20 January 2010

Gerry McCann denies PJ Officers Statements


Sky Coverage of the Hearing day 2, 13th January 2010


BBC Coverage of the Hearing day 2, 13th January 2010



Pivot: Gerry McCann repudiated the PJ Inspectors who stated in court that their daughter Madeleine is dead. The father of the child disappeared in the Algarve, accuses therefore the Inspector Ricardo Paiva of lying, when he said that his wife Kate called him, in the summer of 2007, telling that she had a dream where her daughter was dead and buried at hill in Praia da Luz. The PJ inspector said that this dream was decisive to change the course of investigations.

Voice over (Sandra Felgueiras): After yesterdays absolute silence, Gerry and Kate arrived at the civil court at 9:30 am, ready to blow off steam.

SF: How did you support hearing the inspectors repeating that Madeleine is dead and that you are involved?

Gerry McCann: The most important thing yesterday was what the prosecutor said, there's absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead.

Voice Over: At the same moment Gonçalo Amaral made a completely different assessment of the statements given yesterday by the former investigation colleagues. And even by the actual Nº2 of the PJ.

Gonçalo Amaral: Since yesterday I'm not the only one speaking, I can't say anything further since I'm in a injunction, so, about certain facts it's not only me talking. I'm not alone regarding that.

SF: Moita Flores ended up proving or corroborating, in the morning, that Madeleine couldn't have been abducted without any traces. During two hours, via video-conference, the former PJ inspector and actual Mayor of Santarém, praised the work done by the investigators of Madeleine's case, the same ones that Gerry McCann didn't spare criticism on his way out of the court, to go to London.

GM: It's particularly disappointing that certain police officers, withing Portimão, who considered us as possibly being involved in Madeleine's disappearence, have not been able to change their mind, inspite the lack of evidences. And it is this officers we are depending on for pursuing the investigation within Portugal.

GM: I would like to make absolutely clear that Kate has never had a dream, that Madeleine was buried somewhere. And, I don't know if something has been lost in interpretation, but that didn't happen.

Voice Over: Gerry declared untrue in this manner the sworn statement given yesterday by the inspector Ricardo Paiva, who, to the court explained that Kate's dream, that was told to him on the phone, two months later after the disappearance was crucial for the PJ to start investigating the hypothesis of the child being dead.

GM: We are not under trial, not at all. people may want to say that, but we were exonerated.[cut] The PJ tried... What was seen very clearly is that one thesis in particular tried to be proven, possibly more than any other.

SF: Do you think they were competent?

GM: (looks above SF) And there's no evidence to support it.

SF: Where they competent to you?

GM: (looks the other way) Sorry...

Sandra Felgueiras: He never criticized openly the Judiciary police but he implicitly made known what he thinks. Gerry McCann left this court at 4:30 pm, behind leaves Kate, who will be joined still today by Fiona Payne, one of the friends of the couple that was with them at the time of Madeleine's disappearence. The hearing will continue and end tomorrow.



RTPN (above) and RTP Coverage of the Hearing day 2, 13th January 2010

Voice Over (unknown journalist): They arrived before 10am and decided to talk to journalists.

Gerry McCann: The same, to continue to fight for Madeleine, the search and to protect her family.

Sandra Felgueiras: How did you support hearing the inspectors repeating that Madeleine is dead and that you are involved?

Gerry McCann: The most important thing yesterday was what the prosecutor said, there's absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead.

SF: But then you heard...

GM: Let me finish, please. There's absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead, and there's absolutely no evidence that were involved in her disappearence. That is the conclusion...

SF: Three people saying...

GM: That is the conclusion of the process, and that's what we're here debating.

Voice over: In the first session, that lasted more than 9 hours, Gonçalo Amaral's witnesses defended that the book 'Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira' only exposes facts that pertain to the process. All of them sustained the thesis that the British child is dead and that the parents hid the cadaver. The hearing continues with Moita Flores statement, via video-conference, he is the last witness requested by Gonçalo Amaral to be heard. The former PJ inspector says that he is not alone and believes that the book will be back on the bookshops.

Gonçalo Amaral: If I didn't believe it, then I wouldn't believe in this Country's Justice, I wouldn't have started the opposition, so, we have to trust.

Sandra Felgueiras: How have you faced the McCann couple?

GA: How? In a natural way.

SF: I want to ask you if you were satisfied for having heard the inspectors that repeated the thesis that you shared on the book?

Gonçalo Amaral: Since yesterday, I'm not the only one speaking, I can't say anything further since I'm in a injunction, so, about certain facts it's not only me talking. I'm not alone regarding that.

Voice over: The McCanns allege that the book 'A Verdade da Mentira' and the documentary broadcast by TVI divulge a thesis which they consider unsustainable, and that is hampering the search of the child. The provisional measure was decreed in September, the Court will decide if the book will ever be commercialized again.



112 comments:

  1. Thanks for posting the video, i just love watching Tiny Tears so rattled, gives a good idea how f****d he'd be under cross-examination.
    Roll on February. I really do suspect his freemason buddies are going to hang him out to dry, i have thought for a long time that the McTwats must have been told to STFU long before now, and through arrogance haven't listened.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fair and balanced news ....

    ReplyDelete
  3. How Gerry McCann talks down anybody that dares disagree with him.

    Nobody is allowed to ask one challenging question of them.

    He is so rude.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sandra, you are doing a first-rate job. Gerry McCann is known to have a questionable temperament, keep prodding, keep probing ...

    One day you will have the satisfaction of interviewing both Kate and Gerry McCann in their respective prison cells.

    Let's hope it's soon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eu não percebo a estratégia deste casal: será suicídio? Ou estão tão apertados em Inglaterra que têm que mostrar aos seus pares que irão até onde for preciso para exorcizar a sua culpa...perdão a sua inocência.

    Mas não, eles não podem parar, criaram esta máquina maldita que tem uma fornalha exigente e ficaram presos na sua trágica estratégia, não podem parar porque senão as pessoas acham que Madeleine morreu (quem ainda tem dúvidas disso) e também não podem prosseguir porque o tempo é o seu pior adversário: é insustentável a procura da filha nos próximos 10 anos.

    Alexandra

    ReplyDelete
  6. I hear him say he is looking for new information. He must not like the information already available.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In the second video @ 33secs it sounds like KM says stand back to GM and looks like she actually pulls him back whilst saying it. Watch from 26 secs (his left shoulder) to 38 secs. He is definitely being pulled back. His in SF face behaviour is appalling!

    ReplyDelete
  8. É possível chamar a um agente mentiroso desta maneira tão descarada? Depois do inspector ter feito um depoimento em tribunal? Eu acho que o inspector tem que pedir a um magistrado que assine um documento para se aceder às chamadas recebidas à dois anos. Isto tem que fazer prova em tribunal. Foi um passo muito desesperado do Gerry McCann. Apesar de não estar no processo, hoje há maneira de aceder a registos telefónicos e o inspector devia partir nessa direcção!

    Alexandra

    ReplyDelete
  9. Zodiac, so proud of you-body language experts were always going to solve this case..sod the dogs being unreliable..

    touching of noses and shoulder movements will always make up for forensic evidence (or lack thereof)

    allegedly

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pursuing the investigation? But Gerry, you know there is no investigation underway - so why dont you ask the Portuguese to re-open the investigation?

    Is it because you dont want to go to prison?

    ReplyDelete
  11. it makes you laugh when he complains that the Police pursued one thesis more than any other - not like Gerry and Kates wide ranging views..abduction or abduction or maybe abduction!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hello Joana thanks for the great post, however the dates should be in January 2010, not 2009.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Notice how the simpering UK press behave! 'Theres nothing new is there Gerry'...which the idiot (McCann)misunderstands and tries to argue against...but my main point is the disgusting simpering supportive UK reporter...

    Give me the Portuguese lady any day...she takes no prisoners!

    ReplyDelete
  14. :D thanks, I'm still thinking in last year terms.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Gerry McCann: The most important thing yesterday was what the prosecutor said, there's absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead."

    Yes, Gerry, but there isn't any evidence she's alive either, not even with the squillons of pounds you've paid to your PIs, with all their supposed "sightings" of Madeleine from here to Kingdom Come. By the way, have you and Kate been to search that lair yet where Madeleine is supposed to be kept 10 miles from PDL where you're ever so clever (NOT!!!!) Dave the "big I am" PI said she was being kept about 3 months ago, or was it 4 or 5 months ago, whatever, I forget now, I don't suppose you can remember either, that's if you could even care about it. If you can't be bothered searching for her why do you bloody well expect everyone on this Earth to search for her. Isn't it about time you and Kate actually got off your backsides and physically looked for her, instead of expecting everyone else to spend their holidays, days off from work, going to work, walking the dog, looking for the child your actually lost.

    Oh, and by the way, I don't expect anyone who has any involvement in any crime at all actually putting their hands up and saying "Yes, guv I did it", not when there are multi millionaires paying top class lawyers to keep everything out of the newspapers on their behalf and to suppress anyone who actually wants to find out what really happened to a daughter THEY lost, and not Jo Public.

    Have you got that Gerry, I hope so, loud and clear.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Gerry certainly likes to be selective about what parts of the final dispatch he refers to as well as distorting if not lying about what was written in it. He brushes over the fact that the judge wrote that it was most probable that Maddie was dead and that the McCanns, by not taking part in a reconstruction missed the opportunity, to prove their innocence. Gerry heard the judge say in court that the chance of Maddie being dead or alive is 50/50. Then he has the nerve to say that the PP said that there was no evidence she was dead.

    How I hate that whiny voice of his and he even looked as if he wanted to hit Sandra Felgueiras. I wonder what kind of welcome Kate had when she arrived at home.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ post #13, I don't actually think the UK reporter was "simpering". He didn't get to make his point as Gerry was in mid-flow rant mode. I think the point the UK reporter was trying to make was that there was nothing new about what was being said in court (as the information is contained in the police files) SO why were they trying to ban the book? A lot of UK journalists may loathe Amaral but I don't think any of them- not even Tony Parsons- agrees with their book ban claim.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Is camp McCann spin 'better' than camp Amaral spin ?

    Aren't you just sick to the backteeth that you are being 'spun at'
    from all directions ?

    what would Madeleine make of all this furious spinning ?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Shubob...sounded simpering to me...and if you are right, he didnt make the point very well and Gerry agreed with him in the end. I think Im right and in this case (I usually agree with you!) you are wrong.

    Parsons is a twat...the end!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I wish one of them had the guts to ask them about the Gaspar statements, or don't they know what that is about yet.

    If not, let's hope they will hear about it any day now, and report back to inform the UK.

    Maybe there will be other people who will come forward with information related to those statements.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I love this:

    GM: It's particularly disappointing that certain police officers, withing Portimão, who considered us as possibly being involved in Madeleine's disappearence, have not been able to change their mind, inspite the lack of evidences. And it is this officers we are depending on for pursuing the investigation within Portugal.

    it makes no sense whatsoever... the trial has been shelved, Gerry. You know it and we know it. It could've been re-opened if Gerry had been co-operative but the McCann's tried everything to get it closed including running a parallel investigation to try & distract the general public from looking too closely at their obvious involvement.

    guilty as charged - take them down

    ReplyDelete
  22. Instead of speaking in CEOP Conference Gerry will be serving hot coffee with a small panel on his left. CEOP administration thought he should be placed where he cannot causes to much damage. Avoiding him at this time will raise a lot of questions: just keep him busy with the coffee will you?

    ReplyDelete
  23. By the way, are the Gaspars'statements compleet on the blogs, Joana?
    I have the feeling they are not.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gerry doubts on all translations and interpretations, when things go against the couple.

    But when they translated that they were not arguidos anylonger, they found it a perfect translation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. GM. "...we were exonerated."

    News to me.

    ReplyDelete
  26. :)) I finally understood why Dr. Amaral brought an Earing to the Hearing. The semiotics of it. What was he trying to tell the Mc's. I did not get it at first...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Post 18. What Amaral spin, there has been none. If by camp Amaral you mean the PJ witnesses, they just told the truth based on evidence in the investigation. The only spin comes from the Mc camp.
    But I would agree that McCann was spinning with terror when he spoke in the video above. He didn't know which way to turn, like a rabbit caught in the headlights of truth and justice.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 8-} Gerry was not there at the time of the call (fact). How can he be so sure?

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well done Goncalo. I think(from what I saw) that GMcShyt is swirmiming and just a little bit scared. :D

    Hoping that the witnesses for February will make him tremble a wee bit too. :))

    Good luck Goncalo, you have many backing you.
    xx

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think Kate called Paiva around the time Gerry went to the States, short before the dogs came to Luz.

    Is it known who will be the next two witnesses?

    I believe one will be paulo sargento.
    And the other one?

    ReplyDelete
  31. 28, I thing kate denied this story to gerry.

    Possibly this is on the files and the Mccanns did not complain.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The witnesses to be heard with certainty are: Luis Fróis, a marketing guy, for Guerra e Paz -the book publishers and Eduardo Dâmaso, joint vice chief editor of Correio da Manhã, whose statement was supposed to be made on the 13th and was postponed.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 6, you are funny!

    hah,hah, haha!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I love the way Sandra speaks to him - just point blank straight out with it - boom, boom, boom -

    ".......... inspectors repeating that Madeleine is dead and you are involved?"

    And when she asks him if he is shocked he replies `why would we be shocked` and she replies `I`m asking you`.

    He must hate her challenging questions. I get the feeling that powerful women scare him stupid. But see GA being quizzed by Sandra and he`s as calm as ever.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  35. Joana, do you think the McCanns will testify?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Unfortunately, only what is released from the Files can be mentioned. There is so much else that is known but is kept under wraps for now.

    Sr Amaral has said that the Attorney General has something that would prove Madeleine is dead.

    Is it any wonder the McCanns don't want the case reopened.

    A piece of evidence that will help reopen the case may come any day now, as news of the death of Madeleine, and not the certain abduction the McCanns keep on telling people, filters through.

    The control is slipping through their hands, and Gerry is furious.

    I can't see either of them giving evidence.

    Kate would no doubt refuse to answer if she has not been given the questions beforehand, and Gerry would storm out if asked something he does not like, just like he did, when he didn't like one of the questions asked by an interviewer.

    Though he would be willing give his comments, laced with spin, to the media.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I was reading somewhere that Kate made her statement about the dream when Gerry had gone back to UK.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The McCann couple is not obliged to testify on this hearing. This hearing is just regarding the injunction that banned the the book and the documentary, it's called an «Apenso». Maybe in the main action, their lawyer and legal mandatory(representative) will read a carefully designed statement to express the McCanns claim for 1,2 million euros, but still I don't see why would the McCanns put themselves on the uncomfortable position of having to face the 'contradictory' - the opposition made by the lawyers of Gonçalo Amaral, Guerra e Paz, TVI and Valentim de Carvalho that would subsequently follow if they wished to make a sworn statement. Obviously this is my opinion only, I have no idea what the McCann legal team tactic is.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thank you Joana, would they have no choice and have to answer at a full libel hearing though, if so things could get reall uncomfortable for them.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sorry Joana, I see you alread answered in you first post.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I wonder if the McCanns will show at least one evidence or strong indications of abduction, next february.

    A Jane Tanner photo?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Shubob -

    I normally agree with you, but not sure about this one (17). I think you are being far too kind to the UK media. A more cowardly and unprofessional bunch of timeservers I couldn't think of.

    It is outrageous that hardly any decent questions have ever been put to the McCanns and on the rare occasions when there has, there has been no follow up. Anything the McCanns say in reply seems to be accepted as the God's honest truth.

    We've got people like Brunt, all over the place, who seem to treat it like a mildly amusing game and David Jones of the Daily Mail who completely changed his story from "there's something not right about the McCanns" to "I love the McCanns". Paxman's interview was pathetic.

    I feel completely let down by the UK media. I feel like we are living under a McCann personality cult. It's horrific. This is supposed to be a free society, a democracy - not some brainwashed society where everyone is fearful of speaking their mind.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm on holidays in Australia but my thoughts are in Portugal.

    42, media are nobody's friends, be sure.
    The British media are gagged, they can't do anything else but to keep their own opinions and knowledge to themselves.
    Someday they will be free to speak.
    For a while they are keeping their mouths because it is known the McCanns are running out of money.
    They are not taking any risk.
    When they become free, they will fight back on a terrible way.
    No journalist likes to be gagged by anyone.

    Unless the McCanns are using the money to corrupt them.

    It could be.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This Gerry is a Joke! "Advogado em causa Propria"!!!

    Who cares about what he think or says? Which authority he have to blame what he blames, accurate? By accusing the witnesses like that, his he breaching some judicial codes or not? Comparing to other cases, I think... YES! But he is Gerry, the guy who Portuguese and British government protect like guard angels protect little child's. Ashamed....

    this Gerry which pretend to be clever, he is ruining his arguments every day. When is he going to realise that less people believe on him now, and most of the Pro, they don't really buy his abduction theory ( theory literally), simple they don't like polices in general and they use that case to feed a personal revenge against a trafic fine, etc, etc.

    "It's particularly disappointing that certain police officers, withing Portimão, who considered us as possibly being involved in Madeleine's disappearance, have not been able to change their mind, inspite the lack of evidences. And it is this officers we are depending on for pursuing the investigation within Portugal."-
    It is so RIDICULOUS that statement...I was watching the news with some friends and we can't stop laughing at him... SO NERVOUS, SO DESPERATE. HE REALLY BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS? If so, he need to see a Psychologist, maybe he has an explanation for that pathology, yes it is a pathology because:

    - NOTHING CHANGE IN THE INVESTIGATION... Madeleine still missing, no new evidences were found to link the crime to people extra her parents. No evidences to support any abduction. Then, for what reason PJ will change their minds? To Buy his convenient theory? GIVE US A BREAK.... THE CASE WAS SHELVED, NOT CLOSED, NOT SOLVED and THE SUSPECTS REMAIN HE SAME.

    - NO ANY WITNESSE WILL TELL A LIE IN COURT. LYING IN COURT IS A CRIME AND IS VERY DANGEROUS. Only a desperate guilt can believe on that and spread it. IS THAT GERRY REAL? HE WANT US TO BELIEVE THAT THE INSPECTORS ( one is PJ NR.2 now) and Moita Flores lie in court?... FOR WHAT PURPOSE? TO SUPPORT AMARAL, A RETAIRED EX-INSPECTOR? THEY WILL PUT at risk THEIR CARRERS, their Names, their respect and credibility ( Moita Flores was recently re-elected as a Major in santarem) on the behalf of Amaral?
    Buying a special sentence from your friend Tony Parsons, You Gerry, you are not real, " YOU ARE NOT FROM EARTH, YOU ARE FROM ANOTHER PLANET, FROM THE ENTIRE GALAXY"!!! and you are dying, burned by yourself on your MEDIA STAR LIGHT. You know... stars don't have only light, they have heat and yours reach last week, the hottest.... You burn yourself and your arguments, in Lisbon. Thanks GOD, who is not sleeping.

    WONDER IF YOU ARRIVE LATE BECAUSE YOUR CARTER-RUCK WAS TEACHING YOU THAT INTELLIGENT STATEMENT....

    ReplyDelete
  45. Gerry McCann: The most important thing yesterday was what the prosecutor said, there's absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead."

    Gerry you must finish the all feeling of the prosecutor, not only the part which is convenient for you. The Prosecutor answered the Judge... "FOR ME IS 50/50" Means half/half for dead or alive. A prosecutor saying in court that he have 50% off feeling that Maddie is dead, it is a very important statement against your abduction theory and your spin lies about Maddie alive to ask public donations. Means that there is evidences, proofs in the investigation which made the prosecutor arrive at that conclusion. He cannot say 100%, because he knows that if he said 100% you and your magical lawyer will come up with "WERE IS THE BODY?" an the prosecutor had to say in court " We don't know yet where is the body, but this did not mean that she is not dead. In several crimes, the body appear several years after the crime and after a huge investigation, by accident".

    The most important Gerry is, that the Prosecutor did not refer any time the abduction. Means no evidences to support an abduction and Moita Flores explained that it is impossible an abduction without traces. GIVE UP!! YOU REACH THE END OF THE STRING!!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. ONE THING TOLD US ALL AND DID NOT HAPPEN IN COURT SESSION:


    - Your lawyer Gerry, in a desperate attempt, try on the Friday before the trial to stop the PJ WITNESSES TO TESTIFY IN COURT. WHY?
    BECAUSE SHE KNOWS THEY ARE GOING TO LIE? Or because she knows EXACTLY THAT THERE IS EVIDENCES IN THE INVESTIGATION WHICH SHOW THAT MADDIE IS DEAS AND THE ABDUCTION THEORY IS FALSE AND WELL PLANNED TO FOOLISH DISTRAIT PEOPLE AND PERVERT THE INVESTIGATION?

    We know the answer. STOP LYING AND INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENE!!!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hello anon @ 18,

    I hope you written exactly the same post ( or e-mail it) at Gerry and Kate Findmadeleine site. And I hope, they answered you...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ricardo Paiva disclosed Kate's dream right in front of her, in the courtroom. I didn't hear the McCann's lawyer protesting or saying that he was lying. Kate didn't ask her to intervene and didn't deny it. Therefore it's true.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Prosecutor had to say 50 50 or the case could'nt of been shelved imo

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anon #15
    Yup, "there is no evidence" was one of Sir Humphrey's favorite replies whenever some dastardly deed had been successfully covered up.
    [from the TV series Yes, Minister - Yes, Prime Minister]

    ReplyDelete
  51. :( It would be a travesty of justice if the Mc's managed to have the books incinerated. I don't think that will happen but given the young judge chosen for the trial it could just happen. If it does happen, then the European Court of Justice will overthrow it. (Consider the Mitterrand precedent for example).

    Concerning their million bid to bankrupt Dr. Amaral, that cannot happen either but again it very much depends on the "deconstructions" made by their respective legal teams and (most importantly) on which side the jury is instructed to be on.

    It is important to remember the Mc's are part of the higher echelons of the British ideological system. All ideological systems have a profound respect for MD's (they are in their eyes minor deities) and, as we have seen, the Mc's have influences in the right places. Consider for example Gordon Brown' mediation (Gordon is Scot), the assignment of ex-official Bla-Bla Man: MMCC Clarence, etc. :)) MMCC for "motor-mouth-cuts-corners"...

    I understand Dr. Amaral is counter-sueing the Mc's for libel which is as it should be.

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anon 48

    Don't worry about the truth ot the lie. That, for sure, has been taped. It is true. Unfortunately it does not prove anything. It is just a dream she had. I don't see why Gerry would chose to deny that.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Hi Fernis, a poster on another forum, said the other day, that when Gerry McCann said his wife didn't have that dream, she said she did. She said Gerry McCann had a face like thunder and he and his wife appeared to have words. I wonder if that was one of the reasons why Gerry McCann flew home later that day, because the remark was made in front of the media and he was afraid the media would pick up on it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I wouldn't be surprised if Kate sent Gerry home before he spilt the beans with his full on arrogant attitude. He is doing himself no favours at all, and should look at the calm and cool way that Goncalo Amaral answers questions. GM's bull in a china shop attitude will be the downfall of the McCann saga eventually. He should remember that the judge may very well look at the videos during the hearing and make up her own mind with what she sees outside the courtroom.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Gerry's denial of Kate's phone call about the dream isn't convincing at all. Why should Ricardo Paiva say Kate phoned him about a dream she had and where Madeleine's body might be if Kate did no such thing? What use, really, would inventing such a story be to the PJ? If this was all lies, and the PJ simply wanted to implicate the McCanns in Madeleine's disappearance, wouldn't they have pretended that Kate said something much more incriminating than she had a dream?

    As for some confusion over interpretation, I doubt that very much. Mr Paiva seems very certain over what Kate said and since he speaks English there doesn't appear to be any reason to believe he misunderstood what she was telling him. This sounds like desperation to me, a frightened man trying to backtrack and using silly excuses to try to take back what his wife said. Either that, or not actually knowing what she said.

    As for the rest, just the usual spin. The official summing-up said there were various theories and they didn't know if Madeleine was alive or dead, but was more likely to be dead. That's what it says, whether Gerry approves of it or not. As for the police concentrating on one theory - what nonsense! The case files show that to be totally untrue, as the police followed many, many leads in the hope of solving the case.

    The only people insisting on one theory only are the McCanns, but other people aren't naive enough to do likewise. There's no proof for their theory of abduction, indeed the whole window business has been debunked to the extent that even Kate McCann had to try to explain the supposed open window as a red herring kindly supplied by the 'abductor'. I don't know what Jane Tanner saw, but since neither Gerry nor Jez W. saw her and she doesn't appear to know even which side of the road they were on, I don't think we need dwell too much on her powers of accurate observation. Bundleman-turned-abductor isn't very convincing, IMO.

    If the McCanns had the sense to admit they understand why the PJ and ordinary people doubt the theory of abduction they would come across as more honest and more reasonable. They seem to think their constant insistence on pushing one theory will somehow sway public opinion. It won't; the facts detailed in the case files simply don't support that theory so why should anyone be expected to believe it? Do the McCanns believe everything they're told? No? - then they shouldn't expect other people to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Well said Fernis.
    Mind you. Kate was on her mobile for most of the hearing(!), so she may have missed this...

    ReplyDelete
  57. Very good point Fernis (#48)! Well spotted! Even if the lawyer had no previous knowledge of the said "dream", surelly Kate, in face of a blatant lie being told to the court by a police officer, would have reacted and asked the lawyer to object to that statement and confront the witness. It didn't happen...Kate just stood there, impassible. According to Sky News? Jon diPaolo twitters:

    "Paiva is asked whether he ever got the impression from the mccanns they thought maddie could be dead. He says yes.

    Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:45 jondipaolo
    3:47 jondipaolo: Kate whispers something in gerry's ear and gives him a little smile. He stays looking straight in front.

    Tuesday January 12, 2010 3:47 jondipaolo
    3:52 jondipaolo: Gerry has put his arm round kate as they listen to paiva's testimony."

    Kate's whisper and little smile to Gerry...I bet she said "I'm so sorry..."

    ReplyDelete
  58. Off topic, but good piece on the CEOP conference at "Good Quality Wristbands".

    Contrary To Your Email Madeleine McCann Is Not Presumed Abducted She Is Presumed Dead

    http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/

    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  59. When Gerry says that the dogs are "incredibly unreliable when tested scientifically" what is he getting at exactly?

    Let's take a dictionary defintition of "incredible" for starters..."so extraordinary as to seem impossible"; "unbelieable", is another.

    Why would any police force or search and rescue team in the world use a dog if it was "unbelievably unreliable", or "so extraordinarily unreliable as to seem impossible"? well the answer is clearly...they wouldn't.

    For Gerry however the dogs need to be "incredibly unreliable" because not only were they both independently wrong once or twice, they were independently wrong on multiple occasions.Not only that but they were independently wrong on multiple occasions in consistently being wrong in indicating items that only the McCanns had contact with. Not only that, they were independently wrong on multiple occasions consitently indicating items that implicated the McCanns from which DNA material was found that at least partially matched that of their missing daughter.

    What are the chances of that? It sounds incredible; which is of course a more accurate use of the word IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  60. On the "dream" story: - is it connected with the coming to Luz of that chap Krugel with his MOS equipment? Kate "dreamt" of Madeleine being on a hill in Luz...have a look at this photo of Krugel's proposed search area:

    http://www.daniekrugelfacts.com/

    A hill or cliff over the beach!

    ReplyDelete
  61. does anyone know if the evidence given by Mr Paiva will be discussed in court again? surely if this policeman had taken this call it would have been officially logged as the area was supposedly checked? surly if this happened then that would prove straight away that gerry was lying?
    as with the two other witnesses in february i personally think that the gaspars staements will not be given the chance to see the light of day, but i can live in hope.
    surely the whole world has seen gerry scuttle away with a rubbish excuse of work but quite happily dumped his missus when the going got tough
    funny that cos thats what i see when i look back to that fateful holiday for the kids. they were dumped in the cresh then off to bed so they were not in the way.
    what a horrible situation i do feel for the twins when they grow up and also begin to question the parents version of events. but im sure they will spin the questions away or gerry could just get really angry again eh?

    ReplyDelete
  62. When Mr Amaral speaks my pendulum swings to the right(positive reading)... when Mr McCann speaks it swings to the left(negative reading) This has been so throughout all of the speech that I have tested.
    Kate's voice has always registered negative too.

    ReplyDelete
  63. So Gerry tells us that the Prosecutor said that there is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead.

    Why did you try to stop him and others from giving evidence, then, Gerry, if you really believe that the Prosecutor exonerated you? Why did you try to stop the police DVD being used as evidence if there is nothing there to incriminate you? Why is the defendant so calm and centred while you, the pursuer, rant like a madman before running away?

    Exonerated. No evidence. Aye right, Gerry.


    Angela

    ReplyDelete
  64. I believe Richard Paiva would never have told Kate's dream if he could not prove it.
    I think this call was recorded.

    ReplyDelete
  65. On the night M disappeared, the tapas seating plan shows two other people named the Irwins, having dinner with the McCanns group at their table. Does anyone know anything more about them, as their information would be crucial? Have they ever given witness statements? if not why not?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Guys, let's face it, the McCann's reputation is shattered, down the drain, finito! They may have a few supporters among some journalists, or paper editors who want to sell newspapers, and the support of some lunatics who can't see further than their noses. People within their circles will only be around out of social politness and I'm sure they pretend to be sympathetic to them. People just can't simply disregard the Portuguese police findings and their out of character behaviour. They must know there is substance in the police accusations. IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Joana,

    you must know where to find judge Maria Gabriela and perhaps you could send an email to the tribunal telling her that her judgement will encourage new people to come forward, telling what they know about what really happened to Madeleine.
    Of course we all expect a honest sentence, we know she is honest(and charming)and Madeleine needs help.
    That little girl can only count on the Portuguese justice, not even on her neglect parents and on the rest of her family.
    Could you please write her, Joana?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Continuing what I wrote above, Amaral was really very nice to Gerry .

    He only wrote about Payne and he did not write about Gerry, lucky Gerry.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Now I'm sure that the compleet statement of Mrs. Gaspar is not anymore on the blogs.
    It is about what she said about Gerry, after she told about Payne.

    It is too late, Gerry, we know it already.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Paiva would be on surer ground with this (the supposed dream) IF it was in the files.

    But I can't find it.

    Anyone??

    ReplyDelete
  71. 53, that's only a rumour - people shouldn't spread them, specially if they weren't at the court hearing. 67, I have no idea how to contact the judge, sorry. 60, you're right, that guy, the creator of the «death scent quantum machine», was requested and called by the McCanns - their first obvious hint that Madeleine was already a cadaver.

    ReplyDelete
  72. on krugel's quantum machine start here: http://yetanotherscepticsblog.wordpress.com/tag/danie-krugel/

    ReplyDelete
  73. Looks like Fiona's visit to Lisbon to hold Kate's hand has been counter-productive as the Gaspars' allegations against DAVID PAYNE have been published in explicit detail in ENGLISH in an European expat publication :-o :-o :-o

    (On page 10)

    http://www.euroweeklynews.com/component/option,com_flippingbook/catid,5/id,193/view,book/

    ReplyDelete
  74. I believe that McCann was about to say , "Fresh information to clear our names."

    He did say , "cle". then change his train of thought . Did anybody else hear this ?

    ReplyDelete
  75. its not only Mr Amaral who thinks madeleine is dead,even madeleines grand mother thought it to way back in oct 2007.

    news bbc 1 hi uk 7047579

    10-17-2007, 08:36 AM
    The grandmother of Madeleine McCann has said the family have discussed the possibility she may now be dead.

    Susan Healey, from Allerton, Liverpool, admitted it was becoming harder to convince her daughter, Kate McCann, that they would find the four-year-old.

    ReplyDelete
  76. It is imperative that a situation is prevented from developing where we have one process taking place inside the courtroom with witnesses required to give evidence under oath with all that this implies, and another process conducted by McCann quasi on the courtroom steps, in which he is allowed to refute the witnesses' testimony in front of the assembled media with impunity.

    I'd be very surprised if this contempt had escaped the attention of the judge; fortunately it's all there on video.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Why do the McCanns only hire charlatans over and over again: Krugel (and his wonder machine), Método 3 (Maddie is home by Christmas), Halligen (had the goods to deliver), Dave Edgar (Maddie is in a lair in PDL) :-) This stinks!

    ReplyDelete
  78. How many times has Gerry said "there is no evidence Madeleine is dead and no evidence we are involved in her disappearance." It is has become a chant. Keep repeating it and people will believe it.

    After the initial round of media interviews at the time Madeleine went missing, when has he ever said, I miss my little girl, I love her, life is awful without her.

    All these people do is protect themselves. They seem to have forgotten Madeleine as a person, as their little girl, as a human being. She seems no more to them than a symbol, or a logo.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @ Anonymous 70

    The dream can't be in the files. The PJ is supposed to be rational. Freud's theory of dreams has qualities but no scientific basis.
    Isn't there, in that week GM was in Washington (between the 22th and 25th of July), some indication of a KM's phonecall that being possibly a disguised confession has to be taken seriously ?

    ReplyDelete
  80. T4two
    Right ! These counter-testimonies off the trial record are amazing. The judge isn't supposed to watch TV.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Gonçalo Amaral apresenta livro “A Mordaça Inglesa” na Biblioteca de Tavira"

    http://www.regiao-sul.pt/noticia.php?refnoticia=101775

    Tb no dia 27 Janeiro....

    ReplyDelete
  82. @ Anonymous 63
    Right, The MP doesn't say there's no evidence Madeleine is dead. He doesn't say it, because he should, in the same sentence, add there's no evidence Madeleine is alive. Which makes a long sentence for saying finally nothing.
    The MP spoke of "chances", which is a highly questionable notion. Imo he should have remarked that only probabilities have scientific value but that no calculation had been done for this case.

    ReplyDelete
  83. 70, only 15% of the files are on the DVD.

    Police keep things to themselves, when they are important, in order to solve a case.
    It is possible that not even the McCanns had information about this phone call, before Paiva talked about it.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I don't believe Kate ever dreamt of Madeleine on a hill or in a hill.

    If she dreamt of a dead Madeleine, she dreamt of the place where they left her body and not on a hill.Or dreamt of her, dead, behind the sofa.
    Something she would never tell the PJ.

    Kate made up this story, for some reason. A disguised confession?
    O course the PJ took this serious, otherwise Paiva would not have told it.

    What is very important is that Kate sees or saw her ghost.
    She told her mother and she told a friend.
    For English people this proves Kate knows she is dead.
    Living people never shows up as ghosts.
    The mother talking about a ghost, this is serious in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  85. 79, whatever a suspect or a witness says, has to be taken serious, even if it is the most ridiculous story of the world.
    Freud or not, the police take notes of everything because an investigation is a puzzel missing pieces.
    They took note of Jane Tanner's walking egg, why not of Kate's dream?

    ReplyDelete
  86. To Anon 55

    ;)) Exactly - particularly in the light of the Smith's testimony (an argument Dr. Amaral puts forward in his book).

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  87. to Anon 60

    :|Good insight...

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anon 67 - contacting a judge would be very improper - it would be seen as coercion and would lose credibility for GA`s defence.

    However, I wouldn`t put it past the petitioners to stoop to that sort of tactic, but it will go against them.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  89. Something which has puzzled me for some time, is the problems which the McCanns appear to have had with their appointed Liaison Officers from both the P.J. and Leicester Police. A female Officer was seconded from Leicester to PDL, after a short while she was recalled home at Kate McCann's request, it seems that some question she put to Kate so annoyed her, that the Officer was sent home! In the case of the P.J.Liaison Officer(Insp.Ricardo Paiva) he was removed from that position at the request of both McCanns. I wonder why ? Now we see and hear Gerry McCann saying that sworn testimony given by Insp.Paiva is untrue and the events described did'nt happen ! I hope Gerry will repeat that inside the Court on Feb.10th. Or will we get more spin and wriggling and tales of "Lost in translation" bullshit ?

    ReplyDelete
  90. :)] To anon 57

    I do not think it was that. The smile was a smirk on Paiva's account. A xenophobic reflex, you might say...

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  91. There is no scientifc proof for the existence of ghosts but even though I think this is important if the process gets reopen.
    It shows the sub-consciousness of Maddie's parents, where their thoughts are.
    It is not an evidence but it is a new strong indication of death.
    Blood, cadaver scent, Smiths, inconsistencies, gagging people around...and ghosts.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Is it just me.........

    Having read that Matthew Oldfield in his statement to Leicestershire Police confirm that the shutters in The Mccanns apartment were clearly shut when he checked on the kids at 9:30 pm howcome Jane Tanner saw the abductor at 9:15 pm if Kate Mccann is certain the shutters were open when she entered at 10:00 pm ?

    So am I mean't to believe that the abductor waited for Gerry to finish his check, then entered the apartment and left to be seen by Jane Tanner only to return to open the shutters after Matthew Oldfields check but before Kate did hers.

    No wonder Gerry denies seeing Jane Tanner that night, even he can see that this doesn't stack up and is most probably why he told us recently that the shutters were a "Red Herring"

    I think Kate should state that that the shutters were closed and she was mistaken and that the abductor entered by the open patio doors which they have stated as fact.

    Which mad fool let Jane Tanner make a statement and over eloborate the story, to much detail Jane and you cocked it up. It would have been better to say nothing and the abduction story might have stacked up ;)

    ReplyDelete
  93. Anon 43,i don't believe the British press are gagged,because if they were,why would they write such sympathetic articles about them,i believe the press truly believe the Mccanns, otherwise they would be so angry at being gagged that then they wouldn't write anything at all .Also Fernis 66,unfortunately the loathesome McCanns do have supporters not only in the press but many celebrities,in the Mail today it states that Richard Branson ,JK rowling and many others have accepted an invitation to that bash the McCanns are hosting,i hope the press open their eyes and see how repulsive the McCanns really are.

    ReplyDelete
  94. 78 -

    You ask:

    How many times has Gerry said "there is no evidence Madeleine is dead and no evidence we are involved in her disappearance." It is has become a chant. Keep repeating it and people will believe it.

    Not only that, one wonders whether it might not be strictly true. Otherwise, why not vary it a bit e.g. "We have no idea what happened to her, or how she disappeared from the apartment." I might be wrong, but you don't hear that variation I think. You might get "The idea that we were involved in any way is horrible and hurtful and there is no evidence to back it." Not quite the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Annoymous 93

    The British Newspaper the Daily Express , was sued by the McCann's a few years back , the received an out of court settlement . This newspaper printed stuff concerning them having some involvement in Madeleine's disapperance , nothing has been mentioned in derogatory terms against the McCann's , throughout the British media since that time . Gagged ? I have no doubt about it .

    ReplyDelete
  96. The so called dream of Kate's could be meant to be a complete distraction from searching for Madeleine where she really is.

    Some people can be too clever.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Why the jurnos didn't asks him:
    WHY THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT SHE WAS KIDNAPED?

    ReplyDelete
  98. #97, Yes! Sending the police in some wild goose chase...while Gerry is away...moving you know what...

    ReplyDelete
  99. I think the McCanns bash with all the celebrities is hypocritical, no one who has lost a daughters want fiestas with the famous, this is truly the way the McCanns are, Limelight and tele, how famous are they now, whilst they are swanning around Maddie maybe laying in some hole alone and without love, they are despicable...I actually believed them once. I sent them an email asking why as such caring parents they did not demand the case was reopened, instead of holding parties. These two are beyond words, they want 2 million from GA and the whole of Haiti has been struck down...who needs the 2million? their greedy uncaring pockets, so they can become stars. someone should have the fund shut down. Mind you these famous celebrities cannot be very intelligent, if they give the <mcCanns money to search without them even asking for the case to be reopened. I hope very soon someone stumbles across poor Maddie, whose parents have made a business from her.

    ReplyDelete
  100. @ 97

    Look in my humble opinion this is how it should have panned out......

    9:00 pm Gerry checks the kids and confirms M is OK
    9:15 pm Jane Tanner sees the abductor
    9:30 pm Kate discovers M missing

    No holes in the abduction theory

    What really happened....................

    9:00 pm Gerry checks M and she is fine and he was responsible for jemming the shutters. GM is disturbed by JW and can't jemmy the shutters as planned

    9:15 pm Jane sees the abductor. Gerry wont confirm this as he hasnt had the time to jemmy the shutters and the abductor couldnt have gained access to the apartment

    9:30 pm Unexpectedly MO offers to check on the kids and should on his check find M missing. He reports this to the Mccanns

    Gerry can then confirm that he saw JT at the time she saw the abductor and the abductor entered via the unlocked patio doors.

    MO returns but says all is OK

    10:00 pm Kate goes to the apartment and discovers M missing and the shutters open. This was the first mistake as the abductor had left at 9:15 pm according to JT. So Kate must have opened the shutters

    The one who was always absent but in the vicinity of the apartment was RO who just happens to be Gerry's partner in crime.

    The plan went wrong when Gerry couldn't jemmy the shutters open due to meeting JW on the street.

    JT compounded the issue with her abductor sighting

    KM compounded it further by saying the shutters were open

    It was planned but due to to much detail being given to KM JT they ended up with conflicting statements

    Maddie died at 6:30 pm that night which then gave them sufficient time to clean the apartment and plan the abduction theory.

    Sadly the witness statements being quiet detailed were their undoing.

    If Gerry hadnt bumped into JW on his check and MO had volunteered to do a check at 9:30 pm they would have got away with a perfect crime.

    This is just my humble opinion. Inspector Smith

    ReplyDelete
  101. Don't know, whether this has always been said (didn't read all the comments, sorry) but why it is so important to deny the dream of Kate? Afterall, people may have different dreams in these kind of circumstances and it would be normal... But denying it totally, sounds odd to me. Another thing, why to discredit the dogs? "If they found a smell of death, ok, may be - but it has nothing to do with us" - would sound more reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Hi Joana, re my post, (53) a lot of what we write on here and other forums is rumour, because we pass on information we have learned from 3rd parties, including television and other media outlets.

    The only people who know exactly what part they played in Madeleine's disappearance are the McCanns and if Madeleine was abducted, he, she, or they who took her.

    ReplyDelete
  103. If Madeleine was 'abducted', then it was a dead body that was 'abducted', and I don't think you can abduct a dead body.

    Nobody else had ever died in the apartment, and it would be very unfortunate for them if the McCanns had hired a car which had previously had a dead body in the boot.

    So where has little Madeleine's body been hidden?

    Is there no search going on for that?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anon 101

    In the UK the McCanns would really have to try and discredit the dogs (which is exactly what they have been trying to do) because the UK public has a high regard for these animals and the work they do.

    It is not enough for them to simply say it has nothing to do with them. They wouldn't be believed.

    They think that if they repeatedly say the dogs are useless and not accurate, it will be believed, just like their abduction fairy story.

    ReplyDelete
  105. One thing I hadn't realised about all the 'grief' they were portraying that night, was that although they were making all the commotion and rolling around, etc, somebody commented that there was not one tear seen to be shed, although they were making a noise as though they were crying.

    If I remember rightly this information came from somebody from the first police? to arrive on the scene.

    It was all very strange behaviour, given that the child had not been missing for that long, and could have been lost somewhere out in the streets or down the beach, having wandered off through the unlocked door.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Annon 105

    My thoughts exactly, i think i read somewhere along the line that the child had previously gone missing and was found hiding somewhere, if this was indeed the case, why would you not suppose she had done it again, why automatically claim she had been taken

    ReplyDelete
  107. Stranger still was that Jane Tanner was supposedly back in her appartment by the time Kate fiound Madeleine missing. My first thought in that situation would have been that Jane had maybe heard Madeleine crying and had taken her back to her own apartment to wait for mum & dad. I would not have started on abduction thoughts until I had checked with Jane. This appears not to have occurred to Kate. Why? Because she knew for sure that Madeleine was not with Jane??

    ReplyDelete
  108. That is a very good point Anon 107.

    If Jane Tanner was back in her apartment, why didn't Kate go and ask her?

    That would have been an obvious thing to do as Jane might have heard Madeleine crying and decided to take her back with her.

    She also said that it was when she saw Cuddlecat on the shelf that alerted her that Madeleine had been taken.

    Why? when one of the other adults could have put it there.

    Then it turned out that Cuddlecat was said to have been on the bed all the time, and not on the shelf.

    So many things that don't make sense about the account that Kate McCann gives.

    ReplyDelete
  109. From Guardian.co.uk 14th Jan 2010
    "Entering the court, Mrs McCann said: "If I'm honest, our daughter's been taken and nothing's ever going to be as bad as that."
    That "if" looks very strange... So it means that if she is not honest, her daughter was not been taken and something else happened.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Our daughter has been 'taken' says Kate McCann.

    Like in 'she's gone mum, she's gone'?

    Like in 'an act of madness, an accident', like in that moment of madness that Gerry McCann describes.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Those words of Kate McCann reinforce the view by many that Madeleine was handed over in Praia de Luz and it had been prearranged, either because Kate couldn't cope or for some other private reason. The way the show was on the road immediately and the right people there to make sure they were well protected, makes that option very credible. Also Gerry's remark that he wasn't there to enjoy himself adds to that view.

    Poor Madeleine didn't stand a chance!

    ReplyDelete
  112. What does Gerry have to say about this claim by Kate's friend Mitchell Thompson in her rogatory interview:


    ".........I asked her if I could help her in Portugal and she responded in the affirmative. For this reason, with a common friend, Nick Gill, (whom Kate also contacted) and I planned to fly to Faro the next day. We left from Liverpool directly to Faro on Sunday morning.

    We were greeted at the airport by representatives of Mark Warner who took us to the Ocean Club resort. We met Gerry and Kate half-way through this day. [b]Kate looked terrible, exhausted and wasted. She lamented that Madeleine would be found in a ditch and that the next time she would see her would be in the mortuary; that a paedophile had taken her."[/b]

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/M_THOMPSON.htm

    This to me sounds worse than the dream Paiva recalls.

    ReplyDelete