Thursday, May 05, 2016

The main objective of the English authorities was to exonerate the parents of Madeleine McCann

Short debate on the news that Scotland Yard is allegedly following a lead that presumes that Madeleine McCann was abducted by three Portuguese men. Rua Segura is a daily TV show broadcast by CMTV where criminal current issues are debated and analysed. On this episode the program had as guests Carlos Anjos, former PJ inspector and former head of the Criminal Investigation Officers' Union and André Ventura, University Law Professor & book author.

Carlos Anjos: 'I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple'


Anchor Sara Carrilho - The thesis of abduction of Madeleine McCann by three Portuguese men is back on the table for the British authorities. The Judiciary Police however does not believe in that hypothesis which was already investigated two years ago.

Voice Over Joana Sales (news segment) - It's the last line of investigation concerning Maddie's disappearance. If it doesn't produce any results Scotland Yard will close the case nine (sic, 5) years after it started. The thesis of this new investigation is unknown, but English police sources believe that the possibility that the little 3-year-old girl was abducted during a burglary deserves a fresh look. This hypothesis surfaced in 2014. The Portuguese police constituted at the time three men as arguidos (suspects), José Carlos da Silva, 30 years old (sic, 39), Ricardo Rodrigues, 24 years old, and Paulo Ribeiro, 53 years old. One of the suspects worked at the Ocean Club resort where the McCann family were staying. He was in charge of accompanying the clients up to the apartments in Praia da Luz. The British police believes that this man together with the other two suspects assaulted the McCanns' apartment and upon seeing the little girl decided to take her. The English police suspicions have as basis phone calls records between the three men on that night. The Portuguese police provided at the time the information requested but considers that there are no indicia to incriminate the three suspects. Scotland Yard will carry on with the investigation, as was recently advanced, until they close it in a few months time whether they have conclusions about Madeleine McCann's disappearance or not.

Anchor Sara Carrilho - Carlos, do you think it makes any sense for the English authorities to question these three Portuguese men again, or return to this abduction thesis?

Carlos Anjos - No, nothing makes sense anymore. I would say, from the day the process was reopened or since when the English authorities reopened the case in England and started to investigate, it has never made any sense. It would make some sense if the English authorities had read the Portuguese process and said that there were failures, and then followed alternative lines of investigation. All they did do, what they have limited themselves to, was merely to follow or repeat what was done by the Portuguese, several times. In fact, they are now redoing what they themselves had done, they've already done this step.

Anchor - That they themselves did, they've already investigated this lead.

Carlos Anjos - It has been a series of blunders, even from the point of view.. A few years later they were searching the sewers to see if the girl was still there, if the body had been there the sewers would have blocked and would have likely burst, with all that rained down in Portugal in the past winters there would be no hypothesis. What they have done, from an investigative standpoint, not only was badly done, we cannot also see a line (methodology). Now they want to pursue a thesis of abduction, which is something... They want to talk with three people, it should be said that of these three I can almost guess who they are going to try pin the blame on for the abduction - on the one that died. Of the three men there's one that has already died, and that is always the weakest link since he's not here to defend himself. These Portuguese have been very helpful, even the suspects, because they've always talked to the English. That is, whenever the English want to speak with them, they have accepted to answer their questions and to give them statements. Because they could clam up, they could refuse with the status of arguidos to give any statements. Actually, they are not arguidos1 because the English don't have the capacity for that. There is a curious fact, the only suspect that was an arguido, Robert Murat, who right or wrong was considered initially as the main suspect, the English discarded him immediately, maybe because he is also English, but that one didn't matter for this scenario. We couldn't see a line of reasoning in there.

I believe this process is going to end very soon, after they make this new onslaught in Portugal. They've spent a lot of money, it's one of the most expensive cases in English investigation history. Strangely enough, numerous children disappear in England yet they don't give them any special care, but they have that with Madeleine McCann.

I would applaud them if I saw an investigation done in different way, and if I saw them taking steps that we hadn't taken, if we had failed it would be necessary to do them, and I do think that we failed, this was already said in here, Rui Pereira said that and Manuel (Rodrigues)2 also, that one of the serious errors was not constituting the McCann couple and their friends as arguidos for the abandonment of their children. There were mistakes in the investigation but those errors were repaired. Now, the English have never brought anything new to the investigation, absolutely nothing at all. And we are here today - if people notice, Portugal followed several lines - we don't know of the English investigation a single lead that was different, a single line of investigation that was different, or that it had produced a different type of results.

This is gearing up for one thing, the English, Scotland Yard will end up arranging a report that says that they have eliminated for good the possibility of the child dying in that house, in that night - and I'm not saying that it was homicide, negligent or not - and that what happened was an abduction. They're not going to say much more than that because they don't have any factual basis to affirm that it was an abduction. But they are going to say it. And why? Because this investigation since it started, from the English side, and from the point the dogs came to Portugal, the dogs that detected cadaver scent which lead to a different line of investigation, those English (officers) were replaced because it was of no interest (unhelpful), the thesis wasn't the one the UK wanted and what they want is a thesis that says: 'No, what happened was an abduction and the McCann couple is once and for all exonerated".

Curiously, we heard the process was going to be archived, and I am convinced, it's my personal opinion, that this process wasn't archived now because the Portuguese court decided in favour of Gonçalo Amaral. Since the decision was favourable for Gonçalo Amaral, and the McCanns are very embittered with that decision because they felt that it was unfair - I'm not saying that it was or not, this is just an observation - the English police, at a time when everything pointed to the archival of the case for lack of evidence - there was even a news article on Correio da Manhã and in other newspapers - decided to start new investigations upon the decision of the Portuguese courts. I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple, the English want to remove any suspicion from the McCann couple. In my opinion, it was never their main goal to find Madeleine McCann. The main objective of the English authorities was to exonerate the parents of Madeleine McCann. More Joana Morais


Anonymous said...

"Carlos Anjos - This little girl will never be found, obligatorily she is dead."

Authoritatively ordered? M

Martin Roberts said...

How do you say "I told you so" in Portuguese?

Anonymous said...

With the dam bursting in Portugal it will be more important than ever for SY to contain the damage.

I suspect the moment GA's book is available in English, SY will name their [dead] suspects, declare it impossible to prosecute,[not that they could anyway] and hope the sensational news is enough to overwhelm the flood of information coming out of The Truth of the Lie.


Martin Roberts said...

Whodunit @18:27

Hello there

"I suspect the moment GA's book is available in English, SY will name their [dead] suspects" etc.

If not before even.

Like those left aboard the Titanic, clinging to the elevated stern section ('It's only the front end that's sunk - this one won't, will it?'), believers in the PJ's determination to 'seek justice' will keep hope alive, even in the face of the facts telling them otherwise. (I seem to recall a comment somewhere to the effect that the PJ never did re-open the case in order to resolve the original investigation, but as an administrative requirement, in order legally to enable their accommodation of SY's nefarious intentions).

I'm unlikely now to have more than a decade or two left on the planet, but I'm thinking of putting in for an extension, just so as I can see what 'history' reveals in future.

Anonymous said...

Oh those Brits...

Good night.


Martin Roberts said...

Maren @22:36

You're so right. You just cant tell 'em. Sometimes the 'boy scout' just takes over and they go prepared for anything, like taking coals to Newcastle. (The shovel was no doubt in case they got snowed in!).

Martin Roberts said...

For the avoidance of doubt

Previous essays, held at McCannfiles: 18.2.2010, 27.4.2012, 30.7.2013

Himself said...

Are the aims of the PJ any different from those of the Met?

Anonymous said...

Apr 8, 2012

Senior investigator Helen Monteiro, who is in charge of the Portuguese team based in Porto, has made it clear her officers are available to pursue any leads the Yard comes up with.

Liaison officers are keeping Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry informed.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @15:10

It couldn't be any clearer.

Meanwhile, in other news...

R D Hall 'phones 'the Yard'

Where the answerphone message announces: "This is Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Commissioner" and, after pointing out to DCS Mick Duthie's 'staff officer' that a cadaver dog's prior behaviour in PdL appears a tad inconsistent with DCS Duthie's optimism about finding Madeleine McCann alive, refers said staff officer to his own documentary footage, at

Staff officer: "Can you spell that."

Is this oufit for real?

Himself said...

Did he really say: I couldn't possibly comment? 6secs

But then he did say:(dogs) That's nothing to do with the case.

OK then.

Himself said...

Maren 6 May 2016 at 15:10

On May 23 Kate will attend a reception at Downing Street at which David Cameron will personally back International Missing Children’s Day on May 25.

Kate will attend a reception at Downing Street

"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." - Huxley

There are 90% there that I wouldn't trust my wallet to.

Anonymous said...

M.R. @15:32

BHH: “Please note your call may be recorded.”

It has been recorded. Well done RH.

No doubt. M

Anonymous said...

H 6.5 @16:16

I'm not sure, but at 3:16 he says: "I’ve got nothing to do with the inquiry whatsoever Sir, not for me to comment."?

Perhaps not all is lost.


Anonymous said...



Martin Roberts said...

M @06:47/07:00

'Not for me to comment'

Reminiscent of McCann's response to Sandra Felgueiras ("Did you know Robert Murat?"): "Er, we're not going to answer that".

The 'whooshed' DM link appears to work btw.

Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts,

The Mail link @07.00 was written of course by your old friend David Rose (see past blogs ) who you have spoken of before!


Anonymous said...

M.R. @08:21

Strange, I only see general MailOnline information here, not the text of the article. M

Martin Roberts said...

Bampots @09:04

He's no old friend of mine (lol) although I believe 'Himself' would have a position on that class of acquaintance. 'tis he who will have spoken of the man previously no doubt. (That is not to say, of course, that I disagree with him).

Martin Roberts said...

M @09:04

The article definitely appears at that link - just checked.

So much for 'Jeux sans frontieres' on the Internet, eh?

Martin Roberts said...

The natives are getting restless.

Himself said...

Five minutes of Kennedy I had never heard.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

18 June 2015

Asked if he had any regrets about the Express coverage Desmond said: “Do I regret? Er, no, I think we reported it very fairly.”

He added: “You don’t know what happened. The McCanns had a PR company to start with that wanted [the story] to be on the front page.

“To cut to the chase, when I was at Andrew Lloyd Webber’s programme on Stephen Ward, Bill Kenwright [the Everton Football Club chairman who pledged money to help the McCanns] comes up to me and he says Gerry and – what’s her name, Gerry and the wife? – Kate McCann send their best regards to you and are so thankful to you for keeping that story on the front page.”

He added: “Every other newspaper and every other news station covered it in the same way.”

"Gerry and – what’s her name, Gerry and the wife?"


Martin Roberts said...

H @04:58

Intriguing. Especially his claims about secret societies etc. not being a part of American history.

One third (13) of the 39 signatories to the original constitution were Freemasons, George Washington going on to become a prominent and internationally respected member of the order.

Freemasonry (and other Eastern fraternal practices) migrated West with the pioneers, and very possibly had a role to play in that well-known little fracas in Tombstone, Arizona.

That said, I would be very surprised indeed if JFK did not know all that.

I would be inclined to 'read between the lines' therefore and suspect he was firing a warning shot across the bows of those much closer to home (i.e. the White House) and the military-political cabal that, together with the bankers, realised just what a killing, literally and metaphorically, could be made from sustaining US post-war aggression worldwide.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @09:32

JFK/Jacqueline Kennedy speaking IN TEXAS and followed immediately by the tall cowboy, who said - nothing, beyond referring to everyone's 'beloved president'.

Well that's not what I've heard. Ironic that the true character of 'love' for their president should have been demonstrated IN TEXAS.

The 'blueprint' for the 9/11 report exists in the form of the Warren Commission.

Anonymous said...

Martin R. @09:46

Weiss ist ein Stern!

I wonder if Isabel Duarte has assembled her legal arguments yet?


Anonymous said...

Not completely off topic. M

He didn’t do it by hiring a bunch of expensive equipment, hopping on a plane, and slaving away on an excavation site - he discovered the incredible ruins from the comfort of his own home, by figuring out that the ancient cities were built in alignment with the stars above.

Martin Roberts said...

M @15:17

Not completely off topic at all. How much does it cost to hire a helicopter these days? (...a rough idea, Andy?)

Additionally (and not completely off topic either) an un-named charity is said to be offering £20k I believe for information leading to the discovery of Ben Needham's whereabouts.

Why does that make me uneasy? (rhetorical question)

Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts said...

Well I never (and completely O/T)

Mention of Irish dissidents followed by West Virginia coal miners causes me to recall JFK's renunciation of secret societies (Himself, 9.5 @04:58).

According to Schmidt, Alvin J. Fraternal Organizations Westport, CT; Greenwood Press p.158, JFK joined the 'Ancient Order of Hibernians' in 1947. (

The AOH was used as a 'front' for the Molly Maguires, a dissident organization that terrorised the mining community in NE Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

Anonymous said...

They shouldn't be trying to win, that's the whole problem. They always seem to be acting for the cameras #mccann

...but we’ve obviously been forced into this situation.

Obviously says KM (12 times).

14 March 2010

They understand it a little bit like burglary...

That's no accident.

M.R. Thanks for the AOH link. M

Anonymous said...

Avatars are somewhat telling aren't they?

Anonymous said...

"However, as I have said, this is not the element of the video that I find most interesting. What does interest me is what happens a few seconds later. Gerry appears to suddenly realise his laughter was a gaff & his expression changes to one that rather resembles a guilty schoolboy caught misbehaving. He even throws a quick sideways glance at the crowd before quickly averting his eyes & looking at the ground."

Martin Roberts said...

M @09:23

"...a little bit like burglary"

But only a 'little bit' - not £12m worth (Andy?)

AOH - Just a very strange coincidence that I happened to wander into that topic while examining a completely different subject. I definitely think JFK's dismissal of 'secret societies' was what one might describe as a 'veiled reference'.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @09:41

"Avatars are somewhat telling aren't they?"

It's a story that bears repeating though. I wonder if Denise Thomson has heard back from Luis Forra yet about those pictures he took? I guess not or it would have been all over 'Twitter' long since.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @09:41

Closed for 100 years, eh?

Might we expect a comment soon from ('there is no conspiracy') Blacksmith perhaps?

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @09:41

Oh, and never mind reading the details. This is the LIST of sources that has been buried. Enquiries won't even get past first base until the doors open.

From the team that brought you 'Saddam's 45 minute launch capability' and 'suicide by pen knife' there was the heart-rending tale of a child's abduction. Now, coming soon to a library nowhere near you, the long-awaited follow-up - a £12m production you won't get to see for a century either.

Anonymous said...

M.R. @10:02

She blinded him with science!

Perhaps LF is ROFL. Who knows?


Martin Roberts said...

M @11:57

To quote Himself, who has more than once expressed the hope that the anti-McCann lobby might pull together to greater effect: "(weeps)".

Anonymous said...

In 2008 he published his book about the case called “The Truth of the Lie.”

Called "A Verdade da Mentira".

Anonymous said...

Comment L G
Yes, lets start by asking the "hard questions" to the head of operation grange! First question would be....why is it that under no circumstances can you question the McCann's and friends about their version of events the night little Madeleine disappeared? Their inconsistencies and lies are truly astounding, and yet you have never re-questioned any of them? As the UK taxpayers are paying for this 12 million plus (charade) investigation we have a right to know, where and how every penny of our money has been spent?

