6 October 2011

Metropolitan Police Service Foia disclosure on the Madeleine McCann case review


Freedom of Information Request Reference No:
I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 02/08/2011. I note you seek access to the
following information :

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 Questions - Madeleine McCann Review Team

Please answer the following questions in relation to the Madeleine McCann Review Team:

1. What is the precise remit of the Review Team?

2. When was that remit agreed?

3. Who decided the remit?

4. When completed , to whom will the Review Report be presented ?

5. On 14 May 2011, the Daily Telegraph said that "Scotland Yard's new investigation is
being overseen by Commander Simon Foy, one of the force's most experienced
detectives" . Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is in overall
command of this Review.

6. On 15 May 2011, the Daily Record said that "Scotland Yard said Detective Chief
Inspector Andy Redwood , from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command , would be
the senior investigating officer in the case". Please either confirm that, or provide
information as to who is the senior investigating officer in the case .

7. On 15 May 2011, the Independent on Sunday said that "Mr . Redwood will repo rt to
Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell , Homicide and Serious Crimes
Command (HSCC) , operational command unit commander." Please either confirm that ,
or provide information as to who is the person in overall charge of the HSCC" .

8. On 20 and 22 July 2011, an officer from the Intelligence Section of the Madeleine
McCann Team, Sam , Pay No. 220629, stated that the policy of the Team was not to
answer any correspondence. Please state whether or not this is the case .

9. Please state whether, if evidence or other information is sent to the Madeleine
McCann Review Team, any acknowledgement of the receipt of that information will be
given.

10. Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a deadline for completing its
review? If so, when is it?

11. Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a budget? If so, what is it? Do the
funds allocated to this Review Team come from the Home Office or from the
Metropolitan Police Authority?

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate
information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within the
Specialist Crime Directorate - Homicide and Serious Crime Command.

RESULT OF SEARCHES
The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION
I have today decided to :
Answer questions 5, 6 , 7, 10 and 11 in full.
To refuse questions 8 and 9 by virtue of section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (The Act) as an invalid request.
To exempt questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 by virtue of section 30 (1)(a)(b)(c) and section
31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act .

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act referred to in this email.

REASONS FOR DECISION
The following questions have been responded to in full :

At question 5 you asked: On 14 May 2011, the Daily Telegraph said that "Scotland
Yard's new investigation is being overseen by Commander Simon Foy, one of the
force's most experienced detectives". Please either confirm that, or provide information
as to who is in overall command of this Review .

At Question 6 you asked: On 15 May 2011, the Daily Record said that " Scotland
Yard said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, from the Homicide and Serious
Crime Command, would be the senior investigating officer in the case". Please either
confirm that, or provide information as to who is the senior investigating officer in the
case.

At question 7 you asked: On 15 May 2011, the Independent on Sunday said that "Mr.
Redwood will report to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, Homicide and
Serious Crimes Command (HSCC), operational command unit commander." Please
either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the person in overall charge of
the HSCC".

The MPS response is: The senior officer with oversight of the review is Commander
Simon Foy. Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Andy Redwood is the Senior Investigating
Officer. DCI Redwood reports to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell .

At question 10 you asked: Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a
deadline for completing its review? If so, when is it?

The MPS response is: The review team does not have a deadline for the completion
of its review.

At question 11 you asked: Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a
budget? If so, what is it? Do the funds allocated to this Review Team come from the
Home Office or from the Metropolitan Police Authority?

The MPS response is: The MPS has allocated a team to deal with this and the Home
Office have agreed to reimburse this cost. This is reviewed on a quarterly basis.

The following questions have been refused on the grounds that they do not
constitute a valid request under the Act:


At question 8 you asked: On 20 and 22 July 2011, an officer from the Intelligence
Section of the Madeleine McCann Team, Sam, Pay No .220629, stated that the policy
of the Team was not to answer any correspondence . Please state whether or not this is
the case.

At question 9 you asked: Please state whether, if evidence or other information is
sent to the Madeleine McCann Review Team, any acknowledgement of the receipt of
that information will be given .

The MPS response is: I have decided to refuse access to the information you have
requested under the provisions of Section 8(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Act.

A request under the Act is required by statute to be legible and capable of being used
for subsequent reference. After careful consideration, I have decided that your request
does not meet this requirement as I am unable to ascertain what recorded information
you have requested, as defined by Section 8(2)(c).

To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your application in
accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason you are unable to do so,
please contact me for assistance or seek assistance from any other available source .
I attach an excerpt from the Information Commissioner's website which may assist you
in composing any future Freedom of Information requests.

What can I request under the Freedom of Information Act?
You have the right to request any information held by public authorities . The Act allows
access to recorded information, such as emails, meeting minutes, research or reports
held by public authorities in England, Northern Ireland and Wales and some authorities
located in Scotland.

You have not made a request for recorded information which may be held by the MPS
but questions which require a confirmation of a statement. You will need to be specific
as to the recorded information you require.

We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets the
requirements stated above. You will receive the information requested within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information
not being exempt.

The following questions are exempt by virtue of Section 30 (1 )(a)(b)(c) and
Section 31(1 )(a)(b)(c) of the Act:

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act referred to in this email.
At question 1 you asked: What is the precise remit of the Review Team ?
At question 2 you asked: When was that remit agreed?
At question 3 you asked: Who decided the remit ?
At question 4 you asked: When completed, to whom will the Review Report be
presented?

The MPS response is: This information is exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)
and Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act

Constituents of this information attract Section 30 and other constituents attract
Section 31 of the Act. It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 30
& 31 to the same pieces of information.

Under Section 30(1 )(a)(i)(ii)(b)(c) of the Act , Public Authorities are able to withhold
information if it was obtained or recorded for the purposes of investigations, criminal
proceedings or civil proceedings. In this case the information requested relates to an
ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact
and undermine any current or future reviews. This exemption can be applied after
evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of
a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public
Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

Under Section 31(1) (a) (b) (c) of the Act Public Authorities are able to withhold
information where its release could compromise Law Enforcement. In this case the
information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a
review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future criminal and /or civil
proceedings. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be
caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose
of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or
withholding the requested information.

This email serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act .

REASONS FOR DECISION
Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I
thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Act within which
a request for information can be answered.
The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities . A
public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested
information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information
to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of
exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that
is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the
public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the
Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any
individual should a request be received.

I have considered your request for information within the provisions set out by the Act.
I have addressed your request in order to both confirm if the requested information is
held by the MPS and then to provide this information to you. Where I have been unable
to provide the requested information to you, I have explained my decision in accordance
with Section 17 of the Act.

Evidence of Harm
In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have considered
the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant for
information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are
legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in disclosing information to
one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world. This
means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for
a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to
individuals, or any possible criminal and/or civil process.
 

Information of this nature needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity, as it could have a
detrimental effect on a review and the operational effectiveness of the MPS and it's
ability to fulfil its core function of law enforcement.


High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they
are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry
that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

Public Interest Test
Public interest considerations favouring disclosure
Disclosure of this information would enlighten members of the public as to the action
taken by the MPS in this investigation. This may go some way to promoting awareness ,
accountability and would reinforce the MPS's commitment to openness and
transparency. Release of this information would assist in any public debate on the
MPS's action during this investigation and would demonstrate the willingness of the
MPS to be open and transparent with the public showing what procedures are carried
out.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure
Information relating to an ongoing review will rarely be disclosed and only where there is
a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure. In this case, release of the
requested information could allow individuals to use the information contained in the
remit to undermine the methodology and techniques employed by the MPS and impede
current /future investigations. Release of the remit and the other details could inform
suspects of the progress of the review and allow them to use the information contained
in it
for criminal activities and to avoid justice.


Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the
above information would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that
would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh disclosing
information relating to your request for information about the remit of The Madeleine
McCann Review. The MPS will rarely disclose information relating to an ongoing review
as to do so could adversely harm that investigation.


Legal Annex
Section 17 of the Act provides:
(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent
relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is
relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within
the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 8(1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in
writing where the text of the request-
(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:
(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been
held by the authority for the purposes of -
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view
to it being ascertained-
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it ,
(b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the
circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings
which the authority has power to conduct, or
(c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.

Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt
information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c) the administration of justice

Download the PDF doc from WhatDoTheyKnow

in WhatDoTheyKnow, October 5, 2011 - this FOIA request was made by Tony Bennett (The Madeleine Foundation)

25 comments:

  1. Somewhat related...

    Met loses diary that may have proven former chief's links to Rupert Murdoch - Home News, UK - The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/met-loses-diary-that-may-have-proven-former-chiefs-links-to-rupert-murdoch-2366151.html

    Met Police rejects FOI request about payments to Carter Ruck http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/09/26/analysis-met-police-delays-and-denies-access-to-information/

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's odd why wouldn't they release the DATE the review was ordered?

    Didn't they declare it was decided because of their letter in the scum? Around the 12th May? All papers reported PM announces review of McCann case as result of their 'plea'

    So why not tell us what we already know?

    Not true then the review was ordered on the 12th or that it was a result of their scum letter?

    Oh dear Martin Grime did say many weeks before the announcement of the review when asked about his work on the McCann case that UK police had asked him not to comment on the case?

    Why when he had commented before was he asked to decline to comment, before any letter was penned for the scum?

    Oh dear was the 'review' announcement merely a 'ploy' by UK to put them in their place?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Being as Martin Grime was asked not to comment on the case, it is just as well the work of his dogs is there for all to see and read about.

    I find it incredible that people can discuss this case without even referring to them, but the McCanns have spent a lot of time and effort on trying to get them dismissed as credible. They have failed because the public trust the dogs, just as the police do. How can anybody take any cop seriously who completely ignores these dogs in this case, just like those ex cops who have been in the pay of the McCanns have managed to do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The review is a whitewash in my opinion. SY took already too long to see what anyone independent can see in few hours, after reading the files and compare with behavior of the McCann's.
    Innocent people use the courts and the police investigation to clear their names. Not the media, a spin team, top lawyers and specially, don't fool people with fabricated sights and ask money to pay their defense.
    If not for the death of their daughter, the McCann's appear to be guilt for everything that came after their daughter died. They should face justice for that. They fool millions and still doing while they are allowed to sell a book which was wronglybadvertised as an account of the truth. What they are selling is again, something different then what they publicized to the public. All readers were fooled.
    If in some other cases, the wrong publicity of a product leads to the product to be removed from the market and who publicized it charged with criminal doing, why the McCann's are allowed to carry on? Because they are protected by the gods of IMPUNNITY. Then, the review is a shame and the amount of money allocated to do it, an insult. Why so much money to clean the image of two suspects? They remain suspects for the Portuguese justice, after 4 years and all the high manipulation and support.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BUBBLE GUM

    Here we have something to chew on. I love these technical word games.

    Anyone brought face to face with this kind of "legaleese" ought to realize the difficulties any prosecutor would have vis a vis the McCanns' legal and/or PR team not to mention their political ass-ETs.

    TYPO: please read "assets". No hyphen.

    OMO

    Yoshiko:

    - "Of course SY has no set date to conclude the review! What a silly question! It is not a review, it is an OMO (white wash)."

    Outspoken Ken next. He opinionates that (quote):

    - "Scot. Yard is under strict instructions from the Government not to probe into anything that might further highlight the McCanns' involvement in Madeleine's de-materialization. Strictly ONLY cues which might lead to the arrest of an hypothetical abductor, a Murat-like scape goat, if you like, or any false tracks that might support such theory. Likewise, the Smiths' sighting is NOT to be investigated further for the very same reason."

    Ken sips his espresso and proceeds amidst considerable suspense:

    "Tanner's pointing her finger at Murat is presently undergoing court proceedings in Portugal and likewise is not to be tampered with... least the stench becomes too noticeable" (quote/unquote).

    Now, what do I make of Yoshiko and Ken's opinions?

    I do not (cannot) have an opinion. Not about the Madeleine saga, anyway.

    I mean, who wishes to end up "gutter packed" like Dr. G. Amaral?

    Gagged, in spite of an appeals' court decision, with his home and assets confiscated and his life and that of his children's in jeopardy? You wouldn't wish that to your worst nemesis but they do. Ask yourself why (...)

    I will say this:

    Let the McCanns have their own official version of events and let me keep the FACTS of the PJ investigation to draw my own conclusions.

    :p "I don't want to look at the dogs' video!"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Remaining, suspects for Portugese justice is not justice. The Maccanns will be happy to remain this for life. And Its looks is if they will do so.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anon.4

    In some ways I think the McCanns have slipped up because as you say - still in Portugal no amount of "washing" will work - Amen to that. They won't force their Truth down the throats of the Portuguese no matter how hard they try.

    So, in fact, they only "expose" how corrupt the system is in Britain. My only regret is that I am English and have to suffer being tarnished by this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have no faith whatsoever in this "review" IMO its just another white wash ,poor Maddie

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm taking the Scotland Yard serious.
    Let us not be pessimistic. On Sky we can see the last video with the couple, after Cameron's request was done(Martin Brunt).
    Gerry looked devastated of fear.
    They even forgot to hold each other's hands. No stage this time, not acting. Gerry's voice was weak, the poor thing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Have you seen what Tony Bennett denounced on his post at Jill havern forum " NOTED SOOTHSAYER NIGEL NESSLING PROPHESYETH , by Tony Bennett"?

    Have a look. The profecy of a pro- McCann regarding the outcome of the SY review. Amazing to see a Pro stating a corrupt image of SY. Only corruption could explain what he thinks will be the end of SY review. Those corruption doesn't leave Mr. Cameron untouched and out of the game. Even, the Pro believe, only manipulation could explain and save the Mccann's skin. That is a huge step against the McCann's, showing how little his the brain of who support them. And the guy didn't forget his mission to please the Mccann's- he left a message to blogs and bloggers to be aware that they could be libeled by the corrupted people involved on Mccann's clean up, after all manipulation.
    I hope Mr Bennett send that message to the Portuguese Attorney General. He deserves it. After all, the kindly Pro, while predicting a 10 years of jail for G.Amaral, due to errors in the investigation, forget that whatever decision was taken in the investigation, was not an individual decision of Mr. Amaral, but a collective decision having at the top, the Attorney General, the Head of PJ and the prosecutors in charged of the investigation. How many years, those guys will spend in prison, if Amaral got 10? Was a little too much, to ask a pro to give an answer. His little brain will shut down.

    ReplyDelete
  11. SY should be reminded about the family trip to Sagres which could not have occurred according to Maddy's creche records, and why is there not detail about their days on holiday in Kate's book for 29 April, what happened that day. What happened on 30 April. What happened on these days that can't be told. Write with evidence to SY. Read more on Jill Havern blog.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I hope that the reopening of the tragic case of missing child Ben Needham leads to some good news for the Needham family. A life spent in pain and suffering and wondering about the little boy who went missing twenty long years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Let us wait. We haven't done anything else than to wait, during the last 4 years.
    A few months more and we will get an answer.
    I expect somebody of the Tapas to tell the truth. Of a relative of his/hers. A friend.
    They all must be fed up of this story.
    But we are coming to an end.

    ReplyDelete
  14. sorry to say this but there will be no justice for Madeleine. There will be no in depth investigation and analysis of the facts. We all give certain people too much power, power they do not have but one that may use any contacts masonic or non masonic they can find. There are those who may never be officially cleared of suspicion but they have successfully woven a web of protection around them with public donations. Truly honest people would not need to weave this web of high fly lawyers,publicity campaigns, official spokesmen. Only those that may have something to hide would insure they were so highly protected, NOT THAT I AM SAYING THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING, I am talking generally. People who clench hold of anothers hand, not just hold anothers hand, do so as a form of strength or courage. Those that scratch theirnoses and ears, blink with frequency when asked a difficult question, show their insecurity and that they are not relaying the whole truth.. Using a million pound fund when only 13% is allocated to a particular search is fraudulant in as much as it has misled the public. Playing on the kindness of peoples hearts is a form of abuse, using your someone as a cash cow and publicity stunt is greed. so if you know people that act like this then ask yourself why. These kind of people excel in telling untruths and acting out a part that they wish to play.
    Our actions speak louder than words, and my words are written without intentionally being aimed at anyone, but if the cap fits.....

    ReplyDelete
  15. On www.maydaymaddie.net, I found an article of Correio da Manha, 2007.
    It is in Dutch and the title is : "Is David Payne a paedophile?".
    It is saying about the Gaspars but there is more:
    "Zij (de Gaspars) verklaarden dat ze getuigen waren geweest van twee gesprekken tussen Dave en Gerry, waarbij beiden verdacht sexueel gedrag
    vertoonden in verband met kinderen".
    ( They(the Gaspars) stated that they were witnesses of two chats between Dave and Gerry, where both showed suspicious sexual behaviour in connection with children").

    I remember that Mrs. Gaspar said more about Gerry but Correio da Manha did not publish it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hello Anonymous (post 9) yes you are right, Gerry McCann did look devastated when spoke about the review. He said something along the lines of they only partially got what they wanted. Reading between the lines the McCanns didn't get anything that they wanted.

    The McCanns wanted David Cameron to conduct the review. The last thing they wanted, was Scotland Yard being involved with the review. Especially when Scotland Yard will be assisting the PJ with the review and not the other way round.

    ReplyDelete
  17. good morning, Portugal,
    calling you from São Paulo.

    I've watched some videos about Kate's book. Kate wearing blue, reading a speech, telling they need money and Gerry complaining they did not have any reply from the Home Office. I could say there were close ups of both on those videos.And there were a lot of cameras present.
    Later I watched a video on Martin Brunt, Sky crime,made after David Cameron ordered the Scotland Yard to review the investigations.
    I observed that there were a few cameramen in the room and besides Gerry was filmed from very far away, no close ups. At his request, I presume.
    And I did not see Kate very well, too.
    These little details show the McCanns lost their power.Unfortunately for them, they can not stop their campaign and they have to be thankful to the British government.No other choice. They kept on insisting in something that was not possible, they knew it was not possible and that is why they did not give it up.They shot themselves and they are still bleeding. Good of you, Cameron!
    Watching Gerry's expression on his face, I can see they know they are lost. My impression is that Kate forced the whole thing.It was not Gerry's will. Probably he is dominated by his wife whose mental condition is not ideal.I don't think she is healthy.
    This can end up in a new tragedy because they don't know how to explain the fund, the false accusations and Madeleine's death.
    It is obvious that Gerrry is very tired. On the 11th, she was looking better because she is sick. She does not feel the tragedy around them and around the siblings. And their GP is doing nothing to protect the twins, who are still living with the parents. Madeleine's ghost is regularly visiting them, her room full of presents and how can such a developed country, like the UK is, allow this to happen?
    Will this end up in murder and suicide?
    I bet it will.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just been listening to talk talk radio in the UK all week its been about the Hillsborough disaster and what we all now know was a massive cover up. A MP has said the cover up was from the UK govenment police and media, sounds like the maddie case to me There is a debate in Parliment on Monday regarding the disaster, brought on by a public petition, but even now the UK govenment are trying to stop it being debated.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just recently I come back from UK and what I see was completely shocking. I know, I went only to one town and cannot generalize. Dirty streets where the garbage was not picked up for many days, poor people seating near the supermarkets and busy shopping areas, asking the change. Old people( British, not emigrants) showing a deep poverty, while they should be under the care of the country. Is that the same country that release few months ago, a huge amount of money to review a case that was already investigated by a top team of polices from Portugal, UK, Europol and Interpol? Is that the country that allow two suspects to run a Fund based on public donations? Where is being used the money from the Fund? Not to search the girl because that was requested to be done by the police. Then, where went all that money? To the pocket of special lawyers which only expense and work they have is sending intimidating letters to people like me, who question their use, their behavior and their business.
    I feel sorry for all British people who live counting coins day after day to survive, while their government waste money in an investigation that could be closed long ago if the British authorities cooperated more with PJ and sent all the information requested. It is a shame, to call that a developed country. Looks more like a country ruled by a mafia with a very unbalanced distribution of the money.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 16, Dandelion, I had difficulties to understand Gerry when he commented Cameron's letter.What did he say in total?

    And no white wash this time. And it is not going to cost that much.Everything is ready, translated, they only need to add some more information that came up in the last years.
    Who knows Tapas 7 is being again interrogated, right now.And the nannies.
    Watch Gerry's face on the last video on Sky and you see that they lost the war.
    If he is looking that bad it is because the crime was not perfect, neither hiding the body .
    Probably he does not trust the people who know what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi all,
    someone at the facebook account of kate and gerry to find Madeleine is commenting requesting some informations about the account statements for Gerry and Kate's company, which are missing. Its seems he did not yet realise that the scum has been going on since many years:

    "Steven James Colquhoun: Hi there. My full support in finding Madeleine, but can you answer a question for me? I have downloaded copies of annual accounts from Companies House ref: 06248215 and have full disclosure for 2008 (12 Pages). It seems that 2009 and 2010 are missing these pages for both years and I wondered 1: Why is this? 2: Where would I be able to obtain copies of Acrobat page numbers 11+12 (Actual Company Account page numbers 9+10) of these 2009 AND 2010 accounts as it may appear to some that the non disclosure of these very important and financially detailed pages are hiding something being that they are freely available with Companies House co.number "06248215" within the 2007-2008 initial 1st year accounts? Please advise
    3 hours ago"

    ReplyDelete
  22. @ #20,
    Can you please give me the link where is that video?
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  23. i just post the comment at #21

    after that i checked back the same comment i quoted in my post #21 at the facebook of find madeleine. It has desappeared straight away!!! they deleted it including other comments which was replying to it!!!!

    How scum, manipulative are this two people, the mccanns, is beyond believe!!!
    They belong behind bars for sure!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hello anonymous 19. Yes it is the exact same country. It makes me wonder whether the bad people are in fact more clever than the good. All the people on this blog have wanted for so long is justice for Madeleine and to be able to stop worrying about the twins. I did not think it would cost so much time and money and I try very hard not to run out of patience.

    ReplyDelete
  25. No. 22, here are 2 interviews from Sky News. The first one is the one you're looking for I think -

    http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15991044


    http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/15990214

    ReplyDelete