May 3rd 2007, 10pm. News is breaking that 3 year old Madeleine McCann, has been snatched from the hotel apartment she was staying in. Before long the streets of Praia da Luz are awash with locals and tourists; people desperately trying to find any trace of Madeleine. The beams from torches cut through the night sky, tracking any movements down the dark side streets. Madeleine's name echoes through the air. Some of the people who've volunteered have children of their own safe at home; they can't begin to imagine what Madeleine's parents must be going through.
Police officers are searching too, some of them off duty; volunteering their time to find Madeleine. The hours pass by, it's getting cold now, no word, no sign. Still everyone searches, where could she be. People are getting tired, yet still they search, hoping that Madeleine will turn up, maybe around the next corner. What must the parents be going through?
So what were the parents going through? Well we know from the statements, that after a 40 minute delay in calling the police, they arrive within minutes to find Kate and Gerry on their knees, wailing and beating the floor with their palms. An act that immediately aroused the suspicions of GNR officer, José Maria Batista Roque.
Roque stated that he, "...found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father."
click here to read Jose Maria Batista Roque's statement
The police have a look around the apartment, brief statements are taken, then Kate and Gerry are left whilst the officers take to the streets to search with the volunteers.
At approximately 3am, and according to Kate McCann as written in her propaganda pamphlet entitled "madeleine" (all lower case), Kate describes the following scenario.
"On my insistence, Gerry and Dave went out again to look for some sign of Madeleine. They went up and down the beach in the dark, running, shouting..."
Now I'm not suggesting Kate is lying in her book, despite it's many inconsistencies, but David Payne, the man she describes as searching with Gerry, has a different version of events. Payne doesn't mention shouting, he doesn't mention running, indeed he hardly mentions searching, in fact the crux of his recollection, is that he spent the time consoling Gerry on the beach. Taken from Payne's rogatory statement, dated 11th April 2008.
"We went down err through past the Ocean Club reception, we went down err to the beach and in between all this you know Kate and Gerry were just breaking down you know just their behaviour was, you know was never questioned or did I ever think there was anything strange about you know their behaviour and how they would, they would act, you know in such a set of circumstances and you know Gerry's a very stoical person and you know, I think you know its the way that he's conducted himself over the past few months you know, and he broke down with me on the front, you know. You know just very obviously a broken man, and you know we spent some time you know, not long, I was trying my best to console him, we went back then to the err the apartment..."
click here to read David Payne's full rogatory statement
Do you see a recurring theme? It's all about Kate and Gerry McCann, and how they were feeling. How about giving the would be father of the year a good talking to, and telling him straight, "get a grip you selfish man, your 3 year old daughter is missing, and you're sat on a beach doing nothing"
Oddly enough, David Payne makes no mention of any searching in his previous statement, dated 4th May 2007.
At 6am Kate and Gerry step out of the Payne's apartment where they spent the night with the twins. Conveniently, Kate states that nobody saw either her or Gerry. Are we seriously supposed to believe, that at 6am, there wasn't a single person out on the streets, no hotel workers, no delivery drivers, nobody whatsoever? Well according to Kate that's exactly what happened:
"As soon as it was light, Gerry and I returned to our search"
What search would that be then?
"We went up and down roads we'd never seen before having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself please God don't let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about it all was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents."
If you believe the abduction fairy tale, wouldn't you agree, 6am was 8 hours too damn late?
Kate goes on to say,
"We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona's apartment..."
At least an hour? Oh you poor things.
Kate and Gerry were indeed spotted that morning. Paolo Jorge Fernandes Neto a serving officer with the GNR stated in his statement dated 27th May 2008, that:
"He remembers that he saw the McCann couple at about 07.00 alone in the street next to the site where they were stationed."
Despite many lying McCann supporters stating the contrary, nowhere in the above statement, does Paolo Jorge Fernandes Neto state that he witnessed Kate or Gerry McCann "searching".
Click here to read Paolo Jorge Fernandes Neto's statement
In fact there isn't a single independent witness that states they saw Kate or Gerry McCann out searching for Madeleine.
Kate even admits in a recorded interview with Jane Hill, that they didn't physically search.
click here to watch the video
A fact backed up by a former Ocean Club employee, who in the following video said,
"My colleagues were indignant, because they went (searching). One of them even had his feet all red, tired, and he was offended because he went to search, though he wasn't related to the girl, and the parents didn't. They stayed indoors, in the apartment."
click here to watch the video
John Hill, the Ocean Club manager also states he didn't see Kate or Gerry searching:
When questioned he stated that the search operations that he organised finished at about 04.30. Elements from the PJ and GNR reinforcements with sniffer dogs were still at the scene.
He wishes to add that he does not know of any motive that could have been the cause of the Madeleine's disappearance.
On the night of the disappearance he always saw the McCanns together in the apartment they were occupying at the time, with the exception of an episode when Gerry went to the main 24 hour reception, with the purpose of speaking to a GNR officer, he is not sure at what time this occurred, but it was certainly before 24.00.
In the months that followed Madeleine's disappearance, and in a classic case of do as we say, not as we do, Kate and Gerry McCann would go on to publicly slate the Portuguese Police force for not doing enough to search for Madeleine. Perhaps they both thought that phoning family and friends back in the UK was a far better way of bringing their 3 year old little girl back to them. Or maybe, as has been evident throughout the whole time Madeleine has been missing, they think it better that others search for their, as Gerry said, "almost perfect" little girl.
Gerry McCann was reported as saying, "Find the body, and prove we killed her"
I'm not going to state that quote is genuine, as it is hard to trace back to a primary source, however...
...if only Gerry and Kate had acted like normal devastated parents and searched with the strangers who looked throughout the night, who knows, they might have found her, and proved they weren't involved. Sadly both the evidence, and their behaviour, suggests they knew that was never going to be the case.
Interestingly, and in stark contrast, this was the immediate reaction of Sara Payne on hearing her daughter Sarah was missing:
"I didn't stop to ask what had happened , there was only one thing on my mind - I had to find Sarah now. Snapping into action , I reached for Charlotte and pulled her with me towards the lane that runs along beside the house. Shouting 'Sarah,Sarah at the tops of our voices, we frantically searched up and down Peake Lane, pulling aside brambles with our bare arms and looking under hedges. Meanwhile Mike grabbed the boys and headed into the corn field where they began beating back the crops , some of which were over four feet tall, to see if she was hidden there."
A more cynical man would say Kate took Sara Payne's book, and used her words...but surely that would be going too far...wouldn't it?
Friday, 26 February 2016
Monday, 22 February 2016
Sonia Poulton's diary; The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann.
As many people know, Sonia Poulton has been working on a documentary that will look at the case of Madeleine McCann, who was reported missing by her parents, Kate and Gerry, in May 2007. This evening Sonia has released a diary, that she has kept since October 2014. Having spoken at great length to Sonia about the documentary, I can fully vouch for the diary being a truthful and honest account of the progress, and the obstacles that both she, and the documentary have encountered.In the diary, Sonia discusses some of her thoughts on the sad, and untimely death of Brenda Leyland; touches upon some of the more vocal and nasty people who have done all they can to attack her; discusses financial difficulties the documentary encountered; as well as the struggle to find the perfect people to make the documentary all it can be.
What is clear, and I have said it many times, is that Sonia is an honest and caring lady, and one I have complete trust in. A lady whom, despite countless attacks and smears from both sides of the fence, has never given up on this documentary being the best it can possibly be.
As we saw this weekend from Katie Hopkins' article, which despite not being 100% accurate, got a vast amount of people reading the files for themselves, there are still a huge amount of people unaware of the facts.
I personally believe that when Sonia's documentary is released, and is seen to be the first absolutely accurate production we have viewed, it will bring much needed attention to the case, the files, and in turn the truth.
Click here to read the diary.
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
So you think Kate and Gerry McCann were "cleared"?
I could make this blog entry nice and short, as the simple answer is; neither Kate or Gerry McCann have ever been cleared.
Once again, this is yet another topic that supporters of Kate and Gerry like to twist, and lie through their teeth about. So desperate are they to con the nation in the name of Kate and Gerry McCann, that these supporters resort to many perpetual lies. The more their lies are exposed, the more fantastical and ridiculous they become. Even Kate And Gerry must recoil with embarrassment.
Let's look at the pathetic ways the supporters attempt to push the lie that the McCanns were cleared.
1. Portuguese and British authorities "cleared" the McCanns.
The first question to ask in response to this lie is simple:
Cleared of what?
A question seemingly, no McCann supporter seems to want to answer.
The reason for that is simple. Nobody has been charged with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Nobody has been charged in connection with any crime against Madeleine. So with that in mind, nobody has been cleared, including the parents. The only authorities in Portugal and Great Britain that have the power to clear any suspect, are courts of law. A full judicial process, beginning with an investigation, followed by charges, progressing to a trial, and culminating in a verdict. In the absence of the latter three developments, it is impossible for anybody to have been cleared.
Despite this the lying supporters, press ahead with their ludicrous cries of "but, but, the McCanns were cleared" and, floundering, make an attempt to use the archiving report by Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes, who was, along with João Melchior Gomes the man responsible for producing a 58-page report - the concluding volume of the case files - which explained the reasons behind the decision to archive the process.
Despite reports on Wikipedia and some pro McCann forums this report did NOT clear the McCanns of any involvement in the loss of Madeleine, in fact by raising doubt over their stories, it did quite the opposite, below are some quotes from the report:
“The witnesses’ statements revealed important details which were not entirely understood and coherent”.
“The technique for this is a reconstruction, but despite every effort by the Public Prosecutor’s office and the JP [Policia Judiciara]…this was not possible”.
"We believe that the main damage (through the refusal of a reconstruction) was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
“The work of these dogs can be appreciated much better on film...the dogs are trained in detecting dead persons".
“The fact that the parents were the last people known to have been with Madeleine, alive and in a known place, particularly with the possibility of a body having been in the apartment and in the vehicle used by the parents…meant they had to be placed under suspicion. The parents had no plausible explanation for these facts. Faced with the evidence produced by the dogs and the laboratories, they had to be named as suspects…”
"While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched."
"Within the factual context we could be facing an abduction situation, although all possibilities have always been open, as they continue to be."
"This abduction hypothesis was investigated exhaustively, all information leading to this and other possibilities having been examined fully. No ransom request was made, nor were there any sufficiently consistent indications to substantiate this supposed abduction."
......and if this following quote "clears" the McCanns, I'll get down on my hands and knees, and ask Tony Bennett to organise a petition requesting Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth give Gerry McCann a knighthood. The quote has been translated with slightly different wording, something that is perfectly normal. The context of both translations is, however, exactly the same.
First translation:
"Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely."
Second translation:
"No evidence was obtained which would enable the average person…to arrive at a clear and honest conclusion as to how the child was taken from the apartment (dead or alive, and if dead whether by negligent or wilful manslaughter)”
A translated copy of the archiving process can be read here:
So far from being cleared the McCann's it would seem STILL have questions to answer, plausible explanations to give.......remember Kate refusing to answer those 48 questions?
So that exhaustively rules out the McCanns being "cleared" by any court, and also any Portuguese authority. What about the British authorities? Once again supporters of Kate and Gerry will tell us that DCI Redwood, the officer who headed Operation Grange, cleared the McCanns. Someone, as we have already established was in no position, or have the authority to do so. However let's cut those pro McCann supporters some slack, and examine the exact quote they believe he used, that "clears" their heroes of any involvement.
“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects”
I'm not hiding from the fact that DCI Redwood said what he did, but let's think about this realistically. The above archiving report left many possibilities open, in fact it left all possibilities open, including one that pointed toward Madeleine McCann meeting her fate through negligent homicide, and that furthermore, her possible death was then covered up by her parents. It was made clear by the PJ at the start of Operation Grange, that they would be running the show, and not Scotland Yard. So that said, how could DCI Redwood honestly say that the McCanns were not persons of interest if the PJ hadn't said the same?
I know some supporters of the McCanns won't admit I'm right, so let me put another angle out there, and on this front, the McCann's foot soldiers cannot disagree.
Police investigations use many methods; one of which involves a spot of hoodwinking. The investigating force will tell the public one thing, whilst doing the exact opposite. There are a number of reasons for this; for instance, the press will have been continually asking if Kate or Gerry McCann were persons of interest, or suspects. Redwood will have known, given it's complexity, and size, that this investigation could be an extensive game of cat and mouse. Had he not answered those questions from the press, they would have seized it with both hands. The resulting headlines would have ruined the investigation.
"NEW TWIST IN MADDIE CASE: SCOTLAND YARD REFUSE TO COMMENT UPON POSSIBILITY OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT"
Not even Clarence Mitchell could slither his slippery spinning ways around that headline.
Aside from the inevitable headlines, and a huge public outcry, that in all honesty would potentially see the McCanns put into perilous danger. There is another reason police declare people "not persons of interest", and that is to put the perpetrators at ease. As I type this I can hear those pros rocking their 'QWERTYs' and scoffing, "pffft, that doesn't happen"
So, I have some examples for them to digest:
The Philpott case:
This truly terrible, and harrowing crime took place in the early hours of May 11th 2012, and saw 6 children lose their lives in a house fire. Police described the fire, to the public at least, as an accident. They weren't fooled by the histrionics of the father, Mick Philpott, or his wife Mairead Philpott. Many people even commented at how the pair seemed to enjoy the attention from the media, sound familiar?
The Philpotts checked into a hotel, blisfully unaware that the police were onto them, and had already bugged the room.
During one of the recorded conversations, Mick Philpott can be heard saying to his wife, "You notice they’re saying accident ? Not saying it’s a murder enquiry eh?"
To which his wife replies: "Fatal accident, they just said."
It was this intelligence that nailed the couple, and a friend Paul Mosly; all three were charged with murder, later to be downgraded to manslaughter and jailed, despite police indicating that they weren't persons of interest.
Read more here
Another example that is relevant to my point, is the case of Shannon Matthews:
Shannon disappeared aged 9, from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. on the 19th February 2008. Comparisons were immediately drawn to the McCann case; whilst certain areas of the media drew conclusions of parental involvement, others defended Shannon's mother, Karen Matthews, and her boyfriend Craig Meehan. The Independent even said that the case had developed a cruel overtone and that such questions went far beyond necessity and lifted the lid on an uncomfortable hypocrisy in British society.
Again, sound familiar?
Thankfully, Shannon was found alive by police, at a property not far from where she disappeared, on the 14 March 2008, some 24 days later. Her uncle, Michael Donovan was arrested at the scene, and five days later, charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment and committing acts tended to pervert the course of justice.
Now though to my point; police dismissed the theory that Karen Matthews had been involved in the kidnap, and also stated that the crime hadn't been committed for financial gain. Investigating officers said that Shannon had been placed into social care in order that she could readjust after her ordeal. Karen Matthews thought she was in the clear, even gong as far as to update the media on Shannon's progress.
Read more here
The police though, had played a blinder, and on 6th April 2008, Karen Matthews was arrested, two days later she was charged with child neglect and perverting the course of justice. Those charges were later increased to include kidnapping and false imprisonment.
It transpired in court, that the plan had been to release Shannon Matthews and for Michael Donovan to 'find' her, then claim the £50,000 reward. Both defendants were found guilty of kidnapping, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice, and both given 8 year sentences.
Should I digress a tad? Why not, we're almost done.
In court, Julian Goose QC, stated that Matthews had given police five different versions of her story, and accused her of "telling lie after lie, after lie".
It was also discovered that Shannon had been administered temazepam, a sedative prior to, and during her kidnap.
#JustSayin'
We'll not go down those roads today, but for those who are adamant that Kate and Gerry McCann were "cleared"....
I think we've well and truly "cleared" that one up.
Once again, this is yet another topic that supporters of Kate and Gerry like to twist, and lie through their teeth about. So desperate are they to con the nation in the name of Kate and Gerry McCann, that these supporters resort to many perpetual lies. The more their lies are exposed, the more fantastical and ridiculous they become. Even Kate And Gerry must recoil with embarrassment.
Let's look at the pathetic ways the supporters attempt to push the lie that the McCanns were cleared.
1. Portuguese and British authorities "cleared" the McCanns.
The first question to ask in response to this lie is simple:
Cleared of what?
A question seemingly, no McCann supporter seems to want to answer.
The reason for that is simple. Nobody has been charged with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Nobody has been charged in connection with any crime against Madeleine. So with that in mind, nobody has been cleared, including the parents. The only authorities in Portugal and Great Britain that have the power to clear any suspect, are courts of law. A full judicial process, beginning with an investigation, followed by charges, progressing to a trial, and culminating in a verdict. In the absence of the latter three developments, it is impossible for anybody to have been cleared.
Despite this the lying supporters, press ahead with their ludicrous cries of "but, but, the McCanns were cleared" and, floundering, make an attempt to use the archiving report by Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes, who was, along with João Melchior Gomes the man responsible for producing a 58-page report - the concluding volume of the case files - which explained the reasons behind the decision to archive the process.
Despite reports on Wikipedia and some pro McCann forums this report did NOT clear the McCanns of any involvement in the loss of Madeleine, in fact by raising doubt over their stories, it did quite the opposite, below are some quotes from the report:
“The witnesses’ statements revealed important details which were not entirely understood and coherent”.
“The technique for this is a reconstruction, but despite every effort by the Public Prosecutor’s office and the JP [Policia Judiciara]…this was not possible”.
"We believe that the main damage (through the refusal of a reconstruction) was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
“The work of these dogs can be appreciated much better on film...the dogs are trained in detecting dead persons".
“The fact that the parents were the last people known to have been with Madeleine, alive and in a known place, particularly with the possibility of a body having been in the apartment and in the vehicle used by the parents…meant they had to be placed under suspicion. The parents had no plausible explanation for these facts. Faced with the evidence produced by the dogs and the laboratories, they had to be named as suspects…”
"While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched."
"Within the factual context we could be facing an abduction situation, although all possibilities have always been open, as they continue to be."
"This abduction hypothesis was investigated exhaustively, all information leading to this and other possibilities having been examined fully. No ransom request was made, nor were there any sufficiently consistent indications to substantiate this supposed abduction."
......and if this following quote "clears" the McCanns, I'll get down on my hands and knees, and ask Tony Bennett to organise a petition requesting Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth give Gerry McCann a knighthood. The quote has been translated with slightly different wording, something that is perfectly normal. The context of both translations is, however, exactly the same.
First translation:
"Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely."
Second translation:
"No evidence was obtained which would enable the average person…to arrive at a clear and honest conclusion as to how the child was taken from the apartment (dead or alive, and if dead whether by negligent or wilful manslaughter)”
A translated copy of the archiving process can be read here:
So far from being cleared the McCann's it would seem STILL have questions to answer, plausible explanations to give.......remember Kate refusing to answer those 48 questions?
So that exhaustively rules out the McCanns being "cleared" by any court, and also any Portuguese authority. What about the British authorities? Once again supporters of Kate and Gerry will tell us that DCI Redwood, the officer who headed Operation Grange, cleared the McCanns. Someone, as we have already established was in no position, or have the authority to do so. However let's cut those pro McCann supporters some slack, and examine the exact quote they believe he used, that "clears" their heroes of any involvement.
“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects”
I'm not hiding from the fact that DCI Redwood said what he did, but let's think about this realistically. The above archiving report left many possibilities open, in fact it left all possibilities open, including one that pointed toward Madeleine McCann meeting her fate through negligent homicide, and that furthermore, her possible death was then covered up by her parents. It was made clear by the PJ at the start of Operation Grange, that they would be running the show, and not Scotland Yard. So that said, how could DCI Redwood honestly say that the McCanns were not persons of interest if the PJ hadn't said the same?
I know some supporters of the McCanns won't admit I'm right, so let me put another angle out there, and on this front, the McCann's foot soldiers cannot disagree.
Police investigations use many methods; one of which involves a spot of hoodwinking. The investigating force will tell the public one thing, whilst doing the exact opposite. There are a number of reasons for this; for instance, the press will have been continually asking if Kate or Gerry McCann were persons of interest, or suspects. Redwood will have known, given it's complexity, and size, that this investigation could be an extensive game of cat and mouse. Had he not answered those questions from the press, they would have seized it with both hands. The resulting headlines would have ruined the investigation.
"NEW TWIST IN MADDIE CASE: SCOTLAND YARD REFUSE TO COMMENT UPON POSSIBILITY OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT"
Not even Clarence Mitchell could slither his slippery spinning ways around that headline.
Aside from the inevitable headlines, and a huge public outcry, that in all honesty would potentially see the McCanns put into perilous danger. There is another reason police declare people "not persons of interest", and that is to put the perpetrators at ease. As I type this I can hear those pros rocking their 'QWERTYs' and scoffing, "pffft, that doesn't happen"
So, I have some examples for them to digest:
The Philpott case:
This truly terrible, and harrowing crime took place in the early hours of May 11th 2012, and saw 6 children lose their lives in a house fire. Police described the fire, to the public at least, as an accident. They weren't fooled by the histrionics of the father, Mick Philpott, or his wife Mairead Philpott. Many people even commented at how the pair seemed to enjoy the attention from the media, sound familiar?
The Philpotts checked into a hotel, blisfully unaware that the police were onto them, and had already bugged the room.
During one of the recorded conversations, Mick Philpott can be heard saying to his wife, "You notice they’re saying accident ? Not saying it’s a murder enquiry eh?"
To which his wife replies: "Fatal accident, they just said."
It was this intelligence that nailed the couple, and a friend Paul Mosly; all three were charged with murder, later to be downgraded to manslaughter and jailed, despite police indicating that they weren't persons of interest.
Read more here
Another example that is relevant to my point, is the case of Shannon Matthews:
Shannon disappeared aged 9, from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. on the 19th February 2008. Comparisons were immediately drawn to the McCann case; whilst certain areas of the media drew conclusions of parental involvement, others defended Shannon's mother, Karen Matthews, and her boyfriend Craig Meehan. The Independent even said that the case had developed a cruel overtone and that such questions went far beyond necessity and lifted the lid on an uncomfortable hypocrisy in British society.
Again, sound familiar?
Thankfully, Shannon was found alive by police, at a property not far from where she disappeared, on the 14 March 2008, some 24 days later. Her uncle, Michael Donovan was arrested at the scene, and five days later, charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment and committing acts tended to pervert the course of justice.
Now though to my point; police dismissed the theory that Karen Matthews had been involved in the kidnap, and also stated that the crime hadn't been committed for financial gain. Investigating officers said that Shannon had been placed into social care in order that she could readjust after her ordeal. Karen Matthews thought she was in the clear, even gong as far as to update the media on Shannon's progress.
Read more here
The police though, had played a blinder, and on 6th April 2008, Karen Matthews was arrested, two days later she was charged with child neglect and perverting the course of justice. Those charges were later increased to include kidnapping and false imprisonment.
It transpired in court, that the plan had been to release Shannon Matthews and for Michael Donovan to 'find' her, then claim the £50,000 reward. Both defendants were found guilty of kidnapping, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice, and both given 8 year sentences.
Should I digress a tad? Why not, we're almost done.
In court, Julian Goose QC, stated that Matthews had given police five different versions of her story, and accused her of "telling lie after lie, after lie".
It was also discovered that Shannon had been administered temazepam, a sedative prior to, and during her kidnap.
#JustSayin'
We'll not go down those roads today, but for those who are adamant that Kate and Gerry McCann were "cleared"....
I think we've well and truly "cleared" that one up.
Sunday, 6 September 2015
Goncalo Amaral, an appealing situation.
On the 3rd of September 2015, we finally got the news we'd been waiting for, Goncalo Amaral, the coordinator of the original investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, was granted permission to appeal the damages ruling that resulted in the banning of his book, The Truth of The Lie, the banning of the documentary of the same title, and the decision to award Kate and Gerry McCann 250,000 euros each.
Click here to read, The Truth of The Lie, English translation.
Click here to watch, The Truth of The Lie, full documentary.
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic's Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.
Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct ['Usufruct' is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person] from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights.
In a concise manner:
The book at stake in this process – "Maddie – the Truth of the Lie" – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.
The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.
The other appeals are not taken into consideration, as it is understood that their appreciation is prejudiced – article 660º, no 2, of the Civil Process Code.
III – Decision
In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:
The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.
Costs to be paid by the appellants*.
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appellate Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente
*On an appeal, the party who must respond to an appeal by the losing party is called 'appellant' in the appeals court."
So despite the pros claiming that the McCanns will beat Goncalo Amaral in the appeal courts, the history books tell a totally different story. Is the appeal court really going to contradict the findings of the three judges named above? You wouldn't bet your last quid on it would you. Fact is, the McCanns got very lucky with the ruling earlier this year. I do hope they didn't have the cash earmarked for anything in particular, mortgage repayments, a European tour, some pampas grass for Pam Gurney perhaps, because from where I'm sitting, I can't see them getting a penny. A view clearly shared by the pros, who did their level best to shut down the fund, and attack the person who started it. I wonder what prompted that............
Click here to read, The Truth of The Lie, English translation.
Click here to watch, The Truth of The Lie, full documentary.
![]() |
| Courtesy of http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
When news of the original decision broke on the 28th April 2015, the McCanns were said to be "delighted". Of course they would be, Kate McCann has made no secret of her hatred for Goncalo Amaral, the man who, despite Kate's best efforts to the contrary, tried to solve the case of her missing daughter. When speaking of Goncalo, she said "he deserves to be miserable and feel fear".
I wonder if Kate and Gerry will be delighted at the news of the appeal though? Their loopy supporters frothed at the mouth when news of the fund, set up by Leanne Baulch to assist Goncalo with his legal fees, broke. As is par for the course for the more sinister of the pros, a dirty tricks campaign started, with the sole intention of stopping the fund, and attempting to stop the legal process. Of course the pros would never publicly state that an appeal is the last thing they would want for their child abusing idols, but it is. On the 9th of September 2009, the McCanns succeeded in their bid to have Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of The Lie, banned from sale. Gerry McCann released the following statement: "I'd like to read this statement on behalf of Kate, myself and our three children: We're pleased with the judges decision today preventing further distribution and sale of Mr Amaral's book and DVD, 'The Truth of the Lie'. Mr Amaral's central thesis has no evidence whatsoever to support it. To claim, as he did, that Madeleine is dead and that we, her parents, were somehow involved in her disappearance has caused our family incredible distress and continues to do so. Without doubt Madeleine will have suffered as a result of the negative effect this book and DVD will have had on the search for her. Sean and Amelie need protection too, from such awful claims. Hopefully this injunction today will go a long way towards reducing further unnecessary and unjust distress to us all and allow people to concentrate completely on what is important; finding Madeleine.Thank you."
Gerry and Kate's happiness was short lived though. Goncalo Amaral appealed the decision, and on the 19th of October 2010, duly won. The following is a report from The Guardian dated Tuesday 19th October 2010:
|
Kate and Gerry McCann, the parents of missing Madeleine, suffered a setback today in their legal battle with a Portuguese police officer when a Lisbon appeal court overturned a ban on his book about the case.
The book by former police detective Gonçalo Amaral, who led the Madeleine investigation in the first five months after the three-year-old's disappearance, can now go back on sale.
In September last year the McCanns obtained the ban on Amaral's book Maddie – The Truth about the Lie, in which he claims they were involved in the toddler's disappearance.
Amaral claims Madeleine died accidentally in the Algarve holiday apartment at Praia da Luz, where she was first reported missing in October 2007, and that her parents fabricated the abduction story. The McCanns, who have never ceased in their search for the missing girl, are suing him for defamation.
Portugal's attorney general, having reviewed the investigation, has ruled there is no evidence to suggest that the McCanns are anything other than entirely innocent.
The court said the decision to block sales of the book had broken "a constitutional and universal right: that of opinion and freedom of expression."
"The contents of the book do not breach the basic rights of the plaintiffs," the court said, according to the Jornal de Noticías newspaper's website.
"The book is an exercise in freedom of speech," Amaral told Portugal's Lusa news agency. "Portuguese democracy has won, as banning the book was unconstitutional."
A spokesman for the McCann family said the decision did not stop the defamation case. "The defamation action against Mr Amaral is very much continuing," he said. "Kate and Gerry's lawyers are now examining the detail of this latest ruling and are considering an appeal."
With the latest appeal now looming, Kate and Gerry must be sweating over what the result may be. The Appellate (appeal) court, concluded their previous findings in the following report, with thanks to Astro for the translation, and taken with thanks from McCannfiles:
"We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
"We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
In any case, we understand that the allegation of facts that are profusely contained in the judicial inquiry and that were even published through an initiative of the Republic's Attorney General’s Office, can in no way be seen as an offence against the right to image and a good name of the subjects in the process.
Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct ['Usufruct' is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person] from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.
We thus reach a point where it seems to be important to stress the following: the indicative facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not valued by the Public Ministry's Magistrates in order to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights.
In a concise manner:
The book at stake in this process – "Maddie – the Truth of the Lie" – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.
The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.
The other appeals are not taken into consideration, as it is understood that their appreciation is prejudiced – article 660º, no 2, of the Civil Process Code.
III – Decision
In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:
The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.
Costs to be paid by the appellants*.
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appellate Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente
*On an appeal, the party who must respond to an appeal by the losing party is called 'appellant' in the appeals court."
So despite the pros claiming that the McCanns will beat Goncalo Amaral in the appeal courts, the history books tell a totally different story. Is the appeal court really going to contradict the findings of the three judges named above? You wouldn't bet your last quid on it would you. Fact is, the McCanns got very lucky with the ruling earlier this year. I do hope they didn't have the cash earmarked for anything in particular, mortgage repayments, a European tour, some pampas grass for Pam Gurney perhaps, because from where I'm sitting, I can't see them getting a penny. A view clearly shared by the pros, who did their level best to shut down the fund, and attack the person who started it. I wonder what prompted that............
Thursday, 3 September 2015
EXTRA! EXTRA! MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIE FOR McCANNS...AGAIN
Is it too much to ask, I mean really too much to ask, that I might sit down one day, open a newspaper, read it front to back (it's more hygienic that way), and say to myself, "toast my chestnuts on an open fire, that was a damn good, factual read".
As a newspaper editor, Lloyd Embley, editor of The Daily Mirror, has within his grasp, the opportunity to make a difference in the world. You would imagine that with such a role, his greatest ambition would be to expose child abuse or oversee the exposure of man's inhumanity to man.
So, in his own words, what was Lloyd Embley's proudest moment of 2014?
"Firstly, the jaw-dropping exclusive Sunday Mirror interview with former boxing promoter Frank Maloney, revealing that he was now known as Kellie and was undergoing gender reassignment."
Outstanding!!
Week after week, we have seen Lloyd Embley and his ilk support Kate and Gerry McCann, with either old stories, twisted stories, stories from unattributable sources, or just unadulterated lies.
