'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Research and Analysis :: Maddie Case - important information
Page 3 of 6 • Share
Page 3 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Rogue of the Day!
I would nominate a certain about to retire Police Commissioner,who had helped set up a funding campaign nearly ten years ago and has his "finger prints"associated to Operation Grange,via DCS Hamish Campbell,DCI Andy Redwood,who then became involved with a certain Dossier,which had connections to an untimely death of Mrs Brenda Leyland,RIP, Brenda?
willowthewisp- Posts : 3392
Activity : 4912
Likes received : 1160
Join date : 2015-05-07
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Forbidden territory least said soonest mended.Joss wrote:Would S. Poulton qualify as a Rogue ?, i'm still waiting on that darn documentary, :)
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Isn't it supposed to be quality over quantity ?Joss wrote:Now c'mon Verdi, you know you're posts aren't feeble you have over 3,000 of them,
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Good grief - it's a lot worse than I thought. Not seen that before, thanks!Get'emGonçalo wrote:Mark Williams-Thomas, ex-Surrey Police Constable - Bringing the Force, and the Service, into Disrepute
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Ernie Allen - there is a lot of discussion on this particular rogue on CMOMM so I wont repeat it here, but here are some links.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Mr. Ernie Allen is the President and CEO of both the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Inc. (NCMEC USA) and the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children Inc. (ICMEC), two American companies based in Virginia that have received more than half a billion dollars in non-competitive federal funding
since 1984.
Mr. Allen has been President and CEO of these two companies since their inception.
His privately-held companies have released almost no records, financial or otherwise, that would permit public oversight of their activities. The self-styled National Center was first awarded $3.3 million dollars by the Department of Justice in 1984. Despite more than 25 years of public funding, they have never been held to account for their expenditures, much less for their corporate policies and initiatives.
What little is known indicates that their top executives are richly rewarded. The St. Petersburg Times of Florida recently ran a critical article originally titled[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The article's title was changed to[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]before its publication in the newspaper's print edition. The exposé correctly notes that Mr. Allen himself was compensated in 2008 to the tune of $1.3 MILLION.
$1,344,567.00
That's just in money that we know about. Adding in all the other typical executive "perks" from such things as travel expenses, cronyism and related kickbacks, the value of Mr. Allen's compensation must surely surpass TWO MILLION dollars.
Mr. Allen is running two cash cows, one of which even dares to masquerade as an "international" entity without any recognition of its claimed status from the United Nations or any other multinational body.
In countries around the world, the ICMEC presents itself as a multinational entity. Foreign officials and citizens alike are regularly duped into thinking that its publications reflect a collaborative, deliberative process, as would the publications of a truly international agency like the World Health Organisation. Yet, the notion that the ICMEC is international in anything but the scope of its target is entirely divorced from reality.
The ICMEC is nothing more than a tool to broadcast American political and social interests abroad. Its primary but unstated goal -- to remove children from their established residences in other countries so that they might be raised in the United States, where all contact with their foreign relations would be impossible --derives from the ethnocentric and conceited notion that the United States alone knows what is best for the children of its citizens.
Meantime, the Mr. Allen's other company, NCMEC USA, issues entire barrages of overinflated, misleading or outright false statistics, not just about [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], but also about the prevalence of child pornography on the Internet, the true extent of "stranger danger", the[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and even the number of children who are[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Mr. Allen and his businesses have been pulling the wool over the eyes of both the American taxpayer and the international community for way too many years.
The proof is in the pudding, goes a saying, and so it is here. Many cases of missing child fraud have already been exposed through the work of an international cadre of private volunteers at the[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. You are welcome to flip through the cases posted there, which represent only a small fraction of known cases of missing child fraud worldwide.
This site is dedicated to exposing only one particular case of missing child fraud in detail. The basic facts that have already led to six convictions of my child's birth mother may be found under the tab entitled[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Her next trial will take place together with Mr. Allen's in Athens this December.
On the right-hand side of this page you will find a copy of the charges pending against the tortfeasors, in official English translation.
New charges for fraud and criminal libel have been issued in Heraklion against Mr. Allen and Ms. Golm. A translation of those charges is being prepared and will eventually be loaded onto this site. The new charges are also scheduled to be heard this December.
Preparations are currently being made to report live from the courthouse steps. .
Ernie Allen - there is a lot of discussion on this particular rogue on CMOMM so I wont repeat it here, but here are some links.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Mr. Ernie Allen is the President and CEO of both the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Inc. (NCMEC USA) and the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children Inc. (ICMEC), two American companies based in Virginia that have received more than half a billion dollars in non-competitive federal funding
since 1984.
Mr. Allen has been President and CEO of these two companies since their inception.
His privately-held companies have released almost no records, financial or otherwise, that would permit public oversight of their activities. The self-styled National Center was first awarded $3.3 million dollars by the Department of Justice in 1984. Despite more than 25 years of public funding, they have never been held to account for their expenditures, much less for their corporate policies and initiatives.
What little is known indicates that their top executives are richly rewarded. The St. Petersburg Times of Florida recently ran a critical article originally titled[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The article's title was changed to[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]before its publication in the newspaper's print edition. The exposé correctly notes that Mr. Allen himself was compensated in 2008 to the tune of $1.3 MILLION.
$1,344,567.00
That's just in money that we know about. Adding in all the other typical executive "perks" from such things as travel expenses, cronyism and related kickbacks, the value of Mr. Allen's compensation must surely surpass TWO MILLION dollars.
Mr. Allen is running two cash cows, one of which even dares to masquerade as an "international" entity without any recognition of its claimed status from the United Nations or any other multinational body.
In countries around the world, the ICMEC presents itself as a multinational entity. Foreign officials and citizens alike are regularly duped into thinking that its publications reflect a collaborative, deliberative process, as would the publications of a truly international agency like the World Health Organisation. Yet, the notion that the ICMEC is international in anything but the scope of its target is entirely divorced from reality.
The ICMEC is nothing more than a tool to broadcast American political and social interests abroad. Its primary but unstated goal -- to remove children from their established residences in other countries so that they might be raised in the United States, where all contact with their foreign relations would be impossible --derives from the ethnocentric and conceited notion that the United States alone knows what is best for the children of its citizens.
Meantime, the Mr. Allen's other company, NCMEC USA, issues entire barrages of overinflated, misleading or outright false statistics, not just about [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], but also about the prevalence of child pornography on the Internet, the true extent of "stranger danger", the[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and even the number of children who are[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Mr. Allen and his businesses have been pulling the wool over the eyes of both the American taxpayer and the international community for way too many years.
The proof is in the pudding, goes a saying, and so it is here. Many cases of missing child fraud have already been exposed through the work of an international cadre of private volunteers at the[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. You are welcome to flip through the cases posted there, which represent only a small fraction of known cases of missing child fraud worldwide.
This site is dedicated to exposing only one particular case of missing child fraud in detail. The basic facts that have already led to six convictions of my child's birth mother may be found under the tab entitled[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
Her next trial will take place together with Mr. Allen's in Athens this December.
On the right-hand side of this page you will find a copy of the charges pending against the tortfeasors, in official English translation.
New charges for fraud and criminal libel have been issued in Heraklion against Mr. Allen and Ms. Golm. A translation of those charges is being prepared and will eventually be loaded onto this site. The new charges are also scheduled to be heard this December.
Preparations are currently being made to report live from the courthouse steps. .
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Oh ok. LOL.Verdi wrote:Forbidden territory least said soonest mended.Joss wrote:Would S. Poulton qualify as a Rogue ?, i'm still waiting on that darn documentary, :)
Joss- Posts : 1960
Activity : 2154
Likes received : 196
Join date : 2011-09-19
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
s
I will just say i think you have added good quality to the forum as have many others here, and enjoy reading your postsVerdi wrote:Isn't it supposed to be quality over quantity ?Joss wrote:Now c'mon Verdi, you know you're posts aren't feeble you have over 3,000 of them,
Joss- Posts : 1960
Activity : 2154
Likes received : 196
Join date : 2011-09-19
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Max Mosley
Max Rufus Mosley (born 13 April 1940) is the youngest son of British Fascist leader Oswald Mosley. He (Max) gained fame as the former president of FIA, a non-profit association that represents the interests of motoring organisations and car users worldwide. The FIA is also the governing body for Formula One and other international motorsports.
Together with Bernie Ecclestone, he represented Formula One at the FIA and in its dealings with race organisers. In 1978, Mosley became the official legal adviser to Formula One. In this role he and Marco Piccinini negotiated the first version of the Concorde Agreement, which settled a long-standing dispute between Formula One OCA and the Fédération Internationale du Sport Automobile (FISA), a commission of the FIA and the then governing body of Formula One. Mosley was elected president of FISA in 1991 and became president of the FIA, FISA's parent body, in 1993.
But in more recent times, his life has been dominated by a true story in the now-defunct News of the World in 2008. It turned out he had been regularly practising S & M - sado-masochism – with dominatrices and other S & M devotees, ever since his early twenties. Most would argue that whatever grown men and women do in their private lives is entirely their affair. But like most other celebrities who adore the press when they are praising them, highlighting their achievements and giving them ‘puffs’ etc, Mosely reacted badly, especially to the lurid claim that he enjoyed the dominatrices dressing up as Nazis, wearing swastika armbands, This was too much for Mosley. He issued a volley of abuse against the NOTW and successfully sued them for £60,000 (just because they got the ‘Nazi’ bit wrong).
In March 2009 he appeared before the House of Commons Committee on Press Standards to complain about the press, strangely enough on the very same day that Gerry McCann also gave evidence to the same committee, flanked by Clarence Mitchell and Carter-Ruck Partner, Adam Tudor.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Max Mosley joined forces with Gerry & Kate McCann to found ‘Hacked Off’, a campaign of the ‘great and the good’ who said they had been unfairly ‘hounded’ by the press.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Assorted rogues who had been ‘caught with their trousers down’ and exposed on the press joined in this evil campaign to restrict press freedom, among them Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan.
