19 February 2010

McCann Case: Expat is to sue Tapas Bar Friends

Robert Murat is taking legal action against four of the McCanns' friends

By Daily Express Reporter

BRITON Robert Murat, wrongly labelled a suspect in the Madeleine investigation, is taking legal action against four of the McCanns’ friends, it was revealed yesterday.

The estate agent has lodged a “criminal complaint” against Jane Tanner, 39, who claimed she saw a man carrying a child near the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine vanished.

A second complaint has been made against Ms Tanner’s partner, Dr Russell O’Brien, and Fiona Payne and Rachael Oldfield, also members of the so-called Tapas Seven.

It is understood that the complaints centre on allegations that the four gave evidence to Portuguese police which led to them making Mr Murat, 35, a suspect in the investigation.

The expat, who lived in Praia da Luz at the time, was found to have no involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.

Details of the allegations, lodged at a court in Lagos in the Algarve, are unclear because under Portuguese law the parties involved cannot discuss them.

in Daily Express


133 comments:

  1. Wonderful news at last Good Luck to him They were all prepared to stand by and watch him take the blame.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Has Clarrie provided "good quality" knee pads for the grovelling UK journalists to use tomorrow when they ask their scripted questions. Maybe somebody could tweet one of them and ask,they should still be awake,no one could sleep with this outrage on their concience

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, Kate and Gerry turned up, it was 'hard', I wonder if their fortitude gave hope to Jane, Russel and Mathew. Will they hide under a stone or be encouraged by Kate and Gerry's bravery and subsequent win.

    Let's hope so (-:

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good luck Robert stay strong and FIGHT, dont let the "carters and muck" put pressure on you to drop the case, or corrupt goverments and judge's(we have had enough of those the last 3 years) bring them all down one by one, then the main two culprits(and their side kick Mitchell) will get their just desserts in the end a day i cant wait to come(even more after todays sham of a verdict)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I cannot help but...;))

    Well, no dog has ever accused Robert and those humans who have done so, did so in error or was it perjury. Alibis don't come easy. We understand.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Next up, Peter Verran and the Thompsons.

    Hopefully the Portuguese authorities will investigate Verran's statements regarding Raymond Hewlett and charge Verran (and possibly the Thompsons) with perverting the course of justice.

    The Portuguese police need to take a good look at all their bank accounts while they are at it. I mention this because, like Robert Murat, Hewlett was obviously "set up" by Team McCann.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And then Lori Campbell, Mirror's hack for accusing Murat on Sky News and on other media channels which were broadcast world wide; Clarence Mitchell, the McCann's media spin doctor for accusing Murat and spinning 'Ian Huntley/Shoam Muderers/Murat/Maddie' similarity story via his media contacts; and maybe it is with this case that their web of lies and deceit will untangle.

    «In May, The Scotsman published an apology to Mr Murat after its "seriously defamatory" and "untrue" coverage likened his behaviour to that of the Soham murderer Ian Huntley, suggesting that he was involved in the abduction of the thee-year-old girl.

    Mr Murat, 34, was questioned by police 11 days after Madeleine went missing from the Praia da Luz resort on 3 May 2007, before being made a formal suspect or arguido. Police searched the villa where he lived with his mother after the Sunday Mirror journalist Lori Campbell spoke to the British embassy and the police about Mr Murat.»

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/163550000-libel-win-for-mccann-suspect-868709.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jExBfGR7Fio&feature=player_embedded

    «“An outcome similar to Holly and Jessica [Soham children murdered by Ian Huntley] is possible. I don’t want to, and I can’t, talk about Robert Murat, but some journalists who worked with me in Soham, and that were now in Portugal, saw resemblances between that case and Robert Murat. And I won’t say more”. Clarence Mitchell»

    ReplyDelete
  8. A proof the Daily Express regrets the results of today, in Lisbon.

    Thank you, Express.
    Three of the four people above have probably nothing to do with Maddie's disappearence.
    They probably were manipulated by the McCanns and they a getting sued.
    Are they prepared to sacrifice their bank account to pay Murat?
    They will pay him, they will officially get the name of liers and will they continue protecting the McCanns?
    Is it possible that the Occean Club will sue those 4 people aswell, because the media was spreading around their statements? They "recognised"Murat?
    And tourists did not come to Praia da Luz because of that paedophile, living so close to the apartments?
    And the little stores in Luz, that was selling very little, no tourists?

    To Tapas 3, above,
    come forward.
    You are sacrificing yourselves for a couple who disrespected and did not protected their child.
    You will pay a lot of money and you will get the risk to pay more and more.
    The truth.
    Maybe Murat will forgive the one who comes forward and he will not demand any money from them.
    Someday somebody will talk.
    Talk soon, it will be less expensive for you in the future.
    Help the police, help Madeleine.
    Don't trust the McCanns.
    They are using you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Daily Express,

    I love you!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well,well,well after today's happening to have this out in the open in the UK makes me feel so much better!
    This is like having a wonderful sunny evening after a rainy day!

    God bless Dr Amaral and his family, God bless Joana, her team and their family's and God bless the journalist who made this news known in the UK!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Three of those above who are being sued by Murat have probably nothing to do with Maddie's death.
    I hope and pray that they will get in financial trouble.
    Lawyers abroad, expensive translations, etc,etc, I'm enjoying this.
    Because it seems that Mr. Pagaretti is still Murat's lawyer.
    Those 4 suspects have to spend a terrible lot of money.
    Let us see how true friends the McCanns are, paying their expenses because they got in trouble in order to protect the couple.
    The best lawyers, McCanns, please help your friends.
    I hope for a row, a fight among them all.
    Who is prepared to sacrifice himself for the McCanns?
    Much better: who is willing to tell the truth to the Portuguese police, exchanging what they know for pardon from Murat, not having to pay him any penny?
    This person goes to the Portuguese police, tells everything and the McCanns get in more trouble than they are now?
    And Murat forgives him because the world will oficially know that the young man has nothing to do with the case?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well done Robert Murat - this news removes some of the sinking feeling I experienced earlier today when I read of the decision from Lisbon. You have restored my optimism.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Presumably as this is a criminal complaint, if Jane Tanner were to refuse to return to PDL then an extradition warrant would be issued, and she would be escorted back by the police.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If the McCanns can request a reopening of the case, does that mean that Murat can do the same?

    Say, if he were to be given or shown some evidence pertinent to the case for example. Could he then pass this on to the PJ and ask for a continuation?

    Does anybody know the answer to this?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon 13, no EWA is applied because it's a minor "crime", at the most she will, as a coward she has revealed to be, be tried in absentia. If found guilty, it can give Murat a chance to file for a libel trial, either in Portugal or in Britain, and ask for a settlement over his moral and material losses.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Murat could have applied for a re-openning of the case during the 20 days after its archivation, now he or anyone else can only apply if they bear new significant evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm feeling a lot better.
    More than clear for judge Maria Mercedes, there was no abduction and that's why Murat can sue those people.
    It was proved by the Portuguese police and by the Scotland Yard.
    I agree with a comment above where it says that the McCanns are using those Tapas 4.
    Those four people are under pressure and I hope they will pay a lot of money to Murat.
    And I hope Ocean Club will also sue them and the McCanns, who told around that Madeleine was victim of paedophile(s).

    I agree with that question:
    -are those 4 people prepared to sacrifice themselves in favor of the McCanns?
    Or better, those three people? The fourth one is David Payne's wife.
    The three left ones must hate the McCanns and the Paynes by now.
    By the way, there has been a photo of Tapas 6 on a paper in England, when they won a process against the Express.
    All together except Russel O'Brian, that is why I say Tapas 6.

    Why wasn't Russel on the photo?

    Very strange. Afraid of Mrs. Martin?
    Is that the reason why Jane Tanner, his partner, was gladly prepared to identify Murat?

    ReplyDelete
  18. 14,Everybody can ask for a reopening of a process, everywhere.
    It is the right that every citizen has gotten.
    The person is not obliged to have been part of the process before.
    It can be a taxi driver, a teacher somewhere, a cleaning lady who observes something, etc
    If by chance Murat finds out something important,worthwhile, he can immediately approach the police and ask for reopening of the case.
    But it has to be important at the police eyes, not about that lady from Barcelona.

    The problem with Murat is that he must be fed up with this story.

    ReplyDelete
  19. pass this on-
    To understand what happened to little Madeleine McCann go to -
    www.mccannfiles.com
    www.joana-morais.blogspot.com
    www.dogsdontlie.com
    www.truthformadeleine.com
    www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk
    www.blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com
    www.themaddiecasefiles.com

    ReplyDelete
  20. ...and I'd say it was about time! :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Excellent news.I feel a lot better.

    Jane Tanner,

    if you and Russel O'Brian are correct, repectful parents towards your children, if you both respect their bodies and souls and other children's bodies and souls too, please protect and respect your wallet aswell.
    This case will cost you a lot of money because of your false statements.
    It is proved they were false but you can still save some of this situation you got in by telling why you lied, whom were you protecting and why Russel was absent the whole evening.
    Your daughter did not vomit, did she?
    Someday she will,I'm sure about it.
    This is going to cost you a lot, I repeat. You and Russel, twice as much as Rachel's case. Your names in all papers, as liers.The Oldfields will get only one invoice, for Rachel.
    Think about that.
    There is still time enough to make a deal.
    Why chose for becoming poor short before the process will be reopened?
    Imagine if you have to sell your house. Because after Murat, other people will sue you aswell.That is what I have been told. You destroyed business of Ocean Club, of Luz, people lost their jobs.A paedophile in the neighborhood, living very close to the Ocean Club.
    Do you realise that?
    Rather rich with a bad name than poor with a worse name. The McCanns have chosen for the first possibility, follow their example.

    Try a deal with Murat. Save your wallet.
    The McCanns will not do anything for you or for others.
    You got in trouble because of them.
    They used all of you. And they became rich while you will become poor.
    The truth will shock such a lot that people will forget you.
    Be corageous. It will not be easy but at least you will keep the money you saved your whole life, if you did.
    And there will be justice for Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon @8

    If charges of 'calumny denunciation'are successful then the damage to them will be more than their bank account. It's their freedom which will be taken away. AFAIU, the convicted faces a min 1-year imprisonment. If RM lawyer can prove in their complaint that those 4 have committed calumny (a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of RM) and denunciation (public censure and condemnation); and if the judge deem it an answerable case, then the 4 will face extradiction by EAW.

    Aside from RM, if the state of PT decides to prosecute those 'four tapas' as well for perjury and perverting the course of justice, then those 4 will be in bigger trouble, and this will definitely render and justify the issuance of an EAW without problem.

    The pertinent point (I think) is that RM lawyer must be able to show evidential proof that 'calumny denunciaion' had been committed by the four tapas in order for the Judge to give the green light for the charges against those 4.

    When that happens, the publicity and headlines will be awesome, parallel to the sensation when the mccanns were made arguidoes. When RM complaint is allowed, then the charges against the four will undo the mccanns. I cant see them continuing to protect the mccanns at their own expense. Maybe,not all of them were in the full know about the circumstances of Madeleine and were misled by the mccanns. If that was the case, then, now more so ever that more info were public knowledge, I doubt they will continue to shield the mccanns especially when they fall foul of the law because of the mccanns.

    I cant wait for the Judge to give the go ahead for the calmuny denunciation charges and for some truth at last from the horses mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon at 14
    I dont think it's in RM interest to have the case re-opened, that could explain why he didnt ask for that.

    But if his complaint against those 4 who fingered him with malicious intent was successful, then this criminal trial will achieve the aim of justice for madeleine in a way on a smaller scale (in my opinion at least) because the trial can thrown wide opened the floodgate, as well as break the silent pact. This may be enough to get to the truth about Maddie. Seriously, I cant see 4 individuals maintaining silence and looking after mccanns interest at the expense of their freedom. Cross examination and under oath they are risking a lot if they continue to lie, not forgetting i could cost them a fortune to go through the trial, travel and lawyers' costs and all that.
    When they are charged, I wonder whether the mccanns will come to their aid with Fund money. Most probably not as I doubt even if mccanns were willing, it is legal or ethical to use the fund for such a purpose ie legal defend for their friends.

    Those 4 will be in a fix if the charges come through.

    ReplyDelete
  24. One holiday in the sun -£££££££
    One libel action pay out in the Madeleine Fund-££££££££££
    One criminal process against alleged perjury- ££££££££
    The truth- priceless

    Tell me Tapas lot, was it worth it?????????/

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think we have Kier Simmons from ITV and W_nicht to thank for this information being in the public domain. I have watched W_nicht discuss this with Kier on Twitter...Kier Simmons promised W-nicht that he would report this on ITV lunchtime yesterday...W_nicht once again asked Kier and Kier confirmed that YES it had been reported on British TV just like he promised..Well done and thank you to you both.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Amaral said that Murat IS in the position to ask for the case to be reopened.

    ReplyDelete
  27. if the tapas lot are proven to have lied about Mr Murat what else have the lied about,thats the question

    ReplyDelete
  28. This is good news after yesterday. Are these four people still friends of the mccanns? I can see some stresses and strains appearing within the friendships. This could be extremely dangerous for the mccanns.The tapas 7 supported the mccanns when it was the mccanns in the firing line, but now it is them; what are they going to do? Not good news for the mccanns.

    Judy

    ReplyDelete
  29. Will the British authorities lean on this judge to get these charges thrown out??? After yesterday's judgement I have no faith in Portugeuse justice.

    ReplyDelete
  30. When you think about it, the accusation against him by pointing him out falsely like they did, was so great it could have led him to take his life.

    Didn't some of them return from UK by request to face him and tell him it was him, over and over they said it, and Murat could only deny it.

    Then it turned out it was not him after all.

    If they could return for that, why could they not return for reconstruction?

    Very selective this Tapas crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ironside 25 and 26

    Thanks for the information. At last it is getting out into the public domain. If only the rest could, without the abduction spin by McCanns.

    Let's hope that Murat can reopen this case. Sr Amaral would know, so if he said it there is hope it is true.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ironside 26

    Is Murat going to ask for the re opening of the case though?
    Who is first next on Murat"s list of people he could sue? The mccanns?
    Campbell?
    If they cant talk about this,does it mean they are arguidos already?It could explain their dead silence since last year...
    How do you feel today,mccanns? still "delighted and overjoyed"? or as usual it has nothing to do with you,such responsable and good parents?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well done Express - and Robert Murat.
    Pity Kate McCann couldn't have been included; she did write in her diary that she was sure RM was involved and she wanted to kill him.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It is obvious that Fiona Payne is still thick as thieves with Kate..she flew out to be with her in Lisbon after Mccann through his dummy out of his pram.

    O'brian., Rachael Oldfield and Fiona Payne were the three who went back to PDL and said they saw Murat that night...Martin Brunt said at the time there were about 100 people searching that night for Madeleine all knew Murat yet he could not find one person who had seen him that evening.

    ReplyDelete
  35. It's no sure Amaral lose, if what he wanted was to "dig up" the case at risk of being a martyr.
    English people now know the McCanns lied, no more insults in british papers, Murat's complaint now "digged up" can't no more be buried, british public opinion turned against the McCanns, look at red arrows on the Daily Express.
    No sure the Mccanns win, if they wanted to keep a "high profile"in british opinion, look at green arrows...0!
    Thank you Joana for Portugal dignity.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This almost sounds too good to be true – so Team McCann can’t possibly let it continue.

    My guess is any day soon Murat’s actions against members of the Taperati will be dropped and we will hear no more about it. Behind the scenes though I guess there will be an out of court settlement with strict conditions (a bit like a super-injunction) that the terms of the settlement, and even that a settlement was made, cannot be discussed.

    Team McCann’s rich benefactors will foot the bill (the audited accounts of the fund would ultimately expose a payment if it were to, or could afford to, pay it).

    Mr B

    ReplyDelete
  37. Will McCann allow the slush fund to be used for Tanner's legal costs? If they do, they are open to accusations of further misuse of their fraudulent fund. If they refuse Tanner may assume she has been hung out to dry by them.
    What a dilemma, my heart bleeds for them.

    ReplyDelete
  38. So that there will be an opportunity to find out what really did happen to Madeleine, if Murat does get the chance to have the case reopened, he should take it.

    Until it is solved, he will always get the snide slurs from certain people.

    The best form of defence it attack. But of course, we don't know what pressure or intimidation he has endured.

    I believe I have read somewhere that his elderly mother suffered intimidation also.

    It is disgraceful that these people, who only wanted to help the McCanns, have been turned on like that. Vilified and crucified by the media.

    Meanwhile, the McCanns with their spokesmen and PR team sail on, stuffing the media with their BS abduction theory as if it is fact, and have yet to explain why those doggies would pick them, their holiday apartment, their hire car, and their possessions, as being marked with the scent of death.

    Unlike Murat, and his belongings and property, which they did not.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Has the time come for the pact to pack up? Interesting times.

    Angela

    ReplyDelete
  40. We met Robert Murat whilst staying at his aunt's guest house near PDL in 2008, a nice genuine man.
    Significantly a young Portuguese girl had been allowed by her family to visit to play with Robert's niece of a similar age.
    It was obvious that this man was no paedophile.
    Perhaps that Mirror journalist would be better examining the credentials of one David Payne if she is in search of child abusers.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Good wishes to Mr Murat for taking this stand. Some of the things printed about him when he was an arguido were stomach churning to say the least, no one should have to read such vile lies printed mainly in UK press. Throughout the time he was an arguido, he and his family remained dignified. Win or lose I think it is bad news for the McCanns and it makes sense now why thy are trying to sue all and sundry for more cash, possibly some big pay outs to pay for and big lawyers bills. There is an economic crisis going on and the McCanns are spending other peoples money like it is going out of fashion. How long before someone says enough?

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Anonymous said... 16
    Murat could have applied for a re-openning of the case during the 20 days after its archivation, now he or anyone else can only apply if they bear new significant evidence."


    Anon 16 the above is not the case. This case can be re-opened by the McCanns if KM agrees to answer the 48 questions she previously refused to answer or if they agree to do an official reconstruction. If the case is ever re-opened then Arguido/a status is also re-instated. Given the above action in the above article if Mr Murat is successful then it looks like he may have a reason not be re-arguidoed. Hmm does it also mean if Mr Murat is successful then there could be 4 new Arguido/a's if the case is re-opened. Hmm does it also mean that if Mr Murat is successful then the success of the criminal complaint could be a reason to re-open the case. Hmm interesting times ahead!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Now, if we start from the beginning: why did the tapas friend point to Murat?
    -Either they really believed that he was the abductor.
    -Or ( a certitude for many) they really knew that there was no abductor and after a team concertation , they decided to find a scapegoat in Murat and accused him to make a diversion.
    -The third hypothesis is that Murat was part of the game and accepted to be accused in charge they gave him money in return.
    His silence and the enigmatic "no comment" of Gerry McCann pointed in this direction but now with the case against the Tapas,it's difficult to think that he could put himself in danger by accusing his former accomplices who could in return expose him.Could they? They would be trapped because they can't reveal their links who would make them accomplices.Un cercle vicieux. And the only solution : shut up and pay.(it's just an hypothesis)

    Anyway,They will plead the not guilty version to the juges."A genuine mistake that can happen to any witness". After the result of the audience yesterday,I am not very optimistic about the juge's futur decision. Not guilty : errare humanum est ( just for the happy few).

    Frencheuropean

    ReplyDelete
  44. The facts,as agreed by the McCanns and their friends,supported by the available evidence ,show that Madeleine was NOT abducted


    Repeat often ,over and over again at every opportunity,simples, fight fire with fire ,soundbite with soundbite,fill in the details if challenged

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon 40

    Thanks for sharing that information.

    Other people who know Robert Murat also said that it would be like him to always offer to help when he could, and what a nice man he is.

    Even Martin Brunt, after interviewing him, said he was inclined to believe him when he said he was innocent.

    What a nightmare he stepped into when he offered to help the McCanns.

    I think the Tapas friends may also be finding that out.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I do not blame Murat for taken action against those who pointed the finger at him but I just wonder where this is all going to end. It is turning into a "sue festival". Will the McCann's now sue the Smith family for saying the person they saw looked like Gerry.

    The McCanns have no chance of anyone coming forward with information now,(not that I believe anyone has any BTW) who would want to risk the consequences of saying one word out of place and being targetted by the media or Carter Rucked. Undoubtedly the Murat case will bring more things to light and then maybe someone will have the courage to investigate and report what the "pack of silence" was really all about, and follow up the comments made about Payne.

    This is not about finding your missing daughter anymore is it Mr & Mrs. McCann. It's about silencing people who question your actions, it's about clearing your name & topping up your bank account, and you do not care who you pull down to do it. Bottom line is you left your kids, so do not blame others for your own selfish decision. Whether your daughter had an accident or was abducted the risk of that happening would have been far far less if you had considered your kids above yourself. No cr@p please about being near by, not near enough and you know it.

    Fencesitter

    ReplyDelete
  47. This is good news for all believers in truth and justice! Early days yet I know,but the wheels have begun to turn on the screws that will force the truth from these liars. Just to save themselves of course! If reports are correct,the action against Jane Tanner was commennced a year ago but due to judicial secrecy rules,it has been under wraps. So despite some comments, Robert Murat has NOT been sitting on his hands! Looking at part of post # 7, Clarence Mitchell's remarks about the Soham Murders and his "Linkage" with Robert Murat,ending with "And I wont say any more".-----There is an action in English Law called "Slander by Innuendo", seems to me that Clarence the Bonehead could come unstuck if tried in England ? Although Libel trials are held in Civil Courts in England, they have a Jury of 12 people to decide the verdict--------unlike the system in Portugal. Holding dual nationality, Mr Murat would be at "home" in either country. Start worrying Clarence!

    I was told as a child that a liar was worse than a thief, whatever a thief took could be recovered, but a liar could take-away your character-----which can seldom be regained. Its long overdue for Mr Murat's good name to be returned in full!

    Whats that old Mafia saying "Revenge is a dish best served cold"---
    I hope that you can enjoy that dish Robert, good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  48. How can Madeleine have been abducted when the dogs are saying she died in the apartment.

    Unless a dead body can be abducted.

    But then, we are still left with the dogs saying the scent of death was also in the McCanns' hire car.

    Abduction?

    Er, no, I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @KeirSimmonsITV.......Keir will be at the press conference he is twittering and asking for anyone who would like a question asked.

    ReplyDelete
  50. In my opinion Clarence Mitchell was the orchestrator of the framing of Murat - back then still in his capacity as GOVERNMENT employee.

    Lorie Campbell was instructed to start the malicious attacks and CM added fuel to the fire by comparing Murat to Ian Huntley.

    Then the Tapasniks had to frame him as well. I doubt it was their idea and the plot was already set up on the very first day. The way Bundleman took towards Murat's house was the earliest indication.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It does appear rather strange that all the friends of the McCanns could say that Robert Murat was there that night, yet all the people who actually knew him said he was not.

    One of them being mistaken could be overlooked, but all of them saying the same thing and it not being true, well, that might smack of something akin to a conspiracy to certain people.

    Even to the judge.

    ReplyDelete
  52. http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/59914,people,news,judge-bans-detective-amarals-madeleine-mccann-is-dead-book

    this article repeats the myth re Amarals comment outside court. He should sue!

    ReplyDelete
  53. As suggested, if JT is charged with a criminal offence, perhaps she could help herself and plead mitigation if she claims she was pressured into it by the McCanns.

    ReplyDelete
  54. That change in direction towards Murat's house will look very bad for JT, as previously she had the bundleman going in the opposite direction as well.

    She has made so many changes to her story that it was reckless in the extreme that she should have picked out Murat with such 'certainty', then of course, when she found out it could not have been him, simply changed her mind again.

    Thank God they did not have the death penalty in PDL or Murat might have found himself facing the gallows on the strength of the testimony of these people and their 'certainty' that it was definitely him.

    Did they even apologise?

    O'Brien simply said when told it could not have been Murat after his 'certainty' he had seen Murat 'that night', that it must have been the day after that he saw him instead, which begs the question of whether there was even somebody who looked like Murat there that night.

    Otherwise, if there was, he would have said it must have been somebody who looked like Murat he had seen.

    On the face of it, it is looking like it was Murat they were deliberately picking on.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Why are Kate and Gerry not on the list? They both pointed the finger at him ,he was the first Patsy

    ReplyDelete
  56. Ironside - someone should ask them "who do you think you are?" which was the response of a colleague on hearing they were giving a press conference - second response was "why?"!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Sam 33

    kate is not included in this court case,no.Not YET.
    May be R.Murat thought she deserves a very VIP treament for wanting to murder him? ;)
    Slowly but surely,the abcess is oozing out.....and it does not smell like roses

    ReplyDelete
  58. Kate is wearing the cardi of innocence - white this time not pink. sounding very scouse too.

    BBC left conference after KM's statement saying they'd go back if anything new emerges - quite - same old same old.

    ReplyDelete
  59. GM questioned Paiva's ability to conduct case if he believes Amaral's thesis!
    Wd u like to see British police going to PT to act on investigation. GM says wants to see co-operation adn a review - (but never re-opening)

    ReplyDelete
  60. This gang behaved like a pack of wild dogs when the unfortunate Murat was thrown to them by the McCann apologists in the media.
    McCann is a dangerous criminal and must be brought to justice.

    ReplyDelete
  61. @ 57: But there were shedloads of new leads and sightings that the PJ had ignored, according to their lawyer ...

    ReplyDelete
  62. It's all pointless. Nobody can beat the McCanns.They are aided by powerful people in Portugal and Britain or, unlikely, they are innocent.
    Forget madeleine. Forget justice.
    Nobody cares about the kid anymore, it's all about saving the arses of the adults.
    Shut up everybody. They've won. They can destroy whoever they want.
    If people want to give them money, that's their business, their stupidity.
    Best thing everybody could do now, including the press, is just ignore them. Stop the oxygen of publicity.
    I also wonder if Joana's site is representative of feeling in Portugal. I met a Portuguese person in the UK recently who said most Portuguese are ashamed of Amaral and his book and believe the McCanns. Can this be true?
    I've also heard the McCanns believe Joana Morais is the leader of the resistance against them. Is this site merely a minority opinion against them? Be nice to get some perspective on how the Portuguese generally feel. There weren't that many protestors outside the court room. Are the Portuguese sleep walking ? Did the years of dictatorship have that ingrained an effect on them or do they not care, preferring like most people, to suck up the crap we read in the press and on TV?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anon 48 - Its not out of the question, IMO, that a dead body was abducted and could explain, in part, their obsession with `finding` her. Could the cadaver smell in the car have come from something the body had been wrapped in previously? IMO they know she is dead but they don`t know who has her body. Their frantic, obsessive pleas for `the key piece of information` - I don`t think this is all bluff. I think they know `the agency` that has her body and it could be this `agency` has charge of the body as a security against them spilling the beans on the `agency`. I think they do have information on important people and thats how they got government help so promptly but that same government agency has to secure itself against them blabbing. They are caught in the middle. IMO Mr.Spin CM was put in place to be the spokesperson and keep tabs on them - he is not their friend, he monitors them and tells them what to say. It would explain why they can lie with impunity because, in part, its true.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The McCanns whined on and on if front of compliant journos who McCann calls by first name like a politician. They seem to suggest for emotional reasons to change the rules that make it difficult to carry out a 'review' for Madeleine. They say that generally people are very lazy and don't research.

    Martin Brunt Sky comments that they say that now that the case decision yesterday proves that no harm has come to Madeleine, Portuguese people should come forward and tell police what they know. (What a nerve)

    ReplyDelete
  65. Are the McCann's being starved of media oxygen? Good! Less oxygen = less money

    Look forward to catching it under the radar on the web later.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Yep, he sure does have a neck does Gerry McCann.

    What about the dogs, eh Gerry, what about those dogs?


    Do you think you would get away with calling them 'ludicrous' in front of millions of UK TV viewers.

    I hope that question gets asked you, because it is a question long overdue by those UK journalists.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The Smith family knew Robert Murat and RM was NOT the man carrying a child that night.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 63

    If a dead Madeleine was abducted from the apartment then what were the McCann's planning to do with a dead Madeleine before she was abducted from the agency? Carry on dining at the Tapas while her corpse lay in the apartment? Weren't they due to go home the next day. Not much time left to figure out a cover up. Doesn't add up, to me anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Lilith post 61. Well the police only follow credible leads quite rightly not to waste time. All police forces do this.

    ReplyDelete
  70. What a carry-on. At the press conf. McCann refered to LP chief, Stuart Prior as 'Stuart' when asked what Prior thought about a 'review'. McCann wants to appear to be in with top people even though there weren't any real celebs at the party recently. Interestingly, Brunt on Sky says that the police have more information than the McCanns have seen. Such naughty police, aren't they.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The lawyer for a Tapas couple, believed to be Tanner and O'Brien complained about political interference in this case and pressure on his clients, who, it was said at the time, wanted to change their statements.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I don't think there is such a charge as 'abducting' a dead body.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anon 68 - IMO a dead Madeleine wasn`t abducted from the apartment - either GM or another person carried it to the `place of safety` on instructions from this `agency`. They then dined with the Tapas. I don`t think Kate expected to see her gone when she did her check. I don`t think the body has been re-abducted from the `agency` - reckon they still have charge of the body. The body would have to be in tact otherwise this agency couldn`t blackmail the McCanns. I reckon its in frozen storage somewhere secret. Just my opinion but its good to question it - thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  74. We are all inherantly lazy says the Scouse Mouse.
    I wonder does she include herself, or is this another example of their arrogance.
    Why is it everyone else's duty to search, when she was too lazy to go out on the night Madeleine was 'abducted' and search like any normal mother would.
    Not too lazy to wash Cuddle Cat though.

    ReplyDelete
  75. If the McCanns believe Joana to be the leader of resistance against them then it suggests that this site will be their next target. It also shows that they visit this site and so probably read all the comments. (Wave at Gerry, Wave at Kate, and a big Hello to Uncle Clarence)In that case they know they are fighting a losing battle with public opinion. No matter how many people support them, they know there are many many who don't. Not all the 'anti's' are on blogs & forums so cannot be sued (my husband for example says he cannot watch the McCanns on telly without wanting to physically vomit, but he has never visited a McCann forum. They can't sway his opinion of them but they have no grounds to sue him.) It is those people who are always there when they are at the supermarket, the soft play centre with the twins, or even at Gerry's hospital- a patient or relative of a patient. Looking at them out of the corner of their eye, or even outright staring. Something that will forever make the McCanns feel uncomfortable, but which even they cannot control. That is what they fear the most in my opinion. And the more they try to brain wash the more & more people will begin to feel uneasy about them. It is all due to their own behaviour, a situation of their own making. That is the reality of their situation and if they have to go back to court against Mr Amaral it will only get worse in terms of PR. Incidentally I also spoke to a Portugeuse national recently about the case and she ranted for ages about the McCanns, and how they are hated in Portugal. I suppose many people of different natioanlities hold different views about them , you cannot generalise.

    ReplyDelete
  76. The press conference was laughable. Dominated, almost exclusively, by Antonella Lazzeri of 'The Sun' who made a series of statements rather than asking questions, only one interesting thing emerged. There is something in the unreleased files that Gerry McCann doesn't like at all. He wants the files released for 'review' so he can find out what the PJ have got on him, not the investigation re-opened.

    Other points to note:

    The BBC only carried the statement from Kate McCann live, they didn't bother with the Q&A's.

    Why are British journalists twittering asking for questions to put to the McCanns? Two hours research one night will give them all the information they need to ask a pertinent question or two. Unbelievable.

    Martin Brunt was caught on the live feed link up with Sky News studio after the press conference finished talking to his producer. He mentioned something along the lines of "he didn't mention him by name, did he?" Did anybody else hear this better than me?

    Clarence Mitchell is a staggeringly pompous prat.

    ReplyDelete
  77. 62 I would recommend you to read the various comments made in the Portuguese press under each article which reproduced the McCanns press statement yesterday and under the articles which published the results of the judge's decision yesterday - most of the Portuguese people that comment there do not believe a word of what the McCanns say any more, even if they don't like Amaral this outrageous attempt to ban freedom of speech in Portugal was the last drop - in terms of percentage I would say that 90% of the Portuguese people do not believe the McCanns, about 50% are fed up with this story and just want to forget the horrid couple who left their three children alone, 99,999999% of the Portuguese people never heard about this blog since this blog was born out of the necessity to help the people who do not speak Portuguese to be able to have information that wasn't spinned by the McCann's PR and media team.

    It is not this blog or any other blog that makes resistance, its the inconsistencies on the McCanns attitude since 2007, in their alleged thesis and their thirst to control information that has lead people to distrust them, it is their own fault - no matter how many times they spin and try to ban books, docs, suppress and censorship blogs and newspapers, the McCanns will never be able to control people's thoughts and ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anon 63

    If the McCanns know Madeleine is dead then they are perpetrating a massive fraud, and would be sent down for quite some time.

    Probably longer than for concealing Madeleine's body.

    That might just have been forgiven them in the sense of punishment if it had been an accident, but to have taken all that money from the public is another thing.

    And then all the distress caused to innocents caught up in this case would mean they would not have enough money to pay everybody, as they would no doubt be sued in the civil courts as well.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Well said Joana. Let's forget 62.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anon 2. In the US the national organization of golf journalists announced its members will not attend
    Tiger Woods press conference unless it is open to all accredited media. It would be great if the British media did the same when faced with a press conference that has prearranged questions.

    ReplyDelete
  81. http://www.algarveresident.com/story.asp?XID=35169

    ReplyDelete
  82. Just watched Clarence Mitchell on a channel 4 interview. Amongst other things he states that no where in the police files does Tanner specifically name Murat as the suspect abductor. Is that correct?

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/arts_entertainment/books/madeleine+mccannaposs+parents+win+book+battle/3548937

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anon. 63, This seems to me a very plausible explanation. Just wondering, if this is the case, how the truth can come out; if not now, so when and how? Something must be done to stop their nauseating performances and apparently nobody is even trying to, except of course courageaous Mr. Amaral.

    ReplyDelete
  84. The McCann press conference has not even been mentioned on the BBC TV 1300 lunchtime news (1300-1330) not on headlines, content or ticker.
    Hooray!!!

    ReplyDelete
  85. 82
    That is correct. The part about the diligence in the surveillance van was confiscated by the Brits facilitated with lawyer's letters.

    BUT there are always the portuguese witnesses that will be heard, Amaral and Paiva. That is why the Macs are trying to discredit the "group surrounding Amaral" in the PJ

    ReplyDelete
  86. :)]Dear Anon 62, don't be so pessimistic.There is no way the Portuguese government would allow the McCann's to get away with a heist of 1.2 million in reserves.

    What you saw this time was what the Portuguese call "Para Inglês ver" or "For the English to See". That young judge was placed there as a deception, a cosmetic device. It has her first big profile case. She probably wet her knickers when Madame Duarte started howling towards the end :))

    Expect the outcome later this year to be different. There will be a much more experienced judge (and I would assume a proper jury). Not a puppy-puppet.

    You are right to say Portuguese people did not turn up to protest but would that have mattered?

    We must patiently wait for the drop of water that starts the flood. Momentum is gathering.

    Meanwhile let us enjoy ourselves with Murat's boomerang...

    ReplyDelete
  87. A sample of people I spoke to about this case in SE England/London:
    Most have lost interest, but believe M is probably dead, simply because of the passage of time. Of those, most are suspicious about parents' involvement. A minority, like myself, really interested and have started to look at source material. A smaller minority have never taken much interest in the case aFter the initial publicity. NONE I spoke to would contribute to the fund, regardless of their views. No-one realised before that it was not a charity.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Post 82. Clarence Mitchell has not seen all the police files then because the PJ set up an 'identification' of Murat for JT, in a plain car, because of her stated accusations. Naughty boy Clarence.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Jane seems to have memory problems. In one of her statements, she can't remember the name of the man she went sailing with for 2 days of the holiday.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Is Clarence Mitchell starting in with the spin already?

    I doubt that Murat would be suing Jane Tanner if she had not pointed the finger at him.

    Her sighting of the so called bundleman abductor is so flawed as to be completely worthless.

    I hope it is demolished in court, or the actual truth of what she really did see is discovered.

    ReplyDelete
  91. @62 We can all see what the McCanns are up to trying to control the investigation that doesnt mean that they will succeed- do they have powerful friends both here (UK) and in Portugal- all I see is Clarence. They sat and complained for half an hour about their treatment (civillians involved in a crime)at the hands of both professional police forces same old same old; they want, they want, under the guise of what Madeleine deserves.The police dont include them in meetings what a shock.Interesting your almost throwaway remark that they could be innocent. Innocent of what exactly? Afraid you too will have to grow up they're suspects presumed guilty until theyre ruled out and theyve ensured they cant be by their refusal to cooperate with the Police investigations whilst demanding the police cooperate with their dodgy private one. Ludicrous.

    Give it up Kate and Gerry you're responsible for peoples conception of you anything Amaral or anyone else said or says is only pointing out the obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  92. :)] Anon 87 I understand the Fund For the Defense of Goncalo Amaral IS a charity. So far, it has helped him to counter-act the Meccanos' injunction and will help him to appeal of this inexperientjudge's decision. It is up to those who wish to walk their talk to donate. Forget about apathetic masses that cannot think and will not donate. They are like hamsters - too distracted with their routines and caged lives :p

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  93. Aunt Philomena, while on the Richard and Judy show along with her sister Trish, did say the man who Jane Tanner saw carrying a child was indeed Mr Robert Murat. If Channel 4 would allow the transcripts to be read of that show then Philomena would have a lot of explaining to do. I remember it well since Richard Madeley got very animated at that, and proceeded to call all us doubters as vile arrogant swines who must be sick in the head to not believe the McCann version. I am not suggesting Philomena was deliberately lying, she 'may' have been told that was the situation from whoever, a bit like the jemmied shutters and the Portuguese doing nothing to help.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anon at 93

    Perhaps Robert Murat would be interested to know that if he does not already.

    What an accusation to make in a show with thousands of viewers.

    ReplyDelete
  95. The next time these two claim there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm, why doesn´t anyone ask them: "That´s good, so when you think about her and what she might be doing now, how do you visualise her, what sort of situation do you imagine she is in?"

    ReplyDelete
  96. it could be closing in for the mccanns but remember that they are backed by powerful people who when push comes to shove will have a person who is a threat removed from the scene one way or another be it tanner murat or any of the others...remember dr.kelly

    ReplyDelete
  97. @ post #82, thanks for the link. Clarence Mitchell is only playing with words hoping to fool people. He DOES NOT deny that Tanner pointed the finger at Murat. What he denies is that she never "DIRECTLY NAMED" him as the prime suspect. Huge difference. He is foolish if he thinks his lies are fooling anyone. The man's lies drive me mad :-t

    ReplyDelete
  98. So what exactly are the McCanns so worried about? They just won the - temporary - book ban. Could it be that they need to get their hands on information they're not privy to before they go ahead with the full libel trial, or Murat vs Tanner et al trial. Is somebody getting cold feet?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Does anybody remember when Jane Tanner said something about Gerry taking some time to get back from his check.

    I think it was said in the documentary of the so called reconstruction McCann did, but not absolutely sure.

    Did she mean Gerry took some time getting back from the check at around 9.05?

    Or was she meaning another check, a later one that took place while she was finishing off her meal at about 9.30pm, and before she went and relieved her husband so he could return for his steak dinner at around 9.45pm?

    If she did, then this check of Gerry's is not mentioned in his witness statement, but it would have been around the same time as the sighting of the Smith party.

    Does anybody remember this and what Jane did say exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  100. I'm thinking the McCanns are hoping that because Amaral's book is now banned albeit temporarily, Murat wouldn't be able to submit it as evidence in his case against Tanner. I doubt he needs to anyway but just thinking aloud.

    ReplyDelete
  101. This is off-topic (that is, not related to the pending Murat v Tanner court action), but I found it very interesting to read on Martin Brunt's blog that "The Review" was meeting with resistance from the authorities. It's no longer carte blanche then for the all-powerful McCanns?

    A review would be welcomed if the case was closed. A review might also be welcomed if there was every reason to believe the McCanns had been wronged. But when the UK Police have THEMSELVES said all's not right in McCannland, and I'll reference in particular the work of Lee Rainbow and Mark Harrison, to order a review would be to completely overlook or even discredit the work they have done. This case is NOT being viewed as open and shut. Resistance indeed and rightly so.

    There's a very good read over at mccannfiles.com by Dr Martin Roberts (issued today) - check it out.


    The Trail of Death, The Trail of Death, There's no escaping The Trail of Death.

    ReplyDelete
  102. ''Does anybody remember when Jane Tanner said something about Gerry taking some time to get back from his check''

    Wasn't this the time he went and visited the toilet in the apartment ? the one that later morphed into ''somebody was in the apartment'' and was watching him, If I remember correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Press Conference with Dr.Amaral 19.00GMT RUPIAL

    ReplyDelete
  104. It's about time the British cops defended themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  105. 82, no it is not correct. The police put Jane in a van and let her watch several men crossing the street and she "recognised"Murat, who was already known as translator for Tapas 9 at the police station.
    I think Amaral refers to it on his DVD, you can see it here on Joana's.
    I'm for 99999999% sure itt is on the DVD.
    Watch it, please.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Good point ShuBob, and no doubt they are hoping Sr Amaral will not be able to give evidence because he is not allowed to talk about the case.

    Yet would that still apply in a court case when called as a witness.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Thanks Ironside for letting us know the time of conference, I have been meaning to find out.
    104 I agree with that also.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Anon 99, I thought it was Kate who said she was annoyed that Gerry took a long time on his check that she suspected he was watching the football on TV.

    I watched the interview on Sky earlier and must say my stomach churned with fury at the gall of Kate McCann firstly stating that their should be "open-ness", well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. She wouldn't know open-ness if it smacked her in the face. She seems to have a very poor memory, 48 questions unanswered, does that jog your memory, Kate?

    She then goes on to mention that Amaral's thesis that Madeleine died in the apartment had been overturned in the court, my goodness Kate, it's a wonder your nose isn't as long as Pinocchios, you tell such porkers. Please can you clarify which part in the proceedings was Amaral's thesis overturned in the Court, we are all waiting?

    While we're waiting perhaps you could also clarify your "abduction" thesis, how did you know that Madeleine was abducted.

    I would also like to point out to G & K, if they are reading this, when they keep insisting that Amaral's book has stopped people from searching for Madeleine that I have never even started looking for Madeleine as I have never believed a word either of you have spouted about her "abduction" since 3 May 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  109. 102, yes, was not there something somebody was saying Gerry was probably watching football?
    That was why he was sataying so long in the apartment?
    Was is an interview?

    ReplyDelete
  110. Anon 102

    Thanks for that information, it might have been that, yet I thought that Jane said it in a sort of miffed way and Gerry either ignored her or brushed it aside.

    I remember thinking at the time that was a strange thing.

    It may not have been relevant if she was talking about the check he did around 9.05, but would have been if Gerry had gone to do another check when Oldfield got back to the Tapas about 9.30pm.

    At that time Oldfield told Jane Tanner her little girl was sick and could she relieve her husband when she finished her meal, and then he could come back to the Tapas and have his steak.

    Perhaps Gerry omitted to say he had done another check at about 9.30pm.

    If he had been late back to the Tapas from that check, this would have coincided with the Smith sighting, and Jane Tanner going back to the apartment for the second time that night.

    So was this what she was referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Ironside 103 great news but isn't Amaral completely barred from discussing the case now? Perhaps he'll have a spokesman.

    ReplyDelete
  112. No.106 Mr Amaral has been banned from talking about his theory that Madeleine is dead and the parents responsible. I don't think he has been banned from talking about the case per se. He would surely be allowed to give evidence about the case in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Geko said ....

    No 110 Have a look on the new 3 Arguidos, you might be able to clarify the times on there.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I remember from somewhere way back that Gerry was taking a long time on his check. someone commented on it and Kate replied that he was probably watching rugby on the television. I've no idea where I saw or heard it but it has stuck in my mind. Also I'm sure I read somewhere a man drowned falling off a boat in Praia de Luz shortly after Madeleine disappeared but cannot find any reference to it anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Hi, just a question,
    Is Goncalo Amaral to pay 1 million pounds to The Mccs then?
    Thks

    ReplyDelete
  116. 115 the main action where the mccann couple claim for 1,2 million euros for damages [calculated by them] is still to come.

    ReplyDelete
  117. @ 76

    Spot on. The conference was a complete load of nonesense. Same old mantra 'No evidence of any harm to Madeleine' Blah blah blah. The live feed at the end. I thought Martin Brunt said "SHE wouldn't say his name, would she?" Meaning Amaral?

    I also heard Brunty saying the line was 'CRAP'. I noticed that too. I got the impression SKY were going to pull the line, if anything 'difficult' came up?

    WHY OH WHY does the press not do its job in this country? Contrast that with the gutsy journalism of Sandra F and that Portuguese gentleman who bombarded the McCanns with some great questions --- all with the boundaries of decency and legality --- and witness their reactions! I personally think KM has the most to hide. And I think Sr Amaral was not too far from the truth...

    There are so many questions that should be asked on live UK TV. Such as: Why didn't you search on the night of May 3rd? Why did you make Madeleine a Ward of Court? Why did you wash Cuddle Cat? What 'evidence' do you have that 'Abduction' occurred? HOW do you KNOW that Madeleine 'has come to no harm'? HOW did the Lisbon Court demonstrate this as you state as FACT? How does banning a book help the search? What is a fair search? Why did KM inform Yvonne Martin that a COUPLE had 'taken' Madeleine? Was the window jemmied or not?

    And that is just the tip of the iceberg for questions we would like answered. We're not all idle KM. How dare you accuse us of that. Most of us know how to be responsible parents --- something you have both not mastered or understand.

    ReplyDelete
  118. One thing is for sure - the McCanns should never be allowed to say what Madeleine needs or what Madeleine deserves.

    What Madeleine needed and what Madeleine deserved were parents who would have stayed with their tiny children at night, rather than leaving them alone, unprotected and uncared for, in an unlocked apartment.

    Madeleine had needs on 3 May 2007- her parents didn't meet them.
    Madeleine deserved protection on 3 May 2007 - her parents didn't give it to her.

    It's rather too late for them to start lecturing anyone else on what Madeleine needs and what Madeleine deserves. HER PARENTS failed her - no one else, just her PARENTS.

    Unlike Madeleine's parents, the police in Portugal have done their duty. And she wasn't their child, she was the McCanns'.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Obrigada Joana,
    and do you know when? and what are the odds on that?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Mr B

    I do not believe RM will come to any arrangement that is hastily being arranged behind the scenes....an arrangement will not restore a reputation publicly in the way going to court and discussing in the open will.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Jane Tanner referred to the man she saw carrying the child as appearing to her to be the child's father. This was an on-line newspaper account, now whoosh-clunked.

    ReplyDelete
  122. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgWLfiJMCU

    Robert questioned for 19 hours.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Brilhante!!! Mas porque e que isto nao e noticia na imprensa portuguesa? Pelo menos na on-line, a unica a que tenho acesso.
    Enchem as paginas com os Mccann e o seu aproveitamento calunioso, oportunista e 100% previsivel, da decisao sobre o livro " Maddie- a verdade da mentira". Ja todos previamos que iam aproveitar a censura a um livro para iludirem e enganarem a opiniao publica inglesa, dizendo que nao ha provas contra eles, que nao ha provas da morte e acusando mais uma vez a PJ de incompetente, aproveitando ate para pressionarem a revisao da investigacao, que ainda nao pediram oficialmente, sugerindo que o inspector Ricardo Paiva devia ser afastado.
    Mais uma vez, as autoridades portuguesas prestam um mau servico a Portugal e a uma instituicao importante que deviam credibilizar e defender- A PJ. Os Mccann nao demoraram a reagir aos acontecimentos para se auto-promoverem. Das altas instancias da justica portuguesa deveria haver uma reaccao imediata as palavras dos mccann, explicando ao mundo que a decisao do tribunal de Oeiras se refere unica e exclusivamente ao livro e que nada tem a ver com a investigacao da policia judiciaria, INstituicao respeitavel e credivel que tudo fez e tem feito para esclarecer o que aconteceu com Madeleine. Como sempre, vao deixar tudo no limbo e deixar que se enxovalhem e se queime a imagem de mais inspectores. UMA VERGONHA!!
    Agora, os Mccann nao so vao arranjar folego para apelarem a mais donativos para o Fundo, como ironia das ironias, vao por os impostos dos portugueses a pagar a investigacao de avistamentos fabricados, fraudulentos e descredibilizados. Se os personagens da justica portuguesa fossem PERSONALIDADES e tivessem T......, devolviam aos Mccann e aos seus advogados espertalhoes, a facada com que vieram a jogo: Pediam-lhes que tornassem publicas as pistas que imputam a policia judiciaria, como nao estando investigadas, e que supostamente terao sido enviadas pelas policias de Leicester, Espanhola, francesa e italiana. E que a Pj e a policia de Leicester detem investigacao conjunta e se esta tambem nao investigou as pistas, ou as achou irrelevantes ou foi conivente com a suposta incompetencia da PJ. Quanto as outras policias, a Pj so pode investigar em solo portugues, portanto se os avistamentos diziam respeito a criancas fora de Portugal, essas policias tinham o dever e a obrigacao de as ter investigado com ou sem pedido da PJ. Se nao o fizeram, ou foram incompetentes ou as acharam irrelevantes. Deste modo punham pos Mccann em xeque perante outras policias da Europa. OU FOI TUDO PERFEITAMENTE INVESTIGADO, E APROVEITANDO A INTOXICACAO QUE PROLIFERA EM PORTUGAL COM OS PORTUGUESES A NAO SABEREM JA EM QUEM ACREDITAR, OS MCCANN JOGARAM COM O TEMPO CERTO PARA DESCREDIBILIZAREM AINDA MAIS O QUE JA ESTA NA LAMA- A JUSTICA PORTUGUESA.
    Este caso ainda vai acabar com Amaral acusado de todos os crimes que fabricaram para lhe imputarem. Cada vez acho mais que ele e o bode expiatorio usado por muita gente em Portugal para servir de exemplo e mostrarem o que pode acontecer a quem viola o segredo de justica, nao se deixa manipular e resiste a corrente de quem detem o poder. MESMO QUE ELE NAO TENHA COMETIDO NENHUM DESTES CRIMES. Ja percebemos como Portugal tem dificuldade em clarificar situacoes, preferindo que se adense o nevoeiro.
    Entretanto os Mccann vao ficando impunes e a cada ano que passa, as provas vao sendo cada vez mais escassas e melhor manipuladas para que nao cheguem a luz do dia. Madeleine nao tera justica porque nao pode ser considerado justica, o que nao acontece no tempo certo, mas eu acredito que um dia um dos Tapas 9 tera um acesso de remorso e compaixao, e a semelhanca do jornalista da BBC, confessara o crime num qualquer lugar que tornara a confissao publica. Sera no entanto, tarde demais para Madeleine e para Amaral, cujo unico pecado foi exercer a sua profisao de forma digna e responsavel. PORTUGAL E UMA NAUSEA!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  124. Post 75

    likewise my husband has never visited a forum, site or blog regarding the McCanns.

    When I have asked what he believes about the case he has stated that he is convinced that the Mcanns and their friends are liars.

    He does read the UK Newspapers and watches BBC and Sky News.

    Spin tries to change what people think but it does not always work in their favour,McCann Team may convince some of the people but not all.

    ReplyDelete
  125. 124, I agree with you. I'm even convinced that after all the money they spend in VIP Lawyers, Build Image teams, Spin mans and after the result of the injunction, they did not manage to change the mind of a single ANTY. NOT BELIEVING ON THEM, IS A QUESTION OF FEELING AND WHEN YOU FEEL SOMETHING, NOTHING CAN CHANGE THAT.

    ReplyDelete
  126. If Mr Murat is successful in his bid to sue Tapas4, would that be 'significant' enough evidence to reopen the case?

    ReplyDelete
  127. all i would like too say to Mr Murat is that if you know anything at all about the madeleine case please tell so as to stopped all this shit we are getting of off the mcanns and mitchell and then madeleine will be at peace, madeleine deservers that at least

    ReplyDelete
  128. If Jane Tanner now has her own spokesperson in the form of the spinning Clarence, will she also be given her own PR person?

    By the time they have finished Jane will no doubt look like the victim, not Murat.

    Perhaps she could also start a Fund and get some of the rich benefactors of the McCanns to donate.

    ReplyDelete
  129. will someone start a paypal fund to help robert murat?

    ReplyDelete
  130. We were led to beeeive a ruling was going to be made on this last Friday.
    Anyone know what happened? Or was it all tosh?

    ReplyDelete
  131. This is good news Jo, particularly given the timing of it, as Gerry attacks the British government and turns to the other side. About time that man realised this is about the criminal law going to get him, it is not about the wider political agenda. There is no political way out of what he did, he is just a criminal. Neither do I believe the Pt will subscribe to the notion the process should be re-opened in Pt to look at all these so called, and frankly ridiculous "leads" relating to abduction by some stranger. The abductor was no stranger to Madeleine, it was her own father, there is clear witness testimony to prove it.

    I wish Robert success in Pt law, because in UK given it was evidence in a criminal investigation he would have no civil case unless those who lied have been found guilty in a criminal court. Maybe he knows that is on the cards now?

    Gordon Brown did not want to hear their case and neither will David Cameron.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Go after Peter Verran, the sole source of the diversionary allegations against Hewlett. Thorough background research on this man reveals a nasty piece of work, no stranger to illegality.

    If he has perverted the course of justice, the important question is 'at whose request?'.

    Given the Scots Guards connections running throughout this story, it wouldn't be hard to figure that one out - but the implications are pretty substantial.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Maybe Kate and Gerry get sexually excited when she writes about and when they talk about their children genitals, specially Madeleine's.
    She needs to satisfie her sexual desires, writing about it, imo.Or both need.I think both.Writing and re- reading those parts of the book could inspire them to sexual intercourse with each other,imo.I hope not with the siblings.But I don't trust the whole situation.
    Authorities in the UK should do something about this.
    Or are they all paedophiles?

    ReplyDelete