Affaire Maddie McCann. Comment la disparition d'une enfant au Portugal en 2007, portée par une houle médiatique déferlante, fut alimentée comme un grand fauve insatiable. En quoi ce ténébreux fait-divers mit en danger la liberté d'expression, ce qu'on y apprend sur la nature humaine et pourquoi rien n'est plus contraire à la sagesse qu'un excès de subterfuges, comme lorsque les apparences ont la préséance. Nil sapientiæ odiosius acumine nimio (Sénèque?), repris par Poe ("La lettre volée").
Citation
"Grâce à la liberté dans les communications, des groupes d’hommes de même nature pourront se réunir et fonder des communautés. Les nations seront dépassées" - Friedrich Nietzsche (Fragments posthumes XIII-883)
Gone With The Wind The Corpse Ride Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted Paint Your Bandwagon The Ruby Hat of Old Ma McCann Keeping Up With The Jones's Something for the Weekend Watch That Space Duplicity Metaphoric comprehension revisited
Gone With The Wind –
02.02.2015
Once upon a time there
was a little girl who disappeared under mysterious circumstances in
Portugal. Thanks to the reach of the mainstream media and, above all,
the internet, the case was discussed worldwide. People were concerned
that an infant could be abducted from child-friendly holiday
accommodation overseas. Others were concerned as to whether they were
actually being told the truth.
These concerns, for child
welfare, truth, and justice, have spanned nearly eight years. But, as
the earth has rotated and the sun illuminated other areas of the
forest, vines have gained a foot-hold and now bedeck the canopy.
Scarcely visible as such, it is little more than a mass of aerial
weeds scrambling for support, the more significant foliage all but
forgotten. And beneath, in the darkness, who knows what remains
hidden? Peer Gynt? Trolls?
Indeed we are all now
witnesses to a squalid evolution. Whereas the focus was once upon the
identification of whoever might have removed the little girl from her
locked/unlocked apartment, attention has now drifted to the
identification of outsiders, members of the wider public (opinion
holders, not formers), as subscribers to one or another camp,
resident in one or another patch of darkness, deep in a forest of
ignorance. In the Hall of the Mountain King it's considered important
to recognise the trolls, although the Mountain King himself is
occupied elsewhere.
And once the ravages of
this civil war have ceased, what will have been established? Certain
reputations may have been laid waste, others buried even deeper in
the slime from which they strove to emerge. And those who merely
wanted to see the wood for the trees, but were denied a clear view by
the rampant undergrowth; what will they have to say? In the immortal
words of Rhett Butler, echoed in song by Billy Joel: 'Frankly my
dear, I don't give a damn'.
There's a Sasquatch in
that forest somewhere. Its name begins with 'M'. And we WILL find it,
without either help or interference from trolls, of any complexion.
The Corpse Ride –
13.02.2015
The magnificent seven
In the early summer of
2007, a Renault Scenic (registration number 59-DA-27) was used to
transport some decaying matter (garden waste) somewhere in the
Portuguese Algarve. Ironically, it afterwards smelt of human death
and decay. One of its several registered drivers thought the pungent,
unfamiliar, odour was the consequence of leaking shopping bags, full
of red meat and fish, but the behaviour of a specialised dog with a
keener sense of smell later suggested otherwise. Of course the dog
was not to know that another of the vehicle's registered drivers (a
Leicester-based GP), was wearing the same clothes on holiday that she
had previously worn while sitting with deceased former patients at
home in the UK, and holding a child's toy for comfort.
One of the dead fish
carried back from the market in July 2007 must have been called
Wanda, so nearly incredible is it that this vehicle, hired by the
McCann family on 27 May (to facilitate their move to alternative
accommodation, some 1.5 km distant from the holiday apartment they
had previously rented), should itself become a suspect in the
disappearance of the family's three-year old daughter Madeleine.
Investigation into the
circumstances of the child Madeleine's disappearance led to the
unsavoury conclusion that she had been transported in this voiture
sometime after her absence was first noted (a suspicious possibility
indeed); furthermore, that she might not have been entirely healthy
at the time. Given this train of thought on the part of
investigators, it is not at all difficult to appreciate how the
sniffer dog's reaction might have come to be interpreted as having
something to do with the child's fate. But as we know, or have at
least been told, this coalescence of events was nothing more than a
remarkable coincidence, leading to a complete misunderstanding.
Madeleine's perplexed
parents have asked, rhetorically for the most part, exactly when this
extraordinary act of transportation could possibly have occurred, in
a car they hired 'weeks later'. A good question, to which there may
yet be an answer.
Delivered and signed for
on 27 May, the 'his and hearse' MPV was used to transport the goods
and chattels of the McCanns to a villa on the outskirts of Praia da
Luz on 2 July ("We completed our move to the new accommodation
today" – Gerry McCann). The 'fresh food' shopping (and
subsequent cleaning), by odour-sensitive, driver for all seasons,
Sandy Cameron, must have taken place before he and his wife departed
Portugal for the UK, on the 29th. In the meantime they too resided at
the McCanns' new, albeit temporary, villa home.
Sandy Cameron was not
merely a named driver in this instance. According to a much later
interview with UK Police (15.4.08) he was the 'habitual driver' and
used the car daily, acting largely as chauffeur to the McCanns' two
younger children. No one, not even Sandy Cameron, makes any mention
of nasal discomfort during trips made in the car early that month
(July). In fact, when describing the perceived need for a 'valet', he
explains that it arose later on ("After this shopping trip and
still in the month of July 2007, I began to notice a strange odour in
the car."), indicating that some time had elapsed between his
conveyance of fresh fish (and/or garden waste) and his noticing the
noxious smell, 'still in the month of July', and obviously before he
left for the UK.
'A stitch in time saves
nine', so they say. Preventive measures are therefore the order of
the day. It would have been a bit too late to start worrying about
the removal of garden waste etc., once Sandy C. had gone and the
police sniffer dogs had arrived, which they did on 30 July.
Thankfully, the McCanns were being kept abreast of developments ("We
were well aware that these developments were going to happen. We were
informed in advance" – Gerry McCann). Although they had a
'routine meeting' with Police in Portugal on the very same day the
dogs turned up, that could scarcely be interpreted as making them
'well aware', since it would have left them no time in which to
attend to all that garbage. However, a longer than expected meeting
with Police had already taken place, on Wednesday the 18th.
Kate McCann has more
recently returned to her own rhetorical question as regards
misadventure involving the hire car, which, like their daughter, was
scarcely left unattended, offering little if any scope for abuse. It
came during an exchange with a judge in Lisbon:
Judge – "Do you
recall an interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã?"
Kate Healy – "He
gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was
exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen
and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks
later."
This is indeed an
interesting observation. Whatever support the Portuguese police may
have believed they had for their theory that Madeleine's frozen body
was eventually relocated, there is nothing to suggest they were ever
in a position to specify exactly when such a deed might have been
accomplished, i.e., 'seven weeks later', some unspecified time after
May 3, when Madeleine is said to have disappeared, and whilst the
McCanns were still resident within the Ocean Club complex. Perhaps
Kate McCann was talking about the car having been rented 'seven weeks
later'. But that doesn't work either, as the car was delivered to
them on 27 May – barely three weeks later. What on earth is she
talking about here? Well, what happens if we consider seven weeks
post-delivery of the car?
Take five
Seven weeks on from 27
May takes us into July, by a fortnight at least, Monday 16th marking
commencement of the seventh week. On the 18th the McCanns had their
unusually lengthy meeting with police, and on Saturday 21st, the last
working day of their seventh week of car usage, they did what?
"Spent the day with
the kids and visited the Algarve Zoo Marine" is what, Gerry
McCann clearly tiring of writing 'Kate & I' all the while, as he
had done in his blog on so many previous occasions, even as recently
as the day before.
So there they all were,
presumably, Kate, Gerry, and the twins, not forgetting of course
their chauffeur, Sandy Cameron, who "drove the children to the
zoo and the beaches in the area" - an entirely reasonable
assumption, although those with a professional interest in statement
analysis would recognise the potential significance attaching to the
complete absence of any subject pronoun from Gerry McCann's
statement. 'Spent the day with the kids', etc., does not tell us who
did so exactly.
Presumably they all
ambled around the zoo within conversing distance of each other -
hailing distance at worst. Except that being separated, even by the
sort of space that exists between a ground-floor apartment and a
Tapas restaurant, does nothing to explain why Kate and Gerry McCann
should have felt the need to speak to each other by 'phone!
Gerry McCann was
demonstrably in the vicinity of Guia Zoomarine when he telephoned
Kate shortly after 1.00 p.m., but where was she when twice returning
his calls forty-five minutes later? They must still have been some
distance apart when Gerry called back again just after 4.30.
Kate's handset activated
the Luz antenna, not the same one as intercepted Gerry's calls at
all, and each of these radio masts has an operational radius of
several kilometres at least. Whilst Kate McCann may not have been
'phoning her husband from the infamous 'triangle' therefore, it is by
no means the case that she was necessarily standing in the middle of
the town square either. Intriguingly Kate's diary entry for 21 July,
unlike Gerry's blog, makes no reference whatsoever to visiting the
zoo, despite her daily record being otherwise littered with such
trivia.
Only 24 hours earlier,
Kate McCann had taken the afternoon off (to deal with a backlog of
e-mails apparently), while Gerry accompanied 'the kids' to the beach.
She would not have needed to skip off home from the zoo for that same
purpose therefore. Gerry McCann made his personal contribution to
communications management six days later, on 27 July, spending most
of that day "dealing with e-mails and making calls planning
future events", until 5.00 p.m., when he left Praia da Luz and,
shortly after 6.45 p.m., checked his voicemail messages whilst in the
vicinity of Sagres, no doubt grateful to Sandy Cameron for having
cleaned the car in the meantime.
What further stimulates
interest in Kate McCann's whereabouts that Saturday afternoon (21
July) are the entries in her own diary for the 18th and 23rd, dates
on either side:
"WEDNESDAY, JULY 18:
It was suggested that Madeleine is dead and buried in an area close
to the beach, behind the cliff."
"MONDAY 23 JULY: I
got up at 7.00 and went running. I was surrounded by a pack of dogs
(more or less 12) – it really wasn't a nice experience. I went to
the flat, high part of the cliff as I felt really alone and a little
frightened. Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here."
Reference here is to
'dead and buried' on the 18th, 'buried' on the 23rd. Chronologically,
she did not put the cart before the horse at least. In-between there
was the 21 July trip to the zoo, concluding that seventh week (from
May 27).
In her diary, covering
the period 4 May until 31 July, Kate McCann mentions 'death' on only
three occasions. The first is on 4 May, when she asks, rhetorically,
"Is she dead?" The other two references are as just
described.
However, the week
commencing Monday 16 July was also that when South African Danie
Krugel, and his 'invention' (a missing people locator), joined the
search for Madeleine. Since his field-work in this case was monitored
by the police, one has to consider the possibility that it is this
exercise which spawned Kate's observation of the 18th, as above. Her
diary entry for that date continues:
"What can I say? I
feel my body's on the verge of collapse. How much pain and emotion
can one body take? I had a bad afternoon. I was very worried,
desperate, extremely on edge. I don't think I can take any more of
this, I really can't. How much longer will this suffering go on? I
need Madeleine ALIVE."
Dead reckoning
One could be forgiven for
supposing Kate McCann was 'on edge' for reasons other than anxiety
over the welfare of her missing daughter. Nevertheless, Krugel's work
extended over four days, sixteen hours a day, according to his own
account (later offered to both the Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mail
of 7 October). Additionally, he was at the same time quoted by the
News of The World as saying, "I spent four nights in July
carrying out my searches."
How then was Kate McCann
seemingly able to recount a suggestion of death and burial on Danie
Krugel's part after only 24 hours, before Krugel's work was even
finished, never mind documented? NPIA man Mark Harrison, who did not
arrive in PdL until his services were formally requested by the PJ on
20 July, wrote his report and conclusions concerning Krugel's
investigative methods on the 23rd.
This question is further
aggravated by Kate McCann's subsequent book ('madeleine'), in which
she describes how their meeting with the PJ on 18 July "ended
with a final body blow. Danie Krugel...had produced a report for the
PJ based on his findings." (p. 199)
'Had produced'? Prior to
this meeting even? Krugel had only just arrived in Praia da Luz, from
Portimao (on the afternoon of 16 July, at the earliest, according to
Goncalo Amaral, the 17th according to those duplicate accounts in the
Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mail, of 7 October). He would of course
proceed to invest four days (and nights?) in his personal search.
How can he possibly have
prepared a set of conclusions for the PJ before their meeting with
the McCanns on the 18th therefore? Once again, 'it was suggested'
offers no clue as to who in fact made the suggestion, or when. Nor
does Kate's diary entry attribute the suggestion to anyone in
particular. It is in her book that she renders it just possible,
describing the couple's return to Portugal from the UK as being
synchronous with Krugel's arrival in Praia da Luz ("We flew back
to Portugal early on the morning of Sunday 15 July – the day Danie
Krugel, his team and his 'matter orientation system' arrived in Praia
da Luz." p. 197-8).
Unfortunately she then
proceeds to compromise her own story.
"In spite of the
cynical tone of my diary entry, we were actually both quite excited
about the prospect of Danie's work, though I think this was probably
due more to the fact that something was happening which might take
the investigation forward than to absolute faith in his methods. It
might come to nothing, we knew that, but anything was better than the
sense of stagnation we felt was beginning to seep in." (p. 198)
What diary entry? Kate
made none for the period 13 -16 July, nor did she make any mention of
a meeting with Danie Krugel on the 17th. The book reference is
clearly to a conversation prior to, and in anticipation of, Krugel's
'search'. Even the opening remarks of Kate's 18 July entry can
scarcely be described as 'cynical'.
If a meeting between
Krugel and the McCanns took place between 15 and 17 July, as Kate
implies, then why did she make no reference to it whatsoever in her
'diary'? Krugel himself alluded to it that autumn at least, which
appears to confirm that it happened. Crucially however, he did not
reveal where or when. As far as Gerry McCann's blogs for the relevant
period are concerned, Danie Krugel is conspicuous only by his
absence, as is any mention of an alarming report emanating from his
'search'; a report that Gerry would surely have found no less
troubling than did his wife. Clearly the incident was of less
significance for Kate McCann than the twins' riding in 'Noddy's car'
and 'Popeye's boat' (7 July).
Kate's diary would go on
to underpin her later book. On her own admission therein, she did not
commence making diary entries as such until 23 May:
"Setting aside some
blank pages in the notebook I'd been given for the days that had
already passed, I wrote a few paragraphs on a couple of occasions the
following week, though I didn't begin in earnest until 23 May, twenty
days after Madeleine was taken. From then on, I kept my journal
consistently, and when I had a spare moment I went back and filled in
the blank pages with notes of our activities and my recollections of
every day since 3 May 2007." ('madeleine' p. 126-7 )
It is apparent from this,
Kate McCann's personal account, that her daily commentary for the
period 18 – 23 July should have been contemporaneous, i.e., not
overly retrospective and concomitantly subject to errors of recall.
That in itself is sufficient to cast serious doubt upon the veracity
of her entries concerning this potentially crucial weekend, although
Kate's memory for activities on any given day may well have been
suspect (e.g., "SATURDAY, JUNE 2: I can't remember today.").
On the face of it the
McCanns cannot have learned of Danie Krugel's reported conclusions at
the close of their meeting with the PJ on 18 July, as, with a
four-day search in prospect, he would not yet have arrived at them.
In which case, any reference by Kate McCann to death and/or burial
around this time is just as likely to have originated with Kate
herself, not with a third-party who, coincidentally, would go on to
confirm her suspicions.
Kate McCann has
apparently attempted, in her book, to shift Krugel's activities back
in time, just as she has eased others forwards. If so, she is at
least a day late, and a dollar short. Even if he got started on 16
July, by his own reckoning Danie Krugel will have just finished his
'work' on the 19th – a day after the McCanns meeting with the PJ.
It is always possible
however that Krugel exaggerated, or was misquoted in the press that
autumn. As far as he was concerned his four working days may have
included the Sunday of his arrival, if Sunday was indeed when he
landed, after which any one 24-hour period might have involved
sixteen hours of toil, though not all four days necessarily.
As to his meeting with
the McCanns, perhaps that was not so much a meeting with them
exclusively as one at which they happened also to be present. And yet
the 18th would have been too late to announce his intentions, which
were by then already accomplished. For his and Kate McCanns'
recollections to coincide, they would have to have met beforehand.
(The McCanns seem to have had rather more meetings with the PJ than
those they have deliberately brought to the attention of their
readers in any event).
Kate McCann's 'account of
the truth' though is open to question. So too is the diary. Her entry
for 17 July opens with: "Finding it very difficult to talk to
people from home, unless they are directly involved. It is difficult
to show an interest in other people's lives and children at the
moment." The pair had just returned from a christening, in
Yorkshire, of the Wrights' two children!
Gerry, at least, visited
the zoo on July 21st. On the 22nd, the eighth week after the car was
delivered to them, he left for America. In his wake, on the 23rd,
Kate exclaimed, "Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried
here". It seems, on this one occasion at least, as if God may
have been listening.
Back to the future
Credibility in this
instance appears to hinge upon exactly when Danie Krugel touched down
in Portugal from South Africa, as that would determine the time of
his eventual arrival in Praia da Luz to begin his 'search' ( i.e., 16
or 17 July). He did not appear in PdL that very Sunday, as Kate
McCann would have us believe. That said, Krugel's follow-up report to
the police was so trivial, by all accounts, he probably could have
handed it in after a day or so. Surprisingly perhaps (because it
again receives no mention whatsoever in 'the diary') the Krugel
expedition had in fact got under way several weeks earlier:
"So, in the second
week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda
back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking
for hairs that could only be Madeleine's. They came up with five head
hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from
her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa. They
didn't question what we were doing: they, too, were just desperate
for Madeleine to be home.
"A week or so
afterwards, Danie informed us that he had obtained 'signals' relating
to Praia da Luz, but that he would need to come over in July and
operate the machine in the Algarve to produce more accurate results
and pinpoint Madeleine's location." ('madeleine', p. 187)
If the McCanns' activity
in late July appears suspicious, the same could be said of their
previous movements that month.
Let's just recap that
Lisbon courtroom interaction:
Judge – "Do you
recall an interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã?"
Kate Healy – "He
gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was
exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen
and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks
later."
The PJ may well have been
lacking the specifics, but if there is one thing about which we can
be absolutely certain it is Kate McCann's adroit use of syntax.
Throughout her book there
are instances of her misleading the reader via their own spontaneous,
yet false, interpretations. Take the above for instance, where the
phrase 'seven weeks later' is positioned so as to qualify the
preceding 'car we had rented'. If, as we have already seen, one
applies this concatenation to events as they occurred, it makes no
sense at all; unless, that is, one treats reference to car rental as
commencing with its delivery.
There is another
possibility however - that with or without the PJ holding evidence at
the time, the word order of Kate's courtroom response ought to have
been:
"Where he said that
Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken, seven weeks
later, inside the boot of the car we had rented."
Seven weeks beyond 3 May
takes us to the week 21 – 28 June. Although Kate describes in her
diary matters of domestic importance arising on Sunday 24th and
Tuesday 26th, Monday 25th apparently failed to materialise. It didn't
happen. Nor did the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday (for Kate at any
rate), or indeed the entire first week in July! We have to resort to
page 186 of the book for any mention of the McCanns' suggesting to
the PJ, on 28 June, that Danie Krugel be invited to officiate in
Praia da Luz. Although the phrase 'dead and buried' is not used
explicitly, Krugel's area of expertise, so called, makes the
inference perfectly obvious.
Kate picks up the story
again on 7 July, which Gerry describes in his blog as a 'quiet family
day', saying nothing further. The more fulsome Kate however concludes
with: "(I can hardly wait to say "See you tomorrow.")"
Mmm.
Faites vos jeux
There appear therefore to
be two candidate periods in relation to Goncalo Amaral's seemingly
'ludicrous' suggestion. Unfortunately, Sandy Cameron's cover story,
as told in his Rogatory interview of 15.4.2008, does not allow us to
choose between them:
"On one occasion, I
believe it was in July of 2007, I took Patricia to the supermarket.
We carried bags in the boot (trunk) of the Renault Scenic; bought
various items including fresh fish, shrimp and beef. When we unloaded
the shopping bags, we noticed that blood has run out of the bottom of
the plastic bag. After this shopping trip and still in the month of
July 2007, I began to notice a strange odour in the car."
Perhaps the casting vote
should go to the concerned resident of Praia da Luz who, had she
bothered to approach the vehicle, might also have noticed a strange
odour, but who at least noticed the car boot open, day or night, from
the time it arrived with the McCanns at their new villa address.
Translated, her statement toward the end of the documentary, The
Truth of the Lie is given as:
"I drive down this
street every day to turn my car around at that end, and every time
that I passed the house I looked at the car, and the car always had
an open boot door, day or night."
The McCanns completed
their move to this accommodation, we are told, on 2 July. It wouldn't
be very long before Sandy set off to fetch the shrimp.
Madeleine McCann Was Not Abducted -
22.02.2015 Introduction Insight is a truly
wonderful thing. It nourishes and advances those who are able to
appreciate it. For the rest, knowledge is merely borrowed for the
purposes of reference, not genuinely shared. Things are either what
they are because we appreciate and understand what has been
established, or they are simply taken on trust, on an ‘it is said
by others’ basis. For seven years past a
watching international community has been witness to a growing
clamour of borrowed knowledge regarding the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann, hearsay tearing repeatedly through the fabric of
reason like a succession of tornados in America’s mid-west, and
bringing us more recently to the most ludicrous of situations; one in
which a UK police force is given a seemingly limitless budget, so as
to review and pursue a case over
which it has no legal jurisdiction, and in deliberate
disavowal of the evidence collated by the original investigators. In
an admitted collaboration with the UK government, they are acting ‘as
if the abduction happened in the UK’ without first, or indeed ever,
establishing whether ‘abduction’ happened at all. It is at this point that
I refer you wholeheartedly to the post that follows. Law enforcement agencies,
crime writers and Hollywood film producers are all perfectly aware
that the crux of any crime resides at the point of commencement, when
the perpetrator, however practised they may be, is most likely to
have made a mistake. The disappearance of Madeleine McCann involved
circumstantial criminals who did exactly that. To appreciate what
these data are telling us therefore, it is necessary to discard the
shroud that has been thrown over them in the intervening years and
look afresh at what has been staring at us all from the outset.
How likely is it that two
people can be independently mistaken about an open or shut situation?
How likely is it that these same two people should independently, yet
simultaneously, decide to ‘prune’ their respective cell ‘phone
memories? How likely is it also
that two different dogs, on two separate occasions, could show
interest in different, yet mutually corroborating, scents, and at the
very same loci? These are the fundamental
issues addressed here, and for which various bizarre, unrealistic,
even childish explanations have been proffered over time – as
knowledge for the undiscerning. If instead we open our eyes to
another’s insight, it soon becomes apparent that the origins of,
and explanations for, many of the reputedly paradoxical phenomena
associated with the case of Madeleine McCann do indeed reside at the
very beginning.
Should I so desire, I
could lay before you, anomalies related to this case, by the score.
As equally by the score, I could inundate you with unanswered
questions. But that is not my intention here today. Rather, I present
justthree, but extremely important
questions for your consideration. But these three chosen
questions are not exclusively for your perusal, they are in fact
directed at what I shall call the McCann Establishment, or for ease
here on in, the Establishment. That the Establishment
now includes the Prime Minister David Cameron, who, as a result of
pressure by Rebecca Brooks, pressure being a polite word for
coercion, as coercion is for blackmail one must say, is for the
intents of this post, quite academic. As for the involvement of
the Home Secretary, Theresa May, that involvement becomes a good deal
less academic, given the Home Secretary's overall responsibility for
the policing of the Nation. Granted that some of that responsibility
is now diminished since the introduction of police and crime
commissioners, a system laid bare to justifiable charges of nepotism,
I easily add. But that is by the by and concerns us little, for there
was no such office at the time of initiating a "review" of
the Madeleine McCann case by DCI Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard's
finest. Something, I think I can maintain, that is unique in the
history of English policing. But that uniqueness is far from alone,
as we shall see. Is it not unique, that in
the case of a missing child, presumed dead by the investigating
police force and for good reason, that when the very cornerstone of
the McCann's claim for a case of stranger abduction turns out to be a
tissue of lies, but is then seemingly
ignored by those charged with this nonsensical review? The McCanns set the
parameters. Before we had even heard
the name Madeleine McCann, the script had been written, distributed,
and was being learned by rote, albeit to an embarrassing degree, by
seemingly every member of the McCann's extended family and various
friends. The source of which, and undeniable, Kate and Gerry McCann. "The shutters had
been jemmied and poor wee Madeleine was taken." echoed every
family member, with unwavering similarity.
Meanwhile, Madeleine's
uncle, John McCann, from Glasgow, countered criticism from those who
say the couple were wrong to leave their children alone in the
holiday apartment while they ate dinner at a nearby restaurant. "If you look at the
layout of that place, it was entirely safe. The issue at stake here
was, that the flat was broken into, and wee Madeleine was abducted,"
he told BBC Radio Five Live.
Only the shutters weren't
jemmied, and wee Madeleine was not taken. Cause and Effect So let us look at such. "The shutters had
been jemmied" cause. "and poor wee
Madeleine was taken" effect. I hardly need to say it
do I? No cause, no effect. It is that simple and so
fundamental to the McCann's claim of abduction. No jemmied shutters,
no abduction. Never forgetting, the
jemmied shutters story was not some wrongly evaluated, mistaken
concept, it was orchestrated by the
parents of the missing child.
As simple as that may
sound, it is in fact, of such profundity thatit
cannot, and should not, be ignored. The cornerstone for abduction,
and all that surrounds it, is a house of cards.A house that
took a shift years ago. The only thing propping it up now, is the
litigious nature of the McCanns.Not
forgetting of course, the wilful blindness of the Establishment whose
reputation and roll in this sordid affair would hardly stand the
scrutiny that would be so deserved. Now call me old fashioned
if you will, but this bothers me. But it bothers me more, that this
fundamental and crucial component of this case, not only remains
unaddressed, but seemingly, is totally ignored.To finish up this part
of the post, there being two other fundamental issues I wish to
address, let me try and apply some perspective to this staggering and
blatantly obvious miscarriage of justice. If our featured two were
suspected of robbing a Post Office, and it's not by accident that I
use a PO as an example, because, you may be surprised to know, there
is no greater crime in the UK than making an unauthorised withdrawal
from said establishment. So if our two suspects, under questioning,
uttered the kind of testament or set in motion testament such as we
have witnessed, what might you suppose, the outcome would be? Parts two and three will
be delivered when and whenever, creativity and the will to write are
pretty rare commodities for me these days.But do bare in mind,
should you come under attack, from whatever quarter: No
jemmied shutters, no abduction. And also remember who set the
parameters, within which, enabled the child to be "abducted,"
the parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
Part Two, The Deleted
Phone Logs Are they such an
important issue you may ask? Well they were important enough for the
McCanns to lie about them, so they must be. That we have already
ascertained in part one, the setting up with family members the case
for abduction, the deleted phone logs, selectively deleted I must
add, and at a time, the day before in fact, of Gerry McCann's
announcement to the world that his daughter had been abducted. Via of
course, the jemmied shutters that weren't.
What follows, is the only
section of this article where some parts are not provable, but given
the circumstances, let us take a look at the situation
circumstantially. The speed, or should I
call it indecent haste? (and being all the more suspicious for it)
The indecent haste with which the McCann Machine (Government machine)
rolled into action was, putting it mildly, quite staggering.
I think at this moment, I
shall let the Portuguese coordinator of the case, Goncalo Amaral,
take over the narrative. This on the 4th of May GA: At ten in the
morning, twelve hours after the disappearance, the British Consul to
Portimão goes to the Department of Criminal Investigation. We inform him of the
actions taken up to then and the next stages being considered. He
doesn't seem satisfied. Someone hears him on the
telephone saying that the police judiciaire are doing nothing. Now,
that's strange! Why that untruth? What objective does he have in
mind? Giving another dimension to the case? Perhaps, I don't know a
thing about it, but this is not the time for conjecture; we have to
concentrate on our work, of finding the little girl. Why indeed? A little later still on
the 4th May John Buck, British Ambassador to Portugal, descends on
the scene. GA- The McCanns are put
up with David Payne. We want to search the
accommodation of the family friends to try to pick up Madeleine's
clothes, especially those she was wearing on May 3rd at 5.35pm when
she returned from the day centre with her mother and the twins. Evidently, this
initiative is not widely supported. The British ambassador meets with
the team directing the investigation. The political and the
diplomatic seem to want to prevent us from freely doing our work. GA- I'm sure this check
is necessary. JB- The clothes? Are you
mad? if I understand you properly, you want to go into the apartment
to take clothes to have them analysed? GA- Yes. What's the
problem? It's a perfectly normal procedure in cases like this. JB- Of course, but with
this media hype...I don't think I have ever in my life seen so many
journalists....And I didn't come down in the last shower. I leave you to arrive at
your own conclusions regarding that little nest of vipers. To the phone logs then. To fully understand the
importance of this clip, one has take into account, that having just
fled Portugal, the McCanns feel free to tell all the lies they wish
and to do so with impunity. Never realising of course, to just what
degree the files of the investigation would be made available to the
public once the investigation was shelved. Gerry and Kate McCann's
fury after 14 texts slur Gerry McCann reacted
angrily yesterday to claims he received a string of mystery texts the
day before his daughter vanished.
Police applied to
Portugal's supreme court to seize his phone records after learning of
the alleged messages.
They claim Gerry was sent
10 texts from an unknown number 24 hours before Madeleine
disappeared. And detectives say four messages arrived from the same
mystery number the day after she went missing, according to court
documents.
But Gerry and wife Kate
have dismissed the claims as "utter rubbish".
A source close to them
said: "They have had their phone records available for
inspection for months. But the police never asked for them. And now
they have formally asked, they have been refused.
Any suggestion of Gerry
receiving 10 texts the day before Madeleine disappeared are utter
rubbish.
He hardly used his phone
during the holiday and most of the friends with them didn't even have
mobiles.
The only time his phone
rang was when work called and he explained he was on holiday. There
are no mystery texts. Gerry has nothing to hide. It's yet more
nonsense coming from Portugal.
More on the deleted phone
records from Paulo Reis, a worthy read. So from whom, and what
was the content of the fourteen texts messages that Gerry McCann
selectively deleted and subsequently found the need to lie about? It is my personal opinion
that 90% of the answers to this case are inseparably linked to the
source of said deleted text messages. Just one last question
and then we shall move on. A question you might ask yourself for that
matter. Would Gerry McCann have
the wherewithal to implement and carry out such hair-brained scheme
as the one we have witnessed without the gears being set in motion by
third parties of no little importance or influence?
Part Three, Cadaver
Odour. Disregarding the
thousands of column inches that have been written on the subject.
Disregarding the thousands of arguments for the accuracy of the dogs'
alerts and to a lesser degree, the arguments against the importance
of said findings, and quite shamelessly by some that, not should know
better, but do know better, we have but a few things to consider. Originally upped as
"large." But I think twenty five year career cop, Jim
Gamble, justifies extra large. Firstly, two irrefutable
facts. No one had previously died in the McCann's holiday apartment,
likewise nobody had previously met their end in the car hired by the
McCanns. Keeping in mind, that all
that has been written about the dogs, for the purpose of this
article, and for the sake of my argument, we shall ignore. What we can't ignore
however, are two simple facts, but by virtue of their simplicity,
they do in fact become the most damning. You may wish to remember,
that the dogs alerted uniquely to things McCann without exception. On
the other hand, you may choose to ignore these facts. It doesn't
matter. And why doesn't it matter you may well ask? It doesn't matter,
because Kate McCann acknowledges the existence of both blood residue
and cadaver odour, both in the hire car and on her own clothes. The reasons for such we
are asked to believe, range from rotting meat in the car (odour) to
the transporting, however unlikely, dirty nappies of the twins. (DNA) Regarding the cadaver
odour on Kate McCann's clothes, what we are asked to believe is even
more unlikely than the dirty nappies explanation. So unlikely in
fact, it staggers the imagination. The reason for Kate
McCann's clothes smelling of cadaver, we are incredulously asked to
believe, is that prior to the ill fated holiday in Praia da Luz, Kate
McCann, as a part time locum in a general practice, came in contact
with cadavers. Any number of them, depending on which source you
read. But that's not all we are
asked to believe, she came into contact with said cadavers wearing
her holiday clothes. And if you like that cake, I have some topping
for it, she took Madeleine's soft toy, Cuddle Cat, along with her for
the ride. How hard to confirm or
deny this, DCI Andy Redwood? And of course, not only
does Kate McCann acknowledge the existence of cadaver odour, but her
husband too, Gerry McCann. Why else would he go to such lengths
(America) to discredit the accuracy of the dogs? And it was to such
lengths he went, contacting lawyers in the US and quoting the Eugene
Zapata case where the judge wouldn't accept as evidence, the alerts
of the dogs. How did that one work out
for you Gerry McCann? Not too good when the Zapata eventually
admitted to killing his wife and the subsequent revelations that the
dogs were right all along. How damning do the
actions of the parents have to be? Madeleine McCann disappeared in
the most controversial circumstances imaginable, and the last two
people to see here alive, and statistically the most likely people to
be involved in that disappearance, the parents, Kate and Gerry
McCann, are doing their utmost to explain or discredit the stench of
death that surrounds them.
I'm sorry, not in my
world. Madeleine McCann was not abducted.
Paint Your Bandwagon –
23.02.2015
I confess. I have in the
past appealed to the saga of Richard III's 'rediscovery' as a
metaphor. In so doing I made no attempt whatsoever to inject myself
into a process I consider exemplary. A truly wonderful instance of
truth being stranger than fiction, the location/examination of the
last Plantagenet's remains made heroes and heroines of the otherwise
anonymous professionals who undertook the task, and contributed their
respective expertise to a team performance of which the British Lions
would have been proud. It virtually launched the career of one young
lady in particular (osteologist, Dr Jo Appleby). Nevertheless,
applause was, and is, due to all in equal measure.
So why now discuss these
events once more?
After a court battle to
secure the right to re-inter the much abused monarch, the City of
Leicester is shortly to witness a ceremony accomplishing exactly
that, after a procession no less; a procession which will pass the
nearby Bosworth Academy, where pupils have for some time been busy
constructing a substantial piece of artwork by all accounts,
describing, in plastic, over 5000 white roses. (No, they have not
been goaded into provoking the residents of that other northerly
county).
As a charming, articulate
young member of the school has explained on TV, the 'roses' represent
those who go missing in the county of Leicestershire. The innocent
young thing generously explained that people have been looking for
King Richard for over 500 years without giving up, so that looking
for the missing currently may just as likely yield a result or two.
How very thoughtful. And
exactly whose idea was that? It will come as no surprise, perhaps,
that the charity MISSING PEOPLE is supporting the project. Indeed a
page of the Academy's website is given over to promoting the object
symbiosis between the search for the deceased regent’s remains and
more contemporary acts of compassion.
Well call me a cynic,
but...
Of course I would not
criticize the young girl for repeating information given her by
adults. Nevertheless, 'out of the mouths of babes' etc.
King Richard III was
never missing, either in life or death. Those who killed him knew
exactly where he was buried, as did those who came afterwards. The
location of his last resting place only became 'lost' on account of
an impatient historian of yore, who, having identified the wrong
priory, subsequently gave up looking for it, leaving a muddled legacy
for later generations.
And?
Well, as instructive as
were the (very) distant relatives and other interest groups that all
of a sudden came out of the woodwork laying claim to the relics
others had laboured for years to rediscover, we now have the charity
MISSING PEOPLE piggy-backing their propaganda on the back of an
international success story that has nothing whatsoever to do with
missing people.
A question to those, such
as the Diocese of York, who all shouted 'mine' once the 'donkey work'
had been done: Who paid for the excavations leading to discovery of
the king's remains?
Leicester City Council
may have sacrificed one of their car parks, whilst the University
allocated its analytic resources, in the form of staff and technical
facilities, but the lion's share of the funding effort required to
get the project off the ground in the first place fell to the Richard
III Society, who, extraordinarily, raised the tens of thousands of
pounds necessary to make it all happen. It is to this dogged, if
esoteric, group that we should all say 'thank you'. They paid, to
find their talisman.
So what exactly are
MISSING PEOPLE doing lining the route to the cemetery (the Cathedral
as it happens)?
By analogy, if there is
any justification at all for this organisation's pouncing on
another's project, one that does not even entail a missing person,
then their ambassador elsewhere should put her hand into her own
pocket and underwrite the search for her own missing daughter, not
sit back and watch as the UK government invests £10m plus in doing
so. (£400k transferred to her limited company does not qualify.
We're talking looking for people here, not looking for a tax break).
I have absolutely no
argument with the Bosworth pupil's contention that locating missing
people is a matter of some importance. Of course it is. But then so
are a great many other concerns. £10m distributed across all of them
would still represent a useful sum of money, but this (and more), is
what the UK government is prepared to spend looking for a solitary
missing person. Supporting the charity in these terms for any length
of time would bankrupt the nation. Should the object of the McCanns'
desires in this instance likewise remain 'missing' for 500 or so
years, what then?
The core of the Missing
People appeal via the Bosworth Academy, for that is in essence what
it is, reads as follows:
"...each rose
representing one of the 5929 instances of a citizens (sic) of
Leicestershire who go missing every year, the vast majority are young
people. Each instance of a missing person is caused by a failure to
protect often the most vulnerable in our society. As with the passion
to seek, find and make safe King Richard, we pledge to seek, find and
make safe those young people who for whatever reason go missing each
year in Leicestershire.
"To seek, to find,
to make safe
"Our aim is to raise
awareness of this silent tragedy affecting our community, and for the
efforts of the search for Richard III to bear additional fruits in
helping our community seek, find and make safe those missing today.
Leicestershire had 5929 reported incidents regarding missing people,
with by far the largest group being those aged 12-18.*"
* Home Office Statistic
2012/2013
Readers are later invited
to donate to the charity and told where to send their cheque(s). As
to 'make safe King Richard'... You must be joking. To do that you'd
have needed a quiet word in the ear of Henry Tudor, and he's been
dead for almost as long!
Rather than become
enmeshed in discussion as to what, exactly, constitutes a 'missing
person incident' (of which there were, nationwide apparently, 273,319
recorded for the year 2012-13, as surveyed – fewer than 4.8 per
thousand of the total population), a more pertinent question might be
the following:
Since Leicestershire
Police claim to have spent £13m two years ago looking for missing
people (according to The Leicester Mercury, 4 January 2015), how much
might the charity Missing People have contributed to their noble
effort?
My guess would be, 'nada,
nothing, zero, zip, zilch', the reasons for their collaborative
abstemiousness being two-fold:
First, "many of the
cases did not require police involvement" and "roughly one
third of (those) cases – approximately 1,800 alerts – were
generated by 73 teenagers, most of them living in city or county
council children's homes. Mental health units also generated an
average of 15 cases a month." (Source: Leicester Mercury)
Second, according to their resume (to be found at the foot of their
'advertorial', as hosted by Bosworth Academy):
"Missing People is a
UK charity that provides a lifeline when someone disappears. We offer
dedicated support to missing people and their families through our
24/7 helpline. We listen in confidence, support people who are
missing and their families and, where possible, we help families and
their missing loved ones to reconnect. We provide our services
through working in partnership with the police, social services,
other charities and professionals. We work with many media outlets to
create publicity for cases upon request of families. We also
undertake research and policy work to understand the experiences of
missing people and families. We couldn’t achieve this without the
great support of fundraisers and communities."
Essentially, they claim
to duplicate the work of the police, and perhaps publicise individual
cases – but only if the family in question remembers to ask them.
Otherwise they work 'to understand others experiences'.
And if the circumstances
confronted by Leicestershire Police are anything to go by, then the
4.8 per thousand figure mentioned earlier would, in reality, be
considerably smaller still, suggesting that police forces nationwide
should be far better able to cope, provided other responsible
institutions have a greater regard for their own residents' security,
and without assistance from charity-led answerphone services.
The person Richard III
has not been 'found'. He was never reported missing. It is his last
resting place that was finally located and his bones that will
henceforth be safeguarded.
At least his grave was
identifiable as such.
The Ruby Hat of Old Ma
McCann – 19.03.2015
First Quatrain:
Awake! For morning in the
bowl of night
Has flung the stone that
puts The Stars to flight
And lo! The hunter of the
East has caught
The Sultan's turret in a
noose of light.
(Translation: A
well-known 'Red Top' has just increased its circulation by running a
certain story. On behalf of its proprietor, it has drawn attention to
the chief of police, illuminating his squad's activities on behalf of
Dr and Mrs McCann).
Ah, the power of the
metaphor! But is this one not just a little too grandiose? Perhaps.
Nevertheless, a similar view was once taken of Mendeleev's Table of
the Elements – until further discoveries filled in the gaps,
exactly as he had predicted.
The Daily Star article,
which questions the wisdom of continuing with Operation Grange, is of
interest for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that
the present misgivings with regard to expenditure, on this project
exclusively, have not been widely echoed across the mainstream media
as one might have expected.
The story has been picked
up by at least one other UK publication though – the Daily Express.
And who owns both titles? Richard Desmond. The same Richard Desmond
who, several years ago, found himself finessed out of half-a-million
by the very beneficiaries of this additional government largesse, and
whose demeanour before the Leveson inquiry suggested he had not
forgotten.
Anyone inclined to
suppose that this man would be content to 'grin and bear it' should
note that, in 1987, The Daily Star was obliged to pay exactly this
sum of money to Jeffrey Archer, by way of libel damages. In 2002 the
publication, now under Express Group ownership, recouped around £1.8
million (the original sum plus interest!) when Archer was found to
have earlier lied in court.
But why?
Why should RD's
publications appear to support such criticism of Operation Grange, so
obviously stirred up by McCann spin doctors? Well really. Is it that
obvious?
Regardless of the
authoring journalist's credentials, the foundation for the story in
question rests with the chairman of the Metropolitan Police
Federation, John Tully, whose several quoted opinions reflect those
of fellow members at various levels of seniority. It is unlikely
that they would be influenced in their thinking by a prospective
Conservative candidate for Brighton Pavilion, or a former colleague
who now finds himself very much on the outside looking in. No, this
vaguely belligerent attitude owes its origins to authority, although
whose authority exactly is another question altogether.
Those with blind faith
would suppose the McCanns fear that 'knock on the door' resulting
from Operation Grange and its due diligence - hence their desire to
rein back what they themselves moved heaven and earth (Brooks &
Cameron at least) to unleash. The wind has changed and the gas is now
blowing in their direction sort of thing. Meanwhile, back in
Bayswater...
One should not overlook
the fact that the McCanns are not the only agency with a vested
interest in the functionality of Operation Grange, an undertaking
which has so far served one of two purposes: Either it is a genuine
effort after the truth, the cost of which is a reflection of its
complexity, or it is a protracted attempt to obfuscate the original
conclusions of the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann. What it cannot be is a good cause gone bad, or the
changeling progeny of a Commissioner playing the role of
poacher-turned-gamekeeper.
