Saturday, 24 July 2010

Rachel Mampilly Oldfield Wades In To Assist

Some extracts from Rachel Mampilly Oldfield's rogatory statements. First, she describes her parenting skills with her one-year-old baby daughter. Then, she gives us her ideas on what possibly could have happened to Madeleine.

“She, yeah because erm, we didn’t, we don’t really like sleeping in the same room as her but there wasn’t really nowhere else to put her cos you know, obviously she was going to bed at seven thirty and then we’d have had to kind of hide in the bathroom or something for the rest of the night, so we put, yeah she slept in our room as well erm”.

“Yeah. So basically we’d go and have dinner and then we’d sort of run back you know every fifteen twenty minutes and have a listen at the door and make sure nobody’s screaming their head off”.

“Erm well we’d go into the room, which ordinarily we wouldn’t do to be honest, erm but she seemed to have diarrhoea and kind of, I mean she’d settled quite well actually cos she’d been tired every evening, erm but every morning when she woke up, she had diarrhoea and it had gone right through her grow bag and so there’s all of this sort of horrendous smell, so in the evenings when we were checking, we’d go into the room just to see if you know, there was any sort of smell yet, erm and just to make sure she was alright, to make sure she hadn’t been sick, partly I think cos Matt had been sick, just wanted to make sure that she hadn’t been, in case it was some sort of bug”.

1578 “Okay, and the route taken”?

Reply “Was up the road and then in through the car park at the back and in through the front door”.

1578 “In through the front door”?

Reply “Mmm yeah, I mean the patio doors were locked, erm yeah I didn’t really like going up there by myself, it was, like going through that car park was quite dark and there was never anyone around, it was a bit, you know made me feel a bit uneasy”.

1578 “Okay. Did you want to mention something about Doctors in the group”?

Reply “Yeah I was just going to say that, you know Kate and Gerry are both Doctors and you know there were three other medics in the group, erm four others actually sorry, four others, erm you know so if by any chance they’d accidentally done anything to Madeleine or she was ill or erm you know something wasn’t quite right, I mean they wouldn’t have just left her and sort of tried to cover it up as an accident or you know, they would of sort of you know, come and got Matt and Russell and Dave and Fi, erm I mean you know, not just because they are Doctors, because you know they’re parents and you’d kind of go to anyone to see who could help but if you’ve got, you know Doctors as friends who were there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there who if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child, erm”.

Thursday, 22 July 2010

The £300,000 Questions (Updated)

In the summer of 2008, the McCanns employed a firm of Private Detectives, called Oakley International, to search for missing Madeleine. Oakley charged £300,000 for approximately six months worth of their services, which apparently yielded no results.





The McCanns were duped, at best - Oakley International turned out to be a one-man band, headed by Irish national Kevin Halligen, who has since been arrested for attempted fraud, his assets frozen and today**, he faces an extradition hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates Court.

He is wanted by the US in relation to money taken from a Dutch company, Trafigura, as part of a deal to secure the release of executives under arrest in the Cote d'Ivoire. Instead, the money was spent on a mansion and a high-maintenance girlfriend.

Now given that the Find Madeleine Fund has, in all probability, been royally ripped off by this man, you would think that the McCanns would also be pursuing him to recoup at least some, if not all, of their £300,000.

But there are two interesting twists to this tale, which I believe is far from over.

1. Please Google for today's extradition hearing. You will find no mention of it at all, anywhere, in the UK media. Yet this is potentially, very explosive news indeed.

2. Far from pursuing Mr Halligen for any sort of refund or recompense, the McCann's spokesperson, Clarence Mitchell, has quite firmly stated that the matter of Oakley International is "closed".

Halligen was originally "recommended" by double-glazing and Rugby tycoon, Brian Kennedy, of the Latium group. His company lawyer, Ed Smethurst, is seconded to No Stone Unturned.

**Kevin Halligen's Extradition Hearing has since been postponed until August 18.

Wednesday, 21 July 2010

Now, NO-ONE is permitted to question the McCanns!

As a direct consequence of publishing the Amaral leaflet and the 48 questions video*, Tony Bennett has since been in receipt of this letter from the McCanns' libel lawyers, Carter Ruck. Please read it carefully, as it threatens dire repercussions against anyone who dares to question the McCanns' version of events.

Carter-Ruck

As you are of course aware, we act for Gerry and Kate McCann.

You will recall that on 13 November 2009 you formally undertook (amongst other
things) not to repeat any allegations about our clients to the effect that they were
guilty of, or to be suspected of causing the death of Madeleine McCann; and/or of
disposing of her body; and/or of lying about what had happened and/or of seeking to
cover up what they had done. These undertakings were enshrined by way of Court
order of 25 November 2009.

