Cut to Gerry McCann:" We are British, we fight for freedom of speech, but, if you cross the line then you must be prepared to defend yourself in court." Cut to Kate McCann: "Freedom of speech should not include distortion of the truth, lies, fabrication and slander."

Voice over: Under the scope of the temporary injunction that suspends the sale of the book, the British couple demands for 1, 2 million euros for compensation for defamation. In the book 'The Truth of The Lie', Gonçalo Amaral involves the McCanns in the concealment of Maddie's cadaver. But the former inspector claims his freedom of speech, and he makes a point: 'The English Gag' is the title of his new book.

Cut to Gonçalo Amaral: "(...)It would be the last straw; this is a book about censorship and freedom of speech, to censorship this book, to prohibit the commercialization of this book, or the readership of the book, would be...that would mean that the Portuguese state would be 'crawling'(...)"

Voice Over: Behind stays 'The Truth of the Lie'. He doesn't have any regrets, but with certainty, besides the temporary injunction, the former inspector will have to face the consequences.

Cut to Gonçalo Amaral: "I feel calumniated, vilified, my family has suffered greatly, there are many damages done, and, as I said before, at the right time, at the right place, we will ask for the indemnity to redress those damages."

Voice Over: Nevertheless, there is no one who can silence him at a time to criticize the McCanns.

Gonçalo Amaral: "I could ask, and I have the legitimacy to do so, if in a determined interview, the interviews are worth what they are; someone says that they are focused in finding their daughter, who is missing - and I believe that I'm not in violation of the injunction when I say this, I'm not speaking about any thesis, just of the disappearence - and that they are not interested in suing anyone. Seeing that they sued now, are they still focused on finding?"

Voice Over: The date of the book presentation coincided with the beginning of the hearing, but Gonçalo Amaral says it was a mere chance occurrence. And he guarantees, after the 'gag' there is much to tell.

02:50'' back to the studio

Rita Ferro Rodrigues: And indeed, there is much to tell. Gonçalo Amaral is our guest, and the first question that I want to make is: And the trial, when is it going to happen?

Gonçalo Amaral: Actually, it's an interesting question, it's not a trial. We are on a phase of the temporary injunction, of opposing to the injunction. We have already presented the documented proof of what we state, and now would be the matter of presenting the testimonial evidence, so, it is an hearing, a hearing of our witnesses, as well as witnesses from Valentim de Carvalho [the company that produced the banned documentary based on Gonçalo Amaral's book and on the investigation case files], from Guerra e Paz [the banned book editors], hence this isn't a trial. Actually, it wasn't something that was wished by the requesting party, the opposition is never wished by the requester.

RFR: Of course. Gonçalo, if the first book was removed from the market, as we all know, because of the temporary injunction imposed by the McCann couple, do we also risk to see the 'Gag' also taken from the market? Because this is clearly a book to counteract, made by you, as Gonçalo say, also of defence of what you consider to be a serious attack on freedom of speech... Is there a risk, of this book being also removed from the market?

GA: There is a risk that all the books or all the texts, that are contrary to determined opinions, of determined ways of thinking of other people, of being removed from the market. From this temporary injunction, from the moment the injunction was decreed, which wasn't easy [referring to the fact that the McCann's injunction had to go twice to the judge to be accepted], I can tell you that in May it was rejected by the judge, who later on accepted it at the appeal request; from now on everything and anything is possible. Hence, this isn't an issue of Gonçalo Amaral, but a matter of freedom of expression of the Portuguese, and of those who are in agreement with 25 de Abril [carnation revolution in 1974]. So, today risks exist; there were various attempts to try and remove books from the market, even pre-censored, but from now on, in opposition to the Portuguese courts jurisprudence everything is possible.

RFR: The first book, as we know, portrayed your experience, and some of your conclusions during the investigation to the Maddie Case, and this second book is exactly about what?

GA: This book is a reflection on censorship and freedom of expression, regarding what has happened to the other book, on the temporary injunction, a provisional decision, which has been 'sold' has if it was something definite - something that is not true; that is why there is a legal opposition. It's a book that speaks about all that, speaks of the conquests made in April [25 April 1974], speaks on our journey in terms of April - I was already here [in Lisbon] on the 25th of April day - so, these are conquers that define us as men, as human beings, and as it is said right here [the English Gag book] at the beginning, in a citation of Mário Soares* [former Portuguese Republic President, Left wing leader] regarding this matters: freedom, these conquests of freedom expression and freedom of information are something that we cannot allow, under any pretext to become suppressed again.

RFR: Very well, it's almost also, not almost, it's as well a declaration of yours, of revolt, against this alleged lack of freedom of expression. Gonçalo, that that we...

GA: Alleged? No. It really is lack of freedom of expression. Pardon.

RFR: Very well, that that we as citizens, for me as a person that is observant to the whole of this phenomena, and to this anguishing story, since the beginning. That that anguishes us most is, amidst all of this, is there anyone searching for the little girl?

GA: I don't think so...

RFR: Why?

GA: ...but I can't say anything else because of the temporary injunction. [But I, the translator, can. As long as the McCanns, Murat, or anyone from the Tapas group don't ask for the re-opening of the case, no police force in Portugal, in Britain or otherwise will be investigating the case - The McCanns could legitimately, as assistants to the process, have asked for the re-opening of the case, they didn't. The McCanns and the rest of the G9 group aka Tapas group could ask at any time to be heard and give evidences, or even offer to make the reconstruction, that would force the Portuguese Public Ministry to lift a certificate from the archived process thus reopening it. The official investigation would then continue. The silly attempts of employing former detectives and corrupted detectives by the McCanns is all but smoke and mirrors.]

RFR: And Gonçalo believes that they don't search because according to your conclusions...it's not worth it?...

GA: No, let's not go there. [refusing the provocation] There is a preoccupation for this couple: the matter of the image. Take notice, the investigation was ongoing, and that investigation, no one wished it to be archived or to end, at least for me, as a parent, I couldn't wish that any investigation ended without understanding - with diligences still to be made, a series of steps to be taken - and to make everything so that the process stayed archived. To the point of one of the parts that could have requested the re-opening of the investigation, one of the parts that was arguido [official suspect, referring to Murat that like the McCanns could have used his status of arguido to re-open the case process] even being compensated a few days before of the archiving- it's a mere coincidence, but the fact is that was exactly what happened. And that person then made various claims, criminal complaints against journalists; but he was also satisfied with the process archival. It's a matter of image, what is in question is just a matter of image. Just and only, since the beginning. And it is a matter of image, with a very well designed strategy, a strategy to discredit everything. They immediately started in 2007 discrediting the Portuguese Justice system, the Judiciary Police, the investigators that were on the case. In my case, I was vilified, I was defamed, I was called of everything and anything via the British press; and it went on, I was still...

RFR: Gonçalo, Let me make you one question. And I believe you, and I know what you are talking about, and I understand very well the drama of someone that is vilified in the press [reference to her father, Ferro Rodrigues], but I ask you - weren't the McCanns also, and now let's make believe that none of us has an opinion on this, weren't they also vilified and defamed in our press? [like in the Expresso newspaper, whose director, Henrique Monteiro, said "that he would loose his faith in humanity in case the McCanns were found guilty"? Or in the words of daily Destak newspaper director, Isabel Stilwell whose latest editorial was titled 'The former inspector attacks again" or maybe in the words of the former daily newspaper Público director, José Manuel Fernandes, who believed the McCanns were right to not do the reconstruction?! Funny how all of these directors one way or another belong to the PSD, have been investigated by the PJ or have some sort of connection to the new McCanns PR firm in Portugal, Lift Consulting and its CEO Salvador da Cunha. But I'll leave this to another time and place. Moving on.]

GA: No, I...

RFR: No?!

GA: No, I don't think so. What is in...the process, and notice, the process itself wasn't used by the requesting party to state that they were defamed. It was used a book - what is in the book is on the process - they say that the book defames them, and even that it difficults the search for the little girl, but they didn't use as proof nor joined to the claim the process that was distributed to the journalists, something that we used to opposed to [the claim]. What is there its facts, evidences, a series of things, for example, we could go and pick up the reports, or the couple could, the reports of the detectives agencies that they've hired and then we could understand what exactly those detective agencies did. There are a series of things that still need to be talked. And have to be discussed.

RFR: And they don't want that discussion, is that it?

GA: They don't want that debate, but that will have to happen... I have no doubts regarding that.

RFR: So you, Gonçalo... This is just the first step of this fight, is this the battle of your lifetime?

GA: No, I already had many battles, during all those years at the Police, I had various fights for Justice.

RFR: But this is a tough one?

GA: This isn't an easy one, if the path was easy what would our merit be? Let's say that, there are values and principles that are in question and of those I won't give up.

RFR: In the midst of this maelstrom, it was also involved, as you said, with serious damages for your family, we don't doubt it... In the midst of this turbulent situation the inspector; because for me you'll always be inspector, even if you are former inspector, inspector is your profession...

GA: Former Coordinator...

RFR: Coordinator, do you still go to bed at night with the thought, that is probably the primordial thought of all of us, that is, with Madeleine McCann, the child?

