Britain's Finest

http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/videos/video/14109980/1


Scotland Yard speaks of new data that has been collected by the English investigation. But the Judiciary Police has another version.

The thesis that points towards a suspect of alleged sexual attacks against British children in the Algarve is nothing but the investigation line that was defined by the PJ team in Oporto, which reviewed the entire process.

A source at the Judiciary Police asserts that this was the line that was the basis for the reopening of the inquiry, in October last year.

This means that what has just been announced in England is part of the Portuguese process, which is under judicial secrecy. A secret that had been well kept until now and that was breached, which may weaken the trust between both police forces.

This information was given by the PJ itself to the British police and to the McCann couple, during a meeting at the Judiciary Police’s National Directory, in Lisbon.

There is an agreement between both police forces: they regularly meet in Portugal. They exchange information about the development of the investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The PJ has always kept silent about what happens during these meetings that take place behind closed doors. A stance that is being kept: Officially, the National Directory does not comment Scotland Yard’s statement.

Thank you Astro for the translation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scotland Yard spricht von neuen Daten, die durch die englische Untersuchung ermittelt wurden. Aber die Policia Judiciaria hat ihre eigene Version.

Die These, die auf einen Verdächtigen deutet, der angeblicher sexueller Übergriffe auf Kinder in der Algarve verdächtigt wird, ist nichts anderes als der Ermittlungsansatz, der vom PJ Team aus Porto verfolgt wird, das den gesamten Prozess überprüft.

Eine Quelle innerhalb der PJ versichert, dass dieser Ermittlungsansatz die Basis zur Wiedereröffnung der Untersuchung im Oktober letzten Jahres war.

Dies bedeutet, dass das, was gerade in England verkündet wurde, Teil der portugiesischen Untersuchung (Prozess) ist, der unter juristischer Geheimhaltung steht. Einer Geheimhaltung, die bis jetzt gut gewahrt wurde und die nun gebrochen wurde, was das Vertrauen zwischen beiden Polizeiorganisationen schwächen könnte.

Diese Information wurde von der PJ selbst der britischen Polizei übermittelt und dem Ehepaar McCann bei einem gemeinsamen Treffen in der Hauptdirektion der PJ in Lissabon.

Es gibt eine Vereinbarung zwischen beiden Polizeikräften: Sie treffen sich regelmäßig in Portugal. Sie tauschen Informationen über die Entwicklung der Untersuchungen bzgl. des Verschwindens von Madeleine McCann aus.

Die PJ haben immer Stillschweigen darüber gewahrt, was während dieser Treffen hinter verschlossenen Türen stattfindet. Eine Einstellung, an der weiterhin festgehalten wird: Offiziell kommentiert der National Director Scottland Yard's Erklärung nicht.

vierminutenfünfzigsekunden

ohne Worte

Click To Play

Gerry: ask the dogs
Sandra: I am asking you, Gerry

Dank an Duarte Levy fürs Uploaden auf Blip.TV

Ich habe mit der Niederschrift des Interviews angefangen für die, die Gerrys Englisch nicht folgen können. Übersetzen werde ich das wohl erst einmal nicht können.
Hier der erste Teil von dreien, wie sie auf Youtube gepostet wurden:

Sandra: Hello Kate, Hi Gerry. You have called us here, or invited us here to show these two new pictures of how Madeleine might look like now at the age of six and also to watch a video, a new appeal video, but you have been recently together in Lisbon. Have you truely felt that the portuguese public opinion is still with you?

Gerry: I think obviously there has been a lot written that is very negative, and ehm it is inevitable that given so much..., so much was written negative about us, that some people felt that we were involved, that we do feel now, that legal action has been taken and the judicial process has seen that there is no evidence to support what has been written.

Sandra: You are talking about Goncalo Amaral's book?

Gerry: Yeah, but also with the publication of the file in the first place erm an initial process of the criminal erm file and regarding Madeleine's disappearance. You know there is no evidence that we were involved and subsequently the action we have taken recently I think that people are now prepared to continue the search for Madeleine and that is why we are here today asking people to help us trying to get this very important message...

Sandra: But how can you explain that Goncalo Amaral has sold over 175.000 copies defending that you played the keyrole in Madeleine's disappearance?

Kate: I mean I think it's important to remember Sandra, the only victim in all of this is Madeleine erm and that is obviously why we are here today really, we are trying to, we are trying to (sigh) reach that person who knows something, and there is somebody who knows something, not the person who has taken Madeleine, but the person on the periphery, and that might just be erm a colleague of the person, a neighbour, a fami..., you know this person, the abductor, has got a mother, a brother, a cousin, a part of family, so that...

Sandra: Do you believe that the public opinion in Portugal right now after reading the book of Goncalo Amaral erm still can support you? Still can answer to that appeal?

Gerry: Now that's the key point why we are taking action Sandra and that is part of the legal process as you know. There is already an injunction out against the book He is banned from repeating his thesis that Madeleine is dead and we were involved. Now that has been two separate judges plus the original judgemental file have said that thats what we will do with discussing the facts. Thats the correct place to discuss.Goncalo Amaral. And the Book...

Sandra: Are you saying that Goncalo Amaral doesn't have the right to share his opinion, his conviction under the evidence he gathered into a book? He doesn't have freedom of expression to say that and to publish it?

Gerry: There is a difference between freedom of expression and evidence to support a theory. What the judges have said there isn't evidence to support this theory, so he shouldn't be saying it. And is about as much as we want to say about him. You know that's a legal process and we have challenged it, it's been through the judicial process and thats....

Sandra: The files were closed and no thesis won. How can you explain that after Goncalo Amaral, Paulo Rebelo, the next investigator, also pursued this thesis? He also investigated the possibility of you both play the keyrole in Madeleine's disappearance?

Gerry: It was investigated, the evidence was presented to the judiciary, and the judiciary concluded there was no evidence to support that thesis, that's very...

Sandra: No DNA, but how do you explain...

Gerry: No no...

Sandra: ...the coincidence...

Gerry: The DNA is only one aspect of it, there was no evidence to support our involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, that is the key thing. Madeleine is still missing, we are here as her family to continue the search. Now I can't speak for people who have read the book but obviously it doesn't stand up to critical appraisal (?).

Sandra: But this is the first time that you give us a big interview not being arguidos, not being arguidos. Since then. erm. So now I feel free to ask you this directly. How can you explain the coincidence of the scent of cadaver found by british and not portuguese dogs?

