11 Feb 2009


So I believe I am perfectly correct to say the British are investigating this aspect and there was simply no point in forwarding financial information to the Portuguese Police about this but in our usual wish to deal with such investigations in the utmost confidence we may well have caused suspicion and offence. Facts about the McCann case were undoubtedly being leaked to the Portuguese press by someone and very accurate facts as we now know. This would be more than enough of a good reason for Stuart Prior to be very evasive about what he was prepared to disclose.

I believe this most certainly was the motive planned and quite deliberate for the crime the McCanns committed and I still believe it is highly likely Gerry McCann carried her off alive and she may still be alive. The investigations against them are not going well for them, they are going very quiet and he has recently been back to Portugal to see his lawyer. He says he now wants to co-operate with the authorities and is certainly no longer talking in terms of actually suing the Portuguese Police. What for failing to find where he put her!! Metodo 3 are being investigated embezzlement and money laundering. People may not choose to believe it but the writing is on the wall for Team McCann and Goncalo Amaral was clearly on the right track it is just that he could not have dealt with it, it is a matter only UK can deal with and it will be! There is even one who claims (thelastphotographer) that Madeleine did not have a colomboma and he demonstrates all the emails and writings of Philomena McCann stating how this could go all over the world. I have not been able to verify myself whether that is true from looking at pictures but it certainly figures, as a marketing ploy. What I most certainly have been able to see when looking at pictures of Maddie is there is one that is downright sexually provocative and there are many others where she is quite clearly wearing eye liner and mascara. There is something sick, grasping and quite shocking about Gerry, Philomena and John McCann in particular, I do not know what happened in their upbringing but it is there, no doubt about that and as for Kate, well as a mum myself I just struggle for the right words. There are a whole bunch of people involved in this and there is only one place they belong and that is prison, for a long time.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Goncalo will see all the justice he needs to see, we just need patience, recovering little Maddie, if that is possible, just has to come first.

Thanks to Luz on 3 As for this post although I do not quite interpret things as she does, I can understand her suspicions about UK authorities, it is just I understand better how they work.

Viv xx
Post subject: FRAUD or CONFIDENCE ABUSE - will UK investigate it?
New postPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:08 am
Luz on 3 As.

NOTE: By the suggestion of a poster I decided to change the initial title of this thread. What this observations on Gonçalo Amaral's book suggest is the possible existence of UK authorities interference, but what this thread intended at first was to point out that there was a certain disconfort among the British police in the Algarve about the possibility that they might have to intervene directly, opening an investigation on fraud concerning the FUND, if it was proved that the McCann were aware that Madeleine was dead.

I don't agree with the multiplication of the threads, and I translated these pages in response to a poster in another thread, but then I decided I should isolate it because it brings back matters that have been highly discussed, but without a "document" support:

Amaral, G. (2008: 191-193)
The interrogations of the McCann and the nervousness of the British police

Stuart’s presence, as the timing for the interrogations to the McCann as arguidos became closer, increased constantly, he appeared anxious and nervous. He wanted to know how everything was going to happen. We tried to explain how everything would go. One big worry was the rogatory letter that we wished to send to the British authorities. The first priority was the realization of the cynothecnic exams to the residences of the McCann friends and holiday mates, and on their own, with the aim to examine the clothing and possessions of those persons, in an attempt to locate cadaver scent or human blood. For us these exams should be effectuated by the same cynothecnic team, with the same dogs EVRD and CSI, Eddie and Keela, and for such and with Stuart’s agreement, we send a letter applying for that team. We didn’t know which clothes the McCann had used on the night of May the 3rd. At the beginning of the investigation we had solicited every photograph and film of that and the previous days, but they only supplied us daylight photographs; it’s as if the at night and on the famous Tapas dinners they never took any pictures, although some of the guests had their photo machines. This lack of night pics was something we never digested very well. With reference to the rogatory letter, we wanted to search and apprehend photos and film/videos of the holiday nights at the Ocean Club. At the McCann’s home we wanted to verify the existence of a board that pointed to the existence Maddie’s problems with sleeping. This had been mentioned by Kate and, according to the mother, had been used until April 2006, the time at which Madeleine started to sleep regularly during the night without interruptions. We wanted to apprehend the original of the diary that Kate Healy started writing from the May 3rd onwards. It was our intention to re-interview the whole group of friends due to the inconstancies about their children’s surveillance scheme during the dinner periods at the Ocean Club. We wanted answers to our request formulated to the British authorities on the first day of our investigation, through the liaison officer, in Portugal, about the McCann family and their friends. Since, as incredible as it may seem, we hadn’t received any answer at that time to our insistent requests [note o.T.: late August], we were going to indicate these diligences through the rogatory letter. We questioned Stuart about that. He responded that “they were gathering elements about the couple and their friends”, and they had already sent a first answer. This one was related to the social economic situation and on it, strangely the British police stated that it was not known that the McCann possessed any credit cards.


We were conscious about what we were asking. A credit or debit card allows one to know a lot of things: for instance, where they were, what they payed for, and for what. With the analysis of the movements of such cards we can reconstruct the life of its titular and in some way reach certain conclusions. We understood immediately that very hardly would we obtain the information we needed. Stuart made another request. He thought that it would be advisable that two rogatory letters were emitted, one for the friends of the McCann and another for the McCann. This we didn’t understand.

Fraud or abuse of confidence?

In a relaxing moment of one of these reunions I may have committed a slip or, maybe, I was a little inopportune or less diplomatic. Worried with the possibility that the McCann were, in any way, involved in the disappearance of their child, and while I reasoned about the sort of crimes in which the same could be involved, I concluded a fact. If, really, it became confirmed any sort of responsibility on the part of the McCann, then it would put in cause the existence of the Fund created for searching for Madeleine, which was up to 2 million pounds, a crime of fraud and confidence abuse. A debate opened up, and in fact, with the forwarded premises, this crime of fraud and abuse of confidence could exist, but Portugal wouldn’t have jurisdiction to investigate and trial such a case. This belonged to the United Kingdom, because the Fund was registered in that country. Then the British partners became aware of a tough reality: a strong possibility that they had a crime to investigate in their country, having as eventual suspects the McCann couple, a thing that didn’t seem to please them very much. Just got aware of a sudden paleness on the faces of the british present. »

It has been discussed many times the cooperation PJ-LP, it has also been stated by many people that the British police must be keeping an ongoing investigation, specially concerning fraud around the FUND.

I am a bit skeptic about it, mostly based on what has arisen from the news but also from what Amaral says on his book.

LETS SEE A BIT MORE.... In order to keep it in context, I'll translate the previous 2 pages, because it is revealing about how and the why of Amaral's removal and also the deepness (hypothetical) of the Government interference.

Its not my intention to reveal too much about the book, and by doing so killing the interest on reading it, but let me add this extra bit that reinforces what this thread meant to illustrate.

Amaral, G. (2008:215-217)

I receive a silly phone call from a journalist to which I gave an almost irrational answer

By night fall, already out of the police and again going in the direction of the eastern Algarve, I receive a phone call from an anonymous number that made the cauldron of my despair to boil. A journalist of a daily newspaper wanted to talk about an e-mail that eventually had been received in the British Royal Palace. In a very quick and almost irrational manner I answered that the e-mail was unimportant and that the British police should worry on accompanying the Portuguese investigation. Maybe because I was going east, under a violent rainy storm, I lost my north. As soon as I hang up my mobile I realized how unfair I was being to the British police. This is not made by one or two individuals, but by an assembly of competent and professional women and men that had helped us a lot. This was the worst day to receive such a call, some people seem to be able to guess our state of mind. I kept on driving, with the certainty that a diplomatic incident had been launched, but of easy resolution. In the way that things had been, very hardly would I keep directing the Portimão’s Department of Criminal Investigation as soon as those words became public.

I finally got home. Despite the bad weather, next day I had to leave early morning to Huelva, Spain, where, in the company of Guilhermino Encarnação, I was going to assist and participate on the commemorations of the day of the National Police. When visiting by neighbors, I found out the reason to the restlessness of my dog, two nights ago. Unknown people, taking advantage of my absence, had realized a burglary at their residence. They didn’t take anything valuable, leaving behind more valuable goods; they just cared to steal a briefcase with personal documents. I think, but I don’t tell them, maybe the house to b burgled was another one.

The rain and the storm continued in the morning. Before getting near Guilhermino I got to see the front page of the paper to which the authoress of the call belonged. A single phrase was now converted into a two pages interview. I remembered, then, an old director, that used to say that from a sardine you make a fishing boat. Here we had the miracle of the multiplication of the sardines, there it was the miracle of the multiplication of the words. I finally got to Guilharmino and explained to him the stupidity I had done. Immediately Guilhermino tries to reach the National Director to attempt to explain to him the impossible, he is non reachable during the whole morning.

We got to the Cathedral of Huelva in time to assist to the homily by the bishop of the diocese, that , as if by chance, was about the role of the police and the security of the children. Accompanying the ceremony there was a choir that interpreted in a sublime form the Avé Maria, of Charles Gounod. It was an hour of peace, sheltered from the storm that could be felt outside that monumental and beautiful temple. From there we went to the Iberian American Forum de La Rabida, near to the convent with the same name, were Cristovão Colombo waited for news from Isabel, The Catholic, before leaving to the discovery of the New World.

On the way, we didn’t get news about the discovery of new worlds, but we discovered the verticality and the rightness, of men that embraced the law and the cause of justice as a supreme good. Linked back to reality, due to the new technologies, Guilhermino receives a phone call from a magistrate of the Public Ministry to which was attributed the responsibility to direct the inquiry. The illustrious magistrate had watched on the previous night a TV program on a British channel that descredibilized the PJ investigation. Unconformed, aware of the injustice of such program and aware about the work the Portuguese investigators had conducted (shaped into an inquiry, very well structured and conducted) he wanted to show his disagreement, saying that we deserved praises and thanks.
The news about a removal: the outcome of a campaign of defamation and slander

It was a thread of light in the middle of the bad weather that insisted on keeping on, but the expected was about to happen. At the Forum we assisted to the ceremony presided by the delegate of the Government of the Province of Huelva, and there I reencountered colleagues and friends. After 14:00h, while lunching, I received the news. It had been sent to the Portimão Department a Fax, by which the national director ceased my service commission, ordering my return to the Faro Directory. On this day, October the 2nd, I completed 48 years of age, it was not the present I wished, but it was expected. In the end it was the outcome of a campaign of defamation and slander, conducted against the operational coordinator of the investigation of Madeleine’s case, orchestrated and developed by the British Media, almost from the moment that the investigation began. The strategy was simple, the investigation is attacked, discrediting it’s operational, and at the same time Portugal is considered a Third World country, with a judicial and police system totally outdated due to its Middle Age methods. From the United Kingdom other news arrived. The British Prime Ministre had called Prior Stuart, responsible for the Leicestershire Police, asking if he could confirm the demission of the operational coordinator of the investigation. We don’t know the reason for such an interest about such a humble Portuguese public servant, on the part of the British Prime Minister. We don’t even want to believe what occurred on the backstage of the Lisbon Treaty about the necessity to confirm the dismissal of the investigation operational coordinator, before being in the disposition to sign such treaty.

Rumors, most certainly, and nothing else. It just remains the smooth feeling that, for the first time in the history of the Polícia Judiciária and of our public administration, a simple employee was removed, from his post, by external influence. Far are the sage words of the Marquis of Pombal, it was the year of the grace of 1759, to his English ally: «I will never concede you more but what I owe you

Last edited by Luz on Sat Sep 27, 2008 1:07 am, edited 3 times in total.


nancy said...

Hi JJ and everyone -

Viv -

Interesting new thread, including the thread from Luz, including this gem:

"We don't know the reason for such an interest about such a humble public servant (GA) on the part of the British Prime Minister.

We don't even want to believe what occured on the back stage of the Lisbon Treaty about the necessity to confirm the dismissal of the investigation's operational coordinator, before being in the disposition to sign such Treaty"

If there is any truth in that then one would ask why GB would want the sacking of GA confirmed before signing the Treaty.

It reeks of blackmail to me!


Sorry about the confusion yesterday - it was not Fox's link, but Isis who made it - "COULD MADELEINE HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY ONE OF THE TAPAS?"

Fox made some interesting comments on that question.

I don't seem to get the number of each thread at the top of the page as I used to, so I can't give you that sorry!


dylan said...

Hi Nancy and Viv.

Thanks for the new thread, Viv.
Poor GA. It seems he knew he was in for the firing line after having made an unconsidered reply due to circumstances. We have all done it and regretted it after the event, but at least, I hope, under less pressure where the outcome is not so serious.

Nancy, blackmail looks likely. I think the powers that be, were waiting for him to slip-up so that they could get him off the case. However, what he was sacked for, was less insidious than what was hoped for, leaving the reason as to why he was sacked, looking like a pathetic excuse. I really hope GA's book is published in the UK soon.

BBL xx

dylan said...

Hi JJ,

Seems that all is OK with your post :-)


viv said...

JJ If you have a comment that is relevant to the thread I posted I am sure we would all love to hear it but I do not want posts about posts otherwise it may become very similar to another place, which to quote Gerry, is really quite boring, I am sure you will respect that.

As for me, if this case is just going to descend into a Portugal v UK debate rather than focussing on who is investigating this case for Madeleine and why, I do not think I want to be a part of it.

Zodiac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nancy said...

Hi Viv -

Of course we all want to discuss the ins and outs of what is going on right now in the investigation, but Luz included the comment about Gordon Brown at the Lisbon Treaty, which is bound to attract comments.

I am no supporter of Gordon Brown, but he is our Prime Minister, and as a UK citizen I would just hate to think underhand stuff like that went on in Lisbon.

I'm sure we can have faith that the LP are working hard at completing the horrendous jig saw puzzle, which is just what this case is like, and will find true Justice for Madeleine - it's just a matter of time and we have to be patient.


nancy said...

Hi Dylan,

Just why is GA's book taking so long to be published here in the UK?

Like you, I can't wait to see just what Goncalo has to say - at the moment, we get bits and pieces, which only serves to confuse things rather than give us the whole picture.

Still very cold here but at least the snow has gone thankfully!



viv said...

Hiya Nancy

I have included everything Luz has to say because I want to be fair. She is a dedicated Portuguese citizen, no doubt and sees things from that point of view.

I have never wanted this to descend into allegations against each other from Portuguese and Brit people because that is just not what it is about. Portuguese and British Police and the respective governments have worked co-operatively to deal with this case. But there is one really pretty simple issue and it is something I have always said, only we in Britain have jurisdiction to put this lot where they belong and that is precisely what is going on. The Portuguese have been fantastic and helped us every step of the way.

Goncalo wanted to put these people where they belong, of course he did, but International law prevented him from doing that.


dylan said...

Hi Nancy,

I know. It is very frustrating that the rest of the world has it [GA's book], or so it seems, and not us! I would imagine that there is still some diplomatic tape that is still too tacky to remove!
Still cold here, too. Met office said we were in for milder weather mid-week but it still feels as cold as it has been. The temp here is a couple of degrees higher than yesterday but the wind chill has a lot to answer for!

Viv, I think there has always been an element of UK V Portugal (among certain bloggers), but as long as we stick to the remit of this blog which is Justice for a little girl who went missing 3/5/2007, then there is no need for us to enter into that arena. I am more interested in what the PJ found and what the LP are investigating and I don't see why we should be forced to treat them as separate entities in competition in the context of this case.


dylan said...

Viv, yours and my posts seem to have crossed, but having read what you have said, I think you said what I meant to say, but put it much better :-) xx

viv said...

Hiya Dilly

To be honest it is not beyond the realms of possibility that UK are seeking to prevent publication of Goncalo's book in the UK and further comment on this case. There is a very real issue of Team McCann trying to claim, oh dear we cannot get a fair trial now. Goncalo himself of course says there is much he knows that he is not going to comment on which of course is wise.

But the real issue that UK are obviously wanting to keep under strict wraps are details about their investigations into the Fraud and precisely what has happened to Maddie. People just become impatient and start looking for conspiracy theories. They start pointing the finger at governments and the only place the finger should be pointed is at Team McCann.

Of course there has been a concerted effort from certain bloggers to make this a racist divide and it is sickening and repulsive. As you say what we want to know is what Goncalo has to say, that is in the public domain and is clearly relevant, what that investigation revealed and is again public and very revealing and what further steps UK are taking in this matter. We have recently seen a letter from The Home Office confirming what Ch Cons LP said back in July 2008, people just need to accept this and stop trying to suggest this case of a missing little girl is being treated any differently to any other. There are no favours for the McCanns, they are serious criminals and they are not being let off the hook.

dylan said...


Pardon me for asking, but where have JJ's posts gone? As i read it, she had just said that she wanted to make a relevant comment once she had digested what was said in the thread properly, but maybe I missed something?


viv said...

Sorry Dyl but maybe you are, nine posts on this thread (!) and all of them divisive and irrelevant.

Wait for it to appear on Rosie's blog!


dylan said...

"The Home Office confirming what Ch Cons LP said back in July 2008, people just need to accept this and stop trying to suggest this case of a missing little girl is being treated any differently to any other. There are no favours for the McCanns, they are serious criminals and they are not being let off the hook."

I find this very encouraging and it is what I would have hoped was happening.

In your opinion, Viv, do you think if GA's book was released here, that it would prejudice a trial process if there is to be one? I mean, the WWW is exactly that, it is world-wide and regardless of what language a book is written in, there are translations all over the web for all to see. If the case is that it would spoil a fair trial, do you think in this instance, that the damage has already been done? I hope not!


dylan said...


Poops will have a field day! Maybe it is time to talk about squirrels and badgers again ;-)


viv said...

Hiya Dilly

My view is a lid was put on it and there would be insufficient damage to prevent a fair trial because we simply do not have the British file!


viv said...

Well you know Dilly if I feel like being irrelevant squirrels and badgers would be a lovely place to go because I adore them:-)))

dylan said...

Hi Viv,

I sincerely hope that that is the case.

Off now, BBL. xx

PS. my favourites are foxes :-))))

viv said...

Well yes of course foxes too. I remember being stuck on a lane once as the Hunt came past on their massive horses all hoping to rip a fox to shreds for a bit of sport.

Some of them politely said Thank you good morning etc. I politely ignored them because that sort of mentality makes my blood boil xxx

Di said...

Hi All


Thanks for the thread from last night.

This is something which stands out for me.....

Not saying I agree with D & F being suspicious, but according to Silvia B of the group of friends, they were the couple most affected by the abduction.

How much the other only recalls that Fiona and her husband, the Payne, was hysterical with the situation.............

D P was said to have had a breakdown after returning to UK and I believe off work.

I wonder why?

Di said...

Hi Viv

Hubby & I were returning home a few weeks back.

We turned down a country lane only to be met by a hunt in full swing jumping from one side of the road to the other, obviously not able to chase foxes now only scent, or so we are to believe.

Gates had been opened so that the dogs could get through. I have to say we thought the whole thing was extremely dangerous. Several horses were spooked by cars and the dogs were running everywhere.

As our country friends say, you live here get used to it.

I was brought up in the country but apparently that does not count!

Di said...

Or was it ROB who had the breakdown?

viv said...

Di, I think the rumour was OB had a breakdown and I do not know whether or not this is true. It could just be that in the press there were talk of just three the PJs really wanted to rip into OB Payne and Tanner and there was also talk of OB being made an arguido or in some reports all three of them.

What we can say about OB I think from looking at some of the testimony of OB is he is very angry, frustrated and upset by constant investigations against him both by the police and the press. He is so caught up with that he says it has ruined his 36 year life, he went on and on and completely seemed to forget that Maddie is missing and may well be dead. I certainly do not find his comments to be those of a rational and reasonable person with empathy for the real victim in this case.

viv said...

Hiya Di

re the hunt, you describe a similar situation to what I found myself in, stuck in my little car on a little lane and I actually found it pretty intimidating with all these massive horses passing right next to me.

I too have always lived in the country and adored it, I just cannot understand these so called country folk who insist that if you are really one of them you will be into hunting. How can you develop a passion for the countryside and all of our wildlife and also develop a passion for that? Be being brought up like the Princes Harry and William I am afraid, I think it is a great sadness Diana died and could not continue to try and make them more normal and empathic.

nancy said...

Di -

It was ROB who had the breakdown as far as I remember. He is a coward of the first order; couldn't face being in front of the public outside the Lawcourts when they received their blood money!

Some of the Secretive Seven, if not all, know much much more than they are letting on. If Maddie's disappearance was really an abduction by someone unknown, they would have rallied round K&G and made their voices heard above all else, but apart from their statements which they couldn't avoid making, they have been as silent as the lambs! Mind you, the statements didn't give a lot away. They all seem to be suffering from early short term memory loss!

viv said...

There are some interesting points being picked up on 3 As, here is one of them. So the picture we are now seeing is the meal table was booked from 7.30 in the evening and sometimes extended as late as 1 am and there was no 10th TAPAS, I never really thought there was! I find it interesting the behaviour was even more jolly that night. Gerry is one of life's clowns who likes to put on one big act and play look at me I am the life and soul. I can well believe he played that role very well that night ..

This is the statement juliet referred to earlier:


They dined in the restaurant every night from Sunday until Thursday when Madeleine disappeared. The table was booked then for 19H30 to 20H00. It was nine adults in total, four couples and an older woman who was also with them.

I believe that on the first or second night they dined in the Tapas, they drank a bit more, perhaps eight or nine bottles of wine. I believe that they were also offered liquor this night, as they had been such good clients. The behavior of the table did not change the night in question. If anything, the group jested more than usual but no one appeared drunk.

Generally, they left the Tapas at 23h30/midnight, at times together and at other times in small groups. On the night in which they drank more than usual, they left a bit later, perhaps towards 00h30-01h00. I remember this detail because I was supposed to finish work at 00H00 and I wanted to go home.

nancy said...

Viv and Di -

I just love living in the countryside too.

There is a field opposite, adjacent to a farm, and a mare has just given birth to a beautiful foal who is cantering around already!

My son used to belong to a shoot but gave that up thankfully and now just enjoys his fishing, especially salmon fishing in Scotland.

Off to watch Spain v England now - but,in the meantime.


nancy said...

viv - Just read your last post.

Eight or nine bottles of wine,plus other drinks.

They must have been well p....d!

It's a wonder they could find their apartments after that lot!

I wouldn't be surprised if drink didn't play a large part in Maddie's disappearance!

viv said...

and then we have this, the moving cots! Mrs Fenn says that on Tues 1 May Maddie was crying for one hour 15 minutes. When the cleaner goes in on 2 May there is a cot in the parents room and the other cot in the childrens bedroom. So the McCanns must have know there was a need to split their children up to stop them waking each other, or did they move Maddie in with them that night because of her distressed state? This seems to suggest the McCanns knew there was a reason to drug their kids to stop them waking up and crying again..

Maria Julia Serafim da Silva
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 16H45

"In regards to her duties directly related to the apartment, she states that the last time she entered there was on the Wednesday, the day before the facts, more precisely on the 02 of May, where she carried out cleaning.

During the time she carried out her work, she remembers having seen, given the scenario presented, that the couple slept in the room opposite the entrance way, where she came across a children’s cot.

This room gives access to an exterior garden which is called the ground floor, and to a veranda. In the room closest to the door of the apartment, there was a bed pushed to the wall and a second cot. All these beds were ‘messy’ and this told her that they had been used. She states further that in the room closest to the door, was another bed, which was not used".

viv said...

and how come on the Thursday the cot finds itself back in the childrens room?

viv said...

Also the implication here seems to be Maddie slept in the bed under the window, not behind the door, is there a suggestion she could have fallen out the window during these 7.30 to 1 am drinking binges?

It is odd Kate states she herself slept in that bed the night before, I am not sure I am getting this but it is all sounding very odd!

I had noticed the police are very interested in beds and who slept where exactly!

viv said...

Maybe I need to locate the correct chapter from Goncalo's book!


Off for dinner, I am sure that will help!

Di said...

Hi Hope

When I read what RO said about her daughter I was shocked.

What parent would leave their child in that state time and again.

The more I read about this case, the more shocked I am about these so called parents.

Di said...


Do we know these rogatory interviews that are reported are for real?

hope4truth said...

Hi DI and Viv

I hope the police are still investigating this am I so sheltered that I dont see this going on around me?

I know many profesional people and am sure none of them would act in this way no one I know leaves their children alone and others I dont know as well Say they dont and I assume they are not lying and if they are lying they are obviously not proud of themselves for being such crap parents...

It gets worse and worse xxx

hope4truth said...


I hope it is not true it does seem very far fetched but from other things these people have said and done I dont think they realise how bad they sound???


Di said...

Hi Hope

I am sure all parents make learning mistakes, there is no manual.

However, there is common sense and surely that rides above all else.

You don't leave young children alone.

You don't leave children alone when ill as in this case.

You don't leave children alone, end of.

viv said...

I have found it on Pamalam a site I would definitely trust as being fair and accurate. I have not read it yet and due to its length will put up on separate thread.


bath theory said...

Bottom line: No child ever asks to be born. This Tapas lot are a bunch of 'bankers'


Note BK was a non executive director of RBS until recently.

viv said...

Hello BT, they are disgusting, I wish these poor little kids had just been left at home with their nan and granddads, that is for sure.

I am fiddling with RO rog as it keeps cutting the side off, will try and put right but am not too clever with these things, give me time!


Di said...

Hi Bt

How come you are not watching Footy as my other half is?

BK, I don't know what to make of him quite honestly.

Di said...


Left at home with their grandparents. I agree it would have been far safer for all concerned.

viv said...

Eureka! going to get cuppa then will have a read of it!


bath theory said...

I am watching it Di but as usual no England players in Arsenal and not that extra thrill to watch. Plus the Spanish side has real intelligence in its side, a football intleligence whereas we are full of players who have a similar mindset to Poops.

bath theory said...

Exactly good point about the grandparents. They have them and could have used them couldn't they. I think these two went on that holiday with a division between them and the holiday opened it up further. that is only my belief.

Di said...


What have you found?

viv said...

Fiona wants to stress Kate had a premonition, she really did not want to go. Very ominous.

Footy explains 3 As, I was gobsmacked went on there not long ago and was the only one there which I have never seen before!


viv said...

Di I still have not read it, I just meant I had successfully posted ROs rog from Pamalam minus the bloody text boxes and am going to read it, see sep thread due to length rather than put on here and break up the posts


Di said...



I really need to stop reading into eveything.


Hubby agrees with you.

Off now

See you all tomorrow.


viv said...

Right point no 1, madam seems to be admitting she rang a BBC journalist friend on the Thurs night, so she did not hang around there did she! Never mind bothering with asking the police is that was a safe thing to do in relation to a little girl that has just been, ahem, abducted:

Reply ?No, no idea, I mean I've got my phone, I could look?.

1578 ?Okay, do you have it with you??

Reply ?I do yeah but, is there any way?.

1578 ?This phone number?.

Reply ?Yeah, is it a number that I rang??

1578 ?Called yourself?.

Reply ?Right?.

1578 ?At twenty two thirty six twenty five hours on the fourth of the fifth, so on the Friday?.

Reply ?On Friday?.

1578 ?Just after ten thirty in the evening?.

Reply ?Erm, erm okay well let me just have a look at my mums number, oh thats, that ends in ..., thats not right is it, erm 7, what did it end in again??

1578 ?It ends in 3319?.

Reply ?...., erm, erm did you say it called me, or I called it??

1578 ?That number called your mobile?.

Reply ?Ten thirty, (inaudible), well I don't know, the only people that, well I think the only people I spoke to, I know that a client did ring me one of the days but it wouldn't have been ten thirty at night, erm it was either that Friday or the following Friday to cancel an interview that was happening but I mean that wouldn't have been at ten thirty at night, erm I would think, I mean I suppose it could, it might have been a Journalist, because on the night that Madeleine disappeared, on the Thursday, a friend of mine, or friends of Matts and mine, Kath and James LANDALE and James LANDALE?s a BBC News erm and at the time he was like Political Correspondent, erm I saw him the other night actually reading the news on BBC News 24 but I rang him, or I rang his wife Kath cos I had her mobile number, erm basically to say you know that Madeleine had gone missing, was there any way that we could get it on the news and that was, that was on the Thursday night, so I suppose and it was the loc, it was the, was it the Local Elections or something happening that day??

00.05.56 1578 ?I dont know?.

Reply ?There were some sort of Elections, must have been Local Elections and James was out, away reporting on that but anyway Kath put me in touch with him and I spoke to him and I spoke to a couple of people on the BBC News 24 desk, so I mean you know, it must?.

1578 ?That was on the Thursday evening??

Reply ?That was on the Thursday night?.

1578 ?What time would that have been??

Reply ?Well that was sort of you know, midnight after midnight (inaudible)?.

1578 ?And this was just after ten thirty pm, twenty two thirty six??

Reply ?On the thir, but that was on the fourth??

viv said...

It just looks really bad to me, the police officer is going through several texts and calls Rachel had, including with people from Wales and on the MORNING OF 3 MAY AND THE SAME AGAIN ON THE MORNING OF 4 MAY

It just gets flipping worse! This woman is into press and PR and she appears to have been publicising before it even er happened...!

dylan said...

Hi all,

Viv, I deplore fox hunting as it is the most cruel and in"humane" way to kill a fox. The whole industry is cruel to its dogs too and all for a bit of so-called "sport". But then that is an entirely different issue and one which I could stand on my soap box for ages for!

Speaking of cruelty, leaving a sick child is also deplorable. When my kids had a sickness bug, I didn't dare sleep. I stayed up with them all night, changing bed clothes, nappies and cleaning them up. Above all, I guess I just wanted to be there for them to comfort them as being sick is very distressing for small children.

Thanks, Hope for the RO rog. I tried to follow the link to the 3as but I keep getting an error message. Nothing to do with your link but regarding MSN. I am no computer buff so I have no idea why! Do you have a thread title as I could maybe find it that way?

Viv, interesting theory about the window and the beds. For some reason, I have always thought there was a fall. Be it from a window or down the steps, I'm not sure. Do we know whether the flower bed that the cadaver scent was detected is below the window or the steps? If a fall did occur then it might explain why the scent was weaker in that site.

Off to bed now. Goodnight and sleep well. xx

viv said...

Rachel was speaking to her female solicitor friend and her husband is a BBC man, how handy! Rachel used to be a commerical solicitor, I wonder what her mate specialised in, criminal law??? Right from the off what was concerning this lot was the press and solicitors, very weird indeed! Nothing changed really, did it!

Reply ?Mmm ...., erm ... did it end in??

1578 ?.... yes?.

Reply ?Yeah that was Kath LANDALE, James LANDALES wife, I used to work with Kath, that's how we know them, she was a Solicitor and so was I, erm?.

1578 ?Whereabouts does Kath live??

Reply ?Erm in Hampshire?.

1578 ?Do you know the address??

Reply ?Erm you know it's something like, erm something............... mmm I mean no, not really?.

1578 ?No, don't worry. So again the relationship between you, is that you used to work together??

Reply ?I used to, yeah Kath and I used to work together and erm her husband James is a BBC Political Correspondent?.

viv said...

James Landale is the Chief Political correspondent for BBC News 24. He has just published his own comic verse for the 21st Century - Landale's Cautionary Tales, published by Canongate. In the spirit of Hilaire Belloc, it offers a code of conduct in humorous verse for today's impressionable youth: from the hazards of chewing gum to the pitfalls of overindulgence in computer games.

I cannot seem to find anything beyond mid 2008 for him, maybe there is but that seems a bit odd, will keep looking, anyone know whether he still works for the beeb in this top political role?

Funny we have had some amusing journos commenting on here, I am sure of it!

viv said...

More from Rachel, well no erm yea erm it was different the checking on the Thursday and er Mat never did before but he checked on the McCann kids that night, liar Rachel! W@ith all these group when the questions get tought we get so many more repeated words ums and ahhs, oh the pain, tell it to the judge, Rach, you will find it even worse!

1578 ?Okay. In the days before Madeleine went missing, did you at any time check on your children, if so, how often??

Reply ?Erm yes I mean when we were at dinner, that was what we did in the evenings was have dinner and check on the children, well I mean we only, until the Thursday, we only checked on her own children, so Matt and I just checked on Grace and that would of you know, every sort of twenty to thirty minutes, erm while we were having dinner?.

1578 ?On the Thursday night??

Reply ?No on, on, on the other nights?.

1578 ?On the other nights sorry?.

Reply ?And on the Thursday night you know it worked slightly differently and there was much more movement and much more checking than there had been on other nights for some strange reason, I mean not for anything particular but just that?s the way it happened, erm yeah and erm up until that night, each family had only checked on their own children, erm whereas on the Thursday, you know Matt, Matt when and checked on Sean, Amelie and Madeleine, erm you know and that hadn?t happened before?.

1578 ?Yes?.

Reply ?But the only time we needed to check was you know when we were having dinner cos that, that was the only time that you know Grace was left by herself, when she?s having her lunch time naps you know, we just sat on the balcony, we didn?t check, you know we didn?t check then that she was in the room, I mean you know, erm and otherwise she was in cr?he or we was at erm?.

viv said...

and then we move on to some questions from the McCanns, is that all from the PJ asks Rach, for the moment replies the police officer, not that he was trying to frighten her I am sure. Anyway do you really like Kate and Gerry, can you say that for them, well no, not really, it would seem:

1578 ?How long have you known Gerald and Kate and what sort of relationship is there between you and the couple??

Reply ?Erm I first met them at Dave and Fiona?s wedding in Italy in September, two thousand and three and we shared an apartment there, erm for sort of the three or four days that we were there for the wedding, erm and then erm I mean Matt knew Gerald, er knew Gerry already from work, erm but I mean, you know we weren?t sort of really close friends with them and saw them by ourselves, we?d only really see them if Dave and Fiona were around, er but you know parties and that sort of thing, erm and then the next sort of significant time that I remember seeing them was at Dave?s fortieth, erm and, and then basically the holiday?.

1578 ?Have you ever been with Gerald and Kate at their home with their children??

Reply ?No?.

viv said...

claims to have last seen maddie on the morning of 3 May at tennis courts, last pic?

1578 ?I think you?ve already covered this one, when was the last time you saw Madeleine??

Reply ?Erm it was when she was having a tennis lesson, in the morning yeah, about probably between ten thirty and eleven on the morning of the third of May?.

00.41.13 1578 ?At the tennis courts??

Reply ?Yes at the tennis courts?.

1578 ?Any particular court??

Reply ?Erm it was the one, if you were standing facing the courts, it?s the one on the left I think?.

1578 ?Got your exhibit here, number 101, are they the tennis courts??

Reply Yes, it was, it was that one, there are only two courts there?.

1578 Okay?.

Reply So it would have been this one here, where the children were?.

viv said...


1578 ?About seven??

Reply ?Yeah?.

1578 ?Until??

Reply ?Until about twenty past seven when he went back to help Kate put the children to bed, erm and then at the table then at sort of twenty to nine (inaudible) a bit then, oh well Matt and I saw them walking down to the table, sort of eight thirty eight or something like that and then we got down to the table at just after about twenty to nine?.

viv said...



1578 ?And then obviously at the table??

Reply ?Yes, erm we were all there until oh erm, well we were actually all sitting at the table at about erm nine, five past nine and then that?s when Gerry went off and did his check, think he was probably away about five minutes after he?d talked to Jez as well on the way back and then erm, and then Kate left at sort of about ten, just before ten, went up and came back, well she was probably away about five minutes, maybe slightly longer, I think she looked round the apartment, just to make sure Madeleine hadn?t wandered into one of the other rooms, erm and then she was back and then, and then we all headed off then, erm anyway then they were together I think for pretty much most of the rest of the night, you know they were both you know, pretty much hysterical and screaming and shouting and erm, then I really kept out of the way just sort of checking on Grace and talking to Jane, erm remember I was sort of avoiding being there really, just, you know it was just awful?.

1578 ?Yes, but you briefly checked the stairwells with??

Reply With Gerry yes?.

00.47.32 1578 ?Gerry?.

Reply ?Mmm yeah?.

1578 ?Yes?.

Reply ?Yeah and?.

viv said...



1578 ?What time did you arrive at the Tapas Restaurant on May the third??

Reply ?Erm twenty to nine?.

1578 ?Who was there already??

Reply ?Gerry and Kate and Jane and they were talking to a couple on another table?.

1578 ?Do you know who that couple was??

Reply ?Was Steve, I can?t remember what his wife was called, we played tennis with them?.

1578 ?What were Kate and Gerry doing by the time you arrived??

Reply ?Well they were kind of finishing up their conversation really with Steve and his wife, so I think we sat down and they sat erm sort of, sort of a few seconds later or thirty seconds later?.

1578 ?Did you speak to Kate and Gerry??

Reply ?Yes, erm can?t, I mean I do remember Kate saying that she hoped the children were okay because they?d said that last night they?d been crying and erm they kind of said her, ?Mummy, where were you?, so she sort of hoped, she hoped they were alright, erm and then it was just general chit chat really, think we talk, on the Friday there was supposed to be a tennis tournament and I think we were sort of trying to get teams together or couples together or something and you I think we chatted a bit about that, I think we were one man short, cos I think Matt didn?t really want to play or something, erm?.

viv said...


1578 ?What was their behaviour like??

Reply ?Well you know the same as it had been every other night, erm you know just happy, jolly, you know people who were having a nice holiday, I mean there?s absolutely no way that they?d, I mean you know, they didn?t do anything to Madeleine and there?s just no way that they could have done and you know, if, even if they had, there?s just no way that somebody could come and sit at the table and just behave normally?.

viv said...


1578 ?Who left the table during the meal and why??

Reply ?Well Matt left first of all to go back and chivvy Dave and Fi and Diane along, cos they hadn?t arrived by about five to nine, so he left and he said he?d just check on the rooms while, would just listen outside the doors while, you know while he was on his way back, erm he passed Dave and Fi and Diane as he was going, so they arrived at the table, erm Matt, Matt carried on and just listened outside the windows, erm he came back, erm about five minutes later, Gerry went to check and actually go in and look at Sean, Amelie and Madeleine, cos they?d only been at the table I suppose then for about twenty five minutes and Matt had only gone to listen at the windows, not to actually go in the rooms, erm then he came back having talked to Gerry on the way back, erm and while Gerry was still away, Jane went to check on Ella and Evie, erm and then Gerry got back and then Jane got back and then about fifteen minutes later, sort of about nine twenty five, nine thirty Matt and Russell went off to check on Grace and Ella and Evie and Kate got up to say that she was gonna go and check as well, then Matt and Russell volunteered to check on the twins and Madeleine instead of her going, erm so they went, Matt came back, erm and Russell had stayed behind cos Evie had been sick and so he stayed with her and then we ate our food and then Jane went to take over from Russell, that was so he could come and eat something, erm and that was probably at about twenty to ten, I don?t, not sure about that really but erm, yeah it was about twenty to ten probably, quarter to ten maybe, erm and they cooked fresh and then so Russell came back, erm and they cooked him a fresh meal and as he was, as he was eating that, Kate said she?d go and check and that would have been about five to ten, ten o?clock, so she went off and then came back, sort of five, ten, be about five past ten maybe and came back saying Madeleine?s gone and then we all got up from the table and ran up to the apartment. Diane stayed at the table actually, erm I think actually I?d taken my denim jacket off cos I remember her bringing that up to me later on, erm but yeah Diane stayed at the table and, and then you know, the rest, the rest kind of, well we all went up and then (inaudible)?.

viv said...


00.58.01 1578 ?A few moments ago on the, on the first account that you?ve just given me?.

Reply ?Yeah?.

1578 ?You said that he told you he was going to listen outside the doors?.

Reply ?Well the windows sorry, well he, yeah I mean mmm?.

1578 ?I just wanted to clarify what he actually said to you?.

Reply ?Erm, I can?t remember what, I mean he said he?d just listen outside, erm I don?t know whether he said doors or windows, but when he came back he said he?d listened outside the windows, I mean, erm I mean you wouldn?t listen outside the front doors and he could only listen outside the bedroom doors by going inside, so I mean, but I, I don?t know what he said exactly when he was going, but the assumption was I think that he?d listen outside the windows and when he came back, he?d listened outside the windows?.

1578 ?He actually mentioned windows when he came back??

Reply ?Yeah I think he must have done?.

1578 ?Because again you?ve just said, he said everything was all quiet??

Reply ?Yeah I mean, erm yeah I think he you know, everything was quiet, he?d just kind of put his ear to the shutters and?.

viv said...


1578 ?Did you see Kate leaving the table during the meal??

Reply ?Just at five to ten, ten o?clock?.

1578 ?About how long was she absent??

Reply ?About five minutes, slightly longer, you know, five to seven minutes maybe?.

1578 ?And what did Kate say when she got back??

Reply ?Madeleine?s gone, Madeleine?s gone, she repeated it twice, well she kept, I mean she didn?t actually get back to the table, she kind of was erm about three quarters of the way down the path that came from the Reception towards the Tapas and she shouted, ?Gerry, Madeleine?s gone, Madeleine?s gone? and then we all got up and ran after her and back up to their apartment?.

1578 ?How did she look??

Reply ?Distressed, upset, she was crying?.

1578 ?What was her behaviour like??

Reply ?Well I mean she was really upset, she was erm you know, shouting, ?Madeleine?s gone? and then as we?re running up the road, you know just carried on repeating that, erm and crying, sort of you know, kind of verging on the hysterical really?.

1578 ?Were you shocked yourself by what she said??

Reply ?Yeah, I mean my, you know, my initial reaction was that you know Madeleine must have got out of bed and you know possibly wandered into the garden or something like that, erm but then when, when Kate said that the shutters were up and the window was open, erm I mean we were shocked anyway that she?d gone, but then when the shutters were up and the windows were open and we knew that, that was even more disturbing, erm and it was just a really horrible feeling, erm you know the immediate thought was that somebody had taken her, erm and then you know, I mean as we left the table and went and was sort of following Kate, erm the sort of anxiety was growing about you know Grace and was she okay and was she there, erm so it was kind of a quick stop at the bottom of the steps of their apartment and then carrying on to make sure that Grace is alright, erm you know and she was, erm and then it was just sort of back to and then, and you can?t describe that feeling but erm where could Madeleine be and you know who could have taken her and erm and just sort of erm, that that and the anxiety and that feeling sort of helplessness and you know what we?re gonna do and you know, let?s start looking, it was that sort of, you know just general sort of you know panic and erm and you know Gerry and Kate were you know pretty hysterical and sort of inconsolable and screaming and shouting and erm and it was just a really awful sort of situation, erm and you know and it?s not really changed?.

01.12.35 1578 ?What did you do??

Reply ?Erm well followed Kate back to their apartment, we just sort of stood at the bottom of the steps and that you know, I didn?t really want to go in and erm and then went round to check on Grace with Matt, erm and then once you know we?d seen her and she was still asleep, erm Matt went off and I went to Russell and Jane?s apartment and told Jane what had happened and then Jane told me that she?d seen somebody carrying a child away?.

viv said...


01.17.53 1578 ?What did you do between ten thirty pm in the evening and ten am the following day, who did you see??

Reply ?Erm well most of the time I spent talking to Jane and sort of checking on Grace

viv said...


I mean we were waiting for the Police for a lot of that time cos they didn?t turn up for ages, erm and, and then when the GNR did arrive, erm you know, they came to say hello and erm Sylvia was there with them and so was Robert MURAT, erm there were other people sort of milling around in the background but Sylvia introduced herself and so did Robert MURAT, erm I mean he just introduced himself to me as Robert and we shook hands, erm and then sort of remember talking to somebody from I think, think (inaudible) one of the apartments on the floor above, sort of an older guy, kind of said oh he went missing when he was a child for about ten days and he, and he, you know he came back again sort of thing, well he was, I can?t remember whether he said he was taken or, it wasn?t that he?d run away, I mean maybe he sort of too young to remember or something but he said that he was missing and he?d reappeared, erm and yeah just and then erm after the Police arrived, erm I mean we were just you know talking about what we should do and then I thought of ringing James LANDALE and you know seeing if we could get it on the news, erm and made those phone calls, erm and then the PJ arrived, I don?t know what time that was though, probably about two-ish or something, erm and, and then I think we went to bed about three, maybe might have been a bit later but we did think we ought to go and get some sleep, erm cos there wasn?t really much that we could do, erm and then that morning, erm I mean Grace was always up sort of about six, half six, erm and when we got up you know everything was quiet outside, they didn?t seem you know the Police didn?t seem to be around or, there didn?t seem to be any activity,

viv said...


I talked to John CORNER who?s a friend of Gerry and Kate?s, erm cos the BBC wanted a picture of Madeleine, erm and he had some photos that he was going to be able to send them, erm and then and I think maybe about ten-ish, well we would have taken Grace to cr?he I think for about nine half nine I think did we that day, I think we took her, erm then I think about ten, half ten Gerry, Kate, Matt and Jane and maybe Dave as well, erm went to Portim? to the Police Station to start doing interviews?.

viv said...


1578 ?And you mentioned another guy, John CORNER??

Reply ?Yes, he?s a friend of Gerry and Kate?s who was in England, I spoke to him on the phone, on Kate?s phone actually?.

1578 ?Okay?.

Reply ?That was the next morning, sort of you know, eight o?clock in the morning, that sort of time?.

viv said...


1578 ?When did you leave Portugal??

Reply ?On the erm, erm the Thursday the erm seventeenth of May, it was a Thursday, I think it was the seventeenth?.

1578 ?And who was that with??

Reply ?Erm Russell and Jane, Ella and Evie, Matt, Grace, me and erm, no just us?.

viv said...


01.27.00 1578 ?So during that two week period then after Madeleine had disappeared, how many times did you meet with Kate and Gerry??

Reply ?Erm, I mean not, not that often, erm I mean I think, mmm, oh we didn?t kind of meet up specifically to chat or talk about things or see what was happening, erm I mean we just seen them sometimes at the cr?he when they collected Sean and Amelie, although quite a lot of the time Sandy who?s Gerry?s brother in law and Trish who?s Gerry?s sister erm collected the twins, erm I think one afternoon we kind of sat down in Dave and Fi?s apartment and talked to Gerry and Kate and they sort of told us you know what was happening and what was being done and erm that would probably have been either Sunday or the Monday, something like that but I mean I can?t be certain about days, erm and we saw them at church, when we went to church, I think the first time we went to church was on the Saturday and then we went on the Sunday, cos it was like a Mothering Sunday thing on Sunday, we went then, erm and then I think on the Thursday after, the following Thursday the tenth, there was some sort of vigil in the church and then we went to church again on the Sunday the thirteenth and on the Saturday the twelfth, which was Madeleine?s birthday, erm we went to a villa near the Resort, near, on a Resort and sort of had a barbecue and sort of had a quiet day, we sort of, cos it was Madeleine?s birthday?.

viv said...


1578 ?Do you think they were showing normal behaviour for parents who had lost a child??

Reply ?Mmm yes absolutely, I mean you know I?ve never met any other parents who?ve lost a child but I would assume that that?s how people would behave, I mean you know Kate cried a lot and erm, well I can?t imagine how people would behave differently, you know, I don?t think anyone could just sort of, yes alright okay this is you know, she?s disappeared but we?re just gonna carry on as normal, well you just couldn?t do that I don?t think, don?t think anyone could, so I think they, you know the way they behaved was entirely natural?.

viv said...


01.31.05 1578 ?During the time you were on holiday, did you notice any situation where Kate and Gerry were talking to any unknown person??

Reply ?No I mean, no I mean nobody that there was you know not another family that were on holiday but I don?t specifically remember them talking to other couples that, or you know families that were on holiday aside from Steve and his wife on the night of the third and then erm, erm I mean when the children were playing in their recreation area, but I don?t specifically remember them talking to anyone but you know we?d all kind of say hello to other parents, or you know ask what they?d been doing that day, that sort of thing, but you know, nobody that was like a stranger, nobody that didn?t have kids really, erm because everyone in that sort of, in the compound where the recreation area was and where the swimming pool was, were Mark WARNER guests, holiday guests and I think everyone had children?.

1578 ?Did you see Kate or Gerry inside any car during the holiday period??

Reply ?During the whole time that we were there, or just, or up to the third of May or, I mean I never saw them in a car the whole time, I mean there was no car?.

1578 ?Answers the question then?.

Reply ?Yeah, other than you know sort of going to the Police Station and that sort of thing, but that would have been driven by Police?.

viv said...


1578 ?Is there any supplementary explanation that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth??

Reply ?Erm what do you mean, in just sort of anything as well??

1578 ?I guess do you have any other information that would assist the enquiry??

Reply ?Mmm I mean nothing, you know it was just a really quiet Resort, there was nobody about you know before, I mean even after, until the media arrived, the place was dead really, erm I mean, kind of feel that you know, you would have noticed, you know ought to have noticed if there were strangers around or sort of people who looked slightly odd or were hanging around too much, but then again you know when you, kind of eyes that tend to be on the ground because you know, everyone?s got small children, you tend not to be looking up that much, so erm no but it was just so quiet that anyone really without children would you know, would stand out, erm you know but there were places where people could hide you know, there were, there cer, there were certainly areas you know near that car park and those apartments off, opposite where there are bushes, where somebody could hide and be watching us, erm you know and our routine was so set, you know every night we had dinner at eight thirty in the Tapas, erm and it wouldn?t have been hard to find that out, erm or to just you know, watch every night and see what we did, erm so but I mean you know, there was, you just didn?t see anything unusual, erm and you know the only thing that really sort of bugs me is that you know Robert MURAT was there that night and for some reason he said he?s not but you know, when he was arrested, or taken in for questioning, erm I mean had a really uneasy feeling about him on the night when I met him and I said this to the Portuguese, I said it in my, it?s erm, I did three statements and the third one that I did was specifically about seeing MURAT on the night, erm and when I met him on the third of May and we shook hands, erm and he said he wanted to help, you know he was one of those people that I just kind of took an instant dislike to almost, just felt really uneasy about him and erm he just came, he was just sort of very over familiar and kind of wanting to be in the thick of things, and I just thought that was slightly odd behaviour, erm and you know I, you know didn?t think sort of anything of it really at the time, just some you know, a bit odd, erm and then we saw him again, I don?t know which day it was, it must have be, it wasn?t, it was either, I think it might have been the Saturday erm I was coming back from the Supermarket with Russell, I think maybe with Fiona, don?t know whether it was Fi but Russell was definitely there and we saw him again and he just kind of said, ?hello and how?s things going? and then erm he was in the church on the Sunday I think, the first Sunday after Madeleine disappeared, erm and I just had this funny feeling about him and because when Jane had seen this man carrying the child, when we?d been discuss, you know when she told me that she?d seen somebody carrying a child, she said at the time she thought it was odd but you know, kind of as you?re wandering about every day, you see lots of things that are odd but you know, you don?t really sort of act upon it, erm so just cos I thought that MURAT you know just gave me a funny feeling, I thought I?d just tell everyone but I just thought you know, he was a bit strange or he just made me feel uneasy and I was literally about to do that and I remember I went for a run along the beach and came back, and this is on Monday the erm the fourteenth, the day that he was arrested or whatever, erm as I went for a run, came back, thought I?ll just, you know had a shower and stuff and thought that I?d go and tell everyone that you know I just didn?t like him and had this uneasy feeling about him and I switched on the TV and he was there you know, being taken off to the Police Station, which you know, made me feel quite sick, it was a horrible feeling, erm anyway that was kind of the end of that, erm and it was only, and then it was, and then the next day erm the only reason that sort of me and Russell and Fiona ended up doing statements about seeing Robert MURAT on the night, was that Jane was talking to Bob SMALL the next day about doing this sort of, I think it was connected to that surveillance thing she?d done, erm I think it was on the Sunday, erm and she?d mentioned to him that you know, obviously when I?d seen MURAT on the TV, I?d said oh you know, he was there on the night and you know we spoke, erm it was only cos Jane mentioned that to Bob SMALL that he ended up sort of calling back later on and saying actually you know, you?d better talk to the Portuguese about that, erm you know at that time, we didn?t know that he was, I mean I didn?t know that he was saying he wasn?t there on the night, that only came out I think, I don?t know even if I knew about that before I left Portugal, erm, erm so then you know, and then we, Russell, Fiona and I went back to Portugal to do that sort of sitting in the room with him, to see whether he?d kind of break under the pressure or whatever, erm I mean he didn?t, you know he was just telling lies about being there on the night and I, you know nobody, oh I don?t know, I presume that has been followed up but it just seems quite significant, I don?t know why it hasn?t been posted in the media, it doesn?t seem to have been pursued, which kind of makes you think that the Police haven?t really done much about it, erm you know they?ve kind of gone after Gerry and Kate and that?s been all over the papers and erm you know, there?s this man who was there on the night, who?s telling, you know, who?s lying about it and nothing really about that?s come out, erm you know in the Press we were made out to sort of be the bullies in the, that stand off with him you know it was all very controlled and you know, just yes he was there and he was saying he wasn?t you know, there was no shouting and screaming or anything like that which the Press made out to be, erm but you know he was there and the Police were there with him on the night as well, you know the GNR, I think he was translating, and yet you know he?s saying that he wasn't there and everyone seems to believe that, or that?s you know, that?s my impression anyway?.

viv said...


Rachael, you?re here voluntarily as a significant witness, assisting the Portuguese Authorities in the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCANN, which is as you know was on the evening of Thursday the third of May, two thousand and seven. At the end of the last interview, you indicated that you would like to talk about the conversation Jane had with you in respect of her sighting?.

Reply ?Mmm erm?.

1578 ?Would you like to run through that with us please, tell us precisely, as accurately as possible what Jane told you, firstly when she told you??

Reply ?Mmm mmm?.

1578 ?Where you were when she told you and then run through as accurately as possible the conversation??

Reply ?Okay, erm basically after Matt and I had checked on Grace, erm Matt went off to search and I went across to Jane?s apartment cos she was there with Evie, erm and just told her that Madeleine had gone missing, erm and I must have known at that point that the window was open and the shutter was up, erm cos basically when I told her that and this was in the courtyard, the sort of, well outside Jane?s apartment in that sort of courtyard-y area between our two apartments, erm Jane looked sort of quite horrified and then said that when she?d walked up to check on Ella and Evie at sort of ten past nine, erm when she?d passed Gerry and Jez who were talking in the street, she?d seen a man carrying a child walking across the top of the road and she said you know at the time, she thought it was a bit odd, erm but sort of didn?t, didn?t really think twice about it because you know the, it was the sort of place where parents carry children around at night because they might have had them in the cr?he, erm while they went off to have dinner and then we?d you know pick up the kids and they could well be asleep and be carrying them home to bed, so she said she did think it was a bit odd but you know, obviously with hindsight, of course she?d kind of gone after them but erm, erm and she, so she told me that and we just, you know, our conversation, we were just batting back and forth well you know, surely it couldn?t have been Madeleine, cos Jane said she?d past Gerry and Jez in the street as she was walking up, so she?d literally gone passed Gerry and this man was walking across the top of the road, erm so it was like, well how could it be Madeleine because you know, Gerry would have just you know left the apartment a couple of minutes ago after checking on them, erm and, and then, so but we came to the same conclusion that it was significant and that she?d have to tell, you know, she would tell the Police when they arrived, erm and I think I asked her what he was wear, what this person was wearing, erm and she said he had like a dark jacket on, sort of like a windcheater type thing, erm and sort of brownish coloured trousers, erm and shoes, I mean they weren?t trainers and they weren?t sort of proper shoes, you know but it, they were sort of something, I don?t know, like I don?t know, Hush Puppies, that type of thing, erm and she said that his hair was sort of fairly long, long at the back, erm not long as in, as in length but in sort of volume and we talked about, you know she said it, you know he looked sort of Mediterranean, he, or Portuguese just because you know the Europeans tend to wear their hair sort of you know, longer at the back, whereas you know most British men have it all sort of cut in and short. So she said he, no he didn?t really, that?s why she, I think you know, she thought it was a bit odd because he didn?t really look like a holidaymaker, erm cos most of the people wandering about, erm you know were all wearing shorts or, you could kind of tell they were Brits on holiday, erm so he didn?t really fit that mould and erm, she?d thought, the other thing that had kind of made her suspicious I suppose, was that the child you know wasn?t covered with a blanket or anything like that, was just in pyjamas, you know with bare legs and feet hanging down, erm so the child was being carried like that, you know the sort of head there and body and legs hanging down, erm and you know it was cold at night, I mean you know we all had lots of layers on, erm so she thought that was a bit odd you know, erm that the child just had pyjamas on and nothing else, erm and the person carrying her had a, oh you know had a jacket and, and long trousers, erm, erm so we sort of ummed and arred about that and you know decided that well you know, it just seemed too much of a coincidence that you know it couldn?t be insignificant, erm so you know Jane said she?d tell the Police as soon as they arrived, which she did, erm and erm she didn?t describe the pyjamas to me then, erm it was only really, I think it was the next day or perhaps even the day after that, that Jane, Fiona and I had a conversation about the pyjamas that the child was wearing, erm and Jane had said that they were sort of white with sort of pink flowers or something on and they had a bit of a, like a trim around the bottom, erm and Fiona said she?d asked Kate erm about the pyjamas, you know, what sort of pyjamas Madeleine was wearing, erm and sort of later that day I think you know, Fi came back and said basically Jane had described the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing, so you know, that absolutely convinced us that this person walking away was carrying Madeleine, erm you know Jane, I mean none of us knew, I mean I suppose I, I might have known what bed clothes, erm what pyjamas Evie and Ella wore but that was only cos quite often they came to read stories in our apartment, or you know if Grace went there, but otherwise you know, we didn?t ever seen any of the other children at bed time, erm you know, I know Jane hadn?t seen the twins or Madeleine at bed time, so she would have no idea what pyjamas, or you know, or what Madeleine wore to bed, whether they were pyjamas or a nightie whatever, so erm, so it was you know sort of like the two, I think it must have been on the Saturday, erm that the pyjamas, Jane described the pyjamas to Fiona and Fiona found out from Kate, erm what Madeleine?s pyjamas were like and they were the same as the ones that Jane had described?.

00.08.19 1578 ?But she didn?t describe the pyjamas to yourself on the evening??

Reply ?On the night no, we just talked about the man and what he was wearing, erm and the fact that he was carrying a child that was just in pyjamas, you know with no blanket?.

1578 ?What time did you have the conversation with Jane on the, on the evening??

Reply ?On the night, erm I mean it was probably about ten fifteen, twenty past ten, something like that (inaudible)?.

1578 ?And where were you??

Reply ?Erm just outside Jane?s apartment in that sort of courtyard-y area, between 5D and 5B?.

1578 ?Was there anyone else present??

Reply ?No there was just Jane and I?.

1578 ?Do you know if she had told anyone else about that sighting prior to telling you??

Reply ?No she wouldn?t have done because I was, you know I were literally, I went to tell her that Madeleine was missing, she didn?t know up until that point and then she?d said she, you know then that?s when she told me she?d seen this man, or the person and yeah I mean she hadn?t seen anyone out, you know, anyone from our group until that point, but she didn?t actually know Madeleine was missing ?til I told her then?.

1578 ?Okay and you mentioned earlier Rachael that at that point?.

Reply ?Mmm?.

1578 ?You must have known that the shutter was up and the window was open??

Reply ?Yes?.

00.09.38 1578 ?Do you know who told you that??

Reply ?Erm but I mean I remember kind of standing near the window with Kate and Fiona, erm so but I mean I don?t remember the specifics of anyone actually saying to me that, I think it was just sort of a general, Kate and Fi were sort of milling around outside the apartment, outside her and Kate?s apartment and cos I think at, either at that point or perhaps it was later in the night, erm you know Kate had tried to see whether you could lift the shutters from the outside, erm but which you could and they would stay up, erm so I think, I don?t think anyone told me specifically that the windows were open and the shutters were up, it was just erm you know kind of listening to conversations and seeing Kate and Fiona, erm sort of outside the apartment?.

1578 ?Did you at any point yourself see the shutters up and the window open??

Reply ?Yes?.

1578 ?When was that??

Reply ?When, when Fi and Kate were outside, erm you know standing by the shutters, by the window?.

1578 ?When you say by the window, do you mean by the building line, or in the car park??

Reply ?Erm by the building, on that path in front of the, in front of the actual window?.

1578 ?And when would that have been??

Reply ?Erm well I think it must have been just before I told Jane that, you know we, Matt checked on Grace and I mean I, I did, I thought we?ll go straight to Jane and you know tell her that Madeleine was missing but if sort of Kate and Fi and you know Dave and Gerry might have come out of the apartment and sort of been standing around there and talking about this, these shutters being up and the window being open, erm and I didn?t, I didn?t have a conversation with anyone, I just heard them talking about it, erm so I think it was you know in that time between sort of you know five past ten and ten fifteen, erm but it wasn?t somebody specifically coming up to me and saying, ?the windows were open and the shutters were up?.?

viv said...


1578 ?To your knowledge, was she the sort of little girl that would have gone with a stranger??

Reply ?No I don?t, no I don?t think she would have done, no, erm no, I mean, I mean, I don?t, you know I didn?t know Madeleine well enough but I know Ella who was you know a couple of months younger than Madeleine and you know, I mean she would, she wouldn?t go off with a stranger and you know just from sort of all our backgrounds and the way that the children are brought up, erm you know I don?t think Madeleine would either?.

viv said...

OF COURSE SHE DOES NOT SEE THE POINT OF A RECONSTRUCTION..not even if the police do! Maybe she did not want to show how she knew Maddie had just been abducted, Mat went off to search and she left Grace to go chat with Jane etc, perhaps that would have just looked odd...so easy to snatch a little baby..

Reply ?Yeah I mean we could be available but erm you know we?ve expressed our reservations about going to Portugal and about the reasons for doing a re-enactment, you know in a letter to Stuart PRIOR, erm I can?t really see how you know, what the purpose of it would be nearly a year down the line, erm you know there are lots, you know there are the full details about our movements that night and what happened and you know, there?s the time line that we prepared when we were out there which we thought was gonna be helpful for the PJ, erm and you know obviously since then there are all our statements and I know times might be slightly out and you know, but not, I don?t, can?t imagine they?d be sort of materially out, erm you know to make a huge difference, erm so I don?t really see one why it needs to be done at all and two why it has to be us, erm I mean you know, asking us as a group to go back and do that when it was, you know it was such a, an horrific event and certainly you know to be sitting around that table again and sort of pretending to go back and check the rooms and it would be, it would just be awful and you know, I mean much more difficult you know for Kate and, and Jane, erm you know than me anyway, erm don?t see why they can?t do it with actors?.

1578 ?Okay?.

Reply ?Erm and I can?t really see what the material benefit to finding Madeleine would be doing that re-enactment?.

viv said...



viv said...

I have found the post you got it from Hope, and I would like to know where this poster got it from and whether it is authentic because it is certainly not on the rog I have found.

Post subject: Re: Grace Oldfield
New postPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:04 am
Mafia Boss
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:49 pm
Posts: 3026
Location: France
Rachel Oldfield on the subject

“Okay, and when you went to check on Grace, what sort of checks would you conduct”?
Reply “Erm well we’d go into the room, which ordinarily we wouldn’t do to be honest, erm but she seemed to have diarrhoea and kind of, I mean she’d settled quite well actually cos she’d been tired every evening, erm but every morning when she woke up, she had diarrhoea and it had gone right through her grow bag and so there’s all of this sort of horrendous smell, so in the evenings when we were checking, we’d go into the room just to see if you know, there was any sort of smell yet, erm and just to make sure she was alright, to make sure she hadn’t been sick, partly I think cos Matt had been sick, just wanted to make sure that she hadn’t been, in case it was some sort of bug”.
1578 “Okay, and the route taken”?
Reply “Was up the road and then in through the car park at the back and in through the front door”.
1578 “In through the front door”?
Reply “Mmm yeah, I mean the patio doors were locked, erm yeah I didn’t really like going up there by myself, it was, like going through that car park was quite dark and there was never anyone around, it was a bit, you know made me feel a bit uneasy”.

heaven help us, why did any of them have kids!

hope4truth said...

HI Viv

THey were very strange remarks althoug reading the rest of the information they are bloody selfish parents... In England you are not allowed to send your child to nursery with an upset stomach my friend is a child minder and wont accept a child who is Ill as it is not fair on the child or any of the other children she minds...

Can you delete my post please it is not fair to have untrue things out there...

She looks uncaring selfish and wicked enought without me adding to it xxx

viv said...

Morning Hope

I will delete all references to this post on here, I think that is the safest best, because if they are false and people have written to his hospital, SSD etc, they are going to be hopping mad and I would not blame them!


viv said...

Cabo finally joins Doris and Flippingflops, a couple of baying vigilantes on another place and writes a furious letter, this bloke absolutely cracks me up:

Post subject: Re: March on Downing street
New postPosted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:29 am
Mafia Boss
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:58 am
Posts: 2805
flippingflops wrote:
As an alternative to a march ( i live "up north" so difficult) as anyone tried emailling Downing Street? if so what response did you get ? I have emailled GM loads of times and asked him on on earth they both sleep at night ,but for some reason I have never received a reply

Flop flops

I've worn out two iMacs sending emails.

Downing Street, MP's, ITV, BBC and the Quality, Value, Convenience TV channel, all to no avail.

Here is the copy of the BBC reply; downright rude if you ask me:

Dear Sr Cabo Frio

Thank you for your e-mail. I understand you're unhappy because you feel we should be a bit more conservative regarding the wonderful McCann family and their utmost innocence in the Maddie case. You being a BBC viewer for the last 51 years proves A) that you need to get out more often, and B) that you have no more privileges than a Latvian plasterer who has been working illegally in Britain for the past four years and has no concept of what a TV Licence is.

I'd like to assure you that I've registered your concerns on our audience log (actually it's an old Simon Dee running-order sheet). This is a daily report of audience feedback that's circulated to many BBC staff, many of whom canceled their subscription to Private Eye due to its high comedy value. News and Editorial teams, members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers spend most of the time rolling around on the floor laughing their heads off.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming. At the moment were are thinking of a Pilot set in the home of an Internet Forum Administrator, based on your correspondence. We are in talks with Patricia Routledge, with idea of her playing the Administrator One. The part of Administrator Two is a little more difficult to cast; do you know of any man who looks like Jeff Lynn and writes poetry and dabbles in Acrylics?

All content and all feedback we receive, whether positive or negative, is always appreciated, although, we would rather you keep your thoughts to yourself, or, sign up to Sky.

Thank you again for contacting us.


Philip Young
BBC Complaints

PS - Don't forget its YOUR BBC.


Leicestershire Police were no help. They said if I didn't stop wasting police time they'd come around and, in their own words "Fit you up like a kipper, you slag!"

No, I honestly think The Big March is the way forward.

Who fancies a Speed Dating Night after the march back at The Chequers Inn?

You never know chaps, you may end up with a quickie off Doris. :o3

Zodiac said...

Hi all,

Saw this on 3 A's:

Gerry's Blog From Day 650: 11/02/2009

Day 650: Where does the time go? I cannot believe it is 3 months since I wrote this blog- not that this seems like the most appropriate term for such a sporadic update. We remain incredibly busy and focussed on the search whilst trying to maintain a near normal life. For Kate and me life without Madeleine does not get easier but Sean and Amelie continue to give us a tremendous amount of joy. Amazingly Madeleine remains a large part of their life and they talk about her daily. We just have to find her!

We have a small team of people working tremendously hard behind the scenes- please do not think that because there is regular coverage in the media that the search has stopped.

I visited Lisbon last month and met with the UK Ambassador and our Portuguese lawyer. We need to explore every way we can work with the authorities to enhance the search for Madeleine.

Edited to Add this bit, missed off of copy and paste

Thanks to everyone who has sent letters, donations, prayers and words of support. It is all greatly appreciated.


Are you thinking JJ is Jay JAY?

Zodiac said...


Original source of above post.

viv said...

Hope the saga continues, I asked the poster on 3 As to give me the source and it is a 50 page doc where the comments are recorded on 3 As but I am still wary of putting on here just in case!

Just reading the first bit of it and big surprise Rusell and Dave were sending derogatory emails to Mark Warner about the rooms and the police officer establishes they all knew what rooms they had BEFORE they arrived which is one more thing now that makes this all looked planned to me. I bet it was real important the McFux got that end apt.

Beats me how people think these rogs were rubbish work on the part of the police!


viv said...

Morning Zodiac, I did see Bren post that and actually commented on how awful it is.

In relation to your second question, most certainly and I have always know this person was a plant who just needed to have her say!

She has not been banned:-)))


Zodiac said...


I have just read your comment on that thread. I agree it is an awful update. Especially:

We just have to find her!

What planet are these people from?

viv said...

Hiya Zodiac

In any case why on earth would he bother after a three month interlude.

The man is getting paranoid and it shows, serves him right!

No fame and fortune for you Gezzy boy, it is a slippery slope!


viv said...

Hiya again Zodiac

Interesting thread on 3 As here about Rosiepops/Supertroll, don't know whether you have seen it.

Ironside warns about "pure evil", he is certainly not wrong about that!


viv said...

Actually from that thread, bigl I know he is a bit naughty but he just makes he howl with laughter:

PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:47 pm
Hardened Criminal

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:58 pm
Posts: 1721
Location: brigadoon scotland
HI IRONSIDE glad your back and i hope you and yours are well :D

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh sweet old rosiepops a friend in need is a friend in deed a very misunderstood poster in my opinion with her/his heart in the right place.

my a rse what an utter c_nt he/she was on the DE totally f_cking hated me :D :D mind you i did get on alright with tinks (maybe that was because i wanted too pump her avatar) ;)
yip rosiepops def a nutter related too the mccanns imho :D

Zodiac said...

'1578 ?To your knowledge, was she the sort of little girl that would have gone with a stranger??

Reply ?No I don?t, no I don?t think she would have done, no, erm no, I mean, I mean, I don?t, you know I didn?t know Madeleine well enough but I know Ella who was you know a couple of months younger than Madeleine and you know, I mean she would, she wouldn?t go off with a stranger and you know just from sort of all our backgrounds and the way that the children are brought up, erm you know I don?t think Madeleine would either?.'

All their backgrounds and the way the children are brought up!

What way is that then? Dumped, crying in a crèche where they do not want to be and left in the holiday flats without supervision! Your child left ALONE in a holiday flat whilst you and her father had dinner and drinks at the Tapas Bar with your friends. The reason the child from your holiday is missing is because of the way she was being brought up! You also left your child alone in the flat when you knew a child from the holiday group was missing. What way is that to bring a child up? What kind of background does she come from to be treated so badly like that? Hope your mother has access to the internet and I wonder what she thinks about when reading how her grandchild was left in a holiday flat whilst her daughter and son-in-law ate and drank elsewhere. Also if your mother is a decent person. I wonder how she feels about her grandchild being left unattended when people you do not know very well claimed their child was stolen to order by an organised paedophile ring! Instead of being with your friends and checking on you child after the other child you believe was abducted, you should have been sitting in your holiday flat holding your child in your arms feeling so grateful that it was not your child that had been taken and feeling so guilty for being so selfish for leaving her all alone whilst you put food, drink and being with friends before her. What will she think when she reads your statement when she grows up? Background and brought up!

viv said...

Hi again Zodiac

Very sadly we know how children grow up who actually come from a very deprived and abusive background, starved of normal love, care and affection.

I hope if the Kate and Gerry mates have learned anything at all, it is to try and be decent parents but from listening to them, that seems like asking for the moon!

SSD hopefully can do productive work..for the sake of these little ones, let us hope so!


Zodiac said...


hope4truth said...

Hello Viv

Thanks for that..

The below???

Mat went off to search and she left Grace to go chat with Jane etc, perhaps that would have just looked odd...so easy to snatch a little baby..

So you are on holiday and one of the children is abducted.... And you leave your child alone again to go and chat to a friend???

We are no longer needed to produce speculation into this very sad case from their own mouth there is now way there was an abduction becaause if there had have been not a single one of them would allow their children out of their sight...


dylan said...

Hi all,

Off topic, I know, but I have read of two child abuse cases over two consecutive days, involving a 5 month old and a two year old, where both died under horrific circumstances. The details of which are so upsetting, that I can't even bring myself to post them. Words fail me. All this on top of another dog related death to a young baby. The grandmother who was left in charge of the child was and is distraught, but I just cannot understand why on earth she left the baby alone with them. A Jack Russell that are bred for agression to flush out rabbits and a Staff. Pit Bull, both in the same room and equally capable of exhibiting "pack" behaviour when in the company of other dogs. Where has the common sense and responsible parenting gone these days?

Di said...

Hi All

Well I have to say RO's rogatory interview is by far the most articulate that I have seen to date.

She states she never went into K & G's apartment after Maddie was reported missing yet she is able to give an account of exactly how Kate was behaving she cried screamed etc.,

According to other tapas statements Kate did not leave the apartment she screamed cried demanded a priest threw herself at walls etc., apparently causing the bruising, but did not leave the apartment so how did RO know how Kate was behaving?

Also RO is the only Tapas to remember exactly when she last saw Maddie. Surely she would have told Matthew and he should have said I did not see Maddie but Rachael did. I find this all very strange.

Rachael certainly wants to pin the blame on Robert Murat doesn't she.

Di said...

Hi Dyl

Where has common sense gone these days, I couldn't agree more.

Di said...

This is another interesting read from Valerie Lopes, sorry if it has already been discussed I missed a couple of days.


Wizard said...

Hi Viv and all- there's always one - I was posting on the wrong thread.

Just reading through Rachel Oldfield’s statement and have got half way through so far. This statement seems to rule out bundleman as a possible sighting of an abductor. RO says that at the 9.30 check Matt listened at the windows outside the Mc’s apartment saying. “Madeleine and the twins were basically in the room next to Grace” by this she must means the window looking out onto the car park. Matt certainly did not report the shutters were up or the window open. So if you believe in abduction it happened after 9.30pm and not before as Kate tells us the window was open and the shutters up at 10.oopm.

Wizard said...

Returning to Rachel’s statement she says Gerry left the table at about 9pm and was away for 5/7minutes. Well she clearly wasn’t taking much notice of Gerry’s coming and goings. As we know Gerry was supposedly talking to Jez Wilkins at about 9.15pm so he could not have been back to the table until at least 9.20. Which is clearly 20 minutes or more.
Returning to the Buddleman sighting she was asked “Did you see Jane leaving the table during the meal?” She replies “Yes at, not that long after Gerry had got back, oh no, no, no Gerry hadn’t got back, not that, not that long after Gerry had gone, erm so?.”

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!!

I think imo this clearly means JT did not see bundleman at 9.15 if at all. The time Tanner mentions is just to cover for her partner who had no checkable alibi for a very cruicial time.

dylan said...

Hi Di, yes it is a sad state of affairs but i don't know what the answer is. We live in a cotton wool, cocooned existence where it is apparently wrong to call an African friend "black" for eg. and so I think people lose sight of both reality and their senses. There are no longer any grey areas. One of my closest friends is black. She doesn't want me to call her "coloured" or "of African origin". She giggles at her own strap marks when she gets a tan and laughs at me because I go pink in the sun! It is all in the nuance of how you say something to a person - common sense, and an insult is an insult if it is said as an insult, no matter what word you use. Anyway, I digress, what I mean is that this whole PC thing, surpresses our natural common sense. If you take away a person's ability to think and act responsibly, then you cannot really blame a person for being thoughtless! The McCanns are highly intelligent people and i believe it to be the duty of those who speak for them, that what they did was not only thoughtless, but reckless. I cannot therefore understand, that in this age of blame culture, why they have not been publicly identified as having been such! IMO, it opens the door to other such tragic cases happening and who will be blamed for that?

Hope, your 13.41 post - well said. I wouldn't leave my children alone anyway at that age, but find it utterly fantastic (in the true sense of the word) to think that the others left them after they had found out a child had been abducted. That only leaves me to believe that they knew it was not an abduction.

Have a good eve all.


Zodiac said...

Hi all,


I caught a little bit of news last night about a 2-yr. old Asian child who was grotesquely abused by her parents. They claimed she died in the bath. A couple (neighbours I think) explained how they did not believe them, the male of the couple explaining on the news was lovingly holding his tiny little baby and stated that the father (I think) of the abused child showed no emotion, had the presence of mind to change his top and cook a meal and this guy thought that was strange behaviour. I thought who does that remind me of? No emotion and presence of mind to cancel a shop arranged earlier to be delivered for a return home from a holiday! Can't physically look but can cancel the messages! Oh maybe that is what she meant by being incredibly busy!

nancy said...

Hi everyone -

Viv - thanks for the statement from Rachel Oldfield. I hadn't read that before.

I had a lot of trouble getting on the blog today for some unknown reason!

According to Rachel, Jane didn't think twice about the man carrying the child - so how was she able to describe what he was wearing down to his shoes after walking by him no doubt oblivious as to who he was and not aware until later that his description would be needed.

Only later, when it suited her, did she give a detailed description of the abductor. If she was taking that much notice of the man, and remember she described him as a pretty suspicious looking character - swarthy, longish greasy hair, etc, how come she didn't look to see who the child was, especially as she was uncovered on a cold evening while he was warmly dressed? He was also carrying the child in an unusual way which would surely have made alarm bells ring. It just doesn't make sense at all.

Rachel Oldfield's statement, although a bit more coherent than the others, I think it is as full of holes as a colander!

One minute she describes meeting up with the McCanns and little Madeleine in Italy at a wedding, and then when asked again if they'd been with the McCanns before, she said No!

And, as has been said here before, what sort of Mum scoots off to look for Maddie oblivious to the need to check on her own child first, especially as she had been so ill. They were all too busy trashing the apartment before the PJ's arrived.

For innocent people, they are all very nervous and unsure of themselves. Typical of people who have a lot to hide from the police.

Zodiac said...

BBFN read you all tomorrow.

Di said...

Hi Nancy

Agree how was Jane able to describe what the abductor was wearing down to his shoes, let's not forget it was dark, porkies come to mind.

dylan said...


I know who it reminds me of! I think it must have been the same toddler but I don't want to re-read the article.

Nancy, you just wouldn't believe it, would you? No way would a person leave their child alone if they believed that another fron the same complex had been abducted.
Di too, we all take in millions of bits of images each and every day. If something we thought was just passing and irrelevant, we would not recall the minutiae would we? Just as I can't remember what clothes the girl was wearing who sold me my milk this morning!



viv said...

Hiya all

Here is a post I just put on 3 As, still trying to make sense out of these rogs and tease the fact from the fiction, it is not easy is it, but I am sure the police are doing better!

Mat and Rachel and Jane and Russell come across as one clicky little group. They travelled together and describe doing lots of things together. The four travelled back together on 17 May whereas the Paynes stayed with the McCanns.

If you have a couple who have two little girls and another who has just one baby girl, it makes complete sense to me that they would bunk the kids up in one room and share the task of babysitting and I think it is likely this is what these four actually did.

The Paynes had their baby monitor.

The couple who did not seem to integrate with the group at all are the McCanns and I wonder if they were the only ones who were actually leaving their children alone and for very obvious reasons.

What is very hard for me to deal with is there are so many indications this was planned and deliberate and the consequences of that are pretty shocking to contemplate but I believe they are the only ones who truly left their children completely alone without so much as a baby monitor. I do not believe for one minute Mat made the check that night and him and Russell going off together sounds a little more like what they generally did.

Maybe something terrible happened to Maddie and more innocent members of the group got convinced by Gerry this really was an accident?

viv said...

Nancy, I think the evidence would clearly tell us Jane did not go past Gerry and Wilkins at 9.15, but perhaps she did go along later to take her turn with babysitting so Russell could have his meal.

It seems clear that it is in between 9.30 and 10 that Maddie disappears. It would be clever of Gerry to put Russ in the frame for that!

I think Jane did see someone but the important point is the first person she described was not swarthy looking at all, as you will see below, originally she was saying he was white and actually giving a pretty good description of Gerry. I agree at that time of night and given she gave no import to it at the time he recollection would be very vague and most certainly would not include details of the child's pjs which she only started to recall on the Saturday with some prompting from Kate. WE know from other statements that on the Saturday the whole group were working on a computer producing a typed timeline which Russ then tried to give to the police as his evidence and they were quite naturally most unhappy with that. The whole thing completely stinks of this lot getting their heads together to produce some coherent lies but I still cannot understand why they did that if they are otherwise completely innocent because they have put themselves well within the reach of a Maxine Carr type spell in the nick.

Jane Tanner's description over time completely changed from the fairly vague one of a white man in dark jacket and beige trousers which she probably would have picked up. She starts to completely deviate saying he was swarthy and had thick hair, ie completely different to Gerry. I have to conclude that is because she knows full well that it was him!

Jane Tanner's sighting

5' 10" (25 May 2007)
5' 8" or 5' 9" (05 June 2007)
5' 7" to 5' 11" (09 June 2007)
5' 8" to 5' 10" (26 October 2007)
5' 9" (28 October 2007)
5' 6" (16 November 2007)
'probably 5ft 8in tall, he was taller than me but not 6ft and so between those two' (19 November 2007)


Hair that was short on top (25 May 2007)
Dark hair, parted to one side, slightly longer at the back (05 June 2007)
Dark hair (26 October 2007)
Black hair (28 October 2007)
'Hair.. the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair' (19 November 2007)

White (25 May 2007)
Caucasian (09 June 2007)
Caucasian with southern European/Mediterranean appearance (26 October 2007)
'More local or Mediterranean looking'/'swarthy skin' (19 November 2007)

Top clothes:
Dark jacket (25 May 2007)
Dark jacket, slightly longer than a suit jacket (05 June 2007)
Wearing a maroon shirt (28 October 2007)
Heavy dark coat (19 November 2007)

Beige or golden long trousers (25 May 2007)
Light coloured trousers which may have been beige or mustard coloured (05 June 2007)
Camel-coloured trousers (28 October 2007)
'He was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that's one thing in hindsight again I think was quite odd because tourists when they're abroad, Brits abroad would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something, and he had a sort of a big heavy jacket and trousers on' (19 November 2007)
'He was dressed in that sort of smart casual way European people dress' (19 November 2007)

Medium (25 May 2007)
Slim (26 October 2007)

Dark shoes (25 May 2007)
Black or brown shoes (28 October 2007)

Carrying child:
'Carrying, sort of, across the body like that. I suppose in hindsight you'd probably think somebody would carry them more against the shoulder.' (19 November 2007)

Child's description:
'I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet.' (19 November 2007)

Child's clothes:
'the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl.'

viv said...

re the carrying position - I think it is also posssible Tanner was telling the truth about that as well, if Maddie was actually dead, this would be an easier way to carry.

It is not inconsistent with the Smith sighting because when he came to a place where he was more likely to be spotted he could well have changed his carrying position, also because it was uncomfortable over a distance, dead weight if she was drugged or actually dead and I still do not know about that but now tend to lean more towards the latter again. The PJ did not seem to know after a lengthy enquiry although they could have reasons for being vague to help UK police, so why should we be so clear!

nancy said...

Hi Viv -

You have to laugh at Jane's memory. She actually managed to see where the abductor parted his hair! Amazing perception, yet other things that most of us would remember, she seems to have forgotten!

I still can't understand why she didn't look to see who the child was because most people I'm sure would look first at the child rather than the one carrying it.

If the tapas lot really don't know what happened to Maddie, just why have they acted as if they are all in on a secret pact - the one that Payne mentioned. Doesn't make sense to me because if they knew the McCanns were innocent they wouldn't have needed to behave as if they really were in on a conspiracy.

When you think about it, there were eight children on that holiday - how lucky (if they are telling the truth) the other parents were not to lose any of their children!

The story of the window must haunt the McCanns! I think if anything can ever convict them, then it will be because of their inconsistencies about the damned window and door!



viv said...

Interesting breaking news...of course we have perverted doctors!

Here's a link and the story ...


GP admits possessing child porn
Robert Manley
Indecent images were tracked to Robert Manley's computer

A Derbyshire GP has admitted possessing 6,000 child pornography images on his personal computer.

Robert Manley, who practises in Heanor, was arrested at his home on Wednesday after a year-long police investigation.

Detectives are still searching the 46-year-old's personal computer where the images - ranging in severity from category 1 to 5 - were found.

He appeared at Derby Magistrates' Court and was bailed to be sentenced at Derby Crown Court in March.

The court was told that the investigation had been started in Poland last March when police tracked computer users who were trying to upload indecent images of children.

One of the images was traced to Dr Manley's home computer.

Following his arrest, the GP was suspended from Derbyshire County Primary Care Trust.

viv said...

Hiya Nancy

Well there are some basic facts we know, the Police were as at the last we heard of it officially, only investigating the TAPAS 9 as being involved in Maddie's disappearance.

Courts can actually determine facts from enough lies and inconsistencies. Sooner or later this lot will face trial, there can be no doubt about that. I still think the major reason for the delay is the complexity of the investigation involving serious and international fraud and also possibly sysemtatic sexual abuse of children. Those pictures of Maddie wearing make up and in a sexually provocative pose are a fact. Of course, I am sure the police still want to try and locate little Maddie, dead or alive, that has always been really crucial from both a moral and a legal point of view.

I am confident there will be justice, eventually, this is altogether just way too serious for the police to give up!

We should remember, Gerry still needs to consult his lawyers and that is also a known fact.

As for Tanner, I would be quite happy to see her get 4 years!


nancy said...

Viv -

Another pervert who it is to be hoped will be struck off and given a prison sentence, and not just suspended from his job!

I think paedophilia is on the increase with the internet and also children can be snatched so much more quickly now everyone has cars.

I would never let a child of mine out of my sight these days, even though I know it's vital they do learn to be independent, but it's just too dangerous.

nancy said...

Viv -

I agree that there will be justice - there is no way this case is ever going to be locked away in a little black box!

Gerry going on in his short and long overdue blog about how busy they still are trying to find Maddie. I can't see Kate ever returning to work with all that reading still to do!!! He talks about how the children mention Maddie every day (no doubt because they are living in her shadow), which is unfair to the twins in my opinion.

K&G should not treat them as if they are an extension of Maddie. They are children in their own right. And it's raising false hopes in them to insist she will be coming back to them, which is the message they will be getting.

What they should be telling them is they don't know if Maddie will come back but we'll say a prayer every night that she will, then the twins will be able to accept that.

Very strange parents, the lot of them. Their children deserve much better.

Off for the night now - see you all tomorrow! It's snowing again!!


viv said...

Hiya Nancy

Paedophilia is very much a "white collar" crime sadly among professional people as this clearly demonstrates.

It is the educated and money grasping tory type of offender that poses so much more of a risk to children than the sex offender on the dole. He may just be targeting one or two but he is not the one who is getting thousands of children seriously abused and putting that on the internet for sale.

That is a "business" that all decent people should be right behind government/police efforts to seriously close down, even more so than drugs IMO.

So why, I ask myself do we have so many people criticising the police and the government in relation to this case, given it is beyond any doubt about some form of very serious child abuse. I think such criticism is seriously misguided because we in the UK do make a determined effort to catch child abusers, and continuing arrests like the one above just go to prove it and certainly prove that just because you are a "doctor" does not give you any form of protection from the law at all!


viv said...

Hiya again Nancy

Gerry just wanted to get back to "normal" as he calls it, wealth and happiness minus a troublesome child.

The fact that he feels compelled to go back to Portugal to see his lawyers and get back on his blogging box proves he has not managed to do that, and we hear no more of his psychopathic dreams of making £2M films about he and Kate have suffered or suing the PJ for one million pounds

The man is a nutcase and he knows where he is going, tick tock...


dylan said...


"I would never let a child of mine out of my sight these days, even though I know it's vital they do learn to be independent, but it's just too dangerous."

No, me neither! Even before I ever had the misfortune to hear about the McCanns!

Maybe I have had to resort to teaching them worldly things from home, I would rather them be lacking in education that I am not qualified to teach, than missing from under my care.

Sleep well all. xx