An Inspector calls... - 15.07.2013
Welcome to this new website. The Blacksmith Bureau had to go, both for the commitment we gave and because the time for attempting to convince people, which began with the Lisbon human rights hearings in early 2010, is past. People new to the case can read The Cracked Mirror to get a handle on the questions which arise from events in 2007/8; for others it is clear that minds can't be changed by internet words even when irrefutable evidence is posted. The writer's gradual disenchantment with Web "debate" is a matter of record and was doubtless getting boring to read about and I intend to avoid it. My own combativeness to the usual suspects on the Web was nothing to be proud of either. So it's back to more measured tones with, I hope, a minimum of personalised criticism of the McCanns; whether I can extend the same attempted courtesy and moderation to Mr Clarence Mitchell is another matter but we'll see. So, for those who are interested, I'll continue to comment on the case here as objectively as I can, helped I hope, by the other people who have contributed to the Blacksmith Bureau.
In this life looking back
too much is a mistake but I have to do so at the beginning so that
readers can know where I'm coming from, the logic of that position
and the evidence which continues to drive it, which is essentially
the logic and evidence of the Portuguese Archiving Summary. On top of
that, and obviously connected with it, is my continued warm support
for Gonçalo Amaral and the Portuguese people he served, our oldest
allies, who have been subject to unfortunate and uncharacteristic
comment in the UK. I have worked with Portuguese people over decades,
there is a strong Portuguese community in the part of London I live
in and I still hope to own a painting by that peerless Portuguese artist Paula Rego one day. I have never had anything but kindness
from them and I've come to admire particularly their tenacity, warmth
and stoicism in adversity. And, on the whole, they play better
football than we do. It has been an awful experience to read what has
been written about them.
Lastly, to readers. I
often feel I know whom I'm addressing and I have a certain idea of
the minds I seek to reach and share with, which is frequently
confirmed by correspondence. I think they, in turn, know that I'm
aiming at them. Thank you for reading and for your own efforts to
throw light onto the very real darkness surrounding this affair, some
of you, like Nigel at McCann Files, at personal cost to yourselves. I
can't open this to comments because you all know where that leads but
people who wish to contact me usually find ways of doing so. Each of
us contribute what we can: all I do is write as well as possible for
those who wish to read my stuff. Unfortunately it's a problem on the
Web that some turn to writers and commentators for a lead rather than
a view, for certainty rather than clarification. I'm afraid I don't
do leaders and I don't do disciples and I have feet of clay. Sorry.
As we said, the BB's
primary objectives were the completion of "the interrupted
investigation", as Gonçalo Amaral named it, correction of the
abusive and untrue treatment of that officer by the British press and
a resounding victory for him in the libel case. Only the second of
those aims has changed. Journalists don't change their approach
unless forced to so we've given up on that one. The others remain:
only the approach and treatment are different. Completing the
"interrupted investigation" meant re-opening the case to
carry out the investigative measures described in the conclusion to
the Portuguese Attorney-General's archiving summary, so that
responses to the critical questions listed there, which remain
unanswered to this day, could be obtained.
Those inquiries and
questions which concerned the nine holiday makers were left
unanswered, as we know, because six of the seven friends of the
parents refused to co-operate while the two arguidos made it clear
that they would not return to Portugal voluntarily: the investigation
came to an end because they were all beyond reach.
L'enquête ne pouvait continuer, le statut du plus ancien arguido ayant épuisé tous les recours d'extension et devant être maintenu jusqu'à la fin de l'enquête, même si Robert M avait été mis hors de cause.
Our aim was identical with that of the Attorney-General's department. Attending a reconstruction and answering the questions arising from that exercise did not presume criminal conduct by any of the nine. The Attorney-General made it clear that there was no evidence of any crime by the parents and the Bureau always accepted that statement and agreed with it, as I do again now. But — the heart of the matter — there was no point in broadening the investigation until those questions were resolved in depth. That, it appears, remains the Portuguese authorities' view. This summer we felt that those questions were finally going to be put, though perhaps not answered, as part of the review process and said so. According to Scotland Yard the nine will not be re-interviewed, there is no evidence that they have been re-interviewed already and so we were wrong according to the evidence. Since we'd always tried to comment and campaign on the case using known evidence as a basis, rather than subjective theories without evidence, we got egg on our face and apologised to the parents for making a specific unjustified assertion. When the Yard review was announced the BB said that it would not accomplish its objectives until they did those interviews and resolved the "interruption"; no evidence has emerged to change that view. So, going on what the Yard have told us, it's my personal belief that the review will fail and the Madeleine McCann mystery will not be solved. That is not something to celebrate. Next, a word on the libel case. Then a look at the Yard and its review.
L'enquête ne pouvait continuer, le statut du plus ancien arguido ayant épuisé tous les recours d'extension et devant être maintenu jusqu'à la fin de l'enquête, même si Robert M avait été mis hors de cause.
Our aim was identical with that of the Attorney-General's department. Attending a reconstruction and answering the questions arising from that exercise did not presume criminal conduct by any of the nine. The Attorney-General made it clear that there was no evidence of any crime by the parents and the Bureau always accepted that statement and agreed with it, as I do again now. But — the heart of the matter — there was no point in broadening the investigation until those questions were resolved in depth. That, it appears, remains the Portuguese authorities' view. This summer we felt that those questions were finally going to be put, though perhaps not answered, as part of the review process and said so. According to Scotland Yard the nine will not be re-interviewed, there is no evidence that they have been re-interviewed already and so we were wrong according to the evidence. Since we'd always tried to comment and campaign on the case using known evidence as a basis, rather than subjective theories without evidence, we got egg on our face and apologised to the parents for making a specific unjustified assertion. When the Yard review was announced the BB said that it would not accomplish its objectives until they did those interviews and resolved the "interruption"; no evidence has emerged to change that view. So, going on what the Yard have told us, it's my personal belief that the review will fail and the Madeleine McCann mystery will not be solved. That is not something to celebrate. Next, a word on the libel case. Then a look at the Yard and its review.
The Attorney-General's
Legacy – 17.07.2013
Why the Yard review, on
its own, will never remove the cloud of uncertainty over the heads of
the Tapas Nine. Whenever the decision to interrupt the investigation
was taken it went into effect on July 21 2008 with the Archiving
Summary. As far as the three arguidos were concerned a decision on
their status, one way or another, had to be taken. This was both for
reasons of natural justice (you can't keep arguidos waiting for ever
to be charged or released) and because of the nationality of the
arguidos (the UK, like other states with a duty of care to overseas
citizens, had the right to know what evidence existed to justify the
continued restrictions on their liberty). Once the forensic evidence,
against expectations, was found to be negative then release became a
formality. But did that mean that the investigation itself should end
merely because there was no case against three individuals?
Une fois l'enquête classée sans suite, les arguidos avaient le droit de requérir la phase d'instruction, qui dure quelques mois, sous la direction du juge d'instruction, et culmine avec un débat contradictoire à l'issue duquel le Ministère public décide de poursuivre ou de classer sans suite.
Oddly, it did: that is what the Portuguese constitution allows. In a somewhat tight-lipped final paragraph of the PJ report Inspector João Carlos, having admitted that they were frankly unable to determine just what had happened on May 3, wrote: "...we do not currently envisage any further investigative steps likely to produce useful results, I submit this report for your consideration and decision." Or in modified English practice and parlance "the police are not looking for anyone else in relation to..." So with the PJ's official admission that they had no other leads and no plans to look any further for the child the investigation into her disappearance came to an end. Now, without stepping into the shadows of the Portuguese legal system, it is obvious that this self-consciously public dotting of "i"s and crossing of "t"s by police and prosecutors must have been the outcome of much unrecorded discussion at all levels - but nobody wants to talk about that. To Amaral it all stank of a behind-closed-doors stitch-up, a determination to end the inquiry for raisons d'etat, and from an English point of view one can see why he was outraged. That, however, is a matter for the Portuguese themselves.
Une fois l'enquête classée sans suite, les arguidos avaient le droit de requérir la phase d'instruction, qui dure quelques mois, sous la direction du juge d'instruction, et culmine avec un débat contradictoire à l'issue duquel le Ministère public décide de poursuivre ou de classer sans suite.
Oddly, it did: that is what the Portuguese constitution allows. In a somewhat tight-lipped final paragraph of the PJ report Inspector João Carlos, having admitted that they were frankly unable to determine just what had happened on May 3, wrote: "...we do not currently envisage any further investigative steps likely to produce useful results, I submit this report for your consideration and decision." Or in modified English practice and parlance "the police are not looking for anyone else in relation to..." So with the PJ's official admission that they had no other leads and no plans to look any further for the child the investigation into her disappearance came to an end. Now, without stepping into the shadows of the Portuguese legal system, it is obvious that this self-consciously public dotting of "i"s and crossing of "t"s by police and prosecutors must have been the outcome of much unrecorded discussion at all levels - but nobody wants to talk about that. To Amaral it all stank of a behind-closed-doors stitch-up, a determination to end the inquiry for raisons d'etat, and from an English point of view one can see why he was outraged. That, however, is a matter for the Portuguese themselves.
But that dammed
re-enactment section in Carlos's police report, (the latter made up
98% of the Archiving Summary), clearly indicating that the inquiry
was not just incomplete but actually thwarted by individuals beyond
reach, was like a giant ink blot all over the Summary's pages. It
couldn't be removed for many reasons but its retention was
potentially prejudicial to the parents. Such are the limitations on
secret decision-taking behind a constitutional screen. Menezes, whose
portrait indicates malleability rather than decisiveness, seems to
have been jelly-like in his approach. The re-enactment section was
the conclusion (in both senses of the word) of the PJ report: Menezes
took it out and dumped it in the decent obscurity of page 45 (of 57).
Yet he chose to add to the PJ section the fatal words about
"demonstrating innocence":
Temos para nos que os principais prejudicados foram arguidos McCann, que perderam a possibilidade de comprovarem aquilo que desde a sua constittuicao como arguidos tem protestado : a sua inocencia face ao fatidico acontecimento : tambem estorvada restou a investigacao, porque tais factos ficarem por esclarecer.We believe that the main losers were the McCanns, who lost the opportunity to prove the truth of their assertions – maintained ever since they were made arguidos – that they were innocent, and the investigation itself because of this failure to clarify the facts.
The words can never be
unsaid and, despite the perfectly true if rather over-egged
conclusion of Menezes about the absence of evidence against the
couple, they have provided the solid foundation for unending doubts
about the parents and their friends among researchers, even as the
pair were being, in Carter-Ruck's famous words, "exonerated".
Unless the Yard inquiry leads both to the conviction of a criminal
and a re-opening of the Portuguese investigation for the purpose of
formally stating the parent's demonstrable innocence, not mere
absence of evidence against them in 2008, then the cloud over them
will never be lifted: in 2050 there will still be books and
documentaries besmirching their reputation and offering new theories.
Exactly how much Menezes and others intended this to happen, and why,
may not be known until most of the protagonists are dead (the time
when the real smears and book sales start), if ever. The one
conclusion that seems untenable is that his words were accidental and
unguarded. In a prosecuting summary? By a prosecutor? No, the words
were pre-meditated. And the same applies to the words of the
Attorney-General, who presented the summary and endorsed its
conclusions.
The concept of the
demonstration of innocence, or put another way ("tem
protestado..."), proving that they had not been lying when
claiming innocence, is not the impossibility that certain interested
parties claim. (...) In view of the stakes involved it is simply
astonishing that the 7 have not been queuing up to clarify their
evidence to anyone with a blue lamp and a helmet, rather than making
weasel-word excuses for their non-attendance followed by outright
refusal to co-operate (look at the evidence – their correspondence
is there in all its sordid evasiveness on sites like Maddie Case
Files. Anyone interested in the case should have read it carefully).
Speaking personally I remain absolutely baffled that all seven did
not swallow their feelings of anger at what they saw as persecution
at the hands of the Portuguese, put aside any doubts and rush to
re-enact and speak when requested, in their own and the McCanns'
interests, if nobody else's. But no. And now the Yard alone will
never enable them to escape the Attorney-General's poisoned legacy.
Verdict so far? An
embarrassing failure with nobody in charge – 21.07.2013
The Scotland Yard
Review/Investigation has already taken two and a half times as long
as the entire original PJ inquiry – despite having the nine most
significant witnesses within their jurisdiction and with all the
initial legwork having been done for them. The result? As Gerry
McCann so memorably put it – "They've got nothing!" JB
writes solo again: I can't help thinking that there are, to put it
mildly, just a few problems with the Scotland Yard review – quite
apart, that is, from its effrontery in disagreeing with me. How dare
they? At the beginning they said they weren't going to provide a
running commentary on the case and yet they're leaking like a
Mitchell cruise ship and yapping to the public like a red-nosed West
Country drunk with a tale to tell. Leicester police have been
impeccable. Tight as a drum since 2007 they never allowed themselves
to be drawn out, not even when the rogatory interviews surfaced; the
Yard, in contrast, went back on their "no comment" policy
as soon as UK reporters caught their officers visiting Spain back in
2011. What were they wearing – signs on their bloody backs? When
primary sources like Amaral and Kate McCann made it clear that
Leicester knew more than they were saying they stayed tight-lipped;
when Amaral's early 2012 comments revealed virtually everything that
mattered about the review – read them carefully – the Yard was
thrown into an idiotic panic and the farce of 2012 anniversary day.
Leicester police were wise and correct in saying nothing, good or
bad, about the Portuguese. Nor have they ever criticised Amaral. What
did the Yard do on anniversary day? Make execrable attempts at spin
in the media including – this is Redwood – baffling, patronising
and inconceivably ill-considered hints that the Portuguese were
dragging their feet and might have to be pushed to co-operate more.
What possessed him?
And these worthies –
search the Yard public records and you will quickly discover that not
one of the Met's cleverest analysts was put into the review team, nor
one of their senior people with diplomatic savoir-fair like Yates
before he left, nor one of their rising stars —made the childish
error of attempting to use the BBC for their own purposes and make a
Panorama programme about their work when it was only ten months old!
It is obvious that yet again UK police have under-estimated, publicly
and privately, the Portuguese. We know that Amaral was not just in
contact with the Panorama team but was willing to be interviewed and
admit that mistakes had been made. Did Redwood's Deadwoods never
wonder why he allowed himself to be involved? And that he might be
finding out from the BBC as much about the Yard's input as the Yard
knew about his? No. In the pathetic middle-ranking Chav's culture of
the Met what the Portuguese think, just like the blacks, doesn't
really matter. Amaral was not going to be shit upon from a great
height by the BBC and the UK police a second time; nor was he going
to let himself be written out of the script as a sort of comical
nobody who could be dismissed as yesterday's failure. As he reminded
them and us he is very, very much still here. His 2012 demarche to
the Portuguese media blowing the secrets of the review, including his
comment on the way it was going for the McCanns, was his method of
guaranteeing what he wanted: the programme was re-written and the
Yard danced to his tune. Leicester police never feel shy about
defending their operational silence by whatever means are necessary,
whoever's toes they tread on. When they were forced to speak, not by
the tabloid simpletons of Redwood's choice but by a court hearing,
they spoke clearly and blew away Kate & Gerry McCann's
pretensions with a statement that hurts and annoys them to this day,
one which has never been rescinded.
And what did Redwood do?
Lay it on with a trowel that the McCanns were utterly in the clear.
Fine. But did anyone in the Met's very extensive PR department, which
is only now being thinned out, remind him that he'd have to
re-iterate that at every new announcement until there were some
public results or people would think that something new had turned up
against the pair? Nope. And we have the further idiocy of senior
officers breaching the "no commentary" policy by
gratuitously yabbering about the review without even being prompted –
except by in-fighting. Anyone know why the head of the Met let it be
known that Operation Grange didn't have his confidence and would
start having to produce results (in 2013)? Or why the retiring Hamish
McLavish (where did he appear from?) suddenly surfaced to claim that
it was doing well – read "don't panic" – before legging
it? Or why it leaked and leaked about the CPS and the expansion of
the review? Or why they had to admit they're still only two thirds
through the material of their original remit? If they have the
"people of interest" then the other third doesn't need
another year's study, does it? And if not why aren't they getting
that third finished with their mouths shut? Or why McLavish, Redwood
and the rest have issued the sort of quantitative assessments of
progress – "four hundred and forty suspects considered, twenty
thousand files browsed, 36, no 37, no 38 persons of interest on our
lists, seventeen thousand notebook pages filled, 986 memory sticks
transcribed, 60 000 lunches eaten" – that always scream,
yes scream, that something's wrong, that an insecure operation or
institution is trying to justify lack of real, tangible, unspun
accomplishments with transparent spin?* Or why, once again,
having been ruthlessly holed below the waterline by Amaral they are
now being coolly rebutted by the Portuguese Attorney-General's
department saying they've seen nothing new? Why haven't they? And
doesn't the Attorney-General always tell the truth and make superb
summaries and exonerations? I mean, you'd have thought that they
might have sent a Prior, or a Yates (on recall) to Lisbon to eat some
humble brandade and say, forget past insults and will you forgive us?
Please?
No. By their public
statements and their leaks and briefings Scotland Yard is making it
clear that they are doing exactly what they accused the PJ of in 2007
and more. Remember the snooty garbage that coppers, ex-coppers and
Kelvin McKenzie have been putting out for years – that UK police
only give truthful "steers" to help journalists (for the
public) understand what's going on, in contrast to those mouthy PJ
people who exaggerated their progress. Spot the difference. "Imminent
DNA evidence" versus "imminent arrests"; "dogs"
versus "paedophile gangs"; arguidos versus doomed "persons
of interest"; "rogatory letters" versus "rogatory
letters". None of the stuff they've been putting out since May
2012 has helped steer anyone towards anything except PR. Finally, it
is unclear who is in charge of this farrago, if anyone really is. It
is an investigation riddled with tensions, disagreements and bluff
that has produced nothing except jam tomorrow, that the head of the
Yard has no confidence, and very little interest, in and under an
unremarkable detective who may yet go down as having produced one of
the biggest fit-ups in even the Yard's dirty history with Barry
George's "bullets". As others distance themselves from his
inquiry Redwood may one day discover the old truth that the Met head
already knows: success has many parents but failure is an orphan.
* You will find exactly
the same giveaway in almost the same words with a similar aim in the
overview section of the PJ final report (look on McCannPJ files).
The difference is that
the PJ had been told that their most significant witnesses were
beyond reach and knew, therefore, that the investigation could go no
further. They had to admit failure and the language demonstrates it.
It hurt. Scotland Yard, on the other hand, are getting their excuses
in nice and early.
More on the Fuzz –
22.07.2013
Criminal investigations
do not succeed because they employ whizzo brains. Criminals are
defeated because in every investigation there is a critical imbalance
of force: the huge police machine, including support services, is
turned on the criminal, who is essentially alone. Where this
imbalance of force does not apply, as for example in Sicily and
Sardinia, then detection usually faces problems. Otherwise the
machine is everything, individual detective skill almost nothing. But
police forces need a start, something they can get their teeth into,
something to point the machine at. Where there is a body, a
blood-ridden crime scene, or a named suspect on the run it cranks
into action following well-practised SOPs – Standard Operating
Procedures. The machine gradually isolates and crushes the villains.
It is those rare cases when obvious footholds into detection are
missing that the police – all police – falter. Complex fraud
cases, for example, are notoriously difficult to solve and rarely
come to court: the critical resource imbalance is drastically reduced
and, since the normal machine tools and SOPs are inappropriate or
unusable, success is rare. A crime without an obvious suspect, let
alone a body, is the ultimate nightmare. That is why Alipio
Ribeiro, the most intelligent, as well as the most cultured and
sympathetic of the PJ chiefs, talked publicly in summer 2007 about
the particular problems of the McCann case: the latter was, he said,
one where extra financial resources counted for nothing because it
had reached a stage of "pure investigation... like a Hercules
Poirot story" – in other words one of intense intellectual
analysis of the jigsaw pieces against the clock. And Ribeiro, who was
always too straight for his own good, admitted that in such extreme
cases as this one they might well need luck. British police don't do
talk like that, partly because so many of them qualify for Herman
Wouk's description, partly because they like to keep their problems
to themselves, partly because of the UK tradition in everything from
warfare to football* of downgrading intellectual power (which is
always in limited supply) in favour of disciplined teamwork and
genius-designed SOPs. So it was open season on the Portuguese police,
much to the glee of the tabloid press. Yet anyone with a gram of
independent thought and nous must have been shocked by the woeful
contributions of the retired coppers who wheeled themselves out to
pronounce on the case and the PJ shortcomings in the media.
You've seen what they
look like – think Edgar, think Horrocks, that supremely bovine
white-haired dolt photographed outside apartment 5A who told us all
what actually happened here: Childless couple took Maddie says top
cop And you've read the barely believable ordinariness of their
reasoning. The ineffable Horrocks was a Yard squad chief! Having left
the machine and the SOPs they are revealed for what they are without
its protection: cunning but thick.** Now the UK police have had their
own chance to show how elementary it all is, how buffoonish the PJ,
Amaral, Ribeiro and the rest are and how childish were the errors
made in the Interrupted Investigation. A piece of cake. Two and a
half years! Not a single result. Nothing. Only fine words, excuses
and jam tomorrow. Still, going on the promises the Yard have made,
we'll soon be able to compare the two forces in terms of results,
won't we?
* The exception being the
security services.
** Readers new to the
subject may ask "aren't you just doing what the tabloids did –
say that one force is clueless and the other not – but the other
way round?"
The answer is no. For
very important historical reasons European police forces, ever since
the days of Fouché, have always been more closely integrated with
security services, as evidenced by the distinction in most of those
countries between gendamerie like the GNR, with a broadly public
order control function, and seriously specialist forces, like the
Italian Guardia di Finanza, for example, which is a powerful police
force but actually part of the armed services. This integration
provides a strong career ladder for ambitious and highly educated
recruits, since the protection of the state takes primacy over the
pure law enforcement role. Readers are referred to Wikipedia or
similar. In (peninsular) Scandinavia and most of all in (island)
Britain policing is treated in a completely different manner: police
and security forces are kept rigidly separate and limited in the UK
and only the police have powers of arrest. Recruits for the security
service come from the cream of the population; police recruits,
brutal as it may sound, do not. Frankly, although the subject is
never publicly discussed, it's so they can't plot together – and
neither, on their own, can produce a "whitewash". None of
this, of course, means that talented and brilliant individuals do not
exist in the UK police. It is averages we are talking about. So the
answer is: for historical reasons the average intelligence and
educational attainment of criminal investigation forces in mainland
Europe is indeed higher than in the UK police.
Reality breaks through –
23.07.2013
After the first year of
the review which had triumphantly produced a long list of suspects
and the ambition, nay the intention, of solving the case - "We
are here in terms of seeking to bring closure to the case. That would
be our ultimate objective," Mr Redwood said. "Closure means
establishing what has happened to Madeleine McCann." "Solving
it?" "Yes, solving it, of course." After the second
year of the review which had triumphantly produced a warning from the
Yard head that its future couldn't be guaranteed and after Redwood's
boss took early retirement without a word of well wishes from anyone.
Another list of suspects but a somewhat modified ambition, don't you
think? – "Arrests in the Madeleine McCann case could be made
within weeks by Scotland Yard detectives investigating 38 suspects."–
"Whether we will be able to solve it is a different issue but I
hope we will be able to have the ability to move the investigation
on," Mr Redwood said.
Notebook – 28.07.2013
It's a slightly surreal
period, isn't it? When you read of a police force that leaks like a
sieve, spins to selected journalists on a regular basis, is led by an
officer previously involved in a notorious miscarriage of justice
episode with a great belief in dodgy forensic evidence, you'd think
it was the Mirror slagging off GA again. But no. Much closer to home.
(...) And then there are the dogs. No, not those dogs but the other
ones so often mentioned in the case who fail to bark in the night. No
statement from very undodgy Dr David Payne on behalf of his six
friends – "now that Scotland Yard have exonerated all of us we
hope we'll be allowed to get on with our lives at last. We hold no
grudges but my lawyers, who helped me so much in 2008, are watching
Twitter carefully." Nope. Not a word from any of them. Philly
McCann? "At last the bobbies are helping ma poor brother instead
of framing him. Kate? Ah don't know anything about Kate, haven't seen
her for years." Goncalo Amaral, steam pouring from his ears on
Portuguese TV, "…the British police are wrong,a disgrace, this
is another miscarriage of justice..." Not at all: if he's
freaked out by the wreckage of everything he's worked for he's
disguising it very well. A grinning Isabel Duarte via Link PR in
Portugal – "Our judges will take note of the Scotland Yard
comments on our clients. Their victory in our courts is now a
formality." Not yet, apparently. A couple of little woofs,
granted. Kate and Gerry McCann, after a long period of relative
silence – what on earth can have been on their mind? – seem not
just pleased but relieved as they resume broadcasting. And the
Portuguese Attorney-General, that champion of the innocent, has said
a few words on the case, hasn't he? Unfortunately these don't seem to
support Woody at all. But there are the supporters, that 50 or so
strong British group who know so much more about the case than
several million Portuguese, their appeal court judges and their
police force – well, they're just dagoes aren't they? – and
pronounce accordingly. From what I've seen they're not just speaking
but shouting, posting in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS. Why on earth are they
all so furious? What's getting at them? Finally, there are signs that
a small group of Yardies has been appointed, given brooms and shovels
and asked to follow Woody's rear around. After getting him to
withdraw the "we will solve it claim" their latest clean-up
job has involved contacting the Guardian to tell them that no, no,
no, Redwood didn't mean they had suspects in their sights: if he used
the word to the hacks it was just a slip of the tongue and is now
"inoperative". The correct term is "persons of
interest" and could the Guardian print a correction and
retraction, please? Which the Guardian has done.
Something might turn up –
31.07.2013
No, I don't want the Yard
investigation to fail. And no, I don't want it to run into the sands
because I disagree with its apparent direction. That's why my friends
and I on the Bureau rarely commented on it, merely repeating at
intervals our initial prediction that a solution wouldn't be found
while the Attorney-General's Archiving Summary questions remained
unanswered. But things have changed. The Yard has gone public in an
increasingly loud and questionable manner – loud because it has
moved from occasional brief and factual public statements to a
full-scale entry into the spin game, questionable because of the
giant disconnect between the spin and actual results to date. It is a
matter of fact that demonstrable results after over two years work
are zero: all they can produce are areas for investigation, just as
the PJ had in June 2007. Tellingly the Yard have not provided a
single detail showing that they are any nearer an arrest and
conviction than the PJ was then. Are there crucial new facts that
they haven't told us? Not according to the Portuguese authorities.
Yet the Yard is embarked on a deliberate campaign to spin up the the
jam tomorrow angle while deliberately seeking to conceal or muffle –
to spin down – the significance of the absence of results. It is
briefing and leaking selectively which normally indicates a threat of
some kind. Take this latest example, one of many: THERESA May has
sent Portugal an official request asking if Scotland Yard can begin a
new investigation over there into Madeleine McCann's
disappearance.The Home Secretary also asked the authorities in Lisbon
whether cops can be stationed in the country during their inquiries.
A two-year Met review costing £5million has identified 38 potential
suspects — including 12 Britons — who are "of interest".
Hopes were raised the
Yard will take control of the investigation which stalled in 2008.
They have no prime suspect and believe Madeleine could still be
alive. If Portuguese approval is given, the Met is expected to seek
new forensic evidence and pursue hundreds of possible leads. A
spokesman for Ms May said: "The Home Office remains committed to
supporting the search for Madeleine McCann." Look at the extract
to see how far the Met's boots have wandered into the media mud and
how M/S May's department is being drawn into tippy-toeing behind. It
is a pure Clarence Mitchell spin template. First paragraph a message;
next a summary ("guided" by the briefers) which fleshes out
the statement into a story. Finally, and farcically, the adoption of
Schizo Mitchell's two hats method: Mrs May, (via her PR officials)
has told us what she wants us to know in paragraph one. Now Mrs May
(via her PR officials) puts on her second hat and pretends that it
was nothing to do with her – while confirming its truth! Faced with
this sort of junk it's futile for people to claim that the Yard
should be left to get on with its job until results are achieved. As
everybody, surely, must know by now, PR initiatives are not
information providers: they are an attempt to alter public
perception, not the reality, in favour of those behind the campaign.
We're being addressed for a purpose that, in the short term at least,
is not our own, and we either accept the spin dumbly or we come back
with a response and try and work out why we are being so addressed.
So what's the threat they face? What has occurred to make the Yard,
backed increasingly by the home office, feel it has to spin so much
about Grange, rather than letting results speak for themselves, now
or in the future? The possible answers to that question, far from
being useless speculation, may be the best guide to the ultimate fate
of the review. Deliberate misinformation to deceive the real
potential suspects? That would certainly be the best news, indicating
that the Yard are on top of things and that action might be imminent,
but is it likely? Readers will have their own views but surely there
were simpler, risk-free, ways of deceiving the baddies without
actively deceiving us. And the fact that the need arises only because
of the Yard's original thoughtless blunder in talking too much argues
against clearly thought out Cunning Plans. No. To me at least the
tone of the spin combined with the absence of results all argue,
unfortunately, the other way: that the Yard and its masters are
struggling with the looming reality of the failure of its mission.
Doubling up their table
stakes with a Portugal-based inquiry seems to be the only course that
everyone can agree on. It can't do any harm, the arguments must run,
and something may turn up out there. This is reminiscent of Alipio
Ribeiro's hopes in July 2007, as his options began to run out, that
somehow a key would be found by continued analysis of known facts and
"everything would then fall into place". Still, it would be
a brave home secretary and Yard head who destroyed hope by ordering
the winding-up of the review when, as Goncalo Amaral said before
them, in Portugal they might be on the brink of success. Admission of
failure takes reputations and careers down with it, starting at the
top: Mrs May's clumsy attempts to establish herself as a future prime
minister, sick or otherwise, would end overnight. Hamish and
Hogan-Howe have distanced themselves, each in their own way, but the
others would be writing up their Cvs. A pleasant winter in the
Algarve will provide rest from such gloomy thoughts for everyone
involved. It might, just might, discover something important. And it
will provide plenty of time for ministers to work out an exit
strategy that won't cost them votes or excessive international
embarrassment. From the point of view of mere nobodies like me it
could also provide useful space, cover and exposure to Portuguese
influence for detectives to "re-focus" their inquiry.
Unlikely as that is we all know where they would have to re-focus,
don't we? Still, Kate and Gerry McCann seem to be happy with the
investigation.
Changeable winds –
08.08.2013
Weird, unstable,
phoney-war atmosphere, starting with the libel settlement stories in
the winter and steadily deepening. “Rumours”, said Kate McCann
then: yes, but true rumours or false rumours? So simple to answer but
she still won’t say. She and her husband seem
to have given up attempting to communicate their own messages to the
public. Only slogans remain and they're perfunctory, empty. Why does the Yard
exclusion of the McCanns from the list seem so emphatic yet smell so
strongly of response to McCann lawyers’ input? Not the libel
lawyers either. What exactly is fuelling
the ever-increasing hysteria of the parents’ supporters since
January – on Twitter you can now almost feel the spittle
accompanying the words – despite the transparent high-ground
posing? What sort of colossal emotional stake do they have and why do
they seem suffused with uncertainty? Amaral’s continued
refusal to add a word to his fifteen month silence since he blew the
gaff on the review and tweaked the Redwood ventriloquist’s dummy
into speech. We know what the hysterics will say it implies but
what’s its significance in the real world? And what does the new and
perceptible sense of ambivalence in the press indicate? Their tone
towards the McCanns is somehow different, isn’t it? As though
they’re trying to put themselves into position for something. The parents, the Yard,
the supporters, Amaral and his lawyers, the press: all apparently
changing footholds behind a screen of silence or bluster.
Fascinating.
(...)
(...)
Yea, vengeance is mine
saith the lord – 15.08.2013
Not sure how I feel about seeing Mr Amaral – for the first time ever, I hasten to add! I know I’m not scared but that man has caused us so much upset and anger because of how he has treated my beautiful Madeleine and the search to find her. He deserves to be miserable and feel fear.
It has been rather
surprising since Scotland Yard’s publicity drive to read people
claiming that the abduction theory is not just a fact but the only
truly viable theory, the most likely explanation of events. Really? That was certainly not
the view of the interrupted investigation and the hypothesis that was
gradually developed at its heart: that a mentally disturbed woman had
killed Madeleine McCann, accidentally or otherwise, and one or more
people had covered up the event. The difficulty of
explaining the removal of the child from the apartment and her
subsequent disappearance from the face of the earth is the identical
problem for both theories, whether that of the removal and
disappearance of a dead child by persons known to her or the removal
and disappearance of a live child at the hands of a stranger. But whereas there were
suggestive, though later unconfirmed, indications of a death in the
apartment consistent with the PJ theory there were none at all,
disconfirmed or otherwise, of an intruder. Without the bolting on of
additional ad hoc theories such as fear of neglect charges by some of
the group, the abduction hypothesis can make no sense of the
inconsistencies highlighted in the Archiving Summary, the very odd
evidence of Mathew Oldfield or the prosecutor’s public statement
that the group had lied about the checking routines. The PJ theory as
expressed by Goncalo Amaral certainly could since it postulated the
mother as a victim in need of help, not a malefactor. Without
necessarily knowing details of what had occurred in the apartment
the T7 were likely to see her in the same way, with one or more of
them opting for "hear no evil, see no evil" passive support
for a sufferer whose arrest in a foreign land would help nobody. The abduction theory
cannot explain the documented obstruction of the investigation by the
couple nor their documented discussion of secret flight preceding
their eventual authorised return to the UK, nor the documented
refusal of the T7 to return and assist which put the investigation
into suspension. These events, however, were satisfactorily explained
by the PJ theory without any ad hoc additions, as was the "normal"
demeanour of Kate McCann on the evening of May 3, known in
psychiatric terms as "lack of affect" or complete emotional
disassociation.
Finally there is the
clear evidence that the McCann lawyers took the developed nub of the
theory – that the child was not safe alone with her mother on May
3 – very seriously indeed, particularly in the period September/
October when recall to Portugal was considered a real possibility. A “botch”, a
“failure” or a “mess” are words that are thrown around with
abandon about the original inquiry these days but they didn’t
feature in the expensive McCann legal team’s desperate attempts to
counter (and therefore implicitly accept the possible reality of) the
PJ’s claims pin-pointing death at her mother’s hands between
afternoon and evening of May 3. The team, the family and
the spokesman broke cover and used the media in a sustained attempt
to show not that Kate McCann in her then mental state was safe to be
with (they couldn’t do that and gave up trying) but that she had
not been unchaperoned long enough for an assault, accidental or
otherwise, to take place and be covered up within the time frame.
That was why the supposed
visit of David Payne to apartment 5A was so crucial and why the
family, the spokesman, the lawyers and Gerry McCann publicly
attempted to push the time of the visit from 6.30 to 7PM, minutes
prior to Gerry’s return. Payne responded by reiterating that the
visit was at the earlier time, thus drawing a line in the sand which
resulted in the group dropping the claim, as the evidence
demonstrates.
The visit remains a
serious point of issue to this day and, again, the well-known
conflicts of evidence between Gerry McCann, his wife and Payne about
it are perfectly explained by the PJ theory. Bien sûr, car Gerry
n'a-t-il pas déclaré que Kate et lui avaient trouvé les enfants
trop fatigués pour aller jouer ?
Of course the
Attorney-General showed us that there was no evidence of any criminal
act by the parents – though he did so, oddly, without addressing
this central PJ theory – so we all now know that the child was
indeed safe with her mother.
All that remains to be
said is that the publication of Madeleine in 2011 confirmed in detail
that the child, that summit, as Kate McCann wrote, of her life’s
ambition had indeed reduced the mother to an emotional, crying wreck
in the early months of her life before being consigned to a nursery
at the age of just six months, a rather different picture from the
gooey “couple who had everything” sentimentality of 2007 media
reports. That was what the PJ, as we know, suspected and they were
right.
About the demonstrable
aggression and explosive violence of Kate McCann, as well as a
disturbing taste for vengeance and troubling symptoms of
psychological distress and disassociation, revealed in that book, the
less said in this context the better, since it could be construed as
further factual confirmation of the PJ’s tentative profile,
something I have no wish to maintain.
Vengeance is mine
In the quite separate
context of McCanns versus Amaral, however, and my known belief that
the couple attacked a public servant with astonishing cunning, lies
and violence the personality traits revealed by Kate McCann are very
relevant indeed.
I have led an extremely
rackety life and mixed with some very dangerous people. Yet I was
genuinely disturbed by the 2011 (not 2007) mind-set of Kate McCann as
revealed in her book. Leaving aside the fact that she clutched a
cross when she first met Amaral in 2009, an act which she appears to
consider, like so many of her actions, normal and unremarkable, it
was the lines quoted above that struck me most.
I have been known as
pretty vengeful myself under appropriate circumstances but had I ever
felt that someone deserved to be miserable and feel fear rather than
acting against them? No, I couldn’t recall ever thinking that in
my life. Readers might ask themselves the same question. To me these
words, written by a catholic years after the trauma of 2007, are
those of a manifestly unbalanced and disturbed human being.
Sophist's Choice - 19.08.2013
"A sophist is someone who is willing to turn their mind to answer any question for the sake of it, aiming to win an argument irrespective of the question of truth." Old words, new uses. It was the Greeks who first made the distinction between debate as a way of learning through the integration of different points of view (which directly motivated the first Internet forum creators) and sophistry, the technique of winning arguments. And winning arguments in the ancient world, political, legal or social, could be a death sentence for the loser. Sophistry was oral and
lost its intellectual power in the face of print since the tricks and
evasions of the method are easily identified once a text is analysed
at leisure, permanently discrediting the author. Elements of it are
still taught and exercised in courtrooms but, since judgements are
written down and subject to textual analysis in the appeal courts,
its use is fraught with dangers to its exponent. In politics, of course,
sophistry thrives like a weed but with few believing that
politicians are concerned with the truth anyway, and with
television's cold eye exposing the expression and body language of
the speaker, its power is drastically limited.
What's new?
But now a body of
expertise so dead and useless that its name has almost been forgotten
has been electronically resuscitated, like a two thousand year old
mummy, to stalk the pages of the Internet. It rules almost
unchallenged there because, just as in ancient times, the majority
of the audience is inexpert and because there is no discipline such
as legal review, editorial scrutiny or academic analysis to separate
truth from falsehood. And since the Internet, not the legally muzzled
press, is the arena where the McCann arguments are fought out,
sophistry runs amok.
Oddly enough…
Almost exclusively from
one side of the argument, the parents' side.
To suggest that one side
is guilty of sophistry is not partisanship on my part, a plea that
the other side is innocent. On the contrary, as I've written before
in the cesspit context, the anti-side very often stinks to high
heaven: the difference is that the less scrupulous or more
vulnerable antis don't utilise the techniques of sophistry very much,
using instead outright fiction, lazily unchecked forum/newspaper
nonsense (fridges, tenth Tapas, the list is a very long one), or the
words of absurd guru figures to back up their suspicions –
suspicions aroused in the first place by what the parents were
saying, not by what they had done.
This suspicion, much of
it very bitter, is due to a feeling, I think, that both the parents
and their supporters are somehow tricky with their arguments, not
quite playing the game, able to provide answers that without being
obvious lies lack honesty of approach. Sophist, in short, even if
that word has not sprung from many lips.
We've all done it
Take, for example, the
very beginning of the affair when the children were left unguarded.
Instead of accepting this irrefutable fact – which doesn't make
the parents legally guilty of anything – they and their supporters
have sought to use every trick in the book to somehow minimise it.
The "just like your
back garden" stuff, the "within sight of the tapas
restaurant" claims were made from day one, a clear attempt to
somehow evade the stark reality that infants were so alone and
unprotected that one of them disappeared off the face of the earth.
The "garden" claim is a pure sophist argument, even if the
couple don't know sophistry from a hole in the ground. Why? Because
it's slippery and uttered for a purpose, not as a contribution to the
truth.
Of course you can't
refute it because some people somewhere will have 70 yard long
gardens and ground-floor bedrooms with beds visible through open
French windows, or concrete paved Liverpool back-to-backs where nine
people can consume six bottles of wine in an hour and a half only
eight feet away from the kids' cots. And variants of this argument
are still being pushed forward six years later. It's irrefutable but
it isn't intended to add to our knowledge, is it? The cesspit sites won't
be interested in this – too boring, too many long words – but
please don't post it on them anyway. Thanks. We won't do it. More startling are the
gymnastics around the reconstruction question. First there is the
silly, but constantly repeated, claim that the group "wanted"
a reconstruction in the early days but Devil Amaral turned it down.
Now come on! Of course you can point to words in Amaral's book that
can be mangled to justify it but it's obvious that this is a wriggle.
The analysis of the statements made by the nine and the research into
the actual sequence of events was only just starting when the
majority of the Seven flew home so there were no inconsistencies yet
to reveal!
Then there is the claim
that the parents never refused to take part in the reconstruction
because they "couldn't", being arguidos subject to recall.
But again, come on FFS! If they'd wanted a reconstruction, if they'd
wanted the truth to be pursued, we all know they simply had to ask
their friends to assist, not run to their lawyers to find ways of
thwarting the inquiry. The sophistry again has the clear aim of
muddying a simple reality – the nine didn't help the police by
returning when requested, end of story.
What's the difference?
We see the process in
action throughout and the best illustration of it involves two
examples of suggestive but unsupported evidence: Kate McCann's
testimony of what she found in apartment 5A at 10PM on May 3 and what
the dogs found in the same apartment many weeks later. But look at
the difference in the way the parents' allies handle the two
examples!
guilty dogs Safely behind
bars, the bastards
Kate McCann's window and
shutter evidence is accepted as gospel without question, even though
she is a self-admitted liar. Forensic confirmation of her print on a
window showing no signs of others' having been wiped is ignored or
evaded.
The fact that her husband
then both raised the shutters and handled them from outside, thus
destroying any chance of forensic confirmation, is ignored or
excused; the fact that there was no reason for a window to have been
opened in an unlocked apartment is challenged by inventing hypotheses
not derived from the evidence, such as an "escape route"
or, even more absurdly, as a means for multiple abductors to pass the
child to each other; the fact that witnesses passing the window a few
metres away never saw the backlit shutters up is ignored; the fact
that Mathew Oldfield, crazily, was "unable to say" whether
the shutters were open or shut from six feet away inside the
apartment is elided. Not only is there no confirmation of her claim
but all the known evidence casts severe doubt on it.
Kate grim
Pure as the whited snow,
the angel
The situation is rather
different with the dogs, isn't it? Having stretched every possible
muscle to give Kate McCann's story a semblance of confirmation (and
failing) the parents and their club now do the precise opposite:
forensics are good, everything, everyone, else, is bad.
The dogs are belittled,
their handler traduced for the last six years, the examinations
picked over for possible loopholes. A curious sense of glee at the
over-optimistic inferences of many antis, a sense of piling in to
make the most of an opportunity, is tangible. The contrast between
the two examples, the outright dishonesty of the approach, couldn't
be clearer. Of half a dozen or so similar examples of sophistry in
action – all of them, it should be noted, dealing with critical
aspects of the case, the question of the twins and drugs is perhaps
the most enlightening, as readers can discover for themselves.
Mr Pooter solves the case
The one overt and
admitted sophist in the pure Greek sense in the case is a defender of
the parents who glories in, and is obsessed by, winning arguments
about it.
A second-rate retired
sociologist (what else?) who calls himself debunker—the name, and
the pretension, say it all— and whom the Bureau described as the
Sage of the Suburbs, loves to win arguments by adopting different
identities by the dozen, by the hundred, on the Internet and by
carefully choosing vulnerable targets to out-argue. But every victory
is in fact a defeat: away from the febrile, naive arena of Internet
debate cold consideration of the words ruthlessly exposes the
intellectual poverty behind them, as it always does. The only truth
that his words carry is that the disappearance and death of a child
was a good career opportunity for the poor sod. No, the antis can't
compete with the opposition in the revival of sophistry – thank
God.
The Exclusion Zone –
22.08.2013
Let's go back to the
Archiving Summary. As I've repeated many times the summary of the
suspension of the case made two main points: that there was no
evidence of the commission of any crime by the parents and that there
were serious issues remaining unresolved, not merely of the "we
don't know who did it" kind but specific lines of inquiry not
yet completed. These were discussed in the Reconstruction section.
Those are facts. Whatever excuses people wish to make, or invent, for
the failure of the seven "friends" to assist in their own,
and the McCanns', exoneration by enlarging on their original brief
statements, they wouldn't and didn't do it. They hid beyond reach.
That's a pretty high price the parents have to pay because the seven
decided that they "didn't think it would help", or they
were sulky about Portuguese coppers, or they wouldn't be able to find
baby-sitters to look after their kids while they returned to Portugal
or whatever excuses they eventually gave, straight-faced it seems, to
Rebelo's call for help. Forget the McCanns as potential suspects and
concentrate on this collection of craven, immature cowards. Would you
have acted in the way they did knowing that you would be condemning
two friends to suspicion, as in suspects, for the rest of their
lives? If you would you shouldn't be reading here. "Pact"?
No, just collusion It was David Payne, not the McCanns, who began the
scramble to save their own arses at the expense of a couple and a
three year old infant by co-ordinating and printing out a
self-serving "timeline" of fibs and guesses, designed
specifically to provide answers to questions the police were expected
to ask. The others colluded and tried to take the print-out with them
into the second set of police interviews. From that first attempt to
pervert the course of justice, through their dishonest avowals that
they would happily return to Portugal "if asked", to their
final wrigglings and evasions when they actually were asked, this
creepy, shifty-eyed gang have done nothing, literally nothing, to
help establish what happened to a missing child.
Now for those of us who,
confronted with this record of evasion, have been very surprised
indeed at the Scotland Yard exclusion of the seven, the question
arises, how have they been excluded? According to the Yard it is only
now moving on from the the review stage defined here: Met Police
disclosure (pdf), with its specific remit to "collate, record
and analyse what has gone before". There is no remit to
interview witnesses; only collation, recording and analysing is
included until a new investigative phase is begun. The beginning of
that new phase and its move from review to interview and
investigation was announced at virtually the same time as the group
of seven were publicly excluded from interview. So, unless the Yard
have both breached their remit and are publicly lying, none of the
seven has been questioned by UK police. It has to mean that, doesn't
it, even to Sophist Choicists? "Review of the evidence"
prior to moving to an investigative role cannot mean "questioning
of selected witnesses". Furthermore, if Scotland Yard have lied
and did secretly question the seven without authorization, thus
gaining new facts that remove the Attorney-General's
"inconsistencies", why has the same Attorney-General put it
on record that no new facts have been provided? So just what has put
the cowards who ran away from the investigation safely into the
Exclusion Zone? Subjective police opinion? Guesswork?
Simple-mindedness? An assumption that the Attorney-General is a moron
who invented inconsistencies and exonerations? It's worth thinking
about, isn't it? Meanwhile we await the Attorney-General's official
statement that the McCanns have at last had their innocence
demonstrated by the seven. Leicester police will no doubt follow up
with their own revision.
Libel Diary –
04.09.2013
In late 2009 the
Blacksmith Bureau bombarded Sky with requests to cover the
forthcoming Lisbon trial, for fear that only the McCanns' version of
court proceedings would reach the UK public, that public whose
knowledge of events in Portugal since 2007 was minuscule due to
guilt-and-libel-inspired silence from the mainstream press. Even
today I cannot recall ever reading a single report of the eventual
conclusion of that case – which took place in the Portuguese appeal
courts – in the UK MSP. What a surprise! Four years on it's a
different picture though, isn't it? There's no likelihood of silence
now. Readers will note that Mr Desmond's two papers have
public-spiritedly led the way in making sure UK citizens are aware of
forthcoming events overseas, thanks very much, with genial Jerry
Lawton, author of the most disgusting and libellous 2007
McCann-monster stories, unsacked, unashamed and perkily ready to
return to the fray on behalf of his
I'll-get-my-f*****g-money-back-one-day boss. And who could possibly
object to some courtroom reporting? Why, even Clarence Mitchell,
pricked into action by a Desmond-wielded poker inserted into the
sweeter and more truthful of his two major orifices, has speculated
in the Express on what GA might have to say on the steps outside
court, speculations which for some mysterious reason contained none
of the epithets which Team McCann bullied a compliant press into
attaching to GA's name whenever it appeared in the past. Has Mr
Mitchell discovered Christian forbearance and charity as the waves
slowly close over his badly tinted head? Or have the newspapers'
lawyers all realized that the game is finally up and the days of
libelling Amaral in the same way they libelled Kate 'n' Gel in 2007
are over? For good. I think we all know the answer to that one: even
the poor old Mirror, always the last ship in the convoy, has
apparently deleted all those abusive Amaral adjectives from its
McCann style book and fallen into uncharacteristic silence about the
libel trial recently. Come on Mirror! Remember the great days when
you fed us the libel writ and finish the dodgy, lunching, wicked,
money-making, fat detective off! All you risk is a year's wait to see
if you're sued, isn't it? Let's hear from you! Most pleased, of
course, at the widespread publicity the trial will attract will be
the parents' loyal supporters who have stuck by them for so many
years waiting for this moment. The final defeat and exposure of the
vampire who made Kate clutch her cross so tightly will be much more
satisfying for being public. Satisfaction is the word. While we
allies of Goncalo Amaral hide away, baffled at our own past failure
to see the obvious yet lacking any sort of escape route, or fret in
ignorance of the outcome, the supporting legions, elderly yet wise,
are, rightly, in something of a frenzy at the prospect of being
satisfied after so many dry years. As they've told us so often the
outcome is a foregone conclusion and nemesis awaits. One only wonders
what they will be clutching in the ecstasy of Amaral's auto-da-fé.
Libel Diary – truth
trials and other science – 05.09.2013
Earlier this year that
unpleasant haters' journal the Blacksmith Bureau announced that the
McCanns had asked Goncalo Amaral for an out of court settlement of
their libel action, a fact that was well known in all the London
media newsrooms but never made the pages or the screens because
Amaral, to the MSM's intense irritation, refused to confirm the
story. And the McCanns refused to deny it! Readers here will be very
unsurprised to know that Mr Desmond's Express came closest to
publication – now why might that be? – with a story lined up
giving the official reasons for the surrender as well (Clarence was
leaking badly as he swam ashore), viz. that Kate and Gerry were
worried that continuing the action was going to clean them out
financially and that they needed to keep funds available for
unspecified "possible future needs". I suspect that
Goncalo's subsequent silence may have been partly because he had
begun laying out the dishes for that historic Italian culinary
delight The Dish Best Eaten Cold, and the frenzied UK hacks who,
having insulted him for six years, petitioned him for further
information to protect them from a McCann libel writ, were a
delicately tempting first course. That the story was true, of course,
needs no repetition, as the circus-acrobat attempts of Kate McCann to
kill it without actually denying something that was bound to come out
anyway, amply demonstrate. But there was a rather stronger reason,
one which prevented even Desmond's Mr James Murray – who was the
first UK journalist to forswear the Amaral insult book and so got
closer than the rest to the great man – from gaining the assenting
GA nod.
The reason was the use
which Duarte and her clients might have made of any comments by Mr
Amaral to poison his chances if the negotiations failed and the case
came to court. Now it would be wrong to suggest that honest people
like the McCanns might have been intending to leak spun versions of
anything said by GA in confidence about the affair to most of the
journalists in the Western world, totally wrong, but GA's lawyer
didn't know that, did he? Why, the poor chap – apparently a
second-rater, so the McCann supporters are always telling us –
couldn't even be sure that the surrender wasn't a deliberate trap
with the aim of prompting indiscretions that would find their way,
suitably spun and polished, up towards the judge's bench, unlikely
though that might be given the unimpeachable character of those
involved. So GA, under instruction from his lawyer as well as a
certain survival instinct which people underestimate at their peril,
said nothing, put on a little bit of needed weight with The Dish Best
Eaten Cold starter, garnished it by refusing to deny that he had
treated the Duarte/McCann offers like a £2.50 bid for Gareth Bale
and sat back with his napkin in his hand and a contented smile on his
face. Or so it would appear. All of this drove the covens absolutely
f******g nuts. They responded in the way they have done since 2008 –
deceiving themselves into believing what they want to hear and then
repeating those self-deceptions VERY LOUDLY INDEED as facts. Which,
readers may or may not remember, was exactly what the Bureau
intended, since the hating swine who ran it had decided to provoke
and egg them all on – covens, debunkers, tweeters, the lot – to
shout EVEN LOUDER about Amaral's NON-EXISTENT chances and DOOMED
FUTURE as a little experiment. An experiment, for those who have
forgotten, to see how the judgements of the "activist
supporters" would look in the light of the evidence that was
bound to emerge, directly and indirectly, from the libel trial.
People would then be able to compare the merits of the pro and anti
approaches to truth without difficulty. Scientific and in the public
interest, eh? All this was laid out quite openly in the Bureau but
the denizens of the covens and bunkers still fell for it not just
hook and line but like aged, heavily fatted but quite inedible,
trout. We shall now sit back and watch the experimental outcome,
encouraging others, in the interests of science of course, to do the
same. Apart from the GA stuff above, which is pretty certain to get
broad evidentiary confirmation, I know nothing more than anyone else
and have never had the faintest idea who will win the libel case,
although I've pointed out where my firm sympathies lie and the
obvious difficulties the crucifix clutchers face in Portuguese libel
law. That the McCanns tried unsuccessfully to extricate themselves
means nothing for a verdict, given the well-known vagaries of the
law. And, as my incorrect belief that the pair were on the Yard
suspects list demonstrates, I make mistakes and cannot foresee the
future of the case. So we all start equal, if not in good manners or
savoir-faire or withered troutness, at least in our chances of being
right or wrong.
Libel diary –
10.09.2013
"The investigation
process was made available in electronic format to the national and
international media, who then circulated it, thereby enabling
knowledge, comments and public and universal discussion of the
case...Anyone can access these facts and the documents of the
investigation in which they were verified with a click on the
internet." So much for the full-time supporters' argument that
members of the public who follow and debate the case are "hating"
intruders persecuting one family instead of "waiting for the
investigation to be completed". They've been saying that for six
years, except for one curious interval after the Archiving Summary
was released, when they, including Messrs Carter Ruck, decided that
the investigation, at least as it concerned the McCanns, was already
"completed". The Portuguese state deliberately made the
majority of the case information about an extraordinary crime
committed there available to the ordinary citizen anywhere in the
world, not merely to creepy private investigators, ex-arguidos or the
increasingly baffling Redwood squad which, despite dodgy leaking and
briefing on a scale which rivals the McCanns' own efforts, has
produced nothing in over two years. So how much longer are we
expected to wait in silence for the completion of this
"investigation"? Another two years? Five? Until the
Portuguese state indicates that Redwood's singing lumberjacks have
produced "relevant...new information"? You'll wait a long
time for that, chum. But of course there is a privacy argument for
the McCanns that was ignored by the third-world Portuguese when they
exposed some of the McCanns' dirty knickers to the world. "As
far as the [McCanns'] right to image and a good name is concerned, by
placing the case firmly in the public realm and giving it worldwide
notoriety, they opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are
adversarial to them."
The parents, their
lawyers and their more-or-less full-time supporters don't like this
legally enforced, democratic openness at all – except when it comes
to a couple of paragraphs cherry-picked from the bizarre and
non-judicial Archiving Summary. No, no, we groundlings should make do
with the information licensed to us by the family and their oh so
clever lawyers: the provably lying blogs, the provably lying
"Madeleine", the provably lying leaks ("Kate offered a
deal!!!") from the parents and their provably lying tinty-headed
spokesman. Oh, and "official" platforms provided by
Liverpool Leveson and House of Commons committees in which their
carefully prepared evidence is accepted with the now-routine little
murmurs of concern and total absence of critical assessment, let
alone real examination. Merely writing about it the stink of their
behaviour rises from the page and makes the nose twitch. It was those
same judges who in a definitive judgement established the status of
the Archiving Summary as a non-judicial "interpretation" of
the case evidence provided in raw form by the PJ. Messrs Carter Ruck
and the rather more significant Mr Justice Tugendhat may not be aware
of the judgement but their ignorance doesn't alter its status as a
judicial finding of fact. Interpretations are multiple, not singular,
by definition. Amaral's "interpretation" of the case
evidence was found to be at least as valid as that of the
non-judicial Attorney-General's department, partly because he was
closer to the details of the case than the prosecutors. The judgement
established the validity of the ex-inspector's interpretation; not,
however, its correctness or otherwise. That further step, by
implication, would be for other courts, civil or criminal,to consider
in the future, including the full libel trial itself. Well the future
is now. For the first time since 2010* (second if you include the
ill-informed and Alice in Wonderland nonsense of the Tugendhat
"trial") legal processes will provide our information, not
leaks, lies and agendas, some of them emanating from the hapless
Scotland Yard. The hearings may be closed, so they say, (but that was
said up until the day before the 2009/2010 trial and the Sky triumph)
but one way or another the truth will out and eventually we'll all
have access to it. That, not the unpredictable result, is why
Thursday is so important for those concerned with the democratic
access to the truth bequeathed by the Portuguese state.
* I'm aware of the later
Supreme Court denial of further appeals. The hearing provided no
information except the verdict.
Libel Diary – early
results from the truth machine – 11.09. 2013
Another day passes
without Goncalo Amaral running away from the full libel trial as most
of our full-time McCann supporter friends have repeatedly forecast –
not just hoped or guessed but forecast – that he would. Am I wrong
to suggest that their forecasts are just outright lies? But why would
they be lying? That's the big one, isn't it? Just as the same people
asserted that Goncalo Amaral had dropped his lawyer in a panic many
months ago. Just as the same people have gaily asserted for years
that his lawyer had a "diplomatic illness" in December 2009
because Goncalo was getting cold feet before the Lisbon trial. One of
the many reasons I abandoned forum posting was that when the evidence
is spelled out on the Net to people in error, McCann full-timers for
example, in terms that a schoolboy can understand, it makes no
difference whatever and is wasted effort: they just go on lying. It
was particularly unsavoury that the lawyer involved suffered from a
serious and incurable immune deficiency disease, one that gradually
and rather tragically destroyed his ability to practise his
profession, resulting in the sort of enforced withdrawals typified by
the December 2009 event and, eventually, made him unable to carry on.
While others without ties of loyalty to him, including the writer,
felt his health had declined to the point where it was affecting his
performance and it might be wise to call time, Goncalo Amaral loyally
stuck by him as long as he could. He is a popular and respected man
in Portugal and the idea that he would have pulled such a stroke was
stupid as well as gloatingly malicious, for, as anyone with any
knowledge of the case knows, delay suited the McCanns much more than
Goncalo.They were absolutely reeling when they saw his witness list
and even weeks later, in January 2010, were still utterly unprepared
for the defence case, as we know from Gerry McCann's mental collapse
on the court steps.
That is why I so despise
the creatures who cloak their support for the McCanns in a completely
fictitious human "concern" and "sympathy" for
poor Gerry and Kate, dripping with greased sentimentality: genuinely
sympathetic and concerned people simply don't act the way they do –
they don't know how to. They don't, for example, invent malicious
lies about sick people and repeat them over and over even though
they’ve been publicly corrected. Emotionally dishonest people
highly skilled at concealing their true feelings under a
sentimentality blanket, the poor sods – just like the McCanns, of
course, and that's no coincidence – are drawn to the parents like
wasps to rotten and dying fruit, in the same way that truly naïve
and innocent people are drawn to the opposing view. I know the ones
whom I more willing to forgive. It has to be added, of course, that
both the Sage of Brondesbury, Mr Pooter- Debunker and the loudest of
the "sympathizers", the unfortunate Hibernian lady, have
very serious medical issues of their own which perhaps explain,
without justifying, their pathological behaviour. But that's another
matter.
Libel diary – and
another winner! - 11.09.2013
This time instead of
feeding the Full-Time Supporters into the machine we grabbed
Tinty-Head instead and thrust him, little tinty-head first, into the
processor and then pulled the lever. Oh dear, the porkiemetre went
off the scale before settling on 21.Seems he was telling porkies
again about what the police had told the McCanns to do regarding the
trial. He never is very reliable, glug-glug, at these high pressure
points, is he? Gerry, understandably after the exhibition he made of
himself on the court steps after the Bureau had tweaked his tail, is
keeping his presence and whereabouts, like his forehead, very low
indeed. But members of the Bureau have already spotted Kate "it's
just a rumour" McCann in Lisbon tonight. Her mum's with her too,
either to clutch her crucifix for her and make sure she's in bed
before dark or to volunteer for the witness box to confess all about
the "deal" GA's boys offered Kate. That's what I like about
Scousers – their Christian consciences.
Libel Diary Day One –
12.09.2013
No surprises so far. As
the Bureau said a while ago [Not like the Good Old Days, February
2012, McCann files] the list of witnesses for the McCanns indicates
that Duarte is concentrating on putting forward an emotion-based,
rather than fact-based, case. And proceedings today followed that
forecast as if we'd written the script for them eighteen months ago.
Whether it will be successful I have no idea: waves of emotion,
rather than truth, have carried the couple along so far, just like
that other well-capitalised and successful manufactured product of
Messrs Kennedy, Smethurst and others, double-glazing. Both products
have been subject to similar reservations over the years – that
they are plastic, see-through, heavily oversold to the proletariat
and won't last long but they also share the valuable quality that
dirt, and particularly Grime, don't stick to them at all. Given that
record an onion-based approach might well work, as it has done for
numerous other celebrity clients of Carter-Ruck such as Robert
Maxwell, the greatest thief in English history, who turned on the
waterworks in the witness box with a facility that mere Liverpool
families can never attain. And, of course, the judge in the Jeffrey
Archer libel case, sexually enthralled by the presence of Archer's
wife, used the right hand of masturb justice to great effect, with
the result that the guilty Archer, and, we hope, the missus, left
court without a stain on them. While Lord Justice Leveson made no
reference to Kate McCann's smell, thank God, he seemed almost equally
smitten, as far as one could tell from his little coos and grunts of
appreciation at her presence a few feet away. Who can be sure that a
Portuguese judge won't feel the same way? The risk, of course, is
that the defence won't waste time trying to convince the court that
the photos and endless celebrity interviews of the couple show a
severe shortage of the dreadful suffering that the writ alleges
Amaral caused them, but will concentrate on the evidence that other
police officer accumulated and the reasonable inferences that could,
and should, have been drawn by Amaral or any other co-ordinator.
I doubt if people like
Mother Hubbard will be much use in refuting such points. Obviously
the best route would be for the McCanns and their friends to speak
frankly and openly about their own innocence and the nightmare of
being falsely suspected. But that is the one thing that they will
have nothing whatever to do with, behaviour which is exactly in line
with their performance since 2007 – they won't go near a witness
box under any circumstances. That baffling refusal to be sincere
under oath means Duarte has to go for the next-best (but clearly
inferior and chancy) tactic of calling various. If Rebelo and others
tell the court that GA's inferences were decisively refuted before
summer 2008 and that he was confronted with the refutation then
things will look up for the couple – until the defence team asks
what evidence, as against lack of evidence, they presented to Amaral
in refutation. Nevertheless their contributions could be critical.
Still, these are early days and we won't gain knowledge of the
balance of forces until the defence opens and, for the first time,
see what Goncalo's strategy is. I was asked late today what I thought
of the quality of the "assessments" from the FTSs
(Full-Time-Supporters) on Twitter and elsewhere today, as well as the
significance of that senior officer and brilliant sleuth Dave Edgar's
presence in Lisbon. Apart from the fact that Edgar, in his coarse,
ill-fitting clothes looked like he was searching for a broom to
continue sweeping the pavements of that fine city, my reaction to
both was identical - here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9O6pCYyelA
Libel Diary Day Two –
13.09. 2013
These poor witnesses will
have to return another day after tribunal in Lisbon ended abruptly.
Well there isn't really one, I'm afraid because the MSM and we Net
people between us couldn't provide a coherent narrative of the day,
despite the fact that a Net commentator was supposed to be present in
court. The result, to my cold amusement, was that M/S Duarte gave the
nearest to a sensible description of what happened today and as a
result was widely quoted – precisely the situation we'd avoided in
2010 and I thought we were going to avoid this time too. What a
piss-poor performance we've made of it so far. Duarte's version was
easy enough to decode but that's not why we're watching, is it? The
idea was to have a break from having to unspin the spin of
compromised commentators and listen to the raw words themselves
spoken, for once, without lying intermediaries. It doesn't matter at
root: we'll get the information in the end and it can't be
assimilated in haste anyway; and people in Portugal have assured me
that the need for a reliable record is being dealt with now but
still, it wasn't a good day for the Net, giving us yet another mad
day of insult, rumour and hopeful guesswork in the usual places, this
one, I suppose, included. Duarte's silences spoke louder than her
words, her somewhat downbeat tone reflecting the reality of an
extremely difficult struggle for both sides – in contrast to the
asinine "Kate & Gerry expect to win etc." from
tinty-head, that archetypal behind-the-lines-in-the-latrines soldier.
I don't think that he, poor creature, has the basic understanding of
reality you need to act as a foundation for your spin anymore, so
long has he been living among the shadows of Gerry McCann's warped
imagination: he’s tired. I repeat again I have not the slightest
idea who will win and I don't expect to even when, God and human
effort permitting, we have heard the main burden of the evidence for
both sides. So when I say I have a definite sense coming across
already, just as it did in 2010, readers should take it with the
normal Net salt cellar.
In 2010 the overwhelming
impression was of panic and disorganization in the Team together with
a feeling that one knew what they would try next, partly because I
had more useful specific information about what was going on than
they, with all their "news management expertise" did. This
time it's quite different and I'm by no means as sure as I was then
that I'm reading it correctly. But, I have to say it, the whole gang
just seem forlorn, as though whatever efforts they make, whatever
motions they go through, their fate is already determined. Don't ask
me what that fate is. Looking at those photographs of the gang in
Lisbon taken by Net people – ageing, provincial, vulnerable figures
dwarfed by the overwhelming weight of the Piranesi-like court
corridors and ante-rooms around and above them – I felt sympathy,
not of the MSM greased sentimentality kind, more a feeling of natural
sympathy for people who are beginning to succumb, to go under. There
was squat little Duarte, so much less aggressive and perky than she
was three years ago but, with nothing to lose personally, much the
least troubled of the group; in contrast the shambling figure of
Edgar was like some coarse but loyal family servant accompanying
doomed refugees; the friends/relatives insignificant; Kate a flimsy
figure as so often now, her face the usual mask. Look at them – can
you see how they look as if they're talking in numb monotones?
Libel Diary–Weekend
note – 15.09.2013
So straightaway to an
apology to Anne Guedes for having said "we" were making a
poor job of bringing the news from the Lisbon court. In fact M/S
Guedes was writing up her multi-lingual notes and has now produced
Part One of her report. Can I add my own thanks to those of others
and also credit the sad refugee photos we carried on Friday. Her
contribution, coming on top of Martin Brunt's woeful attempted tweets
and even more woeful desertion, marks the day when the voluntarism of
the last six years completed its victory over the compromised
mainstream media. We are free of them in the McCann case: the
Kiersymmons MSM role is to make a good living filling the gaps
between the adverts with packaged product for the ignorant. Let them
get on with it.
M/S Guedes's first report
in PDF form is here: miscarriageofjustice.co.uk
Alternatively you can go
to the Justice Forum and download it there. Careful though: that
route means descending through the dark and insanitary levels of
defuhrerbunker. There ancient white haired "scientists"
toil away until final victory analysing the hairs and excreta of die
Teufelhunde Edda und Kiel under deBunkermeister's stern gaze. Do not
pause but pass by quickly. As for the content of the first day's
proceedings readers can judge for themselves. I'll confine myself to
noting that the confident forecasts of the Full-Time McCann
Supporters over the last year that Gonçalo would be half-carried,
half-dragged into the witness box and confronted with his lies,
inventions, perjury [fill in the boxes] until he collapsed into a
soiled heap and confessed, have not quite been borne out. Still, we
have, as everyone now knows, the beginnings of Plan B: the detailed
proof from a host of witnesses that Goncalo "damaged",
[giggles unfairly], or "hampered" [sniggers loudly] "the
SEARCH" [collapses into helpless laughter]. Gonçalo must have
gone white when this exchange with a key witness comprehensively
destroyed his chances:
Defence Lawyer: Do you
know if the book hampered the investigation?
Mother Theresa Hubbard: I
can't answer that.
Perhaps the trial should
have taken place in private: watching this balloon collapsing into
rubber and spittle after six years of threat and bluff almost makes
one feel guilty. Almost.
On a lower note... -
15.09.2013
I don't want to lower the
tone but while I was writing the previous post the Truth Machine on
my desk spat out an entry on a Mr "Pedro Silva". I need to
reprogram the machine since "Pedro" doesn't exist and is
therefore not eligible for fib-processing, having been invented by
the Full Time McCann Supporter "BB" on her personal
forum-fiefdom, to fill the long-standing vacancy for a single
Portuguese who believed a word the McCanns said. BB is no
Shakespeare. To say that "Pedro"'s character is not fully
developed would be an understatement: BB gave Pedro what she fondly
thought was broken English to speak (which never improves, despite
his long contact with the British) on her fiefdom and rounded out his
personality by making him utter belches of scatological hostility to
Amaral, calling everyone except GA "my friend" and then,
having posted various inconsequential links to the case, disappearing
before having to answer questions. Occasionally, though, he and his
creator have had conversations, taking surrealism to new and giddy
heights. The one thing that in several years existence the Portuguese
Mr Silva has never done is to write a single word in his native
language. Anyway, he's a good comic turn and everyone knew he was an
invention, as various comments on the Net about his non-existence
demonstrated. But something strange, and for BB disturbing, occurred.
A nonentity, apparently intent on entrapment, popped up on a little
"pro" forum and posted a message asking, straight faced,
"Pedro" to translate a news article for him! Urgently.
Was this someone
attempting to humiliate her? Was it a trap? In the strange half-world
of the FTMS where a bewildering array of entities is created every
day nobody can be trusted. Perhaps BB scratched her chin and
consulted her memory... who knows... Honestbroker, that was the
nonentity's name... Had she created him? She couldn't remember. Had
she created him and he'd been taken over and was being used against
her? With this background it is no surprise that BB stalled, despite
the urgency of the request. A whole day elapsed before the reply
finally came: an extremely non-committal reply consisting of a
risible Google Translate cut and paste piece of junk without, shall
we say, learned commentary. Honestbroker, how could you? How could
you lay such a vicious trap for poor old BB by pretending you
believed in "Pedro"?
The Gift Relationship –
16.09.2013
I wrote of the triumph of
"voluntarism" the other day, referring to the fact that
"we" – we know who we are – are now largely independent
of the MSM and its ill-educated, greedy whims regarding the
McCann/Amaral affair. I know how strongly many people feel about "the
breaking of the spell" in the UK media so that the disappearance
of the child is treated more critically and I respect their views. I
know also how people feel that MSM publication somehow validates a
story, although that, perhaps, is a hangover from the days when
"journals of record" actually existed. But those
contentious issues are quite separate from the value the MSM has for
us in McCann/ Amaral affair information terms: our dependence there
was 90% once and now it’s pretty much zero. Instead the information
that matters is reaching us from court reports, personal information
and our own researches in the case files and other primary sources.
But how does it reach us? Through unpaid and voluntary collective
effort involving years of work, all without charities, dodgy funds,
leaders, managers. Long before the Internet an idealistic British
economics professor wrote a book comparing voluntary blood donation
with the then paid American-type model: he called it The Gift
Relationship and demonstrated how superior the results of the former
were to the latter. People who have only come to this case recently
may not be aware of the scale of the Gift Relationship in our field –
all of it, of course, free to use.
Database/ cuttings
library, – The McCann Files. Daddy of them all.
Database, the GM blogs &
much associated material - Pamalam
Database, the McCann PJ
files translations – Pamalam
Database, legal document
collection, interviews and opinion pieces, rogatory interviews,
broadcast material with Portuguese emphasis – Joana Morais &
friends.
Translations, case files,
other documents, used by the database sites above, an enormous
voluntary translation effort over a number of years, collated and
posted on the Maddie Case Files site.
Translations, news items,
– since summer 2007, court judgements, critical documents, nearly
all available before the paid translations in the MSM, The heroic
Astro.
A public fund, – to
assist Goncalo Amaral, payments structure, appeals, publicity - Joana
Morais and colleagues.
Individual information
initiatives, – reports, photos & videos of PDL and other
critical areas, individuals at their own expense.
I have only named those
that spring to mind at once and, perhaps controversially, excluded
debate forums and personal investigation initiatives from the list.
Nor have I even touched on the personal sacrifices made by the
givers. Yes, in my usual combative way I'll look at what the MSM and
supporters of the parents, in contrast, have offered, if anything –
but not now, not here: this, in keeping with its status as a gift,
deserves to be celebrated on its own.
Libel trial – the
claims – 17.09.2013
The old Bureau's legal
advisor who also made the coffee and had many other duties poor sod
has written a personal view. Since he was never paid it may be all
rubbish but who knows? At first he was concerned about commenting on
a case still being heard. I pointed out to him, however, that in
summer 2007 a certain Kate & Gerry McCann had established the
principle of ignoring legal system requirements in other countries by
refusing to observe them and systematically leaking to the UK media.
Faced with precedent he said yes. What goes round comes round. I have
amended, in places, his rather dry writing style. The libel writ was
issued in 2009 and given to the Mirror only by the parents as an
exclusive, an unusual way of commencing legal action. The article, or
propaganda, outlined the claims and it can be found on McCann Files.
No other précis of the document was ever provided for the UK public
by the couple. The writ outlined two factual claims of great
importance:
1) The book, is made up
of "lies" and is "manipulative, perverse, false,
destructive, defamatory, deeply damaging and therefore illegal."
2) Significant damage
caused directly by this illegal action to Kate and Gerry McCann
caused them "permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite,
irritability and an indefinable fear". Kate McCann is "steeped
in a deep and serious depression...totally destroyed from a moral,
social, ethical, emotional and family point of view, beyond the pain
that the absence of their eldest daughter causes them".
Establishing the libel
and gaining the 1.2 million clearly involves evidence demonstrating
that the book is "lies" and "illegal" and
secondly producing evidence to prove the medical and psychiatric
claims. In addition the writ added to these central claims two
opinions, which, unlikely as it sounds, they were possibly intending
to argue. If it ever came to court.
1a) "Madeleine has
been deprived of the possibility of a fair and adequate investigation
into her disappearance, putting her moral and physical integrity at
serious risk."
2a) "The lawsuit
also highlights their fears for four-year-old twins Sean and Amelie
when they start school later this year and begin to hear rumours that
Madeleine is dead."
Note that neither of
these two involves what UK law calls a "tort", a clearly
definable civil wrong, such as, say, "making illegal and untrue
claims in a book" or "destroying another and causing them
anxiety & depression".
1a) and 2a) are not
breaches of anything. A "deprivation of ...investigation"
could only be legally proved if a tort had been committed, that is if
a legal entity, for example, refused to investigate a crime.
To claim that expressing
a view has caused a state action or inaction (re the search) when the
view was expressed by someone not in a position to order or refuse
such an investigation is to claim that anything can eventually follow
from anything, innocent or otherwise, and as such has no place in a
European court of law.
The second concerns
"fears" about the future which again are no part of a legal
process: there is no chain of evidence than can possibly decide the
reality of such a fear factually in advance.
Therefore both claims are
in my opinion forensically indeterminate, that is, there is no basis
for deciding them with evidence.
We shall see in the
coming days whether witnesses or evidence will be produced to
demonstrate the lies that Amaral is alleged to have told, although
under Portuguese law, truth alone would not be enough to prove the
defamation. As for the second, consequential, claim, a very serious
one involving harm – where's it gone? Where are the doctors who
diagnosed these specific medical conditions, the medication and so
forth, and will defend their diagnoses under defence questioning?
I've seen no sign of them yet, only subjective comments by friends
etc. that the McCanns haven't been happy. That may well be true but
it has nothing whatever to do with the specific claims in 2). That
leaves the two junk claims. Only the claimants and their lawyer know
why these have been given greater and greater prominence in the case
at the expense of the determinate claims 1) and 2). What changed
their minds since 2009? In my view the witnesses questioned about
these two have not been inadequate or "badly briefed" (you
cannot "brief" witnesses) but have simply told the truth,
which is that the claims are neither true nor false but indeterminate
opinion (like my feeling that it may rain tomorrow), which is why all
of them, including the exceptionally clever Mr McBride, could not
give useful answers – there are no accurate answers to an
indeterminate claim, otherwise known as a nonsense.
Libel Diary – Gerry
McCann as a witness of the truth – 18.09.2013
This is primarily for
those new to the case who are unaware of the horrendous record of
Gerry McCann's lying. On the 28 November 2008 the McCanns spoke to
Isabel Duarte by phone about suing Amaral for the first time. Six
weeks later, on January 13 2009, Gerry McCann went to Portugal to
meet her and discuss the legal strategy against Amaral, returning the
next day. In July the Mirror published the writ details that the
McCanns had given them. Those are the facts. (Source: Madeleine by
Kate McCann plus Mirror McCann exclusive). On his arrival in
Portugal, Gerry McCann called media conferences to explain why he had
returned.
Gerry McCann: "Ahhh,
well... I came back today really to meet with our adviser's, err...
including Rogério, errr... Alves to really discuss what can still be
done in the ongoing search for Madeleine."
Gerry McCann: "The
purpose of this visit is to, errr... really look at what can still be
done in the search, we want to be, you know, looking positively, not
backwards - looking forwards. 'Cause, you know, we want to find our
daughter. It's pretty simple really."
Gerry McCann: "I
think, you know, we want to make it absolutely clear what's gone on
in the past is, by and large, done and we very, very much want to
focus on what can still be done for the search and that's... that's
what our priority is and... and it always has been really so any of
these things are just, you know, they're not really relevant at the
minute."
Gerry McCann went to
Portugal January 13 to meet Isabel Duarte about suing GA
Press report: 'He assured
journalists that this was the first of, "many visits," to
set up new operations in the search for his daughter, although he
refused to explain what operations he meant and why he had not
considered it appropriate to cooperate with the PJ in the past.'
Press report: 'In an
interview, Gerry McCann stated that, for the moment at least, he had
no intention of taking legal action against the Portuguese State or
any other body, including the media, stressing he wanted to "move
forward and not back."'
Press conference report:
'Without explaining why the couple did not request the reopening of
the investigation while there was time, Gerry McCann wanted to stress
his, "willingness to work with the authorities, as much as
possible."
Q: "Are you going to
going to meet with the Portuguese authorities?"
Gerry McCann: "We
haven't got anything specific planned at this point. This is very
much my, err... you know, the first visit over here and just to look
and... and to try and get a scoping, errr... of what we can still
do... really."
Gerry McCann went to
Portugal January 13 to meet Isabel Duarte about suing GA
Mr Mitchell: "I can
confirm that Gerry McCann returned to Portugal for a brief visit to
meet his lawyers to see what more can be done to help find his
daughter."
Press report: 'According
to a Home Office source in London, Madeleine McCann's father, before
undertaking his journey to Portugal, obtained every guarantee that he
would not be bothered by the Portuguese authorities.'
The Dom Pedro Palace
hotel welcomes many hundred euros from the Find Madeleine Fund
January 13 2009
Press Report:
'Madeleine's father and the English lawyer who accompanied him on the
visit to Portugal, on Tuesday, were lodged at the D. Pedro Palace, a
five-star hotel and one of the most luxurious in Lisbon. Everything,
of course, financed by the 'Find Madeleine' Fund.'
Mr Mitchell was
questioned about using the Find Madeleine Fund to stay at the several
hundred euros a night D. Pedro Palace.
Clarence Mitchell: "This
type of travel obviously fits into the search for Madeleine which is
the Fund's purpose. [Gerry McCann went to Portugal January 13 to meet
Isabel Duarte about suing GA] That was what it was created for and
Madeleine's parents will never use it for anything else apart from
that."
Libel Diary – Blank
Page? - 21.09. 2013
I haven't seen an
unofficial court report for days three and four, only fragments, so
I've little to add yet. To reiterate what we have already heard
during the first week : Stripped of the rhetoric about search damage,
the version of the libel writ given by the UK Mirror on behalf of the
parents claims that what Amaral wrote was
1. "False,
manipulative, perverse, destructive, defamatory, deeply damaging and
therefore illegal".
and caused the parents
and caused the parents
2.
"permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and
an indefinable fear." Kate McCann is, in addition, "steeped
in a deep and serious depression." And "totally destroyed
from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view,
beyond the pain that the absence of their eldest daughter causes
them".
So: untrue and causing
gross damage to their health.
These are factual claims
and since they are in the writ the interest of the case for students,
researchers and those involved in the case, peripherally or
otherwise, is to see if they are proved in a court of law or not.
Now, every time I look at
Portuguese law in action I understand a little less than I did
before. Some of our Portuguese friends are telling us that Amaral
could still be guilty of what is described in the writ as defamation
or libel even if evidence were produced to establish the truth of his
claims.
Si ce qu'établit GA dans son livre est vrai, il ne peut être accusé de diffamation. Si ce qu'il établit comme vrai ne peut être prouvé, mais s'il prouve qu'il l'a établi de bonne foi (donc sans malice), il est difficile de l'accuser de diffamation.
If claim 1 does not have to be justified then the proceedings
are irrelevant to the establishment of truth about the case and some
of us must be wasting our time here. We’ll have to leave this open
until we see what the judgement says. In the light of this same
apparently Humpty-Dumpty ("the law means what I say it means")
aspect of Portuguese law which I'm not qualified to question, I
wouldn't be surprised if 2 doesn't have to be proved either, in which
case we might as well all go home. Still, whatever the legal
intricacies that may be revealed in the judgement it is quite
irrefutable that, after the majority of the claimant case has been
heard, no attempt has been made to justify Claim 1 by evidence. And
no evidence has been submitted to the court of the truth of the
specific medical and psychiatric allegations in Claim 2. Only
anecdote. After the judgement students of the case will no doubt be
considering the significance and implications of this void. I'll be
assessing it in the context of my own undramatic and boring area of
study, the persistent and obsessive lying of Kate & Gerry McCann
that has so weakened their credibility about anything, including the
state of the apartment on May 3, but for the time being we are still
dependent on the primary documents.
Si ce qu'établit GA dans son livre est vrai, il ne peut être accusé de diffamation. Si ce qu'il établit comme vrai ne peut être prouvé, mais s'il prouve qu'il l'a établi de bonne foi (donc sans malice), il est difficile de l'accuser de diffamation.
As far as claim 1 is
concerned readers can choose between Gerry McCann's blogs and Kate
McCann's Madeleine. Neither of them are very enlightening on the
truth or otherwise of Amaral's central claim, that the child died in
Apartment 5A. In the blogs GM insists that Amaral and his team didn't
suspect him of anything, even on the day that the PJ turned his
temporary home over and left him carless and with only the clothes on
his back.
Et pourtant le leit-motiv des supporters est que Amaral a suspecté sournoisement les parents dès le départ, à leur insu et donc sans leur laisser une chance d'être mis hors de cause.
As for Madeleine there are sixty entries for "Amaral" but for some reason she is as silent about the truth or falsity of Amaral's central claim as M/S Duarte has been all this week. Not one entry states that the claim is untrue. As for claim 2 we do have a suggestive entry, perhaps the last word on the validly of the medical and psychiatric claims of "total destruction." It runs:
Les supporters, ayant du mal à croire à l'absence totale de preuves, ont déduit qu'étaient omis des rapports les éléments dérangeants pour les sceptiques, ou du moins les références à ces preuves qui sûrement figuraient dans le dossier. Ils n'ont pas voulu croire non plus qu'un procès est un événement oral, que les témoignages écrits n'en font pas partie, que les témoins doivent venir à la barre et répondre aux questions, etc. L'épisode "Michael Wright" où le témoin est surpris et blâmé car il a amené des notes qu'il consulte de temps à autre, témoigne bien de l'oralité nécessaire du procès.
As far as critics are concerned, of what possible value are the views of the press who lethally contaminated the legal process in May 2007 and manufactured the Kate & Gerry McCann package? They're the same people. For supporters, what possible value are the views of a press that, led by Mr Jerry Lawton, contaminated the legal process in September 2007 by claiming that the McCanns were murderers? They're the same people. The media don't ultimately decide anything: the facts do. The Lisbon process is just another stage in adding to the limited number of facts in the case – whichever way they point – and another opportunity for people to assess whether their views are in accordance with those facts as they emerge. So I don't really get it when many people seem to be appraising what they've read of witness evidence by whether it agrees with their view of the case and how it will play in the papers. Isn't that what juries are always warned against?
Et pourtant le leit-motiv des supporters est que Amaral a suspecté sournoisement les parents dès le départ, à leur insu et donc sans leur laisser une chance d'être mis hors de cause.
As for Madeleine there are sixty entries for "Amaral" but for some reason she is as silent about the truth or falsity of Amaral's central claim as M/S Duarte has been all this week. Not one entry states that the claim is untrue. As for claim 2 we do have a suggestive entry, perhaps the last word on the validly of the medical and psychiatric claims of "total destruction." It runs:
I've always been considered quite a gentle person but these attacks stirred up terrible emotions in me. It was as if my whole body was trying to scream but a tightly screwed-on lid was preventing the scream from escaping. Instead I was just howling internally. My punch bag certainly came in handy at times. Amaral's documentary was the last straw. On 20 April we took the decision with Isabel Duarte to sue him. While she did the preparatory work, we were off to the States again – to appear on Oprah Winfrey's talk show.That leaves the fragments and comments from days three and four. I must say I've felt uncomfortable with some of the forum stuff I've seen. Many supporters and critics seem more concerned with what the media, particularly the UK media, are saying about the case than with the evidence itself.
Les supporters, ayant du mal à croire à l'absence totale de preuves, ont déduit qu'étaient omis des rapports les éléments dérangeants pour les sceptiques, ou du moins les références à ces preuves qui sûrement figuraient dans le dossier. Ils n'ont pas voulu croire non plus qu'un procès est un événement oral, que les témoignages écrits n'en font pas partie, que les témoins doivent venir à la barre et répondre aux questions, etc. L'épisode "Michael Wright" où le témoin est surpris et blâmé car il a amené des notes qu'il consulte de temps à autre, témoigne bien de l'oralité nécessaire du procès.
As far as critics are concerned, of what possible value are the views of the press who lethally contaminated the legal process in May 2007 and manufactured the Kate & Gerry McCann package? They're the same people. For supporters, what possible value are the views of a press that, led by Mr Jerry Lawton, contaminated the legal process in September 2007 by claiming that the McCanns were murderers? They're the same people. The media don't ultimately decide anything: the facts do. The Lisbon process is just another stage in adding to the limited number of facts in the case – whichever way they point – and another opportunity for people to assess whether their views are in accordance with those facts as they emerge. So I don't really get it when many people seem to be appraising what they've read of witness evidence by whether it agrees with their view of the case and how it will play in the papers. Isn't that what juries are always warned against?
Libel Diary – Day Four
– 23.09.2013
I've now read the
Internet report from day 4 of the trial. I'm only going to give a few
subjective comments here because there is a mass of critical material
to analyse. I urge people to read the Michael Wright and Cláudia
Nogueira testimony for themselves, even if they never read anything
else from the trial. It is a genuine breakthrough and for that alone
we owe Gonçalo Amaral not just support but our profound gratitude:
the proceedings are, for the first time, giving us evidence under
oath to compare with the sanitised and dishonest versions of their
activities and attitudes that the lying couple have provided in
Madeleine, Facebook and their rehearsed interviews.
They are laid bare. Speaking personally I almost lost my belief in
the Portuguese justice system when the ambiguities of the archiving
summary were followed by the cowardly but almost lethal ambush on a
public servant plotted by the couple and Duarte for their own gain
and protection. The evidence at the 2010 Lisbon hearings, the first
breach in the screen of lies, (Archive Summary author Menezes: they
did not tell the truth) was not reflected in the judgement. The young
and inexperienced judge failed Amaral, failed the legal system and
damaged Portugal's reputation. Only when, after three years of lies
and misinformation, the Portuguese appeal court judges gave a calm
and common-sense appraisal of the case and threw out the judge's
findings, did I begin to regain some hope that justice would be done.
And now, reading the proceedings, we are back in the real world of
fact and the attempted establishment of truth instead of the fantasy
web that the parents began to spin and which eventually enmeshed
almost everyone who came into contact with it, from governments down.
Whatever the verdict the evidence, not the newspaper trash, not the
lies of little Tinty-Head, whose aspirations to a political career
will eventually be sunk by his own blatant dishonesty, is now on
record.
I won't labour the narrow
question of the truth of the libel again here, having been corrected
by my Portuguese friends; I don't even need to, since the court
showed by its systematic intellectual demolition of the trash and
hearsay offered by Wright that concern for the truth is everywhere
dominant in these proceedings. But I'll add this. When I first saw
the witness list for the claimants which the Bureau published a
couple of years ago I was taken aback. Not by the preponderance of
"soft" non-expert witnesses such as Alan "Don't Tell
Them" Pike and the rest (see how the judge dealt with the
flannelers' qualifications as "expert witnesses" on day
four*); nor by the deadly exclusion of the Tapas 7, who having fled
the Portuguese justice system in 2007, the cowards, were leaving the
McCanns to their fate yet again. No, I'll be honest: I was most
struck, and concerned, by the legal names. Skull-Face Macbride; ex-PJ
head Alipio Ribeiro; the president of the Portuguese bar association!
João Melchior Gomes, deputy Attorney-General! Christ, I thought,
they really are all against him, they really are going to say that
Gonçalo's theories were invalidated by the later stages of the
investigation, as the loonies claim. Even Ribeiro, who I thought was
straight as a die and loyal with it. Now Gonçalo Amaral is made of
much tougher stuff than me but I wouldn't hold it against his legal
team if they'd been intimidated by this list. I most certainly was.
Because that's what it was intended to do, as so many of the lying
pair's actions have been intended to do – intimidate. And scare GA
into settling. As we know he didn't. Skull-Face turned up and offered
nothing whatever; Alipio turned up and offered nothing whatever; the
deputy AG turned up and offered nothing whatever. Even the president
of the bar association, who is a known enemy of GA, has had second,
third and fourth thoughts and so far hasn't turned up. It was all
a bluff. It's only when bluffs are called by the brave that the
cowardly start to see things in a different light – ping!
* The Judge: overrules,
saying this is a question for a doctor.
Libel Diary – A note on
troll corner – 23.09.2013
God knows one can excuse
the hysteria of the Full Time Supporters and Internet trolls like
Michael Wright (Internet monitor indeed!) since they're watching not
just their heroes but their own belief systems trickling down the
drain. Perhaps I can help them. Speaking personally again I found the
3 Arguidos great fun (oooh!!), stimulating (how could he?!) and
rather like being inside – you meet people from all sorts of
backgrounds. It only fell apart when the owner Brenda Ryan's
"friends" decided to hurt and humiliate her (as they do) by
attacking her site. Anyway let me help you, friends, on the legal
position of proving anyone posted anything. An internet screengrab is
not evidence of anything but the creation of an image on a computer,
or several computers if the SG is passed around. It can never be
authenticated because the SG comes from the individual computer
cache, with or without additions or changes, not from the source
Internet file which contains the actual posting: that remains on its
own site. Clear yet? No? Well, let me add bit more: due to the
pranksters, petty crooks and debunkermeister, self-admitted thief
(whom I then christened the knicker-sniffer due to his propensity for
getting excited by other people's intimate details) hacking into and
stealing what they call the database in order to harvest and
contaminate it, even the source database files can never be
authenticated. Why? Because one of the announced motives of the
pranksters was to corrupt the files to enable rogue posting under
someone else's ID using harvested passwords.
Mother's Little Helper - 24.09.2013
The Internet monitor Mr Wright is, of course, the same Michael Wright who has featured so helpfully before in the Madeleine McCann affair – helpful, that is, and I regret having to say it, to the parents, rather than the child. Mr Wright has the doubtful honour of being the very first person to start putting in place alibis for the parents' behaviour – on May 4. It was he who, after conferring with Gerry McCann, contacted the Evening Standard to get the clan's version of events out having been persuaded to say that he was defending them against unfair criticism. He did this early in the day so that it would make the London Evening Standard before the evening of May 4. Alert readers will note that this is well ahead of the "surprise" that Gerry McCann told parliament and Leveson he got when he returned from Portimao police headquarters to find a media mob waiting for them. Some surprise! As I wrote in the Cracked Mirror in 2009 Gerry McCann had been on his mobile all morning providing feeds for that media – from within the very police headquarters where he was supposedly present to help the police search for the child. You'd think he'd have been so busy racking his brains for any detail that he could pass on to the police to assist the search or help his child that he'd have no interest in what the media thought. Mr Wright told the Standard that there had been "spin" against the McCanns that had given a misleading impression of what had happened the previous evening. If I may be permitted to quote the whole relevant passage from the Cracked Mirror regarding Gerry McCann's organization of friends and family to brief the media from Portimao police HQ:
The Internet monitor Mr Wright is, of course, the same Michael Wright who has featured so helpfully before in the Madeleine McCann affair – helpful, that is, and I regret having to say it, to the parents, rather than the child. Mr Wright has the doubtful honour of being the very first person to start putting in place alibis for the parents' behaviour – on May 4. It was he who, after conferring with Gerry McCann, contacted the Evening Standard to get the clan's version of events out having been persuaded to say that he was defending them against unfair criticism. He did this early in the day so that it would make the London Evening Standard before the evening of May 4. Alert readers will note that this is well ahead of the "surprise" that Gerry McCann told parliament and Leveson he got when he returned from Portimao police headquarters to find a media mob waiting for them. Some surprise! As I wrote in the Cracked Mirror in 2009 Gerry McCann had been on his mobile all morning providing feeds for that media – from within the very police headquarters where he was supposedly present to help the police search for the child. You'd think he'd have been so busy racking his brains for any detail that he could pass on to the police to assist the search or help his child that he'd have no interest in what the media thought. Mr Wright told the Standard that there had been "spin" against the McCanns that had given a misleading impression of what had happened the previous evening. If I may be permitted to quote the whole relevant passage from the Cracked Mirror regarding Gerry McCann's organization of friends and family to brief the media from Portimao police HQ:
Perhaps M/S Renwick's next comment was her own - or perhaps not. "She said," The Standard continues, "the McCanns had chosen the resort because it was family friendly. [Untrue; the resort was not, as we have seen, chosen by the McCanns but by David Payne] This is the first time they have done this,” she added [untrue; it was not the first time they had done this] They are very, very anxious parents and very careful," she said. [As we have seen earlier, in Praia de Luz the parents had in practice been neither very anxious nor very careful]. And then The Standard had this: "Michael Healy[this was Michael Wright], the missing girl's uncle, added: "There has been some negative spin put on this, with people criticising them for leaving the kids and going on the tear.” Mr Healy added, "But it's nonsense, they were close by and were eating within sight of where the children were and checking on them. Other members of the group were checking on her as well. (faux) No one was rip-roaring drunk.
How have news reports
about a disappearance, or "desperate efforts to get publicity
for Madeleine" led to this? How have Kate's dying-fall
mutterings to Oprah Winfrey about involving the media because of
"...absolute helplessness, absolutely desperate. I mean, this is
our daughter who we love beyond words, and every second is like
hours..." led to this mutation to a pre-emptive defence of
themselves? How has "the natural instinct...to appeal for
information" that Gerry McCann described to members of
Parliament morphed into denying that they were drunk? "Negative
spin" and "criticism." How could there be any spin or
criticism of the parents by Friday afternoon when these were the very
people telling the world what had happened the previous night for the
first time and when the pair hadn't even given their statements to
the police?" The usual prizes are offered for anyone who can
provide a link, or any evidence at all of this "negative spin
and criticism" that helpful Mr Wright referred to. Where had he
seen it? What had he been told by Gerry McCann? In April 2008, when
the pair were, of course, still arguidos, Mr Wright was once again
helpful beyond the call of duty. He gave his rogatory statement,
requested by the Portuguese PJ, to Leicester police describing his
connections to the McCanns, his very frequent trips to Portugal and
his observations about the effect the disappearance had had on the
McCanns. The statement covers a period of nearly a year and runs to
1497 words. Of those nearly 20% deal with his use of the McCanns'
vehicle for rubbish disposal. Twenty per cent! You could read it and
think, what is this guy, a nutter? Why is he going on and on about
garbage? And the stench the garbage left in the car. And the bodily
and waste fluids that were carried in the vehicle. All without ever
attempting to clean it out. You might think What the f*** is the guy,
a f****** coprophiliac? Where's his head at? But as we all know,
given the dog alerts that Gerry McCann was so dismissive of, he was
just being helpful again, wasn't he? It was a bit different when he
was helpful last week, wasn't it? Instead of an ignorant and
complaisant Evening Standard or a guardedly neutral Leicester police
interviewer he had a court to deal with and the truth to confront.
There he wriggled. And squirmed. And fell silent. And contradicted
himself. And had his little prompt list taken away and exposed, just
as Gerry McCann's timeline prompt lists (les deux premières lignes de temps) were taken away and exposed.
It was a terrible humiliation. But who had put Mr Wright in this
position in the first place? Who was it who'd so ruthlessly used the
bonds of kith and kin to allay suspicion and get the world on their
side without once considering the dreadful harm this would eventually
cause their families ? Mr Wright's efforts on behalf of the people
who briefed him strike me as those of a sincere man, a believer.
Nobody with any sanity is accusing the parents of doing away with the
child or attempting to harm her. The police have never suggested that
this whole nightmare was caused by anything more than an accident
followed by wrong and fateful decisions. Has he really, alone with
his thoughts at night, never asked himself the questions that matter?
The nightmare is now deepening with frightening speed. It's never too
late Mr Wright.
A pause – 29.09.2013
This is the first
occasion since May 3 2007 when people on both sides of the argument
must answer for their words and actions at a hearing designed to get
at the truth. There will be plenty of time for analysis after the
hearings are complete but for the present I believe the words of the
witnesses should speak for themselves, in their full dramatic
significance, without any comment.
Crimewatchery –
05.10.2013
OK, the Crimewatch
programme will give people knowledgeable about the case the first
opportunity to assess the calibre of the Scotland Yard squad's work
and approach. The reconstruction they offer can be compared with the
Portuguese investigation's establishment of events and any
differences noted. And, more important, where the justification for
any changes lies.
My second favourite
Portuguese policeman, Alipio Ribeirra, described one significant
phase of the original inquiry (before the forensic results were
known) as "pure investigation", by which he appeared to
mean an intellectual analysis of the so-far established facts rather
than a physical pursuit. It's probably fair to say that the very real
strengths of the British police, compared with their European
counterparts, are not seen at their best when it comes to "pure
investigation", except in certain critical specialist areas such
as anti-terrorism. In the latter, of course, the police are actively
assisted by the exceptionally highly trained and educated
intelligence services. If we look at the contributions to the McCann
case debate from retired Scotland Yard officers, many of them senior,
to get an idea of their calibre, the impression they give is quite
shockingly bad. Many of them have difficulty in putting their views
forward coherently on paper and, like football players, have to be
interviewed sympathetically to get their views out at all to the
reader. Their analytical abilities, as revealed in their newspaper
contributions, are, to put it mildly, deficient and there is a
notable gap between their conclusions - such as, for example, that
favourite the paedophile ring - and the logical or evidentiary steps
leading to them. Perhaps only the dolts among them are willing to
write for the tabloid press. That's a real possibility, of course,
but fails to answer the question of how dolts manage to reach senior
positions in Scotland Yard.
One shouldn't
overemphasize the importance of intellect in policing: the skills
typical of a British detective - cunning, physical fitness,
determination, a suspicious mind, powerful and first hand knowledge
of the criminal milieu, leadership and the ability to co-operate with
experts – suffice in 90% of cases. But "pure investigation"?
It is noteworthy that John Stalker, the only Scotland Yard head of
recent times with a reputation for intellectual and analytical
rigour, at least by police standards, took a rather different view of
the McCann case when he commented in the papers. The foot-in-mouth
performances of Mr Redwood at press conferences, the calamitous and
amateurish recent spinning (despite an enormous PR force at the
Yard), the blitz of justificatory statistics (38 "persons of
interest", 38,000 "documents processed", 38 million
"mugs of tea consumed") in their press releases - horribly
suggestive of the hapless Roy Hodges listing his latest losing
midfield's pass-completion rate - may conceal high-powered work
behind the scenes. Perhaps. We'll get a slightly better idea on
October 14 or whenever we finally steel ourselves to watch that voice
of the nation BBC TV.
Beyond the Sneers –
09.10.October 2013
David Smith has been
granted exclusive access to the facts here and in Portugal. He
reveals what is really going on in the "case of the century"
and how even now Kate has hope. For weeks Kate & Gerry McCann
have had to suffer ridicule and humiliation in their on-going
attempts to achieve justice for their daughter. Heartless Portuguese
"journalists" have mocked the sad little clutch of family
members and hangers-on as they waited uneasily in the vast corridors
of the Lisbon courts, corridors which once echoed to the sound of
Salazar's victims pleading for their lives. They have looked shocked,
bewildered, at the onslaught of ridicule and disbelief that has
greeted their evidence, uttered in good faith and with touching
loyalty in those merciless blood-stained chambers. The garrottes,
which once stood by the prosecutors' bench as a reminder of what
awaited the victims, even for parking offences, have now been –
temporarily? – stored away in the grim cellars or sold on EBay to
clear Portugal's vast debt, but nobody is fooled. Here the couple's
long Calvary continues. Nor is it just the families who suffer. Ken
Roach, hair-shirted conscience of a generation and socialist icon has
had to watch his well-educated and quite well-off, actually, daughter
biting back the tears as the court burst into loud and prolonged
laughter at her attempts to tell the truth as she saw it.
Film-makers, even unsuccessful ones, are, along with journalists, the
index of a country's civilization. Who will be persecuted next –
nurses? This is a society in denial. But now, at last, change is
coming. In the Spartan but comfortable hotel floor which the family
witnesses have taken over for the trial I was able to learn of how,
to use Kate McCann's immortal words in Madeleine, "the fight
back begins". Kate & Gerry are anxious to stress that nobody
forced them to go along with Duarte's defence strategy. They shrug
their shoulders when asked if she could have done better and insist
that she retains their full confidence: that's how the McCanns are –
blame Liverpool if you like but Macloyalty remains their middle name.
"It's just the way things are," sighs Kate, "you know
it starts with the shoplifting at school. Of course it's wrong but
everybody there does it so we all pull together. You know what I
mean? Loyalty." But one of the family, speaking without the
permission of the parents, told me afterwards, "Izzie's got no
idea and she destroyed us. Her and that f****** umbrella. And she
overcharges like a good 'un." Another family pal, though, said
"M/S Duarte is doing her best under very difficult
circumstances. Kate and Gerry respect her contribution and are
working well with her."
But, quietly,
diplomatically, the McCanns have taken over the defence burden. I can
now reveal that Kate McCann’s appearance in court is just the
start: SIX new witnesses have been accepted by the judge and will
testify in the last week of November. A source close to the family
said "the gloves are now off." Amaral, who refused to
discuss the case with me in 2007 and 2009 despite the usual
incentives offered will be shocked at the firepower he now faces. I
have now seen the six names, although I must stress that the family
had no part in giving them to me. This is the list: David Payne,
Paolo Rebelo, The Leicester chief constable, A member of the British
Establishment, Mr Bernado O'Higgins, Mr Peregrine Scrope-Dewurmer.
They are NOT alone.
Dr Payne represents the
group of close friends who accompanied the McCanns on their ill-fated
trip in 2007. Much nonsense has been written about their
unwillingness to stand up for the tragic couple and their supposed
fear of returning to Portugal. The truth is that, desperate though
they have been to stand shoulder to shoulder with the pair, they were
assured that staying away from Portugal was "well within the
bounds of good friendship". Despite this, and at great personal
cost to themselves – it is understood that the fund will not pay Dr
Payne's air fares – they have agreed that Dr Payne should stand for
them all.In hitherto unknown testimony Dr Payne will confirm that
Maddie was indeed alive and well at 8.30 PM on May 3 when the parents
left her and walked the few yards to the famous tapas bar. In order
to help out with the parents' evening routine he bathed the child.
"She was a bit dusty," he remembers, "so she was in
the bath for over an hour." In all that time he saw that Kate,
who was wearing white, remained calm and untroubled.
Mr Paolo Rebelo will
state that after Mr Amaral was sacked for misrepresenting his lunch
expenses his office was fumigated and a new era began. By April 2008,
he will say, "we had new evidence suggesting abduction and all
of us had now changed our minds. That was why I wrote to the friends
telling them there was no need any longer for their reconstruction. I
wish to apologize to Kate and Gerry on behalf of the PJ."
Next will be the chief
constable of Leicester who will confirm that the McCanns have
"handsomely demonstrated their innocence" and should be
freed from the burden of constant suspicion. He will also apologize
for not having made this clear sooner.
Mr Bernado O'Higgins is
president of Dom Pedro hotels worldwide. He will testify to the dire
consequences for Portugal, and indeed other countries in the sunnier
parts of Europe, if costs are awarded against the family and their
fund. Mr O'Higgins, one of Portugal's most influential businessmen,
will say, "Gerry and Kate and their family have virtually
carried our hotel chain through this very difficult recession as they
have travelled the world in search of justice. Should the fund be
exhausted redundancies will have to follow, particularly in the
beauty salons which are highly labour intensive."
Next to testify will be a
member of the British Establishment. He has not been named but is
expected to wear a brown tweed suit, Lobb shoes, carry ancient
binoculars with Ascot Royal Enclosure tickets dangling from them and
walk with the aid of a nineteenth century Wilkinson swordstick. He
will state in a loud, braying SAS officer's voice that "anyone
who thinks we and our support are all inventions of Dr Gerald
McCann's diseased imagination had better think again" and will
discharge meaningful glances at all corners of the court. He will
conclude, "We believe in them and their innocence and our reach
is long."
The final witness will be
Mr Peregrine Scrope-Dewurmer, president emeritus of the Kennel Club
of Great Britain and, be it noted, a friend of her majesty the queen.
Mr Scrope-Dewurmer, despite his well-known gambling problems and
three bankruptcies, is the world's leading authority on dog
communication and Canine Whispering. In devastating new testimony he
will confirm that he was present when Glorious Twelfth of Axminster
Farm West, otherwise known as "Eddie" was terminated on
grounds of ill-health in 2011. Before his injection took effect
Eddie's demeanour and doleful barking clearly indicated, Mr
Scrope-Dewurmer will say, that he was apologising for his "lapse
of judgement" in Portugal 2007.
It is a tremendous legal
achievement. But why have they had to do all this themselves and so
late in the day? Why didn't more people contact the discredited
Duarte and tell her to change course? Her disastrous strategy gave an
impression that hardly anyone outside their close-knit families cares
a fig whether they live or die. Why were they left looking like
outcasts, pariahs, when we know how strong their support is? These
people rang Gordon Brown! They contacted David Cameron! They sue!
They matter!!! And then, lastly, there is the question of Madeleine.
Soon the sneers are going to turn to tears.The writer, an expert on
baby monitors, would like to thank friends of the family for their
help in writing this article.
Boring legal note -
10.10.2013
There was a possibility that the writer might be giving evidence in the Portuguese libel proceedings later in the month. That being the case it would have been grossly unfair to comment on or criticise witnesses for the claimants who testified before me and as a result I stopped writing about the case, without giving the reasons. I will not be giving evidence so refraining from comment is no longer necessary. But there was a further reason for reconsidering the way in which we post about the case. It was obvious back in February, when the parents' attempt to settle the case failed, that a twin phase of the case was, at last, coming to an end: the phase of strangled MSM coverage in which the latter only published material favourable to Kate & Gerry McCann and that in which responsible Internet analysis of the case was continually at risk should lawyers for the McCanns choose to follow the Lord McAlpine route. The foundation of those threats was current UK libel law and the way in which lawyers for the parents used the Archiving Summary as a formal legal summation of the case. As is well known Carter Ruck threatened commentators on the case using precisely this tactic. Even after the Portuguese appeal court ruling, which was not reported in the UK MSM, it could still be argued in overseas jurisdictions that the Archiving Summary was a fair and above all neutral assessment of the evidence, or absence of it, against Kate & Gerry McCann. Even as late as the Bennett case the judge appears to have taken that view, at least provisionally. But then he didn't have a lawyer to correct him. All this is now in the past. The notes to the 2013 libel act, brought in by our MPs after a long struggle by campaigners to whom we a debt of gratitude, under the heading "Reports etc. protected by privilege"* states:
There was a possibility that the writer might be giving evidence in the Portuguese libel proceedings later in the month. That being the case it would have been grossly unfair to comment on or criticise witnesses for the claimants who testified before me and as a result I stopped writing about the case, without giving the reasons. I will not be giving evidence so refraining from comment is no longer necessary. But there was a further reason for reconsidering the way in which we post about the case. It was obvious back in February, when the parents' attempt to settle the case failed, that a twin phase of the case was, at last, coming to an end: the phase of strangled MSM coverage in which the latter only published material favourable to Kate & Gerry McCann and that in which responsible Internet analysis of the case was continually at risk should lawyers for the McCanns choose to follow the Lord McAlpine route. The foundation of those threats was current UK libel law and the way in which lawyers for the parents used the Archiving Summary as a formal legal summation of the case. As is well known Carter Ruck threatened commentators on the case using precisely this tactic. Even after the Portuguese appeal court ruling, which was not reported in the UK MSM, it could still be argued in overseas jurisdictions that the Archiving Summary was a fair and above all neutral assessment of the evidence, or absence of it, against Kate & Gerry McCann. Even as late as the Bennett case the judge appears to have taken that view, at least provisionally. But then he didn't have a lawyer to correct him. All this is now in the past. The notes to the 2013 libel act, brought in by our MPs after a long struggle by campaigners to whom we a debt of gratitude, under the heading "Reports etc. protected by privilege"* states:
50.Subsection (1)
replaces subsection (3) of section 14 of the 1996 Act, which concerns
the absolute privilege applying to fair and accurate contemporaneous
reports of court proceedings. Subsection (3) of section 14 currently
provides for absolute privilege to apply to fair and accurate reports
of proceedings in public before any court in the UK; the European
Court of Justice or any court attached to that court; the European
Court of Human Rights; and any international criminal tribunal
established by the Security Council of the United Nations or by an
international agreement to which the UK is a party. Subsection (1)
replaces this with a new subsection, which extends the scope of the
defence so that it also covers proceedings in any court established
under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom,
and any international court or tribunal established by the Security
Council of the United Nations or by an international agreement. [my
italics].
The current hysteria in
the MSM is a reflection of this change, which also means that the
official transcript and judgement of the libel case when it is
available will have absolute privilege, including those comments,
already made by the judge, judicially limiting the validity of the
Archive Summary.This won't help people on forums who wish to propose
(not purport, Gerry, please, not purport) theories of McCann guilt of
their own invention: it may even make it more dangerous for them. But
it does mean that the stranglehold over public interest debate and
comment, including via printed books, is finished and that
responsible public examination of the investigation of the case and
the parents' role in it, as long as it uses truthful evidence, will
be protected, whatever the result of the Scotland Yard inquiry. Much
to think about for the way we go about things in future but the main
thing is – hooray! "Absolute privilege" means that
accurately quoted material from an absolutely privileged source
cannot be defamatory.
11.10.2013
So who were the biggest
players to help Kate & Gerry McCann subvert the Portuguese
investigation by deliberate misreporting and censorship of material
that they didn't agree with? Using feeds provided by the two main
suspects (as we now know), their family and their professional media
advisors. Right at the top stands BBC television. Anyone considering
complaining to the BBC in coming weeks may like to remind them of
their flagship "blog" The Editors posted on May 10 2007,
you know the day that Gerry McCann "re-remembered" his
first police statement, Mathew Oldfield struggled to give a coherent
account to police officers of his "hear no evil, see no evil"
visit to 5A and Kate McCann rehearsed her September 7 refusal to
answer questions by making herself unavailable to help the police.
The "fairy story", as it was described in court, had
already broken down. While these dramatic events were taking place
what was the BBC up to? Let Mr Kevin Bakhurst, controller of BBC News
24, tell you in his inimitable own words, in his post entitled, don’t
laugh, Avoiding Intrusion. Got your vomit bowl to hand? Good, here we
go: News 24's Jane Hill has been in the Algarve since Saturday
morning as part of a sizeable BBC team and we have strived to try to
get the tone right as well as the amount of coverage. Both in the
Algarve and here in the UK, we have liaised closely with Madeleine's
family and the British authorities on the wishes of the family and
the facts and tone of the reporting. [As I said these two were
already the prime suspects] Early on, both ITV and Sky joined an
informal pool operation in the Algarve around the family [as is now
well known the suspects' family had been actively briefing against
the police for the previous six days] where we only showed
Madeleine's parents and family by consent so as to try to avoid
intrusion. The BBC helped to organise the televised statement by Mrs
McCann which was pooled to British and Portuguese TV stations. Even
in these difficult circumstances, the McCann's [BBC grammar] know
that publicity for Madeleine is important as the search goes on.
We have called Madeleine
by her full name (not Maddy), at the request of the family because it
is what they call her. We passed on the accurate details of
Madeleine's pyjamas, at the family's request, correcting the police's
initial description. [The BBC is correcting the PJ's inaccuracies.
Will they do the same with Scotland Yard in Crimewatch? Any bets?]
For several days there were many developments that we reported as
they unfolded and large audiences watched News 24 over the Bank
Holiday weekend, concerned for Madeleine. For the last couple of
days, there have been fewer concrete developments (at time of
writing) and the temptation for some seems to have been to report
unsubstantiated rumours of which there are many to try to keep the
story going - particularly when there is self-evidently high audience
interest in the story itself. We have looked into many of these
rumours on the ground and that is all they have so far turned out to
be. [Well, well. So the BBC suppressed reporting of certain
"unsubstantiated rumours" – as they call them— seven
days after the disappearance. Who tried to substantiate them? Where
did they come from?] We all sincerely hope that there is a positive
outcome for Madeleine and the McCanns and we will continue to try to
provide the high volume of coverage and updates that the audience
obviously wants, whilst respecting the family's privacy and needs and
whilst striving to separate real developments from rumours. [Ah. More
"rumours" to be killed off.] Read it again after you've
washed out the vomit bowl. They can't even plead ignorance of what
was going on: "rumours"! They knew there was already
another narrative in opposition to Woolfall and the family's
inventions and they chose to cheat and fool the public because of
their own lamentable failure to investigate the story objectively.
Exactly the same as their behaviour with Jimmy Savile – but in many
ways even more serious.
Six days that fooled the
world – 12.10.2013
(...) Six years now and
not one single fact to back up the hysterical media claims that began
on May 4 2007 when Kate McCann, Gerry McCann, Michael Wright,
Philomena McCann and Trish Cameron started lying systematically to
the media. Not one. Michael Wright lied on May 4 when he told the
public that the parents had been "spun against" and he was
defending them. They had not been "spun against" by
anybody, as the public record proves. Gerry McCann, during the night
of May 3/4 encouraged him to contact the media with the lies. Trish
Cameron lied on May 4 when she said that the parents had been stalked
by an abductor during the week and that apartment 5A had been broken
into by an abductor. She had been contacted by Gerry McCann on the
night of May 3/4 and given the fairy story to publicise. On May 6
Philomena McCann began deliberately lying about the police
investigation to the media, claiming lack of response, inadequate
searching, neglect and inefficiency. Not one word of these claims was
true: they were lying inventions of Kate & Gerry McCann, passed
on to Philomena specifically for outside broadcasting, despite the
police pleas for silence. These actions of the five people are not
claims or my opinion: they are established, on the record, proven
facts.The media fell for every one of the lies. The conspiracy to
cover up and lie about the events of May 3 onwards was completely
successful and the family shills, aided by the two principals feeding
them what they wanted publicised, went onto radio and television
further embroidering their baseless claims.The Madeleine McCann
Affair was essentially over by May 10. The actual course of events
and of the investigation had been completely drowned out by the lies
which the media simply multiplied and amplified for the next twelve
weeks until, in early August, some of the facts could no longer be
denied. Until then the McCann family's stranglehold on UK media
reporting, and hence knowledge of the truth of the investigation, had
been maintained 100% with all of them insisting, day after day, that
the police had no suspicions about the couple. May 10. The day that
Mr Bakhurst, head of BBC news 24, wrote his revolting paean to the
lying family, having been completely taken in. He and his staff knew
of the early and complete refutation of the lies about "the poor
search effort" and the invented "intrusion evidence"
by Mr Hill, eyewitness and Mark Warner manager, who quoted the
refutation evidence publicly. They chose to ignore or muffle it, as
did the other media organizations.The BBC knew on May 10 of other
versions of what was actually going on. We don't know where they came
from or how truthful they were because the BBC deliberately chose to
suppress them. Why? Conspiracy? Corruption? Political pressure?
Believe that if you like and go on feeding little lying Glasgow Gel's
self-image as a power behind the scenes. All of them suppressed, and
still suppress, any inner doubts because of just about the oldest
human weakness, after sex and apples, of all: the weakness that makes
people go on trying harder and harder to buy London Bridge once
someone has completely convinced them that it really is for sale.
Given that initial conviction, as every conman knows, the punter is
forever in too deep to get out. Shame, sheer embarrassment,
unwillingness to believe in your own stupidity, pride. They were all
comprehensively conned and they can never admit it, as Crimewatch
will demonstrate yet again.
To complete the con Gerry
and Kate McCann have time after time disguised the truth of what
happened on the night of May 3/4, claiming repeatedly that media
interest came as a "surprise" to them after they had
returned from Portimao police HQ on the afternoon of May 4. The
truth, again a matter of record, is that they initiated the media
interest by the use of the "green light" later described by
Kate McCann: the method of using third parties and co-conspirators to
circulate lies to the public. Even giving evidence to the House of
Commons Gerry McCann misled the committee under oath with exactly the
same part of the "fairy tale". By the afternoon of May 10
Gerry McCann knew that the police had made him, his wife who was
"unavailable" for interview and the seven friends the prime
suspects in the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine
McCann – he heard Oldfield crying hysterically in the police
interview room as he was accused of being part of a faked abduction.
Yet – read the blogs for August for an insight into a disgusting
liar's methods—he went on hiding the truth from the British public.
And even now the BBC go on suppressing the information that they were
given – you know, those "rumours".
Legal note. I do not
throw accusations around carelessly, Evidence exists for all the
factual claims made above. It could be argued for three of those
named above that the evidence does not justify the claim that they
"lied", i.e. that they passed on information that they knew
to be untrue. Yes, it could be so argued. In which case the following
questions arise: On such a serious matter did they make any attempt
to satisfy themselves as to the truth of their accusations – a
number of which were defamatory of the Portuguese police – before
initiating media contact? Did Gerry McCann or Kate McCann state that
the information given over the phone was true? Did any third parties
confirm the truth of these claims before they were made public? In
the light of these claims being exposed as untrue, particularly in
the light of the harm done to reputations by them, have any of the
three ever repudiated their original claims? Does the evidence given
under oath by two of the three in McCanns v Amaral 2013 include any
retractions or give any pointers as to their record, motives and
intentions as truthful witnesses of fact? If no retraction has been
given then their failure to retract known untruths is tantamount to
continuing the intention to deceive.By this footnote I am bringing
the refutations to their attention. Then let's see where it goes from
there.
The way the con continued
- 12.10.2013
The attempt to deceive
the UK public, the original con that they hoped would save them,
continued even though that public was beginning to find out,
unofficially, what was going on. It was therefore vital that the
information remained "only rumour", to use a favourite
phrase of Kate McCann. So they denied everything as long as they
possibly could and made sure they never gave any hint of confirmation
themselves that the police were hot on their trail, however bizarre
their attempts became in the light of reality. With nothing
officially confirmed they still had prospects for the future – once
they'd got out of Portugal. I'll leave aside completely the
simultaneous work the pair were doing with their spin machine and
lying to journalists using their various agents and shills – a huge
subject in itself. No, this is just their spare time stuff. Below is
a well-known selection of events in August 2007. Each event is
followed by extracts from Gerry McCann's blog entries to demonstrate
how accurately he conveys the truth for the UK public.
August 2 2007 -
Gerry & Kate McCann had their place turned over by the police and
were left with only the clothes they were wearing. The game was up.
August 2 - (Gerry McCann's blog) Today was a bit of a write off for me as
I was laid low with a probable viral illness which meant I could not
stray too far from the house! I did manage to get through some
e-mails, telephone calls and some paperwork. Feeling a bit better
tonight so hopefully be back to normal tomorrow.
August 3 - It is
exactly 3 months since Madeleine was abducted. Kate and I had an
early start as we drove to Huelva, 50Km over the border from Portugal
in Southern Spain. We were meant to go yesterday but had to cancel
because I was ill.
August 6 - Police asked Gerry McCann to meet them
and then seized his car and took it for forensic testing.
August 6
- Today was again very busy. Lots of e-mails and telephone calls to
family and friends who have been involved in the campaign to find
Madeleine.
August 7 - Of course all possibilities are being considered
and the police have to be certain before eliminating any of the
scenarios. It is absolutely right that we are subject to the same
high standards of investigation as anyone else. Kate and I have, and
will continue to assist the police in every possible way.
August 8 - Kate & Gerry
McCann interrogated, accused by police of lying and covering up their
actions with regard to the child. Suggestions they could face a
murder charge. Both of them in hysterics.
August 8 - Kate's parents
left early this morning...At our meeting with the Portuguese police
today we reaffirmed that we have to believe Madeleine is alive until
there is concrete evidence to the contrary. It is this belief that
has driven everything we have done in relation to publicising
Madeleine's disappearance over the last 3 months.
August 11 - PJ
officer arrives to tell them that dog searches suggest death in
apartment 5A. Tears, breakdown, hysterics.
August 11 - Just another day
but a significant milestone that we prayed we would never have to
face without Madeleine...In the afternoon we went to a local swimming
pool and play area with the kids and their cousins. They had a great
time swimming, playing with tennis balls and generally messing
around...There was a statement from the Portuguese police today
regarding the recent activity in the investigation and media
speculation. They confirmed that there are new leads and that we are
not suspects in Madeleine's disappearance.
August 20 - The McCanns go
and see criminal lawyers to defend themselves against the charges
which are obviously coming.
August 20 - I had a predominately quiet but
productive day. I spent most of it at the computer or on the phone.
We keep in regular touch with both the Portuguese and British police
but there has been no major news in the last couple of days.
September 2 - The police tell them they will be formally interrogated
in the coming days and to bring a lawyer. Shouts, tears, hysterics. Ce n'est pas une nouvelle, un interrogatoire avait été annoncé le 8 août.
September 2 - Another relatively quiet family day. My mum and sister
arrived this morning after we had been to church. This afternoon we
took the kids to a friend’s house with a pool. Kate and I went for
a short run and then we all had a swim and a couple of treats brought
all the way from Glasgow!
September 5 - We were surprised to find
increased media presence in Praia da Luz again today. We were
followed down to church, then to the shops and back to our
accommodation which is very unusual, apart from the build up to the
100 days. All the excitement seems to be over the results of the
recent forensic tests that again have created a huge amount of
speculation. The rest of the story is all too well known. I will
leave readers with just one more paired entry.
September 7 - Unable to
face the prospects of jail Kate & Gerry McCann discussed fleeing
across the border but decided against.
September 10 - On Saturday we
asked the Portuguese police if they had any objection to us coming
back to the UK. We had assured them that we will continue to
cooperate fully with the investigation and of course will return as
requested and for our own emotional reasons. An entry that provides a
satisfactory conclusion to a remarkable performance that continues –
just – to this day.
Acts of faith –
12.10.2013
The Blacksmith Bureau had
a single, polemical, purpose – to help Gonçalo Amaral in every
honest way it could against the activities of two ruthless
con-artists too deep into their scam ever to get out: using the funds
they'd conned from the public with their false claims they ambushed
and tried to destroy him because they knew silence was tantamount to
accepting the truth of what he wrote. Now it's different. The
Interrupted Investigation is about faith, not certainty, that if the
truth is laid out for anyone to read it can help the cause of
justice. There are no conspiracy theories here, no belief in
political interference, no assertions, no claims of inside knowledge.
When I make interpretations they are solidly grounded on those facts.
Since 2010 neither supporters of the McCanns nor Kate McCann herself
("it's just a rumour") have been able to rebut, let alone
refute, any of the examples I give of the McCanns' constant lying and
plotting in their own, very mysterious, interests.
Vraiment mystérieux ? Qui le croira ?
They all avoid the
actual accusations I make, from the fact that the co-author of the
Archiving Summary swore on oath that they had lied about events on
May 3 2007, to the fact that Kate McCann did not turn down her
lawyer's suggestion of a possible plea bargain with the police in
September 2007 (read Madeleine, page 243, paragraph 2 very
carefully); that, for exactly the same reason (neutral witnesses
present to correct the record on oath if necessary) Jane Tanner
neither confirmed nor denied identifying Robert Murat as the abductor
to Leicester police, through to the fact that they are lying now,
after Kate McCann attempted too late to save herself by settling with
Amaral before he could set in train the mechanisms that may expose
her. Soon, God willing, one at least of them will have to answer for
some of those lies in the witness box in Lisbon. I've made it clear
that any time one of the Team McCann or the Tapas 7 members, or
lawyers acting on their behalf, point out, with evidence, errors in
my claims I will immediately withdraw them. They never ring. So one
goes on laying out the facts in the possibly vain hope that not just
critics or enemies of the couple but ordinary people, including
journalists who were conned, will do what the supporters and shills
can't bring themselves to do: accept the truth.
Light and dark –
15.10.2013
Anyone who thinks that
the excision of Jane Tanner's sighting – the most significant
development in the case since 2007 – leaves the rest of the group
unscathed is living in dreamland. The evidence demonstrates a
collective effort to build a narrative of events based on an innocent
passer-by being an "abductor" on May 3 – 10, by omission,
invention and distortion. It isn't a bolt-on that can be safely
removed from the group's evidence: without it the whole rotten
structure starts to crumble. The failed narrative can be seen to
start with Madeleine McCann's pathetic but dangerous legacy - the
sticker books. In neither book, written as the police were
approaching, is there any mention of Gerry McCann seeing his children
on the "9.04" visit. In sticker book one Oldfield's visit
is described as having "seen twins" at 9.30ish. In the
second his entire visit to the apartment is deleted.
La version 1 pourrait être la 2, aussi bien...
Not because a
version of it didn't happen but because they can't yet find a place
to put it. Only the JT vision and, significantly, the "10pm
alarm" are constants. The juggling with the truth to make it fit
neatly around an abductor who would never be found is transparent.
Et si KMC était allée voir à son tour ? Ne s'étaient-ils pas promis, le matin-même, d'être plus attentifs? Qu'aurait-elle vu ? Logiquement ce qu'est censé avoir vu Matthew ou ce qu'elle est censée avoir vu à 22h.
Then the collusion among the critical members of the group goes on
hold for troubled sleep and afterwards for their appointments at
Portimao police HQ. The police reports of May 4 are laughably devoid
of most of the information that was afterwards fleshed out around the
sighting. GM states that he checked and found the kids OK but thought
the bedroom door was not in quite the same position it had been left
in. Tanner's sighting is there in only skeletal form but everyone
points the police at it. Over the weekend the timeline is written and
printed and accounts hugely expanded to welcome and accommodate the
stranger. GM now remembers significant details about his first visit,
tying it in with what Oldfield saw, all leading to only one
conclusion: that the abduction took place between 9.15 and 9.30. The
description of the sighting is filled out in absurd and fictional
detail. Mathew Oldfield, the most malleable of the group ("get
down to reception and see what's happening with the police!")
and Jane Tanner, the most vulnerable, become the foundations of the
fairy story. As always Kate & Gerry McCann work from behind the
scenes.
Oldfield's embroidered
version is given to the police on May 10; Gerry McCann adds more
colour to his own visit. Most of the others are "unable to help"
with critical details. The police treat it all with the derision it
deserves. A year later at the Leicester interviews the compromised
ones try to extricate themselves from the lifetime danger of their
position. They can't. Their stories, from the open door to the
ambiguous shutters, cannot accommodate a disappearance after 9.30.
Payne, more helpful than he realises, says
..but you know and then you're looking for information to, to try and fit in with what you thinks happened and then you know when, when we knew that we just thought, you know, that is it, that is who’s taken her.
O'Brien, sensing danger
if the brittle Tanner's vision is ever discredited, tries to rewrite
his statement to make the Oldfield visit less critical, less
dependent on his partner's veracity.
So you would like to remove this then?Well I don't...If we remove.Yeah, from.This is the final check before Madeleine was noticed missing' if we remove that?Yeah, yeah, actually, yeah, it's mainly me just commenting on what Matt said.
Oldfield himself now
tries to back off, aware of the horribly risky position he's in. In
place of the original story – GM left the bedroom "very dark"
at 9.05, Oldfield found it backlit somehow from the window – he now
thinks it might have been moonlight through the patio doors that was
brightening the room! All futile, all too late. The door which opens
and closes in Madeleine McCanns' bedroom is like a mocking symbol of
the lethality of their collective position. Gerry McCann digs himself
deeper and deeper into the mire every time he opens his mouth about
that door: its final position now condemns the couple to an abductor
before 9.30. He can never close it.
And what of that ghostly
presence lurking in the room while Gerry McCann was there at 9.05,
the one that comes and goes according to mood or need, so beautifully
described by Dr McCann and so helpfully enlarged upon by that freak
Mitchell. It won't come and go anymore: you can't pick the
hunchbacked paedophile monster out of the garbage bucket where he was
hiding and say, come on chum, we've got to move you to 9.55. The
whole black comedy nightmare process can be seen in the files. It is
impossible for them to rewrite their parts. Gerry and Kate McCann,
known and notorious liars, now don't even have the fig-leaf of the
Tanner story to give them at least the possibility of veracity and
are left horribly exposed, as their faces demonstrate. Payne will
find a way to save himself: people like Payne always will. The most
vulnerable domino of the 7 is now out of the game, exactly how we
don't know. Will the other "useful idiot", the most
malleable one, be the next to fall? So the fiction they created,
which combined self-protection with the hallmark McCann soap-opera
material so easily accepted by the credulous, (because it's fiction!
silly) – a swarthy villain heading for escape but a possible happy
ending for the child somewhere, somehow, Send for the helicopters!
Close the borders! One day she'll be released from her Algarve log
cabin if we hope and pray! – gives way to another, rather more real
narrative, the only one around and one that they are all powerless to
counter: that of a sinister figure carrying an inert child through
the darkness down towards the deep sea, from which there is no
return.
Tumbling, - 16.10.2013
Let's try and make it
clear why the dominoes must fall. For those who are not familiar with
the case let’s stick to the fatal bedroom door. We described in the
previous article how the group "evolved" their evidence, so
that by May 6 it rested solidly on one foundation: the abductor and
intruder seen by Jane Tanner. The problem for all the dominoes is
this: if the foundation that they built on is suddenly removed then
their evidence no longer makes any sense. It cannot be true. And once
domino Mathew Oldfield decided to back their story, and once domino
David Payne organized nearly all the group to collude in writing a
document containing a hugely elaborated version of these lies and
presenting it to the British ambassador and the Portuguese police,
the story was set in stone and set in time. But the abductor,
ultimately, was not sustainable and is now gone; the situation is now
not "no evidence of abduction" but self-evident and
unarguable "false evidence of abduction", not, funnily
enough, by Jane Tanner but by most of the others in the group. With
the "timeline" printed and fixed there was no going back.
According to that fairy tale the bedroom door was left partially open
when the pair went to the restaurant that night, disturbed between
8.30 and 9.05, returned to its original position by Gerry McCann at
9.10 and found disturbed again by Oldfield at 9.30. They'd lied too
much – instead of the intrusion evidence they invented to fit in
with a shadowy figure on the street who'd never be found they'd
created two intrusions! Someone must have moved the door between 8.30
and 9.05, without disturbing the shutters, which Oldfield and McCann
confirmed were down. After McCann left at 9.10 another intrusion must
have occurred, this time, as Oldfield confirmed, involving the
shutters as well as the door being open. Since May 10 the McCanns
have attempted, with and without lawyers, to talk themselves out of
this self-created trap. They were, naturally, driven to claim that an
intruder might have been hiding in the apartment to bring the two
intrusions back to a single one, even though the children remained
undisturbed and the PJ said there was nowhere in the small apartment
for anyone to hide. To cope with the shutters being closed when the
first abductor was in the apartment but open when Oldfield was there
they then had to invent a reason why the shutters would be opened
from within. Which led to the next lie: it must have been to pass the
child out.To whom? Why there must have been another abductor outside!
The attempts can be followed on Panorama, the Oprah Winfrey show and
elsewhere, including the enthusiastic words of that conservative
party candidate Clarence "Freak" Mitchell. On Panorama they
actually made it worse, despite the careful "expunge it!"
script, with Gerry McCann forgetting his lines and saying he'd
"closed" the door, instead of "leaving it ajar".
Whoops! Oldfield, for his part, had to face some proper questioning
instead of the celebrity loving BBC and its presenters. His limp
attempts to talk himself out of trouble by directly contradicting his
PJ evidence to Leicester police in 2008 are also a matter of record.
With the acceptance that
an "abductor" never existed at this time and that the
bedroom door, therefore, had never been moved the McCanns and their
helpers are left nakedly exposed. Let the ever-helpful journalist
David James Smith elaborate in one of his 2007 articles: "It
perhaps needs to be stated openly that all these timings and details,
the way in which they weave and dovetail together, are based on
witness accounts – corroborated not just by the McCann group but by
others, such as Jes Wilkins – and that, despite suggestions to the
contrary, there are no obvious contradictions or differences between
them." We’ll forget that last bit, shall we? Stick to the
beginning: ever tried unweaving a garment and putting it back
together in a different shape? Ever tried undoing dovetail joints and
making them lock together a different way round? It can't be done. In
her last words about the bedroom door Kate McCann has given up on the
task of locating its position on her 10pm apartment entry. Too
dangerous. Instead, and quite in keeping with the whole "fairy
story", she has conjured up a squall like some crazed female
Prospero, leaving the door to swing wildly in the wind, forever
undecided. If Jane Tanner was sure of what she'd seen then the Yard's
claim that the original of the abductor has been located would be
irrelevant and the threadbare remains of the group lie still in
place: all she has to do is stand by her story, tell them they've
found yet another walker and child and suggest the Yard get back to
work. But whoever she's been talking to she clearly hasn't said that,
has she? And, as I said, she's the only one in the group not involved
in David Payne's story creation. So what do you think she has been
saying? And to whom? Something else for the group to fret about as
the dominoes start to fall.
The man who never was –
17.10.2013
We now know that the
"abductor" seen near apartment 5A around 9.15pm never
existed. We know that the McCanns provided evidence of the abductor's
activities within the apartment. It was invented: there never was any
intruder at that time – official. Over the weekend of May 5/6,
members of the group wrote it down as fact and added much more
untruthful information. They signed it, printed it off in multiple
copies and gave it to the British ambassador and the Portuguese
police as the truth. And we also know that the "family shills"
simultaneously gave equally false information to the media about how
that non-existent abductor forced his way into the apartment, leaving
more "physical evidence". We know the broad outlines of how
and when this "fairy story" was developed into the detailed
printed version by this inner circle of helpers. Of course the
subsequent police statements by the group did not contain these
details. Why? Because the truth comes naturally but lies have to be
remembered: when the police wouldn't let them take their copy of the
lies into the interviews with them – a bit like Michael Wright in
the Lisbon libel trial the other day – they were lost. Over the
years, though, the lie about the abductor has been elaborated away
from the police interview rooms, chiefly by friendly journalists
abusing their positions and by "spokesman" Clarence
Mitchell at his increasingly bizarre press conferences where he
"filled in the details" – of someone who'd never existed!
What we don't know is why the parents initiated it all. I,
personally, have never gone down that road. It's a matter for the
police. The false evidence, on the other hand, is not a matter for
the police alone. It concerns us all because, in a widening circle of
pure deceit, the parents first provided members of their family with
the lies, then members of the Tapas group, then the Foreign Office
via the embassy and then members of the UK media en masse in Praia da
Luz – who then sold it on to us, the end-users.
We were the most powerful
enlisted accessories, much more important than the media itself, or
the failures like forgotten Gordon Brown. Unlike them we, rich and
poor, had the power to shower the pair with money, real money, buying
them the freedom to force people into silence. The freedom to fly to
5 star hotels by private jet building up their image. And the freedom
to hire the most expensive lawyers in the world. It was us, the
public who believed them, who had the power to prevent extradition by
the force of our opinion. Until recently, as the story began to
crumble and the public started to ask the right questions, even
though they dread the answers. That's why the prime database for the
case, the McCann Files, is now getting over 100,000, yes, 100,000,
official hits per day. That's why it would have been wrong for us to
"wait for the police" to unravel the mystery. We waited and
they didn't do it! Neither in Portugal nor in the UK. There never was
a "search" after July 2008. There never were any "private
investigators" investigating anything. On the contrary the
crooks and has-beens whom the McCanns recruited did just what they
were paid to do for the £400 000 of our money they received. We had
to find out for ourselves how we were conned, helped only by a single
ex-policeman with a sense of honour, who for his efforts on behalf of
their missing child, the parents tried to destroy.
C'est quand même beaucoup dire. L'aide est venue avec les PJFiles, fournies par le Ministère public !
And on whom the UK
media, and a small group of internet fanatics – "useful
idiots" used by the parents – poured insult after scarcely
believable insult for six years. (...)
Mr Redwood’s new rules
– 20.10.2013
Less than a week and all
terribly changed! Scotland Yard’s new findings have altered the
case for ever. Twitter subscribers please note, Mr Redwood has made
the “no evidence of abduction” tweet obsolete. His investigation
means there is a new conclusion: There is evidence of abduction –
all of it false.
Mathew Oldfield and his
false evidence of abductor intrusion
May 4 False evidence to
police: That it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window
were open without knowing if the window was also open.
May 10 False evidence to
police: Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second
check the shutters were more open than on the first check.
April 2008 Retraction of
false evidence to Leicester police: I definitely didn’t see the
shutters up, the curtains were definitely not disturbed.
Clarence Mitchell with
false evidence of abduction in left hand. Here’s the updated
abduction evidence in full
Source
McCann family – forced
apartment door. False, refuted by eyewitness and forensic evidence.
McCann family – damaged
shutters. False, refuted by police forensics.
Kate McCann alone –
open shutters. Uncorroborated by passers-by or forensics.
Kate McCann alone –
open window. Uncorroborated by passers-by. No forensic corroboration.
Jane Tanner – abductor
seen moving away from apartment. False/mistaken, sighting eliminated
by UK police.
David Payne & others
– further description of abductor, in writing. False, claimed
abductor eliminated by UK police.
Clarence Mitchell –
abductor sighting. “When Gerry had told Clarence about Jane
Tanner’s sighting he was astounded that this still hadn’t been
made public. We decided we would really push the PJ to release this
critical piece of information in the hope of identifying this man and
child.” False. Abductor never existed.
The Smith sighting, due
to its distance from the apartment, could not be treated as direct
abduction evidence in the same way as the Tanner phantom, who was
only yards away from the apartment. Just what its status is we will
no doubt find out from Scotland Yard.
Quite a list of lies,
evasions, inventions and fantasy, isn't it?
Meanwhile.. .- 21.10.2013
Meanwhile a libel trial
rolls on in Lisbon. BBC/Scotland Yard's Crimewatch and the official
statement by Mr Redwood that the "abductor" seen by Jane
Tanner is no longer a person of interest, by virtue of being
non-existent, haven't protected the parents or harmfully overshadowed
the trial at all. On the contrary they have helped enormously to
bolster Mr Amaral's case. First, the evidence of Mr Flores in court
(it'll be in the transcript) that the McCann version was perceived by
the police as a childish "fairy tale"
Une histoire coquecigrue.
has been given
further, and probably decisive, strength now that its key character,
the Fairy Tale Abductor Giant, has been slain. Secondly, the
"search". In the literal sense of a physical search for
Madeleine – prodding the ground, searching deserted buildings,
looking for CCTV evidence, searching, it was, of course, all over
within days, or at most weeks, of the disappearance and has never
been resumed. Insofar as the word is being used to describe something
quite different and non-literal, an attempt, for instance, to track
down, or find traces of, an abductor, complete with more and more
detailed descriptions of him, the entire effort is now revealed as a
complete black-comedy nonsense, a gaffe on such a scale that the
world has still not taken it in. Quite simply, the pictures which Mr
Mitchell and his collaborators have been showing at media conferences
for several years either have no known connection with the child or,
more importantly, are purely imaginary, elaborations of a person we
know never existed, the Fairy Giant. Now, the importance of the
non-existent abductor to the entire McCann and friends' story, or
fairy story. How great is it? At the risk of boring the internet
skimmer let's be serious for a moment and attempt to put it in
measurable terms. The 2007 BBC Panorama programme remains the most
complete exposition of the McCann's version of events, with
contributions from the parents and Jane Tanner among others. While
the programme quoted some doubts about the pair, chiefly Portuguese,
we know from the co-ordinating lawyer Smethurst's comments that it
was made expressly to convince the public of the parents' innocence.
As he said, that was why he and his clients co-operated with the BBC.
Good old slutty Beeb again, always ready to lie on his/her back for a
good butch guy with a tale to tell, but never mind.
The transcript of the
programme runs to some 9,000 words. The events between 6.30 and 10pm
on May 3, described by the McCanns and Jane Tanner speaking directly,
or having their versions expressed indirectly by narrator Bilton,
take up just 1450 words, that is about 3/4 pages of a paperback book.
The remainder of the programme concerns the investigation and other
extraneous matters, not May 3 itself. What is simply astonishing is
that of these 1450 definitive words from the McCanns on what happened
on the most crucial evening of their lives 1000 of them, almost three
of the four pages, are not about the McCann's experiences at all but
Jane Tanner's abductor! This imaginary figure, swollen now to a
rampant giant, has completely taken over the disappearance. Without
the Fairy-Tale Giant the story shrinks to virtual nothingness, about
one padded-out paperback page. The whole McCann tale of May 3 is of a
meal, an open window and some raised shutters – plus a Big Giant.
Kate McCann's "Madeleine" shows the same pattern, although
four years later she is much more careful and this time she initially
separates McCann experiences from the Tanner episode. Perhaps that is
why her description of everything that happened to her and her
husband between 8.30 and 10pm runs to only 750 words, two and a half
pages or so out of a 360 page, 275,000 word book. And that is with a
great deal of "colour" and padding. Why such a critical
night in their lives should be padded out at all is an open question:
without it, there is less than two thirds of a page of history, about
as much as they devoted to a meal with Clement Freud. But that, of
course, is without the big, unfriendly Giant. In her over-heated
description of the next few days Kate McCann makes up for his initial
absence by carefully incorporating the Jane Tanner sighting in
chunks, thus adding it back into the history of May 3 in the same way
as Panorama did. It adds one and a half pages to the "narrative"
– the Giant, the purely imaginary contribution is making up over
half the entire story of 8.30 to 10PM on May 3! So much for boring
statistics. Anyone with a serious interest in the case can't ignore
them but will they bore the casual reader? Terrify the Tweeter? Who cares? They're ready
for a judge. That's what matters.
The Man Who Sold His Soul
– Preface - 23.10.2013
The case is now moving,
in jerky steps, towards its climax and it's time to start looking
beyond the next couple of months.When it emerged in February that the
McCanns wanted out of the libel case it was clear that something
crucial had occurred and things would never be the same again.
Amaral's book was a lethal challenge: either you fight and refute me
or you are tacitly accepting what I claim and the public will slowly
but surely accept it. They had to sue. And to try and settle four
years later, whatever the reasons, was tantamount to surrender, to
accepting the irrefutability of Amaral's case. The astonishingly weak
Lisbon evidence so far, together with the appeal court judgement, has
confirmed that irrefutability. Scotland Yard's official statements
indicate that the central claim – that "the search" was
damaged by the actions of others including Mr Amaral – now appears
in a very different light: the private "search", it
transpires, was based almost completely on erroneous eye-witness
evidence and killing it off earlier would have been a public service.
The likelihood is that Amaral will now win, either soon or at appeal.
In June we discovered just how far the quite separate track of the
Yard investigation had progressed when it emerged that the UK Crown
Prosecution Service had been in discussions about the case in
Portugal. As the Bureau then wrote, you don't send senior CPS people
to discuss "persons of interest" or possible "suspects":
those are matters for the investigators. UK prosecutors deal with
prosecutions. Clearly there was a prosecutable case against someone
that was being appraised. The Bureau said the evidence suggested who
those subjects must be. The Yard denied it. We withdrew the claim and
closed the Bureau in the light of the denial. The days of "keeping
the case in the public eye" or "campaigning for the
conclusion of the interrupted investigation" are, as far as I'm
concerned, over, both because of those 100,000 hits a day on Nigel
Moore's database and because of the progress of the investigation.
There is no need to try
and convince the public about the McCann case anymore since, after
six years, they are now finding out for themselves. And there is no
need to keep pointing out the significant evidence since the police
themselves are now starting to do so. It is a matter of unimportance
whether people agree with this blog and the writer's views or not:
debate has been overtaken by facts. Looking back, perhaps I and
others should have seen the longer-term implications of pointing the
finger at the only known subjects of investigation and the CPS so
quickly: it did the investigation no good. On reflection it is clear
that had the Yard not explicitly denied the Bureau claims then a mad
witch-hunt like that of September 2007 might have followed, helping
nobody and raising the question of whether a fair trial could ever
take place. That's why we’re happy to accept the statements of
Scotland Yard, defer to their expertise and say a little less about
certain things than we used to. My apologies to Mr Redwood and his
team for the more colourful criticisms. In the light of events the
Bureau is expected to re-open in the relatively near future.
The Man Who Sold His Soul
- 23/10.2013
Whatever happens in the
end Kate & Gerry McCann have unarguably been at the centre of
something truly dreadful, perhaps, for we don't yet know, worse than
dreadful. The face of Kate McCann, either without make-up, as she
chose to appear before Leveson, or slathered with it, as on
Crimewatch, speaks eloquently of that truth. Their suffering, which
has a lot further to go, was not something they consciously chose.
They are like a couple struggling in a grey, turbulent sea. And the
same goes for the families of the pair for whom there has been no
relief or resolution after six years: their clan loyalty and
instinctive distrust of the police which the Bureau has highlighted
at times has, given the context, a certain admirable, if troubling,
quality about it. The word evil is used cautiously these days. But I
remember watching the dogs' video for the first time. The almost
deserted and brutally lit concrete car park and the line of empty
vehicles, at once suggestive of a dozen post-mortem gangland news
photos, was lowering enough. But then the strange and almost wordless
ritual of a forensically-overalled handler, his two dogs and their
echoing barks as they worked their way through the cars suddenly
brought home the reality in a way that the hysterical media stories
never had. I was watching a search for the concealed traces of a
child's corpse. A sense of evil is the only way I can describe what I
fleetingly experienced, not with regard to the McCanns, but to the
transport by somebody of a near-infant out of a night-time apartment
and her almost certain death. There were no winners, no happy
endings, no soap opera plots here. Just evil. That anyone not already
trapped in this nightmare by blood and kinship would actually choose
to invite themselves into it seems hard to conceive. Even those whose
work forces them into proximity with violent death – emergency
service people and hardened police investigators – find themselves
shaken and troubled when the victim is a young child and are not
ashamed to admit it. But among all the various parties who have been
drawn into the case one figure stands out clear of all others, clear
even of opportunistic criminals like Halligen who was only too happy
to get away from the case once he'd made his money. One who has not
just involved himself but for six years has actually thrived mightily
on it like a repulsive fattened bluebottle supping on dead and rotten
meat. That person is Clarence Mitchell.
Well... - 24.10.2013
We posted "some
things are now settled". Gosh, they don't keep Kate & Gerry
in the loop anymore, do they? If I knew it why didn't they and their
little helpers? The Interrupted Investigation isn't interrupted
anymore, folks. Job done. See you on the Bureau.