Kate: Sandra, maybe you should ask the judiciary because they have examined all evidence. I mean we are also Madeleine's mum and dad and we are desperate for people to help us find Madeleine which is why we are here today. The majority of people are inherently good and I believe the majority of people in Portugal are inherently good people and I am asking them if they will help us spread this message to that person or people...

Sandra: So you don't have an explanation for that?

Gerry: Ask the dogs (smirk) Sandra.

Sandra: Ask the dogs? No Gerry. Now I feel free to ask you, don't you feel free to answer me?

Gerry: I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.

Sandra: Unreliable?

Gerry: Cadaver dogs, yes. That's what the evidence shows, if they are tested scientifically.

Sandra: You read the files, Kate?

Kate: Yes I have read the files.

Sandra: What did shock you most? Any part of the... any detail that...you weren't... aware of? Something that has really surprised you or you didn't find anything?

Kate: Oh I have been through them and I have made notes and I passed that on to our investigation team obviously.

Sandra: And you found any evidence? Of anything?

Kate: Well obviously the only evidence I wanna find is who has taken Madeleine and where she is. They are the key things and until we actually get that bit of information you know we are always gonna feel like we are a long way away. But basically what we are doing is trying to get as much information as we can and trying to put the jig-shaw, jigsaw together, so finally we have the complete picture.

Sandra: And what about your friends? Did you have a pact of silence with your friends?

Kate: (laughing) You know the judicial secrecy?

Sandra: I know it but we don't have it anymore.

Gerry: You have to put it into context of the situation that we were in...

Sandra: But now is the time to explain it...

Gerry: That, ar.. ar... article that was written in June was directly as a result of the journalist phoning all of us, and saying what can you tell us about it and we were under explicit instructions that we were not to talk about the details of the case, under judicial secrecy. So that is all that people did. And I don't think that should be considered a pact of silence.We were told, that's what we were to do. And you wouldn't expect witnesses in other cases in any country to begin divulging information that may be useful to the perpetrator of the crime.

Teil 2

Sandra: Are you still friends? Do you plan another trips together or did it damage...?

Kate and Gerry: No No

Kate: We are still friends. We haven't got any holidays planned but we are still friends. We are in touch with each other, we still meet up and see each other.

Sandra: Don't you agree that there were a lot of details that in a certain way contribute to people to doubt of you, for example, when you went to the Vatican so quickly, all the contacts that you have made. Can I ask you Gerry, if you personally know Mr. Gordon Brown the Primeminister?

Gerry: (moving on his chair uncomfortably) No, and we still, we have never met Gordon Brown. We have spoken to him once on the phone several weeks after Madeleine was abducted. People have got to remember that, and what today is about... good ordinary people wanted to help find an innocent missing child. And that's what happened. Clearly there was a huge amount of media coverage and people wanted to look at ways to help. Our government wanted to assist the investigation to find the missing child.

Sandra: Are they still supporting you, Mr. Gordon Brown still talks to you directly?

Gerry: We have had continued meetings with both the Home Office and also with the Foreign Office to discuss ways in which the search can continue. Obviously today is a prime example of law enforcement-LED initiative with CEOP with... in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, Interpol, Europol, and you know, the key thing is, that law enforcement believe we can get information from those who may know.

Sandra: How could you explain that Clarence Mitchell left the British Government where he was a press speaker to be your press speaker?

Gerry: Obviously, when Clarence came first out to Portugal working for the Government at that time he came out and spent I think almost three, two to three weeks with us, and he got to know us very very well, and he felt very very passionate about the search for Madeleine and when the opportunity arose, erm, you know, we asked him if he would come back and shield us from the intense media interest and that is what Clarence has done superbly well, and he has become an extremely good friend during this.

Sandra: But he must be paid.?

Gerry: He was paid, that's right

Sandra: And now he must be paid?

Gerry: yeah, but you know...

Sandra: Isn't it difficult for you to pay him?

Gerry: You know, in the first period Brian Kennedy paid his salary and then he was subsequently paid by the fund and now, you know, he works part-time on this, and he is a consultant for Freud Agency, so, you know, as the media interest dropped down, we haven't needed a full-time spokesperson. He still works with us, we are working very closely with him and he has done a brilliant job protecting us and allowing us to have some degree of normality as a family considering the very very intense media interest.

Sandra: You have also hired a new communication agency back in Portugal. Why do you think you need it and is it easy for you to afford it?

Gerry: Well again, it is an agreement that it is funded out of Madeleine's fund. It's a decision that was made by the directors of the fund, because we felt... Kate and I are both directors of the fund, there are nine directors in total, that to really make the search successful we had to present information to the portuguese public, given how much had been written in a negative way about us, and obviously we want to work with someone who understands the portuguese culture and the portuguese media and how we could persuade people that Madeleine is still out there and still can be found....

Sandra: Until when do you think that you will afford all this? Two lawyers in Portugal, a news agency, Clarence Mitchell... I don't know if you still have the two lawyers that you have hired here in London?

Kate: It's not ideal, you know, Sandra. We wouldn't have any lawyers, we wouldn't need any appeal if we weren't in the situation....

Sandra: But don't you feel strangled? Don't you feel that some day you feel it will be finished the money?

Kate: We have to do whatever we can to find Madeleine and obviously we have to look at sort of , you know, if the fund starts to run out we have to try and get more money in, we can't stop...

Sandra: And how do you do it?

Gerry: Well, you know, people have been extremely kind. You have to remember that the fund was set up initially because so many people offered money to try and help and wanted to help and were prepared to donate. We would love nothing better for Madeleine to be found and for the remaining moneys in the fund to go to helping other families of missing children both in the UK and in Portugal, and that is one of our objectives when we have found Madeleine... AND her abductor, then the moneys will be used for that. Obviously if the money runs out... is running out, then we have to look at alternative ways of fundraising erm we have done small events, community events, which have been very good for teambuilding. We have had a small auction in Madeleine's school and the school where the twins are.

Sandra: Do you still have the support of Mr. Richard Branson, JK Rowling, this multimillionaire that initially gave you a lot of money?

Gerry: (burblegurgle) ..an independent investigation that has been funded completely out of Madeleine's fund... I mean an event like today, there is no specific cost for it, and this is obviously the internet, people already have subscriptions, they can do this. There is the willingness of the population to help and I think we will find hundreds of thousands if not millions of people today will forward this link to their contacts in countries all over the world. That is cheap.