Anonymous said...


Interesting comment (as always) from ‘whodunit’.

I trust you are doing well.


Martin Roberts said...

M @21:35

"Interesting comment (as always) from ‘whodunit’."

So is this:

"the cemeteries of the world are full of people who were determined not to go down alone."

I believe 'H' is capable of 'going through all the gears'. Me, I'm quietly 'ticking over'

Anonymous said...

M.R. 15.5 @22:01

"the cemeteries of the world are full of people who were determined not to go down alone."

Spot-on. So is:

About “ground truthing” (not #McCann):

5/12/16 3:03am

"...What does it matter if the research of this 15-year-old doesn’t lead to finding an ancient Maya city? I think this German-Mexican project could help the kid visit the place since there was some talk about insurmountable financing needed which they were able to accumulate. Or maybe share some photos they took while “ground truthing”? No matter what the place is, the kid’s research was absolutely superb, and I think his curiosity will take him far."


Martin Roberts said...

M @08:13

The views of Mrs 'W' are entirely reasonable. A 'limited hangout' as she explains would be what the phrase suggests - limited in both scope and 'knock-on' effect.

'Ground truthing' would appear to be a neologism appropriate to describing 'pie in the sky', but from the opposite perspective!

The idea that the young investigator should be rewarded for his interest and application reminds me of the distinction between continuous assessment vs. examination - you get marks for effort, even though, if the questions were put directly, you'd probably come up with the wrong answer.

That said, the fellow would no doubt be receptive to (and therefore benefit from) professional guidance as the comment suggests.

The story also speaks to 'research' in the wider sense.

Every generation that addresses a topic for the first time has the potential to discover something new. The question is, however, is it absolutely new, or simply new to them?

The requirement of fundamental understanding is the same whether one is looking for a Mayan city or Madeleine McCann. Operation Grange may have read 'Volume II', but it has studiously ignored 'Volume I'.

Anonymous said...

Hey! I came over to see what's cooking and what do I find? People talking about me behind my back! But in a good way obviously so thanks for the complimentary assessment of my assessment.

I could be wrong about a limited hangout in the offing, but I don't know how else to explain the shift in media coverage, even down to The Sun taking comments---and leaving them up even though they are heavily anti-McCann lies.

I am keen to see what happens over the next few months and I hope it doesn't involve any cemeteries.


Himself said...

whodunnit 17 May 2016 at 14:11

There is only one thing worse than being talked about . . . .

Martin Roberts said...

Well within the bound of modern parenting:

' Kate launched her book, Madeleine, in 2011, Gerry said: “Blaming us takes it away from the abductor. Someone stole a child. Of course we feel guilt. But it doesn’t bring the child back. So we tried to take control of things you can influence, to help the search.”'

So 'someone stole a child' (it happens every day). But 'it doesn't bring the child back' (which one? Is he talking about his/her/their daughter by any chance?)

Anonymous said...

M.R. @09:55

the child and the abductor

Gerry is talking about a body and an eliminator.

It is the only explanation I can find.


Martin Roberts said...

M @12.20

Agreed. The removal man.

Anonymous said...

Kate McCann (in ‘madeleine’):

“That same day, 22 July [2007], the Sunday Express ran the headline: ‘MADDY’S PARENTS TO FACE INQUIRY’. For ‘neglect’, according to the newspaper. By now we were no strangers to this line of attack, but it was still incredibly hurtful as it blamed us, indirectly, for Madeleine’s abduction. We were not hurt so much by what people might or might not think of us but by the painful reminder that, however unwittingly, we’d given this predator an opportunity. We had not been there for Madeleine. And, as I’ve said before and will say again, our guilt over that is a heavy cross we will bear for the rest of our lives. As for the abductor, he must have been smiling smugly to himself and thinking, Keep blaming the parents. Just leave me out of it, hidden and anonymous, to carry on doing what I do – stealing children.

Had everyone forgotten about this man? Whoever he was, he was still out there.”

Whoever he(!) was, Kate seems to know him quite well. M

22 July 2007

“Gerry spends the whole day travelling from the Algarve to Washington, USA with their Campaign Manager. They take a Virgin plane with the tickets donated by Richard Branson.

Gerry is upset by a headline in a British newspaper suggesting that they face prosecution for leaving their children unattended.”

Anonymous said...

The Wanderer
OMG, comments allowed. What on Earth is wrong with them today. Why is she being blasted for telling the truth?

Comments allowed thanks to 'a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann'?

Anonymous said...

CM doing occasional work for ?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I posted this on Candyfloss forum MMM and would like either or both of your opions on the way neglect will develope if at all

think of this ....while everyone is shouting neglect and fingerpointing (and they are!!) Who is quietly asking what really happened. And if it was a choice of neglect or Occultation of body etc etc then it makes perfect sense to go this closes down everything for minimal cost.... there is no argument against it imo is the path of least resistance. The best of the worst.....we get to throw mud at negligent parents they waltz off unscathed.....genius

Thanks Bampots

Martin Roberts said...

Bampots @12:00

It's not like OG can run a focus group or two to get a feel for which end-game will play out most successfully. Still, it's not beyond the realms of possibility, I suppose, that they might 'test the water' somehow.

That said, can it really be viewed as a case of neglect versus occultation of a body? It's all very well for Clarence Mitchell to regurgitate GM's 'find the body and prove..(whatever)' statement, but there is already undeniable proof a body is missing! So who moved it?

Either the child was abducted (alive) or she was not abducted and is therefore dead, in which case the parents know the circumstances.

Basically 'neglect' has to be accompanied by 'abduction' to function as an explanation for the child's disappearance. (One wonders how big a 'bung' might be required for the family of an already deceased burglar to accept that their relative could have done such a thing?)

Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @08:43

Will we still be in Europe by the time they approach the ECHR? (which they cannot unless they have in mind taking on the state of Portugal).

I wonder what new evidence of 'damage', 'despair' etc. they have been able to adduce in support of this Supreme Court appeal?

Anonymous said...


16 February 2010

"Sandra Felgueiras: ...the evidence you saw are sufficient to re-open the process?

Isabel Duarte: erm...What I've seen was various relevant information, photos, possible locations, license plates...

Sandra Felgueiras: That your clients didn't yet identify?

Isabel Duarte: My clients are knowing it now. My clients knew about this now. I have the documentation with me to deliver to them.

Sandra Felgueiras: And the photos that you've seen, did they seem to be of Madeleine?

Isabel Duarte: There are photos who are similar to the girl, erm, even shocking, and there are others...

Sandra Felgueiras: Shocking, why?

Isabel Duarte: It doesn't matter."


Martin Roberts said...


A crack in the dyke:

'POLICE in Portugal piled fresh torment on Madeleine McCann’s parents yesterday by claiming SIX other kids were with her the night she disappeared.'

'The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell scoffed at the cops’ new allegations, saying: “If you put seven children together you are going to have a far harder time getting them to sleep than three.”'

This was October 2007. Only Mitchell's statement is a direct quote.

The hypothesis that the T9 organised their own night-time crèche belonged to Paulo Rebelo, who replaced GA as co-ordinator. Importantly the 'leak' refers to SEVEN children being cared for together when EIGHT went on the holiday.

Significantly Mitchell neither covers nor corrects what appears to be an error. Instead he reinforces it!

So, according to the Rebelo theory, a child was missing from the COMMENCEMENT of the group's child minding arrangement that week.

If they were 'missing' at night, then they would have been missing during the daytime also, which suggests that Madeleine McCann was, in effect, absent from the off, and that reports of her being witnessed thereafter by various members of the T9 (at tennis etc.) are in fact false.

('We have a pact' - Dr David Payne)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

M.R. @10:29


Kate McCann: “Well, actually at nine thirty I stood up to go and check on Madeleine, cause it was my turn, and at the same time Matt our friend stood up, and we both started walking and he said I’m gonna go and check on Grace, they were the next apartment to us, he said I’ll check on Madeleine...”

No need to check on the twins? Or were they somewhere else?


Martiin Roberts said...

M @13:26

Thank you. Another needle plucked from the haystack!

"No need to check on the twins?"

I don't believe he checked on anyone that night (from outside a darkened room).

Anonymous said...

M.R. @13.54

Nor do I.


Oprah: "Did he see her in the bed at nine thirty?"

Kate: "No, he just went in and then listened and there was no crying."

So, Matthew Oldfield didn't see the twins in their cots.

"There was no crying." I do believe that.


Martin Roberts said...

M @14:40

"There was no crying." I do believe that. (LOL)

Although it has been said (I forget where) that tears could be seen in the eyes of the victims of Madame Guillotine during the 'terror' under Robespierre.

Anonymous said...

Martin R. @10:29

"Significantly Mitchell neither covers nor corrects what appears to be an error. Instead he reinforces it!"

In a nutshell.

Lively 'discussion' to be continued?



Anonymous said...

9 Oct 2007

The incessant speculation continued, however, including one report claiming that the McCanns and the three couples they were on holiday with left of their children sleeping in the McCann's apartment while they dined in a nearby tapas restaurant.

Portuguese newspaper 24 Horas reported, quoting a senior PJ officer as claiming: "It's not just the evidence gathered which point to the fact of there being more children in the apartment, there is also the evidence duly backed up after interrogation upon the rest of the people who were in the Ocean Club."

None of the McCann's friends were available for comment but Mr Mitchell dismissed the claims as "utter rubbish", saying only Madeleine and her two-year-old twin siblings Sean and Amelie slept there.

"If you put seven children together, you're going to have a far harder time getting them to sleep than three," he said.

I don't believe the other couples left their children sleeping in the McCanns' apartment. I just wonder why none of the McCanns' friends commented. Isn't it a marvellous opportunity to resolve miscommunication?

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @09:19

"I don't believe the other couples left their children sleeping in the McCanns' apartment."

I imagine it was the other way about if anything.

"I just wonder why none of the McCanns' friends commented. Isn't it a marvellous opportunity to resolve miscommunication?"

Not dissimilar to those 'there is no evidence that...' responses when an 'absolutely yes' (or absolutely not) would suffice.

The use of Meta-language results in 'non-denial denials'.

Martin Roberts said...

Maren 25.5 @22.33

"Lively 'discussion' to be continued?"

Given the subject matter perhaps we should consider 'moribund discussion' (I jest).

Picking up from Anonymous @09:19, I don't think it necessary to believe that the T9 children were all in one room or another on each and every occasion in order to imagine that sleeping/checking arrangements were not as advertised in retrospect. In fact we can be reasonably certain they were not.

Whatever the details, I take the view that there is no smoke without fire, hence coupling the PJ position at the time of the original 24 Horas article with Mitchell's avoidance tactic, strongly suggests (to me) that there was accommodation-sharing for one reason or another.

Martin Roberts said...

Work this one out:

KM speaking (from 2.30):

“We’re trying to reach that person who knows something, and there is somebody who knows something – not the person who’s taken Madeleine, but the person on the periphery, and that might just be a colleague of the person, a neighbour, a fam… you know this person, the abductor, has got a mother, a brother, a cousin, they’re part of a family…”

Who do we know with a mother, brother (sister?) and a cousin, who might be a neighbour of 'the person' (the abductor), while being on the periphery themselves?

(Answers on a postcard to DCI Nicola Wall, Metropolitan Police, at Scotland Yard)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

M.R. @14:53

Is 'the person on the periphery' Internet user?

November 3, 2009

Police are asking Internet users to spread a new video aimed at people who may have information about Madeleine McCann...

..."We know that there is someone out there who knows who's involved in her disappearance," CEOP chief Jim Gamble says in the film...

...Madeleine's father, Gerry McCann, told the BBC on Tuesday the video is more of an attempt to contact specific people rather than appeal to the public for information.


"One of the images shows McCann with fair skin, and the other with tanned skin and dark hair -- what she might look like if she's being held in Africa or the Middle East."

That is rather specific.


Martin Roberts said...

M @21:49

"Is 'the person on the periphery' Internet user?"

Team McCann probably hoped so. The stand out remark for me is Gerry's line about contacting 'specific people' via a widespread approach.

I'm reminded of the appeal for photographs from holiday-makers in PdL - another instance of a specific need camouflaged by a general request.

Anonymous said...


A specific need camouflaged by a general request.



Anonymous said...

Jerry Lawton says:
"If they lose, the legal bill could wipe out the Find Madeleine Fund set up using public donations to help the search for their daughter."

and a 'friend of the couple' said:
"If they lose there will be a big legal bill to pay which will come from the fund set up to find Madeleine."

minus 'using public donations'.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @10:07

From your link

'Addressing Mr Justice Eady, the McCann's solicitor-advocate Mr Adam Tudor said: "There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr and Mrs McCann were responsible for the death of their daughter or that they were involved in any sort of cover-up, and there was no basis for Express Newspapers to allege otherwise."'

An interesting statement made in court. Since abduction was, frankly, impossible, and people do not simply disappear into thin air, Tudor's observation leaves someone else 'holding the baby'.

Martin Roberts said...

'Brian Healy, Madeleine's maternal grandfather, told the Guardian his son-in-law had phoned him shortly after returning to the apartment from a nearby restaurant to find Madeleine had disappeared.'

Kate McCann (madeleine):

"The call I’d been putting off now had to be made. My mum and dad completely adore Madeleine and I just couldn’t bring myself to shatter their world. I dreaded to think what this would do to them. So, just after midnight, it was Gerry who had to tell them. Distraught, they rang friends and family who immediately rallied to their support."

'Just after midnight' then, i.e. 'shortly after returning'.

The call was in fact so dreadful that Gerry delayed making it until 10.00 a.m. the following morning!

Anonymous said...

M.R. @11:39

So, just after midnight, it was Gerry who had to tell them.

0.00.27am Kate calls Sue and Brian Healy (128 seconds)


From your link:
“My daughter can hardly speak. She is distraught, she is crying and in shock." (Brian Healy)

Kate McCann (in ‘madeleine’):

“It was particularly hard to bear the distress of our parents. Witnessing our mums being torn apart was absolutely heartbreaking, as was the sight of my dad, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, sobbing profusely, shaking violently, his condition exacerbated by his state of mind, and virtually collapsing on to the couch beside me. ‘I’m so sorry. I’ve let you down. I’m so sorry, so sorry,’ he kept repeating. Of course he hadn’t let me down. He just felt utterly helpless, like the rest of us. The fact that our parents have had to endure such an ordeal at this stage of their lives is a crime in itself.”

Sharing (with the world) is caring?

Strange family to say the least.


Martin Roberts said...

Carlos Anjos: 'I believe that there is clearly an attempt to exonerate the couple'

Back on topic then, here's one that clearly seems not to be listening:

"The Bureau is not brave enough to say more"

Or to facilitate comments in response.

I'll leave it to others to explain why the 'Wayback Machine' has clearly acceded to requests that the 30th April 2007 be erased from CEOP history. Who instructed them? Why was it thought necessary? Who gives a damn about inconsequential mistakes?

No doubt Blacksmith will have the answers.

Anonymous said...

"The Bureau is not brave enough to say more"

Or to facilitate comments in response.

“We’ve never allowed comments, although that would have enabled us to get to know many of our thousand or two core readers better. We haven’t done so because of the unpleasant nature of internet comment – who wants to spend time moderating that? - and because we find interactive “internet debate” worthless and repulsive. We get messages, though, and read what others have to say, gradually allowing us to gain a feel for the sort of people who read us regularly.”

Oh okay.

A reader

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @17:21

"...we find interactive “internet debate” worthless and repulsive"

So much so 'we' can't resist popping up among the comments to the blogs of others.

As far as the 'Wayback' debate is concerned, 'timing' is the very last thing a chronological archive should be expected to fail on - especially when it's governed by digital clocks!

I'll leave it there.

Anonymous said...

Agora, Kate e Gerry McCann recorrem ao Supremo para tentar alterar esta decisão. O recurso foi apresentado, segundo a imprensa britânica, na segunda-feira.

One of the comments:
If only the Sun had the bottle to investigate and report the true facts about Maddys disappearance, instead of some of the rubbish they print. Even a blind man can see that the McCanns are as guilty as sin. Grow a pair Sun and expose the people at the top who are covering up the truth, then people might take your paper a bit more seriously.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @08:59

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King. In this case there's a whole tribe of Cyclops out there. We can't all be short-sighted can we?

Martin Roberts said...

"Civilian police staff from our Scientific Support Department including SOCO’s provide scientific evidence to initiate or assist an investigation conducted by our police officer colleagues. SOCO's are the skilled scene examiners. They are the finders, recorders and collectors of forensic evidence. Their role also includes the crime scene photography and video."

Why, therefore, was the Coroner at Brenda Leyland's inquest unable to verify the 'scene' for herself, but had instead to ask LP's Sgt. Taylor: 'Did the scene mirror the instructions on the screen?'

Anonymous said...

M.R. As you say, why? "Yes" is evidence? M

He told the inquest that on the iPad found in the room with Ms Leyland, a website was open, which detailed how somebody could take their life using helium.

Coroner Catherine Mason asked Sgt Taylor whether the scene in the bedroom "mirrored the instructions that could be seen on the iPad screen" to which Sgt Taylor replied: "Yes".

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous (M) 2.6 @ 20:23

We are not required to speculate as to the genuine cause of Brenda Leyland's death in order to establish that the inquest itself was seriously flawed.

Who first discovered the body? (It could not have been the police)

What items exactly were recorded as having been found in Brenda's hotel room? (Helium canisters, an i-pad, and what else? There should have been more apparatus and luggage sufficient to carry it)

What was the exact status of the items found? (What web-site EXACTLY was showing on the i-pad, which should have been in 'sleep' mode in any case? How much gas was left in each of the two helium canisters, i.e. their relative weight at the time?)

I would hazard a guess that despite suicide being a crime no SOCO was called to the scene and that there is no photographic record of the situation at the time. Ironically, last night I watched a 'true crime' show on TV discussing the murder of a young man who was first rendered unconscious by a cocktail of drugs, trussed up with cord, then asphyxiated with a plastic bag, leaving no signs of aggression (apart from the cord that is).

It had a 'ring' of familiarity to say the least.

Anonymous said...

6 Oct 2014

Her body was found by hotel staff at the Leicester Marriott yesterday...

...The duty manager at the Marriott, who did not want to be named, said: “Our staff are OK, but it wasn’t very nice. We don’t know what happened.”

20 March 2015

He states that the dossier came into his possession by a third party.

Asked to name the person HE REFUSES.

Brenda was not named in the dossier. But the source knew where Brenda lived and her name.

He got the information from a TWEETER.

...The STAFF at the Hotel found her.

Anonymous said...

Before her body was found on Saturday, neighbours said they had not seen her since Thursday and one warned the Leicester Mercury newspaper they were “worried for her safety”.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @21:34

Thank you. I wonder why the staff member was not called to give evidence?

Anonymous @ 22:02

Thursday - Saturday. That's barely 48 hours. 'Worried for her safety' eh? I wonder why? She asked a neighbour to look after the cat for a couple of days, suggesting that she would be away from home. Why should that engender 'worry for her safety'?

I asked an i-pad owner this evening about 'waking up' a device that had been left unattended and become 'locked' as a result.

Unless one takes steps to override the automatic function, a password would be required to renew access to whatever was active prior to the shutdown. Instant regeneration of previous activity could only ensue if the device owner/operator had deliberately altered the control parameters so as to permit resumption without the need for a secure password.

We may never know whether Brenda had taken that step. If she hadn't, then the police must have been there almost while the act was in process in order to step straight back into BL's chosen web page, since her I-pad would have locked out after a few minutes' inactivity.

Anonymous said...

The Mercury visited Burton Overy yesterday, but on discovering Ms Leyland was not at home was told by a neighbour that she had “fled the village”.

The resident, who would rather not be named said: “Somebody took a photo of her on Thursday afternoon and then she was gone.

“I haven’t seen her since.”

...Meanwhile Kate and Gerry have received a £55,000 in libel damages from the Sunday Times.

According to BBC News, the payout came after the newspaper claimed the couple had withheld details about their daughter’s disappearance from authorities.

Anonymous said...

2 October 2014

McCann and his wife Kate were handed £55,000 in libel damages from the Murdoch-owned paper over a front page story which alleged that the couple had deliberately hindered the search for their daughter, who went missing in Portugal seven years ago....

...A spokesman for the couple said newspaper articles helped feed into the abuse from trolls, who felt “vindicated” by them.

And ‘the authorities’ remain as silent as the grave.

Martin Roberts said...

"Kate and Gerry McCann are so angry about claims they drugged and killed their daughter they are prepared to step into the witness box to fight to clear their names, it emerged yesterday"

Never mind their daughter, after nine years they're still looking for the witness box (the case in Lisbon was one of mistaken identity - wrong case, wrong evidence, witness told to shut up).

Anonymous said...

20 Aug 2009

"A source close to the couple confirmed that the defamation action against the newspaper and two journalists had been dropped.

The source said the McCanns want to concentrate instead on their £1 million case against Goncalo Amaral, the former head of the Madeleine investigation."

20 April 2016

From the comment section:

Good - it's about time the McCanns stopped taking everyone who disagrees with their version of events to court! They don't like the massive holes in their 'story' exposed."

It very much appears that the UK government has continuously protected the McCanns? Why?"

"The Cobbler
1. The book only theorizes the "facts" that were presented in the original investigations interim report and are freely available to the public..So they should have pursued the police in the courts. But that would have entailed challenging the evidence in a court of law..
2. They originally claimed the book's content damaged the search for the child. However the parents WAITED for a year so they could go after the royalties.
3. Whatever cynics might argue and experts might say, had this decision not being reversed by a discerning court of appeal – as it was the case last time – allowing two neglecting parents, first to walk out of the country scot-free and then, years later, come back to be awarded half a million Euro in compensation would have set a serious and sinister precedent."

When Theresa May is involved you know something stinks.

The McCanns should have been arrested for neglecting their children for a start. If you dont want to be with your kids on holiday, don't bloody take them.

A trained dog detected death in that apartment, this dog brought from the US detected death in the kid's bedroom and downstairs behind a sofa where blood was found.

The dog had helped solve 200 cases in the US so it had form.

Where did that minifridge go from the apartment, and why did Gerry have an empty file in the sex offender system

What is scary is the UK gov and police always tried to protect the McCanns from day one."

I believe the dog."

So do I, cadaver dogs have no reason to lie. And yet when confronted with this Gerry told the reporter to 'ask the dog'. I would have asked if the previous tenant had passed away or whether the person who had hired the same car had died at the wheel? Everyone can sense that something doesn't stack up in this case but for some reason we can't put our finger on what. I the absence of mortal remains we are left with a set of stories. I hope the truth comes out eventually for the sake of Maddie."

Anonymous said...

Mar 21, 2014

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @08:17

Thank you for sharing those discoveries.

