Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Podesta brothers' link to Madeleine McCann - DEBUNKED.



Social media; a powerful tool when used correctly, but what if it is used to spread fake news?

Let's cast our minds back to the 7th November 2016; the day before the 58th American presidential election. News (I use the term loosely), is spreading across various social media platforms, claiming that John Podesta (chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign), and his brother Tony Podesta match the efits that were released by New Scotland Yard on the 14th of October 2013.

Scotland Yard showcased the efits on the British programme 'Crimewatch', a short transcript of which, can be read below:

23m 34s

Presenter, Matthew Amroliwala - "It was here, at 10pm that an Irish family witnessed another man, carrying a child. They saw him come down the hill, from the direction of the Ocean Club, heading that way, towards the beach. Could this have been Madeleine, and her abductor?"

DCI Andy Redwood - "He was a white man, with brown hair, and the child he had in his arms was described as being about 3 to 4 years of age, with blonde hair, possibly wearing pyjamas - a description very close to that of Madeleine McCann."
Matthew Amroliwala - "Two of the witnesses helped create efits of the man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true significance of these images"

DCI Andy Redwood - "This could be the man that took Madeleine, a very important lead, there could be an innocent explanation. The efits are clear, and I'd ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y

There is absolutely no confusion there; the efit was of one person.

Still not convinced?

Perhaps a freedom of information request, sent to the Metropolitan Police Service might help:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_about_meetings_with#incoming-573225

"At Question 4 you asked: 
  
Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two 
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually 
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were. 
  
The MPS response is: 
  
The program was referring to members of the Irish family who created the 
e-fits. 
  
At Question 5 you asked: 
  
Are the e-fits of the same man, or not? 
  
The MPS response is: 
  
Yes they are the same man." 

Don't take my word for it though; take the word of the witnesses. As can be seen from the family's statements below, there was definitely only one man.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

Now I realise this blows the Podesta theory of two men, matching two suspects, right out of the water, but no matter how much a person may want it to be true, the basic facts are; 1 does not equal 2, it never has, and never will. 

Is it not more plausible, that in fact social media was used as a political propaganda tool?

That one day before the election, a vicious rumour was spread, in order to smear the Clinton camp, and thus convince those who were perhaps undecided, to vote for Donald Trump?

Face facts America, you've been had. You were given a seed, and without doing any research at all, you fertilized that seed, nurtured it, watered it, and watched it grow into a totally false, yet believable fact. 

If you've taken the time to read the statements, you will have seen that one of the witnesses (Martin Smith), was up to 80% certain, the man he saw carrying Madeleine toward the beach, was her father, Gerry McCann. 

There was no evidence of an abduction, ever taking place, and a whole stack of evidence to implicate Madeleine's parents. Don't take my word it though, read the true facts, with links to the police files:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/20-facts-about-disappearance-of.html

Perhaps those who now realise they were duped, might delete the lies that litter their twitter timelines, and replace those lies with the above; the irrefutable truth.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JusticeForMadeleine/

Saturday, 5 November 2016

Murdered by her mother - the case of Joana Cipriano.

Goncalo Amaral, the coordinator for the original investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann, has been involved in one high profile missing child case before. That being the murder of Joana Cipriano. It was in fact the only other high profile case of a missing child that Snr. Amaral had worked on, the simple reason for this being, that there have been no missing children in the Algarve for Snr. Amaral to coordinate investigations over. Apart from what could be described as the 'normal' parental abduction cases, which thankfully are very rare and usually solved swiftly or at least identified as parental abductions, there just haven't been any missing children at the hands of a stranger.

Sickeningly, we've seen apologists make excuses for the killers of Joana Cipriano for years. They've even managed to brainwash a few, (most of whom can't even spell her name correctly, let alone quote the evidence heard in court) into believing the convictions weren't sound. Quite honestly, the contempt I have for those liars, and anybody else who knowingly defend convicted child killers to serve their own agenda, is palpable. I only hope some of those who follow their views, and unknowingly support them, will finally see through them.

I'm not going to write a narrative here, instead I will use bullet points of just some of the matters, considered to be proven in court:

Joana Cipriano disappeared in September 2004, at just 8 years old. A victim of neglect and exploitation at the hands of her mother, Joana was used to look after her two younger brothers, and was often seen in the village of Figueira running errands for her mother, Leonor Cipriano.

Joana Cipriano, was one of 6 siblings, she lived with her mother Leonor, and her 2 younger brothers. The other 3 children were given away to various family members. It was later proven to the courts that having given these children away, Leonor didn't keep any contact with them, for at least 14 years.

Leonor Cipriano, tried to give Joana away on numerous occasions, twice with the little girl's father, with whom she had had no relationship, only for him to return her. Joana was even left with a couple who were alcoholics, and had a sick child of their own.
One of the children, the fourth born, was found buckled to a chair, aged just 7 months old, whilst Leonor went out. He was later found by neighbours.

On Joana Cipriano's first day at school in 2003, her mother Leonor, left her to find her own way. Joana was found wandering, and lost by a neighbour, aged just 5 years old.

On the night Joana disappeared, her mother, had sent her daughter to the village shop, 420m away to buy groceries at 8pm.
Upon Joana's return, both Leonor Cipriano, and her brother Joao Cipriano, both beat Joana about the head, causing her mouth, temple, and nose to bleed.

Due to the severity of the beating, Joana fell and hit her head against the corner of a wall. It was this blow, that ultimately caused her death.

Both Leonor and Joao Cipriano, upon realising Joana was no longer breathing, embarked upon a plot to conceal both her death, and the body.

Joao Cipriano headed to the village, whilst Leonor cleaned the crime scene with petroleum, scouring pads, and a mop and bucket.

Traces of blood were found consistent to the attack, and subsequent concealment of the cadaver, were found in all areas described in the confessions of both killers.

Traces of blood were also found on the stem of the mop used to clean the crime scene.

The presence of ticks in the house indicated an attraction to the presence of fresh blood.

Joao Cipriano provided a confession, in front of a judge, a forensics expert, and members of the PJ, on video tape, under no duress, detailing the crime. Included in Joao Cipriano's confession, was a full description of how both he and Leonor, cut up the body of Joana into 4 parts, head, torso, and legs. The forensics expert stated that the description of the body parts that were more difficult to cut apart was anatomically accurate.

Joao Cipriano also described the implements used to cut up the body, these being a metal cutting saw, and a knife.
Joana's dismembered body was placed into 3 bags, before being placed into a freezer, where more traces of human blood were found.

Joao Cipriano stated that he didn't hurt Joana (sexually), but that he only killed her.

Joao Cipriano has various previous convictions, including one for attempted murder, whereby his victim was left blind.

Joana Cipriano's shoes were found inside the house, thus proving she had indeed returned from the shop.

Leonor Cipriano originally stated that she didn't report Joana's disappearance, due to having no credit
on her phone.

Giving testimony, António Leandro, Joana's stepfather, told the court how Leonor, had not only told him that she had been having a sexual relationship with her brother Joao, but that she also confessed to the pair murdering Joana.

Both Leonor, and Joao Cipriano were found guilty of the murder of Joana Cipriano, and the subsequent concealment of her cadaver. They were sentenced to 16 years imprisonment each.

There are so many more horrific points to this case, all of which can be read here:

http://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/bfaf1cea93ab75fb8025716200388d89?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,06P363

As for controversy surrounding the case. Yes, there has been a certain amount of controversy. Leonor Cipriano, in a desperate attempt to withdraw her confession, accused members of the PJ, of torturing a confession out of her. Leonor accused 3 members of the PJ, and took a list of their names into court. All of the men accused were acquitted. This was because Leonor Cipriano's account of what she alleged, lacked "credibilty".

Below is an excerpt from Diario de Noticias, with thanks to Astro for the translation:

Leonor has no credibility:

"The jurors and the collective of judges at the Court of Faro considered that Leonor Cipriano's deposition had "no credibility". According to judge Henrique Pavão, "she changed her version several times" and "lightly" accused persons of aggressing her, based on a list of names that she carried into the court room. "She lied about the identification of the aggressors and she lied about other crucial aspects," the judge mentioned.

Concerning the photographs that were taken of Leonor, which were included in the process, the collective considered that they are "of weak quality" and that therefore, "it was not possible to conclude safely about what really happened".

Goncalo Amaral, who wasn't in the building at the time Leonor claimed to have received her injuries, was found guilty of falsifying a document. A little unfairly, as he was only writing what was conveyed to him by one of his inspectors. Nonetheless the law is the law, and whilst it may have seemed harsh, it was accepted. The document in question, had no impact on the investigation, and no bearing whatsoever on the conviction of Leonor and Joao Cipriano.

Still that didn't stop Marcos Aragão Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer from reporting back to Metodo 3 by exclaiming: 'Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted'

Of course none of the above will stop the more sinister of apologists from using the murder of a little girl to smear Goncalo Amaral.

Leonor Cipriano was given 7 extra months on her sentence for lying about being tortured.

As a direct result of that conviction, Amnesty International hold no further records of the allegation:

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/resources/annual-report-2013#.VzZA89QrLwc

I doubt any of the above will stop the die hard McCann fans from defending this vile monster who abused, neglected, and murdered her own flesh and blood. Still, they sold their souls a long time ago.

Friday, 4 November 2016

Man responsible for hoax sightings of Madeleine, is a McCann family friend.

On January 2013, The Daily Express ran a story with the headline "Madeleine McCann kidnap photo shock".

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/371953/Madeleine-McCann-kidnap-photo-shock

The photo in question was handed to detectives at Scotland Yard, and came from a man named Luiz Carlos Moreno. Moreno claims that the photo was taken in Brazil in 2007, and that it shows a man walking down the road with Madeleine McCann. He also sent police a list of demands, so he could help with the investigation (as described on the link to Pamalam's website below). 

At the request of Scotland Yard, The Express didn't print the photo at the time of the article, but described it almost perfectly. In fact the only thing they didn't mention, was the fact that the photograph in question couldn't have been evidence of Madeleine being in Brazil. Many people, myself included, believe that Madeleine died in apartment 5a, and that her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in concealing the little girl's body. That isn't however, the reason the photograph couldn't have been of Madeleine in Brazil.


The reason the photo couldn't have been taken in Brazil, was because it was taken at Ibiza airport in June 2007. A google image search of the photograph, brings up several matches; the first of which is a link to AP images.

 http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/SPAIN-AIRPORT-ALERT/395c0216c4b74c76bdca446c51fc267c/29/0

AP images are a subscription based company, this is how they describe the services they offer:

"Simplify your image buying and budgeting with an AP PhotoChoice subscription. PhotoChoice gives you access to AP’s expansive collection of more than 34 million editorial and stock images. The collection includes AP’s wholly owned news, sports and entertainment images as well as world-class editorial, creative rights-managed and creative royalty-free images from hundreds of global photo partners. PhotoChoice lets you choose among editorial and creative images as you need them, as a simple one-stop-solution for all your imagery needs."

http://www.apimages.com/PhotoChoice

The second link takes us to a story that was published in June 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6256944.stm 
and discusses a security alert at an airport in Ibiza The photo accompanying the article was taken outside the airport, and is the very same one Moreno claims was taken in Brazil. In short, Moreno lied, not huge news in itself, people lie every day, granted not many do where it concerns a missing little girl. 

What makes the hoax sighting more intriguing, is that (as can be seen on the left), Moreno is a Facebook friend of Kate McCann's mother, Susan Healy, he also adds her to social media groups who promote lies about the McCann case, in an attempt to absolve the McCanns of any blame.

I discovered one of these groups Moreno had added Susan Healy to, only to find two more "sightings", of different girls, who bore no resemblance to Madeleine McCann. Upon joining the group, I asked Moreno why he posted hoax sightings, and why he would be connected to the family whilst taking part in such dishonest behaviour. His only replies were abusive, and non 
committal to the subject matter: 



Don't you hate it when people flirt with you online? Moreno left the group shortly after I told him that I would be using the comments he made in a public group, and posting them in this article. The two other photos Moreno posted (I have pixelated out the faces of those involved), are also clearly not Madeleine Mccann.



As can be seen on the above picture, not only is Moreno claiming that a little girl who bears no resemblance to Madeleine is in fact the missing girl, he also claims that the lady being pushed in the wheelchair, is her kidnapper.  

The very fact that Susan Healy, grandmother to Madeleine, is friends with a man who has posted 3 hoax sightings that we know of, and refuses to answer how many more he has circulated, should at the very least, set alarm bells ringing. We still remember how the Official Find Madeleine page promoted a picture of a girl much younger than Madeleine would have been were she alive. 

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/whos-that-girl.html

A the recent article printed in The Sun, and written by another friend of the McCanns, Antonella Lazzeri, wrote that there had been 8,685 claims that Madeleine had been spotted in various countries. Despite these "sightings", Kate and Gerry don't seem to remember any of note, as can be seen on the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7diM96eajQ

The question remains though, why is the grandmother of a missing child, in direct contact with a man, Luiz Carlos Moreno, who is responsible for hoax sightings.

In the interest of fairness, a link to this blog has been sent to Mrs Healy, should she wish to use her right to reply. 

Monday, 31 October 2016

Forensic Science Service closes, leaving a legacy of mass failures.

Some time ago I read an article in The Guardian, dated 22nd February 2007. The article in question related to a huge number of failures from the Forensic Science Service (FSS); the Government run UK lab who, along with many others, dealt with forensics from the McCann case.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/feb/22/topstories3.ukcrime?0p19G=c

It is important to note that whilst this article predated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann by 10 weeks, the revelations dealt a devastating blow to the reputation of the FSS, and could well be part of the problems that led to the incomplete, and with regards to some samples that were tested, a total lack of DNA found.

The discovery that an estimated 2,500 samples taken from serious crime scenes, including murder, rape, and sexual assault, had been botched by the FSS, only came to light during the review into the murder of Rachel Nickell. Rachel was murdered, and sexually assaulted on Wimbledon common on 15th July 1992. The only witness to the crime was Rachel's two year old son; Alexander Nickell. Tragically, the toddler was found holding onto his mother's blood soaked body by a passer by. Alexander had even placed pieces of paper over the lifeless Rachel's wounds after she had been brutally stabbed to death in front of him.

The investigation into finding Rachel Nickell's killer was confounded by controversy. Without any real leads, and a complete lack of identifiable DNA from the FSS, police focused their investigation on a local man, Colin Stagg, who often walked his dog on the common. At this point police enlisted the services of criminal psychologist, Paul Britton, who, upon their request, created a profile of the killer; the profile, according to police, matched that of Stagg, and a plan to trap the suspect began.

With Britton's assistance, the Met briefed one of their undercover female officers. Adopting the name 'Lizzie James', the officer from SO10 began to form a staged relationship with the unsuspecting Colin Stagg. During the 5 month operation, 'James' attempted to gain information from Stagg, by discussing sexual fantasies, either by letter, through telephone conversations, or face to face. Discussions, instigated by 'James', progressed to those of a more violent nature, Stagg became worried that his new 'love' would end the 'relationship', going as far to say 'Please explain, as I live a quiet life. If I have disappointed you, please don't dump me. Nothing like this has happened to me before.'

As the pressure grew upon Stagg to fulfil the expectations of his fake lover's fantasies, he made a stupid confession. The suspect claimed he had murdered a woman in New Forest. Like the relationship though, this 'confession' was totally false. Frustrated the undercover officer 'Lizzie James' was instructed to go for broke:

'LJ' - "If only you had done the Wimbledon Common murder, if only you had killed her, it would be all right"

CS - "I'm terribly sorry, but I haven't."

Despite no forensic evidence, no confession, and no formal identification, the CPS agreed with the police, and on the 17th August 1993 arrested, and charged Colin Stagg.

The trial collapsed, and for good reason. The defence claimed the 'evidence' of Paul Britton was speculative, but worse for the police, their covert operation was slammed by the judge. Justice Ognall ruled that the 'honey trap' had been 'a blatant attempt to incriminate a suspect by positive and deceptive conduct of the grossest kind'. The prosecution admitted defeat, and on 14th September 1994 Colin Stagg was acquitted of murder.

As a side note, the acquittal sparked a massive debate as to whether judges could, or should, be relied upon to decide whether 'entrapment' had taken place. The reason for this was that by definition, entrapment is the act of inducing a person to commit an offence, that otherwise they would have had no intention to commit. Due to the fact the murder of Rachel Nickell had already happened, then it could have been argued that entrapment didn't take place, and therefore under another judge, the actions of the police could well have been deemed perfectly sound.

True to form however, I digress.

During a second inquiry of the case in 2002, the FSS retested items found at the murder scene. Once again the lab failed to identify tiny amounts of DNA taken from the body, and underwear of Rachel Nickell. The lab used a technique known as Low Copy Number DNA analysis; the very same technique they used to test a great number of the samples sent from Portugal during the McCann investigation.

As briefly as I can:

LCN testing is a form of LTDNA (low template DNA), testing, and was first introduced by the FSS in 1999.

The benefit of LCN testing, when done correctly, is that DNA can be identified from samples deemed to be too microscopic for previous testing methods (SGM+), to yield results.

The way this is done is to increase the number of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycles.

Whereas standard testing used 28 cycles, LCN testing used 34.

The short video below explains PCR cycles, and how they copy DNA:

https://www.dnalc.org/view/15475-The-cycles-of-the-polymerase-chain-reaction-PCR-3D-animation.html

With that in mind, the disadvantages of LCN testing are:

Because the samples are being reproduced more, they are more prone to contamination, as well as the risk of mixed profiles being produced (ring any bells?).

Back to the Rachel Nickell inquiry now, and as I stated earlier, the tests carried out by the FSS failed to find tiny amounts of DNA. Had a DNA match been found, it would surely have snared Rachel's killer. The case may still have been unsolved to this day, had it not been for Scotland Yard sending the samples to a private lab. The change of lab proved pivotal; as well as Rachel Nickell's DNA a male sample belonging to Robert Napper was found. The match probability of this result, was approximately 1 in 12 million. At the time of the discovery, Napper, a paranoid schizophrenic, was being held in Broadmoor for the murder of Samantha Bisset, as well as the murder and sexual assault of Bisset's 4 year old daughter. Tragically, the attack on the young mother and daughter took place 16 months after the murder of Rachel Nickell. Had the police been looking at the right man, instead of following a wild goose chase, Samantha Bisset and her daughter may have still be alive today.

In 2005 Tony Lake, chief constable of Lincolnshire police and the Association of Chief Police Officers' spokesman on forensic issues, was given the task of reviewing exactly what went wrong, why the FSS failed the victims of Napper. When Lake made the shocking discovery that the FSS had made a mess of over 2,500 samples, he, and many other police forces were furious. Lake had this to say:

"This is about not getting results when it might be expected that there was DNA, rather than getting a result that was wrong. This type of DNA analysis of tiny amounts of DNA is carried out normally in the most serious crimes. We were not best pleased. We were not impressed. We rely on our forensic providers to have the highest standards."

Lake contacted every chief constable in the country, asking that all forces check their files between the years 2000 and 2005; in particular the forces were to report back any negative results from samples sent to the FSS, where a positive result had been expected. Tony Blair's government and the police kept the massive faillings secret for as long as they could, prompting David Davis, the shadow Home secretary to accuse Blair and his government of a cover up. This was strenuously denied of course; Blair never was a man to admit his lies.

Despite the findings, the FSS continued to handle forensic evidence, and in 2007, were used to test all samples from the McCann case. We all know how that went:

DNA NOT found from samples it was expected to have been found in.

Mixed samples.

Incomplete samples.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

With the form the FSS had, is it possible the lab made a pigs ear of the testing again?

To further add to the FSS' problems, in December 2007 LCN testing was suspended, after Justice Weir expressed concerns the FSS had botched samples from the 'real IRA' bombing in Omagh.

Not exactly covering themselves in glory were they.

In December 2010, the government announced that they were to close the FSS down; the reason for this was said to be purely financial. In light of the lab's dreadful track record, could it be that money wasn't the only reason, (if it was a reason at all), for it's closure. Or could it be that the staggering amount of failures, had brought the government to a position where the FSS was fast reaching an untenable position.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/855/85508.htm

According to the article o the link below, the estimated cost of the FSS closure, was between £300 - £350 million. That's not pocket change, and given the laboratory's multiple failures, the question has to be asked...

What was the real reason for the closure of the FSS?

Some useful reading:

National Police Improvement Agency; homicide and major incident investigation:

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_6.1.pdf



Offender Profiling in the Courtroom: The Use and Abuse of Expert Witness; by Norbert Ebisike














Saturday, 29 October 2016

Kate McCann's Freudian slip.

Whilst gathering some information for another post, and getting lost down a rabbit hole (no pun intended), I came across a quote that I just couldn't leave.

The following exchange took place at the trial McCann V Amaral, 8th July 2014:

Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro - "Do you recall an  interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã on 24th July 2008 called Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold."

Kate Healy (McCann) - "He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later [sic, car was rented 24 days later]."

"Exaggerated", not lied, not fabricated, but "exaggerated".

An example of exaggeration is provided within Kate's reply, when she states Goncalo Amaral claimed Madeleine's body was "taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later"

Snr. Amaral actually said "twenty something days after"

In that instance, a foundation of fact is present (car we had rented), but the length of time (seven weeks later), is "exaggerated" by Kate.

Snr. Amaral's claim consists of two elements:

"...the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold"

"Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car"

Of those two elements, I wonder, which does Kate believe was the factual foundation, and which went on to "exaggerate" the fact?




Kate McCann - guilty of sabotaging her own claims.

I'd like to tackle a delicate subject that has bothered me for two years. Ever since the damages trial at Lisbon in July 2014, I have played one particular part over and over in my head. To explain my thoughts properly, I will start at the beginning, the moment Kate and Gerry began this particular litigation against Goncalo Amaral.

In 2009, a 36 page writ detailing the McCanns' reasons for suing Goncalo Amaral was handed to The Sunday People. The accurately translated documents, revealed claims from the McCanns that the couple suffered from:

"permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear".

It also stated that Kate was:

"steeped in a deep and serious depression".

During the trial, we first see the subject of the McCanns' state of mind being questioned, on day 1 of the trial, 12th September 2013.

Susan Hubbard, the wife of Father Haynes Hubbard, an Anglican priest who was said to have consoled Kate and Gerry during their time in Portugal, was asked:

"Did they feel ashamed, anxious?"

Mrs Hubbard refused to answer the question.

Day 3 of the trial, 19th September 2013; Alan Pike, a Clinical Partner & Trauma Consultant at The Centre for Crisis Psychology, is called to give evidence. When questioned about Kate's Mental health, he states that:

"In the summer of 2009 Kate was not well at all as a direct result of reactions to the documentary."

Now before I go any further, let's just add some spice. Alan Pike has become a close friend of the McCanns. He first met the family on the 5th May 2007, after Mark Warner requested he come to Portugal, to offer the McCanns support. It's true that he's a clinical partner at The Centre for Crisis Psychology. All sounds very swish doesn't it. You would imagine he's a psychologist...right?

Pike claimed, in court, that Kate McCann suffered secondary trauma as a result of Goncalo Amaral's book.

In the following quote Pike gives his opinion on how Kate's mental health had been affected:

"The secondary trauma is sometimes more violent, more rooted and more extreme than the original trauma (Madeleine's disappearance). It is more difficult to cope with."

Poor Kate. Seemingly it WAS the book that caused the ambassador to become "steeped in a deep and serious depression".

I mean it had to be, Mr Pike, a credible witness, a psychologist, a...wait, are we sure Pike was a psychologist? Are we sure he was in a position to give a diagnosis? Let's pick up the questioning from the lawyers for Guerra & Paz (the publishers of 'The Truth of The Lie')

GP - "What exactly is your profession?"

AP - answers he is a Crisis Counsellor.

GP - asks whether he is a psychologist?

AP - says he has some competences in psychology (psychology was one of the elements in his degree).

GP - asks again "are you a psychologist?"

AP - says no.

So Pike, isn't a psychologist after all. He is in no position to diagnose depression, and in no position to give an evaluation of Kate's mental health prior to Madeleine's disappearance, after which, any pre-existing mental health problems would be masked by what a stranger could easily put down to (what Pike continually describes) as an 'abduction'.

Let's give Mr Pike credit though, he's clearly not some wide-eyed, gullible, man...

AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.

GP – Have you read the final report?

AP says "no".

GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?

AP says the McCanns told him.

...oh he is. The final report didn't state the McCanns were innocent at all.

Next up, was the star witness (sarcasm), for the prosecution. The one and only Michael Wright, self confessed media monitor, and husband of Kate McCann's cousin..

Day 4, 20th September 2013:

Wright is questioned as to the effects of the book upon the McCanns.

"The fact that people in Praia da Luz believed the conclusions of the book was terrible for them because they were already depressed. It was a time of great anger and sadness. During the week-end we talked about the effect of the book."

Gradually Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro, is being given a picture that backs the McCanns' claims within the writ, that Kate is "steeped in a deep and serious depression".

Isabel Duarte, the McCanns' lawyer, is keen to push the matter further, as she questions Michael Wright:

"Is Kate depressed?"

At this point the plan was blatantly obvious; Wright would answer yes, and the depression angle would be firmly cemented.

However, at this point something happens that in my opinion, alters the entire case.

Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro, overrules the question, and states that this is only something that can be confirmed by Kate's doctor.

Depression isn't mentioned again by either lawyer until day 12, July 8th 2014. I had the privilege of being sat in the gallery during this hearing. I heard the Judge ask Kate McCann if she suffered from depression, this question was translated to Kate, who then answered. Kate floundered, seemingly excusing the severity of anything she may have been feeling. She began by saying:

"Depression can come in many forms"

An odd reply, given that the McCanns had based a huge part of the case upon Kate being "steeped in a deep and serious depression".

The judge then asked:

"Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?"

Kate replied:

"No. Depression is over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed."

Say what now?

With that one reply, Kate destroyed one of the couple's main reasons for their claim.

Question is (I know I took a while getting there, and I thank you for sticking with this), why did Kate effectively sabotage her own case?

It's obvious from the writ, from Alan Pike, and from Michael Wright's testimony, that the plan was to push the depression element. That was, until a doctor was mentioned.

Being diagnosed with depression from a qualified doctor, would have been one of the easiest things for Kate to achieve. So why didn't she do so? Given the circumstances, a doctor would have had to take what Kate said (regarding the disappearance of Madeleine), at face value. Let's be honest, given her occupation, she wouldn't be struggling to find a sympathetic GP.

With half a million big ones at stake, a trip to the doctors would be the first thing the McCanns would have done. Given that both would have undoubtedly attended court cases in the line of their work before, they would know how the system worked.

I ask again, why didn't they secure their claims?

Would it be beyond the realms of possibility that if medical records had been requested, to prove or disprove the presence of depression, that further mental health issues would be revealed; issues that pre-dated the disappearance of Madeleine. Issues, that if read out in court, could pour more suspicion upon Kate McCann. The records would be useless as evidence had they not gone back to a time prior to May 2007, as determining when the depression started would have been paramount to the case.

With thanks to Anne Guedes, Joana Morais, and the Pamalam blog for court translations, and for avoiding the screaming banshee outside the Palacio Justiça Lisboa :D

Transcripts from the trial can be read here:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/AnneGuedes.htm





































Tuesday, 18 October 2016

The McCanns and the media...

As early as 23rd October 2007, The Daily Mirror's Chief Crime Correspondent, Jeff Edwards, had this to say:

"I get pissed off with columnists who say the parents can't have had anything to do with it. All the murder squad people I know say 'don't talk to me about certain things being impossible'. There's been a certain amount of unconscious racism here about the Portuguese police. Actually, it's not a third world country."

"They may not have our level of competence but they are not stupid and they are limited by their own constitution. Whatever is said about that inquiry, everything they've done has been driven by something such as significant inconsistencies between the McCanns and their friends."

So why do our press have a phobia of writing balanced articles on the McCann case?

On October 2nd 2014, two days before the death of Brenda Leyland, Gerry McCann gave a tale of self pity, woe, and sorrow to The Guardian:

"Nearly three years ago my wife, Kate, and I appeared before the Leveson inquiry to talk about the campaign of lies that was waged against us after our daughter Madeleine went missing. We described how our lives had been turned into a soap opera so that newspapers could make money, with no regard for truth, for the distress they were inflicting, or for the damage caused to the search for Madeleine. We asked Lord Justice Leveson to ensure that in future things would be different and that nobody would ever again have to endure the dishonest reporting we experienced, or at least that there would be some quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers.

Nothing has changed since then. Big newspaper companies continue to put sales and profit before truth. The protection for ordinary people is as feeble as it always was.

A year ago, when Kate and I were experiencing a time of renewed hope as the Metropolitan police stepped up its new investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, we received an email late on a Thursday night from the Sunday Times. Its reporter asked us to comment on information he planned to publish. This turned out to be a claim that for five years Kate, I and the directors of Madeleine’s Fund withheld crucial evidence about Madeleine’s disappearance. We rushed to meet his deadline for a response. In the vain hope that the Sunday Times would not publish such a clearly damaging and untrue story, we sent a statement to the newspaper. We denied the main tenet of the story and emphasised that since Madeleine’s disappearance we had fully cooperated with the police and that the directors of Madeleine’s Fund had always acted in her best interest.

However, the Sunday Times went ahead and published the report on its front page, largely ignoring our statement. We tried to settle this matter quickly and without legal action. I wrote to the editor asking for a correction, but all we got in response was an offer to publish a “clarification” and tweak a few lines of the article – but still to continue to publish it on the newspaper’s website. Indeed, further correspondence from the paper only aggravated the distress the original article had caused, created a huge volume of work and forced us to issue a formal complaint to get redress through our lawyers.

Eventually, two months after the article was published, a correction was printed, retracting all the allegations and apologising. But even then – and despite the grotesque nature of what it had falsely alleged on its front page – the apology was on an inside page and the word “apology” was absent from the headline. Since then, it has taken 11 months and the filing of a legal claim to get the Sunday Times to agree to damages, all of which we are donating to charity, and to get our right to tell the public that we had won the case. But the cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family – who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology."

The rest of Gerry's paradoxical piffle can be read on the link below:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/leveson-gerry-mccann-media-stories-before-truth

Apart from the obvious, and blatant hypocrisy from Gerry McCann, who has never once condemned the press for their blatant smearing of Goncalo Amaral, Brenda Leyland, or indeed Euclides Monteiro, the article above was littered with lies.

The Times didn't retract all of the accusations against the McCanns, and rightly so. Yes, the two journalists who wrote the article got some facts wrong, but not as entirely as Gerry would have us believe. In fact his own report was far more misleading than the original.

The McCanns didn't hide the efit from the police for 5 years, it was actually 11 months (still this was hardly with any urgency). They did hide it from the public for 5 years though. Scotland Yard went as far as to make it the centrepiece on Crimewatch in October 2013, describing their findings as "a revelation moment". It was hardly that, given that the efits were handed to the McCanns in November 2008, (5 years previous to Crimewatch) So we begin to see where the confusion arose. Even after the Crimewatch episode the McCanns weren't quick out of the blocks to splash this newly released efit onto their Official Find Madeleine Page.

So despite claims to the contrary (and not for the first time), Kate and Gerry McCann did suppress vital evidence. Yet, eventually, the newspaper rolled over (albeit half heartedly), handing Gerry McCann the opportunity to write his own article, telling the public how everything The Times wrote, was unfair, and untrue.

The following extract is from The Press Gazette Journalism Today, and is in relation to the above story:

"They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress.

They also claimed that the paper's Insight team, which wrote the story, had not told their spokesman the full extent of the allegations which were to be made against them.

The McCanns also said that the story did not include several points made to Insight by their spokesman. They said this denied them "a proper opportunity to inform the readers of The Sunday Times of the falsity of the allegations against them".

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police/

Unless the McCanns had another spokesman we don't know about, it is safe to assume that the person in question, was none other than the mendacious manipulator, Clarence Mitchell. It is clear from  the report above, that the McCanns had become accustomed to being told the foundations of a story, and would then be allowed to tweak the story to better suit themselves; something Mitchell in his pomp, admitted to in the past.

On October 18th 2007, Mitchell made a speech at Coventry University. The slippery eel talked with great bravado of how he "fed" the media stories, and of how, when the press quoted him or the McCanns in an unfavourable light he would "pull journalists to one side and say, look, if you want further co operation, this is what we said, and this is what we meant" in other words manipulating the press to favour the McCanns, in exchange for stories.

http://coventryuniversity.podbean.com/e/speaking-for-the-mccanns-clarence-mitchell/

Of course, this story is just one example, but when linked with many others, illustrates the working relationship the McCanns have enjoyed with the press.

It is no secret that the McCanns paid £500,000 to Bell Pottinger. In exchange for that cash from the fund, it was agreed they would be kept on the front pages of the UK's national papers, and painted in a favourable light. Which brings me nicely onto another example of how the McCanns manipulated the media.

June 2011, and as part of another European tour, the McCanns were in Amsterdam promoting Kate's book. The Daily Express ran an article with the headline:

"AT LAST, SAD KATE McCANN CAN SMILE AGAIN"

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/254636/At-last-sad-Kate-McCann-can-smile-again

The article was in no way derogatory, but accompanying it, was a picture of Kate and Gerry with broad smiles. In fact, so broad was Kate's smile, that it wouldn't have looked out of place spread across the face of the Cheshire cat (and not a side-splittingly funny balloon in sight).

It was this photograph that the McCanns took exception to. The couple contacted The Express, and the offending photograph was removed.

During a phone call, the sub editor of The Express was reported as saying, "...no papers will print anything regarded as unfavourable regarding the McCanns, and that the couple's "office" had complained that a picture of them laughing was unfavourable as it is a "misrepresentation" of how they feel, which was why they insisted it should be removed."

A misrepresentation of how they feel?

Do the McCanns have a medical condition that causes them to look ecstatic, whilst actually being steeped in deep depression?

Was the grin photoshopped?

Was it perhaps the effects of elation Amsterdam is famous for?

Did the article suggest that?

That would be an "emphatic no" on all counts...as far as I know.

No, it was merely a picture of Kate McCann stood with her husband, both of whom were happy, both of whom knew it, and both of whom forgot not to show it.

Clarence Mitchell once described his work on the McCann case as, "The perfect PR campaign". With Madeleine McCann still missing, and her parents controlling what is said about them in the press, you have to ask yourself; perfect for who?

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

Metagrabolized muppet Motson makes a mess of McCann matters...

For those of you who follow our blog, you may remember the piece we wrote that totally ridiculed, and exposed, the lies and smears of Nigel Nessling. That blog is available to Goncalo Amaral, should he decide to take action against the organised team of 'pro McCanns' who, in a desperate attempt to paint Kate and Gerry in a saintly glow, have actively sought to defame, and libel Snr. Amaral.

For those who didn't read it, or would like a reminder, CLICK HERE

That blog was both enjoyable, and satisfying, and, as I tap this one out, I hope to gain the same sense of well being from putting another of the court jesters to the sword.

Today's prevaricator is the lesser known Ste Motson. For those of you who don't know Stephen, or 'Ace Ventura' to give him a more suitable name, he enjoys nothing more than taking the moral high ground; tricky if you're standing on a bank of blancmange. You see Ace, is another Amaral hater, a conspiraloon, and, whilst not tracking down missing cats...a bit of a dick.

Enough of the pleasantries though, let's get down to business... For the avoidance of doubt, I have put the quotes from Ace Ventura's blog in red. It seemed the logical thing to do given that what he claims to be true, is in fact bumbling bollocks.

Ironically titled “A Tale of True Blunders”, Ace wastes no time in blundering his way into a paragraph littered with lies

"Amaral’s investigation: Amaral walks into the apartment where the child went missing. He assumes that the child has simply wandered off – big mistake. He fails to put out the necessary alerts. He doesn’t interview the parents, or the last person to have seen the child, under suspicion and makes no effort at all to eliminate them. He is so ill-prepared for the investigation that he has to borrow a piece of paper to scribble down some notes. He does not seal the potential crime scene for future forensic testing, in fact he does the exact opposite and lets people and dogs wander aimlessly in and out of the apartment making it extremely difficult for any future forensic tests to extract any useful or useable information. He doesn’t even notice that at least one of the forensic professionals dusting for prints wasn’t even wearing gloves! Da Sousa (Amaral’s boss) later remarked that, “the crime scene was totally compromised from the very beginning.”  
Of course, all of the above is a big fat lie.

As explained previously, Goncalo Amaral was the operational coordinator of the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

For the avoidance of doubt, let's break that down:

Operational: of or relating to the operation of a business or machine, (in this case the machine being the PJ)

Coordinator: someone whose job it is to make different groups work together in an organized way to achieve something. That being said, quite why 'Ace' is implying Snr. Amaral was the first on the scene, or was under the illusion "the child (classic pro McCann terminology, one has to wonder why these people struggle to use Madeleine's name), has simply wandered off". Snr. Amaral did not think Madeleine had simply wandered off, nor did the first officers on the scene. Taken from The Truth of The Lie chapter 3:

"We need information about the parents and their friends, to know who they are, what they do, if they have problems in their country, if the children were victims of abuse, if the family, neighbours, friends could have noticed any suspicious behaviour, what are their jobs, if they work full-time, etc. Is any member of their family depressed or suffered from depression in the past? Do the couple maintain good relationships? Are they implicated in serious litigation? Do they have enemies? For what reason? So, I telephone Glen Powers, the English liaison officer in Portugal, inform him of events and request that he relay our requests for reports. We consider these to be of the greatest importance and await sensitive responses to guide our investigation."
The above quote relates to Goncalo Amaral's actions before he even set off for Praia da Luz, and is fully backed up in the files. So right there, we can see Ace is lying. Goncalo hadn't, at that point, walked into the apartment, and he hadn't suspected that 'the child had simply wandered off'

Whilst we're on the subject, and contrary to Ace's claims that our man Snr. Amaral was of the belief Madeleine had simply wandered off:
 

"On reading this report, which was given to me on the morning of May 4th, I understand that there is no evidence sufficiently convincing to tip the investigation in one direction rather than another. There are many possible leads: voluntary disappearance - the child could have wakened and not seeing her parents, gone off to look for them; accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated; an act of vengeance; taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar."
 


Moving onto the second part of Ace's quote:


"He fails to put out the necessary alerts."


The police at Faro airport had already been informed before Snr Amaral was even alerted to Madeleine's disappearance. A control post had been set up on the Guadiana bridge, connecting Portugal and Spain, all police in Portugal had been informed as well as Interpol. CCTV had been requested from the two main motorways in the area. Spanish customs at two ports with links to Morocco, Tarifa and Algeciras were also alerted. Contact was made with all marinas, and video recordings, the 
Municipal Aerodrome Portimao, as well as registers of all boats leaving and entering within the last few days were requested.
Of course, due to the fact 'Ace' has gleaned all his information from ancient pro McCann scriptures, I will point him in the direction of the true facts:

Click here to read PJ files records of boat movements.

Click here to read PJ files re Municipal Aerodrome Portimao


Click here to read PJ files documents and maritime police.
Third part of Mr Ventura's claims now: "He doesn’t interview the parents, or the last person to have seen the child, under suspicion and makes no effort at all to eliminate them."
Ace claims to have resourced his information from the ACPO guidlines. Quite why he would expect a Portuguese cop to follow guidelines from Great Britain, is a mystery, but we will indulge our pet finding expert for now. 

The ACPO guidelines don't state that parents should be immediately interviewed as suspects. Could you imagine the uproar if every parent whose child had disappeared were interviewed as suspects before the basic facts of the case were understood? 
Both the parents were questioned upon arrival of the police, and again the following morning, as well as later in the investigation. I'm not going to put links to each interview here, they can all be read under the heading Gerry, Kate and Madeleine McCann, on the following link:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm


Perhaps Ace collars every owner of a missing animal, aims a spotlight into the face of the distraught owner, exhales the smoke from his cigarette along the beam of the light, and in a strong German accent, parodying such films as 'Lives Of A Bengal Lancer', shrieks:

"Ve haff vayz off making you tok"

An entertaining thought, and of course utter fantasy.

I shouldn't mock... 


"He does not seal the potential crime scene for future forensic testing, in fact he does the exact opposite and lets people and dogs wander aimlessly in and out of the apartment making it extremely difficult for any future forensic tests to extract any useful or useable information. He doesn’t even notice that at least one of the forensic professionals dusting for prints wasn’t even wearing gloves! Da Sousa (Amaral’s boss) later remarked that, “the crime scene was totally compromised from the very beginning.”  
I have to ask myself if 'Ace' is after the vacancy left by Clarence Mitchell; his words spin like a love struck teenager's head.

The crime scene had already been compromised prior to the police the police arriving, something Snr. Amaral considered could have been a deliberate act by the parents.

As for the reference Ace makes to 
Olegário de Sousa, firstly, he was the Chief Inspector of the PJ, not 'Amaral's boss'. Secondly, regarding Snr. de Sousa's claims the crime scene was totally compromised, our Ace drops a massive clanger. Snr. De Sousa was referring to the McCanns, the friends, and Ocean club employees - before the police arrived. As confirmed here:
Crime scene compromised before police arrival.


Sorry Ace. That's the way the cookie crumbles. 
Once the PJ arrived however, the parents were removed from the apartment, and forensic testing began. 

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

As for the above lie that Snr. Amaral doesn't notice one of the forensic team weren't wearing gloves, this was in relation to one of the team dusting for prints on the outside of the window, and it was noticed, as detailed below:
"Inside the apartment, police forensic specialists proceed to lift finger and palm prints, a job that is preferably carried out during daylight hours. Others look for traces of blood, samples of fibres and hair. We notice with dismay that one of the technicians, who is working on the outside of the McCann children's bedroom window is not using the regulation suit, thus risking contaminating possible clues. These images of negligence start to circulate world-wide; this isn't, however, the usual behaviour of judiciary police technicians." 
I haven't forgotten about Ace's claims of "dogs wandering aimlessly" around 5a. I can only suggest that he contacts police dog teams worldwide and requests all dogs work a safe distance from crime scenes...possibly even from home.

Moving on to Ace's next paragraph, and immediately we're slapped in the face with more lies:

"The contact details of all of the people in the immediate area were never taken and to this day there is still around 700 people, all potential witnesses, who have never been questioned."

LIES. From the police files, it's clear to see they were. Between the 5th of May, and the 9th of May, 143 statements were taken from hotel staff. Additionally staff on duty that night were spoken to informally at the time for any relevant information. To contact and arrange to interview 143 people is a mammoth task for any police force, and it was done in just 5 days. Additionally 27 residents were interviewed at various times as necessary.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MW_STAFF.htm

"Some years later, other potential witnesses, who were in the area but had not been spoken to at the time by the PJ (the Portuguese Police), approached the UK police to say that the PJ had refused to speak with them because they did not speak Portuguese!"

Newspaper talk again Ace? I guess you have a lot of time to read The Sun whilst you're staking out a tree, trying to entice moggy down with a packet of Dreamies.

As the files prove, the PJ spoke to many English speaking witnesses; to suggest otherwise just proves your agenda, and your flawed researching skills. 

Next Ace waffles on about why CCTV wasn't checked, well it was:

CCTV was monitored on the motorways running to and from Praia da Luz, it was from one of those cameras, that a possible sighting was noted. 

From The Truth of The Lie, chapter 3.

"Madeleine's parents are already back in Vila da Luz when we receive photos taken in a service area of the motorway: you can make out the figure of a little girl, who looks like Madeleine, accompanied by a couple. These images come from a CCTV camera on the motorway linking Lagos to the Spanish border. The McCanns are asked to come to Portimão in order to proceed to an identification. It's the end of the day. Kate Healy seems annoyed at coming back and made uncomfortable by the speed of the police car taking her. We are somewhat astonished by her reaction, as if she was not expecting to get her daughter back. The identification turns out negative."

The Ocean Club itself didn't have CCTV, as confirmed by Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista, and Vitor Manuel dos Santos, in the PJ files. PDL is a quiet, resort, it isn't Beijing. Portuguese law states that it is not permitted to have CCTV filming its citizens in public spaces. such as streets, beaches, etc. Private business are however allowed to do so if they wish. 

https://www.cnpd.pt/bin/legis/nacional/LEI_9_2012.pdf

Ace muses further as to why the CCTV wasn't checked :

"...a nearby hotel had wiped their CCTV tape by the time Portuguese detectives had finally decided to ask questions there.  The hotel owner confirmed that the camera would have caught the infamous ‘Smith’ sighting (a man witnessed carrying a small girl in his arms just minutes after Madeleine went missing)."


Given that the Smith family didn't contact the PJ until 4 months after Madeleine's disappearance, they couldn't have known that there had been a sighting at that particular place. 

Nevertheless, Snr. Amaral did hold regrets over the failure to gain the CCTV footage from that evening:

“I asked my officers to gather all the CCTV footage in Luz but, by the time they got to this hotel, the film from this camera had been wiped over.

"It was a mistake and I will always regret it."


In fairness, the coordinator of the case was being particularly hard on himself. Independent investigations suggest, that in accordance with Portuguese law the CCTV in question wasn't pointing at the street; it was in fact only covering the grounds of Estrela da Luz.

https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/madeleine-estrela-da-luz-cctv/

I could go into the fact that Kate and Gerry McCann withheld the efit of this sighting for 5 long years, and that they stopped their team of private investigators from following up on the lead. It wasn't until Crimewatch in 2013, that Scotland Yard announced that the man Mr Smith was up to 80% sure was Gerry McCann, was now the main focus of their investigation, but time is getting on, and Mr Ventura has taken up enough of my time already.

Next blunder from Ace, and here he tells us that:

"...the Portuguese press printed a story, from a source within the PJ (I wonder who that could have been) stating that the blood they had found in the apartment was Madeleine’s blood (even though the forensics had identified the blood as male!)"

Now I have two issues with this claim, the first being Ace's clear attempt to lay the blame for leaks to the press firmly at the feet of Goncalo Amaral.

Leaks did have a pivotal, and prejudicial impact on the case. The McCanns through various friends/employees have enjoyed a long, and beneficial relationship with the press.

Clarence Mitchell, "a friend close to the McCanns", "a source close to the McCanns", Philomena McCann, Justine McGuinness, Lori Campbell... The McCanns have had many, many leaks attributed to them over the years, and not just to the Portuguese press. Clarence Mitchell spoke to press agencies worldwide: 

Mitchell's interference drew the following comment from Portuguese police union chief Carlos Anjos:

"Mr Mitchell wants to discredit the Policia Judiciaria and invent excuses so the McCanns do not come to Portugal to participate in the reconstruction of the night she disappeared."

"He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth.


"Finally we know what side truth is on."


"While the Policia Judiciaria were fulfilling their duty of investigating what happened to Madeleine, her parents' spokesman was manipulating public opinion."


That comment was a true then, as it is today.

My second issue with Ace's claim of the only blood being found in 5a was male, is this:

He's a liar.

Taken from http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

"However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result (swab 3a),match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann."

As we know, sample 3a was a swab taken from behind the sofa. The area that both Eddie and Keela alerted to. 

The rest of Ace's blog highlights his lack of understanding of how Eddie and Keela work. Our very own Syn0nymph already drew attention to Motty's miserable attempts to discredit Eddie and Keela, and in particular his uneducated mutterings of nonsense, so I won't go over those again. All the apologists excuses are roundly debunked here:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html

Finally, I'd like to share one of Ace's rather ironic passages:

"Believe it or not, despite all of this, there are some gullible people, who have neither looked at the evidence objectively, or with any degree of impartially, nor who have sufficient knowledge of how an investigation such as this should have been carried out."

All talk no trousers Ace. 

Whatever you're tipple, I suggest you take more water with it. 

In your case the saying "don't give up your day job", is something no man should ever say to you. 

I only hope that there aren't many missing pets relying on you to find them; you couldn't find your own nose in the dark. 

etc. etc.



"Alllll-righty then"