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:


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".


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.


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:



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:


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. 


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.


"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. 


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.


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:


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"

Friday, 2 September 2016

Frances Gallagher - McCann case Trojan Horse.

Well Frances, this wasn't what I wanted. You could have just stopped with the lies and smears, but after 2 years, and no sign of any let up, you and certain members of your admin team, have forced my hand.

Where to start? Well let's do this chronologically shall we. You have posted a screenshot on your page 'The Right To Reply', and then (looking at the names involved), what appears to be a transcript from an admin chat that pre-dates me being an admin anywhere on any social media platform. Describing this screenshot, you have insinuated that Ann Bartlett was one of my 'lieutenants'. The page you run even goes as far to say:

 "What a nasty excuse for a human being. Who talks about and to people like this? I'll tell you - spurned, bitter people who would not know the truth if it bit them! I hope his mother is proud."

There wasn't even a male in that conversation, let alone me. I've never had any sort of friendship with Ann, if you can show otherwise, please do.

The screenshot from Ann (you hid the date, but just left part of her name showing), appears to be a discussion of you accusing someone of rape, again, long before my time, so not something I would know anything about.

Some very interesting stuff there. Accusations of Frances talking to Bren Ryan; accusations of her being a pro; accusations of Frances posting links to pro McCann sites on her facebook wall. All denied by Frances of course:


The first time we were in admin together, as you know, was 2014. Not long after I created the group, you came to me having being kicked out of admin by Lizzy at HDH. You told me how all you wanted to do was post, and get the truth out. You told me how Lizzy had treated you so badly, and I fell for it. At the time, I had two other admin, who left shortly after you arriving. They had heard of your reputation, and with you pleading innocence, and me stupidly believing you, they left. At that point, I was contacted by so many people, all of whom had first hand experience of your scheming, and lying. They all warned me you were bad news, but I stubbornly, and through misguided loyalty, stuck by you, causing me to lose friendships with some.

We added more admin, and to your's, and everyone else's credit, the group grew fast. You're right when you say you played a big part in the growth of the group, you did. Over time, cracks began to appear though, other admin began leaving, because of you. People would find themselves removed from admin, with no explanation. Funny how that's a problem that followed you through four groups isn't it; it stopped when you left them all though, so that was good. 

Then of course the trial in Lisbon came up. I met you at the court. Whilst we were sat in the courtroom, and for the remainder of the day, you will recall a certain 'Robert Guest' posting comments in HiDeHo, he was saying I was lying about being in Lisbon. To which I have a question:

If (as you wildly, and without so much as circumstantial evidence to back up your claim), as you say I am Robert Guest/Will McMahon, and whoever else you feel fit to fit me up as, how could I possibly be commenting as Guest, in HDH, when I was sat next to you the entire time.

The only time I used the internet, was to write a post, in the bar, with you watching?

No, Guest has always been the one you've cosied up to Frances, but we'll get to that.

Firstly, let's get onto the rather silly matter, of me fancying you, taking the huff because you didn't reciprocate my (non existent feelings), that I was raging, that it was this non event that was the reason you were removed from admin, and I've been on a bitter, obsessed, mission for two years. 

Yep, read it. That's what you claim.

You know fine well why you were removed from admin. You took the huff (can't believe I'm actually having to do this), because I wasn't answering your PMs. I was in bed with food poisoning, and couldn't be bothered with facebook. You then chose, to block all admin, and tell me to 'get fucked'. It's right there in the screenshot below. 

That was when you left admin, you were in a huff because I didn't reply to you. You left us no choice but to remove you. How can an admin team work, if one decides to block all the others? 

What followed was extraordinary. You kept contacting me, sending the wackiest messages. Stirring, trying to cause trouble, even accusing Lisa, whom you had been friends with for years, of being a troll called Holly. You then accused me of being Lisa, despite having met me. In the end, I told you to stay away from the group, and admin. The things you were saying, just like you are now, made no sense. They were just desperate attempts to regain favour, get back into the group, and be noticed again. 

After a while you got someone to ask me if you could post again in the group. Against my better judgement I agreed; in hindsight I should have said no, but after you apologised I decided to give you another chance. Despite using a sock account, and asked to keep a low profile, you swamped every thread, making it obvious who you were, and started sniping at admin. Again you were removed, and off you went to start AbScam.
Your new group started, you would have thought you would be happy. No such luck, you created a secret group, added members from Justice who commented/posted regularly, and set about your campaign. You posted lies; encouraged people to report my account; told people you wanted to see Justice For Madeleine shut down; created sock accounts to PM pros information (not caring if it was true or false).

Not content with that, you started copying and pasting posts, from the very people you spoke badly of, passing them off as your own, then IF confronted, bleated about being harassed, and pretended it was an accident. Tell me, did you trip, fall, land on the keyboard in such a fashion that you typed out the exact letters, in the exact order, to write the exact same post?

From at least two of your accounts you even began PMing Guest, handing him little tit bits, lies mostly; accusing innocent people of whatever you think will make others dislike them. You couldn't even do your own dirty work, you used a pro. Not for the first time, and I very much doubt for the last:

Finally, though I have kept this as brief as possible, you got your group taken over. Despite being warned by Chris Roberts, that Will McMahon was Guest, YOU made him admin. Your group was taken, and you announced it had been 'hacked'. You knew fine well what had happened, yet you let your members, and admin, believe that a 'hacking' had taken place. You created hysteria - your members were tagging the MSM about it. You made people look foolish. Eventually, you came clean, and claimed you had proof that Will McMahon was Guest/Holt. The pros even outlined how easily they took the group from you. Yet, as it suits your agenda, you are now blaming me, saying I was Will McMahon, that I'm also Guest, and that I took your group, and gave it to the pros. 

You even seem a little confused about that. Depending on which story you're telling at any one point: See that's the problem with lying Frances, you need a cracking memory. 

Then you start searching for a syntax expert. Only one thing that strikes me as odd...

Prior to you posting the above, you stated (below), that you already had a syntax expert. Second opinion was it?

As for this screenshot below, words fail me. You're using the word of a pro, Guest at that, to use against me, in your campaign to make people believe I'm Guest. It get's no crazier than that:


Face facts Frances, there are no levels to which you won't stoop to inflict misery on anybody you see fit to. 

Nobody apart from a select few of your admin believe you Frances; they don't believe you because you've become too desperate.

What really gets me, is that one of your admin posted a link to a narcissistic post, in AbScam, that took your members straight to your page that lied about me. Again, conning your members, feeding them lies, and all for your own benefit. You're beneath contempt.

Oh, 'one more thing'.

All the blatant, dangerous, and deplorable lies you told about me, then denied.

Disgusting, and potentially dangerous lies such as me giving Sky News Brenda's details.


That I was 'raging', when an event you made up in your head, didn't happen.

That I gave someone a nervous breakdown.

That I am a druggie who lives at home with my parents.

That you said Jill Havern was 'jealous' of you.

What next Frances? That I have developed red skin, horns, and scour the world wide web with a trident for a mouse?

Finally, taken from your page. How pretentious, (and lacking in respect for true victims), could you be, when despite what you've actually been doing, you come out with this comment:

You called me out Frances, you kept on with the lies, the smears. You asked me to prove my claims, I have.

Now, bugger off!

Friday, 27 May 2016

Kate and Gerry McCann gambled find Madeleine cash

How much longer are the public going to be fooled by Kate and Gerry McCann, and the true aim of the fund, many believe is being used to find Madeleine?

Kate and Gerry would of course, have us believe this fund (a private limited company), is of an illustrious nature, and has the sole purpose of finding their missing daughter. In reality however, it hasn’t even come close to that.

The money the public so willingly donated, has been wasted on dodgy private detectives, lavish hotels, witness expenses, PR spokespeople, legal fees, and of course, the irrational, obsessive pursuit of one man.

“He deserves to be miserable, and feel fear”, were the mutterings of the volatile, and temperamental Kate McCann, who, by her own admission, instead of assisting with the investigation by answering questions put to her, sat repeating under her breath; “Fucking tossers, fucking tossers, fucking tossers...”

As we know the man Kate and Gerry pursued for so many years, is Goncalo Amaral. Now I’m not going get into how I believe Snr. Amaral was fully justified, in believing the McCanns were involved in covering up the death of their own daughter Madeleine. Should you wish to satisfy that hunger, there is already enough evidence within this blog, countless others, and the official PJ Files, to whet your appetite. The point I want to make, is that Kate and Gerry, have used the public for their own selfish needs. Madeleine, was merely the poster child.