A couple of things have been on my mind overnight:

Why the extra gas canister standing on the floor? From the user's naïve perspective, if one were not sufficient, would a second be any more effective after an (unconscious) interval of time?

If the purpose of two canisters was to guarantee a lethal volume of gas, then they should have been 't'd' together by a tube - obviously not the case with one on the floor and the other on the bed.

If a scenes of crime officer was not called to the hotel, then, besides the coroner being denied a photographic record of the situation, there will have been no confirmation that Brenda Leyland's fingerprints were actually on either canister - especially the one found on the floor.

What with the Toxicologist claiming there was no test for helium in the UK, it seems we have a coroner keen to come to a swift conclusion and based entirely upon assumptions of one sort or another.

Martin Roberts said...

Cameron's 'overt message':

The Prime Minister's 'official spokesperson':

"The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary and others have always been clear that they very much support the work that the British police authorities are doing in this and are always prepared to consider whether there is more that can be done and, as part of that, always stand by to make further representations to the Portuguese government for example if that would be helpful.

"Investigations are rightly for police authorities but If there is more that the Government can do to help facilitate, we would certainly consider that and look to do as much as we could to help."

'Deputy Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt revealed Scotland Yard's frustration.

'He said: "That's causing us frustration because we know what we want to do and we are ready to go with that. But the process is the process."'

'We know what we want to do', eh?

Read on to discover Redwood's thesis concerning previous (unreported) burglaries/assaults in the Algarve.

Martin Roberts said...

'Jonathon Levy - Senior Manager at Sky News

'He was informed on 22/9/14 by Martin Brunt's line manager of the story - by e mail.'

What story? Brenda wasn't door-stepped by Brunt until a week later!

Police Sergeant Taylor is reported to have:

'attended the call to a female who was dead in a hotel room

'Saturday 4 October 13.50. Call to police to attend the scene at Marriott Hotel, Enderby

'Also at scene was Police surgeon, First Response Paramedic'

And another woman PC apparently. Why was SHE not called to give evidence?

Anonymous said...

M.R. @10:43

As you say.

8 October, 2014

Police are now waiting for the result of a toxicology report into the death of mum-of-two Brenda Leyland, 63, to confirm their suspicion.

9 October 2014

Police Sergeant Kevin Taylor told the coroner he was informed that Mrs Leyland was dead after being sent to the Marriott Hotel in Enderby.

The officer said: 'At the scene I was joined by another officer and a county ambulance first responder unit.

'I was then informed by the paramedic and the other officer that there was a deceased female within the room.'

Sgt Taylor added that officers were awaiting the results of additional post-mortem tests and were still undertaking inquiries into the death...

... But unlike other ‘internet trolls’, she did not appear to have made threats against the couple.

December 18, 2014
Pre-inquest review.

Sergeant Kevin Taylor, of Braunstone police station, was the first officer on the scene and found Ms Leyland’s body.

Giving evidence at the first hearing, he said her body had been taken to Leicester Royal Infirmary on Sunday and formally identified by family member Michael Leyland.

Sgt Taylor confirmed a postmortem examination had taken place but no cause of death had been determined.

Mrs Mason asked if foul play had been involved, to which Sgt Taylor replied: “There did not appear to be. No.”

Sergeant Kevin Taylor may have been the first officer on the scene but he didn’t find the body. M

Anonymous said...

M.R. @12:35

"We really need to identify the offender, to bring to a close the trauma and the tragedy that these families have suffered, and then seek to establish whether this is connected to Madeleine's disappearance." - AR

You couldn't make it up, but they know what they want to do and they are ready to go with that.

As for Cameron's 'overt message': RIP BL

Martin Roberts said...

M @13:53

"Sergeant Kevin Taylor may have been the first officer on the scene but he didn’t find the body."

Nor was he the first 'officer' on the scene. On his own admission to the inquest a police woman preceded him (A police 'officer' in common UK parlance does not necessarily denote rank, e.g. sergeant and above, but simply confers an 'official' aspect. The term 'officer on duty', for instance, may be coined with reference to a police constable).

As the first individual on the scene in any official capacity, she should have been called to give evidence.

The Leyland inquest was totally inadequate.

Martin Roberts said...

"It is the general duty of every citizen (under common law) to attend an inquest if they are in possession of any information or evidence that details how a person came to their death."

So where was 'WPC Anonymous' who should have been in possession of the salient facts before even Sgt. Taylor? (she would not have had to touch the screen of an i-pad to know it was there).

Martin Roberts said...

'Inquest juries

'The Coroner will often sit alone to hear an inquest, but there are certain circumstances (as defined by section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) which place a requirement upon the Coroner to summon a jury to hear an inquest case':

Included among said circumstances are those where

The death was unnatural
The death was sudden or unexpected

Note the 'requirement upon the Coroner to summon a jury'

'Unlawful killing conclusions

'Coroners apply the same standard of proof ('beyond reasonable doubt') when considering an unlawful killing conclusion.'

Is the standard of proof for suicide any different?

The coroner in the case of Brenda Leyland sat alone. Whatever Brenda died from it was not 'natural causes'. Her death was also 'sudden and unexpected'.

And yet the coroner neglected to meet the legal requirement that she summon a jury. Was this inquest lawful even?

Anonymous said...

M.R. @17:03

Perhaps the coroner decided 'WPC Anonymous' shouldn’t be called to give evidence as a witness, but then why not? Not relevant to the investigation?

‘8.7 Who decides which witnesses to call?

The coroner decides who should be called to give evidence as a witness and the order in which they give evidence. If you believe that you have evidence, or that a particular witness should be called, you should, if possible, inform the coroner well before the hearing date. The coroner will then decide whether the evidence is relevant to the investigation.’

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @18:22

I guess the simple answer might be that she called those whose names were attached to police reports already in her possession. It would be of considerable interest to discover exactly what information (evidence) she was provided with prior to the inquest.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @18:22

For the avoidance of doubt:

From your link (

"8.10 Is there always a jury at an inquest?
No, most inquests are held without a jury, but there are particular circumstances when the law states a jury must be called, including:
• if the death occurred in prison, in police custody or another type of state detention (except if the death was from natural causes); or
• if the death resulted from an accident at work

This is not, of course, a complete list of those 'particular circumstances when the law states a jury MUST BE CALLED' Among those missing is 'death by unnatural causes'.

There can be no mistake. The coroner responsible for the Leyland inquest flouted the law!

Anonymous said...

M.R. @17:24

'Inquest juries

The Coroner will often sit alone to hear an inquest, but there are certain circumstances (as defined by section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) which place a requirement upon the Coroner to summon a jury to hear an inquest case:


the death was unnatural;

the death was sudden or unexpected;


8.11 What does the jury do?

'In every jury inquest the coroner decides matters of law and procedure and the jury decides the facts of the case and comes to a conclusion which must
include the legal ‘determination’ and ‘findings’ (see Glossary), including
the cause of death. Like the coroner, the jury cannot blame someone for
the death. If there is any blame, this can only be established by other legal proceedings in the civil or criminal courts. However, the jury can state facts which make it clear that the death was caused by a specific failure of some sort or by neglect.'

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @21:01


Quite apart from 'stating facts' jury members are allowed to ask questions, except they have to be present in order to do so.

I confess, this is an aspect of the affair I have only just woken up to, but a question that needs to be asked is WHY Mrs Mason took it upon herself to hear the case alone, when it is quite clear that the law required her to summon a jury - and not simply if she felt like it either. I would hazard a guess that by contravening the law she may have rendered the findings 'unsafe'.

Martin Roberts said...

Morning all!

Comparison of the Coroners and Justice Act (2009, section 7) with the CPS treatment of the same information suggests that the latter might just have been a little too 'free', i.e. they do not make exactly the same kind of sense.

Bottom line - it may have well have been Mrs Mason's prerogative to dispense with a jury. Further inquiries are called for!

Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @12:59

Thanks but that's one of the two sources which seem to be at odds. The CPS website treats the exceptions (i.e. those instances where a Jury is required) as wholly independent, whereas the Act seems to suggest that certain of them are contingent upon the deceased having been in custody, care or some kind of supervision (at work even).

I'm endeavouring to disentangle the matter.

Martin Roberts said...

The topic for today:

Do take note of the headline: 'How Clement Freud raped me - and why I'm CERTAIN he knew what happened to Maddie.'

To be compared with: "I wouldn’t be at all surprised, when the police investigate Freud and his connections in Praia da Luz, if they find he knew something about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann."

Is there any known language in which the concept of certainty is expressed as 'I wouldn't be surprised'?

Question two: 'Vicky says she lost trust in men...Within three years she was married to Chris'

As the photo caption explains:

'Vicky was just 17 years old and a virgin when paedophile Freud forced himself on her after plying her with champagne. She is pictured here aged 19 with her husband in Trafalgar Square'

So she regained her trust in men and was married two years later.

During her visit to Newmarket with CF the lady was "so excited. I can remember what I was wearing: a lovely brown suede, three-quarter-length jacket with a leather collar, long brown leather boots and a tweed skirt."

An ensemble that bears a certain similarity to the outfit she is seen wearing in the photograph above-mentioned (a tweed skirt is of course the more demure option).

At the time of the incident she was "tight as a tick" (i.e. pissed as newt).

'Vicky, you see, reported the abuse to police only four years ago'

CF being deceased seven years ago.

"I wanted Madeleine’s parents to know who Clement Freud was." (I think they already knew. They'd met him at his villa).

Her husband Chris 'believes firmly that police should take the possibility of Freud’s involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance seriously.'

'believes firmly' being an interesting variation on that other well-worn phrase, 'firmly believes'

'We now know, from the women in the documentary, that Freud’s pattern seemed to be to sexually abuse the young girls he groomed, but only to have full sex with them when they were over 16.'

And Madeleine McCann was how old?

Ever get the feeling you're being sold a pup?

Himself said...

Before her passing, Linda (ironside) and I discussed similar rhetoric surrounding Hewlett. There being a distinct difference in the age hewlett's victims (circa 14) and that of Madeleine age four.

'believes firmly' Aye lad. As a matter of interest Google "Kate and Gerry firmly believe" complete with quotation marks.

Fancy that!

Martin Roberts said...

Himself @11:42

I was interrupted by the demands of 'pooch', there being comments outstanding:

As far as the lady herself is concerned, it seems to me we have an instance of 'on the bridge at midnight...' (verse 1), although she herself appears to have omitted line 3 of the stanza. To quote CF: "Why didn't you tell me you were a virgin?"

Why indeed. And being confronted by the old reprobate at the door, readying himself for a close encounter, what does she do - exclaim her virtue, cry mercy and usher him from the room with the threat of "We wouldn't want 'daddy' to find out"?

No. She gets into bed - sans nightie.

To judge from this article alone, CF's predilection for young females was expressed during a time in our history when he would have been viewed as sailing close to the wind but never quite against it, sixteen being the age of consent. It is also possible (I'll put it no stronger) that a sexually curious 17 yr. old female might have reasons of her own for not disclosing her 'innocence'.

CF may well have been guilty of taking advantage of young teenage 'gals' he knew through their parents, but that is not at all the same thing as abusing infants whose parents he did not know from Adam.

Rather more important than all of this is the question of who else, besides the McCanns, might stand to benefit from their exoneration?

Faced with an imminent situation of implicit guilt, via the Portuguese judiciary's support of Amaral's position (and therefore the findings of the initial investigation) we have the sudden re-emergence of 'paedophilia', which equates, of course, with 'abduction' and the McCanns' presumed innocence.

If the 'horrified' McCanns knew nothing of CF's sordid past then they cannot have been responsible for digging the dirt on him can they?

This is stage management on a grand scale.

Martin Roberts said...

Himself @13:56

O.k. so maybe it wasn't verse 1 after all, but for the sake of clarity the verse in question concerned 'snowballs' (lol)

BTW 'firmly believe' is a Mitchellism (as in: Kate and Gerry firmly believe), a phrase that entered the McCann lexicon of sound bites early on (as in:

I wonder if that offers a clue as to the origin of all this 'CF was a paedophile' hysteria, ably supported by those good old ladies who so want 'peace', 'closure' or whatever you might choose to call it that they simply cannot resist being interviewed by the MSM.

Martin Roberts said...

Regarding the latest Freud 'exposure', are we playing HIGNFY with Scotland Yard I wonder? (See the last of my comments to Bampots above on 24 May @13:21).

Anonymous said...

Interesting MR. It fits with my thoughts on this which I posted on the other thread a couple of days ago. I keep coming back to the might Gamble and how he ever came to be number one McCann Fann. His links with the Secret Service and the battlefield of the dark arts that was the conflict in N.Ireland just scratches away at me. Cyril Smith claimed to be protected(and was if stories are to be believed!) he twould most likely be an agent as could CF. would these agents be initiated and held to account with the threat of blackmail or agree to be sacrificial pawns in return for living the life they always had dreamt of? Hence in death they are used to clear up other people's mess?


Anonymous said...

The one and only Antonella is back!! This what you bin waitin fer?


Martin Roberts said...

Bampots @21:15/22:14

Thanks for the pointers and my apologies to all and sundry for not keeping abreast of the general comments thread as I ought to have done.

Personally I'm not inclined, at this stage anyway, to suppose CF might have been a 'spook'. My reference to that earlier comment has rather more relevance to the SUN link you've identified, which I wasn't expecting exactly, although it does point in the anticipated direction.

Only at the very end of the piece is the reader given to understand that the pub's nickname (the Pig and Paedophile) derives from the sudden disappearance of the Landlord's son (wanted for questioning over indecent images) NOT on account of its being regularly frequented by a hoard of raving perverts, Freud and Robert Murat among them according to the 'slant' of the article (a deliberate misdirection IMO)

I need to read up on the specifics of the first of the allegations made against CF but my instincts tell me that the Vicky Haynes addendum, with its link to the McCanns, is contrived. Hearking back to that off-the-cuff 24 May comment of mine, it is just the sort of speculative association that might be, shall we say, negotiated with current family members of the deceased.

In any event I do not believe the purpose of all this is to 'fit up' CF so much as to reinforce, in the public mind, the idea that paedophilia was the motive for Madeleine McCann's 'abduction'.

Those engineering this charade are more concerned to influence the tabloid readers than the very much smaller population who have been following the case more closely.

The MSM will publish pictures of a very much younger CF than the octogenarian who, it is said, interacted with the McCanns, so SUN readers and the like may well draw the conclusion: CF = Paedo. CF knew about the McCanns. MM abducted by (or on the instructions of) a Paedo. CF therefore guilty of involvement.

CF's reputation thus becomes collateral damage - guilty by association, but not, methinks, without a certain preparation of the ground in anticipation.

Anonymous said...

Comment Robert Hurst

"As the landlord of The Pigs Head I can categorically state that this article is factually ridiculous. When asked if Clement Freud had been a regular in the pub I told them he had been here once at least 20 years ago. Further when asked about Robert Murat I told them he had also been in here once about 8years ago.How they then manage to connect the two of them is another piece of nonsense. As the next question asked was did I know Robert to which I said we were on nodding terms, which when you consider we have lived about 2 miles apart for 30 years is fairly normal.The fact that they then tack on a re hashed story from many years ago just makes the article confusing and misleading .The two bars and two stories are not connected in any way as I suspect nether were Freud and Murat. This type of irresponsible journalism can do no good what so ever for anyone. Heavan only knows what kind of feeding frenzy will be unleashed next year on the tenth anniversary. Yours in total honestly Robert Mark Hurst, proprietor of The Pigs Head pub mentioned in this article."

Anonymous said...

"Heaven only knows what kind of feeding frenzy will be unleashed next year on the tenth anniversary."

Who knows?

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @20:14

Thanks for introducing that (I can't access the comments personally for some reason).

Doesn't Antonella Lazzeri live near the McCanns? That might have some bearing on her apparent allegiance.

Beyond being irresponsible her journalism (is that the correct word for the garbage she writes?) is deliberately mischievous and patently subservient to a wider agenda (Gerry McCann's perhaps?)

Anonymous said...

25 Jul 2013

Exclusive ... Sun feature writer Antonella Lazzeri meets Gerry McCann

...Gerry says: “We do need to be pro-active. The initiative online that the Prime Minister announced the other day is fine, but it’s a small step. I’m not an expert, but clearly there is an association between people who access child porn and go on to abuse children, and that needs to be taken seriously.

“We are moving in the right direction but there is a long way to go.”


“There’s not a day goes by when we don’t think about Madeleine, miss her in some way, and obviously wonder where she is and what’s happened to her.

“We kinda have that all the time, but we’ve sort of adapted in many ways, and life seems pretty normal most of the time.


Poor Madeleine.

Martin Roberts said...


On current (as well as past) form, d'you think AL might be considered a candidate for authorship of/assistance with 'the bewk'?

Anonymous said...

MR @08:25

Yes, I do.


Martin Roberts said...

M @08:30

It hadn't crossed my mind previously, but writing in a fashion designed deliberately to mislead takes a certain skill. It is as evident in 'the bewk' as in Lazzeri's latest confection and, being common to both oeuvres, is probably common to a single author rather than two connected, yet unrelated, individuals with completely different professional backgrounds.

Himself said...

Lazzeri on Good Quality Wristbands.

If you do nothing else, follow the link to Win's blog: Antonella Lazzeri's Long List of Shame

Martin Roberts said...

Himself @12:13

Never mind a 're-up' you could justifiably 'tweet' a link to the entire page - compiled six years ago it is current as we speak.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous 19.6 @20:14


Unfortunately I cannot access the comments myself for some reason. Would it be possible for you to communicate the timing of Robert Hurst's remarks in relation to this SUN article (which appeared on-line Saturday evening 18 June)?

Thanks in anticipation.

Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @15:11


But the time/date at the foot represents its appearance here. I am keenly interested in the time/date that same comment first appeared in the SUN.

Anonymous said...

M.R. @15:48

Comment Robert Hurst (third one currently) was posted '1 day ago'. When I 'transported' it yesterday '4 hours ago'. M

Replies to his comment:

@Robert Hurst 23 hours ago

By the time the Mccanns and their PR team have finished you may land up living in a ghost town..

Mark Warner didn't hang around I see.

Best Wishes

PAUL ARCHER 3 hours ago
Thank you for putting the record straight. Too many stories have appeared in the main newspapers which are clearly made up and there to deflect from the McCanns.

Well done.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous (M) @16:26

Thank you very much.

So we have Hurst commenting on the Sunday following the article's appearance the day before.

The CF story broke last Tuesday night. In-between someone had to visit the Pig's Head, interview Hurst, construct and submit the story, which was not the product of sloppy journalism by any means, but well thought out and carefully constructed, not a 'five minute job' at all.

Hurst refers to his interview by 'them' in the past tense. Exactly how long in the past would be an interesting question to put to him, given the chain of events required to publish, as would the identities of his interviewers, or at least their affiliation, whether to the Murdoch press or otherwise (the Mark Warner organisation perhaps, which would make it all the more interesting).

Q: Were people despatched to Portugal in a hurry immediately after the news broke on the Tuesday night, or were their bags already packed by then? Or were the 'facts' gathered by persons already in PdL and passed just as quickly to the SUN news desk? (the article in question was credited to Antonella Lazzeri, NOT Antonella Lazzeri in Praia da Luz).

If only we could discover the date of the Hurst interview.

Anonymous said...

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @17:55

Thanks once again.

I replied to your earlier info (@16:26) but it seems 'blogger' has intercepted it (I've appealed to H for assistance with that one so won't repeat it here).

But back to the Portugal Resident:

The Sun’s goes furthest perhaps, describing the much-loved watering hole as a “pub for paedos”.

“It’s absolute lunacy,” Hurst told the Resident. “It wasn’t even an interview. Two blokes came in and had a drink, and then asked me a few questions as they were leaving.”

That tells us it wasn't the authoress (AL) sitting across the bar from Hurst and asking the questions!

All we need from Hurst now is to know the day/evening the 'two blokes' came into his pub.

Martin Roberts said...

I smell a rat here - a big 'un

First we have Tuesday's 'breaking news' with Vicky Haynes lamenting the loss of her virginity - at 17 - to Clement Freud, and spuriously annexing a connection to the McCann case.

This is followed by Antonella Lazzeri spreading 'paedo' accusations left, right and centre in Saturday's SUN and quoting PdL pub landlord Robert Hurst directly on a number of issues linking Freud with paedophilia in general, Robert Murat in particular.

But Hurst has since explained that he was not interviewed so much as questioned a tad by 'two blokes' (neither of whom would have resembled Antonella one assumes).

Are these two holiday makers, or ex-pats, who have just wandered in after watching SKY News. They weren't SUN reporters or they'd have written the article themselves, whereas it was carefully crafted and credited to Antonella (in London no doubt).

Hurst hasn't said anything about this pair taking notes. And they have a through route to the SUN Newsdesk? (How else did Antonella come by the information she needed?)

These two locals were clearly sent in to reconnoitre the situation by someone with a vested interest in consolidating the Freud + paedophilia + 'it was an abductor wot dun it' story.

Are we to suppose the 'reach' of TM extends to recruiting pathfinders in Portugal at a moment's notice?

Spontaneous journalism my eye. This has more than a whiff of a co-ordinated attack about it.

Anonymous said...



Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @20:06


I've just 'popped the question'.

Martin Roberts said...

And another thing...

How did Hurst's two interrogators know to make inquiries in HIS pub? It's not the only watering hole in PdL surely. Or did they do the grand tour and eventually get lucky? I don't think so somehow.

Martin Roberts said...

Curioser and curioser

The Pig's Head is Not even in Luz, but neighbouring Burgau

Martin Roberts said...

...and curioser still

"As the next question asked was did I know Robert to which I said we were on nodding terms, which when you consider we have lived about 2 miles apart for 30 years is fairly normal" (Robert Hurst - Landlord of the Pig's Head)

2 MILES APART = Luz - Burgau no doubt.

And after 20+ years I'm not even on nodding terms with people across the road!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

MR 20.6 @19:24

Talk about 'pathfinders':

1st May 2016

The former GP, from Rothley, Leics, reportedly wandered the streets “looking for answers”...

...It is not known if husband Gerry, 47, and their 11-year-old twins Sean and Amelie, went with Kate on her latest trip.

Anonymous said...

Who knows who went with Kate on her latest trip?

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @06:38 et seq.

Thank you once again. I may have some news of my own to contribute in a little while - fingers crossed.

In the meantime, and putting oneself in the position of someone in or arriving at PdL on a journalistic 'mission', where does one begin to identify those pubs/restaurants/supermarkets CF might have visited, and why? What 'news' is to be made of that?

It only becomes vaguely relevant once the 'paedo' implication and/or a connection with RM is introduced, but it would take a fair amount of questioning at any number of locales before one or other association, however tenuous, might be turned up. Unless of course one were given a clue or two beforehand.

Martin Roberts said...

A little 'light relief' prompted by Vicky Haynes' tale: