6 Oct 2009

MCCANN DETECTIVES CLAIM ALL 3 CHILDREN DRUGGED/Russell O'Brien disappears and so does Maddie says The Times

Sunday October 11,2009
By James Murray
The kidnapper of Madeleine McCann drugged her and her twin brother and sister so they would all be quiet while she was snatched.
A duplicate key may also have been used to gain entrance to the holiday apartment where the children were sleeping, say investigators.

It means the monster is still a threat to children living or holidaying on Portugal’s Algarve and must be caught urgently as he is highly likely to reoffend.

Former police detectives David Edgar and Arthur Cowley have spent months re-analysing every shred of evidence.

They are convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007 fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out all three children.

The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the detectives that they, too, must have been drugged.

Had the twins been tested for drugs immediately, any medication used could have been established, making it easier to identify the kidnapper, but vital time was lost.

Chloroform can be made easily and other sedatives, such as the horse tranquilliser ketamine, are commonly in circulation in the criminal underworld.

Even now, however, experts say there may be forensic clues on clothing or bedding which could yield a breakthrough.

The Sunday Express can further reveal that the McCanns’ private detectives are working on a solid theory about exactly how Madeleine was abducted.


Just as television investigator Donal MacIntyre suggested in this paper three weeks ago, they believe there was a dry run prior to the kidnap that fateful night at apartment 5a of the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz.

While checking the layout of the apartment the night before, the kidnapper probably woke Sean, who in turn woke Madeleine. In the morning she had told Kate and Gerry she was frightened.

The fact that the children woke up is thought to have persuaded the kidnapper to use knock-out drugs when he returned the next night to take Madeleine, three.

On the question of the duplicate key, holidaymakers often left front door keys under the doormats during the day.
A theory emerging is that the kidnapper had a duplicate key to apartment 5a, which could have been used on the night to enter by the front door.

Mr Edgar and Mr Cowley do not believe Madeleine was taken through an open window as it would have been awkward, time consuming and there were no forensic clues left behind.

It is far more likely, they say, that he simply walked out of the front door with her in his arms. It had been thought that the front door was double locked, making it impossible to open from the inside, but this doubt falls away if there was a duplicate key.

The theory suggests the kidnapper had been targeting the apartment for a long time and had a detailed knowledge of the lock system.

With the front door unlocked, it is easy to simply pull a latch across to open it from the inside.

Another possibility is that the front door was not double-locked when Kate and Gerry left through the unlocked patio doors to join their seven friends at the resort’s tapas bar some 30 metres from their apartment.

Meanwhile it emerged yesterday that the parents of a two-year-old girl who has gone missing in New Zealand are being supported by the McCanns.

Aisling Symes vanished from a relative’s house in an Auckland suburb on Monday.

Her mother Angela had been close by, standing beside a washing machine.

There have been reports that the girl was later seen with a woman of Asian appearance.

Detectives believe she was abducted. Despite repeated appeals for help their searches have so far drawn a blank.
Kate and Gerry McCann said their “thoughts and prayers” were with the family.

The little girl’s father, Allan Symes, who is originally from County Waterford in Ireland, made an emotional plea for her return, saying: “These recent days have proven to be the most harrowing of our lives; no sleep and we feel like we’re barely existing, just surviving every moment, not knowing where Aisling is.”

It has also emerged that police in Sweden are trying to find a girl said to bear a resemblance to Madeleine after a photograph was posted on a website.

However, she does not appear to have the distinctive mark Madeleine has in her right eye.

Lecturing at a lawyers' conferene in Madrid, on the media, the right to privacy and defamation, Gerry poses beneath the picture of his made up little two year old and the made up and non existent 6 year old, whilst not hesitating to put the two fingers up! Well, we never did think he actually valued his right to privacy, that surely has to be some kind of a joke. And as for defamation, OK when he is slating the Portuguese Police, just does not like it when it comes back at him!

From Times Online October 9, 2007

McCann children 'were not alone in apartment'
(Rui Vieira/PA)
Kate and Gerry McCann say there are innocent explanations for all the evidence

David Brown
3D model 'casts doubt on Madeleine abduction'

Significant new evidence about the night Madeleine McCann disappeared has been uncovered, it was claimed, as one of Portugal’s most senior detectives took charge of the investigation.

Paulo Rebelo, an assistant national director of the Polícia Judiciária (PJ), took over responsibility for the case last night. He made his name in the investigation into Portugal’s most notorious paedophile ring.

His appointment was made amid reports in Portugal that detectives have evidence contradicting Kate and Gerry McCann's version of the events of the night that they reported their daughter missing.

Related Links
3D model 'casts doubt on Madeleine abduction'
Madeleine evidence inconclusive
New detective to lead Madeleine case
Police believe that Madeleine and her twin brother and sister may not have been alone in the McCann holiday apartment, but that the children of seven British friends who were on holiday with the McCanns were also present when Madeleine disappeared on May 3, the 24 Horas newspaper claimed.

The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, have insisted that Madeleine was with only her two-year-old twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, while they dined with their friends at a tapas restaurant at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz. The group has claimed that their children were in their own apartments and that they made checks on their own children and those of their friends during the evening.

However, a source within the investigation was quoted by 24 Horas as saying: “It’s not only the collected evidence that points to the fact that there were more children inside that [the McCanns'] apartment.

“Evidence also exists, following the interrogations to the other people who that were at the Ocean Club, that only the McCanns’ apartment was visited by the people who attended the dinner.”

The children had visited each other’s apartments regularly in the six days that they had been at the Ocean Club. The newspaper does not explain how any forensic evidence could be pinpointed to the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance.

The newspaper also casts doubt on claims by one of the McCanns’ friends that he was looking after his unwell daughter when he was away from the restaurant on the evening Madeleine disappeared.

It says that Russell O’Brien, a hospital consultant from Exeter, left the restaurant at 9.35pm and returned at 10pm, just minutes before Mrs McCann discovered that Madeleine was missing. Mr O’Brien has strenuously denied any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and has never been a formal suspect in the investigation.

24 Horas reported: “The British man guaranteed he took that long because he visited his sick daughter, and she vomited. He says he asked for the sheets to be changed, but the staff at the Ocean Club assured the investigators that nobody asked for any bedsheets to be changed that evening.”

Mr O’Brien’s partner, Jane Tanner, told police that she had seen a man carrying a girl away from the McCanns’ apartment at 9.15pm. However, another witness has insisted that she was not in the area at that time.

A source within the PJ is quoted by 24 Horas as saying: “In face of so many contradictions and in face of the forensics results that we already hold, we have very few doubts that the girl died inside that apartment, and we only have doubts about who concealed the corpse.”

The report follows claims in the British media that although tests on samples discovered in the McCanns’ apartment and hire car do not prove that Madeleine is dead, they have strengthened the theory that her parents were involved in her disappearance.

A source at the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, which carried out the tests on behalf of the Portuguese authorities, is reported to have said that the results showed police were right to make the couple arguidos, or official suspects.

Related Links
3D model 'casts doubt on Madeleine abduction'
Madeleine evidence inconclusive
New detective to lead Madeleine case
However, the McCanns’ British law firm, Kingsley Napley, has brought in its own forensic team to explain why the samples may be totally unconnected to Madeleine’s disappearance.

The couple insist that any DNA found in the Renault Scenic hired 25 days after Madeleine’s disappearance could have been transferred innocently from their daughter’s clothing when they moved to a new apartment.

Clarence Mitchell, the couple’s spokesman, said today: “Kate and Gerry have nothing to hide at all. They are perfectly happy to answer any of this, if it comes to it. There are wholly innocent explanations for anything the police may or may not have found."

Mr Mitchell said the couple were unable to grieve for Madeleine because they did not know yet what had happened to their daughter. “They need that knowledge whether Madeleine is alive or dead - let’s face it, she might be,” he said. “They need to know, before they can move on, before they can deal with that.

“In the absence of that hard information, they are doing what they can to, one, clear their names of these dreadful smears and, two, to actually get on with the job of finding her. That is the message we want to go to police in Portugal - ‘find Madeleine’.”

The couple hope that the appointment of a new head of the investigation will refocus the inquiry on finding their daughter. Mr Rebelo was appointed last night after the demotion of the previous lead investigator, Gonçalo Amaral, who had claimed that British police were being manipulated by Madeleine’s parents.

Mr Rebelo made his career at the Central Directory for the Investigation of Drug Trafficking before being appointed one of four associate directors of the PJ. He was head of the Criminal Investigation department in Lisbon when it uncovered a notorious paedophile ring. The “Casa Pia” ring had been abusing boys at state-run children’s homes for decades before being uncovered in 2002. Those alleged to have been involved included senior politicians, a former ambassador, celebrities and wealthy businessmen.

Mr Rebelo was described by colleagues as “highly regarded internally, he has done some excellent work for the PJ, he is nice and a good communicator”. He is close to the PJ’s national director, Alípio Ribeiro.


viv said...

Very good post by "jassi" which seems to support my own view that Tanner went back to her apt about 9.45 saw Gerry McCann carting Maddie off but she could not see well enough to realise it was Gerry and Madeleine. I also think the purpose of her going back was to find out why Russell cleared off for half an hour and just like on Tuesday 1 May when Maddie cried for one hour 15 minutes missed his meal yet again. As Wiz pointed out on the other thread, no wonder he could not manage to parade himself on the steps of the High Court. Strange Kate and Gerry look so far away from the obvious really, isn't it? Oh but there again the waiters say Gerry was missing too!

How do the comings & goings of O'Brien and Tanner match up?
He says he returned by 10.00, but as she was in the apartment by 10.0, what time did she arrive there, bearing in mind that she had only returned to Tapas from her 'sighting' mission shortly before 9.30.

It would seem that she only spent a few minutes with the others at Tapas, wolfing down her meal somewhere along the way before going off again.

Interestingly, both must be missing from the table at around the Smith sighting time.

Wizard said...

Morning All,

Looking at the Times article it’s easy to see why the pj put the McCanns in the frame.

Highlighting Tanner’s sighting we know she returned to her apartment at about 9.45pm and it is a possibility this is when she saw ‘bundleman’. As Viv suggested it could have been GM.

By taking the times back by 30 minutes she is giving alibis for to Gerry and O’Brien who was missing from the Tapis bar at the time. Also as Jez Wilkin’s was talking to Gerry at 9.15pm she is getting an independent witness to confirm the time of her sighting.

I’m always sceptical of anyone who chooses to call themselves Jez very pretentious and very pretentious Islington speak.

As Gerry and Wilkin’s failed to notice her walk by she is taking a big risk to change the time of her return to her apartment. But obviously it was very important to try to indicate that any removal of Madeleine took place earlier in the evening rather than later or before 9.15pm.

The question is why she should do this. The logical conclusion is they were involved in someway and her sighting attempts to put them in the clear.

Di – Gerry for PM – LOL. I’m just wondering when he will be knighted!

Wizard said...

For those who do not come from London and are not aware of some of the upwardly mobile Islington set – an example of Islington speak is:

Returning from the doctors Jez is very angry; the doctor has suggested he is morbidly obese.

Jez comments: “That’s ridiculous; I prefer to think of myself as being at the ‘avant garde’ end of ‘petite’.”


Wizard said...

The Daily Mail gives us the news we had yesterday but in this case straight from his pickiness’s pen.

No byline on this report only a Mail Reporter which means it’s probably copied verbatim from a Pink press release.

"Kate and Gerry McCann plan first trip back to Portugal resort where Madeleine vanished
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:03 AM on 07th October 2009

Gerry McCann delivers a speech to the International Bar Association
Kate McCann is preparing to return to the resort in Portugal where her daughter Madeleine vanished.
Husband Gerry revealed they were planning to visit Praia da Luz before the end of the year.

The trip will be the first time Mrs McCann, of Rothley, Leicestershire, has been back to the Algarve resort since Madeleine, then aged three, disappeared in May 2007.

Prime minister, world leader and pope in waiting Mr McCann said: 'It was the last place she saw Madeleine and there is an emotional bond.'
Speaking at the International Bar Association's conference in Madrid, he also said the family had taken heart from the reappearance of Jaycee Lee Dugard in the U.S., after 18 years in captivity.

He said: 'It gave us hope.'
It will be the first time Kate has visited Praia da Luz since the McCanns left Portugal after being named as "arguidos" or people of interest to the investigation in September 2007.

Mr McCann has been back since, but his wife has previously felt the wounds caused be her daughter's disappearance have been too raw for her to return.

Last month the McCanns, both 41-year-old doctors, visited the Portuguese capital Lisbon to meet with lawyers to discuss their £1million lawsuit against Goncalo Amaral, the police officer who bungled the Madeleine investigation.

Mr McCann said yesterday: 'That was Kate's first visit to Portugal (since Madeleine disappeared) and she is very keen to go back again.
'We felt the visit was very positive because it made people realise the search is still going on.

'She would very much like to go back to Praia da Luz now that things are less intense. She would like that to be private as it's going to be a very emotional experience.

'It was the last place she saw Madeleine and there is an emotional bond. We are looking at potential dates although no date has been set yet.

'We have very good friends there, and there are lots of people we want to see.'
Going back: Kate and Gerry McCann are returning to the Algarve resort for the first time since their daughter Madeleine (right) disappeared in May 2007

Mr McCann was speaking to reporters at the International Bar Association's annual conference in Madrid, where he gave a speech on his family's relationship with the media.

After the speech he said he and wife Kate had been moved by the Channel 4 documentary on the Jaycee Lee Dugard kidnapping, Captured for 18 Years: The Jaycee Lee Story, screened last week.
Mr McCann said watching the programme 'had brought back some awful memories.'

But he added: 'Kate and I have never lost hope and the Jaycee Lee Dugard story was important for us.
'It was an incredibly tragic case, but it gave us hope.

'We sympathise and empathise with her and her family and everyone involved.'

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

It just does not make sense really does it? Jane Tanner does a check at 9.15, kids are apparently fine, but by 9.35 Russ does one and kid not fine, actually being sick. He stays there for half an hour but by 10 pm when the alarm goes off Tanner is back in her apartment also?

As Maddie is disappearing neither of these two are the table?

And she claims she saw Gerry and Wilkins at 9.15 but they both deny it?

viv said...

Clearly as you say Wiz, a full on press bulletin from the Pink One about how Kate wants to do this PRIVATE visit to PDL later this year!


Kate and Gerry set to return to Praia


Published: Today
BRAVE Kate McCann will return to Praia da Luz for a first visit since daughter Maddie was abducted, husband Gerry said yesterday.

The couple are planning the trip to the resort - where Maddie, then three, vanished from an apartment in May 2007 - before the end of the year.

Gerry, 41, said: "It is the last place she saw Madeleine and there is an emotional bond. There are people we would like to see and places Kate would like to return to.

"Now things are less intense she would like to do that in private. It is going to be a very emotional experience."

Gerry, speaking at a legal conference in Madrid about media coverage of the case, has been back to Portugal's Praia da Luz since cops cleared the McCanns of any involvement in Maddie's disappearance.

Kate, 41, has always felt "too raw" to return. But she expressed a wish to go back during a trip to Portugal last month to see the pair's Lisbon-based lawyers.

She was yesterday at home in Rothley, Leics, with four-year-old twins Amelie and Sean. She has been feeling "very positive" since the Lisbon trip, Gerry revealed.

He added: "It made people realise the search for Madeleine was carrying on."

Gerry said he and Kate were boosted by last week's Channel 4 documentary on Jaycee Lee Duggard, the US girl found alive in August after being abducted 18 years ago.

He said: "It was distressing at times but the story was important for us because it gives hope.

"There is absolutely no evidence Madeleine has been seriously harmed. We can't give up looking for her."


Di said...

Hi All

Testing the water I would imagine. How will the people of Portugal receive us?

Sorry, but I have to say the picture of Gerry with the picture of Madeleine behind him in Portugal is priceless, fingers up to the press, or is that just my way of seeing it. LOL.

viv said...

Hiya Di

I think it is important to the McCanns to move into Portugal because they do not have jurisdiction to continue investigating this matter as it was not a stranger abduction, UK do in relation their little Ward of Court.

I think the McCanns will find that in spite of a further expensive PR campaign they are not welcome there. From what I can read of comments concerning them in both Portugal and UK, I would say they get an even more hostile reaction in Portugal and I do not find that surprising in the least. I can see matters exactly through the eyes of a Portuguese person where their police have been abused following the McCanns admission of very serious child neglect. It also seems clear to me that Portuguese people have a lot of faith in Goncalo Amaral. They do not feel he has done anything wrong, he is simply exercising his right to freedom of speech. We know that is curtailed in UK to a large extent and I do not think that is the case so much in Portugal. Although the injunction has been made against Goncalo, he has appealed and we have to wait and see on that.

Gerry had a defiant and aggressive look on his face in Spain, and the two fingers do look a bit pointed don't they. I am sure that this appearance in Spain is a further attempt to gain acceptance in the area. But no one is going to accept them for Parent of the Year Award, that is for sure and think that Pt and Spanish people with their siestas and family meals find this behaviour just impossible to accept as reasonable.

Wizard said...

"The parents of Melanie Hall have spoken of their "untold anguish" after her bones were found on the side of a motorway 13 years after she disappeared from a nightclub.

Her bones, including her skull and pelvis, were discovered in a black bin bag on the M5 slip road at junction 14, north of Bristol, on Monday.

The 25-year-old psychology graduate had gone missing after a night out at Cadillacs club in Bath on June 9, 1996."

Umm...13 years for the bones to be found.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz, I have not read up on that case yet, although saw it briefly mentioned on the news earlier at mom's.

It will be interesting to find out how the bones cames to be discovered, so many years later.

In a way I suppose it will be a relief for the parents in finally having their daughter back, but also deeply sad because I am sure they still had a glimmer of hope.

At least now they can claim her after forensics, lay her peacefully to rest and have a place to grieve.

viv said...

A workman made the grim discovery of bones in a black big bag whilst clearing vegetation, so there was not much attempt to hide the body.

Wiz, I do recall the PJ saying they were looking out for a black bin bag, do you remember?

The police have obviously continued to investigate this throughout the years, arresting two men in 2003 but then releasing them due to lack of evidence, I wonder if they will be hauled back in again now, or if it was not them?

Wizard said...

I've just been reading a contributor on McCann files by Dr Martin Robinson - 8th October 09 article ‘Chinese whispers’ is very interesting. The Link is http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

viv said...

Thanks Wiz, it seems to have a very familiar ring to it.

The NZ couple are intensely distressed, how like the McCanns to jump on the bangwagon. I hope the little girl is found. How quickly two year olds can just wander off if you are not watching them every moment. Poor people this does sound like a genuine stranger abduction probably from just outside on the street somewhere.

viv said...

Not even the most basic steps taken to protect this woman, like refusing to allow him to return to the same area or even putting her into safe protection. Risk so many times seriously underestimated in spite the fact two women die every week because of thugs like him. 18 months and let out after just one third right back to where she lives? Women deserve far better than this from probation, prison and police, not least judges in locking them up for longer in the first place.

Authorities failed murdered woman

Nicola Sutton

Daughter's killer 'was true evil'

A young woman whose ex-boyfriend hacked her to death with a machete died because of a series of failings by the authorities, an inquest has found.

Nicola Sutton, 22, from Warrington, was killed by Barry Stone, 31, while he was on parole for breaking her ribs.

The jury gave a verdict of unlawful killing and blamed "a lack of liaison between police and probation service".

After the hearing Miss Sutton's mother said: "She was let down by a system that was supposed to protect her."

The inquest heard after two years of severe beatings, threats, and being incarcerated for breaking Miss Sutton's ribs, Stone finally murdered her in front of her terrified friends in September 2006.

He had been released from jail just a month earlier and had only served a third of an 18-month sentence for one of the many violent beatings he gave her.

We failed and I do apologise to the family for any failings we had
Stephen Collett
Chief probation officer for Cheshire

Despite the pleas of Miss Sutton's family not to let him return on his release to the area of Warrington where she lived, probation officers and the police did not impose these restrictions on Stone, saying it was a "breach of his human rights".

Following the murder he went on the run but was tracked down and remanded in custody. In December 2007, while on remand in prison facing a charge of murdering her, Stone committed suicide.

Miss Sutton's mother, Lynne Sutton, told the inquest her daughter had changed after meeting Stone from a lively outgoing girl with lots of friends to someone who lost weight and became isolated and fearful.

The hearing was told just minutes after one near fatal beating Stone sent a text message to Nicola saying "failed this time" as she lay in an ambulance on her way to hospital.
Barry Stone
Barry Stone stabbed Nicola Sutton at a friend's house, the inquest heard

The jury said: "The setting of Stone's licensing conditions were inadequate to ensure the safety of Nicola.

"There was a lack of liaison between police and probation service. The supervision of his licensing conditions was not practical and it was a series of misjudgement in practices, customs and guidelines from all connected agencies."

Stephen Collett, chief probation officer for Cheshire, said: "We failed and I do apologise to the family for any failings we had."

Coroner Nicholas Rheinberg said he had been "disappointed" by the actions of the police, probation officers and courts and had said he was going to write to them all.

Acting Ch Supt John Armstrong said: "This is the most tragic of cases. Miss Sutton lost her life at the hands of a violent and abusive man, who subsequently took his own life, escaping justice for the murder he committed.

"Inevitably questions may be asked whether the police and other agencies could have done more to protect Miss Sutton from Stone.

"We have reviewed our procedures and things have changed considerably in the past three years since her tragic death."

Wizard said...

Hi Viv,

Just reading your above post. It was very unsettling to read this quote from the authorities dealing with the case.

"We have reviewed our procedures and things have changed considerably in the past three years since her tragic death."

I have heard this said so many times before when similar serious errors have caused an unnecessary death - in reality what changes - nothing!

The same thing will happen again at some point in the future – it is so sad.

An infringement of the perpetrators human rights – no mention of their potential victim’s human rights. An absolute disgrace and political correctness gone mad.

Wizard said...

The Sun tell us today Maddie is alive and well and visiting a car show in Sweden!

Published: Today

“DETECTIVES were last night desperately hunting a girl who was photographed in Sweden - after computer-matching showed she could be missing Madeleine McCann.
The girl, who was pictured at a car show, bears a strong resemblance to Maddie, who would now be six.

Her jawline is identical and her eyes are the same colour as Maddie's.

After the snap appeared on a website, Swedish police were inundated with calls from the public saying how much it looked like Maddie.

They also received a spate of calls from visitors who believed they had seen Maddie at the car show.

Face-mapping technology used by British police identified the girl as a possible match, and Maddie's parents Kate and Gerry have now asked for an urgent investigation.
Maddie - snatched from her family's holiday……… “

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2676742/McCanns-Find-girl-in-Swedish-photo-she-could-be-our-missing-Madeleine.html#ixzz0TWKnFdGn

hope4truth said...

How dare the Sun publish a picture of a girl enjoying a day out with her family???

what is wrong with the McCann's allowing this to happen???

Lets face it once again if this was Madeleine Gerry and Kate have rubber stamped her death warrant by going along with it being published just like they did when they released a picture of her eye.

Thank god we can only die once because if she had really been abducted they would have ensured she was murdered time and time again with their well publicised "We know where she is and are on our way there now to pick her up" campaigns....

Most people can see right through them now they employed a bunch of hard hearted fools to speak for them with brilliant marketing skills if you are trying to sell a Lemon but when a child is missing her saftey should come first and as great a marketing op there is no way on earth it should be used...

Everytime they spin the more convinced people are that Madeleine is dead and they know full well she is you would have to be a evil hearless person to play games with a real findable child.


viv said...

very well said Hope:

Thank god we can only die once because if she had really been abducted they would have ensured she was murdered time and time again with their well publicised "We know where she is and are on our way there now to pick her up" campaigns....

They either know she is dead or they know where she is, no parent would indulge in what Gerry described as a "good marketing ploy" when they are dealing with the life and death of their own child. They would not go it alone, they would listen to the police and work with them, unless of course they were guilty in her disappearance, which they very plainly are.

How many more innocent families are just going to keep getting this treatment. Do we have non stop sightings year in year out in relation to any other missing child? Well no!

viv said...

Wiz, having been a probation officer I am only too well aware of how hopeless the system is.

You can get a newly qualified probation officer who does not know the first thing about child abuse or domestic violence, supposedly assessing the risk these offenders pose and taking appropriate action. But the thing is, I have met young officers who have listened to the sweet talk of such offenders and actually believed them, the victim was provocative, her mother is a cow etc.

Then you have senior managers writing policies because that is what they are paid to do, to hit their targets, but does anyone ever take any notice of them? Do staff receive appropriate training or do they just get an email this is yet another new policy?

They can pay as many senior managers as they like writing policies but until such time as they give staff the time to do their job instead of sitting on a computer all day, and give them proper training, nothing will ever change. The statistics in relation to murdered women and children remain just the same.

Di said...

Hi All

Hi Hope, an interesting article from The Sun, this happened in August so why has it taken this long for the article to appear, what exactly are we being distracted from.

Also why would the parents be against being photographed but they are happy for their child to be, not forgetting this child is supposed to be Madeleine with her cute PINK hat and PINK BLANKET.

Sorry I just don't buy this story at all. So Madeleine is now living with a lovely family and is out and about for all to see.

Dave Edgar thinks Madeleine is still in PDL, but no doubt a trip to Sweden just to deplete more money from the fund, in order for the accounts to look balanced imo, No doubt a trip that does not take place, but the gullible will believe it did.

viv said...

Hiya Di

We had the posh spice press conference on 6 August, so it now turns out they also had the Swedish "sighting" when launching the appeal for Aus speaking poshalike.

Maybe I am being cynical but it seems to me they save these bizarre sightings up to release them at an opportune moment. Now we are in the runup to Chritmas and Kate's, ahem, private visit to PDL. To have released both Posh and Swedish in August might have made people think they are even more ridiculous...but is that possible?

viv said...

Gerry actually repeated what he said on Paxman recently, that as and when it is necessary to go public with any information they would do so. Only this time Gerry says it will be Dave Edgar who does the public annoucements.

Do you think Gerry should have got someone who does not nervously wring his hands with the horror of it all and sweat profusely?

Still at present, Dave is obviously making all the right grunts to Gerry so we can feel confident that Maddie will soon be foundxx

hope4truth said...

Hi All

I dont think that is a pink blanket it looks like a fleece jacket to me it is just the way it is being held that makes it look square...

I cant imagine if I woke up tomorrow with a picture of my daughter in a slimey newspaper saying she could be a missing child I would be absoloutley livid.

In saying that what damage have the McCann's done to my humanity if a child was really missing I would not be pleased about my daughter being all over the news but I would understand why desprate parents would do anything if they thought they could find their child. Wouldent we all do that???

Oh what a bloody mess these two have caused they have ruined PDL and are putting children at risk of being snatched by well meaning members of the public who really belive Madeleine is findable.

Do we now switch off every time a child goes missing do we analysie the reactions of every family in such a desprate situation and do we shut off as we assume the parents were involved???

One thing is sure though if the police wanted to question me about one of my girls resembeling Madeleine I would refuse to answer a single question until Kate answered hers after all she more than anyone should want to tell all she knows to get her child back she cant expect anyone else to care when she clearly does not.

Why dont the press report that and stick a few pictures of the happy couple on Madeleines 4th birthday up as the headline...

viv said...

Good grief Hope, Edddie is now saying on the front page of the expres (see above) all three children were drugged, yes in this four minute window of opportunity.

Chloroform is being suggested but this leaves the most pungent and acrid smell in the room if it has been used. Or even ketamine which I believe could very easily kill tiny children, are we expected to believe they were quietly given a jab of horse tranquilliser, for goodness sake!

We know the children were drugged and now the McCanns even suggest an abductor did this and he had the key. No excusing what you yourself did Gerry!

I just sense the McCanns are in serious trouble and increasingly desperate. I wonder if they are putting all their excuses into the public domain, ahead of them being arrested so they can tell the public British Police are trying to frame them now, I mean, we are going to believe them, are we not?

viv said...

The Express claim the twins were 18 months old, but according to my maths, given they were born in Feb 05 they were actually 2 years and 3 months!

Of course the speech capability of a child 18 months to one well turned two are very different!

I really do believe they fear imminent arrest.

viv said...

If the abductor had a key to the apartment, I wonder why he jemmied the shutter and the window of the childrens' bedroom, destructive little man!

viv said...

I like this from Woodward:

The Express,very cleverly are avoiding carter pluck by only printing official mcnonsense-brilliant and checkmate I beleive


viv said...

It is just like old time, The STar are carrying the story as well. Either Eddie is working hard for the Defence of Kate and Gerry in trying to demonstrate just how strangers could have done what Gerry McCann himself did, or they are about to get so clever they finally worked out it was their employers that dunnit, come on Eddie stop trembling and sweating man and spit it out lad! ##

The Star are very near the knuckle here in saying Eddie and Co build up a comprehensive picture of how the abduction took place, next they tell us they spoke at length to Kate and Gerry, who I am sure had all the answers:-)))))

MADELEINE McCann’s kidnapper drugged her and her brother and sister to keep them all quiet, ­investigators now believe.

Her abductor may also have used a duplicate key to gain entrance to the ­apartment where the ­children were all sleeping.

The new developments mean the monster poses a huge threat to children ­living or holidaying on ­Portugal’s Algarve.

Former police detectives David Edgar and Arthur Cowley have spent months analysing every shred of evidence available.

They have built up a ­comprehensive picture of how the abduction took place.

The pair have also spoken at length to parents Kate and Gerry McCann.

And they are ­working on the theory that the ­kidnapper went prepared with enough drugs, ­probably chloroform, to knock out the three ­youngsters.

The fact Sean and Amelie, then 18-months-old, failed to wake after the alarm was raised – even when they were taken to another apartment – has persuaded them they must have been drugged too.

Chloroform is easily made and there are other ­sedatives in circulation in the criminal underworld.

viv said...

Burglars use chloroform, New York Times 1895, the two adults rally but the three year old is struggling to come round.

Cannot find anything for the twentieth or twenty first century and apart from being dangerous, chloroform leaves a sickly sweet smell. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9406E7D81139E033A25756C2A9649D94649ED7CF

viv said...

Kate and Fiona sat with a twin on each lap, Fiona is a trained anaesthetist and Kate has also worked in this field, but neither noted the twins were doped?

LP were very keen for Fiona to describe her credentials!

viv said...

Here, Fiona already told him she is an anaesthetist, but DC Messiah asks her again, to get a bit more info out of her, ten years experience, including resuc. that is quite something! :

“Okay. Erm, erm, I’m thirty, I’ll work that out actually, I’m thirty-five years old. I work as an Anaesthetist at Leicester and Leicester Registrar. I’m married to David PAYNE. We have got two children, Scarlet who is the youngest who is, who will two next month and L*** who is four in August. You know, we have a fairly uneventful life really, we are quite, before the third of May, very happy, you know, worked hard, but enjoyed holidays and, you know, always made specific time to take holidays as a family. Erm, we have a very good base of friends in Leicester who we see a lot of, we make a lot of time for. A lot of the people I knew them, who have trained with us and we’ve done house jobs with and, erm, so friends, you know, are a big part of our lives”.

“Uh hu”.

“Erm, I don’t know what else to say”.

“What is it you do for a living?”

“I’m an Anaesthetist, so I, erm, it combines a lot of different skills, we work in obstetrics, on labour ward doing epidurals, doing caesarean sections for women and we work on intensive care unit, in theatres, cover any need for, you know, resuscitation. So, yeah, it’s quite a stressful job and a busy job, erm, I enjoy it”.

“And how long have you been”.

“Erm, I’ve been an Anaesthetist since about ninety-seven, erm, in Leicester”.

viv said...

This is very odd from Fiona's rog. She says their oldest child is four in August, that would have been 08. So when she is relating that they clearly had been together for some years. Then how come Dave went to Portugal with his SISTER and why was he so keen to go back, they seem to go all over the place this group?

Erm, Dave’s idea was Portugal. Erm, I’d never been to Portugal before and he’d been, erm, at least once before (inaudible), erm, a few years ago with his sister and he, he was always very keen to go back.

viv said...

What a pity Kate did not stick to her gut instincts and think of those foul conversations Gerry and Payne exchanged, paedophile fantasies concerning little Maddie, then aged just two. She did not go on holiday with them again in 2006 and must bitterly regret this trip also.

Erm, and this always haunts me, erm, because Kate, huh, what had she said, when I was sort of twisting her arm really, she was unsure, I think Gerry was immediately quite keen, erm, to come and Kate had said, when I rang up, she said ‘I don’t know why I’ve just got an uneasy feeling about it’. And I don’t know why she said that, I don’t think she even knows, I never mentioned it to her since, but she said, you know, that was it really, but Gerry was so keen that she just sort of thought okay let’s go for it.

Wizard said...

LOL – the headline in the Express is ‘All three children drugged!’ Which is of course what most of us think and no doubt this headline will have increased their circulation figures today.

On further reading it’s the hapless Tec’s that suggest this.

Dave’s argument is ok if you are new to this case and do not know the facts. I do realise, without being to unkind to his detection skills, he is only allowed to pursue a stranger abductor line.

However his argument does have more holes than a sieve and he would have been well advised to have thoroughly read the witness transcripts before making comments.

Firstly Dave tells us: -

“They are convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007 fully prepared with sufficient drugs; probably chloroform, to knock out all three children.”

Not a shred of evidence to back any of this up just speculation. But I must concur with Dave the children where probably drugged to keep them quite while the parents went out drinking with friends.

“The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the detectives that they, too, must have been drugged.”

True – it is extremely likely

“Had the twins been tested for drugs immediately, any medication used could have been established; making it easier to identify the kidnapper, but vital time was lost.”

Again true - but of course Gerry refuse to allow this to happen!

“Dave et al believes there was a dry run prior to the kidnap that fateful night at apartment 5a of the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz.

“The fact that the children woke up, night of 2nd May, is thought to have persuaded the kidnapper to use knock-out drugs when he returned the next night to take Madeleine, three.”

LOL – You just have to laugh at this.

On the night of 1st May Madeleine cried for over an hour and a half according to Mrs Fenn’s statement with no checks made by the parents. Did the abductor also visit on the night of 1st May? Or is this fact glossed over due to it highlighting serious child neglect.

On the night of 2nd May KM tells us Madeleine told her that she and Sean were crying the night before.

Fiona Payne (next door) says she was in her apartment on the night of 2nd May and no children cried because she would have heard them. Hmm….

“Dave et al “do not believe Madeleine was taken through an open window as it would have been awkward, time consuming and there were no forensic clues left behind.”

Well after all this spin about the window Dave now disregards it as an exit point.

“It is far more likely, they say, that he simply walked out of the front door with her in his arms. It had been thought that the front door was double locked, making it impossible to open from the inside, but this doubt falls away if there was a duplicate key.”

Remove duplicate from the above para and yes they are quite right.

“The theory suggests the kidnapper had been targeting the apartment for a long time and had a detailed knowledge of the lock system.”

No evidence to suggest any of this just speculation.

hope4truth said...

Hi Viv

Dont you just love Dave Edgar now more than ever I belive he is working for Madeleine and how can the McCann's even begin to complain about that????

They must be tearing their hair out he is spot on with what happend the only problem is it just points the finger firmly at them as being the ones wot dunnit...

The DX will not be happy at paying out a small fortune to the McCann's and must be waiting to sell millions of extra papers when the truth comes out as they are the paper who was also a victim of team McCann...

Jane Tanner had better get her butt to a police station ASAP and tell everything she knows because I fear if she does not do it very soon (if she has not done so already) she will either be made the scape goat or she will be spending years behind bars for perveting the course of justice. If she co operates she may just get a slap on the wrist...

Lets face it everyone else including the removal of GA from the case have been bullied and intimidated by Team McCann how is one woman supposed to stand up to them when everyone else is going along with it...

I hope to god whoever makes money out of this tragic tale uses a chunk of it to help out real missing children and children who are at risk of harm from their parents or whoever is caring for them...

Let's hope it wont be long before Madeleine is seen as the victim and whatever happend to her is exposed and parents are never protected again when their child is in danger.

lets face it if any of our children were missing no matter what their age if we were protected over them we would be so angry as the only thing that would matter would be our child.

Wizard said...

The chloroform suggestion by Dave is quite useful drug to suggest was used as it appears even if a body is found it can’t be detected. I would also suggest the evidence of chloroform on items in the apartment would have evaporated into thin air just like Madeleine.

Below are some facts about the drug I have just googled.

In general, deaths from chloroform over-exposure when it was used as
an anaesthetic occurred over a period of hours, at fairly high
concentrations with a prolonged exposure. Exposures of less than
20,000 parts-per-million (about 2% chloroform, 98% air) are generally
considered safe.

However, there is always the possibility of someone being especially
susceptible, and reacting more strongly than most people to the
exposure (in other words, a sort of acute allergic reaction to the
chloroform). In that rare case, it could be deadly.

Chloroform is rapidly flushed from the body. Chloroform can be measured in exhaled breath, urine, blood, and other tissues, but no reliable method exists to determine the level of your exposure. Because chloroform can be formed in the body following exposure to other substances, levels found in tests cannot always be linked to just chloroform exposure. Doctors can use tests of liver, kidney, and heart function to evaluate the health effects of chloroform exposure.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz and good analysis, but the major point for me is what so called detective would even get the age wrong of the twins at the time.

They were born in February 2005 and therefore in May 2007, they were two years and three months NOT 18 MONTHS!

This again is going to make Edgar look rather ridiculous. I suppose it could be said that children 18 months do not talk anywhere near as well as those who are 2 years and three months.

viv said...

Hiya Hope

I rather doubt that Edgar is working for Madeleine.

When people are accused of serious crime, if they can afford it, they have a defence team and that will often include private detectives who will be looking for a way to present the evidence that makes their clients look innocent.

Here, Dave Edgar is taking on board the evidence but still attempting to do that, even though it clearly flags up Kate and Gerry have told lies in seeking to insist the predator broke in through the window.

I believe what Edgar is saying is probably pretty close to the official police view, the children were drugged and there was no breakin.

I believe it is an attempt to persuade people that in spite of what the police think and this points the involvement of the McCanns and their friends, there is a "perfectly innocent explanation". Do you remember Clarence saying that, in relation to any evidence that may be found?

The McCanns are even hiring media experts in Portugal to try and portray their innocence.

I think the McCanns are in very serious trouble and they know it!

viv said...

Hope, I also agree there may be a way out for Jane Tanner, if she goes and tells the police the truth. If she does not, she needs to think what Maxine Carr got!

viv said...

what do people think about Fiona Payne admitting that in spite of the fact she was married to David Payne and had been for some time, a few years previously he went to Portugal with his sister and really wanted to go again?

Why would a married man with little children and a busy wife, go off on holiday without them and go with his sister instead?

viv said...

Anyway hats off to the Star and the Daily Express, they make sure what they print, ridicules the McCanns, their various stories and their private dicks, but at the same time make sure what they print is completely Carter Ruck proofed, fair play!!

Wizard said...

Hi Viv,

It’s an interest point you make when you say:-

“When people are accused of serious crime, if they can afford it, they have a defence team and that will often include private detectives who will be looking for a way to present the evidence that makes their clients look innocent.”

I recently saw and old Perry Mason episode and his courtroom work is always backed up by Paul Drake his investigator.

Drake’s job is to try and breakdown the evidence and look at alternative reasons why it seems to point to the guilt of Mason’s client.

Exactly the same really as Dave et al.

In a way it could be argued that Dave et al are not looking for Madeleine but for plausible reasons their clients are not to blame.

Their fees being paid by the Fund and thinly masked to appear as if they are searching for the little girl but in fact they are gathering evidence to place doubt on any suggestion of their client’s guilt - should the case ever reach court.

Wizard said...

Fiona Payne told Leiceshire police back in 2008 that KM:

“……… and that was the other thing, she kept going into the twins, she kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing, she was very much concerned in checking that they were okay. But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird, I remember thinking, you know, when the Police came they turned the lights on, there was loads of noise, obviously from the moment Kate discovered that Madeleine was gone, the screaming and the shouting and there was a lot of noise and they, they didn’t, you know, so much as blink”.

If we read this statement in the knowledge that Gerry refused to allow the pj to test the twins for drugs on the night of 3 May a image begins to develop of what might well have happened on that fateful night.

No wonder the pj originally speculated that an accident occurred that night.

hope4truth said...

Hi All

Typing from my new web book which is ace but very tiny to type on so more mistakes than usual i am affraid...

I read on maddie case files today Fionas statement and someone there pointed out the line about the police switching the lights on and the twins not waking up...

They asked was this the first time the light had gone on when the police switched it on if so how they hell did they search for her before in the dark???

viv said...

Hi Wiz and Hope

I think that has always been obvious with Kate and Gerry, these so called detectives are not to find Maddie at all, they are to raise that element of doubt. This was the function of Metodo 3 and the British arm Hogan. Oakley International seemed to be just a complete ripoff and then we have yet another outfit doing the same.

I actually worked at a criminal law firm in the eighties and even on legal aid, it was sometimes possible in a serious case to hire private detectives to go and find evidence to help the defence. The issue is always a pretty simple one, producing that element of doubt. Now these guys are putting forward a scenario that is very close to the truth, but clearly have to suggest the abductors had a key, because, as we know, Gerry did!

But it is really bizarre that it blows a hole in what Kate and Gerry have previously insisted upon, the apt being broken into and of course, if they did a dummy run, which is ridiculous in itself, how come they did not notice they left the patio doors open. I think from a criminal law point of view Kate and Gerry avoid that one like the plague because even on the basis of a stranger abduction it leaves them culpable in Madeleine's disappearance. It takes you to the stage where you have to ask, well why did they leave that door open, none of the other couples admitted to doing that. Gerry initially insisted he left via the front door and then changed his statement on 10 May to say well no I was wrong there it was the patio. I do not think the police are that short of evidence in putting this story together!

viv said...

This firm demonstrates why private investigators have always been important to the McCanns and they searched around for ex police officers, they are working to defend you against the police case, which is clearly they were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine/

I used to use private detectives when working in family law also, and went out with one for four years!


Criminal Defence Investigations
Whether you are facing criminal or civil charges or indeed if you have been convicted of a criminal offence and you are wishing to appeal, Crown Intelligence have a strong team of Private Investigators dedicated to supporting your defence. An investigation can go far beyond the capabilities of a legal representative, as we are able to actively investigate hands on with a vast array of recourses, and uncover defence evidence and facts otherwise unobtainable. If there has already been a criminal conviction however and you require to launch an appeal please visit the criminal appeal page for more information.

Criminal and Civil Defence Investigation is carried out by the most experienced Private detective Investigators within the group. We have undertaken many civil and criminal cases, and experience and determination has enabled us to achieve strong and reliable results allowing our clients to benefit from a strengthened defence ensuring that the truth and facts of the innocent prevail

The Criminal Defence investigation
Criminal defence investigation cases often involve the liberty of an individual, but a carefully planned and proper defence investigation in a criminal case can lead to favourable results. The criminal defence Private Investigator will concentrate on developing evidence, which may be sufficient for an acquittal or at least create reasonable and sufficient doubt among the juror’s as to the client’s guilt. The defence investigation may also show that the client’s rights were violated or that proper procedures were not followed.

In the case that the client is pleading guilty to some of the charges but not to others, we can provide a tailored investigation to ensure sufficient evidence is available to support the clients plea.

The Solicitors limitations

Most solicitors rely heavily on information readily available at the time, and statements from the accused. It must be remembered that the Police and the CPS are working to provide a case against the accused, but without the assistance of a Private Investigator there is no-one to work on behalf of the defence. Crown Intelligence can supply the Solicitors and legal team with the necessary evidence to support a stronger defence.

A Criminal Defence Private Investigator
Crown Intelligence have specialist Private Investigators who are skilled in the necessary procedures to undergo an effective investigation on behalf of the defence. With police backgrounds, our criminal investigators have the knowledge and skills to investigate the facts relating to an event, uncover the truth, interview witnesses known to the defence, and in many cases locate and interview witnesses unknown to the defence. Evidence can be searched for using our vast resources, and together with supportive intelligence we can help build an effective case in our clients favour.

viv said...

Because I find this so amusing I thought I would let the rabid Pro McCanns pyschopops have its say on here, entirely credible stuff:-)))

To me it looks like Madeleine was targeted, (but I believe any blonde child who was in that apartment at that specific time would have been targeted).
They abducted Madeleine and because they knew the parents were eating their evening meal a short distance away, it was done to make it look like they were involved. I believe someone intentionally framed the McCanns and did things in that apartment from leaving the window open maybe, to weeks later planting evidence that the dogs would react to in the apartments and the car. It happened and the planting if evidence happened and whoever planted it had the foresight not to plant too much, but what they did was classical, they over-egged the situation and planted it in many too many different places, making it look like some macabre game of hide the body took place, totally ridiculous.

Just last week on this forum we highlighted huge and serious flaws with the video recordings of the Eddie and Keela indicating positives.

I believe that the person that planted this evidence also had a plan to follow up the sniffer dog findings, but because they did not understand false positives or the fact that any positives indicated by these dogs would need to be corroborated and because absolutely NO corroborating DNA was found, his their plan failed.

viv said...

Sorry I did cut this Rosierant but even so it needs two pagesL-)))

What I find totally bemusing is that Goncalo Amaral was the person in charge of this investigation, yet he NEVER even met Kate and Gerry face to face. He never sat in on one interview with an official translator, well let's face it, Goncalo Amaral, never did anything very much, except to take three and four hours long lunches and drive his police car, with his little girl in it, after drinking alcohol and decided to make the scene a crime scene, only after three months had elapsed!

Something else that needs to be investigated is who stayed in those apartments during those three months? Who else would have access to them and who could have planted false evidence?

Look at the way the dog reacted in that car park and how it was made to look, someone should doorstep Martin Grime and ask him about that investigation in the car park and the apartments and while they are at it, could they please ask Martin Grime, how Eddie picked up cuddle cat in the living area of the apartment, tossed it up in the air and ran off, showing total disinterest in the toy and then some time later (actual time elapsed cannot be determined on the video because it has obviously been tampered with) Eddie is seen barking a positive at a cupboard and Martin Grime appears, opens the cupboard and there inside, low and behold is cuddle cat! Martin Grime picked cuddle cat up and shows it to the camera as if it was some damning piece of evidence that his dog had just found, when he knew perfectly well it wasn't and so do we.

Please any journalist after the real truth, please ask Martin Grime why he did this and why he thinks Eddie indicated a positive to cuddle cat then and NOT before, when he was playing with it and throwing it up in the air.

Also where is Raymond [not dead yet] Hewlett? Anything done about what this man knows?

Don't forget that Raymond Hewlett fits the MO and he has actually used chemicals to subdue his victims before.........Anyone following this up at all?

Anyone following up how his partner actually strongly resembles the e-fit picture of the 'person' seen carrying Madeleine away, had she been easily disguised as a man?

Anyone taken the dogs into the houses, villas and grounds of EVERY single nearby residence?

Anyone investigated if any person or persons have been running an adoption agency and live in or nearby to PDL?

In fact has anyone gone over exactly what Goncalo Amaral did during this investigation?

As an side putrefaction does not start to take place until at least 2 to 3 days after someone dies, so what exactly was Eddie barking a positive to, THREE whole months later in those apartments? Especially 5a?

Something stinks there and it is NOT those apartments or the car, this has the whiff of corruption and witness framing about it!

More things we have noted about those *staged* positives on the sniffer dog videos too!

hope4truth said...

Oh dear god

so now we not only have an abductor who in 3 minutes unlocked the door opened the window drugged 3 small children carried one out the window no wait she wont fit so out the door made off past gerry and gez was seen by JT because even though he did a dry run the night before he forgot to bring a car and now he also set out to frame St Kate and St Gerry who were eating a good walk away from the apartment and all this in just 3 minutes what will we see next "Superman Takes Madeleine"

I guess RP is entitled to her opinion but my opinion now is if they killed her that is very very wrong if it was an accident and they covered it up the show they have put on since although wrong was born through desperation and no more harm can come to Madeleine...

If they are telling the truth and she was taken then Kate as a Mother is one sick twisted bitch to play games with her childs life the way she has and Gerry is an Evil T*sser for putting her life and eye in so much danger because it was a good marketing op....

Kate refused to answer a single question if her child is findable that is unforgivable... She jogs laughs and spins alongside her husband if Madeleine is in the depths of hell waiting to be rescued if she ever is in years to come she may hate her parents and expose them for the money grabbing heartless people they are spending her fund on their own lawyers...


Wizard said...

Good Morning Viv and Hope,

RP’s version of events on that fateful night are interesting.

I have often criticised pro-McCanner’s for never having a theory of what happened and only blind faith, ie. the McCann’s are not involved in Madeleine disappearance because they tell us so.

RP’s sceniro is interesting because of the timing of it. Is this to fit in with Hapless Dave et al’s theory? Or is there another reason? Hmmm….

Wizard said...

Not to be out done by Dave et al what about this......

Gerry and Jez were star struck lovers? - LOL.

This would of course explain why they failed to spot JT walking by them on a deserted road and also failed to spot the abductor disappearing into the night with Madeleine.

They only had eyes for er um …each other?

mandarinn said...

Good morning Viv & all
Viv , about the twins age,now I remenber when the case was on the first times, the maccans refused the twins to be"interviewd" with a a childs psychologist and a doctor present.Now I understand, if they was more than 2 years old they cold speak enought to be dangerous to their parents.The same about medical examination on the twins, they had a hair cut, and some months after, in UK,the parents take them to be examinted about possible drugs, and for the parents to be cleared.
This couple got conviction they are the only inteligent people on the world , and everyone will swalow every lie they tell

Wizard said...

Yesterday’s Sunday Express commentary in (paper editions) has certainly set the cat amongst the pigeons. Courtesy of JM


IT IS both a scandal and a crying shame that almost two and a half years after Madeleine McCann went missing the forces of law and order have failed to solve the mystery, bring her kidnapper to justice and find her.

Portuguese detectives working closely with Leicestershire Police and with limited support from Scotland Yard have amassed bulging case files but precious little hard evidence or, more importantly, any suspects.

The Portuguese investigation has effectively been shelved, with senior officers saying it will only be reopened if they receive credible new information.

So now finding Madeleine has become the responsibility of two retired middle-ranking police detectives working as private investigators for Kate and Gerry McCann.

While David Edgar and Arthur Cowley have done a solid, credible job so far, Home Secretary Alan Johnson should now ask Scotland Yard to set up a cold case review team to follow through on the pair’s fresh leads and work closely with their Portuguese counterparts.

For there is still so much work to be done. As a matter of urgency all forensic material, including Madeleine’s blanket and bedding, must be re-examined as the culprit must have left a trace of a knock out drug.

Scotland Yard must demand spy satellite images of the resort as the kidnapper is probably on film casing the apartment in the days, weeks and months before the kidnap. There must also be a proper, systematic search of all the scrubland in and around Praia da Luz as it is likely the kidnapper hid in the undergrowth for several hours after the kidnap and almost certainly left clues behind.

Mr Edgar is believed to be looking at five or so “persons of interest” but he has limited resources. That is why Scotland Yard must restore public confidence by taking over the investigation.

The public has a right to expect its government will spend whatever it takes to capture the most heinous of criminals, child abductors.

hope4truth said...

Hi Wiz

Star crossed lovers LOL...

Excelent article and I belive the whole thing should undergo a cold case review by detectives.... Lets just hope that if they come to the same conclusion as the PJ that the McCann's are guilty they dont shelve it...

As for the blanket that needs to be looked at is that the one that was on the bed that JT said the child she saw was wraped in that is now no where to be found????

If so investigate who took it away and you may have the evil person who hurt Madeleine !!!

viv said...

Hiya all

Well I would like to know how Rosierant knows for a fact her favourite person, Goncalo Amaral, never met the McCanns? This seems very unlikely to me!

I also wonder why Rosierant is still trying to blame Hewlett when the McCanns own investigators have excluded him from their inquiries.

I also wonder where Rosierant got the quite incredible scientific information "putrefaction does not commence until at least 2 to 3 days after death". More educated people who trouble to read will no that bacterial action involved in decomposition starts immediately after death and Grime confirmed that distinctive scent can be emitted straight away.

I have to say that Rosierant has the effect of making me think they did kill Madeleine!

As for the suggestion that some previous occupiers of the apartment may well be responsible for the kidnapping of Madeleine, ROFLMAO. We have seen from the PJ files that all previous occupiers were carefully interviewed, not that Rosierant would take much notice of that. Or even understand those interviews were conducted by British Police, kind of difficult to blame Goncalo for that one!!

viv said...

Hope, I entirely agree it is completely unforgivable that Kate refused to answer police questions designed to determined what happened to Madeleine, including, was she thinking of transferring custody of Madeleine to a relative. That may explain how she managed to laugh and jog after Madeleine had been so conveniently removed from their care.

I also think it is unforgivable that friends of the McCanns refused to attend an official police reconstruction to debunk all the confusing lies they told to police. Their own fear of incriminating themselves in Madeleine's disappearane clearly outweighs any wish on their part to assist the police in finding her.

viv said...

Hiya Mandarinn and great to hear from you as ever.

It is weird that we get this deliberate misinformation about the ages of the twins. As you say the McCanns refused to have them tested or interviewed by child pyschologists claiming their language skills were not sufficiently developed. It sounds like a deliberate con to me to knock a massive 9 months of their age to get the public to accept this one.

I think Gerry McCann finds his ability to con and manipulate amusing and do recall the apparently inane blog comment he made, even managed to fit in a haircut for the twins. It might not have immediately been significant to us, but of course it is now, including his decision, no doubt on legal advice to suddenly remove all that blogging he chose to do.

Too late, Gerry, we read it and we remember!

It has always been blatantly obvious the children were drugged, I think it only shows how desperate the McCanns are to openly admit that but make bizarre suggestions as to how this fantasy predator did that in his 4 minute window of opportunity. All the lies and varying stories from Kate and Gerry McCann are starting to catch up on them.

No one is going to forget that immediately Gerry was saying the bedroom window and shutter got jemmied! Neither is anyone going to forget they say they left the patio door open. But two and half years later tell us the predator did not use either of those routes, oh no, he had a key. Well we all know who had the key and we are looking right at you, Gerry McCann!

viv said...

Wiz, I find it very odd that the DX simply state the PJ investigation has been shelved and so it is left to McCann detectives. This is rubbish and they know it!

There is no need to be demanding cold case reviews, the case in UK has never been shelved. I doubt the DX have much more information on British Police activity in this case than we do ourselves.

But I do think that we may be getting nearer to British Police making arrests given all the propaganda we are currently seeing in one last desperate effort to make the McCanns appear innocent.

Wizard said...

Hi Viv,

You say: “But I do think that we may be getting nearer to British Police making arrests given all the propaganda we are currently seeing in one last desperate effort to make the McCanns appear innocent.”

Well something’s afoot for the reasons you suggest.

DX are having fun – they just can’t wait to pounce. They know the score just as we do they are just goading the Mcs.

RP has been following this case as long as we have and should know by now that dogs trained to scent human cadavers pick up the subtle changes in a human remains within a couple of minutes of death.

Also I don’t think I’m mistaken but wasn’t there more than one cuddles cat I think it belonged to one of the twins. Thus the first cat was tossed aside by the dog but the second cat they alerted to.

hope4truth said...


I have to agree Wiz I think the DX are having a fun old time agreeing with the detectives whilst priniting all the evidence they have which have already been denied by the McCann's.... All team McCann can do is grin and nod their heads and pretend to be pleased the truth is comming out....

As for RP she convinced me 2 years ago that whatever happend to Madeleine was the fault of her parents with maybe a bit of help from their friends.. you would have thought an important man like Gerry would have told her to shut up the moment she first started to rant on their behalf..

long may they continue the documentrys and hearts and rainbow sites because without them many people would still belive the crap they come out with ....

What I dont understand for any true unpaid pro is how the hell they can look at the smiles from the twisted pair and watch all the spin and lack of cooperation towards the investigation as well as wasting the fund on lawyers for them instead of actually searching.?

Not being funny but they are blogging to save Kate and Gerry because little Madeleine has been pushed out of the victim frame and left to rot in some peadophile hell while Daddy insists with a smile there is no reason to belive she has been harmed!!!

viv said...

Hello both, I do not think I can put it any better than either of you, I just completely agree.

The DX are having a laugh and they know there is nothing the McCanns can say or do about it. The McCanns themselves have provided all of the ammunition to make them look like the incredulous liars that they are. Gerry McCann wanted a media circus and he has got it! Somehow I suspect he will not be so avidly smirking about it now, as he did on Paxman when he still seemed to think he was what he so clearly needs to be, in control. He lost control of this a long time ago and reality must be beginning to dawn.

As I say Wiz, RP has the very opposite effect to the one it presumably intends to have. Having put the thought of the McCanns killing Madeleine to one side in my own mind, it brings all those thoughts and feelings back. It just is a case of they protest too much. It was easy to shut Tony Bennett up because he clearly had behaved in a foolish way and had no means to try and defend his behaviour. But Goncalo Amaral, now that is another matter.

Whatever the McCanns did with Madeleine, I genuinely do wish him the very best!!


viv said...

Hope, I have thought for a long time that the likes of RP and others on these sites are paedophiles/supporters because their basic dogma is Maddie is safe and well and need to be returned to the loving arms of her parents, who just could not possibly have caused her any harm. Only a paedophile could actually believe such sickening vomit.

Oh and Wiz, I entirely agree RP is quite intelligent enough to know that what it writes is pure rubbish. Decomposition commences from the moment of death and can be picked up by cadaver scenting dogs.

viv said...

How very interesting, I have scanned the order paper for yesterday 12th to see what this could be, have a look at number 17 controlling costs in defamation proceedings, but I hope it is something even hotter and the Guardian really push this one. The initial starred items are questions being asked, and not all of them give any detail, any ideas guys, those Carter Ruckers are causing quite a storm lately, are they not, things are definitely hotting up!


Guardian gagged from reporting parliamentBuzz up!
Digg it
David Leigh guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 October 2009 20.31 BST Article history
The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck. Photograph: John D McHugh/AFP

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

The Guardian has vowed urgently to go to court to overturn the gag on its reporting. The editor, Alan Rusbridger, said: "The media laws in this country increasingly place newspapers in a Kafkaesque world in which we cannot tell the public anything about information which is being suppressed, nor the proceedings which suppress it. It is doubly menacing when those restraints include the reporting of parliament itself."

The media lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC said Lord Denning ruled in the 1970s that "whatever comments are made in parliament" can be reported in newspapers without fear of contempt.

He said: "Four rebel MPs asked questions giving the identity of 'Colonel B', granted anonymity by a judge on grounds of 'national security'. The DPP threatened the press might be prosecuted for contempt, but most published."

The right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority – up to the king – over the right to keep the public informed. After Wilkes's battle, wrote the historian Robert Hargreaves, "it gradually became accepted that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to".

viv said...

Well could it be the member for Bosworth's question about this: (IS it not appropriate for certain NHS workers to erm, you know)

Welcome to the Independent Safeguarding Authority
The Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) has been created to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults.

We do this by working in partnership with the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and other delivery partners. Read more about how we will provide this service.

Increased safeguards have now been introduced under the Vetting and Barring Scheme, from October 12th 2009:

•It is now a criminal offence for individuals barred by the ISA to work or apply to work with children or vulnerable adults in a wide range of posts - including most NHS jobs, Prison Service, education and childcare. Employers also face criminal sanctions for knowingly employing a barred individual across a wider range of work;
•The three former barred lists (POCA, POVA and List 99) are being replaced by two new ISA-barred lists;
•Employers, local authorities, professional regulators and other bodies have a duty to refer to the ISA, information about individuals working with children or vulnerable adults where they consider them to have caused harm or pose a risk of harm. Referral forms and referral guidance are available.
VBS Guidance is also available covering the increased safeguards and the duties to refer introduced from the 12th October.

Please note: ISA-registration for the Vetting and Barring Scheme does not start for new workers or those moving jobs until July 2010 and ISA-registration does not become mandatory for these workers until November 2010. All other staff will be phased into the scheme from 2011. Further information on how to apply for registration will be provided in due course.

Supporting materials can be found on our toolkit page. Presentations and FAQ's can be found here.

viv said...

Conservative, specific interest, health

Where is Bosworth? Leicester!

Nearby constituencies
North Warwickshire (10 miles)
Nuneaton (10 miles)
Leicester West (10 miles)
Blaby (11 miles)
North West Leicestershire (11 miles)

Ho hum:-))) Maybe it is him then?

Wizard said...

Clearly the Guardian et al have been Carter Rucked with a super injunction as mentioned previously in the current Private Eye.

The freedom of the press was summed up succinctly by Sir John Donaldson’s judgement in the Spy catcher case in the court of Appeal in 1988, describing the media as ‘the eyes and ears of the general public’.

Lord Bingham re-emphasised this in 2000 when he said: “The proper functioning of a modern participatory democracy requires that the media be free, active, professional and inquiring.”

Well not according to lawyers like Carter Ruck of course.

Defamation to me is a very grey area and one that can be easily be missed used – as we know defamation is when what is said or written is damaging a person’s or a company’s reputation.

I often think of defamation as a rich man's legal tool – not one to be used readily by the financially challenged.

Looking at reporting restrictions there is also contempt – what is said or written posing a substantial risk of serious prejudice to legal proceedings.

Reporting restrictions – may exist to prevent journalists identifying children and young person, or the victim of sexual offence.

So which of the above has the Guardian been hit by - imo a super injunction - perhaps because of the geographical locations of the MP’s mentioned - individuals in Rothely perhaps?

Wizard said...

As a former colleague memorably put it after Carter-Ruck's death in 2003, "He did for freedom of speech what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen."

I have to agree with this!

Di said...

Hi All


Joanna Morais is reporting that Carter-Ruck have backed down. I have had a look round and it would appear Twitter supporters had alot to do with the outcome.

Well done Twitters.

Wizard said...

Hi Di,

Thanks for the info.

So Carter-Ruck is not infallible!

The injuction was on behalf of Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton Report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura".

hope4truth said...


Carter Ruck dont seem to care who they support do they???

I follow Stephen Fry on Twitter he is very pleased about the whole Carter Ruck climb down...

Wonder if the McCann's feel so untouchable now???

Di said...

Hi Hope

I have done a bit of digging, Carter-Ruck are nothing special, they are not even in the big league, but would perhaps like to think so, although they caved in pretty quick today.

I don't know much about Twitter but will have a look. I must admit I love Stepen Fry's sense of humour.

Di said...

Stepen, stephen even :o))

Di said...

Just testing new profile picture of view from our garden in Wales.

viv said...

Thanks for all the updates guys, co Carter Ruck's clients include those who want to dump toxic waste..and stop everyone from knowing about it!

Speaking out in parliament and the right of the press to report is clearly a time honoured tradition. We need to be informed what MPs are saying and doing on our behalf.

It is great that Carter Ruck just had to back down and accept a humiliating defeat on this one and I see across parties in the house there was outrage at their conduct. This is surely not going to help them much when the Select Committee comes to report.

It must surely also be a continuing embarassment to Kate and Gerry McCann that they so frequently need to resort to the exhorbitantly expensive bullies, Carter Ruck and also sought out another very expensive lawyer with specific skills in reputation management Angus McBride.

Are they still trying to tell us this is all to do with finding little Maddie? We saw the accounts where more was spent on reputation management and lawyers than PIs and we can see that the PIs themselves are only seeking to produce "evidence for the defence", an endless list of bizarre suspects and sightings that always come to the same thing, nought!

Maybe the McCanns ought to stop and think how much good it is doing their reputation to keep on resorting to these expensive thugs?

I hope the Select Committee do not let us down!

viv said...

Keep trying Di, I cannot see your garden in Wales yet, but look forward to doing so !


Di said...

Hi Viv

I can on my last post, can anyone else?

viv said...

The power of the internet, Kate and Gerry need to realise they are not going to shut us up, we would not give them the satisfaction!

As this piece confirms the more they try to stifle, the more people want to know, serves them right!

Maybe they will think again in relation to Goncalo?


Over the past 24 hours, the news about the injunction and the injuncted material was more effectively distributed across the planet than any army of PR merchants and marketing gurus could have hoped to have achieved - a slamming wave of ire before which lawyers and judges were entirely helpless. And indeed, hours before the Guardian was due to challenge the injunction in court, the lawyers responsible for gagging Parliament caved in.

It will be a while before the implications of the Trafigura affair are fully absorbed: if nothing else, it will make litigous parties think twice before issuing the sort of absolute injunctions which have been growing in popularity even as their powers to hide from scrutiny have increased.

But there is no doubt that the events of the past day have been profoundly democratic, entirely in keeping with the Bill of Rights' sweeping away of kingly powers and its assertion of the primacy of openness among the governors of the people. In a parallel universe, attempts to muzzle parliament might be seen as treasonable - but while we'll never have libel lawyers hearing the axe being sharpened in the Tower, the end result - a chilling effect on the silencers - is just as welcome, and welcomingly just.

viv said...

Hiya Di, No it must be me again! When going into the comment page though I can see your old one with the cat in the hammock which is so cute!


Di said...

I also just wanted to say how sorry I am to read about Aisling Symes, what a terrible tragedy, that poor little girl. I do hope there was no foul play involved.

Off for a while, will try and look back in.

viv said...

how is your little grandson now and daughter?

I hope he has calmed down a bit, for you both x

viv said...

Oh Di, how very sad, she has been found in a drain. It was annoying though the first article I came to was talking about the blasted McCanns first!

Are they forever going to be commenting on such tragedies?

I suppose we must await more news but I hope she did not suffer.


hope4truth said...

Hi Di

I can see your picture what a beautiful view...

Stephen Fry LOL I blame this small net book I love it but is hard to get used to and to add insult to injury I thought he spelt his name PH but checked before I typed it and still got it wrong DOH !!!!


viv said...

Hiya Hope

How frustrating, I want to see the picture! I wish I was smart enough to know what settings it is prevents me from being able to see the pictures on here, they are currently all blank unless I go into the comments page and then Di's new one is still blank!

Stephen Fry, however his name is spelt is absolutely wonderful, isn't he. Did you see the programme where he was talking about his bipolar disorder it was just so lovely I thought for other sufferers and was really kind and brave of him to be so frank and concerned for others who suffer in the same way.

Now let me see, hum, small net book, that is your laptop right?

Luke sold ours *well his really, but I did not like it much anyway!


Wizard said...

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but I’ve only just seen it.

“Shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt's appeal for more Conservatives to be employed by BBC News could be about to be granted – except in reverse. Clarence Mitchell, the former BBC journalist turned spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann, is planning to stand as a Tory MP in the next general election. Mitchell, who quit the corporation to head up the media monitoring unit at the government's Central Office of Information, will face a selection board early next month. He already knows the party's director of communications, Andy Coulson, rather well – from Coulson's time as editor of the News of the World.”

Guardian 12th October 2009

This piece of news suddenly makes the Labour Party look good.

I always thought most politicians are pompous windbags who are economical with the truth – so no surprise there then for Mitchell to put himself forward for selection.

viv said...

hiya Wiz, and thanks for posting although I had seen that. I think you just summed things up here and I cannot believe the tories would think he is going to be helpful when they are trying to put on a new squeaky clean, care for the poor type of image!

I think Mitchell is pretty desperate to find himself a well paid job, where he can use his particular skills of being a smooth talking, lying scumbag who thinks it is clever to try and con and manipulate what the public perception of events should be.

"I always thought most politicians are pompous windbags who are economical with the truth – so no surprise there then for Mitchell to put himself forward for selection."

viv said...

Wow, have you seen this written by Carta Muck, they are actually saying that if a client gets an interim injunction and then at trial they lose the case the person injuncted (i.e Goncalo Amaral) could seek damages for loss of profits. Now that would be fun!

It was kind of Carta Muck to give Trafigura such a load of free publicity, all about their toxic waste dumping and wakening up parliament to threat these bods pose to free speech in the commons and being reported fairly in the press! Did they unturn one of those stones and something nasty crept out, this is a bad turn for the Doctors Kate and Gerry McCann who have such a passionate love affair with this firm!

Obtaining Injunctions ... or How to Apply The Methods of The Spanish Inquisition
Nigel TaitBack to Publications

Our two weapons are fear and surprise … and ruthless efficiency.

Cardinal Ximinez(1)

Applications for an interim injunction are great fun (if you win), exhilarating, and the nearest legal equivalent to accident and emergency surgery.

It is not uncommon for initial instructions to come from a friend, solicitor or agent of the person concerned but it is vital to establish and hold a direct line of communication with the client and obtain direct instructions.

Initial Assessment
In many cases it is clear to the lawyer, within minutes of taking instructions, whether or not the exercise may be worth while or is likely to be successful and, if it is, it is important to explain to the client:

viv said...

i.the risks of it going wrong; and

ii.the risks of it going right!
If a client unsuccessfully applies for an injunction it may well draw more attention to the libel or breach of confidence than leaving it alone. The client should be told to foresee headlines such as "The story he tried to ban" or "The photographs they didn't want you to see". A client will also need to be given the best possible idea of the likely costs of both sides and the solicitor needs to be sure that if he is going to instruct counsel he will be covered for their fees by the client!

As to the risks of it going right, a solicitor must explain to the client that if he obtains an injunction it will be necessary to issue proceedings and pursue them vigorously until trial or settlement. Additionally, and most importantly it is necessary to explain the "cross undertaking as to damages" to the client. The position is this. If the client obtains an interim injunction but subsequently the case goes to trial and he fails to obtain a final order the defendant can maintain that he was restrained unjustly and will generally be entitled to damages for any losses that have been sustained. At one end of the scale are advertising and potential syndication losses for the defendant together with the loss of being able to capitalise on an exclusive. In the middle of the scale are the costs of reprinting and/or pulping of books and towards the bottom end of the scale, and probably de minimis, is the potential exposure when obtaining an injunction against publication on the Internet. Pulping and reprinting a book is surprisingly cheap in the context of litigation and the evidence of a friendly printer or publisher is often useful where the size of the cross-undertaking is important.

Having briefly explained the law to the client (see later) it is time to proceed with the first two weapons of the Spanish Inquisition. Fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency.

viv said...

Obtaining Injunctions ... or How to Apply The Methods of The Spanish Inquisition
Nigel TaitBack to Publications

Our two weapons are fear and surprise … and ruthless efficiency.

Cardinal Ximinez(1)

Applications for an interim injunction are great fun (if you win), exhilarating, and the nearest legal equivalent to accident and emergency surgery.

It is not uncommon for initial instructions to come from a friend, solicitor or agent of the person concerned but it is vital to establish and hold a direct line of communication with the client and obtain direct instructions.

Initial Assessment
In many cases it is clear to the lawyer, within minutes of taking instructions, whether or not the exercise may be worth while or is likely to be successful and, if it is, it is important to explain to the client:

i.the risks of it going wrong; and

ii.the risks of it going right!
If a client unsuccessfully applies for an injunction it may well draw more attention to the libel or breach of confidence than leaving it alone. The client should be told to foresee headlines such as "The story he tried to ban" or "The photographs they didn't want you to see". A client will also need to be given the best possible idea of the likely costs of both sides and the solicitor needs to be sure that if he is going to instruct counsel he will be covered for their fees by the client!

As to the risks of it going right, a solicitor must explain to the client that if he obtains an injunction it will be necessary to issue proceedings and pursue them vigorously until trial or settlement. Additionally, and most importantly it is necessary to explain the "cross undertaking as to damages" to the client. The position is this. If the client obtains an interim injunction but subsequently the case goes to trial and he fails to obtain a final order the defendant can maintain that he was restrained unjustly and will generally be entitled to damages for any losses that have been sustained. At one end of the scale are advertising and potential syndication losses for the defendant together with the loss of being able to capitalise on an exclusive. In the middle of the scale are the costs of reprinting and/or pulping of books and towards the bottom end of the scale, and probably de minimis, is the potential exposure when obtaining an injunction against publication on the Internet. Pulping and reprinting a book is surprisingly cheap in the context of litigation and the evidence of a friendly printer or publisher is often useful where the size of the cross-undertaking is important.

Having briefly explained the law to the client (see later) it is time to proceed with the first two weapons of the Spanish Inquisition. Fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency.

viv said...

Here is some more, I just cannot believe they wrote this crap, do they think they are terrifying people? The Spanish Inquisition, the Pincer Movement, who they heck do they think they are, mind you I suppose narcissists would get on well together, for a very short time!

Practical Matters
Depending upon the urgency and importance of the matter it may be necessary to throw a team of 2-4 lawyers together. The trainee or assistant should sit in on telephone calls or meetings as the partner will have precious little time for attendance notes or confirming advice in writing. The assistant can also draft the application notice, the draft order to put before the court as well as a bundle of evidence.

Having dealt with the law, the risks, the money and the outline of the evidence (and if time permits) it is time to fire off some letters.

In the case of publication on the Internet the person responsible for the libel or breach of confidence will need to be notified immediately(2) as well as the Internet service provider. In cases involving books or magazines the publisher will need to be notified as will the leading booksellers, as part of a pincer movement.

There are a number of reasons for contacting the ISPs or booksellers. First, as soon as they are on notice they will lose the protection of section 1 of the 1996 Defamation Act(3). Secondly, they may well decide to take down the Internet page or remove the book or magazine from the shelves until the dust settles (in which case a huge amount will have already been achieved with just one letter) and thirdly they will know that continued publication, following notice of the libel or breach of confidence, may well attract a claim for exemplary damages. This is the weapon of fear.

In order to obtain an injunction it will be necessary to persuade the court that there is a real risk of further publication. For that reason it is often useful to demand an undertaking from the publishers that they will not publish the words complained of or breach the confidence of your client. The time given to the other side can be tailored to the length of time it will take you and your legal team to put together the evidence in writing. (In the most extreme cases "evidence" can be given by counsel on the client's undertaking to file a witness statement verifying what is said.) So, for example, if it is going to take the legal team one and a half hours to draft the submissions, the order, the application notice and the evidence, that could be the time when your ultimatum expires.

In this way the legal team will be ready and well prepared to apply to court immediately upon the expiration of the ultimatum. This is the weapon of surprise.

As the solicitor is putting the evidence together counsel will be checking drafts and preparing submissions as well as collating any authorities which he relies upon. In this way the claimant's legal team should be up to speed well ahead of the defendant. This is the weapon of ruthless efficiency.

viv said...

The Law

Applications For An Injunction In Libel
The dice are loaded against a claimant on an interim application for an injunction. This is because of what lawyers call "the rule against prior restraint"(4) which in layman's terms can be translated as the fact that our courts will not grant an injunction to restrain freedom of speech where a defendant turns up to court and says that he will prove that the words complained of are substantially true, fair comment, responsible journalism on a matter of public interest or are published on an occasion of "qualified privilege". (For example where a director is under a duty to his board to make defamatory allegations which he believes to be true.)

"Before the event" injunctions for libel are extremely difficult to achieve and as rare as strawberries in winter. This is because of the rule in British Data Management Plc -v- Commercial Removals Plc(5) which provides that the claimant must prove, with reasonable certainty, the words of the threatened libel. In the case of a newspaper which has not yet gone to print this might prove to be almost impossible as the precise words for publication can be changed minutes before the publishing deadline. It is rare indeed for a newspaper to show the claimant a draft article although, in the case of television, documentaries are often sent out in advance to reviewers in order to obtain advance publicity.

It is for these reasons, and the fact that media defendants will fight tooth and nail to protect their freedom of expression, that libel injunctions against the media are so few and far between. However, a claimant does enjoy one advantage. An interim injunction against one defendant is binding upon everyone else under the "Spycatcher principle"(6). By selecting the financially weakest defendant (for example the source) it may improve the prospect of obtaining an injunction from a High Court Judge(7) and will bind the press unless they choose to contest the hearing at a later date or the injunction is made final, or discharged.

In freedom of speech/media cases a judge must bear in mind, where a defendant is neither present nor represented, that no injunction is to be granted unless the court is satisfied:

a.that the claimant had taken all practicable steps to notify the defendant; or

b.that there are compelling reasons why the defendant should not be notified(8).

Additionally, section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that no injunction is to be granted unless the court is satisfied that the claimant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed and by section 12(4) the court must have particular regard to the importance of the convention right to freedom of expression and in the case of journalistic, literary or artistic material the extent to which:

viv said...

i.the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or

ii.it is, or would be in the public interest for the material to be published and any relevant privacy code.
Injunctions In Privacy
A fairly clear picture is emerging of what matters the courts consider suitable for injunction.

Examples include:

a.unauthorised "topless" shots of women taken in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy;

b.marital confidences(9) unless the other party to the marriage (whether dissolved or ongoing) has gone "public" already(10);

c.cases where the evidence has been obtained by underhand means(11); and

d.cases involving medical records(12).
Cases involving medical records or saucy photographs have the advantage in that the scope for a public interest defence is limited. As Mackay J stated during the course of argument in A -v- B and C(13) which concerned such photographs "I hope no one is going to waste my time claiming that there is a public interest defence in this case".

The fact that the material has previously appeared on the Internet or overseas is not a complete answer for the defendant(14).

Prior to the incorporation of the Human Rights Act judges were often guided by what they thought was "reasonable", subject to the constraints of the law, in deciding whether or not to grant an injunction. These days, lawyers must think in terms of what is "proportionate", "necessary" and whether the injunction would meet a "pressing social need" in terms of protection of reputation or privacy.

With the injunction obtained it is time for soft cushions and the comfy chair.

Nigel Tait is a partner in Carter-Ruck. Try as he might, he couldn't find a place in this article to include the 4th weapon of the Inquisition - an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

ICantThinkOfAName said...

A story on line for "The Argus"


Worthing MP to report libel firm Carter Ruck to Law Society
2:31pm Wednesday 14th October 2009
Comments (4) Have your say »

Worthing West MP Peter Bottomley is to report law firm Carter Ruck to the Law Society for seeking to gag reports of Parliamentary proceedings.

Mr Bottomley made his intentions clear during Prime Minister’s question time this afternoon following the firm sensationally backing down from pursuing an injunction preventing The Guardian from reporting a question relating to oil company Trafigura.

In response, Gordon Brown said Justice Secretary Jack Straw is to examine the use of "super injunctions”.

Mr Brown said the granting of secret injunctions, which not only ban reporting of a story but also of the existence of the ban itself, was an "unfortunate area of the law".

Mr Bottomley said: "No Court should grant such an order and I intend to report them to the Law Society for asking for the injunction."

He called for details of secret or emergency injunctions to be placed in the House of Commons library and the Press Gallery and added that any such order should be reviewed the next working day at the Court of Appeal.

Mr Brown said: "This is an issue where an injunction has been awarded but it has been awarded in the context where it has to remain secret and people are not told what the outcome is generally.

"The Justice Secretary has talked to the parties concerned and is looking into this issue."

He told Mr Bottomley: "I hope that on the basis of what you suggest progress can be made not just in this case but more generally to clear up what is an unfortunate area of the law."

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger yesterday hailed a "great victory for free speech" and said lawyers had "caved in" over the order which prevented reporting of a question asked by Labour's Paul Farrelly.

After the Guardian posted a story spelling out what they were unable to report as a result of the gag, blogs and Twitter users quickly moved to uncover the information for themselves, which meant by yesterday morning Trafigura, The Guardian and Carter Ruck were the most-discussed topics on Twitter.

The effect has been described by Mr Rusbridger as an "own goal" in PR terms.

In a statement, Carter Ruck said: "There is no question of Trafigura seeking to 'gag' the media from reporting parliamentary proceedings, and the parties have now agreed to an amendment to the existing order so as to reflect that."

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Comments for above:

Variable, Brighton says...
2:59pm Wed 14 Oct 09

It is good to see one of our MPs take a stand on this. This is a hugely important issue of free speech and we cannot have law firms dictating what the press can report about Parliament.
What makes this utterly despicable is the subject of the ban - illegal toxic waste dumping.
Obviously Carter-Ruck had never heard of the 'Streisand Effect'. They have now.

bibble, London (but visit Brighton regularly) says...
3:32pm Wed 14 Oct 09

The right person to go after in this case is the judge who granted the injunction. By ignoring the Bill of Rights, the judge would seem to have acted illegally. No court can override Parliament.

I expect the judge will get away with it.

puddingandpi, Brighton says...
3:48pm Wed 14 Oct 09

It's the law firm - they're very, um, *vigorous* on behalf of their clients.

The judges shouldn't just grant these injunctions at the drop of a lawyer, but they do seem to.

Luckily, I read Private Eye so I get all the goss!

Tye, Brighton says...
5:36pm Wed 14 Oct 09

Carter Rucks "celebrity / good character dept" really are dangerous.
These super injunctions are often granted and we never know about it -
Its unbelieveably still illegal to actually mention what was in the actual report - the report was about allegations this company just took dangerous garbage/refuse/chemi
cals as I understand and dumped it on the poorest country in the world - amazing innit when you think what brightons green councillor idiots get their knickers in a twist about a plastic bag!

viv said...

Hiya ICTOAN, how lovely to hear from you again and thanks for the articles.

It would be good if the Law Society took action against Carter Ruck for attempting to prevent the reporting of what happens in the Commons, but somehow I suspect they would take the attitude the Judge concerned allowed that. They are very good at protecting their own. I think it is more an issue for parliament itself to legislate/take action about.

It does make me wonder whether the McCanns have a super injunction.

All the adverse publicity for their
favourite firm of expensive bullies is not good for them, that is for sure!

I think Carter Ruck are attracing the concern of MPs and something will be done about their conduct. UK is quite regulated enough and in favour of celebrities being able to enforce their right to privacy or claiming they have been libelled. We need to see a fairer system, rather than one where only the rich and privileged can say they have been damaged in some way. It is disgusting that includes Kate and Gerry McCann. The couple from hell who claim they left their tiny tots alone with the door open and when they knew they had cried left them again. Celebrity? More like infamy!

viv said...

Serious case reviews are inquiries into the death or serious injury of a child where abuse or neglect is known or suspected to be a factor. So I wonder what the findings were in relation to Madeleine and how it can be considered appropriate for the McCanns to still have care of the twins? It is not appropriate or reasonable for Gerry McCann to insist there is no evidence she has suffered serious harm, then where is she? A more perverse and defensive comment would be hard to find.

Child abuse reviews 'inadequate'
boy crying
Ofsted monitors child protection as well as education

More than a third of official inquiries into the most serious cases of child abuse in England are inadequate, the official watchdog Ofsted has warned.

In its evaluation of 173 "serious case reviews" from April 2008 to March 2009, Ofsted found 34% had weaknesses.

It identified weak management and a lack of joint working across agencies.

Serious case reviews are inquiries into the death or serious injury of a child where abuse or neglect is known or suspected to be a factor.

These reviews are carried out by bodies known as local safeguarding children's boards, which oversee the work of various agencies involved in child welfare, including social services, education, health services and the police.

Ofsted automatically carries out its own review of these inquiries.


In total, Ofsted found 23% of the serious case reviews were good and 43% were adequate.

But inspectors said 34% had weaknesses and judged them to be inadequate.

They found a number of shortcomings including weak management, a lack of joint agency working, a failure to focus on the needs of the child, insufficient staff expertise and poor identification of ethnic or social issues.

"Even more needs to be done to ensure the review process improves the way children are protected from harm across the country," the report said.

Chief inspector Christine Gilbert said inspectors had identified "encouraging signs of improvement".

"However, much more work needs to be done to address the remaining weaknesses and to ensure that lessons lead to improved outcomes for children and young people.

"It is of great concern that over a third of reviews are still judged inadequate.


More from Today programme

"We all have a duty to protect children from harm. It is crucial that those involved in child protection use the serious case review process to deliver change and improvement."

Joanna Nicolas, an independent social worker and child protection trainer, said the report showed things were not improving.

"We've actually increased the number of children who we've identified as being at risk of significant harm, but more of those children are dying," she said.

She said failings stemmed from relevant services being "crippled", partly as a result of "high vacancy rates" and heavy work loads.

"It isn't just social care, it's a lot of the other agencies as well that now have much more responsibility in terms of child protection, in terms of children in need," said the social worker.

Child protection has been under the spotlight following the failure of social workers in the London borough of Haringey to prevent the abuse and death of 17-month-old Baby Peter in 2007.

England's Children's Minister Delyth Morgan said: "Serious Case Reviews are critically important to learning lessons and driving improvements in front line practice in safeguarding children.

"We are already consulting on ways of strengthening further the quality of Serious Case Reviews and this must be a key priority for all Local Safeguarding Children Boards.

"Through our commitment to deliver on Lord Laming's recommendations, we will work with local partners to embed good practice and take forward the learning from today's report."

Wizard said...

Hi Viv,

GM: “No evidence she has suffered serious harm.”

What GM means of course is they can’t pin it on us – the evidence isn’t strong enough to stand up in court.

Infamy indeed Viv – the Mc’s will soon be running to Carter Muck screaming infamy, infamy they’ve all got it in-for-me.

Ops…That was Kenny William in ‘Carry On’ mode playing Julie Cesear. Mind you this case is all a bit of a carry on.

That was a very interesting post regarding social services and child neglect etc.

Baby P was not the first social services disaster in Haringey - not so long ago there was Victoria Climbe.

They promised to change the system after Victoria’s death saying similar things then as their response to the Baby P case now.

It’s very sad as nothing changed and another child has died.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

It is interesting in looking at the procedures in UK, and surely there must have been such a procedure in relation to Madeleine because the issue of serious neglect was obviously present, at the very least.

I seem to recall seeing somewhere that LP told the PJ there was a child protection file opened but there was nothing on it.

I still incline to the view that there is a great deal of action in the UK concerning Madeleine's disappearance but due to the unprecedented level of press reporting, public interest and the fact that investigations about children are highly confidential, we are not being told about it.

All too often just having a procedure does not mean a thing. It depends whether management actually go on to make sure the procedure is put into action that counts. Social workers, like probation and police, need to be freed up from some of the intensive paperwork so that they can get off their computers, go out into the field and really do something to protect the public.
If social workers and probation officers do not feel safe doing home visits then they should have police go along with them. Regardless of how dangerous or intimidating the home situation may be, children have the right to be protected by all services pulling together to do that.

I remember the horrific case of Victoria Climbie and it is so sad that Baby P proves nothing really changed.

It is a bit like racism in the London Met, post Stephen Lawrence and all the reports written, the racism is still there.

viv said...

Oh by the way Wiz, I enjoyed the infamy joke from the Carry On films and do agree the McCanns will keep on bleating someone has it in for them. They never think about Madeleine, only themselves and who they can sue next.

I notice there was no public bragging about shutting Tony Bennett up, are they beginning to realise that their never ending legal actions can have an adverse effect on them? When people see how much money they made out of the newspapers and they now go after Goncalo for £1.2M, are they so naive they believe this will put them in good favour with the public. If that is what they truly believe is just what distorted thinking patterns they suffer from, like many serious criminals, who try to attack others and justify their own wicked behaviour.

Di said...

Hi All

I do wonder if Tony & Debbie are working away in the background with G Amaral. All has gone quiet for the moment.

We know the McCanns have now stated that all three children were sedated, and there is speculation they are getting their version in first, before something is released.


How would Kate & Gerry know what news would be about to break? Do we still have a mole in the PJ or LP for that matter? I for one would like to know.

Something is not right, they are always one step ahead as we have said before.

viv said...

Hiya Di,

The bizarre thing about them now stating all three children were sedated is that, that is what they emphatically denied following being made arguidos.

Edward Smethurst, on their behalf announced that hair tests had been done on both Kate and the twins and no drugs were found.

This suggests a strategy that is in complete dissaray and something is going to be revealed, and so, as you suggest they seek to get in first.

The McCanns would be advised of the findings of any serious case review into the welfare of their children. Additionally, if they have been spoken to by LP under caution they may have gleaned further detail of the police case against them from the nature of the evidence and questions put to them. So I do not think there is any mole, it is just the McCanns and their lawyers would know far more about what is going on than we do.

I agree something is not right in Team McCann and their conduct does not sound to me like that of people who know they have got away with it. There is no reason for the McCann detectives to disclose their latest theory, from an investigation point of view. But every reason from a defending the McCanns point of view.

I remain convinced that they are in dire trouble and they seek to get their side of the story out before we are notified of their arrest for being involved in the disappearance of little Maddie, as we all know, they most certainly were.

hope4truth said...

Hello All

I have come to the conclusion that it is time to stop doubting the Mccann's version of events and accept that Madeleiene was abducted 2.5 years ago is indeed in the hands of a peadophile ring and that no harm has come to her....

It is time to accept all the above and ask more serious questions. It is no good keep doubting the McCann's but it is time for new questions...

I will start...

Why are Kate and Gerry McCann determind to end the life of their so far safe child?

In the first minutes when Kate knew Madeleine had been abducted she left the twins alone in a cold apartment with an unlocked door while she walked back to the bar to tell her husband and friends "They had taken her" now I know Kate was in shock but neglecting the twins again when the abductor could be on his way back to take them was unforgivable.

When they knew she had been abducted they organised a time line for the police but they never searched as it was too dark???? A 3 year old child who could have been abandond by the abductor when he realised he had forgotten to bring a car... Yet her Mummy and Daddy did not bother to search because it was dark???

From nearly day one they ignored police advice and very soon released the image of her eye even though Gerry himself said he knew someone could do something to it or it could cost her life but to her Daddy it was a good marketing op???

Then 9 days later on what would have been Madeleines 4th Birthday they laughed their heads off and sucked up to the crowd enjoying the new celeb status they now had...

Once the fund was up and running they sorted out staff payments for memebers of their family hired fancy lawyers for themselves paid their mortgage and then jetted off on their world tour???

I could fill the blog with the odd things they have done and given the fact Madeleine is in a Peado hell hole they really have played a sick and twisted game with her life...

They negelcted her and because of this she was taken and since they have spun her life into the depths of hell...

And people actually feel sorry for them and say I am sick for not believing them and this has made me think over the last few months and I have come to the conclusion that if I believe them then they are the most evil monsters in the world for playing such an evil twisted game with their childs life and it is about time someone took over the fund investigated the missing cash and what is left is used to actually search for her and get her back...

viv said...

and so I wonder, will there ever be any final hearing in the case of the McCanns v Goncalo Amaral?

I think the Pt Judge just may have been motivated to act as she did, by being minded of UK legal procedures. If, for example, Goncalo is correct about what they did with Madeleine, there could be no fair trial whilst the public are aware of that book and all the details. It is sometimes the case the trial gets held up, to give sufficient time for the public to have forgotten about prejudicial material. Or it may be that it is just felt that even though that is not precisely what the McCanns did, it still creates substantial risk of prejudice to any fair trial.

It does seem strange that an interlocutory injunction has been granted but the actual trial seems to be a long way off. Maybe, the McCanns will be arrested before they get the opportunity to try and cash in?

viv said...

Hiya Hope

You put it so well, why did the McCanns act as they did.

Why did Kate rush off and leave the twins alone with the door open if she was so convinced Madeleine has just been abducted?

Why were they more concerned about putting a timeline together of what they were doing, rather than searching for Madeleine?

Why would Kate just sit on her bed phoning and even saying she wanted a priest when any normal mother would be thinking, oh my god, I left her with the door open, my little girl could be about to get swept up in the sea.

You know, wild horses would not have prevented any normal mother from going to try and rescue Madeleine, that is unforgivable and impossible to accept as the reality. Kate knew exactly what had become of Madeleine and there was nothing she could do about it, other than tell the truth, which she had never been prepared to do.

Joe said...

I find it absurd that The Express claimed that the 3 McCann children were drugged. McCann himself did not deny this claim since its publication so one could perhaps presume he is happy to go along with it. If I recall correctly he refused to have the remaining 2 children checked out at the time by the authorities and medical people, not even allowing a drug test. Why if he believed they were all drugged at the time....... but by whom? I would want to know immediately what drug had been given to my children. Now all this time later it is so convenient to run with such a claim and it throws suspicion away from him and her. Many of the people who read the Express and the other rags will believe it as fact. Of course the dumb Express would never think of asking McCann why did you not allow the children to be independently tested.

Di said...


Well said..

We also know Kate was very concerned for the twins that evening, she kept putting her fingers to their faces to check they were breathing, yet refused to have them checked out at a hospital. Says it all really.

viv said...

Hi Joe and Di

Joe, it is good to see you commenting again, you have been missed!

You make a good point that Kate was obviously aware the twins had been drugged, given she found it necessary to keep checking their breathing in that way.

I have the picture of two anaesthetists, one who had been doing nothing but for ten years, Fiona Payne, sitting there with a twin on each of their laps. Obviously drugged twins and two with expert knowledge to know that.

The fact that Kate just kept conducting those tests on them and neither of them had them rushed off for tests and general health checks just has to be one of the most damning pieces of evidence of all. Kate was not content with losing Madeleine, she was even prepared to put the twins at risk to cover up what had happened. It is for that reason, and many others, that I am so upset they are still allowed to have care and control of those two little ones, they just do not deserve them.

hope4truth said...

Hello All

More good points raised as ever we know everything they do and did was odd right from thinking leaving the children home alone was ok????

Now they want to sue anyone who disagrees with them so the papers are playing games by stating things that just make them look dodgey...

If only the papers were to print the truth and use the asumption that the McCann's are telling the truth I seriously believe people would be asking for the fund to be investigated and would stop donating.

If Madeleine is really missing the evil games they are playing with her life are unforgivable and as the only victim of her parents crime of Neglect Madeleine deserves to have people fighting for her.

Kate refused to answer a single question for her missing child.

They release older and older photos of her in fact if you look at lots of them together it could be several diffrent children.

Everytime they have a new lead they let the world know they are on their way? This could make the abductor panic and kill Madeleine and then of course we find out the lead was not even investigated?

Kate ran her "Fun Run" wearing her Madeleiene T Shirt a picture of her at 2+ on it where was the age progressed picture? Dont they want people to look out for her the age she is now?

The reward has hardly been mentioned and scummy abductors and their horrid pals would sell their Grandmother for a million pounds they told us she had been sold in Morroco as a little maid well it would not have cost a million to buy her and with some careful damage control they could have made a profit from giving her up..

It is time for the press to start to ask why M3 was used and delve into their history and to make a list of all the times they have done the exact opposite to what any parent of a missing child would do...

Maybe that is the only way to actually find her and bring her back to saftey?

mandarinn said...

Good morning viv and all
i read this...
I can't believe!!!Uk that i learn at school as a country with historical freedoom of speech and proud of it. How can uk citizens accept this?!
The next step is to forbiden to think :O

mandarinn said...

This is make Orwtll and his book 1984 look real

Di said...

Hi All

Well Carter-Ruck are not going to give up on this one it would seem. They only have ten partners yet act as if they are a multi national firm.


Wizard said...

It’s a long time since we heard from Justice McGuiness but the libel proceedings have finally appeared in London's High Court over an October 2007 article in The People.

McGuiness gets an apology from MGN’s and a donation to an undisclosed charity.

McGuiness is a shrewd cookie so I bet the money isn’t going to the McCanns fund.

Wizard said...

Hi Di,

Just reading the Guardian link you gave.


“Farrelly said: "Carter-Ruck's manoeuvres this week, were it not so serious, would be tantamount to high farce.”

Well as I said earlier it’s all a bit of a carry on - and I think serious or not it does fall into farce in the time honored style of an Ealing comedy.

viv said...

Hi Guys

Mark Stephens is with the large and reputable London law firm, Finers Stephens, Innocent, in this link you will find a link to him appearing before the delightful Jeremy Paxman to discuss the issues. Paxman is also discussing the plan to retrospectively change the rules on expenses and ask MPs to repay large claims they submitted for cleaning and gardening. There are the dishonest few who are insisting they did not break the rules in force at the time. Well most people who have a well paid job do not expect the tax payer to pay for their gardening and cleaning!

I note this super injuction was obtained by the McCanns pet lawyer Adam Tudor and think it is great they are getting a load of adverse publicity about his attempts to even gag the House of Commons!

Mr Tudor may have a much better law degree than most of us, I understand a First in Jurisprudence at Oxford, but still I believe he bites off for more than he can chew!


atardi said...

Viv,Wizard,Hope4truth,Di and Mandarinn,

I admire you all because you are still writing about this case.
It's not that I'm not interested. When I have time I do read your comments.

But last week I read something about Sweden. And saw a picture of how "Madeleine" would have been in 2009 if she wasn't neglected by her parents. But this was a picture of a 11/12 years old girl.

It's a pitty that no one has come forward to tell the truth about what happened in PDL.


This week I'll take the time to read your articles.


You're still welcome here.

viv said...

Well done Guardian!!

Guardian editor urges Speaker to go ahead with debate on Trafigura gag

Alan Rusbridger calls on John Bercow to go ahead with debate next week, after law firm calls it into question

* Buzz up!
* Digg it

* Mark Sweney
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 October 2009 16.15 BST
* Article history

Alan Rusbridger

Alan Rusbridger: The Guardian editor said the issue of 'super-injunctions' should be debated. Photograph: Sarah Lee

The Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, has written to the Speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, urging him to go ahead with an MPs' debate next week on the Trafigura injunction affair.

Rusbridger was prompted to write the two-page letter after the law firm Carter-Ruck yesterday made a move that could halt the debate, due to be held next Wednesday. Carter-Ruck suggests that, although the Speaker has discretion on the question, the Trafigura "super-injunction" case may be "sub judice". This would mean that, under Westminster rules to prevent clashes between parliament and the courts, next week's debate could not go ahead.

Rusbridger responded today with a letter urging Bercow to proceed with the debate, arguing that there is a "lack of clarity" around the issue of super-injunctions and that it could help provide guidance for newspaper editors and lawyers.

"I hope you take the view that this matter should, indeed, be debated," he said. "The fact remains that the issue was unclear enough for an experienced QC [Queen's counsel] to advise us not to publish. There is a lack of clarity around this issue and Wednesday's debate could serve a useful function in helping to give editors (and lawyers) guidance."

Rusbridger also said it would be "very welcome" for the minister of justice, Jack Straw, to use next Wednesday's Commons debate to "state that the right to report parliament will always trump the secrecy provisions of injunctions".

"It would be good if he were also to criticise the increasingly common practice of judges handing down 'super-injunctions' which are themselves secret," he added. "It is difficult for members of parliament to comment on issues which are concealed from the public in this manner – not least, because they are prevented from knowing what is going on themselves."

The proposed debate follows the revelation earlier this week of the existence of a secret "super-injunction" obtained by the firm on behalf of the London-based oil traders Trafigura.

The injunction not only bans disclosure of a confidential report on Trafigura and toxic waste, but also banned disclosure of the injunction's very existence, until it was revealed by an MP this week under parliamentary privilege.

Earlier this week, the Labour MP Paul Farrelly said Carter-Ruck might be in contempt of parliament for seeking to stop the Guardian reporting questions he had put down on the order paper revealing the existence of the "super-injunction".

The Conservative MP Peter Bottomley went on to tell Gordon Brown at prime minister's questions that he would report Carter-Ruck to the Law Society.

Carter-Ruck said in a letter and press release that, although the Speaker had discretion over sub judice questions, "we believe the proceedings to have been and to remain 'active' within the definition of House Resolution ... of 15 November 2001 in that arrangements have been made for the hearing of an application before the court".

Bercow had told MPs the previous day: "It is not sub judice under the house's rules ... There is no question of our own proceedings being in any way inhibited."

viv said...

Atardi, how lovely to hear from you again, you have also certainly been missed!

Some old names have been back here in the last few days, ICTOAN, Joe, Mandarinn and yourself and this is really great.

I think it is because we can see that things are not going well for Team McCann, even their pet libel lawyer is getting the pounding he deserves by one of our really good papers, The Guardian.

I had thought of it before, but you are right, that picture aged up of Madeleine does look more like a 10-12 year old.

They contrast this with the picture of a made up little baby, what happened to all the missing years in her life?

Sooner or later I think the McCanns will be forced to let us know.

Do please keep checking in, it is lovely to hear from all of our contributors, old and new!


viv said...

On repayment of fees, Paxman suggests that decisions have been made by predominantly labour MPs with the result that Jacqui Smith has pocketed £116,000 that she is not being asked to repay in relation to a supposed second home, but smaller bills for cleaning and gardening are being attacked. When you look at some of the figures, it is thousands for tories and hundreds for labour. I have been left with the feeling something is not right here. What they have picked on as being ripe for repayment, cleaning and gardening is an area where they can see the tories are the worst offenders.

I think Jacqui Smith actually owes the tax payer a huge amount of money and she is being allowed to just walk away, this is not going to satisfy the public and if labour do not get re-elected maybe that is what they deserve?

viv said...

As Home Secretary, she presided over a system whereby if someone dishonestly overclaimed, say £3000 in housing benefit they could well be sent to prison for that. But this woman who swindled over £100,000 and had a job that also paid at least that just walks away, no criminal law process for her.

I suppose it brings us back to her own involvement in the McCann case, and we have to ask ourselves, could we trust the decision making process of this woman?

viv said...

Gagging is discussed from 34 minutes on Newsnight with Mathew Nicklin barrister, insisting we, in the UK are not being made a laughing stock by these super injunctions that can be discussed on the internet, all over the world in fact, but not in UK. He says the fact that America are legislating against recognition of UK judgments on libel and privacy in the UK, is not because these judgments are ridiculous, it is merely a clash of cultures. Of course I am sure Mr Nicklin makes a lot of money out of obtaining secret super injunctions for the likes of Trafigura and Kate and Gerry McCann. People who have a lot of nasty skeletons in the cupboard they try to stop everyone from talking about.

People being made ill and poisoned on the Ivory Coast in Africa and just what did the McCanns do with their own little girl?

We have the right to look at these issues and will not stop doing so, just because certain people find that embarassing. Maybe they should respect human life, themselves?


viv said...

An example of one of Mr Nicklin's super injunctions granted by Mr Justice Eady against people who were not even known at that stage and of course they were not allowed to mention the Claimant had even got an injunction.

Maybe it is time Mr Justice Eady retired?


viv said...

hundreds of people in the Ivory Coast besieged hospitals claiming they had been poisoned.

This is the sad reality of what the McCanns' dirty libel lawyer, Adam Tudor was paid to cover up.

The full truth of an arsenal of vile chemicals that were inflicted on these people in West Africa, exposed in The Guardian.

viv said...

Revealed: Trafigura-comissioned report into dumped toxic waste

* Buzz up!
* Digg it

* David Leigh
* guardian.co.uk, Saturday 17 October 2009 00.47 BST
* Article history

After a five-week legal battle the Guardian can finally publish details of the Minton Report, a scientific study commissioned by oil trading company Trafigura about its own waste dumping in west Africa that had been leaked to the newspaper.

The report contains damning evidence of the potentially toxic nature of the waste Trafigura dumped in Abidjan in the Ivory Coast.

The draft report originated in September 2006 when Trafigura's then lawyer, a man called Mark Aspinall from the shipping specialist Waterson Hicks, commissioned the scientific consultant Minton, Treharne and Davies to produce a highly confidential study of exactly what had happened when hundreds of people in the Ivory Coast besieged hospitals claiming they had been poisoned.

The scientist John Minton wrote the report with confidential data about the cheap and dirty chemical process Trafigura had used to try to reduce the sulphur content of a consignment of contaminated gasoline it had bought cheaply.

The Minton report – though it was preliminary in nature – made dismaying reading for Claude Dauphin, the Trafigura director in charge of oil preparations. It said the process had been so amateurish that it had probably left a high quantity of noxious sulphur compounds in the vast quantity of stinking black waste.

Minton went on to list half a dozen potentially unstable chemical compounds which could burn or poison people who came into contact with them. Some of them could also generate the killer gas hydrogen sulphide in certain conditions.

Minton said such waste could never have been dumped legally on a landfill in Europe and ought to have received specialist and expensive chemical treatment called "wet air oxidation" to make it safe. None of this had happened.

Among the effects of the sludge, Minton listed: severe burns to the skin and to the lungs; permanent ulceration; corneal damage; vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of consciousness and death. One of the chemicals was branded "very toxic to humans and dangerous to the environment".

The report was so dismaying to Trafigura that the company concealed its existence. The contents were never disclosed to the other side when lawyers for 30,000 claimants from the Ivory Coast brought a huge compensation suit.

The explanation for this was that the report had been superseded by further evidence from experts whom the firm had consulted for the purposes of the litigation, and whose evidence was preferred. Those experts and their reports have never been revealed, after a confidential settlement of the case last month.

When the Guardian discovered the existence of the Minton report and asked the author if it was genuine, Trafigura's response was to take the Guardian to court and get an injunction to suppress it.

Although the injunction kept the report secret, the document was in the possession of others, including Greenpeace, Norwegian Television and the whistleblowing website, Wikileaks.

Last night Pierre Lorinet, Trafigura's chief financial officer, told The Daily Telegraph: "Effectively that report was a draft report ... an analysis of possibles. We decided that our best course of action at the time was to get the injunction, because we didn't want more inaccurate reporting on things which are very clearly wrong effectively. It is a heavy-handed approach, absolutely. With hindsight, could it have been done differently? Possibly. The injunction was never intended to gag parliament or attack free speech."

viv said...

and very well said about the McCanns jumping on the stranger abduction bandwagon in relation to what was actually a very tragic accidental death ..

Perhaps the question ought to be asked as to how a tragic accident in New Zealand managed to turn into a media-managed abduction story complete with ethnic suspect and message of support from the parents of Madeleine McCann within the space of 4 days.

So every time an infant goes missing is it to be assumed that a 'stranger abduction' has taken place? Is a news release from the notorious pair expressing their sympathy and telling us that they are praying now standard procedure? Is it also going to be standard procedure for whoever's child it is to set up a website for donations and appear in TV interviews with a 'cuddly' toy?

Perhaps these questions are not allowed to be asked by the British media. Perhaps an injuction has been put in place by Carter Ruck which forbids any reporting involving the McCanns which could show them in a negative light.

It's only a matter of time before a child goes missing which could have been saved if only the parents together with the media and with the support of the McCanns' statements and prayers had not cried abduction and sent the police and public on a wild goose chase.

Will the media then be allowed to criticise the McCanns for latching onto every story about a missing child and giving their tuppence worth or will they remain securely protected by Carter Ruck?

It's one thing to protect someone's reputation aginst malicious gossip or libel; it's something completely different to protect them from the consequences of sticking two fingers up at the law, the media and the public and possibly endangering the lives of innocent third parties.


Read more: http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/#ixzz0U9S7dlQO
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives

viv said...

Tony Hatfield provides a link to the full text of the Minton report on Wiki:


(It is not a pleasant read)

hope4truth said...

What I dont understad is why the press if not alowed to print negative things about parents who basicaly thought so little of their children they neglected them night after night bothers to print positive things?

Oh well what goes around comes around Jan Moir has her opinion of anyone who dares to doubt Kate and Gerry are not saints writing last year after Kate wrote to the PJ "I suppose we should be grateful that the wretches didn't just bin it, along with any real hope of ever finding Madeleine McCann and the person or persons unknown who snatched her.

Their conduct throughout this entire investigation has been utterly shameful."

So the PJs conduct has been utterly shameful but the parents who just could not be bothered to be parents answer questions do a reconstruction and laughed their heads off on their childs 4th Birthday are the victims?

After this spiteful Bitch's comments about Stephen Gatley I hope she never again has the power to inflict her discusting opinion on anyone else. It is not ok to doubt the McCann's but if a 33 year old man drops dead it is ovioulsy sleezey and cant be natural causes? This Man had parents and a Husband and many people who loved him and this bitch trashes him?

Well what do we expect like Madeleine he is the victim as he died so very young and this woman has no time for the victims she just likes to suck up to child neglectors.

Her Biggoted view that Civil Partnerships dont work because Matt Lucas split with his partner who tragicaly took his own life is so distorted very few Civil Partnerships have taken place and compared to the 1000s of weddings that go wrong every year are faring no better or worse...

She also seems to think social network sites are out to get her that may be true but the silly cow should realise people communicate in this way now and if people dont like what you have written others will soon read it and complaine.

What do I know I am just a spiteful blogger who belives a 3 year old should be cared for she is a journalist who gives nothing for the victim and everything for those responsible...

viv said...

Harriet Harman, says proceedings in the HOuse should be reported and it is not up to the Courts to stop that. She is obviously quite perturbed about Judges making secret injunctions that even she is not aware of:


Wizard said...

Morning All,

I was watching last night ‘Have I go news for you’. There was a great rant to camera about Cater Ruck, super injunctions and the Trafigura affair by Ian Hislop.

I have a feeling that ‘carterrucked’ will pass into common use in the English language as a word meaning legally silenced.

Hislop also commented on the degree of guilt that appears to be regulated, dodgy expenses by MP’s totalling a few hundred pounds sees them being rapped over the knuckle and having to pay it back.

On the other hand Jacqui Smith’s pocketing of 100,000 grand will, I understand, see her being given a seat in the House of Lords.

What I’ve always noted is accountants and auditors go into overdrive when accounts do not add up by £11.50 but seem to miss millions disappearing for years.

I suppose it is too big to be thought true – which of course brings us back to the McCanns – I suspect the lie is too big to be thought true by many?

viv said...

Crikey Hope, by the sound of things it is a good job I do not read Jan Moir, but maybe she is quite prejudiced enough to satisfy a lot of pious Daily Mail readers who no doubt don their best Sunday hat and religiously walk to church just to make sure everyone noticed how "nice" they are?

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

I wanted to thank you by the way for being the one to broach the subject of super injunctions on here, which was particularly relevant to the evolving news before it had properly evolved for us all to see.

I would not have minded seeing Ian Hislop's rant last night, there is a certain irony about making a such a fuss over the trivia but ignoring the serious issues. Do they think we will not notice?

I think that to any reasonable person, claiming for a mortgage that has long since been paid off or flipping homes having first lavisly done them up at the tax payer's expense and not paying the CGT, is actually far more serious and fraudulent than claiming for a load of manure for some toff's garden, but as Hope would say, who am I to know!

How typical that the issues that should cause the fraud squad to be called in get quietly buried with a few token gestures.

Whilst I think that the average member of the public feels it is quite fantastic to believe the McCanns killed Madeleine, froze her body and then moved it again in a hired car, they do not feel it is fantastic at all to seriously disbelieve their stories and feel they are involved in the disappearane of Madeleine.

viv said...

it is interesting actually Wiz how Gordon Brown and David Cameron both seem so avidly behind Legg, appointed by Brown. Even though that means they both have a bill to pay, it is a relatively small one.

Far better perhaps they would have equally reasoned to go down this road than just call the police in and let the public see scores of both labour and tory MPs put right where they belong.

Oh, no, whisper Brown and Cameron in unison, we cannot have that.

Whilst I can accept the McCanns have received a gold plated service from Social Services, in that any less well heeled family would have had the twins snatched at the airport I cannot accept the police will turn a blind eye to very serious criminal conduct. I still believe it is a question of the necessary evidence to charge them. Gordon Brown must realise one thing, we are not going to shut up about this case. David Cameron will realise the same, if he is elected next year.

I have lost a lot of faith I placed in Gordon Brown and see him as no better than the rest, but still I do not believe he would condone or excuse what the McCanns did with little Madeleine. I do not believe his early support of them before they became suspects makes any difference, because he has certainly not supported them since they were suspects. Milliband reputedly refused to speak to them at all. How wise!

viv said...

Even Greenslade at the Guardian is currently in favour here, bravo!

Mail columnist provokes homophobia storm over Stephen Gately's death

Charlie Brooker: Why there was nothing 'human' about Jan Moir's column on the death of Stephen Gately

Comments (286)
* Buzz up!
* Digg it

The Daily Mail columnist Jan Moir has walked into a storm of protest over her article today, Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death.

Scores of comments, most of them highly critical, soon appeared on the paper's website, though some that I spotted earlier in the day appear to have been deleted or amended by the moderator. Similarly, the tweetosphere is boiling with rage against Moir's apparent homophobic stance.

The burden of her piece is that Gately's death is connected in some unspecified way to the fact that he was gay.

Though the official announcement after he was found dead in a Mallorca hotel room was that he died of natural causes and that there were no suspicious circumstances, Moir writes:

"Hang on a minute. Something is terribly wrong with the way this incident has been shaped and spun into nothing more than an unfortunate mishap on a holiday weekend...

The sugar coating on this fatality is so saccharine-thick that it obscures whatever bitter truth lies beneath. Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again.

Whatever the cause of death is, it is not, by any yardstick, a natural one."

Her evidence for that claim is non-existent. Instead, she resorts to innuendo and goes on to make a leap of stunning illogicality by suggesting that the death "strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships."

Meaning what exactly? There's a touch more sly innuendo, a call for "the truth" to emerge "about the exact circumstances of his strange and lonely death", followed by a final, breathtaking statement of unalloyed homophobia:

"Once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see."

At the last count, there were 286 comments, overwhelmingly antagonistic to Moir's article.

viv said...

It is nice to see my old favourite Whitney Houston in London looking fab and apparently off the crack and gang, go for it girl!

Wizard said...

In today’ s Correio da Manhã, 17.10.2009 – courtesy of JM an article by Amaral.

“high-profile corrupted people to go free” hmm…I wonder who he can mean.

“Justice and report by Gonçalo Amaral

It took two years monitoring the penal reform of 2007 and a complimentary report for its critics, judiciary operators, and the majority of the Portuguese people, to reacquire hope in a swift, efficient and effective justice. The report from the Permanent Justice Observatory concludes that the surgical review of penal laws is insufficient to overcome justice’s structural problems. Even less when said revisions result from two or three media-exposed cases, I would add.

Two years and money were wasted; more than looking for guilty parties, it is time for a deep debate that involves politicians, judiciary operators and all of those who, one way or another, are in touch with the justice system.

It is time to level, by the bottom, the access to justice, ending the imbalance between the powerful, and the defenceless and poor citizens who cannot pay for inflated justice taxes or luxury lawyers. It is time to stop allowing violent criminals or high-profile corrupted people to go free; the rule for preventive imprisonment will have to be the peril of continuation of the activity, and not the peril of flight.”

Wizard said...

Sky are reporting on the super injunction thus: -

“…. the gagging order was dropped following a storm of protest by micro-bloggers on Twitter.
Twitter users posted so many comments about Trafigura and the parliamentary question that the issue soon became top of the site's list of popular topics.

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger said the climb-down was a victory for "open justice" and "free reporting".

"It's now beyond doubt that parliamentary privilege will trump court injunctions and it was just wrong for the solicitors of Trafigura to assert that we were banned and couldn't report what went on in Parliament," he told Sky News.

He added that judges should think again about the use of the new 'super-injunctions' which are themselves secret.

"It's hard to understand why, with a large corporation going to court to keep something secret, those court proceedings should be kept secret, and I think the Minister of Justice should do something about that," he said.

In a statement, lawyers Carter-Ruck said Trafigura now "agrees that there is no longer any purpose in the injunction remaining in place".

It added: "Despite suggestions to the contrary in certain quarters, neither Trafigura nor Carter-Ruck has at any time improperly sought to stifle or restrict debate in Parliament or the reporting thereof."

JM is also reporting that Twitterers protested in person this afternoon at the London offices of Carter-Ruck - also asking for the McCann case to be reopened and Carter-Muck to lift its ban on Amaral's book.

A bit of a wet squib as only a dozen or so turned up.

Joe said...

JM is also reporting that Twitterers protested in person this afternoon at the London offices of Carter-Ruck - also asking for the McCann case to be reopened and Carter-Muck to lift its ban on Amaral's book.

A bit of a wet squib as only a dozen or so turned up.

Still it is all adverse publicity for Carter-Ruck. They probably mostly operate in the shadows like creatures of the night and open criticism of them is not welcomed. It is quite scary to read about these super injunctions that most of us never even heard of or even realized existed. It suggests that there is a murky world where certain Judges will grant injunctions to those with power no matter if the very information that is being concealed is extremely relevant to public interest. It is a disgrace and hope that there is really something done about it soon. Such a system is wide open to corruption at every level and especially as it is one Judge who has the power to suppress whatever.

viv said...

Hiya Joe and Wiz

All too often it is true to say that Oxbridge educated judges respect only what they have come from the power of wealth and privilege.

But a lid has been lifted and the public are powerful, in the end, forcing Carter Ruck to accept:

In a statement, lawyers Carter-Ruck said Trafigura now "agrees that there is no longer any purpose in the injunction remaining in place".

Now I wonder how much Trafigura paid Carter Ruck for what they now accept was utterly pointless? Sometimes in the end, money means nothing. A lesson the McCanns are beginning to learn also.

Human life has to be so much more important and decent people know this.

viv said...

If the McCanns do have a "super injunction" maybe now we will get to hear about it?

Maybe we could write to Harriet Harman and ask that the public should be allowed to know of the existence of all of these secret injunctions?