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

"Special Resolution": Amendments to the Articles of Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

This 24-pages document was filed on December 21, 2011 at the Companies House. Pages 1 to 11 have a similar text and the signatures of the current directors [except Edward Smethurst's signature] approving a “Special Resolution” (sic). From page 12 to 24 follow the amended articles of the “Foundation” (sic), that is, of Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited. On January 8, 2012 the private limited company full accounts [up to March 31, 2011 - without Kate McCann's book royalties & book deals] were made available at the Companies house, the stamp on the first page indicates they were filed on December 30, 2011. Since yesterday several UK newspapers have been reporting spinning on the Fund “dwindling donations”, seemingly oblivious of the amendments to the Articles of the company and despite their obvious significance; adjustments which effectively ensure the McCann couple & associates will now have a quasi “carte-blanche” regarding the use of the Fund's donations.
Amendment to the “Amendments”: It seems almost all of the Articles listed bellow give an identical level of financial control over the fund's assets and have been present in the Company's statutes since its incorporation date on May 15, 2007. The most interesting change is the complete removal from the Fund's objects of an article that has appeared in all the Accounts(including in the latest) and Articles for the years of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011 - “To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family”. Which raises at least one question: “What happened around November 29, 2011 that made the fund directors circulate an amendment to remove that article in particular?” Is it a mere case of excluding a superfluous article or could there be something else behind this modification?

Pages 1 to 11
(the "Company")
(Company Number 06248215)

Circulation Date [DATE] [handwritten above: 29] November 2011
Pursuant to Chapter 2 of Part 13 of the Companies Act 2006 (the "Act"), the directors of the Company propose that the following resolution be passed as a special resolution (the "Resolution").

THAT the amended articles of association attached to this written Resolution be and are hereby approved and adopted as the articles of association of the Company in substitution for and to the exclusion of the existing articles of the Company.

Before signing you agreement to the Resolution, please read the notes at the end of this document.

We, the undersigned, a member entitled at the time the Resolution was circulated to attend and vote on the Resolution at a general meeting of the Company, HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AGREE to the Resolution being passed as a special resolution.

(signatures by order in which they appear in the document)
Signed by Kate McCann on 8/12/2011
Signed by Michael Linnet on 6/12/2011
Signed by Gerald McCann on 5/12/2011
Signed by Brian Kennedy on 6/12/2011
Signed by Jon Corner on 14/12/2011

Pages 12 to 24
1. In these Articles and the Memorandum the following terms shall have the following meanings:
1.1 "Act" the Companies Act 1985 including any statutory modification or re-enactment for the time being in force
1.2 "address" in relation to electronic communications inc1udes any number or address used for the purpose of such communication
1.3 "Articles" these Articles of Association of the Foundation
1.4 "clear days" in relation to the period of a notice, that period excluding the day when the notice is given or deemed to be given and the day for which it is given or on which it is to take effect
1.5 "Foundation" Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited
1.6 "Connected Person" (a) any spouse, parent, child, brother, sister, grandparent or grandchild of a Director; or (b) any other person in a relationship with a Director which may reasonably be regarded as equivalent to such a relationship, or (c) any company or firm of which a Director is a paid director, partner or employee, or shareholder holding more than 1% of the capital
1.7 "electronic communication" has the meaning ascribed to it in the Electronic Communications Act 2000
1.8 "financial expert" an individual, company or firm who is authorised to give investment advice under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
1.9 "Memorandum" the Memorandum of Association of the Foundation
1.10 "Secretary" the secretary of the Foundation
1.11 "Subsidiary Company" any company in which the Foundation holds more than 50% of the shares, controls more than 50% of the voting rights attached to the shares or has the right to appoint a majority of the board of the company
2. In these Articles and the Memorandum:
2.1 Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in the Articles bear the same meaning as in the Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when the Articles become binding on the Foundation.
2.2 Subject to Article 2.1 any reference in these Articles or the Memorandum to an enactment includes a reference to that enactment as re-enacted or amended from time to time and to any subordinate legislation made under it.

Registered office
2A. The registered office of the Foundation is situated in England.

2B. The objects of the Foundation are:
2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice.
2B.2 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

2C. To further its objects the Foundation may:
2C.1 provide and assist in the provision of money, materials or other help;
2C.2 organise and assist in the provision of conferences, courses of instruction, exhibitions, lectures and other educational activities;
2C.3 publish and distribute books, pamphlets, reports, leaflets, journals, films, tapes and instructional matter on any media;
2C.4 promote, encourage, carry out or commission research, surveys, studies or other work, making the useful results available;
2C.5 provide or procure the provision of advice;
2C.6 alone or with other organisations seek to influence public opinion and make representations to and seek to influence governmental and other bodies and institutions;
2C.7 enter into contracts to provide services to or on behalf of other bodies;
2C.8 acquire or rent any property of any kind and any rights or privileges in and over property and construct, maintain, alter and equip any buildings or facilities;
2C.9 dispose of or deal with all or any of its property with or without payment and subject to such conditions as the Directors think fit,
2C.10 borrow or raise and secure the payment of money for any purpose including for the purposes of Investment or of raising funds;
2C.11 set aside funds for special purposes or as reserves against future expenditure,
2C.12 Invest the Foundation's money not immediately required for its objects in or upon any Investments, securities, or property;
2C.13 delegate the management of Investments to a financial expert provided that:
2C.13.1 the investment policy is set down in writing for the financial expert by the Directors,
2C.13.2 every transaction is reported promptly to the Directors,
2C.13.3 the performance of the investments is reviewed regularly by the Directors,
2C.13.4 the Directors are entitled to cancel the delegation arrangement at any time,
2C.13.5 the Investment policy and the delegation arrangements are reviewed at least once a year,
2C.13.6 all payments due to the financial expert are on a scale or at a level which is agreed in advance and are notified promptly to the Directors on receipt, and
2C.13.7 the financial expert may not do anything outside the powers of the Directors,
2C.14 arrange for investments or other property of the Foundation to be held in the name of a nominee (being a corporate body registered or having an established place of business in England and Wales) under the control of the Directors or of a financial expert acting under their instructions and pay any reasonable fee required,
2C.15 lend money and give credit to, take security for such loans or credit and guarantee or give security for the performance of contracts by any person or company,
*Note: 2C.16 & 2C.17 do not appear in page 14 of the PDF document
2C.18 accept (or disclaim) gifts of money and any other property,
2C.19 trade in the course of carrying out the objects of the Foundation and carry on any other trade for the purpose of raising funds,
2C.20 incorporate subsidiary companies to carry on any trade,
2C.21 engage and pay employees, consultants and professional or other advisers and make reasonable provisional for the payment of pensions and other retirement benefits to or on behalf of employees and their spouses and dependants,
2C.22 establish and support or aid in the establishment and support of any other organisations and subscribe, lend or guarantee money or property,
2C.23 become a member, associate or affiliate of or act as director or appoint directors of any other organisation permanent endowment property held for any of the charitable purposes,
2C.24 undertake and execute charitable trusts,
2C.25 amalgamate with or acquire or undertake all or any of the property, liabilities and engagements of any body having objects wholly or in part similar to those of the Foundation;
2C.26 co-operate with charities, voluntary bodies, statutory authorities and other bodies and exchange information and advice with them;
2C.27 pay out of the funds of the Foundation the costs of forming and registering the Foundation;
2C.28 insure the property of the Foundation against any foreseeable risk and take out other insurance policies as are considered necessary by the Directors to protect the Foundation;
2C.29 provide indemnity insurance to cover the liability of the Directors which by virtue of any rule of law would otherwise attach to them in respect of any negligence, default, breach of trust or breach of duty of which they may be guilty in relation to the Foundation. Provided that any such insurance shall not extend to the provision of any indemnity for a person in respect of:
2C.29.1 any act or omission which he or she knew to be a breach of trust or breach of duty or which was committed by him or her in reckless disregard to whether it was a breach of trust or breach of duty or not; or
2C.29.2 any liability incurred by him or her in defending any criminal proceedings in which he or she is convicted of an offence arising out of any fraud or dishonesty, or wilful or reckless misconduct by him or her, and
2C.30 do all such other lawful things as shall further the Foundation's objects.

Limitation on private benefits
2D.1 The income and property of the Foundation shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its objects
2D.2 Except as provided below no part of the income and property of the Foundation may be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of benefit to the members of the Foundation. This shall not prevent any payment in good faith by the Foundation of:
2D.2.1 any payments made to any member, Director or Connected Person in their capacity as a beneficiary,
2D.2.2 reasonable and proper remuneration to any person for any goods or services supplied to the Foundation (including services performed under a contract of employment with the Foundation),
2D.2.3 interest on money lent by any member, Director or Connected Person at a reasonable and proper rate,
2D.2.4 any reasonable and proper rent for premises let by any member, Director or Connected Person,
2D.2.5 fees, remuneration or other benefits in money or money's worth to a company of which a member, Director or Connected Person holds less than 1% of the capital,
2D.2.6 reasonable and proper out-of-pocket expenses of Directors;
2D.2.7 reasonable and proper premiums in respect of indemnity insurance effected in accordance with Article 2C.29;
2D.3 The restrictions on benefits and remuneration conferred on members of the Foundation and on the Directors by Article 2D.2 and the exceptions to such restrictions in Articles 2D.2.1 to 2D.2.7 inclusive shall apply equally to benefits and remuneration conferred on members of the Foundation and on the Directors by any Subsidiary Company, and for this purpose references to the Foundation in Article 2D.2.2 shall be treated as references to the Subsidiary Company.

Limited liability
2D. The liability of the members is limited.
2E. Every member of the Foundation undertakes to contribute a sum not exceeding £1 to the assets of the Foundation if it is wound up during his or her membership or within one year afterwards,
2E.1 for payment of the debts and liabilities of the Foundation contracted before he or she ceased to be a member,
2E.2 for the costs, charges and expenses of winding up,
2E.3 for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories among themselves.

Winding up
2F. If any property remains after the Foundation has been wound up or dissolved and the debts and liabilities have been satisfied it may not be paid to or distributed among the members of the Foundation, but must be given to some other institution or institutions with similar objects. The institution or institutions to benefit shall be chosen by the Directors at or before the time of winding up or dissolution.

3. The Directors from time to time shall be the only members of the Foundation. A Director shall become a member on becoming a Director. A member shall cease to be a member if he or she ceases to be a Director. Membership shall not be transferable and shall cease on death.


Number or Directors
4. There shall be at least three Directors following appointments to be made by the first Director.

Appointment, retirement, removal and disqualification or Directors
5. The subscriber to the Memorandum shall be the first Director
6. Directors shall be appointed by resolution of the first Director or thereafter the Directors
7. No person may be appointed as a Director,
7.1 unless he or she has attained the age of 18 years; or
7.2 in circumstances such that, had he or she already been a Director, he or she would have been disqualified from acting under the provisions of the Articles
8. The office of a Director shall be vacated if,
8.1 he or she ceases to be a Director by virtue of any provision of the Act or he or she becomes prohibited by law from being a Director,
8.2 he or she becomes bankrupt or makes any arrangement or composition with his or her creditors generally,
8.3 the Directors reasonably believe he or she is suffering from mental disorder and incapable of acting and they resolve that he or she be removed from office,
8.4 he or she resigns by notice to the Foundation (but only if at least three Directors will remain in office when the notice of resignation is to take effect),
8.5 he or she fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the Directors and the Directors resolve that he or she be removed for this reason;
8.6 at a meeting of the Directors at which at least half of the Directors are present, a resolution is passed that he or she be removed from office. Such a resolution shall not be passed unless the Director has been given at least 14 clear days' notice that the resolution is to be proposed, specifying the circumstances alleged to justify removal from office, and has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by or of making written representations to the Directors, or
8.7 he or she ceases to be a member of the Foundation.

Powers of Directors
9. Subject to the Act, the Memorandum and the Articles, the business of the Foundation shall be managed by the Directors who may exercise all the powers of the Foundation. No alteration of the Memorandum or Articles shall invalidate any prior act of the Directors which would have been valid if that alteration had not been made.
10. The continuing Directors or a sole continuing Director may act despite any vacancies in their number but while there are fewer Directors than required for a quorum the Directors may only act for the purpose of increasing the number of Directors.
11. All acts done by a person acting as a Director shall, even if afterwards discovered that there was a defect in his or her appointment or that he or she was disqualified from holding office or had vacated office, be as valid as if such. person had been duly appointed and was qualified and had continued to be a Director
12. Subject to the Articles the Directors may regulate their proceedings as they think fit.

13. The Directors may appoint one of their number to be the chair of the Directors and may at any time remove him or her from that office.

Delegation or Directors' powers
14. The Directors may by power of attorney or otherwise appoint any person to be the agent of the Foundation for such purposes and on such conditions as they determine.
15. The Directors may delegate any of their powers or functions to any committee or the implementation of any of their resolutions and day to day management of the affairs of the Foundation to any person or committee in accordance with the conditions set out in these Articles.

*Note: From page 18 to 21, legalese and uninteresting parts which you can read in the document if you wish to do so. [link given above in the introduction]

Page 21

35. The proceedings at any meeting shall not be invalidated by reason of any accidental informality or irregularity (including any accidental omission to give or any non-receipt of notice) or any want of qualification in any of the persons present or voting or by reason of any business being considered which is not specified in the notice unless such specification is a requirement of the Act
36. No objection shall be raised to the qualification of any voter except at the meeting or adjourned meeting at which the vote objected to is tendered, and every vote not disallowed at the meeting shall be valid. Any objection made in due time shall be referred to the chair whose decision shall be final and binding.

Conflicts of interest
37. Whenever a person has a personal interest in a matter to be discussed at a meeting, and whenever a person has an interest in another organisation whose interests are reasonably likely to conflict with those of the Foundation in relation to a matter to be discussed at a meeting, he or she must:
37.1 declare an interest before discussion begins on the matter,
37.2 withdraw from that part of the meeting unless expressly invited to remain;
37.3 in the case of personal interests not be counted in the quorum for that part of the meeting, and
37.4 in the case of personal interests withdraw during the vote and have no vote on the matter
38. No Director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation.

Note*: same as in previous note

Page 24

49. Subject to the Act but without prejudice to any indemnity to which a Director may otherwise be entitled, every Director or other officer of the Foundation shall be indemnified out of the assets of the Foundation:
49.1 against all costs charges expenses or liabilities incurred by him or her:
49.1.1 in defending any civil or criminal proceedings in which judgement is given in his or her favour or in which he or she is acquitted, and
49.1.2 in connection with any application in which relief from liability is granted to him or her by the court;
where such proceedings or application arise as a result of any actual or alleged
negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust in relation to the Foundation, and
49.2 against all costs, charges, losses, expenses or liabilities incurred by him or her in or in relation to the proper execution and discharge of his or her duties.

Directors' indemnity insurance
50. The Directors shall have power to resolve pursuant to Article 2C.29 to effect directors' indemnity insurance, despite their interest in such policy.

Changes/Articles removed from Alteration to Memorandum and Articles, 28/06/2007

3.1.3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family;

51. The provisions of clauses 7 and 8 of the Memorandum relating to the winding-up or dissolution of the Foundation shall have effect and be observed as if the same were repeated in the Articles.

[last updated at 14:39 GMT]


  1. and i thought this was a simple fund JUST to help find Madeleine.

  2. This just confirms that it was all about the money.

    What "real" loving parent would be bothered about out of pocket expenses incurred whilst searching for their "missing" child?

    What "real" loving parent would want to charge rent on using part of their home as an office in the search for their "missing" child?

    This is just a money laundering scam. Money will be being drip fed to offshore or hidden accounts for when things really go wrong for them.

    Section 2.D basically gives them carte blanche to use the fund as their income.

  3. Taking a break, will continue in a while. Copy pasting this crap is making me sick!

  4. Could this mean that the fund has 'bought' Rothley Manor?

    This sounds like a property and investment business with a little clause to say one of the altruistic sidelines is to search for a missing child.

    I wonder how the Mc supporters (the number can be counted on one hand) will spin this information. Any genuine believers will have their eyes opened by this.

    This could be their downfall in the UK.

  5. Good grief. The goal being stuffing their pockets, as from the beginning! No wonder it makes you sick, Joana!
    The scam being so blatantly clear, what are the british authorities waiting to investigate their doings? I sincerely hope they are shooting their feet and the police is keeping an eye on them. Maybe I am being naïve...

  6. The document is completely normal. When Articles of Association are written up they must cover everything.

    When I started my company we had standard wording and then you amend this accordingly as required.

    Nothing out of the ordinary as they are complying with the law.

  7. @6 Are you blind? This is not the Non-profit organisation the McCanns advertise and use to ask for donations. «Madeleine's fund is a non charitable not-for-profit company, which has been established to help find Madeleine McCann and to support her family and bring her ...» http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html http://www.facebook.com/Official.Find.Madeleine.Campaign

  8. So, why is there no longer 2.B1. 3 (used to be 3.1.3) To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family; ???

    Still 3rd bullet point here http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html

    Hardly "standard wording" - why did it need to be removed 'now'?


  9. What about Leicester Police? Are they still providing the link for the fund? Does it cover police pensions?
    Have to go- overcome with nausea.

  10. Details of Kevin Halligen’s Extradition Hearing are amended as follows:



    Statement of facts & issues and Appendix due date 07 Feb 2012

    Time estimate number of days 1.5 days

    HEARING DATE 21 Feb 2012


  11. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the advance for the book (figures quoted between £200K & £500K) paid out before the end of the last financial year? If that is the case why isn't the advance included in the accounts - where is that money? .

  12. Thank you @10 for the update, Kevin Halligen extradition hearing dates change very quickly, in less than 24 hours...

  13. There has been a lot of angry reaction to this latest, but nobody, not one journalist, seems to be asking what to me is the most obvious question: how can the McCanns possibly justify the continued use of private detectives, the never-ending pursuit of more and more money when they have been given the "review" that they asked for, costing the taxpaper a small fortune, with 30 Scotland Yard detectives at their service? Of course people are not going to give to them under such circumstances.

  14. For who asked quote: So, why is there no longer 2.B1. 3 (used to be 3.1.3) To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family; ??? unquote:
    There is no need with all the loopholes in this st of articles. I have said from day one that they would be paid from the fund and that it is all about the money, this is the so maniest proof of that.
    They are the most disgusting couple I know and true sociopaths.

  15. @13 Don't forget the half a million pounds spent by the British authorities and the several million euros spent by the Portuguese authorities during the official investigation.

    @11 Perhaps the omission of the book advancements has to do with Kate's book being published in May 2011? They might be published in the next accounts...

  16. 1) The latest accounts show the McCanns spent almost £500k on ‘the search’ but as the accounts are as clear as mud it is impossible to know exactly where the money has gone.

    2) The accounts also show that in 2010 three directors resigned, one after the other.

    John McCann - Resigned 23 July 2010

    Doug Skehan - Resigned 24 August 2010

    Peter Hubner - Resigned 19 September 2010


    Perhaps the two are connected and the (ex)directors didn’t approve of the nature of the expenditure, since the bulk of it was probably swallowed up by legal fees. According to the book, Carter-Ruck do a lot of work for nothing but, given the huge amount of litigation instigated by the Mccanns, maybe CR have a Buy-One-Get-One-Free arrangement with them (and of course, there’s also the PT lawyers and image consultants to pay)

  17. Leveson inquiry - Peter Wright - editor of The Mail on Sunday [Paul Dacre's Daily Mail]:

    «He notes that the Mail on Sunday nearly folded in the first six weeks of publication 30 years ago. Now it is the biggest-selling Sunday title.

    2.22pm: Wright is asked about his relationship with politicians. He says he usually goes to two of three of the party conferences, but other than that rarely goes to dinner with politicians.

    "I try to keep the paper independent of all parties … and certainly not get into bed with certain politicians," he says.

    2.16pm: Wright says he sent a very experienced former Observer journalist, David Rose, to Portugal to do a "cold" review of the story.

    The journalist filed an investigation into one of the police officers [Gonçalo Amaral] in charge of finding McCann, noting that the officer had worked on a similar case before and had faced allegations he forced an admission from a parent of the missing child.

    2.14pm: Wright is asked about the Mail on Sunday's coverage of the Madeleine McCann case.

    He ia also sked what he made of Daily Express's coverage of the disappearance of McCann.

    "They gave it a great deal of coverage – more than I thought was warranted. I'm sure they'll be able to explain why to you."»


  18. If they have been able to acquire whatever property they so wish with the Fund money, then how much property have they acquired so far? Presumably this would also apply to the house they already live in.

    They didn't tell the people who were coughing up the money to pay for it at the time though, old age pensioners, schoolchildren, people much poorer than they will ever be, as these kind hearted members of the public surely thought the money was to be used directly for searching for Madeleine, boots on ground.

    No wonder they are always wanting ever more money if they have been using it to buy property, let alone paying for lawyers. Not much left for any actual searching for Madeleine then, not that they need it for searching now, being as they are privileged to be the only ones with a missing relative to have been granted millions of tax payers money to be used on their supposed search for Madeleine. How many millions will that be they have already had from the public so far?

    Here's hoping Mason McCann is duly grateful to his Brother Mason, or should I say Masons, as there seems to be a lot of them around as regards this case in some form or other.

  19. Just prited of a 1000 copies of the document for a train journey ill be making i suggest more people do the same we will not be silenced, this needs to get out to the masses the papers wont print it Get Photo Copying

  20. The term Foundation is used throughout the company information. When did the fund apply for Foundation status?

    Is there a 'back door' method that has allowed this and if so where are the minutes of the minutes of the meeting this was decided?

  21. There is nothing in the terms of the fund, that says the McCanns extended family can use the money to assist them, but according to Clarence Mitchell they can. He says so in the You Tube video called "Clarence Mitchell Spinning for the McCanns and Jane Tanner."

    Madeleine's disappearance has always been about raking in money for the McCanns, under the pretence of using it to search for Madeleine. The fund was set up days after Madeleine went missing, when the Portuguese taxpayers were funding the search.

    The McCanns insulted Madeleine, when they used the money to pay their mortgage and along with their extended family, they are still insulting her. None of them have got off their a***s to try to find her.

    I have always thought the McCanns never looked for Madeleine, because they knew where she was and if she was dead or alive. I now think their extended family are in on the act. Philomena, Patricia and John McCann, gave an interview to GMTV a couple of days after Madeleine disappeared. Within that interview, they spoke of a fund to find Madeleine, being set up. If they had believed Madeleine was abducted, they would have been in Portugal, looking for her, instead of sitting on a GMTV couch begging for money.

  22. Joana at #17

    "The journalist filed an investigation into one of the police officers [Gonçalo Amaral] in charge of finding McCann, noting that the officer had worked on a similar case before and had faced allegations he forced an admission from a parent of the missing child."

    I followed the link to David Rose's article in the "Daily Mail" and I nearly threw up. This was a highly prejudiced and racist article! Talk about Tabloid Tony! (Parsons)

    How do these guys get away with it? May be Portugal needs atomic weapons too...

  23. :c Kate coming out with a perfume line? Pleeeeease!

    Mind you, if that was true I could suggest a couple of names...

    "Eddie" (cologne) for men and "Keela" perfume for women. Also available in deodorant spray. I bet David and Samantha would buy into it.

    Now seriously. Read this...



    Has anyone as a child been told the story of "The Chicken of The Golden Eggs"? Think about it.

    The problem for the Fund is if Pat Brown in February finds what she is looking for. I understand Pat may be relying on Daniel Krugel's "quantum-sniffer" technology.

    Incidentally, I don't think the man is a "quack". The "Sniffer" seems to be for real.





    If you google "Joana Morais" from a UK server the Google search engine gives you the option "Block all joana-morais.blogspot.com results" IN RED - see sample result below. The key phrase appears in red. Interesting...

    "The McCanns, Danie Krügel and the 'quantum ... - Joana Morais - Yes
    Block all joana-morais.blogspot.com results..." (quote/unquote).

    We know about telephone hacking but could there be "Google hacking"? or I been reading too many conspiracy stories lately?.......

  26. I hope the Met will find out what was the McCanns'goal by sending money to Kevin. Imo they asked him to transfer it to a privet bank account of the couple in Washington or Canada.
    And Kate bought new clothes with the left over.

  27. would the police take action if people reported a suspected fraud or a suspected mis-appropiation of funds? it makes me sick to the teeth knowing that the mccanns have and are still literally getting away with murder!

  28. I expect at least one of the Tapas 5 to ask advise of a lawyer about going to the Scotland Yard and to tell what happened.A lawyer could advise this and other Tapas.
    Waiting till everything is ready, it will cost a lot of money to the British society and they will hate those Tapas.
    If they keep silent, we have no other choice than to deffinitely believe they are all pedophiles


    “To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family”.

    Which raises at least one question:

    “What happened around November 29, 2011 that made the fund directors circulate an amendment to remove that article in particular?”

    Is it a mere case of excluding a superfluous article or could there be something else behind this modification?"

    You know Joana, my crystal ball tells me G. Amaral lawyer was honing on it. The vision was nor crystal clear but it has something to do with legal propriety.

    Mind you, the fact that it has been removed does not imply or prove it has never been there....

    On a more pro-McCann note it could have been removed because Kate McCann now makes more money as a celebrity writer. Think: book deals, sales, interviews, TV appearances...

    Don't be surprised to read she has started her own perfume or fashion line. She already owns an accessories line, remember?

    :o Sorry Carter! Just a little joke! Please don't ruck me! I am penniless. Euro-centless in fact! Blame it on Celtic-Anglo-Saxon "global market mechanisms"...

  30. @24/25 too many conspiracy theories definitely. You do know Danie Kruegel and his "quantum sniffer machine" is a charlatan, right? That's the only reason the McCanns called him in the first place.

    «Observer retracts Danie Krugel story

    Stephen Pritchard, the redoubtable reader's editor at the Observer, has published what amounts to a retraction of last week's story on Danie Krugel's "evidence" in the Maddie McCann case. Kudos to Stephen and to the Observer for this - it's nice to see a paper admitting it got it wrong.
    It is, however, still disturbing that a newspaper would assign reporters to a case which is likely to hinge on DNA evidence who clearly have little understanding of the science of DNA. Perhaps that's down to the horrendous state of science teaching in the UK - but I would expect, even under deadline pressure, a journalist to seek a second expert source on any claim like this rather than rush for the story and get it so badly wrong.
    However, Stephen's claim that the internet had "appeared to led credibility to his claims" doesn't hold all that much water. Top search result on Google for "Danie Krugel", both last week and this, is a blog post from Moonflake entitled "Midweek Cuckoo: Danie Krugel" - hardly a post to inspire confidence in Mr Krugel's credibility.
    In fact, there's almost nothing on Google's first couple of pages which lends any credibility to Krugel, except for straightforward reports of the programme "Fingerprint of Fate" which was made about him (and comprehensively debunked afterwards).
    The big exception is a web site, Danie Krugel Facts, which provides only positive spin on Danie's involvement in the McCann case and his other involvement in missing persons cases. The domain, incidentally, is registered to a PO Box in South Africa and judging by the page source design appears to have been done by CenterWeb, a company based in Bloemfontein - the city where Danie Krugel works, as head of security at Central University. I'd certainly love to know who's paid for that site.»






  31. where they have being searching? In the pockets of honest people, retired grannies and sensible children who spared some money thinking will be used to help little Madeleine.

    The publication of that piece of crap information proves where the couple and their lawyers spend time... In the Net, surfing on Blogs where people don't buy their stories and criticise the existence of the Fund by questionning WHERE GOES THE MONEY? That is the best answer they can achieve. Shame on them.
    Have they spent a minute really searching the girl in the terrain or helping an official police to do it? Never. Never a camera from their supportive tabloids caught a picture proving they searched their daughter. The search was done in 5 stars hotels where they had meetings with their lawyers to set up a strategy to frame GA and who doubt the abduction.

  32. Anon @22 seems to be suggesting Portugal should delare nuclear war on Britain.

    Goncolo Amaral's proplems started with the Portuguese system. Should the whole of western europe get the bomb? Where is safe when you get elected?

    Is it not fair to say that both Portugal and Britain have people in the right and people in the wrong?

  33. "2C.8 acquire or rent any property of any kind and any rights or privileges in and over property and construct, maintain, alter and equip any buildings or facilities;"

    Oh,oh...I suspect a major renovation work to be done in "Rothley Manor" soon...and maybe a holiday home abroad...?


    @6 "The document is completely normal. When Articles of Association are written up they must cover everything."

    I get that. What I don't get is what it covers. Little things such as:

    "2C.9 dispose of or deal with all or any of its property with or without payment and subject to such conditions as the Directors think fit,
    2C.10 borrow or raise and secure the payment of money for any purpose including for the purposes of Investment or of raising funds;
    2C.14 arrange for investments or other property of the Foundation to be held in the name of a nominee (being a corporate body registered or having an established place of business in England and Wales) under the control of the Directors or of a financial expert acting under their instructions and pay any reasonable fee required,

    And that is just three "fishy" examples picked at random.

    Also @6, in case you didn't get it, this is ostensible a "charity" operating as a "Ltd. Company" which is asking members of the public (many of whom naive and vulnerable) for their money in return for "fireworks" and "legal stunts" to "dry clean" their image and repress opinions that don't match their official (cough) version of events. Is your company a charity as well? Hmmm

    Obviously, this is legal in the UK. Surely the wording would have been read by Carter-Ruck and Britain's top accountants (all paid by the Fund) all of which unnecessary for given their status and political connections anything goes for the McCanns.

    It is all very catholic. Et amen...

  35. By now the Scotland Yard must know about the money the McCanns sent to Kevim Halley. It is important for the investigation. What is behind Maddie's death? Money?

  36. Anon 25 - I've been getting that message lately on a number of websites I've visited. Some of them have nothing to do with the McCanns,so I don't think it's anything sinister to do with the McCanns.

  37. @24/25 too many conspiracy theories definitely. You do know Danie Kruegel and his "quantum sniffer machine" is a charlatan, right? That's the only reason the McCanns called him in the first place."

    Your counter-comment is interesting and well argued.My question is:

    Have you red the pdf. section (testimonials) of http://www.daniekrugelfacts.com/? Do that

    Also interesting to note that Krugel offers his services FREE of charge. OK, he may be fooling himself.

    Since you are into science, you ought to know that if you impart energy to an electron and change its charge every single electron in the universe will adjust to that change instantly (Prof. Brian Cox, OBE).

    May be someone could come up with the electronics capable to link the electrons in a hair fibre with others on a nearby location. I don't see how, yet I do know radio and tv transmissions where perceived by the observers of the day as a dugout for charlatans.

    On the other hand Krugel may be just a dowser (dowsers do exist, believe it or not - very much like dogs' noses do) and the "instrument" gives him a crutch for his "psi" to lean on.

    One must not go just by the logical consistency of words phrased against Krugel, for logical consistency is never a guarantee of truth. Judge him on his achievements.

    Of course we don't know if the testimonials on http://www.daniekrugelfacts.com/ are true or if he is lying when he says he does not charge still let us give the man the benefit of a doubt and see if he (or Pat Brown) comes up with the "goods".

    You think Daniel Krugel is a charlatan on the basis of what you read but I don't - pending some further reality-testing results. The digging of the area he gave has yet to be done. May be next month we shall know more.

    :d Stay put...

  38. "Anon @22 seems to be suggesting Portugal should delare nuclear war on Britain."

    Far from it my friend! But... if Portugal had atomic weapons may be its police would have been taken more seriously and not in the manner of Tony Tabloid (Parsons) and David Rose of "Little England's" Mail...

    This is an error I see again and again. A country's technology or having an intensively eager vulture's culture being equated with true intelligence.

    The intelligence that counts is not "vulture intelligence" - the one measure by IQ tests, but "emotional intelligence" - the real thing and, take it from me - the Portuguese have plenty of that.

    For the implications at large you ought to read Prof. Antonio Damasio's best-seller "Descartes' Error" which is about the one reason Inspector Colombo may have looked stupid to you but he never was.

    Have a drink on me...

  39. "Stevie-C said... 27 "would the police take action if people reported a suspected fraud or a suspected mis-appropiation of funds?"

    British police are in my perception very laid back. They don't get too excited at first but once they get going they can be ruthlessly effective. Their gathering of evidence might take years.

    It could happen that at some stage the McCanns' might get too greedy or over confident for their own good and when they least expect it bingo! the police will be on top of them.

    Such scenario could happen except I was not taking into account the McCanns' top advisers and consultants (from PR to accountancy and legal matters) and I am discounting their connections in high places - all the way to the top (PM).

    So, on second thoughts, I think they will get away with it, unless there is some "divine" intervention at some stage. May be after the furore has died out completely, may be never. Like the Loch Ness monster, you know...


    "If you google "Joana Morais" from a UK server the Google search engine gives you the option "Block all joana-morais.blogspot.com results" IN RED - see sample result below."

    Google must have ears for the above reported phenomena is not happening today. May be it was just a ghost in the engine - a case for Aragão-Correia...

    Let me turn the alarm off...

  41. @30 "there's almost nothing on Google's first couple of pages which lends any credibility to Krugel, except for straightforward reports of the programme "Fingerprint of Fate""

    Those of you curious about the content of this documentary can read transcript here:


    Incidentally this blog is not about Dr. David Payne faux-pas at the dinner table - as reported in the PJ Files. The fact that is called "sex offender issues" is a mere coincidence.

  42. People must stop thinking the McCanns are still powerful.Brown is past tense.The Labour needed the media in order to assure Brown's position, the media blackmailed them: you protect the McCanns or we will turn ourselves against Brown.That explains why Blair was already in favor of the McCanns.
    And the media needed to sell, more and more. It became a golden mine for them. Even when the Mccanns became official suspects, Brown still protected them, demanding authorities to dismiss Amaral and it happened.
    One murder more, one murder less, who cares? It was Madeleine's life, not his.
    There are a lot of children being murdered around the world every day and Maddie is simply one of them.
    If the McCanns would have been as powerful as they used to be in 2007, Cameron would have not written that ironical, irritated letter to them and they would have published Theresa May's.If they didn't it is because it must be a sharp one.
    There is no reason for the Met to protect them and to hide their crime.
    When they went to Holland to present Kate's book, Kate complained,
    in a interview, that de British police had not published any support to them.
    If the British police did not openly supported them, it is because they suspect the couple as well.
    Again a stupid comment, as if the stupid ones in her book were not enough.
    And Gerry insisting on saying "we have a huge lot of support".
    (But not from the people who read the WHOLE files, dearest!).
    And Theresa May and Cameron must be aware of everything.
    Asking the Met to get involved in the case means the McCanns lost all power they had otherwise this would not have happened. Uncle Gordon would have protect them.
    I think somebody of the Tapas will come forward with the truth.
    It could even be Kate.

  43. Under the wording of the Fund they can purchase just about anything and declare it is aiding their search for Madeleine. Any amount of vehicles, and property located in UK or anywhere in the world, just as long as there is a room that could be said to be set aside as an 'office' to be used in their 'search', also they can spend time abroad at the best hotels and, no doubt the McCanns would still be able to justify it. Whatever they wish, they have it sewn up, so why do people keep wondering where the money has gone.

    There is no way they ever need itemise any of it, as long as they can declare it all coming under the heading of expenditure used in the search for Madeleine.

    They say the money they have spent on investigators has amounted to hundreds of thousands of pounds. No doubt, yet the actual amounts received by Metodo3 and Halligen was disputed by these characters as falling far short of what the McCanns said they actually gave them, and there was talk of Metodo3 wanting to take legal action against them. What was the actual amount? Who is telling the truth?

    How much has been paid in legal fees from the Fund, who knows? In reality the McCanns have had millions given them from various sources for this 'searching' for Madeleine Fund they have exclusive use of.

    They really are answerable to nobody and have made sure they can spend it as they wish, and unless the media get wind of where all the money has gone and publish it, just as they did when they discovered the McCanns were paying their mortgage with fund money, people will be no wiser and carry on believing it is all spent on the search for Madeleine, and certainly not, as the McCanns previously stated, to support their extended family. I doubt many people who gave money for the 'search' and are much poorer than the well heeled McCanns, would think much of that having happened.

    Yet again the McCanns are claiming the Fund is running low, and this is while the tax payers are paying millions for the SY investigation on their behalf. Of course, they would never dream of using money they have actually worked for, far better to use money from somebody else who has. It beggars belief they can still be trying to plead poverty for the Fund and pass around the begging bowl, when they are living in that great big house and have an income besides. When are people going to wise up and stop giving them money and tell them to use their own if they really need money so desperately for a search. That would certainly be an interesting thing to see. Would that then be the end of the search?

  44. Shame on all the people connected with this circus, shame on the people who give money to the fraudalent fund shame shame shame, there are genuine mothers grieving for there loved onez who get nothing, this has to stop NOW..

  45. @33 I do remember last year someone posting that the McCanns had an apartment in London!!!!!!!!!!

    After the Review the Fund is going to be the next on going search, you wait and see.

  46. Some facts under oath by Richard Desmond, Daily Express, at the Leveson Inquiry pointing out that the McCanns were happy for four months apparently for stories to be published about their daughter before taking legal action. Also that the DE only published in good faith what the police reportedly beleived. Mr Desmond and Mr Hill stood their ground under an indignant onslaught by the QC. The truth is coming out very publicly indeed. See video on link below.



    "4.28pm: Desmond tries to justify his papers' McCanns coverage because he says there was different points of view about what might have happened.

    "There has been speculation that Diana was killed by the royal family," he says.

    "The speculation has gone on and on. I don't know the answer."

    "I apologise again to the McCanns etc etc etc, but there are views about the McCanns and what happened," he adds.

    Jay points out that the logic of that argument is that the paper could write anything it liked.

    Desmond says he's not advocating that.

    4.33pm: Desmond tells the inquiry that if you agree that newspapers are important, then they should be allowed to report on opinions."

    Copied+pasted from McCannFiles (Guardian blog)

  48. AM I Being Paranoid or Not or What?

    Feruary 2012:
    1.Lible case.

    2.Halligans court appearences.

    3.Tony Bennetts aledged contempt of court(according to the mc canns)

    4.Amaral V Correia

    5.The Leveston enquiry ,which in my opinion seems to be timed and one sidedly in favour of the mc canns,with Leveston himself being previously linked to murdochs,Cameron and Freud.

    6. Last but not least the Met "Review".

    IF The Mets "Review conclusions" or the Leveston enquiry are published in favour of the mccanns version of events before/during the "Libel"case then the British Public should be aware of the extent of the Corruption throughout their empire.

  49. Mitchell said in response to Richard Desmond saying that the McCanns delayed for four months taking legal action against the Daily Express that they did so because they had more important things to do like looking for Madeleine. So why are they suing Snr Amaral, are they not looking for Madeleine now? Daily Express said they repoerted what they thought was the truth, "what the police believed", it is all coming out and the McCanns are scared.

  50. The articles have been changed, they seem a sort of cut and paste of more credible compnay articles. Could the McCanns be afraid of an investigation into the fund and want to make it look more proper.

  51. Anonymous said... 33

    "2C.8 acquire or rent any property of any kind and any rights or privileges in and over property and construct, maintain, alter and equip any buildings or facilities;"

    Oh,oh...I suspect a major renovation work to be done in "Rothley Manor" soon...and maybe a holiday home abroad...?

    Or perhaps they need to lay a patio!!!


    "Pass it on...

    We (McCanns & Friends) did not tell the truth to the police about the circumstances of the evening of May 3 2007;

    we lied to the public about our role in the police investigation of summer 2007;

    when tested under oath at the Leveson inquiry our version of events was found, once again, to be untruthful.

    We are also the source of the abduction claim."



  53. sorry but I keep asking this - does anyone know what happened to the Tanner/Murat court case?

  54. Thanks to Daniel Krugel the McCanns were made arguidos.
    He suggested cadaver dogs to search for Madeleine's grave on a mountain in Praia da Luz. The British police told the PJ about the existence of the British cadaver and blood dogs. The PJ asked for them and used them also in the apartment, McCanns new house in PdL, clothes and car.
    And the McCanns were made arguidos.

    Daniel Krugel was a McCanns' idea.

    Hah hah hah !!!!!!!!!!!

    Long live Daniel Krugel!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And the Met involved in the investigation was also at a McCanns' request:

    "we want action, not retorik!

    hah hah hah!

    "If you are a prime minister, you have a responsibility" (Kate)
    What about your own responsibility, Kate?

    Cameron prefers a good example above any advise.

  55. Leveson Inquiry: Express was 'scapegoated' over Madeleine McCann case, says owner Richard Desmond
    Richard Desmond, owner of the Daily Express and Daily Star, said his newspapers were "scapegoated" for their coverage of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

    Mr Desmond told the Leveson Inquiry that his titles were "the only honest ones and straightforward ones" for the way they printed a front-page apology to the missing girl's parents and paid them £550,000 in a libel settlement.

    He hit out at a former head of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) for criticising Daily Express editor Peter Hill over the paper's reporting of the case in more than 100 articles.

    "Every paper was doing the same thing, which is why every paper or most papers paid money to the McCanns. Only we were scapegoated by the ex-chairman of the PCC," he told the hearing at the high court in London.

    Mr Desmond, who bought Express Newspapers in 2000, apologised to Kate and Gerry McCann, adding: "Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to find Madeleine."

    But he told the inquiry into press standards that other newspapers also printed negative stories about the couple.

    "At the end of the day all the others were doing the same, plus or minus, and basically I saw it as we were the only honest ones and straightforward ones," he said.

    "We stood up and said 'Yes, we got it wrong, there's the money for the marketing fund, let's try and find Madeleine McCann, the poor little girl, let's put it on the front page and apologise properly'."

    He added: "Yet the ex-chairman (of the PCC) and his cronies thought 'We'll hang out Peter Hill and the Daily Express'. They should have all stood up and said 'You know what, we've all wronged, let's all bung in £500,000 each'.

    "If there were 102 articles on the McCanns, there were 38 bad ones but you could argue there were 65 or 70 good ones."

    Mr Desmond suggested that the McCanns were content with his papers' extensive coverage of Madeleine's disappearance because it helped the search for the little girl.

    "They were quite happy, as I understand, in articles being run about their poor daughter, because it kept it on the front page," he said.

    Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, described this as a "grotesque" characterisation, adding: "Your paper was accusing the McCanns on occasion of having killed their daughter.

    "Are you seriously saying that they were sitting there quite happy, rather than entirely anguished by your paper's bad behaviour?"

    Mr Desmond replied: "I do apologise to the McCanns. I am very sorry for the thing and I am very sorry that we got it wrong."

    Mr Hill told the inquiry the Daily Express ran stories suggesting the McCanns could be responsible for Madeleine's death because at the time "there was reason to believe" they might be true.

    Asked about the decision to withdraw his titles from the PCC in January last year, Mr Desmond said the body was "a useless organisation" run by "people that hated our guts, that wanted us out of business".

    But he again suggested that he could return to an industry regulator if it was composed of new PCC chairman Lord Hunt "surrounded by a couple of lawyers, surrounded by a couple of editorial grandees, not malicious people".

    Mr Desmond described his friendship with Tony Blair and his feeling that he let down the former prime minister when Mr Hill switched the Daily Express's support to the Conservatives in 2005.

    "I felt that I betrayed Tony as a mate. I felt he was a good bloke. I thought he was doing a good job, I liked him," he said.

    (continues bellow)

  56. The businessman was scathing about the phone-hacking scandal, telling the hearing: "It's ridiculous the amount of money, time, expense etc etc etc we're all putting in to look at this, that and the other, when these companies have committed criminal acts and should be prosecuted."

    Mr Desmond said the only thing that attracted him to being a newspaper owner was the business opportunity and ruled out buying any other national titles.

    Asked what interest he took in ethical constraints at his papers, he said: "Ethical? I don't quite know what the word means."

    The media baron made a number of digs at his mid-market rival the Daily Mail, which he described as the "Daily Malicious" in a deliberate slip.

    There was a moment of levity when Mr Jay accidentally called him "Mr Dacre" in a reference to the editor of the Daily Mail.

    Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns' spokesman, said after the hearing: "The portrayal of his newspaper's coverage and the effect that it had on Kate and Gerry is not something that they or I recognise at all.

    "The stories that we took issue with massively added to the stress and upset that Kate and Gerry were already suffering. They took the action they did reluctantly but in this case a line had to be drawn.

    "The scale and weight of the inaccuracies and unfounded allegations meant that the Express group as a whole stood out as by far the worst offender and as a result the lawyers took a look at it and advised Kate and Gerry they had a very strong case and that's why the Express group settled as quickly as they did.

    "For Mr Desmond to claim that Kate and Gerry were happy with the bulk of his newspaper's coverage, well, they weren't."

    Prime Minister David Cameron set up the Leveson Inquiry last July in response to revelations that the News of the World commissioned a private detective to hack murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler's phone after she disappeared in 2002.

    The first part of the inquiry, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, is looking at the culture, practices and ethics of the Press in general and is due to produce a report by September.

    The second part, examining the extent of unlawful activities by journalists, will not begin until detectives have completed their investigation into alleged phone hacking and corrupt payments to police, and any prosecutions have been concluded.


  57. Arrested detective asks to appear as Leveson Inquiry witness
    A former Scotland Yard detective arrested for allegedly making unauthorised leaks to a journalist has asked to appear as a key witness before the judicial inquiry into press standards.

    Dave Cook, a former chief superintendent, yesterday requested core participant status, which would enable him to cross-examine witnesses who appear before the Leveson inquiry.

    Mr Cook, 52, who now works for the Serious Organised Crime Agency, is understood to claim he encountered “obscene corruption” while working for the Metropolitan Police.

    He was questioned earlier this week by the Independent Police Complaints Commission over allegations that he leaked sensitive material to a journalist.

    Last year, it emerged that he had complained about being followed by the News of the World in 2003.

    Mr Cook reportedly told Rebekah Brooks, the paper’s then editor, that he was being followed at the request of Jonathan Rees, a private investigator who had worked for the tabloid.

    At the time, Mr Cook was investigating Mr Rees over the murder of another private investigator, Daniel Morgan, in 1987. The case against Mr Rees collapsed early last year.

    At the Leveson Inquiry yesterday, a lawyer for the Mail On Sunday accused Hugh Grant of not checking his facts before “smearing” the newspaper by claiming it had hacked into his phone.

    Liz Hartley said the actor was “leading a campaign against the media” and had made “serious allegations” based on “thin” evidence. Miss Hartley, the head of legal services at Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail, rejected several claims made by Mr Grant to the inquiry, including a suggestion that reporters had intercepted his voicemails. In an exchange with Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, she also said the company stood by its statement that Mr Grant’s evidence contained “mendacious smears”.

    The actor took exception to an article in the Mail on Sunday in 2007 which claimed that his relationship with his girlfriend had been harmed by alleged flirtatious phone calls with a “plummy-voiced” film executive in the US. He told the inquiry that the only woman who fitted the bill was an assistant to a friend in the US who rang him and left jokey messages, leading him to conclude that the MoS had listened to his voicemails.

    Miss Hartley said the Mail on Sunday had told Mr Grant last summer that the story came from a source close to his then girlfriend, Jemima Khan.

    The inquiry also heard from Peter Wright, the editor of the Mail on Sunday, who admitted that his newspaper had used a private investigator, Steve Whittamore, for 18 months after he was charged with using illegal means to obtain information.


  58. Richard Desmond plays down his papers' Madeleine McCann mistakes
    Express and Star owner apologises to toddler's parents at Leveson inquiry, but says his papers were 'scapegoated' by PCC

    Richard Desmond has tried to play down mistakes made by his newspapers over their defamatory coverage of missing Madeleine McCann at the Leveson inquiry.

    At one stage during his appearance at the inquiry on Thursday afternoon Desmond got out his pen and tried to calculate that the majority of news stories written by the four Express Newspapers titles about McCann's parents were not in fact defamatory – and then claimed that they were slow in any event to complain.

    The proprietor – the first owner to give evidence – apologised to Kate and Gerry McCann several times, but qualified his remarks as he did so. "I apologise again to the McCanns … but there are views about the McCanns and what happened," Desmond said, indicating that the public held a wide range of opinions about what happened to Madeline in Portugal.

    He added: "Every paper was doing the same thing, which is why every paper or most papers paid money to the McCanns. Only we were scapegoated by the ex-chairman of the PCC."

    He was challenged by Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, who reminded him that his newspapers had settled libel claims in respect of "38 articles" over a four-month period that he described as "most egregious". Desmond responded by trying to calculate how many articles the Daily Express would have published over that period – doing sums on his notepad to conclude that there would have been 102, or one a day over 17 weeks.

    Desmond continued: "I don't wish to justify it … and I'm not trying to win points here, but if there were 102 articles on the McCanns, and 38 bad ones … you could argue there were 65 or 70 good ones."

    Later he repeated the point, adding: "On your figure, we ran 102 articles for four months, nothing happened until a new firm of lawyers – who were on contingency [no win, no fee] – then came in to sue us."

    In March 2008, Richard Desmond's Northern & Shell paid out £550,000 to settle defamation claims in respect of more than 100 different articles that appeared in his Express and Star titles, publishing an unprecedented front-page apology in all his newspapers. At the time the published statement acknowledged that there was "no evidence whatsoever" to support the theory "the couple caused the death of their missing daughter Madeleine and then covered it up".

    (continues bellow)

  59. The media mogul also tried to compare the Madeleine McCann story to the death of Princess Diana, arguing that the articles were merely reflecting a strand of public opinion at the time, and that to some degree every newspaper was reporting on similar lines.

    As Desmond began, he was angrily interrupted by Jay, who said "there is no comparison between these two cases. In the case of Princess Diana we have a dead body" – to which the newspaper owner responded by saying "there has been speculation that Diana was killed by the royal family," adding his titles did "everything reasonable" to get the facts.

    Jay accused Desmond of "a grotesque mischaracterisation" of his newspapers' conduct. "Your paper was accusing the McCanns on occasion of killing their daughter – are you seriously saying they were quite happy than entirely anguished by your papers' bad behaviour?" he added.

    Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for the McCanns, said they would not be commenting personally, but added: "Mr Desmond's memory is apparently doing him a great disservice. For him to suggest that Kate and Gerry were happy with the Express Newspapers coverage, he must be living in a parallel universe."

    Mitchell added that Desmond's portrayal of the McCanns' reaction to his papers' coverage of their daughter's disappearance was "grotesque in the extreme". He said that the coverage, some of which was just "lies", had added to the suffering they endured.

    He also said Desmond was wrong to claim that the McCanns only took legal action after changing their legal team.

    Mitchell said they did not take legal action against Desmond's newspapers earlier "because they had more important things to do, like looking for their daughter". Mitchell said they also did not want to fall out with the media and only took legal action as a last resort.

    "The scale of the coverage in Express Newspapers' titles was so great that they felt something had to be done," he added.

    The media mogul – who owns the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, the Daily Star, the Daily Star Sunday and Channel 5 – also offered the unlikely argument that the Press Complaints Commission should be replaced by an "RCD committee", a reference to his own initials.

    Desmond took swipes at his rivals, describing the Daily Mail as the "Daily Malicious" and its editor, Paul Dacre, as "the fat butcher".

    Asked about his relationship with politicians, he described his first meeting with Tony Blair after buying newspapers in 2000, in which the two talked about "music and drums" before the then prime minister finally asked him which political party he supported.

    Desmond's often jokey and at times artless testimony lasted for an hour, following a day in which the editors of the Daily Express and Daily Star gave evidence, both of whom sought to explain what went wrong with their newspaper's coverage of the McCann affair and why the publisher walked out of the PCC as a result.



    #43 "They say the money they have spent on investigators has amounted to hundreds of thousands of pounds. No doubt, yet the actual amounts received by Metodo3 and Halligen was disputed by these characters as falling far short of what the McCanns said they actually gave them"

    Dear #43

    I enjoyed reading your provocative posting and I am inclined to agree with everything you wrote. I only find fault with the paragraph quoted above.


    You do not make reference to the money the McCanns' paid Dr. Aragao-Correia to try and discredit Dr. G. Amaral. Seemingly...

    Oh! I see, that may have been included in Metodo 3 handouts. Sorry! I need not have asked.

    :h I need to change my brain pacemaker batteries again....

  61. Joana at 54-58

    I particularly liked the bits when Desmond says:

    ""There has been speculation that Diana was killed by the royal family," he says.

    "The speculation has gone on and on. I don't know the answer."

    "I apologise again to the McCanns etc etc etc, but there are views about the McCanns and what happened," he adds.

    Jay points out that the logic of that argument is that the paper could write anything it liked.

    Desmond says he's not advocating that.

    4.33pm: Desmond tells the inquiry that if you agree that newspapers are important, then they should be allowed to report on opinions."

    His take on the Press Complaints Commission is equaly interesting and I have to agree with him on that too...

    ""Then to see the chairman of the PCC stand on BBC TV and vilify Peter Hill and Express Newspapers, that was the final straw.

    "I felt it (PCC) was a useless organisation who wanted tea and biscuits and phone hackers and was run by people that hated our guts, that wanted us out of business."


    Also Peter Hill's (editor)"special touch":

    "I felt that the stories should be published because there was reason to believe that they might possibly be true."


    Referring, of course, to some of the opinions held jointly by the PJ/British Police namely that the McCanns'may have "accidentally killed her daughter, then hide the fact and dispose of her body".

    :m No allegations made by this "IP", though.

  62. Where is at least one interview with the McCanns? Did they disappear for ever and ever?
    I wonder if they lost teir power. Certainly.
    I would like to see them with a towel around their heads, because they are flushing them every minute of the day, in the wc.
    I really can't wait.

  63. I believe the Met have difficulties to support the Portuguese police. Because they know the McCanns are innocent and they have to prove otherwise, to please David Cameron and Theresa May.
    That is behind the whole operation.
    Not nice and very dangerous to accuse innocent people.

  64. Obscene corruption at the Met according to David Cook. And Ian Hurst. What better force to carry out the Review?!

  65. Richard Desmond confirmed to the Leveson Inquiry that for four months the McCanns did nothing about stories published in the Star & Express. They didn’t make a single complaint to Express group, nor did they lodge a single complaint with the PCC.

    Clarence Mitchell says the McCanns had more important matters to attend to, such as searching for their daughter. That is a nonsensical comment given that the McCanns are suing Amaral on the grounds that his theory of accidental death hampers ‘The Search’ and no one will look for Madeleine if they believe she is dead. Similar theories appeared in the press (not just the Express) long before anyone had even heard of Amaral, & inarguably the media is a far more powerful influence on public opinion than Amaral will ever be, but the McCanns did nothing. Most of these articles were published in 2007 - the year Madeleine disappeared - much, much earlier than Amaral’s book which was not published until 14 months after her disappearance.

    By the McCanns own logic, if Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and Amaral hindered the search with his theory, then they must also believe that the media stories hindered the search - and at a more crucial period - yet they failed to employ any of the avenues of redress which they knew were available to them. Had they really believed the search was compromised would the McCanns have deliberately waited so long - surely they would have taken immediate action for their daughters sake? In the media’s case they waited four months before complaining. In Amarals case much longer - in fact, they left Madeleine languishing in that well reported lair for a whole year before taking action. If we are to believe the Mccanns reason for suing Amaral is genuine, then, by doing nothing in both instances, they contributed to hindering the search themselves (and in the early days too when there was a stronger possibility of finding their daughter). Doesn't that make them negligent in the search?

    Forget about the media & Amaral, as another poster pointed out it was the McCanns who hired crackpot Daniel Krugel to find Madeleine’s body. They’ve also hired a string of useless, dodgy detectives - that in itself must have damaged the search further. Dave Edgar, for instance, didn’t even bother to check out the Barcelona lead. Kevin Halligen spent his time in a Soho bar and is now in prison for fraud but they didn’t sue him for the £300k - ah well, it was only publicly donated money after all. And Metodo3 are still waiting for Xmas - isn’t their guy in prison for drug trafficking? Millions spent and not one of them has produced a genuine lead.
    And last, but not least, Kate McCann has never searched for her three-year-old - not even on the very night she went missing - that says something, doesn’t it? .

    The McCanns allowed the media stories to continue for as long as possible and only proceeded to take action against the scapegoat Express group - who are not popular with the rest of Fleet Street - in early 2008 out of necessity because otherwise, once the police files were released, they wouldn’t have received that big payout. Yes, there were ridiculous stories (some of which were highlighted at Leveson. Desmond is probably right, bet they loved those) but far more articles tallied with the police files. In Amarals case too, the McCanns waited as long as possible before taking action, ensuring thereby, that he had made the optimum amount from his book before pursuing him on the erroneous grounds that he hampered the search.

    All things considered, it seems much more plausible that the McCanns were waiting for an opportune moment to pounce on all those concerned and milk them for as much as they could get.


    Thanks Joana (#62-63) for the informative links...

  67. McCANNS' AND FRIENDS "DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH" (Magalhães e Meneses)

    In another of John Blacksmith's "award winning" articles...


    also at Nige's


  68. Is there a possibility the 'stand alone evidence' the PJ have will come into play at the forthcoming libel trial, and that the judge will order a viewing of it. If so, the McCanns may yet have to take the stand to do some explaining and not be allowed to sit this one out, and would indeed have shot themselves in the foot.

  69. I was reading through 'the Mc Cann File' today and on a particular picture we could see the Madeleine shrine at their home in Rotheley which includes a Terramundi money pot, and I was wondering if this is the place they keep Madeleine's ashes.

  70. @64 adding some relevant links regarding Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Cook and Army intelligence officer Ian Hurst

    News of the World surveillance of detective: what Rebekah Brooks knew

    Leveson inquiry: Ian Hurst says police involved in 'News of World cover-up' http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/28/leveson-inquiry-ian-hurst

    Army Intelligence Officer Makes Damning Allegations Against Corrupt Top Cops

    Daniel Morgan (private investigator) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Morgan_%28private_investigator%29

    Charges Could Be Brought In Infamous Murder

    DNA may solve killing that shamed Met

    Crimewatch detective who NoW 'spied on' arrested

  71. @ 65
    An excellent summary of the McCann libel strategy. IMO you are spot on with your assessment. Mr Desmond is not popular with the rest of Fleet street. Indeed, he is not popular with the British establishment period. The British establishment will therefore support anyone if they feel that by doing so it will damage Mr Desmond. Witness the sickening display of phoney outrage in support of the 'grieving' parents now appearing in the rest of the British press. This is the establishment's way of dealing with people it does not like. So much of the British press is pro establishment; their behaviour at the farcical Leveson inquiry is a good indication of this. But Desmond is a very rich man and not the kind to succumb to such tactics. In fact not the kind of man one should make an enemy of, particularly if one is hiding a big secret. IMO the 'grieving' parents will rue the day that they took the Express Group for half a million pounds.


    @ 53 "sorry but I keep asking this - does anyone know what happened to the Tanner/Murat court case?"

    Good question. I have often wondered about it myself. The last I heard from it was here in JM's blog. Please follow the hyperlink below.

    Miss Tanner, as you know, has since change her incriminating statement. See "BITS and BYTES" sub-title below.



    (Translated by Astro from "24 Horas" USA version available in Joana's blog)

    "In Portugal, facing the Portuguese and English policemen who followed the questioning and the first diligences, Tanner points at Robert Murat as being the man who she allegedly saw carrying a child, but during the interrogations in England, she completely changes her version and says that when Bob Small took her into a van from where she could observe Murat without being seen, “there was a car that passed at that moment and then two persons walked by”, which allegedly disturbed her and led her to identify the Anglo-British man by mistake."

    It would have been more credible if she had said: "I had had too much wine at breakfast to help me recover from the previous night's hangover. Err...my vision was rather blurred..."

    Incidentally, this is not just one of Miss Tanner "cabriolet" (convertible) statements by any means! Her surreal imagination elsewhere matches that of Salvador Dali. Indeed overtakes it.

    Notwithstanding, the PJ (or the powers that be in Portugal) allowed her to get away with it too...

    PS I am sure you and other readers of Joana's blog are well aware of these "small discrepancies" of Miss Tanner but just for the benefit of other readers that might not...

    "Turtle on Nikes"
    "TON" - for short...

  73. We keep talking and writing about the same issues, already for four years.
    Nearly no difference.
    We have to do what we can to find other jews.

  74. correction

    where you read "to find other jews"

    you should read

    "to find other news".

  75. @65 und @71:
    Agree with you.
    It would seem by now that this inquiry is basically a Kate and Gerry show. But it's so easy to see through: McCanns have business and other connections to Freud-Murdoch-Sun. The McCanns had personal contacts to Clement Freud and THE SUN serialized Kate McCann's book. So THE SUN's editor Dominic Mohan got a startlingly easy ride in his questioning. But to mess simultaneously with Express proprietor Richard Desmond is quite a risky game. But I find it really scary how the "maccanism" in this inquiry works! What is next? Halligen's appeal being accepted? Press conferences of the Met, waffling about new leads, insights, findings?

  76. I also keep wondering what has happened to Robert Murat's criminal complaint against Jane Tanner. I also keep wondering if the McCanns and their lawyer Isabel Duarte, are going to be brought to justice, for refusing to hand back those 7500 copies of Goncalo Amaral's book, "The Truth of the Lie".

    I read that they were in contempt of court when they didn't do as the Supreme Court Judge ordered and they were all facing fines or jail sentences of up to 5yrs.

    Unless the McCanns and Isabel Duarte have now complied with the Supreme Court Judge's order and the news has been kept out of the media.

  77. Ah... How poor Madeleine is a cash cow for the McCanns!


    T4Two at 71

    Good point. The establishment does not like those who do not have a full subscription of its ideology and, remember, the media is part of what Althusser called the Ideological State Apparatuses.

    In terms of ideological status, doctors along with lawyers and politicians not to mention media moguls, are high up in the pyramid; but status alone is not the sole issue here by any means.

    You also have to take into account unspoken, underlying ethnical prejudices of the kind voiced by Dr. G. McCann in the video above right (JM Home Page).

    "McCann's book injunction trial [which they lost], Recorded in Lisbon, February 10, 2010". Joana Morais "Home Page" video.

    Have a look at minute 1:30 to 1:53 of the clip (...)

    Dr. G. McCann is being asked by a Portuguese journalist "Gerry, who would you like to review it?"

    Gerry seems to ignore the question at first, but is obviously giving it some thought. Seconds later he turns to the journo and asks him to repeat the question. He then gives him a "politically correct" answer, which goes:

    "The most qualified people capable of doing it!(smile)

    Dr. McCann's well disguised smile gives away what he really meant. He is in a clever, subliminal way, discrediting the Portuguese investigation. Remember in terms of non-verbal communication, "a picture is worth a thousand words..."

    This case is, ultimately a case of British ideology against Portuguese ideology where British cultural hegemony is attempting to prevail - as usual...

    Those who see anything other than sympathy for the McCanns in David Cameron's decision (David Cameron representing the High Priest of British ideology) are fooling themselves.

    You have only to re-read the toffee PM's letter to get the gist of what Scotland Yard's review is up to.

    The review objective is to "prove" the abduction theory (unlikely) or at any rate throw doubt and denigrate the PJ investigation, thus protecting the doctors image and safeguarding British ideology and cultural hegemony.

    Whether the Portuguese judges are aware of it or not, that remains to be seen.

    So far, some low-grade Portuguese judges were incapable to see through the soap and couldn't help but shed tears for the poor professional rich couple and/or otherwise saw themselves as the "well behaved vassal of Her Majesty". Et amen.

    Naturally, this is quite an embarrassment for any Portuguese citizen with a modicum of IQ and knowledge of this case.

    Also, ask yourself why Dr. G. Amaral or Tony Tabloid aka Parsons where not invited to have their say on the Leveson enquiry? :a


    David Cameron's Response

    Dear Kate & Gerry,

    Thank you for your heartfelt and moving letter. Your ordeal is every parent's worst nightmare and my heart goes out to you both. I simply cannot imagine the pain you must have experienced over these four agonising years, and the strength and determination you have both shown throughout is remarkable.

    I am acutely aware of the frustration you must feel as more time goes by and yet no news is forthcoming. We discussed this when we met, but I realise that a further eighteen months have gone by since then. That you have been so courageous over all this time, and have not given up, speaks volumes.

    I have asked the Home Secretary to look into what more the Government could do to help Madeleine. She will be writing to you today, setting out new action involving the Metropolitan Police Service which we hope will help boost efforts in the search for Madeleine. I sincerely hope this fresh approach will provide the investigation with the new momentum that it needs.

    I know that everyone hopes and prays for a successful outcome, and our thoughts remain with you and your family. We will, of course, stay in close touch with you throughout.




    Says Parsons:

    Tweet: “What is hard to swallow about this enquiry on hacking is that wounded celebs appear to claim parity with the parents of murdered children.”

    Murdered children?

    What was he talking about now? Was he implying, the "boozy", "disgraceful", the "corpulent figure in an ill-fitting jacket", the "stupendously stupid", "boozy", "disgraced detective", was right then? :p Oh! Dear!

    May be he was just referring to one of the 140,000 children that disappear each year in the UK, one way or the other.


    Says Linehan in the FT:

    "Parsons is one of those celebrities who uses Twitter as a megaphone – patiently sharing their proclamations with the rest of us grateful proles – trying to impose an old media ethos on new media and looking quite comical as a result. Perhaps, if he used the service to connect with people, which is kiiiiiiiiinda the point, he might actually speak to some of the people whose lives have been ruined by the tabloid press and amend his views accordingly."



  80. 2C.6 alone or with other organisations seek to influence public opinion and make representations to and seek to influence governmental and other bodies and institutions

    Wot da hell is this soposed tu mean? You no going to nflunce me!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    In "The Observer" today...

    "In an exclusive extract from his powerful new polemic "You Can't Read This Book", the Observer columnist Nick Cohen presents a damning indictment of the English legal system, which far from being a defender of investigative journalism and freedom of speech, helps the world rich, famous and downright crooked to suppress inconvenient truths".

    "Democracy is Too Important to Be Left to Wealthy Lawyers" gives title to this feature, then at some stage examples are given. Take one...I presume you, could come up with other examples at hand but this is Mr. Cohen's...

    "Newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell plundered millions from his stall pension funds - but the heavy threat of of legal action against those peering into his business affairs prevented that from being revealed until after his death".

    (in "The Observer" paper edition of 15.01.2011 also on-line at:

    BY THE WAY...

    Tony Bennett (gagged associate of " The Madeleine Foundation" ) considers that "his right to free speech under the European Human Rights Convention was breached by the McCanns using the power of Britain's most expensive libel lawyers and Britain's notoriously draconian libel laws to silence his book '60 Reasons', and to attempt to stifle all debate about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

    The European Court of Human Rights is currently considering his application under "Reference 20455/10: BENNETT v. UK"."

    I suppose I have to agree with Mr. Bennett.

    :q Hands up those who disagree...can't see any from here....

    Quoted with kind, implicit permission of http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/the-madeleine-foundations-policy-in-commenting-on-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann/

  82. As it will be a criminal case against Jane Tanner, does this mean that she could be imprisoned if found guilty? If so, the stress must be enormous, as no doubt the prosecutor would not be bringing the case unless it was believed they have evidence against her that will stand up in court. If she knows what happened to Madeleine would she be allowed to plea bargain as happens in the US? I saw that Clarence Mitchell some time back was trying to do his bit on her behalf saying she never pointed out Murat, but he didn't sound convincing. If it can be proved she was never even there at the time she says she saw the bundle man she will be in trouble deep. Maybe there is video footage that can prove she was lying about doing a check at that time.

  83. I don't believe the PJ sent all the samples to England. They must have kept some for themselves. They knew the McCanns were very much protect by politicians at that time. I hope they have Madeleine's hair (with roots) and I hope they could see that she used sleeping pills. I also hope there were fibres of the pinky blanket in the car.No reason to drive around with her blanket.I wonder what Amaral meant by saying "there are things in the files that will not please the McCanns".Could fibres have DNA, if the corpse was wrapped in it, after the exhumation, and transported to another place? She could have been frozen after have being wrapped in it.

  84. I wonder if Nick Cohen mentions Carter Ruck by name in his book. I'll find out when it arrives.
    Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian. previously at The Times, speaks of the McCann test at the Leveson hearings! Obviously firmly on their side.

  85. @ 80 "no doubt the prosecutor would not be bringing the case unless it was believed they have evidence against her that will stand up in court."

    There is seemingly and some of it is provided by Dr. Amaral...

  86. :m FAX THE JUDGE (item 1)

    Ref: The forthcoming McCanns versus Dr. Amaral trial.

    "Liberal judges do not have the instinctive democratic belief that citizens in open societies should be free to argue without restraint.

    Instead, they think they have a duty to intervene in open arguments, invariably on the wrong side.

    They subvert the right to freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, sanctified by custom in Britain and enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights, as they try to create a journalism that never runs the risk of provoking the anger of the wealthy."

    Nick Cohen in "You Can't Read This Book"



    "The imperialism of the English judiciary, its belief that it could punish books whose connection to England was virtually non-existent, finally made the world wake up to the danger London posed to freedom of speech. American writers, from leftists to neocons, realized that the availability of books on the net was overriding their constitutional rights.

    English law "constitutes a clear threat to the ability of the US press vigorously to investigate and publish news and information about the most crucial issues before the US public", said a coalition of American publishers.

    England was organizing "book burnings" added a Republican senator, not entirely hyperbolically, because chastened publishers withdrew defamatory books from the shelves and pulped them.

    (Think the recent "carter-rucking" or "Mac-hanization" of Pat Brown by Amazon, the gagging of Tony Bennett and Dr. Amaral, newspaper pay-outs to the McCanns limited company, etc.)

    Rory Lancman, a stout member of the New York Public Library and began campaigning to make English verdicts unenforceable in America with a magnificent speech:

    "When American (and Portuguese!) journalists and authors can be hauled into kangaroo courts on phoney-baloney libel charges in overseas jurisdictions who don't share our belief in freedom of speech of a free press," he said, "all of us are threatened"

    in "You Can't Read This Book" by Nick Cohen

    Praise for Nick Cohen's work:

    ‘Exceptional and necessary’ (Christopher Hitchens, Sunday Times)

    Forcefully argued and powerfully memorable’ (Philip Hensher, Spectator)

    ‘Carried off with wit, verve and considerable literary skill and compassion’ (Peter Oborne, Observer)

    ‘Powerful, angry, forensically argued’ (James Delingpole, Mail on Sunday)

    ‘A sanitary corrective to a lot of woozy undirected sympathy swilling around…this book said it all’ ( Martin Amis, Sunday Times)

  88. @81 "Dan Sabbagh of The Guardian. previously at The Times, speaks of the McCann test at the Leveson hearings! Obviously firmly on their side."

    Thanks for the detail @81. You're probably right about the "obviously firm on their side" but what one has also to bear in mind is that he may have been frightened by the giant, threatening foxes down the alley (Carter & Ruck).

    I particularly liked the byte he quotes Clarence "Mickey Mouse" Mitchell spinning faster than a widow spider (Latrodectus) and I quote along with some passing comments of my own:

    "Mitchell added that Desmond's portrayal of the McCanns' reaction to his papers' coverage of their daughter's disappearance was "grotesque in the extreme".

    Grotesque? That was a bit of an overstatement, right?

    "He said that the coverage, some of which was just "lies", had added to the suffering they endured".

    Some of which. Not all of which. Fair enough.

    "He also said Desmond was wrong to claim that the McCanns only took legal action after changing their legal team."

    It may well have been but I have my doubts...

    "Mitchell said they did not take legal action against Desmond's newspapers earlier "because they had more important things to do, like looking for their daughter"

    We know they were busy looking for her. Very much like they did the night she disappeared into the night leaving "Eddie" and "Keela" barking behind...


    "Mitchell said they also did not want to fall out with the media."

    Of course not. Not until they had their PR apparatus in place. Or perhaps they were nervously waiting for prosecutor Magalhães Menezes last words? Which in fact turned out to be some kind "automatic writing" channelled from Above and/or from across the Channel.

    "And only took legal action as a last resort."

    That is, provided the offending parties had a million or so to spare - "Mickey Blue Eyes" forgets to add.

    "The scale of the coverage in Express Newspapers' titles was so great that they felt something had to be done," he added.

    Too many people were being influenced away from the McCanns' "official version" of events, right? Same is happening right now with the "PJ Files"... so, what's happening? Why don't they sue. Waiting for the prestigious testimony of Scotland Yard?

    Perhaps they think there isn't enough money in Portugal for a pay-out? "Mickey Mouse" is probably right on this count. The country is bankrupted and it will be in worst shape if the Portuguese judge next month allows the McCanns to get away with the heist.

    My advise is for the Portuguese to lock them up instead - on the grounds of abandoning their children to their fate or perverting the course of justice.


    Hi Dandelion. Good to hear from you. "I also keep wondering if the McCanns and their lawyer Isabel Duarte, are going to be brought to justice"

    Me too, but the thing to remember is that Madame Isabel is high up in the legal hierarchy in Portugal along with her kick-side Rogerio Alves (ex-"bastonario"). The Law does not work the same way for all. It works better for some, as you know. Money talks and status helps...

    Interesting to note in this context that one of the McCanns' lawyers in Portugal - Rogério Alves, Isabel Duarte side-kick, has been accused of using money from the extinct Independent University (UI) in Lisbon to finance his election to president of the Portuguese Bar Association(Lawyers).

    Mind you, I don't know if he has been tried for that and/or if it was just a false accusation, as he claimed at the time. The last I heard from him was here (news article with photo). Will need Google translator to get the gist of the Portuguese original.


  90. Joana, where is da money from the book deal? Wasn't the book supposed to have been written to finance the search for Maddie? I don't see the millions here. May be that was just a little private affair not a company's affair. The corruption has started, some might say.

  91. Has anyone found the connections between McCann and Jay and Leveson ?

    Are Murdoch (Rupert and Elisabeth), Freud, Mitchell, Brooks(Wade) and Coulson involved at all?

    I am sure that there are links as Leveson's bias towards the McCanns is all too obvious.

  92. I read on the Missing Madeleine forum that Goncalo Amaral's lawyer Antonio Cabrito, no longer wishes to represent him. I have read the same on the "Regrets and Rambling forum".

    Can Joana, Astro or one of their team, please tell me if this is true, or if it is a rumour. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this is just a rumour.

  93. Greetings to All!

    A little snippet in the Enquiry.

    Carter Ruck, those of the all-work-no-pay ethics (inquit TM) have just now been fingererd by good mr. Desmond as being ON A CONTINGENCY FEE.

    CONTINGENCY. FEE. Please let this information sink in.

    This means, that they are on a percentage, a cut, of everything they rake in on behalf of their clients.

    As in: pound 550.000 (Express) and/or -how much again was it that the good Tapasniks 'won' thru CRs able ministrations? At a fee of -say 30-50%- that would make them a mint, wouldn't you agree?

    So why did mr Jay and the judge cut mr Desmond short, tried to prevent this astounding information being repeated and made public?

    Look at the videos, read the transcript: CR are ON CONTINGENCY FEE.


    CR have a stake in what they rake in from the remains of Madeleine Beth McCann. They benefit.

    Sorry CR: this what mr. Desmonds statement amounts to. Have you Carter Rucked him yet?

    And ms Duarte? Has she been promised a cut of the pound of flesh TM are expecting to extract from GA?

    With bile gurgling between her few remaining teeth:

  94. 8.3 the Directors reasonably believe he or she is suffering from mental disorder and incapable of acting and they resolve that he or she be removed from office,

    He or she? What does it mean? The McCanns? Please clarify.

  95. "2C.15 lend money and give credit to, take security for such loans or credit and guarantee or give security for the performance of contracts by any person or company"

    What kind of APR %? Argos' is 29,9% as a term of comparison. What other financial products does their company offer? Pawnbroking? Savings accounts? Please clarify...

    :h Sue McNamara

  96. 2E. "Every member of the Foundation undertakes to contribute a sum not exceeding £1 to the assets of the Foundation"

    £1 only? That's cheap! I smell a rat.

    Fine then. I will contribute with 20 pence just for the sake of brushing shoulders with the rich and famous. Wait, no! I hate the possibility of sharing membership with Rosiepopps and her smelly entourage of street cleaners. No thanks.

    :h Sue McNamara

  97. I take my hat off, doff it to all those people who know that we have a group of bored middle/upper classes who like to swing, a small group of nonces within, someone being high up on the social ladder - the one that seems to be protected.

    Who seems to have very good connections

    The one who the McCanns thought it convenient to blame, because they could, because no one knew any different.

    Weirdly, I feel sorry for that person, they've been taken for a ride. Conveniently.

    As much as the nonce probably deserve it, the McCanns are trixters and I hope, really hope, they get everything they are due.

    Life, funny old business, those fists Kate, those tits Gerry, domestics can cause such a lot of trouble....

  98. Sorry! Not Rosiepopps! The well-bred, intellectual lady from the council estates with the pink website.

    What was I thinking? Raisa Popov - former KGB agent, charity donor, madame to the super rich and now house cleaner in Venice? That's what I was reading. My mind went off on a tangent there. Sorry Rosie, don't pop out just yet! :o


    49. Subject to the Act but without prejudice to any indemnity to which a Director may otherwise be entitled, every Director or other officer of the Foundation shall be indemnified out of the assets of the Foundation:

    49.1 against all costs charges expenses or liabilities incurred by him or her:

    Against all costs, charges, expenses or liabilities incurred by him or her. How do they mean? Dr. Gerry McCann? or Dr. Kate McCann?

    Does this mean that if the couple get hammered by Dr. Amaral in court next month, The Fund will have to pay both costs and the counter-defamation bills which are bound to arrive sooner or later?

    I mean...elderly people who have been taking money off their pensions to donate to The Fund thinking the money was being spent searching for the poor/rich little girl, pay the Rent-a-Cops, feeding the sniffer dogs, etc. will feel cheated! It is not fair, I think.

    :h Sue McNamara

    PS My unbiased review will continue tomorrow.


    Joy vanished into Britain's child-sex trade - why aren't we looking for her?

    A terrifying report, by Mark Townsend, on the immigrant girls vanishing into Britain's sex trade



    The British, along with the Americans,have come up with a blueprint initiative, a child rescue system of sorts, already pioneered in Europe and already in place in Portugal - IAC (Instituto de Apoio a Criança).

    Unlike the dubious Madeleine's Fund Ltd. this is a non-profit making organization. Well, we trust it is.


    Talking about funds. May be it is time to donate to "Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms – Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral", non? To help "Big Rock" face the powerful, multi-million prosecuting team of the McCanns' posse.

  101. I think the night of the 1st May and the crying heard by Mrs Fenn should be reinvestigated. The McCanns have been keen to make out it was the following night that Madeleine was referring to when she mentioned the crying, (if she ever did), when Mrs Fenn categorically says the crying she heard was the night before that. Why the need for the McCanns to shift the crying to the following night and the comment supposedly made the next morning? As for the night of the crying heard by Mrs Fenn (who had no need to lie, and also called her friend about the crying going on at the time so it can be verified), where were all the members of the Tapas group that night.

    Was that the night Kate had the argument with Gerry because he had been paying attention to somebody else? If so, where did Kate go to make those phone calls she made after she left the Tapas early? Were the calls made to Gerry? It has been said that according to phone traces made she was there in the apartment all the time of the crying. If so, why the crying for so long, and why no comfort for Madeleine? Why the change then to the louder, more intense 'Daddy', 'Daddy' heard by Mrs Fenn. Why the immediate stopping of the noise when the patio door was opened and somebody came in, or went out? Why the need for the McCanns to persuade everybody that Madeleine was never called 'Maddie', when obviously she was. Why did Kate attempt to put down Mrs Fenn in her book?

    Does everything else regards the subsequent actions of the McCanns stem from that night? Was this night of the 1st May and the movements of various people ever investigated to the full, or was a successful diversionary tactic put in place to the night of the 3rd May when Madeleine was reported missing? If so, it has worked because people still concentrate on that night only and away from the night of the crying/screaming heard by Mrs Fenn.

    This investigation should be reopened as a potential murder investigation and start from the night of the crying heard by Mrs Fenn so as to track down the movements then of the various people surrounding Madeleine who were on that holiday.

    Can it be PROVED that Madeleine really was alive following the night of the 1st May?

    What did happen to the fridge that David Payne said had broken down in the McCanns holiday apartment where the blood and cadaver dogs alerted? The McCanns did not mention the fridge when asked directly about items needing repair in the apartment? Why not, if David Payne was telling the truth about this? Did they replace it themselves and not get it repaired? If so, why?

  102. 2C.29 provide indemnity insurance to cover the liability of the Directors which by virtue of any rule of law would otherwise attach to them in respect of any negligence, default, breach of trust or breach of duty of which they may be guilty in relation to the Foundation.

    I found this one rather confusing and had to ask my neighbour Mabel about it. She has been to grammar school. Here is what Mabel told me: "they are already covering their ar**s in case the authorities find the fund is a con..."

    Could it be? Indemnity insurance?

    "Wake up dear! They have already covered their backsides not just in case the fund is found to be fraudulent but also in case they loose any of their fireworks litigations such as the one versus Amaral", Mabel said.

    " 49. Subject to the Act but without prejudice to any indemnity to which a Director may otherwise be entitled, every Director or other officer of the Foundation shall be indemnified out of the assets of the Foundation:

    49.1 against all costs charges expenses or liabilities incurred by him or her

    I don't know what to think. Could Mabel be right? I start not to trust my doctor! It is the third time in three visits that he checks me for breast cancer and other, plumbing, anomalies. He takes his time too. Rats!

    :h Sue McNamara

  103. Hey! I have just broke into Mac's office at "Rotten Tomatoes"!

    Several filing cabinets; papers of all sorts on the floor. Don't know where to start.Pink an yellow triplicate sheets off of invoices and suchlike.
    One from Avis for a 3.5-ton long base Transit an another from A1A Wheels for a 7,5 tonner with a tail lift. Then a big blue invoice from a Myers & Son Butchers Sundriesman: 20 aprons @ £423,43; 300 rolls of heavy duty packing tape @123.50; Epelsa dual scale (lbs/kilos) digital scale @ 462.00.
    After that haulage haulage receipts from Tilbury Electricals. A letter of credit from a certain J.F. Kennedy - sounds like a late US president look-alike. The tacho disk off of a truck with the speed and timin for some run or another. Clip to it is more receipts, some them foreign, for coffee, breakfast and all that. Then a bill of lading. Complicated.
    Then a letterhead page with a little aeroplane logo: Escuela Lliriana de Vuelo Libre y Parapente. Very fuckin complicated. There is a list of names attach to it. Peter Payne and others. Opposites theres a rota. 3 names over 12 months. Gunther Van Doude. Yuri Zamyatin, Joachim Hernandez.
    Between all this theres (there was!) 2 transparent plastic sleeves, with about 10,000-Euro bills in each - all in my camouflaged back pack now.

    From where I am looking all this is only a secretary short of the British Empire!



    Didn't you know? I have just done that. My question was: "Why, so far, in the context of the McCann family dilemma has not Mr. Tony Parsons and others invited to explain the highly prejudiced and defamatory views they expressed against the Portuguese ambassador, the Portuguese people in general, its Judicial Police (PJ) and, above all, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral - the coordinator of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

    Could it be because unless someone is a British citizen s/he has no rights or for that matter is not susceptible of offence? Please clarify.

    For an appreciation of the breadth and width of the defamatory campaign against Dr. G. Amaral alone, led by the British press, please follow the hyperlink below:


    Yours sincerely

    Please make your own views known to the Leveson enquiry, by e-mailing it here:


  105. THIEVES

    Hi Dandellion (74) "wondering if the McCanns and their lawyer Isabel Duarte, are going to be brought to justice, for refusing to hand back those 7500 copies of Goncalo Amaral's book, "The Truth of the Lie".".......

    I doubt.... They are above the law.......... I was just trying to order Amaral's book A Verdade da Mentira (I have the pirate copy but I would like to support his cause by buying his books)and I found Maddie is not available.......... suggesting perhaps the McCanns' lawyers (Isabel & Rogerio) refused to release the books in defiance of the high court judges.

    They knew Mr. Amaral did not have the resources to fight them........... They make sure of that by freezing his assets and apprehending all of his properties including his home - this, before any court decision! The mind boggles............ To my knowledge none of the McCanns assets have been frozen....... one reason perhaps Amaral decided to divorce his wife to save his children future........... This is why some people say they (MCs) are real criminals............ The truth is if you don't have money or political connections you don't have justice which is why revolutions happen now and then.........


    A Verdade da Mentira
    de Gonçalo Amaral
    Edição/reimpressão: 2008
    Páginas: 224
    Editor: Editora Guerra & Paz
    ISBN: 9789898174123
    Coleção: Verdade e Consequência
    Esgotado ou não disponível. (SOLD OUT OR NOT AVAILABLE)

  106. Why didn't Leveson summon Clarence Mitchell to put an end to the Punch and Judy show between himself and Myler? Myler said stories were run past Mitchell; Mitchell denies it.
    What could possibly have prevented Mitchell from appearing in PERSON and swearing on oath?

  107. Dandellion @74 - check these out:



  108. #81 "I wonder if Nick Cohen mentions Carter Ruck by name in his book."

    Read this:



    We should expect a powerful PR/Media offensive by the McCanns' just around the time of the trial (9th February). I guess Joana Morais and Astro are right to give themselves a break and "close for business" until then. Until something truly dramatic happens.

    Come February, remember to tighten up your seat belts! I will be back then to see if my prediction has come true (pre-trial McCanns/Scotland Yard related PR/Media fireworks) and of course, to see the greedy McCanns' crash out.

    February it's pay time for child neglecters!

    Let's face it, a just, pro-Amaral decision in both cases, would bring this case to a satisfactory conclusion. There would be then two "official" views of what happened on the planet. Customer choice is good for business.


    Byyye now!
    Mystic Mario, Ltd.

  110. reading Camero's letter again, it is clear he is NOT supporting those awful parents.
    absolutely every word can be taken as meaning 2 different things. If the mcCanns read it, they will see what they wat to see, support in their "serrch" but we can read it how it is meant, totally tongue in cheek. meaning: "congratulations on keeping up this pretence for so long, that must be very exhausting and stressfull. I'm looking forward to getting to the truth - (and we all know what that is don't we)"
    he says he "wants to help MADELEINE", not the parents, and "find where she is (buried)".
    absolutely nowhere in the letter does he even HINT at an abduction, or even a "missing" child, nor does he talk about any sightings or leads. and every parent's worse nightmare must be accidently (or otherwise) KILLING their child, which is precisely what Cameron must mean.

    aunty Anti


    Dandellion "I read on the Missing Madeleine forum that Goncalo Amaral's lawyer Antonio Cabrita, no longer wishes to represent him."

    Ignore it! This seems to have come from one of the McCanns' "ghost" websites dedicated to counter-information, that is to promote the McCanns' "official" version of events, as it were.

    It originated (seemingly) from a website appropriately called "REGRETS" - as in "I regret having slapped her that hard and..." or " I regret I left the children alone, night after night until..." "I regret not having spread pepper all around the apartment to confuse the sniffer dogs", et cetera...

    REGRETS AND RAMBLINGS, it is called...ramblings as in "lacking a coherent plan; diffuse and disconnected".

    Have a look and judge for yourself. Mind the links! They are all misleading. It also gives you an idea of how gullible they think people are - Jeeesus!


  112. In todays press there has been no mention of any money paid to Mccans by the NOTW Mr Cameron should stop Mccanns from collecting money and telling lies.they and Mitchell are involved with crooks we dont believe they are doctors and collect money for what they did to Madeleine,that poor girl.If Mr Cameron wants to straighten out the country then he should stop them making money in this way like crooks do and open the case to get the truth out. U.Germany.

  113. If Madeleine had died before the night she was reported missing, perhaps there is somebody out there who had seen or heard something suspicious at an earlier date, yet on hearing Madeleine was still alive at that time (when actually she was far from it), they had simply discarded it as not being connected to missing Madeleine. Maybe there is somebody who holds the key to all this, and they do not even realise it.

    The McCanns appear to be close to all those who vouch for Madeleine being alive prior to her reported disappearance, even those who worked in the creche. Can these people really be classed as independent witnesses?


    The Reverend Nims Obunge, an adviser to the Met, accused Scotland Yard of conducting a "whitewash".

    Is that unusual? I wondered...


  115. Perhaps helping Amaral it became too heavy and tiring for lawyer Cabrita.
    I know he has been seriously ill longer ago, he got better but he could feel very tired, maybe.

  116. Anon 112 "have the McCanns PR campaign fired its first salvo?"

    Good point @112 but whether this info. should be dismissed as "just PR", I am not so sure.

    I mean, if "regretsandrumblings" is managed by someone working for The McCanns' or by the MCs themselves, then there is a possibility that the rumour is true, because if this was the case, the McCanns' would be among the first to know - via their Portuguese solicitors Isabel Duarte or Rogerio Alves (my assumption). These would then have informed the McCanns and,or Lift Consulting (the Portuguese PR agency working for the McCanns (*)and the info then passed on to their PR department specializing on the Internet (my inference).

    Wait! My deduction may be wrong after all. The Portuguese press (or bona fide bloggers such as Joana and Astro) would have nosed on it just as easily and they have not, so you may be right after all. It is PR.

    I run a "Who Is" query on the website name "http://regretsandrumblings.com". The query reveals the site is owned by http://www.launchpad.com. Launchpad.com turns out to be a hosting service. They make clear "privacy protection" is part of their hosting service :d

    Registrar: LAUNCHPAD.COM, INC.
    Whois Server: whois.launchpad.com
    Referral URL: http://www.launchpad.com
    Name Server: NS2915.HOSTGATOR.COM
    Name Server: NS2916.HOSTGATOR.COM
    Status: clientTransferProhibited
    Updated Date: 16-jun-2011
    Creation Date: 16-jun-2011

    (*) By the way, any attempt to Google out "Lift Consulting" (PT) and access this for "details" will be fruitless. They are already in "Self-defence" mode - seemingly... :d

    A minor detail: if you visit this McCann "ghost" website, you will notice (photos) a photo of a Portuguese Water Dog by the name of "Bo" (Barack Obama dog's name)? BO also stands for "body odour". Latin peoples are often referred to by English and Americans as "sweaty dagos" (derogatory)

    Without wishing to read too much into the symbolism of it - I am not Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, I suspect BO could be "shorthand" for Gonçalo Amaral. You see in PR, very much as in hypnosis, subliminals are of critical importance for "induction".

    :j Bolinhas

  117. Mrs Fenn would have made a brilliant witness unfortunatly to the mccanns joy she died.....along with eddie and keela, the irishman, the gaspers they would now be in jail had it not been for pm brown who's brother andrew was holidaying with them interfered with all the evidence, instead we have an innocent man who's life has been destroyed, get behind mr amaral and let all know who the real liars are.


    Still on the subject of this new McCanns' ghost site. I just had a look. It is misinformation alright.

    They have a screenshot with a reference to Gonçalo Amaral Defence Fund.



    The important point they raise (spinning) is that of Antonio Cabrita (Dr. Amaral's lawyer) having charged 2000 Euros only for his services so far, suggesting perhaps Carter-Ruck fees are similar. I mean, even if you were an old pensioner on a diet you would not grudge much about the McCanns using £1000 or two to groom their tarnished image.

    The problem is, Carter-Ruck does not charge "charity rates" or are as kind hearted as Dr. Cabrita.

    Carter-Ruck charges a cool *£750/hour - and this were their 2004 rates! Eight years on they are probably charging twice as much.

    In my perception this website is another way for the McCanns to (mis)inform the public about how much money the McCanns are squandering from the "Fund" for their legal, image bleaching stunts instead of looking for Madeleine as they never tire of saying.

    With Carter-Ruck charging £750/£1500 per hour this gives you an idea of the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands pounds they have squandered from the "Fund" for vengeance/bleaching operations. It must be a staggering figure. What's more, it is all legal.........

    " 49. Subject to the Act but without prejudice to any indemnity to which a Director may otherwise be entitled, every Director or other officer of the Foundation shall be indemnified out of the assets of the Foundation:

    49.1 against all costs charges expenses or liabilities incurred by him or her"




    "Clarence Mitchell, who is representing Costa Cruises, said: "Mr Foschi confirmed the captain had been approaching the island of Giglio to 'make a salute'.

    A rather stupid witness statement to chose when you consider the tragedy happened during the night. If it was during the day may be BUT, it wasn't! Salute to what? To the bats?

    It makes you wonder if Jane Tanner may have given her famous egg-man, chameleon testimony under "professional guidance". Jeeesus!

    We can already sense the same racist argument being applied here. The captain was another boozy, stupid Latin, you see. :h



    My younger daughter named the dog "Bo" as short for "bone". I don't know the reason about other Bo's but this was hers.

  121. What about if Dr. Cabrita no longer represents Dr. Amaral?...............

    Gonçalo is a lawyer himself besides not much of a defence will be required...... The appeal judges decision is most likely to be respected and upheld.........I know the great honourable Isabel Duarte has challenged it.....indeed disrespected the judge's decision...naughty girl....but ultimately she is not a judge.......... she is just a well-to-do, expensive lawyer who, some piri-piri tongues have described as "A Judas who sold her country to the British"...... people can be harsh! Dr. Isabel Duarte a Judas? Wearing a fur coat? Come on! The next thing you will hear is that the McCanns have bought the judge. Well.... if we leave aside the wise, seasoned, appeal judges, the others certainly looked as if they were working for a certain Limited Company but........... it could easily have been incompetence......take erm....wot's her name?.... she looked like a daddy's girl just out of law school..... anxious to please the celebrity couple...."she should not have been in a court for adults!" some wrote....piri-piri tongues....

    Anyway, good luck to Dr. Amaral....... may the Portuguese constitution be upheld............but please try to be more diplomatic next time.......forget about human rights and the European Union..... Portugal is a colony of Britain.... Remember that....


    #120 - The important point they raise (spinning) is that of Antonio Cabrita (Dr. Amaral's lawyer) having charged 2000 Euros only for his services so far -

    Joana Morais wrote something about this back in 2009. The figure is much, much higher! You may need the help of a translator (Google) if you can't read Portuguese. Here it is:

    "Caro(a) Anónimo, Gonçalo Amaral só tem um advogado, o Dr. António Cabrita que não está a defender o Gonçalo Amaral pro bono como foi noticiado erradamente no tablóide "24 Horas".

    As custas e taxas judiciais são indexadas ao valor de 1,2 milhões de Euros, o que significa que os valores das custas só para enfrentar a injunção que proibiu o livro 'Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira' de ser vendido o próprio autor de falar sobre o que consta no mesmo, nunca serão 6 000 euros, o número aproxima-se mais dos 40. 000 euros e só para esta fase.

    A acção principal terá custos ainda mais elevados que nenhum cidadão Português reformado consegue sustentar, daí termos criado no PJGA uma conta de solidariedade de forma a que o Gonçalo Amaral possa defender-se em Tribunal.

    Peço-lhe para ler 'Perguntas Frequente' http://pjga.blogspot.com/2009/12/perguntas-frequentes.html onde encontrará mais informações sobre este assunto.

    Obrigada, melhores cumprimentos

    Joana Morais


    Joana Morais, if I understood correctly, was talking about 40,000 Euros (£32,234) so far (2009). She also points out that the figure for the final phase is much, much higher as taxes and other costs are charged in proportion to the damages, that is the Euro 1,2 million (around £1 million) demanded by the McCanns'.

    Now, add to that the fact that all of G. Amaral properties and assets have been frozen by the McCanns in anticipation for a decision in their favour - approximately £1 million.

    How the Portuguese justice system allowed this claim to go to court in the first place and then effectively preventing the accused from defending himself by freezing all his assets beggars belief. This is a case for the European Court of Human Rights. Surely.

  123. @118 - any attempt to Google out "Lift Consulting" (PT) and access this for "details" will be fruitless.

    God damn it you were right! Lift Consulting website has gone stealth!

    Oops! Google Chrome could not find www.lift.com.pt
    Try reloading: www.­lift.­com.­pt
    Additional suggestions:
    Access a cached copy of www.­lift.­com.­pt
    Search on Google:

  124. Regrets & Ramblings belongs to someone called Bren. This person ran the 3 Arguidos, then the New Arguidos or whatever it was called. The person then went on with a site called Headlines Today (Dreams of doing a Huffington Post?) before opening the present site. Once a passionate supporter of Amaral the PJ and search for the truth- now a passionate supporter of the McCanns. Obviously has a problem finding the right image; has what Germans commonly refer to as a 'Profil Neurose' perhaps? Not an official McCann site or ghost site.

  125. 119, Mrs. Fenn seems to have a son. It is possible that she told him more than she told the police. I think she could have been the first one who suspected that Madeleine was dead.

  126. Why aren't the McCanns showing up on a paper or new videos?
    They are again running away from the media.
    I would love to see how great they look now after the Scotland Yard got involved in the investigations.

  127. There are some peculiar comments on Textusa, about the tea stain on Maddie's pyjamas.

  128. Lawyer Cabrita not working for Amaral? (Probably health questions? Last year a McCanns' libel something had to be delayed because of the Mexican flu, I think Cabrita had it or was not allowed to get it.)

    What happened to Dr. Carlos Pinto de Abreu, Rogério Alves, both McCanns' lawyers?

  129. If Carter Ruck charges 750 an hour, it will finish the fund's money.
    It take hours for Kate to go straight to the point, at any issue. Besides, a lot of erms erms.

  130. 121. the captain tried to salute the McCanns.


    #Dandellion 74 - "wondering if the McCanns and their lawyer Isabel Duarte, are going to be brought to justice, for refusing to hand back those 7500 copies of Goncalo Amaral's book, "The Truth of the Lie"

    Madame Duarte said she would not hand the books "unless I am forced". I think these are her own words.

    A rather anti-McCann source who has been following this case from the very beginning, clarified:

    "She first froze all of Amaral's properties and assets to ensure her clients would, if it came to that, walk away with an heist of £1 million - thus effectively cornering, indeed destroying Amaral for contradicting the McCann's "official version" of events...."

    "...by doing so, she also prevented him from hiring a team of defence lawyers, thus facilitating Madame Isabel's task...."

    "...moreover, by doing so the McCanns' left Amaral's wife and daughters without proper means of sustenance therefore imposing considerable stress on the family. Predictably enough, the couple has since split...(quote/unquote)

    The truth is, "the official version" of events - which the couple never tires of spinning is nonetheless two-fold, thus

    (1) We have on the one hand, the preliminary, somewhat inconclusive view of the investigators themselves, those "in the know", which goes:

    " It is not possible to obtain a solid and objective conclusion about what really happened that night" (Inspector João Carlos/PJ Files)

    "Solid and objective..." does not that there are not less solid and objective reasons such as witness contradictions, falsely accusing others (Murat) and critically the forensic dogs barks and sniffs. All of which are discretely highlighted in the PJ files.

    (2) And on the other hand, the view of the "politically pressurized" bureaucrats on the desk (and those above and/or across the channel) whose word was final (The Republic's prosecutors Magalhães e Menezes and Melchior Gomes).

    Their views were:

    "There are no indications of the practise of any crime..."

    This is a less subjective and some would argue "lenient" view, particularly bearing in mind the McCanns' were not found guilty of abandoning their children to their fate, is spite of a conspicuously (open)access to the apartment from a public road, the fact Ocean Club had child minding facilities and Ms. Pamela Fenn (neighbour) witness statement.

    It is on the second "bureaucratic", provisory statement (excerpt above) that the McCanns' rely on to assert "there is no evidence whatsoever that Madeleine came to any harm" but...

    ... they ommit another passage of the same PJ document that goes: "nor even...to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely" (M.M & M.G. archiving dispatch)


    I am rather curious to see how the judge is going to swallow the "rationale" that the facts of the investigation are defamatory and the publication of G. Amaral expert opinion in a book, hinders the "search for Madeleine".

    It is in fact the speculation, the controversy, if anything else, that has kept Madeleine in the news and her memory very much alive.

    "The McCanns' are not after Madeleine. Obviously. They are after something else. Isn't that obvious" - my source added.

    Madame Isabel Duarte is in my opinion a brilliant lawyer even if I don't quite see how she has managed to get away with her legal exploits - surely it takes a very dumb judge to swallow her menthol pastilles.

    As a rather naughty anonymous wrote recently:

    "I can almost see the Madame, a modern day Lucrezia Borgia, in a tight black leather outfit, her long whip thrashing a gagged, defenceless inspector on the bloody floor."

    I wonder who was he/she referring to... :o


  132. 115, I thought of this too but I changed my mind. I believe Maddei died on the evening of the 3rd, between 6.00pm and 6.30 or 6.40pm, immediately before Payne arrived. Those 30, 40 minutes were a window of opportunity for the person who caused the death. It was not Payne, I believe he has nothing to do with the death, but I believe he was the first to see the girl was dead, even before Gerry was back to the apartment.Maybe he tried resuscitation, maybe not. And I don't believe she died of some pills, too short time for a fatal effect and pills don't cause any bleeding.
    Gerry always use the same slogan: "we can not change it".In this case, there was no Tapas 10, 11, etc that evening because it was too risky asking for help. But there was a burial.I believe some Tapas helped him to bury the body
    on the beach, using a spade they probably found on the street where workers were working, in front of the resort. It is possible that the PJ know if the workers missed any spade. In my opinion, it was impossible to walk in black dark till Rocha Negra and to hide the body. She was buried on the beach.If there was much wind, and that is what normaly happens at beachs,the morning of the 4th would not have dennounced the grave. If she was buried on the beach, the PJ certainly know it(sand in the Scenic, maybe with bacteries of decomposition). Gerry prayed like an arab that evening and he was just hiding traces on his pants. He had been on a sandy place, probably he sat down on his knies and put Maddie in a deep hole. The place was reasonably dry, I think, otherwise he would have prayed at the swimming pool or in the bathroom. By putting her in the grave, he must have touched his arms against its sides and he feared sand on them. They repeated this attitude in their sleeping room to convince two GNR men that this is very normal in England.
    This could mean that Gerry could have worn the same trousers seen by the Smiths.NO time to change.

  133. I know Mrs Fenn died, are the Gasper's both dead and the Irishman and the dogs as well Gosh, The way things are going we will all be dead along with Madelaine. Its like a slow boat to China

  134. T4two at 125 "Regrets & Ramblings belongs to..." Thanks for clarifying that for us. Glad to hear it is not a ghost website! It looked like one to me at the time. OK let Brea have her own opinion. Not a very wise one by academic standards but at least that's hers - assuming of course she has been coerced to change her views. Many had to.

    By the way T., do you have any idea of what happened to "Blackwatch"? His site simply went out in smoke - seemingly...

  135. @127 "I would love to see how great they look now after the Scotland Yard got involved in the investigations."

    You may be overestimating Scotland Yard......

    S.Y. has been recently accused of another "whitewash". See:


    The role of Scotland Yard, it seems, is not to re-open the case - only the Portuguese authorities have the legal powers to do that - provided the McCanns had a stamp and an envelope to spare or compelling new evidence popped up.

    The McCanns had already stated that they want a review BUT by "the people most competent to do it". See video right hand side top where Dr. Gerry McCann makes such statement (verbatim) at an impromptu press conference outside the Palace of Justice in Lisbon.

    The role of Scotland Yard is, in my view, to look for and explore any ostensible cues for kidnapping. That is to change the angle of the original investigation or at any rate underrate it.

    They have probably been instructed by the PM (my assumption)not to look in any sensitive areas and above all not to bring in any forensic dogs into it! Too late for that anyway except perhaps in and around Rothley.

    The McCanns have considerable support among the English middle and professional classes - who tend to identify with them on principle. Typically the English middle classes tend to vote Conservative (and Liberal) and the Cons need their votes. Badly.

    As time will tell, the role of Scotland Yard is to denigrate the Portuguese investigation. Very much like the trial of Dr. G. Amaral next month is.

    What you have here is an imperial ideology (British) protecting two of their VIPs and imposing their will on a sovereign country. An old colonial habit.

    The irony of course is that bringing the forensic dogs to Portugal was their idea. Pity it backfired :d

    Proof: Look for Scotland Yard, "breakthroughs" (as it were) "pseudo-revelations" or "criticisms" of the PJ investigation vehiculated by the British media around the time of the McCanns vs Amaral trial next month - (as in "Mystic Mario" prediction above).


    @ 130 "If Carter Ruck charges £750 an hour..."

    That was back in 2004. It is probably much more in 2012 (...)


  137. The McCanns forthcoming legal action against Tony Bennett of the Madeleine Foundation is, in part, due to their objection to his publication/video of Kate McCann’s refusal to answer the questions put to her by the Portuguese police. However, the following article appeared on the BBC NEWS website on 6 AUGUST 2008 and remains there to this day.

    I don't agree with Bennett's action regarding distribution of leaflets (certain councils have now made it an offence to distribute leaflets without a council license - Leicester being one of those areas) but what he writes is actually balanced, informed & based on the facts of the case including the official police files but, not having money or legal representation, he is an easy target for these money grabbing bullies - and I'm sure the action against him is designed by them to shut up all bloggers.

    P.S. Apparently they are not taking on the BBC – what a surprise.

    The 48 unanswered questions published by the BBC below are as follows:


  138. @132 Lucrezia Borgia?

    The Madam you might be referring to, looks more like an agee witch who had just got out of bed and was looking for the pink porcelain vase under it (with the initials "MC").

    The above could have been my first impression though. I had just got out of bed myself.....

    By the way, I know a Madame who looked like her (whoever) before she went to the gym, took Yoga and Pilates classes, did a 6-month Macrobiotic diet, then had what was left of her cellulite surgically removed from her buttocks and was then ready for a mini-skirt. That allied to her new pair of inflated red lips (may be it was just the minimalist-skirt) so impressed the subconscious of the male judge that she was left off the hook for soliciting in Central Park......... Oh Dear! :o

    Disclaimer: any associations of the above descriptions with any persons dead or alive is pure coincidence. This is in fact (I am told) a short draft (excerpt) from Quentin Tarantino's script: "Jackie White" - a follow up to "Jackie Brown" that never left the drawing board. May be one day, it will...

  139. .........continued


    Page last updated at 06:17 GMT, Wednesday, 6 August 2008 07:17 UK

    The questions put to Kate McCann

    The questions listed below form a record of the interrogation of Kate McCann conducted by Portuguese detectives investigating the disappearance of her three-year-old daughter Madeleine during a family holiday.

    The questioning came after Mrs McCann was declared an arguido, or suspect, in September 2007.

    Mrs McCann used her right to remain silent and only answered one question.

    Her arguido status was lifted on 21 July this year. She and her husband have always denied any involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

    The police inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance was wound up last month due to a lack of evidence.


  140. #128 - tea stain on Maddie's pyjamas.

    May be it is not tea. For some reason the testimony of the Gaspars comes to mind. She could not be referring to a sperm stain, could she. Sorry! Sorry! What was I thinking now. Sorry.

  141. ....continued (from BBC website)


    1) On 3 May 2007 at around 2200, when you entered the apartment what did you see and do, where did you look, and what did you touch?
    2) Did you look inside the wardrobe in the bedroom? She said she wouldn't answer.

    3) (Shown two photographs of the wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

    4) Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (a photograph of which was shown to her), been disturbed? Had someone passed behind this sofa?

    5) How much time did you spend searching in the apartment after realising that your daughter Madeleine had disappeared?

    6) Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?

    7) Assuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, not least because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment?

    8) Why did you not ask the twins at that moment what had happened to their sister, or why did you not ask them later?

    9) When you raised the alarm in the Tapas what specific words were used?

    10) What happened after raising the alarm at the Tapas?

    11) Did you have a mobile phone with you at that moment?

    12) Why did you go to warn your friends instead of shouting from the balcony?

    13) Who contacted the authorities?

    14) Who took part in the searches?

    15) Did someone outside the group learn, in the moments that followed, of Madeleine's disappearance?

    16) Did any neighbour offer you help after the alarm was raised about the disappearance?

    17) What did the expression "we let her down" mean?

    18) Did Jane tell you that she had seen a man carrying a child that night?

    19) How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?

    20) During the searches after police arrived, in which places were Madeleine searched for, and in what way?

    21) Why did the twins not wake up during the search or when they went upstairs?

    22) Whom did you telephone after the discovery?

    23) Did you call Sky News?

    24) Did you know of any danger of calling the media alerting them of the abduction, since this could influence the abductor?

    25) Did you request the presence of a priest?


  142. .....continued

    26) In what way was the face of Madeleine, in photographs or by other means, released?

    27) Is it true that during the search you remained seated on Madeleine's bed in your room without moving?

    28) What was your behaviour like during that night?

    29) Did you manage to sleep?

    30) Before the trip to Portugal did you make a comment about a bad feeling or premonition about it?

    31) What was Madeleine's behaviour like?

    32) Did Madeleine suffer from any infirmity or take medication?

    33) What was Madeleine's relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and fellow pupils?

    34) Regarding your professional life, in how many hospitals and in which ones did you work?

    35) What was your speciality as a doctor?

    36) Do you work shifts in emergency wards or other departments?

    37) Do you work in the daytime?

    38) Why did you stop working at a certain point?

    39) Is it true or not that the twins have difficulty falling asleep, that they are restless and that this upsets you?

    40) Is it true or not that at certain times you felt desperate at your children's attitude and that this upsets you a lot?

    41) Is it true or not that in England you went so far as thinking about handing over Madeleine to a relative to look after?

    42) At home (in England) did you give medication to your children and what kind of medication?

    43) (Various films had been shown to her of the inspection by forensic dogs, where one can see their signalling indications of the scent of a human corpse and traces of human blood as well as the comments by the expert overseeing the exercise.) Having seen the film and after the scent of a corpse was signalled in her bedroom near the wardrobe, and behind the sofa by the window in the sitting room, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.

    44) She was asked about the sniffer dog that signalled human blood behind the above-mentioned sofa. She said she could not explain anything more than she already had.

    45) She was asked about the scent of corpse which was signalled in the vehicle she hired about a month after the disappearance, with number plate 59-DA-27. She said she could not explain anything more than she already had.

    46) When the presence of human blood was signalled in the boot of the same vehicle Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.

    47) Confronted with the result of the sample of Madeleine's DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British laboratory, found behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, as previously described, Kate McCann said she could not explain anything more than she already had.

    48) Did you have any responsibility or involvement in the disappearance of your daughter Madeleine?

    49) Are you aware that the fact of your not answering the questions put to you jeopardise the investigation that was aimed at finding out what happened to your daughter, she answered: "Yes, if the investigation thinks that."

    50) Do you have anything to add? She said: "No."

    51) Her lawyer was asked to comment. He said he had nothing to state or request.



    T4Two "Regrets & Ramblings belongs to someone called Bren. This person ran the 3 Arguidos..."

    Do you mean this "3 Arguidos" forum (below)?

    I can't see the name Brea associated with it. May be I did not look properly. Could it be another Brea? Difficult to know for sure on the basis of the "Who Is" query, alone.

    How do you know for sure this Brea is not a McCann's associate? A spinner slightly more sophisticated than Rosiepops - a benefits' fraud (some say) of London's council estates?


  144. On McCann Files we can read about Tony Bennett, where he tells Carter Ruck does not charge the McCanns for anything.Kate told it on her book.
    It is a lie, like Gerry told on his blog that his first trip to Washington was "kindly offered by an airline"and it wasn't.
    Kate is afraid that people will get irritated with the fact the money is being used to pay expensive lawyers and not for the search of Madeleine.
    The McCanns are delaying Tony Bennett's trial probably for another reason.
    Fear for the conclusions of the Met?
    Are they escaping?

  145. 134, is it your conclusion or is it what you hope?

  146. It is about time the judiciary began to focus on PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM THE MCCANNS, who have been acquiring money from them for years by telling them Madeleine was abducted.

    Meanwhile, there has NEVER BEEN ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT MADELEINE WAS EVER ABDUCTED. In fact, quite the contrary, as there are good, reliable, indicators pointing to Madeleine having died in the apartment, and her body removed and concealed.

    Meanwhile, the public, who the McCanns have bent over backwards to prevent from learning the actual truth of the investigation, are continually being asked to give money for their so called 'search' for Madeleine. By doing this they are ensuring the public are unable to make an INFORMED DECISION for themselves as to whether or not to part with their hard earned money.

    If the McCanns want a Fund supposedly for the search for an abducted Madeleine, which so far has netted millions, all of which is under the control of the McCanns who do not even appear to be spending but a fraction on an actual search, then they should FIRST PROVE THAT MADELEINE WAS ABDUCTED. THIS THEY HAVE NEVER DONE, AND CAN'T.

    Until then, their Fund should be stopped, and the McCanns stopped from being allowed to threaten with court action those who want the truth about the OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION, AND THE INVESTIGATORS CONCLUSIONS THAT THE DEATH OF MADELEINE OCCURRED IN THE HOLIDAY APARTMENT, from being told.


    THESE FORMER ARGUIDOS THE MCCANNS, SHOULD BE MADE TO PROVE THAT MADELEINE WAS ACTUALLY ABDUCTED. Until then, they should not be allowed to silence people with court action, courtesy of the vast fortune they have amassed due to their Fund, and with contributions from a public kept in ignorance and continuing to give their money over to them.

    Kate McCann's version of the 'truth' book, nor the so called 'reconstruction' of the fairy story abduction they did themselves, nor Kate McCann's reasons for not answering the 48 questions put to her about her missing daughter, are compensation for the truth of the official investigation. This has been provided by Dr Amaral, courtesy of his book based on that investigation, and the released case Files.

    When it comes to handing over their money the public deserve better than the McCanns' unproven abduction version, and they are being let down badly until that is provided to them. THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR OWN INFORMED DECISIONS, WITHOUT CONSTANT HINDRANCE FROM THE MCCANNS PREVENTING THEM FROM DOING THIS.

  147. @132 You're right. She did freeze all of Amaral's properties and assets, presumably to secure her clients pay out (and her top grade fees) but also to ensure the accused did not have enough funds to defend himself. What a devilish woman!

    I am surprised she did not attempt to boycott the "Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral". She may have tried though. I don't know. Joana and Astro would.

    I wonder what will happen if the McCanns' loose and Amaral counter-sues them for three, four or five million?

    Will the British courts then allow Amaral's lawyers to freeze the McCanns assets - the so-called Fund, their Rotten home and everything? Will they ask the couple to divorce?

    You must be joking!

    The British authorities would never allow ANY of its citizens to be treated as de-facto criminals before a court decision! And much less so on dubious "defamation" cases.

    Is this legal in Portugal Joana/Astro?

    To freeze a Portuguese citizens' assets, years before a court finds them guilty? If so, you are worst off than the Kazakhstanis! :b

    You must fight for your rights! Do a Tahir Square-style demonstration outside the court, whatever it takes!


    Article 11.

    (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

    Article 17.

    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    Article 19.

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

  148. # Anon 132 The Portuguese Lucrezia Borgia

    I suspect Madame Duarte has what you friends in Britain call "rights of audience" in court. A bad omen.

    Remember, for example, the McCanns were allowed to enter the Palace of Justice in Lisbon (the court building to be precise) through the Magistrates door - a privilege that not even Dr. G. Amaral, a Portuguese citizen, with a long, distinguished career as a public servant, was granted.

    To many observers, this immediately suggested some kind of subservience towards what were, after all, two former suspects (with a CV). For any Portuguese citizen worth its sea salt, this was rather hard to swallow.

    Such subservience was uncalled for, even as a gesture of hospitality - such have no place in a court of law and are totally inadmissible in a so-called democracy.


    For details of what the British call "rights of audience", read the following:

    "My solicitor (Tony Bennett's) is not one of the very few solicitors who has what are called 'rights of audience' in the Royal Courts of Justice (Carter-Ruck do), which means that if I wish to be represented in court, this would mean I would again have to hire a barrister. Again, I have been advised that if you include court attendance on say 3 days of both barrister and solicitor and possibly solicitor's clerk myself, and dealing with all the preparation of the case, correspondence with the court and Carter-Ruck, preparing Witness Statements, Skeleton Arguments of the case and so on and so forth, the whole bill for legal representation alone would cost potentially tens of thousands of pounds, money I just haven't got."

    So, you if you thought Portugal was some kind of double-standards "banana republic", you need only to look at the so-called cradle of modern democracy - Great Britain, herself.

    This also gives you an idea of what kind of legal bill the McCanns' are running in Portugal as "no win-no fee" agreements exist here - I understand the McCanns' claim Carter-Ruck is not charging them. Here in Portugal, the couple have a team of Portuguese lawyers working on the case - not just Isabel Duarte. Add to that their PR team (led by Claudia Nogueira/Lift Consulting) paid to act as spokespersons and to "inform" - some say: manipulate the Portuguese media. It is no wonder they seemed "gagged" when it comes to comment on the McCanns. Surely this costs money to. Non?

    More here:

    MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later Jill Havern Forum


    also on Nige's: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

  149. Interesting article to read:

    "How did these two children simply vanish one day?
    Jose Breton's disappearance gripped the attention of the Spanish public

    By William Bond
    Sunday January 22,2012

    AN INVESTIGATING judge in southern Spain will this week lift a secrecy order on the disappearance of two young children that has gripped the nation for more than three months......."

    Check the full article on these links below:


  150. Amaral's book does not hinder the search for Madeleine at all.
    If it would be an obstruction, it would not have convinced Cameron, the Home Office and the Met to get involved in the case.
    If they did, it is because it did not matter.

  151. @142 Bren is Brenda Ryan, former administrator of the 3 Arguidos Forum, the second largest forum discussing the McCann case after Mirror closed what was the first and largest debate forum on the case. Rumour is she was coerced by Carter-Ruck, which I don't believe. Like anyone who decides to post, blog, own a forum of contrary opinion about the McCann couple propaganda, she was extremely vilified, attacked, bullied, harassed by the so called McCann-neglect pros, to a point where she had no escape but to do an U-turn. Her apology to the McCann couple is totally contradictory of what she said in here: Like a Family http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/05/like-family.html «For many of us it has been a tough 2 years, fighting to get to the truth, fighting for justice and at times we have been vilified, character assassinated, lied about and harassed, but our determination and desire have made each and every one of us stronger and more determined to continue to fight for what we know is right. We have all seen the lies and the British Press trying to blame everything on the Portuguese Police service and the Portuguese people, and it is through these biased articles and the xenophobic articles about Portugal that have been written that we all stand behind our Portuguese friends and the People of Portugal who have also become victims in this tragic case.

    And I am so glad we did and still continue to stand by these people whose honour has been trashed in order to save a pair of hypocritical unfit parents. There are many of us that run forums, some which have no desire for justice only to attack people that post on a forum designed to find the truth and there are many bloggers out there, bloggers that want what I want and the members of the3arguidos want, and that is for truth and for justice to prevail and, if Madeleine is deceased, to be laid to rest with the dignity and respect she deserves and whoever is responsible for her demise to be brought to justice.(...)»

  152. Mr Bennett needs to detached himself emotionally from this case, it is not healthy,
    The people who are responsible for what happened to Madeleine should be brought to justice but we should leave that to the professionals. Mr Amaral knows what has happened, he is clever and has done a very good job however it must be frustrating for him to have been dragged in the dirt and still he stays professional in the way he deals with the situation. This is a way to approach this because the emotions blur the way we act and respond.

  153. 147, about the Magistrates door: sometimes this happens in Brazil too, to protect the criminal, in order to avoid revenge of the population.
    This could have been the reason, specially after everything England did against the PJ and against Portugal and after the lies the McCanns spreaded around, asking the polulation to search and to pray for Madeleine, which they did.

  154. A couple of responses: to 103, yes, I think May 1st was the definitive night and that the complaint by Maddie, "Why didn't you come when I was cying" was transfered by one entire day. The McCanns could then try to persuade Mrs Fenn that she was mistaken about the precise night -but there's the phonecall she made to her friend as proof it ocurred on the 1st.RIP, Mrs Fenn,a brave lady.
    The fridge is another item that has been kicked into the long grass (!)and deserves far more investigation.Where is the proof of the buying of a new fridge by Gerry, the only doctor on holiday without a credit card, apparently.
    and to 119: Where is the proof/mention that Andrew Brown, Gordon's brother was on the holiday site? I thought he was contacted for help by some friend of the McCanns who lived in the same street as Andrew?

    One last item :the Last Photo. I think it is a photo-shopped photo of Amelie, as the girl/Maddie has a small body and tiny chest. Contrast it with the Tennis Court Photo (the same day/ or day before?)The girl/Maddie has an almost barrel chest and has a far longer body, an entirely different torso.


    @142 "Bren is Brenda Ryan, former administrator of the 3 Arguidos Forum"

    Thanks for clarifying that for me. So now we know. In a world where nothing is what it seems, it is helpful to have some bona fide guidance - thank you, merci, grazie tanti, obrigado.

    First things first. We are dealing here with two Irish ancestries or surnames:

    Ó Riain (meaning: descendant of the "little red one") and MacCana (meaning: "wolf cub" from "cano"). Google for details.

    The first thought that comes to mind is: could that help to explain the "tribal loyalties" between the two? Add a third if you wish. Think: Kennedy...

    "So?" I hear you saying...

    Well, your deductions are as good as mine, but before you delve further into speculations of this nature (like I did) you might need to brush up your Semiotics - Umberto Eco ("A Theory of Semiotics"/"The Name of the ROSE") is best to start with, but you may find Barthes ("Image Music Text" or "Mythologies") more entertaining.

    NB Do leave aside the American Dan Brown and his alter ego Professor Langdon. He is an ass - as in a subgenus of Equus that includes the donkey and other asses. Colloquial for "stupid", if you didn't get it yet.

    Anyway, it seems some, not all, of my speculative comments - the bits and bytes I noted here in passing, were right on target.

    Ryan's daughter has since come up with a stash of creative insults and veiled threats directed at my persona and, in the process, wetted her pants laughing! :o

    I have, on a rare occasion, had that kind of effect on women but, I always thought it was the deodorant spray (Lynx).

    :o Suuuuue! Bring Bren more nappies NOW!
    :o Oh Dear! I could do with some myself!




    There is a funny byte on Bren's rumblings about her Japanese koi being "seals" in disguise - not clear if the famous "Team 6" that successfully terminated The Bin - and days afterwards went up in smoke in a piece of bad piloting (very sad by the way) or, if she was referring to the even more bunglesome Pinnipeds species. Whatever.

    Actually, I wasn't thinking about imperialist "Oil Wars" or the ice caps melting... I was thinking in terms of symbology, what's going on in Bren's pretty subconscious. Consider the following:

    "The Japanese associate koi (also known as carp) with perseverance in adversity and strength of purpose. Because of its strength and determination to overcome obstacles, it stands for courage and the ability to attain high goals."

    That sounds like what?

    The next step, is to pick up the Roget Thesaurus and find synonyms for "perseverance", "adversity", "strength", "determination" that fit the facts of the investigation and the attitudes of those who comment on them - one way of the other. Do try to keep the "Irish ancestries" in mind. You never know where that might lead to...

    Oops! It seems I got the Portuguese Water Dog look-alike wrong (it must have been the close shot in the snow) but I did get its name right (BO). Again, that seemed to pull Ryan's daughter tight strings and there she went off on an tangent sparkling an hyperbole of words in the proces.

    In all honesty, I deserved no credit - my very good friend Barack told me all about BO in his visit to Lisbon, last year.


    Interesting to note that Bren does not comment further on the Amaral/Cabrita byte that ostensibly interested her, which in retrospect, was exactly the point I was driving at. Darling! what happened to your Celtic sense of fair play (if any)?

    :o Oh! Dear! I never thought I could press so many buttons (and a bra clip) in one go!

    I have to assume Bren were feeling rather deprived and stupid at the time - one's IQ does tend to fluctuate in accordance with Cognitive Dissonance Theory... :h

    Oh! nearly forgot, Bren was also quick to de-construct (as in Derrida) Tony Bennett's quote elsewhere in this blog....

    ...you see, the catholic McCanns are not trying to send Mr. Benett to prison at all. Really? Whom shall I believe? Whom do you believe?

    I wish I could address this point right now but I first must feed my Portuguese Podengos and get ready for another slavery session tomorrow. Carpe noctem!

    I leave you with Bren and her rather amateurish verbate moves (verbate rhymes with karate). Have a giggle :o


    :j Bolinhas

  157. 147, about the Magistrates door: sometimes this happens in Brazil too, to protect the criminal, in order to avoid revenge of the population.

    It is a fair argument but Prof. Paulo Sargento who I think was there, does not think so, neither do I.

    :d Um abraço para você minha/meu irmã/o!

  158. "Mr Bennett needs to detached himself emotionally from this case, it is not healthy"

    Justice is what you/me/us everybody does in their daily lives. You are the world! Very few people have the courage to try and change the world or bring justice to it. I admire him and others like him; Joana and Astro and Nige - the list goes on.I think of them as the people in Tahir Square shouting THE KING IS NAKED!

  159. 112, welcome in my life!
    I also analised Cameron's letter and I could read between the lines.He is more than fed up of the McCanns. hat "speak volumes"is great and its translation is "you will never stop being a pain in my anus". besides, he replied them on Maddie's birthday and he did not congratulate the parents, nor referred to it, wishing her a good day, with her abductor.
    Indeed he wants the Met "to find Madeliene". He knows she is dead.
    On Sky news there is an article where an journalist tells that Dowingstreet nr 10 were considering what the McCanns have SAID that day, and not what the McCanns WROTE on their published letter that morning. The death of a fish happens through its mouth, it means, if you talk it can be your destruction. It is what happened.

  160. @149 Amaral's book does not hinder the search for Madeleine at all.

    Of course not. Nor does it interfere with the McCann family rights. It could be an excuse to get at da money. A's money. His publishers money. TVs money. Interviews, celebrity money. "Money...money...money... it's a rich men's world!" (ABBA's famous song playing on the radio right now.)

    Read this:

    "It is at this point that I disagree with the Court's decision.

    In effect, while Gonçalo Amaral merely expresses personal convictions, which is to say, an opinion about certain facts that took place, and only taking personal conclusions thereof, not making any accusations, it seems that although one may admit that the situation is uncomfortable for the McCanns, it does not damage their personality rights.

    It would be damaging if the conclusions were unreasonable or baseless, but given the fact that the author of the book elaborates a logical reasoning and bases his conclusions on facts, what may be said is that the conclusions may be wrong, but not that they are gratuitous, and therefore, that their purpose is to target the McCanns' fundamental personality rights.

    On my behalf, I would say that in this case, the McCanns' fundamental personality rights were not violated, and that, on the contrary, the Court's decision attacks Gonçalo Amaral's freedom of expression." (excerpt from Dr. Marta Madalena Botelho, lawyer. Thanks to Astro for translation)


    Original in Portuguese here:


  161. Out of context, but I checked the reviews (on Amazon)for the book 'Madeleine' written by Kate Mc Cann, not very good, the lie will soon be exposed, no more place to hide. Soon, the government will not be able to cover this charade.

  162. 155, I am passionate and I also believe in justice or I will not be on this site, but I think it is important to detach yourself emotionally especially in this court case. If you don't you will become too vulnerable and at the end of the day, Mr Bennett is going to court, not you, not me, not Joanna, not Astro or Nige. I just wish Mr Bennett the best of luck.

  163. I hope Mr. TB has the strenght and the courage to bring the case into the courtroom and refuse any agreement with Mccann's. He has the reason at his side. The couple delivered lies after lies during almost 5 years and we don't need to be experts or have any particular investigation skills to spot them. From the 'damaged shutters' to the 'Carter-Ruck lawyers working for them for free', it is all lies after lies. The objectives of this lies legitimate all doubts/crtics/questions, somebody from the pulic can publicly raise. The Mccann's worked hard to make this lies sounding louder and be spreaded across the world in a very short time. Then, why who criticise and question them should be silenced and keep his doubts quite and private? In fact, the legal investigation already made the public aware about the same doubts. Prosecutors and investigators dismissed Mccann's evidences (words) because they are not matching what was found in the crime scene. Already questionned their statements that were full of inconsistencies and wanted a reconstruction to clarify what was possible(truthful). Something the pair refused to do, failing to prove their innocence and due to that, legitimating any accusation.
    Carter-Ruck has no records with winning cases in Courtroom. They are experts in intimidation, persecution, letters to scare who they wanted to lie down. Only a manipulated judge could let them winning the Mccann's case. A lot of internet sites, blogs, foruns with very capable and very intelligent people across the world, have analised everything legally available, in a deep and independent way and all arrived to the same conclusion: PJ and BRITISH POLICE was correct when made them suspects. After almost 5 years and many sights and 'persons of interest' wrongly dragged to papers front pages by team Mccann, they remain the only and main suspects. Shelving the case didn't erase the suspisions surrounding them, just leave them in a 'pause' status. A standby while the investigation is waiting for more proves. Very clear.... more proves, not more suspects or dismissed evidences.
    For the official police, the girl is death. Any money raised on the grounds of her been alive, was a fraud and another crime that deserves to be investigated, now entirely by the British authorities.To get the awaiting proves that can close the PJ files and start the Fund investigation, the police just need one of the 2 situations: THE RECONSTRUCTION OR ONE OF THE TAPAS 9 TO BUILD CONSCIENCE AND CONTACT THE POLICE TO TELL WHAT HE/SHE KNOWS AND WAS THE TRUTH. How can this people live and raise children holding a so dark secret and letting who doubt their words to face problems with justice? One day the Farce needs an end. Enough is enough.
    Even without supporting your methods to raise the doubts we all have, MR. TB, I congratulate you for being together with Amaral, one of the open faces really working on Madeleine behalf and fighting for her rights. Something her parents failed to do.

  164. I found a video of the The Telegraph, from the May 12th last year, where the McCanns are complainig against the British government and against Cameron.
    At that moment they had no idea what was going on at nr. 10 but on that video they were more civilized. Perhaps warned by Mitchell, after they had attacked Cameron on Sky News, on that same day.
    I collect those videos from the 12th and 13th, hahahahhahah!Ï love to read the first answer from nr. 10: "they are considering what the McCanns SAID"( on the 12th) and not "not what they WROTE on their Sun letter".

    May God bless Cameron and Theresa.

  165. #70 - Is there a possibility the 'stand alone evidence' the PJ have will come into play at the forthcoming libel trial, and that the judge will order a viewing of it

    I never thought about that. Good point @70. They should definitely be arrested for leaving the children without supervision in an apartment that opens (may be left opened as some witness statement suggest) directly into a public road in a foreign country with road works going around nearby, dodgy people around, etc. The problem is the main witness (Mrs. Fenn) is dead.

  166. according to Rogério Alves, interview when the investigation was still under secrecy, if a public prosecuter orders for a reconstruction, it got to happen.
    Next time the McCanns will go as witnesses, not as arguidos, and witnesses are obliged to colaborate with the police.
    After the reconstruction, they can again become suspects, which they are and we all know.

    Anyone can request the reopening of the process, England too.
    I hope the Home Office will do it.
    Madeleine was a British citizen and if she still is, her parents have to accept the reopening, for her sake.

  167. The Met got involved in the case not only for the sake of Madeleine

    but also

    for the shake of the McCanns.

    They are scared to death.

  168. Anon 137 re-reading the 49 questions. She was advised by her lawyer not to answer. Gerry did answer some of his though. There is not much of a point in bringing that issue. In a court of law they would have to answer but bearing in mind the multi-million legal team and political advisers around the McCanns they would have walked out free and perhaps the Portuguese Justice system sued afterwards for defamation. You don't point a finger at the McCanns. That's verboten. You would risk unleashing World World III! :e


    Good point @149. Indeed, if the Chief co-ordinator of the investigation cannot give an expert opinion on what may have happened than the McCanns, as former suspects, should be asked to prove there was no way the child could have died in the apartment. That the dogs were lying. That the witnesses were confused, etc. They don't seem grateful for the fact the Portuguese allowed them to get away on the benefit of a doubt, do they? :h

  170. #148 interesting story. I read it too. This is, in my opinion, the most interesting passage. Sort of rings a bell, doesn't it. :p

    Mind you "so and so" did throw themselves at the feet of the police but that, some say, could have been "staged". Could it? The Ltd. firm supporters will say that proves their child was abducted as well. May be it was.

    "Police immediately noticed that Jose senior seemed to show no emotion. In a flat voice, he repeated his story several times, never changing a detail.

    Yet there wasn’t a flicker of fear over what might have happened to his beautiful children. It was reported that he had shown no guilt either for having taken his eyes off them, nor anger that they may have been snatched by strangers to meet who knows what fate."


  171. #153 who wrote "One last item he Last Photo. I think it is a photo-shopped photo of Amelie, as the girl/Maddie has a small body and tiny chest. Contrast it with the Tennis Court Photo (the same day/ or day before?)The girl/Maddie has an almost barrel chest and has a far longer body, an entirely different torso."

    Interesting theory. Could you post us the link to the photos? Please.

  172. #79 Madeleine is a cash cow for the McCanns!

    May be they just want to find out what happened to their poor, rich daughter. It costs money to pay crooks like Halogen, Hydrogen and Oxygen and fight all those Carbon Dioxides, you know.

    True, Scotland Yard's rent-a-retired-cop department is paid by the "Camarão", so you could argue that with the Yardmen on the case they no longer need to keep hounding vulnerable old pensioners for change BECAUSE some devious spirits might argue they are stuffing their wallets.

    Please think of the McCanns enterprise as the UNICEF of the future, not another McDonald's chain in the make. Wots the problem with you people?

    :g Have a nice day!

  173. Interesting that Payne(rogatory letter) refers to "the night Madeleine disappeared" and not "was abducted" and that Gerry sent him to 5a to check"if everything was alright with Kate", if he(Gerry) "could stay there( at the tennis court)".
    This is a lot different from going to 5a, inviting Kate and the toddlers to come to the tennis court.
    Payne could be the Tapas who went to a lawyer, intending to tell the truth and got scared.
    The lawyer said "There are people (very?)close to the McCanns who are not helping them at all".
    Payne disappeared completely.
    I believe he went to 5a at 6.30pm, Madeleine was already dead and he saw her body.
    That's why he had a monitor and the rest hid it, he did not want to get involved in the crime.
    Was it necessary to send him upstairs to check if everything was alright with Kate, only 30,35 minutes after Gerry had left? And if Gerry could stay some longer at the tennis court?
    This means that Kate was extremely unstable at that moment, she could not be left alone longer than 30 minutes.
    Gerry was not trusting his wife. He must regret evey second of his life!

    Payne is not protecting the McCanns on his rogatory letter.
    He has nothing to do with Maddie's death but now the whole world knows he is a paedophile, the McCanns became rich, etc etc.
    The stupid Fiona was protecting Kate, in Lisbon.At he time I suspected she was protecting her paedophile husband.

  174. Kate:

    a little girl is still missing, a little girl is still missing

    within 20 years

    a little lady is still missing

    within 70 years

    a little eldery is still missing

    I am her mummy, there is a good chance she is in a retiring home.
    The government is not doing anything to find her.

    within 100 years

    a little cadaver is still missing.


    You were right PM@106. Lord Justice Leveson does take the public's opinions into account. The problem is I don't know if I have the Ministry of Justice and/or Carter-Ruck on my tail now... :p

    Leveson Inquiry General Enquiries GeneralEnquiries@levesoninquiry.gsi.gov.uk
    Jan 24

    Thank you for your email. Your comments have been noted by the Inquiry Team and a member of the team will contact you should further information be required.

    Kind regards,
    The Leveson Inquiry Team


    This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

    :i Hello Clarence Mitchell, are you there?
    Good morning Carter! How is *uck today?

  176. Bolinhas, achas que a Rosiepops também e paga pela funerária? Pela companhia, quero dizer? Quanto a Brena deve de andar com a CIA.
    Pra a semana tamos a pensar ir arrumar carros pra zona do Palácio da Injustiça - ver se vazamos uns pneus. Tamos também a pensar levar um bunga-bunga com uma k7 dos cães a ladrar.
    :c Os Maques vão-se passar dos carretos!

    Zé Pneu
    Arrumador de gabarito ao vosso serviço.

  177. Outra cousa, precisamos de saber sus Macanos costumam pagar aos arrumadores ou se normalmente se cortam - qu'e p'ra informar a equipa de "mecânicos" de serviço ao palácio no mês de Fevereiro. Questão de logísticas. Brigado.

    Outra cousa, por acaso ninguém sabe o numro da matricula do carro da Madama ou dos camafeus de serviço? Os nossos "limpa vidros" precisam dessa infor. Brigado.

    :k Zé Pneu
    Um arrumador de gabarito ao vosso serviço
    (com escritório próprio no Bairro da Boavista. Todos me conhecem)

  178. Things are changed very quickly for the Mccanns. I consider Tapas 5 to be responsible in case the McCanns commit any violence against themselves and against the twins, in order to escape from their shame, their responsibility about the fraudulent fund and for the disappearence of Madeleine.
    There is still time to go to the police and to tell what happened and the police can take mesures to protect the twins. They are at risk, in my opinion.

    On Kate's book she tells Rachel Oldfield found an address of good lawyers in London, specialized in extradition.
    This means Rachel was busy with lawyers.
    Could Matthew have been the Tapas that went to a lawyer in London, willing to tell the police what happened "before, during and after the dinner of the 3rd" but was afraid of the financial and political power of the McCanns?
    I hope he has gotten the courage now, to tell what he knows.
    England has now another government, Cameron and the Home Offfice are not protecting the couple, otherwise the Met would not be a part of the investigation.
    The time they had power is over, Brown is gone.
    Oldfield can go to the police and get rid of the cloud of suspicion that is wrapping him since 2007.
    The possibility that he is going to be made arguido in the future is very real. He will need an expensive lawyer, it will cost him millions and billions whilsh a honest statement will be free of charge.
    Look at the Gaspars, Matthew, the police know now about Payne and Gerry's tendences and they are not sued.
    Please trust the police.


    "In view of the costs of legal representation, and because only very expensive barristers are allowed to represent Defendants in High Court proceedings, I shall have to represent myself.

    The law on freedom of speech in this country (UK) i.e. what one can reasonably say about another without crossing the indistinct line between fair and honest comment on the one hand, and libelling someone on the other, has been changed as a result of the decision two years ago in Spiller v Joseph. There, five Supreme Court judges unanimously extended the rights of those who might be making adverse comment on others. It is well worth a careful read, but does run to 48 pages..."

    Tony Bennett writing today on Jill Havern Forum. Sourced via Nige's McCann Files:

    It sounds like the final nail in the coffin of British democracy.

    :m Portuguese judges better smart up. The Portuguese freedoms so many of us fought and died for, are at stake here. The McCanns must not be allowed to defraud the Portuguese economy with their planed "heist" and hate campaign! The world is looking at you!

  180. Anon 153

    If I remember rightly, way back when people were discussing this case there were a number of people appeared to become very agitated when any mention of the fridge subject came up. Then Dr Amaral goes and mentions it was believed the body was frozen at some time or other, besides which David Payne lets slip that the fridge in the holiday apartment that Madeleine vanished from, had broken some time earlier that week.

    It would have been interesting to know which day that was exactly, and whatever did happen to that fridge.

  181. I hope the PJ had silent little boats on the sea, when the McCanns went to the Vatican and went traveling through Europe. They took Journalists with them to Italy and praia da Luz was empty. There were people at their home, taking care of the twins. I expect one of them to have gone to the beach to remove Maddie's body,during a night and while the parents were away.I expect the PJ to have filmed the whole happening, from all of the angles, also from the sea and from up on the rocks.
    I bet those videos exist and the PJ are keeping this secret.

  182. I hope O'Brian, Oldfield, Payne and Tanner will get in serious trouble with the police.
    I hope their photos will be on every news papers, front page, as official suspects.
    I hope the rumours about their paedophilie will continue being spreaded around.
    I hope they will live and die carrying a bad name, not only Payne.
    I hope they will loose their friends, if they still didn't.
    I hope they will go to prison for perjury.They surely will.

    Paying for a crime they did not commit.Doing a favour to the riff raff McCanns.

  183. I don't think Tony Bennett will be able to settle out of court with the McCanns. He is not a millionaire and as far as we know simply doesn't have the resources to satisfy their demands (unless they are very, very desperate to stay out of court and end up paying him to appear to settle!!) As for the Met team, if they are thinking they can keep this under wraps any longer and pretend it was a stranger abduction as required then they are going to look very silly having wasted £3 million of our money. They should check the reviews on Amazon which appear to be slipping under the Team's radar these days - more important fish to fry at the moment, maybe?

  184. "Oh! Dear! I never thought I could press so many buttons (and a bra clip) in one go!"

    Bolinas! It is not a bras clip! It is a bras clasp! Wots da matter with you?

    :o Bras clip!

  185. "Bolinhas, achas que a Rosiepops também e paga pela funerária?" (Ze Pneu)

    Acho que não, mas tudo e possível. Se fosse a ti perguntava ao "Mystic Mario"...

    PS Saudações a malta da Boavista! Paras no Social? No "Águias" penso que e o nome. Tive ai há anos quando morei no Campismo. Malta fixe, da pesada! Ver se passo ai p'ra semana p'ros conhecer melhor.

    O pessoal ai precisa de alguma coisa? tradutores electrónicos? Limpa vidros? Sistemas de som? Bicicletas? (Vespas há só duas)? Óculos de sol? Bonés? Fisgas? Panfletos? Cartazes? Diz...

    A Bem da Nação

    :j Bolinhas


    When we talk about Tony Bennett, are we talking about Tony Bennett the multi-university degree, politician, campaigner who wanted the McCanns prosecuted for child's neglect (as indeed they should have been in the first place) OR Tony Bennett, the veteran crooner, who records with Lady Gaga?

    Likewise, when we are talking about Brenda Ryan, are we talking about someone who actually owns that name and played administrator/moderator of "The 3 Arguidos"...

    OR a name-look-alike, a trojan, an entity, who owns the McCann PR and counter-information website Regrets and Ramblings?

    Do we have a face to go with the names - before and after?

    I mean, I had a look at "her" website and I could not find scribblings explaining her U-turn on the case. From "The 3 Arguidos" to "The Rumblings".

    Mind you, if this Bren was one and the same person, I would still be open to the possibility that she had infiltrated "The 3 Arguidos", in order to gain inside information that might be of use to the McCann legal team during their "arguidos" period. Then "she" phased out.

    OK, I may have I missed something. I don't have the time to go through all of "her" ramblings and regrets, besides...


    The advice I had was to avoid regretsandamblings like the plague, unless I am accessing it from the odd Internet Café, say.

    Some people forget that the McCanns' are associated with top PR agents such as Clarence Mitchell.

    Clarence Mitchell, is a former head of the "UK Government’s Media Monitoring Unit, which led a team that advised No 10 and all of the major Departments of State (which probably included MI5 and MI6)on how best to respond to the daily news agenda" (quote). For all we know, he still has connections there and (being British) everywhere...

    Furthermore,"Mickey Mouse" (Clarence Mitchell nickname), is now THE managing director of Burson-Marsteller, UK - "a leading global public relations, communications and public affairs firm, providing strategic counsel to corporate and public affairs clients" (quotes).

    Also, do not forget Burson-Marsteller has an exclusive partnership with Lift Consulting - the McCanns' PR representatives in Portugal!

    So, how do you know this Brenda, Bren - the one, the other or both, is not a broth, a Trojan horse?

    The pre-eminence she gives in her website to Bolinas's postings above suggests just that. Bols must have taken her completely by surprise. She had no alternative but to quote him in full frontal and laugh him off. Bolinas's nose however (#118) may have been right on target. I take no sides though.





  187. Bren Ryan a stalker? I knew already she was a "tough cookie" but the IP sniffing, cat-on-mouse and all that, took me by surprise.

    Do you think she could be MI5 connected? MI6 is more likely. Clarence the maestro? That makes sense. She could be a CIA operative though. The two often gang together.

  188. We are surprised that Marinho Pinto has agreed to help Mccanns in a case against his own countryman Mr Amaral. Is this due to the pressure of the visit by Brown and Mitchell who went to Portugal and stopped Amarals investigation. Does he realise the damage this case did to the holiday buisiness in Portugal and what has happened to poor Madeleine, is it because they are afraid the truth will come out. We had hoped that Mr Cameron would get Portugal to open the case and bring it to an end. Britain.

  189. Bolinhas - podes pintar kuando quizeres e bem tapetecer - a noite e fins da semana tem mais malta - mete boné de baisebol encarnado ke pra malta saber ques tu :d. vespas e fisgas não e preciso :c mas traz os panfletos ka gente mete nos parabrizas. Batarias (grandes) pro bunga-bunga dava jeito pois a malta anda sempre tesa - as gorjas sao kada vez menos - Topas?

    Zé Pneu - um arrumador de gabarito ao teu serviço

  190. 2c.8 buy property ?,seems a good clause in case it all goes tits up and they ended up getting sued and loosing ,the fund buys there house,just a thought

  191. There is no need for a fund, the British tax payers are already paying via SY, which is nearly 10 Million now. Thats 256 Mid Wives a year on £39k a year, give or take a few quid

  192. Its about time the money from the "fund" is handed over to the UK Government as it was started to help "search" for their "missing" daughter wasn't it ? Or was it created for the horrible pair to get an income so they could sue people who saw through their lies and pay for their mortgage and for the services of the "Pink Ponce" ? The Pink Ponce will soon flee from them when theres no money to pay his services , he will drop em like a sack of shit , their "lawyers" will do the same too and the truth will prevail . Dr Amaral the decent Portuguese Police Officer , who saw through their lies will see the pair of hideous liars face Justice , and the world will see how two ordinary "doctors" and the Pink Ponce , together with the "tapas gang " in the dock . The New Prosecutor of Portugal should throw the book at this lot and hand down heavy sentences to them , as for their "lawyers" they should be taken to task too , as they were harbouring a gang of deceptive fraudsters for gross miscarriage of justice . As for SY , they have lost public faith and their reputation by the way they handled this case . What digging with "sun glasses " like a bunch of "land scape " garderners when the vital clue was in their own home in Rothley? What do these people take the people of the world for ? Fools ?


Powered by Blogger.