Kate and Gerry gambled thousands upon thousands of pounds, directly from the fund, in the hope they could destroy one man’s life. Where is Madeleine in that thought process? It was they who instigated the costly legal process, and when it was they who duly lost, we were treated to reports in the media of how Goncalo Amaral will be depriving the McCanns of money set aside to find Madeleine.


Goncalo Amaral didn’t ask to be taken to court, he didn’t ask for the British press to smear him at every turn. Kate and Gerry McCann did that. In fact by taking Snr. Amaral to court, they actually publicised his book, better than any PR company, could have ever achieved. It was never about the book though, it was about hatred, and power.

They attacked; he defended himself; they lost...badly.

Not one, not two, but three judges, unanimously ruled, that Goncalo Amaral had no case to answer, and that Kate and Gerry, should pay all legal fees; their own, and Snr. Amaral's.

So instead of cutting their losses, and paying the legal fees they were ordered to, what do the McCanns do? They throw yet more money onto the table, and attempt an appeal; using yet more of the money they pathetically whine, was for Madeleine.

They're too arrogant to see, they're the ones throwing it away!

Do they have any chance of an appeal being granted? Not a chance. That hasn’t stopped them haemorrhaging yet more donations, in the pursuit of revenge.

If that money is truly for Madeleine, the dastardly duo should stop gambling it on twisted vendettas, and spend it on what they claim it is truly for. Finding the daughter, that one way or another, they were responsible for losing.

After all, what better way to prove Goncalo Amaral wrong, than to actually find Madeleine.

A gambling addiction, using public donations, is never going to achieve that.

Saturday, 14 May 2016

51 questions to Goncalo Amaral - NULLIFIED - Naysayer Nessling's Nonsensical Noodlings Nicely Neutralized

My attention was recently brought to a  blog written by Pro McCann - Nigel 'VEE8' Nessling. A lengthy piece, that asked questions, thinly veiled by an agenda fuelled hatred of Goncalo Amaral. Oddly, Nigel seemed to get the inspiration for his blog by the fact that Kate McCann refused to answer questions put to her by the PJ in 2007. 

At first I wasn't sure if Nigel had been hacked; perhaps somebody had written a satirical blog, mocking his blinkered biased views on the case. Upon further reading however, I soon realised it was in fact Nigel's own work, and he'd done a fine job of exposing himself as a  somewhat perplexing protégé to Pinky...Naughty Nigel!

Before I tackle the questions, it is worth noting that Nessling states in his own words that:

"myself and others have compiled several hundred pertinent questions, but I have distilled them down to these ones, that I personally consider vital to understanding just what game amaral was playing at."

I must say, I find it quite astounding, that of the "several hundred" questions, Nigel and his friends have compiled over the years, he would choose to ask the 51 that he did, when many of the answers can be easily obtained through reading Snr. Amaral's book; The Truth of The Lie. Nigel and his fellow pro McCann friends slate the book so fervently, yet seemingly know nothing of it's content, something that in itself begs it's own questions: 

Has Nigel actually read the book he and the McCanns demonise?

If the answer is no, then how can he judge it?

If the answer is yes, then is Nessling, by writing his blog, not really asking questions at all, but merely embarking upon a feeble assault on Snr. Amaral?

Personally I'd plump for the latter, but, as I find myself with a spare couple of hours, I will humour him, and answer as many of the questions I can:


"Is it true that you never attended the scene yourself on the night Madeleine was abducted, but coordinated the investigation by phone? Where exactly did you coordinate this investigation from? Is it true you in fact never left the restaurant where you were eating?"

It is true that Goncalo Amaral was dining out the night Madeleine was reported missing, as 

were the McCanns, and that he was contacted by phone.

"It is midnight when I receive the news about the disappearance of a little four-year-old English girl. The police officer on call was informed about it by the National Guard of The Republic (GNR) At the time of her disappearance, the little girl was supposed to have been sleeping in an apartment while her parents were dining a hundred metres away. An inspector is sent to the scene immediately to establish the initial facts. A forensic expert assigned to security of the premises will join him. All precautions are taken to preserve possible clues and elements of evidence. I demand to be informed very regularly and, before going home, I call on the police on duty to check that all urgent measures are underway. The head of the Guard has already alerted the police authorities at Faro airport and the control post set up on the Guadiana* bridge."

Not really sure what your point here is Nigel. Although given that your entire piece is written with the sole objective of discrediting Goncalo Amaral, I can only assume you are trying to suggest Goncalo Amaral should have immediately raced to the scene, Jim Bergerac style, and single handedly solved the case. Let me assist you to avoid any doubt as to Goncalo Amaral's job description regarding this case.

Goncalo Amaral was the operational coordinator.

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 is to make different groups work together in an organized way to achieve something.

It wasn't Amaral's job to attend the crime scene immediately. Quite why you would think he would need to rush to the scene to coordinate his staff at that point, is a mystery.


"Why did you not organise a search for the child IMMEDIATELY?"

What is it with calling Madeleine "The child"? Gerry does that a lot too, (when he's not calling her Margaret). The Ocean Club had already put their search protocol into operation, before police arrived at the scene. The GNR then began searches, which carried on throughout the night, not only by police on duty, but by off duty policemen, volunteers, and of course search and rescue dogs.

The fact that searches by both the GNR, and the PJ were carried out, is confirmed here by Joao Carlos:

"During this night and the during the early morning intensive searches were carried out by this police force, GNR officers equipped with sniffer dogs and by local people organised in groups and employees of the resort. These searches were extended over the following days over a radius of 15 km2 by GNR officers and tracker dogs, locals, marines (folio 821 marine control Portimao), civil protection officers, the use of a helicopter as is documented in the report on folios ''' (sic) In spite of titanic efforts, time and methods used, the search for the girl was fruitless."

As a side note, it's interesting that you bring up the subject of searching. Kate McCann herself admitted to "not physically" searching for Madeleine, whereas Gerry only managed a short walk to the beach, where he was consoled by David Payne. That "search" lasted about an hour. On foot, the beach is a 30 minute round trip in daylight, at night it would take longer. Seems Kate and Gerry were the only ones not searching.


"Why did you expect distraught parents to do YOUR job and secure a crime scene? In view that it was YOUR obligation and YOUR job to see that a crime scene is properly secured, why did YOU allow so many people to contaminate it?"

Again this is more spin. Goncalo Amaral didn't "expect" Kate and Gerry to secure the crime scene. He did, however question whether the parents contaminated the crime scene on purpose."

Amaral also admitted that mistakes were made with the securing of the crime scene. Although by the time the police had arrived, having not been notified for 40 minutes, the crime scene had already been compromised.


"Why did you not consider getting the apartment properly examined by properly trained forensics teams IMMEDIATELY?"

The apartment was examined by forensic teams at the first available opportunity. During the night and into the next day. Why suggest it wasn't Nigel?
"The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time, the location was sealed and preserved so that light conditions would permit the inspection of the residence to be finalised."

"On 4 May 2007, at 15:30, a Crime Scene team from the Police Science Laboratory, comprising the undersigned, went, at the request of DIC PJ Portimao, to a dwelling situated at Apartment 5A, of Block A of the tourist accommodation building, "Ocean Club" - Praia da Luz, Lagos, in order to perform a specialist examination of the location."

On the subject of forensics..."After 00.00 a team from this police force arrived at the scene and immediately began diligencies, namely fingerprint inspection which only revealed the collection of prints from people who had legitimate access to the apartment. The bedroom was also examined by Scientific Police Laboratory, which collected numerous vestiges for continuous examinations, which up until now have not contributed to a full clarification of the facts."


"Why did you falsely inform the press that the parents contacted Sky News BEFORE calling the police?"

In this question you use the word "falsely". I therefore assume you have proof the parents didn't inform Sky News, apart from of course Kate McCann's book, which you seem to be basing a lot of your blog upon. 

One thing is for sure, Kate and Gerry McCann did inform the media through third parties, one of whom was Jill Renwick who worked with Kate McCann at Glasgow hospital in the 90's. Jill was one of the friends Kate phoned during the early hours of the 4th May 2007, and possibly the most influential. It was through Jill, that the lie about an "abductor" breaking the shutters to gain entry to apartment 5a, manifested across the nation within hours of the parents reporting Madeleine missing. This fabricated story was, remember, concocted by Kate and Gerry who sat indoors, whilst scores of volunteers searched throughout the night for a missing 3 year old girl they had never met. 

In an article for the Guardian by Esther Addley, on June 2nd 2007, Jill Renwick discusses her conversation with Kate: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/02/ukcrime.comment

"She just said, 'Help me, please help me'. She said, 'We've been searching all night until 4.30am, and then everybody left us'. At that stage there was only one police officer at the door. They didn't know what to do. So I phoned GMTV."

First line, and it's a lie, Kate did NOT physically search, and Gerry managed an hour, but that's by the by. Good old Jill phoned GMTV, surely GMTV would check that the information Jill gave them was correct, precise, and accurate? Not a hope, what they did was to fail Madeleine, whilst at the same time, helping the McCanns plant the abduction seed. Jill provided more lies to 6.1 million UK viewers:

"They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour."

"Poor Kate and Gerry don't know where to turn. She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open. The shutters had been broken open and they've gone into the room and taken her."

BANG! In one fell swoop we have 6.1 million people being told that A, there was opportunity for an abduction, and B, there had been a forced entry. Total and utter nonsense, we now know, as did the McCanns, that there was NO forced entry, but there it was, out in the public arena. 

Support then began to gather pace. Think about it, of those 6.1 million viewers, how many of them went into work that week, spoke to friends and told them; 

"hey did you hear on the news today? An intruder broke into an apartment in Portugal and snatched a little girl" 

The lie grew legs and multiplied, the press reported it as fact, and before the week was out the McCanns had a nation behind them, in fact they had so much support, based upon lies, that when the Official Find Madeleine website was set up on the 10th May 2007 it received 75 million hits in the first 48 hours, and all due to one phone call.


"Why did you initially refuse Scotland Yard experts help?"

Now this wouldn't happen to be another bit of loosely based spin, taken from Kate's book would it Nigel. I assume you liked Kate's book so much, as the person who wrote it for her, like yourself, also had a problem with using capital letters for a person's name, eg. "madeleine", eg. "goncalo amaral".

Yes, in Kate's book it states that:

"The Portuguese police were apparently reluctant early on to accept any help beyond this from their counterparts in the UK."
Although that is in relation to Leicestershire police force, not Scotland Yard. If of course this is what you were using as the source for your information, you will also note, that Kate went on to mention, that Leicestershire police were allowed to send over family liaison officers, forensic psychologists from CEOP, and an analyst from the National Policing Improvements Agency.

Not only that, but in Goncalo Amaral's own words:

"After Madeleine’s disappearance, the first English police officer whom we welcome to the Portimão Department of Criminal Investigation, on May 5th, is Glen Power, liaison officer to Portugal. The brief of this police official attached to his country’s embassy is to facilitate communication between police forces. This is one of a number of pivots on which international police collaboration relies.
I have known Glen Power for a long time. Martin Cox, who had held the job in Portugal for some years, came to the Algarve with Glen when the latter replaced him. I had worked with Glen on several cases of violent crime or linked to organised crime; I was aware of his skills, his great capacity for work, his kindness and his modesty. Our relationship went beyond that of a simple professional connection. I was a bit worried when he told me that he wouldn’t be around a few days later. He had a lot to do. He wanted to reassure me by telling me that the language of investigation was universal and that his colleagues would have no difficulty in integrating into the ongoing investigation. No doubt, but personalities are important, as is the information committed to memory, knowledge of the details, the cross-checks that allow us to be responsive to the slightest indications. It’s for that reason that, in general, the make-up of the team remains the same from start to finish of an investigation.
Two days later, English colleagues begin to arrive. The main idea was for the English police to place at our disposal two specialists in family supervision and support to be the link between the Portuguese investigators and the McCanns. The National Directorate of the PJ had authorised the arrival of these police officers in the context of international collaboration. Bob Small, an officer from the Leicestershire police, and one of his colleagues meet us to take stock of the situation and evaluate the needs of the investigation before making contact with the couple.
We insist on knowing what our English counterparts have come to Portugal to do. I assign one of my investigators to follow the English superintendent like a shadow and to keep me informed about his actions. I want to be informed of everything he learns, the names of the people he meets and the places he goes to.
Then the two police officers arrive who are assigned to psychological support and communication with the family. Little by little, the number of English police officers grows exponentially. We place at their disposal a room next to our crisis unit, Task Portugal. These are specialists from various police services, including Scotland Yard. Special surveillance teams as well as information and telecommunications technicians turn up with their laptops and various high-tech equipment. Others will come to join us, notably profilers: they will develop a profile of the alleged abductor from which a number of possible scenarios will be constructed. The analysts trace timelines and patterns of connections based on the witness statements gathered. They produce giant summary boards that cover the walls of the offices. They attend all our meetings and collaborate in decision-making. They are the intermediary through which requests for information are sent to Great Britain, and it is they who receive the responses and enquiries."

Even more people to be coordinating. Still thinking Amaral, should have been running around with his deer stalker on? I don't think anything there amounts to a refusal on Amaral's part. A measured amount of caution perhaps, but "refusal"? Come off it Nigel, you're being a tad hyperbolic.


"Why did you not order the organisation of the immediate interviewing of all MW staff and residents?"

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.


"Why did you not order the Spanish borders with Portugal to be informed you had a missing child believed abducted and issue them with photographs and details? Same with the Marina just short distance away, why did you not order the lock down of this Marina? Why did you not inform authorities at the airport?"

The police at Faro airport had already been informed before Snr Amaral even knew of 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, as well as registers of all boats leaving and entering within the last few days were requested.


"Why did you allow Mark Warner cleaning staff to come in and clean apartment 5a and then ask Kate McCann why the flat had been cleaned?"

I'm beginning to wonder if you've actually read the files Nigel. Kate McCann wasn't asked if the apartment had been cleaned. Why would you make that up?


"Is it true that finger prints were not lifted from this apartment until five days after Madeleine was abducted?" 

No Nigel, that isn't true. Finger prints were lifted on the 4th May 2007.
Again, taken from The Truth of The Lie, chapter 3.

"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."

A fact confirmed on the link below in the PJ files:


"Is it true that the first finger prints lifted from the apartment were not taken properly and had to be re-taken?"

Not as far as I'm aware, perhaps if you had added links to back up your smears questions...


"Why didn't the forensics technician taking the finger prints from the shutter and the bedroom window dress appropriately in accordance with international guidelines for taking forensic evidence?"

That's a very good question Nigel, and one that Goncalo Amaral was also unhappy about, as stated here in his book:

"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."


"Is it true that proper forensic examination of this flat did not take place until Day 100 after Madeleine was abducted?"

No Nigel. It isn't true. I think we covered this in question 4. A full forensic examination was carried out on day 1. Next!


"Why did you allow apartment 5a to be used by numerous other holiday makers for two out of the three months after Madeleine was abducted?"

I think the answer to this is rather obvious Nigel. Here's what Snr. Amaral said:

"The apartment was immediately fully contaminated by the parents' action, before the police arrived. A complete fair was built there and at a certain point, dogs were demanded to come inside the house."


"Did you get in touch with the German police and the Swiss police about two paedophiles known to be in Praia da Luz at the time of Madeleine’s abduction?"

I suspect, as with many of your questions, you haven't been shy in adding a great deal of spin to this question, most notably, because you failed to produce any names. However, I can hazard an educated guess as to whom you are referring.

Lenhard's body, and clothing was found close to the body of Von Aesch, who had shot himself in the head. Several items belonging to Lenhard were also found at the scene. I suspect you say he was "known to be in Praia da Luz", as that's what certain quarters of the MSM stated...(cute).

There is no mention of him being in Praia da Luz, from any official source. In fact the Swiss investigators even stated that there was no connection to Madeleine McCann.

"As mentioned in previous correspondence, the investigations underway conducted by the police from the Canton of St Gallen did not manage to establish any link to the case of the disappearance of the British girl Madeleine McCann."

The British press tried to link Von Aesch to the case, by grabbing a huge handful of straws, and saying a white van, seen outside the Ocean Club, was similar to a white van driven by Von Aesch. They were still doing this as late as 2013, despite white van man being identified on May 8th 2008, as a 56 year old British music teacher. Not only that, but Von Aesch's van was inspected by the Swiss for forensic evidence, where they found traces of Lenhard's DNA inside. Had any of Madeleine's DNA been found, it would have matched the samples held by Interpol, (aside from it being a miracle).

As for your other paedophile, I suspect you mean Martin Ney, a German paedophile who had a sexual preference for young boys. There are no details in the files about this man, although there were stories in the press, which is what leads me to believe this is the man you have in mind.

As we are dealing with fact, unfortunately this is a question I can't answer based upon verifiable research. What I can say, and what you should know, is that contained within the files, are pages that weren't made public due to legal boundaries. The investigations into persons with criminal backgrounds, including those with a history of sexual crimes against children, were kept confidential, once it was established that these people were not persons of interest.

Excerpt from the files:

"A - In the inquiry there are passages that contain information that can contend with the right to private life of people, not only British citizens, for whom there was found not the faintest hint of implication in this case, namely:Volume I, fls. 211/212: reference to an individual with a past linked to crimes of a sexual nature with children.Volume II - Fls. 293/297: is a list of individuals connected with the practice of sex crimes with minors and adolescents." 


"Is it true that the witness Mrs Pamela Fenn said she heard A child crying and did NOT say she heard Madeleine crying?"

Taken from the statement of Pamela Fenn:

"She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below."

3 points to note here:

1.     "...a young child...not a baby of two years or younger"
2.     "...no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. (5A)"
3.     When the McCanns arrived home, through the patio doors, the crying stopped.

Sean and Amelie were 18 months old, Mrs Fenn stated the crying was, in her view, from a child older than two. The only other child present, was Madeleine. I'm sorry if there is some other point you're trying to make, that eludes me.


"Mr McCann pointed out to you he thought it was odd that the twins remained asleep during all the commotion, did you not think of getting the twins tested and physically examined by a doctor immediately as he suggested?"

Gerry McCann suggested no such thing to Amaral, or anyone else. What he did do, was ask two British Police liaison officers if there was any evidence to suggest a substance had been used to facilitate an abduction. He did not request his children be tested, he didn't even mention it until the 5th of May, a bit late to prevent death or long term damage from any unknown drug. Madeleine's bed had already been tested for any signs of chloroform and the twins beds were stripped of all the bedding so theirs couldn't be examined. The truth is Kate McCann requested the twins be tested in August in Gerry's absence, and he cancelled it upon his return.


"Why did you not order an immediate circulation of this child’s picture, so people knew who they were looking for? Why did you not issue a public appeal? Do you, as a serving detective, not know the European drill for a missing child believed abducted? Where circulating a photo to the media is considered of VITAL importance?"

It wasn't a decision Amaral could make, he was required to seek authorisation from the public minister. This was done on the May 4th.


In the afternoon, we ask the Public Minister for authorisation to issue a missing persons poster to the press. It is published on May 5th, accompanied by a photo of the child and telephone numbers. We, thus, hope to obtain new information. We are going to be inundated with witness statements of every kind: people who are persuaded that they can help us thanks to their psychic powers; others who have dreamed about Madeleine and believe they know where she is, and yet others who think they have seen her here or there...A great number of reports come to us, that we have to analyse and check out: none must be neglected, even if most of them, on the face of it, seem absurd. In the hypothesis of an abduction, we might imagine that the abductor has tried to modify the child's appearance to more easily pass unnoticed. So, we create portraits of the little girl, modifying the colour and style of her hair."

Also, from the police files, we know photos had already been printed on the morning of May 4th

"Silvia Baptista informed us that at the request of John Hill and his wife D****, hundreds of colour copies of a photo of Madeleine McCann were printed on 4th May 2007 with the aim of distributing them in Pda L and Lagos. For this purpose a colour photocopier, Toshiba, in the main OC reception was used as well as an HP laser printer, HP Color Laserjet 2840 located at a desk at the Ocean Country company, a colour laser printer Epsom Aculaser C1100 located on the desk of the administrative secretary and a colour laser printer HP Color Laserjet 1600 located on John Hills desk.

On his part, John Hill informed us that the printing of large quantities of Madeleines photo was carried out by himself with the help of his wife, at the request of Russell O'Brien, a member of the McCann's group of friends, John Hill stated that the photograph the colour prints were made from a mobile data disk of the 'memory stick' kind that Russell O'Brien gave him on the morning of 4th May."


"Did you check the CCTV cameras of people coming in and leaving the resort?"

You ask this question as if every street in Praia da Luz was adorned with CCTV. The Ocean Club itself didn't even 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.

However, 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."


"Why didn’t you think of bringing in sniffer dogs from the UK till several months AFTER Madeleine was abducted?"

Again you show your lack of knowledge of the case. Goncalo Amaral didn't request the dogs, it was Mark Harrison who recommended Eddie and Keela be brought in. You seem intent on smearing Amaral for not thinking of this plan, but ask yourself this; why did no British police force recommend such a course of action, until Mark Harrison did so? The very fact that it was British police dogs that were used should illustrate that Portugal weren't au fait with the workings of EVRD and CSI dogs at that time. You can bet your bottom dollar they are now though, given how their work is so highly regarded. Back to Mark Harrison though.

"I am the National Adviser in relation to Search for all Police agencies within the United Kingdom for Missing persons, Abduction and Homicide. My role involves advising on searching for persons that are missing, abducted or murdered, using enhanced search techniques and technologies. I attend and review cases providing advice and support on search plans, strategies and resources. I have extensive national and international experience in such casework. I am a visiting Professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Southampton.In compiling this report I have driven and walked around the relevant areas of Praia Da Luz during the hours of darkness and then during daylight hours. I have conducted reconnaissance flights using the Civil defence helicopter. Consultation has been made with various colleagues and subject matter experts in the development of this report."

"This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz."

Initial Action

On Friday 20.07.2007 a request was made by the Portuguese Judicial Police to the NPIA for search advisory assistance. As a result of this the following terms of reference were produced."

"The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's, Murat's House and Garden."

Sorry to break it to you Nigel, but as you can clearly see, Goncalo Amaral was seeking help from the very best. Oh, and one more thing, when Gerry McCann stated it was he and Kate who requested the dogs, live on television...he lied.


"If you felt so strongly that the parents were involved then why allow them to drive their car in for examination?"

Again you use Kate's book as a source of information, although you are still innacurate. Kate stated in her book, that the PJ asked Gerry to meet them at a cafe in Portimao. It was whilst Gerry was meeting the detectives, that the car was seized, and taken for forensic analysis. Kate and Gerry did not drive the car to the police station for examination.


"When the cars were lined up to be exposed to the sniffer dogs, why did you allow this procedure to take place in a public car park, and not a forensically secure environment?"

Ah, a quick answer. The dogs don't need a forensically secure atmosphere to work in, they can work in any conditions. The car was alerted to, the dogs were proved correct. Bit of a wasted question that one Nigel. Next!


"When these cars were lined up to be exposed to the dogs, why did you allow the McCann’s hire car to remain highly identifiable by allowing the ‘Find Madeleine’ bright yellow stickers all over it?"

Why not Nigel? Dogs can't read, and this wasn't a magic trick. Maybe you'd like to see them blindfolded. You wouldn't be suggesting that Martin Grime told them which car to alert to would you? Seen that a thousand times from apologists. Why would a serving British police officer, with an exemplary record, whose dogs have assisted in many investigations, risk his career, by trying to create alerts, that weren't honest and true? I think you ask something along those lines later, so I'll move on, for now...


"Is it true that the sniffer dogs walked past ALL cars in the line up, INCLUDING the McCann’s hire car, indicating a NEGATIVE? When the dogs walked past this vehicle and FAILED to indicate a positive reaction, why did you insist that they be brought back and walked around the car until they did indicate a positive?"

You do make this easy Nigel. No it isn't true. Next!

Oh, you want more. Ok. Eddie was the only dog who did the first inspection, so your use of the plural is misleading. I'm a little confused as to why you're directing this question to Snr. Amaral at all to be honest, as Martin Grime was the dog's handler, not Goncalo Amaral, but hey ho. Let me explain a little bit about alerts for you, I learnt, and I'm sure you can too.

We've heard apologists discuss how Eddie was running about all over the indoor car park. They are quite right, but there was a reason for this. As detailed above, in certain conditions, a cadaver scent can be strongest away from the source. The car park had a fan on the wall, Martin will have seen this, and will have known that scent pooling would have occurred. As per guidelines, he encouraged Eddie to do a more detailed search. Hey presto... 


Blood found...


I see no issue.


"Are you aware that one of the T-shirts the dog alerted to, was NOT Madeleine’s, as you claimed, but in fact Shaun’s?"

Fantastic question Nigel, really pivotal. It was however the only T-shirt Eddie alerted to, not, as you say, "one of the T-Shirts". I recommend you email this case cracking query, to every law enforcement agency in the land. before you do however, I have a related question; Can you prove Madeleine never wore the T-Shirt on that holiday, or indeed that it never came into contact with her body? 


"Is it true that your OWN officers have expressed doubts about the dogs handling, and the way they reacted to the McCann’s hire car?"

It is true to say that certain "doubts" were raised, yes. Though not by Goncalo Amaral's "own officers", as you put it so inaccurately. The doubts raised were in the ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE FIRST 11 VOLUMES OF THE INQUIRY (pages 1-3004) Central Department of Criminal Investigation, February, 5th, 2008, and rightly so. What was being considered at the time, was, amongst many other subjects, the hypothesis of death. How unprofessional would it have been for these people to take, at face value, everything they had been shown. If they were unsure, or had doubts, they were absolutely right to say so. These people weren't dog handlers, they needed clarification. They needed to understand the workings of the dogs.

What was actually said regarding "doubts", was this:

"From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification."

Which was something they asked for within the recommendations at the bottom of the document:

"- To obtain, from the trainers and supervisors of the dogs (ERVD and CSI), further enlightenings about the 'marking' and the friability of their work."

...still think the Portuguese weren't thorough?


"If, as you recently claimed, Gerry buried Madeleine on the beach, why did the sniffer dogs not react to any of HIS clothes?"

Therein lies a very simple answer. If indeed, Gerry did come into contact with Madeleine's cadaver, the clothes he was wearing, could not have been in a place for the dogs to inspect. Don't forget Gerry made a trip home to the UK, prior to the dogs arrival in Praia da Luz.


"Is it true that you misinterpreted the DNA evidence from the FSS in Birmingham UK AND that from the Portuguese forensic science lab?"

Now you're asking better questions. Firstly to ask if Snr. Amaral "misinterpreted" the DNA evidence, you must be sure of what the correct interpretation was. Without fully understanding the report, you cannot say, with full confidence, that any misinterpretation was made. The reports available to us from John Lowe, are sketchy at best.

The boot of the McCanns' hire car.

Both Eddie and Keela alerted to the Renault Scenic. Following an alert to the side of the boot, Martin Grime instructed the forensic team to inspect further. 

Using the following link from the PJ files as source:

"From the observations made inside the vehicle several areas were detected containing stains that appeared to be of haematic origin, they were subjected to tests looking for peroxide existing in blood using the Kastle-Mayer test, all of them reacted negatively."

"After the examination of the vehicle was complete the human blood specialist sniffer dog was introduced along with Martin Grime of the British police who coordinated the dog?s movements. After a few moments Mr Grime informed the team that they should collect the key and other materials from zone M or from the interior of the luggage compartment given the fact that the dog in reference had identified these materials as places where eventual blood vestiges existed. The undersigned gathered these materials placing them in paper envelopes with the following references:

10. Parts of the vehicle luggage area. 

12. Vehicle ignition key."

Given that Keela alerted to the boot (ref 10), and that Fernando Viegas Um Henriques, of the Forensic specialist team in Portugal, confirmed that areas of the vehicle contained stains that appeared to be blood, it was fair to assume that these stains/areas could have had the presence of blood. We can see from the link above, that a forensic light kit was used. This kit would have lit up bodily fluids such as saliva, semen, and vaginal fluids, as they contain natural fluorescents. This isn't the case with blood. Blood will actually show up as approximately  four times darker.

The Kastle-Mayer test, which was used in this case, whilst, not confirming the presence of blood, cannot rule it out. 

As can be seen from the above link, the Kastle-Mayer test, has known to give a negative, even when blood is present. A possible reasons for this, is that the test simply isn't sensitive enough. 

However, I digress. You asked if Goncalo Amaral "misinterpreted" the DNA results. The answer has to be no. 

Here is what Goncalo said regarding the DNA samples found in the boot of the car... 

"In the first case, the laboratory considers that the result of the analysis is inconclusive because the samples gathered provide very little information when the DNA comes from more than one person. But all the confirmed DNA components match with the corresponding components in Madeleine’s DNA profile!."

...and here is what John Lowe of the FSS said:

"A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.


Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample."

No misinterpretation there whatsoever. In fact, when we look at Goncalo Amaral's summary of the DNA, he confirms, exactly what John Lowe has told him:

"The preliminary results from FSS were enlightening in a way, and confirmed the information given by the EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and the CSI dog. 

- The CSI dog, Keela, signaled the presence of human blood where Eddie, the EVRD dog, marked the presence of cadaver odour - on the floor tiles behind the sofa in the lounge, on the key and in the boot of the Renault Scenic that was used by the McCanns from May 27th onwards. 

- the bodily fluids, according to the FSS, contain markers from Madeleine's DNA profile. 

These elements do not constitute concrete proof but simply clues to be added to those we already possess. In itself, the definition of a DNA profile from LCN is not considered as evidence in a criminal investigation. In his report, the English scientist says that he cannot give answers to the following questions: when was the DNA deposited? In what way? What bodily fluid does the DNA come from? Has a crime been committed? 

The scientific evidence is not enough and it has to be accompanied by other types of material, documented and testimonial evidence. It is only in this way that the entire puzzle can be reconstructed and certainties can be achieved, for the material truth to be established."

As for Snr. Amaral referring to the sample from the boot as blood, and the reason for me opening the answer on the topic of how the sample was retrieved, consider this:

  • Keela (blood only dog) alerted to the boot, specifically area marked 10.
  • Visually thought to be blood. Remember under inspection, any other bodily fluid would glow.
  • DNA confirmed by John Lowe of FSS. 
  • DNA can only come from tissues such as blood, sweat, skin, semen, saliva etc. 
  • As all other fluids would have glowed under inspection, and can therefore be ruled out.
  • You got it, the assumption that the sample was in fact blood, is a perfectly reasonable one.

Oh one more thing, Stuart Prior of Leicestershire police force, who was with Goncalo Amaral, at the time they were discussing the DNA results, stated that in England, the results would have been enough to arrest the McCanns.


"Why did you ignore the email from John Lowe of the FSS in Birmingham, three days BEFORE you made the McCanns arguidos, warning that the DNA samples were inconclusive? Why did you still proceeded to make The McCanns arguidos?"

As I have shown above, Goncalo Amaral didn't ignore the email from John Lowe, in fact he mentions it in his book.

In reply to you asking why Snr. Amaral made Kate and Gerry arguidos. Well that's very simple. 

It was the view of the PJ, that Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in the disappearance of their daughter, based upon the evidence available. Before being made arguidos, Kate and Gerry were bound by law, to answer all questions put to them, by police, as witnesses. As soon as the PJ viewed the couple as having an involvement in a crime, or crimes, they were bound by law to make them both arguidos, before any further questioning could take place. 

The reason for this being, that in Portugal, by law, a person has the right not to incriminate themselves, very much the same as the UK, whereby you have a right to remain silent. 

If of course Kate McCann was innocent of any wrongdoing, she shouldn't have had a problem answering any of the questions she was asked.

Some of the reasons as to why the McCanns were suspected, and ultimately made arguidos, are quoted below:

"D - Dog searches and Constitution of Gerald McCann and Kate Healy as arguidos

In an attempt to advance towards the discovery of Madeleine's whereabouts, a Report was written by Mark Harrison, National Counsellor for searches at the level of all police agencies in the United Kingdom, concerning Missing Persons, Abduction and Homicides, with his role comprising the counselling in relation to those people.

Thus a request for help in counselling at the level of searches was made, with part of that help being made through the action of dogs that are trained to detect mortal victims (VRD), and dogs with advanced training in tracing very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids and blood, in any environment or terrain (EVRD).

From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:

1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

2 - That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

3 - Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

4 - In the "Vista do Mar" villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean's Club, the dog "marked" the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);

5 - In the examination of the clothes, which was carried out in a pavilion in Lagos, this dog signalled/"marked" pieces of clothing that belong to Kate Healy (cf. page 2101 and/or annex 88);

6 - This dog signalled the lower outside area next to the driver's door of the Renault - 59-DA-27 - that was rented by the McCanns (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

7 - Finally it "marked" the key/card of that vehicle when it was hidden under a fire prevention sand box (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

8 - The tracking dog named "Keela" (dog that detects the presence of human blood), "marked" an area in the living room, in apartment 5A, which had already been "marked" by "Eddie" (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

9 - After the tiles which this dog had signalled during a first inspection, and which are mentioned under the previous item, were removed, the dog signalled the same area again (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);

10 - It made another "marking" on the lower part of the left hand side curtain of the window that we have been referring to (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);

11 - It "marked" the right lower lateral part of the inside of the boot of vehicle 59-DA-27 (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

12 - Further concerning the vehicle, "Keela" "marked" the storage compartment, on the driver's door, which held the vehicle's key/card (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

13 - This dog also marked the key/card when the same was hidden under the fire service sand box, inside the parking lot.

The viewing of these videos, whose contents is very impressive, becomes essential to understand the dogs' action and signalling, more than by any words.

These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dogs, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory.

Martin Grime, the dogs' instructor himself [20], mentions in his report: "Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations"; or scientist Dr John Lowe [21] who refers that the FSS has no scientific support about the use of the dogs as a fundament for the collection of biological residues and that normally take the handler's word for certification, that asserts that the dogs are more sensitive than any chemical technique or other techniques that are normally used by crime scene sector experts.

In that sense, forensic examinations were performed in the areas and on the objects that were marked and signalled by the blood dog, especially in a credentialed British lab (Forensic Science Service - cf. Appendixes I and VII - FSS Final Report), and also, some of them, at the National Institute for Legal Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose final results failed to corroborate the canine markings, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material's quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).

It should be stressed that the option towards that Laboratory was and remains obvious taking its prestige, its independence and its scientific reputation into account, although on an initial approach there seemed to be the possibility of compatibility between MADELEINE'S DNA profile and some of the collected residues (of which those that existed in the Renault Scenic vehicle that was rented by the McCann couple were in great quantity), taking the contents of the fax that is reproduced below exactly as it appears in the files, into account (pages 2620 and following)

* * *

From: "Prior Stuart"
To: "Task Portugal"
Sent: 04 September 2007 10:14
Subject: FW: Op Task - in Confidence

From: Lowe, Mr J R
Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
To: stuart prior
Subject: Op Task - in Confidence


Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeline has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contnbutors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/conclusion.


Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. It's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible, in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?
When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DNA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards

but whose compatibility, as can be concluded from the above mentioned final FSS report, was not confirmed after the performance of lengthy and complex tests.

Previously to these indications, is the circumstance that the Parents were the last known persons who had been with Madeleine, alive and traced, a circumstance that in itself made them subject to investigation.

On the other hand, there was information, which was not confirmed afterwards, that the McCanns, while focused on stating an abduction theory, had contacted the British media (Sky News), before calling the police authorities.

Confronted with these elements, namely the possibility of the existence of a cadaver in the apartment and in the vehicle that was used by the parents, founded suspicions of their involvement were raised.

As they were summoned to depose again, while there was no plausible explanation for those situations and as they were to be confronted with the dogs' findings and with the lab information, which were susceptible of rendering them responsible as authors of crimes (at least, of neglectful homicide and of concealment of a cadaver), they were, obligatorily and inexorably, made arguidos, in strict obedience to article 59 nr. 1 of the Penal Process Code; thus the disposition from nr. 4 of article 58 (presently 5) - its new redaction was not in force yet, taking into account that they were made arguidos on the 6th of September 2009 - and on the other hand they could benefit from arguido status, with all the rights and guarantees of defence that are inherent to it, despite the stigma that is associated with it, which is techno-juridically misadjusted. In effect, the constitution and questioning as arguidos, while used to confirm indications towards the committing of crimes, are also used, with equal strength and reason, to infirm indications and to eliminate suspects.

As judiciously stressed in the sentence dated 06.10.1990 by the then Judge of the Police Court of Lisbon. "The authority that directs the inquiry is not free to postpone the moment when a witness passes into arguido status (. . .) if diligences are being performed, which are destined to prove her imputation, that affect her personally (. . .)"
Colectânea de Jurisprudência, 1990, vol. IV. p.323 and following.

The constitution of Gerald and Kate McCann as arguidos at that moment is nothing more that the practical fulfilment of the right to defence of those arguidos, which is to say, to ensure their concrete rights to "co-determine or conform the process' final decision. Said rights assume consistency and effectiveness, according to the new Code, right after the moment of constitution as an arguido, and therefore, still during the inquiry and the instruction." - Professor Jorge de Figueiredo Dias, "Sobre os sujeitos processuais no novo Código de Processo Penal" Jornadas de Processo Penal, CEJ, Livraria Almedina, 1988, p 28.

Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act."


"Why did you then LIE to Gerry about the DNA in the hire car? As previously stated, the British FSS made it clear that the test results were inconclusive, and should in no way form part of any investigation. Yet four days later, you lied to Gerry McCann, telling him the results were 100% positive. Is it usual to ‘overstate the strength’ of evidence in this way?"

Nowhere, in any of the statements, does it state the PJ told Gerry McCann that the DNA results, were a 100% positive match to that of Madeleine. It is you who is the liar here Nigel. 


"Is it true that pieces of paper which could have contained vital information in this investigation were just strewn about the PJ offices?"

Yet again you provide no primary, or attributable source for this question. I have seen articles about this, but not any confirmation whatsoever. I can only conclude, you have added this to paint Goncalo Amaral in a bad light, as was your motivation for writing your blog.


"If you wanted Kate to answer your questions, why didn’t you leave her a witness, explaining that under Portuguese law, witnesses are obliged by law to answer police questions?"

See my reply to Question 29.


"Did she stop answering questions on the advice of her Portuguese lawyer?"

Surely that would be a question for Kate McCann to answer. Gerry seemed ok answering most of his questions, despite being an arguido. I wonder if perhaps they were scared their version of events, wouldn't match up. 


"And how, given the secrecy order, did the fact that she had not answered these questions leak out from the investigation you were then heading?"

There could be a great number of reasons for this, Kate was accompanied by Justine McGuinnes at the time, there were also representatives from the UK, as well, as friends of the McCanns. This leak, as you put it, could have sprung from anywhere,


"Is it true you made the McCann’s arguidos “too hastily” just 8 days BEFORE the law was Due to change in Portugal? Is it true that if you had waited to make the McCann’s arguidos, you would have had to produce hard and fast evidence to do so? Is it true that you made the McCann’s arguidos then because you had NO evidence to back your suspicions?"

Please! Do you get all your spin from newspaper articles Nigel? Carlos Pinto de Abreu, the McCanns lawyer suggested that might have been the case, but as you can see above in reply to question 29. There was plenty of evidence against the McCanns. The decision to make the couple arguidos, was as already explained, to make sure that their legal rights were upheld, and as part of a  natural progression of the investigation; to try and discover more information regarding the disappearance of Madeleine. The decision to make Kate and Gerry McCann arguidos, was firmly backed by the Republic's Prosecutor José de Magalhaes e Menezes, and 
the Joint General Prosecutor, Joao Melchior Gomes, as late as August 2008. Desperation is a terrible trait Nigel. 


"Who do you think as been leaking highly sensitive reports to the Portuguese press?"

Let's see, so many possibilities, 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: 

"In an astonishing attack today Portuguese police union chief Carlos Anjos told respected Portuguese daily Jornal de Noticias: "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."

Sourced from Gerry McCann's blogs by Pamalam.

Isabel Duarte

I doubt Goncalo Amaral, spent much time thinking about which of their employees/friends/family was doing it at any one time.

Heck, even Isabel Duarte, the lawyer the McCanns used to unsuccessfully sue Amaral, was at it.

Click here to read how McCanns' lawyer leaked court reports before their release.


"Is it true that you dismissed many sightings, one in particular in Morocco, on the grounds that you assume Madeleine is dead and her parents are to blame?"

Ah, Morocco. I'm so glad you brought this little gem up, though I suspect you won't be happy it's being answered. After all, you will know that the Moroccan sightings were brought about by a paid "witness" from Metodo 3. The dodgy private detectives, hired by Kate and Gerry to "find"
Madeleine. Before I answer your question though, let's have a little delve into the seedy, illegal past of Metodo 3. 

Metodo 3 were a private investigator firm, used by the McCanns, and based in Spain.
  • Despite claiming to have reunited 23 missing children with their families, Metodo 3 actually had never found a missing child.
  • Were paid £50,000 a month from the Find Madeleine fund, as confirmed by Clarence Mitchell.
  • Had a history of money laundering, and were found to be in possession of handguns, ammunition, listening equipment, cassettes and transcripts of taped phone calls.
  • Francisco Marco - head of the firm bragged; 'We know who the kidnappers are and we are very, very close to catching them.", yet never once provided any evidence to substantiate his bold claim.
  • Offered money to lawyer Dr Marcos Aragão Correia, who stated that; "the Spanish detectives asked me to arrange for evidence against Gonçalo Amaral".
  • Used a detective, Antonio Giménez Raso, with connections to drug cartels. 
Kate McCann confirmed Metodo 3 were working for them, in her book "madeleine". She also confirmed that the corrupt agency had links to the Spanish police:

"Our first investigators the Spanish company Metodo 3, began working for us in October.  With private investigations technically illegal in Portugal,  we felt the closest we would get would be a firm from somewhere on the Iberian Peninsula which would have the advantage of familiarity with local systems,  culture and geography and the best network of contacts in the region.  M3 also had links to the Spanish police"

She is quite correct. The particular links were to Antonio Giménez Raso, former Spanish police officer, who left the force after being accused of his part in the theft of 440kg of cocaine from a Spanish dockyard in 2005. An offence Giménez was remanded for in 2008, for a total of 4 years, with a recommendation that he serve 18 years in prison. 

Now, let's say for argument's sake, I was you, at this point, I would end this topic there. However, I'm not here to smear, and throw out half truths, so I will add that Giménez, was in the end found not guilty, on the basis of "not enough proof to convincingly convict". As a Portuguese friend of mine always says, "a decision from a court may not be agreed with, it must though, be respected."

However, the judge did state, that there was an existence of a "strange marriage" between the drug dealers, and the agents. Relationships were "intertwined", and that "favours in excess of professional ethics" were apparent.

No surprise then that it was Giménez, who, whilst working for Metodo 3, brought to the attention, several alleged sightings of Madeleine in Morocco. The precise location of these "sightings", was the Rif mountains. 

Morocco is reportedly responsible for 70% of cannabis resin imported into Europe, with the Rif mountains being the hub of it's cultivation, and production. It then makes it's way into Europe via Spain. More alarming though, is the passage of cocaine from Morocco to Spain.

Ah, those relationships intertwining once more hey Nigel?

Giménez, who worked for Metodo 3, and who is the man reported to be the source of these "sightings" stands accused, by Moroccan security services, of paying witnesses for false leads. 

We know the McCanns love a good "sighting" when the heat is turned up. A more cynical man would say, what better time for one, than when you have just been named arguidos, and what better time to employ a corrupt, private detective agency, with no previous experience of finding children, when all you could do with, is a sighting to feed the press. More importantly, put into the minds of the the Great British public, that Madeleine is alive and well, possibly living behind a high walled building in Morocco. Those backwater Portuguese police have it all wrong, and therefore they must be innocent. Donate, donate, donate!

I of course, digress. The Moroccan sighting, despite your weak attempt at a good old bit of smearing, was investigated:

"Leaping forward in time and in the chronology of the investigation, we come to the end of September, a few days after the McCanns' return to Great Britain. Repeated statements from clan McCann, who are not budging from the Moroccan trail - will we ever know why? - encourage a young Spanish woman to examine more closely photos she had taken during her holiday in Morocco. Before leaving, she had not been aware, she said, of this Moroccan lead. In one of her photos, taken from a vehicle, a North African family is seen, walking along a road. A woman is carrying a little girl on her back: it can only be Madeleine. Someone tells me about this witness statement and wants to know what I think. I have obviously still not seen the photo and even so I respond, convinced: "Unfortunately, it's got to be a mistake." 

We ask the chief of Leicestershire police, Stuart Prior, where he is up to with it. He explains that the English police, after having seen the photo, immediately submitted it to the McCanns, asking them if they recognised their daughter. To which they replied with a, "perhaps." Incomprehensible to say the least. We are shocked by the behaviour of the English, who took that initiative, without consulting us, us, the people responsible for the investigation, which is all the more ludicrous given that the McCanns were already considered as suspects. That way of doing things disrupts the strategy adopted for the investigation, which the Portuguese and English police agreed on. 

It's only in the morning papers the following day, that I get to see the photo. There is a group of people, obviously Moroccan, with a woman whose clothes practically cover her from head to foot. She is carrying a blonde child on her back. Those who thought this photo constituted an important lead were missing an important detail: this woman's face - it was plain to see - was white; perhaps she was dressed like that for protection from the sun. So, the little girl could well be hers. This will be confirmed later on: the mother, of European origin, is married to a Moroccan. Once again, it's wasn't Maddie...Another false hope."


"In your opinion would a family oriented resort catering largely to British visitors suffer if it became known that a British child had been abducted by a human trafficking ring operating in the Algarve?"

This has to be one of your more stupid, and agenda riddled questions Nigel. It's like asking if a restaurant would suffer if a customer got food poisoning. Unless you can provide any evidence of human trafficking in the Algarve, I suggest you stop typing utter rubbish. I find it most perplexing, that you and those like you, seemingly wish for a none existent paedophile/human trafficking ring. 


"According to rumours leaked about the McCanns from these sources “close to the PJ” the group were said to have drunk 14 bottles of wine on the night of May 3? The bill from the restaurant in your files indicates ONLY 2 bottle of wine and several bottles of non-alcoholic beverages (for the entire group) — how would you explain that discrepancy?"

Oh dear, another fail on your behalf Nigel. The source for the 14 bottles of wine story came from a journalist, Fabricia Carbrita, and was published in Sol, on August 18th 2007. There was no mention of the PJ having given the information.

A waiter however, Jose Baptista, did tell the press the McCanns and their friends drank 8 - 10 bottles of wine. No leak from the PJ on this one I'm afraid. Next!


"Why are you so adamant that Madeleine died in the apartment, yet are totally unable to explain why, with not one shred of evidence to back this ‘hunch’ up?"


The dogs, possibly the most damning element against the McCanns.

Let's have a look at their findings:

Keela, a 16 month old springer spaniel, was at the top of her field when she went to PDL in 2007. Trained by Martin Grime (who later went on to work for the FBI) she could sniff out the most microscopic specks of blood, even if the item had been cleaned or washed. To avoid any confusion Keela was trained to alert to nothing but human blood. So any talk of her alerting to anything else is pure fiction. 

Eddie (pictured right) who was 7 at the time, boasts an outstanding record of success. The FBI rated Eddie and Martin Grime as "two of the best in the law enforcement speciality of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed." Eddie was trained to alert to smell of human cadaver (the smell given off from a human corpse), as well as human blood. 

To give a better idea a dogs nose is 10,000 times more sensitive to smells than our own. They can pick out every ingredient of a smell and separate it, much in the same way you or I could sort out different shaped wooden blocks. If we were handed a box of blocks containing sphere's, cubes, and pyramids, and told to put all the cubes to one side we could do it. A cadaver dogs nose works in the same way, it separates all the elements of one scent, examines each one in it's own right, and determines if human cadaver is present.

So what did the dogs find? Having gone through several other apartments at the Ocean club, and alerting to nothing, both dogs alerted to a number of places in and around the McCann's apartment, and their hire car.

Keela (below) alerted to human blood in:

The living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment.

In the McCanns’ hired Renault Scenic, hired 25 days AFTER Madeleine's disappearance.

On the car key.

In the interior of the car boot.

Eddie alerted to the scent of human cadaverine:

The wardrobe in the McCann's bedroom.

In the living room, behind the sofa, close to the external window of the apartment. (the same place as Keela).

The flower beds in the back of 5a.

On two items of Kate's clothing.

On one of the children's t shirts.

On cuddlecat (Madeleine's soft toy)

Not only that, but out of several cars in a car park Eddie only alerted to one, the McCanns' hire car.

Couple that with the fact that it was Eddie and Keela's findings led the forensic team to the discovery of DNA that could have belonged to Madeleine, and I think you'll agree (quietly), that those pesky dogs, were truly fantastic.

Below are three videos showing Eddie and Keela's searches.

....and here more information on their findings.


"How likely is it that Gerry could have returned to Madeleine’s alleged burial place twenty six days after you claim she died, disinterred the body, and moved it to a new burial site, under the full glare of the world’s media, without being spotted?"

Interesting that you only mention Gerry. As for the McCanns being under the full glare of the worlds media...

August 3rd Jon Corner films Gerry loading the Scenic, the one Eddie and Keela alerted to, a trip to Huelva, Spain is about to commence.

What we have below is the version of events according to the Sun newspaper, and then what actually happened:

According to the Sun:

09:00 Leave Praia da Luz

12:15 Arrive Huelva (expected at 11:00am)

13:00 Distribute leaflets and posters at train station

13:30 Distribute leaflets and posters at cathedral

14:00 Distribute leaflets and posters at bus station

14:20 Leave to return to Praia da Luz

But the police have the phone ping records and a witness statement which tell a different timeline:

Phone records:

Ping Assumadas mast 08:49

Ping Tavira mast 13:45

Ping Luz 14:38

Saw Mccanns in car at traffic lights in Huelva 11:20

This gives us a new timeline:

Leave Praia de Luz 07:49

Assumadas ping ( from Luz 84k 57 mins ) 08:49

Arrive Huelva (from Assumadas 122k 1hr 20) 10:10 (11:10 local time - 1 hour difference 
between Portugal and Spain)

Sighting in Huelva 11:20 (10:20 Portuguese time)

Leave Huelva latest 12:45

Tavira ping (from Huelva 85k 1hr) 13:45

Praia de Luz ping (from Tavira 115k 1hr 15) 14:38

So what is the importance of this contradiction? Well what it shows is that the McCanns made a concerted effort to drive some 118km passing through some highly populated towns in Portugal namely:


Lagos............................................ 30,700

Portimão......................................... 50,500

Albufeira......................................... 13,600 

Faro................................................ 42,000

Tavira.............................................. 10,600

Vila Real de Santo Antonio.............. 18,000

That's a total of 165,400 people, all living in Portugal in towns where the McCanns could have 
put up posters and handed out leaflets. 

Not only did the McCanns pass through these areas without stopping, they also alerted the press to their presence in Huelva, only stayed for 2 hours, and perhaps crucially, lost the press for two hours. So what did they do during those two hours, and where did they go?

The PJ were known to have investigated the McCanns as to a great number of miles clocked up on the hire car that couldn't be explained. Kate McCann claims that this isn't possible, giving the following excuse:

"The meticulous record of events in my journals enabled us to account for every journey we made in the Renault Scenic"

But Kate didn't have her journals did she, they were seized by the PJ's forensic team the previous day.


"How many 3 and 4 hour long lunch breaks did you take during the 4 months you were meant to be looking for Madeleine McCann?"

Oh, we're up to 3 and 4 hour long lunch breaks now are we. Keep adding an hour, and soon you'll have Snr. Amaral having 25 hour long lunch breaks every day.

You are of course referring to the article that originated in The Daily Telegraph, dated May 26th 2007.

"Rarely observed at the scene of Madeleine's abduction or available for comment, those leading the investigation have frequently been spotted lunching at the Carvi seafood restaurant in Portimão."

A man's got to eat right?

That one sentence, became the magic bean that Jack's mother cast out the window, as you have perfectly demonstrated here.

To prove this, I'll put a link up to Winn's blog, who catalogued the story's hyperbolic growth perfectly:

Click here to read more.


"Do you always drink alcohol while on duty?"

Do you always smoke crack when you write a blog Nigel? 

Baseless, defamatory, and a blatant smear.


"Is it a part of your investigative techniques to talk about, and reveal, highly sensitive information during an ongoing high profile police investigation?"

Again, you seem to be throwing out unfounded allegations in the sneaky form of a question. During an interview with The Portugal News, Snr. Amaral had this to say of leaks to the press:

"The Portugal News: Did you leak information about the investigation to the media?

Gonçalo Amaral: I never had anything to do with leaks. We have to look at from where these leaks could have originated. A number of entities worked with us during the investigations and we cannot rule out the possibility that some of these leaks originated in Britain. As a matter of fact, when the FSS handed over their report to Portuguese police, we kept it under wraps, but a British daily was the first to appear with extracts of the FSS’s findings.

TPN: But how does that explain that some sections of the Portuguese press have printed confidential information that later proved to be accurate?

GA: Perhaps they had good sources of information, but we cannot conclude that they were given information by police in the Algarve."


"May 5 – Portuguese police reveal they believe Madeleine was abducted but is still alive and in Portugal, and say they have a sketch of a suspect.

May 25 – Detectives finally release a description of the man reported by Jane Tanner three weeks earlier following pressure from the McCann’s, their legal team and the British Government. Why did it take the PJ 20 days, and more importantly, so much pressure, to release a sketch of a suspect?"

Ah, Jane Tanner. From the get go, Jane Tanner's descriptions seemed not to be credible. She failed to mention the man, more commonly referred to as "Tannerman" to Kate and Gerry on the night Madeleine was reported missing. Her reason for this being that she didn't want to "torture them more in their suffering". I'm willing to take that at face value. However, Tanner described a man travelling in an easterly direction, whereas the scent that the tracker dogs all followed was in a southerly direction. From the files: 


So immediately, Jane Tanner's sighting, isn't holding much water. The sighting became of even less importance, when Tanner stated that she only saw the man from the back, and therefore couldn't describe his features.

Click here to read Jane Tanner's first statement.

All of the above, is of course irrelevant. Scotland Yard ruled out the man Jane Tanner claimed to have seen, stating that he came forward, and eliminated himself from the investigation. The pressure put on the PJ, proved pointless, and could in fact have hampered the investigation.

What of course is of greater concern, is the fact that despite this man being ruled out, the McCanns still have his efit up on their website. Even more worrying, is the situation of the McCanns not publishing, for five long years, the efit of a man Scotland Yard claim "could be the man who took Madeleine". The McCanns had this efit in their possession since 2008, yet it never made it onto OFM until after Crimewatch, when Scotland Yard produced it for the first time in public. The efit in question became centrepiece of the programme in October 2013. 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 Nigel, whilst you ask why the PJ didn't produce a sketch of a man they rightly believed wasn't involved, I ask this. Why did it take the McCanns five years, to publish the efit, they had in their possesion, who clearly could have been?


"Concerning you professional career, how many missing child/abduction cases have you investigated? Was there any controversy over those cases?"

Goncaolo Amaral has been involved in one high profile missing child case before. As you know that was the the murder of Joana Cipriano, (you'd do well to learn how to spell her name correctly, and perhaps then move onto the particulars of the case itself). 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. I realise that must be disappointing for you, and your agenda, but it's true.
Controversy over the Joana Cipriano case? You really shouldn't go there. We've seen apologists make excuses for the killers of Joana Cipriano for years. You've even managed to brainwash a few, into believing the convictions weren't sound. Quite honestly, the contempt I have for you, and anybody else who knowingly defend convicted child killers to serve their own agenda, is palpable. I only hope some of those who follow your views, and unknowingly support you, will finally see through you.

I'm not going to write a narrative here, instead I will use bullet points, of just some of the points, 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:

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. 

An interesting analogy Syn once used to someone of a similar attitude as yours was this:

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'

It's all about the smear campaign hey Nigel?

Despite all that...

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

Due to Leonor Cipriano being convicted of lying about being tortured, Amnesty International hold no further records of the allegation. Have a look:


"Due to the very close proximity (about 7 miles) that Joanna Cipriano went missing, did you ever consider that there may be a connection between the abductions of Joanna and Madeleine?"

Nice try Nigel, I think the reply above answers this question. Oh, and FYI Figueira is 12.7 miles from Praia da Luz; don't give up the day job.


"How would you have handled a connection between these two missing children if it had emerged?

There was no connection, so your question is vacuous.


"Is it true you spent most of your career in the drug enforcement branch of the PJ, hunting down and prosecuting drug smugglers and suppliers? If so, in what way do you think your past experience qualifies you to head the search for an abducted little girl?"

Goncalo Amaral was born on the 2nd of October 1959 in the village of Torredeita near Viseu, Portugal. 

In 1973 he joined the Public Administration, aged 14.

November 1981 Began to study the formation of agents of the Judicial Police, and took office in 1982 as Agent. 

1992/1997 Studied at night time, the Faculty of Law of Lisbon, having graduated in Law and Criminal Sciences. 

1997/1998 Attended the course of sub-inspectors of the PJ, being ranked first among 100 students. 

2000/2001 Completed the course coordinators of PJ. He served in Lisbon, the Algarve and the Azores. Snr. Amaral was involved in solving a multitude of illegal activities, including of violent and organized crime: theft, robbery, murder, drug trafficking.

"During this time, did you come into contact with any other smugglers of a different kind, e.g. child traffickers?"

Why would he? There are no unsolved cases of missing children within the Algarve during Snr. Amaral's time with the PJ.

Nigel then signs off with the following 3 sentences:

"I think that last one is, quite probably, the most important of all. Sadly, I doubt that we’ll ever get any truthful answers from him. Cowardice is another of his many failings."

I think I've just proved you wrong Nigel, all the answers were out there, freely available at your fingertips. Pity you either didn't bother to look, or didn't want to. I suspect, knowing what I do of you, that you hoped these questions would go unanswered, and that because of the way they were worded, people would draw their own conclusions. Sorry to wreck your little smear campaign there.

I think what this piece proves, is that you and those like you, will go to any lengths to sully, defame, and drag through the mud, anybody who dares to suspect the suspicious. You don't care who you hurt in the process, or the extremes you got to. What was it you said on the day Brenda Leyland died, ah yes "Trollmageddon.

I think it's obvious who the real villains are here Nigel. You see one of them every time you shave, though with your malicious lies, and appetite for defending convicted child killers, I doubt you can look in that mirror for long...

All the information presented within this blog, was gathered from the following links: