23 January 2011

Looking back on the Maddie case: "The PJ is forced to investigate abduction lead"





While doing some research on the Madeleine McCann case, I came across an old article from Correio da Manhã, dated August 12, 2007. It reminded me not only of the recent Wikileaks news, but especially of an even more recent quote from an interview that Clarence Mitchell gave to Peter Levy, on BBC Radio Humberside:

“And yes, you're right, there was a lot of criticism at different times and a lot of leaked rubbish, frankly, that came out in the Portuguese press and was then repeated without any attempt to check it in the British media and then recycled a third time into... back into Portugal.”

An idea that Mr Mitchell repeated in another interview, this time with Stephen Nolan, on BBC Radio 5live:

“And, of course, what makes it all the more frustrating for them was that they knew that much of the coverage was based on either falsehoods, misunderstandings, deliberate leaks from certain quarters, that were then mistranslated, either through mistake or through deliberately. A story that would appear on a Monday in Portugal, saying something was possibly the case - which we knew wasn't true - would then become hardened up as fact on the Tuesday in the British press and then, on Wednesday, it would be repeated, 'as reported by the illustrious London paper X or Y'.”

Mistranslations aside, here’s the article that brought back some old memories - linked to some not-so-old knowledge about the case's backdrop:



The PJ is forced to investigate abduction lead

Alípio Ribeiro, the Polícia Judiciária’s national director, received a telephone call from John Buck, the British ambassador in Portugal, on the night that Madeleine disappeared from the Ocean Club, on the 3rd of May

by José Carlos Marques / P. M.

At around 11 p.m., approximately two hours after the child’s disappearance was communicated, Alípio Ribeiro had to interrupt a private dinner in order to listen to the diplomat. The phone call was the first sign that the English were very interested in following the PJ’s action closely and to push the investigations into the direction of an abduction.

“The PJ lost too much time investigating the abduction”, a source linked to the investigation told Correio da Manhã. The English diplomacy’s pressure only relented when British police officers arrived in Portugal and supported the redirecting of the investigation towards the hypothesis of homicide. The biological traces that were found inside the apartment were decisive in changing the inquiry’s route, or at least, for the PJ to publicly admit to that change.

The decision to deepen the possibility of the child’s death at the Ocean Club – and the consequent reevaluation of Maddie’s parents’ statements, as well as their friends’ – was made while considering the English police officers’ opinion. The interview that Olegário Sousa – the Judiciária’s chief inspector who has been serving as the police’s spokesman in this case – gave to BBC and ITN televisions yesterday was planned with these agents.

The choice of these two television channels was motivated by the indignation that the English police officers in the Algarve felt themselves, concerning the accusations that have been made against the PJ by the British press. BBC and ITN have been covering the case with more coldness and impartiality, which is the reason why they were given privileged access to the interview.

This was the first time that Olegário Sousa publicly admitted the possibility of Madeleine being dead. A position that places the McCanns in the centre of the investigation, a situation that has been handled ‘with tweezers’ by the Portuguese police.

[…]



in: Correio da Manhã, 12.08.2007





67 comments:

  1. Clarence is obviously trying to blame the Portuguese for all the misinformation that team mccann fed to the British media about the fake'abduction' making them look incompetant.
    Sr Amarel's factual book about events and Clarence's statement means Amarel's book should be freely available to buy in our bookshops now the ban has been lifted, so the public can see what a cover up it all was, then when their book comes out it would be a complete contradiction to the facts of the case.WH Smiths and Waterstones are not stocking Sr Amarels book - why?
    Newspapers only printing about the abduction and fake sightings and never questioning the mccanns innocence for fear of a libel action by mccanns, the public should have been given more factual information especially as the mccanns were taking money for their 'fund' from the public.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is weird:

    "At around 11 p.m., approximately two hours after the child’s disappearance was communicated"

    11 minus two hours means 9pm! The article does not say "two hours after the child was found missing" or "two hours after the alarm was sounded", it states clearly "two hours after THE DISAPPEARANCE WAS COMMUNICATED". According to this the police would have been called at around 9pm, and as we all know, it was not! The first record of a call to the GNR is at around 10:50pm(McCannFiles).
    And I read that some people in the resort said they heard someone calling "Maddie, Maddie" and searching the grounds as early as 9:15/9:30pm.

    To whom was the disappearance "communicated" at 9pm...? Not to the police...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes Mitchell, ADMITTING it with as many teeth you have in your mouth, about the people you are protecting .....


    Open Quote
    "they knew that much of the coverage was based on either falsehoods, misunderstandings, deliberate leaks from certain quarters"
    Close Quote
    Is it really worth it for 2 pieces of silver, or is it for alot more....we will one day find out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You guys at this blog, don´t have anything beter to do, then repeat the your sick fantasies, about something written above that is not true, except of course in the brain of a sacked pj, which wrote a book of lies with the purpose of gain fame and fortune at the expenses of the innocents he betrayed.

    Shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What a Brilliant article to dig up!!!!!!

    I think this article shows that the 9.15 PROBLEM with What to do with MADDIE was communicated to the British Ambassador immediately.

    Gerry had to button-hole Jez Wilkins, at 9.15, ( when he discovered Jez had just walked past appartment 5A, at about the time Gerry contacted the Ambassador?) desperate to find out if Jez had seen or heard anything, and also to plant in Jez' mind what Gerry wanted Jez to THINK he was doing.

    This fits in with some of the Tapas men, knocking on Jez's door in the middle of the night, uselessly, just to tell Jez what was going on, but NOT to ask for help!! Jez would then think - "Oh yes, Gerry told me he had been checking on the abandoned children"

    I think the pieces of this jigsaw ARE fitting together, and it doesn't look good for the McCanns - or Mitchell.

    autny anti

    ReplyDelete
  6. "At around 11 p.m., approximately two hours after the child’s disappearance was communicated"

    Would that have anything to do with the time difference between Portugal and the UK or maybe not. Just thinking out loud.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon 4

    BINGO!!!!

    Mitchell, Gerry and Kate the loop is slowly tightning

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why shouldn't Buck ring Ribeiro? I'm sorry but I have never seen the problem with this at all. Two countries with a good relationship should be able to cooperate from the first instance at the highest level, for the sake of a missing child.

    ReplyDelete
  9. who can explain the difference between Jose Socrates and Cavaco Silva?

    ReplyDelete
  10. You know, if you strip this case down, it's really remarkably simple. The trouble is that it has accumulated debris the way a snowball rolled down a hill does. It's easy to become fixated on what may seem a strong piece of evidence and ignore things which don't fit with it.

    That is precisely what happened when the Yorkshire Ripper investigation was completely sidetracked by the Wearside Jack tapes. George Oldfield became so convinced that they were looking for a man with a Wearside accent that the real culprit was able to escape suspicion.

    Go back. Consider just what we know. Ignore all of the following : government interference, masonic links, friends in high places, cloning, drug testing, the Gaspar statements, swinging, missing fridges etc. Read the forensics reports, not someone else's interpretation of them. Read the statements.

    Just look at what we know, at what we don't know, and at what we know the McCanns both did, and didn't do. Forget any ideas of premeditation, forget conspiracies.

    What you will start to realise is that in fact the number of questions to which we do not know the answer is very few.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I believe the Portuguese people have been treated appallingly by Clarence and the British media, they have been insulted and humiliated. The mccanns have attempted to ruin Sr Amarel through court cases because he dared to speak the truth, and misinformation mccanns fed to the media and now yet another insult from Mitchell accusing the Portuguese of falsehoods, misunderstandings etc, why did mitchell not put the record straight at the time if he knew it to be incorrect, because he did his fair share of lying and pushing the fake abduction theory.
    Mccanns took money from everyone for their fund including placing money boxes in the Algarve Hotels and the Portuguese people helped them search for Madeleine in all good faith and all the while they were being lied to. It is a disgrace that nothing official has been done about mccanns, clarence and co.
    Well done Astro and Joana.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear Anonymous #7, maybe the nature of the Polícia Judiciária should be taken into account to better understand the context: The PJ is a criminal investigation police.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon at 8 I totally agree with you there has been far too much speculation causing confusion and the mccanns have encouraged it. This is a straight forward cover up by two people who were given the benefit of the doubt and hid behind Portugals secrecy laws whilst amassing enough money to pay for expensive PR people to protect them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon @ 5. There is no time difference between the UK and Portugal, so the discrepancy has to be down to something else.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous 8 "What you will start to realize is that in fact the number of questions to which we do not know the answer is very few".

    One of those questions is where is it? Where was hidden? Is it in Portugal or already in England? What do you have to say about these, with someone else's interpretation. What did you got from the statements reading about this question?

    Keep diving...

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Just look at what we know, at what we don't know, and at what we know the McCanns both did, and didn't do. Forget any ideas of premeditation, forget conspiracies.

    What you will start to realise is that in fact the number of questions to which we do not know the answer is very few." (Comment 8 above.)

    Very, very true.

    And just to add a little further rational perspective to this case, I would like to quote from John Douglas, criminologist and FBI profiling expert, who wrote in his book "The Cases That Haunt Us":

    "Borden (Lizzie), Bembenek (Bambi) and Ramsey (JonBenet) demonstrate that you don't just wake up one morning and decide to become a murderer. There is ALWAYS some predictive behaviour. If there isn't or you can't find it, then you've really got to wonder about your suspect......

    "Lindbergh, Borden, and Ramsey - particularly Ramsey - can warn us of the danger of jumping to a conclusion without knowing or understanding critical facts, because of preconceived notions.....

    ".......(in italics)'The Ramseys must be responsible for their daughter's death or else they would have cooperated with the police' (italics off).....

    "These are not statements of truth or fact. They are myths of conventional wisdom."

    In the Madeleine McCann case the 'myths' certainly seem to have overtaken the statements of truth and fact and objectivity has, as a result, long flown out of the window.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is not the legitimate business of an ambassador to push a criminal investigation in one direction or another in another country. It must have been condoned ar a higher level. If a country has only a weak separation of powers, the executive can have influence over the legislature and the judiciary. But it would seem that the influence of the time has now gone. leaving a new investigation more chance of success.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ah! Ah! Like many of us predicted. Mccann's took less then a blink to jump on the story of Carlina White:

    "It does give us hope and is an amazing story."

    "We know Madeleine is out there waiting to be found. We just have to keep forging ahead to get her home."

    Really? With huge differences, Kate and Gerry:

    = Carlina was abducted with few days when she was almost a newborn baby.
    = Carlina was abducted from a public place, an hospital.

