|Alexander Alexeieff - E.A Poe - The Fall of The House of Usher (1930)|
These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007. Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE.
At 6.30 Gerry McCann asks a friend, David Payne, to pop in on Kate to see if the children are coming down. He goes to the flat, he says all is well, but the children are too tired and are already in their pyjamas.
At around six-forty, as I was drying myself off, there was a knock on the patio doors and I heard David's voice calling me. Swiftly wrapping my towel around me, I stepped into the sitting room. David had popped his head round the patio door, looking for me. The others had met up with Gerry at the tennis courts and he'd mentioned we were thinking of bringing the kids to the play area. Dave had nipped up to see if he could give me a hand taking them down. As they were all ready for bed and seemed content with their books, I decided they were probably past the stage of needing any more activity. So he went back to the tennis while I quickly dressed and sat down on the couch with the children.
At around six-forty, as I was drying myself off, there was a knock on the patio doors and I heard David's voice calling me.
Swiftly wrapping my towel around me, I stepped into the sitting room.
David had popped his head round the patio door, looking for me.
The others had met up with Gerry at the tennis courts and he'd mentioned we were thinking of bringing the kids to the play area.
Dave had nipped up to see if he could give me a hand taking them down.
As they were all ready for bed and seemed content with their books, I decided they were probably past the stage of needing any more activity.
So he went back to the tennis while I quickly dressed and sat down on the couch with the children.
AR : I am satisfied that the systems and process that we are bringing to this set of circumstances will give [not have given] us the best opportunity to find those investigative opportunities that we can then present [not have presented] to our colleagues in Portugal.
AR : My engagement with the Portuguese is with the police officers sitting within the review team in Porto. Those officers are engaged. They are open. They are working with us collaboratively and I've not encountered with them any of those views.
Cela semble normal si l'on songe que les Portugais se sont débarassés d'une patate brûlante dont ils ne pouvaient et ne voulaient rien faire, sans que les intéressés ne pipent mot. Pas une seule fois, en tout cas publiquement, le Ministère public n'a rappelé que les MC n'avaient opté pour la phase d'instruction qui aurait permis d'apurer l'investigation.
In fully public announcements they have continually asserted that co-operation is "good". In early 2013 the Yard made it clear it was moving into an active investigative, rather than review, phase, based on results so far. It was announced that CPS officials had been visiting Portugal. The Portuguese stated in April 2013 that. In October 2013 the Portuguese case was re-opened. They did not say what new evidence had come to light or from where.
Ils pouvaient difficilement laisser interroger des gens pour le compte de OG sans les protéger par le statut de arguido et donc sans rouvrir l'enquête eux-mêmes, un pur simulacre probablement.
At the same time the Yard went to Crimewatch with new identity appeals, mention of cell-phone intelligence – and its one unequivocal achievement so far, the discounting of the Jane Tanner sighting. The Yard have recently made it clear officially that they want a single bi-national squad. The Yard are now making letters rogatory requests for action on their behalf in Portugal. The Portuguese have made none to the UK. The head of the Yard has now publicly confirmed that the two squads are working on completely different theories and have been unable to resolve them!
Quant aux MC, la patate brûlante, il semble évident que les écarter ait été non seulement accepté, mais désiré par le Ministère public, qui a peut-être même rouvert l'enquête (formellement) à cette condition expresse.
The briefing has at its heart demands for the other party to follow its lead. The official, transcribed public denials of the intrigue are clear evidence that the Yard are consistently lying when they see it in their own interests to do so. A determination to accept the official words of the police forces, not fibs or unattributable rumours, has led to the perverse conclusion that the Yard is lying anyway! It can't get any worse, can it? The move to investigation rather than review was announced unilaterally by the Yard. The Portuguese response was a refusal to acknowledge any valuable new evidence having arrived from the review phase. The Yard findings Spring 2011- September 2013, therefore – i.e the eventual presentation of Mr Redwood's material – are insignificant in Lisbon's view. Or, if they are not insignificant the official legal authorities must be deceiving their own people when ignoring them. The same logic applies to the re-opening of the Portuguese investigation, which was notably light in crediting any Yard work beind the decision. The Crimewatch Jane Tanner result, the Yard's one big claim to fame, has been received in silence by the Portuguese (qui ont très vite discrédité Tannerman), has not been confirmed and has not been accepted by the McCanns. Since, again, the pair are excluded from the investigations there can be no appraisal of what its non-existence now implies for the original abduction claims. The sole important evidence about May 3 2007 in seven years has little value in this re-investigation, its only consequence for the two teams within their self-imposed remits being to extend the time frame available to include further abductors. Uh-huh.
Les Britanniques espéraient-ils que les Portugais, dociles, mal-traités, méprisés, se plieraient, les suivraient sur une piste qui contournait scandaleusement leur constat d'impuissance face une enquête inachevée/inachevable et feraient fi de la conclusion principale du rapport final des procureurs : le crime dont a été victime MMC n'a pu être déterminé et les hypothèses du début restent intactes à la fin.
In other words, after three years' work the investigative results from one of the two teams must be wrong, i.e. bullshit. Which team? So true, Gerry, so true; that's twice now. There we have it: three years work as described by the official record. Unless, that is, nice Mr Redwood, the person who we all know lied to us on Panorama, is, along with others, lying about the whole caboodle. We have to add that, despite the feelgood factor that our own very unofficial Bureau versions may have brought some readers, we ourselves just don't know which of the two versions is true.
L'opinion publique britannique n'ignorant pas l'abondance des moyens (pas seulement financiers) mis en oeuvre par OG pour retrouver MMC, allaitt, le temps passant sans progrès malgré les promesses de mai 2011, commencer à se poser des questions. Il faut donc l'embobiner, l'étourdir, espérer que le blâme se portera sur les Portugais, tout en assurant que la collaboration est excellente. Le cahier des charges de Operation Grange est une épine dans le flanc de SY.
La seule tentative visible de localisation de MMC a finalement été le piochage des terrains vagues de PDL.
If, that is, they are telling us the truth. Funny, going by the Official Facts again, the McCanns seem as untroubled at this record of disaster and the terrifying implications for a living child as the failed coppers themselves. But then Kate's the forgiving type, y'know.
Mais peut-on encore parler de performance quand à force de performer le protagoniste est devenu sa performance ?
Curieusement. Est-ce par prudence, comme le Vatican ?
Who gave the McCann account to Hanover? The Bureau doesn't know, nor the answer to the bigger question – was it the famously disturbed Gerry McCann imagination that selected their key advisers, or did the latter, with their inflated sales-pitches erect and enflame the hitherto dormant horror-comic side of his personality? As for Mitchell he's simply beneath contempt, a coat tail rider on a corpse who deserves all he is going to get, one whose dough-ball of a face radiates a kind of stunned, heavily medicated, wonder at its owner's progress as he poses for the Tory party camera. But was it his boastful invention that he "controlled the government information services", a complete fantasy from this erstwhile supervisory journalist that is believed in Portugal to this day, that further encouraged Gerry McCann down the power-wielding but ultimately useless media path he chose?