On 18 July 2012, as he gave evidence to the Leveson Enquiry, he issued this statement:
“The British press has repeatedly gone beyond the bounds of civilised behavior”, Max Mosley has said. The former head of the FIA, who gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry for the second time today, was the subject of a sting by the News of the World and won a privacy case against the newspaper in 2008.
In a written statement, Mosley criticised sections of the industry for breaking the law and adopting a ‘bullying and dishonest approach’ to legal challenges. He also said justice for defamation and privacy breaches was denied to most of the population because of legal costs.
Mosley, who in his previous evidence discussed his privacy case, this time put forward a proposal for a press tribunal for handling disputes and a ‘Press Commission’ to replace the current Press Complaints Commission. He told the inquiry the press should be allowed to make rules for regulation with outside help.
Hmmm, well we now know what Mosley’s ‘outside help’ is all about. After Leveson, the newspaper industry recognised that the old Press Complaints Commission (PCC) needed reform and so set up the beefed-up Independent Press Standards Commission (IPSO). By all accounts IPSO is working more effectively than the old PCC.
Some CMOMM members may recall member here Tony Bennett’s success last year in winning a ruling after the Daily Express, reporting on Gonçalo Amaral’s successful appeal in the Portuguese Court of Appeal, accused him of having ‘lied’ in his book. ‘The Truth of the Lie’. Tony successfully proved that he had not lied and the Express was ordered to make a correction. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
But this is not enough for Max Mosley, Gerry McCann, Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan and their ilk. The government has approved a body called IMPRESS to run press complaints. At present several hundred newspapers have joined IPSO but only a handful have joined IMPRESS. The government now wants to implement Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which will mean that any newspaper not registered with IMPRESS will have to pay the legal costs of all complainants, win or lose.
And guess who funds IMPRESS. Why, yes, Max Mosley!
It will be open season for complainants of all hues to bleed the press dry by making a series of unsuccessful and frivolous complaints. Newspapers will be frightened to tackle controversial stories and so press freedom will end. In a survey last week, only 4% of the public supported IMPRESS and the other 96% thought that things should stay as they are. These Daily Mail articles give full details of Mosley’s sordid, illiberal campaign. Just because his sado-masochism hobby was exposed:
2 Oct 2015 Max Mosley bankrolled campaign to make Tom Watson ... - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
14 Apr 2016 How Max Mosley is using his millions to seek vengeance on Press ... - Daily Mail
13 Jul 2016 Labour's Tom Watson received £200,000 donation from ... - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
31 Oct 2016 Max Mosley's press watchdog Impress to face legal challenge ... - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
3 Jan 2017 Max Mosley insists plans to force newspapers to pay ... - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
----------------------------------
If Mosley succeeds in neutering our glorious free press which has exposed so much wrongdoing in the last three centuries, he will be one of the biggest British rogues in history, never mind the last 10 years.
ROGUE QUOTE OF THE WEEK: Plans to force newspapers to pay their opponents' legal costs even if they win in court are 'eminently fair,' Max Mosley insisted today: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Adam Tudor
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Adam Tudor joined Carter-Ruck in 2001 and became a Partner in 2003.
He specialises in media litigation and reputation management, and is also spearheading the firm’s commercial litigation practice. His clients range from multinational corporations and leading business people, to a number of national governments and heads of state, as well as other high-profile politicians and celebrities.
Post-publication, Adam has extensive experience of securing apologies and damages for clients as well as having material removed from or amended on the internet. Adam has extensive trial experience, having secured some of the most notable awards of the past 15 years. In libel circles, Adam is perhaps best known for representing Kate and Gerry McCann, for whom he has acted since 2008. This work has included securing unprecedented front page apologies from the Daily Express, Daily Star and their sister Sunday titles as well as £550,000 in libel damages. Adam also obtained apologies and £375,000 in damages from the Express group for the seven friends who were dining with the McCanns on the night Madeleine was abducted. All the damages in these and related cases have been applied to the search for Madeleine. Adam also advised Mr and Mrs McCann in relation to their evidence before the Leveson Inquiry.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
If anyone can elaborate on this representative of the legal profession that aims to profit by stifling the truth, please help by any useful addition. My particular interest is in the name - always Adam Tudor where matters of McCann are at the fore. With such an outstanding reputation as boasted by the firm Carter Ruck, representing the most wealthy in the land, it's an act of extraordinary proportions that two insignificant small time medics from middle England, have managed to secure their expertise in libel law. According to Kate McCann - always working in the background pro bono.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Adam Tudor joined Carter-Ruck in 2001 and became a Partner in 2003.
He specialises in media litigation and reputation management, and is also spearheading the firm’s commercial litigation practice. His clients range from multinational corporations and leading business people, to a number of national governments and heads of state, as well as other high-profile politicians and celebrities.
Post-publication, Adam has extensive experience of securing apologies and damages for clients as well as having material removed from or amended on the internet. Adam has extensive trial experience, having secured some of the most notable awards of the past 15 years. In libel circles, Adam is perhaps best known for representing Kate and Gerry McCann, for whom he has acted since 2008. This work has included securing unprecedented front page apologies from the Daily Express, Daily Star and their sister Sunday titles as well as £550,000 in libel damages. Adam also obtained apologies and £375,000 in damages from the Express group for the seven friends who were dining with the McCanns on the night Madeleine was abducted. All the damages in these and related cases have been applied to the search for Madeleine. Adam also advised Mr and Mrs McCann in relation to their evidence before the Leveson Inquiry.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
If anyone can elaborate on this representative of the legal profession that aims to profit by stifling the truth, please help by any useful addition. My particular interest is in the name - always Adam Tudor where matters of McCann are at the fore. With such an outstanding reputation as boasted by the firm Carter Ruck, representing the most wealthy in the land, it's an act of extraordinary proportions that two insignificant small time medics from middle England, have managed to secure their expertise in libel law. According to Kate McCann - always working in the background pro bono.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Small time medics don't usually have access to large amounts of donated cash, revenue from stories sold to the media, and income from a highly published book.
Cmaryholmes- Posts : 445
Activity : 915
Likes received : 462
Join date : 2016-03-01
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
I'm looking forward to reading Clarence Mitchell's Rogue of the Day write-up, that'll be a long one!
____________________
happychick- Posts : 405
Activity : 503
Likes received : 40
Join date : 2011-06-14
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
This is of course true, however I don't think that level of income could afford even six months of Carter Ruck time, let alone +nine years. I don't believe for a second that they work pro bono - for Bono maybe but definitely not pro bono.Cmaryholmes wrote:Small time medics don't usually have access to large amounts of donated cash, revenue from stories sold to the media, and income from a highly published book.
My guess is their services were procured by someone other than the parents McCann, a wealthy benefactor for example - a regular so to speak.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
You and me both !happychick wrote:I'm looking forward to reading Clarence Mitchell's Rogue of the Day write-up, that'll be a long one!
Not something I would attempt, it needs someone with their finger on the pulse and direct easy access to documented coverage of the persons movements over the past ten years - if not more.
A complete project in itself. I would strongly advise installments over a period of time - can't stint on a single detail .
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Verdi wrote:YYou and me both !happychick wrote:I'm looking forward to reading Clarence Mitchell's Rogue of the Day write-up, that'll be a long one!
Not something I would attempt, it needs someone with their finger on the pulse and direct easy access to documented coverage of the persons movements over the past ten years - if not more.
A complete project in itself. I would strongly advise installments over a period of time - can't stint on a single detail .
Ok - I'll start this one off with this little reminder
THE SAYINGS OF CLARENCE MITCHELL: A MASTER MEDIA MANIPULATOR
This leaflet was first printed in February 2009 and revised in May 2009. It has now been updated a second time.
Clarence Mitchell now works for the PR company, Freud Communications, whose boss is Matthew Freud - the husband of Elisabeth Murdoch, who is the daughter of Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is the world’s most powerful media magnate, with major terrestrial TV, satellite and media interests in dozens of countries. So who is Clarence Mitchell and why is he employed by the world’s biggest controller of news? Find out some of the answer below.
A COUPLE OF QUOTES
Carlos Anjos, head of the Portuguese police professional association, who had dealings with Clarence Mitchell, said of him: “He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth”.
Clarence Mitchell in his own words, on 29 September 2007 to Espresso: “I was the head of the government's Media Monitoring Unit. Forty people work there and their function is to control what comes out in the media."
CLARENCE MITCHELL’S CAREER
Clarence Mitchell’s media career began in the late 1980s as a BBC regional reporter in Leeds. He moved to London where he covered stories about the Royals. A 2007 article on the BBC website by Laurie Margolis about him says:
“Clarence was also a presenter on various BBC news programmes, looking to make that his main career. The presenting world is a precarious and capricious one, however, and he never quite made it. Once, I was working throughout the night. Clarence was presenting hourly bulletins on BBC News 24. He did the 1am, and 2am, but at 3am a slightly dishevelled looking producer appeared doing the news. It turned out Clarence closed his eyes, sleeping through the 3am bulletin. Clarence left the BBC suddenly, becoming the Labour government’s Director of its Media Monitoring Unit at the Central Office of Information. There, his job was to ‘correct’ bad media stories about the government and to put out the government line”. A ‘spinner’, as some would say, or ‘a professional liar’ as others describe it. In May 2007 he was suddenly seconded to the Foreign Office to work as the McCanns’ chief PR man, assisting another McCann spokeswoman, Justine McGuiness. In September 2007, in an unusual move, he resigned from the civil service to become the McCanns’ full-time spokesman, on £75,000 a year. He remains in that role, though he has been employed for the last few months by another major PR agency, Freud Communications”.
Clarence Mitchell remains employed by Freud Communications, where he can be contacted. He also works part-time for the McCanns as their chief public relations officer at a salary reputed to be around £30,000 a year. No-one is quite sure who really finds that salary. Maybe the McCanns? Maybe the McCanns’ ‘Find Madeleine’ fund-raising trust? Maybe the McCanns’ benefactor, Brian Kennedy? Maybe the government? It is one of life’s little secrets.
‘AN ANGEL OF DEATH’
Margolis also noted Clarence Mitchell’s strange association with controversial murder cases: “He was closely involved with the Fred and Rosemary West case, where a murderous couple had killed young girls and buried the bodies under their patio in Gloucester. He was one of the first reporters to arrive at Gowan Avenue, Fulham in south west London, when the immensely popular BBC TV presenter Jill Dando was shot dead in a murder many feel has never been satisfactorily explained”. Mitchell also covered in depth the arrest and conviction of mass-murderer Dennis Nilson. When Paula Yates’ partner Michael Hutchance died in mysterious circumstances in the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Sydney, Australia, in 1999, Clarence Mitchell was despatched to cover the death; more recently, in a story he worked on right up to the day he left the BBC, Clarence led coverage of the murder of the Surrey schoolgirl Millie Dowler in 2002. The case has never been solved.
“Mitchell has also written books on the Fred & Rosemary West and Jill Dando cases. He also reported extensively on the murder by Ian Huntley of Soham girls Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. On 9 January this year, the Independent ran a brief article titled: ‘Remember Clarence Mitchell?’ It said: “Clarence Mitchell, formerly of the BBC and now spokesman for Madeleine McCann’s parents, has developed a nice little niche as a spin doctor of misery. First he took on Fiona MacKeown, mother of teenager Scarlet Kelling, who was murdered in Goa. Then he started representing the parents of murdered London teenager Jimmy Mizen. And today we’ve discovered that Mr Mitchell is also speaking for the wife of Jeremy Hoyland, the British jet skier who went missing off the coast of Bali last October. Mr Mitchell is not charging for his services. But his presence can hardly be reassuring - the PR equivalent of an angel of death”.
CLARENCE MITCHELL & THE MADELEINE McCANN CASE
Clarence Mitchell has achieved much in the Madeleine McCann case. He played (according to himself) a key role in arranging for the McCanns to meet the Pope on 28 May 2007, just 25 days after Madeleine McCann was reported missing. A man with connections at the highest level, Clarence Mitchell openly boasted in a TV interview that it was he who arranged, via Roman Catholic Archbishop Cormac Murphy O’Connor, for the McCanns to visit the Pope - in what was a highly publicised visit. The Pope put pages of material about the McCanns and Madeleine on his website. But two days before the McCanns were made arguidos - ‘provisional suspects’ - in September 2007, the Pope wiped all references to Madeleine from his website. Margolis wrote in 2007: “I would imagine Clarence is content in his new role as the family's voice. He's centre stage on a huge story, intimately involved as ever, and on television and in the papers all the time. It was extraordinary how, last week, his intervention seemed to eliminate within hours any misgiving about the McCanns in the British media”.
Who has been paying Clarence Mitchell’s salary whilst he has been working for the McCanns?
This remains a mystery. We know that up to September 2007, the British government paid his salary. He left the government that month. Since then, the McCanns and Mitchell have said on the record that the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’ has not paid any part of his salary. They say that he was paid by ‘an anonymous backer’. But Clarence Mitchell won’t say who that backer is, nor why that backer is giving him so much support. In article in the Independent on Sunday, 1 March 2009, Mitchell contradicted previous claims that his salary was being paid by an anonymous backer. He now says he gets a retainer of £28,000 a year from the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’, donations to which were given to ‘help find Madeleine’, not to pay the salaries of PR professionals
.
Clarence Mitchell and the McCanns: 21 Issues of Concern
Here we examine 21 of the many issues that have caused people concern about Mitchell’s role in the Madeleine McCann case. At the end of our leaflet we explain how to obtain more information on the Madeleine McCann case, including our 60-page booklet: ‘What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted’.
1. Allegedly being involved in tipping off the McCanns that the Portuguese police had been, or were going to, track their e-mails and ’phone calls
There were sell-sourced reports that the McCanns were tipped off that the Portuguese police were monitoring their e-mails and ’phone calls. There was naturally concern over how this information leaked to them. A former Portuguese police officer has admitted working for the Spanish private detective agency, Metodo 3. He in turn had an inside contact in the Portuguese police who supplied Metodo 3 with information about the investigation. Clarence Mitchell was asked in an interview by Simon Israel on Channel 4 how the McCanns were tipped off. He refused to answer.
2. Being forced to deny the McCanns’ initial claim of a break-in
On the evening that Madeleine was reported missing, the McCanns claimed in ’phone calls to their relatives that an abductor had broken into the children’s room by ‘jemmying open the shutters’. This claim was reported extensively in the media. But the managers of the Mark Warners resort where the McCanns were staying, and the police, soon discovered that the shutters had not been tampered with. This forced the McCanns to dramatically change their story - one of many changes of story - to say: ‘The abductor must have walked in through an unlocked patio door”. Asked about this discrepancy, Mitchell was forced to concede on the record: “There was no evidence of a break-in. I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape. To do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily”. It is however most unlikley that an abductor could have ‘got out of the window easily,’ leaving no forensic trace. The window in question was just over 2ft square and was 3ft above the ground. It was dark at the time the McCanns say Madeleine disappeared. For an abductor to have taken Madeleine through such a window, in the dark, without being seen or heard by anoyne (except the McCanns’ friend Jane Tanner), and without leaving any forensic trace, is highly unlikely.
3. Smearing Robert Murat
A curious feature of the Madeleine case was the targeting of Robert Murat, a dual Portuguese-British citizen, as a suspect. A journalist who had previously worked closely with Clarence Mitchell, Lori Campbell, suspected Murat of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and reported him to the Police. It is very likely that this followed conversations between Mitchell and her. Three of the McCanns’ close friends, the so-called ‘Tapas 7’, also reported seeing Robert Murat close to the McCanns’ apartment the evening Madeleine went missing, a claim he denied. The McCann camp made a concerted attempt, for whatever reason, to smear Murat. Clarence Mitchell himself played a key role in this: He told one newspaper:
“An outcome similar to Holly and Jessica [Soham children murdered by Ian Huntley] is possible. I don't want to, and I can't, talk about Robert Murat, but some journalists who worked with me in Soham, and that were now in Portugal, saw resemblances between that case and Robert Murat. And I won't say more”. He was very lucky that Murat did not sue him for libel, since in 2008 Robert Murat collected a reported £600,000 in libel damages from news media and journalists whom he claimed had smeared and libelled him.
4. Being forced to retract his claim that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’
During early 2008, Clarence Mitchell was forced to concede that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’. This caused grave embarrassment for the McCanns, who were determined publicly to maintain that Madeleine was still alive. His statement could also have had serious implications for the Helping to Find Madeleine Fund, which could only continue to operate and keep asking for donations on the premise that Madeleine was still alive. Dr Gerald McCann was forced to publicly rebuke his PR chief by insisting on his blog two days later that they remained hopeful that Madeleine was still alive.
5. Failing to explain that the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’ was not a charity
Interviewed by James Whale, Mitchell repeatedly refused to correct Whale when he referred to the McCanns’ fund as a ‘charity’. In fact, the Helping to Find Madeleine Fund is registered as a ‘private trust’; its aims are not charitable and include making payments to the McCanns. It only has to make annual returns to Companies House. Beyond that, the Trust is not accountable to anyone.
6. Asking people to send money in envelopes to ‘Gerry and Kate, Rothley’
Asked on the same James Whale show how people could contribute to the fund, Mitchell said: “Just put money into an envelope and send to Kate and Gerry McCann, Rothley, it’ll get there”. That was unprofessional - monies should have been directed to the registered office for the Fund, namely London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwaite. For example, monies sent in the post could be stolen en route or would not be properly accounted for.
7. Claiming that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’
Pressed about control of the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’, Clarence Mitchell claimed that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’. This is untrue. The Trust’s Directors consist mainly of members of the McCann family and their friends or acquaintances.
8. Retreating on whether or not the McCanns would take a lie detector test
The McCanns were anxious to convince the world that they were telling the truth about how Madeleine had suddenly gone missing. To bolster their claim, Clarence Mitchell announced: “Kate and Gerry McCann would have no issue with taking a lie detector test”. However, two months later, after a number of lie detector experts came forward to offer their services, he announced: "Of course they are not going to take any lie detector test”.
9. Making a film for TV about the McCanns’ distress ‘one year on’ whilst at the same time claiming the McCanns were not doing so
Clarence Mitchell told the media: “The McCanns don't want to do anything about 'woe is us a year on'. That is what the tabloids would like us to do, but we are not following their agenda, we are following our own agenda” (one of many references to ‘our agenda’). Weeks later, there was a two-hour long pre-recorded TV interview: ‘Madeleine McCann - One Year On’, clearly prepared long before his public statement, and certainly with his personal knowledge. And the programme was very much: “Woe is us a year on”.
10. Issuing a ‘Crimewatch’-style video clip with a description of an abductor
It has always been the McCanns who have given out descriptions of a possible abductor. The Portuguese police from early on doubted the truthfulness of claims by Jane Tanner, one of the McCanns’ ‘Tapas 7’ friends, that she had seen an abductor. In early 2008, Clarence Mitchell announced that the McCann team were looking for a moustachioed man seen in Praia da Luz around the time Madeleine went missing. He did this in a widely-shown video clip in which he acted like a Crimewatch presenter. At a meeting at the London School of Economics on 30 January 2008, this performance, plus his commanding stance and choice of words, prompted one member of the LSE audience to ask: “Are you the police?” There was much laughter.
11. Claiming that “…whatever the Portuguese police might find in their investigation, the McCanns will have an innocent explanation for it”
To this bizarre statement, Mitchell added the equally strange comment: “There are wholly innocent explanations for any material that the police may or may not have found”, prompting many to ask: “How could the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell know in advance what the police might find and know that there would be ‘an innocent explanation’ for everything?
12. Claiming it didn’t matter if Dr Kate McCann changed her clothes on 3 May
One of the key issues in the Madeleine McCann case is whether the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 7’ friends have been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the events of 3 May 2007, the day Madeleine was reported missing. In late 2008, a French journalist, Duarte Levy, claimed to have seen photos taken that evening conclusively proving that Dr Kate McCann had left the table during the evening and changed her clothes. That would blow a hole in her claim that she was at the Tapas bar the whole evening. She would have had to explain why she changed her clothes. Mitchell’s official response to these claims was: “So what if she did leave the table and change her clothes?” He refused to elaborate.
13. Saying that ‘none of the Tapas group’ were wearing watches the night Madeleine went missing - and then being forced to retract that statement
Clarence Mitchell had come under pressure from journalists to explain why there were so many significant contradictions between the McCanns’ and the Tapas 7’s versions of events on 3 May 2007, when Madeleine ‘disappeared’. There were also many discrepancies in their timelines. Mitchell tried to explain, responding: “None of them were wearing watches or had mobile phones on them that night”.
Those journalists then confronted him with the sheer unlikelihood that all nine had neither watch nor mobile ’phone, pointed out that the McCanns and others had used their mobile ’phones that night, and produced pictures of the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends taken in Praia da Luz that week which showed that they were always wearing watches.
Clarence Mitchell was forced into an embarrassing retreat, conceding: “Some of them were wearing watches and had mobile ’phones, some of them weren’t”. It is also now known from the McCanns’ statements to the police, which have been publicly released, that the McCanns both had mobile ’phones with them that evening. As their official spokesman, Mitchell must surely have been briefed on this before he made his statement.
14. Falsely claiming that the McCanns had been ‘utterly honest and utterly open’
On 11 April 2008, Clarence Mitchell made this bold claim: “Kate and Gerry have been utterly honest and utterly open with the police and all of their statements from the moment that Madeleine was taken”. He later said, referring to himself and the McCanns: ‘We have nothing to hide’. When addressing a largely student audience during what were called ‘The Coventry Conversations’, Mitchell said: “We are always willing to co-operate with the Portuguese police”. These were bold claims to make given that…
· Dr Kate McCann was asked 48 questions by the Portuguese police when interviewed on 7 September 2007 and refused to answer any of them.
· The McCanns had refused point blank to take part in a reconstruction of the events of 3 May 2007, the night Madeleine McCann was reported missing.
· The McCanns’ statements contained numerous changes of story, contradictions with the accounts of others, evasions and apparent obfuscations.
15. Claiming it would be ‘hugely entertaining’ to devise a cast list for a proposed film about Madeleine going missing
On 7 January 2008 it was widely reported in the media that the McCanns and their advisers were in talks with media and film moguls IMG, who made the film ‘Touching the Void’, about a possible film about Madeleine’s disappearance. Clarence Mitchell was asked whether Gerry and Kate would play themselves in any film or if their roles would be played by celebrity actors. He said: “It may be hugely entertaining and a bit of fun to speculate on a cast list, but we are a million miles away from that sort of thing”. On another occasion, he said of Madeleine: “If she is dead, she is dead”. These and other comments made some wonder how much ‘feel’ or concern for Madeleine’s welfare and fate Mitchell really had.
16. Claiming it was a British cultural custom for parents to put children to bed early so they could enjoy the rest of the evening
Interviewed by Irish TV station RTE, Clarence Mitchell tried to explain why the McCanns left three young children under four on their own, several nights in a row, whilst on holiday, and dining out for the evening. He told his TV audience: “There is a cultural difference between Britain and Portugal. It is a British approach to get your children washed, bathed and in bed early in the evening, if you can, so you can have something of the evening to yourself. That’s the British way of doing things. It doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's right”. Many British parents objected strongly to Mitchell’s description of them..
17. Trying to deny that the McCanns had left the children alone every night
In an interview with Jon Gaunt of TalkSport, Clarence Mitchell was trying to explain why the McCanns had left their children alone ‘that night’ (i.e. the night of 3 May when Madeleine was reported missing). He was quickly corrected by Gaunt who reminded him: ‘But they left them alone every night’. Mitchell had no answer.
18. Blaming Romany gypsies for abducting Madeleine
Clarence Mitchell on one occasion pointed the finger of suspicion at Romany gypsies for having abducted Madeleine. It appeared he had no basis whatsoever for smearing this group of people. He has never apologised for making it.
19. Using an image of Mari Luz without her parents’ permission
Months after Madeleine went missing, another child, Mari Luz, went missing, though in very different circumstances. Sadly she has since been found dead. The McCanns printed posters of Madeleine together with Mari Luz - without gaining the parents’ prior permission. Her parents were very upset, and complained. Clarence Mitchell reacted by stating: “It’s a shame that they are complaining about us in a press release. How can they be angry with is for wanting to help when all we’re trying to do is find their own daughter?”
20. Being ‘encouraged’ that Madeleine ‘may have been abducted by paedophiles’
In early 2008, stories were put about by an unknown Portuguese lawyer, Marcos Alexandre Aragao Correia, that Madeleine McCann had been abducted by paedophiles, raped, murdered and her body dumped in a dammed lake. At the time, a new drawing of a possible abductor was released, and part of the Arade Dam was searched. A friend of the McCanns was quoted as saying: “We fear that a group of two or three paedophiles may have been fishing around the apartments, casing them with a view to taking children".
Mitchell then commented:
“Developments such as this give Mr and Mrs McCann renewed hope. That is exactly the sort of call we want. We think the image is of such a quality that anyone who knows him will be able to identify him. Kate and Gerry are quite buoyant at the moment - every time we do something like this and move things forward it gives them strength. We’re very encouraged by this - putting all this information out, these images out, is helping Gerry and Kate in one way; simply by doing it we have got some momentum and are pushing the agenda forward on our side of the equation”.
Many asked why Mitchell and the McCanns could use such words as ‘buoyant’ and ‘encouraged’ in relation to Madeleine’s having possibly been raped and murdered by paedophiles.
And his use of the word ‘agenda’, yet again, once more prompted the question: What was their ‘agenda’?
21. Explaining why the McCanns deliberately left their three children alone again the night after Madeleine and Sean had been crying the night before
On SKY News, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed, following a pre-recorded interview with the McCanns in which they admitted, for the first time, that two of their children had been crying on the night before Madeleine went missing. There was public outrage that the McCanns were told by their children that they had been crying the previous night whilst they were dining out, only to then leave them alone again the very next night. The SKY News presenter asked: “Why did Kate and Gerry choose to leave the children the same way the very next night?” Clarence Mitchell’s reply is instructive. Here it is in full:
“That is one interpretation. Let me put it in context. On the morning of May the 3rd, the day Madeleine later went missing, she came out, and said to Gerry and Kate at breakfast, very briefly as an aside, in no way was she unhappy or crying and then, in no way was she reprimanding her parents as some reports papers have wrongly, er, said. She simply said: “Why didn’t you come see - come and see me and Sean when we were crying, last night?”, and Kate and Gerry were puzzled by that, because in their checks - they had been checking her every 25/30 minutes, the same as they did the next night, when she went missing - they had found nothing to suggest that she was in any way distressed or upset, they found her asleep each time.
“There was nothing wrong. Rachel Oldfield, one of their friends, was in the apartment next door, in the room adjacent to Madeleine’s bedroom. She too was there all evening and heard no crying through the walls. There was nothing to suggest this had happened. So it was a puzzle to Kate and Gerry when Madeleine mentioned it. They tried to question her about it, and she just walked off laughing, and, er, happy, she was [note the past tense] a child and she and, and so, so she dropped it. Now they of course had a serious discussion about what had possibly gone wrong and they decided to check her more thoroughly that next night, and that’s what they did. And in the context of ‘leak’ came from a Spanish journalist known to be very sympathetic to the McCanns].
“What happened later - her disappearance - they felt that that conversation, puzzling as it was, was very important to bring to the police’s attention. They wonder why, if she cried, why she cried. Was something, or someone already in that room to make her cry and they fled when she cried? Who knows? They can’t prove that, but they told the police in confidence - legally protected documentation has been in those files for 11 months - and why does it appear on the very day they were at the European Parliament? Somebody in the police doesn’t want Kate and Gerry to widen the agenda [that word again!], for whatever reason. It’s wrong. It’s illegal, and the Portuguese government needs to stop this…from happening in the future”
During this long reply, we see the master media manipulator at work.
He makes light of two children crying while their parents were not with them.
He justifies the McCanns’ decision to go out dining with their friends and leaving all three children alone again the very night after the children told them of their crying.
He claims, without evidence, that the police leaked the story about the McCanns’ children crying on their own the night before.
He claims the police have done something illegal.
Some might admire him as a master of his craft, and indeed one writer has already said that the McCanns’ public relations campaign will for years to come be ‘a textbook example of how to control the media and manipulate public opinion’.
But, we may ask, if this is true, whose interests has Clarence Mitchell been serving? Is he someone who is genuinely helping us get to the truth?
Or is it just possible that this person who once boasted that his job was ‘to control what comes out in the media’ is someone who does his best to stop us getting to the truth?
Cammerigal likes this post
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
That's a little reminder? - I rest my case.sharonl wrote:Ok - I'll start this one off with this little reminder
Maybe this character needs a place all of it's own - Rogue of the Century!
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
The perfect person to send out at great cost when a child is missing?Clarence Mitchell in his own words, on 29 September 2007 to Espresso: “I was the head of the government's Media Monitoring Unit. Forty people work there and their function is to control what comes out in the media."
Clarence Mitchell... what is that smell?
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Julian Peribanez
Metodo 3 detective, seen in this short video clip shielding his face as he tours the streets of Praia da Luz in company with his boss, Brian Kennedy, who we see later in the clip walking down a street in Praia da Luz with his son, Patrick, who is now owner of the Cheshire-based property empire, Patrick Properties:
He appears to have been one of the Metodo 3 men employed simply to promote false ‘sightings’ of Madeleine. He was also employed in interviewing the ‘Jensen’ sisters, whose subsequent witness statements looked pretty dubious, to put it mildly.
In 2011 he was arrested and remanded in custody for taking an active role in placing illegal recording equipment on tables of a Barcelona restaurant patronised by Barcelona’s political elite. When a selection of these tapes were leaked, they caused huge embarrassment to leading Catalonian politicians, and a media and political storm followed. In the wake of this mayhem, Metodo 3 finally collapsed and went into administration.
Here’s a video of Peribanez giving an intereview on Spanish TV about Metodo 3:
Mind you, Peribanez redeemed himself a bit. He confessed his crime of illegally taping conversations, shopped his fellow Metodo 3 conspirators and was dealt with lightly.
He then wrote up a book dishing the dirt on the inside story of Metodo 3. One chapter dealt with their work on the Madeleine McCann case. The Madeleine Foundation paid for a professional translation of it, and I placed it exclusively on CMOMM last year, here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Clarence Mitchell continued
A perfect example of the fuction of a master media manipulator - by it's own admission..
Clarence Mitchell's Powerpoint Presentation - The IIR PR Congress 2009 5th year, held in November 2009 at The Monarch Hotel in Dubai.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I tried yesterday to post the complete presentation but being from the mccannfiles (acknowledgement Nigel Moore) I couldn't make it happen. However, thanks to Pamalam it can be viewed in all it's glory here..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
A perfect example of the fuction of a master media manipulator - by it's own admission..
Clarence Mitchell's Powerpoint Presentation - The IIR PR Congress 2009 5th year, held in November 2009 at The Monarch Hotel in Dubai.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I tried yesterday to post the complete presentation but being from the mccannfiles (acknowledgement Nigel Moore) I couldn't make it happen. However, thanks to Pamalam it can be viewed in all it's glory here..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Brian Kennedy
Brian Kennedy is a very successful businessman, accumulating a personal fortune worth around £250 million. He owns a villa in Barcelona, where he once said he spends half the year, and lives in the magnificent Swettenham Hall near Congleton.
There have been some question marks about his business practices. Some of these were set out in these two links
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Then there was his controversial takeover of the ground of Stockport County Football Club, in order to promote his beloved rugby club, Sale Sharks. Under his watch, Stockport County F.C. began a terminal decline, and now lie several divisions lower in the Football Leagues.
But none of this really qualifies him as a ‘rogue’.
His Wikipedia entry is kind to him:
“Kennedy has supported charitable causes. He is the founder of the eponymous Brian Kennedy Trust, which makes charitable donations and takes up philanthropic causes in the UK. The Trust was set up in 2008, and with groups including the Cheshire police and Space4autism. He has also worked with the family of Madeleine McCann to try to find her after her disappearance in 2007”.
And it’s that part of his career that entitles him to today’s place in ‘Rogue of the Day’. Let’s look at his record in ‘trying to find Madeleine’:
1 Appointed the dodgiest detective agency in Catalonia, Metodo 3 - based in Barcelona, where he has his palatial villa - to ‘look for Madeleine’
2 Appointed lying Portuguese lawyer Marco Aragao Correia to search for Madeleine’s bones in the Arade Dam, and then to run a criminal prosecution against Gonçalo Amaral for alleged torture and allegedly filing a false report, on behalf of convicted murderess Leonor Cipriano, who killed her own daughter with the help of her brother, and then claimed she’d been abducted
3 Worked closely with lying Metodo 3 boss Francisco Marco, who openly boasted that his men knew Madeleine was alive, knew where she was being held, that his men were ‘closing in her’, and that Maddie would be ‘home by Christmas. Marco gets a dishonourable mention in this video by the way on his appearance in the Barcelona criminal courts:
4 Even after these blatant lies, continued to employ Metodo 3 for at least another 15 months
5 Worked closely with Metodo 3 detective Antonio Giminez Raso, himself a rogue who left his work as a Detective Inspector for the Catalonia Regional Drugs Squad under a cloud. In February 2008 Giminez Raso was arrested and spent four years in jail awaiting trial on charges of theft of cocaine and corrupt conduct as a police officer. He had attached himself to a 27-strong, very violent, drugs gang
6 Appointed the con-man and criminal Kevin Halligen to ‘look for Madeleine’ and paid him over £500,000 whilst most of the time he was swanning around Europe and the USA with his equally high-living girlfriend, Shirin Trachiotis. Halligen was paid out of funds generously given by the British public to the Find Madeleine Fund
7 Appointed Henri Exton, ex-Head of the Covert Intelligence Unit at MI5, to draw up two e-fits, supposed to be of one man, but which looked completely different from each other. Months earlier (December 2007) he had signed up Martin Smith to join the McCann campaign and it seems that Smith and other family members were prepared to agree that Exton’s efits were the man the police should be looking for. Funny that, as Smith said he only saw the man’s face in the dark for a second or two and then told police in May 2007 that he’d never be able to recognise the man if he ever saw him again
8 Got his friend Andrew Dickman to set up a never-used domain name for ALPHAIG, a fictitious company created to give the false impression that Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley were heading up a long-established detective agency known as Alpha Investigations Group.
Let’s hope that one day Brian Kennedy will have to fully account to someone for these egregious actions.
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Lord Timothy Bell
The wealthy owner of prestigious PR company Bell Pottinger.
Bell Pottinger prostitutes itself to some of the most disgusting regimes on the planet, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, raking in tens of millions for giving positive publicity to this cruel, odious, oppressive regime.
( More reports about Bell Pottinger’s support for this evil regime here):
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )
Tony Bennett witnessed a demonstration against Bell Pottinger on 24 March 2015 and took these pics on the way to hand some documents in to the offices of Carter Ruck:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Other oppressive regimes from which Lord Bell’s company has made millions include Belarus (Byelorussia) and Uzbekistan.
Wikipedia also records that he “successfully lobbied on behalf of the Saudi Arabian government to discontinue the UK’s Serious Fraud Office investigation into alleged bribes in the Al Yamamah arms deal”. What a hero!
In the McCann case, he sent his subsidiary company Resonate to Praia da Luz days before Madeleine was reported missing.
On Friday 4 May he sent out his ‘Head of Risk’, Alex Woolfall (who will feature in ‘Rogue of the Day’ later), who seems to have spent most of his time deleting, editing and cropping images from the McCanns’ SD memory card before downloading them onto a CD, thus helping to deny the PJ access to the original memory cards.
Finally, the greedy git took £500,000 of public money donated by the British public to the Find Madeleine Fund to enrich himself and his company for ‘keeping the McCanns on the front page’ for one year. Good for the McCanns. But it didn’t help to find Madeleine.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
I've just seen this posted up by sharonl way back in July 2011..
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Rebekah Brooks - does she warrant a place in the rogues gallery? I think yes!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Rebekah Brooks - does she warrant a place in the rogues gallery? I think yes!
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
D/Supt Stuart Prior of Leicestershire Police was the Investigating Officer on the Madeleine McCann case, in theory tasked with ‘assisting the Portuguese Police’ with their investigation.
In reality, the opposite was the case. The evidence is that he hindered them.
So what’s Detective Superintendent Prior’s main claim to fame - or notoriety - in this case?
A major event in the unfolding campaign of the McCann Team was the generation of the ‘Monsterman’, or ‘George Harrison man’ story in the News of the World on 20 January 2008.
There is no doubt that the creation of the ‘Monsterman’ story for News of the World readers was weeks in the planning. Despite the falling circulation of nearly all newspapers in the U.K., the News of the World in 2008 still had millions of Sunday readers - and a front-page story such as this one would have huge impact, as this one certainly did.
The lead-up to the publication of this story seems to have included the following elements:
The McCanns’ friend Jane Tanner said that on 3 May 2007 at around 9.15pm she saw a swarthy, olive-skinned man, dressed in a dark jacket and mustard chinos, about 5' 7" to 5' 9", carrying away a child. She admitted on the record that she did not see his face.
Ten days later, on 13 May 2007, she saw Robert Murat pass by a police van she was secreted in. She adamantly told the police: ‘That's the man I saw 10 days ago, I can tell by the way he is walking’.
In October 2007, nearly six months after Madeleine had been reported missing (and therefore of minimal practical value), the McCann Team released to the public an artist’s sketch, drawn by ‘FBI-trained’ artist Melissa Little, based on Jane Tanner’s claimed recollections.
A lady called Gail Cooper also claimed to have seen a ‘suspicious man’ lurking around Praia da Luz on up to three occasions (her accounts of the number of times she had seen this man varied, however).
In October 2007, Brian Kennedy, the Cheshire-based double glazing magnate, contacted Gail Cooper. He arranged for Melissa Little to prepare a sketch of the man Gail Cooper claimed to have seen. The sketch was later dubbed ‘Monsterman’ or ‘George Harrison man’. The PJ later totally dismissed Gail Cooper’s evidence as it is inconsistent; her second statement contradicting her first.
As we’ve just seen, Melissa Little had already been used by Brian Kennedy and the McCann Team to create an artist’s sketch of the man Jane Tanner claimed to have seen on 3 May 2007, first published nearly six months after Madeleine McCann was reported missing.
Dr Gerald McCann has given us a description of the session where Melissa Little drew up ‘Monsterman. He said:
“Jane Tanner spent a full day with Melissa Little, a qualified Police Sketch Artist since 1986, to compile this likeness of the suspect".
Melissa met Gail Cooper in a separate session. After spending hours with both witnesses, Melissa Little states: ‘There are many similarities between Miss Tanner’s man and Gail’s. Tanner believes that there is an 80% likelihood that this is the same man she saw carrying away the child, believed to be Madeleine'.
Gail Cooper confirmed that Brian Kennedy had ‘sent Melissa Little down’ to her for the day and she also criticised a draft article in the News of the World for falsely embellishing her account of events.
On Sunday 13 January 2008, Brian Kennedy visited Albert Schuurmans of the Roscoe Foundation in Portugal in connection with the story that he and the McCann Team wished to promote.
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, three days after Brian Kennedy’s interview with Albert Schuurmans, Dr Gerald McCann emailed Superintendent Stuart Prior of Leicestershire Police with a PowerPoint presentation about ‘Monsterman’ (the e-mail is Folio 3966 in the Portuguese Police files), with the briefest of covering notes saying: ‘As discussed’.
Just one hour later Superintendent Prior forwarded the package to Ricardo Paiva of the Portuguese Police, asking for instructions and stating, among other things:
“The PowerPoint attached (Folio 3968) was completed by the McCanns, but the statements were all taken by the U.K. police. Miss Tanner’s description was taken from the press and from the summary of her statement. There is some urgency around this as we need to decide prior to the Gail Cooper artist’s impression appearing in the U.K. press. How are you going to deal with the possible press issues? What are you planning around Mr Kennedy and the private investigation firm?…I will need to get back to the McCanns as he [Dr Gerald McCann] has asked to be updated. How would Paulo [Mr Rebelo] want this conducted and what information I am to provide to them? They [the McCann Team] are very excited about this potential lead”.
The main burden of Dr Gerald McCann’s ‘Powerpoint’ slides was to try to highlight the alleged similarity between Jane Tanner’s ‘bundleman’ and the ‘Monsterman/George Harrison man’ of Gail Cooper.
On 17 January 2008 (the very next day), Detective Constable 4168 of the Leicestershire Police interviewed Gail Cooper and e-mailed the Operational Task Force. He noted at the time that Mrs Cooper was trying to explain why the News of the World had added to and embellished her police statements, by saying: “It never crossed my mind” that they would do so. The Officer also reported that she “mentioned a man called Brian Kennedy who was working for the McCanns and...had sent an artist down to do a sketch of the man she saw at the villa” (Police files: Folio 4005).
On 18 January 2008, Superintendent Stuart Prior of Leicestershire Police emailed Ricardo Paiva about the Gail Cooper statement, writing: “As discussed, I have given Gerry a brief update just saying that the other descriptions are different to the artist’s impressions completed by Gail and identified by Jane [Tanner]. That the witnesses appeared genuine which indicates a number of charity collectors in the area prior to Madeleine being taken. We have not spoken to Jane at all and will not share our files with anybody, except yourselves, unless you request this from us. It appears there were at least three charity collectors if not more in the area in the weeks before Madeleine being taken. I am told that the artist’s impression by Gail Cooper is likely to hit the press over the weekend and I will update you on the effects of this next week, although we are not involved in this in any way at all”.
On 20 January the News of the World front page story re Madeleine appeared. The News of the World concluded: “The sketch by qualified police artist Melissa Little bears an uncanny resemblance to an earlier picture, based on Miss Tanner's story”.
On 21 January: Clarence Mitchell held a ‘Crimewatch’-style press conference at which he held up Melissa Little’s artist’s sketch of ‘Monsterman’.
Jane Tanner originally [13 May 2007] identified Robert Murat, from a police van, as the man she said she’d seen carrying a child on 3 May; however, the artists’ sketch of Tannerman she approved in November 2007 looked nothing like Murat. She admitted that she had never seen the man’s face, yet now felt able to declare that ‘Monsterman’ resembled the man (‘with 80% similarity’) she claimed to have seen originally.
It was a farce.
It was a farce that Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior willingly colluded in.
He willingly co-operated with the agenda of the McCanns to promote the abduction tale in the mass media, on the back of the highly dubious evidence of both Jane Tanner and Gail Cooper, which the Portuguese police rightly rejected as laden with contradictions.
He willingly co-operated with Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World to help them sell shedloads more newspapers and advertising space as a result of their front-page splash on 20 January 2008.
Prior was sent out to Praia da Luz on Day One and was no doubt a key member of that secret, top-level cabal set up by government security services under his boss, Matt Baggott, as early as Tuesday 8 May 2007.
He acted as the poodle of the McCanns and their PR machine, headed by government ‘Media Monitoring’ stooge, Clarence Mitchell. Like a lap-dog, he pleaded to the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends: ‘Call me Stu’.
His actions show a total lack of professionalism and independence, and if the man has any integrity at all, I can’t see it - based on his actions in the Madeleine McCann case.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Rogue solicitor with Rogue NHS doctor outside the D. Pedro Palace hotel in Lisbon
Edward SmethurstRogue solicitor with Rogue NHS doctor outside the D. Pedro Palace hotel in Lisbon
Freemason [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], who has holidayed in Praia da Luz every year since 1999, reportedly first became involved in the Madeleine McCann case by virtue of a telephone call he made to the McCanns on 12 September 2007, offering the help of Brian Kennedy, for whom Smethurst worked at the time. There are reasons for thinking that he may have become involved much earlier.
Amazingly, having allegedly made that initial ’phone call on 12 September, just two days later he was given the impressive title of ‘The McCanns’ Co-ordinating Solicitor’, a title he has proudly retained for the past 10 years. Two years later (2009) he became a Director of the Find Madeleine Fund, a post he has held for the past eight years.
Is he a rogue?
Edward Smethurst is a litigious solicitor, so we must be very careful.
We’d better just confine ourselves to reproducing this remarkable county court judgment in the Liverpool County Court. Smethurst had commissioned a water exploration company and water engineers, J P Whitter, to drill a bore hole for water beneath one of his many palatial properties in the Ashworth Valley area between Rochdale and Bury. But he didn’t make the contract with them direct, he did so via his longstanding business partner and builder, Richard Lear. When the job was finished, Edward Smethurst didn’t pay up. He argued that J P Whitter’s dispute was with his builder friend, Richard Lear, not him. With that very brief background in mind, without further ado let us reproduce the remarkable court judgment:
- Spoiler:
QUOTE:
IN THE LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT Claim No. 1LV50009
35 Vernon Street
Liverpool
Wednesday, 18th July 2012
Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PLATTS
Between:
J. P. WHITTER (W.E.) LTD,
Claimant
-v-
RICHARD LEAR
Defendant
___________________
Counsel for the Claimant: MR. TOM GOSLING
Counsel for the Defendant: MR. LOUIS DOYLE
___________________
JUDGMENT APPROVED BY THE COURT
Transcribed from the Official Recording by AVR Transcription Ltd
Turton Suite, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton, BL6 6HG
Telephone: 01204 693645 - Fax 01204 693669
Number of Folios: 88
Number of Words: 6,333
[ AVR 01204 693645 HMC16560/lh A B C D E F G H ]
APPROVED JUDGMENT
1. THE JUDGE: This is the trial of a preliminary issue ordered by His Honour Judge Bird on 12th March 2012, the issues being twofold; (1) whether there was a contract between the claimant and the defendant, and, (2) if so, the terms of any such contract.
2. The background is as follows. The claimant company operates as water engineers and has done so for some 40 years. Its business includes drilling boreholes to provide water supply to domestic premises. Its founding Director is John Whitter, who has given evidence before me. The defendant is a self-employed builder of nearly 40 years experience, who over the past ten to 15 years has been regularly engaged by a Mr Smethurst to carry out building works to various properties of his. The action relates to the provision of a borehole and water supply at Black Dad Farm, Ashworth Road, Rochdale, a property which Mr Smethurst was renovating. Mr Smethurst is a practising solicitor but in addition he carries on business as a property developer and owns a number of properties; he was unable in evidence to be precise as to how many. Over the years he has built up a good working relationship with the defendant, Mr Lear, and I am satisfied that there was a good deal of mutual trust between the two. In the main Mr Lear was paid £90 a day at the time for the work which he did for Mr Smethurst, plus the cost of materials.
3. It was in 2008 or maybe before that Mr Smethurst decided that as part of renovation he wanted a borehole to be drilled to provide a water supply to the house. There is no issue between the parties that in late 2008 the claimant company was approached to give a quote for the work. There was a telephone call to the claimant which took place on 5th November, although there is an issue as to whether the defendant or Mr Smethurst made that call, but there is no issue that on the following day, on 6th November, Mr Whitter, on behalf of the claimant company, attended at the farm where he met with Mr Lear for about 45 minutes or one hour. There are a number of issues as to what happened at that meeting but those are matters to which I will return.
4. There is then no issue that on 29th April 2010 the defendant, Mr Lear, signed a document which the claimant alleges was an acceptance of a quotation that had been delivered following the meeting on 6th November. That document is at page 81 of the bundle and has formed the central part of this case. There is thereafter no issue that in June 2010 the claimant company attended and carried out work at the property, drilling eventually to a depth of about 109 metres. However, during the carrying out of that work
and subsequently a number of disputes have arisen both as to what was agreed between the parties, who the parties to the contract are and in relation to the quality of the work carried out by the claimant. By the invoice dated 31st March 2011 the claimant company claimed payment for the work in the sum of £15,273.24. That sum included the cost of a site visit which was undertaken after the dispute had arisen. In a particulars of claim issued on 5th September 2011 the claimant claims the cost of the work only without the site visit, that is £14,613.24.
5. By his amended defence the defendant denies that the contract was with him. He accepts that he signed the document at page 81 but he denies that he thereby entered into a binding agreement. Alternatively, he alleges that he signed it believing that it was merely an authorisation to start work on the contract rather than an acceptance of a quote. He, therefore, relies upon the defence of non est factum and suggests that he did not intend to create legal relations with the claimant. It is against that background that His Honour Judge Bird ordered the preliminary issues which are before me.
6. It is right to note in passing that there is other litigation to which I have been referred. Sometime in early 2011 the claimant issued a claim form claiming the invoice amount from Mr Smethurst. Those proceedings were never effectively served and, therefore, lapsed. The claimant says that it had not taken legal advice at the time those proceedings were issued. Secondly, in these proceedings, at a time when Mr Smethurst was acting as the defendant’s solicitor, a counterclaim was raised effectively claiming Mr Smethurst’s own losses. Again, after legal advice that counterclaim was dropped but recently Mr Smethurst has issued proceedings in his own right claiming damages for personal injuries against the claimant company on the grounds that the water was contaminated and he, and in particular his family, were affected. Those proceedings are not before me.
7. It has been apparent during the evidence that there are a number of disputes of fact between the parties and before I go to resolve those disputes of fact and make findings I say a word about the witnesses who have given evidence. Mr Rudd was the first witness. He took the call on behalf of the claimant on 5th November 2011. He was a straightforward witness whose evidence really does not advance the case significantly either way.
8. Mr Whitter gave evidence. He was, I have to say, a very blunt witness. He gave his evidence in a straightforward manner. His answers were short and to the point, and on the whole I found him to be a credible and reliable witness. He has 40 years experience in the business and of this type of work, which, in my judgment, is of some importance.
9. His daughter, Sally Whitter, gave evidence. She was equally straightforward both in her evidence and, I find, in her dealings with Mr Smethurst once the difficulties arose on the contract. I found her to be plausible with a good recollection of the events she was asked to deal with, even if that memory was assisted at times by the exchange of emails which took place between her and Mr Smethurst.
10. Mr Lear is a builder and I have no doubt he was honest and doing his best to assist the court. He is to an extent, it seems to me, stuck in the middle of a dispute between the claimant and Mr Smethurst but there is no doubt that he signed the document which is alleged to be the contractual document in this case and I am sure that in doing so he was doing his best to help Mr Smethurst. I find, however, that his recollection of detail was less convincing than that of the claimant’s witnesses, and on the important points in issue where there are differences between his evidence and that of Mr Whitter and indeed Miss Whitter I prefer the evidence of the latter two to that of Mr Lear.
11. I have to say that I found Mr Smethurst to be a much more difficult witness. He was unable, it seemed to me, to give a straightforward answer to a direct question. This was partly because of his character but I did during the course of his evidence gain the impression that another part of the reason was that he was attempting to avoid answering difficult questions that were put. A feature of his evidence was that he frequently made reference to what he called “contemporaneous emails” in support of his stance when in fact those emails to which he was referring were written and sent over 18 months after the events he was being asked about. When being asked about events in November 2008 he repeatedly referred to emails written in June 2010. There were also a number of inconsistencies in his evidence and on occasions his explanations I found unsatisfactory and unconvincing. His evidence is, of course, central to the case since he claims that the claimant’s contract was with him and he accepts that he is now liable to pay the claimant, subject, of course, to setting off any claim he has against the claimant. However, it seems to me surprising that, despite his profession as a solicitor, he has no notes of any conversations that he now relies upon, and indeed the fact that many of the conversations, although of central importance to his position, were not raised until very late in this litigation. The detail of his evidence on the fundamental concepts of offer and acceptance was, in my judgment, wholly lacking. I will deal more with the specifics as I go through the findings but on the whole I have to say I was not impressed with Mr Smethurst as a witness of fact and find his evidence difficult to accept unless it accords with other evidence in the case.
12. I turn now to the issues of fact, going through them in chronological order. I have to start with events in 2007 since, although this evidence was not produced until the morning of the hearing (that is the emails sent by Mr Smethurst) I do accept on the balance of probabilities that Mr Smethurst did telephone the claimant company in September 2007 asking for an estimate of the likely costs of drilling a borehole at the farm and installing a water system. His email to a friend dated 5th September 2007 says, “They [that is the claimants] are talking about £8,000 plus value added tax”. This was not a quote, let alone an offer, in my judgment. It was merely an indication of the type of costs that might be involved. Mr Whitter accepted in his evidence that such a conversation may well have taken place since many customers are unaware of what the level of costs are likely to be involving this type of work.
13. The next important point in the chronology is evidence again given by Mr Smethurst in an alleged telephone conversation between him and the claimant company before 5th and 6th November call and meetings. In that telephone call Mr Smethurst alleges he was given a fixed price quote for the drilling of a borehole and the provision of a water supply to the farm, that quote being £8,600 plus value added tax. I reject Mr Smethurst’s evidence about that for a number of reasons. First, this telephone call, although it is alleged to be the offer which Mr Smethurst says he subsequently accepted, has never been mentioned before he gave evidence in the witness box. It was not referred to in any of the pre-litigation correspondence, some of which he wrote acting as Mr Lear’s solicitor, it is not a call mentioned in his witness statement, nor is it pleaded as part of the defendant’s defence. Indeed the fact of that call was not put to the claimant’s witnesses. Mr Smethurst’s evidence was that he spoke to a man in his 30s (that was his estimate from his voice on the telephone, it seems) but it was never explored with the claimant’s witnesses whether there was such a man or whether such a man had authority to give fixed price quotes over the telephone, and as such they have not been able to comment. The court is left with the feeling that this part of Mr Smethurst’s evidence was something of a late afterthought.
14. The second reason I reject that is that it is inconsistent with his witness statement, in particular paragraphs 8 to 10, the effect of which, in my judgment, is that the quote he was then saying was in fact made to Mr Lear at the meeting on 6th November 2011. It may be that in altering his evidence to introduce that telephone call Mr Smethurst was attempting to bring his evidence more in line with that of Mr Lear, who said that the fixed price had been agreed before the meeting on the 6th and that there was no quote given to him given at that meeting.
15. Third, I found that the explanation of paragraph 10 of his witness statement where he says that there was an agreed price at the meeting of 6th November of £8,600 plus VAT, was unconvincing. What he said was that he intended to convey was that this was a reference to Mr Lear having told him about the offer of a commission of five per cent discount, being around £400, which he then mathematically calculated to be in accordance with what he says he had been told earlier. In my judgment that explanation of paragraph 10 of his witness statement was contrived and unconvincing.
16. Fourth, and importantly I accept the evidence of Mr and Miss Whitter that the claimant as a company do not and never have given fixed price quotes for this type of work. It may well be that some firms do and it may well be that that is Mr Smethurst’s subsequent experience and that some firms themselves accept the risk of the drilling having to go deeper. But I am satisfied that the claimant as a company does not take that risk as a matter of policy. Mr Whitter’s evidence on this point was compelling. He said, “No one on this earth knows how far you are going to have to drill”, and it seems to me, having heard Mr Whitter, that he would not give or authorise a quote without a site visit when details of the access, the equipment required and the position of the hole are wholly unknown.
17. Finally, if there had been such a conversation and quotation given, as Mr Smethurst sought to allege, I would have expected some record of it, even if not from Mr Smethurst, whose profession as a solicitor does not seem to have taught him the lesson of making contemporaneous notes, but at least from the claimant, who would have needed such a record of such a quote for its own records. There is no record of such. So all in all I am quite unable to accept the evidence of Mr Smethurst about that early telephone conversation and early quote.
18. I am quite satisfied, however, therefore, that all Mr Smethurst knew before the meeting on 6th November 2011 was that the claimant had given an estimate of around £8,000 in 2008 and, putting the best light on it for Mr Smethurst, it seems maybe that in the absence of any notes he may have confused this communication with the claimant for another communication which he might have had with another supplier.
19. There is no doubt that there was a telephone call on 5th November 2011. Mr Rudd received the call and made a note of it. His note is brief, merely refers to Richard Lear, gives a mobile telephone number and the address of the farm where the work is to take place. Mr Rudd believes that the call was made by Mr Lear because his recollection was that the person who made the call suggested that he was a builder. There is no note of that in fact and, having heard Mr Lear’s evidence on this point, I accept what he says about it. I accept that he did not arrange the meeting and on the balance of probabilities I accept that it was Mr Smethurst who arranged the meeting, but, as I said, at that point no quote had been provided.
20. The meeting on 6th November: That it took place is accepted. There was a general discussion between Mr Lear and Mr Whitter. I accept that Mr Lear and Mr Whitter probably got on as a pair and I accept there may have been discussion of the likely depth of the borehole, which Mr Whitter estimated as probably going to be around 60 metres based on his previous local experience. However, Mr Lear agreed, and I find, that there was no discussion at that meeting of the price or indeed of a quote and, therefore, I reject the suggestion implied by Mr Smethurst in his witness statement that an oral quote was given at that meeting. Again, I accept Mr Whitter’s evidence that it would not be his practice to give such a quote. In common with other tradesmen he wanted to go back to the office to price the job up and then prepare a written quote and I am satisfied that that is what occurred. I also accept Mr Whitter’s evidence that he offered a main contractor’s discount to Mr Lear. It was clear to Mr Whitter that Mr Lear was not the owner of the building. He had been the point of contact, he had shown Mr Whitter around the site and clearly had extensive involvement with the renovations. Mr Lear gave him his address for communication purposes. In those circumstances I am satisfied that Mr Whitter did believe and reasonably believed that Mr Lear was a main contractor. I am not persuaded that Mr Lear told him that he was only a builder or labourer. I found Mr Lear’s evidence on this to be somewhat revealing. He said that he was aware from Mr Smethurst that other quotes had been given in the region of £8,600 and it was on that basis that Mr Whitter had said, “We do offer a five per cent fee which we pay direct to yourself”. He then went on to say, “Which I took as being by way of personal cheque or cash”. That was, as I took Mr Lear’s evidence, his understanding of how it would be paid. There was mention of the sum of £530, which was five per cent of £8,600. I am wholly unpersuaded that this was anything other than what Mr Whitter said it was. Indeed initially it seems that Mr Smethurst was content to go along with it given that Mr Lear was apparently prepared to pass that discount on to him. It would have made the overall price for him as the ultimate customer cheaper.
