Sunday, April 22, 2012

#McCann : Comments On #Panorama 5th Anniversary Of Madeleine's Death.

Showing 10 of 53 comments

Eli 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
Timing is all important and being able to seize opportunities at the right moment is crucial to the success of anything. In 2007 the internet was still in its infancy and a relatively new place for many people and cyber space was a new frontier that was almost as daunting as the computer itself. The British government at the time promoted the use of this technology, subsidising and encouraging every household to get a computer and go online. Had Madeleine gone missing a couple of years earlier the whole dynamics of the McCann’s campaign would have been so different. The timing was perfect to use the internet as a platform to reach the general public and bring people together with a common purpose. Madeleine had touched the hearts of millions around the world, young and old, rich and poor and from all walks of life, almost everyone wanted to help. The internet proved to be a useful campaigning tool which motivated people to become involved and even group together, though there was a flipside to it which I don’t believe anyone anticipated. Communication via the internet pushes the boundaries we can explore. Our inquisitive nature is driven by curiosity, that emotion, the desire for new information and experiences, once aroused drives us to look for answers. The tragic story of Madeleine's disappearance is discussed globally by users of the World Wide Web on internet social media sites and it’s apparent that there are two camps, one which seems to accept the reports given by the McCann’s and their family and friends without question and another which challenged those reports. Curiously even in the early stages of the investigation it soon became apparent that to question or show any kind of disapproval with the McCann’s actions or state any differences of opinion regarding their account of the events was seen by some as more than just questioning and expressing concerns. It was as though it was seen as dissent or non conformism which had to be suppressed.
Someone once said the truth is more important than facts and it is becoming clearer by the day that facts in this case were few and far between. Right from the onset many of the reports emanating from both Portugal and Britain just didn’t marry up. It was almost as though two different versions of events were being told. Whether or not this was just poor journalism or a deliberate attempt from one or both sides to mislead the public is a question we may never truly know. I think it’s only fair to say that in most cases it is not unusual for there to be some variation in the accounts made, however many of these reports did appear to have been direct quotes of statements made to the media. These though were more than just simply conflicting reports, they contained crucial pieces of information which were detrimental to understanding what had actually occurred directly before and after Madeleine was reported to have gone missing. How it was possible that people so closely connected to the case were reporting conflicting stories was something that seems to be pushed to the back of many people’s minds. The emphasis was clearly focussed on Madeleine having been abducted and the anguish this had caused her family. In the early stages it wasn’t clear which reports were just sensationalism and drama and what was in fact true.
What is certain though is that there was continued criticism about Portugal and their Police force. The image being portrayed by certain people associated with the McCann family was one of a third world country with a blundering police force that didn’t seem to have a clue what they were doing. This image was quickly picked up on by many people who believed the McCann’s were somehow the victims of a lacking police force. The Portuguese police however were in fact doing exactly what any other police force would have done in those circumstances and that is to not only consider abduction as the only possible scenario but to also examine other possible alternatives. Anyone would have known beforehand that it is in fact normal police procedure to always look at the closest people connected to the victim and that includes parents. Of course we’ve already been told this was a blundering third world police force that had made numerous mistakes, so if you believed that, it would be no a surprise then for them to get things wrong by suspecting something other than abduction happened. Considering figures show that Portugal had one of the lowest crime rates in Europe and that the Polcia Judiciaria are broadly equivalent to Britain’s very own Scotland Yard with detection rates only slightly below Britain, this really does make people wonder what exactly is going on.

  • Dr Silverman 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    @Paul Costello or Castello or Honestbroker or whatever your name is today - kindly keep your arrogance to yourself. I have not been caught out by anything, especially not the McCann spin doctor, and rubbish in the UK press. I also speak and understand Portuguese, probably every bit as well, if not a lot better, than you, considering that I actually lived there for a number of years and this was long before Google Translate.
  • Dr Silverman 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    Some FACTS of the case.
    Kate McCann refused to answer 48 Police questions. Their friends refused to return to Portugal for an official Police reconstruction.
    Two world-reknowned cadaver-scent dogs, now under contract to no less than the FBI, indicated the scent of cadaverine and blood in the McCann's apartment, car, and on their clothing.
    Out of the millions of pounds that were raised for the McCann Limited Liability Company fund, only 13 % was spent on the actual search for the child. This is from their own accounts and cannot be disputed.
    Photographs and videos have been removed from online newspapers at the request of the McCanns press office, as they looked "too happy" in the photographs.
    Facebook pages have been merged with the official McCann one, again at the request of the family, without the consent or permission of the people on them.
    Photographs of other missing children have been used in the McCanns campaigns, without the permission of the families - in one case, the family explicitly said not to do so, and the McCanns went right ahead and did it anyway.
    Kate McCann did not physically search for her lost child that night and tells us this herself in a TV interview.
    The McCanns put plans in place for a long term business strategy by the sixth day, although Madeleine could have been "found" at any time. Uncle John gave up a full time, well paid job to "manage" the company, despite having a family of his own to support.
    Witnesses were "visited" by members of the campaign team, while an active investigation was still going on.
    Each of these facts is well documented and can be proven. Perhaps those are the sorts of questions that you should be asking.
  • mossie 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    i for one would be encouraged if the programme will answer the following questions for me:
    why do the mccanns think it is ok to leave three children under three alone for even five minutes, not to mention systematically for a period of hours over the course of a week;
    why have they never returned to portugal to carry out a police reconstruction;
    why were they so busy on the night that at least one of them could not go out and search;
    why have they quite recently stated that they never made much of the colomba, please clarify is it there or not or is it a "fleck" as was recently described by Mrs Mccann;
    why have they never officially written to the portugese authorities demanding the case be re-opened;
    why were they not worried or show any concern about the alerts of the dogs in particular the cadaver dog. whilst i fully undertand they may not hold this particular method of investigation in any high regard, would they happily get on a plane when an explosives dog alerts to someting on that plane prior to take off;
    why have they never, in so far as i am aware, made an international appeal for the man who mr smith saw that night or at least given it as much publicity as that of ms tanners sighting;
    why are they tirelessly commencing litigation after litigation, much of which is aimed at what they themselves have called "internet nutters". surely the money and time would be better spent in aiding the search for their small child
    there are many more questions i have, but they are too numerous to mention here.
    in looking for answers to these questions i am in no way suggesting madeleines parents were complicit in what happened, so perhaps Mr Costello not everybody who has questions to ask should be described in the manner in which you speak below.
  • Hannah 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    The McCanns have insulted peoples intelligence for long enough and it's high time this fa├žade was brought to a just conclusion.
    Jane Tanner is totally unconvincing with her alleged abductor sighting and alibi for Gerry McCann, and upon reading the McCanns absurd version of events, it comes as no surprise that the CSI blood and cadaver dogs marked death in the McCanns apartment and on their possessions. They refused to return for a reconstruction, whilst stating they would 'leave no stone unturned' to find their child. They have indeed left no stone unturned in begging for money, and suing all and sundry who dare point out the endless discrepancies in their bizarre version of events.
    Spineless UK media and journalists have run with endless propaganda that comes straight from the McCanns hired mouthpiece Clarence Mitchell, and are still doing so to this day.
    If Scotland Yard ignore the enormous discrepancies in the McCanns and friends versions of events, it will say all I need to know about British justice.
  • Chinagirl 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    Bravo, Paul Castello! Pithy comments well-written.
  • Paul Castello 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    It is worth repeating the following.. There is nothing whatsoever in the final report of the Attorney General of Portugal which suggests any crime by the parents of Madeleine McCann. He specifically points out they did not abandon their children and he specifically points out that there is NO evidence which points to any crime committed by them.
    He is critical about the refusal of the friends to return for a reconstruction but doesn't make it clear that this refusal was on legal advice and that his own investigation team led by Goncalo Amaral had refused to do a reconstruction when it really could have counted in the first few weeks after the disappearance.
    Goncalo Amaral was a very odd choice for co-ordinator of the Madeleine Investigation. He was being investigated at the time for involvement in the torture of the mother of another missing girl (never found) at the time and was later convicted criminally for his involvement in that case. He is currently serving his sentence for that crime which he committed while a serving police officer.
    I am appalled that so many here rely for their "lynch mob" style claims about the parents of Madeleine on the thesis of this ex-policeman whose lies have seen him get a criminal record in a similar case. He has not yet shown any evidence for his claim that the parents of Madeleine being involved in her disappearance (claims made in the book he earned a million euros from for his personal use) and may rue making such claims when the libel trial about that book begins in September.
    I am also appalled that these people come here and make outrageous claims about the parents of Madeleine based on what is clearly their poor interpretation of flawed translations of complex legal documents. They assume that every statement in a police investigation must match perfectly with every other (something anyone with ten minutes experience of actual police work would tell them is ridiculous). They assume that the garbled translations are accurate representations of what was said. They assume that the amateurs who translated these documents had no agenda for spending hours doing so.
    The fact is that, as the Attorney General stated, there is not sufficient evidence of any kind to point to any conclusion in the case. No-one knows what happened, not the police officers, not the general public and not even these people who claim so often to have "read the files". He makes the point that there is a likelihood that Madeleine is no longer alive but does not rule out the possibility she is and I believe anyone with goodness in their hearts will not simply presume she is dead and harangue the parents but like Kate and Gerry will hope that she is someday found alive and reunited with them.
    I simply wish that this programme on Panorama gives us an insight into what the Scotland Yard and Portuguese Police Combined Review which Madeleine's parents have begged for, is managing to achieve and that through its work we get closer to finding out what happened to the poor little child at the heart of the case.
  • Dr Silverman 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    In that case, Mister Paul whatever-your-name-is, you must be agreeing that there was no evidence of abduction and that the case to answer was the concealment of a death and a body. Because those were the conclusions not only of Dr Amaral, but the entire Portuguese investigation in conjunction with Leicestershire Police. They are not looking for anyone else. The Portuguese AG himself said that the McCanns forfeited the opportunity to clear their names completely. Which of course you will be able to read and verify for yourself as you tell us you can undertand Portuguese.
  • Paul Castello 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    Again you pretend not to be able to read my name. What is the matter with you? You are making yourself look silly.
    And your presumption of what I am saying is so wide of the mark that I think you really do have problems reading here. I challenge anyone to find anything in what I have posted that even vaguely agrees with that presumption of yours.
    Where did the AG say any such thing about the McCanns? If you are referring to this phrase, "We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified." then you really have to go back and read it in context more carefully. It places no blame whatsoever on the McCanns if you care to read it properly. It is referring to the actions of others which caused the McCanns case some damage.
    I think you have been caught out by the stilted phrasing in the English translation. Its accurate but not clear English. An example of the problems I highlighted earlier.
  • Dr Silverman 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    Dear Mister Castello or Costello,
    Let us suppose for one moment that Dr Amaral lied. Did the Portuguese Attorney General also lie? Two highly regarded Cadaver Dogs and their handlers? The Irish family? The rest of the Portuguese investigation? The Leicestershire officers?
    What makes you think that each and every one of these people are also liars? How much of a conspiracy theory are we supposed to believe?

  • Paul Castello 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    We know that Goncalo Amaral lied, He was convicted and found guilty (even after appeal) of lying in a missing child case. He lied about the torture of the mother in that case and is currently still serving his sentence.
    I don't believe any of the others have lied. None of them though has ever said (as Goncalo Amaral has) that the parents were guilty of any crime,. Not the Attorney General, not the dogs, not the Smiths, not the Leicestershire Police. Of the people you mention only Goncalo Amaral has stated that the parents were involved in the disappearance of their child. Unfortunately he has not given any proof of that claim and at the libel trial which is due to open in September he may rue that fact.