GA: The first worry in my life, are my daughters and my family, Maddie McCann forgive me but she comes after. I don't have that obsession, I'm not obsessed with. Now, I do have the conscience of all the actions that we have taken and that are now happening, are actions that will contribute to the discovery of the truth. Of that I have no doubt. Notice that the case was 'dead', let's say it in this way. The book [Maddie, The Truth of The Lie] wasn't selling anymore, the books have a period of 'life', that book wasn't selling. And when I knew about this temporary injunction, it was when that book was, somehow, sold in this year. Therefore, the discussion continues. There is something here that makes no sense, first one doesn't want it and then one advances in this way. The McCanns are betting a lot, them and their lawyer [Isabel Duarte], and even an image consulting company [Lift Consulting] that supports them, they are all betting a lot and they are surpassing the limits of privacy rights and they even committed a series of crimes. These are aspects that are being considered, we are still going to see how we are going to react to them. Now, in fact who has risen the level of the discussion were those gentleman, and we will, undoubtedly, answer to them.

RFR: How do you, Gonçalo, as a father, after this case, and after having investigated so many others, after this case your life was never the same? Is it true? Is it a fact? How do you explain all of this to your daughters?

GA: In a very simple manner. The oldest one, with 11 years old, watches and sees what happens in the media; the youngest one it's more the mother who explains to her. She explains to her that the little girl is missing, that her parents lover her very much, and they don't want to believe she is dead...

RFR: Is that the way?...

GA: And in this manner we try to explain... My wife tries to explain.

RFR: And is that also what you believe in?

GA: Pardon? In the death?

RFR: No, that the parents don't want to believe in the death, and that is why...

GA: Well, you know, the human beings, the condition of being a human being, everything is possible. Now it does shock me a bit, for example, that child that is missing has a small problem in her iris, some reference it as a coloboma, it could be associated with a series of illnesses, cardiac diseases. Have you ever seen the mother of that child worried, or sending a message to the abductor, worried about medical exams that may need to be done? Or even with vaccinations?...

RFR: There are many questions still...

GA: Even now that we had influenza A... There are things that shock us, but don't prove anything. Nevertheless we are left wondering... It raises doubts.

RFR: Gonçalo Amaral, we advise 'The English Gag', the new book by Gonçalo Amaral, which is another episode of this story of a man who is certainly going to fight a battle, even if it is to bring back his good name, and to defend himself of what he considers to be a huge attack by the McCanns.


* Former President Mário Soares citation in Gonçalo Amaral's book 'The English Gag', from a report made to the first PS Congress, the first meeting made in legality after the end of Salazar's regime 13.12.1974 : «The 25 de Abril was made under the sign of total freedom of information and expression, conquests that we wish to be definitive and that we will not allow to be perverted under no pretext whatsoever.»




139 comments:

  1. The more I hear this man the more I am convinced the McCanns have a lot to fear. A no-nonsense man that radiates confidence and honesty. He repeats the question we have been asking many times: which parents would be happy with the shelving of an investigation into the disappearance of their daughter?
    We will be hearing a lot from this man in the future, and I hope the british media and public hear him too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr Amaral has behaved with true dignity unlike others we can speak of, Team Mccann/Carter Ruck and Ms Duate will be very worried at the moment, they know they have pushed Mr Amaral and "his" team to far now,this has to be seen through to the end now, what an interesting 2010 we are going to have, imo its going to be full of twist and turns, but Mr Amaral will win and get Maddy the justice she truly deserves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now it's time to receive a very special guest that all of you at home know, the former inspector of the Judiciary Police, Gonçalo Amaral.

    And soon all of us in U.K. will now too ! Justice for Maddie and Free Speech WILL prevail !

    louise

    ReplyDelete
  4. I pray you are right poster 2 ,but these two seem to get away with it all the time ,please let 2010 bring the overdue justice Maddie deserves

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yesterday I received an e-mail from one of my friends saying that the shameful case of the Portuguese PM in the freeport and the protection gave by Lopes da Mota in the Eurojust, is at the top table in Brussels parliament with a lot of parliament members being surprised by the work (no work) of the Portuguese justice and the Portuguese President of the Republic.
    Europe starts knowing what is going on in Portugal. Maddie case soon will reach the European parliament by the hands of somebody not related with spin Mccann's. I hope Amaral supporters and friends, will made it, telling the true story about the all case, since the Mccann's tried to foolish also the European politicians with support of some of their friends.
    Socrates reputation is at low stage inside and outside Portugal. Soon the Mccann's and all their team, Lawyers included will reach the same point as Socrates. People were fed-up of incompetent politicians, corrupt, people which use their friendship to get profits and foolish the public.
    Mccann's watch careful what is going on with the war that you start with the limitation of freedom of a citizen and forbidding a book. The Portuguese will not forgive you, specially because you did not respect the image and the memory of your daughter. It is all about money ( a dirty money) and about saving your own skin. No any court declare you innocent because you never face any court. You never show the world any prove to support your abduction theory.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gonçalo Amaral has a soft voice.
    Sometimes I have difficulties to follow him.
    Great interview, I listened to it a lot of times.

    He looks a lot better than the McCanns.
    He knows he is right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. He has so much compassion a real Gentleman so laid back You just know He speaks 100% truth - good luck Mr Amoral lets hope the truth will out x

    ReplyDelete
  8. This 'freedom of speech' issue has really rattled the McCanns. They looked distinctly uncomfortbale in Lisbon. Genuine 'freedom of speech' will always terrify corrupt liars. Mrs McCann's words about distortion and lies were more than a bit rich - they were priceless.
    These are people who continue to ask us, the public, for money, yet still refuse point-blank to answer fundamental questions such as how and why the were so sure Madeleine was 'abducted', why they lied about a break-in, why they are not asking for the case to be re-opened etc. etc. Let's hope 2010 will see the case re-opened, despite the apparent unwillingness of the parents, and a few serious questions asked, and answered. Best of lick, Mr Amaral.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good case, brave man, weak journalist!

    Alexandra Correia

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ post #8, with regards to Kate's comments outside the Lisbon court, you really couldn't make it up! It's such behaviour which makes me think they now believe their own lies. Why else will Kate McCann of ALL people say such a thing? It beggars belief!

    ReplyDelete
  11. How does McCann keep a straight face while saying "Freedom of speech should not include distortion of the truth, lies, fabrication and slander"
    What breathtaking hypocrisy!
    You couldn't make it up.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ post #11, of course you couldn't make it up! If Clarence Mitchell had been standing right next to him he probably would have still said it without batting an eyelid!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes Anon at 8

    Also add to that their lie about not having credit cards, when they then went and used one to hire a car with.

    They should be made to produce the cards to find out exactly what they were used for on that holiday.

    I hope the case gets reopened soon and the question of the credit cards sorted out, plus the medical records of Madeleine that the PJ could not get access to.

    Did Madeleine have some underlying medical condition that the McCanns don't want known?

    ReplyDelete
  14. That should have been "her" and "she" in post #12.

    ReplyDelete
  15. post 13
    Coloboma of the eye often has associated medical conditions.No concerns were expressed about the "abductors" caring for her health.

    ReplyDelete
  16. What a charming man! GOOD LUCK TO YOU, BIG MAN! GOD BLESS YOU!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks Joana for the ongoing translation. You are doing a fab job :)

    So through Amaral, we now know that the McCanns first applied for the injunction in May which was rejected but later accepted in September. Why haven't the McCanns publicised this small but significant detail?

    ReplyDelete
  18. GA: ".....The silly attempts of employing former detectives and corrupted detectives by the McCanns is all but smoke and mirrors."

    The more people hear this the better.

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/blogs/comments/mps-is-any-child-safe-check-this-list-out/

    Joana you seem to have the Portuguese Press following your blog...They may be interested in the update of the latest figures of MPs who have been caught in Paedophile avtivities..Please name and shame them...This is from an abused childs site that is well respected..will keep you posted as and when they have more names.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thank you Joana - Like many others watching the video, I couldn't understand a word, but the difference between the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral stood out a mile. He is quietly confident, educated,well mannered, and never hesitates with his answers, The McCanns, in contrast, come over as uneducated, brash and very, very nervous. As as been continually reiterated by GA and those of us seeking justice for Madeleine, why don't the McCanns, their pals, or Murat come to that, request a reopening of the case. If they were completely innocent they would have nothing to fear in doing so. The ball is in their court!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Anonymous (13) When I first heard that Madeleine had a colobama, I didn't know what it was, so I looked it up on the net. A colobama is associated with heart, kidney and other problems, including stunted growth, autism etc.

    I have read different reports that suggested Madeleine was autistic. One of her aunts wrote an article about Madeleine's disappearance, on a website for autism.

    I have spoke many times on different forums, about the time I was in Belgium, when Kate McCann was made an arguido. I put the news on the television and a "World News" reporter was talking about the questions Kate McCann was asked. He said there was a suggestion, that Kate McCann suffered from Asperger Syndrome and she was asked if she gave her own medication to Madeleine, instead of Madeleine's medicication.

    One of the Nannies at the creche had said that Madeleine was very small for her age and Kate McCann's mother said Madeleine was a very difficult child. Kate McCann was also asked if she was thinking of handing over Madeleine to a family member.

    If what the "World News" reporter has said is true and I have no reason to disbelieve him, I find it indefensible that the McCanns could treat Madeleine in the way they did.

    I don't know if the McCanns harmed Madeleine, but I do know that their behaviour caused Madeleine's disappearance. I will stick my neck out and say that because the McCanns never searched for Madeleine and Kate McCann admitted they hadn't physically searched for Madeleine, it suggests to me that they are more involved with Madeleine's disappearance than neglect. I also think that the photographs of the McCanns laughing, suggests they were at peace, when Madeleine had gone.