    = No any dogs put Carlina parents in the center of the investigation as first suspects.

    = Carlina mother did not left questions without answer at the police hands and did not refuse any reconstruction.

    = Carlina parents did not set any Fund to pay lawyers and spin people.

    = Carlina parents did not hire any private detectives to look for her. She was found due to her own work searching her biological family and suspecting her fake mother. She proves how useless are your private detectives, your media publicity and the money you robber from honest public to feed your insanity.

    During her anonymous and quite life she have done more then you with all your screaming and jumping on every single story.

    Trough Carlina words we can understand how painful were this 23 years for her, contradicting the Mccann's that state on all papers that Madeleine was not harmed and she is happy under the hands of her abductor. What a SHAME THIS TWO OPPORTUNNISTS.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Manuel Catarino, a journalist from Correio da Manha, explains on his book "A culpa dos Mccann" exactly how and when happened the contact between the British Ambassador and Alipio Ribeiro. The UK machine involving G. Brown and the Sky News was settled before the PJ knowing that a girl went missing in PDL. Alipio Ribeiro was contacted with story of an abducted girl in PDL. No any other scenario was admitted.

    ReplyDelete
  20. HELLO NUMBER 8...

    Yours is what I would call a good PR argument. Are your initials C.M. by any chance? Just a little joke...

    You remember The Ripper's case but forget to mention Eddie & Keela's sniffing expertise which was made public much more recently.

    OK, Keela may have been sniffing out the wrong blood or the nose bleedings from the victim (if you believe that) but what about Eddie? Did his super-nose accidentally lock into the dead "remnants of a supernova fart" (quote/unquote) which had happened light-years ago? Personally, I doubt.

    So much for so-called "forensic reports" - which were not the work of a truly independent laboratory located in Germany or Switzerland, say, but of an extinct British lab (FSS) which, as "Big Rock" (Gonçalo Amaral) admits, was the wrong decision. An expression of political subservience served as good will.

    Amaral does not seem to discern an aura of authenticity in those reports, neither do I. Do you?

    This is another reason why conspiracy theories exist. I like to think of them as neo-Marxist attempts at critique because ideology and hegemony are obviously at work in this Mitchellian/McCannian, post-modern, hyper-reality charade. You don't need semiotics or mathematical game analysis to tell you that!

    One last thought:

    The crucial question that has not been answered (let alone the initial 48) is the one you "forgot" to mention, the one Eddie "The Dog" so eloquently expressed in his barkings...

    Strange things called facts. They do seem to have a life of their own, don't they?

    Conrad Black
    Head of Communications
    :k P.J. Tipps
    Investigateur Extraordinaire

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Loccard Methode used by all polices in the world is based in few facts:

    - the perpetrator always leave in the crime scene marks, vestiges, evidences of her/his passage. Only Mccann's evidences were found, specially Kate fingerprint on the window, exactly in a position that fits her story of an abductor entering the flat trough the door and leaving trough the window. Off-course when she told the story to the police, not even on her bad dreams, the loccard methode came across her mind, she was not aware that few days later her fingerprints will be found on the place that so desperate she prays for an abductor.

    - The victim always leave marks, evidences, signs of her contact with perpetrator. Madeleine body fluids and hair was found on the R. Scenic rented by the Mccann's 20 days after she went missing.

    That Kate and Gerry were not fabrications from any Media, not speculation from anybody in the blogs. That was so serious and came from so deeply inside the police investigation that make a team of top investigators to travel to UK to ask and clarify some questions with the Tapas 7 and force the UK government to become a joke by delegating the interviews to the most corrupt and incompetent British police- THE LEICESTER CONSTABULARY.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I understand that Jose Socrates'political party has lost the elections in Portugal.
    This is a huge hope for Madeleine.
    Maybe we can find out more about this case.

    ReplyDelete
  23. it's important to read the files, but then look more carefully at the people who make statements and come up with sightings. A close scrutiny of the FSS would prove interesting to those with more enquiring minds!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi 14 no myths just facts,

    David Payne made provocative gestures allegedly directed to Madeleine, which involved him slipping a finger in and out of his mouth while rubbing his nipple in a circular motion, asking Madeleines father would his daughter do this.

    On another occasion David Payne made similar provocative gestures, but this time the gestures were allegedly directed at his own daughter.

    These allegations are in an eight page statement made to Leicester police.

    Yvonne Warren Martin Social Services (child protection)with 30 years experience wrote a letter to Leicester police asking them to check child abuse registers for anything relating to David Payne, on the morning of 4th May 2007 Yvonne Warren Martin thought she recognised David Payne through her line of work.

    If you read the Portuguese police files and checks made on Kate & Gerry MaCann you will find both have a file on the CATS child abuse system.

    In a recent article, Sofa Leal the wife of Goncalo Amaral the co-ordinator of the Madeleine investigation directed a quote at the MaCanns, it went something like this " we would not invite paedophiles into our circle of friends " what a strange thing to say.

    ReplyDelete
  25. anyone lucked up the definition of "conspiracy" civil,criminal,political.
    seems to me theres alot of cranks/nutters out there - who can not see this is definately one!

    leave no stone unturned.

    mojo

    ReplyDelete
  26. #8
    To classify the involvement of the British government in the cover-up to Madeleine's death as a "conspiracy theory" is a laughable attempt to stop Enquiring Minds from continuing to connect the dots.

