Gonçalo Amaral, Fact of the Fiction

Blacksmith backpedals!

2011-08-31T10:02:00.000-07:00

By Honestbroker.

I disagreed with Vee's excellent rebuttal in one respect.

While it's certainly fair to ask why Blacksmith should have pointed his reader to the source (in Kate's book) that rebutted Blacksmith's claim that Kate had reneged on prior words about the nature of the deal offered to Kate and Gerry by the PJ following their arguido interviews, I think Vee had the reason wrong.

While Blacksmith could, perhaps, rely on his supporters complacently to accept what he said at face value, Blacksmith has been around us pros long enough to be certain we would check. I think it more likely Blacksmith anticipated a rebuttal such as Vee's and had his response already prepared. Here it is:

“Mrs McCann's lawyer told her that police would offer her a two-year sentence if she pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her daughter.”

And in the Guardian and Sky news:

‘Philomena McCann, Mr McCann's sister, said the police claims were "ludicrous". "They are suggesting that Kate was somehow responsible for accidentally killing Madeleine and kept the body and then got rid of it. I have never heard anything so absolutely ludicrous in my life," she told Sky News.’

And in the Telegraph, under the heading, Madeleine McCann's family accuse police:

‘“The McCanns were both named as "arguidos", or formal suspects, on Friday after two days of police interviews during which Mrs McCann was offered a "deal" of a suspended prison sentence if she admitted to "accidentally" killing her daughter and told police where the body was.”’

It should be clear, I think, that the claim was specific. The deal revolved around Kate McCann admitting that she had killed the child accidentally. And the implication was also clear: that if she didn’t so confess to killing the child under these circumstances then the possibility of a more serious charge – killing the child intentionally, i.e murder – might result.

To rescind: verb. To make void; repeal or annul.

Finally we turn to Kate’s book, page 243. Where is the above claim? It is not there.
“Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment , and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body , the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide."

Blacksmith has relied on the words of a third party (Kate's sister-in-law and Gerry's sister Philomena McCann) as his evidence for a "contradiction". There are two problems with this. The first is that Kate cannot be held responsible for words of any third party aside, possibly, from Gerry. The second is that we know, not from Philomena or any UK media source, but from the first coordinator of the Madeleine enquiry, Dr Goncalo Amaral, that the PJ, indeed, suspected the McCanns of direct responsibility for Madeleine's death. In his El Mundo interview, Dr Amaral says this:

Q - So, what are we talking about?

A - About an accident. The child could have fallen from a sofa, could have had an accident with Calpol (a sleeping solution). We never had access to the girl’s medical history, so we don’t know whether she was healthy or not. We can only speculate. There are many very strange details.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=33480435751&topic=5488

I think that's pretty plain. Amaral is suggesting Madeleine might have been overdosed with calpol. If that were true, there are only two people who would have given it to her, Kate or Gerry.

If the point (that there was a belief among the PJ that Kate or Gerry were directly implicated in Madeleine's alleged demise) needed emphasising, it is surely emphasised by what Kate tells us in her book -- that if they refused the deal, the couple would both face murder charges.

Back to the drawing board for Blacksmith, I think.

Addendum by Vee8.

Just to further make things clear, for all of Blacksmith’s obfuscations about what he originally said in his first post, (See below) the fact remains that, in simple terms, he claims Kate made no mention of the deal in her book. Now, unless the words ‘Proposed’ and ‘Offered’ have taken on new meanings since I left school, then Kate does mention the deal. No amount of backpedalling by Blacksmith, in an attempt to change what he originally said will alter the written truth.

The bigger fool?

2011-08-22T02:59:00.000-07:00

By Vee8

Here’s a question. Who is the bigger fool, the fool who leads or the fools who follows him? By now it is well known all over our particular corner of the internet that one Tony Bennett, erstwhile secretary of the so called ‘Madeleine Foundation’ is in a whole world of hurt. Currently about to be sued by Mr Edward Smethurst, one of the McCanns financial backers, for a sum not exceeding £100,000 in relation to a continual campaign of libel and defamation, he is also now the subject of a contempt of court case brought about by the McCanns. Things most certainly look extremely bleak for the disgraced ex-solicitor. No wonder then, that those of us who really do support Madeleine are rubbing our hands in glee at the thought of Bennett’s suffering.

Given Bennett’s constant spreading of the most disgusting lies and smears, his continual dissemination of disinformation, his perpetual non-stop campaign against not just Kate and Gerry themselves, but any honest and caring person who takes it upon themselves to do whatever they can to help in the search for Madeleine, I think it is fair to say Bennett deserves everything that is coming to him, and much more besides. And who could blame us?

Well, it seems Blacksmith can. Blacksmith is a name we have mentioned before, in a post entitled, ‘Blacksmith, Polemic and debate.

http://amaralfiction.blogspot.com/2011/02/blacksmith-polemic-and-debate.html

Now Blacksmith and Bennett have never seen eye to eye. He has made that abundantly clear on numerous occasions. He had Bennett weighed up very early, almost as soon as most Pro’s did. However, as evidenced by the recent post on his bureau, below, it seems he does have a small degree of sympathy for Bennett’s current situation, and seems surprised at the reactions of the TSM’s (True Supporters of Madeleine) to Bennett’s self inflicted wounds.

FRIDAY, 19 AUGUST 2011

Dancing on graves

The Bureau is no friend of Mr Tony Bennett, for reasons that go a great deal deeper than personality clashes: in fact we strongly disagree with just about every action he has ever taken in the Madeleine McCann affair.
But a quick tour yesterday through the low-lying blog and forum marshland which the few dozen professional McCann believers so noisily inhabit was a saddening experience. The news that Mr Bennett is now being pursued for libel by Ed the Expunger and for contempt of court by the McCanns has been welcomed not with satisfaction so much as intense pleasure. The excited interchanges, indeed, about the time this old man might spend in prison – years, we hope! – or the prospect of him and his wife living rough for the rest of their days- wonderful! remind one of the collective drooling of an S&M webporn ring.

Don’t any of them have even a moment of doubt at what they are writing? It seems not.

Leaving aside for a moment Blacksmith’s obvious expertise with S&M porn sites, to which I bow to his superior knowledge, should we, in fact, be surprised at his expression of compassion towards Bennett? After all, they do have more in common than perhaps even they realise.

Both, for instance, have their followers, fan clubs if you will, people who hang on their every word, and who, especially in Bennett’s case vociferously sound their support from the wings. Bennett in particular is heavily reliant on these supporters being, how can I put this without sounding like I am being insulting for the sake of it? Stupid? No, perhaps gullible or easily led is better. In short, he is dependent on his followers blindly accepting that whatever he says is true, without making any attempt to verify his writings for themselves. And there’s the next similarity between the two; Both are accomplished and proven liars.
With Bennett it is easy to spot his lies. His writing style has all the literary elegance and grace of a hippopotamus on roller skates. Long, turgid and tedious in the extreme, full of legalistic jargon. But to accomplished studiers of the case his lies readily jump out at you. One has only to read, for instance, the excellent rebuttal to his ’50 facts the media are not telling you’ leaflet, composed by the redoubtable blogger Jayelles and her team,

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

to see for yourself just how obvious his lies are. Pity then, that posting links to this rebuttal in conspicuous places so that Bennett and his foolish followers can find it is like casting pearls before swine. The fools will not read it, and make themselves look even more foolish every time they repeat one of these ‘Facts.’ And to the TSM’s Bennett just looks an even bigger fool, because we are all laughing about him, and his abject refusal to accept that he is wrong, even if it costs him his house, his savings, even his liberty.

Blacksmith, to his credit however, has a more palatable writing style. He, at least, enables us to read to the end of one of his posts without suffering a brain haemorrhage, or the desire to pluck our own eyeballs out of their sockets in order to stop the pain. But he too relies on the obedience and unquestioning loyalty of his readers. The only difference is that because his postings are shorter, more digestible, his lies stand out even more clearly than Bennett’s, like an Alligator in a Mink farm.

But just recently Blacksmith exceeded even himself for the sheer unadulterated blatancy of his lies. So much so that I just had to present one such article to a wider audience. The following extract is from a piece of his entitled ‘Exoneration 2-Richard Feynman’ It’s a rather rambling piece, the point of which I am not sure, but I think it’s something to do with opinions, and how everyone has one. Within that post is the following extract.

The question of “the deal”. The pair claimed in a media campaign that they were offered a deal involving a reduced sentence if Kate McCann admitted accidentally killing the child. If she did not confess to this untrue accusation a “homicide” or murder charge would result. We know that in Spring 2011 Kate McCann in the book “Madeleine” completely withdrew this claim, replacing it with a new form of words which made no mention of the above deal. According to her all she was told, via her lawyer, was the factual statement that if the child had died accidentally and she had hidden the body she would receive a lesser sentence than if she had killed the child. (Read it and see, page 243)

Now I have to confess I have no idea who Blacksmith is trying to kid here. Kate’s book is still in the top half of almost every best seller list in most of the countries it is retailing in, and has sold hundreds of thousands of copies. The chances of any of those members of the public who have read the book also being aware of Blacksmiths bureau are about the same as my chances of walking to New York across the Atlantic on the backs of bottlenose dolphins. So I must assume he is addressing his supporters. But even among those supporters there MUST be some who have also read Kate’s book, even if it is an illicit downloaded copy of the Kindle version. So then, why does Blacksmith proceed to make a complete and utter public fool of himself by giving the precise page number, and INVITE others to actually READ it for themselves? A double-bluff ? Or again, an over-reliance on the compliance of his flowers, making the assumption that they will take the attitude of “That’s all right mate, we don’t need to check, we believe you, oh enlightened one!” Because if they ever DID check, this is what they will find.

Then came the best bit. Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.

Pardon? I really wasn’t sure if I could possibly have heard him correctly.
My incredulity turned to rage. How dare they suggest I lie? How dare they expect me to live with such a charge against my name? And even more importantly, did they really expect me to confess to a crime that they had made up, to falsely claim to the world that my daughter was dead, when the result would be that the whole world stopped looking for her? This police tactic might have worked successfully in the past but it certainly wasn’t going to work with me. Over my dead body. “You need to think about it,” Carlos insisted. “It would only be one of you. Gerry could go back to work.”

I was speechless.

The incentive to accept this ‘offer’ seemed to be that if we didn’t agree to it, the authorities could or would go after us for murder, and if we were found guilty, we might both receive life sentences.

Now it seems pretty clear to me, and it must seem equally clear to anyone else who has read the book that Kate most certainly DID mention the deal on page 243. Twice, in fact. So, what was the point of this lie? And what was the point of giving clear directions for anyone who has elementary reading skills to follow, to allow said people to discover for themselves the truth of the lie? Because all that has happened is that Blacksmith, in an attempt to further mislead his foolish followers, has just made himself look an even bigger fool.

Another trait he shares with Bennett.

Just one more question Ma’am!

2011-05-20T09:59:00.000-07:00

By Vee8

The infamous forty eight questions! After the now discredited dog ‘Evidence’ perhaps arguably the most inexhaustible point of discussion among the anti-Madeleines. ”Why did Kate refuse to answer them?” “She should be made to go back to Portugal to answer those questions!” “If she was truly innocent she would have answered them!” And so on and so on ad nauseas. But one comment that I particularly remember, and one that is still oft quoted, “If it were MY daughter who had disappeared I would answer ANY questions, if I thought they would help find her.” Well people, so would I.

IF I THOUGHT THEY WOULD HELP FIND HER.

But let’s look at that point in reverse for a moment. If you were Kate, and if the investigation actually WERE engaged in actively trying to find Madeleine and apprehend the culprit, what sort of questions would you expect to be asked? Perhaps something along the lines of,

“Did you ever notice anyone suspicious hanging around outside the apartment?”

“When on the beach, did you notice anyone paying undue attention to yourselves, or Madeleine?”

“Did you notice any person, staff or guest, taking pictures of Madeleine?”

“Did Madeleine ever mention any new ‘Friends’ that she had made?”

“Did she ever bring home any ‘Gifts’?”

“Did she ever act nervous or uncomfortable when around a particular person?”

“Did she ever talk about going ‘On a trip’?”

Now THOSE are the sort of questions I would expect, IF the investigation were looking for Madeleine, and if I were Kate, I wouldn’t hesitate to ask. Questions that would help point to a suspect, or help show a means and/or motive. In short, questions that really WOULD help find Madeleine. Instead, what did Kate have to suffer? Questions that clearly showed that the PJ had no further intention of looking for Madeleine, and every intention of implicating Kate in her disappearance. No wonder her savvy solicitor instructed her to remain silent.

Let’s look at some of these questions more closely.

“Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?”

Seriously, you come into the apartment, your child’s bed is empty and the window, which was closed, is now open. You have searched the whole apartment in a state of ever increasing panic and despair, but your child is missing. What assumption would YOU make? That your child had opened the window by themselves and run away to join the circus?

“Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.”

Now, as we already pointed out, Kate had by now searched the apartment several times over, long enough to find any loitering abductor. This was in her original statement, so why would the PJ assume the possibility of the abductor still being present?

“What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?”

In other words, is it possible that her younger siblings, in a fit of jealousy, conspired together to commit an act of toddlercide?

“Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?”

I mean, come on, premonitions? Forebodings? Bad omens? Is this what we expect of a modern, civilised police enquiry? Did they really expect Kate to blame FATE?

But the following questions should have had NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER even being in this part of the enquiry.

“Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?”

“Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?”

Because these questions are based on the supposed extracts from Kate’s diary, extracts that were shown by the PJ themselves to have been forged by a Portuguese journalist on the orders of his editor. There was even a rare press report on TV from a PJ spokesman, denouncing these extracts, and confirming that those responsible may face charges for wasting police time. The interviewer knew damn well the questions were, in fact, based on these scurrilous press reports, so why should he then ask the questions anyway?

So, do any of these questions help to actually find Madeleine?

No, and for one very important reason, one that is continually overlooked, forgotten or simply brushed aside by the anti-Madeleines. I have to admit it here, that it annoys me intensely to have to state the obvious, but Kate had just been made an Arguida, a special interest person. In other words, the PJ had by now made it perfectly clear to Kate that they suspected her in the disappearance of her daughter. It also now became crystal clear to her, and so it should now also be clear to everyone else, that because they were concentrating their efforts on Kate, they had by now, to all intents and purposes, given up any attempt at finding a live Madeleine. And if THAT was the case, then it should be clear to all of us that the questions would do NOTHING to help find Madeleine, but could only serve to implicate Kate.

But there was one question that Kate did answer.

"Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?"

“Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.”

Read that question again, very carefully. You are jeopardising the investigation. NOT you are jeopardising our chances of finding Madeleine, NOT you are jeopardising your chances of seeing your daughter again, but jeopardising the investigation. Which, as we all now know, had given up all pretentions of looking for her.

“Plea Bargains” and Lies – But Not the Lies You Might Think

2011-05-15T13:19:00.000-07:00

Article By Honestbroker

It's begun already, the attempted “rebuttal” to Kate's magnificent, unputdownable, superbly narrated heart-rending book. Said 'rebuttal' has got off to a damp squib of a start. Somewhere in the ether (I'll leave you to find where) floats a youtube video that casts aspersions on Kate's description of the offer that was put to her and Gerry in the early hours of the morning 7th September, after Kate's pre-arguida interview had finally finished at 0040 hours the same day. If the poster Heidi Ho (who produced this video) doubts the veracity of Kate's account, she should try something novel, such as reading the files, then she would know beyond doubt that Kate is telling the truth.

The video makes one point that is true, but also a non-sequitur – even in judicial systems that allow them, 'plea-bargains' are only possible after charges have been brought. The plea bargain is an arrangement intended to speed up the course of justice whereby agreement can be reached with the accused that more serious charges will be dropped in return for a promise from the accused that he/she will plead guilty to less serious charges for which comparatively lenient sentences will be imposed. Before charges are brought, a plea-bargain is impossible, and in countries such as Portugal, where the police and judiciary operate independently of each other, they are not possible at all.

Of course, Kate and Gerry were never charged. Still, in Portugal, as elsewhere, there are prescribed punishments for specific crimes. And in Portugal, the particular crime of concealing a body in an attempt to hide a death carries a sentence of two-years' imprisonment. So the offer put to the couple that if Kate agreed to plead guilty to the charge of finding and concealing a body (that of her beloved and cherished daughter, Madeleine), she would receive a two-year sentence, while the PJ would not pursue charges against Gerry, is quite feasible and quite lawful. Whether it is also ethical is a whole different question. But let's ignore that.

The alternative put to the couple was that the PJ would pursue charges, not of attempting to conceal a body, but of murder, against both of them, for which the maximum term of imprisonment in Portugal is 25 years. That, also, is prescribed in law, and so doesn't remotely invoke “plea bargain”.

We can be certain that what Kate says is true by comparing what Amaral says in interviews with what is written in the files.

In that El Mundo interview I have referred to before, Amaral says this:

A - Both the British and Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed his mind, thought the same. We talked about death by others, not murder. In the room, blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl was not a heavy sleeper, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa below the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out, moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.

Q - The girl falls from the sofa, dies with the blow and the parents find her.

A - The mother. It is the mother who finds the girl dead.

They didn't talk about murder? Oh yes they did!

Read this, from Mark Harrison's report:

In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination.

Note that the two scenarios are disposal of a body by foot or by car. Both are death by murder.

The strategy of the PJ becomes clear and is laid bare. From way before Eddie and Keela even arrived, the PJ had formulated their theory of death by unnatural means and had invited exploration of death by murder. They wanted a conviction and they'd go for the 'soft option' of concealment of a crime by disposing of a body, applicable to just one of the arguidos, as a fall-back position from the more aggressive approach of threatening to bring murder charges against both arguido/as. That fits in perfectly with what Kate describes.

However (thank goodness) the joint reaction of Kate and Gerry was not what the PJ was hoping for. The McCanns' initial, and primary response, was thought of the implications of what had been proposed for Madeleine. If they agreed to this, in the eyes of the PJ and the world, the crime would be 'cracked'. What odds of finding Madeleine then? Obviously nil. On that ground alone, the McCanns would not entertain any such chicanery. But there was the ancillary point that they had no intention of submitting to scurrilous accusation of misdeeds of which they were completely innocent. More than that, having been shown the videos of the dogs in action, they were convinced that ex-PC Grime's finest (allegedly employed by the FBI!) were really not very good, and inclined to obey the beckon-call of their master (allegedly advisor to the FBI) after copious direction. Countless others of us who have watched the same videos have come to the same conclusion.

Still, the PJ availed themselves the maximum chance of this strategy working. They hit the McCanns with this proposed 'deal' in the early hours of the morning, when they were surely at their weakest and most vulnerable, after Kate had undergone gruelling examination, had seen videos of the dogs in action and had been subjected to the corrupt misinterpretation of John Lowe's report that 15 of 19 markers of Madeleine's DNA had been found in the car. At that stage, of course, neither Kate nor Gerry had had the chance to read the report of John Lowe of the Forensic Science Service themselves, and so were unable to separate the wheat from the chaff, (the latter) copiously served to them by the PJ. But against all the odds, they didn't crack. Thank goodness they were, at least, spared the added ordeal of pysical assault to which Leonor Cipriaono, who languishes in a Portuguese jail to this day, was subjected.

So, there's just one question left to answer: plea-bargain, Where did it come from?

In an interview to an Irish radio station, Gerry's sister and Kate's sister-in-law, Philomena McCann, in describing accurately what, exactly, had befallen Kate and Gerry in those offices in Portameo, had let slip layman's use of a legal term, 'plea bargain', that wasn't quite exactly accurate, in the scheme of things, a trivial slip, scarcely worth any more acknowledgement than a passing nod.

Finally, Heide ho should catch up on her knowledge of those dogs. They never were employed by the FBI as she claims. Indeed, the licences of both dogs to operate as sniffer dogs expired while they were employed under the direction of the (freelance, ex PC) handler, Marin Grime, in Haute de la Garenne, Jersey.

Declaration of Rights

2011-04-18T12:54:00.000-07:00

By Deuce

I believe it is sensible to take stock of the need to question the book and sum up the basis for challenging a very public doubt-raising agenda, being sold for monetary gain by an ex policeman, convicted of perjury, Goncalo Amaral.

The basis of challenging such agenda’s, arises from the declaration of human rights. The source we are all bound by, as equal in assured protection. The three human rights that concern this blog are the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, the right to privacy and the right to free speech. I have a personal fourth, but will cover that to wind up this article.

Let’s examine the bloggers covering the missing Madeleine topic found in various places on the Internet. Those who support Amaral’s thesis often quote from the files a comment which says the McCann’s lost the opportunity to prove their innocence. I have even witnessed comments that suggest declaring the McCanns as being presumed innocent, does not mean they are, as if the presumption has an excuse to be ignored. This urge to reform the meaning of the presumption of innocence, in such a manner, contravenes the human right to privacy. As normal people know, two wrongs don’t make a right especially when breaking one human right to uphold another.

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/videos/innocent-till-proven-guilty.html

Presumption of Innocence.

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.

2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Ok, from the above statement, the right to be presumed innocent is afforded primarily to those who have been charged, awaiting trial. Therefore as Kate and Gerry have never been charged of any crime, they are not just presumed innocent. They ARE innocent. But the essence of this human right affords them the same protection from false accusations.

The McCanns are innocent without doubt as confirmed by the law and democratic human rights. Anyone who suggests otherwise by public implication that they are guilty of a crime, are breaking the human right to privacy.

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/videos/right-to-privacy.html

Right to Privacy.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, or to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Yes indeed, the McCanns daily receive interference with their privacy with attacks upon their honour and reputation from public comment boards, propaganda forums, Goncalo Amarals book and the more local group led by Anthony Bennett. If the McCanns had to deal with all of these attacks individually, they would be unfairly and overwhelmingly diverted from their campaign to find Madeleine. It is a sad and perverted agenda that some people choose to be involved in, that risk diverting the McCanns attention and priority of searching for their beloved daughter.

What about free speech? Amaral upholds the human right of free speech to excuse the publishing of his book, yet ignores the right to privacy and the fact of being innocent without any suspicion; even more profound than the right to be presumed innocent, alone.

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/videos/freedom-of-expression.html

Freedom of Expression.

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.

This right comes with responsibility. To directly contravene two other human rights in order to practice one is not responsible. But the law and the declaration of human rights protects us from irresponsible freedom of expression. Indeed we can rely upon the right to privacy. When freedom of expression is without doubt an attack on the honour, integrity and good name of innocent people, these victims have the right to the protection from the law against such interference and attacks.

Currently Goncalo is being challenged for his attacks on the McCanns integrity, good name and innocence, in the Portuguese justice system. There should be only one right outcome, we shall see as it does not bode well when the prosecutor who shelved the case suggested he considers a presumption of guilt needs to be proved innocent.

My personal addition to the list of human rights covered here, the right to life.

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/videos/right-to-life.html

Right to Life.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

I think this right is important to remember. Especially in the absence of the missing whose fate remains unknown. For Madeleine McCann, in her absence we must uphold the right to life on her behalf. We must never give up believing that Madeleine McCann can be found alive and well. Any public suggestion that she is dead as closure for any search is an attack on the human rights of Madeleine Beth McCann. People like Goncalo Amaral, Anthony Bennett and those who comment publicly on the Internet, will do well to remember this before exploiting the child’s name for their negative agenda’s.

For the Love of Madeleine.

2011-04-10T12:53:00.000-07:00

By Deuce

This article is related to the conspiracy umbrella which Goncalo Amaral has parked himself under, to justify his own explanation of his fall from grace. It should have come as no surprise to Amaral that he should find himself sheltering from the storm he created alongside fringe elements of an active group of conspiracy theorists. He has certainly reached rock bottom, in my opinion, to need the support of such groups to maintain momentum for the sale of his written word. That written word tainted by the fact he is a convicted perjurer.

Vee8 and Honestbroker have covered aspects of the contribution of conspiracy theorists already. I would like to focus on the Madeleine fund. The fund set up by the McCann family is the only campaign actively and practically searching for Madeleine. Yet these fringe lunatic groups spam media sites proclaiming the fund as a fraud. They know the truth and the facts, yet with great disrespect for missing Madeleine, they rely on recruiting the more gullible of folk into their groups. How could these people be a worry when normal folk can see right through them? I believe the most damaging work that erodes hope for Madeleine is Amarals book. Yet there is the addition of publicity from fringe groups, momentum to that damage from one small group in particular, headed by publicity seeker, Anthony Bennett, who regularly receives monies from members of the public through the use and exploitation of Madeleine’s name as title for his group of fanatical conspiracy theorists and you can now see why the search for a missing child can be damaged, even by 'The moon landings were a lie' types.

The most prolific of statements being spammed on media and social network sites, is that raising monies through charity events for the fund is morally corrupt because the fund is not a charity. That the monies raised do not go to searching for Madeleine, but to fund the family's finances.

Charities, by law, can only be named and managed as such if the monies raised are for the benefit of the public in general. When a child goes missing and the police investigation goes cold, funding becomes crucial to the family still searching. There are charities that raise money to elevate awareness for all missing children, which is fantastic. The McCann’s support such charities themselves. But without taking anything away from the crucial and hard work of selfless volunteers who support these charities, it is without question beneficial for a child to achieve individual attention if possible. With the extraordinary media attention on this case, a fund for Madeleine makes absolute sense. The extraordinary media attention indirectly raises more awareness for all missing children.

Let’s get back to the law regarding fund raising. As the Madeleine fund is for the benefit of one child, logistically, it cannot legally be called a charity. But the law does not frown upon raising money for a missing child. Without the umbrella of protection afforded by the label ‘charity’ the law requires a fund to be practiced as a Limited Company. This gives similar, if not greater, protection to those supplying funding and assures transparency and legality for those running the campaign.

A full and comprehensive definition of the fund can be found on the official campaign website.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html

The Madeleine fund follows the codes of practice as set out by the Institute of Fundraising.

http://www.institute-of-fundraising.org.uk

The Madeleine Fund is a legal and above board fund. That is without question. What is questionable is why there is a minority of people who would suggest otherwise in face of the facts, which are readily and openly available. I don't know why.

I do know why the McCann family set up the Madeleine Fund.

For the Love of Madeleine.

Mothers Day Sunday, 3rd April 2011. Please contribute to Kate and Gerrys Miles for Missing People run which took place on Mothering Sunday weekend.

http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/fundraiser-web/fundraiser/showFundraiserProfilePage.action?userUrl=KateMcCann2

The McCann-Murdoch media manipulation machinations.

2011-04-06T09:54:00.000-07:00

By Vee8

Control the press and you control the people. A popular maxim among those who study the history of propaganda. Which brings us to the next of the anti-Madeleine’s bizarre conspiracy theories, that in order to convince the British public of their innocence the McCanns now have total control of what the media says about them. “The press are not telling us everything,” they trumpet. “The press are biased to the McCanns” they complain.

Funny that, because I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers such lurid headlines as

“Find the body, or the McCanns will escape!”

“We can prove they did it!”

“Maddie DNA found in hire car!”

Eventually the press situation became so bad that Kate and Gerry had no alternative but to take legal action, via a libel suite against the press. Not a very good job of control if the people they were controlling had to be threatened with a court action to stop them from not behaving, is it? In a full, front page apology on the Express, the then editor had to concede that there was no truth whatsoever in any of these allegations, more recently admitting that he had been misled by elements within the PJ who now seem to him to be not entirely trustworthy. Tell us something we didn’t know!