    Things have changed now and the McCanns smiles have been replaced by worried looks. More and more people are waking up to the fact that the McCanns are to blame for Madeleine's disappearance, I also believe the powers that be know they are to blame as well. It just needs someone in power, to have the b***s, to bring the McCanns to justice.

    I'm looking to Portugal to do that task, because the British Government won't do anything, I'd love to know why.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 13, please search on Google the word coloboma and read about it.
    Most children with coloboma suffer of heart problems.
    One of the symptoms is the fact that they are smaller than other children of their age.
    If you compare Maddie's pictures with the twins'pictures at the same age, you can see the twins are much taller than she has ever been.
    I wonder if the often use of sedatives to make her sleep would have damished her heart.
    I suspect she might have died of a cardiac arrest.
    Heart massage did not help, bones in her chest were broken and she vomitted some blood.
    Maybe it was not like that at all.
    We don't know.
    What we know is that her parents did not want a post mortem.

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://www.maddiemystery.blogspot.com/

    A Good Article from this site...

    Amarals Question of the COLOBOMA.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Once again, the mccanns are the ONLY ones to be blamed for whatever has happened to Madeleine and everything else in consequence to "keep their image".They did NOT look for Madeleine, they looked at how appear less guilty than they actually are by silencing anyone who wants to know the truth.

    They are finished and done with, thanks to their very own doings.

    I have faith 2010 will bring justice to Madeleine and Dr.Amaral

    ReplyDelete
  25. This is the first time I'm hearing about a first attempt at injunction in May!!??
    It would be interesting to see the request for the injunction that was put forward in May and the Judge's decision. I wonder if that's possible?

    ReplyDelete
  26. next time Kate speaks of distortions of the truth,lies and slander etc, she should be asked to be specific.
    All these cliche catch phrases are to generic and have no substance?

    so i ask...elaborate Mrs Mccann, break it down.

    which are the distortions of the truth ?
    which are the Lies ?
    what slander ?

    would a reconstruction help clarify?
    or maybe a request to reopen the case may help?....
    I know how about leaving no stone unturned and passing on what the PJ asked ...ie banking details for the periods requested, Medical details of all concerned.
    How about you Voluntarily given access to your phone calls etc.....we are aware the Portuguese courts refused the PJ this evidence....i would have thought you could have allowed that information to be given..its ultimately your data.
    so just how serious are you of getting to the truth of May3rd and clearing any distortions,lies because to any Normal person your actions only show evasion.
    I wonder why!

    mojo

    ReplyDelete
  27. I was interested to note today that Mr Amaral expressed suprise that M's coloboma and related problems hadn't been mentioned by her parents- the same point I made yesterday, before reading Joana's translation of the interview.

    ReplyDelete
  28. He speaks with the confidence of someone who is telling the truth, and what's more fighting for the truth. I wish all success to him and his cause.

    -- Trismegistus

    ReplyDelete
  29. If the McCanns didn't get an injunction the first time, is that why they rolled out 'frail' Kate when they flew over to Portugal a few months ago? Then they were granted it in September.

    And is that why she showed up at the court for the hearing recently, though it subsequently had to be adjurned.

    Next time, are the children to appear as well as thin, frail, Kate??

    Perhaps the judge should be handed the photos of laughing Kate and glamourous Kate to show more of a balanced view.

    ReplyDelete
  30. My eldest lad has colobomas in both eyes and he is of short stature he is 28 years old and only 4ft 8in he also has a speech impediment. he had to have growth hormone injections while growing up. Perhaps Maddie had a lot of problems like this as they are associated and thats why Kate couldnt cope.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hello.

    All my best wishes for everyone.

    I have no wish to upset anyone here (it seems to be a congregation of people who share a similar perspective).

    May I just share a link:: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/PUBS/childismissing/contents.html

    Claude2

    ReplyDelete
  32. Gosh this man is so carming and doesn't get aggresive, Team Mccann must be so worried they know deep in their hearts (or swinging bricks) that Mr Amaral will see this through to the end, and more importantly he still has got alot more to say.......

    "There are a series of things that still need to be talked. And have to be discussed".

    Mr Amaral you will have your turn in court, and make those Tapas 9 answer all those question YOU want answering I have no doubt about that. All good wishes in 2010 to you and lovely family Mr Amaral.

    Lily x

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks for that information Karen, though the PJ never got to know if Madeleine had health problems because they never managed to get hold of her medical documents.

    How the McCanns got away with that, is anybody's guess, but apparently those two can walk on water when it comes to controlling information.

    I doubt any of the rest of us would be able to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. thank you claude 2, interesting how almost all the advices made at that page were not followed by the McCanns or were at a certain time even a target of discredit by the parents.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Mccanns mention a lot about the first 48 hours Claude 2 and thank you for that information...

    Forensics can tell the food content within 48 hours and was it true that Madeleines last meal was milk and cookies?. In fact a corpse can tell a story within 48 hours of being found. The Mccanns were not out searching because they were too afraid Madeleine may have been found within that time.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Claude2,

    Interesting and very useful document indeed. Full of logical advice that any normal person in distress who lost a child would follow. But not the McCanns, curiously.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Interesting that Sr Amaral mentions Robert Murat and his lack of desire to re-open the case (even though it is within his power to do so.) I wonder if something is being hinted at here.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Regarding Madeleine's 'coloboma' you would expect, would you not, relevant medical investigations to have been undertaken. This was a child, afterall, who was born following IVF treatment, and who displayed a visual defect that may have been part of a complex syndrome of symptoms. It was a child, too, who we have been told, suffered from chronic 'colic' which lead to her crying for 18 hours a day in the the first six months of her life.

    A child like this would be expected to be well known to her GP you might fairly assume ... and yet, neither GP who's names must have been supplied by the McCanns, had ever treated Madeleine. In fact, neither of the GP's with whom Madeleine had been registered in her short life had ever even SEEN the child !

    Both their depositions are in the police files, where it is confirmed they never actually MET Madeleine McCann.

    Strange eh ?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Can someone guide me to this link please I have missed this...I had always thought that the Mccanns self medicated their children. Who were these Doctors?

    ReplyDelete
  40. @ post 37, my thoughts exactly. I keep going back to that mysterious visit Brian Kennedy along with Ed Smethurst paid Murat in November 2007. What is strange though is that after the visit, Metodo 3 and the McCanns absolutely went to town with Murat. It was only after the physical resemblance between himself and Payne was highlighted in the media that they cooled off. I just can't get my head round it all!

    ReplyDelete
  41. In reply to post 39

    I don't know how to do links sorry, but the depositions/witness statements are available to read on the Maddie Case Files website.

    The two GP's with whom Madeleien McCann was registered are :

    Dr Phillip Hussey.
    Dr Ian Richard Schofeild.

    Niether of these doctors had ever treated, or even seen the child.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Max Clifford was not Happy with Murat...


    Pandora: 'You can imagine how I felt' - Max Clifford

    By Henry Deedes


    Tuesday, 22 July 2008



    Max Clifford's relationship with Robert Murat has soured after Murat hired another PR company to deal with his libel case








    Robert Murat's recent victory over the British press hasn't just left a bad taste in the mouths of newspaper proprietors. It has also soured his relationship with the public relations guru Max Clifford.


    Ever since Murat was named as a suspect in the Madeleine McCann case last summer, Clifford had been acting as Murat's publicist, which he agreed to do on a pro bono basis.

    However, in the wake of the £600,000 libel pay-out Murat received from various British newspapers last week, it emerged that he had been employing the services of another company called the PR Office to handle the libel case. What is more, unlike Clifford, the company was being paid. Understandably a trifle miffed, Clifford has penned a letter to this week's PR Week to register his dissatisfaction with his client.

    "Together with Nicola Phillips from my office, I spent a huge amount of time and effort over many months talking to Robert and his aunt Sally, often late at night, and doing everything possible to help them and stop the unjustifiable media onslaught," he writes.

    "You can imagine this week how I felt when Robert admitted to me he was paying a PR firm that he had been introduced to by his legal team.

    "Having worked free of charge and, in the words of Robert and his aunt Sally, 'been both wonderfully supportive and successful', I was not happy."

    Although Murat appears to have been acting on advice from his legal team, his bridges with Clifford seem to be well and truly torched.

    "Robert continues to have a huge battle on his hands to clear his name and get his life back on track," Clifford adds.

    "For now, I'll concentrate my time on appreciative paying clients and my continued battle with prostate cancer."

    ReplyDelete
  43. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-171569287.html

    Moments with Murat

    ReplyDelete
  44. Why did GM say he wasn't there to f... enjoy himself?
    See MCcann Abuse of Trust NHS site.Was GM in Pdl to meet John Geraghty to revive a failed PFI bid for Leicester Hospital Consortium? The bid was worth 700 million, but was turned down.
    Contract bid by Laing O'Rourke. Was John Geraghty - listed contacts International/Ireland anything to do with the same named person who helped the McC's in PdL?