    Nice try, though.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry back again, poster 8 never right off the Masons, http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Leicester_Martin_Allen.jpg

    A masonic friend of the MaCanns, ready and willing to help his brother.

    Never dismiss the Masonic brotherhood.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 'No, sorry'

    http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  29. Speaking about Mitchell who suspects somebody tried to break in on his phone.
    Perhaps someone close to him told some secrets to Wikileaks, which are about to be published, and Mitchell can excuse himself saying"it was not me! they broke in my cellular phone!"

    ReplyDelete
  30. On the subject of the forensics, let it not be forgotten that the FSS could only report on and ultimately destroy what samples they had been given. The PJ retained the Scenic boot materials together with whatever evidence that remained in them. Who knows what evidence is waiting to come to light when the case is reopened?

    ReplyDelete
  31. T @ anon 14
    Nothing mythical about the staged abduction,
    The Facts are No window or shutters jemmied ,opened,broken,lifted or any method you wish to add happened that night FACT not Myth.
    All the vastly experienced police officers UK AND Portugeese came to the same conclusion i.e No Abduction.

    So although it cant be Proven YET these conclusions can only meen one thing and that is from the very start the mccanns lied and made up the abduction story because Madeleine died and for whatever reasons, they had to conceal her body because of what a post mortem would have produced.
    Not myths but Logical conclusions from experienced police officers.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Number 8:

    "Go back. Consider just what we know. Ignore all of the following : government interference [...]"

    The one thing that we can assert we know about this case is that there was political interference. It's no conspiracy theory, it just happens to be obvious from the facts.

    Forget about the DNA tests, the phone calls by Gordon Brown, the connections of Clarence Mitchell... just watch the declaration of British ambassador John Buck on May 4th 2007, in the hours following Maddie's disappearance. It's available on youtube. What does this man say? Among other things, he says that British Police liaison officers are to come from Leicestershire down to Portugal.

    Does an ambassador have the power to make such a decision? No.

    Is it common to send foreign Police forces on site in a tragic, yet ordinary, criminal investigation? No. Even with lots of journalists around.

    Was it requested by the Portuguese PJ? Not at all, see Amaral's book for instance.

    So, again, who requested that action? And who had the power to implement it?

    Isn't it obvious?

    Lynx

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't buy Gaspar's statements. They were made on 16 May 2007, exactly when was on the best interest of the Mccann's to connect the all story with Paedophilia. For the police, and Kate and Gerry know it at the time, there was no evidences of strangers forcing the enter of the flat. No break in, no damages. All evidences, including the fingerprint pointed to the parents. Then, they will do everything they can to take the attention from themselves and credit the crime to somebody else, including their friends ( cause desperation). They spent a lot of time calling people. Who knows if they called the Gaspar's to ask some help and the Gaspar's knowing that no evidences of strangers were found, trow the stone to Payne (who could be a real Paedo according to the witness working for the social service and could be involved in Madeleine's death with Kate)? The objective of the Gaspar's could be to protect Kate and Gerry and let Payne be charged with crime. The media machine and the investigation ruined the plan- The dogs did not connect Payne with death Madeleine, instead connected her with Kate. The Media did not let the Mccann's to fade, as Gerry wanted at same point in PDL. Payne left PDL quickly running away from the trouble scenario. Mccann's plan with Gaspar's did not work. That could explain why the Gaspars were not sued by the Mccann's or Payne. The Mccann's asked their help and this needs o be hide from the police. Payne knows that who know him more closely knows his Paedo temptations, then no way to trouble the Gaspar's.
    The Gaspar's, even not being in PDL, are persons of interest for that investigation. I believe they know part of the truth, at least what happened to Madeleine on the fatidic early evening. Their statements to the police fall on the same bag as the fake sights and fabricated witnesses payed by a health Fund to distract the police from the right track. The case must be reopened and all this characters called to court to answer the questions of a clever and independent judge.

    ReplyDelete
  34. #33 wrote:

    "I don't buy Gaspar's statements. They were made on 16 May 2007, exactly when was on the best interest of the Mccann's to connect the all story with Paedophilia."

    Yes, but...would it be in their best interest that the paedophile(s) connected with the "story" was Gerry's best friend, David Payne??? And was it also in their best interest to have Gerry himself also tarnished with the same "paedophile brush"??? Because, if you remember, katherine Gaspar's statement puts Gerry in a very bad light too.
    Yes, for some reason the McCanns pushed the paedo card (some headlines in british rags, "The Algarve is awash with paedophiles" and "Portugal is paedophile's heaven", and Gerry on the phone,on 5A's balcony, saying that there were paedophile rings operating in Portugal, while he knew he was being overheard by another O.C.guest, et.,etc.,etc.), but they needed a stranger, not someone related to them.

    However, I too have an uneasy feeling about the Gaspars' statements, but my discomfort comes from an apparent contradiction in Mrs. Gaspar behavior. I mean, her words do not match her actions, on one hand she seems deeply disturbed and concerned about what she witnessed, disturbed enough to report it to the police, but, on the other hand she still lets Payne bathe her daughter!!! Instead of making sure Payne or Gerry would not have any physical contact with her daughter, she merelly warns her husband to be "attentive" at bath times if it was Payne's turn bathing the children! Is this the expected reaction of a very concerned mother? I think not! Why didn't she bathe her child from then on, or have her husband do it? Why still let Payne go on as usual? It just doesn't add up...Just my opinion, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 33:"I don't buy Gaspar's statements. They were made on 16 May 2007, exactly when was on the best interest of the Mccann's to connect the all story with Paedophilia. For the police, and Kate and Gerry know it at the time, there was no evidences of strangers forcing the enter of the flat."

    You are absolutely right in this.

    "The objective of the Gaspar's could be to protect Kate and Gerry and let Payne be charged with crime."

    They knew that Payne wouldn't be charget with this crime. I'm afraid Payne had something to do with disappearance of Madeleine like some others of Tapas too, but it wasn,t about paedophilia.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anon @ 33 spot on -I also do not believe the Gaspars statements because who in their right mind would remain on holiday with such people especially as the Gaspars had children of their own. This case should be re-opened the Portuguese were about to charge the mccanns but instead they were allowed to flee.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ Anon 4
    aw....poor you!

    @Anon 33
    I find it extremely strange that payne never ever reacted to the Gaspards statements

    ReplyDelete
  38. Of course we know what has happened to the little girl - she is dead! But we still do not know for sure what has really happened on that late afternoon May 3rd, we don't know where did they kept her - and this means a place with certain characteristics plus fridge or a cave near the beach because Mediterranean land's have good characteristics to mummified bodies and then those can be moved elsewhere without smell - and this takes us to the last point - is she still in Portugal or is she already in England?

    ReplyDelete
  39. P.J. Tipps I see that poster 8 hasn't responded to your question.
    Quote.
    "Yours is what I would call a good PR argument. Are your initials C.M. by any chance? Just a little joke..."
    Someone wants people to believe that there's no evidence, but The Blacksmiths Bureau covers interesting facts.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 37, it is no strange the Paynes did not react to the Gaspars'statements because I wonder it those statements are known in the UK.
    Imo they did not want to call any attention to themselves, specially to David.
    If they would have sued the Gaspars, the media would have talked about it.Maybe there are are more people who experienced and saw similar gestes done by Payne, in other occasions.
    Who knows there are more statements in England, about paedophilie and the police in Portugal don't know it.
    Uptil now, Madeleine officially disappeared because Kate and Gerry were "naief", as they say.
    Tapas 7 are "innocent" witnesses, because the McCanns want to control the story all by themselves.The more people involved, the more Freudian mistakes and Kate is more than enough.
    To me, what makes me David suspect is the fact that the Paynes were the only ones with a monitor.The rest of the group did not have any and I don't believe it.That unic monitor was David's alibi.An alibi was necessary, that evening.All other men went checking on the apartments, except for David and that's what I suspect.And Russel O'Brian did not show up. Cleaning the apartment?
    I believe the clothes that were used to dry up the floor and the rest of all the monitors disappeared in that blue bag, which were taken somewhere by Russel, before the alarm.After the bag being hidden, the "abductor"went down the street with the body.

    Sometimes I fear that the crime was planned like de Sousa said.
    If it was not for the Smiths, the police would not have known who carried the body.
    Bad luck! a whole group of Irish people(not English) and the Irish police sent the statements to Algarve.
    I bet the Smiths come from the Catholic part of Ireland, that's why the police sent them.Otherwise, England would have controlled everything.
    Bad luck, a bunch of Irish Catholic people, bad luck!
    And Mr. Smith knows Murat and he said it was not him.
    Bad luck!

    ReplyDelete
  41. IMO the McCanns didn't ask help from the Gaspars, but I do think you are right that is was on the best interest of the Mccanns' to connect the all story with paedophilia. There could be two reasons why Payne and McCanns never sued the Gaspars.
    1.The Gaspars are wrong and something worse than the SUGGESTION of paedophilia towards Gerry and Payne did happen (let sleeping dogs lie).
    2.The Gaspars are right. (let sleeping dogs lie)

    I wonder if the Gaspars ever regret they told this, they also have an own family to protect. Now unintentional 'involved'. So I really think they were telling what they heard and saw. IMO the link with paedophilia may be prematurely. Assuming the Gaspars are telling the truth, then it surely says all about McCann's and Payne's opinion on children, especially on Madeleine, the 'close to the perfect' child.
    NL

    ReplyDelete
  42. As you will see from the case report below in relation to a judgment by Mr Justice Eady, witness statements given to the police are protected by "absolute privilege". Therefore, neither Gerry or Payne could have sued the Gaspars in relation to the evidence they gave to the police and I can think of no good reason why they would approach the police and tell lies about this and they were not the only ones expressing their concerns, were they?


    Buckley v Dalziel
    Case Reference [2007] EWHC 1025 (QB); [2007] 1 WLR 2933; [2007] EMLR 624; The Times, 7 June 2007
    [2007] EWHC 1025 (QB); [2007] 1 WLR 2933; [2007] EMLR 624; The Times, 7 June 2007
    Court Queen's Bench Division

    Judge Eady J

    Date of Judgment 3 May 2007




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Summary

    Defamation - Absolute privilege - Qualified privilege - Witness statement provided to police officer - Limitation - s.32A Limitation Act 1980




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Facts

    The defendants made complaints to the police that their neighbour the claimant (C) had caused damage to their trees and hedges. C was subsequently arrested but no criminal charges were brought. C brought a slander claim against D2 in relation to 3 initial telephone calls to the police and a claim in libel against D1 in respect of the witness statement he provided to a police officer. D1 applied for summary judgment on the basis that the alleged libel was published on an occasion of absolute privilege; D2 applied for summary judgment on the basis that the claim against her was issued 6 weeks after the expiry of the limitation period. C made an application under s32A of the Limitation Act 1980 that the limitation period should be disapplied because she had been unaware of the existence of the telephone calls until after the expiry of the limitation period.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Issue

    1) Are words published in a police witness statement provided to a police officer protected by absolute privilege/immunity from suit?

    2) Was it equitable to disapply the one year limitation period?



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Held

    Granting summary judgment in favour of D1 and D2 and dismissing C’s application:

    (1) D1’s communication to the police officer in his witness statement was protected by absolute privilege and immunity from suit. The public policy considerations which applied to the immunity afforded to mere witnesses applied with equal validity to initial complainants.

    (2) The limitation period would not be disapplied. C had delayed in making her application to the police for disclosure; the claim was relatively trivial and there was no actual damage to reputation; and although C had clearly suffered distress this consideration applied to all the parties involved.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Comment

    Preliminary oral discussions which are transcribed directly into a police witness statement are also likely to be protected by absolute privilege. Initial voluntary complaints to the police however, such as the telephone calls in this case, are protected only by qualified privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Right lets leave the Gaspars for the moment(even though in my opinion the gestures made by Payne were sexual gestures directed at two children), there was another twist of fate that the MaCanns & Tapas had not counted on , the arrival from Social Services the Child Protection worker Yvonne Warren Martin.

    On the morning of 4th May 2007 Yvonne Warren Martin thought she recognised David Payne through her line of work,(CHILD PROTECTION).

    Yvonne Warren Martin with 30 years experience wrote a letter to Leicester police, her main aim in writing this letter was to ask Leicester police to check child abuse registers for anything relating to David Payne.

    She may not have known where she had recognised Payne from on that morning 4th May 2007, but by the time she wrote that letter, in my opinion she knew exactly where she had crossed him.

    Did Yvonne Warren Martin spook Payne? i think Payne recognised her also,this is why he told her on the morning of 4th May 2007 to clear of, this also maybe why its alleged on the evening of 4th May 2007 at 23;13;41 for 100 seconds Payne phoned the Crime Directorate/Child Abuse Investigation Team.

    And when investigated about this call by Leicester police, Payne tried to avoid admitting he made this call, but after a little more prodding by Leicester police , Payne is forced to admit he did make this call.

    Now thats two doctors & one social worker who had serious concerns regarding David Payne , strange very strange .

    ReplyDelete
  44. Are the scums in Dubai then?any news about this most "unexpected" sighting???
    I admire you all for being here years in years out.....
    RIP Madeleine

    ReplyDelete
  45. Snr Amaral is a retired eminent police expert with 27 years experience and a fine record. He resigned from his post to retire and write a book. The book has been officially accorded to be a reasonable and accurate account of the police investigation into the disappearence of Madeleine, by three senior court judges in Portugal. He is free to publish it, and discuss the police case.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The Gaspar's were good friends with Mccann's, not with Paynes. Mrs Gaspar make it clear on her statement, then I'm not surprised if to protect Kate ( the one about who the police find forensic evidences connecting her with crime) they put one of Mccann's friends in the center of the volcano- The one about who they know there is already suspicions about Paedophilia in UK- David Payne.
    On top of that I strong believe that the swing was the lifestyle connecting all this people. Their holidays in a low season fit swinger holidays. The swing could be the reason behind their pact to cover up Madeleine crime. The Gaspar's were lucky for not joining the group on May 2007, but maybe were not happy for not been invited by the group at that time( Payne booked the holidays without them). They will not let an opportunity to pass, without giving Payne a lesson- The statement could be the lesson. This people were all cynics and Hypocrites and only a secret they all share can hold their mouths so tight. And the secret is something else, not the dead Madeleine. Madeleine's death is the second or the third secret. There must be another one, the most important secret that force the crime against Madeleine to become a secret as well.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I strongly believe there is more to the friendships of the Tapas 9, and like other comments there are more secrets with this seedy group. If like what Goncalo Amaral suggests Madelienes' accidental death, why cover it up???? Many excuses could have been made and the incident swept away, more is hidden here, more people are directly involved in many more shady secrets. With lashings of help from people in high places.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I still wonder why the police believe the death was caused by Kate, not by Gerry or by both.
    They must have a very strong indication pointing to Kate.
    Some blood, cadaver scent in the apartment and in the car are not enough to point at one person.
    Cadaver scent in Kate's clothes is also not enough.She could have holden the dead child in her arms, after her death.And this does not make a person a killer.
    Imo, the police know a lot more and they are keeping it for the trial.

    There could be more statements, direcly sent to Portugal, by privete persons, through internet.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Viv at 42

    Thanks for an interesting and well documented point.

    A. Reader

    ReplyDelete
  50. Afer all, I thisnk Fiona Payne went to Lisbon on the last day of the process only to check if witnesses would talk about Payne.
    I notice she is the only one of Tapas 7 who showed up is public, beside the McCanns.
    Oldfield and Tanner took part on the documentary but in total it seems they all avoid the media and the McCanns.If they are not paedophiles and if they have nothing to do with the death, they must live a terrible life.
    Sacrificing themselves in order to protect the McCanns.
    Their children will see them on internet, the children's friends will comment their support to the wrong people, parents will fear paedophilie of them all.

    Their children will feel and be lonesome, without knowing the reason.
    A tragedy they maybe did not cause and for sake of the McCanns.

    Evil in their lives and I believe in evil.

    ReplyDelete
  51. A wonderful article about the doors, at Mccannfiles, by Dr. Roberts. It shows the dimension of the lies.
    On top I will add that the bed from where the Mccann's claimed Madeleine was abducted, show no signs of Madeleine, no signs of being used by anybody to sleep on it that night.
    Their statements to the police and to the media were and still a pile of lies. Their lies and their behaviour avoiding a serious and deep investigation is the main reason for being vilified by people, who don't buy their stories, in the Internet.
    They choose to be on the red lights forever and Mitchell keeps coming on with his ridiculous interviews. The public knows, there is BIG LIES ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO MADELEINE ON MAY 3. The lies came from the people who saw Madeleine at last. Why they lie? Because they know "WHAT HAPPENED TO HER HAPPEN UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES" ( Kate words)... and was not an abduction(the feeling of trillions in the world and the conviction of the police of two countries directed involved in the investigation).

    I hope Mr. Cavaco Silva, you become more active now by defending the rights of the childs in your country. Madeleine lost her rights under the eyes and the passivity of many people with power. Excusing that passivity with INTERFERENCE ON JUSTICE ISSUES NOT BEING THE COMMITMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC, is not acceptable on that case. What is a lie for millions in the world, is a lie also for who have power and good information sources to clarify the situation and force justice to work. At least it is your commitment to ring the bells. A child with no voice, need the voice of strangers to fight for her rights, to not let her down once again.
    Her parents, under the mask of a false search, are just looking for publicity and money on their millionaire Fund. If not, have they fill any form in Portugal to reopen the case? Months passed since their last accusations against PJ but they have not done a single step to reopen the investigation. How can the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister let a bunch of liars mock Portuguese justice and discredit PJ? This still destroying the reputation of Portugal in many ways.
    I congratulate the parliament for reopening the Camarate case. I hope Madeleine will be next, with agreement of the Mccann's or not. Some type of crimes cannot go away unsolved. What is in the public domain is so serious that we just have to make one conclusion- If Madeleine case remain unsolved is because the governments want to protect the Mccann's and their friends. This is disturbing. I have childs. I want my childs with their rights fully covered by people who we entitled with power trough our votes. A crime is a crime. No any police should be discredit or barred to avoid find the truth. No any perpetrator should carry on uncharged, protected by the system. That protection is itself another crime.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Poster 46, perhaps the Gaspar's decided not to go away with the McCanns to PDL in May 2007 because they were uncomfortable with what they'd witnessed on previous holidays.

    Once you get mixed up with a group of people socially etc. (work colleagues/friends) sometimes it is very hard to disassociate yourself from them, as I've found in the past. If you don’t like the way they behave or you just don’t like one or two of the group for some reason but you still have to work with them it is hard to cut yourself away from them. If you do you begin to feel like an outcast. Perhaps the Gaspars were uneasy about what was going on with previous holidays i.e. the males bathing the children but did not have any hard proof of what actually was going on. The only way they could disassociate themselves from the group was to stop going on holiday with them.

    Since I stopped mixing with the group of people I was not comfortable with I feel much happier that I made that decision. Unfortunately some of the group still socialise with people they don’t like only to keep in with those people for fear of not having a hectic social life or not receiving Birthday presents, Christmas presents and/or been an outcast. I’d rather have fewer presents than having to socialise with people I don’t really like.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anon 8 - agree with you about Buck contacting PJ - its the obvious thing an embassy would do if uk citizens had got themselves into difficulties while abroad. Nevertheless I do think Buck knows much more than he`s letting on and probably why he left.

    I must just say that sometimes it discredits this forum when a small minority of commentators jump on the slightest thing, even if its a totally rational opinion, to make impolite accusations of being disloyal to the anti-M cause. Surely we are all searching for truth and justice and it does no good at all to discredit ourselves by descending into bad manners and rudeness.
    Louisee

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Louise

    That's why I have essentially given up posting on this blog. Any attempt whatsoever to make people think outside of the box so many have placed themselves in is greeted with aggression and suspicion.

    When it comes down to it, many of you are far too wedded to the conspiracy theory du jour to ever to able to step back and challenge your own assumptions.

    If you can just get one idea out of your heads, try this one.

    The idea that Madeleine was moved, weeks after her death, in the Scenic.

    She wasn't. There never was any evidence - not a shred - that she was. But the stubborn belief in several quarters means that many are seeking the answer to a question that never needed to be asked, ie, ''where and how was her body kept in cold storage so that it could be moved later ?''

    The question which really needed to be asked was simply ''where is her body?''

    Because wherever she is, she has been there since the night she disappeared.

    The idea that she was moved inside the Scenic comes from a misunderstanding of followed by a stubborn refusal to accept the forensic findings. It's this case's Wearside Jack tape.

    ReplyDelete
  55. 55 Goodbye and good riddance!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous said... 55

    55 Goodbye and good riddance!
    30/01/2011 10:37


    .....And you have just perfectly illustrated the point made by Louise. Shame the numbers have changed and you appear to be waving goodbye to yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Joana I can never get to see the last half dozen of any comments. Now the listing (which was stuck at 53) has only gone up to 55 instead of the 60 advised. Can you help?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dear Anon #57, I'm not sure how to help you. I see 57 comments announced at the top of the comments section right now - and 57 comments are posted. Has anyone else apart from Anon#57 noticed this anomaly? Thanks. astro

    ReplyDelete
  59. Hi Astro. Recently the column was reading 63 (just after I posted). Now it is reading 58 and showing 58! Hooray! It is only in the last few days it has been off-beam. thanks for replying.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 55 meant for 54
    Why come on Joana's blog when it's clear she supports Goncalo Amaral and expect to say there was no evidence, without expectng a negative reaction? A stubborn refusal to accept the evidence is a common McCann clan reaction I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous said... 60

    55 meant for 54
    Why come on Joana's blog when it's clear she supports Goncalo Amaral and expect to say there was no evidence, without expectng a negative reaction? A stubborn refusal to accept the evidence is a common McCann clan reaction I'm afraid.

    You see this is the problem - is this blog about Madeleine, or is it the Amaral fan club site?

    There WAS no evidence that Madeleine was ever in that car. More importantly, this is made clear by John Lowe in his report. He states that the partial profile recovered, and originating in a sample which was contributed to by at least three individuals, was not open to any meaningful interpretation. You have to understand that all Madeleine's DNA was inherited from her parents. To find a partial match to her in a vehicle they had both been using is therefore perfectly possible, without her ever having been anywhere near it. In fact, do you know how many markers of a known profile you could expect to match in a random sample from three individuals?

    12.

    That's three completely unrelated donors. Therefore to match 15 of Madeleines in a sample which could have contained material from any member of her family is completely and totally meaningless.

    The fact that Amaral stuck to his guns on this point even when the reports did not support the conclusion that Madeleine had been moved in that car, in my opinion not only tipped the McCanns off to how weak the forensics was - after all, they would know if she had in fact been moved in the car - and lost Amaral a lot of credibility. The fact that Joana or anyone else still supports this erroneous conclusion is one of the reasons she and they will never be taken seriously.

    I'm afraid the only stubborn refusal to accept the evidence is coming from you, not me. The evidence DOES NOT support the conclusion that Madeleine's body was moved post mortem in that car, and saying it loud and often will not make it so.

    It's stupid and frustrating, because there is so much evidence pointing towards their guilt, but this particular diversion devalues it all.

    ReplyDelete
  62. If you knew more about the FSS and its board, Lowe's findings could be explained in another way. Or do you? Thought you weren't coming back?

    ReplyDelete
  63. 61 Any comments about the performance of the FSS in the case of Rachael Nickell 1992 and Damilola Taylor 2007?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous said... 62

    If you knew more about the FSS and its board, Lowe's findings could be explained in another way. Or do you? Thought you weren't coming back?


    I said I had essentially given up posting here, not that I wasn't coming back.

    So go on then - what's the alternative explanation for Lowe's findings? I really do hope you are not going to trot out the old ''They couldn't rule out that the DNA came from Madeleine'' gambit.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous said... 63

    61 Any comments about the performance of the FSS in the case of Rachael Nickell 1992 and Damilola Taylor 2007?


    In the Nickell case the criticism centred around the failure of the FSS to recover a DNA sample which was later successfully extracted by another lab

    In the Taylor case the criticism centred around the failure of scientists to observe crucial blood spot evidence.

    Neither bear any similarity to the McCann case, where most of the criticism seems to centre around the interpretation of the results.

    It's quite simple

    Amaral did not understand, and apparently still does not understand, the forensic results quoted in the Lowe report. Claims were made in respect of what those results showed which simply could not be supported on the evidence which was recovered.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I see the DNA 'expert' is back on here again.

    Still hasn't learnt his lesson from the last time he was seen off by Joana with a flea in his ear.

    McCann to the hilt. Don't be fooled.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous said... 66

    I see the DNA 'expert' is back on here again.

    Still hasn't learnt his lesson from the last time he was seen off by Joana with a flea in his ear.

    McCann to the hilt. Don't be fooled.



    Oh God, another idiot. You really are absolutely clueless, aren't you?

    Some of you have become such sheep, incapable of thinking for yourselves. Let me make this very very simple for you.

    There can be little doubt that Madeleine died in the apartment, and that her body was removed.

    However, presenting crappy evidence, and trying to claim conclusions which are not supported by the available evidence - such as the theory that she was moved weeks later in the car - only serves to undermine the entire case.

    Amaral was clearly clueless when it came to the forensics. Numerous untruths have been circulated and recirculated until they have taken on something akin to folk legend.

    There is no evidence she was in the car, dead or otherwise. The cadaver odour alert is probably due to secondary transfer.

    None of this means that she isn't dead. None of this means the dogs made any false alerts. She is, and they didn't. But the DNA results categorically do not support a theory that her remains were moved weeks later in that car.

    Anyway, I shall let you get back to your delusions. There is only one thing worse than a rabid McCann supporter. And that's a pig-ignorant McCann detractor

    ReplyDelete