But outrage and gesture prevailed, dumb Justine no doubt applauded and mum and dad Healy stayed happy as they helped write the next day's headlines, unencumbered by that boring judicial secrecy law. In the McCanns' mental template, the impoverished land of soap, film and horror-comic, the heroes always act in heroic ways. The parents rejected Abreu's chance to stay, wounded and humiliated but with a future, in the banal and decidedly un-heroic real world of things-gone badly-wrong-on-a-package deal holiday and opted instead for Casablanca heroism and the eventual pinched and spot-lit faces in front of the Crimewatch audience. And that, friends, is why we believe that their only way out of this nightmare might be a trial in connection with the disappearance of their child, one in which they would have the chance to "demonstrate their innocence" at last. Logically they ought to be pleading with the CPS to get one going, a kind of reverse show trial. But they won't do it. In real life, rather than soap land and Casablanca, people go on making the same mistakes and listening to the people who feed their weaknesses.
One Choice: Whether to co-operate.
One Chance: To demonstrate their innocence.
One Decision: The wrong one, from which all else results.
One Timeline: Built to fit an abductor.
One Abductor: Gone but not forgotten.
One Revelation: That destroyed the abductor.
One Priest: Who could not shrive them.
One Pope: Who could not save them.
One Honest Lawyer: "Plead guilty."
One Reaction: "Our life is over".
One Re-think: "They've got nothing!"
One Silence: 48 questions.
One Flight: To England but not salvation.
One Promise: To return.
One Release: From arguido status.
One "Exoneration": That cannot clear them.
One Ambush: On a policeman who dared to search.
One Chief Constable: Who cannot exclude them.
One Brutus: Who will go down with them.
One Nemesis: Who will defeat them.
One Review: That can never help them.
One Fate: A life sentence, freely-chosen, self-imposed.
One Wait: For the inevitable.
Seven years on it still simmers for God-knows-what reasons beneath the tabloids, ready to erupt at any time into an outburst of vicious contempt aimed at all Portuguese police, their authorities and their legal system. The naive among us might think that that Yard could try a little diplomacy as well as silence. Mr Redwood's admission has inescapable implications, even when given in the same strangulated prose that Kate McCann uses when birthing a difficult porkie. In Britain's tender-hearted (except when it comes to paedophiles and Portuguese) MSM fantasyland he can't bring himself to use the word "dead", even though coppers like him are hosing away entrails and eyeballs on motorways or crime scenes on a daily basis. No, no, the tot, as we must call her, might, it seems, have left the apartment "not-alive", in other words, Andy, feet f*****g first, as dead a parrot and a whole lot harder to hide. What will OFM, when its doctors turn away from trying to pummel the zombie back into life, make of such an unhelpful possibility? Surely it was demonstrated years ago that death in the apartment was a fantasy of Gonçalo Amaral's, in conflict with the forensic evidence, the time constraints, the sheer wickedness of such an idea, wasn't it? Just where is this terrible stuff coming from? "I mean," you can hear that dreaded nasal whine just as you can watch its owner, blank-eyed and as stiff as a statue, appear before your eyes, "I mean, never in a million years wouldn't we have known of something like that. [sighs] We were there. We knew." [falls silent, shakes long-suffering head, purses lips, clutches adjacent groin]. And she has a point, doesn't she? She and hubby were there most of the time and the most famous gust of wind since the Big Bad Wolf bore no whiff of Binman's notorious body odour. And while the bedroom door was ajar open unmoved wide open as I left it ten degrees open half way open wide open the bedroom itself, with the child's bed clearly no recent host to Stinky Pervert Binman, didn't show any signs of a violent monster-killing at nine fifteen just minutes before 10pm.
For Scene Two, the process is at work again, this time in Gerry's hands. In just one sentence, given to the Portuguese police on May 10 2007, he proves that the bedrock "evidence" he originally offered for forced intrusion, expanded upon to their relatives during the night of May 3/4, was not based on truth or memory.
The deponent," goes the police record, describing what Gerry McCann was now saying about his first statement, "had had the wrong idea that Mathew had seen the bedroom shutters closed when he was there at 21.30 and therefore he thought the disappearance would have taken place between 21.30 and 22.00, but now he is fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21.05 and Mathew's visit at 21.30.There is little to add to this virtual suicide note. Gerry McCann's crucial evidence was an idea based on the statements of others, not a memory. A "wrong idea" which he is here changing to a "right idea", Dr Bundlestein. Now Bundlestein is dead that idea has become another "wrong idea", hasn't it? So when will the idea change again? Eyewitness evidence, McCann style.
My natural instinct was to appeal for information, for people to come forward. At that point we were desperate for information and desperate, as we still are, that our daughter could be found and we wanted people to help in that. That is why we spoke to the media and did our appeals.
Particularly early on, there was a general willingness of the media, an engagement and a real desire to try and help get information leading to Madeleine's whereabouts. Fairly quickly though both Kate and myself, certainly when we were in the apartment watching the broadcasting, particularly on the news channels, and subsequently when we looked at the newspapers, saw that much of the content of the material, even within the first few days—possibly particularly in the first few days—was highly speculative. It was not at all helpful to us…
Of course the speculation aspects are still on going in many respects until we all know where Madeleine is and who took her,
There were elements as we went along where clearly we wanted to get the message out there and particularly the fact that, when it became apparent to us that Madeleine could quite easily have been transferred out of Portugal quickly, added a completely different dimension to us as parents and what we were trying to achieve.
As you know, the Spanish border is only about 90 minutes away and we felt, if Madeleine had been moved quickly, our chances of finding her with a local investigation only would be quite slim. Therefore we wanted an international campaign as much as possible and for people to be aware of her being missing.
Frustration aussi d'avoir été écarté sans égard pour son "honneur", autrement dit de ne pas avoir été nommé à un poste hiérarchiquement supérieur.
Comme dans "La lettre volée"..
the one that was used to raise gigantic sums of money for the parents to dispose of as they wished, the one that took a mean-spirited, whey-faced product of the Glasgow slums into the House of Commons and the Dom Pedro Hotel by turns and the one that was so wickedly used to try and screw a million euros from Gonçalo Amaral – has been a fantasy, come what may. The "McCann Search" and the "Investigation into the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann" are two entirely separate, indeed opposed, things. The police presence in Praia da Luz this week is the evidence-based outcome of detailed professional investigation that began under Alipio Ribeiro and Gonçalo Amaral. The "McCann Search" is the show-business creation of Gerry and Kate McCann, without a single piece of evidence, not one, to back it and, naturally without a single result, not one, to show for it. Nobody, pro or anti, the Bureau to a large extent still included, can quite get their heads around this yet because to most of us scale means real. The idea that a hangdog couple of unpleasant nonentities could somehow trigger a preposterous conjuring trick on a planetary scale containing absolutely nothing remains unbelievable. But that is what they did.
We are dismayed with the way the media has behaved over the last couple of days in relation to our daughter’s case. There is an on-going, already challenging, police investigation taking place and media interference in this way not only makes the work of the police more difficult, it can potentially damage and destroy the investigation altogether – [usual egomaniacal non-Madeleine whining about "our distress" elided] – We urge the media to let the police get on with their work.
So that elusive "demonstration of innocence", the absence of which the Archiving Summary so lamented, and the "clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement" that Leicester police are still waiting for (otherwise they'd tell us, wouldn't they?), seem further away than ever. It is not, of course, mathematically impossible that someone will confess to the crime and demonstrate the truth of their confession by leading the police to the body (and anything less decisive and unquestionable than this would not quell suspicion of the pair). But if that is just a hope for the future it is quite meaningless in the context of probabilities, rather than possibilities. It could only be a real probability if the police already had it in hand – suspect's co-operation, likely location of grave – but that would be the "clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement" – which Redwood hasn't given them because, we maintain, it doesn't exist. But let's look at it the other way, let's accept that we're quite wrong and assume nice Mr Redwood and his team have got something more than holes in the ground to offer, some evidence that the couple can use to quieten the rising public suspicion and clamour in the media comments pages as well as media comment itself which, while superficially supportive of the parents, carries a tense message of impending revelations. What's preventing him from showing it and allowing the parents to leak it and sing of their exoneration? Has Mr Redwood looked at the couple recently? Since last autumn they've given the impression of physically and mentally wasting away, actually beginning to unravel. What exactly does he make of this? Does he feel that the certainty of their innocence is so great and self-evident that public perception can't hurt them and they're just going through a temporary bad patch, unconnected with his investigation? But we know from the Lisbon transcripts that public suspicion is gnawing away relentlessly at the McCanns like rats' teeth: witnesses testified that, far from being immune to rumour and accusation, they are driven half-mad by it, even to the point of contemplating suicide. If Redwood really has got something, anything, that they can use to demonstrate their innocence shouldn't he be offering it now, for fear that they might actually carry out what they've considered ? Which is it – that he's got nothing to offer or that, for whatever reason, he won't help them?
Diary—the Feelgood Factor – 22.05.2014
"Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said the forthcoming activity would be led by Portuguese police with the involvement of British officers" – BBC. He added: "A thorough, serious crime investigation works systematically through all the credible possibilities, and often in an investigation you will have more than one credible possibility." In fact it doesn't: as Mr Rowley knows perfectly well, the list of credible possibilities in any investigation is so large (it is, in fact, provably infinite) that all of them begin by discarding the majority of "credible possibilities", either because certain evidence has leaped into view or because the time or resources do not exist to operate according to this fanciful prescription. But his disingenuous words fit perfectly well into the common-sense interpretation of Operation Grange increasingly put forward by sensible people on Twitter: that the police of both countries really are examining and excluding every conceivable alternative (claimed or likely to be claimed) "possibility" until only one, in this case the obvious one, remains. Time is no problem because the victim is long dead and the suspects have nowhere to flee to; resources are no problem either because, as Alipio Ribeiro long ago declared, the McCann case is not a resource-hungry investigation since the crime remains stubbornly localised, despite the parents' deliberate attempts to broaden it into a resource-eating world-wide monster. The ten million quid or so which Theresa May and David Cameron so sensibly made available on our behalf, not that of the parents, is peanuts.
Let the loonies of both sides froth while we all lie back and enjoy it.
Ten Reasons why I can't take Scotland Yard Seriously in the Madeleine McCann Case, 22 May 2014
The Daily ProfilerPosted by Pat Brown May 22, 2014
Shh! Don't Tip Off the Suspects!
I have received a bit of heat in recent weeks for my opinion that Scotland Yard is not really doing a credible review of the Madeleine McCann case, that they appear to be involved in a whitewash of the McCanns' possible involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, Maddie. First of all, I want to state that I am behind all hardworking detectives out there in the world. It has been my mission to improve criminal profiling and crime scene analysis methodology FOR law enforcement, so that detectives may have more success in solving difficult cases. I also am behind all law enforcement agencies as they work to solve the next homicide case that lands on their desks even if the department screwed up the last case through lack of training or incompetence on the part of whatever detective got assigned to the case and even if the department mishandled the last case due to political pressure (even if it was one I worked on with them). I wish them the best on the next case and hope they do a better job with all their future investigations. I recognize that law enforcement suffers the same problems as any other profession; they are not perfect nor successful nor honorable one hundred percent of the time. Knowing that does not mean I don't support them when they do a good job or want to improve their ability to solve cases and bring justice to criminals and the community. I don't hold grudges against any police agency; I just want to see a brighter future for all homicide investigations. As to Scotland Yard, they have done great work in the past and also not so great work, just like every other agency. I am sure they will do some great work in the future as well as not so great work in the future. For the moment, they may be solving cases right and left, but something is seriously wrong with the Madeleine McCann case and here are ten reasons why I think this is not business as usual and there is a political coverup going on of some sort.
1) The amount of funds being allotted to Scotland Yard to investigate one missing person's case - a case which is not even within their own jurisdiction, a case in which the parents' own neglect of their children and refusal to cooperate with the authorities is shameful - is unprecedented and outrageous.
2) Scotland Yard began their "review" by publicly stating that the parents were not suspects instead of simply saying no one can be excluded from suspicion who does not have a solid alibi as is the usual statement made by police right out of the gate. Exact, donc déclarer (en réponse à une question posée par un journaliste) que les parents ne sont pas suspects dans la révision en dit long. Les MC sont tout simplement mis à l'écart, ni mis hors de cause ni mis en examen.
3) Scotland Yard constantly says they are updating the parents of the missing child, something that is only done if the parents are absolutely not suspects. Outrecuidant, mais conforme au motif qui a décidé DC à engager une révision.
4) Scotland Yard did not do a reconstruction of the crime; they only did a reenactment of the McCann version of the crime for television. OG a déclaré avoir utilisé le logiciel HOLMES pour produire une reconstruction.
5) Scotland Yard validated Jane Tanner's version of what she saw on a narrow street where she was not seen by two people as she supposedly passed by them. Pas vraiment, puisqu'elle n'a pas vu un ravisseur (la preuve n'a pas été donnée, sans doute pour ménager Ms Tanner.
6) Scotland Yard verified that Tannerman existed with a claim that was not credible. Tout ce que l'on peut dire, c'est que AR n'a fourni aucun détail, comme s'il ignorait ou se moquait du savoir de certains membres du public.
7) Scotland Yard relatively large "Operation Grange" team has spent three years reviewing files that should have taken no more than a few weeks or months.
8) After reviewing all the evidence and leads in the files, Scotland Yard is investigating suspects that have no connection to the case. Ils sont méticuleux...
9) Scotland Yard wants to search for Maddies's body (and, yes, they would be searching for a body as all other evidence would be long gone after seven years) in the most unlikely place to find her, right near the apartment in a very open-to-the-view-of-the-public location with hard-as-rock ground where no shallow grave could have been missed by the PJ or anyone walking by. Faut-il croire que OG a suivi les indications de "témoins" les ayant appelés à la suite de Crimewatch. Songer au coût d'une opération aussi absurde...
10) In spite of the fact the PJ has asked for there to be no press about the case, Scotland Yard has its own people still giving interviews.
Along with these ten reasons, if we need one more to seal the issue, it has to be AC Rowley's recent statement to papers: "If you get any information ahead of our actions do not publish anything that may give suspects advance notice."
Since Scotland Yard and DCI Andy Redwood have been shouting from the rooftops since they started working on the Madeleine McCann case, I hardly think any suspect couldn't have covered his tracks over these many months if he hadn't done so in the four years prior to the beginning of the Met review. The naming of the first supposed dig location and Rowley opening his own big mouth hardly encourages me to believe that Scotland Yard is doing everything they can to keep their interest in suspects in the case under wraps, unless you believe they have spend millions of dollars and massive man hours in misdirection and their real suspects are the McCanns. I don't believe this because nothing more than a short case review and a reinterview of the Tapas 9 and reexamination of the physical and behavioral evidence would have been necessary to turn the investigation back toward the McCanns. No, all the actions of Scotland Yard can only mean one of two things: the present detectives (especially Andy Redwood) are dumb as a box of rocks (which I find hard to believe with the amount of obvious evidence in this case) or they are just going through the motions of rounding up suspects and eventually assigning probable guilt toward one party so that the sad case of little Madeleine McCann can finally be put to rest and the McCanns can be removed from under the cloud of suspicion that has been hovering over them for seven years.
A researcher rather than a self-publicist might have started such an explosive j'accuse with known examples of such United Kingdom cover-ups in the past, with the exact machinery that enables them to work, their successes and failures and, having established their existence, go on to give the precise reasons that would provoke politicians to embark on such a crazily self-destructive course. But no, nothing. Instead a gossipy junk shopping list that even Jerry Lawton wouldn't write. Prevalent types of features among men convicted of larceny (without violence). I know nothing about Brown's career but I gave my opinion of "criminal profiling" many years ago on the 3As site: it is based on nineteenth century junk-science concepts of "criminal attributes or dispositions", which arose out of highly questionable eugenics research around the same time as phrenology, with which it has many things in common. The only investigative system that has ever really encouraged it is, by no coincidence at all, that of Nazi Germany, where its junk and anti-humanist concepts (humans aren't humans, they're types) fitted happily into that state's murderous belief in "criminal" as well as "racial" types. Its Wikipedia entry still today refers to its ambition "to accurately predict and profile the characteristics of unknown criminal subjects or offenders". To call it pseudo-science is to flatter it enormously. Give me phrenology anytime.
@1 A flaw in reason and logic: This reason given is in no way supporting the claim. It is on the contrary supporting the opposite. If there was to be a cover-up why start a review, turn it into a full-fledged investigation, get the country that was treated so badly into their boat and press on for 5 years? I am sure Hewlett would have been able to be made into the perfect scapegoat - and I do believe that this was contemplated by some forces at the time - if that would be the current purpose.
@2 The examples for the exact same conduct in other cases are too numerous to be listed. There is no reason why Scotland Yard should adjust to the purported need of interested parties on the internet against common practice. Especially in the stages of a review.
@3 Of course a police force HAS to inform the parents of a missing child until these parents are charged and a suspicion is drafted. As to extent of the information given we only have Clarence Mitchell's word to judge by.
@4 It was the request of the Policia Judiciaria for a reconstruction. It was requested to verify or discard the witness statements regarding the timeline of events, mainly to prove that Jane Tanner would have been unable to be where she claimed to have been and to see what she had claimed to have seen. No other statements could have been verified by a reconstruction since no third party witnesses were present. Not the time of the alarm, not the alleged checks. Since Scotland Yard had already smashed the Gordian Knot that Jane Tanner's statement presented to the case there is no need for a reconstruction, something police forces (UK, Germany) very rarely use anyway. La reconstitution ne sert pas seulement à apurer des déclarations ou des heures, comme il ressort clairement du rapport de classement. Par exemple, l'histoire du courant d'air était-elle possible ? Comment était exactement entrouverte la porte du patio ? Ne pouvait-on s'attendre à y trouver beaucoup d'empreintes ?
@5 This is debatable but in my opinion a genius move. We know she lied, she knows she lied, the police know she lied, but the petty reward for outing her lie through a reconstruction was discarded for the much more satisfying destruction of Gerry McCann's alibi at the "moment of her abduction". And the way for the Smith sighting was opened. And an offer was made to Jane... Jane peut avoir inconsciemment déformé ce qu'elle avait vu (l'heure, le lieu, la direction prise par Tannerman, les détails "invisibles").
@6 The claim that Tanner saw the abductor was refuted which is so much more important than to prove Jane was lying (which would have proved rather difficult anyway). The ultimate truth is more important than petty revenge on Jane.
@7 The bulk of the review was most certainly done on those parts of the files that have not been published: the reports about (mainly british) paedophiles or alleged paedophiles or rumours of paedophiles in the area. Taken together with the innumerous sightings that have been discarded never to be read by those following the case with a now preset mind this amounts to a huge workload that would have to be done BEFORE any conclusions could have been reached. A quick skim through the 10000 pages of the files can form an opinion but leads to a position that can be attacked in so many ways. (q.e.d.)
@8 All the leads Scotland Yard are following and of course have to follow are part of the case. As mentioned above there are the sightings and reports about paedophiles in the area and of course those alleged incidents that only recently and miraculously turned up have to be verified and investigated even though some might turn out to be mere creations of distraction not unlike some of the sightings we had to put up with the previous years. But by investigating them, evidence might even come from these. In the prospect of the world's biggest court case ever, they better make sure that every other possibility is properly investigated and excluded or I would be very unhappy.
@9 IMO there has yet an exact location to be named where they might be looking for evidence. The location in the center of Praia da Luz would be ideal to distract the world's media from the real procedings. Should they be close to finding her body they would never let the media partake in any unearthings. This open space in PdL is just sweetly perfect for the staging of excavations, with ample parking at hand...
@10 The PJ and Scotland Yard have asked the media to behave and lately Clarence has received the firm instruction to finally stfu.
I am sure that at some stage in the past seven years there were efforts being made to cover-up the case and the hype around Hewlett was the closest we got to the presentation of a patsy. He was perfect, DNA evidence could have been provided and the public would have bought it. But luckily there was never a general consent for a cover-up between all involved parties. In the past year we had the alibi of Gerry destroyed, Smithman brought to the public's attention, the cover-up of the photofits exposed, Madeleine's death accepted and even the dog's mentioned in connection with a fresh search for her body. I have no idea WHAT would convince the sceptics, but it can hardly have been better than that.
Do You Mind? - 24.05.2014
What about argument among the sceptics though? Here the Bureau has a problem: we're rather isolated because there is a profound and intractable underlying disagreement between us and other sceptics. It's nothing to do with theories about what happened to the child. As we've said over and over we don't have any theory about the disappearance because the facts to support one are not available yet and we don't really do guesswork. It is not, as wild Don Rumsfeld has described them, the "known unknowns" and the "unknown unknowns" of the holiday that attract us, though we admire and defer to those who are much better sleuths than ourselves, like Dr Roberts and Johanna and many others; it's the "known knowns" of 10pm onwards that we concentrate on, in particular the lies. Along with all the other sceptics we've been bewildered by the treatment of this dishonest pair by public figures and the media, their immunity not to prosecution, because as the AG correctly said, there is no evidence to bring one, but to scrutiny and a sense of proportion, a weird, still inexplicable, overkill in their favour. Take one example and let it stand for all in UK public life: Sir Brian Leveson. All of us who've been in courtrooms know that criminal judges keep control of their body language. They have to, since failure to do so will eventually bring an end to their careers. There is no doubt it is used, either against or in favour of the defendant, but very sparingly. So why did Leveson move from the normal graceful courtesy of a trial or tribunal to an extraordinary demonstration of puppy-like support for the pair? When he questioned them it was in the syrupy tones of an undertaker discussing the choice of a child's coffin with the shattered parents; when he listened to them his expression was that of a consoling priest; when he thanked them for their attendance it was if he were addressing the queen. Of course they deserve the sympathy of non-sceptics but why this hyperbolic, theatrical performance? Which, as we remember, he followed with an equally un-judicial piece of ham mimicry when Pilditch described the Portuguese investigation. Then he leant back and sighed, he curled that cod-like lip in contempt, he wriggled as though he had bad piles, he raised his eyes to the roof and, finally, he mocked all the Portuguese works as "tittle-tattle". Jesus Christ! It was by far the most extraordinary performance by a judge we've ever witnessed – and for what? What purpose did it serve? He was judge in a tribunal, for God's sake, not some Rumpole trying to make the jury sob.
Beaucoup qui ignoraient tout de l'affaire mais ne voulaient pas en avoir l'air se sont évertués à répéter les slogans, notamment les railleries à l'égard de la police portugaise. Ne pas le faire aurait été reconnaître qu'ils n'étaient pas informés ou paraître abusés. C'est toujours l'histoire du roi nu.
Trying to explain this surreal and representative performance is the heart of the affair. The overkill is so great that many believe it has to be somehow managed from above, just like the century long claim that a cultured, powerful nobleman, not provincial, faceless Will Shakespeare must have written the greatest plays ever staged, so this unimpressive couple cannot possibly have mastered this affair on their own. Ils ont été admirablement souples, ils ont suivi le courant.
There have to be powerful figures working in the background for the charade to work. We can't share it. We see the need for explanation but we can't see any sign of hidden hands and have come to the conclusion that they don't exist. If they don't exist then the reason for the overkill must lie elsewhere and that's why we started calling the affair a psychological one, with the McCanns skilfully surfing the wave of celebrity-hood, otherwise known as extremely powerful, unexplored mass hysteria, that had been granted them. Not the most accessible explanation, is it? Not one that the Mirror will be putting before its reader and her partner. We'll be perfectly happy to see it refuted by emerging evidence, particularly since its view of human credulity is by no means a cheerful one. Until then we seem stuck with it: it's the best we can do. And, fortunately, it doesn't imply that the progress we're seeing the police making is illusory. Perhaps it's the subjective baggage that we, like everyone else, bring to the case that makes us see it this way. AS, whose dad was a minor showbiz celebrity, recalls the strange magic power it conferred at school, where kids who had no time for you suddenly did a creepy 180 and let you into their gang once they knew the name. What else might they do for you? And then there was JB's work years ago when, after agreeing to help a couple suing Scientology (on the grounds that they'd been successfully brainwashed), he undertook a lengthy and bizarre voyage into cult waters and group belief. Now that was weird, much weirder than any masonic garbage. But any weirder, at root, than the performance of Sir Brian Leveson? We don't think so.(...)
Time for a re-launch? - 28.05.2014
One of the problems facing culturally empty unfortunates like the McCanns and others who instinctively express themselves in soap terms, is the revenge that real life slowly exacts. The very qualities that take you on to the popular pages and screens and keep you there – providing soap narratives on a week-by-week basis and presenting a tabloid fantasy story of "suffering", "agony", "hope", "search", all dripping with cooking-fat sentimentality and false emotion – are the ones that are least valuable in facing the heavy trials of real life and death, as the short existence of Jade Goody demonstrates. The Hollywood studios which invented bogus drama and invited tired working people to submerge themselves in it are, after all, known as the Dream Factory. Ninety years on Hollywood remains the inspiration for the tabloid fantasy world. Seven years is a good chunk of real life. Children have been born, people have grown apart or died, horrors have been faced, prizes have been won, real love has sometimes, somehow, survived. The equivalent of the celebrity magazine photos that ruthlessly expose the sagging lines and botched surgery of yesterdays' stars are the court transcripts from Lisbon, just as the witness statements from the ineffable Pikes and Loaches are reminiscent of the squalid Michael Jackson inquest with its unforgettable portrait of the frightened little human being behind the locked mansion doors. Life catches up with all of us, one way or another, but it catches up in a particularly ruthless manner with products of the Dream Factory. Gonçalo Amaral, whose current travails began in 2007, may be many things but he is not manufactured and certainly not uncultured, as The Truth of the Lie so effortlessly demonstrates, and his indifference to image-and-dream-existence, which made him such an easy target for the tabloid photographers, is obvious. Anyone who studies what has happened to him in the intervening years recognizes at once a real life story, partly because it hasn't been told, or sold, to us by the usual suspects. There's no soap in the Amaral story: he's a recognizable human being with human flaws, not part of an invented cop-wins-against-the-odds or any other narrative myth. His suffering hasn't been presented to us by myth-makers but is there in the transcripts and verdicts, the convictions and seizures, the chaos of his marriage, the unrelenting public hatred poured on him by the allies and agents of the Two Liars, the occasional sense of bewilderment that the institutions he worked for, well or badly, have turned on him. And the photographic record of weariness and exhaustion, as well as emphatic determination.
In the genuine, rather than tabloid, meaning of tragedy – that is, a truly terrible fall from grace prompted by the interweaving of fate and personality – Gonçalo Amaral is a tragic figure, not a mere victim of harrowing experiences. He may die dishonoured and forgotten; his life won't have a happy ending because real lives don't. (...) As a result there are only two McCann stories with any solid gold prospective re-launch mileage: the capture of an abductor and the long, meaty drama of trial and retribution that will follow – "Kate comes face to face with hunchback who took Maddie" – or the story of the Fall of the McCanns. Since late 2013 there has been a strong sense that some sort of climax, and with it the possible completion of the Interrupted Investigation, is approaching. To the casual observer the return to PDL after the seven year diversion elsewhere, dear Kate, the digging near the beach to which the only unidentified suspect was seen hurrying on May 3, dear Seven, the "expunging", dear Mr Smethurst, of Jane Tanner's vision, the re-appearance of corpse-sniffing dogs, dear Dr McCann, (cruel and unnecessary punishment, surely to announce them in advance), the year-long involvement of the CPS, not to mention the smiles on so many faces recently – all these might possibly provide a fairy-tale ending for the couple and that triumphant "Kate comes face to face..." Mirror headline that will bring crowds cheering onto the streets. But, as readers know from their own experience, fairy tale endings don't feature much in real life, do they?
A Quick One – 30.05.2014
Diary – 03.06.2014
Finally we remind those of our readers who don't know: the MSM will never, ever, "break" this story. They will take their material from the net as and when they feel it is safe to do so. As they have started to do.
Diary One – 06.06.2014
And in periods of lucidity the supporters can point out that as things stand the activities in Praia da Luz fit in much better with the theory of a local criminal doing away with the child, put forward by police, than they do with parental involvement, mainly because it is unlikely that the Nine alone, strangers to the district with limited time available, could have located a convenient and suitable hide in the scrubland. Local villains who, according to gossip, congregate amongst the scrub and have every reason to know where to stash stuff, are another matter. There is a connected, and much more wounding, charge for the parents' supporters to make. The bafflingly irrational belief in a whitewash can make perfect sense if it is seen as an unconscious preparation for "bad" news by those who suspect, deep down, that the police might find evidence that the child did indeed die at the hands of a burglar. What better mask for the choking of seven years' belief in the parents' guilt than crying "it's all a fix"? So come on supporting grannies! Try and get over your mental collapse, stop slagging people off, pull yourselves together and make an intelligent case against your adversaries. Not that it will make the slightest difference to events, though.
Diary Two – 06.06.2014
"You are aware, are you, that by not answering you're jeopardising the investigation into your daughter's fate?" That was the only one of the famous 48 questions that Kate McCann answered in September 2007. To this day all of us at the Bureau have found it impossible to put ourselves in the place of someone answering "yes" to that sombre query. But Kate McCann, as she relates, had no difficulty in giving an answer that was her own daughter's virtual death warrant, the end of the only attempt to locate or save her. It's just impossible to get your head around someone giving that answer, unless she is, in the commonly understood sense of the word, a monster. Or unless – and this is really the only possible, whew, "extenuating" circumstance – she knew the child was already dead. That's why we don't believe Portuguese burglars or British humpbacked paedophiles have the slightest reason to fear anything from the Praia da Luz digs. It's not burglars, it's not paedophiles, it's not Robert Murat who are so terrified of what a successful investigation might reveal that they wrecked the first attempt at one. It's the child's parents.
The Train Moves On – 10.06.2014
Shamelessness is All - 11.06.2014
What's Under the Blanket? The "shutters question", the evidence for intrusion, wasn't there, the "things that convinced Kate of abduction that she couldn't talk about" weren't there either; the "rogue cop" didn't exist, only a police consensus reaching up to the head of the PJ, Alipio Ribeiro; the "exoneration" never existed either, as the libel lawyers in both the UK and Portugal now concede; no deal was ever offered by the PJ to the couple, the blogs with their "we are not suspects" claims were exposed as outright lies, Gerry McCann's "upset stomach" never existed, the "return to Portugal to build bridges" in early 2009, was revealed as pure deception by Gerry McCann, a cover story; the "trauma", the claimed million euros worth of psychological damage inflicted by the Truth of the Lie, shrank to nothing under the Lisbon court lights; once the box marked "operational reasons" was dragged out from under the blanket the "search" was revealed as a meaningless charade, with its head confessing that Gerry McCann had only allowed him to see selected translations from the case files (!); the checks hadn't been half-hourly; the group never contacted the emergency services, despite the "certainty" of abduction; the group did contact the media that night; the parents did systematically brief journalists against the PJ while denying doing so; the largest shape left under the blanket, shadowy bundleman, was revealed by police torches to be a dummy created by the group itself. Very little remains of the parental claims made while the rest of us were in ignorance so common sense suggests that they have been lying about everything all along. But that's induction, an assumption, and as long as the last heap under the blanket, the corpse of the child, remains unrevealed, assumption is all it remains. If we were on a jury now we couldn't possibly find the couple guilty of anything involving the loss of their daughter, however much they and their shamelessness disgusts us, because the evidence isn't there: that's what the British justice system, based on jurors taking responsibility for conviction or acquittal, irrespective of what a judge, a government or any other f***** wants, is all about. It works. And that's why the investigation, our investigation by our police for us matters and why the attempts by some outsiders, assisted by a few local losers, to rubbish and defame the entire UK legal and investigative system as a corrupt fraud are an attack on justice, as well as self-delusion on a heroic scale.
Light and Darkness – 12.06.2014
It is impossible to convey, particularly to people outside Portugal who were not aware of Amaral's behaviour, just how difficult this smear campaign was both to withstand and to counter. And we desperately needed to counter it...Blackening our names was one thing, but if people there were taken in by Amaral's theories, they were going to think there was no point in looking for Madeleine, or in passing on any information that might be relevant. We are quite sure that Amaral's posturing has reduced our chances of finding her.
I spent many days in tears, sobbing at the injustice being done to Madeleine by the very people who should have been helping her. There were times when I felt so incensed by the conduct of Amaral and his friends I thought I simply wouldn’t get through the pain and anger...Dear God. I'm finding it really difficult to believe you’re there at the moment. The more our suffering and pain continues and the more we are tested, the more I find myself doubting your presence, which is really scary. I've always been considered quite a gentle person but these attacks [Amaral's] 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.
A choice of clothes and shoes had been brought to our hotel for me…to the Harpo Studios and Oprah's team. I had my make-up and hair done by two lovely ladies (if only I could look like that every day!). Just before we were due to go on, Oprah dropped in to see us and we wanted to hug her. In fact I'm sure we did hug her.
Instead the claim was made by lay people, the McCanns' witnesses, and they, with a comical, if not suspicious, unanimity of view, testified enthusiastically to the signs and "symptoms" that they had observed in the couple. But there was a dangerous problem here for the claimants: how could the court be sure that the supposed "damage" was caused by a book published in 2008, rather than by those same accusations plutôt soupçons made by the Portuguese state at arguido time? The witnesses had had the chance to observe the pair at the time of both events so honest answers, of the sort that Trish Cameron had at least tried to provide, could be very important. Perhaps that's why the court didn't get them.
Defence lawyer: How did the couple react when they were made arguidos?Well, well. No trauma, no real problems. Compared with Amaral's book and its claims being an arguido was just a doddle. Note that the exception to this misinformation, unsurprisingly, came from the professional, Angus MacBride. Unlike the others he knew that you don't play with subjects where the truth is already on record and will still be if appeal time comes. He kept his mouth shut.
Susan Hubbard: The McCanns didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent.
Defence lawyer: Did the constitution of the arguido status create a "secondary trauma."?
Alan "Don't Tell Them"Pike: The McCanns had expected to be made arguidos sooner, because it was quite normal in an investigation for people close to the victim to be investigated first.
Judge: What did the public conclude from the arguido status?
Michael Wright [for it is he]: It's very common and normal that the parents are the first suspects. He adds that being arguidos wasn't a preoccupation for the McCanns.
Judge: Can you explain why the arguido status didn't provoke many e-mails?
Michael Wright: [remains silent]
Michael Wright: [eventually] says there were e-mails saying it confirmed what they suspected, but the e-mails with specific threats only occurred after the book was published.
Defence lawyer: What about the impact of the disappearance itself and the conferring of arguido status? How did that compare with the impact of the book?So there we are. If you know anything about the McCann affair it stinks, doesn't it? It really stenches up the nostrils. All of them except Angus MacBride maintaining from their personal knowledge and observation that being made arguidos hadn't been horrible and traumatic, that the pair had "expected it", that being made arguidos with the vastly greater publicity than the book received "didn't preoccupy them" at all, that they "didn't fear it". On oath.
Angus MacBride: He has no idea and doesn't have any numbers.
(Judge: The court wasn't expecting you to turn up with numbers in your pocket.)
Trish Cameron herself didn't shine in her answer, contenting herself with the reply that the couple were "quite unhappy" at being made an arguido. Ah, that's all right then.
"Didn't fear the arguido status because they knew they were innocent"?
"…had expected to be made arguidos sooner, because it was quite normal…"?
But that's it, that's the Kate and Gerry McCann way with the truth, one that draws other people into their net. That's what GA has had to deal with. That's what Trish Cameron has to deal with.
Alice back in Wonderland, - 12.07.2014
"The point isn't to establish whether things are true or not, this is not the issue."
Well you can't say fairer than that, can you?
With the little matter of the role of truth disposed of, what's left? Well, partisanship worthy of a Brazil world cup tie, judging by comments surrounding the case on the net. Much elation at possible signs that the judge is "not fooled" by the couple; but that's another way of saying that she shouldn't judge the case on the evidence but on what sceptics think is the true nature of the pair. That's not really what "justice" is about, is it? What would sceptics say if a McCann supporter expressed satisfaction that the judge can "see through" Gonçalo Amaral? Or gloated at a judge's supposedly curt demand for Gonçalo to be quiet? Come on! There really is a deadly contradiction here. If right and wrong are so easily seen from the stands then how come the Portuguese justice system has been unable to establish them on the field after five years and counting? Either Gonçalo Amaral has no case to answer, in which event he is the victim of a disgusting and medieval miscarriage of justice by the Portuguese, a scandal which nobody in Portugal, literally nobody, shows any sign of ending (national holidays etc. are much more important); or else there is a solid case in Portuguese law that the couple, as things stand, have been wronged – which makes a nonsense of the lazy certainties of commentators that GA didn't libel them. Well which is it?
To be fair the judge at the London trial of that unlikely martyr Tony Bennett also excluded any consideration of the truth about the disappearance from his proceedings, confining them, as he had to, as things stand, to the narrow question of the observance or otherwise of Bennett's undertakings. Yet, without wanting to be unkind, the contrast between the fate of Bennett at the hands of the corrupt, whitewashing, paedophile-led, McCann-protecting British justice system and that of Amaral is stark: Bennett was never ambushed by a secret tribunal like Amaral nor judged in his absence but given chance after chance to stop libelling; he suffered no seizures of his property and his fortune remains almost completely untouched; he is at liberty; he has been pursued for only a fraction of the costs he was liable for, with the UK public via its contributions to the money-spinning Fund, paying the rest; far from being subject to some ghastly UK super-injunction the restrictions on his right to comment on the case have been laughable in their looseness; Bennett was not trapped in an incomprehensible five years plus legal nightmare but dealt with expeditiously once he had stopped stalling the case. And, importantly, everyone has access to the full judgement on the internet and can purchase the official transcript if they wish. Doesn't that suggest something or other?
La saisie des biens de l'inculpé, demandé par les demandeurs, ne se fait pas impunément. Si les demandeurs perdent le procès, ils devront payer à l'inculpé les intérêts des biens gelés, calculés aux taux judiciaire, qui n'est pas du tout le taux bancaire.
The court statements by the McCanns last week were something of a damp squib for those of us who had waited many years to see them in court. Real life being what it is we weren't going to get tearful collapses as their lies were ruthlessly exposed, Hollywood fashion. European trials don't provide the jugular-dripping savaging of witnesses that the UK adversarial model so satisfyingly displays, so we'd already grown used to watching trial witnesses (with the exception of Angus MacBride of course) falling into silence rather than being gleefully shredded. And the personal statement format provided additional protection for the couple. Thus the parents, well briefed by Duarte, were able to make a smooth, not to say oily, transition from the outrageous fiction of their claims in the original writ to their new versions without being verbally cudgelled for their dishonesty, leaving it to connoisseurs of McCann porkies to note the way in which the semi-catatonic depression originally claimed was just, well, feeling a bit miserable for a while, and the quarter million euros worth of horrific, permanent and disabling insomnia and anxiety had, in Gerry McCanns soothing words, dwindled into a mere temporary episode. When listing the undeniable inferences to be drawn from Amaral's book about their actions as things stand the couple were on much firmer ground, as the judge's comments unquestionably confirm, prompting the thought that had they stuck to these claims alone they would be favourites to win; being the McCanns, however, they had to surround the possible truth at the heart of their writ with a thick dressing of lies, in this case easily disprovable ones. In an English libel court this irrefutable evidence of mendacity in the claim would weigh heavily in the judgement – but in Portugal? Only the Portuguese, one presumes, can say. Their statements to the court avoided the undeniable collusion in their May 4 2007 police statements, the very first act, be it remembered, in their successful obstruction of the Interrupted Investigation— for agreed stories are, by definition, a subversion of an inquiry. But there was just one recognizable "agreed joint line" in their statements last week. It concerned Mr Bennett.
KMC: Both People on the Web and through e-mails were stimulated to insult them, like the Madeleine Foundation, and created a lot of damages. As Gonçalo Amaral was the coordinator of the investigation, it provided him credibility and it intensified the vilification of them.And
Judge: What is the Madeleine Foundation?
KMC explains that it's a group of people who essentially promotes theories up to the point of trying to manipulate people in their village.
Judge : What relation is there between this group and the book?
KMC says there is none, but they invited Gonçalo Amaral. She thinks that he didn't go.
Judge : This group was created because of the book?
KMC – No, it existed before the book was published. She says that obviously the book strengthened them.
GMC says that, thanks to the legal actions, the content of the book hasn't been published by the MSM, but small minority groups, in the UK, have launched campaigns of persecution against them, based on the book.The reader can see at once the prepared nature and, in places, near identity of their comments. In the scheme of things – the alleged suffering, the implications of Amaral's book, the effect on their children, the apparent conversion of the whole of Portugal into believers in their guilt by the book, all the things laid out at length and with such fury by Kate McCann in Madeleine – the emphasis on Mr Bennett seems absurdly disproportionate. And it is: those words about Bennett make up twenty per cent of their statements. The drift of their shared line is clear: they wish to stress a firm link between Amaral and Bennett, one that includes Bennett's foundation using Amaral's theories to persecute them, including distributing incriminating leaflets and "manipulating" their neighbours all over their home county; Amaral, they claim, was close enough to Bennett to be invited to address his foundation. And they make it clear that they sued him for libel. Successfully. Note that a considerable part of the McCanns' Portuguese libel claim, involving, particularly, the testimony of Angus MacBride, is the effect Gonçalo Amaral's book has had in the UK, both in causing pain and distress to the couple with the claims of body disposal and cover-up and in helping convince the British that the child, and therefore the search for her, was dead. The McCanns want to win their case. Very, very much. So the question for the reader is, "why did they spend 20% of the time granted to them in court addressing the judge on Amaral's supposed links with Bennett"? What exactly were they hoping to achieve by doing so? To us the answer is blindingly obvious but others may have a different view. As things stand. Well, if people want things to stand differently then they'll just have to look beyond Lisbon, won't they? As, come to think of it, may Gonçalo Amaral since the only place where the establishment of truth "is an issue" is within the wicked, whitewashing joint investigation. That's all there is, chums.
Judge : Can you name them?
GMC : Yes, we had legal actions against the Madeleine Foundation and the name is Anthony Bennett.
Judge : What relation exists between this group and the publication of the book?
GMC says that AB used parts of the book, interviewed Gonçalo Amaral and invited him on a forum.
Judge : Did the group exist before the publication?
GMC isn't sure about that. But he's able to say that the material they used was based on the allegations of the book. They published pamphlets that said that Madeleine hadn't been abducted. They distributed them to his neighbours and in the whole Leicestershire. This led AB to receive many warnings from his juridical counsels and finally to be sued.
Already sentenced but not convicted – 08.08.2014
The sentence effectively imposed on the McCanns by their own actions, and put into words by the authors of the Archiving Summary, dwarfs anything that might have resulted from a guilty plea, tactical or otherwise, to disposing of their child's body. However much lawyers or agents of the couple try to spin the shelving document it makes no difference: the low-key yet lethal words buried halfway through the summary that the group's actions and evasions cost the McCanns "the chance to demonstrate their innocence" cannot be argued away. That isn't because the prosecutors' statements are convincing, or learned or powerful. It is because they reflect reality. That reality, that truth, that the couple's innocence cannot be demonstrated is there in front of us. First, because it is based on facts established by the PJ and summarised in the report that formed the basis for the prosecutors' appraisal. The questions raised by the facts and events listed in paragraphs 1-5 of the "reconstruction" section have never been answered and therefore the suspicions remain as valid today as in summer 2008. That is unanswerable reality One. Reality Two is just as stark. The "failure to demonstrate their innocence" is at the heart of every comment on the affair for the last seven years, whether supportive or critical, since if the McCanns had demonstrated their innocence there would be no contention and nothing to argue about. That is what demonstrable innocence means: it exists, it can be demonstrated and it is finally self-evident. Yet even the most fervent defenders of the couple, whether in the media or the libel courts, are unable to point to evidence and say, "look, this clears them." Instead the best they can do is repeat over and over that "the prosecutors say there is no evidence against them", a line of argument that is an admission of defeat. The same applies to the related matter of Leicester constabulary's sworn statement – based, like the Archiving Summary on the facts of the investigation – that "while one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance." Kate McCann may huff and puff about how hurtful she finds it and the supporters may claim that it's "old news" (!) that somehow doesn't apply anymore (!) but none of them have been able to challenge the self-evident truth of the statement. That is why it has been neither withdrawn nor modified: withdrawing it would mean asserting that there is "clear evidence that eliminates them" otherwise the withdrawal would be meaningless. Where is it? And exactly the same applies to Scotland Yard: Redwood can assert that the McCanns are not suspects but he cannot assert that there is now "clear evidence that eliminates them" without providing it. There is not a hint or trace of such evidence having been unearthed in the three years of Operation Grange's existence. Such is their situation and their fate. Their graphically vivid disintegration, not at the hands of the "haters" or Gonçalo Amaral but under the burden of the truly horrible pariah status that has resulted, possesses an elemental quality, a sense of inevitability foretold by the measured words of the catholic Menezes, whose phrases are, after all, only a repetition in legalese of an ancient message: the truth can set you free if you let it. In other words nobody can ever release them except themselves — by submitting unreservedly to uncertain fate and telling everything they know without shame, hope or qualification. But that is something they clearly will not and cannot do, as the words of Madeleine alone make crystal clear. Thus they stand locked in the modern equivalent of the medieval pillory with no prospect of release and without a single shred of dignity: instead of being pelted with old vegetables and stones by yokels they are stripped naked, probed, mocked and pissed and shit upon by internet mobs, their daughter the butt of filthy jokes on the sicko comedy sites, their "innocence" referred to with amused irony in the pubs and bars. Whatever happens the future for the couple is unspeakably dark.