    What lies are you suggesting all these other people have told because I have never seen a lie from any of them? So, no I am not suggesting any of them have lied.
  • Dulcibelle 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    It sounded to me as though he said "Fala com McCanns" which would have been a logical response to the question he was being asked at the time. ("Speak with the McCanns" for those readers not fluent in Portuguese.)
  • Paul Castello 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    To some it sounds like an obscenity in English (and I believe Goncalo Amaral speaks a modicum of English), to others a Portuguese phrase as you state. I cannot hear it clearly enough to decide.
  • Dulcibelle 5 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    From the Portuguese Attorney General's Archiving Report, and referring to the reconstruction of the evening of May 3 which the Portuguese Police had wanted to carry out, but which the McCanns and their friends refused to attend:
    "We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."
    I can highly recommend googling Blacksmith Bureau and Dr Martin Roberts for enlightenment on the holes in the McCann case.
    (Edited by author 11 hours ago)
  • Dr Silverman 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    I was just saving you the trouble, Nick.
  • Paul Castello 3 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    That phrase (in context) states that the refusal of the friends of the McCanns to return for the reconstruction damaged the prospects of the parents of Madeleine to prove what they claimed.
    Not surprisingly, of course, it avoids mentioning that this refusal was done on specific legal advice in light of the possibility that the parents of Madeleine were being set up by the investigating team.
    The flawed conclusions of Amaral's team regarding the DNA for example (as illustrated in his own claims about the DNA in his book) show that there were reasons to refuse the request for a reconstruction at that time.
    There was, of course, a much better time for a reconstruction immediately after the disappearance but it was Goncalo Amaral and his team who refused it then, though the parents were perfectly willing then. His grounds for refusal included that he would have to close Portuguese airspace and that it would upset other holidaymakers.
  • Dr Silverman 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    Maybe Duarte Levy stole it.
  • Paul Castello 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    Stole what? Are you suggesting that Duarte Levy committed some kind of offence? How is that claim of yours relevant to the Madeleine case review?
    Incidentally what point are you trying to make by pretending not to be able to read my name? Why are you being so silly? What game are you playing? Do you need glasses?
  • Dr Silverman 4 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    In the case that you can understand Portuguese, Mr Costello or Castello, you will be so kind as to confirm that Dr Amaral did not use profane language towards the McCanns, and therefore deserves an apology from the BBC and all the other tabloid hacks who have deliberately misquoted and libelled him.

  • Dr Silverman 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    Then I would suggest you read the BBC website, Mister Castello or Costello, where the BBC admit themselves that an official complaint against them was upheld. Dr Amaral did in fact say "Fala com os McCann" and it is there in writing. As you tell us that you can read and understand Portuguese, perhaps you will confirm what this means. And if you would like a second opinion, Martin Brunt of Sky was also present at the time, and confirms it on his own blog over at the Sky site.

    Eli 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    "They are completely ignoring the fact that the Attorney General in the archival report at the end of the Police Investigation in Portugal stated that the parents were NOT guilty of abandoning their children and that there was NO evidence of any crime committed by the parents or the other arguido in the case."
    Paul Costello
    Lets not also forget what the Attorney General made quite clear in the archival .... That there is NO evidence to support the McCann's claim that an abduction took place !
    If you are taking the AG’s word as gospel then you must also believe that the abduction theory is not plausible.
    " and most significantly that there were WITNESSES who saw a child being carried away from the scene. "
    Paul Costello
    If you are referring to Jane T. here I strongly suggest that you read her statement and consider how she could have possibly seen someone carrying a child off at the time she claims when she also claims that she was still sat at the table in the Tapas Bar when Kate Mc was talking about how long Gerry Mc had been away from the table doing his check, and even quotes what was said ! Or are you talking about the witness who described the person carrying a child as being Gerry Mc., who couldn't possibly be the same person JT saw unless he carried the child around the streets of PDL for a considerable time. ... Oh but lets not forget the Mc's attempt in their own documentary to make it appear to be one and the same person.
    " The cadaver dog was not supported in any way by forensics in the case. "
    Paul Costello
    According to the handler and trainer in his official report the cadaver dog has never false alerted in training or operational work, to date.
    Also Mark Harrison National Search Adviser for Missing persons Searches and Homicides in his report listed cases of success that offered a guarantee of reliability. And he asserted that if the dogs came to signal Maddie’s death, then it would be a fact.
    (Edited by author 11 hours ago)

  • Paul Castello 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    Where in the report did the AG state there is no evidence of abduction? Page number? As I recall he claimed that there was no way that what could happen could be determined and all options were possible.
    Your patronising attempt to suggest that I have not read those statements is amusing. I have read them with a great deal of care and with some understanding of the nature of witness statements. There are discrepancies as there always are in statements. That fact does not in any way prove that they are not largely accurate.
    And your claim that Mr Smith described the person as "being Gerry McCann" shows wilful ignorance on your part. You know as well as I do that he did no such thing. He stated that there was a chance it was him. And it is important to recall that he was the only one of four witnesses who believed that. He was not backed up in that suggestion by any of the others. All evidence must be looked at in a case and balanced, it should not be cherry-picked and misrepresented as you have clearly done with that incorrect comment you have just made.
    I repeat however what the Attorney General did say. He was categorical in that there was no abandonment of the children by the McCann parents and categorical in that there was no evidence of any crime by the McCanns. Not insufficient evidence but NO evidence.
  • Paul Castello 4 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    You really are not doing yourself any favours with this kind of ridiculous hateful ranting.
    I am not involved in this case in any way other than as an online commentator. Your inept attempt at suggesting that I (or anyone else for that matter) is paid to comment here is childish in the extreme. I suggest before you make such libellous statements you post some kind of evidence, though what that might be as you are utterly wrong in your lie about me I cannot imagine.
    The dogs were not supported by any forensics which identified cadaver odour from Madeleine McCann. And the dog handler himself said that this would be absolutely necessary.
    You forget that there were a number of Smith family statements. Only one of which suggests the possibility that the adult could have been Gerry McCann. None of the others do. There was also another perfectly credible witness who saw a child being carried in PDL that night.
    The implication you have made that I have not read the files while you have is simply wrong. I have read them, largely in the direct Portuguese rather than in the extremely flawed (in a very large number of cases) translations. It appalls me that people are basing their hateful comments on flawed translations of the files. I am glad that both Scotland Yard and the McCann family have commissioned professional translations because only then can you see what is actually being said and not what a group of self-interested amateurs have told you is being said.
    I have posted no lies at all unlike you with your silly over the top nonsense about the McCanns destroying Portugal's tourist trade. When you post such nonsense to support your hateful claims about the parents of a missing child you show what your real motives are.
    Perhaps the Panorama programme will shed light on the very flawed initial investigation of the disappearance co-ordinated by a man who was at the time himself being investigated for collusion in the torture of a witness in another missing child case? Yes that man was Goncalo Amaral who was convicted of falsifying evidence/perjury while a serving police officer in that case and who later went on to write a book about his theories regarding the McCann case which though they do not agree with the contents of the police files has allowed him to pocket over a million euros.
    It strikes me as very odd that this tiny number of vociferous anti-McCanns rely so heavily on a convicted liar for their ideas. Very odd indeed.
  • The Slave 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    Paul, Calm down, mate! If the McCanns are as innocent as you claim they are , why oh why did Kate Healy NOT answer the 48 questions put to her? If my child had gone missing and I genuinely didn't know where she was I would be prepared to answer any question put to me, even if it made me look like a bad mother, because at the end of the day your child is far, far more important than your reputation.
    Why did Mathew lie? Why did Payne lie? Because one read of the Rogatory interviews will demonstrate without a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that they DID!
    Why would they do that? When the life of an innocent three year old was at stake. You have to ask yourself that question.
    Why would the parents make such a big deal about the alleged Coluboma 'as a good marketing ploy' only a couple of years later to say 'it was only a brown fleck'? Now a child either does or does not have a Coluboma. Did Madeleine ( or Maddie....check Gerald's original facebook page for confirmation that she WAS called Maddie at home) have this condition or not? It isn't mentioned in description given to Interpol. Just a brown fleck and she also has a birthmark on her knee. Strange . Still keep on chipping in if it makes you feel better.
  • Dr David Payne 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    Paul keeps chipping in without ever addressing the pertinent questions asked by the disbelieving public... just like the McCanns themselves.
  • cherrylight 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    Bless you sir.
    Extraordinary effort.
  • cherrylight 1 comment collapsed Collapse Expand
    Oh and Mr Costello, the witnesses of abduction that you refer to can't obviously be referring to the SMITH family because Mr Smith thought he saw Gerald McCann carrying a child.
  • Paul Costello 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
    I have never heard such utter rubbish about the case of a missing child. The comments above, I believe, are from a small number of people who are slapping each other on the back in one of the notorious anti-McCann forums on the internet. They are rejoicing in finding another place in which to show their warped view of the parents of missing Madeleine.
    What kind of people are these who have commented here with lies and sheer nastiness directed at the parents of Madeleine McCann? And yes I will back up that claim that they are posting lies with the facts to show I am correct.
    They are completely ignoring the fact that the Attorney General in the archival report at the end of the Police Investigation in Portugal stated that the parents were NOT guilty of abandoning their children and that there was NO evidence of any crime committed by the parents or the other arguido in the case.
    Madeleine's parents have not destroyed the tourist business of the Algarve. The very idea is preposterous. It is a ridiculous lie.
    The cadaver dog was not supported in any way by forensics in the case.
    The parents have not become millionaires. That is a lie. They have set up a fund which is devoted to the searching for their child and the limitation of damage to the search for their daughter by those profiting from books and booklets which put forward preposterous "theses".
    The very idea that Chief Inspector Redwood is only on the programme as part of a PR exercise organised by Clarence Mitchell is ludicrous.
    The idea that there should be no inconsistencies in dozens of police statements shows the author of that little gem has not a clue about the reality of complex police investigations.
    The amateurish claim that "the hypothesis of an abduction ... does not rationalise the evidence that is in the original police files" completely ignores the evidence from a large number of people that there were strangers hanging around the area, that the apartments had been targeted by thieves shortly before the disappearance, and most significantly that there were WITNESSES who saw a child being carried away from the scene. All of this is in the files. The deliberate ignoring of such clear evidence from the files is typical.
    The parents have launched no campaign to bring people down other than those despicable people (newspapers, ex police, stalkers etc.) who have deliberately profited from publishing theories about them and their daughter which are not supported by the evidence in the Police Files.Any normal parent would do the same in the situation. I have followed the Leveson Inquiry and have watched there as the sources of the most bizarre and more importantly wrong theories have been pointed back to leaks from Portugal. No wonder the parents are determined to clear their name and get the search for Madeleine back on track to find what really happened.
    I trust that your Panorama programme next Monday will discuss with CI Redwood the current review by Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciara in a full and frank way, showing the way in which the Review is picking up on the best and worst of past investigations and showing how they are moving forward with the hope of discovering what precisely happened to Madeleine McCann in 2007 and a real conclusion to the case.
    I truly despair when I read the kind of thing I have read in some of these comments from people who spend hours daily on forums (and have done for years) applauding each other for their hateful comments about this family who suffered the trauma of the loss of their daughter. They are acting like a lynch mob, using their amateurish reading of badly translated files to pronounce that they know what happened. They don't. Only the person or persons directly involved know that. And I hope your programme will make that clear.