8 Feb 2009

STMT SILVA BATISTA, GERRY GOT ON KNEES AS GNR ARRIVED..









Gerry's fund raising Director of Finances, John McCann who promptly gave up his own job to take on the role. Similar personalities, these two brothers, so it would appear! The more studious Michael Wright another major family member and Fund Raiser stands by..observing the gesticulating spectacle





Volume II

Pages 355 - 356

Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista

Date/Time: 2007/05/07 11H20
Maintenance Services Director
Portuguese

(Intro deleted)
She is aware of the events that occurred in the Ocean Club resort, having had knowledge of the girl's disappearance, by 22H.30 on 03/05/2007, through
a telephone call from the administrator George Robin Crosland .
She immediately went to the Ocean Club resort where later arrived the GNR. A search started immediately throughout the village. Many residents and employees of OC participated.
On the 03/05/2007 she started working by 09H30, having entered the Ocean
Club through the area of the Club, having walked through the swimming pool area and later having checked the other swimming pools.

During the day 03/05/2007 she did not detect anything unusual or different.
No strange situation was reported to her.
After the events and in conversation with other employees and heads of the Ocean Club, nothing was reported or commented concerning odd situations, such as the presence of strangers close to the resort.
She states that the Ocean Club Resort has no system of video surveillance.
Ratifies and will sign. ..........................


She's here as a witness. She is responsible for maintenance in the Ocean Club Resort located in Praia da Luz - Lagos. Because of her profession she knows many people of the English community, who live in Praia da Luz.
She knows the Morat (sic !) family, who has been there for about 30 years. In particular Mr. Morat and his wife (error mother) Jenny. Mr. Morat was linked to building business and development of tourism enterprises, in Salema in her opinion. Mr. Morat died some years ago.
The Morat live in a house named "casa Liliana", near the Ocean Club.
Asked, she said not to remember whether the Morats have any child.
Asked, she said that on the night when Madeleine McCain (sic...) disappeared (03-05-2007), she was called by her boss, at about at 22:30. As she lives in Lagos she arrived shortly after at the resort. Close to the apartment A-5 of the OC there were already about 60 people to look for the girl.

RE ROBERT MURAT

She remembers, although she is not absolutely certain, given the time already elapsed, that an individual of about 1,70m, short light brown hair, with thin framed and light brown glasses, wanted from the start to help finding the child Madeleine McCann.
She doesn't remember at what time she saw him.
She doesn't remember how he was dressed up.
She doesn't remember who was with him, whether he came walking or in some vehicle. That same individual, she was told later, is the son of Morat, his first name is ROBERT.(So it would appear this is very unfortunate, it was not Murat but she was later told that it was, it would be interesting to know who by, David Payne looks just like him)


Robert speaks fluently English and Portuguese. He helped the GNR of Lagos and later the PJ, translating the testimony of some British persons.
She admits as possible that Paul and June of the bar "Duke of Holland" and Mr. Byron of the firm JNB (management of properties in PDL) should be able to confirm if Robert Murat was there when Madeleine disappeared, and eventually other details.

She states that she spoke for the first time with Robert on Saturday (05-05-2007) or Sunday (06-05-2007) or may be on Monday (07-05-2007), during the breaks between the interviews in which he participated as a translator.
She describes him as a very sympathetic and direct guy. RM was very communicative and extrovert during the conversations they had together. He didn't mention any personal subject.
She ratified and will sign...............................

RE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE

THIRD PAGE BATISTA
She made already statements concerning this process several times and remembers what she stated earlier, repeating here what the content of previous statements.
She is here because, with the passage of time since Madeleine disappeared she has remembered a few details on the testified facts that she believes may be somehow of interest to the investigation.
As she said earlier she was alerted about the disappearance of Madeleine between 22.30 and 23:00. She was at home and was informed of the event via a telephone call.
She drove immediately to the Ocean Club where she arrived a few minutes before elements of the GNR popped in.
After she arrived she went immediately to the apartment A5 where she found several people inside the apartment and outside of it. (CLEARLY DAMAGING ANY FORENSIC EVIDENCE)

She entered in the flat but soon left without having spoken with anyone, because she was informed that elements of the GNR were in the principal reception. She went there to meet them.
When she came close to the elements of the GNR she found that behind her was
Gerry, Madeleine's father, accompanied by another man whose identity she doesn't remember. Then Geny kneeled down, hit the floor with both hands, positioning himself as if he were a praying Arab, and screamed twice of anger, what he said being impossible to understand. Then Gerry stand up and accompanied her (the witness) and the other man in the car of the GNR to the apartment A5.
SO IT WOULD APPEAR GERRY PUT ON A FIT OF HISTRIONICS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GNR

She entered the apartment and asked for the passports of all elements of the family, and also photographs of the missing girl. She went with Gerry to the GNR car to hand over the requested documents. SO IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH PHOTOGRAPHS OF MADDIE WERE IMMEDIATELY HANDED OVER, HOW COME HE HAD THOSE?

She mentions she did this, as well as other tasks, at the request of the GNR Commandant, because she could translate their questions and the missing girl's family's answers.
She remembers Gerry gave the Commandant of several photographs of the missing girl. They were postcard-like pictures, taking into account their size and shape and seemed all the same to her.


She understood also that since the very beginning either Gerry or the others insisted on stating that Madeleine had been snatched, all using the word "abducted" instead of missing, and all showing much interest in informing the press of the situation.

She also recalls entering in the room where Madeleine should be sleeping and remembers now that the door was closed. The room was dark. The blinds were down, some light entering through their holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who followed her and the elements of the GNR, said he did close the window because of the babies sleeping in the room, a fact she confirms.
Gerry said that when he discovered the disappearance of Madeleine he noticed that the window and the blinds were open and the curtains fluttering.
She recalls that the beds which were in the middle of the room and used by the babies
were aligned and therefore found it strange that someone had taken Madeleine from the bed where she would be sleeping and had gone to the window because there was no space to pass.

She opened the wardrobes of that room in order to confirm that Madeleine wasn't eventually hiding there.
Then everyone left the room and someone shut the door. She remained for some time in the living room, near the GNR elements, Gerry and other elements of the group
who got in and out and spoke on their cellular phones.


She observed that none of the elements of the group including the father and mother of the child was concerned with looking for her.

The mother was sitting on the bed of her room, the father was with her (the witness) and the elements of the GNR, and other elements of the group got in and out
and spoke on the phone, anxious, in her opinion, to tell the press what happened.

She thought that the child's mother was devastated, the father was worried and
also asked to notify the press and to get dogs to search.

About the others she only remembers that Fiona and her husband, Payne, were hysterical with the situation.


At a certain time, after the arrival of the PJ elements, the parents removed the twins from the beds in which they were still sleeping and took them to the first floor flat.

At the request of Kate she (the witness) to remove their puppets (CUDDLECATS??) drink and a blanket that she took to the first floor flat. Only the mattresses remained.

She wanted to mention that around 3h00 Madeleine's parents asked for a priest to be present. They didn't explain why they wanted a priest but she (the witness) was amazed, because there were no indications that the little girl was dead and only in these circumstances is usually asked the presence of a priest. ONE CAN SERIOUSLY UNDERSTAND GONCALO AMARAL'S THINKING HERE!



At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child. JANE TANNER I PRESUME INTERESTINGLY NO TIME GIVEN, I BELIEVE IF SHE SAW THIS AT ALL IT WAS MUCH LATER THAN 9/15 WHEN SHE WENT TO "RELIEVE" RUSSELL HER PARTNER (IF THAT IS EVEN TRUE) AS SHE SO CHARMINGLY PUTS IT AS WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE STATEMENT OF WAITERS THE WOMEN DID NOT DO CHECKS ON THE CHILDREN THE ONLY PERSON THEY RECALL GETTING UP AND THEN COMING BACK SCREAMING WAS KATE MCCANN


This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man.

She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.


Asked about the way the members of the group were dressed up in that night, she only remembers that Fiona was wearing a green blouse, that Geny was wearing a dark shirt
and the husband of Fiona wearing clear pants, beige she thins.
And more she did not say. Read the self as the thought, ratified and will sign.

78 comments:

viv said...

Gerry had postcard sized photos of Maddie which were immediately handed to the police, so when Russell O'Brien says in his rogatory he was printing those pictures off that night from Kate's camera, that is a wilful lie. See thread

http://justiceformaddie.blogspot.com/2009/01/russell-two-prints-6-x-4-several-weeks.html

viv said...

So I still think we have 3 arguidos here, David Payne, Gerry McCann and of course Russell O'Brien.

We just cannot ignore the fact Gerry had a dark shirt on but David Payne had beige trousers on. Now that kind of throws my theory a bit awry - Gerry was the bundleman, but he could so easily have changed his clothing and logic would say he would most certainly have done that having been spotted by the Smiths as well as possibly Tanner. These are the three that sat there desperately cooking the timelines before the PJ arrived, no getting away from that one!

This just does not look good for little Maddie. oN 3 As they are currently talking about "paedophilic references" by Payne and Gerry according to two doctors who were on hols with them the previous year.

Trying to hope for the best is difficult.

Zodiac said...

Hi all,

'She observed that none of the elements of the group including the father and mother of the child was concerned with looking for her.

The mother was sitting on the bed of her room, the father was with her (the witness) and the elements of the GNR, and other elements of the group got in and out
and spoke on the phone, anxious, in her opinion, to tell the press what happened.'

Why are the UK public not being informed via our Press/Media of these shocking revelations. No myths, no speculation actual accounts of events from real people!

dylan said...

Good morning all,

Thanks for the new thread, Viv.

Hi Zodiac, your last paragraph: well said! We have seen selective reporting ever since the McCanns started sueing, and it has all been skewed in favour of the McCann's, in a most ingratiating fashion.

Viv, sadly it doesn't doesn't look good for poor Madeleine but i do think Gerry would certainly have changed his clothes. I always thought it very odd, asking for a priest. Now we hear that Gerry prostrates himself in front of the GNR. Dogs (no I'm not referring to Eddie and Keela!) prostrate themselves when they have done wrong, OK, so Gerry didn't roll over on his back, but then humans don't do this anyway. However, a natural reaction of an innocent person, desperately wanting help, would be, IMO, to want physical contact in some form. Ie. hugging, arm grabbing, etc. That is the way that we find comfort and communicate that we need help.

I cannot get my head around why they weren't out searching. As I mentioned in my first post here, over a year ago now, when my eldest two disappeared from a Charlie Chalk Fun Factory, I was running around like at headless chicken, screaming at everyone I encountered, their description and had they seen them. The tears didn't start until I had found them as I think the adrenaline overrode all other unneccesary physical responses, that wouldn't have been any help in a crisis.

Have a good day all. xx

Zodiac said...

BBFN

hope4truth said...

Hi ALl

They did not search because they knew there was no point. Whatever happend to Madeleine they were responsible for it the more that comes out the more obvious it becomes...

They were so arrogant they thought they could tell the local plod exactly what to do and being mere portuguise GNR or PJ they really belived they could pull the wool over their eyes.

I dont know what happend I would hope whatever did was not pre planned an accident or over sedation where little Madeleine would not have suffered at all or be in pain or frightend is the best I can hope for.

If it was and she has been given to someone I pray to God they at least love her and are treating her as all children deserve to be treated...

As for Gerry and Kate and their supporters I think the whole bloody lot of them are scum for what they have done and are still trying to do.

If Madeleine died and there is a cover up if she was given away it is apaling and an evil and unforgivable thing to have happend.

But if they want us to belive we are sick for posting as she really was taken then may they all go to hell because thanks to Kate not giving a single answer thanks to all the spin the diversion tactics the lies the diffrent time lines the fact none of the T7 would go back and do a reconstruction there is no way she could be saved...

Hopefully they will all be in a court room in the not to distant future and the fund and whatever evil thing happend to Madeleine will be there for all to see...

As for Madeleine I think it is too late and that breaks my heart...

xxx

Wizard said...

Hi All,

Thanks Viv for this article I haven’t seen it before. Looking at the crime scene photographs I can see what Baptista means when she says that the twins beds were aligned in the middle of the room she found it strange that someone had taken Madeleine from the bed where she was sleeping and had gone to the window because there was no space to pass. Anyone trying to exit via the windows would have had taken the risk of waking the twins up. The window as an alleged exit route is out as far as I’m concerned.

Dylan it’s interesting you say. “I think the adrenaline overrode all other unnecessary physical responses, that wouldn't have been any help in a crisis.” Of course you are right but the adrenaline imo stopped pumping for G&K after the alarm had been given - this was the ‘fight or flight’ situation not what happened to Madeleine as I am quite sure they already knew. Batista’s statement indicates any adrenaline residues was being utilised into placing into the public domain what happened was nothing to do with the McCanns. This was the most important factor for them that had to be dealt with and Batista tells us this is exactly what they did.

The dark shirt Batista says Gerry wore ties in with what he has said. I think he not only changed earlier but he destroyed the clothing. Hence the dogs found no death smell on his clothing.

Wizard said...

What I forgot to mention is no wonder Batista’s statement has been well tucked away it really highlights the unnatural behaviour of the McCanns to this crisis situation.

What on earth was Gerry doing prostrating himself on the floor as if praying to Allah? I know it was Kate who was covering the catholic angle but do we know it anyone called the Rabbi? lol

Wizard said...

In 2007, Esther McVey, then acting as a Director of the fund, was quoted as saying

“And with Mr McCann, the family’s main earner, on unpaid leave from his job as consultant cardiologist, part of the Fund has been used to meet their living costs.
“I haven’t got the exact figure but it is just under £300,000,”

£300,000 this can’t be right can it?
link

hope4truth said...

Wizard

300k how the hell could they have needed that much??? Not being funny but the apartments they were staying in could not have cost that much a week and all the jets etc were donated...

No wonder she jumped ship she must have realised it was not a safe place to be....

hope4truth said...

Actually it shows just how important they are compared to Madeleine...

300k on McCann living expenses...

250k on searching for Madeleine...

I do so hope everyone defending the McCanns really belive they are innocent because as far as I can see they are at least 50k ahead of her..

If you add on the lawyers and the money used to pay family members who gave up jobs to earn from the fund it is one of the most sickening stories this country will ever hear...

Wizard said...

Hope,
No wonder the Mc’s didn’t want to handover there banking details. £300,000, if true, means they wouldn’t have to worry about credit card transactions etc so some might have asked what they were living on and that of course would have caused an embarrassment.

hope4truth said...

Wizard

It is a hell of a lot of money in less than two years...

Would any of us worry about ourselves if people were kind enough to donate money to try and find our missing child?

I would be offended if any menber of my family offered to manage a fund for my child and expected me to pay them to do so...

Not a penny of it would be paid out unless it was to search for my child (posters maybe a decent detective agency) but websites come free or for a very small fee the newspapers and tv would run free ads (especialy if they had some exlcusive interviews and updates that cost them nothing)...

Then again before any of the above I would be giving the police a free hand to ask me my family and friends anything they wanted to and if I thought a single person was not answering truthfully would come to the conclusion that they knew something and would inform the police myself...

Of course I would also have been out searching all night and for the weeks in the future... I dont think I would bother to wash let alone tie ribbons in my hair and look pretty for the cameras and show the world how far I can jog....

Wizard said...

Hope - the comment about the £300,000 was made in 2007 so no wonder Esther McVey decided to quit – all sounds a bit dodgy to me. The money must have been used to pay for all those hangers-on flying in and out of Portugal and no doubt being wined and dined at the Funds expense. I still think this figure is wrong because if correct it is breathtakingly scandalous.

Wizard said...

Sorry there was an error in my previous link.

link

Di said...

Hi All

Wizard

Thanks for the link, very intresting regarding the 300K. Ester had a good escape if this is to be the case, the truth will out.

When it was reported that all the visiters, family and friends, spent their day round the pool and restaurants laughing etc., I thought what is going on here and who is paying for all of this, yes the fund. They should all be ashamed.

Di said...

HI Dyl

Did you get my mail?

dylan said...

Hi all,

Just popping in briefly as I have loads to do!

Di, I have just checked my inbox and I can't see any new mail :( Has Viv given you the right address as my hotmail a/c is the only one I use now?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

BBL when I have more time. xx

viv said...

Hiya Zodiac

I think isssues likes they immediately started contacting the press and made no effort to look for Maddie are part of the criminal case against them. Again, not wishing to really try and defend our press but if they print such details that so clearly demonstrate they were involved in Maddie's disappearance, that could prevent a fair trial from taking place.

When you look at many of the stories printed in the Express and Mail they did include a lot of these details. Anyone who could actually believe they are in fact innocent seriously has their rose tinted's on. It is obvious to me when you look at those rogatories the British Police were focussing on the evidence against them and as Russell would say they are seriously in the sh1t.

He may like to say there is no evidence against them but unfortunately for him there most certainly is. Ms Batista is a reputable and honest first hand account witness of precisely what they were doing.

But although the police know for a fact they were involved, still they do not know precisely what they did with little Maddie, but I strongly suspect they have a much better idea than we do and I still think it is along the lines of what I have been recently saying.

You just cannot get away from the fact that this was planned and deliberate, so then you have to ask yourself, did these people actually plan to murder Maddie, that is hard to believe, but something almost as sinister is not, IMO.

If this just involved them placing Maddie in another home and then cashing in, why would two of these men also be involved?

Why would two other doctors who have been on holiday with them, find their conduct so odd that they need to report it to the police and never want to go on holiday with them again?

There is something very seriously wrong with Gerry McCann and he is really struggling now IMO.

xx

hope4truth said...

Wizard

Thanks for the link it is mind blowing...

Di Just the fact that it was reported the friends and family were round the pool laughing should be enough to show the public something evil is going on...

My daughters friends baby brother died recently and she was mortified and said that most of her year was unsusualy quiet and all trying to say something useful and helpful and how sad it was... Life moved on but she said it was hard to be happy when something so awful had happend and I think they are all very mindful of wha they say as they dont want to upset her.

I cant understand any of the family behaving in the way they have what planet are they from? Seriously cant belive they are all in on it and if they are not a 3 year old child is missing and they have been told she is in the hands of a peadophile ring..

So my question is what the hell is there to smile about???

The fund and the happy snaps will get them in the end...

xxx

viv said...

Hiya Hope

What they want us to do is call Ms Batista, the waiter, Mrs Fenn, The Smiths etc a bunch of liars and just believe what they say.

When we can see that they have told wilful and deliberate lies who on earth should we do that?

What normal witness in a missing child investigation would tell lies? What possible reason could they have for telling lies about people, there just is no reason is there? There are more witnesses to what happened I believe than the hoped for and it is very helpful to have Ms Batista's statement so accurately and immediately capturing their behaviour.

Stevo on 3 As is posting about the Daily Telegraph changing the time and date on their original article from 21.01 4 May 2007 reporting the disappearance. This is crucial evidence against this lot. They were contacting the press before they even had police advice about it which is an absolutely terrible thing to do and quite obviously guilty. How could educated people think this was the right thing to do with a child who had been abducted, maybe even kidnapped for ransom? They just would not do that and put her life at risk but that is what they have always done, it was a good marketing ploy!

xx

viv said...

shucks my typing 12.01 of course!

mandarinn said...

Good evening all.
VIV,there are something i don't understand about the new hipothesis you are defending now: madeleine can be alive and well.It will explain the lack of preocupation in looking for the child and also the smiles and so... however with the publicity of Maddies eye defect and all the pictures she needed to be in a very secret place.
The hypothesis of being sold or given to a family doesn't result because she will be recognised...IMO he only weak possibily could be if Maddie suffered from some ilness and was put secretly in treatment... but why?
Which other possibilties do you found to think she can be alive?

viv said...

Wiz thanks for the link to Anna, she is very interesting!

I am going to try and look for that comment from Esther McVey, but take one simple thing, Michael Wright flying out on no less than 6 occasions and his accommodation costs. Without all the rest that would be very expensive. I know that Martin Warner said they would meet some of those costs, it would be very interesting to hear just what it did cost them. But one thing is for sure, they certainly did not make a profit when the TAPAS 9 descended, they must have made a very substantial loss.

I like the acid comment from Anna, well they did not want strangers looking after their children at night, the same strangers who were looking after them during the day! Not a friend of Kate and Gerry's that is for sure!

xx

viv said...

Hello Mandarinn and how lovely to hear from you again!

I do not think I have ever said Maddie could be "alive and well". That would just be saying the same as Kate and Gerry McCann?!! In fact only perhaps a day or so back on the 3 As I wrote that even if the McCanns handed her to a "nice" family she most definitely would not be well. What I have actually been saying is that it is possible given what the Smiths say that Maddie was alive when Gerry carried her down to the beach.

A lot of people seem to be misquoting me for some reason, I have never suggested that she might have been "sold" either although clearly anything is possible..

I am actually far more interested in your last comment if Maddie suffered some illness and was put in treatment. If you look at what is clearly being implied above, that I am afraid is not beyond the realms of possibility. People who abuse children can cause them severe physical and emotional harm, Maddie was due to go to school that September, would she have been in a fit state for that. Hypothesis is a good word because those are all we have, it is clearly very possible Maddie died in the apt but there is no real evidence to support this, that does not mean it did not happen! The only thing I am really clear on is the police have always focussed on the right people as being involved in her disappearance, no doubt about that!

If you seriously want to look at what the authorities believe the best place to look is where we can see what those authorities have actually said something. For example the Order of Mrs Justice Hogg in July 2008 where it was clearly believed Maddie may well still be alive. That was after a very extensive investigation by both Portuguese and British Police, to ignore that would be foolish IMO.

I also think that just writing her off as dead when we have no real evidence of that is wrong, morally. It is something that has troubled me and something I have sought to put right by at least admitting well yes, maybe she could be alive, but she certainly would not be well.

So far as secreting her goes, the McCanns have relatives in Canada, a very good place to secrete!

xx

mandarinn said...

Thank you VIV for clarify my douts. Actually i allways thought something was very wrong on this couple behaviour, i interpreted it as, knowing the child had died accidentally , she didn't suffered anymore;, but only saying she was taken by a paedophil ring, make me sick, even knowing it is not true.
The possiblity of being alive was something ihad considered.. but after the dogs work, mainly eddie .. i put it aside.
Considering the words of the lady judge, i thought it was formal words and it could be relaed with the protection the couple had... i remenber she said something that put them as good parents.
After all we have to take all possibilies and that one is less explored.
In any case, exception if the parents are not envolved at all( which i don't believe),their behaviour taking profit of whatever happened to their daugter is disgusting.

viv said...

Hi Mandarin

I am copying below the words of Mrs Justice Hogg and she does not say they are good parents.

On the contrary she says that Maddie became a Ward of the Court during April 2008. This means she took all rights and responsibilities away from the McCanns and gave those rights to decide what is best for Madeleine to herself, a power she clearly has in UK law. It is very significant that Clarence Mitchell chose to lie in the UK press about this. He claimed the McCanns themselves made her a Ward in May 2007 when clearly they did not, they applied to the court to get orders to force police to hand information over to them. I would suggest their reasons for doing that were perfectly obvious. Take the statement of Ms Batista above, there is no way the McCanns and their colleagues did not immediately realise they were under suspicion by the police.

Mrs Justice Hogg goes on to clarify that of course Maddie and her parents are British citizens and so in spite of the investigation happening in Portugal UK courts have jurisdiction. A point people just do not want to accept and I cannot understand why. Portugal have spent more than enough on investigating this, why should we not take over and deal with these British people! This is what always happens.

I have no criticisms of the parents in withdrawing their application they have behaved responsibily throughout. This is a remark that is much misunderstood I believe. She is talking about the court process and it was responsible and reasonable to accept they continue to be investigated and cannot have the police file. People really do suffer when they are being extensively investigated by the police. If people were hoping that Mrs Justice Hogg would pronounce them guilty they were very deluded. That is a matter for a criminal court on presentation of all the evidence. Had she already pronounced them guilty she would have completely ruined any chance at all of putting them on trial, something she clearly would not do. Most of the public do not understand the law and were clearly upset by her remarks but I understand them perfectly well.

--


Mrs Justice Hogg: Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal. On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards. On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward. At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive. She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here. The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today. The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine’s parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given. The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so. I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout. I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application. I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words: “The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court”. It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden. I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine. I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made. There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found. I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God. I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found. I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well. I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court. The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.

viv said...

Hiya Mandarin

Just did not quite answer all your post, they clearly are involved and in it is right we look at all ways in which they may have been involved.

It is truly disgusting the way they have cashed in on little Maddie and that is something that always hit me really hard and it still does. It is disgusting, it is wicked.


xx

Di said...

Hi Dyl

No I sent it to Gmail.

x

viv said...

HIya Di


Is there still some problem with email addresses, anything I can do?

xx

Di said...

Hi Viv

It would appear Dyl did not get my mail sent to Gmail, Dyl is using Hotmail account.

x

Di said...

Off now

See you tomorrow.

xx

Zodiac said...

Hi all,

Mandarinn lovely to read you again.

300k err, hmm, now I know the public have been told the mortgage was 2k pm. Did they pay two payments of 2k or did they pay it off...300k eh!

R O'B says in his statement on the other thread:

'and have our lives literally turned into further episodes of some shitty soap opera,'


Well Dr O'B I agree it is a shitty soap opera created by your two friends who left their kids to eat with you and the others that night. The shitty soap opera depicting the life of the McC's, what they had for brekkie, lunch and supper, details of the minuscule amount of quality time with the remaining nippers, all the sickly PR photo's. You know it is a badly written script badly acted by two phoneys it is so bad it actually makes that crappy British soap opera of the past about Brits living in Spain (what was it called Eldorado) look like a play Shakespeare would pen! They should call their shitty soap opera after their favourite New Zealand wine!


BBFN read you all tomorrow.

hope4truth said...

Zodiac

If I was on holiday and a friends child went missing I would tell the truth search for the child and cling on to my own tighter than I ever had before...

If Madeleine has ruined his own selfish life then tough bloody luck..

If she was taken it was because they all dumped the children to go to a bar giving each other false confidence to do so...

He would not return for a reconstruction and has lied..

SO sorry if I hope your life is shitty you revolting man Madeleine we are told was snatched by peadophiles I would imagine her life is HELL ON EARTH but your friends have laughed it up on her birthday...

You want your life back start telling the truth because so far you have walked all over Madeleine as if she did not have a right to a happy and carefree life...

Scum each and every one of you

viv said...

Hiya both,

well clearly there is one way for Russell to get himself out of that shitty soap opera as he so pleasantly puts it, but, I fear his life would be even worse that that if he did.

So think yourself lucky Russell and enjoy what you have got left, whilst you can, which is clearly a lot more than little Maddie has left of being with her family and being a normal happy little girl. Shame you did not think about that when sounding off, in a complete rage, just like a criminal which you are.


xx

dylan said...

Hi all,

Lovely to "see" you again Mandarinn :-)

Thanks for the link, Wizard. Ms Racoon seems to have the McCanns expenditure spot-on and is rightly gobsmacked at the "living expenses"! It is a shocking waste of cash if Maddie really has been abducted. Then again, I doubt she has, since Kate didn't bother to answer those questions and neither Kate nor Gerry went to search for her. I see she has noticed too that
less McDalies have dropped the word "abduction", preferring to use "missing"!

Viv, it is interesting about the time that they called the police too. Stalling, comes to mind....

Di, I checked my Gmail a/c but could only find one message from Viv dated the 14th Jan. I find Gmail really confuses me as I have problems accessing my mail there, which is why I only use hotmail now. I hope all is OK with you?

Off to bed now. Sleep well. xx

viv said...

Going back to the McCanns absolute desire to become rich and famous due to the disappearance of their little girl.

Why would they get so upset about the findings of the dogs and Portuguese Police allegations they killed her? Why would they go to such trouble to discredit all that?

I think the answer to that is pretty simple, not only would it damage their, ahem, reputations, it would damage the very reason all this happened, the Fund, the films, the books. Look at that picture of this man, smurking outside the Whitehouse, who could be in any doubt what was going through his head, him and Kate would be fated the world over and heavily paid for on the lecture circuit.

If there is one thing we have to thank Goncalo Amaral for, it is putting a stop to that! No wonder they do not like him!

xxx

viv said...

Dilly, the stalling about calling the police, maybe Gerry thought they had to put some clear blue water between the disappearance and the police being called!

Whether she was alive or dead it certainly looks to me like she was off on a boat.

How convenient for this to happen whilst they were on holiday in Portugal! The holiday Kate just had a terrible premonition about and did not want to go on.

But not for poor Maddie

xx

viv said...

Ah just picked this up, now if Goncalo does sue this chap, that should be fun!
Go for it Goncalo!! but there again, would he be fit to plead:-))))


The former Inspector of the Policia Judiciária in Portimão confirmed he will proceed with a lawsuit against Marcos Aragão Correia and suggested that the attorney suffers from psychological problems. He also reaffirmed that he is not an arguido for torture against Leandro Silva

Gonçalo Amaral suggested yesterday, in statements to 24horas, that Marcos Aragão Correia, lawyer for Leonor Cipriano, suffers from a psychiatric illness. This is another episode of verbal war between the ex-inspector of police in Portimão and the lawyer.

"Friends of mine who are connected to medicine, with whom I have spoken, tell me that Aragão Correia is in need of being compulsorily admitted. I think that says it all," said Gonçalo Amaral. "For me, it is not as a person, but only as a lawyer," said the former inspector.

That the lawyer has said that the former inspector has been constituted an arguido by the Public Ministry, due to the practice of alleged crimes of torture against Leandro Silva, husband of Leonor Cipriano, Gonçalo Amaral was peremptory: "No comment because everything is false. I will move with a case (against Aragão Correia). When? Inside the legally established period, that is, I have six months to do so."

The quest to be the leading character

The former inspector of the PJ is to be judged in a case where Leonor Cipriano, mother of Joana, guarantees to have been tortured on the premises of the PJ in order to admit the death of her daughter and the place where the corpse was hidden. In this case, Amaral is charged with failing to denounce. However, Marcos Aragão Correia wants to prove the veracity of the thesis of torture.

"Mr Aragão Correia has a goal, and that is the demand to be the leading character in the limelight. But he also knows that he follows the Order of Lawyers [Bar Association]. I will deal with the case by that establishment, I will deal with the case in court and, I stress, if necessary with a compulsory internment, and that, it seems, is what that man requires," concluded Gonçalo Amaral.

24horas tried to talk to Aragão Correia, but he has remained uncontactable.

viv said...

just in case any should misconstrue that I mean would Correia be fit to plead!

viv said...

Weary on why Gerry McCann would always demand the "top man" and demand sympathy for a media circus of his own making...indeed! Clarence Mitchell: Moron, love it!


Post subject: Re: MAIN MADELEINE THREAD MK I
PostPosted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:04 pm
Local Lag

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:34 pm
Posts: 861
And what exactly was it that he expected the Embassy to do in the middle of the night? Yes, fine, you want the Embassy to know a British citizen is missing and you want to ask if they can help. And they send somebody down the following morning, because there isn't actually anything an Embassy can do to prod a foreign government into proceeding with an investigation if the foreign government is, well, proceeding with an investigation anyhow.

Embassy staff would have a pretty good idea that the parents are often the prime suspects, that a country that has open borders can't shut them down, and after speaking to the PJ would know that yes, they were in the process of investigating, and that they hadn't narrowed down the investigation from possible abduction to possible parental involvement. What exactly could the Embassy do in the middle of the night or even the next morning other than hold hands and calm the parents of a missing child down by reassuring them that the crime was being investigated properly? Perhaps the Top Man could call and say exactly the same thing--but beyond that, what could the Embassy or Ambassador do? Frankly it doesn't sound as if Gordon Brown called because they were old buddies or had friend in common. It sounds as if he called to reassure and calm down a citizen who was causing a stink, making demands, and generally making a pest of himself. Fair enough; if anyone has a right to do that, it's the parents of a child who has been stolen. The chances of calming Gerry and Kate down when they felt they needed to court the press and establish that it was an ABDUCTION, dammit, an ABDUCTION, whatever these inept Portuguese incompetents thought, was nil.

And fair enough that once the Embassy saw what a media circus was gathering, they sent someone over to act as the parents' spokesperson. That would be a compassionate and sensible thing to do, normally, if shellshocked parents couldn't get out of their flat to get groceries because it was ringed with reporters ten deep. The Embassy might very well put in such a request to the FO. It's only in hindsight that we know that the reporters were there because the McCanns wanted them and that they weren't ordinary parents of a missing child but people who were stage-managing things in hopes that they looked like grieving parents harassed by reporters, rather than neglectful parents. The Embassy staff member who questioned things early on was right on the money, but there was no proof that they'd acted criminally then, so what could the Embassy do then, before the investigation formally termed the parents arguidos? Throw them to the dogs? They did eventually withdraw their support for a spokesperson; they didn't underwrite the circus forever.

Clarence certainly seems to have thought he was the government's Top Man, instead of its third choice for the job. Moron.

Wizard said...

Hi Viv,

I was just reading your post about Marcos Aragão Correia and his current state of mind. I have to say it would be a really brave psychiatric assessment that suggested Mr Correia was completely well. Whether he is psychotic and unable to plea because of this is unlikely but he certainly has problems as we have seen with his obsession for searching for dead bodies!

Wizard said...

Hi All,
This article below is translated by Joana Morais from the front page of 24 hours and is well worth a read. Much of it we have discussed before but interesting anyway.

"The Madeleine Fund has received almost 3 million euros from private donors, but the accounting fails to explain where all the money has gone to.

by Duarte Levy (in London)

The Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited fund, which was created by Kate and Gerry McCann nine days after Madeleine disappeared from the apartment in Praia da Luz, received, until March 2008, almost three million euros in donations, but only 13,3 percent of the money has been spent with the investigations that, according to the couple, are searching for their daughter. The Madeleine fund’s accounts from May 2007 until March 2008 were only revealed after some of the aspects of the use that was given to the money by the McCanns were discussed during the TVI talk show “As Tardes da Júlia”. According to the official document that we had access to, the fund that was created to finance the searches for Madeleine received a total amount of 2.819.403 euros until March 2008, of which only 1.222.669 euros (43.37%) were spent, mostly on current expenses. The fund then presented a positive balance of 1.596.733 euros (56.63%).

Curiously, the McCanns spent 122.856 euros (4.36%) on posters and adverts, but the document fails to specify exactly where these items were distributed, which leaves some commentators perplexed, given the fact that several poster distribution and outdoor campaigns for Portugal and Spain that were announced by the British media never materialised, and even in Morocco, the country where the investigators that were hired by the McCanns believed that Maddie was located, the few posters that were distributed were those that Kate and Gerry brought when they visited, and handed over to the children that had been assembled for the occasion. Another curious piece of data is the fact that the accounts do not show the amounts that the couple used to pay the two instalments of the mortgage on their house, which were paid with money from the donations, according to confirmation given to the media by Clarence Mitchell, a former head of Tony Blair’s government’s media monitoring unit and the McCanns’ spokesman.

All in all, the couple spent 224.529 euros (7.96%) on public relations and media monitoring, expenses that are not supposed to include – if we take his own statements into account – Clarence Mitchell’s salaries, but reveal a constant preoccupation with what is being said in the media, and not forgetting about the internet where the couple’s lawyers have been threatening some of those who don’t believe in the theory of Maddie’s abduction. Since May 2007, the internet has actually been a constant preoccupation for the McCanns, which might eventually explain the amount that was spent on the creation and maintenance of the internet pages for the Fund and for the virtual store, where t-shirts, bracelets and other objects related to the little girl can be bought: according to the expenses that have now been declared, the site cost 55.606 euros (1.97%) over eleven months of activity.

Rich, very rich…

As long as Madeleine’s body is not found, the Madeleine Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited fund has its future guaranteed, as its purpose is to continue the search for Madeleine, and a financial health that many enterprises, especially during a crisis, would envy: after 11 months of operation, the fund presents a positive balance of 1.596.733 euros, which equals 56.63% of the income.

Fund regulated as an enterprise

Delivers only accounts summary

Contrary to what had been thought initially, the fund that was created by the McCanns on the 12th of May 2007 – only nine days after Madeleine disappeared – is not a charity, which, according to one of the couple’s former spokespersons, was explained by the fact that the couple didn’t wish to be subject to the severe management conditions that are imposed by the commission that rules over this type of institution, The Charity Commission, where they would be obliged to scrupulously respect the fund’s purposes and to reveal their expenses and income in great detail.

Being a private fund, the Find Madeleine is regulated by the same department that controls small and medium businesses (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) and as such, after the first year of operation, is only obliged to deliver a summary of its accounting."

source: 24Horas, 09.02.2009

Zodiac said...

'is not a charity, which, according to one of the couple’s former spokespersons, was explained by the fact that the couple didn’t wish to be subject to the severe management conditions that are imposed by the commission that rules over this type of institution, The Charity Commission, where they would be obliged to scrupulously respect the fund’s purposes and to reveal their expenses and income in great detail.'

Hi Wizard,

With regard to the above. No surprises there! 13.3%???

viv said...

Hi Wiz

Well yes Mr Correia does have an obsession with searching for dead bodies but what makes his behaviour even more bizarre is he decided to spend all that time and money looking for Maddie, after what he finally admitted was no more than the most repulsive dream and vision.

Then he is searching for Joana on the basis of a statement that he obviously wrote for her. Psychiatrists in Portugal have publically declared they feel this man is unwell and that is not unkind.

It must be very annoying for Goncalo to be on the receiving end of this but maybe he needs treatment more than a court room.

xx

viv said...

Hi Wiz and Zodiac

I think the vast flows of money came in before ordinary people realised this was not a charity, whose sole purpose was to benefit Madeleine. They were conned and must feel very annoyed now.

Money from newspapers and businesses continued to flow however, but not at the rate they hoped, thanks to Goncalo naming them and shaming them as being involved in her disappearance. So they looked to other means to keep the cash flowing, books, films, libel actions.

The most preposterous money making scheme being the idea of suing the Portuguese Police for £1M, now I wonder why they dropped that idea!

Gerry let us know who he thought this, ahem, charity was for when he said he could not understand why this fund could not be used to defend himself. That says it all really. Did he want to be bound by rules of the Charity Commission, 13% would say of course this man does not like to be bound by official rules of how to behave in a decent way!

hope4truth said...

Dont you just love Duarte Levy why dont we have journalists like him here???

Probebly because they have all been told to bow down to the McCann's and try and sell their story...

Well the fund has been wasted on everything it has been spent on including a crap detecitve agency which was not there to find Madeleine but to find people who could back up the McCann's story...

If I wrote this farce as a film the studios would be telling me it was way over the top and no one would ever act in such a strange way if their child was missing or if they were trying to tell the world she was...

The fund will bring them down and then hopefully to get a few years off their sentance they will tell the world where Madeleine is and end this evil lie...

xxx

viv said...

Hiya Hope

I entirely agree, it is all one big farce and the fund and all that money, and all those people who have played their role, will put them right where they belong. I also hope they find the little girl they cruelly used to perpetuate this farce, hopefully still alive, as I think she may well be.

The more people you involve in one huge scam the greater the risks you take and neither the British or Portuguese Police are bent or stupid, or doing what their respective governments tell them to do, no matter what others may try and tell us. At best they are weird conspiracy theorists, at worst...

xxx

Wizard said...

Although the fund accounts were produced by an accountant and the accountancy was ratified by a firm of auditors this doesn’t in my opinion mean that money spent by the fund was for what most would consider legitimate reasons.

I really do not know if the £300,000 said to be used by the fund to pay for Madeleine’s family whilst they remained in Portugal, their travel expenses to various countries during that period, not to mention the comings and going of family and friends to Portugal (no doubt with all accommodation paid for by the fund plus watered and fed) can be justified as legitimate expenses in searching for Madeleine or not. I do think it was a very expensive operation that had no effect, unwisely headed and overseen by Madeleine’s parents who as we know could very well be involved in her disappearance. It is quite scandalous when you think about it.

No wonder GM bought a new car when he returned to England he could surely have afforded two at least.

If I had been the McCann’s I would have insisted on a full set of accounts be drawn up, whether it was a legal requirement or not, showing where every penny went to ensure no one accused me of misappropriating funds. The Fund directors chose not to do this which suggests……,er, um… well – I leave that to you to decide.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

We keep hearing that comment, 'if I was the McCanns I would have acted very differently'.

There was a poster on 3 As said just the same thing last night, well people can accidentally kill but I would have co-operated with the police.

People just keep trying to apply normal principles to this case and normal standards of behaviour, but there is nothing the least bit normal about Kate and Gerry McCann. They are a couple of serious criminals being investigated for "serious organised crime". I would suggest we have overwhelming evidence that serious organised crime is a massive money making scheme involving the disappearance of a "beautiful" and very marketable little girl. I think people just want to try and normalise the very abnormal, that is understandable.

xx

Cláudia said...

Hi, Hope and all.
Duarte Levy is not easily intimidated )and intimidated he has been) and he is a thorn on some people's a**es, I can guarantee you. He has worked incredibly hard in this case. I'm just sad that there aren't a dozen more like him.
xxxx

atardi said...

Hello everyone,

Just wanted to let you know that I still follow the blog and read it almost everyday.

I admire you all for the excellent work you are doing. I remember in the beginning that I wanted this all to be solved very fast. But as time went by I realised that this case will be solved but it I must be patience.

When I have something new about the case I will let you know.

Waiting for Amaral's book here.

_______________________

Alsabella,

If you are reading this blog I hope you are doing well.

viv said...

Hiya Claudia, it is a good job that many people who want to write honestly about this case are not easily intimidated:-)))


Atard, we have really missed you and it is lovely to know you still follow us, even though the blog is obviously not as busy as it was when there was much more news coming through.

Of course, a long time ago, we all wanted this solving and we all thought it was pretty simple so why not, but clearly it is not simple at all and we know we just have to wait. It is logical really because our own Serious Organised Crime Agency do not get involved in relatively straightforward cases of parental manslaughter or murder there has to be a lot more to it than that, as we have always suspected. The Fund, The Fund, The Fund!

It would be great to hear what you currently think having read what I have been posting and I would stress you do not need to agree with me!

xxx

viv said...

This is rather interesting from DP rog, so if you see your child on the beach you hide from them because it would be hard on them, you need to stick to the task in hand not bother with your children. He is very into water sports..The police interjects, the beach, that must have struck a note of terror I think!

And then, they bought another couple of pay as you go phones, staggering! No wonder he is umming and ahhing a bit, I like the way he says to the police, as you know, no getting out of it then Dave! Ihave not got around to posting up what is the most terrible piece of confusion I have ever seen really but I will tackle it some time soon. Would hate to leave Dave out of this! Since when did pay as you go mobiles work out cheaper to use then contract? They work out a lot more difficult for the police to tap and trace though, that is for sure, hence all those Maddie sightings being rung in on them, even from Brazil or somewhere..


otleepseely
Post subject: Re: What was David Payne implying?
New postPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:35 pm
Mafia Boss

Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:23 pm
Posts: 2741
I have started reading his rog. interview and I think the policeman so far hasn't done too bad a job. He is letting Payne stumble and fumble and at the right times putting in a question which makes him even more "edgy".

So we know that from the first day there was needling over the Paynes being perceived to have the best apartment. I liked the way the policeman said something along the lines of "the rivalry had begun". The police are not daft IMO.

There were also comments over the Paynes arriving late every night at the Tapas bar more needling.

I found this bit very strange:

"1485 "Okay, and again going back to the daytime, in amongst your activities, because your activities, Fiona’s activities in relation to the other group’s activities, is there anything that stands out?”
Reply "Err…”
1485 "The beach?”
Reply "No, I mean we sometimes we’d, you know on the beach we’d see the Mark Warner you know see our children down there and sometimes it was you know err you’d see them playing there which was a little bit difficult because you know you didn’t want them to see you because it’d be hard on them. I often went down with Fiona, as I say we were err you know interested in the water sports side of things err and err Matt and Russell sometimes went you know they, Matt’s very good on the err catamaran......."

So they used to try and hide from the children because it was hard on them?

What was hard on them?

Being packed off to the nursery all day and then the parents out at night? IMO those children were not happy at all reading that statement. :(

HIDING FROM THEIR KIDS BECAUSE IT WAS HARD ON THEM!!!!!!


Report this post
Top
Profile Send private message E-mail
Reply with quote
Renoir
Post subject: Re: What was David Payne implying?
New postPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:41 pm
Mafia Boss
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:38 pm
Posts: 2159
T4two wrote:
IMO derogatory interviews.Together with their painfully slow preparation and initiation a clear indication that the investigative process was sabotaged, probably for political reasons in both the UK and Portugal


That's about the size of it, T4two! <):)


Report this post
Top
Profile Send private message E-mail
Reply with quote
Fern
Post subject: Re: What was David Payne implying?
New postPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:53 pm
New In Town
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 54
DPs rog;

Reply "Err when did we get the phones? When we were at the Police Station, err you know as, you know I just asked whether I could just pop downstairs there was someone who’s brought us phones and they said yeah, so I quickly popped downstairs, got the phones, and took them back into the Police Station. Err I can’t remember if there was any power in them when we opened them up but err so then that was, you know, so the phones were just, you know because we hadn’t got any other, anything there, so.”
1485 "And what phones were they? Do you remember what sort of, what make they were?”
Reply "Err they were Samsung phones, err and I think they were Vodaphone SIM cards. Err the actual model, I can’t tell you the Samsung phone but they were, something like the Samsung three hundred, something like that.”
1485 "Yeah, how many phones were there?”
Reply "There was, there was two err and we ended up, err again, we ended up keeping one and Kate and Gerry had one, I think we gave the second one to Kate and Gerry as well after a while but we were err you know because they’d got credit put on to them so we were just using those phones rather than run up the expense of our own phones.”

viv said...

i do not agree with the middle post of course "sabotaged by our police"
what rubbish!

hope4truth said...

Hi Viv

Those poor children were just in the way on that holiday so why bother to take them??? I cant imagine hiding from my child for any reason... I have never used a kids club a I think a lot of the staff should not be trusted with a puppy let alone a child (not all I am sure there are some very good ones amongst them)but if I had and the children had wanted to be with me and not with them I would not hesitate to let the join me...

I guess using mobiles abroad would cost a fortune though as if they wanted to call each other they would pay a lot to make the call and the person recieving the call in PDL with an English sim card would be paying to recieve it so buying PAYT mobiles is a good idea and a lot cheaper...

They may have thought they were safer using them but I worked for Vodafone when PAYT phones first came out about 10 years ago and every call made and recieved text message etc was stored way back then so they cant hide anything (but may have been stupid enough to think they could)...

Most of the snow had gone here and in 50 minutes we are covered again...

Stay safe everyone xxx

viv said...

Hiya Hope, I never put my children into the care of others whilst on holiday other than a French student who was living with us came on holiday with us and babysat a few times for us for about an hour or so later in the evening.

But if I had put them into a Kids Club sometimes to play and I was on the beach and they arrrived I just adore them and you would quite obviously go over and say hi darlings are you having a great time. It is just very sinister for him to say that. I really just find the whole concept of taking children on holiday and them dumping them every day and even hiding from them utterly bizarre, he did not want to make it harder on them, so he knew he was being cruel. I just wanted my kids to have the most fabulous time, that was my holiday pleasure. I just cannot understand how they could be so sure their children were safe with complete strangers and they were so tiny, it just amazes me.

I have not actually used a mobile regularly for years now so cannot say I am up to date with them. I got fed up with them when they became much more complex to operate and the screen got much smaller! I tend to just borrow Luke's now if I feel I need one. Maybe it was cheaper to buy a local mobile but it still seems odd to me. I just do not think I would have been bothered about the price of the calls to be honest!

I went out earlier and the snow was being washed away by very cold rain. I think it has just pretty much gone now here. But have a feeling it will be back. It was my brother's birthday a few days ago, and I remember when he was born in 1962 the most terrible winter I can ever remember!

My sister and I are a lot older than him!


xx

viv said...

Taken from the previous thread a particular comment of Russell O'Brien that I meant to flag up,


he says there is no and then changes what he was going to say, he was going to say there is no evidence and then changes it to we are not involved. I think this is classic of someone who is telling some pretty serious lies and having to stop himself mid sentence and correct what he was about to say. You do not fool anyone Russell, least of all experienced police officers, time will tell.. In fact in this short piece he does it twice we know that no, no further action here I would say he was going to blurt out no charges and stopped himself again. Police officers are trained to look at statements like this and consider what the suspect was really saying.


an impasse or a stalemate, which is where we are, and we know that, that no, no further action, or should we say no further legitimate action can be taken against any of us or Kate and Gerry in terms of Madeleine’s disappearance because there is no, we were are not involved,

Wizard said...

In Viv’s 22:35 post - parts of this statement I had to read twice to understand it. 2 striking differences, jumped off the page. A lot of the time DP appears to have difficulty stringing a sentence together with lots of ums….ers and you knows. When he is asked by the police about the types of phones he becomes informative and reasonably articulate saying they were Samsung phones, with Vodaphone SIM cards and although he was not sure of the model they were similar to those in the Samsung 300 series.

This seems to highlight a striking difference in speech content between when he is being creative and anxious in his replies and when he is replying to a factual question that has little bearing on the case. He confidently answers this question with little hesitation giving quite a lot of factual details. Ummm………It almost looks as if the police put that question in as a safe control question to use as a guide to the reliability of answers he gives to other more probing questions.

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Hi everyone

Slightly off subject but I think related.

A more realistic sentence perhaps:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/
4113521._Evil_monster__paedophile_
jailed_for_ten_years/

On a personal note, I am very busy preparing for the great adventure but find that niggling problems cause delays.

Perhaps I should set up a blog to chart my progress?

nancy said...

Hi Viv and everyone - nice to see you Atardi.

One thing that O'Brien said in his statement reinforces my opinion that Maddie is no longer with us.

He said "There is no evidence to convict Kate and Gerry - there never will be"!

Now,unless he was with them for 24 hours a day, just how can he be so sure?

Payne talked about their boating trips and Oldfield being an expert on a catamaran, which makes me wonder whether poor Madeleine could have had a bad accident while out boating - remember she was crying because she was frightened when out on one.

Oldfield said in his statement that one of the men had fallen into the sea, but I forget who it was - probably Payne.

Just another theory to add to many - Maddie could have fallen in the sea and been seriously harmed even before the 3rd May!

It's very strange that (according to their statements)none of them remember when they last saw Maddie! I could understand one of them not remembering, but not the lot of them. Bit of a coincidence there!

BBL!


Nx

Zodiac said...

Hi all,

Atardi nice to read you again.

ICOTAN,

A Blog charting your progress yes definitely! I look forward to reading it.

Nancy wrote:

"There is no evidence to convict Kate and Gerry - there never will be"!

Now,unless he was with them for 24 hours a day, just how can he be so sure?
It's very strange that (according to their statements)none of them remember when they last saw Maddie! I could understand one of them not remembering, but not the lot of them. Bit of a coincidence there!

Exactly Nancy he knows for sure there will never be any evidence but cannot remember when he last saw the child he claims there will be no evidence ever with regard to the involvement of the parents and their child's disappearance! Yet the case I believed was shelved due to lack of evidence not:

"There is no evidence to convict Kate and Gerry - there never will be"!

nancy said...

Hi Zodiac -

I'm sure that the LP, after hearing and taking down all their statements are well aware they are not speaking spontaneously but are clearly trying to make their stories fit with the others.

The LP and the PJ's are used to dealing with people trying to save their necks and will be able to tell from their mannerisms and hesitations that they are lying through their teeth.

Anyone who is innocent and responding to police questionning won't need to use hesitation tactics to try to find the right words - words will come automatically. They were all obviously trying to make sure they didn't say anything different to discount what their partners in crime had said.

As the old saying goes - "oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we set out to deceive" - never a truer word spoken in this particular case.

nancy said...

Hi ICTOAN

Nice to see you!

Enjoy your adventure with the new person in your life and keep safe!



Nx

viv said...

ICTOAN how lovely to hear from you again too, we seem to get this sometimes, a spate of old friends popping back in to say hello! If you do start up a blog give us the link, or if not just chart your progress on here!

Nancy, hello and lovely to see you again too!

On another place I have just found Gina making a post part of which was very sensible, I have excluded the bit where she placates the blog owner by stating the PJ, apparently, did not seal the crime scene and of course the bits about blog wars which have nothing to do with justice for Maddie. I believe the reasons the McCanns could not give up on the publicity and the bizarre money making schemes is that was their whole raison de etre. The fact that it has caused them the very antithesis of what they planned really does serve them right! We see from the comments of Russell O'Brien for example that he has absolutely no intention of co-operating with the police, he just likes to sit there and tell them, you have no evidence against us and you never will do!


Gina wrote:
"There has never been another case of this type (as far as I know) which has caused so much controversy and I believe this to have been caused by the McCanns decision to go way way OTT with their campaign. Once you put yourself,in the limelight to the extent they did, you leave yourself open to your words and actions being scrutinised. Never before have the movements, bank accounts, backgrounds, family members been so talked about in any other similar case. IMO the McCanns never seem to accept or learn that they made and are still making mistakes.


When they saw that the publicity was beginning to move from public sympathy to anger, did they back off, no. They just continued defending their own actions and made threats to sue the PJ. The priorty is finding out what ever happened to Madeleine, and threatening to sue at this stage is not the answer. Both sides need to co-operate with each other, whether they like it or not."

viv said...

This has always troubled me, on the night Maddie disappeared she also heard a child crying, is it just a bit of licence from the DE? I would have thought so because I have not seen anything from the DVD files that suggests Mrs Fenn actually said that but she clearly does say she was crying on 1 May but that the crying had already stopped when the McCanns returned according to this??

Understanding what Kate meant by "we have let her down" would be very interesting, I believe she may have meant we made a bad decision for little Maddie the other alternative being it was just blatant staging, we left her alone and she got abducted (!) What do others think?


FROM THE MCCANNFILES:

DAILY EXPRESS, AUGUST 23, 2007

Mrs Pamela Fenn
Expatriate Pamela Fenn, 81, who lives in the flat above where the McCanns were staying, was re-interviewed by detectives on Monday after it emerged that she might have fresh clues.

Widow Mrs Fenn told police that two nights before Madeleine went missing she heard a little girl in the apartment crying for over an hour. She said the toddler, who is believed to have been Madeleine, was crying "Daddy, daddy" constantly between 10.30 and 11.45pm. The crying had stopped when the parents returned to the apartment.

On the night Madeleine disappeared, Mrs Fenn also heard a child crying, but it was when Kate returned from a nearby restaurant to check on her daughter that she was first aware something was wrong.

A source close to Mrs Fenn said: "She often sits on the balcony at night and heard a commotion downstairs. She heard the woman who she now knows to be Kate crying ‘We have let her down, we have let her down'. The source added: "She did not understand what was meant by this, but she asked if they wanted her to call the police. She was told it had already been done."

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id66.html

Di said...

Hi All

Viv

I had not read that Mrs Fenn also heard a child crying on the night
Maddie disappeared.

"We have let her down"

I have put this in the context of saying it about one of my children.

I always come up with the same answer, we were not there when we were needed the most, and we will never forgive ourselves.

Then again with this lot I could be totally wrong.

nancy said...

Hi Viv -

I'd go for the second alternative definitely. I believe everything they said and did after Maddie disappeared was for the benefit of onlookers and the media and to make people think they were caring parents and had just made a mistake - one of their oft used excuses!

Did it take a supposedly intelligent woman and mother almost a week to realise she had 'let her down '!

Shame on them both and their pals for treating their children in such a shameful fashion!

I've just been reading Fox's latest thread on 3A's and she is definitely of the opinion that it is all a scam and that Maddie is safe and alive. She comes up with some interesting and really relevant points, so it's well worth a read whether you agree or not.

Have a good evening everyone. I'll be back tomorrow!


Nx

Di said...

Hi Nancy

I agree they all let their children down from day one.

If there was an abduction, as they claim, it could have been any of the children who disappeared, as they all neglected them night after night. I have not once heard any of the tapas saying, it could have been our child.

If I had been on that holiday and a child was abducted I would have been saying, there for the grace of......... but not a peep out of any of them. Why?

Di said...

I have tried to find Fox's thread on 3A's with no success, can anyone help :o))

viv said...

Hiya Di, well yes that is the most logical explanation for the cry of Kate McCann if we could believe in her that is. Calculated perhaps to be the right and the normal thing to say?

Nancy, I tend to agree with you far more however. If we look at the statement of Ms Batista above, we can see that right from the off they were putting a plan into action. They were ruining the crime scene, they were contacting the press, Kate was sitting on her bed and Gerry was wailing and get down on his and knees before the Police. And it was not just Kate and Gerry McCann that were acting this way, either!

Speaking of contacting the press I just thought of something else I noticed but did not mention. When looking at the statement of Michael Wright he says his wife is from the press!

viv said...

Di, I have to admit that at first I misjudged Fox, I thought that she was a Pro-McCann but she most certainly is not and IMO is one of the ones that talks the most sense of all on there!

I like to read her now and will go and have a look. Interestingly, she questioned the motivation of TB on there, before I did!

He is never to be seen generally commenting on the case..

xx

viv said...

Di, I cannot find such a thread either but I have certainly discussed the prospect of Gerry being the abductor on there and with some pretty formidable opposition from some too xx

Di said...

Hi Viv

M Wright's wife is from the press, Mmmmm very interesting. They certainly do have many friends in every occupation to help their cause.

If you find Fox's thread will you post the link thanks. :o)

Off now to watch a film.

Enjoy your evening all.

Di said...

Hi Viv

I did a search for Fox but to no avail either.

I have to admit reading some of the threads, people seem to be coming round to a hoax theory.

Di said...

Definitely off now.

viv said...

Hiya Di and well yes perhaps is goes in some way to explain Michael Wright and family's persistent involvement.

I cannot see Fox is posting on this but if I find something certainly will let you know, but there are clearly others on 3 As who think just the same. It is just if they mention this they get shouted at!


Have a good evening xx

viv said...

Di, hoax of some description actually does seem far more logical when you weigh everything up, but I am not clear Maddie has not suffered serious harm even if she is alive.

xx