Sandra: Do you still have money in the fund?

Gerry: There is some money still in the fund and it continues to be used and we will use every single penny in that fund in the search for Madeleine.

Teil 3

Sandra: You have asked Goncalo Amaral to pay you 1 million euros for damage erm for the defamation for example. Do you need that money to finance the campaign?

Kate: The reason why we have taken action against Goncalo Amaral is the damage that he has done for Madeleine. That's our main focus.

Sandra: Which motives could he have to make up all this story?

Gerry: We can't speak for Goncalo Amaral.

Sandra: But I presume that you think something? Why should an investigator make it up, a story without evidence

Kate: It has to be financial gain, hasn't it?

Sandra: You think that he made this with the commercial perspective?

Kate: You would have to ask him to get the answer to this.

Sandra: So this is your idea?

Kate: It's a possibility, isn't it. I mean I have....

Sandra: You think Goncalo Amaral is trying to win money playing with your, erm your child's life?

Kate: We have to wonder why an ex-inspector of the PJ would want to convince the population that Madeleine is dead, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. And that question should be asked.

Sandra: Do you feel that there is a difference of treatment between the portuguese authorities and the british authorities? In any moment did you feel, or do you feel still, that you were victims of the portuguese investigation?

Gerry: The key victim is Madeleine. I mean, that's what the crime is about. We know we had to be investigated. And we have been investigated.

Sandra: Sorry Gerry, but you Kate said once, that you were feeling bad with what they asked you inside the PJ, trying to get a confession from you...

Kate: I know the truth Sandra, you know what I mean, and all I want to do is find Madeleine and I was upset...

Sandra: So have you forgotten everything that already passed? It's passed for you both?

Kate: The only thing we can do now is look forward, you know, you know. There is lessons to be learned by everyone ourselves included, from what's happened. But, all we want to do is find Madeleine and the only way of doing that is by looking forwards and trying to be proactive and see what we can do now, which is why this message has gone out today.

Sandra: Did you go back to work? Are you working already?

Kate: I am working fulltime in the campaign to find Madeleine. I am looking after Sean and Amelie.

Sandra: You don't have any plans to go back to the clinic?

Kate: No I don't, no I don't

Sandra: You don't. And talking about the twins. Now the time is passing. Two years and a half since Madeleine disappeared. They are growing up. How will you be able to explain them what happened one day they have the age to really understand it?

Gerry: It's like filling in a picture for them with the information we have available and we will give them as their minds inquire, and as they are able to handle that information, then we will answer all of their questions openly and honestly.

Sandra: But what will you tell them

Gerry: Well, we will answer the questions. So what they ask us we will tell them. And we tell them exactly what happened and what information we know. And what we do know, is that we are continuing to look for their sister. They want people to look for their sister.

Sandra: But will you go into details about what happened?

Kate: We will be led by them. We have had avice from a child psychologist and they said Sean and Amelie would lead the way. If they ask a question answer them honestly. We are not gonna rush them, but if they ask something, then obviously we will answer them.

Sandra: They are in the same school where Madeleine was?

Gerry: Well she didn't get a chance to start yet so, she was there, her place is there, and the twins are there now.

Sandra: The room, Madeleine's room is still the same?

Kate: The bedroom? Yeah, it's quite a few more presents in it now, but yeah, it's still the same.

Sandra: And what do you keep telling the twins whenever they ask for her? I presume that they ask about her a lot of times?

Kate: Well they know she is missing, you know, and they know we are looking for her, and they also say things to me like, if they see things like a Madeleine sticker or a poster, they say "look Mummy they are helping to find Madeleine with us", and they might point at other people saying "Mummy are they helping us to find Madeleine?" and you know, so *shrugs*

Sandra: Is it still very hard for you or are you getting used to this reality? Are you trying to live with it?

Kate: You have to, I think, you have to adapt and you have to function. And if we want to look after Sean and Amelie, and if you want to search for Madeleine, then you have to function. Erm. I am obviously stronger than I was say a year ago, and, obviously the emotion is still there...but...*sigh*

Gerry: Well we do as much as we possibly can to ensure that the twins see us happy, and see us happy with them, and they give us a tremendous amount of joy, and our life, you know, on a day-to-day basis superficially would look like any other family with two young children. Obviously one of our children is missing. And they know that and they know that that's not good and they want her back and they understand why on occasion, you know, that we are particularly upset and... we all want Madeleine back to be a complete family again, but the twins are coping fantastically well...

Sandra: You told me once that you are both living a nightmare. In your more optimistical perspective, what do you imagine, what do you think, it could be the best way to recover Madeleine.

Gerry: I think, the first thing today is that this message, it can be downloaded and distributed, get heard and seen by someone who knows, and it will tweak their conscience and get them to give information to bring Madeleine back.

Sandra: The last lead that you have shared with us was about a women in Barcelona. Has this anything to do with this appeal? (Kate shakes head?) Is it for that, that you are asking the relatives of people that can be involved in her disappearance, to call you?

Gerry: I think the first thing to say is that ... investigation matters are to be dealt with by the professionals and obviously we have got David Edgar working for us or law enforcement as appropriate. Today is about this appeal. It is completely separate. It is going out in seven different languages, we want it to be spread as far and as wide as possible because we don't know where Madeleine is and we don't know who took her and that's why we need the public's help to spread the email, an email to all your contacts. I know you have already done it, Sandra.

Sandra: Thank you very much to you both.

Spotting the (Red) wood for the trees

Robbers, gypsys, tractormen. The UK media - fuelled by the Master Manipulator - is on the rampage again.

Some more serious reports emerging from Portugal can hardly drown the incessant noise. We learned over the weekend that it is not Mitchell's three robbers they are after (quelle surprise) but some workers from the Ocean's Club. Nobody official ever mentioned that they are suspects. So what is Redwood after?

The much more reliable portuguese media is telling us today:

Judiciary looks for driver from the hotel where Maddie disappeared from
...
The man, who is single and may now be 40 years old...

 In the files we have only two statements of drivers, and only one that fits the age.

If we dive further into the files (something no respected british journo is ever going to stoop to) we find his mobile number in the original statement taken by the Policia Judiciaria. Another search through the list of phone contacts compiled from the data of three mobile phone providers for the time between 21:45 and 22:15 - a time even the PJ seemed extremely interested in - reveals that this driver made one phonecall exactly at 21:51 a time that fits in perfectly with the timespan Andy Redwood refused to define as being still a part of the group's dinner.

His timeline for the movements of the group stopped at 21:40 and after having eliminated the non-existent Tannerman in favour of the elusive Crecheman, there is only Kate's insistence about the time of the alert of 22:00 that separates Gerry from a missing alibi for his meeting with the Smith family.

So it seems crucial that the time between 21:40 and 22:00 is subjected to extreme scrutiny and any employee or fellow holidaymaker that might have had knowledge of a search for a missing girl BEFORE 22:00 could make or break Redwood's case.

Thumbs up for the thoroughness with which SY is apparently checking that timespan and I hope that the idiots from the Mirror, the Sun, Sky and the Mail will stop copying the case endangering rubbish Clarence Mitchell throws them and instead start looking at the files and apply some common sense.

One can dream afterall...





(research as usual in collaboration with the very much appreciated posters of themaddiecasefiles.com)

The gloves are finally off (update)

After weeks of spin regarding the reason for the second ILOR desperation seems rife.


For the first time Team McCann are openly challenging the Scotland Yard Operation Grange.

These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007. Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or investigation@findmadeleine.com.

http://findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

Gerry desperately needs his alibi or at least the possibility of a teeny weeny bit of doubt regarding Tannerman. So it only took them about 2 months longer than most to figure that Tannerman might have been an invention of SY and to set up the challenge.

Poor Jane who might feel like a child having her christmas present taken from her.

But I love it and I hope discussions regarding a possible cover-up will finally cease.

---------------------------

Jetzt wirds endlich ernst

Nach Wochen voller Pressemeldungen, die sich in ihrer Lächerlichkeit überboten, was den Grund für das zweite Rechtshilfegesuch angeht, scheint die Verzweiflung groß zu sein,

Zum ersten Mal fordert Team McCann Scotland Yards Operation Grange offen heraus:

Diese beiden Bilder zeigen einen Mann, der ein Kind vom Apartment der Familie wegträgt. Dies wurde von einer Zeugin um 21:15 am Abend des 3. Mai 2007 beobachtet. Aufgrund neuerer Informationen glaubt die Metropolitan Police jetzt, dass dieser Mann ein Hotelgast gewesen sein könnte, der seine Tochter zurück zu seinem Apartment trug. Jedoch, da es nicht möglich ist mit Sicherheit zu sagen dass diese beiden Männer wirklich die gleiche Person sind, melden Sie sich bitte bei der Polizei(.....) wenn Sie den Mann auf dem Bild gesehen haben oder eine Vermutung haben, wer er sein könnte.

Gerry benötigt verzweifelt sein Alibi oder zumindest einen winzigen Schimmer eines Zweifels Tannerman betreffend. Sie benötigten also ungefähr 2 Monate länger als die meisten um herauszufinden, dass Tannerman eine mögliche Erfindung von SY sein könnte und die Herausforderung zu stellen.

Arme Jane, die sich wie ein Kind fühlen muss, dem man sein Weihnachtsgeschenk wieder wegnimmt.

Aber ich liebe  es und ich hoffe, dass die Diskussion über eine mögliche Vertuschung von Seiten der Polizei nun aufhören.

Decoding the Spin

It took some time and hefty googling into judicial pages that are not easily interpreted, but I think I have found a quite convincing interpretation of the Pink One's headlines.

 

 And to think that Kate herself gave the clue to Scotland Yard's possible agenda....

"We are incredibly relieved and buoyed by these developments and continue to hope for further collaboration in the near future with the possibility of a JIT (Joint Investigation Team) between Portugal and the UK to enhance the search for our dear daughter."

 So Google led the way:

Requests for setting up a JIT may often come from a Member State but could also often come from Europol and Eurojust. In some Member States this initial request must be in the form of a RogatoryLetter

https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/st15790-re01.en11.pdf

Now come to think of it... An arrest of the "Three Burglars" would never have been possible on a simple International Letter of Request. Only with a Joint Investigation Team would arrests be something to contemplate.

And then even the note sent in advance of the possible application for a JIT makes sense:

As some countries have implemented domestic administrative rules which, for example, stipulate notification of the competent ministries in the preparatory stage, the early involvement of all competent persons is of the utmost importance so as not to jeopardise or delay the whole process

And even the involvement of the CPS makes sense then:

In England and Wales a request (for a JIT) can be made by either a judicial authority or a by a designated prosecuting authority. Judicial authority includes any judge or justice of the peace. CPS and RCPO (before the merger) were both included in the list of designated prosecuting authorities under Crime (International Co-Operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Prosecuting Authorities) Orders, namely 2004 SI.1034 of 2004 and SI.1130 of 2005. 

So to sum this up: A possible application for a Joint Investigation Team had to be justified preemptively. The obvious reason for such a measure would be an arrest (spin). And who would be the focus of such an arrest? Obviously a gang of burglars (three as the mystic number) (spin)

In order to preempt possible speculation regarding this:

Prosecutors must obviously satisfy themselves that the courts in England and Wales have jurisdiction in relation to the alleged offending. Prosecutors should consult Jurisdiction elsewhere in Legal Guidance for further information.

If the investigation or proceedings are cross-border in nature then it is possible that another state would also have jurisdiction to try an offence. Co-operation with international partners on such cases can help to ensure that best evidence is obtained, that duplication of work is avoided, and that concurrent prosecutions are avoided. Within the EU, consideration can also be given to the possibility of setting up a joint investigation team. Both investigators and prosecutors must be alive to these issues. If not, there is a danger that investigations can be compromised, e.g. by law enforcement agencies of two states investigating an offence unaware of the others interest. There is also a risk that prosecution in one state will prevent prosecution in the other state where stronger evidence may have been gathered, i.e. by application of the rule of ne bis in idem, double jeopardy.

Good Luck to the Team.

And no, I won't translate all that judicial stuff, sorry...

The Three Robbers

We know nooooothing, but it is likely it is the three burglars

 

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587

Eine Bitte

Eine Bitte geäußert von "Astro" aus Portugal, die ich mitlerweile sehr zu schätzen gelernt habe.

"Bitte unterstützt die Verteidigung von Goncalo Amaral im Verleumdungsprozess.

