METODO 3 FAIL TO CONCEAL THE TRUTH!

Hi All, I have just read this on Joana Morais blog and as it is so fascinating and does offer great hope for the continuing revelation of the truth, thought I would offer it up for discussion!

I am going to find the article where Metodo 3 are admitting their brief was never to actually find Madeleine and will post this also.

I hope Kate and Gerry McCann hang their heads in shame for so wantonly fleecing people of money on such wicked false pretences, self serving narcissists, both of them!

Viv x

November 17, 2008

Are Kate and Gerry McCann Innocent or Guilty?

The McCanns in Praia da

Luz Church, Algarve

12 May 2007

This is the question we should be asking at this stage. To answer it, we must ask another essential question: Was Maddie abducted or not? If to legal professionals, who have followed this case closely from the start, it was very quickly evident, as well as to the PJ, that over time, the theory of abduction became less and less plausible, the facts revealed by SOS Madeleine McCann on November 11th have dealt a death blow to the theory of kidnapping.

This is also the admission of one of the detectives of the Spanish agency Metodo3, hired by the McCann parents to find Madeleine, who we learn were not hired to find Madeleine but indeed to direct public opinion (and perhaps the PJ) towards Spain or Morocco, the purpose being to manipulate the media and the public by inventing false leads in both these countries also causing the slowing down of the investigation. (The PJ had to check out these many false leads every time.) Thus, journalists were invited to interview "witnesses" paid by the said agency to say they had seen Madeleine. If these revelations are true, and there is no reason to doubt them, we can, in any case, bring doubt to bear on all of the statements of many of the witnesses who stated having seen Madeleine. Above all concerning witnesses who happened by chance, at some time, to have a connection with the McCann family, notably via the Netherlands.

Abducted or died?

Another question comes to mind: Why weren't the detectives hired to find Madeleine, contrary to what was shouted loudly and clearly by parents broken down by the "abduction" of their much loved little girl? Why did the parents hire detectives to put on a huge media show and slow down the ongoing investigation instead of finding their little girl? The only plausible answer to that question, is that the parents knew perfectly well that Madeleine was not abducted. But, then, what has become of Madeleine? Still on the basis of the truth of statements from SOS Madeleine, there too, the only answer that comes to mind is: the death of the little girl. This hypothesis is the one which has the most consistency and is the track maintained by the PJ investigators in agreement with their British counterparts.

So, guilty or innocent?

If Madeleine died, which seems to be so obvious as to be the truth, it happened by accident. The little girl's parents are not cold-bloodied killers. Two hypothesis are held. The first is death following an overdose of Calpol , of which the proportion of sedative is more significant in Portugal than in the UK. Maddie allegedly awoke in a semi-conscious state, allegedly stumbled, banged herself violently and died of her injuries. Another suggested hypothesis and which largely takes precedence, is the theory according to which Kate allegedly argued with Madeleine. During this argument, Kate allegedly made an unfortunate move, Madeleine was knocked against an edge or a corner of a piece of furniture, she bled profusely and died quickly. ( whiplash in banging herself for example).

In short, a terrible tragedy for the parents. In both cases the parents are facing a few years in prison. Be it for manslaughter, in the first instance: be it for "involuntary blows and injuries causing death without the intention to do so," in the second case. With a major difference with regards to Portugal: in the eyes of the law, if there was negligence towards the child, the couple's other children would be immediately placed with Portuguese social services WITH NO possibility of their being returned to their British family!!! It was clear that as well as the misfortune and pain of losing Madeleine, it was urgent to protect the twins. Also, a member close to Gerry, being the main "financial backer" of the British Prime Minister's political party, was contacted on the same evening as Madeleine's "disappearance" by Kate (on her own admission), Then the media, via sky News, helped to launch an unprecedented media machine at the moment when the PJ's director received, in the middle of his dinner in Lisbon, a call on his mobile phone from the British embassy informing him of the disappearance of a little British girl while the local police were not yet on the spot! In the parents' place, in the same situation, with they connections they have, would we not have done the same thing to protect our two other children?

Was there fraud?

Continuing to refer to the revelations by the detective from the Spanish agency hired by the McCanns, in the eyes of the law, yes there is fraud! Fraud in the creation of a fund to find Madeleine of which the money was mainly used to pay detectives who admit never having been hired to find Madeleine. 50,000 euors a month to divert attention from the investigation. Emotional fraud and that is, surely, the most serious. All those people who thought of themselves in solidarity, affected by Maddie's disappearance,pouring money into a fund which would help to find her. We all fell into the trap.

Ourselves, here, at the association, we cried, like you, imagining that poor child, abducted, alone without her security blanket to comfort her, crying with all her heart, away from her parents, panicked....And those things more truly horrible of which we would not speak here but which justified the creation of our association. To begin with, it played on the heartstrings until we realised that the theory of abduction was becoming hardly defensible, not to mention that the parents didn't hesitate to attack various media and collect considerable sums in "damages" following what was written by them. But those famous words could have been the absolute truth!!!

A mole in the PJ.

SOS Madeleine revealed the presence of a mole in the PJ, informing the parents in advance of various investigative operations that the team in charge of the case were going to set up. It is more understandable why the parents were in the middle of washing Maddie's pink comfort blanket as well as other clothes in the washing machine just before the arrival of the inspectors to seize the comfort blanket and the clothes with a view to DNA analysis!!! We could add a long list of worrying details in the parents' attitude but which perfectly explain themselves when we know that a member of the PJ was advising them of what was going to happen! Is this the attitude of people who have nothing to hide?

Anomalies in the case file on DVD

For some time, a small part of the complete case file (5,000 out of 30,000 pages!!!) has been accessible to the public. We have published some it it here, noting that it is necessary to be careful in publishing its contents. In fact, this DVD is not complete and only represents around 17% of the total. Our association, like probably all the other professionals in the field of police work, detected anomalies in the case file. In fact, some documents appeared doubtful, seen as suspicious. Some signatures, annotations, drew our attention. We addressed them to whom it may concern to take the information back to Portugal. Following that, and even though we had been aware for several weeks, the journalist Duarte Levy, in statements, yesterday on Portuguese television, revealed that there were documents in the case file which had been tampered with and manipulated. It is there, neither more nor less than errors in writing. No comment. So, be careful what you read on various forums.

Death threats!

At the start of the broadcast in which the journalist we spoke about above, Duarte Levy, was participating, the director of the Portuguese television channel informed the viewers that Mr Levy had just, at that moment, received death threats on his mobile phone following his latest revelations. These threats are being taken seriously. According to our information, the journalist received two different calls. One from Portugal and the other from the UK, both threatening to kill him! If the revelations made by SOS Madeleine are false, and as a result the parents have nothing to hide, why threaten to kill people? Why does the McCann clan brandish, at the slightest opportunity, a threatening finger towards anyone who would not say the same things as them? Why try to silence the press?

In conclusion.

If the revelations from SOS Madeleine concerning the Metodo3 detectives and the PJ mole are correct, it could be deduced that the parents were not innocent, that Madeleine was not abducted. That there is fraud. And above all that the hoax is in the process of being shot down - as proof the various death threats - and that the truth will, in the end, see the light of day!!!

Translation Courtesy of AnnaEsse at News From My Big Desk

Original Souce: Enfants Kidnappés 17/11/08

+/-

+/-

SKY MASSIVE LIBEL PAYOUT FOR COMPARING ROBERT MURAT TO IAN HUNTLEY

Hi All, Since my return from Egypt I note there is some news that has pleased me immensely. In addition to the £600,000 libel damages from a selection of other papers, Robert has now received an undisclosed amount from Sky who were singled out and dealt with separately for what was undoubtedly just about the worst example of libel that there could be, a direct comparison to evil child murderer Ian Huntley, all in support of the sickening claim by Kate and Gerry McCann that Madeleine was supposedly abducted and here was the poor man they were seeking to blame for this, not allowing his girlfriend Michaela to escape this evil behaviour either. WE even had a piece in the articles from the Daily Express, now of course, all removed, where Kate McCann herself was claiming he had a case to answer, her low level of human behaviour or downright audacity seemingly knows no bounds. This news outlet if one could call it that the McCanns signed an exclusive deal with and none of us will forget the outrageous claims from the McCanns and their family that were peddled in cognisance of exclusive access to the gruesome twosome and their hitherto useless Pink Spinster.

For libel on this scale one could almost guarantee that Robert Murat has received at least half a million pounds from Sky taking the total amount he has now received to over one million pounds. If ever a person deserved such a massive payout it is this man and his family. No one can imagine what being the McCann's Patsy for such a long time must have truly been like, villified by their "supporters" such as "Rosiepops" as a sickening paedophile and far worse still. I also believe it is a measure of justice that the gruesome twosome, in spite of everything that was written about them received just £275,000 each, a small fraction of what Robert received. There is a simple reason for this, he is a totally innocent man who they are their friends fiercely tried to blame for Madeleine's disappearance. In stark contrast, even on their own account, although they cannot even accept it, they are responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine, who the Portuguese authorities have confirmed in no uncertain terms died in their apartment. They left their children every single night they were there, all night, every night. But somehow Gerry and Kate McCann do not accept any responsibility, no claims Gerry it was just like being in their back garden, even though those children cried pitifully for parents who did not give a damn, it was a garden where these two sad excuses for parents were oblivious to their cries and when seeking to explain Kate smirks with abandoned disdain as she describes Madeleine's complaints that they were just left to cry. So, if anyone is wondering why they only managed to con £275,000 each from just one newspaper group who ondoubtedly went over the top, whereas Robert got over a million from several media outlets, now you know the reason why, they were culpable they were to blame and they have told a lot of lies. All Robert ever did was act like a decent citizen, but their pals who flew back to have another go at Robert in July 2007 had the gall to also stand on the steps of the High Court complaining they were libelled! Gerry in yet another of his by now classical slips states they always intended to give the money to the Fund. Yes Gerry we know, you and your pals cynically ripped off the covers of Madeleine's books and plotted and schemed that very night how you would get libelled and make a mint. But you have not kidded anyone, we will continue to make sure of that.


LOVE AND BEST WISHES TO ROBERT MURAT AND HIS FAMILY AND A HOPE YOU CAN BEGIN TO FORGET THE TERRIBLE HURT AND DISRUPTION TO YOUR LIFE

LOVE TO ALL INNOCENT ABUSED CHILDREN AND MAY THEY IN THE END GET THE JUSTICE THEY TRULY DESERVE

MADELEINE YOUR PARENTS MAY HAVE FELT ABLE TO LAUGH JUST A FEW DAYS AFTER YOU HAD GONE BUT WE WILL NEVER FORGET YOU

Viv x



Madeleine McCann: Robert Murat accepts libel damages from BSkyB
Robert Murat has accepted substantial undisclosed libel damages from BSkyB over an allegation that there were strong grounds for believing that he was guilty of abducting Madeleine McCann.

By Daily Telegraph reporter Last Updated: 2:22PM GMT 14 Nov 2008

Mr Murat was made a formal suspect two weeks after Madeleine's disappearance Photo: REUTERS
Mr Murat, 34, was not at London's High Court for the settlement of his action against British Sky Broadcasting Ltd.
He had previously received a record settlement of £600,000 over "seriously defamatory" allegations in nearly 100 articles connecting him with the abduction.
He had sued Associated Newspapers, Express Newspapers, MGN Limited and News Group Newspapers.
His solicitor Louis Charalambous told Mr Justice Eady that an article and video on the Sky News website claimed that in the early days after Madeleine's disappearance from Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007, Mr Murat's behaviour was reminiscent of child murderer Ian Huntley.
The article, which was published until April this year, and the video, which was accessible until this September, also suggested that Mr Murat had deliberately tried to mislead journalists by pretending to be acting in an official capacity for the police.
Victoria Shore, counsel for BSkyB, which is also paying Mr Murat's costs, made an unreserved apology for publishing the false allegations, and the distress caused.
Mr Charalambous told the judge that the allegations were entirely untrue and it was accepted that Mr Murat had no involvement whatever in the abduction of Madeleine.
"The defendant accepts that Mr Murat did not act like a child murderer nor did he try to mislead or lie to any journalists.
"It acknowledges that Mr Murat's actions after the abduction were entirely proper and were motivated by a desire to help find Madeleine McCann."
He said that Sky's apology would appear on its website for 12 months.
Ms Shore said that it very much regretted the distress caused by the publications.
Outside court, Mr Charalambous said that the settlement represented the final stage of Mr Murat's claims against those sections of the British media "which defamed him so terribly".
"He has been entirely successful and vindicated.
"He could never have brought any of these claims without the use of conditional fee agreements which gave him access to justice.
"It was particularly important to him to nail this particular lie - that he acted in some way reminiscent to the Soham murderer Ian Huntley when, in fact, he was working flat out to help try to find Madeleine."

Where Does the Buck Stop?

Haringey Social Services have been criticised for failing to protect Baby P. Two baby boys are stabbed to death in Manchester by their mentally unstable mother, despite Social Services intervention. Aberdeen City Council are roundly criticised in a Scottish Office report for “failing to protect vulnerable children”. Little Shannon Matthews was taken into foster care following a false kidnapping and imprisonment, instigated by her own mum.

In the wake of such tragedies, it is easy to finger-point and apportion blame. Everyone does it, because no-one is willing to accept responsibility.

Karen Matthews was “a good mother” until she met Craig Meehan, we are told. Ms Shoesmith has adamantly stated that she will not be resigning over the Baby P affair, and neither will any of her staff. Social workers monitoring Ms Mullings decided she was capable of caring for her children (despite abandoning one of them at Manchester’s A&E) and closed the file. The McCanns left three under-fours alone in an isolated apartment, but the subsequent and continued disappearance of one of them is, apparently, the fault of the PJ and the lack of an Amber Alert.

At what point, exactly, did it become the “done thing” to waive all responsibility for our own actions? And at what point does the buck-passing stop?

Watch a small child caught red-handed, doing something naughty. “I didn’t do it!; she did it!; it’s somebody else’s fault!” Responsible parents teach their children to own up to their own behaviour – so why can’t grown adults accept culpability? It’s supposed to be learned behaviour, after all; like standing in orderly queues, or saying please and thank you. (Unless, of course, the adult in question was never taught the meanings and consequences of rights and responsibilities in the first place, in which case the parents are 100% responsible IMHO).

We live in a society that has increasingly, over the years, shifted away from the ideals of social responsibility, to the concept of people’s “rights”. We now have the spectre of obese people suing McDonalds because the burgers made them fat, although no-one actually forced them to eat there; the husband who has affairs because his wife doesn’t satisfy him; the spendaholics who are tens of thousands in debt because the bank keeps giving them credit cards.

Society is imploding, because no-one is responsible anymore. But to abdicate all responsibility, relegates us to the role of “victim”. And that serves no-one, least of all the victim, because it’s the quickest way to guarantee an unhappy und unfulfilled life.

Time to own up, claim responsibility, apologise and rectify our mistakes, and move on. If you are someone who wants more control in your life, then taking responsibility for yourself is a great step in the right direction. That’s what grown-ups do.

For Kate McCann, Ms Shoesmith, Manchester Social Services, Aberdeen Council, and Karen Matthews. Get a grip. Take control, take responsibility. Answer the questions. The truth will set you free.

Child Abusers - You Can Run...But You Can't Hide....

Even as little as 5 years ago, he might just have gotten away with it - a high-ranking official, in a Government where corruption is said to be rife.

The "man" (for want of a better word) in question gets into an altercation with an 11-year-old girl in a restaurant. He then reportedly follows her into the toilet and grabs her by the neck, but she manages to wriggle free and runs back to her parents.

Her father, understandably, is upset, and retaliates on the man who assaulted his daughter. The man, an important public official, tries to buy off the family and offers the father money, with the response,

"Yes I did it, so what? How much do you want, just tell me. I'll give you the money. Do you know who I am? I am from the Ministry of Transport. I rank with the Mayor of your city. So what if I grabbed the neck of a small child? You people count for ****!"

This astonishing scene took place yesterday in Shenzen, China; a country often criticized for it's "closed shop" secrecy, corrupt politicians and human rights abuses.

But thanks to the Internet, ordinary citizens are fighting back. Only hours after the CCTV images were posted on YouTube, angry internet viewers had soon tracked down and named the aggressor, who has since been fired from his job - the reason being that "[his] wild words and behaviour have had an extremely negative impact on society".

Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, it is now no longer possible to hide one's misdemeanours behind the facade of middle-classness, wealth, education or political power. And this is especially true when it comes to the abuse or maltreatment of children.

Because now the whole world can watch - and question. And keep on questioning, until there are answers.

And hopefully make a difference.

Justice for Madeleine - and all neglected and abused children, everywhere.