19 February 2010

Video: Clarence Mitchell Spinning for the McCanns ...and for Jane Tanner


recorded and broadcast by Channel4 yesterday

Short transcript from 5'03'' - full transcript bellow

C4 reporter: We've learned that Robert Murat is, has a legal complaint against one of the friends of Kate and Gerry over things she said about his alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably if he gets the same kind of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today, they would support it* [that/him/them]?

Clarence Mitchell: I'm not going to comment on any details on what Mr. Murat or his legal representative are doing, suffice to say that Jane Tanner never directly named Mr. Murat as the man she saw, and you can go back to the Portuguese police files that were released in 2008 and see that for yourself. She never actually named Mr. Murat as the prime suspect.

*doubts on the exact word said by the reporter

Transcript Excerpt of the [now banned] documentary 'Maddie, the Truth of the Lie'

17.53 - The Leads and Murat

18.10 – Over 350 leads were followed.

18.18 – The Polícia Judiciária says that the next few hours may bring new developments.

18.24 – Robert Murat is made an arguido after a long interrogation at the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão.

Olegário de Sousa
Chief PJ Inspector

18.31 – A male individual, aged 33 and a resident in the area of the events has been made an arguido. He was questioned as such, and no evidence has been collected that could justify his detention and further judicial questioning.

19.11 – The journalist suspected him, but we didn’t follow what the journalist said. We followed the analysis of the facts. The facts were analysed, what actually had happened, and we followed a testimony, a testimony that had to be weakened in order to advance the abduction theory. Jane Tanner’s testimony. Because otherwise, the abduction theory died right there. The major foundation for the abduction was what that witness had seen: a man carrying a child, walking into the direction of Robert Murat’s house.

19.45 – Maybe people don’t know, but the search at Robert Murat’s house takes place on a Monday morning, and on Sunday evening, we’re in a meeting with the Public Ministry, with the prosecutor, with the judge, me and Dr Luís Neves, we’re at the court house while diligences are being carried out in Praia da Luz. Diligences to confirm the suspicion against Robert Murat. And Mrs Jane Tanner is placed inside a police surveillance vehicle, several people walk by, policemen, people that Mrs Jane Tanner had never seen before, and Mr Robert Murat among them, and she says that from the way he walks, he is the person that was carrying the child.

20.27 – In fact, Jane Tanner’s memory progressively improves as time goes by. The first e-fit that she helps to draw is a vague sketch. She later makes a positive identification of Robert Murat as the man that she saw that night. Several months later, she participates in a new e-fit, now miraculously remembering every facial trace of a man that is very different from the Murat that she recognised earlier on.

20.55 - Another document that weighed in at incriminating Robert Murat was a psychological profile by English experts, which in very general traces stated that his voluntary attitude during the days that followed the crime, helping the investigators and the family, could be the mask of a criminal.

Jane Tanner Statement extract [part V] given to Leicestershire Police Constabulary in April 2008

4078

“Can’t find the specific part in there but I think, obviously it’s covered in the first one anyway, so it’s not particularly relevant to any (inaudible) time, going back to the second one there. Before we move on to then Gerry and Kate’s questions that they want to ask, is there anything else that you want to say in relation to everything we’ve discussed so far”?

Reply

“Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”?

4078

“Yes, yes go on”.

Reply

“Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.

4078

“Right”.

Reply

“You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.

4078

“No”.

Reply

But I just thought it was”.

4078

“Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.

Reply

“Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.

4078

“Yes”.

Reply

“And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.

4078

“Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.

Reply

“Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.

4078

“Get to the truth of the matter”?

Reply

“Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.

4078

“No”.

Reply

“Because I took it seriously”.

4078

“So there’s no collaboration between you all”?

Reply

“No”.

4078

“(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”?

Reply

“No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”.

4078

“Yes”.

Reply

“So I just thought it was important to say that really”.

4078

“Yes”.

Reply

“(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”.

4078

“Truth to what happened that night”?

Reply

“Yeah”.

4078

“It’s, is how they’ve said it, it’s not something you concocted up between you”.

Reply

No, it was”.

4078

And come to a conclusion that that must have been him”?

Reply

Yeah”.

4078

“That’s genuinely was something at the time”?

Reply

Yeah sort of at the time yeah”.

4078

“Okay. Is there anything else that you need to speak about”?

Reply

“Erm no I don’t think so, don’t think anything else is”.


Note: 4078 is the DC officer signature number

Clarence Mitchell interview full transcript, with many thanks to jjp

Clarence Mitchell - Well Kate and Gerry are very pleased and relieved that the judge has done absolutely the right thing in their view by agreeing to their demand for the injunction to stay in place against Mr Amaral's so-called work. It was causing serious ongoing disruption and damage to the search for their daughter because people, if they believed what he'd written, would think that she was dead and wouldn't even bother to look for her or pursue any information if they came across it. That is absolutely wrong. There is no evidence at all to suggest that she has been harmed, let alone killed and every reason for the search to continue. And that's what Kate and Gerry now want - the focus to come back onto the search for their daughter.

C4 Reporter - Don't the public have the right to make their own mind up? If what he says about them is completely untrue and that's obviously proven, shouldn't he be allowed to say it and the public make up their own mind?

Clarence Mitchell - But under the laws of defamation, as a journalist you will well know, that if you allege somebody is, in effect, responsible for the death of their child and, in effect, has covered it up that is prima facie defamatory of your good name. And therefore they not only, but they, they not only had to take action on that basis but more importantly than their own reputation or the damage that was doing to their wider family they felt it was important to stop people believing this because it would mean that the search for Madeleine was hindered. So this was a clear-cut case of defamation, regardless of the rights and wrongs. Yes, you have the freedom of speech to say what you want within the rule of law.

C4 Reporter - Obviously this isnt the end, unfortunately, for Kate and Gerry McCann on this issue. (muffled) ... is going to take the question forward. He says he is going to take this to the European Court of Human Rights.

Clarence Mitchell - That absolutely is his right and he's perfectly entitled to do that and if that legal process starts in due course, well then we, that will be dealt with at that time. But for now Kate and Gerry feel that the strength of their case is strong. They felt that this was an absolute injustice being committed against them and indirectly against Madeleine herself. And as a result they are very pleased, and as I say relieved that the judge has agreed with them and has made it clear that this injunction has to stay in place and that Mr. Amaral does not benefit from his, er, this work.

C4 Reporter - Returning to the search for Madeleine. I mean with this, (?mumbled words?)* this in mind does this make the search for Madeleine easier?

Clarence Mitchell - Well hopefully it will do. Yes, hopefully people will see this and see that this particular attack on them has been ended and as a result they need to focus on the key message, if you like, that we want to get across today and that is that the judge has effectively agreed that it should all be about Madeleine from now on. What came out during this case - there were two broad areas. One, there is no evidence at all to suggest she has been harmed. And two, no police force anywhere is actively looking for her, shockingly even when presented with new information and leads as the Portuguese have been. Those were dismissed as not relevant to the investigation. Well, the private investigators would like to look at much of that information to establish if indeed there may be any relevance in there. The search for Madeleine will not stop. Kate and Gerry will not give up until they know what's happened to their daughter. And at the moment it remains a complete mystery and they are conducting as best an investigation as they can on their own limited resources at present. It's incumbent upon both the British and Portuguese Police now to mount as effective and credible an investigation as they can and if that involves some sort of independent review of the existing evidence and potential leads then so be it. But the search for Madeleine needs to be the focus from now on not noises off stage from the likes of Mr Amaral.

C4 Reporter - It's been a long time now since Madeleine disappeared. Kate and Gerry....

Clarence Mitchell - It's been nearly three years.

C4 Reporter - Do they still feel hopeful that she can be found.

Clarence Mitchell - Kate and Gerry have always drawn strength from the fact that there is no evidence to suggest she has been harmed, in any way, whatsoever. Yes, of course, nearly three years on its appalling that they are still having to hope. They would have wanted her home the very first day. But in the absence of that evidence, to tell us, any of us what has happened to her, they will continue to believe as best they can that there is hope. And every time, even if they begin to doubt that... Every time something like Jaycee Lee Dugard happens in California, in America where someone is discovered, in her case, eighteen years after she went missing and was long presumed dead. It can happen. Its rare. Kate and Gerry will keep going on that basis.