As if we haven't been
given a sufficient inkling as to its purpose these last four years,
recent indicators are clear enough. Having followed his remit to the
letter, DCI Redwood resigned in December from his 'privileged'
position as officer-in-charge (and after all that hard work as well).
It seemed as unthinkable as Ronnnie O'Sullivan conceding a frame from
a winning position. Unless of course he was already a 'ton' behind
with no reds left on the table (for 'reds' here read 'suspects'
and/or 'investigative opportunities'). As he once said himself, DCI
Redwood's 'mission impossible' was not to solve the case.
Ah, but that recent
'summit meeting' featuring Redwood's replacement, DCI Wall...
Also featuring, we are
given to understand, a representative of the Diplomatic Corps, with
no more claim to a seat at the table than the usher; unless
representing British interests abroad that is. Not quite the
contextual ambience appropriate to pursuance of central European
homicidal burglars through the Portuguese courts, as would needs be
the case.
Exactly. That's what the
McCanns are afraid of alright – a prosecution of British suspects,
in Britain.
Really? After 4 Years and
£10+ million? So why did DCI Redwood choose not to see it through?
If the Portuguese had
insufficient evidence to bring charges in 2007, what makes anyone
believe Operation Grange has 'upped the ante'? "They've got
nothing", as Dr G. McCann once infamously announced. Had there
been any kind of seismic shift in the Yard's investigation, the
Metropolitan Police Federation would not now be criticizing its own
members' endeavours. Nor would James Murray (Associate Editor of the
Sunday Express), participate in a 'phone-in to discuss the matter in
terms of the entire operation's being a damp squib.
If anyone had a keen
interest in Grange coming to a just conclusion it would be Murray's
boss, who, as like as not, would be equally keen to see this same
smokescreen blown away. He would also derive some satisfaction, no
doubt, from drawing his own cloak away from any puddle the present
government may be about to step in, having not long ago donated £300k
to UKIP (How's that for press control, Dave?).
It seems Home Secretary
Theresa May is also concerned with the dispersal of camouflage, as
reported by the Daily Mirror (17 March):
'The Home Secretary told
the Home Affairs Committee: "There needs to be no suggestion of
any further cover-up in the work of an investigation of what seems to
have been a cover-up."'
Quite.
With the troops at
Scotland Yard themselves becoming restive, it seems pretty clear that
what is gradually being recognized officially is that which has long
been recognized elsewhere: Operation Grange is not kosher.
Even the guilt-riven of
Rothley, instead of breathing a sigh of relief at the suggestion the
Grange dogs be called off (no doubt for being unreliable) have since
dispatched 'a friend' to convey the message, again via the Daily Star
(for balance?), that they'd quite like to see the investigation
continue, as it's not up to the Metropolitan Police Federation to
decide these things, only the Prime Minister, the Home Office, and,
of course the Metropolitan Police.
Err...?
If we cancel the Met.
from the equation therefore, what does that leave us? A police
investigation initiated, sustained (and eventually to be terminated)
by government is what.
The sequence of
hall-marks here reads as follows: Establishment faith in their own
protégées, followed by a populist commitment to placing blame for a
tragedy of nationally adopted proportions somewhere other than with
UK culprits – a job for the Met.'s finest. And if Portugal can be
persuaded to join in the chorus then everyone can go home happy.
But the Portuguese can
hold their ale and won't start singing just like that. It’s also
their bar, so they get to call 'time', not the lager louts who come
in after the football's finished. Best call in a diplomat to
arbitrate, especially now the Home Secretary has since had time to
catch up on her reading and realizes the extent to which everyone's
been had!
The Attorney General's
representative, if they were indeed there, will have returned empty
handed, just as the CPS delegate before them. The Portuguese
investigation, having been re-opened as a pre-emptive measure, will
have adjusted its focus to that of a murder inquiry, a move offered
some support (but no evidential corroboration) by the last known
'feelings' of Operation Grange. A hunch is not enough however, so
nothing can happen there. Nor will anything happen here, especially
once the Grange shop is shut on account of a cash-flow failure.
And the McCanns?
Despite not securing
their official certificate of exoneration after all, they'll probably
still send Sir Bernard a regular Christmas card – from Canada.
Keeping Up With The
Jones's – 24.03.2015
Not to be outdone by the
Desmond team (Express Group Newspapers), the Daily Mail have now
produced their own extensive, eulogistic comment on the Metropolitan
Police Federation suggestion that Operation Grange be brought to a
halt. There are no prizes for guessing the direction of the eulogies.
David Jones, who claims
familiarity with the McCann case ab initio, somehow fails to bring
his extensive knowledge to bear in a balanced account, but instead
puts his name to a contrived exercise in dis-information. It has
reached the point, surely, when observers of this protracted affair
can only conclude that, as regards Madeleine McCann specifically,
this is all the popular press are good for.
Where does one start...?
Well why not at the very beginning?
"I returned to Praia
da Luz, the conspiratorial little resort"
'Conspiratorial'? How so?
This is the very same
resort about which the author later states:
"From the moment
Madeleine was taken, they have behaved with commendable dignity and
shown enormous compassion towards her family".
Ah, but...as he goes on
to explain:
"The reputation of
their once-blameless resort has been irreparably sullied".
So it must have been the
entire population of Praia da Luz wot dun it. A modern interpretation
of 'Murder on the Orient Express', no doubt.
We continue with:
"...revisiting some
of its now-fabled landmarks — apartment 5A at the Ocean Club
holiday resort, the white-washed chapel where Kate and Gerry would
pray for deliverance — it struck me how precious little we have
learned about her fate".
Whose fate? Madeleine's
we may presume. But why then should the parents be praying for
deliverance? Deliverance from what exactly? Evil? Then whose? Praying
for their daughter's delivery would make rather more sense, at least
in principle.
Unfortunately for all
concerned, "We have no more idea what became of Madeleine now
than we did then (May 4, 2007). It is almost as if time has stood
still".
Yes, David. Eight years
without, it would appear, any significant advancement in our (public)
knowledge of what became of Madeleine McCann. Does that not strike
you as odd, given the seeming investment of time and resources, and
by so many separate agencies, into finding the child? Only a fool
would make the same mistake repeatedly and expect a different outcome
each time. Have we or the McCanns been making torch-bearers of fools
therefore?
"Given the enduring
global obsession with the case, we might think this quite
extraordinary".
Indeed.
Time for some jingoism
then.
"First we had a
series of Portuguese police investigations, the ineptitude of which
is well documented.
"Next came a
procession of private detectives (including a self-proclaimed Spanish
super-sleuth, expensively hired by the McCanns in December 2007, who
blithely promised to have Madeleine home for Christmas).
"Then, in 2011, at
the behest of David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May, Scotland
Yard's finest were called in to clear up the mess".
It is to be hoped that in
a follow-up article one might be offered some examples of the
documentation that attests to the 'ineptitude' of the investigation
conducted by the Portuguese. Hope springs eternal. And that's
probably about the length of time we'll have to wait for such
evidence to be brought forth here.
Thank goodness the 'Met's
finest' were on hand to 'clear up the mess'. What would we do without
them?
"At least, that was
the Prime Minister's hope, and perhaps his expectation, when —
apparently moved by a personal appeal from the McCanns — he ordered
a team of Met detectives to be removed from their other duties and
assigned to the case, codenamed Operation Grange".
Well now. The Prime
Minister (and the Home Office) had hopes and expectations did they?
It's rather doubtful that these pertained to clearing up any mess,
since, as far as police work was concerned, there absolutely wasn't
one. David Cameron suggested the Home Office discuss the possibility
of a review with Scotland Yard. He might contend that he did not
'order' anything however, especially since, in our so-called
democracy, such an order would be unconstitutional.
"But almost four
years and an eye-watering £10million of taxpayers' money later —
an amount that would pay the annual wages of countless PCs — it is
patently obvious his intervention is not producing results. (italics
mine)
"Though a huge
number of man-hours have been spent re-examining the 5,000-page
Portuguese judicial dossier in the hope that it might contain a vital
missed clue, though great swathes of wasteland in Praia da Luz were
explored with sophisticated gadgetry last year, and a plethora of
suspects re-interviewed, there has been no sign of a breakthrough".
Well I'm glad, David, you
recognize, like the rest of us, that Operation Grange has produced no
results. Could that be because they based their investigation on 5000
pages attributable to the Portuguese, and the balance of 25,000 pages
deriving from an assortment of impostors and mountebanks?
"...the Met's
'Madeleine Squad' have spent four years painstakingly re-examining
the botched Portuguese investigation.
"You cannot fault
their thoroughness".
Oh yes we can! And in
whose estimation was the Portuguese investigation 'botched'? That of
David Jones, obviously, and who else of any significance?
"Meanwhile, every
witness statement and tip-off is being re-checked, every theory
considered, no matter how unlikely."
Thump! The first nail to
go cleanly home strikes the back board.
Does any police
investigation, anywhere in the world, proceed by working inwards via
the more 'unlikely' theories? If the accepted answer should be 'no',
then why have we to sit back and watch as 'the Met's finest' blow
millions on unnecessarily exploring the unlikely? Is it possible they
have borrowed from the philosophy of Captain R.F. Scott, who dabbled
with untried technology and came second as a result, whereas his
rival Amundsen simply 'cut to the chase'.
"Each (such)
development raises fresh hopes and excites the media, but so far they
have all come to nothing. And one had to ask whether DCI Andy
Redwood, who had set up the inquiry and had overseen it
enthusiastically for four years, would have recently stood down had
he been on the brink of solving the biggest case of his career."
(italics mine)
Yes, one did ask as it
happens (See: The Ruby Hat of Old Ma McCann – McCannfiles, 19.3.15)
Were David Jones to act
as the voice of the McCanns in support of Operation Grange, he would
be sure, he tells us, to remind authorities of several other cases of
abduction rather more successfully resolved, e.g., Jaycee Lee Dugard
and Zephany Nurse. But then, as he admits:
"The sad truth is,
however, that when we examine such exceptional cases, they do little
to support the argument for a hugely expensive and protracted police
investigation."
So why go to the trouble
of introducing them into the argument?
A more sensible
comparison to be made, we are advised, is with protocols and
expenditure in connection with children who go missing in the UK.
"So how much time
and money might you expect the police to invest in searching for one
'medium risk' child? According to a recent study by Portsmouth
University's Centre For Missing Persons, the amount is astonishingly
low: between £1,325 and £2,415.
"Compared with the
millions poured into the search for Madeleine, this figure — which
covers such basic procedures as taking an initial call, risk
assessment, obtaining a photograph of the child, undertaking a house
search, and a police national computer check — is derisory indeed."
Or put another way, the
'figure' involved in the case of Madeleine McCann is inexplicably
high – and then some.
"It goes without
saying that none of this is any fault of the McCanns."
Except, David, you have
just said so. Whose fault is it then? If the McCanns are not calling
the shots, who is? And why are they aiming in entirely the wrong
direction?
(There now follows the
eulogy to the parents who "always speak about Madeleine —
whose 12th birthday falls this May — in the present tense". No
doubt having been advised that previous references to their daughter
in the past tense were highly suggestive of exactly that!)
Eventually we get to the
'bottom line', in support of the proposal recently voiced by John
Tully of the Metropolitan Police Federation:
"I simply believe,
with the best of intentions, that it is time to put sentiment aside,
face up to the harsh financial realities of modern policing, and
regard Madeleine McCann in the same manner as all those other missing
children."
Basically, the Operation
Grange budget should be cut from several millions to a couple of
thousand. Small wonder DCI Redwood opted for early retirement.
Fraud, and how to support
it – 31.03.2015
If, when doing the weekly
shop, we are tempted by a BOGOF offer to pick up an extra packet of
biscuits, we should hardly expect to be charged for both packets at
the supermarket checkout. That would be a deception on the part of
the vendor, who will have contravened an inducement to purchase, i.e.
the terms of an advertisement which, according to the IPA code,
should be legal, decent honest and truthful. It's no different to
selling a car with 'no known faults' when it hasn't actually got an
engine.
The following is owing to
Mike Hamilton, writing exclusively for The Sun:
"The parents or
Madeleine McCann plan to plough their own money into the search for
their missing daughter if police halt their investigation. Kate and
Gerry McCann both 47, of Rothley Leics., fear public donations have
dried up as the search approaches its eighth anniversary. So they
have pumped almost £1 million into a fund for Madeleine that would
be running at a loss without their cash. The money came from Kate's
book about Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal in May 2007 and the
search for her."
It is made absolutely
clear here that "their (the McCanns') own money...came from
Kate's book about Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal in May 2007
and the search for her."
Kate McCann has only
written one book so far, the various editions of which have
incorporated a conspicuous advertising 'flash' on its front cover.
This reads:
"All royalties
donated to Madeleine's Fund."
All royalties, as
announced by Transworld publishing, since the flash was an intrinsic
feature of the publication, and not a superimposed sticker.
According to Mike
Hamilton however, some of these very royalties must have been
directed to the author personally, in order for it to be considered
her money, and deriving, as it did, from her book.
It follows, inevitably,
that Transworld publishers were responsible for incorporating a
misleading inducement to purchase with their product offering.
If all the royalties were
paid into the fund in the first instance, then they could not
subsequently be placed there as 'top up' funding by Kate McCann,
coming from her own pocket so to speak. If, on the other hand, the
McCanns are boasting of personal income from book sales, as Mike
Hamilton informs his readers, then Transworld are clearly at fault.
Is a 'class action'
appropriate here, I wonder?
Something for the Weekend
– 24.04.2015
For a close shave,
Occam's Razor is to be recommended. Sweeney Todd too probably had
something of a reputation for barberous efficiency. Until, that is,
he was discovered to have contributed one too many fingers to Mrs
Lovett's pies. (Other people's fingers, that is). Back in May 2007,
someone cooked up a proposal and sold it to Dr Gerry McCann, who was
busy not enjoying himself on holiday. His response too was, 'Love
it!' And so the story of Madeleine McCann's abduction was born.
People seldom do things
without a reason, however fanciful. If Madeleine McCann was to be
reported missing it was because she was, indeed, 'missing', in a
generalised sense at least, prior to the announcement of her absence.
Our good friend Occam has recently been recruited to support the idea
that these eventualities were closely concatenated in time, the one
following the other in an inevitable 'stimulus - response' fashion.
It is not at all an unreasonable supposition, for even if we stub a
toe we don't usually wait thirty seconds before saying, 'Ouch!'
Not all actions provoke
an immediate consequence however. Even in the realm of animal
learning, subjects (rats) have been deliberately rendered ill as an
experimental outcome, inflicted as a direct result of some prior
behaviour. Clearly there was an interval of time in-between.
However good or
impoverished a theory might appear at first blush, its ultimate power
is governed by the extent to which it accommodates all of the known
data, not merely the greater part. If there is some observation or
other for which one's theory offers no satisfactory explanation, then
that theory must be open to question, unless or until the awkward
observation(s) should be proven false.
In the case of Madeleine
McCann and her disappearance from Praia da Luz, it is the McCanns who
first tempted us with an appeal to Occam: Madeleine was missing. She
was there a moment ago. Now she's gone. She must therefore have been
abducted. As Gerry McCann huffed and puffed in front of the Lisbon
court house fully five years ago now, 'Where...where...where is the
child? What other explanation can explain how she's not here?'
Many of us I'm sure could
offer just such an explanation, which means that abduction per se,
although a claim of the McCanns, is by no means 'cut and dried' as
the root cause of Madeleine's disappearance. Similarly, opinions as
to the 'spur of the moment' nature, or not, of Madeleine's removal
from apartment 5A, must deal adequately with all those contextual
features of the incident which are known to have arisen. The
attribution of mere coincidence is insufficient when there are so
many such 'coincidences' to be taken into account.
The question has been
asked here before (The X Factor, 28.2.2013): Which of two opposing
views (Madeleine's abduction/removal on the Thursday night vs. an
earlier departure) better accommodates the strange goings on that
week? Another discussion (the Cerberus Problem, 13.8.11) examined the
possibility that Thursday 3 May was, in very many respects, an
addition to the narrative of the holiday, and logically quite
unconnected to prior events.
To give but one example,
previously mentioned (although not discussed) in the article
'Schadenfraud' (30.4.2014), Gerry McCann's receipt of regular text
messages, and his predictable recourse to voicemail thereafter was a
daily routine associated with the aftermath of Madeleine's
disappearance. It was also a behaviour he first exhibited on May 2nd
– over twenty four hours before Madeleine was found to be missing.
It would be facile to
dismiss these mysterious communications as having no relevance
whatsoever to each other since, on closer examination, the schedule
of those messages, which Gerry received on May 2, strongly suggests a
connection both within and between the different groups of messages
(see also 'Chapter and Verse', 14.10.2009). And this quite apart from
McCann's perceived need to delete them in the first instance,
followed by his embarrassed public denial of their very existence.
Ah yes, but how is that
related to events afterwards? Gerry's feverish texting is only to be
expected in the light of events.
That's as may be. What is
not to be expected however is the daily regularity of incoming text
messages in discrete groups, followed almost immediately each time by
Gerry McCann's 'cross checking' of his own voice mail. If this
standardized behaviour is a reflection of Madeleine McCann's
abduction, then she must have been 'abducted' (I use the word
loosely) over 24 hours earlier than announced, as that is when this
style of interchange first arose.
If the McCann
telecommunications from May 4 onward were a reaction to abduction
then, similarly, those of May 2 would have been a reaction to
something occurring previously. Ipso facto the 'discovery' of the
night of May 3 becomes a planned event.
As Clarence Mitchell made
clear (for the benefit of Peter Levy's listeners):
"That is the working
hypothesis on which the private investigation is also based. That
there is somebody, perhaps one, or just two or three people out there
who know what happened and that there was an element of
pre-meditation, pre-planning went into it."
You bet!
Watch That Space –
01.05.2015
By now, thanks to the
hurried efforts of Dona Isabel Duarte, the entire Western world has
been given the news of the McCanns' successful litigation against Dr.
Goncalo Amaral. What will not have been fully explained to the media
of course is that the judge in this instance had virtually to invent
a reason for awarding them anything at all, much less the
astronomical sum announced.
£375,000 may represent
the extent of the McCanns' demands with respect to themselves, but it
far and away exceeds any comparable award so far by a Portuguese
court to a Portuguese. In addition, the arguments advanced as a
justification are not merely weak, they are in error. It's as though,
if the good lady judge were a mathematician she would be in the habit
of reading graphs upside down!
The decision to award the
sum demanded was based, not on the evidence heard, but an essay in
Jurisprudence, researched by the arbitrator herself, in which Goncalo
Amaral is portrayed as a public servant subject to restriction, as
though he had signed the Portuguese equivalent of the Official
Secrets Act. For balance, courts too are obliged to observe the
presumption of innocence in any statement they might make concerning
suspects under investigation, so as not to prejudice or jeopardize
any prosecution.
In the event that a
public official is not sworn to secrecy, exactly how long must they
be 'out of office' before they are allowed to comment upon anything
contentious? The final decision of this court was supposed to have
been given in private, so no blame could be attached to any official
statement emanating from it. But what about evidence given at
previous hearings? Might not the (publicly reported) statements of
such as PJ Inspector Ricardo Paiva be viewed as 'prejudicial to the
presumption of innocence'? No castigation offered in that direction
though, eh?
In sum, and based upon
legal precedent, apparently, we have the duty of a public servant
(and others) toward a suspect under investigation, levied against a
man no longer in public office, and on behalf of two people who are
not suspects, not being investigated, and in no imminent danger of
standing trial for anything at all. Does that make any sense?
There are two very clear
(and opposing) schools of thought concerning the relationship or
otherwise between Operation Grange and the McCann/Amaral stand-off
being progressed through the civil courts. This latest decision,
evaluated in complete isolation, is nigh-on inexplicable – except
when viewed in a context of suitability.
Monetarily, the McCanns
benefit, and beyond what should have been their wildest expectations
in the wake of the evidence previously heard by this court. But it
was never about the money, so they say. There is also the glaring
anomaly of the judge, hearing a case for damages, suddenly and
inexplicably making a pronouncement concerning Goncalo Amaral's book,
quite beyond her judicial remit, taking it upon herself to reverse
the earlier decision of a higher court and citing her own research as
justification!
Again the McCanns
benefit, but they are not alone.
Imagine the difficulty
facing the decision makers behind Operation Grange, should the
damages awarded the McCanns have genuinely reflected the evidence
heard and assessed in Lisbon. How does one justify closing down a
review/investigation that has just eaten up four years and £10
million, having identified neither abductor nor evidence of
abduction, if the bottom line, as last defined in Portugal, was that
the McCanns' claims were worth 'tuppence' and The Truth of the Lie is
not only legitimate, but accurate!
As far as the case is
concerned, the McCanns did not win the argument. The result however
is very much 'against the run of play'. It not only supports, albeit
tenuously, their claims of victory, but extends to promote the
conclusion that Goncalo Amaral's published remarks, and by
implication the concomitant (and troublesome) observations made by
the original (Portuguese) process, are in error.
Suddenly, and with fiscal
testimony to the illegitimacy of Amaral's reasoning (and by
implication the PJ's original position) the counterweight to the
McCanns' claims of abduction has been lifted once more. Hence
Scotland Yard can relax in the understanding that their investigating
a case of abduction was appropriate all along.
Whether Goncalo Amaral
appeals the decision at this stage is secondary and largely
irrelevant, given the time delay involved. The fact remains that the
Grange curtain can be brought down now, courtesy of a judge who has
seen fit to portray the McCanns as injured parties, not on account of
the evidence, but in spite of it.
