The transfer will be executed one by one and we will close the PM funciton, the registeration function and the creating forum function in old aimoo.
The forum data will be transferred is below:
1. the control panel settings including categories, icons, permission and so on.
2. the forum skin
3. all topics and replies
4. all valid members
5. owner`s profile and PM ( it will be lost probably but not many)
6. forum balance
Except of above, all forum transferred will get free a month diamond.
The transfer will take many days and we plan to complete it in 27th and we will publish the other funtions step by step, they are friends, Album, Youtube video upload and so on, except that, we will publish a new chatroom in future.
If you have any questions, you can email us by firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks again for your understanding and support. Aimoo will get better and better with all of you!
I have waited a long time for HiDeho to put this video together, now it is finally here.
I ask you to look at the following link from Ricardo Paiva, his own personal thoughts on the McCanns'. Kate Healy, so full of herself seriously believed Ricardo found her attractive , but how can a police officer find a woman attractive who he believed was involved in the disappearance of her own daughter ? Getting close to the prime suspect was Paiva's assignment as' too late Healy' realized ' fucking tossa' he was later to be named in her book 'madeleine'
A second officer, Ricardo Paiva, said Portuguese police were suspicious of the couple's 'merchandising' operation in the months after Maddie disappeared. The Madeleine Fund they set up sold wristbands and T-shirts publicising the case and used the money to support the search.
Mr Paiva said they should have faced prosecution for leaving their children alone, saying: 'People have been arrested for far less - even in the UK.' Former Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral wrote a book accusing the McCanns of covering up their daughter's death
Here we have someone who knew Gerry McCann, unusual as the powers that be have all but removed his past which therefore must be an interesting one. A non believer sensed the evil that dwelt within McCann even as a child.
Glasgow University product Gerry McCann is pressing for a review of Madeleine Case, why isn’t he asking for it to be reopened by Portuguese Police?
Glasgow University product Gerry McCann and his wife Kate McCann have written a letter to the Prime Minister David Cameron.
So far, the Tory Government has steered clear in the most part of the McCann Circus which the Labour Government inappropriately involved themselves beyond what reasonably be expected by Consulate Staff and Government.
If a review does take place this should be handled by the Portuguese Police.
Anyway I thought I would go through their letter and make a few points.
“Dear Prime Minister
As a devoted father and family man, you know the importance of children. Our beloved eldest child, Madeleine, was abducted from Praia da Luz, Portugal, four years ago. Since then, we have devoted all our energies to ensuring her safe return”.
This statement begs the question, why on the night of her disappearance did they not join the search for her?
Remember they say:
“we have devoted all our energies to ensuring her safe return”.
Mighty big of them since they are partly to blame for her unsafe exit!
“Today we are asking you – and the British and Portuguese governments – to help find Madeleine and bring her back to her loving family.
We live in hope that Madeleine will be found alive and returned to us. One call might be all that is needed to lead to Madeleine and her abductor”.
This is a continuation of their version which has raised doubts that she was kidnapped, and the theory that first emerged that the parents were to be considered suspects didn’t come from the Portuguese Police but from the British.
“To this end, we are seeking a joint INDEPENDENT, TRANSPARENT and COMPREHENSIVE review of ALL information held in relation to Madeleine’s disappearance. Thus far, there has been NO formal review of the material held by the police authorities – which is routine practice in most major unsolved crimes”.
What is the point of a review when they are not asking for a re-opening of the case?
“A key piece of the ‘jigsaw’ could easily have been overlooked and not joined up with another.
We have tried in vain to get the authorities in the UK and Portugal to play their part”.
Here the McCann’s put forward the theory that Police in both Britain and Portugal should be following their lead, it doesn’t work that way.
“But, sadly, our requests have seemingly fallen on deaf ears. It is simply not acceptable that they have, to all intents and purposes, given up on Madeleine”.
Talking of deaf ears, did Kate McCann’s hearing fail her during her 11 hour interview in which she refused to answer 48 questions posed by the Portuguese Police?
Did the McCann’s co-operate with the Portuguese Police to the fullest extent which a reasonable person could expect?
“I know you will share our concern that no law enforcement agency in the world is currently searching for Madeleine. Our small team of investigators is working alone. They do not have access to all the information gathered during the course of the investigation and have no statutory powers”.
This statement begs the question again why didn’t they ask for the case to be re-opened in Portugal?
“It is fundamental for any major incident that a case review is undertaken to identify all the avenues that could be explored that might lead to new information coming into the inquiry. The information in Madeleine’s case is not even held on one central, searchable database capable of linking data”.
Here we have an unjust criticism of the Portuguese Police Service.
“The benefits of pulling together different bits of evidence can be enormous but until this is done we cannot be sure what, if anything, has been missed. Four years may have passed but Madeleine is still findable. As we have said before we don’t want hollow, meaningless words”.
Have the McCann ‘investigators’ turned over their material to the Portuguese Police, have they turned up any real evidence of abduction?
“We want action. We want the authorities to help us. Madeleine’s abductor is still out there – other children may be at risk”.
Four years have passed and during that time the McCann’s could and should have made themselves available to the Portuguese Police and asked for the case to be re-opened.
“It is not good enough to just say it’s a Portuguese investigation”.
In order for this to be a cross border investigation then evidence would have to be presented that Madeleine crossed a border. So far, there is no evidence this has happened and no evidence that she entered Britain which would trigger a proper British investigation.
This is outside British Police Jurisdiction, it remains a Portuguese Police matter.
“It is not right that a young vulnerable British citizen has essentially been given up on. This remains an unsolved case of a missing child. Children are our most precious gift”.
Perhaps the McCann’s should take a long hard look in the mirror, they decided not to talk, not to help and by their actions were obstructive in the Police investigation.
“Children are our most precious gift”.
Which begs another question why did the McCann’s for five nights in a row abandoned 3 children under five years old in an apartment?
“Please don’t give up on Madeleine.
Kate and Gerry McCann”
I think people would be more inclined to help if the McCann’s started to answer the 48 questions posed by the Police.
The McCann’s want a Police investigation which they can direct and control, someone should explain to them that will not happen by either the British or Portuguese Police.
I remember Gerry McCann from my time at Glasgow University, he was in the Hares and Hounds running club at The Stevenson Building; you would walk by him and immediately turn round and check him, something in his eyes, dead and cold like a shark. I always got a bad feeling off him when I saw him.
As to Prime Minister David Cameron, I don’t think he and his government will make the same mistake Gordon Brown and the Labour Government made.
The facts remain the facts, and I would like to know why the McCann’s version of events didn’t stack up to some of the evidence in the case.
For example, why was Madeleine’s favourite toy Cuddlecat that Kate McCann said she took everywhere contaminated with a death scent?
Hiding your criminal activity amongst those who are truly innocent is the oldest trick in the book. Maddie knows the truth, that is ALL that matters. The two suspects on their return to England used the money from a fraudulent fund to 'clean' their reputation. The McCanns are and always will be the ONLY suspects in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.
Dowlers and McCanns 'oppose newspapers' plan for new regulator'
Lawyer for victims of press intrusion tells Leveson inquiry that Lord Hunt and Lord Black's proposals are 'hopeless'
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 July 2012 17.32 BST
The Leveson inquiry was told that Bob and Sally Dowler and others oppose the press industry's plan for a new regulator. Photograph: Pool/Reuters
The 50 victims of alleged phone hacking and other media intrusion represented at the Leveson inquiry are opposing the newspaper industry's proposals for reform of press regulation.
David Sherborne, counsel for the victims, which include the Dowler and McCann families, described the proposals put forward by Lord Hunt, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, as "hopeless".
The new regulator being backed by newspapers to replace the PCC would involve a continuation of self-regulation but with new powers to investigate systemic wrongdoing and the power to fine errant papers up to £1m.
"The simple fact is that Lord Hunt's proposal is not, as the inquiry has heard, what the victims would require. Its starting point, its whole premise is what is acceptable to the industry. But forgive me, we're not here solely to decide what is acceptable to the industry," Sherborne told the inquiry on Tuesday in his closing statement.
"We're here because the industry is not acceptable to the public, with whom there seems to have been no consultation by Lord Hunt's team."
He said the proposals that have come out of the "still surviving, but only just breathing PCC" would not wash with the public, who want an independent statute-backed regulator "which is created for the public and is not run by service editors".
"However well intentioned it may be, as a proposal to deal with the practice, culture and ethics we've witnessed, it is hopeless," Sherborne added.
Sherborne said that the public wanted a clean break with the past and deserved a new press regulator that was independent and had teeth.
He said that arguments put forward by newspapers that statutory regulation would lead to interference by politicians or have a "chilling effect" on investigative journalism were "specious".
"We say there should be an entirely new regime, a clean break not just in name but in substance from everything that has come before and failed," said Sherborne.
He added that the new press regulator should not involve working editors adjudicating on complaints.
"There should be separate mechanisms for rule-making, for investigations, including investigations of the regulator's own motion, and most importantly for adjudications. A body of independent adjudicators should rule upon complaints as to media conduct and serving editors should have no role in that," Sherborne said.
"The public wants more objective standards and the starting point for that is an independent statute-backed regulator, which is created for the public and is not run by serving editors and one which can hold this enormously influential body to account, as they hold us to account in turn."
He said that unless someone gets a "very firm grip" of the tabloid press, newspapers will continue to behave badly. Sherborne told Lord Justice Leveson he feared that tabloids would be back to their old ways as soon as the "ink dried on your report", which is expected to be published in the autumn.
"To some extent over the last eight months, what has been lost is the voice of the victims," he said, referring to the fact that the victims of press intrusion he represents gave evidence early on during the Leveson witness hearings, in late 2011.
Sherborne went on to list some of what he described as "a catalogue of wrongs, systemic, flagrant and deeply entrenched". "We are not here to focus on the good journalists. We don't need an inquiry for them. We are here to consider the bad ones," he said.
"The press is on trial here, and not simply in this room but also out there in the court of public opinion. And they know it. That is why they are so scared of what evidence has been heard here.
"Unless someone takes a grip, a very firm grip, of the tabloid press, we will be back to the same position as soon as the spotlight is turned off and the ink is dry on your report.
A little connection here: Stephen Birch and Andy Coulson are both clients of Eben Black.
Two of Rupert Murdoch’s former editors, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, are being charged with conspiring to hack the phone of the missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler.
In all seven senior News of the World journalists are being charged with conspiring to intercept the voicemails of a total of 600 victims, the Crown Prosecution announced today.
Glenn Mulcaire, the paper’s private detective, will also face charges in relation four victims including the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke and TV cook Delia Smith.
They are the first charges for phone hacking to be brought for six years, since 2006 when the News of the World royal editor, Clive Goodman, was prosecuted for hacking the phones of three royal aides.
Rupert Murdoch closed the News of the World in July last year after it emerged that the Sunday paper had hacked the mobile phone of Milly Dowler.
Anger over the news led to the Prime Minister David Cameron establishing the Leveson Inquiry into press standards.
All seven journalists – including former managing editor Stuart Kuttner and news editor Ian Edmondson – will be charged with offences under the 1977 Criminal Law Act at police stations.
At a press conference in central London, the CPS’s senior lawyer Alison Levitt said they were being charged at with conspiring to hack the phones of 600 as yet un-named victims between 2000 and 2006.
They are also all charged with additional conspiracy to intercept communications offences linked to specific victims.
Under these additional offences, Coulson - who became head of communications for the Prime Minister David Cameron - is being charged with conspiring to hack the phones of Milly Dowler, Calum Best, Charles Clarke and David Blunkett.
Brooks, News International’s chief executive until last July, is being charged with conspiring to hack the phones of Milly Dowler and the former FBU leader Andrew Gilchrist.
The former chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck is charged in relation to seven alleged victims including Milly Dowler and the former England manager Sven-Goran Eriksson.
Other former senior NoW staff being charged are news editors Greg Miskiw and James Weatherup.
Ms Levitt said: “All, with the exception of Glenn Mulcaire, will be charged with conspiring to intercept communications without lawful authority, from 3 October 2000 to 9 August 2006. The communications in question are the voicemail messages of well-known people and / or those associated with them. There is a schedule containing the names of over 600 people whom the prosecution will say are the victims of this offence.”
She added: “In addition, each will face a number of further charges of conspiracy unlawfully to intercept communications.”
These are the additional charges – and the victims:
Rebekah Brooks will face two additional charges:
1. The first relates to the voicemails of the late Milly Dowler
2. The second to the voicemails of Andrew Gilchrist
Andrew Coulson will face four additional charges, relating to the following victims:
1. Milly Dowler
2. The Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
3. The Rt Hon Charles Clarke, and
4. Calum Best
Stuart Kuttner will face two additional charges, relating to:
1. Milly Dowler and
2. The Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
Greg Miskiw will face nine further charges, relating to the following victims or groups of victims:
1. Milly Dowler
2. Sven-Goran Eriksson
3. Abigail Titmuss and John Leslie
4. Andrew Gilchrist
5. The Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
6. Delia Smith
7. The Rt Hon Charles Clarke
8. Jude Law, Sadie Frost and Sienna Miller, and
9. Wayne Rooney
Ian Edmondson will face a further eleven charges, relating to the following victims or groups of victims:
1. the Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
2. the Rt Hon Charles Clarke
3. Jude Law, Sadie Frost and Sienna Miller
4. Mark Oaten
5. Wayne Rooney
6. Calum Best
7. The Rt Hon Dame Tessa Jowell MP and David Mills
8. The Rt Hon Lord Prescott
9. Professor John Tulloch
10. Lord Frederick Windsor
11. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills
Neville Thurlbeck will face a further seven charges in relation to the following victims or groups of victims:
1. Milly Dowler
2. Sven-Goran Eriksson
3. The Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
4. The Rt Hon Charles Clarke
5. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt
6. Mark Oaten
7. The Rt Hon Dame Tessa Jowell MP and David Mills
James Weatherup will face a further seven charges in relation to the following victims or groups of victims:
1. The Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
2. The Rt Hon Charles Clarke
3. Jude Law, Sadie Frost and Sienna Miller
4. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt
5. Wayne Rooney
6. The Rt Hon Lord Prescott
7. Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills
For legal reasons Glenn Mulcaire does not face the first of these charges. However, he will face four charges, relating to:
1. Milly Dowler
2. Andrew Gilchrist
3. Delia Smith
4. The Rt Hon Charles Clarke
Ms Levitt said: “During June and July 2012, the Crown Prosecution Service received files of evidence from the Metropolitan Police Service, relating to thirteen suspects. This has followed a period of consultation and cooperation between police and prosecutors which has taken place over many months.
“All the evidence has now carefully been considered. Applying the two-stage test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors I have concluded that in relation to eight of these thirteen suspects there is sufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction in relation to one or more offences.
“I then considered the second stage of the test, applying the DPP’s interim guidelines on assessing the public interest in cases involving the media, and I have concluded that a prosecution is required in the public interest in relation to each of these eight suspects.
“The eight who will be charged are: Rebekah Brooks, Andrew Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Glenn Mulcaire, Greg Miskiw, Ian Edmondson, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup.
“They will face a total of nineteen charges in all.”
At least if Brooks goes down it will be a victory for Madeleine. The lies between her, Clarence Mitchell ,McCanns and the SUN to sell copy was a criminal act. The fabricated sightings , trying to frame innocent people for an abduction that never happened. Making money from this small child who is now a cottage industry, has gone down in history. Without Brooks the McCann's disinformation campaign would never have worked.RIP Maddie.
Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson are among eight people who have been charged over phone hacking, the Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed.
Brooks, former editor of the News Of The World (NOTW) and The Sun, is being charged in relation to the alleged accessing of murdered Milly Dowler's phone messages.
She released a statement after the announcement, saying she was "distressed and angry" by the decision and denying any involvement in phone hacking.
Coulson, who quit as David Cameron's chief spin doctor in January 2011 and also used to edit the NOTW, is also accused in relation to allegedly hacking into the schoolgirl's phone.
Private investigator Glenn Mulcaire and a series of former NOTW staff are also facing charges as part of Operation Weeting.
They include ex-NOTW managing editor Stuart Kuttner, former news editor Greg Miskiw, former head of news Ian Edmondson and former reporter James Weatherup.
Neville Thurlbeck, who was chief reporter of the now-defunct Sunday tabloid, faces charges in relation to victims including Milly Dowler, Sven-Goran Eriksson, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and David Blunkett MP.
John Whittingdale, chairman of the Culture Select Committee, told Sky News he was "not wholly surprised" by the announcement.
Did you know that Kate McCann is now an ambassador for a missing kids charity; Hmm I’d reckon that the editor of The Bastard might comment that Kate’s daughter Madeleine ain’t missing or that it would be more appropriate for Kate to be working for a charity concerned with murdered kids.
The other week I was listening to an interview with Kate McCann in her role as an ambassador for whatever missing kids charity it is she’s an ambassador for, it was an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live with I think Shelagh Fogarty & oh boy was it touchy feely as just about every other interview I heard with Kate McCann in the British media. When are journalists in the British media going to stop pussyfooting with Kate & Gerry McCann & ask them some hard questions?
When Kate McCann released her book she appeared on BBC2’s Newsnight & though I didn’t see the interview myself I’ve been told Kirsty Wark who was doing the interview gave Kate McCann an easy ride & was you guessed it all very touchy feely. Kirsty Wark being touchy feely! Kirsty Wark is known for being a heavyweight journalist, she isn’t usually known for being touchy feely, she’s known as Jeremy Paxman in a skirt, which actually begs the question why it wasn’t Jeremy Paxman interviewing Kate McCann? Oh now there’s an interview I’d tune into watch, Paxman vs the McCanns, he’d not pussyfoot, he’d not be scared to ask them hard questions, err maybe not because if you ain’t nice to the McCanns they threaten to sue you.
Hey Shovel have the McCanns threatened to sue us yet? Ah I shouldn’t tempt fate should I.
Funny isn’t it that when Kate McCann released her book that nobody sued her for libel, yet anytime somebody writes a book giving a different version of events to the version McCanns want people to believe they find themselves on a receiving end of a lawsuit from the McCanns.
I don’t necessarily believe the McCanns are guilty of murder, but I’d like to know why they left a three year old home alone with the front door unlocked & the bedroom window opened. At most the Mccanns might be guilty of murder but the bare least I reckon they’re guilty of neglect or child endangerment. Its pretty stupid to be leaving a three year old home alone with the front door open & the bedroom window open, because three year olds can be pretty adventurous; when I was three years old I nearly fell out of a second storey window due to not being supervised.
Its time journalists stopped pussyfooting, stop being touchy feely, grow a spine & start asking the McCanns some hard questions. It suppose to be the job of journalists to challenge those in the public eye & that includes the likes of Kate & Gerry McCann.
The McCanns get out of Portugal "as soon as possible" EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts 18 July 2012
THE LIE OF THE LAND
Kate McCann tells us (in 'Madeleine,' chapter 17):
"Saturday 8 September. We were on tenterhooks all day, waiting to hear whether we would be allowed to go home. Rachael had found a couple of criminal lawyers in London she was sure could help us. Michael Caplan and Angus McBride of Kingsley Napley had worked on several high-profile cases, including the Pinochet extradition proceedings and the Stevens inquiry. Gerry gave them a call. They discussed Madeleine's case in detail, what had happened so far and how Kingsley Napley might be able to assist us.
"Late that afternoon, we were notified by Liz Dow, the British consul in Lisbon, that Luís Neves and Guilhermino Encarnação had declared us 'free' to leave the country whenever we wished. Thank you, God.
"On the advice of the lawyers, we decided to get out as soon as possible. We would go the next day rather than leaving it until Monday."
Rachael Oldfield had found a couple of criminal lawyers, obviously while she herself was back home in England, and before Kate and Gerry McCann were re-interviewed prior to being declared 'arguidos.' "Rachael, a lawyer by profession, was working in recruitment." (Kate McCann)
One might reasonably wonder why Rachael had earlier thought a couple of UK criminal lawyers might be useful in connection with a child abduction inside Portugal. But that's the least of it. Just how and where did she find this 'nap hand?' (Messrs. Caplan and McBride both worked for Solicitors Kingsley Napley). Her own legal experience, several years distant, had been in Corporate Taxation.
Following Euclid, 'the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.' Might there perhaps be a more direct 'straight line' connection between the McCanns and Michael Caplan QC than one involving the speculative research of Rachael Oldfield?
"Michael Caplan and Angus McBride of Kingsley Napley had worked on several high-profile cases, including the Pinochet extradition proceedings." (Kate McCann).
Indeed they had. So too had the barrister instructed to argue Senator Pinochet's case before the House of Lords: Clare Montgomery QC. Miss Montgomery is an associate with Matrix Chambers of Gray's Inn, London, a founding member of which is Cherie Booth QC, otherwise known as Cherie Blair QC, who we are told was in telephone contact with Kate McCann personally. ("As we were walking up from the beach at about 5pm, I had a call from Cherie Blair, in her final days as wife of the prime minister." - 'Madeleine,' chapter 8).
Once again, "Saturday 8 September...Gerry gave them a call" and "On the advice of the lawyers, we decided to get out as soon as possible. We would go the next day rather than leaving it until Monday."
The following information comes courtesy of 'Yahoo! Answers:'
Q: Do solicitors open on Saturday?
'Does anyone know of a solicitors either in the Portsmouth or Chichester (England) area that would be open on a Saturday?
'I need to sign some documentation relating to a divorce in their presence but can't seem to find anyone open on a Saturday.'
[5 years ago (i.e. 2007)]
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
'Solicitors do NOT open on Saturday. They are ONLY open Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.'
'I used to work for a solicitor, one friend is a secretary in a solicitor's office and another IS a solicitor.'
[5 years ago (2007)]
So, five years ago (8 September, 2007), Gerry McCann took advantage of a contact previously established by ex-Corporate Tax Lawyer Rachael Oldfield, supposedly, and made a spur-of-the-moment telephone call to the offices of UK Solicitors Kingsley Napley, managing to speak at some length to criminal lawyers Michael Caplan QC and Angus McBride, both of whom (unlike their colleagues) just happened to be at work all day that Saturday. The lawyers first discussed how they could be of assistance. Then, later that same afternoon, they advised the now 'free-to-travel' McCanns to leave Portugal at the earliest opportunity.
Now this is interesting. The money the McCanns and Murdoch have made from the 'Madeleine story' as her mother likes to call it, is staggering...The David Payne 'paedophile scoop' without a doubt would have put a stop to that and the fraudulent fund !
Since the 16th of May 2007, the British authorities posessed an official formal complaint presented by Katherine and Arul Gaspar, regarding suspicions about David Payne's behaviour which might be consistent with paedophilia acts.
These statements only entered the Portuguese Public Ministry's Process of investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance in January 2008 - the third version of the famous rogatory letters had already been sent to the Home Office - read: 'English tantrum delays McCanns process'. It is unknown if these statements were followed up by both forces in the United Kingdom and in Portugal.
The Gaspars, both doctors and former friends of the Paynes and of the McCanns, explain in the following statements what led them to present the criminal complaint: the time was in September of 2005, the place Mallorca....read more
The News of the World spiked an exclusive story exposing the science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke as a paedophile, according to a new book about life inside the newspaper whose closure was announced a year ago today.
In Hack, an account of his nerve-shredding days as a reporter on the News of the World and then the Sunday Mirror, Graham Johnson claims that although the NOTW prided itself on outing pederasts, editors made an exception for Mr Clarke because he was a friend of Rupert Murdoch.
Through BSkyB, the tycoon commercially exploited the futurologist's theory that satellites would be ideal for communications and praised him in public. As a result, according to Mr Johnson, who by that time had been sacked by the NOTW and had joined the Sunday Mirror, a story by reporter Roger Insall about Mr Clarke's alleged abuse of adolescent boys was never published for fear of upsetting the proprietor.
Tipped off about the story, the Sunday Mirror sent Mr Johnson to Colombo, where he extracted an confession from the author that he paid boys for sex. "I have never had the slightest interest in children – boys or girls. They should be treated in the same way. But once they have reached the age of puberty, then it is OK," Mr Clarke was quoted as saying in the Sunday Mirror. "If the kids enjoy it and don't mind it doesn't do any harm … there is a hysteria about the whole thing in the West."
Mr Clarke subsequently denied he was a paedophile, saying: "The allegations are wholly denied." But he never sued the Sunday Mirror and died aged 90 at his Sri Lanka home in 2008.
Speaking to The Independent yesterday, Mr Johnson said: "Roger [Insall] said that because Arthur C Clarke was a mate of Rupert Murdoch, the editor wasn't having any of it and despite Roger getting a lot of evidence that Clarke was a paedophile they wouldn't publish it."
Yesterday, Phil Hall, the then editor, said: "I can vaguely remember that story.
I do remember that Roger Insall worked on it and I remember it was not published. My only recollection is that the only reason we wouldn't publish it was because of legal reasons."
He said Mr Murdoch never asked him to spike stories. News International, publisher of the NOTW, made no comment.
Gerry returns to PDL with Clarence Mitchell EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts 15 July 2012
A MATTER OF TRUST
The title of this piece is borrowed from Billy Joel, arguably one of the greatest songwriters of the last century, and a line from this very song will be used in conclusion. But first a quote from Kate McCann: "As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, 'One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they're still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.'" According to this reasoning, three or more coincidences within a given context are unlikely all to be chance occurrences. With this in mind, certain historical aspects of the McCann affair may perhaps be viewed with more than a hint of scepticism. To begin at the very beginning...
At 10.00 a.m. on the morning of May 4, 2007, the British Consul arrived in Praia da Luz from Portimao, less than twelve hours after Portuguese police had been alerted to the unexplained absence of Madeleine McCann from her holiday accommodation. Who, one wonders, made the suggestion (or issued the instruction), either late on Thursday night or early the following morning, that the Consul's presence at the scene would be a good idea? Perhaps the same source coincidentally prompted the arrival, also that morning, of Ambassador John Buck from Lisbon, considerably further away. Ambassador Buck himself announced to the assembled media on 8 May:
"Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. As you know I spent quite a lot of time with the McCann family on Friday and over the weekend..."
The Daily Mail once carried a report (the on-line version since deleted) of how an unnamed British diplomat expressed personal doubts about the McCann case directly to the Foreign Office, 'over four months before Gerry and Kate were named arguidos (suspects) on September 7.' Indeed, as the Mail recounted, 'The diplomat was sent to the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in the days following the four-year-old's disappearance and soon became concerned over "inconsistencies" in the testimonies by her parents and their friends.'
'Over four months' has to have been a date between May 4 and May 7.
'After visiting the McCanns, the unnamed diplomat sent a report to the Foreign Office in London, admitting his worries about "confused declarations" of the McCanns' movements on the night of May 3.'
It matters not at all whether the misgivings alluded to were expressed by Ambassador John Buck or Bill Henderson, then British Consul in the Algarve. Rather more interesting is that the diplomat responsible 'expressed his fears after receiving instruction from the Foreign Office to provide "all possible assistance to the McCann couple."' From which it becomes apparent that the Foreign office were extraordinarily quick off the mark in seizing the diplomatic initiative in this case, since the representative in question was sent to Praia da Luz and did not simply exercise personal initiative.
Far from the diplomat's being instructed 'in the days following the four-year-old's disappearance,' it appears that the wheels of officialdom turned within hours, before the news had even broken. Sky News carried the story in their 7.38 a.m. report, but Lisbon is a three-hour drive from the Algarve. Is it reasonable to suppose that the Foreign Office, having only just become aware of the situation, would immediately have instructed 'their men in Iberia' to get themselves to Praia da Luz with even greater immediacy? That certainly wasn't Kerry Needham's experience. Although Greece is a touch more distant than Portugal the telephones still work.
The Portuguese at the time requested answers from the British authorities to specific and highly pertinent questions in order to expedite their investigation. Certain information was required as a matter of urgency. It never materialised. Instead Praia da Luz was overrun with diplomats. The frustration underlying Gonacalo Amaral's published remark ('Who are these people?') is easy to see and to understand in such circumstances.
In the same period when Ambassador Buck was conveying the state position to the media, i.e. five days after the 'disappearance,' Cherie Blair, wife of the then Prime Minister, was in personal communication with Kate McCann. The latter has told us so (Madeleine, p.118). Question one: How did CB come to be in possession of Kate McCann's mobile phone number? Was it through: [a] 118 Directory Enquiries [b] A McCann family member who had the temerity to contact No.10 (that's certainly Auntie Philomena's style) [c] Kate McCann previously leaving a message on the Downing Street answerphone or [d] one or other diplomatic channel? Or did she just 'phone a friend?'
Public announcements of awareness and sympathy on the part of government representatives are all well and good, and largely expected nowadays, but a personal 'phone call from one of the Prime Minister's family...? Anyway, Kate was told at that time of a person who would become 'another valuable source of information;' a Blair contact by the name of Lady Catherine Meyer, 1999 founder of the charity PACT. Said charity's 'homepage' reads:
"PACT has been building and strengthening families across the Thames Valley since 1911."
Meanwhile Lady Meyer's earliest known portrait, housed in the loft somewhere, remains undiscovered. As does the nature of whatever advice she might have given Kate McCann concerning how to operate a charity to best advantage.
Amid all this counselling and consular effort there emerges another 'operative' - Special Agent Clarence Mitchell. Like the origin of life on earth, Mitchell's introduction into the process of barricading the McCanns is something of a mystery in its own right.
According to Kate McCann (Madeleine, p.148), Gerry first came into contact with Clarence Mitchell late on Monday 21 May:
"On Sunday 20 May, Gerry left for the UK...At Monday's meeting with the British police, Gerry was told about plans to launch an appeal in the UK aimed at holidaymakers who had been in the Algarve in the weeks leading up to Madeleine's abduction...It was later the same day that Gerry met Clarence Mitchell for the first time."
Gerry McCann's schedule, according to BBC News (21 May) was as follows:
"Mr McCann arrived at East Midlands Airport in the early hours of Monday morning...Mr McCann will return to Portugal on Tuesday morning."
Kate places Mitchell's introduction in-between these events. However, Hannah Marriott, writing for P.R. Week (28.11.07) gives a somewhat different account:
"Mitchell was first sent to meet Gerry McCann at East Midlands airport two weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. The pair flew back together to Portugal."
Notice that "Mitchell was sent" to meet Gerry at the airport, which can only have been to greet him from the plane very early on the Monday or join him for the Portugal bound flight on the Tuesday. Neither possibility is accommodated by Kate McCann's version. Kate continues:
"Clarence, a former BBC news correspondent working for the Civil Service was the director of the Media Monitoring Unit attached to 10 Downing Street...he was seconded to the Foreign Office to come out to Portugal to handle our media liaison as part of their consular support for us."
A bit heavy on the 'consular support' don't you think, given that Tony Blair had previously and personally dispatched Sheree Dodd to Portugal for the very same purpose. And just how instantaneous are such 'secondments' anyway? Who oversees the cuttings office while the editor-in-chief is en vacance? Decisions with respect to Mitchell's enforced shift in allegiance, the identity of his understudy, to say nothing of his own personal concerns as to how big a bag he should pack, had to be taken in advance of his meeting Gerry McCann and boarding the plane. The Portuguese investigation had been on-going barely a fortnight, if that. Nevertheless, Mitchell, who at a given point in time is attached to No.10, is seconded to the Foreign Office (not by them) at the instigation, one presumes, of the 'club' that still held his registration, i.e. No.10. So Cherie Blair and Kate McCann have a convivial tete-a-tete on the 8/9 May and Mitchell is filtered into the mix at Downing Street's behest shortly thereafter.
Marriott further informs us that, once in Portugal, Mitchell "spent an intense month of fifteen-hour days with the family."
What! To explain that your daughter's been seized by a person or persons unknown and that you're 'sorry you weren't there at that minute' would not take fifteen minutes, let alone a month of fifteen-hour days. Forgive me. I'm trivialising the fact that Madeleine McCann was, for some reason yet to be discovered, the most important child on planet earth, who happened to be a British citizen requiring state back-up that stopped just short of mobilising the armed forces, as Mitchell himself goes on to reveal (within Marriott's account):
"He had to return to his government role, and others handled the McCann PR. But even then, he says, the family still called him for advice in his own time...'But I couldn't help them beyond the odd 'phone call, because officially the government couldn't be seen to be involved.'"
If this isn't Mitchell simply 'bigging up' his early role in the affair, then further scrutiny of this remark is definitely called for. The catalogue of Mitchell's manoeuvers since on behalf of his clients the McCanns is sufficiently extensive to warrant examination of its own.
No sooner had the McCanns become associated with Mitchell (May 21/22), through the intervention of No.10, than they were in telephone contact with the man-next-door, Gordon Brown (May 23). And then someone turned the kaleidoscope. The pieces remained the same but shifted into different places. On June 27, a month after the introduction of the pink catalyst, the Blairs were suddenly obliged to leave Downing Street so that Gordon Brown could have their apartment, having just been given Tony's old job.
At the spearhead of 'New Labour' throughout their ultimately successful election campaign, Gordon Brown was a true 'conviction politician,' long on strength of belief and short on prudence. In his first speech to The Labour Party as Leader, on 24 September 2007, he declared, "I stand for a Britain that defends its citizens and both punishes crime and prevents it by dealing with the root cause." It's not at all difficult to see how the new Prime Minister's position would be somewhat compromised were he to be faced with a situation in which these very principles were found to be in conflict.
There is an arresting (pun intended) video on YouTube which poses a number of very germane questions regarding the McCanns' behaviour throughout the investigation into their daughter's disappearance. It concludes with the question of why, when a convincing sighting of Madeleine was reported from Belgium, the McCanns' reaction was to visit Huelva, in Spain. Strangely, this type of counter-intuitive behaviour is not unique to the McCanns.
Later in his party address as PM, Gordon Brown stated: "Two thirds of deaths from gun crime occur in just four cities. In the last few weeks Jacqui Smith and I have focussed on the specific areas in these cities..."
In the year 2006 - 2007 just over half of all firearm offences occurred in areas covered by just three major forces - the Metropolitan Police in London, Greater Manchester and West Midlands. The situation remained unchanged two years later, as noted by The Independent of 8 January, 2009 which reported, "Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands Manchester or Merseyside. There were six deaths in the West Midlands, four each in Manchester and Merseyside and two each in Kent, Shropshire and West Yorkshire. Other deaths were recorded in Cornwall, Derbyshire, Glasgow, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Northumberland and South Yorkshire."
This was 2008 don't forget. But 2007, the year in which the Brown possee visited areas in each of the four most fatal cities, must have seen the statistical ice-berg topple over, for on 12 September 2007, no doubt as a feature on their crime-prevention itinerary, Brown and Smith visited a police station in - Beaumont Leys, a suburb of Leicester.
This is the same Gordon Brown, who the following month was dutifully advised that Goncalo Amaral had been removed from his role as co-ordinator of the 'Maddie' investigation in Portugal, before even Amaral himself was notified. There has to be some explanation as to why the then Prime Minister should have maintained a personal level of involvement in the McCann case once the parents' had returned home as suspects in their own daughter's disappearance. After all, the government had apparently ordained that Civil Servant Clarence Mitchell could no longer speak for them for that very reason, according to Kate McCann (Madeleine, p.255). Defence of the citizenry overseas is scarcely appropriate when the subjects are safely on British soil. And he needn't have entertained thoughts of pre-empting extradition. The McCanns took care of that aspect themselves with their 'appointment' of Michael Caplan Q.C. Or did they?
Joshua Rozenberg, the Daily Telegraph's legal editor, commented for BBC News Magazine on 14 September, 2007, "When he (Michael Caplan) went to see the McCanns last Sunday, he went in through the front door." Whilst he might not have been waiting at the foot of the aircraft steps like Clarence Mitchell, Caplan clearly did not have to wait for an invitation from the McCanns. According to BBC News Magazine, he was waiting for them on arrival. 'As Kate and Gerry McCann headed back to their Leicestershire home for the first time since their daughter Madeleine disappeared, they were visited by a man few recognised.' On this account he as good as followed them home from the airport!
It is undeniably tempting to speculate as to whether the Brown-Smith excursion to Beaumont-Leys three days later afforded the opportunity for someone to ask, en route and personally, "How did you get on with Michael?" Of course Kate McCann has an alternative explanation for the sudden introduction of Michael Caplan Q.C.
"Saturday 8 September. We were on tenterhooks all day, waiting to hear whether we would be allowed to go home. Rachael had found a couple of criminal lawyers in London she was sure could help us...Gerry gave them a call. They discussed Madeleine's case in detail, what had happened so far and how Kingsley Napley might be able to assist us." (Madeleine, p. 254).
Things need to be put into some kind of perspective at this point. On Saturday, September 8, Gerry decides, on the spur of the moment almost, to 'phone a pair of London based lawyers from Portugal and, after discussing Madeleine's case in detail, what had happened so far etc., etc., by phone, a deal is struck. So Messrs. Caplan and McBride were able to assimilate over the 'phone the detail of five months in a matter of minutes, whereas it had taken Clarence Mitchell face-to-face interaction for a month of fifteen-hour days to get to grips with the history of a fortnight?
Rachael - former corporate tax lawyer now working as a recruitment consultant - Oldfield, was not of course in evidence at the time of the McCanns' panic 'phone call. (Make no mistake, the pair who were made arguidos on September 7 and who 'resisted the temptation to flee' across the Spanish boarder on the Friday night, only to catch an early flight back to the UK on the Sunday, were in a hurry).
This is Chapter 17 and Rachael who had found the two lawyers (quite fortuitously it would seem) had previously gone home (Chapter 9) briefly to return to Portugal on Thursday 11 July (Chapter 13) in order to meet the PJ's request for further questioning. She did not stay on until September 8, meaning that if she had been responsible for identifying the suitability of Kingsley Napley, incorporating extradition supremo Michael Caplan, she discovered them through diligence, not by chance, and weeks (if not months) earlier. And yet Gerry McCann waits for the car to crash before he tests the brakes?
They escape nevertheless.
"On the advice of the lawyers, we decided to get out as soon as possible. We would go the next day rather than leaving it until Monday." (Madeleine, p.254).
We are clearly expected to believe that this was a minor adjustment to new circumstances. ("Finally, and very reluctantly, I agreed to set a date for our departure. Monday 10 September it would have to be." Kate decides - two chapters earlier). But - "Then it was all hands on deck to pack everything up and clear the villa. Michael volunteered to stay on for a couple of days to organize the cleaning, hand back the keys and arrange for our remaining belongings to be shipped home by a removal company." (p.254-5). Isn't that leaving things a tad late if the departure date has been decided for weeks already?
Back to reality (following touchdown at East Midlands Airport).
"For us, it was straight down to business. Michael Caplan and Angus McBride arrived that afternoon for a thorough discussion of our situation." Clearly Gerry's anxious call the day before had not quite covered all the details. Then - "On Tuesday 11 September we had an 8.00 a.m. conference call with Michael Caplan, Angus McBride and Justine."
Let’s summarise at this point.
Early May, 2007: A channel with No.10 is opened, and maintained thereafter.
September 7: The McCanns are officially made 'persons of interest' in connection with the disappearance of their own daughter by Portuguese authorities.
September 8: Gerry McCann, 'phoning from Portugal apparently, discusses their situation with Angus McBride and Michael Caplan Q.C., without knowing whether Portuguese authorities will even allow the McCanns to leave the country. They are cleared to depart later that afternoon and, on the advice of the (same) lawyers, elect to leave the following day.
September 9: The McCanns return to their home in Rothley, Leicestershire, where they meet with Michael Caplan Q.C., having spoken with him by 'phone little more than 24 hours earlier. (Fortunately for them he works Saturdays and is happy to give up his Sundays for the cause also).
September 11: An 8.00 a.m. 'conference,' again involving Michael Caplan Q.C.
September 12: Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith visit Leicester - definitely not one of the more dangerous cities in the UK if assessed in terms of gun-related deaths.
October: Prime Minister Brown is given the news of Amaral's removal.
Five years and the 'stonewalling' of many an FOI request later, the crime balance sheet for the McCann account is not at all encouraging. Millions of pounds sterling have been spent by the exchequer, directly or indirectly (on top of the Portuguese millions in euros), with nothing whatsoever to show for it. No child recovered, alive or dead, no culprit prosecuted, or even apprehended. And while UK limited has seen the loss of significant assets in the form of important forensic expertise (specialist dog-handler Martin Grime and his expert canines are now in the USA working for the FBI and the Forensic Science Service is closed for business), the only books to show a healthy inward cash flow are those belonging to the McCanns, until some rather extraordinary expenses outweighed the donations that is. Of course the case review, since placed in the lap of Scotland Yard, remains incomplete. But with an interim dividend amounting to a heap of dead-end reasons why the Portuguese should waste yet more of their time and money pursuing illusory abductors, the long-term projection seems equally un-profitable. The Labour government's inaugural commitment to being 'tough on crime and the causes of crime' has not since, unfortunately, included 'getting to the bottom of crime,' certainly as far as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is concerned.
As Billy Joel insightfully put it:
"When you've heard lie upon lie, there can hardly be a question of 'why.'"
Some love is just a lie of the heart The cold remains of what began with a passionate start And they may not want it to end But it will it's just a question of when I've lived long enough to have learned The closer you get to the fire the more you get burned But that won't happen to us Because it's always been a matter of trust
I know you're an emotional girl It took a lot for you to not lose your faith in this world I can't offer you proof But you're going to face a moment of truth It's hard when you're always afraid You just recover when another belief is betrayed So break my heart if you must It's a matter of trust
You can't go the distance With too much resistance I know you have doubts But for God's sake don't shut me out
This time you've got nothing to lose You can take it, you can leave it Whatever you choose I won't hold back anything And I'll walk a way a fool or a king Some love is just a lie of the mind It's make believe until its only a matter of time And some might have learned to adjust But then it never was a matter of trust
I'm sure you're aware love We've both had our share of Believing too long When the whole situation was wrong
Some love is just a lie of the soul A constant battle for the ultimate state of control After you've heard lie upon lie There can hardly be a question of why Some love is just a lie of the heart The cold remains of what began with a passionate start But that can't happen to us Because it's always been a matter of trust
Gerry McCann and Michael Caplan QC EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts 16 July 2012
Having followed the 'Maddie' case from the outset, and commented publicly upon it for a number of years, recent events have caused me to view the affair from an altogether different perspective. No, I have not been 'got at.' Of course I have been incensed by the blatant injustices on many fronts. I would not have devoted so much time to analyses of the case otherwise. But there is only so much to be learned, so much to be accomplished by continually patrolling the base of a pyramid. To really appreciate the significance of its dimensionality it is essential to adopt a different point of view. And I am not talking about succumbing to the idea of a swarthy abductor or cabal of unidentified child molesters.
I do not shrink from admitting that I too was initially astonished by the 'safeguarding of international relations' argument brought forth to justify the withholding of intelligence in the face of several FOI requests. There have been numerous astonishing developments over the years. However, those of us who throw up our hands in disbelief at officialdom's use of the phrase 'international security' or the like are perhaps guilty of a singular and significant oversight; namely, that the very disappearance of Madeleine McCann was itself an international incident, with potential consequences on several levels.
Self-preservation as a principle is a given among homo sapiens. But in any hierarchically organized society, 'looking after number one' is sometimes best accomplished by acting (or at the very least appearing to act) in the interests of others besides. The successful conduct of International Relations demands that players on the international stage see the bigger picture.
So what picture should we be looking at in the McCann case? I would suggest that the government then (and the government now) have acted in the ways they have, not despite 'early warning signs' that the parents of Madeleine McCann may have been involved themselves in a misdemeanour, but because of them.
Only the other evening I listened to a rather smart comedian who pointed up the absurdity of the concept 'War on Terror.' "What results from a declaration of war?" he asks of a hypothetical advocate for the Bush/Blair position. "Terror," they reply. "So you're waging war on the consequences of your own actions then?" Such humour immunises us against depressing acknowledgement that world leaders as often as not depend on the gullibility of the masses for their own survival. And if the masses cannot be misled they can be subdued. This is, I accept, a cynical point of view, but one has only to flip through the pages of history to see how deception via propaganda has a long track record. A tried-and-tested method for keeping one's place on the throne, as it were, is that of convincing those outside the palace that the other man is the enemy.
As society has evolved, so too has this 'threat,' becoming increasingly abstruse in the process. Hence post-war generations in the west have been warned against (among other things) 'communism,' 'alien invasion,' 'nuclear attack' and, of course, 'terror,' the last being a real 'doozy.' A-specific to a fault, it can be blamed on any disaffected minority whatsoever, and at any time. Thus it can never be neutralized.
Largely as a direct result of 'war debt' to our erstwhile transatlantic colony, the British Isles have long since become USS UK, an aircraft and cruise missile carrier permanently stationed in the North Atlantic. It doesn't matter much who gets to captain the ship, since they are never going to command the 'battle group' of which it is a member. In similarly subordinate fashion the Westminster government has been honour-bound to adopt the same cautionary attitudes toward the same perceived enemy as that determined by the White House. This state of affairs is reliably reflected in manifestations of the public consciousness (think Quatermass, The War Game, and the long-running Blair case for WMD).
But what has this to do with Madeleine McCann?
An explanation as to why those 'major threats' conceived across the pond have had a relatively short shelf-life on this side of the water until now would be a little tedious, as the reasons are pretty obvious (a visiting Martian would surely aim for a larger tract of land, for instance). So, if we may simply accept it to be the case, we can open up the need for others to come quickly off the substitute's bench. There's nothing like the threat of an epidemic, for instance, to get healthcare professionals excited. The pharmaceutical industry is wholly indifferent to whether it originates in birds, pigs or cattle, as long as the claim is made that the disorder can, and therefore will, cross the species divide. Mass vaccination is a real money-spinner.
Then there's the threat of global warming, and related environmental considerations. Nowadays the cost of a UK road fund licence is determined by the level of carbon di-oxide emissions from the vehicle in question (the lower, the cheaper). Is this really to encourage drivers to become environmentally conscious through their operation of smaller cars boasting lower levels of fuel consumption and associated emissions? Or is it to provide yet another boost to the automotive trade, by encouraging the widespread purchase of newer vehicles through financial coercion? Well, it seems to have worked, as the current government is now in not-quite-secret talks with motor manufacturers, in an attempt to establish how best to recoup the revenue loss consequent upon the widespread switching of owners to cars in lower tax categories.
I have deliberately saved the most relevant, Maddie-related threat for last.
Followers of the case will not need to be reminded of the frequency with which the spectre of paedophilia has been introduced into the media commentary. As threats go this one is by no means new (this particular deviance is chronicled as accompanying imperial decadence in ancient Rome), but the threat has grown in perceived importance down the years. In the more recent past, cases of fatal child abuse, such as those involving Myra Hindley and the Wests, have occasionally erupted into the public spotlight. But the eruptions have since become more frequent, including false-positives to help sustain levels of public attention.
Film makers profit from being alive to 'topicality.' Note therefore a remake of the film 'The Wicker Man' after a thirty-three year interval (the original was released in 1973). In-between we had the infamous 1991 Orkney child abuse scandal, characterized by its actually being a case of widespread non-abuse, i.e. normality (the scandalous element was the behaviour of the so-called welfare authorities). Needless to say, mere suspicion of the demon provoked a witch-hunt, just as it did in the case of Operation Ore, a turn-of-the-millennium persecution of suspected child pornographers, modelled on an American precedent (Operation Avalanche), and being both principal product and funding sponge of CEOP (you know, the Jim Gamble vehicle that justified his appearance in Praia da Luz alongside genuine investigators).
Yes, folks. In the absence of an imminent national catastrophe occasioned by a nuclear strike (the 2003 invasion of Iraq took care of that), or a widespread disease epidemic, child abuse is a serious threat to society; a threat which the British government not only acknowledged but demonstrated a willingness to deal with decades ago. Such moral guardianship is 'politically correct' in a big way; especially if you are New Labour, the resurgent broom promising to sweep society clean by being 'tough,' not just on crime but 'on the causes of crime.'
Fast-forward now to Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3, 2007. A little girl is reported missing from her holiday apartment. Within hours the report is an international one of a little British girl abducted from an apartment in Portugal. In a demonstration of due diligence, ambassadorial staff are dispatched to the scene of the incident, in order to offer support to our distressed citizens overseas. UK police also arrive to assist. A good thing. Within just a few days however, reports come back of doubts attending the veracity of the parents' story. A bad thing. And suddenly there is a serious and altogether unexpected problem.
There will always be unfortunate individuals who fall victim to crime, whether at home or abroad. By and large, unless they invite the transgression, they are afforded sympathy. On learning of a child abduction, and with no grounds for other suspicion, it is entirely reasonable that people in general should be sympathetic toward the parents. They were in this case. So too was the government. For the vast majority of observers nothing will have changed for quite a period. Even we sceptics, long since allowed access to the Portuguese police files, can have had no idea at the time of the precise details of the investigation outside of the sometime contradictory accounts coursing through the various media channels. Damaged shutters or no, no one was privy to anything like the hard data sufficient to confirm any growing suspicions, even remotely, never mind absolutely. No one, that is, save for the investigating team, which included British police, and British government representatives.
All the while the culprit could be identified as an anonymous stranger, the stigma of his (or her) motive could be brandished in support of sympathy for the parents. But what if they themselves were involved in some way? That would make them accomplices at least to an act of aggression against a minor, child abuse if you will. And if there were no third-parties involved? Then, in the light of there being no abduction, the parents would have to be viewed as guilty of something altogether more serious. And early 'intel' pointed to exactly that. So what was at stake here?
The exposure of a homicidal doctor capable of doing away with their patients (or their wife!), while not conducive to good image-building, is something from which the NHS could always recover. Society has not lost its faith in general medicine on account of Harold Shipman, any more than it did in the wake of earlier cases (e.g. Palmer, Crippen, Buck Ruxton). But a doctor (or doctors) culpable in the demise of their own child? That one hadn't previously been tested. Furthermore this was not a 'domestic' incident, in the sense that neither it nor its ramifications were confined to the UK. It happened (and was developing) overseas, in the full glare of international publicity (the McCanns themselves had seen to that). In addition, those at the very centre of the investigation, the case being one of child abuse whether abduction was a feature or not, were esteemed professionals, not the sort of council estate refugees with whom one might more instinctively associate such a crime. Worse yet, a clutch of others just like them were quite possibly involved in some way. The equation: A handful of UK doctors = one dead child, if valid, could have an impact worldwide on the perception of the medical profession, British society and, by extrapolation, the government, analogous to e=mc2.
A morally upright government, ostensibly; one seriously concerned with combating the child abuse they had already identified as a threat to society, sponsoring the activities of CEOP and taking yet another lead from the USA, was looking at the enemy, the very threat the executive (police) were dealing with on our behalf, made manifest within the ranks of its very own professional classes (remember the declaration of 'war' on the consequences of one's own actions?). So when the un-named member of our ambassadorial staff questioned the wisdom of further government involvement in the case, he inadvertently placed the following options on the table:
1. Cut the parents adrift, let them take their chances and hope the investigation runs aground.
2. Support the parents to the hilt and ensure the investigation runs aground.
Now which of these alternatives, do we suppose, offers a guaranteed outcome?
The McCanns and their media allies have kept the case in public view for a long time. Had the Portuguese pursued their investigation to the point of prosecution, the McCanns, unlike the international media, would probably not have been quite so keen to advertise the 'situation' they would have 'found themselves in.' As we have seen since, Portuguese justice is slow moving. A criminal case brought against the McCanns, with the prospect of exposing an evil canker deeply embedded in British society, the very threat against which the British public were being warned and 'protected,' and at considerable cost, would itself go on for an uncomfortably long time. Such exposure would be blatant, widespread, and international.
Shortly after the McCanns' return from Portugal, the world learnt that they held certain legal insurance, in the form of the available services of extradition lawyer Michael Caplan Q.C. Caplan had previously gained an international reputation through his successful contribution to the legal arguments that forestalled extradition, from the UK, of General Augusto Pinochet, erstwhile dictator of Chile. Ironically, it is this very case to which one may turn for a paradigmatic explanation of the British government's treatment of the McCanns.
Under the auspices of a Labour government, Pinochet was arrested and held, pending extradition, in accordance with an international arrest warrant issued in Spain. As things turned out, upholding the letter of international law did the government no favours politically (Pinochet had been a US 'transplant' originally and latterly a confidante of Margaret Thatcher. Despite its declared neutrality, Chile played a positive, albeit subtle role in the Falklands conflict, on Britain's behalf). Following extensive legal wrangling in the House of Lords (the prisoner was under 'house arrest' but not on trial as such), Pinochet was not extradited to Spain after all. Instead, in March 2000, he was allowed by Home Secretary Jack Straw to return to Chile, having been diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a condition from which he appeared to recover appreciably once his plane had touched down.
Less than a decade later the young democracy of Portugal found itself upholding the letter of the law within its own land, investigating and proceeding toward the prosecution of two members from a coven of British doctors. The Labour government, having previously learned an important lesson about law, even international law, versus international relations, could not fail to see this as 'not a good development.' There followed protracted negotiations (cf. 'legal arguments'). The Portuguese, no doubt reminded of the Pinochet case, as it was ignited by their immediate neighbours, Spain, took the hint. Eventually the suspect status of the McCanns was rescinded, the case shelved and the oh-so-nearly-accused doctors allowed to return to the UK, with little or no prospect of their emerging subsequently from the bunker.
So now where are we?
Unless or until a clear case is made in a criminal court somewhere, the McCanns are legally not guilty of involvement in their daughter's disappearance (it's been said often enough). There is no case for them to answer, and certainly not outside of a court of law. Whatever they might say to the media, or however they choose to appear before them, there is no risk of a conspicuous slur against the medical profession, NHS appointments criteria, the more affluent echelons of society or the government itself.
The only snag for a government sponsoring the McCanns' liberty is that, like victims of their own blackmail, they would now have to maintain the new status quo. In short, the McCanns would have to be kept out of court, at least for the duration of the administration, if not for the duration - period. The Serious Fraud Office won't be knocking on their door any time soon therefore.
So, as 'the Fund' slowly atrophies to the point where it is finally acknowledged that Madeleine is dead and the 'search' need not continue, Kate McCann is found a 'role,' at a level appropriate to the replacement of her GP status, while Gerry can devote time - a lot of time - to writing up the results of his many publicly funded studies. And the Portuguese? Well, if they really must bow to internal pressure and re-open their investigation, then there are hundreds of 'investigative opportunities' they can occupy themselves with for the foreseeable future.
Such is the legacy of a Labour government. But that party is now on the other side of the House. Does this mean the new administration will 'do the right thing' by all those who believe Madeleine McCann was not abducted, not to mention the Portuguese, scoring party political brownie points in the process? Unfortunately no. Any accommodation previously arrived at between the two governments will have been by negotiation and agreement, and since the Portuguese will have been equally party to it (even if the terms were unequal) they would not appreciate this being brought out into the open, as undoubtedly it would be. Also, international relations transcend party politics. The 'special relationship,' so-called, between Britain and the USA, for example, is maintained, and generally workable, whatever combination of Democrat-Republican-Conservative-Labour forearms engages in the diplomatic hand-shaking. And that gives rise to a testable hypothesis:
If the Metropolitan Police should exercise the investigative option contained within their Operation Grange remit (as clearly they ought to), then we may be sure that the current government in Westminster is genuinely (and properly) distanced from the McCanns. If, on the other hand, they conclude their review with nothing more to show for it than a 'to do' list intended for the Portuguese, then we can be just as certain that the Coalition Government is continuing a policy toward the McCanns that was inaugurated by their predecessors, as whatever deals may have been struck with the Portuguese were struck before the Coalition took office.
The couple were in Amsterdam to launch the Dutch edition of the book which they hope will help to boost the search for Madeleine across Europe.
The family of missing York chef Claudia Lawrence are sceptical about a reported sighting of her in Amsterdam.
Speaking at a press conference held at York Race Course, her sister, Ali Sims, said it was "too good to be true".
On Tuesday an ex-detective claimed to have seen Ms Lawrence in Amsterdam a week ago. North Yorkshire Police said the sighting was yet to be verified.
Ms Lawrence, who worked at the University of York, was last seen on 18 March 2009. Her father, Peter Lawrence, said: "I cannot imagine Claudia just wandering around anywhere freely on her own."
Ms Sims said: "Why would she be in Amsterdam and not have got in touch with us, unless she's suffered from amnesia?
"It almost seems too good to be true that somene's seen her.
"We want more then anything for her to be at home".
A police spokesman said: "North Yorkshire Police are liaising with police officers in Holland in relation to the recent contact from a member of the public who reported seeing a woman in Amsterdam resembling missing York woman Claudia Lawrence."
The inquiry into Ms Lawrence's disappearance was the largest in the recent history of North Yorkshire Police, but the force scaled down the investigation after 16 months in July 2010.
Kate McCann has weazled her way into the lives of the Lawrence family for quite some time now, her motives sinister and to put it bluntly, evil. Self serving Kate.
The police were able to do a thorough investigation on missing Claudia , unlike the McCann's who had political protection. The most we heard about Healy, she was known as 'hotlips' and enjoyed a good drink.
Claudia's parents were horrified when the police investigation revealed their daughters secret life ( I am not going to go into details, it is all there on the internet) and concluded that their daughters lifestyle had led to her murder. Lacking evidence they readily admit they have no proof she is dead but they do believe they have spoken with her killer and even tried to put pressure on him. Could that imply they know who he is ? if so they are keeping their cards very close to their chest and waiting for a break in the case, a confession or for someone to come forward .
However, no sooner was 'child neglector alibi Kate' in her rightful place in life heading Missing People when there appeared the very same day an amazing breakthough after three long years of silence, we had a 'Claudia' sighting in Amsterdam (google McCann Amsterdam for connections).
Murdoch's Sun ran a story today asking ' Is Claudia kept a prisoner in Amsterdam' ?...very much like another story we are familiar with ' Is Maddie in a secret lair' ?
Now here's the rub, cadaver dogs in the early stages of Claudia's disappearance were part of the investigation, with negative results. There were no 'hits' from the dogs to indicate Claudia had died in her apartment. Had the dogs indicated to the death of Claudia, the Lawrence family would not have seen Kate McCann for dust.
Murdoch's SUN now have Claudia in their sight and the McCann spin has begun. Missing People will soon be too toxic to touch when parents start to understand that 'sightings' of their loved ones not seen or heard from for years start popping up in foreign lands to sell Rupert Murdoch's gutter rag. Time is on our side.
I am documenting the movements of Kate McCann and Missing People. Healy has pulled the wool over many eyes for five long years. The 'sighting' of Claudia Lawrence in Amsterdam was a cruel PR stunt but not the first time Kate has used the Lawrence family.
Has anyone seen the video COLDWATER Stephen Birch is talking about ? I assume now he has named the title we are supposed to search for it...OK I will play the game, for now.
Money weighs heavy on his mind, he has a lot in common with the McCanns.
This video ?
Hallo Everyone from a cold wet Cape Town South Africa..
This past week has been a full week with me writing to Kate & Gerry Mc Cann, you will note that I don't call them Dr Kate & Dr Gerry Mc Cann. I only call people by their titles when I have respect for them. And up and till now I have no reason to have respect for the Mc Canns. You see I spend R500 000 and 15 months of my life looking for their missing daughter Madeleine Mc Cann, and after I identified the fact that their child may be buried under the rear driveway of the Murat residence in Praia da Luz Portugal, instead of phoning me, to thank me for my efforts and enquire regarding my findings, Kate Mc Cann attacks me on a Youtube video called Stephen Birch- Kate McCann. Now if I were looking for my child, before I go to India to look for my child, I would eliminate an option 130 meters from the 5A Apartment Ocean Club apartment where my child went missing. After all, the findings were in the exact same property of the man Kate suspected 4 months after he was cleared as a suspect, not to mention that Jane Tanner accussed Robert Murat as being the abductor. Now I have consistently said , and you can refer to my youtube video "Stephen Birch" that I do not believe the Murat family had anything to do with the abduction and burying of Madeleine Mc Cann.
This coming week will see me intensify my pressure on several people associated with the case, including the Portimoa Police...
I hope to be able to report back soon with some progress.
The Daily Profiler Hosted by The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency SATURDAY, JULY 14, 2012 Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: To Dig or Not to Dig
South African businessman Stephen Birch says he has proof of some sort of cavity beneath a second pebble driveway (put in after Madeleine McCann's disappearance) and he believes that Maddie may be buried in that particular spot, a possible grave he located with a geo-radar machine he ran over Robert Murat's property (where his mother is living) a number of times quite illegally. He admits he had no permission to be on the grounds and, under the cover of night, slipped onto the property and ran his tests. He recognizes he may be sued for this and has his lawyers in place to deal with the possibility.
I am not going to speak of legalities and ethics in this particular post. Personally, I do not approve of trespassing on private property, possibly terrifying anyone at home (although some will claim I am the pot calling the kettle black because I touched the shutters on Apartment 5A when it was vacant which were accessible from the public walkway in the resort at which I was staying). Anyway, the issue at hand I am wishing to discuss is not whether Mr. Birch should be dealt with legally, but whether there is any merit to his claim and if anyone should dig at the spot on the driveway and who that should be.
First, to the issue of Mr. Birch's theory that Madeleine was dead on May 3rd and buried on Murat's property the same night. I will not get into his entire theory as to who was involved and why. Suffice it to say, his theory is possible, if not all that probable, at least from this profiler's experience. IF his theory were to be true, it would be a major anomaly. If Maddie is buried on Murat's property, I would have to believe that Robert Murat was himself involved in the crime, that he was a child sex predator who saw a lucky opportunity, grabbed the child, and ran back to his house with her. Then, finished with his enjoyment of the child, he would have done what most child sex predators do; kill the child straight away. Then, he would have buried her on his own property believing that he would not become a suspect and, thereby, her body would not be found with his DNA on it somewhere on the side of the road.
Do I believe that this is what happened? Do I believe Murat is involved? No, but only because the evidence, in my opinion, doesn't point in his direction (see all my blogs on the case and my Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann). I don't believe Maddie was abducted, I do believe the McCanns are involved, and my Number One choice of where Maddie would be found buried is Monte do Jose Mestre, a desolate area west of Praia da Luz where Gerry McCann's cell phone pinged.
If Murat were not involved in the disappearance of Maddie McCann and the Gerry and Kate McCanns did have something to do with their daughter's demise, I would find it highly improbable that Maddie would be buried by one of her parents (with or without the help of any of their friends) nearby on someone's private property. I find it would be extraordinary, that under great duress right after finding her dead that evening, Gerry would have the audacity and balls to go onto someone's property, dig a hole, and bury Maddie there in an attempt to to frame someone in the community. I could believe someone burying their child on some stranger's farm in the country in some remote and area easily accessible to the road, but just down the street on a property behind an inhabited house in the middle of town, this is too unbelievable to me. If the McCanns were involved and Gerry was seen trotting toward the beach with Maddie by the Smith family, that behavior is more in line with known behaviors of parents involved in the death of their child; he would have been in a panic and quickly trying to get her body away from the vacation residence and to a remote place where any predator could have dumped her. What might have happened after that would all depend on luck and circumstances and having more time to think things through. But to place her just down the street on someone's property, I doubt it. Could be true, but it would be extremely odd.
Now, on to the issue of should the property be dug up at that spot just to make sure? I don't object to it. Who the suspect would be if it turned out Maddie was buried on the property is secondary to locating the chid and seeing justice done for her. Also, if the theory she is buried there does not pan out, perhaps Mr. Birch and others will take that machine and a search party over to Monte do Jose Mestre and see if they can find Maddie over there.
But who decides if the driveway at Murat's should be excavated? If the police do not have probably cause and they don't believe Birch's video of his radar scanning means much, they are not going to be knocking on Murat's mom's door. Is there really any evidence pointing to the Murat property or Murat? Is that video really indicative of a grave? If it is, could it be the grave of a dog? Could that cavity be the result of some other disturbance to that ground could cause a scan that looks to Birch like a grave?
Next, should Robert Murat just say, "What the hell! Let me just shut this guy up!" and allow the driveway to be dug up? I would say if he wasn't worried about a body being there, he could do that. But, on the other hand, even if he had nothing to do with Maddie's disappearance, he might now be paranoid someone has put her body there and he will indeed be framed, or that someone has planted some kind of evidence to make it look like a body might have been there. If I were in his shoes, I don't know what I would do.
Should the McCanns push the police or Murat to take action? Well, if I were them and I were innocent, I would damn sure want that ground dug up because it would drive me crazy not to know if Maddie was really there or not.
What do I think will likely happen? Nothing. I think the police don't have probable cause, Murat won't want to take the chance, and the McCanns, in my opinion, already know whether she is under that driveway or not. So, nothing will happen unless the Murat family no longer owns the property and the new owners have no problem with the matter being settled with a little digging on the drive. I don't think we are going to see that coming down the pike any time soon.
What I wouldn't be surprised to see is Stephen Birch ending up on the end of a Carter-Ruck lawsuit via the McCanns for claiming Maddie is dead. We all know how the McCanns deal with differing opinions, don't we?
I can only assume Blacksmith Bureau are playing mind games and trying to find out just exactly with whom I spoke to at SY and what about (I called them by the way and NO they do not have my address) Well sorry I am not biting. BUT just to keep old Blacksmith interested I will say this much, the male officer with whom I spoke passed me over to a female officer (neither connected with Operation Grange) who confirmed my name and enquired if I had spoken with Mr. Kennedy ? Now, bearing in mind how much a certain Mr.Kennedy has played in this bizarre case , which Mr.Kennedy do you believe she was referring to......Blacksmith, the ball is in your court.
You will have to buy the paper edition to read why. However, we all know why dont we . A dead Maddie no longer brings in money and if the public believes Madeleine is dead people will stop LOOKING as McCann likes to so often remind us. If YOU stop looking you stop donating eh Gerry...
This March 2007 file photo released by the McCann family Friday, May 4, 2007, shows 3-year-old British girl Madeleine McCann.
The Saturday Star can today reveal for the first time the scan that Cape Town property developer Stephen Birch handed over to British and Portuguese authorities, which he claims proves that Madeleine McCann’s tiny body was buried on the property of former suspect Robert Murat.
A video showing Birch using a georadar machine, allegedly in Murat’s garden at Casa Liliana, is now circulating on the web, including on YouTube. In the interview with Portuguese TV station, Expresso TV, he said: “Maddie died on May 3, 2007 and she was put into the ground that same day.”
This comes as a heated row has erupted between Birch and two Cape Town private investigators amid allegations that all three are in the hunt for the sake of the R35 million reward.
Last week the Saturday Star reported claims by the property developer that he may have found the grave of missing Madeleine McCann less than 200m from the Praia da Luz resort in Portugal, using the radar scanning device. Now private investigators Martin van Wyk and his sister Bernice Manson have accused Birch of stealing their research and passing it off as his own.
But Birch didn’t respond in detail saying he had been advised by his attorneys not to comment on the case further.
This may be because Murat, in Portugal, is adamant that he will sue Birch. Murat’s lawyer, Francisco Pagarete, told the Algarve Resident on Wednesday: “We are suing Mr Stephen Birch for the unlawful entry into private property.”
In an interview with newspaper Correio da Manhã (CM) Birch admitted that while in Praia da Luz, he monitored the property “24 hours a day”, with the help of two “collaborators”, and when the house was vacated he would enter and search the backyard with the georadar equipment.
And on an Express TV news clip, Birch can clearly be seen operating the georadar on Murat’s property, hunched under hanging tree branches in the dead of night. He said he had entered the property four times.
“There is a big driveway on Casa Liliana. But I believe that Maddie is buried beneath a second driveway, a less important driveway, which was constructed over the ground. The driveway is small and one cannot even turn a car in it. I don’t believe it serves any purpose. It is covered by pebble stones.”
Birch further said he was aware that there was a good chance that he would be prosecuted for trespassing. He said he had hired two law firms – one in SA and one in the UK to protect his interests.
“I hope and will plead with the Portuguese police to investigate my claims and excavate the property. If they are successful, I will have no problem assisting them with their investigation,” Birch said.
Madeleine, 3, disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort five years ago while her parents dined with friends nearby. It is not known if she is still alive. When contacted for comment on Van Wyk and Manson’s claims, Birch said he was aware of them, but denied them.
“The claims are false but under the legal advice of my lawyers I will not comment on the matter at this point.”
He was speaking to the Portuguese police and the McCann family about having the remains in the grave disinterred, and had passed the scans on to the Portuguese police.
“Many people don’t believe my story, and you can’t blame them because I don’t have definite proof. I want the site to be dug up so we can confirm if it indeed holds the remains of Madeleine McCann,” Birch said.
Van Wyk, meanwhile, said Birch was solely motivated by the reward and was willing to resort to illegal means, such as trespassing, to get it.
He feared Birch may have destroyed years of research by going public with his findings.
“Our investigation is incomplete and is still ongoing. By revealing the location without any substantial proof for the police to act on, he has given the person behind the disappearance a chance to cover his tracks. Not to mention his illegal activities in obtaining his ‘evidence’. It was utterly reckless and may have let a murderer walk free.
“I’ve had authorities in the UK call and ask me what he’s trying to pull and tell me that he may have destroyed any hopes of solving the case.”
Van Wyk, a former military police investigator, who has specialised in missing children for the past 28 years, said he was drawn to the McCann case and visited Portugal in October 2007 and in September 2009.
He sold his shares in a bar he part-owned to fund his investigation. Van Wyk said he had made contact with Madeleine’s relatives and received their “blessing” to investigate the case.
They passed on descriptions of Maddie and any new information that came to them. Although the information they were able to provide was limited, it was very useful.
He also gave interviews with local newspapers on his findings.
Van Wyk said he had been in touch by e-mail with the police in Portugal and the UK. He had collected thousands of documents on the case – e-mails, newspaper articles, notes, and hundreds of photographs. The photographs included pictures of the possible grave site.
Just over a year ago, Birch approached the siblings and asked to join them on the case. Manson described him as an acquaintance and loner.
“We’d see him socially sometimes but we wouldn’t call him a close friend.
“Then about a year ago he found out about our research and approached us as a partner,” said Van Wyk. They had agreed to the partnership.
Van Wyk said: “Initially, things went well. Birch was good with ideas and he was very inquisitive about all the role players and our theories. But at some point, he began to obsess and called us several times in the middle of the night for information.”
Van Wyk claims Birch insisted on keeping Van Wyk’s passport, ID and case files to prevent him from travelling to Portugal without him.
Manson said Birch became furious when he was unable to access their photographs last year.
“The documents were stored at a relative’s place who was away for the weekend. When I told him we could only get the photos in a few days he lost it and said ‘you people aren’t interested in the case or the money’ and ‘how useless’ we were.
“We had decided to wait until September to go to Portugal and confirm our theories. But Birch was impatient, so using our research and theories went on his own, using his underground radar device. He only joined us to get the photos and location of the possible grave site. He left as soon as he got what he came for.”
Van Wyk added: “I have worked on this day and night for the past five years, reading through articles from the media and reports from law enforcement intelligence. And for Birch to claim it was his work was just too much.”
He admitted that he was interested in the reward but said he had deeper motives. “The reward is without a doubt a factor, but having worked on missing children cases for so long I wanted to establish a global network to help find missing children. The money and renown for solving the McCann case would go a long way to realising this dream.”