30 Jan 2008



Jane HILL DID visit PDL AGAIN after this initial interview- I am tracking down her further report.


Aside from an extremely good first interview with the McCanns where Jane Hill looks frankly disbelieving (understandably so) there is a further report from another BBC reporter in PDL concerning Murat and the PJs concern about false leads and how the investigation was moving in a different direction - in the very early stages away from Murat - we know where it was moving to!
2345 has come under sustained attack on the Daily Express for talking rubbish about "supposed Jane Hill reports" even a nasty little poem from one of Rosie's alter egos "mum21". It is most unseemly to attack people in this way for simply speaking the truth - no matter how unpalatable it may be to the McScams who seek to deny everything and castigate honest UK citizens exercising their right to free speech and the Portuguese police for having the audacity to investigate them.



Luv Viv xxxxxx

29.01.08, 11:40pm
I do not understand why this person keeps getting mentioned on here. She is just a news presenter on the BCC.Did she actually go to PDL or did she simply present a programme put together by someone else?Although in greater scheme of things it matters not, it is her interpretation of events, that same as we have had Martin Brunt's and several others etc.They are all speculation at the end of the day.The odd things is no one else seems to have seen this programme other than 2345 and even she can't tell us where we can find it
• Posted by: Rosiepops


Ironside said...

Hi Viv...This live news report that 2345 is speaking of .....was reported outside the police station as kate mccann was being questioned.....It was very detailed...She reported that spinal fluids had been found which led police to believe maddie had died of a broken neck....This was reported only once..The powers that be obviously...realising the damage to the mccanns pulled the report....They did the same thing when kates mother said that kate sedated madeleine----
This has an impact on snowhite and her dwarfs...everytime I mentioned this topic my posts were deleted....

This is when I went to the3arguidos..I posted a question...does anyone remember the Jane Hill...report...they did...If you look under SPINAL FLUIDS ..on the3arguidos....you will find all the info you need.....I shall go and bump it ..so that you can find it on the first page....

Ironside said...

The time is 8.10 am your time...

Anonymous said...

Rosiepops said.....Bridget says that Jes took their baby out in the buggy at 8-30, it does not say that Jes met Gerry at 8-30.

No, but JT says she saw them both at around 9-15 outside the apartment.

If one was a betting man, what would the odds be of an abduction taking place that is witnessed by a friend and the father and another witness stood outside the apartment.

docmac said...


Ironside and Viv thanks for the information. I was beginning to think 2345 was getting muddled. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the report was pulled. It is not the only one.

Anonymous yes she did say that and further said that he went for a prolonged stroll as the baby could not sleep. How come Gerry made no mention in his statement of the baby or the buggy when he met Wilkins? Neither did Jane Tanner, but then she wasn't there anyway.

I never spotted that before, but it makes it cleare to me that Jane's alibi for her husband was invented in those 40 minutes after 10pm. Gerry had given her the timing of his meeting with Wilkins and either forgot to mention the buggy or Jane forgot this minor detail when she gave her statement. Thereafter Gerry would not have been able to change it as Jane would immediately have been fingered.

No wonder the PJ were so interested in Wilkins. They gleaned two damning bits of evidence from him. Firstly Gerry fiddling with the shutters and secondly that he was pushing a seemingly invisible empty buggy.

ratonthebeam said...

2345 is not mistaken or getting muddled up. I too saw this report and I remember it very clearly. I have spent months now trying to track down a copy because I know I did not imagine it. And the only reason Rosiepoop is trashing 2345 over this one is because I was not there to enter the fight - I have slugged this out with her before and she knows it.

ratonthebeam said...

sorry I forgot the time it's 15:38 here (Belgium)

ratonthebeam said...

And BTW assasin got banned again.

I have not posted on any of the fora for several days, just yours and Alsabella's. I have got really disillusioned and depressed with the whole thing. I think now it is just a matter of playing a waiting game until the Day of Reckoning will come. So nothing you, I nor anyone else can say will make any difference at all in the long run.

I think I might have taken an overdose of McCann. So I am going to try and Cold Turkey it for a bit.

rat 15:43 BeT

Ironside said...

Hi Rat....same here....am going away for a few days...I have worked all over the xmas period...so am due some time off...I would like to go and see my mother and family....
Only thing is England is going to be Mccann everywhere I look....I am not taking my laptop so will not be tempted to post...
Is it tonight there is some kind of meeting with the press and mccanns...?
More propaganda....
Take care....might look in again later...as I do not leave until late tomorrow evening...

Anonymous said...

Rogatory letters still in Portugal!!!

Someone contacted journalist



Ironside said...

Here are some more coincidences....There are marriages between....Payne and Mccann....Mccann and O'Brian....
as I said coincidences....

The appartment 5a...owned by a Ruth Mccann....Mccann only by marriage...
another coincidence

hope4truth said...

Hello ALL

No more news just looked in on the DX and really cant be bothered to argue. Did laugh earlier as aparently we are all saying what great parents we are. I think what we are all trying to say is NO WAY WOULD WE EVER LEAVE OUR CHILDREN and get a bit carried away as we love our children so much it is unthinkable...

Ironside any news on Janet???

Off out see you all later...


Anonymous said...

Hi All,
Great news: our favourite chocolate fireman has figured out how to access this site. See previous article on this site, and his first post.

Greater news: UK law lords today made the ground breaking decision to allow a victim to claim damages against the so-called 'Lottery Rapist', although it is now well beyond the 6-year rule.
Any comments on this, Viv? Would love to hear your views. Personally, I think this demonstrates that the law is more flexible than McCann supporters imagine, and Justice for Maddie will be served in time through the perseverance of honest inquiry, however long it takes.
xo to all. It's wonderful to see a calm forum like this.
DOM IRONSIDE: Hola. Come esta usted? Bueno, credo que si, chico.

felicity said...

Evening all!

Ironside ref your first post. I have always respected 2345 as an intelligent, reasonable and very credible poster. It was due to this I spent considerable time last night trying to track down the report on the net - and found the first live interview instead.

It may even have been the PJ themselves that objected to Jane Hill's live report because it went right to the heart of the allegations against the McCanns and needs to be protected as part of the criminal investigation. We do exactly the same in the UK - there is no way the police started disclosing to us exactly what Huntley had done. This sort of detailed information never comes out until the trial. However, I am very grateful to you giving backing to 2345's comments given the way the Pros on the DE sought to abuse and ridicule her - when they do this - you know you are hitting a raw nerve - me and you certainly got it too. Well done Jane. By the same token comments that get too close to reality are also being deleted by the DE for legal reasons. I genuinely believe that actually they are acting reasonably, seeking to protect themselves by doing this. Best thing to do is keep copies of our posts!

I have not read the rest of the comments as yet but TO ALL OF YOU
Did you notice Gerry make one of his typically serious errors right at the very end of this first interview. Cleckley a renowned expert of psychopathy talks about the "Mask of Sanity". Pscyhopaths are not mentally ill, they know exactly what they are doing - it is just that they have a very poorly formed personality. They are quite capable of putting on an act of trying to appear normal - the problem is they often drop that mask of sanity - this is what Gerry does. Right at the end of that interview - he thinks the cameras have stopped rolling and the expression on his face completely changes and you can clearly see him mouthing and swearing - no doubt quite furious at the grilling they got from Jane Hill. Whenever this man is not in conrtol he gets very angry and he just cant hide it.

Viv xxxx

felicity said...

Re Wilkins - well yes what the odds of some stupid abductor walking of with a child like that? On JT's description he is coming from the front of the flat - in front of the flat is a car park. So we are seriously expected to believe this man had no car to put Maddie in and calmly walked off with her right under her father's nose. The same father who tries to tell us these were professional predators casing the joint and waiting to seise their window of opportunity - there is only one reason their stories are so bizarre - because they are a such pathetic lies that dont even get based on the truth at all.

As Docmac says - how come Jane and Gerry forgot to mention Wilkins has his baby in the buggy - quite an important detail really - although I can accept Gerry is a little oblivious to children.

Viv x

Anonymous said...

Hi Viv,
Re: Gerry's 'mask of sanity'as described by the psychiatrist. I think we all have good reason to be confident that interviewers will make a very special note of odd aspects in their interviewees in a high profile case involving a 'missing' child, and inform their Editors and lawyers, accordingly, for future use.
I'm not quite sure why the public get so despondent sometimes, believing that investigative journalism is dead. Maybe it's just hibernating, waiting for the Spring, in every sense. Timing is important in all things, I think.

felicity said...

Hiya Hope4 - the constant suggestion we are just perfect parents who never ever make a mistake is really sickening isnt it? By clear implication what they are saying is the McCanns are just a little less than perfect - when you consider they went on holiday and dumped their children at every given opportunity and did not stop leaving them at night even when Maddie had been crying for them - that is just a bit rich.

I am sure none of us are perfect at all - but we do know right from wrong and we do really love our children and do are very best to not only keep them safe, but make them feel loved and safe as well...that would not encompass leaving a three year old crying and terrified on her own and then doing it again...or far worse than that it would seem.

Luv Viv x

felicity said...

Hiya RAT - I understand your disillusionment with the DE - and as you say it does not matter how many times you point something out to Rosie she dishonestly continues to raise the same non-existent point - just as dishonest as the McCanns themselves.

I think there is still a point to us continuing to debate this matter and letting the government know the level of feeling about this case. I am concerned that Claris has/is using his influence at the heart of government in a very disreputable way - we need to continue to peruse and assess this situation and if need be - let our protests be known. So please stick with it - you dont have to talk to the nasties - there are sites like my own, Alsabellas and the 3 Arguidos where the message can be properly spelt out.

We really do need everyone on board to make sure we do get Justice for Maddie. Please continue to lend us your brains! The more articulate people there are putting the message across the better and you do it so well.

Chocolate Fireman - Hello - you are another one who I really respect and welcome on board - great to hear from you.

Thanks all for your continuing support to a very worthy cause that does not cost any money at all - just a little of your time.

Love Viv xxx

felicity said...

Anon - I have not seen the Law Lords ruling in the case of the Lottery rapist who must now pay damages - if memory serves it is the Limitation Act 1981 that states there is a 3 year limitation period for personal injury claims and 6 years for other tort/contract claims but in exceptional circumstances the court can and sometimes do extend these periods. I will have a look and then post a better view but it sounds like great news.

Viv x

Anonymous said...

Hi Viv,
Apart from being delighted to see my favourite chocolate fireman appear on your site, I do think the Law Lords' ground breaking decision today to extend the 6 year rule in the case of A vs Hoare is absolutely thrilling news, especially in the cases of vulnerable people denied justice because there was lack of evidence within the 6 year rule or a lack of means to support their claim.
I am very chuffed at this news. Justice for Madeleine, however long it takes.
See you next time, chica. xo

felicity said...

Hiya Anon

I have still not read the actual court ruling but have read the Daily Telegraph. It is really horrifying that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal ruled against this lady and slapped her with a £100,000 costs bill. It has always been my understanding that court's are permitted by the Limitation Act to use their discretion as to whether the limitation period should be stricly applied and the Law Lords have, by their ruling confirmed this.

How brave of this lady to take the case on, incurring £250,000 in legal costs in doing so that would have bankrupted her had she lost. Now the rapist will get hit for both hers and his own costs estimated £.5M - this sounds a lot more like justice.

Most of our law now is statute - strict black letter law passed by Acts of Parliament - even right up to Court of Appeal level if they feel the wording of the Statute is clear then they must obey the Statute. The only Court that actually has the power to re-interpret the Statute in a more equitable way is the House of Lords. It is really not fair on litigants. When Lord Denning was in the Court of Appeal - he would have gone for the equitable remedy - but they dont seem to have the courage he had! We could do with a few more Lord Dennings who are prepared to bravely and fairly interpret the law in favour of victims rather than vicious rapists. I note the government are now thinking of amending the statute to make it more fair - in relation to victims of sexual abuse - that may not get around to taking their case until way beyond the normal 6 year limit, but the Law Lords ruling that courts do have the power to interpret the statute in a more favourable way means the government dont really need to bother.

Good luck to all victims - it is they the law is designed to protect - just like our little Maddie.

I see the parallels you drew here between the two cases - and it was a good analogy to make. Victims must prevail - not perpetrators!

Thanks for bringing this interesting legal issue to my attention!

Luv Viv x

Anonymous said...

Night Viv,
I really must go, but just wanted to check your view on today's ruling by the Law Lords. I'm really very pleased with it. By the way: I adored Lord Denning, and you never know: 'cometh the moment, cometh the man'...or woman. Lord Denning, God rest his soul, may yet live on in spirit. We can hope. See you next time, chica.

felicity said...

Hiya if you adored Denning, then like me you must have read an awful lot of his judgments - a fellow law graduate? He was not no nice when he was being rather racist though was he? I suppose we all have our prejudices and skeletons in the cupboard but for such a clever man some of his remarks were perverse and perhaps prematurely ended his illustrious career in the law.

Viv x

Anonymous said...

Hi Viv,
Re: Lord Denning. I liked his eccentricity; his willingness to think 'outside the box', and challenge current orthodoxy; the law is not writ in concrete, it is to be interpreted in our own times. Now, there's a scary prospect for the lowly minds of cynics, thinking they can outwit the law just because they think they 'know' the law. They don't. 'A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing,' is the phrase that comes to mind when I think of manipulators, scam artists of any kind.
By the way: no, I'm not a lawyer, but just for our amusement, who else would take such an interest in the law, particularly libel law, free speech, and child welfare?
If you guess correctly, I still won't spell it out. It's just for our amusement or maybe we should leave this one to another time. xo

felicity said...

Anon - you leave me somewhat bemused :-)

Viv x

Anonymous said...

11.38 G.M.T.
See you next time...xo

lizzy said...

Hi Viv,
Really good point you made there about psychopaths not being mental, appearing normal but can flip. My mum worked for a time in the mental health review tribunal. This dealt with people who had been sectioned under the mental health act or had committed a crime coming up for review of their case with a view for possible releases by a panel. She said these psychopaths often presented well, had passed various pyschiatrists reports and were recommended for release, on one occasion although everything looked as if this person would be released, at the last minute the judge said no. Well this normal seeming guy exploded in rage, he showed his true colours. Theya re capable of appearing normal but sometimes cannot hide their rage. My mum also told me one interesting fact re them, they have no consience they feel no remorse. They justify things to themself and that suffices. So most peoples picture of a pyschopath seeming odd, or having apparent mental problems isn;t right, they appear as normal as you and I.

lizzy said...

Hi Viv,
I apologise for my really bad typing. I hope you can understand the gist of my last post as when I look back there are so many mistakes. Lizzy

Anonymous said...

Hi Lizzy,
Fascinating points, you make there. Fascinating.
I'm off for a while, but just wanted to thank you very much for your kind support on the DE forum.
You may notice that it is dead tonight; I notice you are not there, nor are many others: the questioners, the doubters, the inquirers, and the newcomers who might come to the forum to defend the McCanns.
Apart from a few sweet souls like Kodiak from Canada, the forum is left to McCann arch apologists, talking among themselves, and wondering why it's quiet tonight, although lisaj has tried to rally the troops by suggesting it's Friday night out. Well, it's never been as quiet there as now. It's a dead forum, and the DE must now rue the day it tolerated thugs. No decent person wants that sort of environment, although Mark55 is bitterly optimistic, saying perhaps the DE will soon announce that it has 100% support for McCanns. Mark55? Gerry's pal, to be sure, in my not so humble opinion :-)
See you sometime, when the wrongdoers face more than contemptuous silence. Ta Lizzy. All the best to you and yours. xo

lizzy said...

Hi Anon,
Sorry have no idea who you are, do you post on the DE?
You obviously do as you know most of the people there, well will probably see you on there soon.
Take care Lizzy

lizzy said...

Hi Leigh,
I think it may have been you posting ealier, if so nice to hear from you and hope to see you on here again, the DE has become full of pros and not many others, decent debate has been stopped on there. But hope to see you on here, Viv's site is excellent.

2345 said...

Felicity, Ironsides, ROTB, Docmac and all those who noticed DE attacks on me regard Jane Hill's life report containing FSS info.

Thank you for your belief in my credibility; following my first unjustified suspension from DE, I make no comments without justification. This is still my practice in this site and 3 A's.

I watched JH's live broadcast on 7 September; I wrote content verbatim in shorthand, transcribed and kept it because it was a total shock. Up to this point a death/ cover up hadn't entered my head. By coincidence, Ironsides downloaded identical transcript weeks ago on DE Forum.

Rosiepops at no time asked where I had sourced the details, her comment in this list of posts - words to the effect I couldn't or wouldn't say, is totally untrue.

One pro-McCann commentator said it had been banned; a request by one of my supporters for the link was ignored. Just before my second suspension and permanent ban Jane's report remained in the fore. Interestly, Alsabella had no knowledge of the live broadcast, or it's content, and said she thought it highly unlikely PJ would have released FSS information on 7 September.
This, of course, delighted Rosiepops and co., as it discredited me.

I stuck firmly to what I saw and heard from Jane Hill's lips. Leicester Police & PJ both had FSS results; I posted Alsabella explaining it was standard practice in Britain for Police to liaise with and inform the media in criminal cases as and when appropriate. The public did not know the date of the interview; Leicester Police did - along with PJ - as a result BBC despatched Jane Hill to Luz for live coverage for which she was given FSS information for release the day the McCanns were named arguidos.

I think it unlikely Leicester Police gave FSS information for public release without PJ's knowledge or consent. Or maybe they did to protect PJ's secrecy obligations. Whatever, Leicester Police were obviously aware that FSS results released via BBC news would be a critical topic of questioning on 7 September.

I was suspended immediately after explaining the above to Alsabella.
Web Team's response to my request for details of breach of conditions was 'permanent ban' because I had 'time and time again ignored warnings'; this was totally untrue - as my e-mail records confirm no warnings were ever issued to me. The real reason I believe was the content of Jane Hill's report.

I do not know whether damning FSS information in BBC news report has since been wiped or banned, likely it has. Every word in the transcript is as reported by Jane; the realities made me feel sick when I heard them on 7 September and the transcript still turns my stomach. Banned or not, my shorthand notes/full transcript do exist alongside Ironside's post with identical content.

At no time has BBC retracted Jane's live report; the McCanns have taken no legal action to refute or disprove it. They had £1.3 m at their disposal for the best lawyers. They cannot refute that which they know to be true.
There is one truth and truth is absolute.

Madeleine died on or around 3 May in her parents' apartment; there was no abduction.

The most rational explanation for Police releasing such damning forensic evidence is that it addressed the second serious issue; the McCanns' scam of duping the public - raising considerable public funding under false pretences.

Jane Hill's report was a public 'wake up' call on two counts. I respect and applaud the intelligence and strategies of Leicester Police & PJ in this unique case.

Thank you for this site; it's a delight not to be punished for making justified comments. It's a relief not be psychologically bullied and/or grossly misrepresented and demeaned.

2345 said...

Jane Hill's Report - for thos of you who have not yet seen it:

"An early forensic report is alleged to have mentioned a certain blood spray ... commensurate with a certain type of broken larynx ... some DNA samples found related to cerebal fluids indicates a broken neck or fracture skull". Also "Sousa himself told of this very fine mist of spray that was found in the apartment".

This live report was made outside the Police Station at the time Kate McCann was being interviewed, therefore, she must have been presented with the FSS results.
This information was released only once that night - BBC 6 o'clock news. 2345.

I've just noticed on 3 A's site that two people signed in as "1234" and "12345" on 5th January. I find this highly dubious!!

I joined 3 A's on 30th January as "2345" and will continue to post under my longstanding ID. I will end future comments with - JAB.

2.20 p.m. Apologies for omitting time from previous two posts, made approx. 2.00 p.m. and 2.10 (Jane Hill's report)