Take yesterday's article for instance; click here to read, as well as the usual twaddle The Daily Mirror touch upon Euclides Monteiro, a former employee of the Ocean Club where Madeleine stayed. The Mirror states that Monteiro's widow, Luisa Rodrigues:
Once again, it would appear that Embley, perhaps whilst busy scouring the land for his defining moment of 2015, is blissfully unaware of the editors' code of practice:
Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
That's pretty straight forward. I wonder if Embley might take the time to explain how his oily rag continually breaches this code by printing, "totally inaccurate, misleading or distorted information" with regards to the case of missing Madeleine McCann. Most men carry their car keys and wallet in their pockets, seems to me a certain Clarence "cash for lies" Mitchell, carries Embley in his.
Firstly, Euclides Monteiro was ruled out of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, not once, but twice. After his death in 2009, an autopsy was performed upon Monteiro, and his DNA taken, this DNA was cross-referenced against that found in apartment 5a, and other crimes within the Algarve, that had no evidential connection to the disappearance of Madeleine, not only was that DNA proven to not match any recovered from 5a, it was also ruled out from any other crime. In short, Euclides Monteiro was an innocent man, something The Daily Mirror failed to mention.
Hardly surprising when you compare the efit of Scotland Yard's number one suspect, with that of Euclides Monteiro. (Monteiro is the one who doesn't look like Gerry McCann)
Of course these facts don't stop the Daily Mirror from deliberately misleading the reader. At best Embley only cares about selling papers, and as long as the McCanns are ok, anybody else, including dead people, matter not.
Moving on swiftly to the second totally misleading piece of misinformation, and The Mirror's claim that Scotland Yard have come to focus on the theory that Madeleine was killed during a bungled burglary. That statement is complete conjecture, The Daily Mirror have no idea what the focus of the investigation is. Many leads are being followed up, so to claim that one is the focus over others is blatant misinformation. I have ask myself why The Mirror have chosen now to suggest Madeleine is dead. They've ignored the fact the dogs alerted to all things McCann for years, why say she was killed now? Kate and Gerry will not be pleased, still I'm sure you'll clear up that in your next thrilling episode of "The Daily Mirror talks bollocks", won't you Embley, you fucking yes man.
As a newspaper editor, Lloyd Embley, editor of The Daily Mirror, has within his grasp, the opportunity to make a difference in the world. You would imagine that with such a role, his greatest ambition would be to expose child abuse or oversee the exposure of man's inhumanity to man.
So, in his own words, what was Lloyd Embley's proudest moment of 2014?
"Firstly, the jaw-dropping exclusive Sunday Mirror interview with former boxing promoter Frank Maloney, revealing that he was now known as Kellie and was undergoing gender reassignment."
Outstanding!!
Week after week, we have seen Lloyd Embley and his ilk support Kate and Gerry McCann, with either old stories, twisted stories, stories from unattributable sources, or just unadulterated lies.
Take yesterday's article for instance; click here to read, as well as the usual twaddle The Daily Mirror touch upon Euclides Monteiro, a former employee of the Ocean Club where Madeleine stayed. The Mirror states that Monteiro's widow, Luisa Rodrigues:
"insisted he was an innocent man and has been fighting to get authorities to confirm they have now ruled him out as a suspect."
They go on to say that:
They go on to say that:
"Scotland Yard, tasked with investigating Madeleine’s disappearance after Madeleine’s family made a personal plea to David Cameron in 2011, have come to focus on the theory she was killed during a bungled burglary."
Once again, it would appear that Embley, perhaps whilst busy scouring the land for his defining moment of 2015, is blissfully unaware of the editors' code of practice:
Accuracy
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Commission, prominence should be agreed with the PCC in advance.
iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.
Firstly, Euclides Monteiro was ruled out of any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, not once, but twice. After his death in 2009, an autopsy was performed upon Monteiro, and his DNA taken, this DNA was cross-referenced against that found in apartment 5a, and other crimes within the Algarve, that had no evidential connection to the disappearance of Madeleine, not only was that DNA proven to not match any recovered from 5a, it was also ruled out from any other crime. In short, Euclides Monteiro was an innocent man, something The Daily Mirror failed to mention.
Hardly surprising when you compare the efit of Scotland Yard's number one suspect, with that of Euclides Monteiro. (Monteiro is the one who doesn't look like Gerry McCann)
Of course these facts don't stop the Daily Mirror from deliberately misleading the reader. At best Embley only cares about selling papers, and as long as the McCanns are ok, anybody else, including dead people, matter not.
Moving on swiftly to the second totally misleading piece of misinformation, and The Mirror's claim that Scotland Yard have come to focus on the theory that Madeleine was killed during a bungled burglary. That statement is complete conjecture, The Daily Mirror have no idea what the focus of the investigation is. Many leads are being followed up, so to claim that one is the focus over others is blatant misinformation. I have ask myself why The Mirror have chosen now to suggest Madeleine is dead. They've ignored the fact the dogs alerted to all things McCann for years, why say she was killed now? Kate and Gerry will not be pleased, still I'm sure you'll clear up that in your next thrilling episode of "The Daily Mirror talks bollocks", won't you Embley, you fucking yes man.
Saturday, 22 August 2015
The sociopathic traits of Gerry McCann
Sociopath
noun
In contrast, Gerry doesn't seem to have aged at all, he has fed his needs from what he perceives as a game, a game that to he is convinced he is winning, but at what cost? How many have suffered at the hands of Gerry McCann, how many more will suffer? One thing is for sure, one day, one way or another, the games are always over, and when that day comes, Gerry McCann, the man who thought he could control the world, will lose everything.
noun
- a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour.
One of the questions that poses itself for anybody who has studied the McCann case, or indeed for the casual observer, is this; could one or both of the McCanns have a severe mental disorder?
A sociopath possesses the ability to withdraw emotion and conscience from situations that may present themselves to them, especially when those characteristic traits hinder their ability to cope with a problem.
- For instance, imagine a computer game, a shoot em up, if you will. You the player, wander the streets, armed to the teeth with weapons and shoot anything that comes your way. That is the aim of the game, and you do it because you must to win. You have no feelings for the characters you blast your way past, why would you, they're not real, you just do it because it's a game. For the sociopath, it is much the same, life presents them with a mission, a goal, or a need, and whilst they might not kill anyone in the process, the lack of conscience gives them the ability to calmly succeed without thought for right or wrong, only the desire to win.
In Gerry McCann, we see a man who plays out the case of his missing daughter as if it were a game. He appears to thrive from the thrill of the chase, and it is that chase that makes his sociopathic traits manifest to the surface. Whereas you or I would panic if in the situation of the McCanns, Gerry does not, he is calm, he is alert, he is calculating, his mind working at high speed, reading the situation with the guile of a predator, all powerful, in control of everyone, and everything around him. He feels that he is the centre of attention, his personality absorbent of his own deceptiveness, and his self belief grows with every calculated scheme.
Take the following scenario, it is a theory that has been put about by many as to what happened to Madeleine McCann:
The McCanns sedated their children, so that they could enjoy nights out without the worry of them waking up. It isn't an implausible theory, Kate McCann after all, is a qualified anaesthetist, she would have a professional expertise on various sedatives, dosages, and be more than competent in the administration of them. It is a known fact that Madeleine, as is quite normal for a three year old, had history for waking during the night, as her reward chart shows. -
If we are to believe that the children were left, then how could the McCanns be sure Madeleine would not wake, wander off, (she had done before). She could have encountered many household hazards in a dark, unfamiliar apartment. Kate described in her book, and to the press how "we had always suspected all three children had been sedated" yet it took her 4 months to have them tested. Now, with Gerry's cardiological background, and Kate's expertise, it is completely illogical that either parent would take 4 months to have their children tested, knowing the fatal consequences that could arise from a qualified professional giving children sedatives, let alone a stranger. Curiously, Kate had this to say of the eventual test results:
"Whilst this didn't totally exclude the possibility that the children had been sedated, especially given the time that had elapsed, it meant that nobody else (including the PJ and the media) could prove otherwise"
There are grounds to believe the children had all been sedated, not by an abductor, but by Kate or Gerry McCann, and so back to our scenario. The children were sedated, Madeleine has an adverse reaction to the drug she was given, and either wakes feeling unwell, gets out of bed and has a fall, or dies during her sleep, and is found by her parents. It would certainly explain the cadaver odour on Kate McCann's clothes, and could even explain the crying heard by Mrs Fenn. As harsh as it sounds, and it does, Madeleine is dead, neither parent can change that fact, a decision must be made. This is where the sociopath would take over. With no regard for human decency, a sociopath would enter the realms of damage limitation, or self preservation if you like. An autopsy is out of the question, thus alerting the authorities is out of the question. Too much would be at stake, neither doctor would work again, one, or both would certainly face manslaughter charges, which would undoubtedly result in a jail term, and both of the twins would be taken from the couple. With that in mind, is it inconceivable that Gerry took over, hatched a plan to dispose of Madeleine's body, and protect what is left of his family? I think not.
There is clear evidence, that suggests Gerry segregated the loss of Madeleine to concentrate on saving the family unit. Time and time again, we see Gerry refer to Madeleine as "the child", it is a classic case of disassociation. By calling Madeleine "the child", she is no longer his daughter, but an object, eg. the bus, the tree, the fridge, the emotional connection is removed, therefore making the situation more playable, remember this is a game now, there is no room for sentiment, not for the sociopath.
A sociopath has the burning need to control situations, to control the characters within the game, again this is evident with the power Gerry holds over Kate. Kate has aged drastically over the years, she does not possess the same ability to place guilt or emotion into a box, thus dealing with self preservation as easily. Take for example the 48 questions Kate McCann refused to answer. We are told this was upon the advice of the McCanns' lawyer, yet Gerry chose to answer his questions. Of course he was always going to, the need for controlling the situation would mean that keeping silent, simply wasn't an option. Keeping Kate silent, on the other hand, was the only option. It was during Gerry's interview, that we see yet more evidence of displacement, when shown the evidence of the dogs alerting to all things McCann, Gerry wouldn't even look at the screen. Almost childlike tendencies, "If I can't see it, it isn't happening, and therefore it can't hurt me" again, removing the reality, the risk of emotion, from the set plan, the self preservation. Gerry had to be in control. Whilst waiting at the police station, and about to negotiate, with a man who claimed to have Madeleine, Gerry was said to be sat, calmly sucking on a lollipop, watching the television, and chatting to an officer about sport, yet again, and I know I keep writing it, he was distancing himself from the situation.
