13 Feb 2009


What a toad, Philo, "lobbing MPs", yes "marching on Downing Street", now are we not hearing this battle cry again, somewhere from some more lovely people with paypal buttons? How odd!

Mind you those MPs are no longer wearing their yellow ribbons as they did in early May 2007 so probably just need lobbying that bit harder now...


Almost undoubtedly the last picture of little Maddie, no make up, just a child on holiday trying to enjoy herself. So why did Kate and Gerry McCann select this picture of her, like a little painted doll, with highlighted hair and make up, even eye liner to appeal for her? Why do we see so many staged pictures of Maddie with makeup on?

With my thanks to Bath Theory, one of our regular contributors for the article, below, it would seem not if the insidious American influence in this case, is anything to go by.

Whilst Amanda Knox stands trial in Italy of being involved in the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher there is an organised campaign ongoing seeking to influence both judges and jury as well as the general public at large, this lady is innocent and that campaign has so many facets that we will recognise in the campaign of Kate and Gerry McCann.

We have seen a massive effort in the McCann case to discredit the Portuguese and in particular, Goncalo Amaral. In this case there is a massive effort to discredit the Prosecutor of "Foxy Knoxy". He is "insane", he has been prosecuted before etc. On reading the article below the most chilling paralells can clearly be drawn.

Exactly the same media are used, blog sites, TV interviews, press articles, media spokesman etc all with one aim in mind, to challenge the prosecution version of events and discredit invidual personalities who wish to stand up for the truth.

I have often thought the McCanns seemed to want to look so much to America for support. In the early days we saw Gerry McCann make a highly publicised visit to the States where he claimed to be "looking at the wider political issues". To me this translates into he was looking at producing a groundswell of favourable media opinion for himself and his wife, knowing of course the police were actively investigating them. We have seen so many of his campaigns fall by the wayside. He bought into Amber Alert, a frankly ridiculous vehicle to try and paint themselves as "caring parents", but we hear no more of it.

There can be no doubt that many "Pro McCann" bloggers are American and we have seen language used that we Brits may find pretty offensive, more often than not. They add to those employed right here in Britain to paint an entirely perverse picture of innocence for those who are quite clearly guilty. They have no shame in the bizarre claims they are prepared to make or the level they are prepared to descend to ridicule, abuse and insult.

This is a gross insult to justice in the ordinary way that we understand it. A process conducted by the police, they bring a suspect to court, the suspect has their lawyers to defend them, but now we seem to be meeting a far more insidious form of "justice" where the guilty use every foul trick in the book to ridicule and insult their way out of trouble.

In this case the defence lawyer is conceding that all those tactics are not helping "Foxy Knoxy" at all and that Italian jurors and judges have far more integrity than that. Still we see this sickening force and I do not feel, if this case is anything to go by, we have heard the last of Kate and Gerry McCann and their sickening media campaign, we have not even got to the trial, yet.


Battle beyond the Kercher trial

by Julian Joyce
BBC News

Amanda Knox
One US newspaper described Amanda Knox as an "unlucky co-ed".
As the trial of the alleged murderers of Leeds University student Meredith Kercher continues into its fourth week, the courtroom drama is being matched by a passionate battle for public opinion in Italy and beyond.

American supporters of Seattle student Amanda Knox have stepped up their efforts to discredit the evidence of the Italian prosecutors.

The prosecution case is that Amanda Knox, her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, and already-convicted Rudy Guede murdered Meredith during a violent sex game.

Using TV appearances in the US, newspaper stories and friendly internet blog sites, Amanda Knox's supporters have consistently tried to challenge this version.

Doubt has been cast on witnesses, DNA evidence and computer records - all to advance the case that 24-year-old Meredith was murdered by Guede acting alone.

At one point Amanda Knox's supporters even enlisted the support of a senior Seattle lawyer - Judge Mike Heavey - to request, unsuccessfully, that the trial be moved out of Perugia.

This was necessary, said the US judge, because of the "illegal poisoning of public opinion and judicial opinion".

I was told by people attending the charity that Mignini is mentally unstable
West Seattle Herald reporter Steve Shay
Prosecutor rejects "instability" claim

But it is the personal attacks launched by Amanda Knox's supporters on Perugia prosecutor Giuliano Mignini that are proving the most controversial.

The allegations have been described as "sliming" by Mr Mignini's supporters. They also say the Perugia jury and Italian public opinion are unlikely to be influenced by personal attacks.

In an interview with the BBC, Mr Mignini himself condemned the attacks upon him as an attempt to "influence" Amanda Knox's trial.

Stressing that he was speaking in a personal capacity, and not as trial prosecutor, he said: "These things might happen in Italy but I really would not expect influence to come from the United States."

Amanda Knox's supporters have accused the Perugia prosecutor of incompetence, being a "raving maniac" and even of harbouring an unhealthy obsession with the occult.

In the past Mr Mignini has condemned what he termed "continuous... and unspeakable attacks" stemming from the US since Meredith was murdered in 2007.

He has now confirmed he has started legal proceedings for defamation against a Seattle newspaper whose website carried reports describing him as "mentally unstable" - a charge Mr Mignini contemptuously denies.

Anne Bremner
We're going to keep up a steady drum beat on getting the truth out
Friends of Amanda spokeswoman Anne Bremner

The West Seattle Herald - which has a circulation of about 12,000 in Amanda Knox's home town - carried the allegations, both in the paper and online, in a report of a fund-raising dinner held in aid of the Seattle-based Friends of Amanda campaign.

After the story appeared, Herald reporter Steve Shay posted a comment on another website confirming that guests at the fund-raising event were briefing against the Italian prosecutor.

"I was told by people attending the charity that Mignini is mentally unstable," he wrote.

"His over-the-top response seems to indicate that this is so."

No-one on the newspaper was available for comment.

Founded last year, the Friends of Amanda organisation aims to "counter the lurid tabloid accounts" of Amanda's trial, and to "present the public with... crucial evidence that irrefutably proves Amanda's innocence."

Their spokeswomen, Seattle lawyer Anne Bremner, is careful to distance the group from the more colourful insults directed against the Perugia prosecutor.

"We have not made any personal attacks," she said.

But she is keen to publicise a separate investigation by Italian judicial authorities into Mr Mignini's alleged "abuse of power" during another murder inquiry connected to the "Monster of Florence" serial killer case.

"We do have concerns that the prosecutor in this [Meredith Kercher] case has been indicted himself," she said.

Ms Bremner also said the prosecutor had previously "relied upon a spiritual medium" to solve the Florence case and quotes a senior Florentine minister as saying Mr Mignini had fallen "prey to a sort of delirium".

It all provided, said Ms Bremner, "a frightening parallel" to Meredith Kercher's trial in which Mr Mignini initially suggested that Amanda Knox had been taking part in a bizarre "Halloween rite".

That theory was rejected last year by the trial judge, and Mr Mignini has not advanced it since.

Mr Mignini rejected both allegations made by Ms Bremner.

He said a court in Florence had cleared him of abuse of power charges - but a city prosecutor had decided to proceed against him nonetheless.

Giuliano Mignini
Mr Mignini says he is tired of refuting the same allegations.

And he insisted he was "not friendly" with the alleged medium, Gabriella Carlizzi - and had had her arrested in 2005.

Supporters of the Perugia prosecutor have interpreted the attacks on Mr Mignini as part of a misdirected strategy to discredit the prosecution's case against Amanda Knox.

Some say that case has got stronger since the trial began last month.

First, there was a report from trial judge, Paolo Micheli, in which he concluded Amanda Knox had opened the door to Meredith's killer.

And last week there were more awkward moments for the defence as the court heard that a knife with Meredith's DNA on it had been found in Mr Sollecito's apartment.

Mr Mignini's supporters said the mounting evidence against Amanda Knox is increasing pressure on her supporters to undermine the prosecution.

But they warned that those attacks risk alienating the very people - the Italian public and Perugia jury - who they want to convince.

Worse still for the Seattle campaigners, it appears their strategy has backfired with their own defence team.

Defence lawyer Luciano Ghirga reportedly told Italian newspaper La Nazione last week: "The attempts to discredit everyone from the police at the crime scene to the lead prosecutor in the case are blatantly obvious."

He also said he had "expressed his impressions" to Mr Mignini.

Peter Quennell, of the New York-based True Justice for Meredith Kercher website, which has been closely following the investigation, said: "Mignini is popular in Italy. He is regarded as doing a good job and is seen as very pro-victim and pro-family."

Meredith Kercher
Meredith was found stabbed to death in her bedroom in 2007

He added: "Even if he was forced off the case, the trial would continue - there is another prosecutor and the whole thing is under way."

The Italian author of a book on Meredith Kercher's murder, Fiorenza Sarzanini, agrees. She said: "These attacks on Mignini don't count for much as far as the jury is concerned."

Amanda Knox's family are currently attempting to have Ms Sarzanini's book - Amanda and the Others - banned in Italy.

They say much of the book is based upon Amanda's personal writings, and that its frank recounting of her private life runs the risk of prejudicing her trial.

But Ms Sarzanini said: "It is what the jury sees and hears in the courtroom that is important.

"The overwhelming feeling here [in Italy] is that the real victim is still Meredith Kercher - not Amanda Knox."

Ms Sarzanini believed that, having chosen to highlight an indictment against Mr Mignini, the Knox campaigners fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the Italian judicial system.

"Really, these things are not unusual here," she said.

Back in Seattle, Anne Bremner said the Friends of Amanda campaign is starting to change negative media perceptions of the 21-year-old accused student.

Ms Bremner provided as proof a New York newspaper story this week that described Amanda as possibly "an incredibly unlucky college co-ed caught up in a sensational crime of which she may be innocent".

"We're going to keep up a steady drum beat on getting the truth out," she said.

"We have seen countless instances of where information from here has found its way into Italy."

Rudy Guede
Amanda Knox's supporters insist killer Rudy Guede acted alone

On whether she thought the campaign would succeed, she said: "I am hoping for the best and bracing for the worst."

Fellow supporters are similarly reluctant to express outright optimism.

Private investigator Paul Ciolino looked into the Kercher murder investigation on behalf of US TV network CBS.

He said he discovered "major flaws" in the prosecution case.

It was he who described Mr Mignini was a "raving out-of-control maniac who has no business prosecuting parking tickets, never mind capital murder cases".

But he appeared resigned to the convictions of the two young students.

"This case is a runaway train," he said. "Their best hope lies in an appeal.

"Hopefully after they are convicted somebody with some common sense will ask themselves, 'how did this happen?'"

Meanwhile, the man prosecuting the case against Amanda Knox expressed frustration about dealing with allegations that he insisted he had previously refuted.

"I have said these these things many times to American journalists," he said. "But there are none so deaf as those who will not hear."


Additional reporting by Danielle Gambazza


viv said...

Statement analysis: what do suspects' words really reveal?
Special Agent Susan H. Adams, M.A. teaches statement analysis as part of interviewing and interrogation courses at the FBI Academy.
Copyright 1996 Federal Bureau of Investigation

Susan Smith stood outside her burgundy sedan and released the parking brake. The car plunged down the ramp into South Carolina's Long Lake, with her sons, Michael, 3, and Alexander, 14 months, strapped into their car seats. To cover her actions, Susan told police that the boys were abducted at gunpoint, launching a nationwide search for the victims and their abductor. During the investigation, Susan tearfully told reporters, "My children wanted me. They needed me. And now I can't help them."(1) Yet, the boys' father, David, who believed Susan's story, tried to reassure her by saying: "They're okay. They're going to be home soon."(2)

Police subsequently arrested Susan for the murder of her children. She was tried and convicted and is currently serving a life sentence in a South Carolina correctional institution.

Many investigators use a technique called "statement analysis" to discern the truth in statements like the ones given by Susan and David Smith. In statement analysis, investigators examine words, independent of case facts, to detect deception. They also remain alert for information omitted and question why the suspect may have done so. Investigators then analyze the clues unintentionally provided by a suspect and use this insight during the subsequent interview.

In the case of Susan Smith, by analyzing the statements made by the victims' parents, one could conclude that the father believed the boys were alive and the mother knew the children were dead. The key to this deduction lies in simple English grammar, specifically, verb tense. The father referred to the children in the present tense; the mother used the past tense. Of all times, when the "abducted" children really would need their mother, she speaks of them in the past tense, e.g., "They needed me." The children could no longer want or need her because they were no longer alive.

This article gives a brief overview of statement analysis. It examines four components of statement analysis - parts of speech (pronouns, nouns, and verbs), extraneous information, lack of conviction, and the balance of the statement.

A word of caution is warranted here. There is much more to statement analysis than what is provided in this article; space limitations preclude incorporating other statement analysis components, such as the remaining parts of speech and the numerous indicators of missing information.

Still, armed with the information presented in this article, investigators will be able to use these basic techniques to gain insight into a suspect prior to conducting an interview. By learning more about a suspect and determining whether that person is being deceptive, they have a much better chance of identifying the guilty party and gaining a confession.

Statement analysis follows a two-step process. First, investigators determine what is typical of a truthful statement, referred to as the norm. They then look for any deviation from this norm. Truthful statements differ from fabricated ones in both content and quality.(3)

Although spoken words can be analyzed, investigators inexperienced in statement analysis will find it easier to begin by examining written statements. Investigators can make transcripts of oral statements. Or, even better, they can have suspects write a statement that details what they did from the time they woke up until the time they went to bed. This account provides a totally untainted version of the day's events and increases the validity of the analysis.

Statement analysis is an aid that can be used to obtain a confession; it is not an end in itself. Therefore, whenever possible, investigators should analyze the statement before interviewing the suspect.

Parts of speech form the foundation of statement analysis. To analyze a statement, investigators first need to examine the individual parts of speech, particularly pronouns, nouns, and verbs, and to establish the norm for each. If a deviation from the norm appears, they then should ask, "Why?"

Pronouns are parts of speech that take the place of nouns. Common examples of personal pronouns include I, me, you, he, she, we, they, and it. In statement analysis, particular attention should be given to the personal pronouns "I" and "we" and all possessive pronouns, such as my, our, your, his, her, etc.

The Pronoun "I"
Investigators have noted that truthful people give statements using the pronoun "I," which is first person, singular. Any deviation from this norm deserves close scrutiny, for it could be an indication that the person is not totally committed to the facts in the statement and, therefore, is not telling the whole truth.

The following written narrative begins with a clear commitment, then shows a definite lack of commitment:

"I got up at 7:00 when my alarm went off. I took a shower and got dressed. I decided to go out for breakfast. I went to the McDonald's on the corner. Met a man who lives nearby. Talked with him for a few minutes. I finished breakfast and drove to work."

The first four sentences of the statement match the norm of first person, singular - the use of the pronoun "I"; the next two sentences show deviation, because this pronoun is missing from the statement. What caused the writer to stop using the pronoun "I"?

Any change in the use of pronouns is significant, and at this point, investigators should realize that the statement now becomes devoid of personal involvement. Could there be tension between the writer and the man mentioned in the statement? During the interview, investigators should draw out specifics about this relationship to determine if this part of the narrative is really true or if the writer omitted information.

I versus We
Because using the first person, singular pronoun is the norm for truthful statements, investigators need to look for a lack of the pronoun "I" and overuse of the pronoun "we," which is first person, plural. The following version of a teenager's account when asked to relate what he did on Saturday evening illustrates the norm:

"I met four friends at the movie theater, watched a movie, then stopped to get something to eat with them. We had a few drinks at the bar on the way home. I stayed until just after midnight. I drove home...."

The following version of the same account, when contrasted with the above statement, indicates deviation from the norm:

"We all met at the movie theater, watched a movie, then stopped to get something to eat. We had a few drinks at the bar on the way home. We stayed until just after midnight. We each drove home...."

Because the second statement contains only "we," instead of the expected norm, which uses mostly "I," the investigator should wonder why there is no individual involvement. Perhaps the teenager hopes to conceal something or at least to avoid sole responsibility for some act.

The Pronoun "We"
In speech and the written word, linguists consider the shortest way to say something as the easiest and clearest way to communicate. The pronoun "we" is a short, clear way to describe one's self and others after proper introductions have been made. "We" also denotes togetherness; it indicates a relationship between persons.

Omission of the pronoun "we" is significant, particularly when the individuals are spouses. In the following versions of an account of events given by a husband, the first statement indicates the norm; the second one denotes deviation:

"My wife and I were invited to a neighbor's 50th birthday party. We arrived at the party a little late. The party was still in full swing whet, we left for home."

"My wife and I were invited to a neighbor's 50th birthday party. My wife and I arrived at the party a little late. The party was still in full swing when my wife and I left for home."

The second statement reveals distance between the husband and his wife. Once the husband introduces his wife into the statement, using the pronoun "we" is the shortest way to communicate. Yet, the husband avoids this word. Why? Perhaps because there is no "togetherness" in the relationship.

If later that night the wife is murdered, and the husband, when recounting the day's activities, provides a statement devoid of the pronoun "we," investigators questioning the husband should focus on the couple's relationship. If the husband admits to marital problems, but vehemently denies any involvement in the death, investigators may clear him as a suspect, barring contrary evidence. However, if the husband responds that the couple was very close, investigators should be wary, because statement analysis reveals otherwise.

A shift from "they" to "we" also is significant, for it reveals personal involvement. In white-collar crime cases, the guilty person who denies complicity may find if difficult to keep the pronoun "we" out of a statement completely. In such instances, investigators need to search the entire written statement for "we." Then, during the interview, they should focus on the transaction described with "we." This pronoun indicates that the writer was involved.

Another example of this shift in the use of pronouns often can be found in alleged rape reports. In the following two statements taken from rape reports, the focus is on the pronoun "we":

"He forced me into the woods," versus "We went into the woods."

The first statement represents the norm. The second statement, which contains the pronoun "we," is a deviation from the norm.

Veteran rape investigators are alert to the sudden appearance of the pronoun "we" in a victim's statement. From their experience interviewing rape victims, they have normed the rape victim to use the pronouns "he" and "I," not the pronoun "we," to describe the assailant and herself.

Because the pronoun "we" denotes togetherness, the investigator reading "we" in an alleged rape statement should ask if the victim knew the assailant and if they were together before the rape occurred. If the victim denies this, there is reason to believe the statement is a fabrication.

In reports of an abduction, the use of the pronoun "we" also can indicate that the victim may not be telling the whole truth. For example, a young woman who reported that she had been abducted at a shopping center provided the following written statement:

"I parked and started getting out of my car when a white male about 200 pounds, 6 feet tall approached me and told me to get in the car or he would hurt me. He then got in the back. I got in the front and began to drive. He told me to drive west on the highway. He asked me if I had any money. I told him no. We drove for about an hour. During that hour, he hit me repeatedly on the right side of my face. When we got to the exit, I told him I had no gas. He got mad and told me to get off the exit. We went straight off the exit for about 4-5 miles. He told me to turn down the first street on my left. We went down it about 1/4 of a mile. He told me to stop. He opened the door, put both feet out, hit me, and took off walking quickly. He took off to the east of where I was parked. After that, I took off and lost sight of him."

Investigators experienced in statement analysis would question the truthfulness of the above declaration. A true abduction statement, when normed, includes phrases like "He forced me to drive..." or "He made me get off at the exit...." Traumatized victims who are telling the truth do not use the pronoun "we" to describe assailants and themselves.

Investigators concluded that the above statement revealed deception. When interviewed, the woman subsequently confessed that no abduction occurred. She was, in fact, with a man she knew.

Possessive Pronouns
Possessive pronouns, i.e, my, our, your, his, her, and their, reveal the attachment that the writer or speaker acknowledges toward a person or object. A suspect will change the pronoun, or drop the pronoun completely, when opting not to show possession or admit association with a particular object or person. For example, "I was cleaning my gun. I was putting my gun away. The gun discharged."

This person, wanting to disclaim ownership of the gun that discharged (either accidentally or intentionally), stopped using the possessive pronoun "my." It no longer was his gun, under his control; it became the gun.

Another example can be found in a written statement made by a person whose home burned to the ground:

"I left my house right after breakfast to join my friends at the track for the day.... I drove back to my house, made a few phone calls, then went out to dinner with Stan Thompson.... Stan dropped me off at my house around 10:00. After I changed my clothes I left the house to spend the night army cousin Tom's. Around midnight we heard fire engines and got up to see what was going on."

In this account, after the writer consistently used the pronoun "my" to describe his house, he omitted the pronoun the last time it was mentioned. Was it because the house burned down, and it was no longer his house? If so, then this change should have occurred much later, after midnight, when the writer learned that the house was burning.

Based on the statements made, investigators should question why the switch in references occurred the last time the writer was in the house. Was it because the writer had spread accelerant on the floor of the house? Was the writer already giving up possession because he had set the fire? Just as arson investigators try to discover if valuable possessions have been removed from a house prior to a fire, those skilled in statement analysis look for the exact point at which the owner stops taking possession by failing to use the pronoun "my."

Nouns denote persons, places, and things. Yet, nouns take on different meanings, depending on the individual.

When examining the words used by a suspect, the investigator needs to note any changes, because a "change of language reflects a change in reality."(4) If suspects substitute a different word after using one word consistently, they telegraph the fact that something in their lives has changed. Although language changes can occur with any part of speech, they are observed more frequently with nouns.

In a statement written by a suspect in a homicide investigation, a significant change in noun usage occurred. A young man shot his wife in the face with a shotgun. The woman died instantly, and the husband claimed the shooting was accidental. Investigators asked the man to write a statement of the events that occurred during the day of the shooting. The husband wrote a detailed statement, using the noun "wife" seven times to refer to his wife. He then wrote:

"...I lost control of the gun. I sensed that the barrel was pointing in Louise's direction and I reacted by grabbing at the gun to get it back under control. When I did this the gun discharged. It went off once and I looked over and saw blood on Louise's face."

What caused the husband to start using "Louise," his wife's first name? Did this occur at a significant point in the narrative?

Prior to this point, investigators had normed the husband as using the noun "wife." When the spouse went to church with her husband, she was "my wife." When she later called to her husband, she was "my wife." But when the barrel of the gun was pointing in her direction and when there was blood on her face, two cratical points in the statement, the spouse was no longer referred to as "my wife." She became Louise.

Investigators have determined that perpetrators find it nearly impossible to admit to harming a family member. The husband in this case could not admit that he had killed his wife. He removed the family relationship by substituting the name "Louise."

The husband also failed to introduce Louise to the reader. After using the noun "wife" seven times, the name "Louise" suddenly appears. The reader does not know for certain who Louise is. It only can be assumed that Louise is the wife, but the husband gave no proper introduction, such as "my wife, Louise."

The norm for healthy relationships is a proper, clear introduction. But in tumultuous relationships, introductions often are confusing or missing completely. The lack of a proper introduction most likely indicates a poor relationship between the husband and his wife. Knowledge of this prior to the interview could assist investigators in uncovering the truth.

Verbs express action, either in the past, present, or future. In statement analysis, the tense of the verb is of utmost importance. When analyzing statements, investigators need to concentrate on the tense of the verbs used. In a truthful statement, the use of the past tense is the norm, because by the time a person relates the event, it has already occurred.

For example, the following statement typifies the norm:

"It happened Saturday night. I went out on my back deck to water the plants. It was almost dark. A man ran out of the bushes. He came onto the deck, grabbed me and knocked me down."

The next statement shows deviation from the norm:

"It happened Saturday night. I went out on my back deck to water the plants. It was almost dark. A man runs out of the bushes. He comes onto the deck, grabs me and knocks me down."

The shift to present tense is significant, because events recalled from memory should be stated by using the past tense. The change to present tense could indicate deception. Knowing this, an investigator interviewing the victim of the second statement is forewarned that the account may be fabricated.

The use of past or present tense also is significant when referring to missing persons. In such cases, the norm is to describe the person in the present tense, as in, "I just pray that Jenny is all right."

When children are missing, in the parents' hearts and minds, the children remain alive, sometimes long after the point of reason. As evidenced in the Susan Smith case, use of past tense almost immediately after the alleged abduction showed a significant deviation from the norm.

Extraneous information in a statement also can provide clues to deception. A truthful person with nothing to hide, when asked the question, "What happened," will recount the events chronologically and concisely. Any information given that does not answer this question is extraneous.

People involved in crimes may feel the need to justify their actions. In such cases, the information in the statements will not follow a logical time frame or will skirt what really happened. They also may include more information than is necessary to tell the story. In such instances, investigators should scrutinize this extraneous information and question why this person felt the need to include it.

For example, in a homicide investigation involving a young woman shot by her husband, the husband told police officers that he was cleaning his gun when it accidentally discharged. Investigators then asked the husband to write a statement about his actions on the day he shot his wife. He provided a detailed statement, writing at length about the rust on his gun and a previous hunting trip. He failed, however, to describe fully his activities on this specific day. The amount of extraneous information prompted the investigator to view the husband as a suspect.

Another important factor in statement analysis is a person's lack of conviction. When analyzing a statement, investigators should note if the person feigns a loss of memory by repeatedly inserting "I don't remember" or "I can't recall."

They also should look to see if the person hedges during the narrative by using such phrases as "I think," "I believe," "to the best of my knowledge," or "kind of." These phrases, also called qualifiers, serve to temper the action about to be described, thereby discounting the message before it even is transmitted.(5) Clearly, the person giving the statement is avoiding commitment, and warning bells should ring in the investigator's ears.

The following is a transcript of an oral statement of a college student who reported that a man broke into her apartment at 3:30 a.m. and raped her. A statement regarding such a traumatic experience should [TABULAR DATA OMITTED] brim with conviction, which this statement clearly lacks.

"He grabbed me and held a knife to my throat. And when I woke up and I was, I mean I was really asleep and I didn't know what was going on, and I kind of you know I was scared and I kind of startled when I woke up, You know, You know I was startled and he, he told, he kept telling me to shut up and he asked me if I could feel the knife."

It is important to consider the phrase, "I kind of startled when I woke up." Certainly, this is not a normal reaction for a woman who awakens in the middle of the night to see an unknown man at her bed and to feel a knife at her throat. The word "terrified" more appropriately comes to mind. Using the words "kind of startled" shows a gross deviation from the expected normal reaction of terror.

Another example of lack of conviction can be found in a written statement given by a relative of a woman who mysteriously disappeared. Investigators asked the missing woman's sister-in-law to recount the activities that took place on the weekend of the disappearance. After claiming memory lapses and showing a general lack of specificity, the sister-in-law ended her statement with:

"...that was about it. These were my actions on the weekend to the best I can recall."

Any investigator reading the above statement should seriously question whether the events were described accurately and completely.

A statement given by a suspect or an alleged victim should be examined by investigators for overall balance. Statements should be more than just a series of details. They need to sound like an account of the event.

A truthful statement has three parts. The first part details what was going on before the event occurred; it places the event in context. The second part describes the occurrence itself, i.e., what happened during the theft, the rape, the fire, etc. The last part tells what occurred after the event, including actions and emotions, and should be at least as long as the first part.

The more balanced the three parts of the statement, the greater the probability that the statement is true.(6) A statement containing the same number of lines in the before, during, and after parts, i.e., 33 1/3 percent in each part, indicates truth, although some degree of variation from perfect balance can be expected.

If any part of a statement is incomplete or missing altogether, then the statement is probably false. The following breakdown of a statement written by a man whose home burned shows a deviation too great from the balanced norm. The man provided a 56-line account of what happened that day, divided as follows:

Before the fire: 33 lines -59.0%
During the fire: 16 lines - 28.5%
After the fire: 7 lines - 12.5%.

Investigators concluded that the above distribution indicates deception, because the three parts of the statement are clearly out of balance. The "before" section is too long and the "after" section is too short.

Examination of the statement revealed that in the first part, the writer provided too much information totally unrelated to the fire. This signaled the investigators to ask themselves, "Is the writer stalling or trying to justify his actions?"

Also, the statement contained sparse information on what happened after the fire and lacked any indication of emotion. There was no sign of anger, shock, or sense of loss. The writer, who showed no concern about the consequences of the fire, ultimately confessed to setting it.

Statements contain a wealth of information far beyond what the suspect or alleged victim intends to communicate. Fortunately, investigators can use this information to their benefit.

Statement analysis provides investigators with vital background data and details about relationships to explore during the interview process. It also can determine whether the intent of the statement is to convey or to convince, that is, to convey the truth or to convince through deception.(7) Armed with this knowledge, investigators can enter the interview room with increased confidence to identify the perpetrator and gain a confession.

viv said...

and from the same site



Robert Murat is a good suspect. He should be kept on the suspect list (even if not officially) until there is evidence that contradicts his involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.
Police should continue investigating for the possibility of another child predator who could have been responsible for the disappearance of Maddie.
The McCanns are good suspects. They were the last people to have been known to see Maddie alive and their behaviors are very concerning. They should stay on the suspect list (even if not officially) until there is evidence that contradicts their involvement in the disappearance of Maddie or until another person is arrested.

Because of the following behaviors, I tend to lean toward the McCannd been involved with the disappearance, and therefore, death of their daughter, Maddie.


They left three very young children unattended while they pursued pleasure for themselves. This is a sign of narcissism and a lack of attachment to one’s children.

Both Kate and Gerry speak about Madeleine in a very impersonal and flat manner. Gerry writes nothing personal about Maddie on his blog. Maddie seems more like an abstraction than a real child. This is a sign of lack of normal attachment.

Kate states that the last words of Maddie before she went missing were “Today has been the best day of my life.” Maddie’s last words are unusual for a three-year-old girl. Kids that young don’t usually have a concept of their “life.” “I am having the best time,” and “I am having fun” are more normal statements for that age. Next, Kate says Maddie was “very pleased with her life,” also an odd comment for an adult to say of her child. Both statements lead me to believe Kate knows Maddie is dead because of her emphasis on the inclusion of the word “life,” as though there were a set of parentheses around the first day of her life and the last. Kate may want to convince herself that she gave Maddie a good life, right up until her last day, the best day of her life. Also, it is quite common for people involved in the death of a relative to exaggerate the perfection of their relationship or the last moments to insinuate that nothing negative was going on between the parties and, therefore, nothing untoward could have occurred.

The McCanns have never personally offered the reward on television or posted the reward at the web site. Almost all parents of missing children do this.

If Kate really believes Maddie is alive and being cared for in someone’s home, she would make continual direct pleas to the captor for Maddie's return (“Please just drop her off any public location…”). Almost all parents of missing children who believe they are alive will do this.

Neither Kate of Gerry have taken or indicate they will take a polygraph. Parents of missing children do this to clear themselves so the police will not waste time focusing on them.

Kate and Gerry appearances show little fluctuation in emotion (except when they feel they are being accused of drugging Maddie). Neither breaks down and cries or blurts out anything with emotion (“Maddie! We love you, honey! Don’t give up! We will find you!” Or “Please give us our Maddie back! Oh my God, please!”) Usually in a set of parents, we will see emotions bounce around, one of them falling apart, one becoming angry; with the McCanns their answers are carefully constructed and evenly relayed. Their appearances feel more like performances than parents desperately trying to reach out to their child, the kidnapper or the public. Yes, they are British, but even a stiff-upper lip tends not to look like this under these circumstances.

There are muted flashes of anger, frustration, and annoyance directed from one of the McCanns to the other during their interviews which is very unusual for parents of a missing child. There is a strong feeling of control rather than support between the couple.

Gerry McCann commented in one interview: “In about the middle of June things, about five or six weeks, things were going really very, very quiet and I was actually quite glad of that and I thought we would start to get back to a more normal existence and a quieter form of campaigning, using the Internet and raising and broadening the political issues which have been highlighted to us and I saw that as a long term focus.”

For a parent to have any interest in political issues so soon after his child has gone missing when the one and only concern should be finding their loved one, is extremely bizarre. That Gerry should see his long term focus at this point in time as a political one is also very concerning. This statement would be less concerning if a few years had passed and the McCanns, accepting they were likely never to find their daughter, wanted to do something to help others not suffer as they had and to do something in their daughter’s name. But, to think this way so early on indicates Gerry believes or knows his daughter is dead and indicates more self-interest than interest in his daughter’s welfare.

Gerry’s blog focuses very little on Madeleine and more on his and Kate’s activities. The cheery quality of the blog and self-centeredness of the content is a sign of disconnect between Gerry and Madeleine and a sign of having moved on as if Gerry knows Maddie is already dead.

Kate states she had trouble sleeping during the first five days after Maddie went missing but has been sleeping fine since. Very few parents of abducted children can sleep very well knowing their child might be in pain, crying, and scared. Kate’s ability to sleep infers she is not worrying about Maddie because Maddie is dead already (or has an inability to feel empathy for others).

The quick return to normal activities is unusual for parents of abducted children; most obsess continually and can’t think of anything else and have trouble going through the simplest routines of life.

Kate and Gerry left their twins in Portugal while they went to see the Pope. Most parents of abducted children would be paranoid to be away from their other children for fear something would happen to them. Furthermore, to leave your children in the exact location where your other child was taken, whether one had a relative with them or not, is odd for parents who believe the abductor of their missing child is in the very same vicinity.

The McCanns left Portugal as soon as they became Aguidos. If the only reason they were made suspects was a legal one so the police could ask them important questions to help them clear themselves, they should have stayed to continue to help the police put the matter straight and get the focus off of them.

Much of the PR campaign at this point appears to be responding to public opinion and trying to answer their suspicions about the innocence of the McCanns, not finding Madeleine. Even in the latest move, the television appearance of the McCanns did not make a plea to the abductor or send a message to Maddie. It appeared to be a show to prove Kate has emotions. Following the show, an artist’s rendition of a supposed suspect was released many months after he was said to have been seen by one of their friends. The release of the picture will be counterproductive to actually finding Maddie, as not only is it based on a very questionable witness sighting, but may have nothing to do with Maddie. Such a picture will only elicit droves of worthless tips and waste police time. This is an unwise choice of strategy unless the purpose is to distract the police from focusing on the McCanns.

It is possible that the McCanns suffer from certain psychiatric designations that causes them behave in a manner which makes then look guilty of involvement in the disappearance of Maddie when in actuality, they had no part in it. For this reason, I can only say, they are good suspects

Wizard said...

Hi All, I thought this article from todays Indendent was insteresting and I copy below.

UK police spent £548,000 in hunt for Madeleine

By Sam Marsden and Tim Walsh, Press Association

Friday, 13 February 2009

British police spent more than half a million pounds assisting the Portuguese investigation into
Madeleine McCann's disappearance, it was revealed today.

Leicestershire Police's part in the search for the missing little girl cost £548,477 in 2007-08, the force said.

But it was reimbursed for most of this amount thanks to a Home Office grant of £525,069.

The Policia Judiciaria - Portugal's CID - led the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance from the Algarve village of Praia da Luz on May 3 2007.

Leicestershire Police became involved in the case as the home force of the child's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.

British officers, headed by Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior, conducted interviews of witnesses in the UK and passed possible sightings of Madeleine on to their Portuguese colleagues.

After a lengthy delay Leicestershire Police responded today to a Freedom of Information request for information about its role in the case.

It said: "The total additional expenditure incurred for 07-08 was £548,477 and Leicestershire Constabulary received a Home Office grant of £525,069."

The force refused to provide a breakdown of where the money was spent because this would reveal "operational, investigative and law enforcement techniques.

Madeleine was nearly four when she went missing from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz while her parents dined with friends nearby.

Despite a massive police operation and huge publicity worldwide, she has not been found.

Four months after she disappeared, on September 7 2007, Portuguese police made both Mr and Mrs McCann "arguidos", or formal suspects, in the case.

Two days later the couple flew back to their home in Rothley, Leicestershire, with their two other children, twins Sean and Amelie.

Last July the Portuguese attorney-general shelved the investigation and lifted the McCanns' arguido status.

The following month, thousands of pages from the official Portuguese police files were made public, revealing the many different lines officers pursued in their 14-month inquiry.

Mr and Mrs McCann, who say they will believe Madeleine is alive until given clear evidence to the contrary, have had the documents translated into English to help them search for their daughter.

It is understood they are being assisted by a small team that includes retired senior British police officers and former security service officials.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 08769.html

nancy said...

Hi Wizard,

Thanks for that - very interesting.

So the McCanns will believe that Madeleine is alive until given clear evidence to the contrary! Welll that figures, because while people are led to believe Maddie is still alive they can be persuaded to contribute to the Fund which is the main preoccupation of the McCanns it seems.

Mucho dinero spent by the LP's. I wonder how much the PJ'spent too - on top of that we have what the McCann's supposedly spent, and we are still no further in finding out what exactly happened to poor little Maddie.

Just why have the McCanns never stood up on television and offered a vast reward for the return of Maddie and begged the kidnapper to return her, as was suggested in one report, to some public place she could be found. Of course, they know there is no way she is with a predator so why would they?

nancy said...

Hi Viv -

Excellent statement analysis thankyou!!

The majority of people don't realise what the interviewees pick up from defendants' mannerisms, speech, body language etc. It's certainly a really interesting read! I'd love to know what the LP's really thought of these pathetic doctors during interviews. I would love to have been a fly on the wall!!

Nice to hear that Kate lost five nights sleep after Maddie went missing. Didn't overdo it then!! When you see her all made up and her eyes looking as clear as a film star, you can see she is not and never has lost much sleep! Neither of them look as though they have a care in the world - no haggard looks, no bags under their eyes and they never look less than in the rudest of health and immaculately dressed. Most normal loving Mums and Dads would look as though they had the weight of the world on their shoulders for much longer than five days. I would guess they would never get over it.


dylan said...

Hi Viv, Wizard and Nancy,

That was a fascinating post about the psychology of witness statements, Viv. Thanks. This part stands out for me in the lack of conviction section:

""He grabbed me and held a knife to my throat. And when I woke up and I was, I mean I was really asleep and I didn't know what was going on, and I kind of you know I was scared and I kind of startled when I woke up, You know, You know I was startled and he, he told, he kept telling me to shut up and he asked me if I could feel the knife."

All of the "you knows" and "kind ofs" and "I means" are exactly in the ilk of the Tapas rogs. It is a request, on behalf of the interviewee, to be believed, but it shows the opposite in that because of thier lack of conviction, they don't really believe in what they are saying themselves. Very suspect.

Wizard, a lot of money but I'm surprised it wasn't more. All the same, it comes out of tax payers' money but for all that it did, it achieved virtually nothing. I suspect, as Viv does, that a lot more is being spent as the case is continued here, albeit, not in the public arena.

Nancy, there never was any real plea was there? I would have thought that most parents that have a missing child, would be in tears, frantic and begging for the abductor to return the child safely. If somebody told me to remain impassive, I don't think I could have done so.


viv said...

Wiz, thanks for the very interesting article from The Independent.

It almost seems a bit tongue in cheek!

We get the accounts for what the McCanns spent on searching for Maddie in that same period and British Police actually spent double, funded by the Home Office actually spent double. Then there is the cost of the Portuguese investigation also which I would imagine would be even more. But having spent just £250,000 on the most pathetic and criminally biased detectives on the planet they had the temerity to state they were going to follow up leads somehow missed by the Police!

Then the Independent tell us they are following up with this small and nameless bunch..

Have to go out so cannot reply to the rest in detail, other than to say take a look at that statement analysis and then take another look at the recent part of OB's statement that I have put on here. As ever, he is being asked for his own evidence and his own views but the vast majority of the time all we can ever get out of the oh so honest OB is "we"!


viv said...



hope4truth said...


SO LP spent over double on the investigation than the McCann's "Fund" did searching for her...

I am not surprised at the analysis of the statements and things they have said the whole lot of them are lying and if it was over some stolen money and they thought they could get away with it althought wrong if it would end thier lives as they know them fair enough...

But to lie and spin about a 3 year old child who could be missing is pure evil to lie and spin about a child you know is dead is pure evil as their are still two small children left in danger...

So pleased Kate says she can sleep it must really grate on the selfish 7 as I doubt they have slept well since this sorry charade started...

Wizard said...

So a vast amount of money has been spent all to no avail – no charges have been brought. I know the McCanns behaviour isn’t like anyone else but now is the time not to fudge around with old retired police investigating but to grab the bull by the horns and go for a last ditch attack at finding Madeleine. They should put all of the fund money up as a reward, call in promises from those who had offered a reward in the past and pool it all together and go for it.

It isn’t for the McCanns to worry about how the response from this reward is followed up – so no excuses. If Madeleine was truly abducted as they say I would dare them to do this!!!

Di said...

Hi All


Thanks for your two very interesting posts.


Thanks for your report on LP and the amount spent.


I agree how come LP spent over double?


Is it normal for the Home Office to reimburse in this situation?

Wizard said...

After my last post I should of course have added - if pigs can fly the surely will.

Wizard said...

Hi Di,

Under the circumstances it wouldn’t be unusual for the LP Commander to ask their funders, the Home Office, for extra money otherwise the LP’s budget would have been blown for that financial year.

dylan said...


The "we" is very telling. Even without the statement analysis, most would think that there is some kind of pact there. Of course we all know, because they told us, they were so into each other.


Di said...

Hi Wizard

So the Home Office offered to reimburse the funds, am I correct?

If so, there is definitely a hidden agenda.

Di said...

Hi Dyl

I will get your Hotmail address from Viv when I can.

I have a problem with my Windows Mail. I run Vista Home Premium and for the last three days, I have not been able to send/receive. I can open existing mail but cannot forward or delete.

The message I keep receiving is... An unknown error has occurred.

There is no error code so don't know what to do. My mail provider says the error is not at their end.

I will do a google search tomorrow and see what I can find, oh happy days!!

Enjoy your evening all.

Wizard said...

All police forces get their money from the government via the Home Office. Annually individual counties and London Boroughs put in a bid for financial resources. However LP wouldn’t have know an international investigation was going to fall into their lap when the originally put in their bid to the Home Office. So yes the Home Office gave them extra funds to investigate but if they hadn’t they would financially not have been able to investigate at all. So what I was saying is it isn’t unusual for them to be given extra funding to cover a high profile international case.

Wizard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
viv said...


I do not find it at all odd the HO gave LP an additional grant to cover extraordinary costs that are not within their normal policing budget. That budget covers investigating crime in the Leicester Police area. It most certainly does not cover air fares and accommodation for very senior officers to be in Portugal, taking dog teams out etc.

I think the costs we have been told of again would just be the tip of the iceberg. We have no breakdown for these costs because it would damage the investigation by letting us know that, but I doubt it covers all those officers salaries for example and what of SOCA/CEOP. Also these costs are only for the period 2007/08. They have been very careful to only answer a specific FOI request and no more than that!


nancy said...

When you think of the costs of this one case so far, it just shows the vast sums spent on crime as a whole. What with the police forces, their administrative staff, solicitors and barristers, prison officers, probation service, the cost of keeping criminals in prison - the list is endless - it's a good job that the majority of people are honest and hard working and pay their taxes to help pay for it all!

My post of 17.48 should have said 'interviewers' and not interviewees - sorry about that!

Off now - see you all tomorrow!


viv said...

Something very strange seems to be happening to this blog, I have just had to repost this thread. I am not sure what is going on but could hazard a guess!

Police accounts available at:

(but short of being a qualified accountant you may struggle, as I do, funding is a complex amalgam of government grants and local taxes etc)


hope4truth said...

I keep loosing posts and the page as well???

viv said...

Hiya Hope, the chimps on RPs are going frantic as well, maybe this post was just too near the knuckle for them:-)) They are blogging away under an imaginary post they created for this blog, sad, funny or mad, I don't know what to call it!

This blog is backed up and so they can do what they like, it will not stop those who want to look at the truth!


viv said...

From a far slicker Pro-McCann blog than the one we know, this shocking article is used to suggest the McCanns are innocent. Apparently, a couple like this, perhaps, abducted Madeleine and then brutally murdered her. This is one of the most sickening things I have ever seen to defend this couple. Even Indian news reports are dredged for the most shocking and appalling case of serial child murder as they leave No Stone Unturned for what they describe as Madeleine The Icon of Missing Children. Notice the labels at the bottom of the post..Don't let them hurt our children this blog preaches. What it forgets to mention is that in about 95% of cases it is parents and close family members that do precisely that. Clearly not the message they want to get across..the truth..


Check out all the videos on there, there are some I have not heard before, including one where the McCanns chat along about Madeleine. I just cannot quite put into words what I think about this. There is another one that includes both Clarence Mitchell and James Whale lambasting Tony Bennett, I am afraid I have to agree with much of the criticism there. He does not know the facts, for a fact, and he is just a publicity seeker who seeks to take the law into his own hands. On the 3 As yesterday he admitted he did not even know Goncalo Amaral had been refused the opportunity to stand for mayor, and yet this man is his icon, apparently and he is intently researching this case. Only so far as it suits him, it would seem.

Sometimes you may find the sickening, music gets stuck blaring out on your computer and the only thing you can do is close this wretched blog or turn the sound off. Not that they are trying to saturate your senses of course..

Thursday, 12 February 2009
The duo were charged with murder, rape and abduction - most of the dead were children. Sentencing is due on Friday.
An Indian businessman and his servant have been convicted of murdering a young girl, the first verdict in a case involving the deaths of 19 people.

Moninder Singh Pandher and his servant Surinder Koli were arrested in January 2007 after body parts were found near their home in Noida, a Delhi suburb.

The duo were charged with murder, rape and abduction - most of the dead were children. Sentencing is due on Friday.

The crime shocked the country, with many accusing the police of negligence.

Local residents said police failed to act over the abductions and murders because many of those reported missing came from poor families.

'Landmark judgement'

Prosecution lawyer Khalid Khan told reporters that Surinder Koli was found guilty of kidnapping, murder and attempt to rape while Maninder Singh Pandher was also convicted of murder. They were tried by a single judge sitting in a special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court.

"They will both get similar sentences," he said.

The grisly crime shook the country

"It's a landmark judgement. It's a victory for justice," Mr Khan said.

The court order has come in the murder case of 14-year-old Rimpa Haldar.

Residents say as many as 40 children disappeared in the area over two years before the crime came to light in December 2006.

The killings horrified people in India and the businessman's Noida home was dubbed the "house of horrors". The remains of the children were found hidden in bags.

India's federal police, the CBI, took over the case amid mounting accusations that local police had done nothing about the murders.

The accused were questioned by CBI officials and were also put through lie detector tests.

Six Noida policemen were sacked for alleged incompetence. Three senior officers were suspended.

The killings came to light after police discovered body parts of several women and children from a drain near a house in Noida.

They provoked widespread public anger and the authorities found it difficult to find lawyers willing to defend the two accused men.

In January 2007 the pair were assaulted by a mob - including lawyers - outside a court in Ghaziabad, near Delhi.
Posted by Dont Let Them Hurt Our Children at Thursday, February 12, 2009
Labels: abducted children, EU discusses Madeleine Mccann alert system, Missing children, Paedophile

viv said...

Of course this article even includes a bit about police incompetence, maybe they should realise we are just a bit sick and tired of hearing that!

After all, it is not investigating police officers who go around killing and harming children is it?


viv said...

Why stop at just having a right good go at the Portuguese Police, give LP a right bashing too, I kid you not this is from one who claims to be an anti-McCann!

Post subject: Re: 13/2-Independent:UK police spent £548,000 in hunt for Maddie
New postPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:16 am
PR Spokesman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:46 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: watching the parcel of rogues
Quite, Salsa.
Let's think what the Leicester police did for their money..
Well, they conducted some of the "softest" interviews I have ever seen - I was asked harder questions after witnessing an RTA.
That's when they weren't messing up the equipment.
Oh, and they passed some stupid troll post from the old Mirror forum onto the PJ - but didn't see fit to pass on concerns about David Payne's conduct.
What else? Oh, there is the link to the official website and the McCanns PayPal button - very neutral and unbiased that.
I am sure members can add further stellar moments from Leicester Police's supposed "investigation".

Wizard said...

The article below is from Joana Morais and makes a compelling and believable read. “Detectives Hired by the McCanns want to Frame Gonçalo Amaral. Método 3, the Spanish detective agency hired by the McCanns, tried to convince Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer to change the course of defense. The agency operational wanted to make of Gonçalo Amaral - the former coordinator of the PJ of Portimão, responsible for the investigation to the disappearance of Madeleine and Joana, the main target, through the intersection of the two cases

by Pedro Coelho/SIC

The contact was made during the period in which the Spanish detectives were investigating the case of Madeleine McCann, 3 years old, disappeared from Praia da Luz, Algarve, on 3rd May 2007. The agency's operationals contacted the lawyer from Algarve, João Grade dos Santos [Leonor Cipriano former Lawyer], requesting support in the investigations. "They told me that they had contacted me because I was working on a matter which according to them, had similarities", clarifies the lawyer.

João Grade dos Santos prompted the interest of Método3 because he was officially defending Leonor Cipriano in a process where Gonçalo Amaral, was accused, by the Public Ministry, of omission to report acts of torture, performed by three other inspectors of the PJ, during the questioning to the mother of Joana Cipriano. The process, still ongoing, involves 5 members of the Judiciary Police and was opened following a complaint put forward by the director of the Odemira prison [Ana Maria Calado].

In February 2005, the Expresso newspaper published [article written by the actual Lawyer's bar Marinho Pinto] a series of photos of Leonor Cipriano, where the prison inmate appears with her eyes and face bruised. The bruises denounced the existence of an aggression.

Joana's mother, the eight year old girl, who disappeared in 2004 from the village of Figueira in the Algarve, was sentenced to 16 years in prison for the death and concealment of the corpse of her daughter.

In the contact made with João Grade dos Santos, the detectives of Método 3 spoke specifically of Gonçalo Amaral: "Obviously they had to speak about him: he was the inspector most talked about at that moment - mocked the lawyer - after all he was at the investigation of the two cases", he concludes. In their approach, the detectives emphasised the advantages of the proposal, "They told me that money for expenses was not a problem", stressed the lawyer.

Leonor Cipriano was defended by João Grade of Santos during all the inquest period but, on the eve of the start of the trial, the client waived the lawyer's services.

Months after having refused the proposal for collaboration with Metodo 3, João Grade dos Santos was replaced by Marcos Aragão Correia, a young lawyer with offices in Madeira [Portuguese Island]. From him it was a known a quick, but symbolic, passage through the continent: Aragão Correia participated in the searches for Madeleine, as a medium [psychic]. The lawyer had visions of the girl's corpse in the dam of the river Arade, in Silves. "The Judiciary Police - recognizes Aragão - completely dismissed these evidences, though I was a lawyer, while the Método 3 was very interested", he adds.

But the interest of the agency would focus in another objective: the detectives needed a lawyer who would assume the intersection of the Joana and Maddie cases.

Aragão Correia accepted what Grade dos Santos had refused: "The detectives met with me and told me: 'We are very concerned because there is an element common to both cases: Gonçalo Amaral, who is not interested in looking for children, he is only interested on incriminating the parents. It happened in Maddie’s case and also in Joana’s case.' Método 3 asked me to get involved in the case, they didn’t ask me to be Leonor’s lawyer, they asked me to make a few investigations as a lawyer."

Marcos Aragão Correia has accepted the challenge and, when he consulted the Joana case, he identified himself immediately, with the Spanish detectives theory. "I was outraged - he recalls - I thought that Mr. Gonçalo Amaral had a hidden interest for systematically accusing the mothers without evidences against them."

Following the interest expressed with the case, Marcos Aragão Correia visited Leonor Cipriano at the Odemira prison from where he ended up close to becoming the substitute of João Grade dos Santos: "It was Leonor who asked me. She told me that no one had ever defended her like that. After much reflection I decided to accept, and I informed Dr.João Grade dos Santos of Leonor’s decision".

As soon as Marcos Aragão Correia assumed the defense of Leonor Cipriano, the proceedings, relative to the Faro’s trial against the five PJ inspectors, changed it's course. He assumes that change himself: "The biggest nightmare of Gonçalo Amaral was when I entered in the case", he alerts.

Paulo Pereira Cristovão, a former PJ inspector and one of the 5 arguidos of Faro accuses Marcos Aragão Correia of trying to make a 'deal' with the defendants."And that deal was: all of you incriminate Gonçalo Amaral and I’ll arrange so that Leonor Cipriano says that you have nothing to do with this – well, deals like this, only in Hollywood", ironizes Pereira Cristovão.

Marcos Aragão Correia does not deny the existence of such a deal, he even alleges that the deal was related with a "confidence made by one of the arguidos" that had reached his ears. "That defendant send an e-mail to a friend of mine where he pointed Gonçalo Amaral as being guilty", denounces the lawyer.

Marcos Aragão Correia confesses that the negative opinion about the way that Gonçalo Amaral investigated the cases of Maddie and Joana, is not shared alone with the Método 3, hired by the McCann couple. The lawyer feeds the enigma: "If I am taking sides for one of the parties, it is obvious that that side is giving me moral support".

Aragão Correia does not clarify who is in fact behind this puzzle: "The secrecy of the contract which bounds me to Método 3 stops me from revealing details regarding the private investigation", concludes.

Contacted by the SIC, Método 3 decided not to give any statements. Nevertheless the McCann family spokesman alleges that the family does not comment issues that they consider to be negative.”

Wizard said...

Just a further comment to the above post it says a McCann family spokesman (the pink one) alleges that the family does not comment issues that they consider to be negative.”

Ah..so…this is the reason Kate refused to answer the pj’s questions along with and not forgetting 15 years as well of course!

Off to the cinema now BBL

viv said...

Hiya Wizard

Whilt I certainly find it entirely believable that Metodo 3 on behalf of the McCanns were seeking to discredit Goncalo Amaral I think we have to be cautious about comments from both lawyers for Cipriano.

The first one Santo is the one that was caught smuggling drugs into the jail for her which this article does not mention and of course the second one appears to be a complete nutcase.

So we have to bear that in mind when assessing what these two have to say but the litany of abuse from blogs and newspapers etc against Goncalo clearly cannot be denied.

Sometimes there just seems to be so much media manipulation by people just pushing their own agendas in this case it hard to know what to believe!

But I hope that the conduct of Metodo 3 does help to lead the undoing of Team McCann!


viv said...

source of above which I translated with google:


viv said...

Wiz I have just read that article better and I think it is utterly damning for the Metodos and Kate and Gerry, emails and one of the arguidos..yes you Gezza I have no doubt!

"confidence made by one of the arguidos" that had reached his ears. "That defendant send an e-mail to a friend of mine where he pointed Gonçalo Amaral as being guilty",

Claudia has written on another place that Correia looks completely mad, I have to concur with that opinion, he has a completely crazed look in his eyes...I am sure the police will sought the facts from his dreams and visions but he is clearly very talkative and I cannot imagine how he would think falsely pointing the finger at Gerry would help him??

viv said...

Thank you for posting my opinion on this case from 3 As mum. When are you going to be clever enough to realise I cannot give factual evidence on this case because I am not one of the witnesses, I am a blogger commenting on it you stupid woman! More to the point when are you or any of your other sick little cronies going to understand the difference between giving an opinion on a case in the public domain and libel and further, that libel is not a criminal offence the police would have any interest in whatsoever!


Mum21 said...

Yet another libellous post by Viv. She still cannot get past the fact that her opinions are not factual evidence.

viv Post subject: Re: 13/2-Independent:UK police spent £548,000 in hunt for MaddiePosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:43 am

Local Lag

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:58 pm
Posts: 828

Whether the McCanns killed Madeleine or took part in her disappearance they set up a fraudulent fund. It was fraudulent because they were involved in her disappearance. What you do not seem to grasp is the Portuguese could not have dealt with that, there was no way this case could ever have been dealt with in a Portuguese court for that reason.

If you believe that British authorities are prepared to just allow a couple of doctors to do this and then fraudulently cash in, and just sit back and take no notice, I think you need a reality check.

viv said...

Rosiepops said...

viv Post subject: Re: 13/2-Independent:UK police spent £548,000 in hunt for MaddiePosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:43 am

Local Lag

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:58 pm
Posts: 828

Whether the McCanns killed Madeleine or took part in her disappearance they set up a fraudulent fund. It was fraudulent because they were involved in her disappearance. What you do not seem to grasp is the Portuguese could not have dealt with that, there was no way this case could ever have been dealt with in a Portuguese court for that reason.

If you believe that British authorities are prepared to just allow a couple of doctors to do this and then fraudulently cash in, and just sit back and take no notice, I think you need a reality check.
It's Viv that needs a reality check.
It is precisely 'libellous' comments like this, that told everyone that she was not a solicitor.

How long does she think this imaginary "investigation" is going to last?

Change the record Viv, pudding head.
14 February 2009 21:26

Thanks for that Rosie, my, my, you are all really upset about this post, and how similar your comments and fury are to Boonybraes above.

Thanks for a bit more confirmation you all p*ss in the same pot, not that I really needed it, I must start going on about boats again:-)))

viv said...

Let's just play that one again:

"supposed investigation" "imaginary investigation" then perhaps we could have a look at the oh so delightful Tony Bennett..if you think I am going to shut up about this I am afraid you are probably wrong!

Post subject: Re: 13/2-Independent:UK police spent £548,000 in hunt for Maddie
New postPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:16 am
PR Spokesman
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:46 pm
Posts: 7778
Location: watching the parcel of rogues
Quite, Salsa.
Let's think what the Leicester police did for their money..
Well, they conducted some of the "softest" interviews I have ever seen - I was asked harder questions after witnessing an RTA.
That's when they weren't messing up the equipment.
Oh, and they passed some stupid troll post from the old Mirror forum onto the PJ - but didn't see fit to pass on concerns about David Payne's conduct.
What else? Oh, there is the link to the official website and the McCanns PayPal button - very neutral and unbiased that.
I am sure members can add further stellar moments from Leicester Police's supposed "investigation".

viv said...

Many do see the light at the end of this tunnel (I put a nice picture up above to go with this)

Post subject: Re: March on Downing street
New postPosted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:04 pm
Local Lag

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:58 pm
Posts: 828
Chosen wrote:
We'd have to be careful. We might get ambushed by aunty phil :-ss

In fact there is some great humour on this thread =))

viv said...

and now we are back with that same post yet again plus the usual threats when all else fails, save them, I did not break the law or ever, ever harm a child

tony said...

viv Post subject: Re: 13/2-Independent:UK police spent £548,000 in hunt for MaddiePosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:43 am

Local Lag

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:58 pm
Posts: 828

Whether the McCanns killed Madeleine or took part in her disappearance they set up a fraudulent fund. It was fraudulent because they were involved in her disappearance. What you do not seem to grasp is the Portuguese could not have dealt with that, there was no way this case could ever have been dealt with in a Portuguese court for that reason.
Green blog vile.
You could have escaped prosecution with the statement of fraud; unfortunately, adding that the McCann family had something to do with their child's disappearance constitutes libel.
Have you forgotten why the Media had to payout to the Madeleine fund?
Let me remind you. They were sued after accusing the McCanns of harming/being involved in their child Madeleine Beth McCann's disappearance.

So if I were you I would retract your accusation.
14 February 2009 22:09

viv said...

Mum21 said...

Hey Viv...at least we pi-s into a pot and not get piss-d out of a bottle.
14 February 2009 22:25

I drink tea dear and am very calm. I just do not like child abusers or those who support them, that is all, OH and I like the police:-))))


viv said...

Mum21 said...

viv said...
Mum21 said...

Hey Viv...at least we pi-s into a pot and not get piss-d out of a bottle.
14 February 2009 22:25

I drink tea dear and am very calm. I just do not like child abusers or those who support them, that is all, OH and I like the police:-))))


Saturday, 14 February 2009 22:30:00 o'clock GMT

Oh, and I like the police too. Neither do I support PROVEN child abusers.
Do you understand that word, Viv..PROVEN?
14 February 2009 22:37

But it is proven Bum, Kate went on TV and said that Maddie told her that her and Sean had been crying the night before and no one came to them, she then went on to explain how she just ignored that and did exactly the same again. That, by anyone's definition is very serious abuse and that is just what she chooses to admit to!

viv said...

Oh dear back to the silly personal insults just like in the topic on this thread, hardly the conduct of those who like the police and believe in their cause and justice, is it.

Do you actually believe that calling me "insane" etc is going to make any difference any more than calling the prosecutor of "Foxy Knoxy", "insane", also, will make any difference?

viv said...

I think you are just losing your temper again, Bum and perhaps demonstrating a little shortage of the grey matter?

Mum21 said...

PS to Viv.
Oh, sorry. I forgote the Leicester police are investigating her.
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh, yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhh blo-dy yeah.
14 February 2009 22:59

viv said...

There are also some brilliant posts from Americans:

Defending them does seem to be an obsession with some that causes them to spend all day every day, writing rubbish about people, inexplicable!

Post subject: Re: What is Wrong With You People?
New postPosted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:56 pm
Mafia Boss

Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:17 am
Posts: 3891
This OP made me wonder whether I am obsessed, and the answer is probably yes. Not so much with Madeleine or her parents specifically but in the situation where through repeated parental neglect - and this is not a pair of high school dropout crack addicts in trailor park , these should know better - their child is missing, likely dead, and somehow as a society we've come to the place where they can ask us for money and help, position themselves as responsible and even child ADVOCATES - yet refuse to participate in the investigation once it reflects badly on them. Or becomes boring.

We're not the ones who found it in us to trademark a child's image and use it to get hundreds of thousands of dollars, of which according to another thread they've spent roughly 15% on the search. Can that be? They recently put a Xmas video out of Madeleine dancing about showing her shoe and a Christmas gift to the camera and inexplicably feel that this video 'should speak for itself' or should stand on its own - or whatever nonsense - the upshot being, we still want help - and - we're still unwilling to be held accountable. We ourselves never physically searched but we'd like you to, and we'd like the UK and Portugese govenment to pay for it. We'd like favorable treatment in the press and to be seen as victims, thanks. We don't want to be looked at closely held to account, or to answer questions, or reconstruct, but we want the world's attention.

Well - they've gotten it. You can't ask for everyone in the world to step inside your scenario and fund it, and then not take what else the world is bringing to the table, that's the good news and bad news about the global community and this media they were so willing to use to make money.

Of course people are interested in justice and fairness and in having an answer, in my case: what makes you people (McC) so damn FANCY? Why should you be allowed to wave off the scrutiny anyone else losing a child to neglect would face? What kind of people are you who, thinking your child is in a pedo ring, sit back and force the police to go through hoops to get you to answer questions any decent human being, never mind the parent of the abducted child, would be happy to answer and quickly, never mind rogatory interviews and prep sessions with all their pals and the lawyer they hired to make sure no one implicates them.

The thing's disgusting, and whatever we can do to stop it happening again is all to the good. I note in child 'abductions' in the US recently that the parents are immediately suspected and none of this visiting the Pope. They get a polygraph and a tough questioning and in some cases are put in jail for neglect. As should be.

What's the obsession with defending the pair of child neglectors? That's the real question.

hope4truth said...

Lets say Madeleine was abducted by an evil peadophile gang...

Lets say the evil bastard took her from her bed and walked in and out of an unlocked door left so by her parents while they went to the bar to have fun with their friends...

Poor Kate and Gerry to have a child abducted is too much to bear I dont know how I would cope...

Then from the statements we see that not only did Kate decide her children were not worth caring for as the bar was calling. But she knew from Madeleine that both she and Sean were crying for their parents the night before and no one came...

She thought about taking them with her but in the end decided it would not be fair as they had no buggy... So she dumped them home alone again and if they cried well they delt with it once and could do so again...

Then when she discovered that Madeleine had been abducted by peadophiles she left the twins alone again while she went back to the bar and told everyone that "THEY HAVE TAKEN HER"...

They never once bothered to look for Madeleine even though she hid a few days earlier and they spent 30 minutes looking for her. Why could she not have wandered off to find them Kate knew that she and Sean had woken the night before crying so why did it not seem possible that Madeleine had woken and gone to find them?

But it was much more important to get on the phone and tell everyone they knew she had been taken and could someone call a priest?

SO Kate and Gerry are without Madeleine who they have no reason to belive has been harmed (Peadophiles by definition harm children they are sick evil perverts who enjoy this) so to help find her Gerry plays a game of tennis then we are treated to publicity snaps of them...

So Madeline is with Peadophiles and on her 4th Birthday Mummy and Daddy come out of church and look like they have not got a care in the world (god help poor Madeline if she saw them on the news no words of comfort for her no words to her abductors about a million pound reward if they would just bring her back) just big smiles and laughter...

So Madeleine has been taken and not one of the 9 people on the holiday will go back for a reconstruction their statements contridict each other and change...

But for me the fact that Kate knew her daughter had been taken and then refused to answer 48 questions for her is one of the sickest things I have ever heard.....

No parent is perfect we all make mistakes some make very bad choices which result in harm comming to their children but surley whatever choice we make if the worse happends and because of us they are taken we would do everything in our power to help with any investigation and not stop searching until the day we found them or our own time on earth ran out...

A fund of 2 million plus and only 250k spent on searching expensive websites media monotoring spin drs and even relatives who are getting paid a fortune?

This is the most evil thin I have ever heard it is actually worse if she was taken as she could be being put through hell while they all jet around the world and refuse to help...

If there was an accident or something worse at least they would not be playing games with her saftey now....

viv said...

Hiya Hope

As you so clearly point out you cannot really come across parents who could behave in a more abusive way towards their children than this. I suppose there is just one consolation that we do not hear so much from them anymore of their sickening campaign to "defend" themselves or indeed any more demands for money to supposedly Find Madeleine.

The last we heard of course is that Gerry took a lawyer to Portugal, went to see another one, spent just one night there but by some bizarre trick of the imagination is looking to see how he can now co-operate with the authorities and look for his daughter. It just cannot get any more perverse really. He tells us he is going to make several such visits over the coming months, he will have to forgive us if we continue to simply fail to understand how his lawyers are going to find Madeleine. We have to assume that his lawyers are continuing to try and get them out of trouble, and that I would submit is liking asking for the impossible. However, we know these two just do not give up easily, no matter how repugnant they sound, laughing on her birthday and telling us on TV how they just caused yet more harm to their children by leaving them alone, when they knew full well that had already caused severe emotional distress and what is more danger. Normal? I have never heard of anything quite so abnormal and if they will not just co-operate properly with police then they can expect continuing criticism from thousands of people. Their media campaign that they wanted.

I am pleased about the further investigations into Metodo 3 and their encouragement of underhand lawyers to try and make some link between the two cases of Joana and Maddie as in some way attacking a police officer, just trying to do his job, Goncalo Amaral. That is what really sickens me about so called McCann supporters if they are not attacking Portuguese Police then they are attacking British ones, denying they even did anything to assist in this case and denying they obviously continue to do so. Reasonable and law abiding people have no need to just attack the police. Let them continue, in the end the police will deal with them for the couple of serious criminals they are that not only neglected Madeleine but caused her very serious harm, ever likely, her death.

I just cannot believe that Gerry McCann has the audacity to suggest that a child who he insisted had been taken by predatory paedophiles and has now been missing for best part of two years, could somehow just be "alive and well". This shows him up for the sick and perverted fantasist he really is.



Wizard said...

Hi Viv and All,

I was just reading today’s Mail and they have a very disturbing article which shows that 228 children have died in Britain at the hands of their parents or carers whilst being monitored by social services.

“Social Services could be failing to prevent the deaths of almost 50 children a year at the hands of their parents and guardians. The Mail’s research reveals the shocking hidden toll of children who die of suspected neglect or abuse in their families’ care. The true figure is higher still, as many authorities hide the scale of the problem behind a cloak of secrecy. The investigation also revealed that in 92% of cases, the authorities conceded that children’s services should have done more to prevent the deaths”.

A typical example of the causes of these children deaths were: dehydration, smothering, blow to head, head injuries, suffocation, morphine/methadone overdose and it goes on.

This makes me wonder about the twins and social services involvement, just because they live in a nice house and have professional parents it does not mean all is hunky dory. I wonder how carefully social services checked.

Wizard said...

The link to the Mail artilce is below.