Ein riesengroßes Dankeschön an alle, die bereits gespendet haben und denen, die dazu beitragen werden Herrn Amaral zu helfen. Ich würde gerne erläutern, dass es sich hier um ein Bankkonto handelt, das offiziell von zwei Freunden von Herrn Amaral geführt wird, in Vertretung einer Gruppe von Freunden die sich dazu entschieden haben ihm zu helfen, da es offensichtlich war, schon in 2009, dass dies ein langwieriger, teurer Prozess werden würde und dass Goncalo Amaral ohne finanzielle Unterstützung nicht in der Lage sein würde sich zu verteidigen. Dieses Konto wird ausschließlich dafür genutzt Gerichtskosten und Anwaltskosten zu begleichen, und das ist auch der einzige Zweck den es jemals haben wird. Es ist ein informeller Zusammenschluss von Freunden und es war nur möglich dies weiterzuführen dank der unglaublichen Großzügigkeit vieler weiterer Freunde.

Ich würde auch gerne all denen danken die nicht in der Lage sind zu spenden, aber ihre Unterstützung online bekundet haben. Die Zeiten sind für alle nicht einfach und so bedeuted ein freundliches Wort oft eine Menge. Danke

Wenn Ihr helfen möchtet folgt bitte dem Link zum Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral:

http://pjga.blogspot.com/

Benutzt die Kontonummer in der rechten Leiste (scrollt zu Donation) oder klickt auf das Paypal Zeichen dort und ihr werdet zum Projekt Konto geführt.

Noch einmal, vielen Dank""

Ich unterstütze diesen Aufruf gerne, ich selbst spende dort ab und an und habe bereits eine Mail von Herrn Amaral erhalten in der er sich bedankte.

Warum dies alles nötig ist, verdeutlicht auch der kürzlich erschienene Artikel in Norwegen:

http://www.dagbladet.no/2014/01/08/nyheter/madeleine_mccann/mccann/maddie/maddies_disappearance/31172879/

Danke dafür NORWEGEN!!!

Dear Santa...

Sometimes wishes come true and Santa does reward brave little girls.

I wish all my readers a brilliant Christmas and a truthful New Year





.

Calling their bluff?

english/german

Andy Redwood's revelation moment came when he realised that the Smith sighting had most probably been the "abductor" carrying Madeleine towards the cliffs.

Aoife Smith, the daughter of Mr.Smith who had once before made an astonishing observation regarding the possible buttons on the abductor's beige trousers, was also very observant regarding the clothing of the child he was carrying:

— She was wearing light trousers, white or light pink, that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was lightweight/thin and could have been cotton.
— She also had a light top, with long sleeves.

Understandably on such a cold night, nobody would dress their child in summer pyjamas with short sleeves and knee-length trousers. And it was cold even though the McCanns did not agree on that point:

 

Despite their memory gaps or lack of collusion they nevertheless presented the real pyjamas Madeleine had worn, or rather a duplicate(?) during various press appearances.

So if Redwood is putting all his eggs into Smithman's basket, he must obviously be calling their bluff regarding the actual pyjamas Madeleine had worn during her "abduction"?

Not only was the Smith sighting supressed with the help of lawyers paid with the money donated by the public to help and find Madeleine, but the sighting must have been so dangerous that all possible similarities had to be eliminated not only by the mockumentary - regarding the carrying style and the long hair of the man - but also most probably with the help of their own appeals to the (donating) public regarding the appearance of the child that had been "abducted".

So did they go to Marks and Spencer for a similar pair of pyjamas to present them to the rather unimpressed german press or did they rather just open their wardrobe in the villa? This is what Amelie had to say:

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said:
'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andy Redwoods Moment der Offenbarung kam, als er realisierte, dass die Smith Sichtung mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit der "Entführer" war, der Madeleine Richtung Klippen trug.

Aoife Smith, die Tochter von Herrn Smith, die bereits zuvor eine erstaunliche Beobachtungsgabe bewiesen hatte, als sie die möglichen Knöpfe an der beigen Hose des Entführers bemerkte, war auch bezüglich der Kleidung des Kindes sehr spezifisch:

— Sie trug helle Hosen, weiß oder hell-pink, die Pyjamahosen hätten sein können. Sie erinnert sich nicht ob sie gemustert waren, da es dunkel war. Das Material war leicht/dünn und hätte Baumwolle sein können.
— Auch trug sie ein helles Oberteil, mit langen Ärmeln.

Verständlicherweise würde niemand in solch einer kalten Nacht sein Kind in einem Sommer-Schlafanzug kleiden mit kurzen Ärmeln und knielangen Hosen. Und es war kalt, obwohl die McCans sich in diesem Punkt nicht einig waren:

 

Trotz ihrer Erinnerungslücken oder fehlender Abstimmung präsentierten sie den tatsächlich getragenen Schlafanzug bzw. ein Duplikat (?) während mehrerer Auftritte vor der Presse.

Wenn also Redwood all seine Hoffnung auf die Smith Sichtung setzt, hinterfragt er dann auch offensichtlich ihre Angabe zum tatsächlich getragenen Schlafanzug während Madeleines "Entführung"?

Die Smith Sichtung wurde nicht nur mit Hilfe von Anwälten unterdrückt, die vom Geld bezahlt wurden, das von der Bevölkerung gespendet wurde um Madeleine zu finden, sondern muss auch so gefährlich gewesen sein, dass alle Ähnlichkeiten abgeändert werden mussten, nicht nur durch die McCannsche "Dokumentation", in der der Tragestil und die Haare des Mannes schamlos geändert wurden, sondern sehr wahrscheinlich auch durch die Appelle an die (zahlende) Öffentlichkeit bzgl. der Kleidung des "entführten" Kindes.

Kauften sie nun bei Marks and Spencer einen exakt gleichen Schlafanzug um ihn der ziemlich unbeeindruckten deutschen Presse zu präsentieren, oder öffneten sie einfach nur den Kleiderschrank in ihrer Villa? Dies hatte Amelie dazu zu sagen:

"Kate dressed Amelie in her sister's pyjamas and the baby said:
'Maddy's jammies. Where is Maddy?'

Wikipedia is wrong

... and so is the "author" of the wiki entry regarding the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the infamous SlimVirgin (feel free to google) and at least this part of her article:

In 2008 private detectives with Oakley International, a company hired by Madeleine's Fund, questioned the consistency of the Tanner report and became more interested in the Smith sighting. Oakley prepared e-fit images – one based on Martin's description and the other on Mary's – but the Fund decided not to release them. This was in part because Martin Smith came to believe that the man he had seen was Gerry McCann – something Scotland Yard ruled out because witnesses placed Gerry in the tapas restaurant at 22:00 – and so releasing the e-fits risked feeding the conspiracy theories about the McCanns, which were at their height in 2008. When Scotland Yard became involved in 2011 and ruled out the Tanner sighting, they came to believe that it was the Smith sighting that gave them the approximate time of Madeleine's kidnap, and in October 2013 they released the Oakley International e-fits to coincide with a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction of the disappearance.
(Interesting that she seems to know that the efits were done by Martin and Mary Smith)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#Smith_sighting

This seems to be the source of the rumour that Scotland Yard had ruled out Gerry being the man the Smiths saw because witnesses placed him in the Tapas at 22:00, that has entered the odd newspaper. But apart from the trusted friends and holidaymakers, there is no actual witness seeing him at the table at that exact time. And the walk between 5A and the crossing where the Smiths met the Gerry-lookalike can be reached in less than five minutes.

So it is not rocket science why Scotland Yard did exactly the opposite of ruling him out. Please do watch the following video from their official Youtube channel and listen for yourself what Andy - the man without lacrimal glands - Redwood, has to say starting at 00:51:





"As we observe the movements of the group, which continues up until around twenty-to, quarter-to ten, it brings into sharp focus a second sighting.."


Well, well, well...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wikipedia irrt sich und ebenso die "Autorin" des Wiki Eintrags zum Verschwinden von Madeleine McCann, die berüchtigte SlimVirgin in mindestens diesem Teil ihres Artikels:

Oakley erstellte Phantombilder - eins aufgrund der Beschreibung von Martin und eins von Mary - aber der Fund entschied sie nicht zu veröffentlichen. Einerseits weil Martin Smith zu der Überzeugung kam, dass der Mann den er gesehen hatte, Gerry McCann war - etwas das Scotlad Yard ausschloss weil Zeugen Gerry um 22:00 Uhr im Tapas Restaurant gesehen hatten - und die Veröffentlichung der Phantombilder die Verschwörungstheorien über die McCanns angeheizt hätten....

(Interessant, dass sie zu wissen scheint, dass die efits auf Beschreibungen von Martin UND Mary Smith basierten)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#Smith_sighting

Dies scheint die Quelle des Gerüchts zu sein, dass Scotland Yard Gerry als den Mann ausgeschlossen hat, den die Smiths gesehen haben, weil Zeugen ihn um 22:00 Uhr im Restaurant sahen, das in der ein oder anderen Zeitung verbreitet wurde. Aber außer den treuen Freunden und Miturlaubern gibt es keine wirklichen Zeugen, die ihn zu dieser exakten Zeit am Tisch gesehen haben. Und die Strecke zwischen 5A und der Kreuzung an der die Smiths das Gerry-Double sahen, kann in weniger als fünf Minuten begangen werden.


Daher ist es nicht schwer zu verstehen warum Scotland Yard genau das Gegenteil davon tat ihn auszuschließen. Bitte schaut euch das Video an und hört selbst was Andy - der Mann ohne Tränendrüsen - Redwood ab 00:51 zu sagen hat:



"As we observe the movements of the group, which continues up until around twenty-to, quarter-to ten, it brings into sharp focus a second sighting.."

"Während wir die Bewegungen der Gruppe beobachten, die sich bis ungefähr zwanzig, viertel vor zehn fortsetzen, kommt eine zweite Sichtung in den Fokus."


Well, well, well...



 

How to carry a child...

... for 5 minutes or 400 metres?

Like this...

...or like this?

Yet another indication that Crecheman does not exist. Apart from the wrong direction he took and the fact that every family staying in block 4 of the Ocean Club Gardens would have contacted the police within days after Tanner's bundleman had been on the front page of every newspaper in England, nobody would carry their daughter the long way from the creche to the apartment in this fashion depicted in the first set of pictures. 5 minutes of this carrying style on the cobbled roads down and uphill and his arms would have dropped off....

BUT

Imagine you are playing a game of charade and are asked to describe a man carrying a sleeping child, which position are you going to adopt? And if the challenge was to do the same only with a man carrying a dead child, which position would immediately enter your head?

So if Bundleman/Crecheman was an invention, why was this invention carrying the abducted child in this way? What was going through the subconcious mind of it's possible creator?

The Murat turnaround

The awkwardly amusing elaboration of his theory during an interview of Stephen Birch by the People's Voice TV last night reminded me of one of the most baffling turnarounds in the case: The period from November 2007 to January 2008 saw an amazing act of changing one's mind by Team McCann regarding the involvement of Robert Murat. Although Stephen Birch thinks that the reason for the McCanns distancing themselves from blaming Murat lay buried under his driveway (why then did they frame him in the first place?) I am going to try and show with the help of the timeline of that months what the real reason might well have been.



13th November 2007: Brian Kennedy and two "investigators" from Metodo3 - Francisco Marco and Antonio Jimenez - meet with three officers from the Policia Judiciaria to give them a little book with allegedly incriminating "evidence" regarding Murat, Malinka and Walzcuch. If I remember correctly it was a current sighting of Michaela Walzcuch while handing a child to a lorry driver and some clipped out newspaper article about Casanova found in Murats house mentioned in Goncalo Amarals Book. Malinka was again accused of something relating to paedophilia while there were no indications against him at all.


? November 2007: Brian  Kennedy and his lawyer meet Murat and lawyer in Portugal for secret talks


17th November 2007: Tapas meet at Rothley court Hotel. The rogatory letters had been sent.


4th December 2007: Charlotte Pennington and the Jensen sisters appear in the papers claiming Murat was at the OC during the night of the 3rd after having been visited by Metodo 3. First outside "witnesses" to come forward after SEVEN months.

1st January 2008: Kate herself now accuses Murat


3rd January 2008: Mr. Smith and his family come into the focus of the press, with Mr. Smith stating categorically that it was NOT Murat he had seen.


7th January 2008: The turnaround starts with the feasible attempt to pass off the alleged Murat sightings on May 3rd  as a case of mistaken identity. The Murat/Payne resemblance story appears in the press. The Daily Star wonders why Fiona did not recognise her husband.


24th January 2008: Since the Murat/Payne resemblance was non-existent and nobody really believed it, the Symington/Murat resemblance is launched in the media. The Daily Star starts to number them...


27th January 2008: McCanns state that "Murat is not the kidnapper"



That seems to be the end of the Murat framing. And it was again the Smiths that were at the center of this amazing change of mind. He knew Murat by sight from holidays in Praia da Luz and was certain the person he had seen was not Murat. He would certainly have sought the irish media to tell his story with more emphasis including the resemblance of the man he had seen to Gerry McCann, had the witch-hunt on Murat not been stopped.

Pinggggggg

From the PJ files:

"From 19th (July), the McCanns began to move with greater frequency to the triangular area of Sagres- Raposeira-Budens."

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

Mobile phone pings in the triangle after the imminent arrival of the cadaver dogs was known and their possible locations. Each time these pings occured their owners were supposed to have been at the Bar Caribe in Praia da Luz. If true, it must be a freak location - unlike the rest of Praia da Luz - where you would ping far away masts without moving, usually in a logical sequence.


19th July

Red=Kate
Green = Gerry

1 - 16:10 - Praia da Luz
2 - 16:20 - Praia da Luz
3 - 16:58 - Budens
4 - 17:09 - Kate Burgau
5 - 17:18 - Kate Burgau
6 - 17:21 - Kate Raposeira
7 - 17:24 - Sagres
8 - 17:27 - Praia da Luz

27th July 2007

Red=Kate
Green = Gerry

1. PdL 16:29
2. Budens 16:30 
3. Raposeira 16:33
4. Raposeira 16:46
5. Burgau 16:47
6. Raposeira 16:55
7. PdL 17:20
8. Budens 17:43
9. Budens 17:48
10. Budens 18:43
11. Sagres 18:47

25th November 2007

Mehr Platz für Kommentare unter diesen beiden schönen Bildern vom Besuch von Cat Baker in Rothley am 25. November 2007

Kommentare limitiert

Ich habe mitlerweile festgestellt, dass die Anzahl der sichtbaren Kommentare auf 100 begrenzt ist.

Daher habe ich die Kommentarfunktion unter der Seite Theorie (Deutsch) leider schließen müssen. Ich werde morgen voraussichtlich alle Kommentare, die die 100 Posts überschreiten, hierein kopieren und bitte alle Leser immer in den aktuellen Blogposts zu kommentieren. Sollte es sich um Kommentare zur Theorie (Deutsch) handeln, gebt dies bitte am Anfang kurz an.

Sorry for the inconvinience, aber auch Blogger ist nicht unfehlbar.

Heute in der Sunday Times

''
Madeleine Hinweise 5 Jahre lang vertuscht

Die wichtigen neuen Hinweise im Zentrum von Scontland Yard's Suche nach Madeleine McCann wurden fünf Jahre lang geheimgehalten nachdem sie ihren Eltern von Ex-MI5 Ermittlern präsentiert wurden.

Die Hinweise wurden genaugenommen aus einem Untersuchungsbericht entnommen, der im Auftrag von Gerry und Kate McCann durch eine Firma von ehemaligen Spionen 2008 erstellt wurde.

Er enthielt entscheidende Phantombilder von einem Mann, der dabei beobachtet wurde, wie er ein Kind in der Nacht von Madeleines Verschwinden trug, die erst diesen Monat veröffentlicht wurden nachdem er durch SY als Hauptverdächtiger identifiziert wurde.

Aber die Spur wurde für 5 Jahre vernachlässigt weil die McCanns und ihre Berater den Bericht kaltstellten und drohten die Autoren zu verklagen wenn sie Inhalte veröffentlichen würden.

Der Bericht, der der Sunday Times zur Verfügung steht, empfahl die Phantombilder sofort zu veröffentlichen und er besagte, dass die "Anomalien" in den Aussagen der McCanns und ihrer Freunde aufgeklärt werden müssten.

A source close to the McCanns said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if made public.

Eine den McCanns nahe Quelle sagte, dass der Bericht als "überkritisch den beteiligten Menschen gegenüber" gewesen sei, und "hätte eine totale Ablenkung dargestellt" wenn er veröffentlicht worden wäre.

...............

Eine frühere Sichtung (eines Mannes) durch eine Freundin der McCanns wurde (im o.g. Bericht) als wenig glaubhaft beurteilt, nachdem "ernste Unstimmigkeiten" in ihren Aussagen gefunden wurden.
...............

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”
Exton (Oakley International) bestätigte letzte Woche, dass der "Fund" seine Detektive für Jahre zum Schweigen brachte wegen der strittigen Ergebnisse. Er sagte: " Ein Brief kam von ihren Anwälten, die uns and die Vertraulichkeit des Berichts erinnert.
................

(Auszüge aus der Sunday Times von heute)

Ich hatte mich zwar in der Detektei getäuscht, nicht Metodo3 sondern Oakley hatte die Phantombilder erstellen lassen, aber die Vermutung, dass die Eltern die Smith Sichtung unter den Teppich kehrten, war korrekt. Lag es an der 60-80%igen Sicherheit mit der Herr Smith Gerry erkannt hatte? Davon ist auszugehen, aber diese Aussage kam erst 3 Monate nach seiner ersten Aussage. In diesen drei Monaten hätte man doch auf "Smithman" aufmerksam machen können, wenn er nicht Gerry war....

Process reopened!!!

Martin Brunt (Sky News) said Madeleine McCanns parents have always called for a reopening and he is sure they will be delighted.


He did not buy the book then...




Kate's book 'madeleine'
Chapter 21
Closing the Case


''It may sound odd, but in some ways we were glad the investigation had been closed. As I’ve said, we were far from convinced that there was any real investigation taking place anyway, so to have it officially brought to an end didn’t feel like as big a loss as might have been expected.''

Liebe Besucher

Da ich mich momentan in einem Teil der Welt aufhalte, in der der Zugang zum Internet sich schwierig gestaltet, kann ich leider die vielen Kommentare nicht beantworten und versuche dies auf diesem Weg.


Ich hätte mir den Anstieg der Besucherzahlen meiner bis dato vor sich hin dümpelnden Seite nach der XY-Ausstrahlung nie vorstellen können, bis vor einer Woche waren wir ein kleiner Kreis von Interessierten, die sich zumindest grob mit den ursprünglichen Akten auskannten. Ein Besucheranstieg um das 20-fache in den letzten Tagen erstaunt mich, ist das Thema doch über 6 Jahre alt. Aber es zeigt einmal wieder die Macht der Medien, die öffentliche Meinung und Interesse mit dem Fokus auf bestimmte Themen steuern können. Daher allen neuen Lesern ein herzliches Willkommen.


Was hat sich geändert seit der Crimewatch Ausstrahlung? Zwei extrem wichtige Punkte gibt es inmitten von viel PR. Dies ist zum einen die Vernichtung des einzigen Indizes für eine Entführung, das es je gab: die Sichtung des „Entführers“ durch Jane Tanner. Das dies auf eine Art und Weise geschah, die völlig unglaubwürdig ist für die, die die ursprünglichen Aussagen Tanners zum Ablauf der Sichtung und die örtlichen Gegebenheiten kennen (siehe The Invisible Jane), mag eine tiefere Bedeutung haben. In jedem Fall ist es das Ende der Entführungstheorie und entweder ein Angebot oder eine Belohnung für Jane. Die Bedeutung spiegelt sich auch in den jüngsten Kommentaren der einschlägigen Foren und Twitter nieder, die all ihrer Argumente beraubt, nur noch auf Beschimpfungen zurückgreifen können.


Der zweite Punkt ist die späte Würdigung der Smith Sichtung, die einzige, die wirklich wichtig war von allen Fake-Sichtungen, denen wir über die Jahre ausgesetzt waren. Und die einzige, die SEHR MERKWÜRDIGERWEISE in den ersten Monaten NIE erwähnt wurde, obwohl sie ein perfektes Indiz für eine Entführung gewesen wäre. Zumal die Familie Smith zwar bereits kurz nach dem Verschwinden ihre Aussagen machten, Herr Smith aber erst nach Rückkehr der McCanns im September Gerry McCann als den Mann erkannte, der im Mai ein Kind auf gleiche Art trug wie nun beim Aussteigen aus dem Flugzeug. Warum gab es zwischen Mai und September keine Aufrufe des sonst so rührigen PR Teams der Eltern? Warum sprangen die britischen Medien nicht darauf an, als eine kurze Meldung über die Smiths in einer irischen Zeitung gebracht wurde? Weil man genau wusste, dass diese Sichtung gefährlich war? Und noch einen Tick gefährlicher wurde, als ich das einzige Bild fand, dass Gerry McCann in genau so einer Hose zeigte, wie Aoife Smith sie den Polizisten beschrieben hatte?


Die nun veröffentlichten beiden Phantombilder des Mannes, den die Smiths gesehen hatten, wurden übrigens von den Privatermittlern Metodo3 angefertigt, wenn man Herrn Smith glauben darf, ohne sein Zutun. Meinen Informationen nach wurden sie nie, wie die McCanns jetzt behaupten, der portugiesischen Polizei zur Verfügung gestellt, tauchen nicht in den Akten auf, sondern wurden bei einer Razzia der spanischen Polizei in den Räumen von Metodo3, bei der Unmengen von Akten sichergestellt wurden, entdeckt. Goncalo Amaral wurde kurz bevor er die Familie Smith noch einmal nach Portugal holen wollte, abgesägt, sein Nachfolger vernachlässigte die Sichtung aus welchem Grund auch immer.


Zu einigen Kommentaren möchte ich noch bitten sich ein wenig mit den Basics vertraut zu machen, dem Ablauf des Abends z.B. und auch die anderen Blogbeiträge zu lesen, die vielleicht einiges deutlicher machen. Was meine Theorie angeht ist sie schließlich nur eine Schlussfolgerung aus hunderten von Punkten und entstanden aus den einzelnen Blogposts. Ich habe versucht deutlich zu machen, dass es mehr als einen Ablauf am Abend des 2. Mai gegeben haben könnte, aber dass es bereits am 2. Mai passiert ist, davon bin ich fest überzeugt. Selbst wenn Scotland Yard hier vielleicht eine andere Theorie verfolgt (verfolgen muss?) um dringend benötigte interne Informanten nicht zu verscheuchen, die sich sonst strafbar machen würden. Auf die Kleinigkeit, die exif Daten eines Photos zu ändern das erst drei Wochen später zur Verfügung gestellt wurde, will ich gar nicht eingehen. Die Aussagen der Putzfrau – die am 3. Mai übrigens nicht im Zimmer war -, der Zustand der Betten, die Zeitspanne der Entwicklung von Leichengeruch, die widersprüchlichen Aussagen bzgl. des Zeitpunkts wann Madeleine zuletzt gesehen wurde und ob sie am Vormittag Segeln oder Tennis spielen war und weitere Ungereimtheiten, veranlassten mich zur Theorie. Bis jetzt habe ich noch keinen Beweis erhalten, die sie widerlegen.


In Erwartung spannender Entwicklungen...

Whitewash?

Since I am bouncing on the Atlantic at the moment I was not able to watch the 6 Million Pound show last night on BBC, but I was nevertheless able to get the important points of this media offensive.

So where are we left now in our search for the truth and the answer to the question if there will be a whitewash or a conclusion that will fit the facts?

Some passages seem to support the notion that the facts are being changed to fit a conclusion. The more than dodgy information that after more than six years a holidaymaker has now come forward to claim to have been Tanner's egg-man points towards a deliberate change of facts. No father would have carried his sleeping child without a blanket in the fashion Tanner had described from Block 4 or 5 of the Ocean Club TOWARDS the crèche at 21:15 with hardly an hour left for the parents to take a drink or a meal. This is complete rubbish.

But it seems to be the only means to solve the Gordian knot of the Tanner sighting that only left a tiny “window of opportunity” while presenting a physical impossibility of Jane passing the two men on the street without them noticing her. Jane's “inaccuracies” are still existent but no longer important for the case.

This desperately smells of whitewash.

But if you think further one sees that not only has she been put out of her misery of being accused a liar and phantacist for ages but on the other hand the alibi for Gerry McCann for the exact time of the “abduction” has been eliminated as well. We remember that this alibi only became necessary when a certain dark haired person with a child in his arms (notice correct carrying style) and buttons on his trousers encountered the family of nine from Ireland who are currently being pestered by the same media that call us trolls.

And low and behold, after more than six years the Smith sighting - we have been on about for ages as the only important sighting in a series of hundreds - has finally reached the Media, thanks to the Yards attention. (Yes my good friend, David James, it IS important) And although the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Smith recognised Gerry McCann with a 60-80% certainty is still held from the unprepared public, the e-fit comes pretty close to his image. And with his alibi for the removal gone it might just be good news for a change.

The offer to Jane is clear, David got no mention at all and Matt's general confusion about locations is well established. So come on guys, just one little push and the future will truly be bright.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith