1.Everyone shall possess the right to freely express and publicise his thoughts in words, images or by any other means, as well as the right to inform others, inform himself and be informed without hindrance or discrimination 2.Exercise of the said rights shall not be hindered or limited by any type or form of censorship Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, Article 37.º

McCanns: Questions That Need Answers


Why did Alipio Ribeiro comment on the case on the famous 'hasty' interview, when he previously said that the PJ should not comment on the media about an ongoing investigation?

Why did Alípio Ribeiro answered the Público Journalist- Paula Torres (the same who only writes articles in Público specially to attack the PJ) when he could have said: 'No Comment'.

Did Alípio Ribeiro receive a call from the former British Ambassador in the night of the 3rd of May 2007? In that call was the former head of the PJ pressured to follow the Kidnap theory? What was the conversation about?

Why did the British Ambassador felt the need to go to Portimão and speak with the PJ team investigating the case when there were already assessors and advisers from within the British Diplomacy helping the McCann Couple?

Why did the British Ambassador felt that he had to intervene in the media and also inside the Diplomacy meanders to help the McCanns? Was he, himself pressured?

Why where all British diplomats who intervened in this affair either removed, sacked or asked for other positions in other countries?

Why did Mr. Alípio Ribeiro almost 'killed' the investigation blaming the PJ, for hastiness in giving the McCanns arguido status, when he, himself was in the group who decided that they should have that status for the investigation to proceed with a different line of questionings?

What is behind the prejudice done to the PJ investigation of the Maddie Case by some Portuguese Newspapers, namely Expresso and Público? Is it true that the Público main owner is in fact being investigated by the Judiciary Police and he is 'ordering' that a specific editorial guideline of defamation against the PJ is followed? What is the Hidden agenda of the owners and Chief Editors of Expresso and Público?

Why didn't the former director of the Judiciary Police defended the Police Officers when they were attacked and character assassinations were done by the British Media?

Why was Gonçalo Amaral removed from the investigation, and with him several members of the team went to other cases leaving the Maddie investigation incomplete?

Why wasn't Gonçalo Amaral and his team called to give statements and their opinions as professionals? Why wasn't the direct knowledge of these investigators taken in to consideration if they were the ones who did investigated everything pertaining to the Maddie Case up to the 2nd of October 2007?

Why were the Barcelona based Metodo 3 investigators, experts of frauds not of missing persons, allowed to do an uncontrolled investigation in Portugal if it is illegal for private detectives to work on cases which are being investigated by the proper Judicial authorities? Given their antecedents, for previous arrests of Francisco Marco and his mum, and the drug trafficking (400kg Cocaine) arrest of one of their detectives who worked between Malta, Morocco and Spain why were they still allowed to investigate in Portugal? Is there any connection between the sightings of Maddie in the above mentioned places and the Metodo3 detectives travels? There where rumours of witness harassment, where this detectives implicated? And last, given the story"She'll be home for x-mas" and the previous issues why did the McCanns keep the contract with Metodo3?

From Anonymous at 20:51

Why was Maddie so frightened of the water? Had she ever suffered a near drowning incident?

Why haven't the British authorities given the Portuguese investigators the information which they requested on Maddie's health? Why don't the parents just give it to them?

Why haven't the parents released the text messages themselves?

Why did the parents, in their media broadcasts, tell the public how happy Maddie was, when independent witnesses were reporting to the Portuguese police how unhappy and frightened she was?

Why is it that the one and only person who was strongly identified - the man who walked like Gerald and looked like Gerald and was carrying a small child to the beach around 10, is assumed to have not been Gerald? Since the request for the reconstruction was based on problems found in the timeline given by Gerald and his friends, would that not automatically cause concern about his whereabouts at 10? Where is that concern?

From Anonymous at 21:47

Why hasn't Mr Alberto Costa, Minister of Justice, come forward to support the PJ against the attacks?

Has the Portuguese Prime Minister ever discussed the case with Mr Gordon Brown? If yes, when was it? And have there been any requests either side?

From Speak Your Mind at 22:13

For Mr. Alípio Ribeiro and Portuguese Authorities:

Do you feel at all guilty for the betrayal of Amaral leaving the media shredding him and the way he is now denounced?

Do you think a Portuguese citizen would get away with what the McCanns have gotten away with in Britain?

If there is an afterlife and you came across Madeleine, what would you say to her?

From Jail House Lawyer at 22:37


For the McCann Couple


What child abduction?

Why did you lie about a break in?

Why don't you tell us what really happened on 3 May 2007?

From Nana at 00:11

For the McCann Couple

Why did you both lie to every man and his dog on the night of May, 03rd, 2007 saying the apartment had been broken in?

Where is the shelf with cuddle cat which Maddie couldn't reach, therefore, according to Kate, she was "abducted"?

For the Portuguese Authorities

The Portuguese authorities responsible for this travesty of justice are ashamed of themselves, unlike Gonçalo Amaral?

From Himself at 00:55

For the British Authorities

Why did the Leicestershire police took the unprecedented step in facilitating Russel James O'Brien to read a previous statement from his wife, Jane Tanner, before being questioned by Leicestershire Police, on April 2008?

Why was Jeremy Wilkins allowed by the Leicestershire police to read his original statement given to the PJ in Portimão on May 2007, previous to a second questioning in the UK in April 2008?

From AACG at 00:59

Is there any "beyond any doubt" evidence (witness not belonging to the Tapas group) that Gerald McCann was sitting at the Tapas restaurant around 21h45?

For the Prime Ministers José Socrates and Gordon Brown

How long will the Portuguese State stand being shamefully libelled by the British tabloids without reacting ? How does the proper British government admit it?

From Anonymous at 03:51

For the McCanns

Do you have any enemies? Have you ever done anything that would lead anyone to seek revenge by taking or harming your first born child?







* this will be an ongoing post with the questions that everyone want to see answered, if you want to participate please leave your questions bellow on the comments section. Thank you.


22 comments:

  1. as I read your blog it does make sense that little Maddie is dead. However what do you think about the disturbing news of Maddie's sighting in Amsterdam that apparently wasn't followed up?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why was Maddie so frightened of the water? Had she ever suffered a near drowning incident?

    Why haven't the British authorities given the Portuguese investigators the information which they requested on Maddie's health? Why don't the parents just give it to them?

    Why haven't the parents released the text messages themselves?

    Why did the parents, in their media broadcasts, tell the public how happy Maddie was, when independent witnesses were reporting to the Portuguese police how unhappy and frightened she was?

    Why is it that the one and only person who was strongly identified - the man who walked like Gerald and looked like Gerald and was carrying a small child to the beach around 10, is assumed to have not been Gerald? Since the request for the reconstruction was based on problems found in the timeline given by Gerald and his friends, would that not automatically cause concern about his whereabouts at 10? Where is that concern?

    ReplyDelete
  3. to anonymous at 20:31

    The sightings in the Gas Stations were both followed by the PJ, the McCanns were even showed the photos as it is stated in the process.

    They said it was not Madeleine. In one instance Kate McCann was annoyed with the all situation of having to travel to the Police Station to watch the CCTV footage of the alleged sighting of Madeleine.

    From 'Maddie, The Truth of the Lie' which is also on the process: “Kate appears bored because of having being obliged to return and bothered with the speed reached by the police car We found strange that she didn’t show signs of hope with the possibility of the girl being recovered ”.

    From Gazeta Digital - the following is in the process, resumed by Paulo Reis

    May 4 2007: PJ was informed of an alleged sighting of Madeleine.

    The same day, PJ inspectors J.C. Franco and C. Lucas, went to that gas station (from GALP, a Portuguese company) at A22, a highway that crosses Algarve, from East to West. The two inspectors, according to the report signed by them and included in the DVD files made available to journalists, got the CCTV images and showed Madeleine's picture to the employees of the shop.

    The employees confirmed that the girl they saw, a few hours before (11:10 am) was not Madeleine McCann. Images were viewed and analysed by PJ technicians and the result was negative – it was not Madeleine. The two PJ inspectors went also to the gas station on the opposite side of the highway (in the West-East direction), and the result was the same. They did it also at another Galp station, near Loulé, with the same results.

    PJ received a second information, the same day – May 4 – about a blonde girls seen in another shop, at another gas station. This one was a Repsol gas station, at Vale do Paraíso, near Albufeira. PJ Inspector A. Silva went there, got the CCTV images, talked with employees and it was easy to conclude it couldn't be Madeleine. As the PJ inspector wrote in his report (available at the DVD given to journalists) there was no positive identification and the child had very long hair, clearly visible. As hair grows at a rate of around 1 cm every month, Madeleine couldn't have a so long hair, on May 4, he wrote.

    I hope I cleared that for you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why hasn't Mr Alberto Costa, Minister of Justice, come forward to support the PJ against the attacks?

    Has the Portuguese Prime Minister ever discussed the case with Mr Gordon Brown? If yes, when was it? And have there been any requests either side?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would be torn between three questions.
    Do you feel at all guilty for the betrayal of Amaral leaving the media shredding him and the way he is now denounced?
    Do you think a portuguese citizen would get away with what the McCanns have gotten away with in Britain?
    If there is an aferlife and you came across Madeleine, what would you say to her?

    ReplyDelete
  6. What child abduction?

    Why did you lie about a break in?

    Why don't you tell us what really happened on 3 May 2007?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gerald and Kate: why did you both lie to every man and his dog on the night of May, 03rd, 2007 saying the apartment had been broken in?

    Where is the shelf with cuddle cat which Maddie couldn't reach, therefore, according to Kate, she was "abducted"?

    The Portuguese authorities responsible for this travesty of justice are ashamed of themselves, unlike Gonçalo Amaral?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hello my lovely, it's nice to see you back and the blood running, it suits you no end.

    I was going to ask why the Leicestershire police took the unprecedented step in facilitating this: and to save me typing my little finger off Paulo Reis has done it for me.

    Russel James O'Brien was allowed to read a previous statement fom his wife, Jane Tanner, before being questioned by Leicestershire Police, on April 2008. The questioning, with the presence of PC Andrew Gierc, was videotaped and at the beginning of the video recording, O'Russell states that he was allowed to refresh his memory concerning the events on the night of May 3, 2007, by reading what Jane Tanner, also questioned by Leicestershire Police, had stated before him.
    (and)
    Police officers from Leicestershire asked Jeremy Wilkins to read his original statement, made in Algarve, to PJ, to refresh his memory, before questioning him a second time, in UK, in April 2008, following the letter rogatory sent from Portugal.

    If not unprecedented then at least as rare as rocking horse droppings.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Amsterdam sighting is junk, even Clarence admits it although he may have triggered it to hide significant elements like the dogs and the Irish family. People obsessed with showing off aren't rare !

    ReplyDelete
  10. I do have a question, Joana.
    Is there any "beyond any doubt" evidence (witness not belonging to the group) that Gerald McC was sitting at the Tapas restaurant around 21h45 ?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you Joana, it does make things clearer but there is one thing still hunting me... What about the shop clerk in Amsterdam and the conversation she had with the little girl? What about the old lady that claims she saw Maddie twice?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jo, perhaps you might add this and make it on post.

    Maybe it is little wonder that Rebelo went home early, even knowing that he (Rebelo) was going to steer this investigation towards the shelf is it perhaps possible that he was too embarrassed to hang around and watch the farce play out.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Another question, Joana !
    How long will the Portuguese State stand being shamefully libelled by the British tabloids without reacting ? How does the proper British government admit it ?
    The Sun now, it seems, thanks to the releasing of the files,cutting here and omitting there when it suits what can hardly be called a "newspaper", has the guts to require an "official apology" to the McCs driven to torment by the incompetence of the PJ. Too much or not enough ?

    ReplyDelete
  14. For the McCanns

    Do you have any enemies? Have you ever done anything that would lead anyone to seek revenge by taking or harming your first born child?

    ReplyDelete
  15. A. Why did the British government shown such an interest in this case so openly, namely by making comments/remarks, imposing timings/conditions and by making Clarence Mitchell’s services available to the couple?
    Why such a different support from Home Office to Murat and McCanns?
    Is it true that there was an advised for support not to be given to Murat?
    Why weren’t the letters from Portuguese authorities more swiftly treated?
    Is it normal such a rotation of diplomatic personnel (some ending their career or not going back to HO)? Is it true that a diplomatic corps member based in Portugal asked for confirmation on instructions about the support to the McCanns and pressure on the Portuguese authorities?
    B. Since all the juridical and judicial systems in Europe Union are legitimate and recognised by state members, why should a request or any other judicial measure by Portuguese authorities be questioned and not just enforced?
    Why wasn’t the request for general information about the McCanns made by Portuguese authorities about the McCanns and friends took more than 6 months to arrive? And why weren’t medical records and financial records given to the Portuguese police? (Britain seems to have no problem gathering and keeping elements, including DNA data of it’s own people even if they were not formally accused or sentenced).
    Why was so mush data gathered and worked by British authorities about Murat and not about the McCanns? No credit or debit cards, is that information supposed to be taken serious?!
    C. Since when is anyone, in a democratic state, above the law and not subjected to scrutiny by authorities? Why shouldn’t the most probable suspects by all statistics about child related crime be considered by authorities?
    Since when do arguidos or suspects (much less their spokesperson) impose conditions to police or public prosecutors (e.g., will go to Portugal if the arguido status is lifted … if the reconstitution is televised (even if it is against the Portuguese law)... demand the arguido status to be lifted)?
    Why did the McCanns say they trusted the police and behind the scenes where discrediting the police? Why didn't they voluntarily give access to their comunications to the police?
    Why the spinning with the reconstitution? Why didn’t they just say they wouldn’t go? Wouldn’t trying to impose a condition (televised reconstitution) that the Portuguese law could not accept sound like a poor argument? As saying that some of the friends didn't find it useful? Which friends think that? Or was it really the couple’s decision? If they’re capable of knowing what’s helpful for an investigation, do they also know what is prejudicial?
    Is it true witnesses, like the Irish family suffered pressures? By whom? with what intent? If that is true, how was the info about those witnesses revealed?
    Is it true Brian Kennedy contacted Robert Murat? Why? Is it true he made visits to witnesses like Paul Gordon? Why?
    What took the FSS so long to give the results? Did the Portuguese authorities have to travel to the UK to know something about the lab work? Is it true that there was a argument? If so, what about?
    Why was LCN chosen if it can be easily discredited in court? Why such a discrepancy between preliminary and the rest of the results? Why wasn’t another lab involved to confirm conflicting results, as is the norm?
    Was there hair to be analysed? Was it analysed?
    Why should FSS give the results to British police first if the client was the Portuguese state? Where are the samples sent to FSS to be analysed? Still in the high security safe of the FSS?
    Too many questions about the investigation … not possible to ask them all here …
    D. Why so much noise during the investigation?
    Why should the couple be involved with Metodo 3 and pay them large amounts of money till today, since they seem to be unreliable, dishonest and involved in crime? What was/is exactly their assignment? Where they treating data without talking to the police? Are they involved in the so-called sightings?
    Who was the British citizen expelled from Morocco for trying to buy statements about a little blond girl?
    How come (with no visible exceptions) were the British media suddenly involved in reporting false, bias, incomplete or defamatory material (in a strangely uniform way)? At the same time, why such an out of character contention from the fierce tabloids that usually have no moral limits to publishing details about people’s intimacy (including the royals) but not the McCanns?
    Taking to account that Clarence Mitchell was no PR but a media monitoring adviser, what was the intention of “supplying” his services to the McCanns?
    Why the constant pressure on free speech (clearly different from hate speech or persecutory or defamatory speech)? Isn’t it obvious people don’t like to be told to shut up or how to think by media, spokespersons or governments? And the any-lie-is-fair-game-american-fox-news model does not apply around here (yet)?
    Why are expensive high tech means being used to “monitor”/”control” blah, blah, according to Clarence Mitchell? Shouldn’t that money and energy be wisely spent? Shouldn’t the couple be focussing in more important issues?
    Wouldn’t the couple’s loses in terms of public opinion have been smaller and the focus would still be on Madeleine if they had taken bravely the initial pressure and stayed in a low profile attitude afterwards? Did they create the monster?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I see a lot of anonymous comments about sightings that weren't followed up. Think for a moment, do you think a sighting would be recorded by the police and not investigated. Perhaps you have been living under a rock and have not realized that the vast majority of the British media refuses to even discuss the possibility of the parents being involved in the disappearance of their child. They won't discuss it and they won't allow any discussion. The British media is rehashing sightings that they know have been proved to be false, more theatre for the gullible. The McCann team will now tell the public that they are investigating all these leads some of which they themselves discounted. Time will go by, they will come up with nothing and of course they will once again blame the police. I have many questions to ask but I will only ask a few, perhaps Astro and Joana you already know the answers to some of these questions.
    1. Who was the last person to see Madeleine apart from the parents and what was the date and time?

    2. When was the English media informed of the disappearance of the child?

    3.When was the British government informed of the disappearance of the child?

    4. Have the McCanns or anyone of their friends of that fateful night ever been to Portugal before?

    5.What forensic tests were conducted in Portugal and what were the results?

    6.Is there a familial relationship or any other type of connection between Mr. Brown or any British politician with the couple or any of their friends?

    7.On what particular evidence did the Public Ministry reach a conclusion that the child was murdered? If abduction is impossible then how did the body disappear?

    8. Why did the Public Ministry state that the McCanns are innocent because they manifested normal behaviour, when the original lead detective in the case based his book on the couple's abnormal behaviour?

    9. With allegations of foreign and national political interference, why hasn't anyone in Portugal pushed for at least a public inquiry?

    10. Why hasn't Portugal submitted a formal complaint to the British regarding the libellous statements that have been made and continue to be made regarding the Portuguese police and Portugal?

    ReplyDelete
  17. To Kate McCann: Explain how you knew that Madeleine had been abducted by the way the room had been left

    ReplyDelete
  18. A suggestion to the McCs
    As Roman Catholics you're very much aware of the atonement notion. As EU citizens our religious belief or disbelief belongs to the private area. From that point of view, and referring to the old proverb "better late than never", it could be reasonable for you and the rest of the EU inhabitants (your powerful protectors might be able to help) to finally say the truth and nothing but the truth. Everybody will be grateful for not losing time any more on a useless topic and that will be taken into account by the Court for sure.
    Otherwise you're risking a lot : the twins, when grown up, will never believe your story compared to the dogs' discoveries (by that time forensics will have certainly tested even more those trained dogs' capacities). They will never find out what reason had a Irish decent family to say they saw Madeleine carried by a man who didn't answer them (probably because he wasn't able, speaking, to hide his British nationality) and looked very much like her own father.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Aquestion for the Mccanns?

    Do you really beleive that leaving the children alone night after night was in the bounds of reasonable responsible parenting or was you told to say that?

    ReplyDelete
  20. From my friend Elle:

    To Kate and Gerry:

    1. Why didn't you stop going to the Tapas Bar after the bout of crying by Maddie two nights previous to her going missing?

    2. Why were you puzzled, Kate, as to why and when Maddie was actually crying, and asked you "Why didn't you come when I was crying, Mommy?" You wondered if it was when you had taken her out of her bath, or was she crying at another time. I'm afraid this came off as a very stupid reply, Kate. Even the TV interviewer, like myself wasn't impressed. You stammered and stuttered over that one, and it made no sense. Your daughter was crying because you were in the Tapas Bar. End of story!

    ReplyDelete
  21. From Elle, a good friend of mine:

    To Kate and Gerry:

    1. Why didn't you stop going to the Tapas Bar after the bout of crying by Maddie two nights previous to her going missing?

    2. Why were you puzzled, Kate, as to why and when Maddie was actually crying, and asked you "Why didn't you come when I was crying, Mommy?" You wondered if it was when you had taken her out of her bath, or was she crying at another time. I'm afraid this came off as a very stupid reply, Kate. Even the TV interviewer, like myself wasn't impressed. You stammered and stuttered over that one, and it made no sense. Your daughter was crying because you were in the Tapas Bar. End of story!

    ReplyDelete
  22. One of the questions that's always puzzled me is:

    Why did John McCann give up his high paid job, despite having a house, wife and kids to support?

    How did he know Maddie wouldn't be found the next day leaving him high and dry with no job?

    Or did he know Maddie was no longer with us?

    That's 3 questions, I know!

    Fantastic blog Joana, thank you.

    ReplyDelete

Powered by Blogger.