C4 Reporter - With rulings like today do you think Kate and Gerry are swaying public opinion in their favour?

Clarence Mitchell - Well, that's a matter for the public isn't it really? I mean Kate and Gerry will keep going. They didn't start this legal action. They don't want to appear to be litigious for the sake of it. They're not. They didn't write this book. They didn't write this DVD. Mr Amaral did. And what he said in it was fundamentally wrong and damaging to the search and that's why they took the action. Yes, they hope that people, fair minded people will see this and see the agony that's been heaped upon their shoulders on top of the loss of Madeleine and will hopefully be with them in the search for Madeleine from now on.

C4 Reporter - We've learned that Robert Murat is, has a legal complaint against one of the friends of Kate and Gerry over things she said about his alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably if he gets a similar sort of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today, they would support it [that/him/them]**?

Clarence Mitchell - I'm not going to comment on any details on what Mr. Murat or his legal representative are doing, suffice to say that Jane Tanner never directly named Mr. Murat as the man that she saw, and you can go back to the Portuguese police files that were released in 2008 to see that for yourself. She never actually named Mr. Murat as the prime suspect.

C4 Reporter - Last question. I think a lot of people would say that quite a lot of money has been made from Madeleine's disappearance from various court cases. How much has been made and is this being used in legal hearings like the one we've seen in Portugal?

Clarence Mitchell - The fund is there to assist Kate and Gerry in whatever way necessary. There are a number of other backers as well outside the fund who also assist at times. The bulk, in fact all of the public money that came in in the early stages was all spent entirely properly on the search for Madeleine, on the investigative costs and everything else around that. Most of the monies that are still in the fund now are actually there from either the settlements against the Express Group newspapers and other media outlets that have also defamed them and so that is money that was, if you like, brought in through court action, not the public. And on top of that the most recent monies that have come in have been through supporters kindly donating at a fund-raising event and again they would be more than happy as supporters to see the money spent in any way that assists Kate and Gerry and the wider family and their investigators in the search for Madeleine.

C4 Reporter - Last question. Obviously, the ruling today upheld a temporary injunction (?mumbled words?)* as well. What steps or how far away are (?mumbled words?)* from getting a permanent ruling?

Clarence Mitchell - That's a matter for the lawyers in Portugal. They'll assess the verdict. They will be examining it in detail to see exactly what the judge has said today. And they no doubt will move towards that goal at some point in the future. I don't know the exact timetable but clearly there's not much point in going for a temporary injunction if it doesn't become permanent and that will happen. But I am quite sure that any appeal by Mr Amaral's side will possibly delay that. But that as I say is purely a matter for the lawyers to decide in due course.

transcript notes

* mumbled words from reporter

** mumbled words from reporter - I have used the suggestions from Joana here as I believe that the word 'it' is likeliest but other words are possible.



150 comments:

  1. Had to steel myself to watch this rubbish. Doesn't matter which way clarrie tries to spin it, from the above transcript I'd say it was game set and match to Robert Murat.

    What is happening to clarrie's hair? Does he never look in the mirror? Is it assuming a life of its own?

    Judy

    ReplyDelete
  2. Be careful what you ask for Clarence. We would like to see the case reopened.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a twirp that man looks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't bear to hear Clarrie, Gerry or Kate's voices anymore - they have caused me psychic damage - I throw up involuntarily whenever I hear them

    ReplyDelete
  5. So the money dedicated to the search was spent on bandits ? PR said there was no more money for the search ?

    PS if i were him i would sue my hairdresser !!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. He sounds very threatening towards the reporter. Did he choose this reporter to ask questions? Where are the other reporters?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did I hear it right, did I hear Clarence Mitchel,l say in part of his interview "Noises OFF STAGE, by Mr Amaral"? I have rewound the tape and it sounds like he said that. Where does he think he is, on a theatre stage?

    Also I have just heard him say that the money that is in the fund,which he says is not money donated by the public, will assist the McCanns and their wider family, as well as their investigators, in their search for Madeleine.

    I did read in the files, that the fund, which was originally called the "Fund to Find Madeleine" was set up intitially, to pay for the McCanns "keep" in PDL. I wonder why the McCanns wider family need assistance from the fund.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What an arrogant cocky man and what a strange comb over hair style.

    ReplyDelete
  9. At 4.43 Clarence says "they didn't start this legal action" (He's referring to the McCanns). Well if they didn't start it, who did?

    "He lies with as many teeth in his mouth"

    He is looking more and more ridiculous as time goes by.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 4:37 "They didn't start this legal action..."
    few seconds later . "That's why they took the action"
    OK, Clarrie, which is it ? And if they didn't start the legal action, who did ?

    Mercifuly the interviewer at least got him to admit it was still a TEMPORARY injunction.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry Clarence but its ging to take more than your assertion that Tanner didnt name Murat to get her off we are talking criminal proceedings here.

    This bit interest me more talking about Dr Amaral you claim that a book (based on police files on an already shelved case) might influence people to the extent that "they wouldnt bother looking for her" are you seriously suggesting that extensive and exhaustive searches by the public were ongoing at the time of Amaral publishing his book?

    Allow me to try reach whatever is under that comb over - it was your clients who destroyed any chance of the public searching with wild lurid tales of eggmen, featureless men with strange darty eyes, cooperman,spicegirls and numerous others- yes you are the idiot who cried wolf; the fact theyve no credibility lies at your door and no one elses.

    As for your assertion that there is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine has even been harmed its a crazy statement; under what circumstances do you envisage such a scenario? Some people would think such a statement "ludicrous" I just think it insults the public's intelligence but thats your forte as a PR or so it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Does anyone know the name of the Channel 4 journalist interviewing Mitchell here?

    Important to note CM confirms, for the first time, the McCanns are now using the Fund as their own piggy-bank.

    ReplyDelete
  13. can someone help deciphering what the C4 reporter says at about 5'20''? thank you

    ReplyDelete
  14. Perhaps the newspapers can follow the leads like they did looking for Mrs Beckham. They did a very good job and were very helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Talk about a Coffin with a fringe! Must be to distract from that terribly receding hairline, huh Clarence? It's okay - we'll wait for the comb-over too... =))

    So Clarence says one thing in Jane Tanner's defence, Jane Tanner is on record saying the exact opposite...hmmm. I wonder who the courts will believe: Jane Tanner or her agent?

    Try again, Clarence. And while you're at it, tell your other clients that calling for a review of a case 2 YEARS AFTER THE CASE WAS ARCHIVED to catalog documents rather than calling for a re-opening of the case so that the police can actively continue the search for a Missing Person is a RATHER ODD choice, given its coming from The Parents of The Missing Person. Such urgent and appropriate action! Hey, but Little Missing Child can wait....

    ReplyDelete
  16. We already know what happened to Madeleine , Pinky , the dogs told us .

    Tanner , pointed Robert , out to the police . Is this another point in law , a spin , which will be easily got around because you say she didn't name him , if so the law stinks , as if we didn't know already .

    ReplyDelete
  17. CM has no compunction about lying, none at all.

    Firstly, he stated that "they (the McCanns) did not start this legal action", an outright lie.

    On the question of Tanner he said that she never directly identified Mr. Murat and that there is no evidence she did in the publicly released process files. Well that might well be true, but what we the public haven't seen is the Report of the Van surveillance which Bob Small, formerly of the LP was involved it. I suspect that the evidence exists in that Report.

    Furthermore, Mr. Mitchell, if you are reading, I am a thoroughly reasonable person and my conviction that your clients are not telling the truth has nothing to do with Amaral or his book. Achieving an injunction on the book has not affected my opinion of them and their complicity. In actual fact, it has the opposite effect. Their attempts to silence a theory which they say has no basis, but points the finger to them, only adds to my deepening scepticism of your clients. The sole focus from the beginning has been about protecting their reputations and now you are publicly stating that they are using the Fund money to do so. Quite despicable.

    The search for Madeleine must begin with eliminating those in whose care she disappeared. Nothing can progress in that search until that happens. Unless they co-operate fully with the Police they will spend the rest of their lives trying, but failing to be litigious.