You have continued to 'campaign' on issues relating to the disappearance of our
clients' daughter, and while you have purported since then to have abided by your
undertakings, it is clear that you have on a number of occasions breached those
undertakings.

For example, it has been brought to our clients' attention that in a post entitled "A
short letter to Theresa May about her proposed re-investigation into the
disappearance of Madeleine McCann" you referred to a letter you apparently sent the
Home Secretary on 4 July 2010. This post continues to be published at the following
page:

http://iillhavern.forumotion.net/mccann-case-f3/a-short-letter-to-theresa-may-about-herproposed-re-investigation-into-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-t1151. htm

The text of the letter you quote states:

"Could you please let me know in writing whether any such re-investigation will
actively pursue the line of enquiry mentioned in the interim and final reports of the
Portuguese Police that Madeleine may have died in the McCanns' apartment and
her body hidden?"

In the post you make it clear that your intention in publishing the letter is to
encourage others to adopt it as a template so that they will send similar letters to the
Home Secretary. You then go on to state:

"Well, the letter-writing to the Home Secretary has begun, let's make the early
trickle into a mighty flow from all those who do not believe that the McCanns are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the disappearance
of Madeleine McCann."

Your actions in respect of the so-called "Goncalo Amaral Support Project" have also
been brought to our clients' attention, in particular the so called 'Goncalo Amaral
Awareness Day" which is scheduled to take place this Saturday 17 July 2010 and your
leaflet which has been circulated by way of email and is headed:

"Your questions answered about Gonr;alo Amaral
The man who declared the McCanns suspects over the disappearance of
Madeleine"

This publication goes on to state that
"Mr Amaral stunned the world by pulling in the McCanns for questioning as
suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. Three days later, an interim
report from Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, the senior investigating officer
in the case, gave reasons for the police's belief that Madeleine had died in her
parents' apartment'
and
"In [Amaral's book, 'The Truth about a Lie], he explains why he and his team
had good grounds for believing Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment
and covered up her death."

The rest of the piece is dedicated to defending Mr Amaral, to correcting the "many lies", and to rebutting criticism made of him generally and in particular in connection with the investigation into the abduction of Madeleine McCann.

There can be little doubt that, as you no doubt intended, readers of this publication will have understood it to mean that there are indeed strong grounds to support Amaral's suspicion that Madeleine McCann died in our clients' care and that they subsequently conspired to cover up her death.

Similarly, our clients are aware of a posting you published at 1:03am on 12 July 2010
in which you state:
"Goncalo Amaral is a Portuguese detective who has sacrificed the rest of his
career to bring us what he sees as the truth about a missing three-year-old
British girl, Madeleine Beth McCann."

As we note above, Mr Amaral is well known for having espoused the view that
Madeleine McCann died in our clients' holiday apartment, and that our clients covered
up her death to evade any liability - this is, of course, a central thesis of his book "The
Truth about a Lie." As such, readers would again have understood this posting to
suggest that Amaral's theory is correct and that our clients did indeed conspire to
cover up the death of their daughter. This theory is, however, completely untrue and
simply does not withstand proper scrutiny.

In case you are labouring under a misunderstanding as to the law, you cannot hide
behind quotes or purported quotes from other people when publishing outrageous
slurs of our clients.

Finally, your video recording entitled "Madeleine McCann: The 48 Police Questions Kate McCann Refused to Answer' has been brought to our clients attention. The video,
uploaded to You Tube on 13 July 2010 continues to be published at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZQOlx7WAMA&feature=player embedded

In light of the conduct to which we refer above, there can be no doubt whatsoever that
notwithstanding your undertakings, you remain intent upon continuing to allege at
every available opportunity that there are strong grounds to suspect our clients of
being responsible for the death of their daughter, and of conspiring to cover it up.
We have advised our clients that your conduct represents a number of clear breaches
of your undertaking to the court.

Our clients have exercised extraordinary restraint to date, and from the outset have
been reluctant to dignify your utterly misguided 'campaign' by engaging with you.
However, they are extremely concerned that your misconceived and deeply offensive
attacks against them are harming the search for their daughter Madeleine. Indeed
your behaviour often appears deliberately designed to do just that. As such, they
cannot and will not allow you flagrantly to continue to libel them and to continue to
breach the undertakings which you gave to the Court.

The purpose of this letter is to require your immediate confirmation:
1) that you will not republish (or authorise anyone else to republish) the leaflet to
which we refer above concerning Goncalo Amaral, and in particular that you
will not distribute (or allow others to distribute) any hard copies of the leaflet;
2) that you will remove the leaflet from your website(s), from where we
understand it can be downloaded;
3) that you will immediately remove the video referred to above from You Tube
and will undertake never to publish it again; and
4) that you will not otherwise breach the terms of the undertaking you gave,
whether by suggesting that Goncalo Amaral's widely-publicised (and entirely
baseless) suspicions about our clients are correct, or in any other way
whatsoever.

We look forward to hearing from you by no later than 4pm on 16 July 2010 and in the
meantime must expressly reserve all our clients' rights against you, and in particular
their right to bring proceedings for contempt of Court against you.

No doubt you will show this letter to your fellow members of the "Madeleine
Foundation". Should they, or indeed anyone linked to them, disseminate serious
falsehoods about our clients, we shall advise our clients to pursue those individuals
directly for appropriate legal relief.

We would urge you to seek legal advice upon this letter and in particular on the
consequences of your repeated breaches of the Court undertakings you gave.
Yours faithfully
Carter-Ruck


This blog and the author are not connected to Tony Bennett, or the Madeleine Foundation, in any way. I do not approve, or endorse, many of their actions; but equally, I can't stand bullies. Or people who think they can buy justice, or silence. I believe in laying out the facts so that everyone can judge for themselves.

My understanding of this letter is that now, no-one is permitted to even question the McCanns' version of events, without the threat of legal action. Since when did the UK become a Dictatorship?



*The letter and video are in earlier posts on this blog.

Monday, 19 July 2010

The 9 Questions That Carter-Ruck Don't Want Answered

This a copy of a leaflet produced by the Madeleine Foundation. To the best of my knowledge, all of the information is factual.* But this harmless leaflet was removed from the MF site yesterday, on the instructions of the McCanns libel lawyers, Carter Ruck.

I have reproduced it here for you to read and judge for yourselves, whether or not this information is libellous.

You may also wish to consider just why this infomation is so "dangerous".

Your questions answered about Gonçalo AmaralThe man who declared the McCanns suspects over the disappearance of Madeleine



In this leaflet, we try to answer your questions about Mr Gonçalo Amaral, the Portuguese detective who led the investigation into the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann on Thursday, 3 May 2007. Four months later, Mr Amaral stunned the world by pulling in the McCanns for questioning as suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. Three days later, an interim report from Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, the senior investigating officer in the case, gave reasons for the police’s belief that Madeleine had died in her parents’ apartment.

Less than a month later, Mr Amaral was removed from the investigation (not ‘sacked’ as the media claimed). The British media have, since then, criticised his investigation, often referring to him as ‘disgraced’. He was accused of beating a Portuguese woman, Leonor Cipriano, into falsely confessing to murdering her daughter. He retired from the police to write a book, A Verdade da Mentira, ‘The Truth About A Lie’. In it, he explains why he and his team had good grounds for believing Madeleine had died in her parents’ apartment and covered up her death. A year after his book came out, the McCanns brought a libel action in the Lisbon High Court claiming, as damages, the £1 million profits he and his publishers had made from the book’s sale in 9 European countries. The case will be concluded later this year. We felt it was time the British public knew the facts about Mr Amaral. Here we answer some frequent questions people have about him:

1. What career did Mr Amaral have before he led the Madeleine enquiry?
ANSWER: Mr Amaral was an experienced, respected, senior detective. One of his colleagues described him as ‘incorruptible’. He had many successes in bringing drug dealers to justice and in one year netted the biggest haul of illegal drugs of any detective in Portugal. His most famous case was his success in bringing the killers of 8-year-old Joana Cipriano to court and ensuring that they served long jail sentences for their appalling crimes.

2. Wasn’t Mr Amaral accused of beating and torturing Joana Cipriano’s mother into making a false confession?
ANSWER: Yes he was. And most unjustly. Joana was reported missing by her mother, only after she had apparently been missing for two days. The sad truth was that Joana had come back from the village shops to find her mother in bed with her uncle. After an intensive investigation led by Mr Amaral, both voluntarily confessed to having brutally murdered her and disposed of her body. Today they are serving 16-year-jail terms for her murder.