DCI Redwood has retired,
just as he was on the verge of cracking the biggest abduction case
since the Lindbergh baby, DCI Nicola Wall has been brought in to
answer the 'phone, and the McCanns, with their eyes focussed on
another big pay day, propose to continue where Operation Grange is
shortly to leave off (according to Clarence Mitchell at least, and he
should know).
If a UK diplomat can
influence the direction of a police investigation conducted on
foreign soil, there is no reason whatever to believe that 'sweet
nothings' cannot be whispered into the ear of a foreign judge, even
after a case hearing is concluded, allowing the McCanns to continue
searching for their daughter in the same fashion as Hercules, who
stubbornly insisted on looking for his dead chum Hylas, whose body
lay buried beneath the shattered bronze remains of a Titan (according
to Ray Harryhausen at least). We don't yet know what Madeleine is
buried under.
Duplicity – 13.05.2015
It is in the diplomatic
nature of things, that when the truth looks like being unpalatable,
perfectly ordinary men and women will tell a 'white lie' in order to
defer discussion of what could become an unwelcome or provocative
topic. Politicians, as we know, adopt the tactic of avoidance,
answering 'the question before last' instead of taking the bait just
handed them. The McCanns have, over time, practised both techniques
(lying and avoidance), presumably to safeguard against having to
discuss something they would rather not in relation to the
disappearance of their daughter. It seems reasonable to infer
therefore that they have a motive for doing so, being principals to
the saga, as it were.
The story of Madeleine
McCann's 'abduction' is littered with contradictions from the outset.
Gerry McCann could not faithfully recall the door he used to enter
the family's apartment that night. He and his wife could not agree on
the door she used to enter the family's apartment that night. Gerry
McCann could not agree with Jane Tanner as to which side of the road
McCann was standing when Tanner passed him on the street, or even
whether they were in the street together at the same time. And very
soon after Madeleine McCann's 'abduction' was announced, we heard
friends and relatives chorusing 'jemmied shutters'. That too was a
lie, although not knowingly theirs. It was what they had been told,
separately, by the doctors McCann.
Altogether more
intriguing than the questionable utterances by the MCann parents,
however, is the readiness with which others of their acquaintance
have also been prepared to lie, as if they too were expressing a
subconscious desire to 'make the subject go away'. Aspects of Jane
Tanner's rogatory statement recorded by Leicestershire police convey
the distinct impression that she was working to a script. (How else
is one to explain the verbatim repetition of answers? See: Author
Unknown, McCannfiles, 7.2.2010). She also contributes to the
remarkable tale of the tennis court, where two different
photographers are put forward by three different people as
responsible for capturing the iconic picture of Madeleine McCann and
her tennis balls, and on any one of three separate days (See: Anyone
for Tennis, 13.10.2013). Or maybe Kate McCann simply usurped the
image for copyright reasons.
Among the strangest
contradictions in the entire saga are the claims made, again by
others, for Gerry McCann's various 'phone calls late on the night of
3 May. Subsequent to an article first appearing in Correio da Manha,
it has been generally understood that: "The first call Gerry
made on the night of the crime was to Alistair Clark, a good friend
from University days and a diplomat close to Gordon Brown."
In reality, the first
call Gerry made on the night of the crime was to his wife, as was the
second. Alistair Clark, whoever he may have been, was not even on the
register of diplomats that year. He most certainly did not receive a
call from Gerry McCann approaching midnight, or at any time soon
thereafter. Someone deliberately fed CdM a pup (practising for a time
when they might be in a position to offer them Brighton Pavilion
perhaps).
Stranger still are the
conflicting claims of McCann family members:
1. John McCann (speaking
on DATELINE – NBC):
"I got a 'phone call
from Gerry at twenty to twelve. I was on a training course down, er,
near my head office in Luton, and I had a big day on the Friday, so
I'd gone to bed early. I got woken at twenty to twelve with Gerry in
a complete panic, completely distraught about what had happened and
it was a really horrible moment".
2. Gerry's sister Trisha
Cameron (Statement to police, 15.4.2008):
'I remember hearing about
Madeleine's disappearance by 'phone on the night of 3rd May 2007. I
usually go to bed late but I was particularly tired that night and
went to bed early. I was woken by the phone ringing at about 23.30.
It was Gerry telling me that Madeleine had been taken'.
3. Susan Healy (to BBC
Panorama, 19 November, 2007):
"I think it would be
about half eleven - and I'm guessing now, I might be wrong - there
was a 'phone call and it was Gerry on the 'phone, and he said it's a
disaster. It's a disaster. And he was quite hysterical".
Here are Gerry McCann's
first 'phone calls out of Praia da Luz following Kate's announcement
of their daughter's disappearance:
23.14 Kate McCann
23.17 Kate McCann
23.40 Trish Cameron
23.52 Kate's Uncle Brian
Where is the call to
Alistair Clark? Why did John McCann insist he was called at 11.40,
when he most certainly was not, and Susan Healy suppose she was
called at 11.30, when Kate states in her book she asked Gerry to
'phone her parents shortly after midnight, which he appears, from the
records, not to have done?
If Gerry and Kate McCann
have lied, it is because it was in their interest to do so. If
Clarence Mitchell lied on their behalf, it was because he was paid to
do so. And the rest? Members of the Tapas 7, the McCanns' extended
family and others have been, to put no too fine a point on it,
economical with the truth. Why?
Loyalty to Gerry and Kate
McCann is quite possibly the one thing they share in common, which
begs the question as to whether their motive for hiding the chalk
might not be the same as that of Madeleine's parents.
Metaphoric comprehension
revisited – 18.09.2015 Attention switching Pitiful though it may
appear to some, I cannot help but notice certain similarities between
ostensibly unrelated events. I mean, whatever can the tragedy of 9/11
have in common with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann? One notable aspect, for
me at least, is the common purpose shared by the National Institute
for Standards and Technology (NIST for short), whose report into the
collapse of the ‘Twin Towers’ was commissioned by the US
administration, and Operation Grange, funded, open-endedly it seems,
by the UK government. Both are indisputably endeavours to impose upon
the general public an official account of what happened in each case
– to the World Trade Centre buildings on the one hand, Madeleine
McCann on the other. Both are gratuitously disingenuous. So much so
that it hardly takes a leap of logic to infer that the truth must
still be ‘out there’, since it is nowhere represented by either
of these officially sanctioned undertakings. However, for the sake of
parsimony if nothing else, we should confine discussion to the McCann
affair and the misdirection inherent in it. To quote briefly from a
recent facebook/forum comment: “There is no way on
this earth that two insignificant doctors and their holiday
companions would be protected by the full might of the British
government. Some other event was happening in Praia de Luz that week
and that some of those in attendance were powerful movers and shakers
who needed to be protected at all costs. “…some seeking
the answer to Madeleine's disappearance will be disappointed if the
reason for the protection does not lead to a high level paedophile
gang. But it won’t because it isn't the reason.” Of course there are those
who adhere to the notion that the McCanns have accomplished all they
have by virtue of their being no more than sharp opportunists, who
happened to have had their hands on a few useful professional levers
and have gone onto greater things inside the signal box since. The
battleground for argument here is usually the explicit exemplars of
officialdom’s having taken the couple’s part so readily.
‘Extraordinary!’ cry the conspiracy theorists. ‘Par for the
course,’ claim the debunkers. But what of a smaller skirmish about
which very little has so far been said?However influential the
McCanns and their T7 allies may or may not have been, it is difficult
to see how they might have convinced two Police investigators into
the McCann disappearance, one of them a senior and well respected
officer in the field of missing persons enquiries, that their future
careers lay elsewhere – outside the UK even. I refer of course to
Martin Grime (now working with the FBI) and Mark Harrison (now a
Police Commander in Australia). How did Team McCann accomplish that? Our anonymous commentator
is of the opinion that some powerful entity outside the McCann circle
required protection, but not on account of their association with any
paedophile ring. That wasn’t the reason. Which begs the obvious
question: ‘What was the reason’? Apparently, “Some other
event was happening in Praia de Luz that week and some of those in
attendance were powerful movers and shakers who needed to be
protected at all costs.” For ‘abduction by
paedophiles’ one might read ‘destroyed by hijacked aircraft’,
since both propositions share the same degree of verisimilitude.
Operation Grange have of course adopted the fallback position of
‘body snatching by burglars’, in an attempt to incorporate the
small detail of Madeleine McCann’s being dead at the time of
departure - about as credible as NIST’s computer modelling of the
collapse of WTC7, or indeed any of the hundreds of pages that make up
the 9/11 Commission Report, for which countless trees were needlessly
sacrificed. (Ed see below) The inevitable lure here,
and the one which has engaged so many for so long, is the urge to get
to the bottom of what really happened to Madeleine McCann. And this,
with the added frisson of possible misdemeanour involving high status
individuals, has, for nearly a decade, successfully steered all our
gazes away from the true fulcrum of the drama being played out in the
Portuguese Algarve. As per the comment above: “Some other event was
happening in Praia de Luz that week.” A ‘tomato fest’ it was
not.
Keeping secrets Certain students of the
McCann case, as seen through the eyes of the media for the most part,
have derided Goncalo Amaral’s repeated assertions that secret
service activities lay behind the ruinous political intervention into
the police investigation of which he was co-ordinator. Such a view
establishes him as a ‘totem’ for conspiracy theorists, who,
according to these learned others, lack a firm grasp of reality. Far
too many people (‘three score and ten’?) would have to have been
involved for it to work, and they couldn’t all keep a secret could
they? Not like the thousands employed at Bletchley Park during the
Second World War, or the hundred thousand engaged on the Manhattan
Project in the USA, where President Truman was over a week in office
before he knew anything about it
(http://jpaulson.blogspot.nl/2015/09/911-decade-of-deception-full-film-new.html).
(Ed see below) Then of course we have that inglorious September date
in 2001. Has anyone from the directorate ‘squealed’ about that
one yet? (And don’t, for goodness’ sake, imagine that’s because
there’s nothing to reveal). Of all those whose
opinions concerning the McCann case might be taken seriously, Goncalo
Amaral is out in front by a country mile. He was slap bang in the
middle of proceedings at the time. So if he reports that a UK police
officer (Mark Harrison as it happens) was intercepted by MI5 at Faro
Airport then it’s ‘odds on’ the event occurred. So we might ask
ourselves, were MI5 tagging along with the diplomatic invasion, like
so many opportunist refugees, just in case the people thought by Kate
McCann to have been ‘spying’ on her family that week should have
absconded with some living embodiment of a state secret or two? Or
were they already there? It’s safe to say that a
lot of people were in the Algarve at the time of Madeleine McCann’s
disappearance, no doubt representing a variety of nationalities. The
T7 were known to each other, but not to fellow diners at the Tapas
Restaurant. Even newly-arrived Robert Murat, whose mother’s house
was just a short walk from the Ocean Club, was a complete stranger to
some, whilst Martin Smith had only seen him on a couple of occasions. A small township
populated by all sorts and frequented by strangers then. Perhaps we
should not be surprised therefore at the McCann appeal for
holiday-makers at the time to submit to CEOP (led of course by Jim
Gamble) any photos that featured unfamiliar faces – you know, the
sort of family snap you happen to take just as someone else wanders
into view. Despite Gerry McCann’s
personal mantra about the importance of ‘getting information into
the investigation’, no photographs trawled in this manner were ever
passed onto the PJ, who were conducting it. Furthermore, according to
Kate McCann (Crimewatch, June 2007), "Probably about 60% of
tourists to this area are British, but following that are the Germans
and then the Dutch.” But then we have Gerry’s ‘blog’ of 9
June, 2007, in which he tells us: “After returning
from the beach we did the Irish version of Crimewatch -'Crimecall'.
There are a lot of Irish tourists in and around Praia da Luz and
although the awareness of Madeleine's disappearance in Ireland is
extremely high, we want to ensure that everyone is aware of the
appeal and we want the Irish public to come forward with photographs
of people who they do not know who were in and around Praia da Luz in
the 2 weeks leading up to the 3rd May.” The Smith family members,
whose ‘sighting’ seems to have been of some significance, are of
course Irish. Maybe friends of theirs had inadvertently secured an
image of the same ‘abductor’ during daylight hours? More
generally, and much more likely, such an Irish photographic
‘accident’ might have involved another Irish individual, most
probably at a venue frequented by Irish ‘tourists’.The McCanns and their
‘Tapas’ friends arrived in Praia da Luz over the weekend 28/29
April. Madeleine McCann was publicly reported missing on May 3,
whereafter Kate McCann was quite sure ‘They’d been watching us
for days’ (well it couldn’t have been a week!). And yet the
McCanns, CEOP, and in all likelihood Jim Gamble, who had rather more
than one string to his professional bow at the time, were interested
in photographs featuring people ‘in and around Praia da Luz in the
2 weeks leading up to the 3rd May’. That’s over a week before the
McCanns even arrived. What surreptitious
activity might the suspected abductor(s) have been up to prior to
watching the McCanns for a few days? Did they know the McCanns were
coming? Had they access to their booking arrangements? Did they take
time to reconnoitre likely vantage points for surveillance perhaps?
Of course not. Yet someone of interest must have been there,
otherwise there would have been no chance of their being captured on
film, and concomitantly no point to the appeal for photographs. The first rule of
survival ‘Take care of no. 1’.
It follows that, on a national scale, the first priority of a state
is to see to matters of state. And what might matter to the state is
not the domestic fate of a young child abroad, nor the criminality,
if such it be, of that child’s parents. Thus, faced with the
rejection of FOI requests on the grounds that to respond could
jeopardize international relations, are we not bound to infer that
what was actually being safeguarded was not the good names of a
rag-tag bunch of middle-class medics? (See: “A Magical Mystery
Tour” and “‘Mad Cow’ Legislation” – McCannfiles,
October/November 2009). So what was happening
that spring, in Praia da Luz particularly or the Portuguese Algarve
in general, that was neither a tomato fest nor a child abduction?
Whatever it was, it was of international significance. Did it have
something to do with the Lisbon Treaty perhaps? Nope. That was not
signed until December. The Freeport scandal coming to a head? Well
that certainly had an international dimension, but it’s difficult
to see any immediate connection with the very immediate steps taken
to submerge the McCann affair. What say we look at another chain of
‘incidents’ altogether, working backward from 2012? This from The Portugal
News Online of 15 November that year (http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/security-shrouds-trial-of-real-ira-weapons-trafficking-suspects/27190) “The trial of five
men accused of trafficking weapons to supply a dissident faction of
the IRA – the Real IRA (RIRA) – began in the Algarve last week
under a blanket of tight security. “Three men from
Northern Ireland and two Portuguese nationals are implicated in the
case, which dates back to July 2011, when a PJ counter-terrorism unit
swooped on a campsite in Olhão and dismantled the set-up. “Three of the
suspects are being held in Portugal, one remains free and the fifth
suspect is in Ireland where he is facing extradition.”
The arrests were in fact
reported in the Guardian at the time they occurred (10 July -
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/10/portugal-arrests-real-ira-suspects-arms-trafficking). Continuing with The
Portugal News Online: “It is not the
first time RIRA activity has been exposed in the Algarve. In 2009 two
men believed to belong to the Real IRA were found to be using a
restaurant in the small fishing village of Alvor as a main European
base. “It was at the
Panda Grill on the fringe of the village that Paul Anthony
McCaugherty and Michael Gregory allegedly negotiated the buying and
selling of weapons for the Real IRA, between 2005 and 2006.” The Telegraph (30.6.2010)
explained that these 2009 arrests had proceeded to trial and that “The trial had
heard that the Real IRA was using a restaurant on the Algarve in
Portugal as a global hub for weapons shipments to Ireland.
McCaugherty met the agent in Portugal and in a number of other
locations including Amsterdam and Istanbul.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/7864018/Real-IRA-commander-caught-in-MI5-arms-dealing-sting.html). Fully five years ago yet
another ‘anonymous donor’ left a comment on a popular blog to the
following effect: “Anonymous 23 April
2010 20:34:00 “In my opinion, Jim
Gamble was not looking for photos of possible abductors. He was
looking for photos that could have identified MI5 operatives. There
is a trial scheduled to take place this month (April 2010) in regard
to the Real IRA activities in the Algarve. It may not have to do with
that case….” On the other hand it just
might. Given these suspects were
only arrested in 2009, in relation to criminal activities conducted
between 2005 and 2006, what were they doing in the intervening period
– and where were they doing it? A quick look at the map reveals
that the ‘small fishing village of Alvor’, otherwise a European
base of operations for illegal arms trafficking, is just beyond the
headland from Luz, to the other side of Lagos. And that ‘agent’ the
accused was supposed to have met? The Telegraph (30.6.2010) again
explains: Paul McCaugherty, 43, was
caught trying to buy an arsenal of weapons from an undercover agent
posing as a Middle Eastern arms dealer. “The Security
Service agent, known as Ali, spent two years meeting McCaugherty and
bugging 90 hours of conversations which became the cornerstone of the
prosecution’s case at Belfast Crown Court.” No one was arrested until
2009 remember, which means that this operation was on-going during
2007, the year the McCanns decided to visit the Algarve. And let’s
not overlook the headline afterwards carried by the Telegraph
(30.6.2010): Real IRA commander
caught in MI5 arms dealing sting A Real IRA commander
has been convicted of attempting to smuggle weapons and explosives
into Northern Ireland after being snared by a daring MI5 sting
operation.
From which it is
abundantly clear that MI5 didn’t just wander into the Algarve in
the wake of the McCanns. They were already there, and had been for
some considerable time.
A stitch in time Picking up on the earlier
perspicacity of ‘Anonymous’, as demonstrated on 23 April that
year (2010), if there is one thing about which the security services
are undeniably scrupulous it is protection of their assets’
identities, and for very good reason. Examples of this concern
(or lack thereof) are to be found in the furore following members of
the Bush administration’s deliberately, and maliciously, ‘outing’
CIA field agent Valerie Plame Wilson, simply to spite her husband, a
diplomat who had taken a very public moral stand against US foreign
policy in the Middle-East. (Ed. Joe Wilson husband of Valerie Plame
revues Bush's memoir link) On the home front, MI5’s eventual
willingness to share CCTV images of two of the alleged 7/7 bombers
was counterbalanced by their ‘cropping’ the pictures in such a
way as to make reliable identification of the individuals nigh-on
impossible. But that’s just for
context. What we have for more immediate consideration is an on-going
MI5 operation in the Portuguese Algarve, where suddenly, and without
prior warning, Police activity is about to go into overdrive,
possibly giving locally based targets entirely the wrong impression
that they are on the point of being ‘rumbled’ (a moment that was
still two years hence), and jeopardizing years of investment in
under-cover infiltration in the process. Not to mention the risk of
‘Ali’s being recognised in a context other than that of his role
as a putative arms dealer. Such would have been the
situation had the PJ acted without media or other intrusion on the
occasion of Madeleine McCann’s ‘disappearance’. But isn’t that what
they did? Not really. It’s what
they did on the night of May 3rd. Now consider a UK
government and its security services appraised of the possibility of
such imminent turmoil before it actually kicked off. Say, a few days
before. Time in which to delay ‘abduction’ (in lieu of a death)
and instruct ‘Ali’, for example, to adopt a low profile elsewhere
for the time being. Police spot checks throughout the Algarve would
be inevitable, but significant others would at least be out of the
firing line. Had the Portuguese been called to action stations
without prior reference to MI5 they would have taken everyone
unawares, not just Madeleine McCann’s abductor, had there been one
that is. So Madeleine, instead of
dying on the Monday, is abducted, as planned, on the Thursday, giving
MI5 the breathing space it needed to manage its own activities in
readiness. The very prompt (and loud) international media revelation
of Madeleine McCann’s abduction ensured that television watchers
everywhere would then know why the PJ, the GNR, and all those
helicopters, were suddenly so busy, even those who might have been
watching in Alvora, and who obviously hadn’t kidnapped anyone. I know, I know, ‘if
this weren’t so pitiful it would be funny’. But there is a
paradox attaching to Madeleine’s disappearance which has yet to be
addressed by anyone as far as I am aware, and it is this: If Madeleine McCann was
‘abducted’ in a hurry on the Thursday night, there was not enough
time for her to have lain dead beforehand. And if she died earlier
that week, then why would Gerry McCann have waited several days
before removing the evidence, only to snatch her corpse out bed at
the last minute, just before his wife raised the alarm. The reason
for the delay, I suggest, was someone else’s. And let us not overlook
the very significant role in proceedings played by Jim Gamble of
CEOP, both at the time and since. Who really conjured up the notion
of an extreme paedophile operating in Portugal (Madeleine McCann was
barely four years old don’t forget), and who, not long previously,
had been steeped in the dark practices of the security services in
Northern Ireland? MI5 eventually secured
their targets. The McCanns have their ‘hush money’. And Operation
Grange is probably just this current financial year away from
‘capping’ the entire episode like a toxic well (they would have
done so sooner had a credible reconciliation been available -
remember DCI Redwood’s admission that ‘solution’ was not on the
menu?). Oh, and in the wake of the ‘St Andrews Agreement’, the
Northern Ireland Assembly was restored and a new Northern Ireland
Executive formed - on 8 May 2007. The chances of the
McCanns ever appearing in court as accused parties are exactly those
of their daughter being returned to them by an abductor – NIL.
Otherwise they would be standing before the judge as accomplices to a
deception perpetrated by the very government on whose behalf they
were being prosecuted! Or are we also to believe that NORAD could be
blind-sided, the Pentagon attacked, and some of Manhattan’s premier
real estate flattened by a bunch of dissident Saudis squatting in an
Afghan cave?