Time after time we have seen interviews on the television, or videos, where Gerry displays his true nature, he can't help it, whilst he is talking, he is calmness personified, he is in control, the toothy sneer, the arrogance, the smugness, the catch me if you can attitude, but all of that goes out the window the moment Kate speaks. As soon as Kate answers a question, or dares to speak, Gerry's face tightens, a fear washes over his face, he is not in control, and the fact that every word that comes out of Kate's mouth, hasn't passed through the mind of Gerry first, fills him with dread. Take the video below for example, Gerry goes through every trick in the book to correct Kate, he shows disappointment, both facially, and physically, leaving Kate in no doubt, that she hasn't stuck to his script.
A sociopath, whilst convinced they are doing the right thing by a loved one, will ultimately destroy them. They truly believe that they are making those closest to them, into better people, for that person's own good. They will attempt to mould them into what they believe they should be, but in doing so, they will leave the other person lifeless, scared and desolate. Kate's face bears the scars of such behaviour, it is barren , often lifeless, her eyes glazed, and devoid of any happiness. Her actions are no longer her own, as she now finds herself in a mortal state of purgatory, ruled by her "loving" husband, whilst tortured with the need to rid herself of guilt. Something she will never be able to do.
In contrast, Gerry doesn't seem to have aged at all, he has fed his needs from what he perceives as a game, a game that to he is convinced he is winning, but at what cost? How many have suffered at the hands of Gerry McCann, how many more will suffer? One thing is for sure, one day, one way or another, the games are always over, and when that day comes, Gerry McCann, the man who thought he could control the world, will lose everything.
Saturday, 1 August 2015
More McCann lies. A crock of locked V unlocked
Philomena McCann, Gerry's sister, said on 04 May: "Some people may ask why they left the children alone in the apartment but it was locked and they had a full view of the front door and they were checking every half hour."
Ok, so the apartment was locked then.
Jill Renwick, a family friend, told GMTV on 04 May: "She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open."
Still locked.
Jon Corner, a friend of the McCanns, and one of the many people who was told the lie of an "abductor" smashing the shutters, said:
"She (Kate) just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.'
"They had left the apartment locked while they were having their meal, but when they went back the last time they saw the damage."
You guessed it, still locked.
It was these people, along with others, who were also told tales of "smashed", "jemmied" and "broken" shutters. Before we move on, let's have a look at some of the statements from people who the McCanns lied to, when they said there had been a break in:
Instead of searching for Madeleine, the McCanns were busy lying to all and sundry:
Brian Healy (Kate's father)
"Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone,"
Trish Cameron (Gerry's sister)
"The door was lying open, the window in the bedroom and the shutters had been jemmied open."
"She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.''
Philomena McCann (Gerry's big sister)
"Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed."
"She just told me that Maddy (sic) had been abducted, that the shutters of the apartment had been forced and someone had taken her."
Daily Mail
"When Mrs McCann checked on the children, she found the apartment door wide open, the window shutters jemmied wide and her daughter's bed empty."So as things on the night of the 3rd, we have reports of a locked apartment, parents out, smashed shutters, and a missing child.
^^^^That's an abduction right there^^^^
Only that isn't the truth is it. The truth is, there were no signs of a break in, despite the McCanns best efforts to convince the world otherwise, and the truth came out almost as quickly as it was hidden:
Daily Mail
"The parents, who were taken to the PJ in Portimão at around mid-morning, refused to speak to the journalists, but advanced the idea that the apartment had been broken into, to the British media. Nevertheless, the resort's administration and the GNR assert that "there were no signs of a break-in whatsoever"
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, spokesman for the investigation, has confided in British former Chief Inspector Albert Kirby that neither the windows nor their shutters had been tampered with.
Albert Kirby
"I had a very interesting chat with the officer in charge. The window shutters are not an issue."
Confirming this, John Hill (resort manager) said that there was:
"no sign of a break in whatsoever"
Even the McCann's very own spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, finally conceded that:
“There was no evidence of a break-in"
This amazing U turn was covered in many newspapers:
Irish Independent
"Interestingly, Clarence Mitchell's statement about the McCanns reversal of their 'break in' story, came one week after Dispatches aired the documentary 'Searching For Madeleine' on 18 October 2007. In that documentary, it was effectively proved that there was no way anybody could break into the apartment and leave no forensic trace or damage to the lightweight aluminium shutters, which are covered with a fine coating of polyurethane paint which marks extremely easily."
So how did an "abductor" get into a locked apartment, take Madeleine from her bed, and make off into the night, without leaving a trace?
Think Gerry, think. What you gonna do now, you're screwed. Abductors don't walk through walls.........
Taken from Gerry McCann's statement, the day after he and Kate spent the night telling lies, whilst others searched for their daughter.
Click here to read Gerry McCann's statement 04/05/2007
"the witness, (Gerry) came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked"
What's that? Say that again.........
"the witness, (Gerry) came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked"
but I thought it was unlocked?
Well this is most peculiar. <scratches head>
Let's get this straight, first the apartment was locked, the shutters smashed, and Madeleine taken.
The next day, the shutters were fine, the patio door had been left unlocked.
Despite this patio door being unlocked, Gerry states, that both he and Kate used their key to gain access to the apartment via the front door. Here's where things get a bit odd. Check this diagram out:
The black line, denotes the route from the Tapas bar to the patio door Gerry says they left unlocked. The red line, the route to the locked door, Gerry claims he and Kate used to check on Madeleine (we will see Kate's version of events differ completely later). It beggars belief that the couple would take a route twice the distance to enter the apartment, through a locked door, when the unlocked one was much closer.
Now, over the years we've heard the excuse that the patio door was left open in case of fire. Are we really supposed to believe that if a fire was to break out, Madeleine, a 3 year old little girl, would battle through the blaze, a sibling slung over either shoulder, make her way to the unlocked patio door, and save the day? Let's say that would be possible, that Madeleine could indeed do that. Why then was Kate so sure, that Madeleine hadn't simply wandered off? How was it she was convinced straight away that "They've taken her",
Let's look at Kate's first statement now. You'll remember how Gerry said that both he and Kate used the locked, front door to gain access to the apartment. Kate however, tells a different story, she states that she actually used the unlocked patio door. The following is taken from Kate McCann's statement:
"At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did."
Statement of Kate McCann 04/05/2007
Wouldn't you think that Kate and Gerry would have known exactly which doors each other used, especially the one used for the final check?
Would it not be something you would both discuss over and over, as you desperately tried to ascertain what happened that night?
Perhaps had they not both spent the night lying to friends and family, about a fully locked apartment, and smashed shutters, (whilst not searching for their missing daughter) they might have perfected their plan B story sooner.
I will leave you to sit back and watch this video, yet another version of events, and perhaps the most ludicrous thing I have ever witnessed.
Ok, so the apartment was locked then.
Jill Renwick, a family friend, told GMTV on 04 May: "She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open."
Still locked.
Jon Corner, a friend of the McCanns, and one of the many people who was told the lie of an "abductor" smashing the shutters, said:
"She (Kate) just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.'
"They had left the apartment locked while they were having their meal, but when they went back the last time they saw the damage."
You guessed it, still locked.
It was these people, along with others, who were also told tales of "smashed", "jemmied" and "broken" shutters. Before we move on, let's have a look at some of the statements from people who the McCanns lied to, when they said there had been a break in:
Instead of searching for Madeleine, the McCanns were busy lying to all and sundry:
Brian Healy (Kate's father)
"Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone,"
Trish Cameron (Gerry's sister)
"The door was lying open, the window in the bedroom and the shutters had been jemmied open."
"She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. She told me, 'They have broken the shutter on the window and taken my little girl.''
Philomena McCann (Gerry's big sister)
"The shutters were jemmied, the window opened"
Jill Renwick (Kate's friend)
Jill Renwick (Kate's friend)
"Madeleine has obviously been taken. She couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters were forced."
"They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine,"
Jon Corner (family friend)
"They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine,"
Jon Corner (family friend)
"Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed."
"She just told me that Maddy (sic) had been abducted, that the shutters of the apartment had been forced and someone had taken her."
Daily Mail
"When Mrs McCann checked on the children, she found the apartment door wide open, the window shutters jemmied wide and her daughter's bed empty."So as things on the night of the 3rd, we have reports of a locked apartment, parents out, smashed shutters, and a missing child.
^^^^That's an abduction right there^^^^
Only that isn't the truth is it. The truth is, there were no signs of a break in, despite the McCanns best efforts to convince the world otherwise, and the truth came out almost as quickly as it was hidden:
Daily Mail
"The parents, who were taken to the PJ in Portimão at around mid-morning, refused to speak to the journalists, but advanced the idea that the apartment had been broken into, to the British media. Nevertheless, the resort's administration and the GNR assert that "there were no signs of a break-in whatsoever"
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, spokesman for the investigation, has confided in British former Chief Inspector Albert Kirby that neither the windows nor their shutters had been tampered with.
Albert Kirby
"I had a very interesting chat with the officer in charge. The window shutters are not an issue."
Confirming this, John Hill (resort manager) said that there was:
"no sign of a break in whatsoever"
Even the McCann's very own spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, finally conceded that:
“There was no evidence of a break-in"
This amazing U turn was covered in many newspapers:
Irish Independent
"Interestingly, Clarence Mitchell's statement about the McCanns reversal of their 'break in' story, came one week after Dispatches aired the documentary 'Searching For Madeleine' on 18 October 2007. In that documentary, it was effectively proved that there was no way anybody could break into the apartment and leave no forensic trace or damage to the lightweight aluminium shutters, which are covered with a fine coating of polyurethane paint which marks extremely easily."
So how did an "abductor" get into a locked apartment, take Madeleine from her bed, and make off into the night, without leaving a trace?
Think Gerry, think. What you gonna do now, you're screwed. Abductors don't walk through walls.........
Taken from Gerry McCann's statement, the day after he and Kate spent the night telling lies, whilst others searched for their daughter.
Click here to read Gerry McCann's statement 04/05/2007
"the witness, (Gerry) came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked"
What's that? Say that again.........
"the witness, (Gerry) came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked"
but I thought it was unlocked?
Well this is most peculiar. <scratches head>
Let's get this straight, first the apartment was locked, the shutters smashed, and Madeleine taken.
The next day, the shutters were fine, the patio door had been left unlocked.
Despite this patio door being unlocked, Gerry states, that both he and Kate used their key to gain access to the apartment via the front door. Here's where things get a bit odd. Check this diagram out:
The black line, denotes the route from the Tapas bar to the patio door Gerry says they left unlocked. The red line, the route to the locked door, Gerry claims he and Kate used to check on Madeleine (we will see Kate's version of events differ completely later). It beggars belief that the couple would take a route twice the distance to enter the apartment, through a locked door, when the unlocked one was much closer.
Let's look at Kate's first statement now. You'll remember how Gerry said that both he and Kate used the locked, front door to gain access to the apartment. Kate however, tells a different story, she states that she actually used the unlocked patio door. The following is taken from Kate McCann's statement:
"At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did."
Statement of Kate McCann 04/05/2007
Wouldn't you think that Kate and Gerry would have known exactly which doors each other used, especially the one used for the final check?
Would it not be something you would both discuss over and over, as you desperately tried to ascertain what happened that night?
Perhaps had they not both spent the night lying to friends and family, about a fully locked apartment, and smashed shutters, (whilst not searching for their missing daughter) they might have perfected their plan B story sooner.
I will leave you to sit back and watch this video, yet another version of events, and perhaps the most ludicrous thing I have ever witnessed.
Friday, 17 July 2015
Rule number one. Never let the truth get in the way of protecting the McCanns.
To my mind pro McCanns fall into different categories.
There are those who rightly or wrongly believe the McCanns to be innocent, and will quote facts to back up their claims. I have no issue with that.
Then there are those who are friends with the McCanns or their family, and yes some of these people are active on facebook and twitter, some are probably decent people away from the keyboard, some are most certainly not.
We have a minority, within the minority that call themselves pros, but are actually nothing more than sad lonely individuals who jump from case to case with the sole intention of "trolling". I hate that term, it is far too readily thrown around for the sake of it. The press love to use it to describe anybody who asks questions, as we all too well know.
Then of course we have the extremely stupid, I'm not talking leaving your bath running here, I'm talking eating crayons because colourful stuff looks appetising. I'm talking about those who are so innately lacking in brain power that no matter how many times you show them a link to disprove what they are saying, they won't have it, and in barely legible writing will tell you that it is you who is thick. Basically we're talking about the likes of Alfibab3 (from twitter) whose real name is Wendy Grandfield.
So that leaves us with one other type of pro, now this type of pro is extremely worrying. For those of you on twitter, you may have come across a tweeter who goes by the name of Safari Sara, and boy is Sara a weird un. Sara loves to claim she is debunking the evidence of the dogs, and also claims to discredit Amaral. Now the two ways she does this is to use the Haut de la Garenne child abuse investigation in Jersey in 2008, and the investigation into the horrendous murder of 8 year old Joana Cipriano, which Goncalo headed in 2004.
Firstly let's look briefly at the background of HDLG, how Eddie, the human cadaver and human blood dog was deployed, what he found, then how the disturbed mind of Sara makes out that nothing untoward happened there, and goes onto claim Eddie's alerts were false.
HDLG was opened in 1867 with the purpose of being a school for neglected children, it went on to serve a few purposes, but it's main use was as a childrens home, until in 1986 the home closed. After the home's closure it was used for a short period as a temporary respite centre for children with special needs. When you think of the number of vulnerable children that passed through the building's doors, and knowing what we now know went on there, it sends shivers down your spine. Most of us, thankfully, can only imagine the horrific happenings that took place, and what it must be like to be scared and alone, with no one to trust, no family to help you, and abused at the hands of those who are supposed to be your saviours.
In February 2008 a police investigation started on site at the home, this investigation was brought about after allegations of the abuse, and murder of children at the home. Eddie, the dog widely regarded as the best in the world, and who had also, the year previous worked on the Madeleine McCann case, was brought in with his trainer, Martin Grime. Below is a link, filmed by the Homicide Search Advisor of the National Policing Improvement Agency, present with him at the time was former Deputy Chief Police Officer Mr. Lenny Harper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THoDAqUTl48
As you will hear from the start of the video, Mr Harper was in no way confident as to Eddie's abilities, not least of all because of the bad press Eddie had received at the hands of pro McCann claims after his findings in 2007. That opinion was soon to change, as you can see by the report he made to accompany the video below, take note at some of the amazing tests that Eddie passed with flying colours Mr Harper describes at the start of his report. JAR/6 is a fragment of a child's skull:
00.00.0 Getting ready. I was reluctant to let the dog inside as I did not feel that it would do much good. In truth, I was a little sceptical – I had not felt a favourable impression from the handler (Martin Grimes (sic)) at our initial meeting and I was dubious, although my opinion of his qualities and integrity was to markedly change as events unfolded. I began to realise as I worked closely with him over a period of months that what I originally took as arrogance was simply supreme confidence in the ability of his dogs in the face of jealous, empire protecting rivals who were not as professionally capable. Throughout the investigation, we subjected Martin and his dogs to many ‘verifying’ tests, from burying swabs in sand (which he always found no matter how large an area), to minute blood stains. The dogs never failed. Many of these tests were carried out in front of Jersey politicians and media, including Channel Television and Diane Simon of the JEP. Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis were only two of the politicians who witnessed the ability of the dogs in hugely impressive displays. Funny how they all forgot this when they jumped on the bandwagon which sought to ruin Martin Grime’s reputation. One of the most spectacular exercises occurred when one of the Anthropologists brought a vial of sand back that she had removed from the tomb of a mummy in Egypt. We put this vial on a beach, below the sand, and let Eddie off to look for it. The dog amazingly sought it out in a few minutes and gave us the reaction you will see in this video. To get back to the start of the video and my initial doubts, after a few days outside I had at least gained a grudging respect for Martin’s hard work and dedication. I still was not keen to extend the search inside the house with the dog; however, I reluctantly conceded that we should look at all our possibilities so that we could walk away and say that we had given it a good shot. You can see me standing looking less than confident.
00.00.45 The first indication that the dog (Eddie) is finding something amiss. His behaviour has changed, and is remarked on by the handler. He is initially reacting further down from where we were to eventually find the initial fragment, (which ILM and others still incorrectly claim to be definitively identified as coconut) and in the flow of the drainage from the area where it was found. To clarify, Eddie is trained to trace the scent of dead human flesh. He will react where this scent is found, not necessarily where it was originally located. His strongest reaction will normally be where that scent is strongest, which will usually be where the dead flesh has lain longest, but he will sense it in areas where the scent has been carried, for instance, by drains.
00.01.08 Eddie is starting to react strongly now. Although still some yards from the finding of JAR/6, he smells something which has been carried down in the drainage from the original source. We were later to find that the drain ran down from where we found JAR/6 and where the bones were found by the builders, who suspected that they were also the bones of juveniles. One of them identified a child’s pelvic bone from the internet. These bones were found with children’s’ shoes which were to be later the source of interesting conflicts between the evidence of the pathologists and the staff at the Jersey Museum.
00.01.50 The doors and wall where Eddie is reacting so strongly now lead into the room where the top wall adjoins the stair area where JAR/6 (the infamous initial fragment) was found. Note the change in the dog’s behaviour, and the strong indication from his that there is something to be investigated here. It is important to note at this point, that the dog is only telling us that the scent of human death is here. He is not telling us that there has been a murder; he is not telling us that this is the spot where a body has been buried. He is only telling us that the scent of human death is at this spot. He is saying, “There is something here for you to investigate.” It is worthy of note, that this is also next to the location where builders found the bones which they thought were human juveniles, and where they were told that if they found bones to let “bygones be bygones.”
00.02.25 Eddie is now at the doors leading to the stairwell where both JAR/6 and the “builders’ bones” were found. Note that he is reacting strongly. To corroborate Eddie’s reaction we used the most up to date geological equipment supplied to us by the British Army and the Metropolitan Police (more services obtained through the use of contacts and a hospitality budget!) for which we paid nothing. These surveys confirmed inconsistencies in the sub floor levels.
00.02.39 Eddie is telling us that there is something we need to investigate on the other side of the door and he wants through to indicate this to us.
00.02.58 Eddie is now reacting very strongly and indicating to us that the scent of dead human flesh is in this location. This is where we were to find JAR/6, which the establishment continue to say was only coconut, but cannot explain how Eddie reacted as he did, nor indeed, how the lab at Oxford found Collagen.
Collagen is not found in coconut or wood, it is only present in mammals, which would seem to destroy the claims of the Jersey establishment, aided and abetted by the Jersey Evening Post and Channel Television, that JAR/6 is coconut or wood. Again, it is worthy of recall, that the builders who found the bones at this location thought they were human, and that one of them actually identified a bone as that of a child’s pelvic bone from the internet. Additionally, the police officer who was called to the scene was also dubious of the bones’ origins, as was the female pathologist who attended. She “did not like” the situation and referred the matter to her boss who said the bones where not consistent with being human. However, an Anthropologist later stated that he was incorrect and the measurements he quoted were entirely consistent with the bones being children’s’ pelvic bones as identified by one of the builders. The Anthropologist further stated that the Pathologist was not qualified to make the statement that he had.
00.04.06 Now Eddie has just left the wall adjoining the stair area where he reacted earlier. The drains in the building run from those stairs, under the adjoining wall, and down the room where we are now standing. As the dog is trained to detect the scent of dead human flesh, he is now following the strong scent emanating from the other side of the wall and being carried in the drains under the floor of this room and down the room towards the corridor seen earlier in the video.
00.04.15 Note the dog’s return to the wall. This was almost the exact spot where JAR/6 was found. It is a few inches from where the builders found the bones which they thought were human and which they were told about, “Let bygones be bygones.” If this dog was a waste of money, then how did he lead us to this exact spot? How did he later, in the ‘live’ presence of Wendy Kinnard (the then Home Affairs Minister) and Graham Power (the then Chief Police Officer), lead us to the bones in the cellars which an Anthropologist in the United Kingdom said were “fleshed and fresh” when burnt and buried? It cannot be a co-incidence that this dog, trained to detect the scent of dead human flesh, reacted so strongly in an area where we were to find a fragment of substance initially identified by a professional, accomplished, Anthropologist, as a part of a child’s skull, and right beside the spot where builders found bones and children’s shoes which they thought were human bones. No amount of spin by Le Marquand and others can contradict this, and no amount of misinformation from Warcup and Gradwell can conceal this truth.
00.04.41 Eddie still on stairs, right above the location where JAR/6 was found. He comes down again to the exact spot.
00.05.20 Eddie still reacting strongly at the spot where JAR/6 was found.
This is the live video, filmed on a mobile phone as it happened. The film was made by the Homicide Search Advisor of the National Policing Improvement Agency, on his mobile phone. He was to later say that the way we had carried out the search of HDLG was a “shining example” and should be documented as an example of good practice. Where has this recommendation been lost in the mists? The reactions of the dog speak for themselves. Eddie is not telling us that murder was committed at HDLG. He is telling us that somewhere in the floor-space of the premises; the scent of human death has been present. He is telling us that there is something there for us to investigate. His findings have been corroborated by the finding of the bones and teeth, by the results of the surveys carried out by the most sophisticated of electronic geological equipment, and by the evidence of builders and former residents and victims of abuse in HDLG. This video totally contradicts the spin of Frank Walker, Andrew Lewis and Diane Simon of the Jersey Evening Post, all of whom were taken on a tour of the building and given a demonstration of the ability and capability of Eddie and his companion "Keela" the blood detection dog. All of them were aware of the true situation relating to the dog and the finds. All of them, for their own reasons, chose to ignore the truth and to peddle the myths of those seeking to discredit the victims of the horrific abuse within HDLG. They are now, in my opinion, exposed as craven cowards and not fit to lick those victims’ boots. As for Martin Grimes (sic) and the dogs that they have tried to discredit, they are now working full time for one of the best Law Enforcement Agencies in the world in the USA.
So what we have there is a pathologist (a physician who interprets and diagnoses the changes caused by disease in tissues and body fluids) claiming that the bones found weren't human, and an anthropologist (someone who can examine human skeletal remains to determine the identity of unidentified bones.) claiming that the bones were human. Have a guess whose opinion was taken as correct. The pathologist said the findings were coconut shell, and it is this claim that our child abuse apologist, Safari Sara goes along with. The mere fact that a lab in Oxford found collagen, (something that is only present in mammals, NOT coconut) doesn't put Sara off her false claims, Sara doesn't fall into the category of dense as lead like poor Mrs Winch, a draft doesn't WHOOSH through her ears as with Wendy Grandfield. This is the other evidence that was found on the HDLG site:
JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.
JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.
JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.
JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.
JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.
JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.
JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of bone ?human.
JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
Submitted to odontologist, see report.
JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.
JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human
JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.
Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)
JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.
JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process
JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone ?human.
JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.
GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs
Sara has been shown the facts many times, yet she still spouts more coconut crap than a bounty production line.
Why?
Because it suits her agenda.
What is her agenda?
To back the McCanns, OR to to back ALL child abusers?
Moving on, let's look at the case of Joana Cipriano, now this is another case of extreme child abuse, and Safari Sara uses this one to discredit Goncalo Amaral, she's not alone either, she is supported by that other font of misinformation, the buck toothed fiend Pamela Gurney.
On the 12th September 2004, Joana Cipriano disappeared from the village of Figueira, near Portimão, in the Portuguese region of the Algarve. The investigation by the Portuguese Judiciary Police (Polícia Judiciária - PJ) ended with the conviction for murder of Leonor and João Cipriano, Joana's mother and uncle. The prosecution claimed that Joana was killed because she saw her mother and João Cipriano, her mother's brother, having incestuous sex, in accordance with the testimony of the stepfather of Leandro Silva, the common-law husband of Leonor Cipriano. Leonor Cipriano confessed to killing her daughter. Her uncle confessed to having beaten her up after which she stood "quiet on the floor". He said he cut his niece's body in small pieces, put her in a fridge box, then put her inside an old car that was taken to Spain to be crushed and burned. When he was asked if he had sexually abused his niece he said in the presence of his lawyer "I did not harm her, I only killed her"
Goncalo Amaral was the lead detective in this case, now the impression that Sara and Pamela like to give is that Goncalo and his team beat a confession from Joana's mother Leonor, and that Goncalo played a part in this beating. This lie, as with the above coconut cobblers is lapped up by the pros, some believe it, which no doubt bring Sara and Pam much happiness. The simple facts are as follows:
At the time of Leonor's alleged beating Goncalo Amaral wasn't anywhere near the building.
Leonor Cipriano was given an extra 7 months for lying about being beaten by the PJ.
The only thing Goncalo did was to fill in the paperwork incorrectly regarding Leonor's injuries.
Leonor's injuries couldn't be attributed to anybody, and it was claimed in court by a fellow inmate, that it was prisoners that gave her these injuries.
The only reason Leonor made these claims, was to try and get off on the charge of murdering her own daughter, and feeding her body to pigs, which she did to cover up an incestual affair with her brother, she deserved everything she got.
Do you hear the pros congratulating Amaral and his team for catching these two child killers?
Not a chance, they wouldn't let that get in the way of discrediting Goncalo Amaral, whilst at the same time being apologists for child abusers! As I pointed out at the beginning of this post, pros like Safari Sara, and Pamela Gurney worry me greatly when they knowingly use such slurs to discredit people or facts.
I ask the question again, is their agenda merely to protect their heroes the McCanns, or are we dealing with something far more twisted and sick? As I said, pro McCanns that deal with facts I have no problem with, it is a free country, and thank God it is, but child abuse apologists posing as pro McCanns who knowingly lie, now that is something very sinister and wrong indeed.
There are those who rightly or wrongly believe the McCanns to be innocent, and will quote facts to back up their claims. I have no issue with that.
Then there are those who are friends with the McCanns or their family, and yes some of these people are active on facebook and twitter, some are probably decent people away from the keyboard, some are most certainly not.
We have a minority, within the minority that call themselves pros, but are actually nothing more than sad lonely individuals who jump from case to case with the sole intention of "trolling". I hate that term, it is far too readily thrown around for the sake of it. The press love to use it to describe anybody who asks questions, as we all too well know.
Then of course we have the extremely stupid, I'm not talking leaving your bath running here, I'm talking eating crayons because colourful stuff looks appetising. I'm talking about those who are so innately lacking in brain power that no matter how many times you show them a link to disprove what they are saying, they won't have it, and in barely legible writing will tell you that it is you who is thick. Basically we're talking about the likes of Alfibab3 (from twitter) whose real name is Wendy Grandfield.
So that leaves us with one other type of pro, now this type of pro is extremely worrying. For those of you on twitter, you may have come across a tweeter who goes by the name of Safari Sara, and boy is Sara a weird un. Sara loves to claim she is debunking the evidence of the dogs, and also claims to discredit Amaral. Now the two ways she does this is to use the Haut de la Garenne child abuse investigation in Jersey in 2008, and the investigation into the horrendous murder of 8 year old Joana Cipriano, which Goncalo headed in 2004.
Firstly let's look briefly at the background of HDLG, how Eddie, the human cadaver and human blood dog was deployed, what he found, then how the disturbed mind of Sara makes out that nothing untoward happened there, and goes onto claim Eddie's alerts were false.
HDLG was opened in 1867 with the purpose of being a school for neglected children, it went on to serve a few purposes, but it's main use was as a childrens home, until in 1986 the home closed. After the home's closure it was used for a short period as a temporary respite centre for children with special needs. When you think of the number of vulnerable children that passed through the building's doors, and knowing what we now know went on there, it sends shivers down your spine. Most of us, thankfully, can only imagine the horrific happenings that took place, and what it must be like to be scared and alone, with no one to trust, no family to help you, and abused at the hands of those who are supposed to be your saviours.
In February 2008 a police investigation started on site at the home, this investigation was brought about after allegations of the abuse, and murder of children at the home. Eddie, the dog widely regarded as the best in the world, and who had also, the year previous worked on the Madeleine McCann case, was brought in with his trainer, Martin Grime. Below is a link, filmed by the Homicide Search Advisor of the National Policing Improvement Agency, present with him at the time was former Deputy Chief Police Officer Mr. Lenny Harper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THoDAqUTl48
As you will hear from the start of the video, Mr Harper was in no way confident as to Eddie's abilities, not least of all because of the bad press Eddie had received at the hands of pro McCann claims after his findings in 2007. That opinion was soon to change, as you can see by the report he made to accompany the video below, take note at some of the amazing tests that Eddie passed with flying colours Mr Harper describes at the start of his report. JAR/6 is a fragment of a child's skull:
00.00.0 Getting ready. I was reluctant to let the dog inside as I did not feel that it would do much good. In truth, I was a little sceptical – I had not felt a favourable impression from the handler (Martin Grimes (sic)) at our initial meeting and I was dubious, although my opinion of his qualities and integrity was to markedly change as events unfolded. I began to realise as I worked closely with him over a period of months that what I originally took as arrogance was simply supreme confidence in the ability of his dogs in the face of jealous, empire protecting rivals who were not as professionally capable. Throughout the investigation, we subjected Martin and his dogs to many ‘verifying’ tests, from burying swabs in sand (which he always found no matter how large an area), to minute blood stains. The dogs never failed. Many of these tests were carried out in front of Jersey politicians and media, including Channel Television and Diane Simon of the JEP. Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis were only two of the politicians who witnessed the ability of the dogs in hugely impressive displays. Funny how they all forgot this when they jumped on the bandwagon which sought to ruin Martin Grime’s reputation. One of the most spectacular exercises occurred when one of the Anthropologists brought a vial of sand back that she had removed from the tomb of a mummy in Egypt. We put this vial on a beach, below the sand, and let Eddie off to look for it. The dog amazingly sought it out in a few minutes and gave us the reaction you will see in this video. To get back to the start of the video and my initial doubts, after a few days outside I had at least gained a grudging respect for Martin’s hard work and dedication. I still was not keen to extend the search inside the house with the dog; however, I reluctantly conceded that we should look at all our possibilities so that we could walk away and say that we had given it a good shot. You can see me standing looking less than confident.
00.00.45 The first indication that the dog (Eddie) is finding something amiss. His behaviour has changed, and is remarked on by the handler. He is initially reacting further down from where we were to eventually find the initial fragment, (which ILM and others still incorrectly claim to be definitively identified as coconut) and in the flow of the drainage from the area where it was found. To clarify, Eddie is trained to trace the scent of dead human flesh. He will react where this scent is found, not necessarily where it was originally located. His strongest reaction will normally be where that scent is strongest, which will usually be where the dead flesh has lain longest, but he will sense it in areas where the scent has been carried, for instance, by drains.
00.01.08 Eddie is starting to react strongly now. Although still some yards from the finding of JAR/6, he smells something which has been carried down in the drainage from the original source. We were later to find that the drain ran down from where we found JAR/6 and where the bones were found by the builders, who suspected that they were also the bones of juveniles. One of them identified a child’s pelvic bone from the internet. These bones were found with children’s’ shoes which were to be later the source of interesting conflicts between the evidence of the pathologists and the staff at the Jersey Museum.
00.01.50 The doors and wall where Eddie is reacting so strongly now lead into the room where the top wall adjoins the stair area where JAR/6 (the infamous initial fragment) was found. Note the change in the dog’s behaviour, and the strong indication from his that there is something to be investigated here. It is important to note at this point, that the dog is only telling us that the scent of human death is here. He is not telling us that there has been a murder; he is not telling us that this is the spot where a body has been buried. He is only telling us that the scent of human death is at this spot. He is saying, “There is something here for you to investigate.” It is worthy of note, that this is also next to the location where builders found the bones which they thought were human juveniles, and where they were told that if they found bones to let “bygones be bygones.”
00.02.25 Eddie is now at the doors leading to the stairwell where both JAR/6 and the “builders’ bones” were found. Note that he is reacting strongly. To corroborate Eddie’s reaction we used the most up to date geological equipment supplied to us by the British Army and the Metropolitan Police (more services obtained through the use of contacts and a hospitality budget!) for which we paid nothing. These surveys confirmed inconsistencies in the sub floor levels.
00.02.39 Eddie is telling us that there is something we need to investigate on the other side of the door and he wants through to indicate this to us.
00.02.58 Eddie is now reacting very strongly and indicating to us that the scent of dead human flesh is in this location. This is where we were to find JAR/6, which the establishment continue to say was only coconut, but cannot explain how Eddie reacted as he did, nor indeed, how the lab at Oxford found Collagen.
Collagen is not found in coconut or wood, it is only present in mammals, which would seem to destroy the claims of the Jersey establishment, aided and abetted by the Jersey Evening Post and Channel Television, that JAR/6 is coconut or wood. Again, it is worthy of recall, that the builders who found the bones at this location thought they were human, and that one of them actually identified a bone as that of a child’s pelvic bone from the internet. Additionally, the police officer who was called to the scene was also dubious of the bones’ origins, as was the female pathologist who attended. She “did not like” the situation and referred the matter to her boss who said the bones where not consistent with being human. However, an Anthropologist later stated that he was incorrect and the measurements he quoted were entirely consistent with the bones being children’s’ pelvic bones as identified by one of the builders. The Anthropologist further stated that the Pathologist was not qualified to make the statement that he had.
00.04.06 Now Eddie has just left the wall adjoining the stair area where he reacted earlier. The drains in the building run from those stairs, under the adjoining wall, and down the room where we are now standing. As the dog is trained to detect the scent of dead human flesh, he is now following the strong scent emanating from the other side of the wall and being carried in the drains under the floor of this room and down the room towards the corridor seen earlier in the video.
00.04.15 Note the dog’s return to the wall. This was almost the exact spot where JAR/6 was found. It is a few inches from where the builders found the bones which they thought were human and which they were told about, “Let bygones be bygones.” If this dog was a waste of money, then how did he lead us to this exact spot? How did he later, in the ‘live’ presence of Wendy Kinnard (the then Home Affairs Minister) and Graham Power (the then Chief Police Officer), lead us to the bones in the cellars which an Anthropologist in the United Kingdom said were “fleshed and fresh” when burnt and buried? It cannot be a co-incidence that this dog, trained to detect the scent of dead human flesh, reacted so strongly in an area where we were to find a fragment of substance initially identified by a professional, accomplished, Anthropologist, as a part of a child’s skull, and right beside the spot where builders found bones and children’s shoes which they thought were human bones. No amount of spin by Le Marquand and others can contradict this, and no amount of misinformation from Warcup and Gradwell can conceal this truth.
00.04.41 Eddie still on stairs, right above the location where JAR/6 was found. He comes down again to the exact spot.
00.05.20 Eddie still reacting strongly at the spot where JAR/6 was found.
This is the live video, filmed on a mobile phone as it happened. The film was made by the Homicide Search Advisor of the National Policing Improvement Agency, on his mobile phone. He was to later say that the way we had carried out the search of HDLG was a “shining example” and should be documented as an example of good practice. Where has this recommendation been lost in the mists? The reactions of the dog speak for themselves. Eddie is not telling us that murder was committed at HDLG. He is telling us that somewhere in the floor-space of the premises; the scent of human death has been present. He is telling us that there is something there for us to investigate. His findings have been corroborated by the finding of the bones and teeth, by the results of the surveys carried out by the most sophisticated of electronic geological equipment, and by the evidence of builders and former residents and victims of abuse in HDLG. This video totally contradicts the spin of Frank Walker, Andrew Lewis and Diane Simon of the Jersey Evening Post, all of whom were taken on a tour of the building and given a demonstration of the ability and capability of Eddie and his companion "Keela" the blood detection dog. All of them were aware of the true situation relating to the dog and the finds. All of them, for their own reasons, chose to ignore the truth and to peddle the myths of those seeking to discredit the victims of the horrific abuse within HDLG. They are now, in my opinion, exposed as craven cowards and not fit to lick those victims’ boots. As for Martin Grimes (sic) and the dogs that they have tried to discredit, they are now working full time for one of the best Law Enforcement Agencies in the world in the USA.
So what we have there is a pathologist (a physician who interprets and diagnoses the changes caused by disease in tissues and body fluids) claiming that the bones found weren't human, and an anthropologist (someone who can examine human skeletal remains to determine the identity of unidentified bones.) claiming that the bones were human. Have a guess whose opinion was taken as correct. The pathologist said the findings were coconut shell, and it is this claim that our child abuse apologist, Safari Sara goes along with. The mere fact that a lab in Oxford found collagen, (something that is only present in mammals, NOT coconut) doesn't put Sara off her false claims, Sara doesn't fall into the category of dense as lead like poor Mrs Winch, a draft doesn't WHOOSH through her ears as with Wendy Grandfield. This is the other evidence that was found on the HDLG site:
JAR/30: 3-4; 1940s to 1980s. Two fragments of burnt bone one is fragment of longbone? Tibia. Submitted to University of Sheffield with KSH/158. Origin confirmed as human. Submitted for dating awaiting results.
JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. ?human.
JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.
JAR/54: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
4 fragments of calcined bone ?human.
JAR/55: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of calcined bone ?human.
JAR/57:183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
2 fragments of bone of unknown origin.
JAR/56: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
1 fragment of bone ?human.
JAR/67: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human Tooth: deciduous left maxillary first molar, age 9 yrs ± 3 yrs. Could have been shed naturally (Anthro exam).
Submitted to odontologist, see report.
JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.
JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human
JAR/90: 183 Cellar 3 Zone 3 East.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments of unidentified bone of unknown species. One which is calcined is possibly human bone.
Cellar 4 Context 169 (redeposited char material from fire elsewhere. Unsealed)
JAR/36: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.
JAR/37: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone. ?human mastoid process
JAR/39: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of burnt bone ?human.
JAR/40: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragment of bone ?human.
GMK/18: 169. Cellar 4 E. Charred material at southern end of Zone 4. Equivalent to 127.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Human tooth. Anthro exam – deciduous left maxillary lateral incisor. Age range 6 yrs ± 2yrs
Sara has been shown the facts many times, yet she still spouts more coconut crap than a bounty production line.
Why?
Because it suits her agenda.
What is her agenda?
To back the McCanns, OR to to back ALL child abusers?
Moving on, let's look at the case of Joana Cipriano, now this is another case of extreme child abuse, and Safari Sara uses this one to discredit Goncalo Amaral, she's not alone either, she is supported by that other font of misinformation, the buck toothed fiend Pamela Gurney.
On the 12th September 2004, Joana Cipriano disappeared from the village of Figueira, near Portimão, in the Portuguese region of the Algarve. The investigation by the Portuguese Judiciary Police (Polícia Judiciária - PJ) ended with the conviction for murder of Leonor and João Cipriano, Joana's mother and uncle. The prosecution claimed that Joana was killed because she saw her mother and João Cipriano, her mother's brother, having incestuous sex, in accordance with the testimony of the stepfather of Leandro Silva, the common-law husband of Leonor Cipriano. Leonor Cipriano confessed to killing her daughter. Her uncle confessed to having beaten her up after which she stood "quiet on the floor". He said he cut his niece's body in small pieces, put her in a fridge box, then put her inside an old car that was taken to Spain to be crushed and burned. When he was asked if he had sexually abused his niece he said in the presence of his lawyer "I did not harm her, I only killed her"
Goncalo Amaral was the lead detective in this case, now the impression that Sara and Pamela like to give is that Goncalo and his team beat a confession from Joana's mother Leonor, and that Goncalo played a part in this beating. This lie, as with the above coconut cobblers is lapped up by the pros, some believe it, which no doubt bring Sara and Pam much happiness. The simple facts are as follows:
At the time of Leonor's alleged beating Goncalo Amaral wasn't anywhere near the building.
Leonor Cipriano was given an extra 7 months for lying about being beaten by the PJ.
The only thing Goncalo did was to fill in the paperwork incorrectly regarding Leonor's injuries.
Leonor's injuries couldn't be attributed to anybody, and it was claimed in court by a fellow inmate, that it was prisoners that gave her these injuries.
The only reason Leonor made these claims, was to try and get off on the charge of murdering her own daughter, and feeding her body to pigs, which she did to cover up an incestual affair with her brother, she deserved everything she got.
Do you hear the pros congratulating Amaral and his team for catching these two child killers?
Not a chance, they wouldn't let that get in the way of discrediting Goncalo Amaral, whilst at the same time being apologists for child abusers! As I pointed out at the beginning of this post, pros like Safari Sara, and Pamela Gurney worry me greatly when they knowingly use such slurs to discredit people or facts.
I ask the question again, is their agenda merely to protect their heroes the McCanns, or are we dealing with something far more twisted and sick? As I said, pro McCanns that deal with facts I have no problem with, it is a free country, and thank God it is, but child abuse apologists posing as pro McCanns who knowingly lie, now that is something very sinister and wrong indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