3. What about the photos of her in the press showing her with black eyes?
ANSWER: Since being convicted of their crimes, both the mother and the uncle have tried to claim they were beaten by Mr Amaral and his men and forced to confess to something they had not done. However, it is clear that Leonor Cipriano suffered her injuries as a result of a beating by fellow female prisoners after being taken to Odemira Prison. During a recent court case, the Director of Odemira Prison was forced to admit to asking her Prison Medical Director to lie about the cause of Ms Cipriano’s injuries. Ms Cipriano changed her story many times.
4. Why was Mr Amaral removed from the Madeleine investigation?ANSWER: Shortly before he was removed, he made some ‘off the record’ comments to a Portuguese journalist detailing how the British government was interfering with his investigation. A leading Portuguese newspaper published his remarks, giving the Portuguese authorities an excuse to remove him from the enquiry. As Mr Amaral has set out in a second book, ‘The English Gag’, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was told of his being removed from his post before he was. Mr Amaral has provided evidence of British government interference in his enquiries in his two books on the case. As we have shown elsewhere, the British government heavily influenced this investigation from the outset, sending several top-level people out to Portugal in the first week alone, including staff from MI5. We aim to cover this topic in more detail on our website in the coming months.

5. Wasn’t his enquiry incompetent, as the British news media suggest?
ANSWER: No. As was clear from the interim police report of 10 September 2007, the investigation was severely hampered by overwhelming international media coverage, requiring the police to follow up literally hundreds of false ‘sightings’ of Madeleine. Despite that, the police conducted a meticulous investigation with the help of hundreds of police officers. The interim report was very thorough. We have reproduced the whole of it in our recent book on the case: ‘The Madeleine McCann case Files: Volume 1’, available for purchase from our website.

6. But isn’t it true that the police failed to secure the crime scene properly?
ANSWER: This is one of many false stories about the Madeleine McCann investigation put about in the British media. What most people do not know is that despite the McCanns and their friends apparently genuinely believing that an abductor had taken Madeleine from her room, they themselves tramped all over the McCanns’ apartment and allowed several others to do so before the police arrived. This contaminated the crime scene, making the Portuguese police’s task much more difficult. In fact, the police sealed the crime scene later that night as soon as they were reasonably able to. The McCanns also criticised Mr Amaral, amongst other things, for never meeting them and never visiting the crime scene. But then the head of any major criminal investigation must be a good delegator. Mr Amaral’s enquiry was also hampered by many inconsistencies in the accounts given by he McCanns and their friends and by the McCanns’ refusal to disclose certain information such as their telephone, credit card and medical records.

7. Is it true that Mr Amaral and his publishers have made £1 million from the sale of Mr Amaral’s book?
ANSWER: Yes. We must remember that in trying to bring us the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Mr Amaral gave up his job many years ahead of his normal retirement date, thus losing huge amounts of both salary and pension entitlement. The McCanns threatened to sue Mr Amaral and his publishers for libel when his book. ‘The Truth About A Lie’, was first published in July 2008. But they did nothing about it until over a year later, by which time his book had sold over half a million copies across Europe. The McCanns have never explained why they waited for over a year to take action, but they are now claiming the £1 million profits the book has made. As a result of the McCanns’ libel action, Mr Amaral’s book has been banned from sale in Portugal since September 2009.

8. Was Mr Amaral convicted of filing a false report in the Cipriano case?
ANSWER: Yes. However, he has appealed, and under Portuguese law his sentence, a suspended prison term of 18 months, cannot take effect until his appeal is heard. He was found not guilty of any suggestion of being involved in the alleged beating of Leonor Cipriano and her brother. On the basis of precious little evidence, he was found guilty of ‘filing a false report’ about the case. There are many indications that Mr Amaral’s trial was politically motivated. In this connection we would commend our article on the prosecutor in this case, Mr Marcos Correia. We have a lengthy investigative article about him on our website.

9. What kind of help and support does Mr Amaral need?
ANSWER: His most urgent need is for financial help towards the huge costs of his legal expenses for defending the McCanns’ libel action and the various unjust criminal charges bring levelled against him. It is very easy to support him; his representative Mr Paulo Sargento has created a website to give practical help to him. You can donate by PayPal. Here is the link:
http://pjga.blogspot.com/
 
*This blog has no connection whatsoever to the Madeleine Foundation, or Tony Bennett.


Friday, 16 July 2010

The 48 Questions That YouTube Won't Let You Ask

It's a matter of recorded and undisputed fact that, when questioned by the PJ in Portugal as part of the investigation into the disappearance of her daughter, Kate McCann refused to answer 48 of the questions put to her.

These questions have already been published by several newspapers, in the UK, Portugal, and other countries. They are a matter of public record, and have been for some time.

Recently, the Madeleine Foundation created a video of retired solicitor Anthony Bennett, reading aloud the questions to camera. The video was uploaded to YouTube where, after only two days but many hundreds of views, it was removed.

The official reason for the removal of this simple, factual, inoffensive video was that it was "in violation of the terms and conditions of YouTube."

Here is the video, for you to watch and judge for yourselves - Anthony Bennett reading out the 48 questions that Kate McCann refused to answer.

Oh, and the one that she eventually did.


video