23 Jul 2010

LENIENT SENTENCE FOR CHILD SEX OFFENDER/KILLER VENABLES

Bulger killer Venables jailed over child abuse images

Police handout in 1993 of Jon Venables Jon Venables was given a new identity upon his release from prison in 2001
One of the killers of James Bulger has been jailed for two years after admitting downloading and distributing indecent images of children.
Now 27, Jon Venables was 10 when he and friend Robert Thompson murdered the toddler in Bootle, Merseyside, in 1993.
The images were found on Venables' computer after he alerted his probation officer when he feared his new identity was in danger of being revealed.
James's mother Denise Fergus said "justice had not been done".

Related stories

Her spokesman said the two-year sentence "was simply not enough to meet the gravity of what this person did".
Sentencing Venables, Mr Justice Bean said he had "colluded in the harm of children".
The judge said it would be "wrong" for his sentence to be increased because of his previous crime. But he said Venables would not be automatically freed after serving half of his jail term like any other prisoner and it would be for the Parole Board to determine when or if he would be released.

Eyewitness

Court 14 was packed for this extraordinary moment of justice as Jon Venables spoke clearly and strongly to declare he was guilty of the three offences.
But this was no ordinary plea thanks to the unprecedented steps taken to protect Venables' identity.
The screen in front of presiding judge Mr Justice Bean was set at such an angle that he alone could see the convicted murderer's face - and any flicker of emotion that may have been apparent.
All that those in court, including James Bulger's mother Denise Fergus, could hear was a disembodied voice.
She sat impassively, but her partner shook his head as he heard the details of the offences.
Lawyers for the media asked if the rest of the court could see the screen. They argued it was "a very serious departure" from the principle of open justice and the first time such steps had ever been taken for an adult criminal defendant.
But the judge refused their request, saying the risk of Venables being identified and later attacked justified the decision.
Venables was also banned from using a computer or the internet for five years and will be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years upon any eventual release.
He pleaded guilty to three offences under the 1978 Protection of Children Act. The first involved downloading 57 indecent pictures of children between February 2009 and February 2010.
The second involved distributing three indecent photographs of children in February 2010, while a third involved distributing 42 images in February 2008.
Venables and Thompson were released in 2001 with new identities and it was the fear that his had been discovered that led Venables to contact his probation officer.
When the officer arrived, Venables was trying to delete files from his computer and remove the hard drive, prosecutors said.
He was subsequently taken to a police station with the machine where it was examined by officers, they added.
Louis Mably, prosecuting, said eight of the images were at level four, the second most serious category of child pornography. Two were level three, three were level two, and 44 were level one, the least serious, he added. The images involved children as young as two and some showed the rape of young girls.
Edward Fitzgerald QC, representing Venables, said his murder conviction had cast a long shadow over his life, and he had been living a "wholly abnormal" existence, punctuated by "vilification, demonisation, and threats to his life".
He said his client had held down a job ever since his release, but it had been difficult for him to form a relationship with a woman because it was a condition of his licence that he had to tell anyone he was in a close relationship with his true identity.
James Bulger's mother Denise Fergus and her spokesman outside the Old Bailey Denise Fergus said two years in jail was "simply not enough" for Venables
Venables was arrested for affray in September 2008 but the charge was dropped. He claimed he had acted in self-defence, but was given a formal warning that his actions had breached the terms of his release.
Mr Fitzgerald said Venables had also become addicted to drugs, including cocaine, and was cautioned for possession in December 2008.
James's mother said after the hearing that she was "surprised and concerned" that Venables had not been recalled to prison following those incidents and called for Justice Secretary Ken Clarke to investigate the actions of the probation service.
The Ministry of Justice said a review would be carried out, but "the direct responsibility for these offences must lie with Jon Venables".
Mr Mably said Venables' computer "indicated the defendant had an extensive history of searching for and downloading indecent images of children using the internet".
In a statement made to police in March, Venables said he considered it "breaking the last taboo", but insisted he had "no intention" of having sex with a young girl.
James Bulger James Bulger was killed a month before his third birthday
The court also heard that in online communications Venables claimed to be a 35-year-old married woman called Dawn Smith who abused her eight-year-old daughter, and offered to sell access to the child.
In a statement read to the court, Venables said he was "genuinely ashamed" of the offences.
Venables and Thompson abducted two-year-old James while he was shopping with his mother at the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle on 12 February 1993.
The toddler was beaten with bricks and iron bars and his body left on a railway line.
His killers were detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, the usual substitute for life imprisonment for juvenile offenders.
In 2001, when they turned 18, both were freed, despite public outcry.

196 comments:

S.B. said...

Viv.....,

You recently mentioned a theory abroad that certain individuals are born evil ~ well I think this Venables bloke is that theory personified!

However your professional experience can advocate an individuals right to protection, concealed identity, fair trial, still I cannot comprehend how any self respecting lawyer can agree to act in defence of such as this cretin. Within reasonable circumstances I can agree with the law as you explain it but to protect and defend a blatant homicidal maniac is totally beyond me. He was an evil child and has developed into an evil adult!

Or am I right when I assume that some lawyers are more interested in financial reward than moral decency?

S.B. said...

Afternoon......,

Shifting back a moment to the inimitable TB, has anybody else ever wondered why he finds the necessity to reproduce across the internet, absolutely every letter/document that he initiates or receives. Even the venimous attacks between he and his ex-partner Debbie Whatsername were given a thorough airing.

Very odd behaviour IMO........

S.B. said...

Docmac......,

Now that we have become so intimate can I call you Doc?

I would like that very much. Of course I don't expect any commitment but I think you know enough about my personal bits for us to be a little more friendly like!

What do you think?

Di said...

Hi Viv and all

I am not surprised Denise is disgusted that Venables only got two years. What he did is truly despicable and devious. I truly believe Venables is beyond rehabilitation. He had his chance, new identity protection etc., all paid for by the taxpayer and he blew it big time.

Hi Hope

Good post on last thread.

S.B. said...

I was in the middle of a literary masterpiece when my computer went all funny ~ perhaps it's infected with the dreaded bacterium.

Where was I? Oh yes, TB. I would think that in itself gives an indication of this mans mentality. He is either barking mad or he has some specific agenda ‘on’ his sleeve that we are unable to decipher. An educated person, particularly one practiced in law, is expected to be circumspect, intelligent and above all professional but here we find TB breaking just about every rule relative to diplomacy.

He attacks the government; he attacks colleagues, acquaintances, police ~ in fact just about everyone he comes into contact with. Now to my way of thinking that does not indicate a stable character. He is said to be a trained solicitor so why does he persist with degrading his profession in the eyes of the world, at the same time decrying authority.

The solution to the Madeleine Mccann case does not lie in the hands of vigilantes; it is the responsibility of the appropriate law enforcement agencies to see justice is done. If one really chooses to believe TB to be supporting Madeleines cause then his course of action can only be seen as a personal vendetta against the Mccanns and their family which is definitely not the way forward. I can see no evidence that this man is really on-side!

Of course there is a possibility that he is only an attention seeker, in which case I will offer my advice and suggest he try for asylum seeker instead!

docmac said...

I agree. Venables is evil. Always was, forever will be.

S. (may I call you that?)

You can call me anything you like.

Even slimymanipulativecorridorcleaningmccannhater, which was an affectionate name given to be by one of my oldest and dearest friends from days gone by. I'm still not quite sure why Rosie chose it. It's quite a difficult one to get your tongue around after a few gins.

hope4truth said...

Hey Doc you know Rosie has a massive crush on you and has to pretend to hate you so none of his mates have a go at him.....

Sadly the sentace Venables recieved is typical for people who do the same as he did.... What I dont understand is why he is not compeled to complete the sentance he recieved for Murder? He was out on licence he blew it so no more chances....

docmac said...

Hi Hope

Rosie has had a 'Caster Semenya' test (have you read this saga?) and will be allowed to run with the girls now ;-)

docmac said...

Hope

To be honest, I'm not sure how every 10 year old can receive a very long sentence for a serious crime. I mean, it is common knowledge that children generally learn to differentiate right from wrong only at around 7 or 8 years of age. On average. There's always going to be those in the upper and lower quartiles, and some will be unfairly punished, I feel.

I still believe this one is extremely evil though. And he did blow it, though some of the conditions imposed by said license may, in fact, have been a contributing factor to the particular current crimes. Having said that, he will always be a risk to society IMO.

viv said...

Hi SB

I think the backgrounds of Venables and Thompson may indicate they were conditioned to be evil, rather than born that way, but of course I do not know that.

Unfortunately we see it sometimes happen that two people who are pretty deadly in themselves get together and they become an even more lethal combination.

Venables clearly is a very serious danger to the public and always will be. Using cocaine would certainly add to that risk.

It is curious that he called out his probation officer who somehow found him trying to cleanse his computer of the most appalling child rape etc with victims as young as two. He has clearly had a lot of input and I do wonder if he had at least reached the stage where he could address his own behaviour and know there could be no justification for that. Just getting very serious offenders to the stage of being able to accept their actions are wrong can be a long and difficult process with someone who has such a seriously troubled mind.

He was institutionalised from the age of ten and says he is glad to be back in prison, I think maybe he is telling the truth about that. Due to the heinous crime he committed there is no life on the outside for him really or any escape from his dark and foreboding thoughts.

Barristers operate the cab rank rule when taking instructions from clients. That is they cannot refuse to act unless they have a clear conflict of interests. I think it would be quite Dickensian if people did not have the right to be represented in court and be subject to a fair trial in relation to what they are accused of. It is not unheard of for someone to be wrongfully accused, even stitched up by the police. We cannot make an exception because it is a particularly horrendous offender who clearly is guilty, he admits that quite freely. But he is still entitled to an advocate to speak for him.

I would not demean a profession that does an important job in speaking up for those in difficult circumstances who cannot cope with a complex court process and deal with their case. To me, when you are faced with the prospect of having your liberty taken away from you by the State, the least the State can do is provide you with an advocate. We do not want a totalitarian state that effectively just consigns people to custody with a fair trial beforehand. In Venables case, there was no trial, merely a hearing to determine sentence.

I think the offences are extremely serious and the law does trivialise the nature of the offending that he has committed on this occasion that to me very clearly suggests he could rape and kill a child at some stage. I can but hope that when he is released again, he is subject to the most stringent supervision the police and probation service can manage, but of course any offender like him in the community will always be a very serious risk. Neither the police nor the individual probation officer can watch an offender 24/7

viv said...

A Dutch court has fined Trafigura about one million for trying to save £400,000 in properly and safely disposing of toxic waste. In spite of the protests the Court were in no doubt there was clear knowledge of the toxicity to the humans they dumped upon, the Chief Executive who continued to seek to insist "it was smelly not harmful to humans" may also face prosecution.

In the news report I watched it stated that Trafigura had relied heavily upon Carter Ruck to silence its critics including the BBC who backed down. NOw, quite rightly they can freely report that Trafigura knew what they were doing was wrong and harmful to life and they have been found criminally libel for that.

There is a clear correlation once again with Kate and Gerry McCann and their use of this particular firm. As the Trafigura case exemplifies getting Carter Ruck to silence your critics and get you a libel payout (or several in the case of the grasping McCanns) does not change the fact you are an appalling criminal with human blood on your hands.

viv said...

£400,000 is like loose change to Trafigura who makes BILLIONS of POUNDS a year in profits.

This is the value they place on the sanctity and dignity of human life in a less affluent part of the world.

These people should get a life sentence for what they have done.

viv said...

Trafigura, Halligen, the McCanns and Carter Ruck... how strange of Kate when asked well where have these sightings been then to only mention Amsterdam. Gerry lamely told us about Jane TAnner and Martin Smith, totally credible and believable witnesses IMO :-)))))

Who thinks Brian Kennedy might have something to do with a firm like Trafigura, there really does seem to be a link here.

July 22, 2010 - 1:14PM

PAA

A businessman whose firm helped look for Madeleine McCann and who is wanted in the US over an alleged STG1.3 million ($A2.24 million) fraud will face an extradition hearing on Thursday.

Irish national Kevin Halligen, 48, is accused by prosecutors in America of attempting to defraud a London law firm of $US2.1 million ($A2.4 million).

The defendant's assets were frozen after his arrest on November 24.

Officers acting on a request from US law enforcement agencies detained Halligen after finding him in a hotel in Oxford where he had been staying under an assumed name.

The alleged crimes for which he is wanted in the US relate to money taken from a Dutch company, Trafigura, as part of a deal to secure the release of executives under arrest in the Ivory Coast.

Instead it was spent on, amongst other things, a mansion and a gift to his girlfriend, it is alleged.

The businessman's firm Oakley International had been employed by Kate and Gerry McCann for about six months in 2008 to look for their missing daughter.

In all the Washington-based firm was paid around STG300,000 ($A517,687.66) for its services by the McCanns.

The extradition hearing will take place at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.

© 2010 AAP

hope4truth said...

Morning Viv

According to Clarance Kate and Gerry are very pleased with the work Halligen did for them and are pleased to have given him 300k+ to do it....

You dont need evil bloggers like me to cast doubt on the innocence of those two "she is with a peadophile ring we have no reason to believe she has been harmed which is why we can laugh our socks off that we have got away with our evil lie" parents that statement from the Pink Plonker rings more alarm bells than I ever could....

What Veneables and Thompson did to James Bulger was unforgivable but I do find it hard to join a hate mob against them as they were children themselves when they did what they did. Had they been 40 year old men we would not even remember the crime or their names all this time later or the name of the victim. Sadly far too many children are murdered and forgotten every year we get the odd case like Baby P making the press and the Murder of poor James but so many more evil Bastards are in jail and will come out without a whisper......

Those boys had a crap upbrining and whilst that is not an excuse for what they did I am afraid this will happen more often whilst a generation of unwanted kids who were born for the benefit money are brought up to belive they can do and say what they want and have parents who dont give a damn about them....

It goes to show how society looks at people when parents like the McCanns know how to spin and can still be free 3 years after doing god knows what to their daughter....

Those 48 questions are intresting and I cant see any reason not to answer a single one of them. Well if you have nothing to hide anyway....

Wizard said...

Jon Venables original crime was horrendous there is no doubt about it. I’m not a wishy washy liberal but it just doesn’t sit right with me that a 10 year old child should have been charged with murder in the first place in the alleged civilised society we live in.

Children who kill children are very rare and the authorities do not know how to deal with them. What we saw with Venables was a knee jerk reaction to a media frenzy over this case.

It does not surprise me that Venables is back in prison as normal development was destroyed for him when he was found guilty of murder and incarcerated. I do not pretend to know or understand why he killed in the first place but if his mind was not damaged prior to incarceration it would certainly have been damaged during and afterwards.

hope4truth said...

Hi Wizard

you have summed up how I feel about it a lot better than I could....

I know when they were inside they knew their rights and would demand things (I want a drink now and you have to get it for me or else) etc and I know the unit they were in got lots of extra funding because they were there.... How did they stand a chance if they were actually in a place designed to punish and rehabilitate them if the unit was actualy better than being at home?

hope4truth said...

What these boys did was unforgivable but they were children when they did it and in a lot of peoples eyes that makes the crime more unforgivable. Had they been 40 when they did the evil they did they would have been long forgotten and free to do what they wanted....

They are both responsible for their actions then and now but I do think whoever was supposed to rehabilitate them and prepare them for life did as crap a job as their parents did...

They were treated like celebs in the unit because it got extra funding and they were led to belive they could demand what they wanted,. Did no one ever sit down with them and make them understand what they did was wrong and many people would never forgive them?

If they were worried about the boys saftey they should have been made to feel remorse for what they did and fear for the future should they screw it up....

No good giving Venables a new identity he will be found out and to be honest I think he is happier in jail as he has not got to look over his sholder all the time if that is what he wants let him have it.....

They were 10 when they commited their crime what good did naming them do if we are now paying millions to give them new identities?????

I am apaled by what they did but have to wonder what kind of life they had to think that was aceptable and also worry about the time bomb ticking with more god help us all parents who dont give a toss about their children once they are no longer cute babies....

viv said...

Thanks Hope and Wiz for great comments that, IMO, do show incredible insight into the issue with Venables and Thompson.

No one should underestimate what can happen to children who suffer being an unloved and abused child during those crucial years of their personality development that affects them for the rest of their lives.

I also agree Hope that intensive work should have been done with them to develop victim empathy and understand how abnormal their own treatment and consequential behaviour was, rather than, as you say, placing them in some expensive unit where they were considered to be the star turn.

There is always a difficult balance to be struck between seeking to rehabilitate offenders and have concern for them, whilst at the same time, working with an understanding the agony of the victims, like Jamie's mother.

UK were found guilty in the European Court of treating Venables and Thompson in an inhumane way, effectively not making allowance for the fact that they were just children themselves.

Any probation officer who works with Venables in the future will need extreme skill IMO to both protect the public and manage him and try and effect some improvement.

S.B. said...

Evening......,

Whilst I respect all your opinions with due deference to the law and even to a certain extent to ones moral obligations towards fellow citizens but I cannot agree with the prevalent attitude in support of Jon Venables. I am out on a limb here, so I must make it clear that my comments are based purely on my own thoughts and not in relation to any legal/humanitarian rights and wrongs.

Whether or not Jon Venables and his friend came from a dysfunctional background should have no influence on the way in which we look at the murder they committed. They cannot be treated like naughty little children who accidentally on purpose shoved a lollypop down baby’s throat, or who poured mummy’s Channel No. 5 down the toilet. They committed a very brutal murder, entirely without provocation, without tangible motive, without any excuse. Considering the severity of the crime, at 10 years of age I cannot be convinced that they did not know that they were doing wrong. Good upbringing or bad upbringing makes no difference to the fact that this was cold blooded murder!

So how do you treat a 10 year old who has committed a brutal murder? Slap its wrist and tell it not to do it again? No, the child must be punished for the crime it has committed. Venables and his friend were indisputably guilty of brutal murder so what sentence should be imposed? Return to the wicked parents and kept under strict surveillance by Social Services/Probation Service, to serve under Her Majesty’s pleasure or sent to a psychiatric hospital for assessment and treatment. The nature of the crime warrants appropriate punishment not leniency!

This leads me back to criminals being treated with kid gloves because of interference by do-gooders and political correctness. Considering the number of convicted criminals in existence how can we justify the financial burden of public monies if we try to rehabilitate, nurture or even re-incarnate criminals in or out of prison?

My main concern is for the public and in particular the families of victims. Whilst the country is in uproar about the bad treatment suffered by an offender, what of the victim? It is the same situation as we find with terrorism. A terrorist can murder any number of innocent civilians in one attack and yet they are subsequently protected by law because their 'human rights' may be infringed. Children are primed to be suicide bombers as well as adults so does it follow that they should be treated differently just because they are below a certain age. What age can be considered as legally responsible for committing a murder?

In addition adult offenders quite frequently blame their upbringing as an excuse for their actions in adulthood so should they also be treated with leniency and offered every public service imaginable to make their lives comfortable at the tax payers expense. Surely we have to draw the line somewhere!

There seems to me to be a degree of hypocrisy in the way criminals are treated. Offenders when proven guilty become the victims and the public are expected to pay both in monetary terms and in moral obligation. Catch 22?

S.B. said...

Viv.......,

Thanks for the housing advice, it's certainly worthy of thought but requires an elaboration of my current circumstances - another time perhaps! xxx

Trafigura! Kevin Halligan! Metodo 3! Edgar! Cowley! Maccann! - Brian Kennedy!

TB's latest verbiage - Brian Kennedy 'The Rotherham Rugby Union Club Slush Fund'!

All these coincidences!

viv said...

Hi SB

I suppose the question is should we try to rehabilitate brutalised children or should we just add to their punishment, all they have already known and make them even more angry and disturbed. That is probably not lessening the risk to the public on their eventual release, it is just setting of a smouldering bomb.

There does come a stage when children become adults and cannot seek to keep blaming their past. But some people are so deeply psychologically disturbed by the treatment they have received, nothing but more of the same will only serve to convince them they are right. In short they become far more dangerous.

Just sending people to prison for a lengthy period is not some miracle cure, work has to be done with the offender to try and change attitudes and deeply ingrained thoughts and beliefs.

viv said...

In this extract Jon demonstrates the terror he feels in his mother's presence. Faced with the full horror and enormity of what her son has done, she complains about "being made a show of in the street". The police actually have to warn her not to get angry with Jon when they are trying to interview him. Now that is what you call serious cognitive distortion!

viv said...

The interviews: Jon Venables

While Robert, for a good portion of the process, kept control of his composure and sparred with his interviewers, Jon was hysterical from the start. He was extremely scared and intimidated by the investigators. They had to halt the questions when Jon became so distressed that he couldn't speak, which was often. He didn't lie as much as he avoided the truth. After he calmed down and was encouraged to be honest, Jon would admit to some things (unlike Robert, who denied everything.)

His mother Susan was there and her presence upset Jon. It was only after the detectives pulled her and Jon's father Neil aside and asked them to reassure Jon that they would love him no matter what happened, that Jon was able to admit to his participation.

On the first morning of the interviews, Jon wanted to put down Robert. Robert was the bad one, the troublemaker, and he avoided Robert at school. Robert mostly played with girls because everyone else thought he was bad. "He's much of a girl," he said. Jon talked about how Robert collected troll dolls, the naked ones: "It shows you their bum and that." Jon said Robert sucked his thumb. Yet Jon sounded enamored with Robert and his willingness to do bad things. He talked about how Robert "sags" and how they go stealing together, and said it was exciting being with Robert. He did things with Robert that he didn't do with other "good" friends. He wouldn't do bad things on his own — "I'm too scared."

On Friday, the day of the crime, Jon said it was Robert's idea to miss school. Jon spun a long yarn about the details of the day: they went to a park, the old railways, and to a cemetery, where Robert wanted to steal the flowers, but Jon said no. Jon said that Robert stole paint and threw it at Jon. As elaborate as Jon's story was, he made no mention of the Bootle Strand. When he later heard that Robert admitted they had gone to the Strand, Jon cried that Robert was lying.

Detective Dale:You see, Robert says that he was with you, and that you were indeed in Bootle New Strand together.
Jon Venables: We wasn't.
Detective Dale: Robert says you were.
Jon Venables: Yeah, we was, but we never saw any kids there. We never robbed any kids.
Detective Dale: So you were in the Bootle New Strand.
Susan Venables: (shouting in anger) Was you in Bootle Strand?
Jon Venables: (in tears) Yeah, but we never got a kid, Mum. We never...we never got a kid.
Detective Dale: Mrs. Venables, would you? I must ask you not to get angry with him.
Jon Venables: (in hysterics) But we never got a kid, Mum. We never. We saw those two lads together, we did. We never got a kid, Mum. Mum, we never got a kid. You think we did. We never, Mum, we never.

At this point Jon was deeply distraught and wouldn't sit down. Susan said, "If I would've known all this now, Jon, I would've had you down the police station right away, instead of them banging on my front door and making a show of me in the street..."

"I did kill him"

The next morning, investigators confronted Jon with more of Robert's version of events. Robert claimed that Jon took the baby. Jon jumped out of his seat. "I haven't touched a boy," he screamed over and over. "I never killed him. Mum, Mum, we took him and left him at the canal. Mum, that's all," he cried to Susan. They asked how did they get the baby at Strand? He was just walking around on his own, he claimed. Jon saw that he was contradicting himself, telling obvious lies. The more cornered (and the closer he got to the truth) he was, the more distressed he grew.

viv said...

when asked about sexually abusing Jamie, he starts to punch his father...it is a generational thing. A cyle of abuse and revictimisation.

viv said...

The detectives believed that Jon wanted to tell the truth, but he was scared by what his mother would think. After both Susan and Neil Venables reassured Jon they'd love him no matter what and urged him to tell the truth. Jon climbed into his mother's lap and sobbed.

"I did kill him," said Jon. "What about his mum, will you tell her I'm sorry?"

This was what investigators needed. Jon had admitted it, plain and simple. But they were curious about the "I" in the confession. They were sure Robert participated — the question was, to what extent.

The interviews continued later on in the day. Jon said that Robert stole paint at a toy store in the Strand. They saw a child and Robert said, "Let's get this kid lost." The two boys brought him through the TJ Hughes department store until his mother found them. They saw James in front of the butcher shop. Jon confessed that he walked toward the baby and took him by the hand, but it was Robert's idea to kill him. As they walked around, Jon said they thought about looking for his mother, but Robert suggested that they throw him in the water at the canal. Robert tried to get the toddler to lean toward the water, hoping he would lose his balance and fall, but James wouldn't go to the water's edge. Jon then said that Robert picked up James and threw him down. Scared, they ran away, but came back, Jon couldn't say why. They just wanted to walk around with the baby. Jon admitted that he took the hood off James's anorak and threw it up into a tree as they walked toward the railway. But this is as far as he would go for now. The closer they got to the murder, the more upset Jon became. He did not want to talk about the "worst bit."

The "worst bit"

When Jon was willing to talk, he blamed the violence on Robert. "We took him to the railway and started throwing bricks at him." When asked who threw the bricks, Jon said, Robert, who also threw the metal pole. Jon admitted to throwing two bricks, "only teeny, little stones," and only on the arms, not his head.

According to Jon, Robert threw the blue paint in James's face. James began to cry, and Robert asked, "Is your head hurting, we'll get a plaster on," and he lifted a brick and threw it at James's head. James screamed and fell back, but got up again. Jon said at one point he tried to pull Robert back. James just kept getting back up and Robert was saying, stay down. Robert was shouting and calling James bad names. After Robert hit him with iron bar, James fell onto his stomach on the tracks and both boys ran. Jon claimed he then said to Robert, "Don't you think we've done enough now?"

Jon said that he was never mad at James: "No, I didn't really want to hurt him, I didn't want to hurt him or nothing 'cause I didn't want to hurt him with strong things, only like light things... I deliberately missed..." He also said that it was Robert who pulled off James's pants and underwear. Jon did help by pulling his shoes off, but he couldn't say why. He said Robert picked up the underwear and covered James's face. Although Jon claimed to feel no anger toward the baby, he showed physical signs of agitation during the interview when talking about his murder, including clenching his fist.

Jon said he kicked James, but "only light," and punched him light in the chest and face. He guessed that Robert had kicked James in the groin about ten times and kicked him in the face. I'd never done it before," said Jon.

But when the subject of batteries came up, Jon became hysterical once again and started to cry. "I didn't know anything about what Robert did with the batteries." Jon was afraid that "you'll blame it on me that I had them." Asked if Robert did anything else to James's genitals, Jon grew very upset, began to punch his father, Neil, who sat beside him.

docmac said...

Viv

Read this article, published in the BMJ in 2001.

docmac said...

And this one, which contains a comprehensive summary of the relevant laws and procedures in various countries, in accordance with article 40 of the UNCRC. I was astounded to learn that the minimum age of criminal responsibility under English common law used to be just 7!!

docmac said...

Having said that, Venables is a particularly nasty piece of work. If he were not kept apart from the other prisoners, I'm sure he would never get out. If you know what I mean..

hope4truth said...

If that is the reaction or Venebles then he needs to stay locked up.

I thought you had to show remorse for your crime before being given parole and with that attitude he is not remorsful for anything and he was only out on licence which should now be revoked.....

I do belive he should have been given a chance to prove he had changed as at 10 to do what he did he had to have some very serious problems.

But he has blown it now and from what I know about his treatment whilst inside he was led to belive he had the right to whatever he wanted and if he did not want to do something would tell people they could not force him.

I am sick to death about hearing about Prisoners Human Rights. Whilst I belive people should be treated in a certain way no matter what they have done when the victims human rights are not thought about something is very wrong.....

Children need to be brought up to respect others it is obvious many parents cant be bothered or dont respect anyone themselves but when it comes to profesionals spoiling children who have comited such dreadful crimes and not making them take responsibility for their actions the world has gone mad....

docmac said...

Hope

In Venables' case, I believe you are right. Thankfully (hopefully?), people like him are few and far between.

hope4truth said...

Hi Doc

There was a case last year sometime cant even think what it was about (some kind of violent attack) when one of them was sentenced to to 2 years he was led down to the cells laughing and shouting abuse towards his victim. I wish to god it had been possible for the judge to say "bring him back up right as you find it so funny and I want you to laugh all you can I now increase your sentence to 15 years"....

Of course there would be an outcry of how unfair but it is about time these scum bags learnt people will not tolerate their behaviour.....

In another case a Magistrate was suspended because he refered to the people he was sentencing as scum to be honest I think he summed it up well they are scum and need to learn they dont have the right to anything and if they do wrong they will pay for it...

docmac said...

Hope

When I was at high school here in CT we had a fellow pupil whose adoptive father was one of my maths teachers there. Throughout his schooling career he was regarded as a bully and known to be a thief.

One year out of school, he muredered both of his adoptive parents in a drug-fuelled rage and then did a runner. Needless to say, he was caught.

There were five of us from Bishops (the school) who had gone on to study medicine, and we attended the latter stages of the trial as a group - it being vacation and all. I will never forget the attitude this bastard displayed in court - both prior to and upon sentencing.

The high court judge actually called him back in after hearing that he (the judge) had been referred to as 'scum' whilst 'Solly' was being led back to the cells. He got an an extra 6 years :-)

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

Thanks for that interesting article Doc, I think the final sentence sums up well on what sentencing should be all about and probably puts it is a bit better than I did above! It also explains the terrible home backgrounds children have who commit such dreadful crimes. I think there is a strong case for locking the parents up who behave in this way. The threat of imprisonment if you do that to your child, may help to prevent more young children being utterly "ruined".

I also agree that due to politicisation of the criminal justice system in UK, the age of criminal responsibility has remained unacceptably low at 10 years. Our European neighbours set a more human approach, treatment rather than just punishment for kids who have already suffered terribly to make them that way.

As Hope points out until a serious offender has developed victim empathy they remain a terrible risk to the public. I really dread to think what was going on in Venables home when he was a child and doubt that he can ever really be rehabilitated now. Upon release I do think he needs very intensive ongoing work and supervision to protect the public. The only other alternative is to revoke his licence and just lock him up for good on public protection grounds. A lengthier sentence on this occasion that would have enabled time for a lot of work to be done with him whilst in custody may have been a better option but the guideline sentencing for the offence he committed is too low anyway IMO. At two years that was quite a lot with many offenders simply getting no custodial period to their sentence. If an offender is watching the rape of two year olds there is something very seriously wrong. I note he also posed as a woman and offered to sell his 8 year old for sex. I wonder where he got that idea from, it may have been his childhood of course. But he clearly has an incredibly distorted view of how children should be treated.

"The objectives of sentencing should be the
rehabilitation, education, and social integration of the
offender and the protection of society—the first, of course, promoting the second. Deterrence and punish­ment are not rational options, and politicians who seek
to inflame public feeling in these distressing cases are
being forced to recognise this.
Sula Wolff former consultant child psychiatrist"

viv said...

I would just add that I do not entirely agree with the psychiatrist, punishment and deterrence are appropriate rationales for sentencing also.

If an offender is in prison for a lengthy period of time, he is being punished, but he needs to see that treatment is hard work for him also, not a reward for his behaviour or an excuse and positive work and improvement could reduce the length of time held in custody.

I think deterrence only really works if it is well publicised. There is certainly a case for parents to be reminded by public service ads, that they are not doing their children a favour, they are doing their duty and if they do not carry out that duty correctly and responsibly, the law will hold them accountable for the damage they have done to that child.

I think that is what causes the outrage with kate and Gerry, they are responsible for what happened to little Maddie and to date they have escaped being held accountable for that.

viv said...

hiya again Doc

I am rather shocked that prison guards have been chatting away to the Daily Mirror about Venables. That is probably going to get them into serious trouble.

Held in a bare cell in solitary confinement for his own safety, I doubt he is so cock a hoop really and I find it hard to believe he would be allowed to spend hours chatting to his relatives or gorging chocolate bars.

viv said...

I think the Probation Service are going to come in for some not undeserved attack in light of this case. When an offender is on life licence for the offence of murder and they commit further misdeameanours even though far less serious than murder, they should be recalled to prison because it is a clear sign they are on a very slippery downhill slope and the Service obviously know in more detail than the general public the serious risk this man presents to children.


Jon may be spending far more time in there than he apparently thinks.

docmac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
docmac said...

Had not seen this before. Good job.

S.B. said...

Afternoon all......,

Continuing on the subject of lawyers and their modus operandi, I do not suggest for one moment that an alleged offender should not be represented in a court of law. My complaint is how the law allows culprits to escape justice when they are clearly guilty. Yes, there have been instances of the innocent being found guilty of a crime they did not commit but conversely there is also the element of the guilty being proclaimed innocent by a court of law quite frequently as a result of a barrister’s expertise.

In the mid 19th Century this very subject was debated across Europe with a view towards legal reform, eventually by consensus of opinion it was decided that it was not in a barrister’s interest, professionally or financially, to change the legal system. So it continues with the same attitude to this very day! A barrister’s brief would appear to be intended to obscure the facts of the case in the interest of their client. Then we have the distortion of evidence by browbeating witnesses in defence of their client that they believe to be guilty anyway ~ the whole system is eaten away by moral contradiction. Culprits are unjustly acquitted. They are given the advantage of every technicality available and taught to lie in their own defence (if they are not already adept liars). Not many offenders would plead guilty whilst there remains a chance of avoiding sentence.

I believe a court room to be a combat arena where barristers battle out their legal and oratory expertise. They care not whether the person in the dock is guilty or innocent; they only care for their reputation and financial status! If tried by jury as with the majority of criminal cases, the jury who are blessed with little or no legal knowledge are deceived and misled by the legal masterminds and therefore cannot fairly judge the case in hand.

It is possible that the age when a child can be considered culpable for a serious crime as determined prior to the 20th Century, results from the percentage of children subjected to poverty and thrown onto the streets when still children, a situation that still exists in this country.

docmac said...

I believe a court room to be a combat arena where barristers battle out their legal and oratory expertise. They care not whether the person in the dock is guilty or innocent; they only care for their reputation and financial status! If tried by jury as with the majority of criminal cases, the jury who are blessed with little or no legal knowledge are deceived and misled by the legal masterminds and therefore cannot
fairly judge the case in hand.


Snap.

Di said...

Hi all

I read yesterday that the inmates are unaware that Venables is in their jail. However one insider said they would put two and two together after seeing Venables going into the video room and remaining there for several hours. It also said he would be at risk. I am assuming he has only been kept in solitary confinement since his sentence.

Thanks Doc for the article, it sounds as if Venables has no remorse whatsoever.

I was appalled to see this posted by jailhouselawyer.



Sunday, July 25, 2010
The bitch is back!




Denise Fergus, the mother of James Bulger, turned up at the Old Bailey to see a trial which does not and should not concern her and unreasonably expected preferential treatment. Naturally, she was then disappointed when she did not get her way. Egged on irresponsibly by the Sun and Daily Mail, she gives vent to her anger and bitter and twisted emotions.

The best advice I can give her is to get over it. Stalking Jon Venables for the rest of her life will not bring back James Bulger. In effect, she is inflicting a cruel and unusual punishment upon Venables. He has endured enough, satisfying the twin aims of retribution and deterrence which make up the tariff element of a life sentence. He has paid his debt to society for his part in the killing of James Bulger. It is unfair upon Jon Venables and Denise Fergus, and the Sun and Daily Mail editors should hang their heads in shame.

The Mail on Sunday with the story and longest winded headline I have seen is here.
Posted by jailhouselawyer at 11:56 AM

docmac said...

Denise Fergus, the mother of James Bulger, turned up at the Old Bailey to see a trial which does not and should not concern her... etc etc

I should say excuse my French. As some of you understand that language I will use Bulgarian.

WHAT THE FUCK???

Di said...

Hi Viv

I think the probation service in this case did not do their job and there should certainly be a review at the very least.

I hope you are correct that Venables could be spending more time in jail than he thinks.

S.B. said...

Doc...,

Very eloquently put! (Is it Bulgarian? Sounds Greek to me!)

When you have a second to spare ~ the music in the background of the 'Chain Saw Massacre' who is it? I couldn't easily hear because of the artist at work!

Thanks.....

Hello Di, how are you?

Jailhouselawyer should be locked up alongside his/her protege! I can't imagine what sort of mentality could conjure up even the concept of such a notion as expressed by this extraordinary individual! Barmy springs to mind!

viv said...

What a shockingly distorted view from Jailhouse Lawyer. You cannot brutally murder someone's child, serve your sentence and then forget all about it and neither can she. If I were her, I feel I would constantly be reliving the agony that little boy was put through.

The fact that he is now addicted to viewing serious child abuse demonstrates that the type of sentence he served and the efforts of the probation service simply did not work. He remains a serious risk to children.

I think Denise has an absolute right to be demanding he spends longer in custody and an absolute right to feel that so long as he is on the loose children are at risk.

The criminal justice system is not just there to deal with offenders, it is to look after and empathise with the needs of the victims of offenders, maybe JHL could dwell on that.

docmac said...

You know, there were always indications that many of the pros were just a little wacky. But I'll bet you never thought they were quite as mad as this Vee, stick to the carburettors, eh?

docmac said...

SB

No idea :-(

docmac said...

For those of you that will not bother to click the link, this is a revered pro speaking:

I wish the damn site was still up, so I could send you a link, but he does a whole lot of number crunching, using the numbers of each of the stations, to come up with the number 168, and says for some reason this number is very significant. At first I thought it was a date, 16th of August, but sadly no Madeleine in the news. Then I thought it could be 168 days. This was the 18th of October. Now this tallied up with the dice, in more ways than one. If the 5-6 dice was actually meant to be five and a half, then counting from the third of may, rather than the first, the 18th of Oct was EXACTLY five and a half months later. Also if you add up all the possible face values of the dice, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 you get 18. 18 spots in station 10. Eighteenth of the tenth. I was absolutely convinced THIS was ‘M’ day! But STILL no Madeleine. To say I was gutted when she didn’t turn up on this date would be an understatement. However, something tells me that date is still significant in all of this, we just won’t know untill she is returned.

And I thought Danie and his magic child-finding machine was going to be my choice for nutter of the century.

docmac said...

You see why I have bookmarked this site?

However I have been trying for some time to clearly cement my original belief that Madeleine is a sign of the second coming, without much luck, untill I re-read this page. Ever since the second week she was missing I was looking for something specific, something like, ‘And the lost child shall be found!’ I now can see clearly it was under my nose all this time. Woe unto those with
children!


Keep them coming, Vee8. Unlike Mr Clinton, I'll admit I did inhale way back then. Thanks for the memories!

viv said...

Doc, I think they are best avoided, it seems to me they are bunch of paedophiles and child abusers themselves or, as you imply, just nutty as a fruitcake. Religion is so often a cover for the most serious of vices, these people think that appealing to God can appease their sins of the flesh and the sins of what goes on in their minds. But God does not exist.

I think the biggest clue they gave was insisting that parents do not and cannot harm their own children. I have only heard that attitude from one very specific type of offender.

viv said...

Hiya SB

Did you know that JHL was locked up for quite a long time, for putting an axe through his land lady's head. That probably goes a long way to explaining his thinking style and complete lack of victim empathy, to him it is just a debt to Society that you can repay by doing your time.

He does not have the capacity to see that Venables has committed exactly the same type of offence again. Serious sexual abuse/violence towards tiny children.

Di said...

Hi Viv

I cannot believe JHL says Denise should get over it and calls her a stalker. What a sick individual he is. How can any parent ever get over the murder of their precious child.

Di said...

Viv

I agree with what you say about religion being often a cover up. I think this is what Kate & Gerry are themselves doing, hiding behind religion.

Off now.

viv said...

Hiya Di, JHL has the typical rigid thinking that you often find in offenders. No capacity for abstracts it is all very black and white.

He is entirely skewed towards the offender and believes that as Venables has served 8 years, that is an end to the matter. But in the extract I have quoted above, it can be seen that when the police questioned Venables about sexual abuse of James he became quite hysterical and at one point also started hitting his father.

I think the really frightening thing about Venables is, he is still wanting to relive those dreadful images of little toddlers suffering so horribly. Which does beg the question, what did he suffer himself.

The agony for Denise, I feel, is that she can clearly see that Venables wants to "enjoy" these scenarios and she must have a real terror that he will strike again and that is a very realistic terror. Calling her of all people, a stalker, was a really dreadful thing to say and demonstrates that JHL completely lacks the capacity to stand in her shoes and just try and imagine how she must feel.

hope4truth said...

Hi All

Whatever my thoughts towards those two boys I think Denise has the right to do what ever she wants to do. Her son was taken from her and if it makes her feel she is doing something no one has the right to tell her to stop....

If anyone took my children away from me I am not sure how I would cope but I do knowI would be livid if they were let out after being spoiled for years and were still calling the shots and having excuses made for them....

Of course JHL took someones life I dont know the circumstances or if he feels remorse for his actions but he is the last person who can tell the The Mother of a two year old little boy who was brutaly Murdered what she should or should not be doing....

docmac said...

Viv

Nutty is right. Just found this from a completely unrelated source:

1: Madeleine was abducted on the 3 rd May , 9 days before her birthday .

2: The group of friends plus the McCanns were referred to as the Tapas 9 ( Tapas means to cover or cover up )

3: In the Kemetic religion ( an ancient Egyptian religion ) the 3rd May is a Holy Day referred to as ‘ The Day Ennead sails ‘ . The Ennead are a group of 9 deities important to the ancient Egyptians .

4: Madeleine disappeared in 2007 . 2+7=9

5: Kate McCann reported her daughter missing at 10 pm Portuguese Summer time . This is 9 pm Greenwich Mean Time ( why this is important I will explain a bit later )

6: The McCanns returned to England on 9/9 2007

Even the distinguished colomba mark in her right eye looks like a nine . All these ‘coincidences ‘ to me are evidence that Madeleine’s abduction was not a random event but planned and that Madeleine was deliberately taken . The number 9 represents completion , but what is to be completed . In part 2 of this
article I will try and explain the connection to 2012 and the London Olympics .


There's a lot of this about. I, for one, will not ignore it. Because pre-Catholic Kate expressed an interest in this sort of nonsense...

hope4truth said...

Oh dear me is Vee8 for real (or have I got the wrong poster?) they belive Maddie is all about the second comming????

Crackpots and Peadophiles have some very disturbing ideas about a missing 3 year old child...

Especialy ones who have parents who dont want to help find her...

viv said...

Doc, that video you gave a link to, does show Gerry with very dilated pupils consistent with cocaine use and also his whole body shaking with hilarity just days later, again consistent with cocaine use.

Venables likes cocaine, I rest my case.

I do agree with you and SB in relation to our mode of trial for offenders. It is an adversarial system where the prosecution must prove their case, not the defendant prove his innocence. To many barristers and that includes some I have met, it is just a game and regardless of whether the offender was guilty or not, they feel elated if they secure a not guilty verdict.

But to stereotype all lawyers in that way is rather unfair, I have also met many barristers who genuinely want to do a proper job and very often work very hard with their client at court, persuading them to save tax payers money by having a full blown trial and just plead guilty. By doing that the barrister is still doing the best for his client because a guilty plea reduces the sentence given, but it also seriously reduces his fee. They are not all that bad, the ones that go on to be chosen as judges are often really lovely people, I have met many of them.

But I do believe that the inquisitorial system of justice present in many other European jurisdiction is far better, simply aimed at getting to the truth, not a game of who can put on the best Academy Award winning performance for the jury/ do their best to confuse the evidence etc.

viv said...

I do remember Rosie thinking there was some deep significance in the number of "a"s in someone's name. Alsabella was pure evil because there were three, Ana was her reincarnation and she was just trying to cut the dead given away evil a's down a bit, but Rosie could still spot them.

Their brains work as the criminal or the criminally insane mind works.

viv said...

Offenders are often very prejudiced people, Portuguese names like Claudia and Alsabella do have a lot of a's in them and Rosie hates the Portuguese, no doubt about that!

docmac said...

Hi Hope

Nigel is Vee8. He's all over the interweb. Posts more than Rosie ever did. Total weirdo. And I do not qualify that with an 'IMO'.

hope4truth said...

Rosie is a horrid little man ....

hope4truth said...

Who is Nigel????

docmac said...

Cocaine? LOL!

You said it, not me ;-)

docmac said...

Hope

Yes, he is.

Nigel Nessling? Just google it. Or Vee8 :-)

docmac said...

Viv

My full name has 2 a's too. Guess I'm not invited to the next 'let's get our stories right' conference then?

hope4truth said...

I wont be invited either in that case (thank you god).....

hope4truth said...

If As are a bad thing Madeleine McCann has 2 of them???

docmac said...

Maddie had 2 of many things, Hope. Except decent parents.

viv said...

Rosie is a horrid lil man, agreed, and an angry coke snorter, and a child abuser. And oh my gawd all those wrinkles around his eyes, how old did he say he is? Is there anything at all this guy can tell the truth about? I mean

viv said...

Doc, a little secret, Gerry's closest mates call him Snowy:-)))

docmac said...

Snowy. No a's then...

Even in 'angry coke snorter, there's only one.

LOL!

viv said...

I think the a's must be for angel, that is why Gerry or even Snowy cannot rustle any up!

viv said...

See Psychopops, absolutely no As

hope4truth said...

If they ever did Coke I wonder if they managed to stop???

Should imagine that the last few years waiting for that knock at the door if they ever did any kind of drug the need would be greater than ever...

I know jogging and cutting hair can get rid of it from your body but if they dont know when the police will arive what are they to do plug in a pair of hair clippers next to a running machine while they hold them off from getting in the house???

viv said...

oh Lol Hope, brill!

A real offender I supervised who was very partial to crack, used to like running or whizzing around on his bike as fast as possible, he told me he needed to get the rush. I suppose Kate and Gerry will when they get that knock on the door

viv said...

Kate's favourite song she likes to hum along to,

(She don't mind) Cocaine - Eric Clapton.

Yea I know you're right, whoosh and erm whoosh.

docmac said...

Angel?. How odd you should ask. Angel was a common theme in some circles. Not saying nuffink, you know.

viv said...

Hummm, well I think there is some hallucinating going on Doc, when Kate and Gerry give us their rendition of what happened to their daughter.

I am not saying nuffink about top spin or dramatisation.

Kate is probably right, it may well have something to do with Amsterdam. That is probably why they had to leave the twins and make a special visit there to see their friends. There is nothing extraordinary about leaving two children when you have just had one nicked and anyone who tries to suggest anything to the contrary is just a thoroughly nasty and quite obviously overly possessive piece of work.

docmac said...

Ah, the Amsterdam question. The place where Maddie was about to be liberated from the clutches of that evil paedophile abductor. And when this news broke, the response from her father was to surf the web for trivia websites. While scratching his severe case of jogger's nipples, no doubt.

docmac said...

They know as we all know this will not shut Bennett up, he thinks he is above the law, he thinks also that somehow he will not be prosecuted, he was warned that he would be, indeed I told him a short while back to listen out for the thud on his doormat. If Jill Havern, The Greens and SharonL etc do not heed the waring in the above letter it will their turn to receive an injunction next!

You promised me a thud on my doormat, Rosiepops.

Hi Steve. How's it hanging at CR today :-))

docmac said...

Remember these threats, Viv? I'm sure Jill, The Greens (whoever they may be) and SharonL are quaking in their boots.

LOL, Rosie (and I know you still read here). Hi Steve! Buffoon.

viv said...

I continue to firmly believe these people work for Kate and Gerry McCann. I can clearly remember how bullying and abusive the likes of SharonL and Co were to me on 3 As. They were there to get all the morons to just repeat the Tony Bennett rubbish and shut people up who had a mind of their own. The dog business had to be hyped up and the effect on them so that they could make a fortune out of Goncalo etc.

They have nothing to fear from being sued by Kate and Gerry, that is for sure.

The real significance of British cops bringing the dogs over in late July/August 2007 is that it confirms beyond any doubt they know Kate and Gerry were involved in the disappearance of Maddie and were systematically going through procedures to find evidence of precisely what they did with her.

Anyone who can just continue to insist well Maddie is dead, the dogs said so, is not really concerned and interested in justice for her IMO. The simple fact is there is no clear and unequivocal evidence as to what they did with her, but there is clear evidence they planned to get rid of her.

viv said...

Take this report for example where the PJs were investigating the missing half an hour. Witness statements indicated Gerry did not actually leave the apartment until he was seen doing that by Wilkins. Moments later Tanner claims to have seen a man walking off with a sleeping Maddie. Therefore this report clearly implies Gerry had just handed a drugged Maddie over to this man. This is the type of scenario the McCanns are spinning to keep quiet, better get everyone talking about the dogs which can never be proved because it is not the truth, they reason.

Why would Gerry lamely claim the abductor was even in the apartment hiding behind a door? According to Jane Tanner at her rogatory, after a lot of skillfull questioning she finally admits that Gerry was standing looking up the road directly at the abductor as he walked by. How could an abductor do that with his daughter without him seeing, either it just did not happen or it did and he engaged Wilkins in conversation to distract him from seeing something he was not meant to see. It is plain from the interviews with Jane she is fearful of Gerry and makes comments like " I know he does not agree with me on this but that is what I saw".

IMO, it was the Paynes and the McCanns who planned to get rid of Madeleine. She had become a liability and was just about to start school, that could not happen, she was just too talkative and smart, as indeed most four year olds are.

http://justiceformaddie.blogspot.com/2008/01/mccann-friends-say-they-did-not-arrive.html

hope4truth said...

Hello
Jane Tanner was treated like dirt on camera for the whole viewing public to witness. Gerry sure put her in her place...

She must have done something very wrong after to have to be humiliated like that especialy after the false phone call from Kate thanking her for going back...

When someone puts Maddie first I think Jane will be in the frame for taking Maddie and will be paraded by the McCanns as the evil one who fooled them all....

No matter how scared she is she needs to write out exactly what happend and make sure many people have a copy before going to the police and telling them exactly what happend or she will spend the rest of her childrens childhood hiding away scared to breath....

Maddie may have meant nothing to her parents who laughed on her Birthday and have refused to help anyone find her but surley her children deserve their Mother to be there for them and not taking the wrap for others.

hope4truth said...

Hello
Jane Tanner was treated like dirt on camera for the whole viewing public to witness. Gerry sure put her in her place...

She must have done something very wrong after to have to be humiliated like that especialy after the false phone call from Kate thanking her for going back...

When someone puts Maddie first I think Jane will be in the frame for taking Maddie and will be paraded by the McCanns as the evil one who fooled them all....

No matter how scared she is she needs to write out exactly what happend and make sure many people have a copy before going to the police and telling them exactly what happend or she will spend the rest of her childrens childhood hiding away scared to breath....

Maddie may have meant nothing to her parents who laughed on her Birthday and have refused to help anyone find her but surley her children deserve their Mother to be there for them and not taking the wrap for others.

viv said...

I think there are odd comments from Gerry that really give the game away.

Something along the lines of, it was always so quiet, that was the first night I ever saw anyone. I do not think he intended to see anyone.

I do not think the distress of TAnner when making that film was acting, if it was, she deserves an Oscar.

viv said...

I have no doubt Gerry did have a proud father moment after a fashion, looking down at little Maddie just dumped on the top of the bed ready for the off, drugged and thinking how "beautiful" she is. He was proud of all the money she was going to make him.

docmac said...

Kate was acting. Still is, probably. I have been fortunate enough not to have laid eyes on the miserable wench for quite some time.

S.B. said...

Hi Viv........,

I knew that JHL spent time behind bars but I did not know the gruesome details, as you say what other reaction can you expect from one such as he!

No doubt many barristers are lovely people to know personally but I maintain in a court of law their sole purpose is to win the case for their client, irrespective of whether they are guilty or innocent. Even if the client is urged to plead guilty, the defence lawyer’s goal is to systematically destroy all the evidence put before the court by the prosecution.

Many moons ago I had to appear before a London court as a witness for the prosecution in a tax fraud case. The accused was a colleague so it was extremely difficult for me to be stood in the witness box opposite he in the dock. The police knew he was guilty, I knew he was guilty, the prosecution and defence knew he was guilty but still I had to be grilled for nearly an hour by the prosecution lawyer. He tried every trick, twisted and turned everything I said in order to destroy my testimony. Fortunately I had my wits about me so he didn't succeed ~ had he have done so it would have been me that was sentenced having incriminated myself. LOL!

Another occasion I had to attend a court hearing for colleague who was sexually assaulted at our work place. As I was actually with her at the time of the assault I was again called as witness for the prosecution. Again the defence lawyer twisted everything I said and even tried to suggest that I encouraged the assault and the young woman 'asked for it'. At the end of the first day she was advised to drop the case as the evidence was stacked against her, evidence given by the colleagues, family members and friends of the accused.

As can be seen, the sole purpose of the lawyer was to win the case for their client, I am sorry I cannot agree that lawyers are lovable people ~ at least not inside the courtroom!

docmac said...

I guess being a lawyer, particularly a criminal or a divorce lawyer can be a pretty shit job. I know I would not be able to sleep much at night. And conveyancing attorneys - that's money for jam, eh?

But there are some good ones about :-)

docmac said...

Just found this from our old friend big_l. I'm sure he won't mind me sharing it. He sure has a way with words...:-)

the one and only big_l on Thu May 13, 2010 5:54 pm

hi everybody i know its been a long time since i scammed eh blogged to you all but its been a very busy time for kate and i especially at this time picking a birthday present for the twins to give maddie,don,t worry we kept the receipt and it,ll be going back jeez don,t want to loose a tenner eh lol. its been a very distressing few weeks with our pal gordy leaving 10 downing street quicker than an abductor can get through a window and nick kates kid eh i mean our kid. i,ve been trying like f*ck to get in contact with cleggy but was told by the bbc that they don,t make the last of the summer wine now (hope it was new zealand wine kate and i love that)so that,s just left david,well i hope i can call him david as i am gerry mccann you know i offered him the use of our old rental car from pdl to help move his stuff as long as he didn,t mind the smell of rotten meat and shitful nappies (how the fuck i got away with that one i don,t know)lol.as it has been widely reported mind you not as much as i would have liked i,m doing a norman tebbit lol and getting on my bike to cycle 81 miles yip fucking 81 miles about as close as the tapas was to 5a lol .kate was so supportive at my suggestion about it she even said fuck mccmillan and cancer sufferers its not as if they were on the pish and lost a baby like us ,infact when i sent in my enterance fee via the fund i asked at kates request if kate and i could do it on a tandem so kate could take her laptop on the back and keep that search for margaret eh maddie going but seemingly there isn,t any wi-fi cover on route so kates gonna stay home and get her hair done .
remember now maddies still out there and needs to be found so every penny you lot can spare makes a big differance so keep sending the money via our offshore bank account, eh i mean local one jesus you know what, all this money laundering can get you so confused lol abit like our timelines in pdl lol.has a way with words...

docmac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
docmac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
docmac said...

Well, Blogger, if my comment is too big to use, don't publish it over and over again ;-)

viv said...

Doc, thanks for another lovely comment from BigL, he is always just like a breath of fresh air to read and also has the uncanny knack of putting the smile back on my face, bless him.

In a comical way, how well he assesses the character of Kate and Gerry McSpam.

viv said...

Doc/SB

I think conveyancing must be the most boring job invented, but criminal or family law, real people, real problems, fascinating.

viv said...

SB I cannot say that the Chief Officer of Warks Probation or her solicitors and barrister found me "lovable", that was never my intention. But lots of other people do, when you are in a court room you are working and yes of course, the intention is to win the case.

docmac said...

Hi Viv

Was just off to sleep and I saw you pop up. Wish me luck for later today, eh? I'm going to sign a contract that will ensure my future grandchildren will never be found wanting :-)

docmac said...

Sorry, Viv, but 4202 posts from the man of many words. And not one of the sychophants care!

Oh dear Rose, you told me so many times you were not in any way connected to the medical profession.

Sorry about the NHS, by the way. POP is so like last century. Where the heck does all the money go?

docmac said...

Oh my! WTF?

Sorry again, Viv! I just can't resist this kind of nonsense.

Not least because this was the first response:

by catkins » Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:29 pm
Loved that film......



Right...

These actors actually get paid? lololol!

docmac said...

Viv, if you want to ban me for this one, go ahead :-)))

The mice are all askew!

by bluj1515 » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:31 pm
Re: More mud-slinging by McCann-supporters
baconbutty Yesterday at 1:11 pm

What we can deduce from the question is that the questioner is trying to hide their identity. By that I mean their normal username identity.
For starters they use the name John Smith, the commonest name in the country.
They use the American spelling 'behavior' instead of 'behaviour' and there is the allusion to the American Larry Craig scandal, but then also use the word 'cottaging' which is mainly a British gay slang term.
Could of course be someone with links to both sides of the pond or merely someone deliberately obfuscating.
The post was made nine hours ago, ie round about four in the morning - insomniac, shiftworker or USA domiciled?

By clicking on the avatar his/her stats are brought up and they've only been a member since July 24th, which makes it obvious that they only joined up to ask this question. And actually, it's not even a question although it's disguised as one -- Yahoo Answers has been used here to cynically put this idea in people's minds.
It has to be one of the Usual Suspects but one who feels less safe using their regular username away from the comfort zone of
their nornal blogs/forums.


Oh, I'm never going to able to sleep now. lololol!

viv said...

I fear your contract is not holding your excitement Doc, if you need to engage with the mind numbing rubbish these people write!

I would score watching paint dry or re oiling my skirting boards marginally more exciting and stimulating.

docmac said...

Oh, I don't know Viv. I love a good comedy ;-)

Meeting is over. Celebrating!

docmac said...

Gerry McCann:

She... she did so many activities in those six days, errr... they'd been to the beach, they'd been out sailing, they went indoor swimming, there... they had tennis, errr... sh... there was a play area where we went with all the kids every night; all within the resort, I have to say. So, errr... you know, she was everywhere but as soon as she was, errm... reported missing - and Kate and I are absolutely certain, errr... I think as are the police, that this is an abduction - errm... that there was an immediate search, errr... organised by the Mark Warner staff, who are the tour operators, and they responded really, really well, errm... so, you know, I'd... I'd just like to reiterate that this isn't a four-year-old girl, errm... walking off somewhere during the day or in the evening, you know, she was tucked up in bed, errm... and there's no way
she... she could have got out on her own.


Errm...

viv said...

Hiya Doc

Gerry certainly does tell a lot of highly conflicting stories, that is for sure. Here he claims she was tucked up in bed. But on another occasion said there was no reason to put the bed clothes over her because it was a warm night. Both the weather reports and Jane Tanner etc confirm it was not a warm night.

Here Gerry says there is no way she could have got out on her own. That much is true. The only way she could have got out is with the assistance of her own father who was totally proximate to events as described by Jane and he knows that he is. That is why he later comes up with the ridiculous suggestion, well the abductor hid behind the bedroom door. I think it is highly likely he handed her over, all the evidence I can see and the lies he tells around that crucial time suggest that is the case.

The imprint of Maddie's body lying on the bed was noted by detectives, she was not dead! The dogs did not indicate in that room because there was no blood for them to smell.

I wonder if kate had gone to the TAPAS on her own and GErry was just a wee bit late with business to attend to and how strange he arrived according to many reports within moments of the Paynes.

viv said...

He also lies in the above piece by saying the children played every night near the tennis court. The evidence confirms they did not that particular night they were taken in around 6 to be got ready for bed, according to Kate because they were tired. I am afraid I believe that Kate was intent on making sure they were.

viv said...

The best lies are the ones that can as nearly as possible, stick to the truth, but Gerry explains the bits that are seriously troubling him by his varying and odd explanations.

docmac said...

Yes, yes and yes.

viv said...

Yes Doc, abductor goes out the front door with Maddie, Gerry sneaks out the back and unfortunately for him, bumps into Wilkins, and it would seem, Jane Tanner

S.B. said...

Hello again.....,

I never tire of a good classic British comedy despite how many times they may be repeated. One of my favourites is the 'Kate and Gerry Show' sitcom which I have just started to watch for the umpteenth time series 1, episode 'Madeleine Was Here'.

The unforgettable moment when Gerry returns from his days labours, in broad daylight, and has to wait for loving wifey to unlock the back patio door and let him in the house ~ its a hoot! If you look carefully I think you can even see him lurking beforehand in the garden, probably trying to decide which door to use or looking for his tennis balls, whilst Kate is inside playing hide and seek.

Now we know that Gerry has an issue with front and back doors, which seems to cause him a great deal of stress ~ all those locks, keys, ingress and egress it's enough to confuse any normal holidaymaker but we expect him to be conversant with his own domicile and being such a big boy he should be allowed his own key. Of course there could be an innocent explanation for his slight lapse of memory, his head being so full of other stuff, or even his go-faster racy helmet may have gone to his already overloaded head but whatever the reason it does appear rather odd that Kate lets him in through the back door with a key.

Perhaps artistic license, perhaps to titillate the cans, perhaps for special effects or perhaps he genuinely has some problem with doors. There is a possibility that he could have overdosed on the magic mushroom bhaji or that he is self-medicating which can cause confusion if you do not adhere to the correct dosage.

From her point of view I can entirely understand the reasoning but for the benefit of the avid audience I think an explanation is required. ~ But then why should comedy be plausible ~ is it not just for our entertainment?

viv said...

Even TTW4 now accepts Bennett is just a fake, paid for by Kate and Gerry McCann (or should we say Maddie personally, maybe with her life).

But the thing is, who wrote the 60 Reasons insisting Maddie is dead and there was no abduction. Speaks for itself. Funnily enough Bennett seems to hate CEOP just as much as Kate and Gerry do, what a good employee he is.

CEOP for abused and exploited children, and what has now happened to the Labour Government conspiracy to protect the McCanns. Someone ought to ask him given we no longer have a labour government!

viv said...

Oh Lol SB, I think that is one of your most intuitive and most amusing, best!

xx

viv said...

Speaking of Gerry being so confused about whether to use the front door or the rear and whether or not it is locked or indeed whether the poor chap has his key. Here is his 10 May statement. Of course on 4 May he was quite adamant that he and Kate checked the children via the front door with their key. But by 10 May, for some strange reason he realised he got that completely wrong. Anyone who tells me I am being wicked for calling this making a freekin liar, can go take a running hump, I mean jump, sorry, lol!

viv said...

04-Processo 4 Pages 891-903 Gerald McCann 10 May 2007


He is part of this case in the form of a participant and an offended party, as the father of the minor MADELEINE. Being a British national who does not know the Portuguese language, oral or written, the interpreter Alice Dias Homem de Gouveia Avakoff is therefore present.
----- That he confirms the truth of the statements made previously on 4 May 2007 he being available here to provide any further clarifications.
----- Asked, he clarifies that, with regard to the personal photos already delivered by him to the authorities after the disappearance of his daughter MADELEINE, he has no others in his power [possession]. He adds that it is his wife KATE who usually takes pictures, he does not recall if on this holiday any were taken at night.
------ As he was asked he relates that, in January 2003 he went to Lanzarote in Spain with Fp and DP where they spent a week's holiday not having any children at that time, although KATE was 6 months pregnant with MADELEINE, through IVF. Still in 2003, September, he went to Umbria, Italy, with KATE, MATHEW and RACHEL, and RUSSELL and JANE for a week's holiday where they attended FIONA and DAVID's wedding. The deponent clarifies that the trip to Lanzarote was organised by himself as he had been there the previous year with KATE and they had enjoyed it very much, whereas the trip to Italy was arranged by FIONA and DAVID given that it was for their wedding.
----- Relating to the events in Portugal, as already stated in his previous statements, he arrived at Faro airport on 28 April 2007 at 12h30 having travelled immediately to OCEAN CLUB in an airport mini-bus where he arrived at 14h20/14h30.
----- That he was taken to the OCEAN CLUB reception where, doing the check-in, he furnished his documents, those of KATE and of his three children. He was then given the key to apartment A5, the choice of that apartment having been made at random by OCEAN CLUB management, given that, as he understood it, not even DP had been given a choice although he had dealt directly with the reservations.
----- He adds that the only stipulation by the group was that the apartments had to be close to one another because, contrary to the tour brochure, the resort did not provide a "baby listening" service, that is, a service in which a group of employees would ?listen? to hear if children were asleep in their apartments while the parents were away. He doesn't know exactly how it works in practice, he never having used it, but he knows that other MARK WARNER resorts use this form of checking, some of his group members having had access to it on previous holidays, though he does not know exactly who. He relates that, for this reason DP decided to use the listening devices (personal intercoms) to monitor his children, though he had not used them on other holidays that they had spent together.
-----

viv said...

That, on the first day, given that they arrived at lunch time, they ate [had eaten] only sandwiches both on the plane and in the bus during the journey from the airport to the OCEAN CLUB. After completing the check-in at the main reception, where they were taken by the mini-bus, that lasted until 15h00, they went to the apartment where they unpacked their bags, that taking until 16h45. Pointing out that after check-in they went with their bags to the apartment by resort mini-bus.
----- Subsequently, at 17h00, the whole group, including children, went to the TAPAS situated at the back of the apartments, next to the pool, to attend a welcoming committee arranged by MARK WARNER where they met with instructors in tennis and sailing and other resort employees, which ended at 18h30, glasses of sangria having been served to them.
----- That that was the first time they walked altogether along the route inside and around the resort. They left by the front door, which he locked with the key, he followed the wall around and turned right, going down the side road to the resort up to the secondary reception where the entered without difficulty as they had an access card that they did not ask for but they had been given during the Check-in.
----- After they passed through the secondary reception they went to the TAPAS restaurant, next to one of the swimming pools, the adults being seated in a covered area outside while the children stayed next to the small pool playing on the [playground] apparatus that was there. That during this time all the adults stood and went to watch the children near where they were. The deponent and his wife alternated in that vigil.
----- The reception committee over, the nine adults and eight children went on foot to the MILLENIUM restaurant. They went back to the secondary reception, turned left and, at the end of the road, turned right up to the main street that led to the restaurant. Because it was a long way, at some time the deponent and his wife picked up and carried the twins in their arms, but not MADELEINE who was always on foot.
----- They arrived at the destination between 18h50 and 19h00 having set themselves up at a large table where they all ate dinner, including the children who were seated between the adults, never leaving the place except for one of the twins who went to the bathroom with the deponent. About an hour later they finished dinner returning, again on foot by the same route, though going wrong in one of the streets where they should have turned left, ending up only turning at the next street. He adds that, as they were all very tired they went directly to the apartment arriving at 20h10/20h15, the route back having been slightly faster given that the twins were carried all the way.
----- In the apartment they bathed the children and gave them a glass of milk putting them down at exactly 20h45, remembering that time because it was exactly one hour later than their usual bedtime. After putting down the children the deponent and his wife took a bath then settled down in the lounge to watch television. He points out that at the moment they arrived at the residence DP invited them to go for a glass of wine after putting down the children but they turned down the offer as they were extremely tired. He thinks that nobody left their apartments on the first night. Asked, he said that in England, when not on holiday, he and his wife would go to bed at 22h30/23h00, the twins at 19h00 and MADELEINE at 19H30.
-----

viv said...

The following day (Sunday) the children woke up at 08h00, he and his wife having woken up at 07h30. They dressed and about 08h40 left the apartment going to the MILLENIUM restaurant, once more on foot and by the same route as the previous night, but without the mistake referred to previously, arriving there at 08h45/09h00. The group did not all arrive at the same time, rather in a phased manner, because they were not all seated at the same table.
-----

viv said...

He thinks that MO and wife RMO did not take breakfast due to the former having spent a bad night with vomiting and diarrhoea. At breakfast the children sat at the same table among the adults, it finished at 09h25.
----- The deponent, his wife and three children went to the OCEAN CLUB by the same route where they arrived at 09h40, the deponent having entered the apartment by the main door, which was locked, collecting a bag with clothing and creams for the children [then] going inside the resort area. The twins stayed at the creche next to the TAPAS, which was for children of two years of age, and then he and KATE took MADELEINE to the other creche for older children situated on the 1st floor at the main reception of the resort, arriving there at 09h50. Besides MADELEINE, only E***, daughter of JANE and RUSSELL went to the same creche. The remaining children being very young stayed at the creche next to the TAPAS.
----- Again she went on foot, leaving the secondary reception she turned right, went down the street passing the supermarket, turning left passing the main reception. After putting the children in their creches they went to the supermarket where they bought [things] for lunch and breakfast.
-----

viv said...

At 12H30, the deponent and KATE first went to pick up MADELEINE and then the twins, going to the apartment. On this day, Sunday, they lunched on the veranda of DP's apartment with the whole group, including children, except for MATHEW, who was ill and at that moment was sleeping on the veranda of his apartment, that was below and to the left in relation to where they were eating lunch.
----- They took the children to the play area next to the pool, where the playground apparatus is, at 14H15, having stayed there until about 14H20. After that time they left the twins in the creche at TAPAS, and either he or KATE, he doesn't know who, took MADELEINE to the creche above the main reception following the route previously described. He clarifies that the drop-off and collection times were recorded at each creche along with the contact number and location of the respective parents.
----- At 17h00 the OCEAN CLUB nursery care workers conducted MADELEINE and the other children in creche on the 1st floor of the main reception to [the area] next to the TAPAS, under awnings, where they [the children] had dinner under the supervision of the employees and, at times, with their parents. The dinner ended at 17h30 the time at which the employee supervision ended and the parents took over watching the children in the play area until 18h30. Following this they returned to the apartment, the deponent opened the main door with his key and, then, the rear door through which KATE and the children entered.
-----

viv said...

The hygiene done, the children were put to bed about 19h30, it being that the deponent and KATE left for dinner at the TAPAS at 20h30. Between 19h30 and 20h30 they took a bath and drank wine, Portuguese or New Zealand, and a beer.
----- That they left the house by the main door, that he was sure he locked, it being that the rear door was also closed and locked. They were the first to arrive at the TAPAS where everyone showed up except only for MATHEW, who was still ill. Though his wife RACHEL showed up for dinner. Except for the situation described above, that occurred during lunch, he did not see MATHEW during the whole of Sunday.
----- Dinner ended at 23h00, during which every half-hour the deponent or KATE went, alternately, to the apartment to confirm that all was well with the children. On that day only the deponent and his wife entered the apartment. He is sure that they always entered through the front door, not knowing [how] to show [demonstrate] that they locked it with a key. Usually they entered the apartment, in which one of the lounge lights was lit, going to the children's bedroom door that was partially open [ajar] and limited themselves to peep inside, trying to hear if the children were crying. The outside blinds were closed with only two or three slats open, the window was closed though now he he is not totally sure if it was locked, and the curtains drawn closed. Ten minutes after dinner ended they had made their way to the apartment, going to sleep soon after.
-----In the following days they always took breakfast at home, shopping the day before, generally maintaining the daily routine described above. When the children were at creche they had tennis classes, KATE at 09h15, he an hour later, from Monday to Thursday.
----- From memory, on Tuesday, 1 May 2007, being shown by RUSSELL, he went to pick up MADELEINE at creche using a short-cut that began at the car park opposite the secondary reception and went between the buildings, which he used to fetch and carry his daughter.
-----

viv said...

Pertaining to the routine, on Tuesday there was a slight change given that after lunch, at 13h30, he and KATE decided to take the three children to Paris da Luz, having gone on foot, taking only the twins in baby carriages. They all left by the main door due to the carriages, went around to the right, down the street of the supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly ahead.The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
------ After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
------ That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played.
------ During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, to which [entreaty] he did not accede as he had already been plying for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. Nevertheless, RUSSELL, DAVID and MATHEW stayed to play.
----- At 19H00, he made his way to the apartment, finding KATE and the children playing on the sofa. About 10 to 15 minutes later, they took the children to the bedroom and they all sat on MADELEINE'S bed to read a story. At 19H30, the twins were already in their respective cots and MADELEINE in the bed next to the bedroom door. He does not know if they were asleep but from the silence he presumed that they were. As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that KATE had already had one, they talked a little and drank wine or beer.
----- At 20H35, they left the apartment in the direction of the TAPAS. Before they left and because the children's bedroom door was ajar as always, he opened it a little more, listening from the outside and, as there was complete silence he did not enter, returning the door to its previous position, with a space of about 10cm.
-----

viv said...

He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.
----- They took the usual route to the TAPAS, where they arrived a little after 20H35, not having passed on the route anyone known nor detected anything abnormal. Asked, he said that the dinner bookings were made since Monday, it was already the intention of the group to take their meals there. They were the first of the group to arrive seating themselves at the biggest table, as usual, that was situated in the middle between other tables under an awning with a transparent plastic surface at the front. He relates that they were seated at the table in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire rear door of his apartment through which they left and entered and which gave access to the lounge.
----- Before that, among the other people whom he does not recall, there was at one of the small tables the CARPENTER couple, who he also met playing tennis and with whom he spoke until other group members began to arrive. He does not recall the order of arrival but has the idea that MATHEW and RACHEL had been the first to arrive after him. As time passed other group members were arriving until all nine adults [were there]. At 21H00, MATHEW stood up from the table saying that he would go to see the children. But he did not say that he would go to see the children of the deponent, only after the disappearance of MADELEINE he [MO] having told him [GM] that at 21h00 the external blinds of the children's bedroom window were shut. At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.
-----
----- They were at the beach for about 20 minutes, the deponent and MADELEINE having paddled in the water. During this time the weather changed with a cloudy sky and cold, they went to an esplanade of a cafe next to the beach, on the left, where they bought five ice-creams and two drinks. Asked, he said that at that place there was an individual playing Latin music on a guitar to whom he intended to give some coins, but having none at the time, he didn't. That the individual had a neglected and careless appearance, unshaven and somewhat shabby [raggedy]. He was Caucasian, 175cm tall, thin, 70 to 75kg in weight, dark, short hair, almost shaven-headed with grey sides, and not wearing glasses. Wearing a light brown-coloured 'kispo' [coat?], with a hood at the back, and dark cotton trousers, not noticing the footwear. He said that he never behaved strangely, nor approached or looked at the children in an ostensible [deliberate/menacing] manner. On returning they left the children at their creches, as usual, the parents having gone to play tennis or went jogging.
-----

viv said...

The day MADELEINE disappeared, Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time between 07H30 and 08H00. While they were taking breakfast MADELEINE addressed the mother and asked her ?why didn't you come last night when S*** and I were crying??. That he thought this comment very strange given that MADELEINE had never had this kind of talk [had never spoken like this] and, the night before, they had maintained the same system of checking on the children, not having detected anything abnormal. When he questioned her about the comment, she left [withdrew herself] without any explanation.
----- On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children. On this day he and KATE had already left the rear door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key. He does not know if the window next to the front door, and that gave access to the children's bedroom, was locked, given that he assumed that the outside blinds could not be opened from the outside. Still on this night, KATE slept in the children's bedroom, in the bed next to the window, because he was snoring.
-----He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom with KATE as she [K] had told him that one or both twins had cried making much noise.
----- Returning to Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the rear door, he having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the rear door from the inside.
----- They made their way on foot by the usual route to the creche next to the TAPAS where they left the twins, and, while KATE stayed to play tennis he took MADELEINE to her creche, through the short-cut, where they arrived at 09h15, and , since it was obligatory, he signed the child's attendance register. On returning, not by the short-cut, he went to the supermarket where he bought milk, he presumes, making his way to his apartment, entering by the front door, that was locked by key, when it was 09H40/09H45.
-----

viv said...

He remained at home for about 15 minutes, dressing in tennis clothes, left by the front door, that he did not lock, and made his way to the tennis courts by the usual route, they being next to the TAPAS. He played tennis for an hour with the instructor and other students among whom was an individual he had met during the holiday called "JEZ", and with whom he had established a friendship albeit as a simple acquaintance. "JEZ" has two small children whose exact age he does not know. As to his wife, he had seen her next to the pool but had never spoken with her.
----- The tennis class finished at llH15, he stayed in the pool area talking with his wife and other persons, whom he does not remember. At 12H00, together with KATE, as he recalls it, she made lunch and he went to get MADELEINE. He thinks that it was KATE who took the twins home. Since it was he who went to collect MADELEINE, he is sure he used the short-cut.
----- At 12h30 they started lunch, the meal having lasted an hour until 13h30. After that time they made their way to the resort play area, the deponent left by the front door and the rest of the family by the rear door that, once again, he shut and locked from the inside. As to the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.
----- That they stayed in the play area for approximately an hour until 14H30/14H35. After that they left the twins next to the creche at the TAPAS, they signed the register and the three (deponent, KATE and MADELEINE) made their way to the creche at the main reception, where they arrived at 14H50 and delivered MADELEINE, not being able to say precisely who signed the register.
----- The deponent and KATE returned to the OCEAN CLUB by the short-cut and at the secondary reception they asked the lady employee if there was a vacant tennis court they could reserve. They were told there was a vacancy between 14H30 to 15H30. As it was already 15h00, they began to play immediately. At 15H30, the tennis instructor arrived, who instructed each of them until 16H30.
-----

viv said...

The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the teachers and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE ate, [the meal] having ended at 17H30.
------ After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
------ That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played.
------ During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, to which [entreaty] he did not accede as he had already been plying for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. Nevertheless, RUSSELL, DAVID and MATHEW stayed to play.
----- At 19H00, he made his way to the apartment, finding KATE and the children playing on the sofa. About 10 to 15 minutes later, they took the children to the bedroom and they all sat on MADELEINE'S bed to read a story. At 19H30, the twins were already in their respective cots and MADELEINE in the bed next to the bedroom door. He does not know if they were asleep but from the silence he presumed that they were. As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that KATE had already had one, they talked a little and drank wine or beer.
----- At 20H35, they left the apartment in the direction of the TAPAS. Before they left and because the children's bedroom door was ajar as always, he opened it a little more, listening from the outside and, as there was complete silence he did not enter, returning the door to its previous position, with a space of about 10cm.
----- He is certain that, before leaving home the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the external blinds closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he relates that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, because, without a light being on in the lounge or the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.

viv said...

They took the usual route to the TAPAS, where they arrived a little after 20H35, not having passed on the route anyone known nor detected anything abnormal. Asked, he said that the dinner bookings were made since Monday, it was already the intention of the group to take their meals there. They were the first of the group to arrive seating themselves at the biggest table, as usual, that was situated in the middle between other tables under an awning with a transparent plastic surface at the front. He relates that they were seated at the table in a position that allowed the deponent to see almost the entire rear door of his apartment through which they left and entered and which gave access to the lounge.
----- Before that, among the other people whom he does not recall, there was at one of the small tables the CARPENTER couple, who he also met playing tennis and with whom he spoke until other group members began to arrive. He does not recall the order of arrival but has the idea that MATHEW and RACHEL had been the first to arrive after him. As time passed other group members were arriving until all nine adults [were there]. At 21H00, MATHEW stood up from the table saying that he would go to see the children. But he did not say that he would go to see the children of the deponent, only after the disappearance of MADELEINE he [MO] having told him [GM] that at 21h00 the external blinds of the children's bedroom window were shut. At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.
----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge.
-----

viv said...

He adds that he never entered any other part of the residence [his bedroom or the kitchen] where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the rear door that he closed but did not lock. He clarifies that he returned without seeing the children of any other family because he had not been asked to by them.
----- After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes, about tennis, holidays and children. While he maintained the conversation with JEZ he saw no-one from the group, nor detected any suspicious individual or vehicle. Because he had been specifically asked, he relates that during this period of time he did not see with certainty JANE pass that location, although it is clear that he was speaking when in front of JEZ, his back to the other pathway on which his apartment is situated. He relates also that JEZ never said to him that he had seen any person given that he was in front.
----- Following on, he returned to the TAPAS between 21h10 and 21h15 the dinner having gone as normal. As the movement of people at the table was frequent he does not know if, when he returned, anyone else was absent, namely JANE. At 21h30 he drew KATE'S attention to the fact that it was time for her to go to see the children, MATHEW having immediately volunteered to substitute given that she was talking. Three to four minutes later MATHEW returned saying only "it is all calm", he having entered by the rear door, given that he did not have the key and it was usual for them to enter in that way.
-----After MATHEW arrived and before KATE left, he does not recall if anyone else was absent, although it was very probable that such had happened. He thinks that, on that night none of the adults nor children were ill. Asked, he relates that the daughter of RUSSELL and of FIONA would have been ill on Tuesday.
----- Half and hour later, without anything to signal [with no way to tell the time], it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house.
----- The deponent ran to the apartment accompanied by the rest of the group who, at the time, were seated at the table. When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.
-----Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside. They continued with searches outside around the various apartment blocks, the deponent having asked MATHEW who went to the secondary reception [where] the event was communicated to the local police, since he had no doubt that his daughter had been kidnapped [abducted]. He refutes, peremptorily, the notion [idea/hypothesis] that MADELEINE could have left the apartment by her own means.
-----

viv said...

The deponent had had the wrong idea that MATHEW had seen the bedroom external blinds closed when he was there at 21H30, the reason for that was that he thought the disappearance would have been happened between 21h30 and 22h00, it being that, actually, he is [?] convinced that the abduction occurred in the period understood to be between his visit at 21h05 and MATHEW'S visit at 21H30. Only about 01h00 on 4 May 2007 did he learn through RUSSELL that his companion, JANE, at 21h10, could have seen an individual crossing the top of the road with a child in his arms, that may or may not have been his daughter MADELEINE. Asked, he relates that he does not recall to have described exactly the type of pyjamas (colour, designs, etc.) that MADELEINE had worn at the time she disappeared. The photo of his daughter MADELEINE, after having printed several in the reception of the hotel, was delivered to the police (PJ) who were at the location, as well as to other persons who were there.
----- Asked, he stated that besides her own apartment MADELEINE only went to the apartment of DP and FP, since it was common that they frequented each others' apartments.
----- That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.
----- He denies peremptorily that anyone of the group could be directly or indirectly involved in the disappearance of his daughter. He presumes that, when his wife alerted him about her disappearance, all the group members were seated at the table. He relates that, also during the dinner, none of the members complained about being ill or manifested any strange behaviour, there was a relaxed atmosphere.
-----

viv said...

During the holidays he did not hire or ask to borrow any motor vehicle, nor had he used a taxi or other form of transport. He clarifies still that the only time MADELEINE accompanied them to the beach was described above, though she had gone to the beach in Luz three more times, one of those to go sailing, but always in the company of creche employees. Two of the visits occurred after the date on which she was there with her parents. That, with respect to those episodes, never was anything said to him by MADELEINE that anything strange had happened.
----- Asked, he relates that on Thursday, 3 May 2007, there was nobody outside the group seated at the table, nor does he know any person with the name IRWIN.
----- With respect to the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when she was hot, with the bedclothes folded down. With respect to the other bed next to the window in the children's bedroom he says that it showed no signs that anyone had put their feet on it, namely, dirt or shoe prints.
----- Concerning the half-hourly checking of the children, it had been inspired by the MARK WARNER system called "baby listening", as referred to previously. On the night of the events he ate fish at dinner, and sausages and potatoes as a starter, drinking white wine. Usually, between 20h30 and the end of dinner, they would drink more or less a bottle of wine per person.
----- Asked, he says that KATE never told him anything about her having "a bad feeling [presentiment]" with respect to this trip.
----- He has no suspicion, nor has he any enemies, something that applies equally to his wife, KATE. That, in the course of his profession, he had never committed [made] any error, nor was he guilty of anything, except one time during 2000 in which an unknown individual entered the hospital where he worked, making incoherent threats without justification and calling his name.
Nothing more said ... read, ratified and going to sign

viv said...

With respect to the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when she was hot, with the bedclothes folded down. With respect to the other bed next to the window in the children's bedroom he says that it showed no signs that anyone had put their feet on it, namely, dirt or shoe prints.

docmac said...

SB

I don't believe she was playing hide and seek at all.

Unless you are referring to one of the other T9's sausages. Which I believe may have been hidden. Deeply.

viv said...

erm tut Gerry, the PJ went straight in with their ace card I see, maybe just a little too much control freakery from you there, do you think:

Asked, he clarifies that, with regard to the personal photos already delivered by him to the authorities after the disappearance of his daughter MADELEINE, he has no others in his power [possession].

WHERE IS MADDIE MR MCCANN?

docmac said...

Jeepers, Viv

I'll have to read the rest tomorrow. Are you on top form or what? :-)

viv said...

+LIKE A CORNERED RAT HE MUTTERS...

As to the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.

ONLY cutting and pasting our Gerry Doc, and although generally a non violent person, there is yet more I would like to do to this erm, man, this erm loving father who just happens to have duplicate copies of 6 x 4 photos handy, just in case of the bizarre eventuality of her getting nicked whilst on holiday you understand, what with her being so "beautiful".

S.B. said...

Doc......,

Bacon? Gin and Tonic? Now Sausages? ~ What are you trying to do to me???

docmac said...

Yeah. The handy photos did come in handy, eh? Pity it took so long for him to 'find' them.

docmac said...

I never used the word tonic.

hope4truth said...

Hello

It is not just what they say but the way that they say it....

Kate telling the world about Maddie crying the night before she was taken? The confused look on her face her dismissive tone disbelieveing words....

Now if I was responsible for my childs abduction (and by that I mean if I was a stupid bitch and dumped my children in an unlocked apartment next to a road while I was in a bar getting pissed too far away to see or hear if my child was safe and as a result she was taken to the depths of hell by a peadophile) I would be devestated to realise that even though my daughter had told me how upset she was I just dumped her all over again and could if I had bothered to listen saved her life....

But for Kate it was just an odd thing nothing for us or her to worry about (until it could be used to prove someone was there the night before).....

Sick in the head the pair of them yet fools give them money to keep the spin going and help make sure the victims voice is never heard...

S.B. said...

Viv....,

Like a cornered rat.......

There are certain places around here were the local 'low-life' hang out on mass. Beggars, drug addicts, sniffers, drunks, thieves, street urchins, murderers ~ you know, normal street life!

Its quite entertaining to be in the vicinity when the police turn up in their meat wagon ~ the vermin disappear through every orifice like grease lightening. Instinctively they seem to know where to hide!

Say no more?

docmac said...

Are you implying the bitch might have been pissed, Hope?

;-)

hope4truth said...

I am not implying anything Doc but if she was not pissed after the amount that was drunk that night unless she was in the late stage of being an alcoholic (which would get her pissed very quickly) she would have to be used to drinking a lot of wine not to have been....

Unless of course they tipped their drinks into flower pots so they would not drop themselves in it when lying to the police as they did not want their child found by interfering PJ....

As for the photos Gerry had with him did anyone ever ask if he had some of the twins????

docmac said...

Well I will say it then. She was 'gesuip'

As for the twins...

Sorry A***** and S***. You are stuck with them. I'm sorry :-(

viv said...

bacon, gin and tonic and erm sausages, oh wow, the good old days. You are certainly bringing back some happy memories for me there Doc!

hope4truth said...

gesuip not heard that one???

viv said...

I suppose we can forgive them for traipsing all over the flat and trying the shutters etc, being doctors, not thinking aha forensics, I mean poor sods were obviously pished and confused, what a shame.

Not that pished they could not get on the phone to the press though eh?

viv said...

I recall everyone was selling their houses by the McCann den, I wonder if any new neighbours have braved it and perhaps picked themselves up a large detached at a knockdown price in the bargain?

One thing I will say for Kate and Gerry, wherever they go, they seriously cost people some money.

hope4truth said...

Talking of selling houses I thought Aunt Phil was putting hers on the market to save her nice????

So what stopped her? everytime the fund gets low they create another sighting and rake some more cash in or sue someone for daring to sugest they are crap parents...

Then again maybe she was jealous that her Brothers were paid directors and were not going to sell their houses and Maddie could just wait a few more years....

Or she has read the rogs and seen the laughter and has serious doubts obviously her other nice and nephew are not worth saving either....

viv said...

Hiya Hope

I guess Aunty Phil must feel seriously conned and let down by her little brother. Just like we all do really.

It has certainly been a very long time since we heard a peep from her otherwise very vocal mouth.

viv said...

Doc, it did not take Gerry any time at all to find the photographs of Maddie, he handed them to the GNR police as soon as they arrived.

It is the fact that he would have duplicate copies of two photographs of Madeleine, sized 6 x 4 available to immediately hand to the police that demonstrates this man planned it.

They are not wallet sized and why on earth would you take two copies of each picture on holiday with you?

I think that is why he then mysteriously got his wallet "stolen". He was trying to give the impression he carried precious pictures of Maddie around with him. Have you ever seen a 6 x 4 wallet!

One of those pictures looked nothing like her, she is about two with short bobbed blond hair and the other she is done up in her Everton kit. The same Everton he used as part of his massive fund raising efforts.

It was this type of cold control freakery, being so overly organised, that put Gerry McCann in the frame with the police from day one, even the GNR guards who also commented, there was simply no sign of any breakin. No need to, it was the man with the keys.

viv said...

but I do know which photo you are referring to Doc. The one that it took him a trip home / nearly 3 weeks to go and produce

the erm "last picture" of Madeleine erm taken on 3 May, erm, where she had grown a year younger and had blond hair again.

Or was that a bit more Gerry control freakery.

Why don't the police just put this man in the slammer until he wants to co-operate!

S.B. said...

Viv.....,

I am surprised that you query the size of Geralds wallet. If he didn't have such a big one where else could he bank the millions raked in from the public?

I don't think any self respecting high street bank would touch his halliganized dirty lucre!

S.B. said...

According to Aunty Philomena "he bent down to put something into his rucksack and some dirty animal had the wallet out of his back pocket".........

Could that dirty animal have been Eddie or Keeley?

S.B. said...

"Gerry had to cancel his credit cards".........

What credit cards? ~ Or is that the credit cards that he didn't have in Portugal?

viv said...

Hiya SB

I can remember when I was very young, if I wanted the senior partner of the solicitor's practice where I worked to know something but I did not want to say so myself, I simply told the receptionist!

I think Gerry used the same approach with Philomena, if he wanted something planted in the media but did not wish to actually plant it himself, simply tell Philomena. Of course as time wore on, he found her a bit of a lialility and maybe she found her little brother was not quite so capable of belief as she had assumed.

viv said...

when was the last time we heard one single word of support from Gerry's family?

I am sure they have figured him out and just could not bear to publically appeal for the safe return of Madeleine, I hope they give him hell.

Di said...

Hi all

S.B

Your Tues post 20.13pm

Brilliant!

hope4truth said...

Hi Viv

It must be awful for their families if they have read half the things we have and witnessed a fraction of the odd behaviour we have they must be very confused.

Then again they will have witnessed a lot more odd behaviour than we ever will behind closed doors. Lets face it if they can laugh it up in public knowing the whole world is watching they must be a barrel of laughs once they have no prying eyes....

But what can their family do???

Well they could put the twins first it may be to late to save their sister but they at least deserve to be safe...

Di said...

Hi Viv

I have not had time to read back fully but just picking up on your posts.

Gerry ran back to the apt and noticed the bedroom door was fully open. Kate has just supposedly spent her time running round the apt looking for Madeleine, therefore the bedroom door would be open, or was she just peeping like the rest of them.

Gerry went outside and pulled the shutters up easily. Hmmm Gerry are you the invisible man, where are your fingerprints? Kates were the only ones found and they were consistent with opening the shutter from the inside.

What's all this about Gerry alerting Kate it was her time to check the children. Interesting that the staff say the women never left the table on any other night it was always the men who disappeared.

The Carpenters, I have always found their statement very interesting. They heard someone shouting Madeleine much earlier than the time we are to believe Madeleine was found missing.

S.B. said...

Evening......,

‘Tis the silly season, on the whole the news is boring so I have been amusing myself having a little poke about the personage of our illustrious celebrity, Gerald. This doesn't mean that Saint Kate is of the hook but hunky Gerald is a prime target for ridicule so he must be treated accordingly.

His long term strategy has beyond doubt been a masterpiece of ingenuity. The months of pre-planning, staging the grand event, the aftermath of red herrings necessary to complete his plan and the continued endeavours to delude everybody in believing his innocence. All without exception executed to perfection. So when I hear anybody extolling his intellectual virtues, I have no choice but to concede in so far as it concerns the plans 'blue print'.

This I believe is where his intellect begins and ends. If I had the inclination it would be interesting to research and document just how many of those classic comments, for which he has become quite notorious, that he has stupidly made over the past three years. His comments could be considered to be another part of his 'strategy' or a worldly show of his perverse humour but his prime concern now must be to convince the authorities and the public that his is beyond reasonable doubt 'innocent'. This he will never attain by persistently opening his fat gob and pouring forth bin loads of garbage.

Again it is far too time consuming to trawl through all the past documentation relating to the case, even if one had the inclination, but when researching anything in particular one stumbles upon things that have been forgotten until nudged back into the present. A very good example of this ~ the many facets of the photographs. Gerald’s 3rd trip back to the UK , 12th July 2007, he attends National Police Federation Annual Bravery Awards and receives a standing ovation!?! Next day a visit to the CEOP to learn more about their role!?! Next day Kate returns with twins to attend a baptism. Next day what’s left of the happy family return to Portugal!?! All within 2 months of the tragic miraculous disappearance of their little daughter! All this globe trotting must have been quite exhausting after expending so much emotion and energy searching for their little girl.

Gerald’s biggest downfall, apart from his mouth, is his preconception that everyone on the planet is a complete idiot ~ except himself! You would think by now, after diligently following all the blogs covering the case that he would be wised-up to reality but of course no ~ he is Gerald Patrick Mccann. Master of deception, intrigue and his own destiny..................

viv said...

So by 10 May he has decided that he wants to tell the police they went out night after night, did not check to see if the windows were locked, left the front door unlocked and the patio door at the rear open. SB, Gerry would certainly have to consider the public incredibly stupid to believe a word he says!


Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE by the rear door which he consequently closed but did not lock given that that is only possible from the inside. Referring to the front door, while he is certain that it was closed it is unlikely that it was locked as [because] they had left by the rear door.

viv said...

but by the same token he is adamant that Maddie has been kidnapped, there is no way, apparently his four year old could just walk out of that completely unlocked apartment. Well either she could not walk out because she was drugged Gerry, or you are just what we all think you are, or maybe it is a bit of both!

viv said...

Have people noted that in Gerry's second statement above, he does admit that not just Maddie,but the twins also got away from Kate and Gerry and managed to get into some gardens. What well cared for tots they were. This would seem to suggest the story about Maddie running away from them and hiding is true,but even worse, it was the twins also, who were just turned two!

So odd that they would leave them alone at night with all the doors open really. Maddie could have easily got the twins out of their cots and the lot could have been gone!

viv said...

lost them before they even got around to dumping them in the creche....


That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left [went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges [fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.

viv said...

small wonder some lurking predator did not scoop all three up there and then!

viv said...

but these are not income supporters on the council estate who just let their kids run riot, this is two so called "doctors"..

hope4truth said...

There is not a single reason in the world Maddie could not have got up and gone to look for her parents.

Uneless she was tied to the bed or drugged that is and if either of those things stopped her leaving the apartment then her parents should be locked up for serious child cruelty.

They both are shocked that people dont believe them and employ the likes of that odious little man RP to tell anyone who puts a child before her very cruel parents just how nasty they are...

He should have come up with a better story or just have kept it simple....

They may want to sell the story of abduction but if they had just accepted she could have wandered off many doubts would be quashed...

After all they were not there when she went missing so have no more of a clue than I do how it happend.

Unless of course they removed her and knew for sure she could not have got up and walked out on her own.

THe millions spent defending themselves and creating so many false leads is a huge crime in itself, a good idea but now with every headline of "She is over there" more and more people see them for the uncaring people they are....

Khyra Ishaq was in the headlines again this week and they believe she could have been saved from starving to death if SS had done something. We have Baby P tortured to death with no help from anyone on and on it goes...

Yet the twins have been left with Parents who have lied from day one and acted in the most outrages of ways and I dont ever want to read a story about how they could have been saved if the authorities had put the McCann children first and allowed the investigation to progress into Maddies disapearence...

Oh well the T9 have blood on their hands already with their lies I guess a little more wont worry them...

docmac said...

Morning, Viv

You've been busy!

Morning SB

"Gerald Patrick Mccann. Master of deception..." lol!

Morning Hope

'Gesuip' is a very descriptive and colourful Afrikaans word describing the stage of drunkenness usually only achieved by homeless drunks after a few flagons of very cheap wine. A stage or two past 'pissed'

Wizard said...

Morning All,

I was just reading about the discovery yesterday of eight bodies of new born babies found in a house in France. The mother and father of the children have been arrested.

An interesting point in this tragedy is the response of neighbours to the parents of the babies, they say. "They are normal people, who even have a role in the community," "It's incredible." They said the couple were grandparents and had two grown-up daughters.

The couple both worked – the husband a builder and his wife a nursing assistant. All appears normal but they were living with a terrible secret and apparently behaving and appearing normal to all around them.

Perhaps this could explain the belief held by some that the McCanns were not involved in the daughter’s disappearance. Normal people do no do behave in this way.
Hmmm…..

docmac said...

Wizard

Very, very sad tale. I do see it reported that the DOGS found six of the bodies.

docmac said...

Viv

See here for 'last photo' scoop :-)

viv said...

Hiya all, I am very sad to hear about all those dead babies.

I think you are spot on as ever Wiz, people just find it very hard to equate such bizarre behaviour with those who can put on a pretty normal front for the neighbours. But I do not accept that the McCanns have put on a normal front for the world. I wonder if people just find it so shocking to try and contemplate they try and normalise the behaviour from the McCanns?

The better class the criminal the more shocking, well planned, greedy and outrageous the crime. This is a Karen Matthews job but just so much more sophistically and greedily executed.

viv said...

Doc thanks, amid a lot of bleating and wailing from Team McCann in those first few weeks that the Pt Police were releasing no pictures etc, as the report below confirms it took the McCanns themselves a full THREE WEEKS to release this supposed last picture of Madeleine.

He went home on about the 20th or 21st I think and according to what you have discovered the picture was digitally altered on the 24th May, just the day before he released it.

HIs above statement is dated 10 May, at no stage does he mention taking any pictures of the children at 2.29 pm does he? But he does slyly mention his wife takes most of the pictures.

If your child was missing would it take you three weeks to release the supposed last image of her?

The last image of Madeleine was already in the custody of the police, the tennis balls pic which to me shows signs of abuse on Madeleine. I think this is why he has always tried to ignore it.

Gerry certainly had been a busy boy on his trip home, we got the red dress pic of Maddie looking absolutely nothing like she really did flashed up on Marble Arch in London. Of course there is a huge amount of money in London, no doubt about that!

viv said...

McCanns release last picture of Madeleine before she vanished

* Reddit
* Buzz up
* Share on facebook
* Tweet this

* Giles Tremlett in Praia da Luz
* The Guardian, Friday 25 May 2007
* Article history

Three weeks to the day after she went missing, the family of four-year-old Madeleine McCann released the last known picture of her yesterday, taken just eight hours before she disappeared from a holiday flat in Praia da Luz, southern Portugal.

Madeleine, then aged three, appears giggling as she dangles her feet into a swimming pool beside her younger sister Amelie and her father, Gerry.

The photograph was taken by her mother, Kate, as the family of five enjoyed their holiday at the Ocean Club complex in the tranquil Algarve resort.

Later that evening, the McCanns left the three children sleeping in their apartment while they ate at a tapas bar a few metres away.

On one of their half-hourly checks they discovered that Madeleine had disappeared, while two-year-old twins Amelie and Sean remained in their beds.

Despite reports of sightings from as far afield as Marrakesh in Morocco, and Crete, police admit that they have no idea where she may be. Believing that she may have been driven across the border into Spain and, from there, to anywhere in Europe, the McCanns are preparing to travel across the continent to spread the hunt for her, starting in Spain.

A British billionaire has offered the McCanns the use of a private jet, although the family are said to be wary of doing anything that makes them look like celebrities.

"We need to start finalising our plans for interviews in areas of Europe where the coverage of Madeleine's disappearance has been limited," Gerry McCann wrote yesterday on the website dedicated to finding his daughter.

As the family's ordeal enters its fourth week today, there have been suggestions from people close to the McCanns that they are concerned about the flow of information from the police to them.

"While they remain content with the overall thrust of the investigation they do at times hope that their questions and concerns are addressed more quickly," a source close to the McCanns told the Press Association news agency.

"They fully comprehend the restrictions that the Portuguese legal system places on everyone involved in this, but naturally as parents who want their little girl back some of the delays that are occurring are frustrating," he added.

Madeleine's uncle, John McCann, said the family remained determined to explore "all ways" of getting Madeleine back. "That will focus on the criminal investigation but we have to - as a family - be open to other ways."

Wizard said...

Doctors are people we all visit from time to time and think of as trust worthy and there to help us in a time of need. We might also speculate that they are pillars of society etc. So when Dr Shipton came on the scene mass shock and disbelief. He appeared to have got away for many years with his macabre sideline of shortening lives when the mood took him. His behaviour couldn’t be true but alas for his victims it was.

The McCanns both doctors, pillars of society, married with three attractive childen, appeared up till 3 years ago a normal successful professional couple. One of their children go missing whilst on holiday and people start jumping to attention to help them out. Nasty foreign police pointing the finger at them it just can’t be right. As for leaving their children alone while they went out on the lash the media were the first to tell us – all British do that it’s normal.

So you hit the nail on the head Viv when you say people find it so shocking to contemplate they try and normalise the behaviour of the McCanns - whose behaviour in reality is quite bizarre.

Wizard said...

Hi Doc,

Yes the dogs triumph - I image Gerry saying to himself those pesky cadaver dogs strike again- can no one conceal the body of their victim without those canine flea bags sticking their nose in.

Dogs the scourge of those who attempt to conceal their victims.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz, well bizarre indeed, laughing outside the church on her birthday with bunches of flowers and colour co-ordinated outfit, just days after she disappeared, jetting off to Europe, not that there was any sign of Maddie in Holland and Germany and leaving the twins, continuing to just dump the twins in the nursery day after day. In reality any normal parent would have been morbidly fearful, if not convinced that the nursery staff had something to do with it and would have been quite paranoid about leaving their other two for a single second.

jet setting around the world doing money spinning interviews thousands of miles away from where she actually disappeared from. A full two years later they tell us they are going to start looking at where she disappeared from. I have never seen anything quite so mad!

This is very pertinent from the above report:

As the family's ordeal enters its fourth week today, there have been suggestions from people close to the McCanns that they are concerned about the flow of information from the police to them.

Well indeed as their desperate action commenced in April 2008 against the Chief Constable of Leicester Police confirms, they have always been desperately concerned about the flow of information from the police. And the police have from early days, been telling them nothing that is going to help them!

viv said...

Wiz

I do not think it is any great triumph for dogs trained to find human bodies to actually do so. They just need to follow their nose to what is after all a very pungent smell, to a dog, even years later.

The trouble is in the case of little Maddie they did not find any body or any trace of one, did they?

viv said...

Doc, I think the other vital thing to remember about that so called last photo from Kate's camera, it could not have had the time and state stamped upon it.

If you read the PJ files you will find that her camera and a certain video recorder were immediately seised and sent to an expert Brit Police analyst. He found in his report that the time and date had NEVER BEEN SET ON KATE'S CAMERA FROM NEW, NOT EVER!

I think it was an image of Gerry and Amelie and he took it home and added Maddie and the time and date to "prove" she was still around at that point. Also it would take some explaining as to why they have nice pictures of the twins but did not bother to take one of Maddie. There is so much that will have been put to the McCanns that we simply do not know about, but you can bet your bottom dollar Brit Police/CEOP have seriously grilled them about this. Do they ever refer to this "last picture" now? I do not think so?

viv said...

I continue to believe that in that image Maddie is hair is very blond and she looks far more babyish, the image of a child around three,not four, in short it is a photo taken of her in 2006, spliced on to the PDL shot.

viv said...

excuse typos, it is the keyboard, not me, lol!

Maddie's hair *

viv said...

They pulled the same stunt with the Christmas pics, claiming to have released pictures of Maddie at Christmas 2006, i.e. not long before she disappeared but they were quite obviously images of her at Christmas 2005 with one of the twins crawling on the floor still a young baby.

That is the key to this mystery IMO, the McCanns have always wanted to seriously confuse at to what Maddie actually looked like. Why bother if she is dead?

viv said...

Well agreed, the more disparate and confusing images there are of her, over a range of ages and with different hair colours the more other children she will look like and the more "sightings" they can engender. Sightings have two obvious purposes, to generate more cash and prove she is still alive.

So that is a good counter argument!

viv said...

Anyway, since the MCanns were going to relieve Goncalo of all of his cash to top the fund up and find Maddie, have they ever once appealed or got Mitchell to appeal and tell us how many months there is left to pay their private investigators to continue this important work?

Do yourself a deal Mr Halligen, you know English nicks are better than American ones!

Wizard said...

Hi Viv,

The cadaver dogs in Portugal could not be proved right or wrong because if the dog was alerting to the scent of a cadaver being present in apartment 5A at any time – it had been moved. Or conversely the Portuguese prosecutors office said, when they dropped the McCanns arguidos status, they had forgotten Kate McCanns profession therefore suggesting if cadaver odour was present it could be misleading.

Initially Portuguese dogs were used in the search for Madeleine and if my memory serves me correctly they were able to follow M’s scent to the supermarket nearby. One of the T9 said they had taken her there earlier or the previous day otherwise the dogs did not pick up any scent from M to follow. These dogs were following a live scent and I just wonder if they had been trained in detecting cadaver odour whether they would have been able to find anything to follow. The English dogs had to wait months before they started their work in Portugal the trail, if it was there in the first place, would have gone cold especially if M was being carried or placed in a container (air borne scent). Not forgetting the World's Press trampling outside appartment 5A, plus wind rain etc.

viv said...

Is it right that this "mum" faces no criminal sanction at all for handing her son over to this couple and their squalid filthy little bedsit?

Should the law condone such irresponsible and wicked parenting?
£20 to the pot smokers whilst she decorated her house? If she was not coping she should have informed social services, then he would still be alive and well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-black-country-10798487

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

I have never discounted the possibility that the McCanns murdered Madeleine and her body was disposed of earlier during the day in the missing blue tennis bag. But I think it is less likely. Either way I think they are too smart to have left her body in situ for any period of time to allow cadaver scent to develop.

viv said...

What I mean is there has to be a very good reason for Brian Kennedy to be so intimately involved and spend such a huge amount of money. Men like him do not gladly part with cash.

Wizard said...

The McCanns have put out various photographs of their daughter which I think we agree could give a misleading likeness.

There are a number of possibilities why they should do this but I just wonder if the pair are narcissists they wouldn’t put an image of Madeleine that made her look like any other little girl, by that I mean ordinary, they had to find the most attractive photograph of her and to hell with likeness.

Madeleine might be perceived as an extension of themselves and needed to be shown in the best light. Just a thought.

Viv - Brian Kennedy's involvement hmm...at first I thought it was about getting publicity for his window company but not now - there is far more to it.

viv said...

Hiya Wiz

I think we can perhaps see an element of them not being satisfied with Maddie just looking like an ordinary little girl.

There are so many photos where she is quite obviously made up and has had her hair tinted, whether that is purely through narcissism or something yet more sinister still I am not quite sure.

In the tennis balls pic she plainly has brown hair and has lost that cutesy babyish look as indeed four year olds do, but the hunched stance, the bruised legs, the burnt or bruised arm..How could it have been sunburn when she was always in the care of the creche, the weather on Kate's mother's admission had not been good and most important of all, in that pic, whilst her arm is angry red the hand is just pure white and off at an angle in a straight line the redness begins, that is just not sunburn!

I have often thougt it is fake suntan cream to cover bruising to the wrist area. Gerry above describes a little girl who is so smart she can just run off with her two year old siblings and negotiate pathways and gardens. Did he find that frustrating and why would she do this on the very short occasions she was in their company?

viv said...

Wiz, well yes, the involvement of Brian Kennedy is very sinister. With M3 he actively took part in meeting with the PJ with the clear aim and design of wasting their time and sending them off on a wild goose chase. Resources are always finite and all leads that just may have led to Maddie had to be pursued. That was wicked conduct.

As you say at first, it might have just been a bad businees idea, but it wouldnot have takenhim long to figure out that particular error. This is a man who has amassed countless millions and not always in the nicest possible of ways.

The link to Gerry could be the fascination with sport. The golf club nearly Rothley isnot for the poor!

docmac said...

"If you read the PJ files you will find that her camera and a certain video recorder were immediately seised and sent to an expert Brit Police analyst. He found in his report that the time and date had NEVER BEEN SET ON KATE'S CAMERA FROM NEW, NOT EVER!"

Don't have a link to this? Or hard copy, perhaps? :-)

viv said...

PHEW!

Luke painted the upstairs halls and left me all the woodwork cutting into do! then he tells me lookmom it only takes half an hour. Well I have just been at it for two hours and I am entering the Ache for England Competition, I surely must win the regional heats for Warwickshire, lol!

So I just came to sit and smoke and there you are Doc, my fingers are encrusted in bloody magnolia, it is on Pamalam will go have a look and see if I can find for you!
Then i will find my granny meds, arthrotec!
xx

viv said...

See Doc, even when aching for England I am super efficient, new post with the relevant bit highlighted in red, proof positive I would say that Gerry's last picture of Maddie witht the time and date stamp on was an absolute fake!

viv said...

and that is a complete aside from the fact that on the tennis balls pic Maddie has long brown hair, not shorter blond as on this supposed last image.

Saieef ahmdya said...

Good post and Smart Blog
Thanks for your good information and i hope to subscribe and visit my blog Ancient Egypt and more Amun thanks again admin