    ReplyDelete
  45. It has apparently been said by one of the detectives of Metodo 3 that they were not employed to search for Madeleine, but to deflect the search to Spain and Morocco, to slow down the PJ enquiry.Witnesses, notably in the Netherlands, were allegedly paid to report sightings of her.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Colobama doesn't explain blood splatters all over the wall nor does it explain their friend peadophile lurking around at the time. It does, however, explain the reason they wanted to get rid of her.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Shubob 40
    I'm puzzled by the PJ examination of Aparthotel C in Burgau on May 5th. 2007. Who owns this property?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hello post 21
    Was the reason that the Foreign Office turned down a request for a freedom of information act disclosure, quoting some information a relative of Madeleine had given in confidence anything to do with the possibility of her care being transferred to a relative? There is no reference to this elsewhere, but the PJ must have had a reason to ask Kate this question in her interview.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anon 38 - could you post a link to the GPs depositions? Very interesting information indeed. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  50. This case is like a tangled skein of wool; difficult to untangle, but gradually revealing more information as perceptive, well-informed and sceptical contributors to this site add their posts. I'm beginning to see a possible scenario unravelling.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Brian Kennedy had a nerve to be interfering with witnesses like that.

    He also paid Mr Smith a visit.

    They should not allow people like Kennedy near them, given the latest technology e.g. listening devises, etc that can be planted and not detected, and the shady characters the McCanns have involved themselves with.

    For goodness sake the McCanns are suspects themselves, even though the case is shelved and their arguido status lifted. They could still end up being charged.

    The McCanns and their so called investigators should be told to get lost until they can prove their abduction fairy story.

    Sinister.

    So what was Kennedy really up to?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Thank you Joana, that was a really interesting read. Hmm so they tried in May to get an injunction from the same judge and she refused. Not a peep about that in the Press! Hopefully this judge after considering the documented evidence presented and then hearing the testomonial evidence by the witnesses at the hearing in Jan 2010 will lift the injuction.




    "GA: No, I don't think so. What is in...the process, and notice, the process itself wasn't used by the requesting party to state that they were defamed. It was used a book - what is in the book is on the process - they say that the book defames them, and even that it difficults the search for the little girl, but they didn't use as proof nor joined to the claim the process that was distributed to the journalists, something that we used to opposed to [the claim]. What is there its facts, evidences, a series of things, for example, we could go and pick up the reports, or the couple could, the reports of the detectives agencies that they've hired and then we could understand what exactly those detective agencies did. There are a series of things that still need to be talked. And have to be discussed."

    Joana with regard to the above paragraph.

    To cite the process (and follow any legal route against the process) to state they were defamed. Would that mean the process would be re-opened to defend it's content?

    ReplyDelete
  53. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494591/Madeleine-Suspect-Robert-Murat-hires-publicist-Max-Clifford-clear-name.html

    Press reports that Murat hired Max Clifford....17th Nov 2007....must have something to do with this...

    ReplyDelete
  54. Shubob, perhaps he was one of the facilitators in a pre-planned fake abduction that went horribly wrong. Remember the four photographs and Yvonne Martin hearing Kate say that Maddie had been "taken by a couple", it takes someone with local knowledge to know where (and where not) the cctv cameras are.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Robert Murat somehow is involved whether he was paid hush money or he knows what happened to Maddy whichever he is involved imo, noway would anyone who had been fingered so much not just by the Tapas Friends but by the Media, would NEVER have stayed so quiet.
    Very Very strange but the truth will come out in the end, Mr Amaral will make sure of it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Yep Anon 39 Murat is involved, we have all got our heads around it, money is the root of all evil imo

    ReplyDelete
  57. Whoops sorry mean Anon 40 not 39 sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Very interesting that the injunction was first rejected by the judge in May. The McCanns kept that quiet, didn't they???
    I think it is encouraging that the judge did turn them down at first, it proves that actually they can't always expect tto snap their fingers and then get what they want, it also shows that decisions can go against them- the results of the hearing are maybe not a foregone conclusion!! Mr. Amaral does not seem to be a man who is beaten.

    I also think it is comendable the way he says that as much as he obviously feels for Madeleine, his own daughters come first. As much as we all want justice for Madeleine I think it is absolutely fair enough that this is so. Any parent would put their own children first, with a few notable exceptions. Maybe if the McCanns had had similar sentiments to Mr Amaral then we would not be sitting here discussing what happened to their daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Well, one thing is for sure, and that is that if the man Mr Smith saw was carrying Madeleine then it was not Murat, because Mr Smith knew who he was and would have recognised him.

    Mr Smith even spoke to the man.

    He says it definitely wasn't Robert Murat.

    And when he saw Gerry McCann walking off the plane with the child, he could not sleep, because he was eighty per cent sure it was him he had seen that night.

    Gerry McCann was the man Mr Smith recognised as the man carrying the Madeleine lookalike child who was on his way to the beach area.

    No wonder the McCanns don't want this sighting mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  60. With regards to Murat, I still don't think he's directly involved. The only thing about him I question now is why he seems comfortable with the investigation being in a state of limbo? Like another contributor commented, he shouldn't feel complacent because the McCanns may not be done with him yet. If he really has nothing to do with Maddie's disappearance in any shape or form he'll do well to request the re-opening of the case. And I want to know what was discussed (and agreed?) during Brian Kennedy and Ed Smethurt's contentious visit. The Smiths apparently told them were to get off. What was Murat's reaction which led to him being prima facie persecuted by Team McCann following the visit?

    ReplyDelete
  61. If anyone goes to the CEOP conference ask Gamble a question...ask him if he denies the existance of 'The Magdelene Homes' I have been assured he will not.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Money is indeed the the root of all evil, my money is on child tracking devices, originally inspired by the Soham case though the Wells and Chapmans are not the sort to make money out of a tragedy.

    Interesting fact, so far as I'm aware, neither the Wells nor the Chapmans have ever made any kind of public statement re the Maddy case, no messages of sympathy or support even in the early days, correct me if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The apartment in Burgau, wasn't there something about hairs found there that were a close match to JT and RM? One hair in the bathroom at the Burgau apartment either from RM or the same maternal bloodline.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Didn't the dogs also find Maddies traces in Murats house ?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Mr Amaral has worked extremely hard and has detected, albeit a few, some hard, concrete facts in this case, which counter many theories and assumptions. Some of the actual facts that exist are well known, but worth repeating: -

    1. No proven timeline for the group has ever been provided.

    2. Mrs Fenn heard crying on night of 1st May for 75 minutes (she really gave their game away!)

    3. The McCann’s left their children alone for 4 consecutive nights in the apartment.

    4. The shutters were not damaged.

    5. Gerry McCann was seen by Jez Wilkins outside the complex (no proof that he went inside)

    6. Witnesses independent of the McCann group saw a man (they claim to look like GM) carrying a child towards the beach at a time appropriate to the disappearance.

    7. Blood specs were found in the apartment.

    8. Cadaver odour was discovered in and around the apartment.

    9. Cadaver odour was discovered in and around the hire car.

    10. Brian Kennedy visited potential Prosecution witnesses.

    Significant in the above is that no timeline can be guaranteed and no evidence actually exists that they increased their checks. And yet in their account they claimed to be checking every 30 minutes on night of 3rd after what Mrs Fenn heard on night of 1st. Why not the 2nd then? This surely casts doubts on their timeline.

    Did they even know, prior to the 3rd, that Mrs Fenn even existed? Did they know, prior to her Statement, that Mrs Fenn had heard crying? We have only their word, revealed after Mrs Fenn gave her Statement, that Madeleine told them about the crying at breakfast the following day – spun into one of their many ‘innocent explanations’.

    The obvious conclusion in any right thinking mind then is that their timeline was manufactured to fit into the circumstances of 3rd May.

    ReplyDelete
  66. About Murat's involvement(or not), or if he was acquainted with the McCanns before May 2007 (or not), one thing I remember that was talked about is that he had to rent a car with some urgency, because he had lent his own car to the McCanns or to someone from the Tapas group. I'm not sure were this came from, maybe it's in the files, in the testimony of the car-rental lady?
    Was it the truth, did he indeed lend the car to complete strangers?! Why? Was it one of those Murat "things", being a busybody, almost pathologically over-helpful, always eager to be "into" things? Or was he helping out old acquaintances, either voluntarily or ordered by someone?...

    ReplyDelete
  67. Mr Amaral does appear to be very astute, he is an experienced police officer who deserves respect.

    The McCann Team in my opinion are a bunch of Money Grabbing Self Seeking individuals hiding behind a childs disappearance.

    I would like to thank and wish a very Happy New Year to all who contribute to this site.

    HAPPY NEW YEAR XXX

    ReplyDelete
  68. A must read for those who have always been convinced of the masonic connection.
    The ship is sinking
    Justice is coming.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Post 66...There was an article in the early days where a member of Murats family (Possibley Aunt Sally) said in an interview that Murat lent the Mccanns his car , Will see if I can find this.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Good morning Joana Astro...Happy New Year to you both.

    Joana can you please link me to the statements of the Two Doctors..Hussey and Richards. I started to look last night and got nowhere fast.Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Robert Murat's mother's house was searched several times and her garden was also dug up, nothing was found. Robert Murat's computer was seized as well and it was returned to him because there was nothing untoward on the computer.

    Robert Murat was also taken in for questioning several times, in the end he asked to be made an arguido, because it gave him certain rights such as the right to have a solicitor present when he was questioned.

    Robert Murat complied with the police 100%, he even moved out of his mother's home while the investigation into his alleged involvement into Madeleine's disappearance continued.

    I wonder why the police were so thorough in their investigation of him, while leaving the ones who caused Madeleine's disappearance, her parents, to their own devices.

    Someone calls Robert Murat a busy body, I don't know why, he was often called in by the police to act as an interpreter and this he was doing, when the journalist made her accusation against him. He and his mother have been put through the mill because of the journalist's false allegation and the Tapas 7s lies.

    Maybe Robert Murat has a genuine reason for sacking Max Clifford, he isn't the first person to dispense with Mr Clifford's services and he won't be the last.

    Some people are still slinging mud at Robert Murat, but the ones who matter to him, his mother, his ex wife and his friends and neighbours in PDL are standing by him.

    ReplyDelete
  72. CARTAS ROGATORIAS UK (FILE 3)
    1 to 3—Witness Statement of Philip Hussey (McCann family doctor) 2008.05.15

    http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post700.html#p700

    Testimony from Ian Richard Schofield 14 May 2008
    3—Witness statement of Ian Richard Schofield (Dr. at Alpine Practice) 2008.05.14

    http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post7259.html#p7259

    ReplyDelete
  73. I have always felt that Murat is an enigma in all of this. What connection he had to Maddie's disappearance I don't know, but the reaction from GM when asked if he knew him said it all. He could just have said "No", but he declined to comment. Why would he do this if he didn't know him from before? I seem to recollect reading that Murat was at a Healy wedding as a child, and that he and GM met at a Labour Party Conference in Exeter. I am convinced they knew him from before.

    Just why Kennedy went to see him we don't know, but it could have been to pay him hush money, or to get some answers from him to satisfy his own conclusions. Did he go to see him before Murat hired Max Clifford? If it was after, maybe it was to get him to dump him because Clifford is well known for getting maximum publicity for his clients and Murat could have been led into telling all he knew! As it is, he has kept extremely quiet, just like the Tapas pals!

    ReplyDelete
  74. I would just like to wish Joana,and all her team, and everyone on here who is fighting for JUSTICE FOR MADELEINE a VERY HAPPY AND HEALTHY 2010! And not forgetting GONCALO AMARAL and his family of course!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Do the two doctors who happen to have been Madeleine's doctors and yet never saw Madeleine, also happen to be friends of Kate and Gerry?

    If so, yes, well!!! Say no more! They could hardly be classed as independent witnesses if they are pals of the McCanns.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Mr Amaral is right - it's all to do with image, not with Madeleine. Some simple facts stand out above all else, ie any parent whose child has vanished would be begging the police to reopen the case, would be desperate to know why the world's best cadaver dog found the scent of a dead body in the apartment, would be promising to do all asked of them by the investigating police force and insisting their friends do the same.

    They would NOT be spending their time and money chasing people in the hope of censoring other people's opinions and demanding money from them. They would NOT be spending money on having an official spokesman (what on earth do they need a spokesman for?), nor would they be employing the services of PR people or image consultants. GA is right when he says this is all about image, because only those concerned chiefly with their own public image would be squandering money in this way. (Anyway, they ruined their own image by the way they left their children night after night; no one else did that, they did it themselves).

    As for Robert Murat, I see no reason at all to think he was ever involved in any way. He seems to have been a convenient scapegoat who was dragged into this mess through no fault of his own, indeed partly because he tried to be helpful. He wasn't the one going out night after night leaving children home alone and defenceless in the face of danger of any kind, eg sickness, accident, fire. It isn't his responsibility to ask for the case to be reopened, Madeleine was not his child. The responsibility for Madeleine's care and safety was never that of anyone but her parents, and they failed her. They may cast around for other people to blame but the blame in the very first instance is theirs.

    It's to be hoped that the very first thing Gerry McCann says when he speaks at the CEOP conference is to tell other people never to be so stupid, so reckless, as to do what he and his wife did on holiday, to tell them never to leave children alone because there are far too many potential dangers for defenceless children to cope with when they are too young to have the skills to do so. I won't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I don't believe Murat was involved in any way, except as being a convenient patsy.

    If you read the witness statements, it was somebody Gerry McCann had played tennis with who first told him about what had happened, and which led him to volunteer his services as interpreter to help them.

    As for Gerry McCann refusing to answer as to whether or not he knew Murat, contrary to Murat, who says he definitely did not know the McCanns prior to meeting them on that occasion, that answer of Gerry McCann's would no doubt be Gerry's little way of making sure that confusion is best.

    True to his word is Gerry on that confusion is best statement because it has been nothing but.

    Why anybody is willing to believe anything the McCann pair says is amazing.

    So where are your credit cards then Gerry? You know, the ones you told the investigators you didn't possess, and then used to pay for the hire car?

    Hardly truthful that, was it.

    So what happened to your statement that you first knew that Madeleine was missing when you saw Cuddlecat on the shelf then Kate?

    You have since gone on to say that the toy was on the bed all the time?

    Is that because Oldfield had been into the apartment after JT said she saw Bundleman at about 9.10pm, at same time as seeing Gerry and Wilkins.

    As Bundleman was supposed to be the abductor he could hardly have put the toy on the shelf, because Oldfield had been looking at the books on the shelf after that time at about 9.30pm, and mentions no Cuddlecat being there.

    But you wouldn't have known that, so is that why the story had to change??

    What the McCanns have said has changed with the telling.

    ReplyDelete
  78. The two Doctors are not discussing Madeleine or her health ..these are friends of the Mccanns explaining how nice they are and that they could not have poissibly harmed their daughter..GA is not saying they harmed their daughter he believes there was an accident in the apartment.

    ReplyDelete
  79. The McCanns are not 'nice' people if they are willing to cover up the death of their child in the apartment so as to save their own necks.

    That also includes letting other people get roped in as suspects, and their pursuit of people who dare to say differently to their fairy story abduction scenario.

    Plus, having old age pensioners and school children sending them money on the strength of something that has never been proved.

    In fact, quite the contrary, when their abduction fairy story is against what is being said by the official investigators who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine, and have informed the parents of this.

    They have also refused to cooperate with the investigation, and the child's 'nice' mother was not even willing to answer questions regarding her child, even admitting that by doing so she could harm the investigation into the discovery of her child.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Stephen Carpenter's statement mentions him introducing Murat to the MCann group. Interestingly, his time line is different to the one presented by the group.The haplotypes of the maternal lines of Tanner and Murat found at Aparthotel C on 5.5.07. are in the PJ files. So, was it was a complete co-incidence that the PJ went to a place where these 2 haplotypes were found; although no direct connection to JT or RM, or WERE they the genetic traces of both of them?
    If the latter, I don't think this necessarily means that RM had anything to do directly with M's disappearance, but I think this incident in Burgau needs a rational explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anon at 80

    Perhaps Dr Amaral might be able to answer this sometime, as it would be interesting to understand what that was about.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Was Madeleine McCann's disappearance planned in England?

    Was Madeleine's health problems a decisive factor in this planning?

    Was she so difficult a child that ultimate measures had to be taken?

    Should we interpret literally Gerald McCann's ”Fuck off I'm not here to enjoy myself”?

    He had CEOP's manual (took with him in he beginning of he trip or or was it given to him when he visited CEOP in August 2007?

    His choice of reading ”The Interpretation of Murder”. Was it a coincidence? Read on:

    Nigel Moore (mccannfiles)
    03 January 2009
    Thanks to Dr Martin Roberts for quotes

    It may be remembered that Gerry McCanns' choice of bedtime reading, whilst staying at the Vista Mar villa, was 'The Interpretation of Murder' by Jed Rubenfeld.

    A seemingly inappropriate choice of book for a man whose daughter was allegedly in the hands of a predatory paedophile. Although, perhaps not so peculiar when one considers some quotes from the book:

    "The announcement was pure invention, but it was believed, and therefore within three weeks it was so. Mr Banwell had mastered the great truth that truth itself, like buildings, can be manufactured." (p.9).

    "I cannot be expected to solve a murder if the evidence is trampled and tampered with before I arrive." (p.22).

    "In this heat, he explained, decomposition would rapidly set in if the corpse was not refrigerated at once." (p.28).

    "Littlemore studied the bedroom. 'Miss Acton', he said, 'how do you think the man got in here last night?'

    'Well, he must have – why, I don't know.'

    It was, Littlemore reflected, certainly a puzzle. There were only two doors to the Acton house, the front and the back... ....Could the intruder have climbed in through a window?" (p.299).

    In http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2009/01/interpretation-of-murder.html

    Continuing:

    The Bible. Did they bring it along or got it in PDL? They were not practising catholics therefore it seems strange the appearance of such book. Could it be part of the décor of a mis-en-scène?

    Kate's diary. When was it really written, before or after Maddie's disappearance (again, part of that mis-en-scène)?

    The apartment seemed to have been cleaned methodically of any forensic evidence before he arrival of he PJ (read excerpt taken from the mccannfiles, above).

    Didn't bother to personally search for their child.

    The out of character behaviour of both Gerald and Kate when, before the police, both went on their knees moaning (in a muslim prayer position as the police officer described).

    Their coolness during the days after, culminating with their famous smiling faces in the church yard.

    He tennis and jogging daily routine, completely out of character of someone ho has just lost a daughter.

    Finally, the monstruous PR apparatus mounted in a blink of the eye that we all already know of, including the diplomatic backing.

    Probably none of this happened by chance.
    The only thing they didn't think of was the unexpected use of Eddie and Keela by the police. They forgot to contemplate this in their programmed plan.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Posters 76 and 77 I would like to believe also that Murat is not involved, but why when the Arguido has been lifted, Murat has chosen to stay silent, when he could have spoken out about why he was accused and fingered by the Tapas lot, his family Mother, ex wife and daughter slandered in the press because of his arguido status, no his silence makes me question him and just makes me think he is involved. If it had been my Husband he would still be shouting about it and pointing the finger back at the Tapas lot now 18 months later, IMO there is far more to this case then we realise, and hopefully 2010 is the year we will find out, who is involved and why, and the culprits involved in Maddies demise put in prison!!!

    ReplyDelete
  84. I remember reading about a condom found in the drains with DNA found from 2 people that shouldn't have been using it, if this is true (dont know if it is a forum myth or not)if so then Im sure this will come out when the case gets to court, and is this further evidence Mr Amaral has against certain people in the Tapas9 group!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  85. LilyoftheValley

    Perhaps that was what the visit from Kennedy was really about.

    To warn him not to ask for the case to be reopened. There does appear to have been intimidation shown towards the Murat family.

    And his mother is very elderly. It must have been a nightmare for him, what with the Tapas lot pointing a finger at him, saying he was there that night, even though the Warner staff who knew him were saying he wasn't.

    Then when it was proved he wasn't there, the McCanns' pals did a U turn and backed down.

    What memories those people have. At best, highly suggestible nonsense. At worst, highly dangerous for innocent people.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Didn't the dogs also find Maddies traces in Murats house ?

    30/12/2009 23:12
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No they didn't and you know bloody well they did not.

    Thought you could slip in your snidey remark did you?

    Have noticed a few like this lately. 66, 69 and 73. They are using a new tactic. Sublety or at least an attempt. Doh!

    User names linked to ip's is the only way. Far too many anonymous posters here.
    SoJ.

    ReplyDelete
  87. In Libel payouts it is quite normal for conditions to be attached.

    In Murat's case it appears one interview was permitted, ( Newsnight was it?) Then shutdown.

    Simple, so why the suspicion?
    SoJ

    ReplyDelete
  88. Hello Lily of the Valley and a happy New Year to you. Robert Murat has spoken out and he successfully sued the media, for lies that were printed about him and his mother. Robert Murat's friends successfully sued the media as well for the lies they printed about them.

    What more would you like him to say? Unlike the McCanns he stayed in PDL when he was made an arguido, they ran like rats deserting a sinking ship.

    Robert Murat may have known Gerry McCann, but it doesn't mean he is involved in Madeleine's disappearance. All he did was act was an interpreter for the police, when Madeleine disappeared, nothing unusual about that, he acted as an interpreter on many occasions.

    He was supposidly seen walking past the McCanns apartment in PDL, nothing unusual about that, he lived in PDL and he had to pass the apartment on his way to the shop and the Tapas Bar.

    The McCanns and their team, are known to frequent these boards and they will love the fact that some are accusing Robert Murat of being involved in Madeleine's disappearance, because it takes some of the heat off them.

    Lets not forget it was the McCanns who started this whole ball rolling, they are 100% responsible for whatever fate has befallen Madeleine. Robert Murat's mother has suffered greatly because of the McCanns and their Tapas friends and so has his daughter and ex-wife.

    Lets remember, Robert Murat's mother's home was searched several times and her garden was turned over 2 or 3 times, there was no evidence found. Robert Murat's computer was seized, because some one reported him for having obscene images on it. His computer was given back to him because nothing untoward was found. If there was the slightest clue that showed he was involved in Madeleine's disappearance, you can bet your bottom dollar he would have been prosecuted.

    There was evidence found in the McCanns apartment and that evidence lead the police to believe that Madeleine was harmed in that apartment. There was the scent of death on Kate McCanns clothing and "cuddle cat". She said she had certified 6 deaths in the week before she went on holiday and "cuddle cat" had the scent of death on him because she took him to work.

    Kate McCann worked 1½ days a week, 6 deaths is a lot for her to certify in 1½ days. Also "cuddle cat" was Madeleine's favourite toy, so why would she take him to work and why would she take him to the houses where she supposedly certified the 6 deaths? Also why was the scent of death not on Gerry McCanns clothing or the twins, no doubt they handled cuddle cat.

    Yes there is loads of evidence that points the finger that the McCanns, especially Kate McCann are more involved with Madeleine's disappearance, than neglect.

    If only "cuddle cat" could talk what a tale he would tell.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Hi SOJ and a happy New Year to you. Some of these posters who are accusing Robert Murat of being involved with Madeleine's disappearance, remind me of certain posters on a message board I used to post on. If anyone criticised the McCanns they were called flagrant liars or words to that effect and Robert Murat was always spoke of as the bad one. I used to put links on the board as proof, but I was still called a flagrant liar.

    These pro McCanns who I suspected were a little to close to the McCanns, said the McCanns made a mistake and that was that.

    I left the message board because these pro McCanns got really personal, I used to use the name of my dead doggie as my screen name and they used him, as a stick to beat me with. Don't get me wrong, I was as bad as them in the end and I thought it better to leave, rather than bring myself down to their level.

    ReplyDelete
  90. To SoJ
    Any comments I have entered regarding Robert Murat are based on the PJ files. I do not support the MCann's assertions in any way, I'm a firm suppoorter of Mr Amaral, I have written to my MP and Ministry of Justice about my concerns and will be writing to anyone with influence to protest about GM's involment in the CEOP conference.I remain anonymous because of my proessional work, but I would be happy for Joana to contact me if she had any concerns about my contributions.
    I wish Joana, yourself (whose posts I repect) and other contributors a Happy New Year.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Happy new year to you Kathybelle to you and yours!!, no I dont believe that Murat is responsable for Maddies demise that is definately Gerry and Kates fault, what I question is that in the UK he maybe could only give one interview but what is stopping him speaking out on TV or in Papers in PT, imo I would have thought he would have happily slaughted the whole of the Tapas lot for what they put him and his family though, on the "1 News Night interview" he didnt speak of the Tapas 9 and what they put him through and that they were lying, so yes I think he has alot more to say!!
    What Im trying to say is that imo Murat and the Tapas lot do know each other and that is probably the reason he is staying quiet knowing they have as much on him as he has on them, now to me this is were I think he is involved, because imo this is helping them.

    Im not bothered if Team Mccann read these forums, they know the truth about that night and that Murat was not involved with Maddies disappearance, and trolling the internet forums reading anti Murat comments WILL NOT STOP the truth coming out, because 2010 imo will be the year that the truth will start to come out.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I think someone scared the hell out of Robert Murat, and that is why he is keeping quiet. His ex-wife and young daughter are in this country, which makes them especially vulnerable, and I would not be at all surprised to hear that it is the thought of their safety that is keeping Robert quiet. I totally agree that under normal circumstances anyone who had been treated like him would be shouting from the rooftops, I certainly would, but these are not normal circumstances, and none of us know what was said to him when he was 'visited' in Portugal. Once justice has been finally done in this case then maybe he will speak out, when he is confident that his family are safe. It is simply playing into the hands of Team McCann to suggest anything else. Not everyone can be as brave as Amaral has been and continues to be.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Robert Murat knows more than he is letting on. He was not the abductor because there was NO abductor!
    However he knows ALOT more than he has said without doubt, also has anyone noticed how NONE of the media are asking to speak with him or others to correct any misconceptions??? Everthing is controlled centrally through the Mccanns!

    2010 has many shocks in stall......many!


    mojo

    ReplyDelete
  94. Regarding the two doctors - I read through their statements (thanks for the links!) and it seems to me not to be very remarkable. The first doctor (Hussey) says that Madeleine was always seen by the duty doctor or the nurse - nothing remarkable there, I don't think. The second one (Schofield) says that he was their family GP for 14 months - as the statement was taken about 1 year after Madeleine disappeared, that means that he would have been their GP for only a couple of months before she vanished, and hadn't seen her in that period. Again, not at all remarkable.

    The focus of their statements seems to be on the question of whether the McCanns had ever given them cause for concern for the welfare of the children (no in both cases) and whether they had ever prescribed any medications to the McCann adults that may have altered their mental state. (E.g., looking for evidence of treatment for depression etc.)

    What would be more interesting is Madeleine's medical history - to prove or deny the speculation that she had serious health problems. Although I would say that the lack of familiarity of her to the family doctor rather suggests not - if she had she would be well known to the family GP.

    -- Trismegistus

    ReplyDelete
  95. anon 92 made me think of how easy it is to keep someone quiet...if any of us had just one phone call by a sinister sounding voice telling us to keep off the internet forums or else...is there anyone who would dare not to comply? my brother in california in the seventies was warned by such a call when working selling real estate warning him not to sell to an applicant who was black...believe me it works

    ReplyDelete
  96. @ post #92, I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. I think he's staying silent until the case is re-opened. I am of the firm belief that he has a whole lot more to say. Aside from slating the usual suspects, he could also slate the PJ but he hasn't! When he gave a speech at the Cambridge Union earlier this year, he could have said a lot more but again, he didn't. I think he'll speak at the right time. Thinking about it, the McCanns would probably prefer if he spoke now so they can provide "innocent explanations" to rebut whatever unhelpful thing he says. They can't be happy with his complete silence I don't think.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @ post #94, isn't it suspicious that the McCanns didn't ask the duty doctors and nurses who apparently saw Maddie to give statements? It was their idea for the two doctors to be interviewed after all.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Something has always bothered me about Robert Murat's treatment by the Portuguese police, it was as if they were determined to be able to find something regarding Madeleine's disappearance, that would enable them to prosecute him.

    He was in my opinion harassed by the police, the Tapas 7, were allowed to question him, even though they as well as the McCanns were guilty of leaving their children without adult supervision, one child was even sick, but was still left alone by its parents, lets not forget Madeleine was the oldest of all the children on holiday.

    Robert Murat was always questioned without a solicitor present and he asked to be made an arguido because it gave him the right to have a solicitor present when he was next questioned.

    The McCanns and the Tapas 7 were all witnesses and along with Robert Murat were duty bound to answer all questions regarding Madeleine's disappearance. Was Kate McCann still a witness, when she refused to answer the 48 questions or was she an arguido? If she was a witness, why was she not prosecuted for refusing to answer the questions. If she was an arguido when she refused to answer the 48 questions, then the PJ did her a favour, because an arguido does not need to answer any questions.

    I'll never understand why Robert Murat was hauled into the police station many times and his mother had to endure several searches of her house and have her garden dug up 2or 3 times, while the perpetrators of Madeleine's disappearance, the McCanns were allowed to go hither and thither when ever they pleased.

    We know the McCanns were protected, but it seems so were the Tapas 7, all broke the law, then they left their children without supervision and all have refused to cooperate with the PJ, only Robert Murat fully cooperated with them.

    I am saying they broke the law, because I heard a Portuguese news reporter say they had broken the law. I heard Portuguese and British lawyers say they had broken the law. The McCanns said they fled PDL because they feared they would be prosecuted if they stayed, Philomena McCann said her brother and his wife expected to be prosecuted, Clarence Mitchell said they expected to be prosecuted.

    Why weren't they? Not prosecuting the McCanns has given them an air of superiority. Goncalo Amaral needs to win his case against them and knock that air of superiority out of their heads. The Portuguese legal system needs to back him up as well.

    ReplyDelete
  99. First of all let me say that I am completely pro Madeleine and completely anti McCann, but as much as it might irk some, this is a discussion forum and therefore everyone is entitled to their say, however distasteful it is to some. I don't think anyone has accused Robert Murat of anything specific. He has been brought into the equation simply because of the publicity that has surrounded him from the start and by that off the cuff question asked of Gerald McCann about whether he knew him or not. I think he was caught off his guard and said the first thing that came into his head. I would neither be surprised if Murat was completely innocent of anything connected to Maddie's disappearance, but on the other hand I wouldn't be too surprised if he did know more than he has admitted to. I hope and pray it is the former.

    ReplyDelete
  100. post 94

    I disagree. I believe that it is certainly remarkabe that a child who's health is in question, ( as intimated by the former policeman in charge of the investigation into her disappearance ) should have two 'family doctors' who had never even seen her, nominated by the child's parents to give witness statements to the police.

    No deposition was ever made to the police, from ANY medical professional in relation to Madeleine McCann's state of health.

    No deposition was ever made available from ANY medical professional who had actually seen the child.

    How can you not find that remarkable ?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Re: Joana @ 72

    Dr Ian Riachards Scholfield's deposition(the McCann's GP in Rothley who never actually saw Madeleine):

    "As Kate and Gerry are general practitioners I never had any doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents to their three children."


    I am flabbergasted! Another statement from an 'intellegent' doctor who seems to think that being a GP is a good enough reason for believeing everything G & K say! What is happening to the NHS - is this really the calibre and incisiveness of the average family doctor.

    On a second point, I visited my mother in Queniborough over the Christmas break and glanced at a few recent copies of the Leicester Mercury (the local newspaper). It might have been mentioned here before but the 'days missing' counter is no longer featured in the newspaper. It seems even the Leicester Mercury has also tired of the story.

    Mr B

    ReplyDelete
  102. 88 Kathybelle
    I think to keep the record straight it was a relative of Kate's who gave out all that stuff about the number of corpses she had dealt with in the week before the holiday, and taking cuddlecat to work. Not Kater herself. But given the control they have kept over what went into the public domain, this might have come indirectly from Kate/Gerry/Clarrie

    ReplyDelete
  103. @Shubob 97 - yes I do find it odd that the interviews do not contain statements from those who actually gave medical care to Madeleine. Would that not be a thing of interest to the investigation? Especially given the questions about her overall health raised by the presence of the coloboma (TM).

    The point I was making is that the fact that these two doctors had never personally seen Madeleine, does not a priori appear to be sinister.

    We have a tendency in this case to see monsters where there are only shadows!

    And I always apply Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    Conspiracy requires a level of organisation that most of the ones accused of it are not capable of. It is blundering, not conspiracy.

    Mind you, I do not mean to imply that there is no inappropriate use of power. That is a different thing from conspiracy.

    Blessed Be.

    --Trismegistus

    ReplyDelete
  104. Off-course NOBODY is LOOKING for the LITTLE GIRL. The police ( PJ & British police ) have many clues about what may happened to the little girl, then they still searching a body. The rest of the main characters involved on the charade, know the truth and exactly where she is and what is her condition. They don't spend a single penny on her. Instead, they use money hired from public donations to silence the truth and hundreds of days, trillions of hours, at home, searching the Internet, looking into Blogs and sites like this one to frame people. They will leave no stone unturned if the stone were trowed at their faces. Shame on them...
    I hope this new year will bring some dignity to that little girl and made her parents to think more about her and less about them and their celebrity life. I hope, one day.... in 2010, they buy and give their daughter a wonderful bouquet of perfumed and bright flowers, instead of pursuing the only man which really Care's about what happened to Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  105. sorry, not pursuing...prosecuting, instead.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Kathybelle

    It must have been hard for the PJ to ignore it when Murat was being stitched up, when friend after friend of the McCanns were coming forward saying they had seen him that night, when he was saying he wasn't there.

    Even though the people who worked at the place and knew him, also said he wasn't there.

    And wasn't it O'Brien who had been accusing Murat of being there, when he found out, dismissed it by simply saying he must have been confused and it was the day after he had seen him.

    Then we had his wife JT saying Murat was definitely the man she saw that night because of the way he walked, then she changed her mind and moved on to yet other descriptions of what she supposedly saw.

    Don't these people, and their other pals, care that they could have got this man a life sentence for their false accusations?

    Have they ever apologised to him? A profuse apology is the least they owe him.

    He should have been able to sue them, but whether that was possible given their finger pointing was done in witness statements, I don't know.

    Yet, I would imagine he could have sued Clarence Mitchell for the implications he was making between Murat and the Soham murderer.

    What happened to Murat is a disgrace, and I notice there are still people coming on here trying to implicate him as being involved with the McCanns in some way, which does not make any sense whatsoever, because it is obvious the McCanns and their Tapas cronies are no friends of his, and vice versa.

    Sr Murat is very brave to have stood up against Team McCann, but unfortunately not everybody is brave enough, or in a position to be able to take them on, and they know this.

    They were probably thinking they could get away with it again with Sr Amaral. What a shock it must have been to them that somebody is fighting back in the face of all their millions, their top lawyers, and their disgraceful media backing.

    The truth will out.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Hi Anonymous (106) and thanks for your reply.

    I do understand that the Portuguese police were duty bound to question Robert Murat, I just don't understand why they didn't feel duty bound to question the McCanns as often as Robert Murat.Not only were the McCanns, the perpetrators of Madeleine's disappearance, but they lied to the police, in the early stages of the investigation, to save their own skins and the police were aware that they lied.

    The police were also aware that the couple never searched for their little girl and the rest of their behaviour was very strange, for a couple whose daughter had supposedly been abducted.

    I also don't understand why the police were so thorough in their searches of Mrs Murat's property and not the McCanns apartment. Many clues were found in the McCanns apartment, that lead the police to believe Madeleine could have been harmed, in the later stages of the investigation, well after the searches of Mrs Murat's property had taken place.

    In my opinion, the McCanns gave the police so many clues, in the early stages of the investigation, as to why they were more involved in Madeleine's disappearance, than neglect and they were ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  108. "As Kate and Gerry are general practitioners I never had any doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents to their three children."

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

    ReplyDelete
  109. Murat isn't the only not saying anything. The media is pretty quiet too unless the article is spin and fawning. Why????

    ReplyDelete
  110. @ post #103, it is sinister that the doctors who had actually treated Maddie where not asked by her parents to give statements. What's the point of asking people who hadn't even clapped eyes on her to give statements concerning her?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Did Madeleine never have any health checks when she was a young baby? Her weight taken, measurements, etc.

    It is usual for the mother to either take the child for these checks, or for a health visitor to call and visit the mother.

    Did Madeleine never have injections? Never had a visit to a hospital for anything?

    Is there no record anywhere, healthwise, of anything to do with Madeleine McCann?

    If so, shades of no DNA available, all over again.

    What an enigma Madeleine appears to be.

    ReplyDelete
  112. @ post #109, you are correct. Murat is not the only one who is quiet. Lori Campbell is also quiet and I'm pretty certain she was used by certain individuals- the so called "sources close to the family" she regularly quoted in her articles who were apparently briefing her against Murat. Why hasn't she come out to defend herself?

    ReplyDelete
  113. Madeleine was said to be a sleepwalker.

    Is there no medical information about her regarding that?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Kathybelle

    I agree, they really did put Murat through the mill, unlike the McCanns and crew.

    I hope they reopen the case and begin to search for a dead Madeleine, and this may encourage others to help in the search also, just as people have been helping search for a live Madeleine.

    I hope they concentrate searches on the Church, the countryside around PDL, and the McCanns house and garden, especially the bedroom of Madeleine. I hope they take the dogs for the search of the house and garden.

    Why should the Murat family be the only ones to be inconvenienced by having their house and property searched? After all, it is the McCanns child, so the search should start with them.

    ReplyDelete
  115. You only need to read Kate's diary and Russell O'Brien's rogatory interview to see what the Tapas 9 were planning to do to Murat. They invested a lot into framing him!

    ReplyDelete
  116. post 110 ( ShuBob )

    What I find most troubling is the conspicuos absense of the 'family doctor' with whom the McCann family were registered for the year before Madeleine went missing.

    They supplied the name of Dr Hussey, who had been Madeleine's doctor since her birth, although he had never actually set eyes on her .... and they gave the name of Dr Schofield, with whom they registered Madeleine as a patient just a matter of weeks before she disappeared. Again, this doctor had never set eyes on the child.

    The last time Dr Hussey saw Kate McCann as a patient was on the 10th of March 2006.

    The first time Dr Schofield saw Kate McCann as a patient was in March 2007.

    Who was their doctor for the missing year ? ... and is it possible that he DID treat Madeleine, and that he might actually have something of substance to say about the state of health of the child when she went missing ? ( and perhaps the state of health of her mother at that time )

    I can think of no other reason for the McCann's apparently air-brushing out the year between March 2006 and March 2007 by only supplying the names of the GP's either side of it.

    ReplyDelete
  117. If none of those doctors ever set eyes on Madeleine does that mean that her parent(s) acted as her doctors(s)all since she was born? Maybe they were obliged by law to register her with the local doctor's practice, but never actually took her to any appointment? Isn't that odd?...And, I have always been convinced that it was ILEGAL(or at least innapropriate, not looked upon favourably by the ethics of medicine) for a doctor to be the main health care provider of his/hers relatives?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anon at 117

    I also thought that it was illegal, or at least unethical, for doctors to be THE doctor for their own children.

    But, as usual in this case, the McCanns are the ones who are in control of that information.

    There is a central computer in the UK where everybody's medical information is kept, but whether it is kept completely up to date, who knows.

    It would depend on the varous doctors' health centres if they have yet put all their records on this, but it might be worth the investigators checking.

    Or look to see whether informtion about somebody called Madeleine McCann has been removed/changed.

    By the way, Dr Shipman, the serial killer, had tried to change information about his patients on his computer, but they had discovered it.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Wouldn't Madeleine have been seen by a specialist at some point in regard to her eye problem? I would imagine that 'loving parents' would have wanted to get it checked out. . A statement from that specialist would have cleared up one way or the other whether Madeleine had any health worries regarding her eye. The fact that there appears to be no such report is strange IMO......

    ReplyDelete
  120. Someone on Martin Brunts blog over on sky, has twice tried to discredit the evidence the cadever dogs found. He continues to say how they were pretty useless when they were used in Jersey during the excavation of Haut de la Garrene.

    The dogs found significant scents which led to the discovery of charred human remains and a large number of children’s teeth ,that didn’t come out naturally.
    There is a huge cover-up taking place in Jersey, the guilty are being protected, sound familiar?
    Senator Stuart Syvret, our only politician that has worked very hard on behalf of the victims(there are over a hundred) to get justice, has had to take political asylum in London.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Hi, just thought you may be interested in this article on AOL news this morning. Regards Tony.

    http://news.aol.co.uk/madeleine-police-files-under-wraps/article/20100103043245233675215

    ReplyDelete
  122. Anon 117 is this why Maddy couldn't be found and given a PM if they had been self treating their daughter?? if so what had they been treating her for that she couldn't be given a PM ??????????

    ReplyDelete
  123. GM explained the blood in the room by pointing out Maddy's frequently having nose bleeds.

    And still no doctor saw her for over a year?

    Why not?

    ReplyDelete
  124. GM did not explain why the blood just happened to be in the same place as the cadaver scent, behind the settee.

    Not an explanation that makes any sense that is, though don't doubt he is still trying the one about his little boy and his great addiction to sea bass which seems to have left him when they left the apartment. Though the cadaver scent is also in the boot of the car quite a few weeks later. Did the little boy begin eating sea bass in the boot some time later?

    Gerry had even mentioned about the sea bass in his blog before the dogs even came on the scene!

    But there you go, if you are so interested in forensics as Gerry appears to be by his book reading, then he might have known about the similar scent.

    Always a jump or three ahead of everybody else is Gerry.

    ReplyDelete
  125. @ post #124, perhaps it was sea bass blood that leaked in the car boot which Gerry's brother-in-law mentioned in his roggy interview? The one that smelt so bad the boot had to be left open to let out the smell! The McCanns think they are smart.

    ReplyDelete
  126. 123
    He also wouldn't confirm in his PJ interview whether M had a nosebleed in 5A

    ReplyDelete
  127. No doubt that would be an explanation they would try using ShuBob, yet it doesn't explain why cadaver scent was only found in the car which they had hired weeks after they moved from the apartment, yet not found anywhere else they stayed, besides that apartment Madeleine disappeared from.

    So, if they are going to try using the sea bass story to account for that smell in the hire car, where was the sea bass being eaten that it left no smell.

    All in all, a very fishy story straight out of the bottom of the barrel.

    ReplyDelete
  128. 119 - Regarding treatment by a specialist - Matt Oldfield is an endocrinologist - maybe Maddie had some sort of endocrine dysfunction such as Turners syndrome and Matt Oldfield was her consultant?
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  129. 3 questions

    1.
    When the good doctor Payne was interviewed by the Leicestershire police, had he not left his previous employment recently, and only joined a new employer -another hospital- only a couple of days before?

    Any information on why he left the first hospital?
    Is he still with his -then- new employer?

    2.
    In one of the very first newspaper articles in May 2007, the afterwards (in)famous Cuddle cat war referred to as a ragdoll having been bought by Kate in order to present to Maddy on het 4th birthday, KM tragically having been unable to give it to her because of her disappearance.
    So where and how was this ragdoll able to pick up Maddies scent, not having been in her possession ever?

    3
    Is there any information corroborating the Gaspards?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Anon at 29

    Regarding your no 2 question,

    Presumably Cuddlecat was already around at the same time as Madeleine, because Kate made the statement on camera that it was because she saw Cuddlecat on a shelf that she first realised that Madeleine had been taken, presumably meaning that the abductor had placed it there, as it was too high for Madeleine to have done so.

    Then, the Cuddlecat has suddenly jumped down from the shelf to have found its way onto Madeleine's bed where apparently it was all the time.

    Besides this, Kate used to take Cuddlecat to work with her, especially when she was certifying dead bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Hi Anonymous (130) I remember Kate McCann saying Cuddlecat was on the shelf above Madeleine's bed. Then she remembered there was no shelf above Madeleine's bed so she changed her story and said the little cat was on Madeleiene's bed.

    She also said that Cuddlecat was Madeleine's favourite toy, yet she took the cat to work with her. I don't believe for one minute that Kate McCann took Cuddlecat to work with her, nor do I believe the story about her certifying 6 deaths in the week before she went on holiday. Kate McCann knows where the scent of death on her clothing and Cuddlecat came from and it wasn't from certifying 6 deaths, before she went on holiday.

    I'll say this for Kate McCann, she looked after Cuddlecat a lot better than her children. The twins were dumped in the creche that had become their second home, the day after Madeleine's disappearance, but she carried Cuddlecat everywhere she went.

    As I said in a previous post, if that cat could talk, what a tale it would tell.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Yes Kathybelle, she did take good care of Cuddlecat, and she washed him three times.

    Pity that, because there might have been Madeleine's DNA on it.

    ReplyDelete
  133. cadaver odour was found on the cuddle cat.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Yes, Anon at 133, it is hard to get rid of if it has been directly in contact with a dead body.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Anon @ 124 and elsewhere

    Regarding sea bass and cadaverine and blood discoveries – excuse the pun but this is a major red herring!

    The dogs are trained using pig meat (in the UK at least as it is considered unethical to use human remains) and human blood. They do not respond to sea bass. There are lots of references to the training of Eddie and Keela, for instance see the extract from the Rogatory Statement of Martin Grimes (http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic457.html).

    I could suggest that the sea bass story was invented as a precautionary cover in the event that the cleaning of 5A was not as thorough as it was hoped. However, this was done without the detailed knowledge that we have now about how the dogs are trained and what they will and will not react to.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Q: Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human?

    A: I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
    EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.


    . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    Mr B

    ReplyDelete
  136. Thanks for posting that Mr B.

    Looks like one of Gerry's excuses for the cadaver scent has just gone swimming away.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Are there any photos of the child with cuddlecat?

    ReplyDelete
  138. Anon at 138, perhaps, but if they exist they are obviously none we are meant to see for some reason or other.

    Otherwise, no doubt they would have been seen everywhere.

    I think it may have been a new toy given to Madeleine, but not really sure of the history of it.

    ReplyDelete