    Bandit

    ReplyDelete
  18. anon 1 and 3 I noticed that clarrie has done what sometimes i have done in a hurry which is to hastily put my wig on back to front and forgot to check in my mirror

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hello Joana, I heard the reporter say "presumably, if Robert Murat gets the same ruling as Kate and Gerry, he mumbled something else, but even though I have rewound the video, several times, I can't tell what it is that he mumbled. Sorry Joana.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Joana,

    "We've learned that Robert Murat is..has a legal complaint against one of the friends of Kate and Gerry, over things she said about his alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably, if he gets a similar sort of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today, they'd support him".

    That's what is sounds like to me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. i had to take a few deep breaths before clicking watch ,whats with the pink ponces hair ?the only thing they wanted saving was the fund

    ReplyDelete
  22. I truly hope when justice catches up the the Mc `s this pompous parasite gets dragged into court for downright lies

    ReplyDelete
  23. Is Clarence going to be Jane Tanner's spokesperson from now on then?

    Just in case she says something she shouldn't.

    You are worth every penny to the McCanns Clarence, every penny. (Of somebody else's money of course, we would never expect the McCanns to use their own).

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm dizzy from the spin.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Joana, I think the reporter says "they'll support them."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well Joana,after gritting my teeth for seven and a half minutes of Mitchell's drivel and lies,I've spotted an error which may result in him getting a letter from Carter-Ruck! At one point he says that "The disappearance of the child IS A MYSTERY---A COMPLETE MYSTERY! If I recall correctly did'nt Carter-Ruck write to somebody and say that to describe the disappearance of Madeleine as a "Mystery", was an "Actionable Libel" ? In which case calling it a "Complete mystery" should move Clarence straight to jail!

    From the early days in May 2007, I've felt that the weakest link in the McCann "chain-of-lies" was Jane Tanner, clearly the McCanns also think that,why else would Clarence be jumping to her defence with provable lies ? Softly,softly, they'll all crumble and turn-on one another. This may be a long haul,but for freedom we must stick with it and not become discouraged.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Joana Morais (@ 13)

    C4 reporter: "We learnt that Robert Murat has ____ a complaint against one of their friends about what she said about his alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably if he gets a similar sort of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today, they would support it?"

    L'Homme: "I'm not going to comment on anything Mr Murat or his legal representatives are doing. Suffice to say Jane Tanner NEVER directly named Mr Murat as the man she saw. And you can go back to the Portuguese Police files that were released in 2008 to see that for yourself. She never named Mr Murat as 'the prime suspect'."

    ReplyDelete
  28. Transcription from 5.04 to 5.23:

    We’ve learned that Robert Murat has a legal complaint against one of the friends of Kate and Gerry over the things she’s said about his alleged involvement with Madeleine’s dissapearance.
    Presumably he gets the similar sort of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today?
    They’d support-

    ReplyDelete
  29. For you Joana @ 13

    "We’ve learnt today that Robert Murat is has made a legal complaint against one of the friends of Kate & Gerry over the things she said about his alleged involvement in Maddies disappearance presumably he gets the same sort of ruling as Kate & Gerry got today.."

    Then pshycho responds with

    " I am not going to comment on that bla bla bla bla "

    Archimedes

    ReplyDelete
  30. thank you to all for the help:) couldn't understand what the reporter said, it seems that makes more sense within the context of the reporter's question and yesterdays events 'they would support it?'.

    ReplyDelete
  31. And at 3:12 Clarence says the search "REMAINS A COMPLTE MYSTERY."
    These are the very words which Carter-Ruck have said Mr Bennett is not allowed to use as they are defamatory.

    ReplyDelete
  32. support IT or support HIM
    I wasn't sure

    ReplyDelete
  33. Joana, It sounds to me as if the reporter at 5,20 is saying: '. . .if he ( Murat) gets the same kind of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today, they'd support that?'

    bob the bluebird

    ReplyDelete
  34. The disappearance of Madeleine is not a mystery to the blood and cadaver dogs, you spinning buffoon.

    They are telling us the child is dead.

    She died in the McCanns' holiday apartment.

    Perhaps Kate and Gerry would like to fill us in as to where she is now.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thank you as well PeterMac, bob the bluebird, Matthew and Archimedes I'll add a note with the extra possible words.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The man is a fool a total idiot and talks only rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ 1

    some caps wreck the hair style

    http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/FSB/FSB053/sklave-arbeit_~x17188109.jpg

    B., Germany

    ReplyDelete
  38. Joana I think ch 4 guy sai if Rm will get the same rulling as the mccs did.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The problem with Clarence is that he completely lost all of his credibility, I always feel that I'm watching a circus clown [no offence to the circus professionals] - the man has made so many spins, some so ridiculous in the McCann's name, that it is impossible to take him seriously, and the hair doesn't help.

    ReplyDelete
  40. :)] Concerning the SNAP 3 software. I thought you wished to copy the video! Sorry. The software would copy words as well but in JPG, BITMAP, PDF formats. It is not like the mouse "copy and paste" function.

    I was not thinking in terms of copyright but Joana and friends might so I would respect that. You can always copy and paste the link to the genuine article or otherwise bookmark and come back.

    However if you are using Firefox, go to Tools, Options and then tick off "Unable Javascript" this should allow you to copy and paste. Again I would ask permission to Joana and friends if I were intending to paste it elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The news about Murat took the wind from their sails. Both nervous and Mccann looked like he was wearing Seans shirt it was so tight around his neck. There was some 'Breaking News' on twitter that it is a Feret on Mitchells head that has taken root.Mitchell has yet to be informed...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Not easy to decipher, Joana, but think the interviewer says something like ...

    "Last time I saw hair like that, Mitchell, they had to shoot the whole herd."

    ReplyDelete
  43. "there is no evidence she has been harmed" they keep saying that!
    WTF???
    Is she alive and on holidays in the caribean islands?
    Either way, SHE HAS BEEN HARMED!
    Dead or alive.

    Peter Simmons, UK

    ReplyDelete
  44. their spin will go on for ever and ever...

    truly hideous

    if they are ever brought to justice they will still be chanting the same "no harm whatsoever... blah blah... no evidence... blah blah... it's not about us, it's about Madeleine... blah blah... window of opportunity... blah blah" mantra

    disgusting individuals - Gerry & Kate are inextricably linked to Mitchell forever and they so deserve each other

    ReplyDelete
  45. A bit off topic, but I have just seen the picture of the McCs going to crt. A smaller woman is holding an umbrella over Mrs McC. Shouldn't the taller person hold the umbrella over the smaller one? I know it's petty, but it irks me.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Did you see the McConns press conference today,they really do think they are celebrities,Kate spoke first with her usual fake downcast face,she again said "There's no evidence to show Madeleine has come to any harm",she is clearly detached from reality,did a Paedophile abductor take Madeleine away to chat then?,And yet not one of the embarrassingly spineless press asked her about those words of hers.I can't ever see any justice for Madeleine or indeed for Goncarlo Amaral,on another forum one poster called Amaral a paedophile and a child trafficer,i did point out to them to go and read Katherine Gaspars statement.Is the book banned permanently or still only temporary?.

    ReplyDelete
  47. temp until the main action is judged in court

    ReplyDelete
  48. @ 45

    The woman holding an umbrella is Isabel Duarte

    ReplyDelete
  49. clarries hair needs an Injunction the man look and talks as if he is barking mad woof woof, he needs Loreal get him some quick start a fund because he's worth it!

    ReplyDelete
  50. 8-} The problem with the Justice system - the origin of which goes back to Roman Jurisdiction and Greek dialectics... is that is not so much evidence that counts but what lawyers are capable of making of it within a certain coded framework. Court proceedings are in fact spinning at its very best. A case can only be addressed step-by-step through a yes or no deconstruction of its parts. It is complicated.

    Did you not read that according to Isabel Duarte, judge Rodrigues has fine-tuned the wording of the injunction? Not clear if with a view to complicate or simplify the follow-up process.

    I would not be surprised to learn that Isabel Duarte has friends and influences in high places - but of course this is just a passing thought. Not an allegation. How come this young inexperienced judge was chosen? Because she was the daughter of so-and-so, an old acquaintance of so-and-so? By lottery? What?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thanks Joana,i hope and pray he wins his appeal,the McConns have ruined the life of Madeleine and the twins, because they will realise what has happened when they get older,they have ruined Goncarlo Amarals life,Murat has been put in the frame,and others who are now being targeted by the(paiva i think his surname is)McConns,yet it was they who are culpable for Madeleines disappearance,yet they have got away with everything.

    ReplyDelete
  52. you can send a message here http://pjga.blogspot.com/ at the thank you note or at the contact form.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I didnt think i could dispise anyone more than the Mccanns but this parasite is a close second!!! just look at his smug face?( and wtf with the hair????) "he lies through as many teeth in his head"(spot on Amaral) when will justice be done so the likes of this prat and those dreadful Mccan's and "friends" can be punished and locked up? i will never change my mind there was a "abduction" they had something to do with it and no lies, cowardly british press/media spin will ever make me think any different.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Gerry did the right thing to let Kate do the opening speech. That was an obvious move on his part to get the media on their side. He knows how much he is disliked himself. She made herself look like a downtrodden housewife and was not the same person welcoming celebrities at their recent dinner and dance! I didn't hear the question and answering bit, but I'm sure our media were the usual bunch with their heads in the sand frightenend to ask one pertinent question in case they get whoosh clunked from their jobs!

    ReplyDelete
  55. According to Mr. Mitchell:

    Absolutely no evidence that she was harmed or that she is dead.

    THE DOGS, MR. MITCHELL, THE DOGS!!!

    WOOF, WOOF!
    BÉU, BÉU!

    I can't help myself, I just have to say something about Mr.Mitchell's hair! What's with the hair?! Has he no sense of the ridicule? A man his age?!
    WARF, WARF!
    WAUF, WAUF!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Has the reasoning behind the judgment yesterday been published?

    I wish someone would point out that these decisions do not prove anything...the McCann's arent cleared, madeleine is not proven to be alive...

    Could it be that this injunction is because the information in the book is evidence that could be used in a court - could the injunction be working against the McCann's by maintaining the integrity of evidence against them?

    Why doesnt someone with the capability take the case files and 'popularise' them? Surely no one can have any leglal case or justification for injunctions or libel cases against someone who just simplifies the case files?

    They are damning in themselves because they (for example) expose Kates refusal to co-operate in the search/investigation?

    Why is there no one that can demand the re-opening of the investigation? I find it incomprehensible why a case can be shelved becaus it hasn't been solved when there are still so many questions! Surely Kate not answering questions and Tanner's changing testimonies and Gerry's efforts to ensure the side of the road he was on when talking to Wilkins (and Wilkins contradiction of elements of Tanner's sighting)are sufficient to generate suspicion and are sufficient to justify continuing the investigation? Why can't the investigation be re-opened on the back of the apaprent failure to pursue sightings? This surely could justify re-opening the case and allow several parallel investigations to run, one of which would be the events of May 3rd and the other following sightings?

    I can't imagine any other police force shelving an investigation unless the perpetrators were known but the police (or judiciary) knew they couldnt build a case due to lack of evidence. Is thats what has happened here - Rebello's review ascertained that the McCann's were the culprits but they were protected?

    ReplyDelete
  57. No wonder they wanted to discredit Inspector Paiva. He was the person that LP sent the Gaspars' statements to, with their alllegations of behaviour indicative of paedophilia.

    ReplyDelete
  58. On Monday I woke up and thought "today I shall look in my garden for Madeleine McCann" then I remembered that the Portugese police thought she was dead, so didn't bother. Obviously now I know they were wrong and Clarrie says the search is back on. So I guess I'll be looking in my garden tomorrow.

    for FFS how stupid are these people?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Kate told duate in a text "your amazing" obviously they had doubts that they would win this one. I read that gerry wants the review and all suspicions wiped out and the file rewritten........that sounds like a corruption of evidence to me...they want the file to show them as squeky cleans, for when the twins read it. I believe Goncarlo lost this at the last minute when Isp Paiva, added about the filed leads, enough to set the dogs off

    ReplyDelete
  60. The money from the public has been spent "entirely properly"...if by that he means to fund mortgage payments, a series of very dodgy private investigators (one of which allegedly ran off with a heafty sum), along with a very expensive website to a member of the extended family, hundreds of thousands on marketing and PR, and the recruitmentment of some of the most expensive extradition and libel legal specialists...I hate to think how the remainder has been spent 'not entirely properly'.

    ReplyDelete
  61. A propos of nothing on this thread really, but I have to say that watching Kate McCann at that press conference this morning I couldn´t help thinking, if only she had looked and spoken like that immediately after Madeleine´s disappearance, instead of being so perky and pleased with her carefully groomed hair and daily renewed earrings I might have been convinced by her. It´s taken nearly three years, but now she begins to look like a woman who really is suffering horribly.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anon 54 Wouldnt be to sure about that no mumsy cardi can hide the cold fish nature Kate has- looked more like they were fighting not to speak (Dear Clara where were you?)until the flashing lights and celeb got to them- couldnt stop Gerry posing then. As for their wonderful celebrity party where are the celebrity pictures?

    So I believe the whole population have got the Mcann message now- open up the files they want a peak they also want an explanation for why their "new information" has not been followed up by the real police now ID has informed them.

    So thats no proper investigation- refuse to cooperate but a private fund whose denotions and court winnings pay to -quoting Gerry "create information" for them to send to the real police to investigate. Theyre not so much doctors as need them if they dont see how plain their motives are- totally certifiable the lot of them.

    ReplyDelete
  63. So the circus continues and the pink flamingo ( apologies to flamingos )with the very bad comb over, vanity at his age =)) spews forth more crap. Falls on deaf ears pinky as we can all add up and see that they are protected. Nobody else would get away with the absolute nonsense that you or they utter. Better hope that the brave Jane does not squeal that is if the good outstanding citizen she is is good enough to put her mouth where her finger was ( as in pointing ). The trail that this lot have left after them is like a corrupt vile stain.

    ReplyDelete
  64. 61 She has a terrible burden - her fairy story in their 'documentary' was clearly lies - the woman refused to answer 48 questions which for an innocent person with nothing to hide would have been simple.

    It is incredible to me that the press and other parts of the establishment have accepted her claim of contact with 6 cadavers in her holiday clothes as a locum GP! It amazes me that the NHS have not challenged this lie.

    She is typical of the late mothers with trophy kids that are rife amongst the middle classes of the UK (hence people like Fiona Phillips and that dreadful perverted scottish woman supporting her).

    Anyway, little wonder that this evil woman is beginning to show her soul!

    ReplyDelete
  65. @ anon 61

    Yes, suffering horribly not because of "a missing child", as she says, but rather the true fate of her daughter and the situation in which they now find themselves.

    Almost three years on and they are still fire-fighting.

    I hope that the Portuguese bandits can keep the flames alive.

    ReplyDelete
  66. But what happened to cuddle cat, has he been abducted too? Or was that just a sympathy ploy. why should extended family members have access to the fund?? time it was investigated with reciepts required for evry pound spent.

    ReplyDelete
  67. No Gerry, you don't have to beg for assistance. Tell Kate to answer the questions and you make a request to have the investigation re-opened.

    ReplyDelete
  68. clarence can spin all he likes for jane,remember he spins for the mccanns and nobody believes a word he says about them,he's a double plonker and a bloody liar to boot, just like the rest of t.m

    ReplyDelete
  69. Oh look, it's nature's biggest mistake at it again.
    Clarence,I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you, you are as thick as manure and only half as useful.
    Eddie would probably bark at that hairdo!

    ReplyDelete
  70. McCann appears to now beleive that he has won and we will all now fall in line and forget the inconsistancies - and the blatent lies (like, to name but one, his claim that hesuspected that the twins had been sedated - an obvious lie or he would immediateloy have had them tested in case they had been damaged by a sedative or picked up hepatitus or even HIV!).

    Where the devil are the authorities in all this! It gives me no confidence whatsoever that out police and judiciary (in the UK) are performing their duty in other cases.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Yet again, Clarence the lying bastard. But don't let us take our eye off the ball.

    Fiona Payne's statement.... Robert Murat introduced himself as Robert Murat and shook her hand, around 11pm that night.

    Total lies.

    Rachel Oldfield exact same story.

    Total lies.

    She discussed this with Jane Tanner who fingered Murat to Bob Small of the Leicestershire Police.

    Russell O'Brien...... Murat was outside 5A with 1st GNR Officers.

    So why did these people positively identify Robert Murat, stating he introduced himself as Robert Murat,....... so that there could be no mistaken identity.

    This is a criminal conspiracy to cover up the death of Madeleine McCann and should be investigated by the Leicestershire and Portuguese police forces. After all, it is in both the Portuguese and Leics Police files.

    If the McCanns are untouchable ask the friends' searching questions and see what happens.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Why have the reasons behind the decision to maintain the injunction not been published? What sort of justice is dished out in Portugal? Even the corrupt and class ridden UK system publishes reasons for decisions!

    ReplyDelete
  73. 66 Good point regarding Cuddle Cat, always thought it was a 'badge' at the time - how could that dreadful women do that only days after her child had 'been abducted'?

    I so wish it were possible to expose these low lifes thoughts and find out what they did with their child!

    ReplyDelete
  74. 61
    I,too, found Kate's attention to personal grooming very disturbing. In spite of claims she had been sobbing behind the scenes, who wouldn't be blotchy faced and red-eyed the next morning. I can't recall one photograph where she has circles under her eyes or realsigns of strain. The laughing- like- drains, exiting the church photos were more typical.Horrible!

    ReplyDelete
  75. Mr McCann said: “You would hope that the parents of a missing child shouldn't have to be here begging for such assistance and that the authorities would actually do everything in their power in the first place.”

    For once I agree with McCann, re-open the case, investigate the night of May 3rd, the inconsistancies, get the McCanns and their friedns in a police controlled and out of the media sight re-enactment (do NOT let the McCann's on any review panel - they are SUSPECTS!!!).

    ReplyDelete
  76. Did the Judge actually say this ............

    "The judge agreed that there had been significant ongoing damage to the search for Madeleine and to the rights of our family, and we are grateful for that," Kate said.



    "It has also clearly shown that no police force is actively looking for Madeleine even when presented with new information and leads."

    So is that why they did not take yet another opportunity to reactivate the investigation. The Judge must be very naive to agree the former when the PJ could have continued their work at any indication from the Mcs and any ongoing damage was down to them and all the made up sightings and red herrings. Is the justification of the decision delayed so that they could say what they like before the real reason ( if there is one, or was it because the Judge McCould do it for the MCannns)?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Its clearly bothering Bully McCann what the various Police forces have in their files, which is why he wants them. since when do the Police hand over files to Joe public or suspects. Never that is when. He is such a control freak that he worries that something will come out somewhere someday from them to bite him. My heart bleeds. He cannot have it all his way. The Tapas are not whiter than white.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Now we know why they wouldn't make the expenditure breakdown public. This fund has got to be frozen until every penny has been truly accounted for. They are still taking money from the public but they have not made it clear that they are now both directors of the fund and that they have changed the manner of the fund. It's a disgrace that this has not been investigated.

    ReplyDelete
  79. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/07/kate-mccann-tried-everything-to-frame.html

    ReplyDelete
  80. @48. Thank you. I couldn't tell.

    ReplyDelete
  81. As clear as day, Tanner admits she points the finger at Murat. Of course, Clarence Mitchell doesn't deny this fact. He only denies she "directly named" him lol.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Read on Timeonline
    "M. Mccann said that Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior, of Leicestershire police, was not able to order the review that Mr McCann and his wife wanted.
    “I don’t think Stuart has the power to make the decision,” he said.

    So they asked a rewiew to Prior, LP?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Gerry Mccanns press conference Friday is a mirror image of Clarence Mitchells press interview Thursday - why doesn't that surprise us?

    Continuing the search within their limited resources?
    Mr Amaral acting out the drama queen?
    Portugese and British investigators doing nothing to assist with their search?
    Important leads ignored?
    Gerry, Gerry, Gerry, Gerry, Gerry?
    Money within the fund not public donations?

    O.K. Mr Mitchell, Jane Tanner may not of exactly said the words 'Robert Murat' but she sure did point a very positive finger in his direction - didn't she?

    G. Mccann - you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time!

    Good luck for the future because you are going to need it!

    ReplyDelete
  84. 'She later makes a positive identification of Robert Murat as the man she saw that night'

    But where is this? It isn't in the files, so where is it? Something so crucial has to be proveable.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I have spoken with friends and family members, who have never heard of Mr Amaral's book, nor heard much about the investigation, as one put it, i have other things to worry about, but all of them, ALL OF THEM do not believe the Mc's version of events. From the little they learned, they themselves have pieced together events and come to their own conclusions.

    A lot of comments revolved around the 'strange/unnatural behaviour' of the parents in the days following the 'disappearence' or as one family member put it 'disappearence my arse'.
    These are people who call a spade a spade and i can assure you would not be the slightest bit influenced by a book. Oh they may read it and comment upon it, but if they thought that little child was alive, no book on earth would alter that......but they don't, so banning a book to save face/arse is pointless. What they have done is drawn attention to it (remember Spycatcher!). There are many many many more people who will now want to read it, and even if they can't get a copy, will be doing mini investigations of their own/reading various web sites and forming conclusions that they otherwise may never have done.

    By continuing to 'sue for libel' Mr Amaral, especially now, over a year later when they could have stopped the book when it was first published, it appears to be nothing more than a CALCULATED, well planned, greedy, money grabbing excercise, which if they do win, will come back to haunt them, and will certainly harden even more, peoples opinion of them, i mean how does that make them look.......

    lindi

    ReplyDelete
  86. Post 82 I am sure the LP may find a way to help Bully, the odd wink and funny handshake and a file or 2 drops in Bully's lap. The LP are close friends we all know that. Maybe the LP will even pick out a suspect or 2 that they can frame?

    ReplyDelete
  87. ;;) People are welcome to e-mail the Portuguese Minister of Justice, Dr Alberto Martins here:
    gmj@mj.gov.pt

    Or if you prefer, as I did, write to him at the following address:

    Dr. Alberto Martins
    Minister of Justice of Portugal
    c/o Dr. Nuno Ferreira da Silva
    Secretary

    Praça do Comércio - 1149-019 Lisboa
    PORTUGAL

    Needless to say that you have to know exactly what you are writing about and support your concerns by quoting bona fide evidence from the McCann files or some other official source, otherwise you will be ignored and will doing a dis-service to the cause of Justice- you know what I mean...

    Perhaps Joana and her team could prepare a petition page that we all could sign and show our profound dissatisfaction for the Judge Rodrigues' ruling. Once this reaches a few thousands we send it to the Minister.

    Over.

    ac

    ReplyDelete
  88. FundLTD....
    So the libel money, donations from backers & specific fund raising is seen somewhat differently than the £millions given by the public. Seems like a different agenda for spending.

    Perhaps they might like to publish in full the last audit. Also seems like public donations are pretty well spent! with no more arriving.

    ReplyDelete
  89. On an evening Jane sat down in a van, with the police and she identified Murat out of several unknown men.
    She gave a statement to the PJ that he was the man she had seen, carrying the child.
    I never saw a coppy of that statement but I know it exists.
    The PJ's DVD for the public does not contain everything of the process.
    Speaking about Tanner, I remember to have seen her rogatory letter.
    Murat would never have started suing Jane if he would not have had more documents about her.

    Is Clarrie/ or has he ever being married?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Clarence Mitchell was dispatched by Howell James from the COI to help out in Portugal on the 6th May at the latest. He is the orchestrator of the huge cover-up that did not shrink away from framing an innocent man. Mitchell and Campbell were working together in the Soham case as journalists. Campbell then was the first to "suspect" Murat. Why would you perform "legally questionable" acts on behalf of your government and lie lie lie? This is not a simple accident resulting in a dead child.

    ReplyDelete
  91. ;;) Sugiro a todos os leitores Portugueses deste "blog" (eu sou apenas mais um) que comuniquem as suas duvidas e apreensões sobre a decisão tomada pela jovem juíza Rodrigues, directamente ou por correio-electrónico, para o Ministro da Justiça.

    Os endereços (um e outro) são os seguintes:

    Correio electrónico: gmj@mj.gov.pt

    Endereço postal:

    Dr. Alberto Martins
    Ministro da Justiça
    a/c do Dr. Nuno Ferreira da Silva
    Chefe de Gabinete

    Praça do Comércio - 1149-019 Lisboa
    PORTUGAL


    Talvez não fosse ma ideia se a incansável Joana Morais e sua equipe preparassem um abaixo assinado para esse efeito. Minha humilde opinião apenas...

    A propósito podem enviar (como eu fiz) uma copia da mesma ao Presidente da Republica:

    Prof. Dr. Cavaco e Silva
    Presidente da Republica de Portugal
    Palácio de Belém
    Calçada da Ajuda
    1349-022 Lisboa (Portugal)

    Correio electrónico:

    belem@presidencia.pt

    ;)A Bem da Nação

    A.C.

    ReplyDelete
  92. This from Amaral's press conference to night a snippet

    # Mr. Sargento: "I'll adress to General Attorney and to Justice Minister a question why did the #McCann's couple get in the court building..."
    # Mr. Sargento: "... through the judges's door? Why? As a citizen I have to know."


    http://twitter.com/rupial

    So they were allowed in the Judge's door. What can you say. Impartial treatment or what. Did the get invited to dinner as well. Was Mr. Amaral allowed in this door as well?

    ReplyDelete
  93. We may not forget that the police DVD contains only 15% or 16% of the investigations.

    Besides there are things police never tell till a case is solved.

    Jane Tanner,
    think it over.
    There is still time to make a deal with Murat.
    You and Russel, what a lot of money!
    To sacrifice yourselves for the McCanns?
    Do you believe they would do the same for you, if it was the case?

    They are using you, they are using everybody.
    Unless you have gotten some responsibility about exploiting children, come forward.

    if you are not a criminal, come forward and get rid of this problem.
    Let the guilty ones pay for their crimes, not you.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Does anyone know if the libel trial will be heard by a jury or will it be just a judge?

    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  95. Can it really be true that ID swung the case in favour of the injunction at the last minute because she introduced some doubt with the judge that the PJ investigation failed to follow-up some sightings of MBM. This was surely just spin and should have been disputed in court. Why wasn't it? Was this what happened behind closed doors without proper rebuttal? Duarte should have been told to prove her point! If this is true, then surely this is a technical breech of legal process that should be grounds for appeal by Snr Amaral. What proof is there that these photos/sightings were not properly considered by the PJ and other police forces. Is this the technicality that gave the McCanns the injunction at the last minute? Please raise this point with Snr Amaral's team Joana (though they need no help from me, I'm sure).

    ReplyDelete
  96. In Praia da Luz kids play on the beach
    With mothers and fathers all within reach,
    But Gerry dumps them in some kids' club messin'
    While he has another tennis lesson.
    When evening comes he puts them to sleep
    To go wining and dining, the selfish creep.
    Now he's blaming everyone else
    When the one he should blame is himself.
    It's his fault he's lost his daughter,
    The arrogant cynical Labour supporter.
    He really must be over the moon
    To have a friend like Gordon Broon.
    He's also got a fool with dodgy hair
    To spin more lies than Tony Blair.
    We pray that soon the lie will be nailed
    And this load of bastards all get jailed!

    ReplyDelete
  97. It's hard not to mention Clarence Mitchell's bonce. Why has he decided to have it like that? It really isn't a good look and if he has any friends/family they should tell him.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Someone asked earlier how judge Maria Gabriela Cunha Rodrigues was chosen for this case and I`d like to know as well. In the UK I think the judges work on a rota system and they get what they`re given unless they have a personal interest or bias.
    I was surprised to see such a young person acting as a judge - I thought they were supposed to be experienced, mature, wise etc. and have proved it. Surely 45-50 would be an age to attain such a position.

    ReplyDelete
  99. His fringe got caught in the rain. It happens.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anon 95 - an interesting thought, but the whole thing stinks from what I`ve seen so far - particularly the McCanns witnesses (including Clarence Mitchell) being heard behind closed doors. So they had a good opportunity to beseige this young judge with all their spin. Mr. Amaral was the one doing the Appeal yet all his witnesses had to be heard in the open court. Don`t get this.

    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  101. The motives of those who have tried to convince the world that Madeleine is abducted, and who've disgracefully and falsely tried to implicate Mister MURAT in her disappearance, need to be seriously questioned.

    ReplyDelete
  102. :)] Great work 92! We did not know that!
    Eh! People Dr. Amaral press conference here! Here! Heeeeeere!
    http://twitter.com/rupial

    ReplyDelete
  103. O que mais me intrigou dia 18, nao foi o resultado da Providencia Cautelar. Infelizmente Portugal ja nos habituou a estas "baldadas".
    Intrigou-me o facto dos Mccann anunciarem, antes de se saber o resultado da Providencia, que tinham uma conferencia de imprensa agendada para o dia seguinte. Podera querer isto dizer que ja sabiam qual ia ser o resultado e por isso decidiram nao vir a Portugal, evitando assim exporem-se a alguma reaccao desagradavel do publico portugues. E que eles parecem andar sempre a frente das circunstancias. COINCIDENCIAS OU ALGO MAIS?

    Agora vai comecar a perseguicao aos blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  104. clarry shame on your hair do,if i had known i would have bought you
    a hair clip complete with a butterfly ,just like the one that landed on kate when she met the pope.I hope you all sh*t yourselves
    and fall back in it .....YOUPRAT......

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anon 70, the present UK government are lying, self serving scum, who will twist anything or everything for their own ends and means, anyone who is remotely involved with them are all tarnished with the same brush. None of them have any morals, conscience or any idea of what is wrong or right. They think whatever they say is "right" whether it is or not and the pleps of this once great Country have to bow down and honour them as if they are truly wonderful, no wonder Mitchell is the manipulator and liar he is, he has had a good Master to follow for some years, if the McCanns are related to Brown in anyway, no wonder they have no moral compass, they all sing from the same hymn sheet.

    If they are not disgusted with themselves then I have news for them, the rest of the country is. Role on the next general election, it can't come soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
  106. http://www.ukfreepress.com/id6.html

    FYI

    ReplyDelete
  107. 95 I think this is rubbish. The unprofessional introduction of 'spin' at the last minute surely did not say such an important decision? The swamping of the police with ridiculous sightings would be criminal, everyone knows this happens - the crazies send in their wild and stupid sightings.

    The judge surely is not stupid enough to forget that the dogs detected cadaver scents - isolated to the McCanns clothes and possesions...this cannot be erroneous.

    I want to see the basis for the decision, this is a basic requirement of the rule of law, the basis of any legal system. Is Portugal not a country that has a judicial system based on the rule of law and natural justice?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Saturday's Daily Mail has an article "We're just keeping our heads above water: Desperate and angry, Kate McCann begs British police to take over Maddie hunt". The article states the McCanns have had a meeting with the Home Secretary to plead for Interpol to review the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Cannot bear to hear any of them anymore, however just have to say that The 'Pinkster' has AGED aged in a super sonic way, two plus years have turned into thirty. Could not have happened to a better trio. If I sound a little bitter it is because I am. Just once I would like the
    "GOOD GUYS" to win, just when you think something will happen, the Odious ones come out on top. UGH!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  110. McCann says that he questions the motives of those who seek the truth regarding the fate of his daughter.

    Surely he, as a parent, wants to know what happened - not just where she might be now? Surely he - as a supposedly educated man with a scientific approach - realises that to understand a problem it is essential to start at the beginning, to examine the root causes?

    Of course he does, but he also has more information than we do, as he was last to see Madeleine.

    He surely realises that he is bound to be number one suspect and he surely accepts that he must be actively cleared by independant investigators (not people he pays!).

    I still think that the little scenario involving abductor sighting, Wilkins and Gerry's conversation and the alerting of a cadaver dog at the foot of the steps is the touchstone to the solution.

    Come on gerry, demand the PJ investigation is re-launched - that the Portuguese re-open the case.

    Portugal - demand your judiciary re-open the investigation!

    ReplyDelete
  111. 97 How old is this judge then?!! Less than 50? Jeeez!

    ReplyDelete
  112. Quote//

    19/02/2010 22:40
    Anonymous said... 98
    His fringe got caught in the rain. It happens

    LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! PMSL

    ReplyDelete
  113. Just check this nonsense!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252286/McCanns-criticise-heartbreaking-failure-police-Madeleine-launch-fresh-appeal-help.html

    ReplyDelete
  114. Why are the McCanns talking to the media after Lisbon decided to keep the book banned?

    ReplyDelete
  115. No mention of Maccanns press conference on the ITV early news or news at ten, and lots of comments against them in the daily mail, people are now sick and tired of the pair of them. They have become a joke crying and moaning. kate Looks like a corpse with Lipstick no ponytail swishing now laughing her head off like the long hot summer of 2007 now its the deep mid winter.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Clarrie - "they thought it was important for people to stop believing this" (she was dead)

    Excuse me McCanns, I can believe what I want and I believed Maddie was dead the minute I saw the dogs - long before Mr Amamrals book.

    How dare they tell me what I can believe.

    Good questions from that journalist - well done.

    Clarence Mitchell you are a has-been like the two you defend.

    By your "younger" hair-cut you know it yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Those stories about not investigated sightings, at court, were a Paiva's ambush to get the process reopened, imo.
    They had nothing to do with the book.
    Paiva was gentle enough to show a horrible photo to Isabel Duarte.
    Impulsive or not, she screamed it was necessary to reopen the process.
    It is what the PJ wanted, imo.

    ReplyDelete
  118. The judge forbade Amaral to repeat

    "The parents are responsible."

    Is he allowed to say

    "The parents are irresponsible?"

    ReplyDelete
  119. Are the McCann Team trying to tell everyone that they believe their daughter is being held by a pedophile but no harm has come to her???

    I ask how many pedophiles do they know.

    I am amazed at some of the comments The McCann and Company state.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Well, that's seven minutes of my life I won't get back again. For some reason, my b*llsh*t meter is pegged...

    --Trismegistus

    PS - Joana, I've got some more statto analysis to do, hopefully this weekend if I have the time. What we did before doesn't tell the whole story, we have to look at probabilities given where the actual scents were (or weren't) and the probabilities of false positives and false negatives. If Statman is around as I hope he or she is, he will know what I'm talking about! And can double check the calcs. :)

    ReplyDelete
  121. Well said Bandit. I concur.

    GordonD

    ReplyDelete
  122. The McCanns said in their press conference that there is NO police force looking for Madeleine, but, if I recall correctly, not very long ago, the Leicester Police decided that their files on the case were to remain secret because releasing them would reveal their investigation tactits AND because it still was an ONGOING investigation! How can this be?! There either is an ongoing investigation or there is not, it cannot be both!

    ReplyDelete
  123. Daily Star today

    "The McCanns(or the parents) who insist she was snatched..."

    Ha ha ha! this is funny!

    ReplyDelete
  124. The Portuguese must shudder at the very mention of their names.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Thanks for that info Anon 92

    Yes, what makes these two child neglecting parents so special?

    People are treating them with kid gloves, it's first class all the way for them now. Always somebody around to pull strings for them.

    Whereas they should have been locked up for leaving their kids night after night in the first place, just like any of the rest of us would have if we had done the same, but never would of course.

    Whine, whine, whine, that's the McCanns. It is always somebody else's fault, never theirs. Now they are blaming the police because they can't get their own way and get them to rewrite the case to the McCanns' storyline.

    The dogs have spoken McCanns. Madeleine is dead.

    Nobody is going to waste resources on the McCanns' round and round the garden wild goose chase simply to defect attention away from their role in what happened to Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  126. So...the Portuguese judge has ruled for the McCanns. And they do a press conference saying how badly the Portuguese police have treated them, that they are powerless, that the Portuguese police refuse to investigate properly.
    Was the judge aware that her decision would be used against Portugal and it's reputation?

    ReplyDelete
  127. I don't see how Murat can sue for being mistakenly identified. (yes I know it wasn't a mistake but that's what she will say) All criminal investigations would grind to a halt if witnesses were at risk of being personally sued if they misidentify somebody...there must be more to this case.
    Also what does Mitchell mean when he says that if Murat gets a similar result to the McCanns case, 'they'd' support him? Who? The McCanns would support him?
    eh?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Surely it´s a good thing money and police resources were not wasted on chasing up thousands of sightings all over the globe, given that we now know from the private detectives that Madeleine has been held all this time in the immediate vicinity of Praia de Luz (unharmed of course).

    How do they get away with so much inconsistency?

    ReplyDelete
  129. 119.. Will be happy to do so!

    statsman

    ReplyDelete
  130. things should get better now.
    Gordon Brown has launched is fair future campaign !

    im rolling around the floor here lololol.
    what a

    maybe Gerry can help?

    mojo

    ReplyDelete
  131. Anon 116

    Agree.

    I would say it's even not beliefs, it's common sense and logical conclusion based on the facts obtained so far.

    ReplyDelete
  132. The intentions of these people are monstrous. They intend to use emotional blackmail to pressure the UK Home Office to mess with the established police and justice protocols to 'review' the evidence that lies on file in another country (to discredit it). They are indeed barking mad, and the journalists and editors and establishment including the ministers that go along with this insanity need to be kicked out for incompetence. Is the UK mentally ill? The patients are running the asylum! Let's have an election in April please.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Interesting slip from clown CM at 1.18, "This was a clear cut case of defamation, regardless of the rights and wrongs".

    CM slips up there, I think, as his subconscious knows there are wrongs in this decision.

    ReplyDelete
  134. :)]Não se esqueçam de enviar uma mensagem ao Ministro (e ao Presidente que e Algarvio). Eles em principio lêem ou senão lerem acabam por vir a saber, sobretudo se o numero for elevado... Os endereços estão acima (87+91)

    :)]Remember to address your views about the recent court decision to the Minister of Justice and the President (who happens to be from Algarve). The addresses are in the postings above (87+91).
    They will read it particularly if the number of e-mails is high. Do it now.

    ReplyDelete
  135. he looks like one of the twits from 'and now for something completely different' (monty python)

    ReplyDelete
  136. 122- I had a letter from Justin Millar at the Home Office on Feb. 5th., in response to my letter to Ed Balls about the CEOP conference. The last para. reads " It is not our policy to comment on the specific details of police investigations. However, work continues on Madeleine's disappearance, led in the UK by Leicestershire Police. They are continuing to explore all possible steps for further progressing the investigation drawing on a range of UK policing resources and liaising with the Portuguese authorities, who continue to lead on the overall investigation, as appropriate. We continue to hope that Madeleine will be found safe and well"
    Who to believe? The McCanns can get on to Justin then, to check what's actualy happening. He doesn't appear to realise that LP have no jurisdiction in Portugal, or the recent statement by LP which can be seen on this site.Safe and WELL! After 3 years with paedophiles; according to the hellish lair thesis.

    ReplyDelete
  137. The audiences were a farce. The result of the injunction was decided at the beginning. If not, How can a judge decide to forbid a book after the witnesses said in court that the book is nothing else then what came out from the investigation, the abduction was impossible, etc, etc?. A FARCE AND A FARCE VERY BADDLY PLANNED.
    The court don't even spend a big effort to explore all the lies and inconsistencies which came out from ID mouth.

    And what came out from the court to justify the result looks more like an excuse then a justification, A JOKE. The only issue which can change the thoughts of the book were the evidences.... If by any luck, the Mccann's or their lawyer show the court an evidence to support the abduction. This did not happen, because if this was the case, the news will be covering the front page of the newspapers.
    WITHOUT EVIDENCES OF AN ABDUCTION the book should never been forbid. AND IF G.AMAAL CANNOT TALK ABOUT THE BOOK, THE MCCANN'S SHOULD BE FORBBIDEN TO TALK IN THE MEDIA ABOUT ANY ISSUE RELATED WITH INVESTIGATION.
    The Mccann's cannot have their image and name destroyed , but they can destroy the image and the name of others. At the INQUISITION Time that was the rule followed by the Inquisitors. WELL DONE, JUDGE GABRIELA, you bring your country back several Centuries.

    ReplyDelete
  138. #26
    I also immediately heard the "mystery" statement and wondered what carter ruck would do!

    Jane Tanner is the weakest link and Mitchell is the second weakest link?

    Funnily - in the documentary that Gerry made, there was one scene when Jane Tanner turns away and cries, and those tears and expressions looked genuine to me. Either she was crying because she had really seen something and not stopped it, or she was crying about the fact that she was involved in a huge lie and that she was still perpetuating it in the documentary.

    When I saw the expression on her face, it honestly put the biggest doubt in my mind about the McCann’s guilt. However all the other evidence: dogs - cadaver and blood - apartment and car - garden - hair in car, cleanup, missing sheets on cot, manufactured timeline, lies, refusal to answer questions, pact, missing cellphone messages and calls, sms message that were held back from evidence by the judge (why?), the church key and smell in church and car, Smith sighting, the fact that the whole table (except for Dianne) was away already at 21:20 (the evidence of the ocean club executive chef), makes me revert to the big cover-up, spin and money-making theory. Perhaps they were all trying to revive her at 21:20. All decided that they had to get rid of the body. Gerry took the body as evidenced by Smith to an intermediate place at 21:55. The entire table went back, except Kate, who then manufactured the abduction.....and then it snow balled from there.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Anon 136

    Then this does not tally with what the Portuguese investigators say, who when contacted by a UK journalist was told that they are not searching for Madeleine because she is dead.

    Do we have to assume therefore that the LP are willing to pander to the McCanns and their abduction story?

    Is this from instructions from higher up, as Dr Amaral has said political interference is involved.

    If so, they are a bloody disgrace completely, and not to be trusted.

    How much other evidence has been withheld? They certainly took some time to send on the Gaspar statements. Is there more?

    ReplyDelete
  140. #106
    Somehow I wouldn't be too surprised if Tony Bennet was arrested before the conference for "breach of the peace", seeing he intends to discuss the case and publish the first volume of the case files.

    Everything about this case stinks.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Jane Tanner may have seen something, the back of somebody carrying something, which she has elaborated on with the telling.

    But as she also returned to the apartment about 9.45 that night, she could have made the sighting then, and it would have corresponded with the Smith sighting.

    Her sighting was not therefore at the time of about 9.05pm when she said she saw Gerry talking to Wilkins.

    If she is so vague and confused about what she did see, it is also likely that she is vague and confused about when she saw it.

    ReplyDelete
  142. they should re-open this case and make all the tapas crowd arguidos as they are are all suspects in the crime "conspiracy to conceal a cadaver"?

    ReplyDelete
  143. 125 Kid gloves -if theyve any sense theyve rubber gloves on; no wonder Clara looks as though he's aged ten years trying to sell caustic acid as pop.

    Why you're around borrowing Kate's tongs could you ask her one question? Ask her how she thinks her saying police officers should take "personal responsibility" how that sounds coming from a couple who claim their neglect is responsible for the disappearanc of their daughter?

    And from a woman who refused to answer the questions put to her by those police officers and clarified that by answering just the one question- yes she did realise by not answering and assisting the police she was harming the investigation.

    If Gerry';s around wearing pinny, cleaning up, ask him whilst your there; where was he when the Smith's claim they saw him heading towards the beach that night and does he have witnesses beyond his tapas partners in deceit?

    Theyre a very special couple Clara and you have my condolences.

    ReplyDelete
  144. The McCanns must be very worried the prosecution of Jane Tanner could lead to the case reopened.

    If Jane's testimony and 9.05pm bundleman sighting gets demolished in court, that lets in the Smith sighting of around 9.45pm as more relevant.

    So far the Smith sighting was not considered in the same way as bundleman sighting, though Dr Amaral considers it very important.

    Most people have probably never heard of it.

    JT went back to the apartment a second time that night at around 9.45pm which coincides with the Smith sighting, so might have seen bundleman then.

    That's if there ever was a bundleman of course! She has changed her story quite a few times so far.

    Although this case is about Murat suing JT for accusing him of being bundleman, under questioning by a clever lawyer her testimony about the sighting at around 9.05pm, or any sighting at all, could be demolished.

    That lets in the Smith sighting as very relevent.

    How the McCanns would hate the mention of the Smith sighting, one of the best sightings so far, but more of less ignored by them.

    How will JT stand up to questioning in court?

    Who knows, but perhaps they will end up doing an out of court settlement so it wont get that far.

    Whatever, the McCanns must now be fearful this action against JT might lead to a reopened case, and then Mr Smith giving evidence about the man who looked like Gerry, carrying a child who looked like Madeleine, and heading to the beach area.

    ReplyDelete
  145. It's a pity the fund ever existed. For most people in the McCann's situation it would have presented an additional, and surely unwanted responsibility. But not for them, it seems. Perhaps the fund and all the possibilities it opened up was what Gerry was thinking of when he had his "vision" while having a bit of a pray in the church. It has come in awfully handy, since it put them in a position where they can sue newspapers and individuals at will, bringing in yet more cash. Suing Amaral is quite an interesting one; would decent people accept money from a person they appear to think contemptible? Perhaps they're able to overlook it's tainted origins because they need it for "the search". Rather ironic, that Amaral, who actually and actively investigated is being sued to provide funds for more investigation. Poor chap seems to have done more than his fair share.

    ReplyDelete
  146. 144's comment regarding what may come out in the wash in the Tanner prosecution is an interesting one. The 9.05 sighting is indeed crucial to the whole abduction theory and extremely useful in providing an alibi at the same time. If the 9.5 sighting were to be demolished, doesn't it also demolish the whole abduction scenario as, without this testimony, all that is left is that K & G just somehow knew it was an abduction. Wonder whether Wilkins will be called as witness - interesting times.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Don't forget everyone the EXPRESS...yes the EXPRESS paper is now allowing you to comment on todays McCann story

    There are already 5 pages of comments...

    ReplyDelete
  148. @126 anonymous
    To be honest, it isn't relevant for the judge to consider whether the case could damage the reputation of Portugal. I hope that even if she did think of this issue she simply banished it from her mind. Were it to be a criterion for judgement that the reputation of the state or its people had to be considered in cases which were unconnected with those with direct responsibility for the state then I would worry that such a criterion could be used to undermine real justice.

    It was merely the judge's role to consider the law as it applied to this action by Amaral in relation to the claims made by the McCanns.

    Unfortunately, we still don't know how she formed her judgement. I would hope that some day we shall know how that came to happen, though it would not surprise me if some kind of injunction had been brought to bear on those who received the full judgement not to release it to the public. Nonetheless, I am hopeful we might see it in the not too distant future.

    ReplyDelete
  149. 'Tapas Seven' Libel Payout, 16 Oct 2008

    Transcript of Fiona Payne's statement outside High Court

    16 October 2008


    All the damages received today are being paid directly into the Find Madeleine Fund to continue this ongoing search and investigation into her disappearance.

    The rest of the transcript can be read here:

    http://mccannfiles.com/id171.html

    Watch:

    'Tapas seven' make statement

    Page last updated at 11:00 GMT, Thursday, 16 October 2008 12:00 UK

    BBC News video of Fiona Payne's statement


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7673661.stm



    Press Release, 16 October 2008
    Press Release Carter-Ruck

    "Tapas Seven" Secure Apologies and £375,000 in Libel Damages from Express Newspapers

    16 October 2008

    Express Group has also agreed to pay libel damages of £375,000 to the seven, every penny of which will be donated, at their request, to the fund established to help find Madeleine. Express Newspapers will also be paying the legal costs of bringing the complaint.

    The rest of the press release can be read here:


    http://mccannfiles.com/id171.html



    Clarence Mitchell states @ 1.46 in the video below that the Express have agreed to pay damages of £550k by way of a donation to the Fund that was established to find Madeleine. The lawyer Ed Smethurst says @ 4.49 Kate and Gerry have donated every single penny of these damages to the Fund the stated aims which are prinipally to find Madeleine.

    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/UK-News/Apology-And-Damages-Over-Madeleine/Video/200803314184558?lpos=UK_News_Article_Related_Content_Region_4&lid=VIDEO_14184558_Apology_And_Damages_Over_Madeleine




    The transcript of Fiona Payne's statement, her video statement clearly state the the libel payment is going to the Find Madeleine Fund to search for Madeleine.

    Carter-Ruck's Press release very cleary states that every penny of the libel payout is going to the fund established to help find Madeleine.

    The Sky video regarding the McCann £550k settlement states Kate and Gerry have donated every single penny of these damages to the Fund the stated aims which are prinipally to find Madeleine.

    So now we have CM @ 6.24 on the above video in this article now saying the Express settlements are being used to fund legal action and the libel settlement is not as Fiona Payne and Carter-Ruck stated to the public being used on searching for Madeleine McCann! Ed Smethurst also imo implied to the public the McCann £550k settlement money was for finding Madeleine!

    zodiaczephyr

    ReplyDelete