The real question, one avoided studiously by the anti-Madeleines, is how on earth COULD the McCanns gain such power over what we read about them in the daily papers? The anti-Madeleines say that Rupert Murdoch is under orders to protect them. Really! Orders from whom? The McCanns? Rupert Murdoch is one of the wealthiest people on the planet, head of an enormous media conglomerate, rich beyond the dreams of most ordinary folk, and more powerful than all the Marvel comic book heroes rolled into one. What on earth could the McCanns possibly offer him in order to secure his support? All the money ever donated to the fund would be nothing but small change to Murdoch. Blackmail? What do they have over him? I am certain bigger, more powerful and/or dangerous people have probably tried, and failed.

Ah, but what about the government? They are, after all, protecting the McCanns aren’t they? They could order him to protect Kate and Gerry.

Seriously, let’s all just think about that for a moment. There is good reason to argue that it is Murdoch who is the King maker to the British political establishment. He decides which party his newspapers are going to support, and invariably that is the party who wins the next election. In fact some of my work colleagues’ grumble it is a waste of time even holding an election, and that we would be better off writing to Murdoch with our wishes for who we want to govern us next! No, I’m afraid our politicians fawn over Murdoch, seeking his favour and support, they do NOT issue him with edicts about what he must or must not do to comply with government policies, cover ups or scandals.

But even Murdoch does not own ALL of the British press or the media outlets, what about all the other newspapers, or the BBC? Well this is where Mr Clarence Mitchell steps unwillingly into the anti-Madeleine’s spin machine. Clarence Controls the media. Or that, at least, is what one Tony Bennett, of the so called Madeleine foundation CLAIMS Mitchell said. “It is my job to control what comes out of the media.” Perhaps THIS is where the McCanns gain their influence over the opinions of the general public? Alas for poor Bennett, no. This quote is nothing more than a mis-translation from an interview on an Italian TV programme. What Mitchell ACTUALLY said was I CHECK what comes out in the media, and that word translates, from Italian into English, as control. So Clarence no more controls the media than he controls the tides.

So, what is it exactly that the press isn’t telling you? Well, all the lies, disinformation and conspiracy theories that have already been debunked and discredited, time without number, not just here on our blog but on forums and blogs all over the net. Stuff like the much vaunted Gaspar statements, which, if ever they WERE published nationally, would almost certainly result in legal actions against whichever editor was foolish enough to print them. Stuff like the refusal to answer the 48 questions, or the refusal to return to attend a reconstruction. What is conveniently forgotten is that the press DID report these. In fact, depending on which paper you bought it was 48, 60 or even as many as 101 questions.

Later, when it was shown that Kate did not to answer the 48 questions on the explicit advice of her solicitor, mostly predicated on false assumptions about ‘incriminating forensic evidence’ that didn’t exist, this too was dutifully reported by the media, including the BBC, which is odd if, indeed, the media truly is in the pocket of the McCanns. The request to attend the PJ reconstruction too was reported, and the McCanns explained that they HAD, in fact, AGREED to attend a reconstruction, provided it was televised, ’Crimewatch’ style. The PJ refused their request, without explanation. Naturally the McCanns had better things to do with their time, rather than fly all the way back to Portugal to take part in an i dotting and t crossing paperwork exercise that would do nothing to help find their daughter.

So is the British media biased to the McCanns? Should equal weight be given to the thesis of Amaral? Given that the British, and for that matter the rest of the world’s media all know that Amaral’s thesis has as much validity as the flat earth societies postulations I would say no. Even when the flat earth society does get a mention anywhere in the world’s press, it is in a mocking, contemptuous way. Come to think of it, perhaps Amaral should get more press. He and the flat earthers sit well beside each other.

The sword of truth.

2011-04-03T11:15:00.000-07:00

By Honestbroker.

It's a little-known fact that no one saw Madeleine Beth McCann on May 3rd 2007. That's not from 22.00pm or after, but rather at all on that day. Really, it's true. I mean, there are those who claim they saw her. But righteous seekers after, and purveyors of, truth and justice for Madeleine Beth McCann who ride around forum land atop mighty steeds, slaying the unrighteous, rooting out corruption and falsehood and putting the record straight, wield the weapon of truth – the crèche record. The crèche record never lies. Or at least, I'm unsure whether it never lies or whether it purports to tell a truth that is actually a lie – that Madeleine was in the crèche on May 3rd. Either way, the crèche record is unimpeachable and unimpeached (except, possibly, in the sense that it might have been impeached to tell an untruth the unimpeachable know is impeached). In the face of this weapon of purity that shines light into dark corners, exposing the duplicity and double-dealing of the darkest hearts, mere words of pathetic humans are blown aside like paper cups in a tornado.

So who are these pathetic humans? Well, there's David Payne, who insists he saw Madeleine at around 1700. Now, of course, David Payne is one of those dubious Tapas-types, you know, who along with six others of the same ilk (his wife, Fiona, Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, that lot …) sold their souls to the Devil, perjured themselves and risked their reputations, careers and possibly freedoms to criminally cover up for the misdeeds of the nefarious couple, Kate and Gerry McCann. So we can forget him.

Who else? There's Emma Wilding. She claims to have said 'hello' to Gerry as he dropped Madeleine off at the crèche on the morning of May 3rd. But then, she is just a pimply-faced youth who works at the crèche, so she doesn't count. There is also Catriona Baker. She was actually Madeleine's personal nanny. She claims to have gone down to the beach with Madeleine on that fateful day.

Now Catriona Baker, particularly, incurs the wrath of the righteous and pure atop their mighty steeds. You see, she actually struck up a friendship with the Devils incarnate themselves, Kate and Gerry. In days of yore, when the righteous and pure were lads and lasses, people in Britain would be committed to the Tower on charges of High Treason for less; or, in Portugal, would be acquainted with refined instruments of memory-prompt, persuasion and correction, such as the rack or the thumb-screw. My, how times have changed and standards have dropped. There is a slight snag, here, of course, but nothing, I'm sure, the righteous and pure can't deal with. When Cartiona Baker gave her rogatory interview, her friendship with the McCanns was already well formed. But what she says doesn't differ markedly from what she told the Portuguese police on 10th May, just a week after Madeleine's abduction, and well before any friendship with the McCanns had developed. Still, I hear a rumour that friend to all on the side of righteousness and truth, Duarte Levy, has explosive and, as yet, unrevealed film of Gerry, the day before Ms Baker gave her statement to Portuguese police, marching determinedly towards the abode of Ms Baker, pushing a wheelbarrow, filled to overflowing with euro-notes, which he used to buy the silence of Ms Baker on what she didn't see or do, and more particularly, the lies of what she did see. I gather that in an act of unprecedented philanthropy, Levy will offer this explosive video by auction to the highest bidder, with bids starting at 50,000 euros --
strictly cash before delivery.

Then there is nanny Charlotte Penington, who perfidiously insists that she read stories to Madeleine on May 3rd. Who else inhabits the hall of infamy? Well, there's Elisa dias Romao, Maria MA Jose and Cecillia dias Firmino. All say they saw Madeleine on May 3rd. All are either plain wrong or lying, although opinion is divided among the righteous about whether some of these pathetic humans might, actually, have been duped. Did the nefarious McCanns introduce a 'Madeleine substitute' on May 3? Could Charlotte Pennington, who didn't make personal friends with the McCanns, somehow, have actually failed to notice that the child to whom she read stories on May 3rd was actually a Madeleine substitute? Let's face it, rustling up a 'Madeleine look-alike' at short notice, who not only looked like her, but was also trained to speak, react and behave like her, would actually have been a doddle.

Now, of course, the true motivation for the writing of that book becomes clear. With so many people in on the truth whose silence has to be bought, money to appease the blackmailers has to be raised somehow. After all, it can only be money that's kept them quiet so far and the cash to continue to keep them quiet must be found …

They've got it all sussed, the righteous atop their steeds.

The one with the Freemasons.

2011-04-01T11:24:00.000-07:00

By Vee8

Now Government cover up conspiracy theories are all well and good, but they are a bit on the common side. It is easy for everyone to blame their particular elected body for each and every mystery that they can think of, which leaves YOUR theory struggling to be heard above the others. What you need is something to make YOUR theory stand out, make it eye catching. So what better way than to wrap one conspiracy in another? And who better to drag kicking and screaming into your otherwise anodyne scheme than that most mysterious of all groups, the Freemasons? The masons probably have more stories and myths surrounding them than King Arthur and all his knights. Legends about satanic rituals, child sacrifice and the ushering in of a new world order. All complete rubbish, of course, and none has ever even come close to being substantiated, but that matters not to the anti-Madeleines, they know a good conspiracy theory when they see one. (In fact I’m surprised they haven’t yet claimed the Apollo Moon landings were shot in a film studio in Rothley!)

And so, once again with not a shred of proof in sight, they claim that Gerry is a Freemason, as is Gordon Brown, Richard Branson, Brian Kennedy and everyone else who ever came within their sphere of influence. Now I have no idea if Messrs Brown, Branson or Kennedy are masons, and it makes little difference if they are. But, is Gerry? Not so far as I know. Not that Gerry would need to be secretive about it, any mason is free to tell anyone who asks that he is a member. They hold regular meetings in buildings known as lodges, which are known within their locality as such, and anyone can observe them coming and going. One contestant in the Big Brother TV series was quite open about it, and was happy to answer questions from the other contestants about what being a Freemason was about. So if Gerry were a mason he would quite freely acknowledge it if asked. So far though, he has never commented on the subject, so quite how he became so obviously a member is a mystery to me.

But why are the anti-Madeleines so determined to forge this connection between Gerry and the masons? Well they claim that if he were, and if Mr Brown was also a mason, then Gordon would be duty bound, by some sort of mysterious, unspoken masonic code, to protect a fellow mason, even one who may have sexually abused and murdered his own daughter. Using our old friend logic, and a little research, we ask, is there any basis in fact for this reasoning? Categorically no. If you care to Google Freemasons, you will find the following sites, and I include the following extracts.

http://www.aboutfreemasons.com/Freemasons

Do Freemasons give other Masons advantages?

No. Freemasons are not allowed to achieve material gain or any preferment from membership. The Mason Book of Constitutions clearly defines giving other Masons advantages as a misuse of membership, which is punishable by expulsion from Freemasonry or suspension. Therefore, members are not allowed to give other Masons advantages when it comes to job offers, contracts, promotions, and other such items. Masons are also not allowed to lie to authorities to protect a Mason who has committed a crime or misdemeanours.

http://www.warringtonfreemasons.org.uk/what_is_freemasonry.htm

CONDUCT

On his entry into Freemasonry each candidate states unequivocally that he expects no material gain from his membership. At various stages during the three ceremonies of his admission he is forcefully reminded that attempts to gain preferment or material gain for himself or others is a misuse of membership which will not be tolerated. Abuse of membership can result in penalties varying from temporary suspension to expulsion. Nor may Freemasonry ever be used to protect a fellow Freemason, or anyone else, who has behaved dishonestly or unlawfully.

But the real question is CAN Gerry even BE a Freemason? The answer is again, quite unequivocally, no. Though the Freemasons themselves openly welcome members from any faith, race or background, as a practising Catholic Gerry is barred by his church from entering Freemasonry, as again the following website extracts show.

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/Articles/Our_Lady_and_Christian_Culture/can-a-catholic-be-a-freemason.html

Furthermore, local ecclesiastical authorities have not remained silent on masonry either. On April 19, 1985, Cardinal Bernard Law released a report to the United States Catholic bishops that "shows that the principles of masonry are incompatible with Christian faith and practice whether or not a specific masonic organization happens to be engaging in activity against the church." Even as recently as March 1, 2007, Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, the regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, reaffirmed the Church's position at a conference on freemasonry at the St. Bonaventure Pontifical Theology

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/freemasonry.htm

Therefore, the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and, therefore, membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=115585

Q. I have a friend who is a Freemason who wants to become Catholic but is under the impression he can't because of his status as a Freemason. Is this true? I have heard it both ways and can't find a definitive answer on the Internet.

A. It depends on whether or not your friend still intends to remain a member of Freemasonry after he enters the Church. If he plans to abandon Freemasonry for Catholicism, yes, of course, he can become Catholic. But if he intends to remain a Freemason after becoming a Catholic, to my knowledge, no, he cannot enter the Church. The Church has long stated that Catholics are prohibited from involvement in Freemasonry.

Now before the anti-Madeleines start jumping up and down with excitement, yes, I did find one blog that appeared to contradict these findings, with the author claiming to be both a Freemason and a minister in the Catholic church. But I can find no independent verification of this authors claims, and one swallow does not a summer make, therefore I will stick to what is quite clearly the church’s official stance.

So, though no doubt the con theorists will stick doggedly to their beliefs I hope that the casual reader will be more enlightened to the facts here. Unless and until proof is provided to the contrary, and by that I mean something that could stand up in a court of law, I can state that Gerry is NOT a Freemason, cannot BE a Freemason and there are NO non-existent, ritualistic masonic codes protecting him.

H.M.Government-Office of Cover-ups.

2011-03-29T11:56:00.000-07:00

By Vee8

As I pointed out in the first of this series, debunking conspiracy theories is very difficult. This is because the theorists seldom, if ever, provide anything resembling hard evidence to back up their claims. This is both at once their greatest weakness and their greatest strength. They cannot prove that what they say is right, but without providing any background for believing what they do it is also almost impossible to prove them wrong. For instance, imagine you have misplaced your car keys. You ask your wife where they are, and she says they are in the lounge. You have a quick look before saying that you can’t find them and that therefore your wife must be wrong. She replies that she is certain that she saw them sometime, somewhere in the lounge, so that is where they must be. Now, unless you spend a huge amount of time taking your lounge apart, brick by brick, and searching every square centimetre of the ruins you cannot prove that your wife did not see your keys in the lounge!

Now, as we previously pointed out, when Amaral cast around for some sort of excuse for his failures in the Madeleine investigation he latched onto the idea of British government interference. In his book Amaral even states that Prime Minister Gordon Brown was informed that Amaral was being removed from the case before he himself knew of this decision. But HOW did he know? Who told him? Did he speak to Mr Brown himself? Without any evidence all we have is the word of a convicted criminal, found guilty of lying under oath in a court of law, and we would be foolish indeed to take his word for it. But it is this very claim that is the cornerstone of the anti-Madeleine’s belief in a government order to protect the McCanns, indeed it is the very fountain from which springs ALL their conspiracy theories. I propose all of these strange notions can be traced back to the various utterances of Amaral’s excuses for his failures.

In order to counter these convoluted and bizarre thought processes we have to rely principally on logic and good, old fashioned common sense. We need only to ask simple questions, such as WHY would the government pass any kind of uber-secret orders to protect the McCanns at all costs? IF Kate and Gerry really were the devious, cunning and manipulative child killers we are told by the anti-Madeleines, what possible reason could not one but TWO successive governments have to protect them? If such a story ever managed to break, if an investigative journalist ever managed to dig out the truth, or if an honest junior minister decided to break ranks and talk, the resulting political explosion would be cataclysmic. MP’s are not above the law, as several who fiddled their expenses accounts have found out to their costs. Some are even now doing time. What sort of jail sentence would a Prime Minister who covered up the death and possible sexual abuse of a child expect? The truth has a habit of finding ways to be known, and if there were any government involvement eventually we would all know, and those ministers who colluded in it would be caught and severely punished.

What little evidence the anti-Madeleines do have, such as it is, can be easily dismissed with some simple research. They point to unusually high Ambassadorial assistance offered to the McCanns from the moment Madeleine was abducted. Now, any SENSIBLE person would know that anytime a British citizen becomes a victim of a crime abroad they will receive consular support from our embassy staff. The more serious the crime the greater the level and depth of support. But to the anti-Madeleines however, this support is somehow suspicious, an over reaction. So, to be sure, I took the trouble to write to my MP, asking what sort of level of support could a British tourist abroad, as a victim of a serious crime, expect to receive from the British embassy. By reply I received, from the Foreign office, a very useful and comprehensive booklet, also available online in a downloadable PDF format. It is packed full of information, but I have posted the pertinent sections here.

http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/consularfullguide,0.pdf

WHAT KIND OF HELP WE CAN PROVIDE

We offer help which is appropriate to the individual
circumstances of each case, including:
• issuing replacement passports;
• providing information about transferring funds;
• providing appropriate help if you have suffered rape
or serious assault, are a victim of other crime,
or are in hospital;
• helping people with mental illness;
• providing details of local lawyers, interpreters,
doctors and funeral directors;
• doing all we properly can to contact you within 24
hours of being told that you have been detained;
• offering support and help in a range of other cases,
such as child abductions, death of relatives overseas,
missing people and kidnapping;
• contacting family or friends for you if you want; and
• making special arrangements in cases of terrorism,
civil disturbances or natural disasters.

WE CANNOT:

• get you out of prison, prevent the local authorities
from deporting you after your prison sentence,
or interfere in criminal or civil court proceedings;
• help you enter a country, for example, if you do
not have a visa or your passport is not valid, as we
cannot interfere in another country’s immigration
policy or procedures;
• give you legal advice, investigate crimes or carry out
searches for missing people, although we can give
you details of people who may be able to help you
in these cases, such as English-speaking lawyers;
• We cannot collect evidence or investigate crimes
ourselves, and in many countries investigating
authorities and the courts will refuse to answer
enquiries from other people and organisations,
including consuls. So, you should consider
appointing a local lawyer who can look after your
interests in court, and follow any trial for you.
We can give you a list of local English-speaking
lawyers and interpreters. We would not ordinarily
go to a court case involving a British national
and cannot influence the outcome of any trial.
• Back in the UK, you may feel you would benefit from
extra support to help you cope with the effects of
the crime. Organisations such as Victim Support can
help (www.victimsupport.org).

NEXT OF KIN AND
REPRESENTATIVES

• If there is an on-going investigation
overseas, the Police Adviser to Consular
Directorate will also decide whether
to ask a local UK police force to use a
Family Liaison Officer (FLO) to advise
and help the family in dealing with the
investigation. The relevant UK police force
will make the final decision as to whether
an FLO is appointed.

And most importantly,

INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION
• If you are worried about your child being abducted
overseas by the other parent or a relative, you
should contact our Child Abduction Section
on 020 7008 0878 (or our switchboard
on 020 7008 1500 outside office hours).
• If your child has been abducted, we can tell you
whether the country which your child has been
taken to has joined the Hague Convention on
International Child Abduction. If it has, we can
put you in touch with the relevant authorities
in the UK which can ask the court in the country
concerned to make an order for the child to be
returned to the UK.
• If the country to which your child has been
taken has not joined the Hague Convention on
International Child Abduction, we can give you
a list of overseas lawyers who speak English.
Some may be specialists in family law. However,
we cannot pay any legal fees ourselves.
• We can give you basic practical information about
the customs and legal procedures of the country
to which your child has been taken. We can also
provide travel information and, if necessary, offer
guidance on finding accommodation locally. We can
help you contact the relevant local authorities and
organisations when you are overseas.

As you can see, this booklet shows quite clearly that the McCanns received no more support than anyone else in a similar terrible situation. Of particular note is the following paragraph,

We can give you a list of local English-speaking
lawyers and interpreters. We would not ordinarily
go to a court case involving a British national
and cannot influence the outcome of any trial.

I mention this because it is suggested that the McCanns ‘Rush’ to appoint lawyers to act on their behalf is another part of the reason to suggest they are not being truthful. (It is also said, totally erroneously and again with no shred of proof, that the lawyers the McCanns appointed were extradition lawyers.) In reality, ANYONE who becomes victim of a crime would need a lawyer to act on their best interests, on the assumption that in good time the crime would be solved, the perpetrator apprehended, and a court case would ensue. The tragedy is that the McCanns had the double misfortune, on top of having their daughter abducted, of putting their trust in finding Madeleine into the hands of a man who was himself corrupt, and would later himself end up in court.

What about all those private phone calls to the McCanns from the Prime minister? The insinuation is that this is some sort of assurance that the government will do everything in their power to cover up the parental involvement in the tragic death of a small child. Again, using logic, we ask, why? Why would Gordon Brown take the trouble to call the McCanns and assure them that they would receive the highest level of protection? Sounds crazy when you put it like that, doesn’t it? No, what actually happened was nothing more than a call to pass on his sympathy, and assure them that everything possible would be done to help them recover Madeleine. In other words, the same sort of call that would be made to any other victim of the most serious of crimes abroad.

But wait, isn’t the PM a Freemason, along with half of the government? And Gerry McCann is a doctor, and it is well known that all doctors are Freemasons, right? And we all know a mason will bend over backwards to protect a fellow mason, even a child abusing killer don’t we?

Please stay tuned for our next instalment.

Conspiracies R Us.

2011-03-27T12:55:00.000-07:00

By Vee8

In my previous piece, ‘Fear and Loathing: The Secret Heroes,’ I mentioned Amaral’s spurious and thus far totally unsubstantiated claim that it was interference from the British government that scuppered his chances of solving the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and how this strange and rather bizarre statement gave rise to all sorts of cover up conspiracy theories among the anti-Madeleines. I and my fellow authors would like now to delve a little deeper into some of the more prominent conspiracy schemes dreamed up by these people, and attempt to unravel some of the twisted tangle of disinformation lying at the heart of these imaginative but wholly bogus stories. This, however, is not an easy task. Many of these schemes have been in existence almost since the day Madeleine was abducted, and large numbers of the anti-Madeleines cling limpet-like to them, cherishing them and holding them close to their hearts, and they will not be dissuaded easily. But for the casual reader I can do no better than to start with the following piece on conspiracy theorists by Donna Ferentes, and I have to say it is so apt in describing those who try to cast doubt in the minds of the public regarding the innocence of the McCanns it could almost be specifically written about them.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

Conspiracy Theorists. A Useful Guide By Donna Ferentes.

Arrogance.
They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

Relentlessness.
They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for précis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

Inability to answer questions.
For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

Fondness for certain stock phrases.
These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

Leaping to conclusions.
Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

It's always a conspiracy.
And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

Now it's official-Amaral IS a liar.

2011-03-22T13:29:00.000-07:00

By Vee8.

Last week former head of the investigation into the abduction of Madeleine McCann, Goncalo Amaral, had his appeal against his conviction for perjury in the case of Leonor Cipriano rejected. You may remember, we told you about this tragic miscarriage of justice here on this blog earlier,

http://amaralfiction2.blogspot.com/2010/11/joana-cipriano-goncalo-amarals.html

This means that with immediate effect Amaral’s sentence begins, and he now has a criminal record. It would be all too easy for we authors of this blog to smugly say “We told you so.” In fact I confess to mutely letting out a small whoop of delight when I heard the news. But our joy is tempered by the memory of the victims of Amaral’s crimes, Leonor, the grieving and wronged mother, and poor little Joana, so callously failed by Amaral.

Let’s put that in simple terms. Amaral KNEW Leonor was innocent, he KNEW there wasn’t a shred of evidence against her, and he KNEW that, within the very building where he worked, several hired thugs were beating the daylights out of that poor woman, in order to obtain a confession. Then, with full knowledge of what had happened, he colluded with the torturers in order to cover up their heinous deeds. And the court agreed. This judge concurred with the summation of Amaral’s first trial judge, that there is ample evidence that Leonor was indeed tortured.

It is now time, way past time, for all those who fell at this disgraceful man’s feet, worshipped him, sent him birthday wishes and Christmas cards, called him the ‘Brilliant detective’ to hang their heads in the deepest shame.

SHAME, that they could not see, or worse, chose to deliberately ignore, that which we of this blog, and ALL who have steadfastly supported Kate and Gerry all along, have seen right from the beginning.

Yes, Amaral may have also had a small victory this week, with the Portuguese supreme court upholding his right to sell his book, but it will prove to be a hollow victory. Who now will buy a book, entitled, “The Truth of a Lie” when the author himself is now known throughout the world as a proven liar? Who can now ever trust the word of a convicted criminal?

We have done our best to highlight Amaral’s misdeeds, not just here, on this blog, but everywhere we can, on the internet and by word of mouth. Now, with this judicial proclamation, we feel justified and vindicated. I just hope and pray that it is not yet too late for the children that Amaral failed for them to be found, and brought back to the arms of their loving families.

Transcript of the court ruling can be found here.

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/ultima-hora/advogado-de-leonor-cipriano-vai-processar-estado

Value of Évora retains the punishment PJ inspectors

Leonor Cipriano lawyer to sue state

The Court of Appeal of Evora not upheld the appeals of two inspectors from the Judicial Police condemned the Leonor Cipriano case and decided to keep the ruling of first instance, said this Friday's lawyer Marcos Aragao Correia, adding he would sue the Portuguese Government for Violation of Human Rights.

According to the lawyer for Leonor Cipriano, the Court of Appeal considered "quite sufficient" all the evidence in the first instance to prove the existence of a "serious crime of torture" against Leonor Cipriano.

At trial, held in Faro, for several months, the two inspectors of the Judicial Police, Gonçalo Amaral and António Cardoso, were sentenced to one year and six months and two years and three months respectively, suspended in its execution.
Gonçalo Amaral, former coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Department in Lagos, as the author was convicted of a crime of false testimony, and Antonio Cardoso, as the author of a crime of forgery of a document.

According to Marcos Aragão Correia, the Court of Appeal of Evora has declared "unfounded" every resource, including the claim of the defendants' proof of renewal. "

The lawyer adds that the judges who reviewed the resources, and decide to keep the full ruling of first instance final, confirmed that Leonor Cipriano "was brutally tortured by agents of the various Portuguese Judicial Police who remain unidentified."

According to Aragão Correia, the court considered "not to exacerbate" the sentence imposed by the Goncalo Amaral this be a "primary offender" and also the same as being retired from the police.

Marcos Aragão Correia announced that in consequence of this decision, Leonor Cipriano will lodge a formal complaint against the Portuguese government to the United Nations for violating "the most basic gross human rights".
Defence lawyers said the conviction will be sought and the expulsion of Portugal's Human Rights Commission of the United Nations.

Eddie and Keela in Praia da Luz – Matching claim and Performance

2011-03-14T12:20:00.000-07:00

Article by Honestbroker.

In various places in the file, Grime makes specific claims about the performance of his dogs. Matching claim with the record from the file or other sources reveals an, at times, incongruous picture. About Eddie, Grime says:

The dog's olfactory system is so highly developed that it continues to be efficient at cellular level:

Distinguish the time difference between footprints to give a direction of travel.

Distinguish live from dead within minutes.

The first claim seems to be for dogs trained to track the scents of living people. Cadaver dogs, as a rule, are trained to ignore the scents of living people.

The second claim is perplexing, too. For a long time, it was accepted without question on-line that the time interval between death and emission of a scent from a corpse detectable to a dog was 90 minutes.

Then someone established the provenance of the claim, research in America on a so-called 'body farm', to which people donate their bodies after death for the purpose of training cadaver dogs, and also research. A study into the very question of how soon after death a scent is released detectable to dogs yielded a soonest time of, actually, just less than an hour and a half. But that was an isolated result. The majority of all results yielded what the study took as the actual average time, 2 and a half to 3 hours. So we can only guess where Grime gets his time of "minutes" from.

http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
Grime says that Eddie is sure of the scent he is trained to detect and won't bark if he has doubts. From Grime's profile, he cites this from a case Eddie worked on in Northern Ireland:
Page 2267

APPENDIX.... (To Martin Grime's Profile Report)

ATTRACTA HARRON.

A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland.
A missing person search did not reveal her whereabouts.
The search of a suspect's 'totally burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence.
A 'one minute' search by the EVRD identified a position in the rear passenger footwell where the dog alerted to the presence of human material.
A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victim's DNA.

And in his rogatory interview, he says:
The dogs' passive CSI [Crime Scene Investigation] alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert.
This is about both dogs. The alleged scent from the 'cuddlecat' toy was, apparently, more accessible to Eddie when the toy was hidden in a cupboard than when he could see it, touch it and play with it.
Yet, following the inspection in the villa the Mccanns hired after vacating the holiday apartment, we read this from the file:

Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose, attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and Kila [that] indicates blood odours.

Possibly indicated? The scent of which Eddie, is, apparently, quite certain might, or might not, have been detected in the villa, and so everything had to be taken up, relocated to a different venue (a gymnasium) and re-checked.

There is also research which suggests that sniffer dogs worked too hard get tired and are more likely to make errors; further, that handlers who have a strong reason to think that a scent might be present in an area being searched are more likely, subconsciously, to give a cue to a dog that leads to a false alert.

The second search of the clothing in the gymnasium was conducted in the early hours of the morning. It is surprising and worthy of note that, during the inspections in the gymnasium, both dogs trampled over clothing they were inspecting and Eddie in particular picked certain items up in his mouth. That seems an odd way to treat items that might have held crucial forensic evidence. Perhaps that also, in part, explains why nothing reacted to during that search was forwarded to the forensic laboratory in Birmingham.

From video footage, it has been widely remarked how many times Grime had to call Eddie back to the Renault hire car before the dog, finally, reacted (we know) to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition card. Eddie simultaneously inspected 10 vehicles, and it seems reasonable to speculate that other cars, too, might have had blood deposits. Could that be why it took Eddie so long to react (in contrast to the vehicle in the Attracta Haron case cited above)? There were also the 'Madeleine' stickers on the back of the McCanns' hire car.

About Keela, Grime says:
'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement.

I think we're entitled to ask how Grime would know. However he does, Keela, apparently, reacted to blood on a curtain in apartment 5a they could find no trace of at the Forensic Science Service forensic laboratory in Birmingham.

Grime says about Eddie:
In six years operational deployment in over 200 cases the dog has never alerted to meat based foodstuffs.

From the file and the search of apartment 5D we learn:

Apartment 5 D

We've put the victim recovery dog through this apartment, the only interest has been in some food that he has found, other than that there is no interest in anything that he has been taught to tell me that he has found.

Eddie reacts to swine cadaver scent. That much is known. Many people have wondered, therefore, why he wouldn't react to meat products derived from the pig.

Lastly a point about Grime himself. In the search of the vehicles in an underground carpark, he is seen on video dressed in the protective overalls of his trade, to prevent cross-contamination. In the searches of the apartment and in the villa, Grime is dressed in jeans and tee-shirt. Why?

According to one press report, Grime showed film of Eddie reacting to the McCanns' hire car (where Grime was correctly dressed) at a presentation before he was hired for the Haut de la Garenne children's home job in the British island of Jersey. If the report is accurate, the veil of sercecy still rested on the Madeleine investigation at the time, and so the video ought not to have been shown.

FEAR AND LOATHING: THE SECRET HEROES.

2011-03-02T10:00:00.000-08:00

By Vee8.

Most of us, at some time in our lives, have been grateful for the appearance of a good Samaritan. A kindly stranger who’s act of random benevolence helped us out of a tricky situation. I remember one particular occasion from my own life, many years ago when I was a technician in the Royal Air Force. Driving home for the weekend I was passing through Thetford Chase, a large and sparsely populated forested area, when I ran out of petrol. So keen was I to get home I had neglected to check my fuel gauge! I had a petrol can in the boot, but it was empty, so I had to face a long walk to the next town and a petrol station. It was only a few minutes into the long trudge when a car passed. Before I had even put out my thumb in the classic hitchhikers’ gesture he had already pulled over in front of me. “Out of gas?” he asked, pointing to the can in my hand. I nodded. “I have a full can in the boot if you like.” I offered to pay for the petrol but he seemed almost offended, telling me to just return the favour to someone else at the next opportunity. I never did get his name, but I have since always tried to remember to keep a full can of petrol in my boot.

Sometimes these Samaritans are not just selfless but actually brave to the point of heroic. Often we see headlines in the press like ‘Stranger pulls drowning child from dangerous tide’ or ‘Neighbours save family from burning house.’ On a bigger scale, when news cameramen cover a major disaster, such as a flood or earthquake, you will, more often than not, see not just the emergency services in frantic efforts to rescue survivors, but ordinary members of the public, covered in grime, sweat and sometimes blood, risking their own safety to pull victims from a hazardous situation. They do this not for fame, nor glory, or monetary reimbursement. Many of them shun the publicity. They do it simply because, well, it is the right thing to do. Perhaps that spark of human decency that most of us have within burns just that little more brightly within them, compelling them to do something more than just watch from the sidelines, or pass on by on the other side. Whenever we read or hear about these selfless, noble or heroic people we feel a sense of pride that there are those among us like that, perhaps thinking to ourselves, ‘Good on you.’

When Madeleine McCann was abducted in Portugal, on May 3rd, 2007, there was immediately a huge surge of public sympathy for her and her family. We all felt terribly sorry for them, watching their unfolding anguish, and we all prayed for a happy ending. Many, like myself, wished that somehow we could actually DO something, though perhaps not really knowing what we COULD do, for a family we didn’t actually know, so far away.

But a small group of the aforementioned class of people DID decide to do something, something more than just wring their hands in pity. They got together and formed a volunteer group, dedicated to finding ways to support the McCanns, by helping raise awareness of Madeleine, and doing whatever they could think of to work towards the goal of reuniting this torn family. Starting with just a few people, this group soon gained members from every walk of life, from all across the globe, such was the reach of the story of Madeleine’s abduction. All good and noble people, with the very best of intentions in their hearts.

IN ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES these people too would receive the public accolade they deserve, even if not directly to their face.

In any other circumstances. But the abduction of Madeleine McCann is not like other tragedies. You see, there are a tiny but highly vocal minority of people out there who’s spark of decency has been extinguished, who’s milk of human kindness has curdled, and turned sour. These people, instead of sympathy, felt only a hatred of the McCanns, and instead of a feeling of distant pride, felt only suspicion and distrust for their selfless helpers and supporters. Because, for reasons I will attempt to explain later, they believe that there is some sort of cover up going on, that the McCanns are not the innocent victims of a heinous crime but are, in fact guilty of, at least, covering up and perhaps even causing Madeleine’s death. And this minority also decided to act. Using their armchair detective skills derived from hours of watching ‘Crime Scene Miami’ or ‘Life On Mars’ they started investigating anyone who they decided was ‘In on it.’ They would hunt down and attack anyone who they could find who publicly supported Kate and Gerry.

I myself was an early victim. Not many days after the news of Madeleine’s abduction first broke I started leaving comments on the VirginMedia newspages. Every time a new update broke I was there, part of a new and burgeoning online community. But, foolish me, in my naivety I left my comments in my own name. Later, when I joined some of the forums set up in support of the McCanns I used the tag ‘Vee8’ one I have been using for years on all the hot rod and custom car forums I am a member of, including my own local club. But again I reckoned without the sleuthing abilities of those people who had by now become known as the anti-Madeleines. Because on my own clubs website my real name was in the personal details. It was no problem to put the two together. I had no idea of what was to follow. All my personal details, name, address, occupation, family members names, e-mail address, all was made public on one of the first, and now legendary, websites set up to actually persecute the McCanns, the 3arguidos forum. I admit that, at first, I was unaware of what was going on. It was difficult to believe such sites existed. But I soon found out when a friend tipped me off. She sent me a link. And it was all there. Warnings to stop supporting two child killers, threats that if I carried on I would receive a good kicking. Later I got e-mails, which I still have saved, accusing me of everything from causing an innocent man’s suicide, to being an actual paedophile. I was warned my car would be vandalised outside my house. And all this because I dared to publicly support two parents caught in a whirlwind of a nightmare.

It was much the same, if not even worse for the members of the group of volunteers. They too were hunted down and ‘Outed’ as the act became known. As if these good people had done something to be ashamed of. One of the early admin members had her place of work made public. Her employer received so many calls and e-mails the poor woman had no choice but to give up her role in the group or risk loosing her job. Other members received similar threats via e-mails as myself. Some of these so-called ‘Truth seekers’ even tried to infiltrate the group itself, in a vain attempt to undermine and discredit the organisation. Other, more well know public supporters, have suffered similar fates. One of Kate and Gerry’s chief financial benefactors, Brian Kennedy, has had the founder of the inappropriately named ‘Madeleine foundation, Tony Bennett, actually stalk him in his home and workplace, posting pictures of himself in Mr Kennedy’s garden. But what, or rather who, is the cause of all this trouble? Who saw fit to use these more gullible members of society in order to further cause the McCanns misery on top of that they already suffer?

Goncalo Amaral.

It is by now a well-known fact that Amaral headed up one of the worst police investigations into a hugely public crime in living memory. Seen throughout the world as incompetent, the investigation itself was deeply flawed right from the very first day, when he chose to sit at the table at his favourite restaurant, rather that attend the scene of a child abduction.

Human nature, being what it is, often makes it difficult for us to admit when we are wrong, to concede our mistakes, and to be fair to Amaral he is no different to most of us in that regard. Like perhaps many of us, he preferred to pass the blame, make excuses, and abdicate his responsibility for his failures. But his mistakes were SO big, SO blatant, SO hugely public, he had to come out with an equally enormous excuse. And he did! He blamed political interference from the British government! It is this insinuation, never once backed up by even a hint of proof, that is behind the attacks on the volunteers, the helpers and the supporters. Because, knowingly or not, he spawned a conspiracy theory that ranks right up there with faked moon landings, who really shot JFK and Presidential ordering of the 9/11 atrocity. And it is that baseless accusation that has begat the hounding, the stalking, intimidation, the relentless pressure and the death threats against the volunteers, the supporters and the helpers. Amaral’s lame and pathetic excuse has a lot to answer for.

Because of this, the volunteer group now has to tip-toe around, work silently, being oh so careful about revealing their identities, in effect, working with one hand tied behind their backs, for fear of provoking further retaliation from the anti-Madeleines. And all because they were so moved as to wish to help find a lost little girl. And yet, still they persevere. Still do what they can to help this shattered family, despite the risks. Why?

Well, because it’s the right thing to do.

Greece Lightning

2011-02-28T11:06:00.000-08:00

Article by Deuce.

In the book, Truth of the Lie, Amaral makes a comment which compares the Gaspar statement with other information, which serves to raise suspicion about a member of the Tapas group, through his use of words to interpret what was said by a witness and the addition of pure hearsay.

Firstly, Goncalo talks about the Gaspar statement itself. Actually he talks about a section from the statement and interprets a specific piece of information which manipulates the truth effectively to point fingers at a member of the Tapas group of friends. Something the Leicester police were no doubt aware of as a risk and therefore had declared their intention to protect innocent people and witnesses through their regulation that this information was not be revealed until the crime had been solved.

Katherina Gasper wondered if two friends she was observing were talking about Madeleine when they were making adult gestures. She did not hear them mention any names, she just wondered, assumed who they were talking about. Yet Amaral twists what the statement says.

Amaral . “She hears the latter ask if she - probably Madeleine - did "that".

The actual statement says.

K. Gaspar. “I was sitting between Dave and Gerry whom I believe were both talking about Madeleine.”

Katherina believed they were talking about Madeleine. That is not the same as knowing as fact that they were talking about Madeleine and certainly not, as Amaral interprets it, Probably talking about Madeleine. Probably means the same as most likely. Why would an investigator charged with finding the truth, take a witness statement and tell readers of his book that the witness meant her assumption of who was being discussed was probable? He then goes on to make a further link to add value to his probability.

“This witness statement from the couple, S.G. and K.G., is taken by the English police on May 16th, thirteen days after Madeleine's disappearance. That information, very important for the progress of the investigation, was never sent to the Portuguese police. When the Portuguese investigators learn about similar events that allegedly took place during a holiday in Greece - without, however, obtaining reliable witness statements, they tell the English police, who, even at this point, refrain from revealing what they know on the subject.”

Do you see what Goncalo did? He used information learned by Portuguese investigators, but not from a reliable witness statement. He heard gossip about an issue that allegedly took place on a holiday in Greece and there is no information in the files about this gossip. So isn't Goncalo actually gossiping himself?

Then further along in the same chapter, Goncalo ends the subject with.

“It is difficult to seriously doubt these witnesses.”

He said ‘witnesses’! There is only one witness statement in question. The other unreliable sources which produced gossipers has pluralised his official witness. Even so, if he was just talking about the official witness and her assumption, being 'difficult to doubt an assumption' doesn't really make sense, unless Amaral meant he has no reason to doubt Katherina made an assumption. However, it seems with the addition of hearsay and his use of the word 'probable' to interpret Katherina's own words, I believe Goncalo was manipulating; painting a picture that Madeleine WAS being discussed and raising a suspicion of paedophilia as 'probable'. His statement that it is 'difficult to seriously doubt these witnesses' reveals Amarals real agenda.

Installing such propaganda to add value to an assumption, add value to a witness statement with cheap hearsay, can strike unfounded suspicion upon an innocent individual forever. I have no doubt common sense will prevail and most intelligent people will see through this use of misinformation.

Lightning only needs to strike once. Perhaps Goncalo is relying on that Greece Lightning to manipulate opinion and suspicion?

Can we trust these files?

2011-02-26T04:03:00.000-08:00

Article by Honestbroker.

There is a tale to tell from the enclosed correspondance, in the files, between Goncalo Amaral and the Portguese Forensic laboratory. Or at least, that's how it's presented. But closer analyis suggests a different story and raises some intriguing discrepancies.

Amaral sent a pair of duplicate pyjamas, pristine and unworn, to the forensic laboratory. Why he did that is an intriguing question in itself, and perhaps, one deserving of an article in its own right. But my focus, here, is very different.

Here is Amaral's letter, dated 5th of June, when he was, indeed, coordinator of the case:

To: Police Scientific Laboratory
Lisbon

5th June 2007

Subject: Sending of Pyjamas

The present inquiry investigates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007. I am herewith delivering to the Police Scientific Laboratory a pair of girl?s pyjamas.

The Pyjamas are from Marks and Spencers, size 2 to 3 years -97 cm.

The pyjamas are composed of two pieces: camisole type without buttons and half sleeves, pink with designs, letters and tracing in white with (small) floral patterns, the right pyjama bottom leg has a design (smaller size) which is identical to that of the camisole.

The pyjamas being sent are 'equal' in make, model, size, colours and designs as well as presumably the texture, to those the little girl was wearing at the time of her disappearance. The article sent serves for eventual comparisons with fibres collected by the competent officers of the Police Scientific Lab, within the scope of the current investigation.

With compliments

Signed

The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Goncalo Amaral

Here is the response:

Processos Vol VII Page 1723 to 1725 07_VOLUME_VI1a_Page_1723

Letter
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Date: 2007/03/15 (sic)

Ref: NUIPC 201/07 GALGS

Your communication: 2007/06/05

Ref n? 15971 Reg Correspondence 6429/07

Subject: Information

With reference to the abovementioned letter and in compliance with the despatch, we request you to provide us with information with regard to what should be done with the material sent, given that in this Scientific Police Laboratory there are no fibres that have been collected within the scope of the investigation mentioned above.

With compliments.

PP The Director of the SPL
Armando Santos
(Haed of Sector) 07 Processos Vol VII Page 172407_VOLUME_VI1a_Page_1724

The first thing to note is the date. 15 March 2007, some six weeks before the McCanns arrived in Portgual. The translator, not me, added 'sic' after the date, to indicate that he/she had registered the error and copied, literally, what was written.

So, is this a straightforward typing error by the laboratory? Closer analysis suggests it might not be. Notice that the letter is addressed to the [i]coordinator of the criminal investigation[/i], but that the person is not named. In the text of the original Portuguese document, from which the translation is derived, and which can be enlarged to readable form if clicked on, the name of the addressee is given -- not Goncalo Amaral and neither his successor Paulo Rebelo, but Joao Carlos, an inspector in the Madeleine investigation, but never the coordinator.

Notice something else, too. The reply makes no reference to 'pyjamas' -- only 'material'.
The anomolies don't stop there. Here is Amaral's response to the reply from the Portuguese Forensic Institute:

To: Scientific Police Laboratory

Date: 5th June 2007

Subject: Sending of Pyjamas

The present inquiry investigates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on 3rd May 2007 from P da L.

By means of this note I am sending a set of child?s pyjamas to the Scientific Police Laboratory.

The pyjamas are of Marks $ Spencers make and size 2/3 years, 97 cm.

The pyjamas are composed of two pieces, a camisole without buttons and half length sleeves, pink in colour with designs and letters and white trousers with floral motifs (small), on the right leg there is a design (smaller size) that is the same as the design on the camisole.

The pyjamas being sent are ?equal? in make, model, size, colours and designs and presumably texture, as those the girl was wearing at the moment of her disappearance.

The article sent serves for eventual comparison with ?fibres? collected during the competent examinations carried out by staff from the SPL, within this inquiry.

Compliments.

G. Amaral

(Note: there is handwriting over the text which I can?t fully make out).

This reply is word-for-word the same as Amaral's original letter, except for the last sentences of each letter, which are ever so slightly different. And Amaral's 'reply' has the same date as his first letter. Presumably they are two different letters from Amaral, because each has a different reference number within the file.

The reference number of the first letter is 07 Processos Vol VII Page 1713. The second is 07 Processos Vol vVII Page 1724.

Is the 'reply' to Amaral from the Institute, actually, from an altogether different case? We'll probably never know.

Disturbing parallels.

2011-02-06T05:33:00.000-08:00

By Vee8

I came upon this article while tidying up the files on my computer last night. I vaguely remember saving this link, but have long since forgotten it, until now. It is both astounding and yet disturbing that the parallels between the two cases are so profound. Slapdash and shoddy gathering of forensic evidence, leading to defective conclusions, a so called ‘Expert witness’ who turned out to be anything but, a dubious element within the police force running a whispering campaign. And a willing accomplice in a press all too willing to print any salacious gossip and pass it off as fact without bothering, or worrying about checking sources, in order to sell copies. It’s all there. That Lindsey suffered so tragic an event in her life was bad enough: To suffer such a miscarriage of justice in it’s wake is totally deplorable. And yet there are those who would seek the same appalling injustice on Kate McCann. Have these people learned nothing? I can do no better than to reproduce the article in full. I suggest those who wish ill on the McCanns take careful heed, and read it in full. Then perhaps they can take the trouble to explain how a similar injustice would help Madeleine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482033/Madeleine-Dingo-baby-mother-recognises-police-hostility-forensic-discoveries-hysterical-public.html

By LINDY CHAMBERLAIN

Last updated at 23:27 15 September 2007

This is a difficult time of year for me, bringing the kind of anniversary that any parent would dread.

It is just over 27 years since my baby daughter, Azaria, was snatched by a dingo - a wild dog - and carried away into the darkness of the Australian outback forever. The unusual circumstances, and the frenzied speculation that followed, made it one of the most notorious cases of a missing child the world has known, and it ended in the greatest miscarriage of justice Australia has ever seen.

Damned by police hostility, "forensic" discoveries and an increasingly hysterical public, I was jailed for murdering my own daughter, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. It is a state of affairs that Kate and Gerry McCann will recognise only too well. And, as they reluctantly refocus their lives from the search for Madeleine to the case for their defence, I can say with some confidence that they have good reason to be worried.

For the parallels with my own case, while not exact, are inescapable.

Once again we have newspapers and TV stations obsessed by a single story. I can see the same public-longing for a neat solution to a tragedy. There are detectives under huge pressure. And at the heart of it, there is a woman who has failed to play the emotive, feminine role scripted for her in this terrible soap opera. The rush to judgment seems irresistible; but if I have learned anything it is this: that, from our position in front of the TV screens or outspread newspapers, we ordinary members of the public do not - and cannot - know the truth of what occurred that May night in Praia da Luz.

It was August 1980 when I took that fateful August camping holiday at Ayers Rock in the Northern Territory with my then husband Michael, our two boys, Aidan, six, Reagan, four, and, the latest addition to our family, Azaria, aged just nine-and-a-half weeks. We were staying at the public campsite, in the shadow of the mountain. The simple, crucial facts are as follows. Azaria and Reagan were inside the tent asleep and I was outside, preparing food for Aidan. Three people heard Azaria cry. When I went to check, I saw a dingo emerge from the tent and disappear. I saw that Azaria was gone.

"How did it feel?" It is a question I have faced repeatedly, as you might imagine, and now, with the McCanns taking up airtime even here in Australia, I am being asked it once again. Anyone who has actually been through the loss of a child would know that it is a question not worth asking - because there is no answer that others could understand. There are no words I could use. It is indescribable.

Like the McCanns, I was accused of behaving irresponsibly. How could I leave my children - even momentarily - in a tent that was not zipped up? This, after all, was the outback. Yet we had been told it was safe at Ayers Rock, even though we later learned that there had been attacks around that time.

The result was the worst judgment call of my life.

I have little doubt that the McCanns feel the same way, even though the distance between their restaurant table and Madeleine's bed was shorter than the length of my back yard at home. What happened subsequently to destroy my life was nothing to do with a "judgment call", however, and everything to do with the circumstances that now threaten to drag down Kate and Gerry.

I understand the spectre of forensic evidence looms large for them. It was key to putting me behind bars in October 1982, and it is this aspect of my case that must be particularly alarming for the McCanns. They have been told there is "body fluid" and "DNA" in their rented car. I was told there was a lot of my child's blood in our car.
But in my case, at least, these findings were far from forensic. The "tests" had been incompetent. Rigorous analyses conducted later showed the "blood" to be no more than copper dust, spilt milkshake and a sound-deadening chemical that was over-sprayed from the wheel arch of the car. The most they found was a small patch of "nose excreta" with some blood attached. In other words, somebody had picked their nose and wiped it on the car seat.

In another strange echo, the McCanns' fate appears to be in the hands of scientists from England - just as mine was. When they flew to Darwin, to give evidence, their contribution proved both incompetent and fatal. One man claimed there was a small female handprint in blood on my baby's growsuit. That was just the dust and not even a handprint. The other man was the so called dingo expert from London who, it emerged, had never ever set eyes on a dingo.

Even when forensics are abused, people have a tendency to go along with it.

And by the time they find out that you were innocent all along, your reputation is ruined. I was spat at and abused in the street. I was continually followed by the media. For years, I was the most reviled woman in Australia. Looking back, perhaps the clearest comparison of all with the plight of the McCanns is the atmosphere of speculation and the terrible appetite for quick answers. There comes a point where the public is so worked up, it wants solutions even though there aren't any; the next instalment, when there isn't one.

There is only one truly solid fact out in the open, and that is that Madeleine has gone missing. Too many of our ideas about investigations come from TV programmes and novels. Within an hour of watching, viewers have seen all the forensic evidence and solved the crime. Better still, we have been led to feel we know the answer from early on. Real life is not like that. Sometimes, as in my case, it can take years of hard work to establish the truth for all to see. In the long run it cost us £2.3million in a country where you are supposedly innocent before being proved guilty.

Do I blame the media? It is hard to make a blanket judgment. A great many lies were printed. There were certainly cases where pictures of me were manipulated to make them look more sinister. But there were some journalists who behaved honourably and helped to clear my name.

The same cannot be said of some officers in the Northern Territory police force. Like Kate McCann, I was told, "if you just admit you did it, you can go home". I had the full interview treatment. In fact, I know the police started the rumour we were guilty in the first place. We can trace it back. The police don't normally use CB radio when they want to talk to each other. But they did that day. Within hours the rumours were all over the country. From what I have seen, it looks as if something similar may be happening once again.

There is a further disturbing aspect of these cases, which is a question of looks and temperament. I lost out on both counts. My face is severe in repose. I didn't look friendly. When I showed my emotions, it was edited out so the public thought me hard. Later I tried to hide my emotions because of the media pressure and the criticism. Some people think that Kate, too, is "not behaving right". People don't like it when a person is strong and does not show signs of hysteria. They say to themselves: "I'd break down if that were me, therefore she must be guilty." But these people are both doctors. If your GP was the hysterical type, would you want to go to see her? If you have ever had people hissing and booing you while you walk in front of the cameras, you too might try to keep your thoughts to yourself. You can't win. If you cry, you're being overdramatic. If you don't cry, you're a hard-faced bitch.

I want to make it clear that I do not know the McCanns and I do not know whether they are innocent or guilty. I am certain, however, that they do not deserve this level of vilification. It is as if we have run over the hour allotted for the "show" and the viewers are saying, "Where's the answer?" We're looking at it as if it were reality TV. Yet these people have to live their lives moment by painful moment. When the public atmosphere is like this, questions of justice or truth start to take second place.

I believe that the roots of our anxiety are deep. In particular, we need to feel that we can keep our children safe and to acknowledge to ourselves that we can't is to open ourselves to feelings of terror. But we must not get sucked in. None of us knows the truth because we weren't there. Nobody should be speculating. Nobody even knows if little Madeleine is dead. There is a trade in children, after all.

The huge shame of what's happening now is that if the police blame the parents, the public will stop looking for her. I have advised a number of families over the years and have been asked if I would consider helping the McCanns. My answer is that I would talk to anybody if I thought it would help. But in saying that, the only things that truly help are to say, "Hang in there" and to give them a hug. We must each carry our own cross, hard as it may be.

I am particularly concerned at suggestions that, such is the stress of the investigation, the McCanns might end up separated from their twins. But my own experience says this is the opposite of what should happen. My surviving children have come through it all now and I am convinced that the thing holding them together was having their parents around. They are involved. Even small children know what's going on. When we were at court and the children were looked after by my parents, seven-year-old Aidan would come in and turn on the TV himself, saying: "It's news time. I need to know what they're saying about Mummy." For the sanity of the McCanns and their twins, they ought to be together.

I had been in jail for more than three years when, in 1986, there was finally a breakthrough. The missing item of Azaria's clothing, a jacket, was found while police were looking for a missing British tourist. The following year, thanks to pressure from a local reporter, I was released from jail and - in an unprecedented move - a Royal Commission was established. The forensic tests were done again, correctly. After 14 months of hearings, Michael and I were cleared. We had to go back to court again to be formally exonerated, and yet again for compensation. Even today, no one has officially apologised.

Almost three decades on, I have a good life, even if it is very different from the one I might have expected. For a long while I was unemployable because of the publicity, as was my new husband, Rick. So, together, we now buy and renovate properties to earn a living. My children are well and in the coming months both Aidan, now 34, and my daughter Kahlia, born three years after Azaria died, are getting married. I'm in the middle of the preparations as I write. I think I am much the same person I was, although perhaps I have more empathy than in the past.

I am convinced that we cannot make judgments about other people without walking in their shoes - with the same painful corns and irritating stones.

I never forget. It can never be truly over. The emptiness never diminishes. Azaria would be 27 now, I wonder what she might have been like, how her laugh would be, what woman she might have become.

I pray that Kate and Gerry McCann might still be spared this sadness.

Blacksmith, Polemic and Debate

2011-02-04T04:52:00.000-08:00

By Honestbroker.

Properly used, there is a place for polemic in debate, but it is not,
itself, debate; and improperly used, polemic can be a black art of
spreading propaganda or even disinformation. There are few more
prolific practitioners of polemic as a black art than Blacksmith, as
his latest offering on The Blacksmith Bureau indicates.

Polemic is the making of a controversial and provocative undefended statement, intended to stir antagonism or strong contrary reaction. In proper
debate, that is perfectly acceptable, provided that, when a statement
of polemic is challenged, the person who made it then defends it with
properly reasoned argument. In that sense, polemic can be a valuable
tool for prompting debate. Blacksmith seldom does debate, mainly
because he tends not to put himself in a position where he can be
directly challenged.

Worse, Blacksmith makes statements of polemic, then embellishes and
asserts them without supporting evidence as if they were solid and
irrefutable fact. He does it time and time again, and the frightening
thing is that in this way, unsupported statements can assume the status
of ‘fact’. Examples from his ironically titled article The Bigger the Fib are legion. A handful will suffice to make the point.

Sic:

Of course nobody ever attempts to deal with or rebut the facts
mentioned in our last post - the irrefutable police, prosecutor’s and
court evidence (not old newspaper cuttings) that shows what constant
liars the McCanns are and how, therefore, accepting their unsupported
testimony of abduction is akin to accepting milord Taylor’s
parliamentary expenses claims.

Well, let’s see. We have the Almeida interim report. In that, there
is (interestingly) no reference to jemmied or forced shutters
(suggesting that the McCanns never proffered such an explanation to the
police). There are falsehoods such as that Kate’s father told the
press the Mccanns used sedatives with the children, that there is no
independent corroboration of checks on the children by the party
throughout the days leading up to Madeleine’s abduction, or that the
sniffer dogs have a 100% record of accuracy in use in Britain. And
while the McCanns’ plea that the twins be tested for the presence of
drugs after suspicion officially fell on them is dismissed by Almeida
as bogus because (he says) it was by then too late, there is no
reference to the fact that they first enquired of the PJ about possible
drug use in the abduction just 48 hours after it happened.

Prosecutor evidence? That, presumably, is a reference to Menezes’
comment appearing, ostensibly, as a witness in support of Amaral
against the injunction on his book that they were unconvinced of the
truth of claims about checks. Well, it’s true that Almeida was
unconvinced. But Menezes also spectacularly torpedoed Amaral’s case by
expressing the personal view that it was 50-50 whether Madeleine is
alive or dead. Of course, he made that statement in court.

The McCanns had not initiated the media coverage in any way. There
was not a word from Dr McCann about who had contacted any of them or
fed them the tales which had overnight turned the case from a mystery
in a distant corner of Europe to a soap-opera drama of baddies and
goodies. Not a word. The first he knew of the media was when he came
back from giving his (untrue, according to Menezes) police statement on
the afternoon of May 4.

Now Blacksmith has long had a beef about the McCanns courting
publicity. He is fond of quoting the tragic circumstances of a family
in Australia. To my knowledge, he has never stated which family and I
think it’s fair to ask why. But his point is that this family, unlike
the McCanns, eschewed publicity. That (Blacksmith believes) is the
correct way to go. From details Blacksmith has given about this family
in Australia, other sleuths (not me) have tracked down the (indeed)
tragic case of Nick Waterlow and his family as the one Blacksmith,
possibly, refers to:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6910632.ece

If that’s right, then we have a possible answer to why Blacksmith has
never identified them. Nick Waterlow and his daughter were both
murdered. The murderer was convicted and is a member of the family.
The contrast with Madeleine’s abduction could scarcely be more stark.
Where the family of the late Nick Waterlow wanted (wants) time and
space to grieve and come to terms the double shock of horrific murders
and the knowledge of the murderer being one of their number, the
McCanns have no clue of the fate of their daughter and want her back.
That’s why they court publicity, wholly compatible with resenting (and
striking back against) lies and falsehood.

As to publicity generated by the McCanns, I assume Blacksmith doesn’t
include canards about ‘100% DNA match with Madeleine from the boot of
the car’; or fabricated newspaper headlines such as ‘find Madeleine’s
body and prove we killed her’. Those, and much else written besides,
particularly in the Portuguese press, but also the UK, were not the
responsibility of Kate and Gerry at all. But just like Kerry Needham
two decades before, whose son Ben disappeared on the Greek island of
Kos, the McCanns have sought publicity that might be useful in finding
Madeleine. In the immediate aftermath of Ben’s disappearance, there
were nearly 300 reported sightings, all generated through publicity,
and the Needhams also hired a private detective.

There are many more examples. But one more will do:

The police in Portugal know they [the McCanns] were lying, Leicester
police, as is clear from the traps laid with the assistance of Bob
Small in the rogatory interviews, know that they were lying, the
aforementioned prosecutor knows they were lying, even the poor little
Bureau knows, from the evidence, they were lying: the investigative
task therefore, uncompleted and as yet incapable of completion, is
simply: find out why.

What is ‘clear’ about Bob Small’s part in events in Praia da Luz? Is
Blacksmith privy to information denied the rest of us? No report of
Bob Small’s appears in the official file, and all reference to him is
anecdotal from the statements of other witnesses, particularly Jane
Tanner.

Citing Mark Harrison is certainly no use. He worked to a brief handed
him by the PJ, and much of his work tended to rule out Amaral’s
hypothesis of Gerry’s alleged part in Madeleine’s disappearance. What
else? I’ve literally no clue. I take it Blacksmith has not been
suckered in by Amaral’s farcical description of Prior’s supposed
acquiescence in Amaral’s misinterpretation of the forensic results. I
hope not.

Indeed, what evidence is there of Murat v Tanner, triumphantly
trumpeted with glee by Blacksmith himself just a few months back? That
seems an odd thing to be triumphal about because, in the normal course
of events, statements made in good faith to police are treated in
confidence and are not, themselves, the subject of legal proceedings,
even if they turn out to be wrong or misleading. But then Blacksmith
probably ‘knows’ that JT acted maliciously. There is, apparently, no
end to Blacksmith’s seemingly supernatural powers of perception.

Blacksmith doesn’t get it all wrong. Those shocked at his comments
about Tony Bennett will doubtless be more deeply shocked (and where
have they been if they didn’t already know?) to learn that he has long
had Mr Bennett sized up much the same way as most pros. And in his
scathing and lucid denunciations of anti hype around wikileaks or
supposed Establishment cover-ups for the McCanns, Blacksmith could
almost be a pro. Yet he subscribes to, and even spawns,
ridiculous, vindictive and spiteful canards that even the most naive of
souls could refute, simply with a little basic research.

There’s the paradox of the man.

By Honestbroker.

Confirmation of skulduggery in low places

2011-01-27T10:18:00.000-08:00

I’m going to start this piece slightly on the back foot. Actually, that is a metaphor borrowed from one of my favourite sports, cricket, and not particularly accurately applied in the borrowed sense of ‘to be on the defensive’. In cricket, some of the most thrilling attacking shots in the game are actually played by batsmen off the back foot, while defensive strokes are most commonly played off the front foot. But enough of cricket.

In my earlier piece about withheld documentation, I speculated that policy true for Leicestershire police would be likely true for UK police as a whole. From a fresh source I’m now able to confirm that I am right. But first, that note of reservation and slight correction. I suggested in my last piece that the English language version of Mark Harrison’s report might have been withheld. That seemed a reasonable inference as the document acknowledges the poster Cushty as translator and also gives thanks to Skeptical (for reasons unspecified, but I assumed, translation). However, running parallel with the main text to the right is sub-text to the left in very small font size, that can be expanded simply by clicking on it, and that seems, at least in part, to be Harrison’s original, English-Language report taken direct from the file, reading word-for-word the same as the text to the right. So quite what is original and what (if anything) is translated, I’m not too sure, but I think we can be sure both that the version of the report on Gerrymccannsblog is true and faithful to Harrison’s original and that at least some of Harrison’s report in English is on the DVD.

Portuguese lawyers Morais Leitao, Galvao Teles and Soares da Silva wrote a long and detailed letter to the criminal instruction court of Portimao, detailing what, of work by UK police should be released or withheld, and explaining the rationale.

It is made abundantly plain that information about sex offenders, or information alluding to suspicions of illegal sexual activity should be withheld. That is clear-cut, I think. The Gaspar statements ought never to have seen the light of day. It was made a condition of divulging such information to the Portuguese authorities that confidentiality be respected.

The letter acknowledges the importance of swift and easy lines of communication between Britain and Portugal to the investigation to facilitate and enable a smooth and effective operating procedure by officers on the ground in Portugal investigating the case. But it warns that should confidentiality be breached, that would have grave implications for future cooperation between police forces of the two nations in future investigations. That is because much of the intelligence shared consisted in unproven theories or hypotheses that, released into the public domain, might tend to lower reputations or impugn individuals. The theory that Madeleine might have been murdered is surely a prime example, but scarcely the only one. Also, it seems that there is a UK procedure whereby information shared between police forces (even in the UK) is first tested to gauge the possible impact of sharing it should the information get in to the public domain. These procedures were waived for the Madeleine enquiry, again, in the interests of expediency, on the strict understanding that confidentiality was maintained.

The organization for which Mark Harrison works, the National Policing Improvement Agency, is mentioned specifically by name. It is the repository of specialist techniques in crime detection, some of which were made available to the Portuguese police, and the divulging into the public domain of which could give an advantage and a head start to criminals in ways of avoiding apprehension or thwarting crime-detection strategies. The information is classified as UK confidential A raft of legal acts (UK and European) are cited as central to the principles underpinning the operation of UK policing, and central also to the understanding between the two nations in investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Here are short extracts from the letter:

It should be noted that the divulgation of the above-mentioned elements would most probably affect legal and international police cooperation in the future within the domain of complex criminal investigations, therefore putting into question the execution of Portuguese Justice.

If ... in other words, ... the transmission of information by the requesting entities had not pre-supposed respective confidentiality, this information would never have been transmitted to the Portuguese authorities, as according to what was stated previously this information would be subject to confidentiality covered by UK Rights and Law.

It should also be said that the divulgation of information from the process files that refers to personal data of individuals and who were in no way indicated in the current inquiry would also be an attack on the most elemental rights of personality and even on physical integrity.

...and who were in no way indicted in the current enquiry .... Think Mr and Mrs Gaspar in particular!

I think that speaks for itself.

As a precaution, I filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act asking whether there are regional differences in policies among the UK police for the release of information into the public domain about the Madeleine investigation. This was my reply:

Dear xxxx,
I am writing with reference to your request for information regarding the public release of information about Madeleine McCann, dated 17th January 2011, made under section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.

You asked for the following information:

‘…are there, in fact, regional differences in criteria within the UK police for the release of information about the Madeleine enquiry into the public domain?’ I am writing to advise you I have established that the information you requested is not held by the NPIA.

The NPIA are not aware of any regional differences in criteria for the UK police forces to release information about the Madeleine McCann investigation into the public domain. Each police force and public authority are responsible for their own obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the final decision to release information. However, the Leicestershire police force have produced a publication schedule for the documentation produced during the McCann investigation. Please see link,

http://www.leics.police.uk/files/library/documents/op-task-publication-strategy.pdf

This would attract the Section 22 exemption of the FOIA, where information is intended for future publication, and has been used by the NPIA before regarding information requested regarding the Madeleine McCann investigation. The services of Mark Harrison were requested by the Portuguese Authorities by means of a Judicial Letter of Request. The resulting report, in respect of the search activity, was released by them into the public domain on 21 July 2008 as part of a comprehensive document providing details of the Portuguese investigation.

I gave the link provided above in my earlier piece. It makes plain that, in the long term, there was always an intention that rogatory interviews be released, but not until after the full circumstances of Madeleine’s disappearance are known, culprit(s) convicted and a suitable time for appeals has elapsed. Information in that link amplifies what is in the link which is the primary source of this piece (and given at the foot of this article).

My foi reply, in one sense, may not seem very helpful. But in another sense, it confirms that the NPIA are not aware of any regional differences and the point is made that publication (of the whole DVD, including Mark Harrison’s report) was a decision of the Portuguese authorities alone.

It seemed evident all along that an anti mantra of blind hate amounted to something like: ‘justice waiting to be done’ (the Mccanns remaining at liberty); ‘miscarriage of justice’ (someone other than the McCanns being apprehended for crime(s) against Madeleine) ‘justice’ (the McCanns being charged for the crimes of another or others against their daughter). The mantra has been pursued with relentless, blind fanaticism. Proper considerations (such as revelation of confidential tools of crime prevention provided by the National Policing Improvement Agency) were usurped by obsessional preoccupation with non-existent, manufactured non-issues (such as Gerry’s possession of CEOP manuals, described as ‘top secret’, but actually freely available on the net).

Still, lasting stain of disgrace though that all leaves on those responsible, the worst is worse. Fundamental principles of national, European and international law have been trampled over rough-shod jeopardising, and probably wrecking, any hope of cooperation between nations (perhaps not just Britain and Portugal) in investigating crime again.

I hope the dunderheads feel proud of themselves. In the meantime, criminals the world over will be rubbing their hands with glee.

http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm

By Honestbroker

A WORD TO THE CRITICS.

2011-01-21T14:14:00.000-08:00

By Vee8

HOW MANY OTHER PARENTS WOULD YOU CHARGE WITH NEGLECT?

How many times have we heard the line, “If they hadn’t have left the kids alone, it would never have happened?” It is the be all and end all for many of the McCann’s sterner internet critics, as if that somehow ends the discussion right there and then. That comment is often followed by "We go on holiday as a family, and stay together as a family.” “They dumped the kids in the crèche all day while they went of and enjoyed themselves.” We must presume that these people’s children, given a choice, would rather stay close to the old crusties than join one of the myriad of kids clubs that almost every family resort offers. From my own experience, when on holiday in similar resorts, it is not so much a case of ‘Dumping’ the kids in these crèches/clubs, but trying to stop them from joining in the fun with the other kids! And what, prey tell, could be wrong with that?

The fact is, even now, I am still occasionally stunned by the level and degree of venom their story continues to excite among a, thankfully, small minority of the general public.

The want of compassion among these few is shocking; the desire to punish the parents shaming. Personally, as I have stated elsewhere, I and the other blog authors here do not agree with what the parents did. The McCanns did leave their three children unattended for fifteen/twenty minutes at a time while they and their friends had dinner. Their behaviour carried risks for the children, one of the worst of which was realised. But we all agree their actions were based on naivety, a holiday induced feel-good factor, not criminal neglect.

We also agree that the price this couple has paid, and continue to pay to this day, is beyond anything we ourselves could possibly imagine. The suffering they have endured negates any necessity for reprimand. Does even their sternest judge imagine they are not their own greatest critics; that they aren't consumed daily and hourly by regret and remorse?

We, the authors, have been highly critical of the Portuguese police, and their investigation into Madeleine’s abduction. Indeed Portugal’s attorney-general made a statement in which he said the McCanns were named as suspects in the absence of any evidence. According to the McCann’s accusers, however, our real motivation is to support middle-class doctors against working-class police officers. The McCanns put their pleasure before their children, they say. If they were working class, and lived on a housing estate, the British police would have been waiting for them on the tarmac and falling over themselves to prosecute. The McCanns should be prosecuted for neglect, is their battle cry.

Nowhere is there any condemnation of the abductor.

You might have thought the fact that Kate and Gerry McCann are doctors would stand them in some regard, since they spend their lives trying to help others. Sadly, you would be wrong. We ourselves thought the clear evidence from family photographs that Madeleine was a happy, well-cared-for child would demonstrate that leaving her unsupervised was out of the ordinary, rather than the norm. But that position does not allow for jealousy and resentment.

So who else would you see charged with neglect? If the McCanns are to stand in the dock, who should stand beside them? We can start with their friends, the so-called ‘Tapas 7’ all of whom were part of the routine of regular checkups, and any one of which could have been the unfortunate target of the abductor that night. Then what about all the other couples who have stayed at that or any family-friendly holiday village where they felt safe enough to leave the children unattended while they ate? The Mark Warner staff are on record as saying that the actions the McCanns carried out were commonplace, not the exception. What about all those families over the years, and that includes my own parents, who have stayed at Butlins, and left their children to the mercy of a radio equipped chalet maid? (Baby crying, chalet 223!) What about people who eat in the garden on hot summer evenings while their children sleep in the house? What about parents who sleep indoors, maybe one night a year, while their kids sleep in a tent?

There are some parents who pride themselves on their devotion but who would send their youngest to the park in the charge of their 12-year-old. There are many others who let their eight-year-old get the bus home from school. We the authors would not think of doing such things personally, but I'm sure there are some things that we have done that those parents, perhaps even among ourselves, that might be regarded as wrong.

When we leave the maternity ward of our local hospital, there is no nurse, no midwife handing out the manual on how to bring up our newborn child. We have to learn, from the school of life, by our mistakes, for we all make mistakes. Sometimes we can be too strict, other times too lax. We push them too hard, or take too little interest. We get grumpy and irritable if we don’t get enough rest. Then we walk into their bedrooms when they're asleep, looking so small and so innocent, and we feel so bad inside for our failures of the day that we determine to do better tomorrow. We learn to deal with our mistakes because we also know, without doubt, that we love our children.

So tell us this, do we want to see the courts filled with caring parents who made a mistake? Court is for the truly negligent and downright abusive. Parents, and we use that term loosely, like those of baby ‘P’ who died of the most horrific injuries. Or Khyra Ishaq, callously starved to death in her bedroom while her mother ate well downstairs. How then, can all these critics, who clamour to be recognised as ‘The voice of Madeleine’ honestly expect anyone to take them seriously when they demand that Kate and Gerry be charged with the neglect of one little girl, a child who’s parents clearly never caused her a single days neglect or abuse in her life?

The McCann’s made a dreadful mistake, and are guilty of a terrible lapse of judgement. They did something stupid. But God forbid the government of this country ever made doing something stupid a crime. If they did, then the whole of the Isle of Wight would need to be turned into one vast open air prison, because each and every one of us would be guilty as charged.

Those archived files – what was released and what was withheld?

2011-01-16T04:17:00.000-08:00

By Honestbroker.

I don’t know whether the estimable pro McCann poster Sans Souci plays bridge. I don’t, personally, but I gather part of the skill of the game is in knowing when to stay your hand, or to play it, for best advantage. Virtually, (and metaphorically), Sans recently demonstrated this art to perfection on an anti board he regularly (and bravely) visits.

It all began with a sharp dispute over the meaning of the Gaspar statements (incidentally, not the central theme of this piece). Sans innocuously floated a polite request that, to settle arguments, posters might be allowed to see the original, English language, versions of their statements. The initial response was one of chipper confidence that that would be quite possible, as certain of the admin on that board hold the DVD of the case files. But in stages, confidence gave way to puzzlement, then anger, then denial, as the realization gradually dawned that, actually, they didn’t have the original English Language copies on DVD. Amid mayhem, a thread was moved to a part of the board not for general view and the claim made that the thread itself had been lost, while other threads were locked or moved and responses to questions became steadily more terse. It was at this point that Sans revealed his hand. He had never doubted that they wouldn’t be able to produce the original for a startlingly obvious reason: the statement had been translated in the first place, which would scarcely have been necessary had the original been available, and which brings us to the theme of this piece.

Why were the Gaspar statements ever released? In 2009 Leicestershire police released details of its strategy in putting information about the British side of the investigation into the public domain. That document is stored on the site gerrymccannsblog (nothing to do with Gerry):

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/33jan10/PRESS_ASSOCIATION_03_01_10.htm

If you scroll down a bit, you’ll come to various boxes with comments in boxes to the right about what, and under what circumstances, information will be released into the public domain. In the first section, among other categories, is interviews, which may be released after those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance have been apprehended, convicted and after time for appeals to be heard has elapsed. We are (now) very far from that point. The Gaspar statements were made on English soil to Leicestershire police by English-speaking British citizens – and in accordance with the express wishes of Leicestershire police, ought never to have been released, either in English or Portuguese form. So why were they?

The mystery deepens. Stuart Prior is a policeman with Leicestershire Police force, and the officer who flew over to Faro to break the ‘bad’ news to Gocalo Amaral and his fellow officers that there was no incriminating forensic evidence against the McCanns. On the gerrymccannsblog (which carries by far the most extensive documentation of information from the police files anywhere on the net) you’ll find only anecdotal references to Stuart Prior (references in emails or witness statements, for example). There is nothing documented with his name attached. We are (for once!) obliged to Amaral for telling us in his book that Prior told the Portuguese police (PJ) the forensic results were not incriminating. That is precisely in accord with the insistence of Leicestershire police that the direction or strategy of the investigation (at least on their side) should not be revealed. Yet the work of Mark Harrison is very extensively recorded on the GerryMcCannsblog site.

Here, we need to be cautious. Mark Harrison is not a policeman with the Leicestershire force and, indeed, represents an organization that supports front line policing. But he describes himself as an official with the British Police who represents the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). He was interviewed by Leicestershire police in a rogatory interview.

Here is his interview:

http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON-RIGATORY.htm

Notice, again, that this statement has been translated. And his report, extensively detailing his own investigations and explorations of theories, is also translated. Now, Mark Harrison will, of course, have compiled his report on Portuguese soil. But unless he is fluent in Portuguese (which he might be, I don’t know) he will have written his reports in English, meaning that they, like the Gaspar statements, will have been written in English, translated to Portuguese for the files, then re-translated back to English for Gerrymccannsblog, suggesting that the original English Language version produced by Harrison has, again, been withheld. And it seems exceedingly unlikely that what is operational working policy for Leicestershire police would be any different for UK police generally. So why is Harrison’s work extensively documented, but Prior’s, not at all?

Is part of the answer to be found in Truth of the lie? According to Amaral’s distorted interpretation of Harrison’s report, Harrison ‘confirmed their (Amaral and his fellow senior officers’) worst fears’, that Madeleine was very probably dead and died inside the apartment. In a book, now banned following action against it by the McCanns and the firm of libel solicitors Carter Ruck, one of Amaral’s principal aficionados, Tony Bennett, even said that Harrison recommended the PJ should proceed on the ‘working assumption’ that Madeleine died in apartment 5a. Indeed, if you cast a casual and superficial eye over that report, you might come away with that impression. But be warned. Read it properly and you’ll form a very different view. Harrison was handed his brief by the PJ and worked according to it. He effectively ruled out concealment of a body on the beach, and recommended that dogs be brought in to test the theory that Madeleine might be dead, not because that theory had already been confirmed. Indeed, as the files make plain, forensic analysis of indications by the dogs annulled the hypothesis that evidence might indicate Madeleine was dead. Had Harrison anticipated those results the way Amaral and Bennett both suggest, that would have been scandalous, and he never did. This, from the file and from Harrison’s report, makes plain that Harrison had no personal view on what might have happened to Madeleine:

This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report

But the contrary is what Amaral wants the world to believe and, strangely, Harrison’s work emerged with the released files.

Meanwhile, Amaral confidently span a version of events in his book that he won Prior over to his own (deeply flawed) misunderstanding of the forensic result, including the aspersion against the British Forensic Science Service that they bottled out of facing up to (Amaral’s) ‘reality’ that Madeleine might have been carried dead in the Renault Scenic. Prior, apparently, rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ’s powers of arrest!

What is Prior’s version of Amaral’s extraordinary depiction of this sequence of events? Simply, we’ll never know because, well, Prior’s work is not documented in the released files … I guess Amaral was always confident that it wouldn’t be.

By Honestbroker.

Cadaver scent, proof of death or the walking dead?.

2011-01-12T17:27:00.000-08:00

Goncalo Amaral hung his hat on a thesis that could only make sense if there were positive forensic results from the dog alerts. The issue of these alerts have resulted in some people believing that the scent being alerted to automatically means that decomposing matter from a dead person, or persons, has been found. To believe that alerting to the scent, for which the dog has been trained, means finding a decomposing body when there is very minute quantities of alerting substance, is very foolish indeed, especially when that belief is being considered as proof positive. Without a complimenting physical find beyond the dog alerts, the question of what the dogs found opens up the possibility that the scent alerted to, could be sourced from the blood lost by a live human being as well as scent contamination from a number of sources that could undermine any value in validity as conclusive evidence pointing specifically to a suspected dead human under investigation. The matter found has only one possible avenue of interpretation to indicate what the scent is, that of forensic testing. In this case we know that the forensic results could not show any confirmation that Madeleine was found in the DNA and could not determine the source of the cadaver scent.

Eddie the EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog), cadaver dog, alerted to the scent of which he is trained to find. Let’s look at the possible sources of that scent, knowing that the results do not confirm the source being Madeleine, it is important to explore what the source of the scent could be, considering the absence of conclusive proof of the known missing person in the chemical brew, being dead or alive.

Eddie was trained using pig meat in the UK as the use of decomposing human beings is not accepted in the UK as yet to train these dogs. However, Eddie did undergo training in the USA using decomposing human beings. The olfactory system of a dog is considered hundreds of times stronger than the sense of smell for a human being. Yet it is not fully understood what components of a decomposing human body are sensed by an alerting dog, to give an alert to cadaver scent. On further investigation I have made some interesting findings regarding volatile cadaver chemical components which are found in living human beings.

Dried blood from a living human.

Martin Grime, Eddie and Keela's trainer and handler, confirms in his rogatory interview, on the subject specifically about the Cadaver Dog, that Eddie can alert to dried blood from a living person.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

"The dog EVRD (Eddie the Cadaver dog) is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."

Cadaverine from a living human.

http://www.hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB02322

Cadaverine is the decarboxylation product of the amino acid lysine. However, this diamine is not purely associated with putrefaction. It is also produced in small quantities by living beings. It is partially responsible for the distinctive odours of urine and semen. Elevated levels of cadaverine have been found in the urine of some patients with defects in lysine metabolism.

Putrescence from a living human.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putrescine

http://www.righthealth.com/topic/Putrescine

Putrescine (sometimes spelled putrescin) is a foul-smelling organic chemical compound NH2(CH2)4NH2 (1,4-diaminobutane or butanediamine) that is related to cadaverine; both are produced by the breakdown of amino acids in living and dead organisms and both are toxic in large doses. The two compounds are largely responsible for the foul odour of putrefying flesh, but also contribute to the odour of such processes as bad breath and bacterial vaginosis. They are also found in semen and some microalgae, together with related molecules like spermine and spermidine.

Bad breath, malodor and periodontal disease

http://www.fice.com/course/fde0002/c1/p02.htm

Several tests were done by scientists to determine the association of Cadaverine and Putrecine in humans with complaints resulting in bad breath.

Researchers Goldberg, Kozlovsky, and Rosenberg designed a study to evaluate the contribution of diamines (especially cadaverine and putrescine) to bad breath. They studied 52 people, most of whom complained of bad breath. The researchers measured:

the VSC with a portable sulfide monitor,
mouth odor via organoleptic means,
plaque index,
gingival index,
probing depths,
BANA test results, and
levels of cadaverine and putrescine in the saliva.

Results of the study included:

Cadaverine scores were associated with odour judge organoleptic scores, plaque index scores, and gingival index scores. Cadaverine levels were also relative to the BANA scores and mean probing depth. Cadaverine levels were not associated with VSC levels.

Putrescine levels were not significantly related to the malodor and periodontal measurements, but were related to cadaverine levels.

In a second experiment, they compared saliva from a patient with periodontal disease to saliva from a patient who had healthy gingiva. The sample from the periodontitis patient had higher cadaverine levels. Putrescine levels in both samples were similar.

The results of this study showed cadaverine levels are associated with malodor and periodontal disease, while putrescine's role is still somewhat unknown.

I don’t purport to be an expert in forensic science, but I have become an expert in researching the subject and the relation to cadaver dogs, specifically in the situation the case of missing Madeleine has presented us. I have spoken to experts and researched scientific data, have listened to those who believe cadaver dog alerts must only mean death alerts and have questioned myself.

My conclusion is that with such low amounts of matter available to view as evidence, forensic science had to interperate what the dogs alerted to. That interpretation showed that the alerts could not determine information for use as proof of a death, contamination from dead bodies or of Madeleine’s death. In fact, the alerts can be innocently explained away with the inclusive factor that the scent could very well be from saliva, dried blood and other bodily fluids from living humans. The EVRD dog is not trained to detect live humans, but the inconclusive result, from the forensic scientists, is proof that there is hope for Madeleine being found alive and that there is hope one day Goncalo Amaral will decide to face the fact that he built his 'house of cards' thesis upon only one card.

By Deuce

Are stereotypes unjustified?

2011-01-07T06:21:00.000-08:00

By Honestbroker.

This article is a response to a letter by Dr Martin Roberts to the editor on mccannfiles.com, but addressed, personally, to Gerry, that we feel too venomous and vituperative to warrant a direct link to on this blog. But if anyone has the stomach (and the curiosity) to go looking, the original is to be found on this link: www.mccannfiles.com

In the main, yes. Stereotypes are unjustified. But not all of them. For example, a stereotype, I think, true of most women is that they don’t make false allegations of rape against men; though of course, stereotypes, like rules, have exceptions.

A stereotype about another sort of person, extensively prevalent in almost every country throughout the globe, is that those in one group simply cannot bring themselves to believe that the worst might have happened to another category of person, particularly when the fate of a person in this other category is unknown. The group I am, of course, referring to is parents and, specifically their own, children.

The parents of the murdered young woman Joanne Yeates did not travel from their home in Southampton to Bristol to partake in the searches for her (even though, at the point she was reported missing, there was hope she might still be alive) and with good reason. It doesn’t need a great leap of imagination to understand that the one thing no parent wants to find is the body of his or her own child. And the reason is obvious. Parents, in the main, (with exceptions) love their own children. And love is the cause of that blind spot (if blind spot is what you want to call it),
The normal, human and humane reaction of outsiders who observe the torment gone through by parents separated from their child in circumstances where the fate of the child is unknown is to sympathize with their anguish and above all, respect their perspective, even if that perspective is slightly skewed by that powerful emotion of love felt by all decent parents towards their children. We might, ourselves, have a slightly different perspective from that of parents in such a position, but we would simply not dream of sharing it with them; still less of seeking to impose it upon them, perhaps fairly certain that, in their stead, we would feel and react exactly the same way.

Hence it is that Kate and Gerry refuse to countenance the worst that might be true for Madeleine, preferring instead to stick, with steadfast resolution and hope, shared still by Kerry Needham about her own son, Ben, who went missing on a Greek island nearly two decades before, that Madeleine might be still out there somewhere, alive and well and waiting to be found.

Such a perspective is conspicuously missing in this latest offering from Dr Martin Roberts. Dr Roberts appears to suggest in his own, clumsy and circumlocutory way (replete with non-sequitur about the materialistic expectations of children at Christmas and the inability of their parents to meet them) that Kate and Gerry, in their letter, are too self-absorbed and heedless of the plight of their daughter. But this, from the McCanns’ letter, lays that to rest, I think:

We would like to thank all our supporters for 'staying at our side' in spite of the injustices that we continue to be subjected to. Madeleine is the person who suffers most from all of this injustice. It is this fact alone which causes us the most distress. It is absolutely heart-breaking.

Dr. Roberts makes another astonishing claim, too – that a senior detective who coordinates an investigation into a person, particularly as young as Madeleine when she was (most probably) abducted, is actually not responsible for finding her. Even if (hypothetically) parents of a missing child around Madeleine’s age were guilty of murder most foul, the prime responsibility of the person leading the enquiry would be to find the corpse. One of the leaks from Portugal published by Express newspaper (and which no doubt contributed to the McCanns’ successful libel action against it) was Find Maddie or the McCanns will escape. That says it all, really. Yet Dr Roberts seems to think Kate and Gerry’s reference in their letter to Dr Amaral’s responsibility of finding their daughter “libellous”. Why?

But there’s something else. Where does Dr Roberts get the idea from that the letter (and the forthcoming book) was written for the couple by a third party? I’m not aware of anything in the public domain indicating such. Is he privy to information denied the rest of us? I somehow doubt that. Yet the assumption is explicitly made as if irrefutable fact that a ghost-writer has penned what appears in the couple’s own name. In the letter, we have this condescending reference, suggesting a certain superiority of his own when it comes to matters such as punctuation, grammar and grammatical construction

A good editor, in my experience, will do more than simply correct aberrant punctuation. They will also question apparent statements of fact, for the very obvious and sensible reason that they might not be facts after all. Entombed within the following paragraph (concerned again with the author's own experience of 'suffering' and 'injustice') is one such.

We might agree with Dr Roberts about checking for facts. But perhaps he considers the McCanns not up to writing of the standard exhibited in their letter? In his piece Pearl Harbour he was complimentary of Vee’s literary abilities. But what of Dr Roberts’ own abilities? They are not exempt from criticism, as this example from his letter indicates:

What, under other circumstances (to coin another of your wife's turns of phrase),...

Simply, you can’t coin someone else’s turn of phrase (in this instance, apparently, Kate’s). You can only borrow it. To coin a turn of phrase is to invent one for yourself. Such a lapse isn’t the first.. In his piece Pearl Harbour Dr Roberts used initials without ever stating what they stood for.

Another couple of points worthy of note. Dr Roberts gets confused (but doesn’t allow confusion to deter him from levelling accusation with forthright vigour) about the re-opening of the case. In fact the good Doctor’s point about the McCann's legal representative not wanting the case reopened is not just inaccurate but deliberately misleading. He says there are conditions. There are, but none imposed by the McCanns or their lawyers. It is a requirement of the Portuguese judicial system that there must be new leads for the police to follow before the case can be re-opened. In context, the lawyer was saying that the case should be reopened if new evidence comes to light, but that there is NO POINT in pushing for such an action based on a vague, inexact and uncorroborated statement on the Wikileaks website, as there was no new evidence forthcoming.

That is why the McCanns’ petition asks for a review of the case in a bid to establish new leads, as formally required.

Similar blithe ignorance and pachydermatous absence of concern for finer feelings are demonstrated by Dr Roberts about the sight of open shutters and window and pulled-back bedclothes that greeted Kate’s horrified eyes on the occasion of that fateful check when she discovered Madeleine missing. Simply, Kate saw the bedclothes stripped back, the window open and Madeleine missing. What thoughts ran through her mind in those seconds of blind panic no one, including and perhaps especially, Kate, can truly imagine, remember or describe. Still, according to Dr Roberts, it’s all Jane Tanner’s fault for not stopping the abductor when she saw him. After all, we can all recognise an abduction taking place when we see one.

Is it a stereotype too far to suggest that self-professed academics with pretensions to grandeur tend to be fakes?

By Honestbroker.

Reckless disregard for truth and outright lies

2011-01-01T07:46:00.000-08:00

The distinction, while subtle, is there. Both are disreputable, the second more so than the first..
A commitment to truth and upholding truth is demonstrated by a willingness to hold your hands up and admit it if you get something wrong, then to correct the error. Its opposite is wholesale abandonment of any pretence that accuracy or truth matters, particularly in pursuit of the goal of impugning your opponents by any means, fair or foul.

On 9th December Joana Morais published this on her blog:

http://bloggertouch.appspot.com/joanamorais/post/5048305342601713519

You can see, it is a claim that the Mccanns’ lawyer, Isabel Duarte, was forced to return copies of a book, hitherto the subject of a banning order, written by Goncalo Amaral, Truth of the lie, despite a firm pledge that she would retain possession of them until the outcome of the next appeal against the overturning of the injunction. Soon afterwards, Nigel Moore of mccannfiles fame posted the same story on his blog, as well as announcing the ‘news’ in a rolling banner headline running across the top of his site that Isabel Duarte had returned the books. The banner, at least, still rolls on TheMccanfiles site.

We might, perhaps, be (comparatively) charitable and say that, initially, Morais just didn’t check her sources as thoroughly as she might have. Perhaps, in doing so, we are being unduly charitable? Whether or not that’s so, what, at best, began as reckless disregard for the truth has turned into an outright lie. It’s difficult to suppose that Moore has any excuses, either. He surely must read Morais’ blog? And as a quote from Mark Twain on themccannfiles tells us, those who tell the truth don’t have to remember what they say. On the other hand, those who don’t care about the truth neither care if they are caught out in lies. They just brazenly heap lie upon lie, perhaps vaguely hoping that others will forget what lies they have told, but not being much troubled if others don’t.

Morais’ latest article on her blog has the following addendum.

The Appeals Court agreed with Gonçalo Amaral, and that was a “beautiful moment” that was used to plan the future. “The books remain illegally with their keeper, the McCanns’ lawyer, and I doubt that they still exist. Now, it is up to Guerra e Paz to ensure that the Appeals Court’s decision concerning the book ‘Maddie – The Truth of the Lie’ is fulfilled.” All in all, “over 120 000 copies have been sold”, and the book was translated for France, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark.

There! There the lie that Isabel Duarte was forced to return the books to the publisher refuted by Amaral himself, while Morais still carries the original article on her blog, and Moore persists with the banner headline proclaiming the lie. But notice something worse. The original lie (that Ms Duarte had been forced to return the books, contrary to her own, solemn pledge that she wouldn’t, at least yet!) has not merely been refuted; it has been contradicted by the new lie replacing it, that Ms Duarte has actually destroyed the books. Clearly, if she had destroyed them, then she could never have returned them in the first place.

So perhaps Morais is relying on an interval of nearly a month, and several articles in between to distract her readers away from the lie in the article she published on 9th combined with the hope that they simply focus on the new lie (that Ms Duarte has destroyed copies of the book in her possession).

There can be little doubt that this new aspersion is a lie and a canard, because at the outset, when the McCanns applied for the injunction, they asked the judges to authorize the destruction of copies of the book, and the judges refused. So if Ms Duarte had destroyed copies of the book, she would be in direct contempt of court. She is too experienced a lawyer to fall down an obvious pothole of that sort.

And if Portuguese civil law mirrors its criminal, then neither is Ms Duarte in contempt of any court ruling in declining to return the book to the publisher. Dr Amaral does not, technically, have a criminal conviction arising from his role in covering for colleagues who beat a ‘confession’ out of Leonor Cipriano because, by the Napoleonic Code, any criminal conviction is set aside until the last appeal is lost, and Amaral has appealed. Probably, something similar pertains in civil law. The McCanns won the original injunction against [i]Truth of the lie[/i] and the injunction stays in place until the outcome of the final appeal. So Ms Duarte’s continued possession of the book is quite legal and constitutional.

In the meantime, both Morais and Moore would do well to ponder the words of wisdom of Mark Twain.

By Honest Broker

Kate and Gerry McCann – clarification on the news published based on Wikileaks’ referrals

2010-12-22T14:14:00.000-08:00

Click here for source.

Gerry and Kate McCann sent a statement to the Portuguese media after Wikileaks published “news” last week about the investigation. Below is the statement:

“The speculations that have been published about our daughter’s disappearance as referred to on WikiLeaks forces us to take the following position:
WikiLeaks website has published a summary of an alleged telegram exchanged between USA and UK Ambassadors. This summary does not contain any new or relevant facts that will lead us to the discovery of what happened to our daughter.
If the mentioned telegram does exist, its content only tells that the British Police developed in September 2007 (we believe that to be the date of the correspondence exchange) information regarding our responsibility in the disappearance of our daughter.
We recall that on that date the team coordinated by Gonçalo Amaral was still investigating the case, having produced a report incriminating both of us. That report was not supported by evidences that validated his allegations so due to the absence of any incriminating evidence about us, the case was filed after eight months of further investigation.
Presumably, if any correspondence summarized by WikiLeaks does exist, it is based on the circumstances that arose in the investigation at that time since we do not know that there has been any further investigation besides the one that we all know about – and in the process there isn’t any information to the contrary.
Once again, the ex-inspector Gonçalo Amaral has seized the opening given by the Portuguese media for his thesis, producing deeply hurtful insinuations and citing the investigations’ defects. Defects in the investigation that he coordinated and which didn’t achieve any useful results for our daughter.
These speculations are periodically brought to public opinion by that former employee of the PJ, accompanied by threats to reopen the case on his own initiative.
When he claims publicly that he knows what is still to be done on the investigation and if “what is still to be done” is the investigation of facts, documents, data or real and concrete information that lead to Madeleine’s whereabouts, discovery or even the reason for her disappearance, he has the obligation to present it for the procedure to reopen the investigation, in which we are most interested.
We are aware that Madeleine’s disappearance is an inexhaustible source of enrichment to Gonçalo Amaral by means of false accusations, deeply offensive and harmful to the investigation itself, so we appeal to journalists’ critical sense to sort out what is journalistic information and what is speculation, surgically oriented, to obtain easy profits.

15th December 2010

Kate and Gerry McCann”

The forthcoming libel trial: Is Amaral playing Russian Roulette?

2010-12-19T13:37:00.001-08:00

By Honestbroker.

Not necessarily. But Amaral’s options in defending the action are strictly limited. One crazy and bizarre idea floated is that an on-line site which bears Gerry’s name, gerrymccannsblog, might actually be something to do with the McCanns. The site itself carries a disclaimer making plain that isn’t true. So what else? Unequivocal statements in the text are hedged with prefaces of equivocation, which might be cited as turning what is written into ‘opinion’ and thus saving it from being libelous. If Amaral is relying on this, then, as someone (we are told) himself legally trained, he should know better.

A statement such as: Gerry probably hid Madeleine’s body on the beach mixes opinion with (at least assertion) of fact, and unless the person who made that statement can prove that Gerry hid Madeleine’s body on the beach (no one can!) the statement is libelous.

There is a defence of opinion in libel. But the legal definition of ‘opinion’ is widely misunderstood. In law, a statement stripped of testable fact is opinion. Straight insult would be ‘opinion’. No court could objectively test the extent of a person’s ‘idiocy’, so to call someone an ‘idiot’ would be opinion, not libel. Prefaces such as ‘in my opinion’ or ‘I think that’ do not turn libelous statements into non-libelous ones.

In the wake of these wikileak releases, Amaral has taken to discussing publicly the Gaspar statements, and their subject, a man I shall continue not to name. Amaral appears to think that the Gaspar statements are an example of the way in which the British police ‘developed’ the case.

Could Amaral be insinuating that he will introduce such considerations into the libel trial? On the face of it, he would be insane to try. True that the most effective defence to a charge of libel is ‘justification’ (the assertion that what you say is true and therefore cannot be libelous). But in Britain certainly, probably in Portugal too, it is also the most dangerous because, if a judge finds that a statement thus defended is, indeed, libelous, he will punish the defendant all the more severely for compounding the libel.

Let’s be clear. What the Gaspars said was not libelous because they never shared it with anyone other than Leicestershire police. But if they had published what they shared, to a newspaper, or even on an internet messageboard or blog, it assuredly would have been libelous – and all those, including and especially, Goncalo Amaral – who have published or salaciously interpreted Mrs Gaspar’s statement in particular, are guilty of libel. Of course, Amaral has put his thoughts into a book, sold in several countries of Europe.

I have brushed on the point in an earlier piece, but will expand here. Amaral described the Gaspars’ (individual) statements as ‘joint’. I don’t think he should be allowed to get away with pleading mere incompetence or ignorance, here. As, formerly, a senior inspector and coordinator of the Portuguese police force (the PJ) Amaral will know that the standard practice of the PJ is to take individual statements. Each statement taken before the McCanns were declared arguidos was individual. The McCanns’ arguido interviews were taken individually. Martin Smith and his son, Peter, and daughter, Aoife, were all interviewed individually about the sighting of the man they saw. The UK police, like the Portuguese, take individual statements. Indeed, I dare say that police forces around the world take individual statements. The point is crucial because Mrs Gaspar’s statement and her husband’s could scarcely be more different. While hers casts this man in a very pejorative light, his, in parts, could almost be a favourable character-reference.

But while Mrs Gaspar’s statement is largely conjectural and, on details of times, places and what was said, vague, speculative and indistinct, Amaral says this in his book:

It is all the more surprising that [name deleted], who had planned the trip to Majorca - of whom it was known that his behaviour towards the children was, to say the least, questionable... –

That is Amaral’s accusation and his alone. His purpose is surely plain. He wants to sully the name of this man by fraudulently misrepresenting individual statements as ‘joint’. That is beneath contempt.

So will Amaral play Russian Roulette by introducing libel to a libel trial? On the face of it, you might think not, and we must hope he doesn’t. But closer analysis needn’t rule out the prospect that he will try. As Vee has expertly dissected in an earlier piece, Amaral is deep in debt. The McCanns can seize the proceeds from the sale of the book frozen in the bank account and assets such as the Jaguar car, which can be converted to cash. All those are for the taking and assured after the McCanns (as they will!) have won the libel trial. But you can’t take from a person what he hasn’t got. The judges will have no flexibility to punish him any harder than to award the McCanns the proceeds and assets of Amaral’s ill-gotten gains from the book and the video. So Amaral might well view it that, with nothing to lose that is not already lost in a ‘cause’ (the libel trial) the McCanns are sure to win, the vendetta he began against the McCanns from roughly the time he ignored the wiser counsel of Stuart Prior that the forensic evidence in the case was not incriminating, and continued with his book and interviews insinuating that the McCanns were responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance and for orchestrating a cover-up, is worth continuing, right up to the point of the libel trial itself.

The other hope is that if Amaral tries to pull such a stunt, the judges will rule the ‘evidence’ inadmissible.

But Amaral is a scheming, calculating, vindictive and vengeful man who, seemingly, will stop at nothing to get back at those who challenge or confront him, even over something as essential and vital as a missing little girl whose best chances of being found alive he might, actually, have squandered.

In defence of his ‘honour’, Amaral will descend to any extreme to hit back at anyone he considers (however erroneously) to have besmirched it.

By Honestbroker.

Message from the Official Campaign.

2010-12-18T04:37:00.001-08:00

By Official Find Madeleine Campaign on Friday, December 17, 2010 at 8:27pm
(With my own highlighting added.)

This month marks our fourth Christmas without Madeleine. We hope with all our hearts that wherever she is, she is safe and well and whoever may be with her is treating her with the love and respect she so deserves.

We would like to thank all our supporters for 'staying at our side' in spite of the injustices that we continue to be subjected to. Madeleine is the person who suffers most from all of this injustice. It is this fact alone which causes us the most distress. It is absolutely heart-breaking.

The Wikileaks 'news' this week has led to the repetition of many unfounded allegations and smears both in the UK and in Portugal in particular. This has been seized on as an opportunity by those who wish to compound our suffering and hamper our efforts, including the very person who was entrusted with finding our daughter. Those who could help Madeleine but choose to do nothing are also complicit in this injustice. Without the love and help from so many good people around the world we would not be able to find the strength to continue the fight to find our daughter.

Thank you to all those who have signed our petition calling on the UK and Portuguese Governments to conduct an independent review of Madeleine's case. The petition is still on-going. If you haven't signed and would like to further the search for Madeleine, please sign our on-line petition or sign a paper petition form. The latter can be downloaded from the website and distributed to shops, post-offices etc. and returned to us.

Along with our family, we would like to thank everyone who has sent us Christmas cards, letters, donations and gifts at this difficult time of year. It is impossible to find enough positive words to describe such kindness or the hugely important and heart-warming effect it has on us. Without any doubt, it helps us immensely and we are incredibly grateful.

We wish you all a merry Christmas and a very happy, healthy and positive 2011. Please remember to spare a thought and a prayer for all the children who will not be with their families this Christmas.

Thank you.

Kate and Gerry

The Gasper statements, an addendum

2010-12-15T11:51:00.000-08:00

Relating to: Lifting the Lid on Suspicion Without Foundation.

Concern has been expressed about certain observations I made about Mrs. Gasper’s statement in particular in my last piece on this subject. I’ve thought deeply about those observations and I concede they have merit.

The Gaspars made their statements in good faith and they believed, and should have been right to believe, they were made in confidence, to Leicestershire police. They surely never imagined the statements would escape the confines of UK or Portuguese police. But events they were powerless to stop ensued and now those statements are on the net. The argument runs that, therefore, it is not fair to critically analyze what they said and of course it isn’t. But closed barn doors and bolted horses; the internet is now awash with salacious interpretation of Mrs. Gaspar’s statement in particular.

Two things are certain. As I hope I made clear in my first piece, neither Gaspar made any direct allegations. And even if, for reasons they have no cause to reproach themselves for at all, they now regret it, they were wholly justified in confiding what they did. I’d go further. If a third witness had made credible direct allegations, the Gaspar statements, conceivably, might have added weight to the statements of this third witness. But of course there is no third witness. And I think it fair to speculate that the Gaspars themselves would have recoiled in horror from Amaral’s suggestion that an alleged delay by Leicestershire police (whether or not there was such a delay) in passing on their statements might have compromised the investigation. It’s clear that the Gaspars only ever intended what they shared to be background information, not a catalyst for direct action.

In raising the the questions I did in my first piece my intention was not, particularly, to challenge Mrs Gaspar. There might very well be good answers to my points not reflecting at all pejoratively on Mrs Gaspar. My intention was to confront the purveyors of those salacious thoughts, to make them realize how misguided, fallacious and erroneous their opinions are. There is, after all, the reputation of the man who is the subject of this online speculation to consider as well. It has been traduced and the Gaspars are blameless for that.

Perhaps my hope is a forlorn one. But I hope not.
Mrs. Gaspar was an honourable witness.

By Honestbroker.

Addendum by Vee8

I wish to add a thought of my own here. My opinion of Honestbroker’s first piece on the Gaspar statements was that it was perfectly clear and straightforward. He made valid points that, a.) Amaral had clearly lied in his book about what was said in the statements, and that b.) the statements themselves had been distorted and twisted until they were used to besmirch the reputations of several people unjustly.

That Honestbroker feels the need to clarify himself, and point out in clear and unequivocal terms that he did not intend to add to any stress or anxiety felt by Mrs. Gaspar in particular shows he is truly a man of great honesty and integrity. If only those that warp and distort the facts of this case to suit their own agenda had a fraction of this integrity perhaps we would not have had to start this blog in the first place.

By Vee8

The Wiki Man

2010-12-14T12:09:00.000-08:00

Amaral and his organised supporters awaited the recent Wikileaks with gleeful anticipation in that new evidence would be revealed to confirm Goncalo being exonerated for alleged incompetence and perhaps provide support for his conspiracy theory that the case was snuffed out by institutional interference and not for the simple fact that there is no proof to indicate a suspect or crime.

The leaked communication from Britain's ambassador to Portugal, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, reportedly made claim to his American counterpart on September 21, 2007 - two weeks after Portuguese police named Gerry and Kate McCann as "arguidos", or formal suspects, in the case.

That claim is, British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.

Ok, lets examine this. Two weeks after the couple were made arguidos, Amaral’s team had gathered evidence with the co-operation of the UK police. We all know that Amaral claimed they helped in his book. The pivotal point of the use of that evidence is when the forensic results came through confirming the information is not positive material proof.

A spokesman for the McCanns responded:

"This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old. Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever.

"To this day, they continue to work tirelessly on the search for their daughter, co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."

The above comment being a true interpretation of the leaks, as anyone with common sense will understand.

Yet, the leaks are being used as a stepping stone of publicity for the conspiracy theorist. Amaral was quick to take an interview regarding the Wikileaks. A few interesting points become illuminated.

Amaral is quick to point out that the leaks tell us nothing new regarding what is already in the public domain, the process reflected in the case files. But he wasted no time to twist the information to suggest there is possibly hidden evidence and that possibly being withheld from his team by the British police.

From Pedro Mourinho (P.M.) - SIC Notícias Anchor (Portuguese 24/7 News Channel)
Gonçalo Amaral (G.A.) - the former Judiciary Police inspector, coordinator of the Madeleine McCann investigation until October, 2007

P.M. - Is there any novelty for you in the documents now released by Wikileaks?

G.A. - No, in reality the only news is the document disclosure itself, since as for the evidence, the indicia, they are on the process. The cooperation and collaboration with the English police is public knowledge, and is on the process. The results are there, therefore there isn't anything new.

Then he inferred that there might be some hidden evidence and the British police should confirm it.

P.M. - So, for you it isn't news that it was the British police that found the evidence that have, would have incriminated Madeleine's parents?

G.A. - No, I didn't say that. It's not news as regarding to the evidence, now as to the proofs held by the British police I don't know what are they referencing to. There was a cooperation and collaboration, the evidence and indicia are in the process thus...I don't know, someone should say what the evidence are, perhaps someone from the British police should say it. All the same, it was a cooperation between the British and Portuguese police that has arrived to the proofs that are in the process.

Not only does Goncalo infer that there might be evidence which the British police had gathered, independently of the PJ. Which in itself is a subtle accusation that the UK police were on a separate mission, part of the alleged conspiracy perhaps? But Goncalo also states that it was cooperation between the UK and PJ police that had arrived at the proofs in the investigation. I understand his use of the word ‘proofs' as being evidence. This is interesting as Amaral writes in his book that the English police backed off at the time when the FSS results came through. It is clear to anyone with any sense that they backed off with the forensic confirmation that the ‘proofs’ were not positive and therefore the evidence was no longer valid.

Goncalo forgets, or ignores, the investigation changed at that point forensics confirmed no positive back up. There is no material proof of death. The Wikileak is a snapshot of what was occurring before that pivotal point in the case. Goncalo prefers to think that his truth is being covered up by conspiracy rather than his truth was proved redundant.

So where are we now with Goncalo? Following his publicity about the CCTV camera, near a disused villa in the Estrela da Luz resort hotel, having being wiped, with the suggestion evidence of the man seen carrying Madeleine by Martin Smiths family was wiped with it. Amaral now suggests the Wikileaks are yet to reveal satellite pictures of that very man as well. There is no evidence that those pictures exist. But Amaral will ensure that they now exist in the minds of his gullible supporters, just like the missing CCTV pictures and the positive evidence of death have been installed in the mindset of those who would prefer Madeleine be dead, through their prejudice, than to keep hope alive for her.
http://express.co.uk/posts/view/210032/Madeleine-McCann-Did-the-camera-hold-vital-clue-

What is more profound is that Amaral states in his book that the English police backed off from the investigation after the point where his 'proof' was undermined and ignores that statement he made in his interview about the Wikileaks, to proclaim that the British police cooperated to arrive at his proof!!.

Misinformation?, a lie? Spin? waxing his conspiracy theory?, Definitely not the truth!

,

Martin Smith – Amaral’s Trump Card? Or Joker in the Pack?

2010-12-11T14:11:00.000-08:00

We come back to this from the El Mundo interview:

This is what we were investigating when I was dismissed from the case. I want to recall that there is an Irish man who claimed to have seen Gerry McCann with a girl in his arms, on his way towards the beach that same night. That testimony has been hidden. The dogs specialised in finding traces of blood and odour of cadaver, found both on the wall of the apartment and in the boot of the car that the McCanns rented 23 days later.

The testimony wasn't hidden and is in the files. That and the other testimonies bear close scrutiny. On the night of May 3rd, remembered with some precision as at around 2200 because certain members of their large party had to catch an early flight back to Ireland the following morning, as they were returning to their apartments, they spotted a man, carrying a child described as wearing light coloured (Mr Smith), or pink (his daughter Aoife) pyjamas. The three agreed, with varying degrees of conviction, that the child could have been Madeleine.

After the party's return to Ireland, when news of Madeleine’s disappearance had broken, the Smiths recalled that sighting and three of their party, Mr Smith, Aoife his daughter and Mr Smith's son, Peter, returned to Portugal to give statements to the Portuguese police.

A key point to note, here, is that at the point of their return, Robert Murat , a personal friend of Mr Smith’s, had already been declared an arguido, and Mr Smith was very keen to exonerate Murat. But at this stage, no one (including Mr Smith) identified the man they saw as Gerry. Mr Smith noted the unusual negative about the man (not disputed by the other two, but neither commented on) that he was not wearing glasses. Robert Murat is blind in one eye and does wear glasses. Mr Smith otherwise states explicitly that the man was not Robert Murat.

An important detail from Mr Smith’s testimony is this:

He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.

It was nearly 4 months later, after Kate and Gerry had been made arguidos, that Martin Smith would have his apparent Damascus moment of wondering whether the man he saw conceivably could have been Gerry. Here are the details of a statement he made to the Irish Gardia police:

Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough

Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.

He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.

I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.

Forwarded please

Sergeant

Liam Hogan

I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.

There are two things to note, here. The first is that, whatever that something was that made Mr Smith think the man he saw in Praia da Luz was Gerry, it presumably included the detail that Mr Smith didn’t think Gerry was carrying his son off the aeroplane in a particularly natural or familiar way, just as he observed about the man he saw carrying the girl in Praia da Luz in the statement he gave to the Portuguese police.

The second is that, while Mr Smith's wife also felt the man might have been Gerry (but declined to make a statement) his children did not share their father's conviction.

In the final PJ report, written just before the case was archived, Joao Carlos says this:

Further on this issue, the testimony of MARTIN SMITH was considered, pages 1606 and following, reporting the sighting of an individual carrying a child, in one of the streets that lead to the beach. It was said that the child could be MADELEINE McCANN, although it was never peremptorily stated. Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.

Carlos does not expand on the reasons for that finding in his report, but enough is known for us to infer with reasonable certainty.

Let us, for a moment, indulge the notion that the Smiths saw Gerry. By Amaral’s thesis, Kate and Gerry were both complicit and acting jointly to conceal a ghastly accident and the ‘evidence’ (the body of their daughter). As already noted, the time of the Smith sighting was 2200, almost exactly the same time as Kate’s alert at the Tapas restaurant. Kate would have been insane to raise the alarm before Gerry had even got down to the beach. Further, if Gerry was absent at the time of Kate’s alarm, an urgent and top priority would have been to track Gerry down and tell him what had happened. That activity, including where Gerry was when found and who found him, would be extensively documented in the witness statements of key witnesses. Simply, such commentary is non-existent.

And there is also at least one witness who gives a positive identification of Gerry in the vicinity of the Tapas restaurant at a time that (if accurate) would, indeed, rule out Gerry as the man the Smiths saw – Jeronimo Salcedas. He was the subject of a rogatory interview. The purpose of rogatory interviews was to clarify discrepancies or establish important points, so his testimony must have been regarded as significant. It is worth noting that the times he gave in his statement to Portuguese police differed from the time given in his statement to Leicestershire police; also that UK police take verbatim statements while the Portuguese police summarise statements in reported speech. Also, the Leicestershire police will have had a copy of Mr Salcedas’ statement to the Portuguese police.

Here is the relevant part of Mr Salcedas’ statement to Leicestershire police:

On the night Madeleine disappeared, everything appeared normal. I remember that when I took notice of the disappearance, I had been in the restaurant speaking with my two colleagues?Ze and Ricardo who were on break. I returned to the restaurant and noticed that the table of nine was empty with the exception of the older woman. I went over to the table and joked with her: ?They've left you alone?? She responded more of less with these words: ?No, they went to see if the little girl was there.? I responded that I hoped they would find her somewhere in the apartment. At saying this, I saw the man. Who I knew later to be Madeleines father, running to the pool and to the childrens play area in the Tapas zone as if looking for someone. It immediately hit me that after talking to the older woman, that the little girl had not been found. I offered to alert the workers at the Milenium Restaurant and the man agreed. He then left again running to continue searching. I believe that this was between 21H30 and 22H00 but do not remember with certainty.

The time recorded in Mr Salcedas’ statement to Portuguese police is about an hour later. But still, as I point out above, no discrepancy in time was noted by the interviewing officer.

These are probably the pointers that led the PJ to conclude that, at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the restaurant.

By Honestbroker.

Poirot, Holmes and Plagiarism

2010-12-10T11:27:00.000-08:00

Dr Amaral is often, inaccurately, quoted as saying in an interview that he thought Gerry ‘buried’ Madeleine’s body on the beach. In fact the operative word was hidden, and when pressed by the interviewer on whether, by that, he meant buried, he replied, We do not know.

A - I do not believe that the parents killed her.

Q - So, what are we talking about?

A - About an accident. The child could have fallen from a sofa, could have had an accident with Calpol (a sleeping solution). We never had access to the girl’s medical history, so we don’t know whether she was healthy or not. We can only speculate. There are many very strange details.

Update - The rest of the Interview, thanks to Mercedes from Hasta que Se Sepa La Verdade (Until the Truth is Known)

Q - What do you think that could have happened that night?

A - Both the British and Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed his mind, thought the same. We talked about death by others, not murder. In the room blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl did not have a a heavy sleep, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa bellow the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out,moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.

Q - The girl falls from the sofa, dies with the blow and the parents find her.

A - The mother. It is the mother who finds the girl dead.

Q - But I am trying to think out an idea. How can a mother who has just found her daughter dead on the floor decides to hide the corpse? And how do you hide the corpse of a girl of nearly four years old so that no one can find it?

A – This is what we were investigating when I was dismissed from the case. I want to recall that there is an Irish man who claimed to have seen Gerry McCann with a girl in his arms, on his way towards the beach that same night. That testimony has been hidden. The dogs specialized in finding traces of blood and odour of cadaver, found both in the wall of the apartment and in the boot of the car that the McCann rented 23 days later.

Q - Did Gerry McCann bury his dead daughter on the beach and then unearth and put her in the boot after 23 days later?

A - We do not know. The Irish [witness] that I have told you about saw Gerry on television with a child in his arms arriving in the UK and stated that it was the same image they had seen back in May in Portugal. That man spent two days without sleeping when he realized what he had found, but nobody has talked about them. And what one of the Irish has said is logical, a man with a child in his arms toward the beach.

It’s worth tracing the origin of this thesis of Amaral’s. In his book, Amaral narrates that he is called away from a crucial meeting in the early hours of the morning by his distraught wife. She has found the corpse of their pet dog, with a head injury. His wife is scared and pleads with him to withdraw from the investigation, but he reassures her. Meanwhile, Amaral must dispose of the corpse, and attempts to dig a hole to bury it. He finds the ground hard to dig, and the inspiration hits him how much ‘easier’ it would be to dispose of a body by hiding, rather than burying, it. Thus was formed the hypothesis of what Gerry is supposed to have done with the body of Madeleine.

Since Amaral doesn’t acknowledge it, we must assume that his inspiration owes nothing to the proper detective work of Mark Harrison. Unlike Amaral, Harrison never hypothesised that Madeleine had been hidden on the beach, by Gerry or anyone else.. Indeed, he didn’t even hypothesise that Madeleine had been hidden on the beach. But, working to the brief given to him by the Portuguese detectives coordinating the search (Amaral himself!) he explored the possibility that Madeleine might have been buried on the beach. He did this by taking a shovel and attempting to dig holes in several places. His conclusion (documented in the files) was that such a method of disposal was not feasible. However, he noted that on one of the areas of the beach where there are large, free-standing rocks with vegetation growing on them (sic) it would be possible to secrete the body of a small child.

Here is the relevant extract from the Harrison report:

Sub Surface Burial on P D Luz Beach

For Body Disposal Purposes The Beach Can Be Separated And
Discussed Into 6 Areas.

Figure 2.The boulders in the rock falls are too large
to man handle. Vegetative growth suggests rock
falls have been in situ for some time. The low energy
wave action would not move any of the boulders. It
is possible a small child could be secreted amongst
the rocks in natural voids.

Figure 3.The cliff edge at the base of the beach is at
an angle that inhibits soil removal. The shale re fills
any hole dug and is unsuitable to achieve a burial.

Figure4.At the base of the cliff are wave cuts where
the bedrock has been eroded by wave action. Here
sand can be easily dug but after a few centimetres
the digger reaches the bed rock, preventing a
successful burial.

Figure 5.The beach cusps or berms are mounds of
sand made by wind action. These cusps form at the
limit of the tides reach and would only be recovered
in storm conditions. Digging on the cusps is easy but to achieve as
more than a few centimetres depth is very difficult to
the fine sand granules refill the hole

Figure 6.The dark sand in this image shows the
intertidal area. Here digging and burial could
possibly be achieved although it would be through a
mixture of grave1 and water. However any burial
would be quickly exposed by wave action and
ultimately taken into the sea.

It’s clear that Amaral has taken the abstract musings of Harrison, formed from proper detective work, combined them with melodrama and corrupted them into an apparent ‘finding’: all of which brings us neatly to Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes. In a stinging rebuke of Amaral’s work, the Portuguese prosecutors made the following remarks, taken from an article in The Telegraph::

"The investigators are well aware that their work is not exempt from imperfections," the prosecutors said.

"They worked with an enormous margin of error and they achieved very little in terms of conclusive results, especially with regards to the fate of the unfortunate child."

They went on to say that the disappearance of Madeleine was not a plot from a book, but a serious crime.

"This is not, unfortunately, a police story, a crime fit for the investigative mind of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always restore order."

The prosecutors said despite the huge manhunt and inquiry, little had been achieved.

"No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances (of Madeleine's disappearance).

"Including, and most dramatically, establishing whether she is alive or dead, which seems more probable."

Mr Magalhaes defended the McCanns' decision to leave their children alone in the apartment on the night Madeleine vanished.

Thing is this. In Poirot or Holmes novels, the detecives’ hypotheses are set against the backcloth of skilfully woven narratives, with all manner of decoys and non-sequiturs expertly seen through by our hero, which leads inexorably to the conclusion that the right culprit was identified and brought to book. We come away from such novels with a satisfied feeling that justice has been done, wrong has been righted and the guilty have been nailed. And of course, we can’t be mistaken, because the whole episode is the work and imagination of the author; no real people involved at all and no incidents.

Somehow, the same feeling is not quite captured in the detective work of Goncalo Amaral.

By Honestbroker

Delusions of Grandeur and Paranoia

2010-12-08T10:27:00.000-08:00

I’d like to explore the section of Amaral’s book, ‘An Investigation Destined for the Archives’.

In this chapter Goncalo talks about the investigation deliberately being steered for closure after he left the police force. He claims that the British police shared the view that his hypothesis of Madeleine having died in the apartment should be considered. Then he remarks that the British police suddenly stepped back from that hypothesis and gave up on following that line of investigation without any practical justification.

Goncalo, to me, seems to be burying his head in the sand about the factual, material reasons why the British police backed off from the thesis of Madeleine dying in apartment 5A. He avoids the common sense explanaition why they stopped following the direction that Goncalo has hung his hat on. That explanaition being that the forensic results undermined the thesis of a death and concealment, therefore undermining Gancalo's theory.

Remarkably, Goncalo goes on to justify their reasons for pulling back as part of a bigger, conspired, picture. He states that he wondered how the McCann’s had access to information that had not been made public, he suggests that he believes there had been inside investigative information being passed on to the McCann’s, a conspiracy? This is after all what his book is about. The lie he refers to clearly interpreted as sourced from the institution, involving the McCann’s and the British police. Blaming his forces own Director of Police for the final death of the case.

“The closing of the case certainly serves someone’s interest”

Says Goncalo. Those who believe in the abduction thesis, he wonders?, those who perpetuate the lie to move away from material truth?, he ponders. The truth he refers to being his own thesis which was undermined, not by conspiracy, but by material facts.

Not only does it seem that Goncalo is in denial about the simple truth of that matter, he has convinced himself that Madeleine is dead. That she died in the apartment and was concealed by her parents.

“I think of that little girl who was not yet four years old and who was denied the right to live”

What in God’s name makes an inspector believe his own thesis as fact when the evidence was in front of him to guide his opinion towards the truth?

What would make that inspector assume anyone who did not agree with him was part of some conspiracy to cover up his own truth?

The final paragraph in this chapter gives an indication.

“It is time for the story to be told by the one who was responsible for its operational coordination and who lived it intensely in the company of men and women who constitute the elite of the police judiciara”.

Does the belief that one is elite, invite delusions of grandeur and paranoia, to turn opinion into fact? And turn denial into conspiracy?

Useful link: Conspiracy Theorists.

A reply to Dr Roberts, Pt 2.

2010-12-06T13:44:00.000-08:00

A Reply to Dr Roberts
By Honestbroker.

Upon the appearance of Dr Roberts’ piece, entitled 'Pearl Harbour' http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
Vee and I independently produced our own responses. We discussed how best to present both pieces and felt that, while there is inevitable overlap, each offers something not present in the other and that the two combined represent a comprehensive rebuttal of Dr Roberts’ argument.

So here, for what they are worth, are my thoughts:

I had to look up “IPA”. I’m still not entirely sure, but the definition that seems closest, especially given the reference in Dr Roberts’ piece to promotional copy, is Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. The usual practice in academic writing is to write what initials mean in full on first use, then follow with the initials in brackets and use just initials thereafter. Dr Roberts has departed from that practice in his piece and left us guessing. Still, it’s true that a code of conduct governs advertising that demands it must be legal, decent, honest and truthful; equally true that severe penalties can be imposed where these requirements are breached. So I think my guess is a reasonable one.

This sentence from Dr Roberts’ piece is worthy of note:

I do not propose to cross swords with these people, who may hold whatever opinions they wish of Gonçalo Amaral. Suffice to say that the recent 'Inside Out' broadcast by the BBC offers ample evidence of divergence in this regard, and how 'strength of feeling' can come across with as much apparent authority as authority itself.

It isn’t explicitly stated what Dr Roberts defines as strength of opinion appearing as if authority and authority itself. But it is implied that examples in the first category are Simon Hare’s inside out programme and V’s piece. We must take it, then, that authority itself is the subject of Vee’s piece, Dr Amaral’s book? All of which brings us neatly back to this: legal, decent, honest and truthfull. If Dr Amaral’s book is, indeed, authority itself, it must be legal, decent, honest and truthful. But it isn’t! There is truth, interpretation of truth and factual accuracy (or inaccuracy!) How, then, can a book that is authority itself be so error ridden? How can it state, without there ever having been a body or an autopsy, that Madeleine was given an overdose of a drug that was not even on the market at the time of the McCanns’ holiday? When one senior British officer was given a brief by Portuguese officers coordinating and leading the investigation to write a report on a specific theme, how can it be said (as Amaral says) that his report ‘confirmed their worst fears’ (that Madeleine was dead and probably died in the apartment)? How can Amaral say that the cadaver dog reacted to the boot when the handler Martin Grime says he did not deploy the dog inside the car?

I’ve scarcely scratched the surface, but authority itself (Dr Amaral’s book) is decent, legal and truthfull? How, then does ‘authority itself’ differ from that which has the appearance of authority (Vee’s piece or Simon Hare’s programme about the Foundation)? Dr Roberts should tell us.

Dr Roberts does not dispute that, as a limited company, the Find Madeleine fund must be open and transparent, but argues that this does not reflect credit on the McCanns because transparency is a legal requirement. He omits that the McCanns entered voluntarily into an arrangement that would require them, legally, to be transparent. Why would they do that unless they wanted to be seen to be above board?

We needn’t be delayed by the sophistry of this argument

Leaving aside the vague 'reason to believe', we have Amaral ostensibly donating a mere 10% of his royalties to charitable causes, whereas the McCanns will donate all of their profits to the fund. But the fund, as we know, is not a charity. So the truth to be understood (rather than that portrayed) is: Amaral's charitable giving 10%. McCanns' charitable giving 0%.

If, indeed, Dr Amaral gave 10% of the proceeds from the sale of his book to charity, then he kept 90% for himself; while the McCanns have, personally, seen none of the money paid to the Find Madeleine fund. And contrary to what Dr Roberts argues, the McCanns targeting the proceeds from sale of the book and the pain caused to them by the book are not mutually exclusive. The book is the cause of their pain, and as recompense, they want the revenue generated from its sale.

Finally, Dr Roberts’ depiction by analogy of Amaral as the ‘Japanese’ is singularly unfortunate. During the war, the Japanese had a record of violation of the human rights of their prisoners of war that at least rivalled in unspeakable brutality that exhibited by the Nazis towards the Jews.

Dr Roberts is right about one thing, though. Just as the Japanese admiral predicted (correctly) that, with their strike on Pearl Harbour, the Japanese had “Stirred a slumbering giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve,” so Amaral’s success in overturning the book ban is likely to be short-lived.

by Honestbroker.

A reply to Dr Roberts, Pt 1.

2010-12-06T13:31:00.000-08:00

By Vee8

A few days ago, as of this time of writing, it became known to the authors of this blog that a prominent contributer to one of the anti-Madeleine blogs, a poster by the name of Dr Martin Roberts, thought our own work here was worthy of comment. It is a long piece, and rather than copy it out in full here, we will provide our readers with a link.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

The piece is entitled ‘Pearl Harbour’ and is a short scroll down the page. We would like to pass comments individually. Since it was my piece, ‘A Tale of Two Bookies’ that attracted the good doctor’s attention, I would like to respond first.

Well, my first thoughts are that I am genuinely and sincerely flattered! That my humble scribblings are considered well written enough to be thought of as somehow a professional PR exercise is, to me at least, high praise! But, Dr Roberts, I must I’m afraid, disapoint you. I am no professional writer. In fact, though I left school with five O-levels, they were science and technical based. I failed dismally my English language O-level, and never even botherd to take English Literature. No, I am but a simple grease monkey, a helecopter technician by trade. I have never met the McCanns, and have not been appointed, hired or paid by them in any way, though, naturally, the stock answer to that is ‘Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?!’ My interest in this case is simple. I saw, right at the beginning, lies, half truths and deliberate misinformation about the McCanns being spread around on the press websites. Something inside me bade me to enter this fray, like some sort of medieval knight in shining armour, or maybe one of the gallant few in 1940, turning back the black hordes of Hitler’s Luftwaffe. I’ve been stuck here ever since.

Now, back to your rather well written post, and it is clear you are not the usual anti-Madeleine, in as much as you come across as a far more inteligent type. However, you flatter to decieve. There are some gaping holes in your arguments, and I must take issue with you.

I am disinclined to read everything there also. That is my prerogative.

Indeed, you are free to read or discard anything you wish. But, as we make clear on our homepage, our intention is to challenge that which Amaral puts forward as the incontravertable truth, as is held by others on the net, not least of which is one Tony Bennett. We do this, not by using speculation or innuendo, as is often the case on the anti-Madeleine sites, but by using Amaral’s own words, from his book or from interviews, and comparing them with the files. The same files he claims to have based his book on. As the judge who reciently overturned Amaral’s book ban pointed out; it is in the public domain, he can hardly complain if the public then scrutinise his works, and take him to task for it.

Let's then take a closer look at some of the arguments advanced by Vee8.
"We have reason to believe that Amaral stated that a portion, (I think I remember reading the figure of 10%) of his profits will go to children's charities. A noble gesture, if true. The McCanns, on the other hand, make it very clear that ALL the profits from THEIR book will go to the fund that is financing the search for their missing daughter."

Leaving aside the vague 'reason to believe', we have Amaral ostensibly donating a mere 10% of his royalties to charitable causes, whereas the McCanns will donate all of their profits to the fund. But the fund, as we know, is not a charity. So the truth to be understood (rather than that portrayed) is: Amaral's charitable giving 10%. McCanns' charitable giving 0%.

Now then, where did I ever say the McCanns fund was a charity? My point was to compare intentions and integrety, not rewrite some sort of parable based on the widow’s mite. Amaral is perfectly entitled to do with his money as he wishes. But who, with any sort of concience, would happily profit from the suffering of a family, the suffering of which they themselves have contributed to? I would have thought that at the very least, he would have made some public gesture to a charitable concern, but, as I said, it’s his choice. The McCanns made it clear that they would not personally profit from their book, and despite all the scurrilous writings on various forums, so far not one shred of actual evidence has emerged to prove they have ‘Cashed in’ on Madeleine’s abduction in any way.

What this offers us, first and foremost, is confirmation that the metric underlying the McCanns' libel action against Gonçalo Amaral is his profits, not their suffering.

Quite wrong, and an obvious assumption based on the common anti-Madeleine notion that the McCanns are motivated by greed. They are claiming, perfectly reasonably, the profits from his libelous book, and not a penny more. Besides, you cannot take or win a libel case without proving suffering of some sort. Claiming they are motivated purely on his profits implies some sort of case to do with loss of earnings, something closer to copyright infringment, and not libel.

Let us also be completely, rather than partially transparent. The McCanns do not publish accounts in order to salve their consciences. The 'Fund' is a public limited company. As such it is legally obliged to publish its accounts

Quite right. But again you miss my point. The commonly held view by the anti-Madeleines is that the fund is a scam, a fraud. Not very wise, then, to publish the full account of every penny that comes and goes, is it? Agreed also that Amaral is under no such obligation, but if he DID make a promise to make a charitable donation, then why have we not heard of it? As I made clear, if he has, I have not heard of it yet.

What we have here is a McCann PR vehicle. Its establishment immediately post the appeal decision could be taken as an expression of the couple's fear that Amaral's book will indeed appear in the U.K. Why so?

Why so? Because they fear the damage it would do to their search. Simple as. As for the PR vehicle, well, as I said at the beginning, I am truly flattered.

It has previously been suggested elsewhere that Amaral could not, in any case, publish A Verdade da Mentira in the U.K., for fear of infringeing U.K. libel laws, any version to be put before an English speaking audience would be thoroughly vetted and edited to leave not so much as a hint of libel.

As it sits, there is no way it would be published in this country. But if it were edited to remove all the libelous connotations, what would it leave? The title on the front page and the ISBN number on the back? Not much else in between I would guess.

What Gonçalo Amaral, Fact of the Fiction represents is a pre-emptive strike against a moving target. Likewise, the best the McCanns can do in the face of an impending literary assault, is attempt somehow to discredit the author in advance.

And that, Dr Roberts, is exactly how I percieve your article about my piece. This blog is now being widely read. Very widely indeed. Not just by the Pro’s and the anti’s, who, lets face it, all together don’t amount to a total of a few hundred people, but by a large number of the wider public, a number growing at a rate that is surprising even we authors of the blog.

To finish,

I do not propose to cross swords with these people, who may hold whatever opinions they wish of Gonçalo Amaral.

It is very hard to separate emotions, opinions and facts when dealing with this case. People have their opinions of the McCanns, we have ours of Amaral. But though we sometimes let our emotions colour our opinions, what we are in fact doing with our blog is raise awareness of the clear and blatant contradictions between what Amaral says in his book and elsewhere, and what is actually written in the files. Many times they are at a distinct divergence, and our opinions cannot then alter the writen facts.

Amaral is not some sacred cow, a revered saint or an all knowing sage who is not to be questioned. He is a man, a human, with human failings. In their hour of need, when the McCanns called on him, he was found to be wanting.

Mark Harrison and Amaral's Twisted Version of Events

2010-11-23T14:25:00.000-08:00

One of the oft quoted internet forum myths surrounding the abduction Of Madeleine is the allegation that Mark Harrison, of Leicestershire police, advised the PJ to proceed on the assumption that Madeleine died in the apartment, and to concentrate on the idea of parental involvement, or words to that effect. The source of this internet folklore seems to originate in another part of Amaral’s book, so let us study the original report and compare it to Amaral’s version.

For anyone who wants to read exactly what Harrison's report said, and see the pdfs of the pages, they are here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html

Here are transcribed the most important parts:

This report considers solely the possibility that MM has been murdered and her body is concealed within the previously searched areas. Other scenarios and possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.

..has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in similar cases.

To make that clearer, this report was put together on the request of the PJ, so as to give them some help in understanding where, what and who they could possibly be looking for. Points to note are that this was NOT, as is often claimed, an original suggestion of LP, offered gratuitously to the PJ, but put together BY the LP on request FROM the PJ. That is a very vital point to keep in mind. Secondly, it was by no means the only possible scenario, as is made clear here,

Other scenarios and possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.

What should also be born in mind is that nowhere does it hint of the idea that Madeleine died in the apartment, or that the parents may be involved.

Once Amaral writes his book, this is the twisted mockery he makes of Harrison's role, remit and report:

THE HYPOTHESIS OF DEATH IS CONSIDERED.
THE ARRIVAL OF THE SPECIALISTS
Chapter 16

His (Harrison's) work consists of defining new strategies for research. He gets to work immediately, supported by the Portuguese PJ and the investigators from Leicester and Scotland Yard. On his arrival, we place at his disposal details of the case, as well as all our material and human resources. Harrison reads up on the statements and interviews from the principal witnesses – including, of course, those of the parents and friends -, all the analyses, simulations, hypotheses and cross-checking already carried out. He carries out a reconnaissance on the ground, by helicopter and then on foot. He paces the streets and the access roads to Vila da Luz and compares them to the diagrams created in the course of the investigation. Nothing is left to chance: measurement and timing of possible routes between buildings, apartments and restaurants; analyses, with the help of the best specialists, of weather, geological and maritime factors in relation to the investigation; consultation with the best forensic anthropologist in the country, who indicates for us what would be the actual state of the body in the hypothesis of death occurring on May 3rd; study of the region’s natural carrion predators. All the research already conducted by hundreds of people – GNR, civil defence, firemen and other volunteers – is re-examined in detail and re-analysed.

After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz.

He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.

-----------------------------------------------

Amaral suggests that Harrison is ONLY presenting one possibility, to the exclusion of all others, that Madeleine is dead, and hidden nearby. Did he misunderstand what Harrison told him at that meeting, at which he presented the report we can read at the link above? Or is he just happy to twist the story to make it fit his narrative, as we have seen so many times before?

To reiterate, Harrison SAID '...address the possibility that she has been murdered
and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate
response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous
experience in similar cases'

and Amaral HEARD 'The most plausible scenario is the following: there
is no doubt that Madeleine is dead'

As an example of how he works, it's very revealing.

As for the notion that Harrison suggests that Madeleine died in the apartment, or that the parents are involved, well that is just forum embroidery, as even Amaral does not suggest that at this point.

By SV.

Lifting the Lid on Suspicion Without Foundation

2010-11-21T02:56:00.000-08:00

One holidaying friend of the McCanns (whom I shan’t name) is the subject of scurrilous on-line innuendo and also the subject of statements made in the files. The allegations are serious enough; the evidence in support of them almost non-existent.

The power base of paedophiles is, of course, secrecy. Their secrecy is frequently blown. Were that not true, paedophiles would never be brought to book. But seldom, if ever, is the secrecy of a paedophile blown by (almost always!) him freely divulging in public what is personal, sordid and likely to land him in prison for a long time if known. Paedophiles are generally a bit more guarded than that.

In the light of what I’ve already said, try to imagine a man with sordid secrets sat at a table eating a meal with his wife, the parents of a small child of their own, and another couple, also, with small children of their own, and casually divulging those sordid secrets. You can’t? Neither can I, but that’s what the allegations against this man demand that we believe if we are to think them true. Another question: if you had heard (or witnessed) such damning revelations, would you have a crystal-clear recollection of what had occurred and report it immediately, or keep it to yourself and do nothing, until some, unrelated, event two years later? I suspect few of us would fall into the latter category.

Two years before the Praia da Luz holiday, this man and his wife and children with Dr Katrina and Aural Gasper, and Kate and Gerry, took a holiday in Majorca. While they were all sat at a table eating a meal, the Gaspar couple observed the man perform certain actions. If there was conversation accompanying these actions, Mrs Gaspar has vague and half-remembered recollections of what might have been said, while her husband has none. A point on which they are both agreed is that there was no discussion between them about what was observed. Neither was anything reported.

That’s the sum total of the ‘case’ against the man to whom I refer.

Yet in Mrs Gaspar’s statement there is a startling contradiction and a revelation that surely comes as a surprise given the nature of her suspicions. As indicated earlier, Mrs Gaspar says that she didn’t discuss what they saw. Her statement is without qualification and therefore (presumably) includes her husband who, in his statement, also says that they did not discuss the joint observation. The revelation is that this man assisted in the bathing of the children, including the Gaspars’ own daughter. Mrs Gaspar says that she gave a firm directive to her husband to keep a wary open when this man was bathing the children. Quite how she would have issued this directive having not discussed anything with her husband is a mystery. A further mystery is that, given her evident suspicions, she was willing to countenance him bathing, particularly their own daughter, at all. Mr Gaspar is much less suspicious in his assessment. While he felt the gestures they both witnessed to be inappropriate, he emphasizes that he trusted the man throughout the holiday, that he was popular with the children and (this observation apart) that his conduct aroused no suspicions in him whatever. He makes no reference to bathing, nor to this apparent directive from his wife. He also says that he and his wife continued to socialize with the man and his wife after the holiday.

What Amaral makes of these observations in his book is profoundly disturbing. In his rendering, he focuses exclusively (and inaccurately) on the statement of Mrs Gaspar, but describes it as a joint statement (which it isn’t). He says that Mrs Gaspar forbade this man to go anywhere near his daughter, which you, perhaps, might expect in the light of what she did say, but as I’ve indicated, she didn’t!

There is also some dispute about when the statements, made to Leicestershire police by the couple, were handed on to the Portuguese police. They were made about a fortnight after Madeleine went missing, but according to Amaral, were not passed on to the Portuguese police until after he had been dismissed from the case in October 2007. The actual date the statement was received is not recorded in the files, so we must take Amaral’s word.

Most alarmingly, Amaral says that these statements were very important and key to the progress of the investigation. He believes that the investigation was compromised by the apparent ‘failure’ to pass these statements on sooner. He even says that this man’s behaviour towards the children was ‘questionable’, an assertion not even Mrs Gaspar made.

You may have noted that throughout, I have deliberately avoided using the word incident. That is for the excellent reason that there wasn’t one. There was an observation. Actually, there were two, quite different, observations. If there were to be an investigation, the investigation would be carried out by the police force of the country where the observations were made – Majorca. But nothing was ever reported to the police force of Majorca.

At no point was there a question mark over this man’s behaviour in Praia da Luz on that fateful holiday. So how does Amaral believe that the investigation was hindered by these statements not being forwarded earlier?

We should be told.

By Honestbroker.

Second Hand Goncalo

2010-11-16T12:12:00.000-08:00

Goncalo’s account of the arrival of the UK liaison officers and their ‘dismissal’ by Kate

From two different translations of Amaral’s book, The Truth of the Lie, I have found on the net:

The first British police officer to come to PJ headquarters in Portimão, on Saturday, May 5, was Glen Power, liaison officer for the British Police, assigned to the British Embassy in Lisbon. Amaral knew him very well and since long time, they worked together in many high profile cases, related to organized crime. Glen told Amaral that he was “too busy”, so he couldn't stay there, Leicestershire police would send a team.

Two days after, British police officers start to arrive. Bob Small, Leicester head of CID came with a colleague. Amaral put one of his inspectors “close” to Bob Small, because, as he wrote, “in Portugal, it's still the dog that wags the tail”. After that, another two police officers arrived – family liaison officers, to give psychological support to the family and to work as a “link” between the family and PJ.

On May 14, the McCann “dismissed” the two family liaison officers, after Kate was “shocked and frustrated” because they asked her where was her daughter. They were in PdL for less than a week. British police told nothing to PJ, officially, concerning this incident, but Amaral knew it and one of the PJ investigators, who spoke fluent English, was assigned to be the communication “link” with the parents.

Alternative translation:

After Madeleine's disappearance, the first English police officer whom we welcome to the Portimao Department of Criminal Investigation, on May 5th, is Glen Power, liaison officer to Portugal. The brief of this police official attached to his country's embassy is to facilitate communication between police forces.

Two days later, English colleagues begin to arrive. The main idea was for the English police to place at our disposal two specialists in family supervision and support to be the link between the Portuguese investigators and the McCanns. The National Directorate of the PJ had authorised the arrival of these police officers in the context of international collaboration. Bob Small, an officer from the Leicestershire police, and one of his colleagues meet us to take stock of the situation and evaluate the needs of the investigation before making contact with the couple.

We insist on knowing what our English counterparts have come to Portugal to do. I assign one of my investigators to follow the English superintendent like a shadow and to keep me informed about his actions. I want to be informed of everything he learns, the names of the people he meets and the places he goes to.

Then the two police officers arrive who are assigned to psychological support and communication with the family.

On May 14th, Kate Healy is indignant about the attitude of the liaison officer, who asks her where her daughter is. Neither she nor her husband accepts anyone doubting their word. The officer will be sent packing - and his colleague too - a week after his arrival.

Curiously, the English do not consider it expedient to disclose the incident and the PJ are not informed. Myself, I only learn of it indirectly. Finally, a solution is found quickly: the two men are replaced by a Portuguese man who speaks fluent English.

(This man I believe is Ricardo Paiva)

Ok, those are the two most common versions and they don’t differ very much.

My first question is – what was Bob Small? A liaison officer for the family or something more? Amaral seems vague about it. He confuses the liaison officers with others, and jumps about so much it’s hard to nail down who is supposed to be liaison officer and who isn’t.

However, from the files we learn: there are six people who give statements under the rogatories as having been liaison officers for the McCanns:

Eleanor Johnson
Caroline Burrows
Stephen Markley
Jim McGarvey
Neil Holden
Michael Graham

Only two of these, Markley and McGarvey, give a date for their arrival in PDL and they both speak of talking to the McCanns on May 5th!! This doesn’t seem to tie in at all with Goncalo’s timeline of their arrival.

He also admits he heard about the two that were ‘dismissed’ second hand. He also claims that the two who were supposedly sent packing were replaced by one Portuguese person who speaks very good English.

As Ricardo Paiva is referred to elsewhere as a liaison officer I can only think it is him, and indeed it is commonly assumed to be.

But he cannot possibly have replaced the UK officers’ liaison role, given that their aim was to act as a conduit between the forces and the McCanns and to offer ‘psychological support’. The very idea that Paiva can have done this is ridiculous.

The more I look at what GA has written the more I am convinced that:

1) Amaral was actually vague about what was going on. He’s confused about the role of different people and quite simply makes mistakes in his narrative.

2) There is no independent verification for the idea that Kate sent officers packing. Not even from those officers’ own statements.

3) The dates he gives for the arrival of the first liaison officers are simply wrong.

4) Paiva cannot have taken over as liaison officer in place of UK bodies, but Amaral may have taken an opportunity to insert him into the McCanns milieu in order to get information while posing as a sympathetic face; he then made up a story about how it came about in order to cover the fact he had done it.

I do think we need to account for the number of LOs listed in the Rogatories, as above. Presumably two people at any one time would have been sufficient, and this is what the two governments agreed. Seeing six might give the impression that he is right and that two were dismissed – however it’s very unlikely that the same two people would stay out there from May to September. Over four months is a long while for those living away from their families. I think they will have been periodically changed, or rotated.

In any eventuality NONE of them have a word to say about the McCanns causing them concerns over their culpability, in fact the two that give dates do so in order to report that Kate had volunteered that Madeleine had previously cried during the night. They do not to me sound at all hostile, and yet these are the two we KNOW were there from the beginning. If they were there on the 5th then it seems very likely to me that they are the original pair of LOs. And if they are the original pair, then they should also be the ones who were ‘dismissed’ no??

So we are left with an Amaral who admits he had all this second hand, who thinks that Paiva replaced English officers as psychological support (patently absurd), who cannot back up his second-hand allegations with anything resembling fact, and who admits, astonishingly, to having wasted one of his investigators on tailing British cops who had been sent over to help!

By Preciousramotswe

Agenda and Strategy

2010-11-14T12:20:00.000-08:00

What is very wrong here about Amaral writing his book and Bennett placing himself in the storm it creates, is that any democratic legal system would not allow its police force the capability to promote propaganda to force it's opinion of a given case upon the public after the prosecutor has given a legal conclusion and that case is not closed, just shelved. If that were to happen, what sort of justice system would that be? A failed institution, which in no way reflects democratic institutional justice. A broken legal system. For Amaral to make his voice heard, he had to resign from the force. He confirms in the introduction to his book that the force regulations would prevent him from speaking out. That would be resign to avoid breaking the judicial secrecy laws?. But does being outside the force make him any less guilty of breaking the institutional regulations? This is a point worthy of further investigation.

So, Amaral removed himself from the democratic system to allow himself to use propaganda in an attempt to force justice upon the McCanns. Justice by public trial, where his opinion is the prosecution and his book compounded by his network of support, the evidence.

That is not the conduct of a respectful law enforcement officer. To think himself above the institutional process of justice and to assume the right to bypass it. That is the most profound evidence of someone who is used to police power in the sense of the old school fascist system.

Amaral is empowered by his network of support, which from the start installed itself on websites questioning the McCanns, installed themselves on a blog supposedly as the voice of Portuguese journalism, installed themselves on every public viewable media site on the internet.

For this organised group of propaganda, the internet is the most powerful tool.

Why all such organisation to slate the McCanns? Amaral reveals the answer in his book. He has a profound lack of respect for the institution, the democratic institution. Perhaps the McCanns are expendable fodder that elevates his publicity. Perhaps this is fascist mischief throwing a spanner in the works of Portuguese democracy. No wonder a mischief maker in this country with National Front links has got on board. Right wing groups DO have a network across Europe, there to undermine democracy with the power of the internet.

I could be wrong of course, but the tools of right wing propaganda are definitely being used in this case. Misinformation, government involvement, CEOP involvement, inviting conspiracy loons to swell numbers in support, inviting those obsessed with neglect to swell numbers with the constant pressure on media to expose that misinformation as a balance.

The agenda is not confirmable.

The strategy IS.

Reflections on that Express Article

2010-11-10T12:32:00.000-08:00

Here, we are really picking up where we left off with Amaral’s success in overturning the injunction on his book – but with an unexpected twist. The first part of the script was predictable enough. This egotist who tried to con us into the belief that he brow-beat Stuart Prior into phoning the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham and hectoring them on the subject of the Portuguese police’s powers of arrest came off the ropes brimming with bull and bravado. He would sue the McCanns for loss of earnings from the unjust imposition of the injunction and, yes, the book would roll off the production-lines once more and be sold, including in Britain.

On the first point, all earnings from the book have remained in a frozen bank account and if – only if – Amaral wins the forthcoming libel trial, will be released to him. On the second point, there is one way, alone, that he will get booksellers to take his book, in Britain, or arguably, anywhere else in the world, and that is if he revises and rewrites it to strip the present text of all libelous content. Amaral is not stupid and must understand that.

Perhaps that is the background to the unexpected twist – this interview he gave to The Sunday Express. For two, obvious reasons, we can dismiss suggestions that The Sunday Express faked the interview. This paper, like all its sister papers from The Express stable, has been sued by the McCanns and the editor risks going to prison if he steps out of line with a story about the McCanns again. So the paper will have been very careful to verify both the interview and the content of the story as accurate. The second reason is, simply, that if the paper had made this up Amaral would, already, have issued a swift and widely reported denial. No such denial has been issued.

So what of the story? It is claimed that footage of a CCTV camera from the Estra da Luz Hotel, almost certain to have contained video image of a man seen carrying a child on the night, had been wiped before officers, on Amaral’s instructions, had recovered the footage. A certain area of waste ground had been thoroughly searched by officers. And, most startlingly of all, a gate of a disused (on May 3^rd 2007, as now) villa had been open on the night. This villa is on the route known to have been taken by the man seen by the Irish Smith family.

The point has been verified, including by those with a DVD of the case files, that none of this information, apart from the Smith family sighting, is in released material. That needn’t mean that it isn’t in what the Portuguese term the process as not everything in the process has been publicly released. Indeed, even the McCanns have not seen everything. But let’s assume that this information is in the process. That would mean that in the writing of his book as it now stands Amaral, too, concealed information known to him at the time so that he could present a biased and misleading account pointing to the apparent culpability of the McCanns. Remember that part of Amaral’s reasoning for his belief that Gerry concealed Madeleine’s body on the beach was that, as not a local man, he would have no local knowledge, and therefore the beach was the obvious place for him to hide a body. Now, with this apparent revelation about the empty villa, he is invoking local knowledge and ruling out Gerry as the man the Smiths saw. That analysis, if it’s true, lays Amaral bare as having produced a book, not only libelous and error-ridden, but also written with malicious intent.

The other alternative is that this material isn’t in the process. In that case, either the paperwork got lost, or Amaral is making it up as he goes along. I can’t think of any other viable explanations, and of the options cited, the only one that seems remotely plausible to me is that the diligences are in the process, but just yet to surface. Of course Almeida, as author of the interim report, if he was aware of this other information, must have been complicit, too.

The first point is that Amaral’s initial book would be, not only a calumny even worse than first thought against the McCanns, but a scandal, not of Amaral’s making, that the McCanns have, to date, never been given this most vital piece of information. Why not? And why would Amaral, now, come out with this amended version that sets straight the record about the investigation on his watch? All I can think is that all the senior PJ officers (including and especially Amaral) presiding over the case in late August and early September, when the Keela and Eddie/Martin Grime road show hit town were just bowled over and mesmerized. Any sense of objectivity that had existed before was lost upon the sight of these canines in action. So certain, more fruitful, developments and lines of enquiry, such as the disused villa, that might, more productively, have been pursued, were simply sidelined because (as Amaral and his fellow senior officers believed) the dogs had cracked the case. Indeed, in one of his interviews, Amaral refers to the dog indications as ‘evidence’, ‘proving’ what had been suspected all along, that Kate and Gerry were guilty and had conducted a cover-up of their daughter’s death.

Since then, everything has unraveled, which takes me back to my first two paragraphs. Amaral knows that the cover is about to be blown on his own partial and distorted interpretation of events and there’s nothing he can do about it. The libel trial will finally blow the lid. So Amaral is cutting his losses and re-writing his book (it seems he has a Spanish publisher lined up) in a format that will be acceptable, even to retail outlets in Britain. But if all the new effort amounts to is a tale of missed opportunity with CCTV footage, a disused villa with an open gate (that might have been used by a passing tramp!) but no other clues; and otherwise , a catalogue of other, fruitless, leads, then while the book will be non-libellous and saleable, it won’t exactly capture the collective imagination the way the first book did. The first book, for its many-fold flaws of a badly and outright libelously told story, contained that one explosive ingredient everyone wanted to see – the McCannsdunit. Its successor won’t. And of course, the massive u-turn will lose the author still more credibility. Therefore, even if very different from the online version people can now read free, it’s unlikely to sell, at least in great numbers.

Meanwhile, the McCanns will be left to rue yet more missed opportunities and failure, not just of Amaral, but of others, to pass on to them vital leads that just might have unlocked the mystery of what really happened to their loved and cherished daughter. No doubt the McCanns, even now, would cheerfully give Amaral a mansion to live in for the rest of his life and a million euros, in exchange for that greatest prize of all – the return of Madeleine, safe and well, to make their family complete. For them, nothing else really matters. Nor should it. Two giants, swimming in a sea and against a current of mediocrity duplicity and mean-minded, petty nastiness and vindictive power-struggles.

By Honestbroker

The death of Forensics, Madeleine and hope. The dog’s don’t lie.

2010-11-07T01:38:00.000-07:00

With a wealth of information that had been gathered, the investigation was lacking in evidence that would weight that information to make sense and invite the investigators to explore a possible answer as to where Madeleine had gone, armed with proof to justify concentrating on one thesis which would lead to finding the child. The information needed direction, from proof, to construct a thesis that did not contradict all the information despite there being discrepancies as expected in any complex case. Sightings relying on memory and the pressures of remembering exactly an image that was not so important until the news of it’s significance. Why the dogs alerted, why in a vehicle hired weeks after Madeleine vanished and why in 5A.

The most considered opinions of what might have happened to Madeleine would be that she simply walked out of her apartment to a fate unknown. No crime. No body has been found in local searches and Madeleine is only known to wake up and get into Kate and Gerry’s bed at night. Some time before the holiday, Kate and Gerry had begun a star chart for Madeleine staying in her own bed. The chart was full of stars. By the time of the holiday, it was rare for Madeleine to wander into their bed. This theory was discounted in the final report.

The abduction theory is likely in that the criminal, or criminals, could perform their abduction without leaving much, if any, evidence. Abduction is a crime that would be completed before the fact of the crime was discovered. With the information available a theory is easily constructed. A planned abduction, reconnaissance of 5A noting the timing of checks applied by the family and friends. The time between the half hourly checks could easily have been utilized to enter the apartment, take the sleeping child, possibly drug her and away she is gone. The PJ considered this possibility but seemed to be of the opinion that Madeleine was taken through a window rather than through the door leading to the street. This was a major concern for them as it did not seem possible for an abductor to climb through a window with Madeleine. I have seen nothing in the files that show the PJ ever considered the window might have been opened to allow street lighting to illuminate the crime scene without switching internal lights on. Or the window could have been a vehicle of communication between the criminal inside 5A and an accomplice watching outside while the main door was the route of escape into the street at night and then simply gone in the time the child was noticed missing and the police could determine any action. A child could work out that possibility and it is a thesis that has been backed up by sightings. It explains why the window was found open, why Jane saw the person carrying a child, around the time Madeleine had gone unbeknown to her. Abductors wearing gloves would explain the lack of fingerprints. A simple crime to execute with planning and timing.

Staying with the abduction theory. One must wonder, I certainly have, why Amaral made understanding this possibility as difficult as possible. Why insist on discounting this thesis on the basis of getting through a window which is too impractical as a route of escape. Why ignore the obvious? The door!! Why expect proof where none would be likely. Except by forensic analysis, perhaps.

The death and concealment theory, as explained by Goncalo in his book as what he strongly believes is the truth, is the other possibility considered. This theory would meet much more difficulty in my opinion to succeed. Madeleine would have died in the apartment, assumed by the investigators by accident, her death would have left much evidence which would have needed scrupulous cleaning, involved the friends as someone would have turned up to check on the children within half an hour, would have required hiding the body in a freezer to prevent decomposition. This storage would have been completely necessary to prevent the stench and physical evidence of a decomposing body. The body would have had to be stored away from the apartment to avoid detection from the inevitable police invasion expected after Amaral’s theory that an abduction theory was planned as fake to cover up the death.

OK, lets follow this train of thought. We now have a concealed body, transported and stored away from 5A in a locality unfamiliar except as a holiday resort. The information in the files up to now can be made sense of, to suggest a constructed fake abduction. All the information that would explain an actual abduction could be used to explain a fake abduction. But that now leaves the completion of successfully hiding the body extremely difficult as we all know the worlds media descended upon Praia da Luz and so did the Police. But Goncalo Amaral believes the body was transported from it’s place of storage weeks later in a vehicle hired by the McCanns to another place, yet to be found while the resort had become a media circus and under the spotlight of the whole world looking at and examining the family and watching their every move.

So here we have the two main possibilities. The crime of abduction. An easily performed crime, pre planned low evidence due to the fundaments of the crime. Being successfully executed to completion before being detected, before the police were aware and before any media and police attention.

Then we have death and concealment. The death would have to be cloaked by cleaning and much planning would have to be completed to cover up such an elaborate plan as concealing after cleaning, fabricating an abduction and confirming the support of each and every friend with them. Then they had to carry out that plan, find a hidden freezer, find a freezer in a location to hide the body or even perhaps not use a freezer but somewhere very cold with the assurance that a decomposing body would not be found. An extremely difficult, logistically and by sheer impossibility event to carry out successfully.

Yet the death thesis was the one being considered more possible simply because the abduction theory had a window too small to climb through and a lack of evidence. What is needed is proof!! Not likely to be found in an abduction unless the abductor was detected and Madeleine found by a conclusive sighting. But there could be proof of death. There would be DNA, blood, evidence of a cadaver in the apartment. There must be a science that could get proof of death and the confirmation of a death would discount the sheer difficulty of executing such a crime. After all we only need confirmation that Madeleine died in the apartment to get a likely conviction. Difficulty and impossibility would not even be a factor if the death could be proved.

The scientific tool to provide proof is forensics. The detection of people in the apartment provided by DNA samples taken at the scene of the disappearance. This could be valuable to detect unknown people in the apartment confirmed or disproved by forensic analysis. Matched to confirmed known people and possibly matched DNA of known criminals. Then we have the Dogs, Extremely well trained and successful dogs that could detect blood and cadaver to be eliminated or confirmed by forensic analysis.

The forensic results of the DNA showed that the collected data was too confused to confirm an unknown person. The forensic results of the blood and cadaver was too confusing to confirm Madeleine was detected let alone a dead Madeleine. The forensic results could not confirm a death or the presence of Madeleine.

Yet I wonder as to why Amaral considers the results as confirmation of death. Could it be he did not understand that forensics might find no confirmation of a death? He uses the 15 markers found that were in Madeleine’s profile and also in several other peoples profiles as being specific to Madeleine and that was enough for his own interpretation of the forensics to confirm proof. He even suggests that LCN data is not strong enough for a forensic analysis and that leads him to believe that the forensic result is of little value but the dog alerts confirm death. That is not justice for the facts or respect for the recognised process of scientific analysis. It is for the forensic scientists to confirm what the dogs found. Not Amaral!!.

I wonder why he devalued the possibility of abduction so easily when it was a relatively simple crime to commit and perfectly made sense of information recorded in the files. Instead choosing to follow the thesis of an infinitely more difficult possibility which needed, by his own earlier determination, the requirement of conclusive proof provided by forensics analysis. The analysis which he de valued and reconsidered as not necessary all of a sudden, after the analysis came through. Replaced by his personal escalation of the dogs alerts to interprete the confirmation and proof status, interpreting the forensic factor of which even Grime, the dog handler insists is necessary, by insisting 15 markers belong to Madeleine, that they are specific to Madeleine. That is just not true!! The information recorded in the files could be used to make sense of death as much as it could be used to make sense of abduction. But in this scenario a very negative view of the McCanns had to be insinuated as well to justify further the Amaral thesis. Everything had to be shown to suggest the McCanns had a motive. Not only has he chosen the most difficult crime to execute and difficult to reasonably suggest a motive for, out of the valid possibilities without forensic confirmation. He even ignored Stuart Priors growing nervousness at accepting the forensic results being conclusive. Amaral wondered why Stuart became nervous and seemed to think the British police involved were backing off the death thesis for a reason other than the obvious. That there was no conclusive proof.

Amaral ended up criticising the British police which resulted in his expulsion from the case. Still pushing death without proof as if he must not be proved wrong. Perhaps his belief that the media criticised his competence, made him obsessed at wanting to be right as he usually is by one method or another. Maybe he just relied upon the dogs being confirmed as having found Madeleine and death as a high possibility and could not accept that they don’t automatically prove death. He could not contemplate going over the investigation again, if no proof of death or Madeleine could be concluded, knowing he would not have anything to tie it up and give closure, give him success, give him credibility when abduction would be probably, from experience worldwide, a protracted and cold case to investigate.

Goncalo is a man used to getting a result. Even if convincing everyone that forensics can be ignored, for personal interpretation, if the Dogs alert and he can show the McCanns in a bad light. He could not convince the prosecutor and he cannot convince those seeking righteous justice for Madeleine, that proof which could end hope of finding a missing child alive is just not good enough if the forensic analysis interpretation is then interpreted by Amaral without regard for the truth or the actual fact and that fact then ignored completely.

Not only does Goncalo Amaral sell the death of Madeleine. He sells the death of forensics related to CSI dogs, the death of justice within the case of a missing child, the death of the good name of the innocent parents and the death of hope that Madeleine could be found alive.

There is more than one victim created in Amaral’s investigation. There is more than one question as to why he is so determined without proof to follow one theory. His only defence is that dogs can't tell lies.

They cannot tell the truth either. This is why they must be used as a part of a team which must include forensic scientists.

Sign the petition here. Madeleine McCann Case Review

Related Link Questions arising from the investigation

Related Link Motive, means, opportunity, and indicative character history

.

That El Mundo Interview – Why did Amaral Lie?

2010-11-03T10:57:00.000-07:00

Here are the exchanges at issue:

Q – It was said that Kate was very cold. But I've seen her cry.

A - So did I. She is not cold. There was a moment, in a meeting with them, when we set out the sofa theory [that Madeleine fell off it and died]. Kate puts her head down, looking distant, and, after a few seconds, she looked up again as if nothing had happened. She looked like she was escaping from the role that she was interpreting.

Q - When you raised the hypothesis that the girl might have died after falling off the sofa, did Kate McCann answer?

A - She did not answer, she just dropped her head for a moment, as if she was about to faint. She had an emotional collapse that lasted just a moment.

Now, here is what Amaral himself has to say about imposition of the arguido status in chapter 19 of his book:

TOWARDS PLACING THE McCANN COUPLE UNDER INVESTIGATION.

In Portugal, the criminal process is comprised of three phases: the investigation, the instruction and the trial. Under the direction and control of the Public Minister, the investigation is led by the criminal police, who enjoy total practical and tactical independence. The police officers may make a declaration of arguido status as they think fit. This status confers on a suspect a set of rights and responsibilities. One of the fundamental principles of our code of criminal procedure is that of non-self-incrimination: it is illegal for information given by a witness to later be used against him and to implicate him in a crime. The right of silence, therefore, allows him to avoid giving incriminating details. But the status heaps opprobrium on those who become arguido, in spite of the principle of presumption of innocence.

The BBC helpfully interviewed a Portuguese lawyer on the Arguido process, and here is what he had to say:

How is arguido status given and what does it mean?
Under Portuguese law either the police or a person being questioned can request that they be formally named as a suspect, a process called arguido.
Artur Rego, a Portuguese lawyer, told BBC News: "Arguido is the person who has been accused of being the perpetrator.
"This is just an accusation made exactly at the end of the investigation."
A person can ask for arguido status if they feel the line of questioning is implying that they are a suspect. This gives them more rights than a witness would have.

What rights does an arguido have?
Arguido status gives a range of legal protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer during questioning.
Mr Rego said: "Sometimes when they [the police] suspect someone, they call that person in as a witness.
"They don't constitute him as arguido and they extract as much information from him as they can, because as a witness he cannot refuse to collaborate with the police.
"Now the moment he is constituted as arguido, as the defendant, then he can not only refuse to answer questions because they can incriminate him, but also he has the right to be accompanied in the questionings by his own solicitor."
Once someone is an arguido they can be arrested, but only if there is sufficient evidence.

What action can the courts take against an arguido?
The police can use their powers to bring the suspect before a judge to ask for restrictions to be imposed on their movements.
If they do, they could be banned from leaving their house or the area, or held in custody while the case continues.
In this case, the suspect is not subject to a judge's order, but has signed an identity and residence statement.
It prevents the person moving house or leaving the country. If they stay anywhere other than their given place of residence for more than five days they have to notify police.

The key point from both these descriptions is that there are not the same protections for informal witnesses (as the McCanns were before being made arguidos) as for Arguidos. Informal witnesses must answer all questions put to them and have no right to ask for a lawyer. But the balance is that neither can informal witnesses be asked leading or incriminating questions.

Note that Amaral describes this exchange with Kate as a meeting, not an interrogation, nor even an interview. Note, also, that Amaral says Kate did not reply. On two grounds, then, we can rule out that this was before the McCanns were made arguidos. As an informal witness Kate would not have been allowed to refuse to reply. And to an informal witness, the PJ would have been prohibited by law from putting such a leading or incriminating question.

As arguida, we all know about the famous 48 questions Kate refused to answer. A question about ‘the sofa theory’ wasn’t one. Was there a 49th?

The further point is that Amaral seems to describe something that would surely, only, be noticed from personal and first-hand observation of actually being present. Amaral never personally and directly interviewed the McCanns.

So why did Amaral lie?

By Honestbroker

Frozen Cadaver Remains?

2010-11-03T10:44:00.000-07:00

In an interview to Correia da Manha in July 2008, Amaral said this in reply to a question about how he believed Madeleine’s remains were preserved in the period between Madeleine’s disappearance and the McCanns hiring a car some 3 weeks later:

"The cadaver was frozen"

Correio da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?

Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.

How can you state that?

Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk's right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it's the only way to explain what happened there.

There are a couple of reasons to raise an eyebrow, here. The first is that this harks back to the ill-starred Cipriano case where, again, a little girl was reported missing, on that occasion, by her mother and uncle, and the case ended in the conviction of the woman Leonor and her brother Joao for the murder of the little girl, whose body was never found. In that case, it was found as ‘proved’ that the body of the little girl, Joana, had been stored in a freezer. Extraordinarily, even though Portugal has a perfectly good forensic laboratory, neither the refrigerator nor other items that might have yielded useful forensic results were ever forensically examined in that case.

In the case of Madeleine’s disappearance, forensic laboratories of both Britain and Portugal were used, Britain’s much more extensively, and if forensic evidence of a frozen cadaver were present, one might have expected John Lowe, at the British Forensic Service, who wrote the full and final FSS report of forensic analysis of materials delivered to their forensic laboratories, to have noticed. But scrutinise his report as I have, I can find no reference.

Amaral is right about one thing though. For his extraordinary theory of how the McCanns are supposed to have performed this stunt of disposing of Madeleine’s remains to be true, some sort of preservation of a body in refrigerator must have been involved. But which fridge? At least he had the answer to that question sorted in the Cipriano case. He tells us he was still working on it at the point in the Madeleine investigation when he was peremptorily removed. The sense of deja vu, here, is troubling ...

By Honestbroker.

Eddie the Infallible?

2010-11-02T14:40:00.000-07:00

It is widely put about, certainly in on-line circles, that in all the cases Eddie has ever been involved in, he has never made a mistake or given a false reading. I confess that I thought Amaral had repeated that claim in his book, but having looked for the reference in what I thought were the relevant chapters, I can’t now find it. One thing is for sure. The Dog’s handler, Martin Grime, has never claimed that, but has said something rather different which has been corrupted by others to ‘Eddie has never been wrong’. In fact, what Grime said was that in over 200 missions, Eddie has never once alerted to ‘road kill’ (ie the cadaver scent of a dead, wild, animal) and never once alerted to any meat product. Particularly given that Eddie was trained, in part, on swine cadaver scent and that Grime also says Eddie can’t tell the difference between it and human cadaver scent, the second point is, perhaps, a surprise. But we’ll let that go.

Other points made by Grime about Eddie don’t seem to reconcile themselves easily or readily. In part of an answer to a question put to him during his rogatory interview, Grime said this, about both dogs, Keela and Eddie:
They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD [Eddie] gives an alert by means of a vocal bark.

The search of the clothing was actually carried out twice. From the first search, in the villa the McCanns rented after vacating apartment 5a this, remarkable, comment was made:
Following the search effected at Rua das Flores, 27, during which certain items were seized, this present inspection was performed, in a place appropriated for its purpose, attempting to identify particular pieces of clothing possibly indicated by the dogs, namely Eddy [that] indicates cadaver odours and kela [that] indicates blood odours.

Possibly indicated? Grime has already told us that Eddie is always certain. Either he indicates or he doesn’t. Amaral says in his book that the villa was not regarded as clean enough for the search that was conducted in the villa. Yet, in Grime’s profile of cases where Eddie was successfully deployed is one of one Attracta Harron, where Eddie detected a death scent from the burnt-out wreckage of a vehicle:

ATTRACTA HARRON.

A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland.
A missing person search did not reveal her whereabouts.
The search of a suspect's 'totally burnt out vehicle' by forensic scientists did not reveal any evidence.
A 'one minute' search by the EVRD identified a position in the rear passenger footwell where the dog alerted to the presence of human material.

A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victim's DNA.
The enquiry then concentrated its efforts on the suspect and the EVRD located the body of the woman in a river bank deposition site.

Indeed, Grime also says that in training, Eddie once identified a segment of pig meat that had been doused in petrol, then incinerated.

Yet, in Rua da Flores, Eddie, apparently, gave ambiguous signals that needed to be re-tested. When everything was taken up, transferred to a ‘municipal pavillion’ (gymnasium?) and laid out for Eddie to inspect afresh, he certainly barked. But the indication that he signalled specific items of clothing (two of Kate’s and one item of either of the twin’s) was not his trained reaction of a bark, but his untrained reaction of picking these items up in his mouth. That was not merely untrained, but also deleterious in that the job of a forensic team attending a crime scene is to identify items of potential forensic interest and pass them on to the forensic laboratories in a state as closely preserved as possible to the state they were in when first found. That that imperative was taken no less seriously at Praia da Luz, even though the search was 3 months after Madeleine disappeared, can be in no doubt. The procedure of lifting fixtures and fittings from apartment 5a was filmed so that the scientists at the FSS in Birmingham could have confidence that best practice was followed.

Of course, the one positive alert Eddie gave in the villa was, apparently (and recorded as definite), to the ‘cuddlecat’ toy. But here, too, there is ambiguity. As clearly seen on film, on his first encounter with the toy, he sniffed it, picked it up, played with it, did everything except bark. Then the toy was hidden in a cupboard and the dog barked. He was officially recorded as having reacted to the scent of the toy hidden in the cupboard. But why could he not detect that scent of which he is, apparently, so certain on his initial encounter with the toy?

The final mystery is why things Eddie was officially recorded as having detected were never sent to the forensic laboratory for testing. We know, about Cuddle Cat, that Grime recommended it be forwarded – and was clearly under the impression that it had been, because he said that he was not aware of any the results of any forensic tests on the toy. Yet close scrutiny of John Lowe’s report reveals no reference to any of these items Eddie, apparently, reacted to.

Why not?

This question, put to Martin Grime during his rogatory interview, is, perhaps indicative of Rebelo’s assessment of the dogs’ performance in PdL

"Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''

[Grime]The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

Grime also refers to the phenomenon of ‘cross-contamination’, whereby items with a scent will transfer that scent to other items they are in close contact with. All the items of clothing Eddie reacted to came from the same container, yet he only picked up 3.

Another fallacy worth laying to rest, one advanced in Amaral’s book, is that where Keela (who detects blood) and Eddie react together, the presence of a cadaver is signalled. Since both dogs react to the scent of human blood, competing explanations of blood or cadaver scent are offered where reactions coincide.

The reactions of the dogs is pretty much all those who insist Madeleine is dead and the McCanns know it have. It is paper thin.

By Honestbroker.

Amaral Concludes. If the laboratory results are positive, and only in that case, we will have our proof.

2010-11-02T14:22:00.000-07:00

In his own book. Amaral gives the conditions he and his collegues set to determine proof. Lets examine the statements he has made before the forensics analysis.

Source, Truth of the Lie.

INITIAL CONCLUSIONS

English and Portuguese police get together to analyse the results of Eddie and Keela's searches.

- What we can deduce at this stage is that only the McCanns are implicated. The dogs did not detect blood or cadaver odour other than with them.

- From now on we have the certainty that there was a body behind the sofa before being taken into the parents' bedroom.

- If the blood found behind the sofa is that of the little girl, we can assume that she died there.

- That could explain why the sofa was pushed up against the curtains.

- In Madeleine's bedroom and on her bed, there was no cadaver odour.

- On the other hand, the odour on the soft toy indicates that she was holding it when she died....

These conclusions do not, for the moment, constitute proof. If the laboratory results are positive, and only in that case, we will have our proof.

The final statement made by Amaral is the most profound and alarming!!

"These conclusions do not, for the moment, constitute proof. If the laboratory results are positive, and only in that case, we will have our proof "

The results were NOT positive and therefore you have NO proof Sr Amaral. By your own conditions you have no proof of death and that single statement you made yourself confirms that your thesis is undermined completely and you undermined it yourself!!

Forensic scientist, John Lowe of the FSS concluded the following regarding the results of what the dog's indicated.:

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. It's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible, in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?

When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DNA originate from?
Was a crime committed?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

The laboratory results were not conclusive and therefore there is NO proof of death, let alone a match to Madeleine in the dogs alerts.

Reflections on That Court Ruling

2010-10-29T09:00:00.000-07:00

By honestbroker

Comments may be read or made here: Chaos Raptors.

Logically and reasonably, Portuguese judges outright refused to grant an injunction on grounds of libel – not because they considered that the book wasn’t libellous, but because they refused to make a judgment on the question before a long-scheduled court hearing to determine precisely the answer to that question. So the McCanns had to vary the grounds of their application, and the one finally accepted was an appeal to that conflict in the Portuguese constitution that guarantees the right of free speech and the part that protects citizens from malicious falsehood and slander. It was originally held, on the basis that the investigation had cleared the McCanns of all blame, while video and book implicate them in Madeleine’s disappearance, that the McCanns’ right to a good name should outweigh Amaral’s right to free speech. It was also (originally) held that advancing a thesis that Madeleine is dead might prejudice the search for the girl, as people will feel less motivated to search for a body than for a living person.

The ruling was always likely to be controversial, as reference to questions of libel are unmistakably present . The judgement that replaced and overturned it found that some prevailing condition must determine whether or not a particular pronouncement should be considered reasonable expression within bounds of free speech, and that condition had to be the presence or absence of a court ruling on whether or not a thing is libellous. There is, now, no court ruling on that question. Therefore (the appeal judges reasoned) Amaral’s right to free speech should prevail. The judges found, further, that as the McCanns have courted publicity, they must expect it, adverse as well as supportive. That is, perhaps, fair comment, though it is worth noting that the McCanns, in their interviews, have never been particularly critical of Amaral or the PJ, while Amaral, in his interviews (which will form a part of the libel trial) has been highly pejorative of the McCanns and their friends.

Still, the key point of controversy in this appeal court ruling is the finding that Amaral, in his book, has kept faithfully to what is in the official police files, or has departed from them only where he places his own interpretation on what is written. As I will illustrate, that is simply not true – and where Amaral does interpret what’s in the files, he frequently goes way beyond bounds of what can be considered (in respect of questions of libel) fair comment.

Inexplicably, Amaral makes reference to the drug calpol night. Nowhere in the file is Calpol night mentioned. And whilst it’s true (as Amaral says) that calpol night contains a sedative antihistamine, it came onto the market fully 4 months after the McCanns’ holiday.

So why does Amaral mention it?

Calpol is mentioned in the file. Both Gerry and Kate told the PJ frankly that they had it with them on that holiday, but didn’t use it. Amaral says that Kate’s father, Brian Healy, confirmed that the McCanns gave Madeleine Calpol as a sedative. Brian Healy did no such thing. A Sun reporter interviewing Mr Healy added words of his own, not Mr Healy’s, to help her Madeleine sleep, which gave birth to both a police file and forum myth. Calpol is straight paracetamol for children, nothing else. It has no sedative properties, but does have an excellent track record of safety in use with children. Yet Amaral makes reference in his book to a generation of parents in Britain hooked on their reliance of a dangerous drug for children.

Amaral’s foray into interpretation of the forensic results is disastrous for him. In chapter 18 of his book, bearing the misnomer of a title Preliminary results (there were no preliminary results!) he recites that Stuart Prior flew over to Faro to brief the PJ on the forensic results that would be soon forthcoming from the FSS in Birmingham. Amaral describes Prior as being disappointed with the results and adds that we (presumably Amaral) disagree with Stewart’s disappointment.

That is the launching pad of Amaral’s own interpretation of the results. He says, about Lowe’s email sent in advance of the main body of the report and dealing with analysis of material recovered from the boot of the car, that half the DNA identified from the car is from Gerry, indicating the presence of DNA from at least one of the McCanns’ offspring. Amaral, there, confuses Lowe’s reference to the control DNA profile of Madeleine, where he explains that the 20 markers of her profile appear as if 19 because two are shared equally between the DNA of Kate and Gerry and appear as one peak – nothing to do with material recovered from the boot.

Amaral notes that incomplete profiles from at least 3 people are present in material from the car, and also Lowe’s comment that markers from profiles of FSS workers are the same as those found in the sample from the car. But then he asks why so many more markers from Madeleine’s profile than from workers at the FSS are found in the sample from the boot. The answer is simple. DNA from four of Madeleine’s blood relatives, her siblings and her parents (all with very similar profiles to her) are likely to be in the mix of material recovered from the boot. Hence the fairly high correlation of markers from Madeleine’s control profile with markers in that mix. The gist of Lowe’s email is that, while it is technically possible that Madeleine’s DNA contributed to the mix of material from the boot, it is highly unlikely, and also that, even if it did, it would be impossible to determine how her DNA got there or whether that would be indicative of any crime committed against her.

Amaral also notes (accurately) that what is dealt with in detail in that first email is glossed over in the main body of the report that follows. But Amaral’ own interpretation of this is that the FSS cannot face up to the idea of Madeleine dead having been in the boot of that car. In short, he accuses the FSS of bottling it. The truth is much more mundane -- Lowe saw no point in repeating himself. So in the main body of his report, he says simply about findings from the car that there was nothing significant in them (true!)

Still, evidently Amaral’s powers of persuasion swayed Prior, because in that chapter of the book we are told that Amaral instructed a (presumably converted!) Prior to phone the FSS and give them a piece of his mind. During the course of this conversation, Prior is, apparently, overheard saying that in England, people have been arrested for less than the PJ had against the McCanns. Amaral recounts that that caused PJ officers to look at one another in astonishment because in Portugal, apparently, concealment of a cadaver and simulation of an abduction are not offenses for which people can be detained in custody. That’s what Amaral says. I assume that there is a record of this telephone call? Later on in the same chapter, Prior is cast in the role of villain as standing in the way of the McCanns being detained.

The examples I cite, here, are by no means comprehensive. Amaral says that Eddie reacted to the boot of the car. Grime, in the file, says that he did not deploy Eddie in the car. In common with all his PJ colleagues, Amaral misses that Eddie, like Keela, will react to blood lost by living people. In the book, Amaral hypothesises that the Smith family saw Gerry whisking the body of his dead daughter past their noses. In the final PJ report, written by Joao Carlos, it is explicitly stated that, at the time of the Smith sighting, Gerry was in the Tapas restaurant.

I don’t know whether Amaral intends putting his book or video back in the shops, or whether reputable retail outlets (anywhere around the world) would contemplate taking them. But if he does, and they do, they should [i]all[/i] heed the words of the Portuguese Attorney General, reported by the Algarve Resident, that the McCanns are entirely innocent of any crime. Particularly in the light of so much of what Amaral says in his book, and has said in interviews, that should leave Amaral with a sense of foreboding about the libel trial, and very wary about how he decides to use his new-found freedom.

Truths and Rights

2010-10-25T17:00:00.000-07:00

Just as unlawful guilt has to be proved, unlawful death has to be proved.

The universal declaration of human rights.
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.
The McCanns are not just presumed innocent. They ARE undoubtedly innocent, as there has never been a charge brought against them to question that fact and to afford the right of presumption. Therefore also, the argument that there is no proof that Madeleine is alive is meaningless, as there are no charges brought considering her unlawfully dead.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
The investigation is shelved because the police could not convince the prosecutor that there was valid evidence for a case to be answered. That is the legal situation. So a book and documentary that informs the public that Madeleine is dead through the involvement of her parents because of what ‘Sr Amaral knows’, can only be a false accusation. False because the justice system says 'Goncalo Amaral does NOT know' enough to have even charged anybody of any crime.

Morally and democratically the only body that has to be convinced, by the PJ, that charges are brought and suspects tested in court is the justice system and the door to a court case is the prosecutor. That is democracy. If the prosecutor decides that there is no case to be answered then the police must either accept his decision, or find more evidence. It is not morally right or democratic for a policeman to retire from the PJ and publically propagate suspicion at those who the justice system concluded has no case to answer. That is challenging the justice system by disregarding it, challenging the McCanns by false accusation and damaging to Madeleine's right to be considered alive and not unlawfully dead and worthy of being searched for with the invitation of information to facilitate finding her.

This article 12 of the universal declaration of human rights also questions the appeal judge that revoked the book ban. The judges reasoning that the McCanns lost their entitlement to privacy and public opinion about them because they had no choice but to publicise the case for Madeleine’s sake did not also consider that the declaration states ‘nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation’ This categorically makes the statement that honour and reputation is not discriminated by publicity or privacy.

The writing is on the wall for Sr Amaral.

My Way or No Way

2010-10-24T14:02:00.000-07:00

The Portuguese prosecutor digested the information available in the investigation files and concluded that no crime could be determined. Therefore there could be no identifiable suspects and no evidence to bring a court case. Goncalo Amaral digested the information in the investigation files and concluded that he believes strongly that Madeleine is dead and that her parents concealed the body. The two, vastly different, conclusions from the same information. What could be the difference?

The prosecutor had an objective and balanced contribution to the conclusion. Amaral has revealed by his words in the introduction of his book, the Truth of the Lie, that he has grudges against the institution, grudges against the media and a wish to get his own way by whatever means. Yes, the book reveals that Amaral has prejudices driving his conclusion.

With ingredients such as prejudice and the excuse of conspiracy, Amaral has decided to do everything to ensure his own belief of what happened leads to a conclusion befitting his own thesis. That is dealing prosecution, judgement and sentence all in one book. He openly admits that he had to retire from the PJ to mete out his justice. The regulations specify that he remain silent while still employed by that institution. I would understand that for him to accuse publically without charging would have prejudiced any case. So he retired to force his opinion and gather support from publicity to further force his opinion. The legal system does not agree with his thesis and he can’t respect that.

Goncalo is used to getting his way.

--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1913175.ece

The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was in chaos last night after the detective coordinating the hunt for her abductor was charged with criminal offences over another notorious missing child case.

Goncalo Amaral and four other Portuguese police officers were charged over the weekend with offences relating to the inquiry into the disappearance of Joana Cipriano from a village seven miles from where Madeleine was abducted.

The nine-year-old girl has not been seen since her disappearance three years ago but her mother and uncle were convicted of murdering and dismembering Joana because she caught them having an incestuous relationship. Joana’s mother, Leonor, has alleged that she was beaten into a confession during a police interrogation that took place without her lawyer or the knowledge of the public prosecutor.

Portugal’s Ministerio Publico, the district attorney, confirmed last night that it had charged three police officers with torture, a fourth with omission of evidence and a fifth with falsification of documents. It did not reveal who had been charged with which offence.
-----------------------------------------------------------

So is this what Amaral means by getting justice without being politically correct, as he states in the introduction of the Truth of the Lie?

If the law states that no crime or criminal could be determined. Then that person who is selling a book stating that there is a crime and identifies his suspects, has committed libel. Trial by book and publicity. Sadly the victim who has lost most from Amarals agenda is Madeleine Beth McCann. I sincerely hope the libel case judges do the right thing and stand up for the proper course of justice by making an example of Sr Amaral's mersenary justice.

Goncalo Amaral’s justice. My way, or no way.

Madeleine. A Reprise.

2010-10-23T06:21:00.000-07:00

Let us not forget that this case is about a missing child, Madeleine McCann. What we know is that the Portuguese investigation could not find evidence to establish a crime. Therefore all previous suspects are clear, innocent of involvement in criminal activity that has lead to the disappearance of the child.

In the absence of an ongoing investigation by the police, there is only one avenue left to invite justice and truth for Madeleine McCann. It does not involve a book written by an ex policeman with a chip on his shoulder insinuating that he knows more than the shelved investigation had found. Goncalo bears a grudge against the institution and all involved, including the McCann's and the media. This is not seeking justice for Madeleine, it is indeed seeking justice for his perceived victimisation.

The only avenue currently available is common to missing loved one's cases. Very evident and common is the finite funding law enforcement agencies are willing to spend before tucking cases under the carpet. This to an unattached observer can be logical, but to the parents it is closure on a mystery that will never be closed until the missing person is found. Emotionally and gut-wrenchingly irreconcilable.

The search continuity is left to the parents once law enforcement reaches a stop. The McCanns have been a shining example of keeping the search up for their daughter. Raising awareness, inviting information, employing their own detectives all require financial support as well as the volunteer support to help with the logistical nightmare that such a search presents. It would not be possible for the family alone to practically manage such a campaign on their own. It is an absolutely shining example how the McCanns campaign for their beloved daughter, Madeleine and for the greater good they have highlighted all cases of the missing, encouraged even more volunteers to help and publicised the plight of searching for the missing without police support. This is the life of a family with one member missing.

How cruel it is then, that the campaign to search for Madeleine is paralysed by one ex policeman's grudges. Yes, paralysed. The McCanns find themselves accused of being involved in the death of their missing child and hiding her body, not by the police, just by insinuations and misinformation in a book authored by a paranoid ex policeman. The book being sold internationally strives to convince the public that the McCanns are criminals and that Madeleine is dead. Kate and Gerry have nothing to prove as there is no case against them. Yet they must spend precious time, money and extreme stress dealing with the vigilante accusations in court to prevent Amaral from corroding the search for Madeleine and their own good name through his book.

If there is any justice, Goncalo Amaral will be stopped, lawfully, from interfering with the case he was removed from and allow every avenue of inviting information which could lead to finding Madeleine to continue as the priority focus. Seeking information is the path to Madeleine. Not Gonacalo's unfounded thesis.

The Greater Purpose?

2010-10-22T12:20:00.000-07:00

An article studying Amaral's 'Greater Purpose' of the book.

Goncalo states that his book does not question the work of his colleagues or other police officers, nor does it compromise the current enquiry. Yet he attempted to go against the regulations that required him to remain silent and retired from the PJ, to publicise his opinions on the case!! He was removed from the case which he associates with an institutional lie. Is he suggesting that the regulations were not from his beloved police force or that the PJ are not part of the institution?

Goncalo Amaral's greater purpose is to release information to the public for the greater good of, justice for Madeleine. Does releasing information include the many leaks preceding the book from a source within the investigation that were sent to the Portuguese press while the investigation was progressing? What information would he be talking about I wonder. The case files are in the public domain and have been studied by the Portuguese prosecutor concluding that no crime or criminal could be determined from the current investigation before it was shelved. What possible information could Amaral have that he could release beyond the information gathered by the PJ? This smacks off suggesting his beloved Police force had been withholding information. Yet he suggests he is not questioning the work of his colleagues or compromising the case.......Which is it Goncalo?

One has to wonder at an author who contradicts himself so seriously within the introduction of his book.

Finally, on the book introduction. A quote from Amaral.

A criminal inquiry is precisely dedicated and committed to the search for the absolute truth, the pursuit of material fact; it is not the place to be politically correct.

Any respectable person would agree with that sentiment. Why then, did Goncalo write a book which totally contradicts that righteous sentiment? Goncalo is no longer a policeman or involved in this case and his book indicates that he believes it is quite right to bypass the legally recognised law enforcement agencies and ignore the official investigative findings to sell his own opinion as more important than that of the police, the Portuguese prosecutor and the correct escalation route of justice. Why Goncalo Amaral could be considered a vigilante, no less!! He now answers to nobody, pays himself by selling his personal investigation and employed himself as head of justice for Madeleine McCann, policeman, press agent, judge and juror all in one and in one word, vigilante.

The greater purpose...... Vigilantism?

The Lie of the Truth?

2010-10-22T09:55:00.000-07:00

An article studying Amaral's primary reasons for writing the book.

Goncalo Amaral states that he wrote his book to restore his good name. Damage to his name from what he describes as an institutional lie. Quite what he means by this, I don’t fully understand. Perhaps he is suggesting an institutional conspiracy?

He then goes on to state that he applied for official permission to speak out and received no reply. Amaral admits to rigorously conforming to the regulations that he remains silent, this indicates that he was well aware of regulations gaurding against what he wanted to to do. These regulations not just specific to him, but official regulations obviously in force to protect those involved in a case and the integrity of an investigation. This need to speak his mind against the rules and regulations reveals a lack of respect for the integrity of the investigation and his own police force. Not surprisingly Goncalo Amaral was subsequently removed from the investigation and decided that he needed to defend himself because of that. Quite what he was defending himself from is unclear. Perhaps this indicates the paranoia of a conspiracy against him?

Amaral then resigned from the police force altogether, in his own words, a necessity to have the opportunity to speak out about matters which seriously concern him. We shall examine his concerns as we progress with this blog. There is no doubt in my mind that the behaviour of Amaral’s supporters, on line, believe that this case is part of a conspiracy to the extent that Goncalo and his supporters are more concerned with that conspiracy theory than what happened to Madeleine. The child and her family nothing but jigsaw pieces in an imagined institutional agenda. Madeleine, the family, the official case files, the prosecutor’s conclusion, the police investigation all disregarded with an amazing lack of respect or integrity to publicise, through his book, while manipulating propaganda via a network of supporters to present Goncalo Amaral’s opinions as facts beyond the actual facts.

Goncalo’s lie of the truth!!

2010-10-21T16:29:00.000-07:00

The court of appeal in Lisbon on the 19th day of October, 2010, revoked the ban imposed by the civil courts placed upon Sr Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie.

The question being tested is one of free speech. The appeal court has decided that Amaral's book is allowable as a publication under the European understanding of human rights and free speech.

The book was written by the former inspector leading the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The ban was invoked after the parents of Madeleine, Kate and Gerry Mccann, challenged the book which contains the inspectors opinion that the child was killed and the body hidden with the parents involvement. The evidence the inspector presents is flawed. His main 'facts' pointing to a reason leading to proving a death being the use of Calpol to induce the child into a deep sleep, the sniffer dogs indicating the presence of Cadaver and misunderstandings of 15 out of 19 markers in Madeleine's profile being a percentage indication of a dead Madeleine.

Only 'Calpol Night' can induce sleep and that had not come into production at the time Madeleine vanished. Basic Calpol is not a sleep inducer. The internationally renowned forensic organisation, FSS, concluded that the dogs findings indicate no conclusive evidence of death or presence of Madeleine. Possibly dried body fluids which can indicate the same as cadaver scent being equally as possible of actual cadaver scent. Not withstanding that Madeleine's DNA was not conclusive in the results either. 15 out of the 19 markers in Madeleine's profile were found within 37 markers. That is 37 markers contaminated by several known alive people and no conclusive indication of Madeleine's identity in the results as contamination included the family who share her markers. That puts a different picture on evidence showing 15 out of 19. Therefore the forensics proved a false positive and in layman's terms the Dogs evidence canceled itself out.

Commonly the argument is being used that presenting evidence of 15 out of 19 markers indicating Madeleine's cadaver is enough to convict the parents by circumstantial evidence and probability. Enough evidence to test Amaral's theory in court. Yet after the explanation by experts that the math is actually 15 out of 37 markers also contaminated by people who would share those 15 markers, the thesis has not been revised and the argument, totally flawed, is still being promoted.

All the former inspector Amaral could gain from the book is money. Not the truth, not the sharing of evidence, just monetary gain. That to any fair minded person is offensive, but free speech does not define offense. That definition is tested by the law if the offended take it to court. Currently Sr Amaral is being tested in court for libel and damaging the search for Madeleine. Personally I view his book as an exploitation of a child......abuse. To make money from a tragedy yet to be solved using the name of a child and misinformation for monetary gain.

In short. The appeal court has decided the publication is acceptable within the boundary of free speech. That is, one can say whatever they want in the Portuguese constitution. But the human right to test such a publication's value of defamation, libel and damage to the search for a child who may well be alive is still in the hands of the Portuguese judiciary. The result of that case will be more telling of the complete package.....free speech with responsibility.

If we are to gain any positives from this. I would like to think that a book being sold internationally, trying to convince people a missing child is dead and therefore there should be closure on searching for an alive child, will have more weight for it's author being successfully sued than a book not being sold to the public. The biggest positive being the funds raised from the book will help find Madeleine!!

It is important to remember that despite opinions about what happened to Madeleine The Portuguese prosecutor studied the case files, including Amarals conclusion and gave us the legal conclusion to the unsolved mystery.

Quote from: http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:

a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

Mr Amaral, freedom of speech is no defense against exploiting Madeleine McCann.