21. I have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of Mr Whitter that after that meeting he went back to the office and prepared the quote which was typed out by his daughter, Sally. I am satisfied on the balance of probability that that quote was sent to Mr Lear. It is addressed to his address and I find was probably received by him. I find that probably he gave it directly to Mr Smethurst and has, not surprisingly, now forgotten about it. I reach that conclusion because when, some 16 months later, he telephoned the claimant to find out when the work was to start Miss Whitter wrote a note, a contemporaneous note of that conversation. She had written this:
“Richard Lear rang to check if the quote still okay. Told him, ‘Yes’. He will get his client to check if he still has the quote and, if so, sign and send the form back. (inaudible) book(?) in all ready to go in the meantime.”
I accept that that is an accurate record of the conversation and it is of note that Mr Lear did not complain when asked to send back the last page signed. He did not say, “What quote are you talking about?”, or, “I’ve never received a quote”, but, rather, he said that he will get the client, Mr Smethurst, to check if he still had it. Later, it is apparent that he told Miss Whitter that he could not find it and so it was resent and that, again, is more consistent with the quotation having been received in the first place but having been lost.
22. I find, therefore, that the allegation that the quote was never received by Mr Lear does not fit well with these notes. Further, I find that it was the only basis upon which the defendant or Mr Smethurst could have accepted a quote. There had never been any previous quotation or any previous offer to be accepted and the quote which would, when sent, constitute the offer which was made to Mr Lear to enter into a contract. I am not persuaded that Mr Smethurst orally accepted a quote two weeks later. I do accept on balance that he probably telephoned somebody in the claimant company two weeks later in an attempt to negotiate a lower price, he having seen the quote which had been sent. It seems to me that such a negotiation is in his nature as a businessman and I do not find it to be unusual. I accept that he was told that there was to be no negotiation but I find that that is as far as it went. In my judgment there had never been any offer of a fixed price. It may be that Mr Smethurst had not read the quotation fully, I do not know, but there having been no offer of a fixed price there was and could be no acceptance of such an offer. So I reject the contention that a contract was concluded at that stage between Mr Smethurst and the claimant. Again, Mr Smethurst’s evidence on this point I found to be vague and unsatisfactory.
23. Nothing then happened for some period of time. So far as the claimant was concerned there was nothing to do. There was no contract and nothing for it to pursue. I am not persuaded that there was any further contact between either Mr Smethurst and Mr Lear on the one part and the claimant until March 2010 and the first call, I find, was that of 2nd March 2010, that being the one to which I have referred when Mr Lear asks if the quote is still okay. I accept that during that call and the subsequent call on 27th April Mr Lear was told by Miss Whitter that work could not commence until the signed quote was returned. I accept that Mr Lear may not have realised the significance of that and may and probably did think to himself that the signature was required merely as an authority to start the work. He may not have appreciated the potential contractual significance of the signature. However, what the claimant was really saying was that without the signed document there was effectively no order and, therefore, the claimant would not start work, and I do not find that Miss Whitter in any way attempted to mislead Mr Lear in relation to this. I am satisfied that she explained the position clearly to him but Mr Lear probably did not fully understand what she was saying.
24. Mr Lear maintains that when the copy quotation was sent only one page was sent. I am afraid on this I find that his recollection is flawed. I am satisfied on the balance of probability that the four-page quote was sent. It seems to me highly unlikely that Miss Whitter would print only one page and send effectively the final page of a four-page document. In relation to this point I found Mr Smethurst’s evidence to be wholly inconsistent and, frankly, lacking credibility. In his evidence to me he accepted that he had seen the signed document, probably on the day it was sent back to the clamant. I find it astonishing, therefore, that he says to me that he thought it was a start notice. I read the document. It is from the claimant. It is addressed to Mr Lear. It has his phone number. It then has a quote date of 7th November 2008, a quote reference 7/11/19031, and then these words:
“I would like to accept the above quotation to carry out the works in the sinking of a water supply borehole at Black Dad Farm, Ashworth Road, Rochdale.”
It is signed by Richard Lear. It is astonishing that a qualified practising solicitor could read that to be a start note and it is astonishing that he did not think to query the reference to the dated and numbered quote which he says he had never received and never seen. To say, as he said to me, it looked completely innocuous, in my judgment, does not seem to accord with reality. In my judgment his assertion in his witness statement, which he adopted in his evidence-in-chief, that the document he saw had a price on it which was consistent with what he had previously been told is probably a reference to the price on page three of the four-page quote, that is £8,600 plus VAT, and that was consistent with the estimate he had been given back in 2007, and indeed with the quote that he had unsuccessfully tried to renegotiate in 2008. The fact that he said in his initial evidence in his witness statement that he saw that figure suggests to me, and I find on the balance of probabilities, that the whole four-page document was sent and the whole four-page document was seen by Mr Smethurst. Further and importantly I accept the evidence of Miss Whitter on this point, which I found convincing, when she said that all the document was sent to Mr Lear.
25. There is no issue that the defendant, Mr Lear, signed the last page and returned it. I accept that he did not read the document and he probably did not read that page. I accept that as a builder he relied on Miss Whitter saying that it had to be signed before the work could start. That was true. Without it there was no order but, in my judgment, he misunderstood the contractual position. Had he read that page it was clear that his signature and the return of the document amounted to an acceptance of a quote and that that signature and return concluded an agreement between him and the claimant.
26. There is then a series of emails between the parties concerning the commencement of work and during its continuance. The work commenced on 17th June 2010. By 21st June the drilling had reached a depth of 60 metres. No water had been found and the claimant’s driller invited Mr Lear to sign an authorisation to continue working deeper, the quotation having been to an initial depth of 60 metres. Mr Lear refused. Mr Smethurst came on site on that day and he too refused to sign the authorisation. However, the evidence is that Miss Whitter authorised further drilling to the driller and the borehole was drilled to a depth of 108 metres and water supply was eventually made.
27. There was then, again, a flurry of emails between Miss Whitter and Mr Smethurst. I do not go through that in any detail but I pick out two parts to which reference has been made. Firstly, on 28th June 2010 in response to Miss Whitter’s email asking for a signed copy of authorisation to drill deeper ex post facto as it were, after the work had been done, Mr Smethurst replies as follows:
“We are due to move in next week and still have no water. We ordered our borehole over eight months ago and have repeatedly been let down as to promised installation dates.”
So clearly he is unhappy with the situation so far as the claimant was concerned. He goes on:
“(inaudible) we do not want to fall out as life is just too short. I am also prepared to pay you a fair amount for any additional depth genuinely drilled. I want, however, to know exactly what additional depth you are proposing to charge me for and how we can independently verify that depth.”
In my judgment that evidence is important. He was not at that stage suggesting that there was a fixed price contract. He was clearly not happy that the claimed depth had been drilled but he was offering to pay a fair price so long as it could be established that a depth over 60 metres had been drilled. That, in my judgment, is inconsistent with the case he now puts forward in his evidence.
28. The email exchange went on. The next one that I refer to is one again from Mr Smethurst dated 1st October 2010. By then the heat of the initial dispute had settled but there was continuing communication between the parties. In that email of 1st October Mr Smethurst wrote the following, paragraph 1:
“No contract was entered into between your organisation and myself. Instead you claim to have obtained the signature of one of my builders to your standard terms and conditions which incorrectly spells my builder’s name and incorrectly states his addresses. At all times you were aware that the customer for the water supply would be myself. However, no direct contract [and I accept Mr Smethurst’s evidence that the word ‘contact’ should read ‘contract’] has ever been entered into between yourselves and myself.”
I am invited to and have read the remainder of that email and all the other email correspondence and I accept Mr Smethurst’s evidence that what he was intending to say was that there was no written contract containing the terms and conditions of the quotation, but he did not say that and I find it extremely surprising for a solicitor with experience in commercial litigation to have worded it in this way. Either it is very badly worded or Mr Smethurst at that point was still not clear as to the true contractual position. I think the latter may well be true and it is only as the litigation has advanced further that he has thought to rationalise his position and, doing that, rationalise his evidence.
29. Those are my findings on the issues of fact. I take into account that the claimant originally sought to sue Mr Smethurst but I accept Miss Whitter’s explanation as to that. It was a step taken without legal advice and against the background that Mr Smethurst was at that stage accepting responsibility to make payment for the work. At that stage, so far as the claimant was concerned, it did not matter who the money came from so long as it received it. It was only when legal advice was taken that the true position was analysed. So, on the face of it the defendant has accepted a quotation and thereby created a binding contract.
30. I now turn to the two defences which are pleaded to suggest that that contract is not binding upon him. First, that he did not intend to create legal relations. It has been accepted by the parties that in the case of ordinary commercial transactions it is normally not necessary to prove that the parties to an express agreement in fact intended to create legal relations and the onus of proving that there was no such intention is on the party who asserts that no legal effect is intended and indeed that the onus is a heavy one. I am referred in particular to paragraph 2.161 of Chitty on Contracts, Volume One which starts with this sentence, “In deciding issues of contractual intention the courts normally apply an objective test”, and I am satisfied that that sentence accurately sets out the law which I have to apply in this particular case. Against that background I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in finding that there was objectively an intention to create legal relations on the part of Mr Lear. He clearly knew that the document was important since it had to be signed for the work to start. He was not misled as to its contents. His failure to appreciate what it was has to be said was due either to his own inattention to the detail and perhaps, combined with that, his naivety. In my judgment he never expressly or impliedly negatived that intention. The plain fact is that he signed a document which bound him to the contract and, in my judgment, in circumstances such that there was a clear intention to create legal relations.
31. The second defence is the plea of non est factum, namely that Mr Lear was not aware of the nature or character of the document which he signed, again thinking it was a start notice rather than an acceptance of a quotation. Again, I refer to Chitty as a convenient way of summarising the law, which is not really in dispute. At paragraph 5.106 of Volume One it starts with this sentence:
“A person who signs a document may not be permitted to raise the defence of non est factum where he has been guilty of negligence in appending his signature.”
In my judgment, for that reason the plea fails. I have no hesitation in finding that Mr Lear was negligent in appending his signature. He did not read the document before signing; he should have done. He is of full age and capacity and an experienced builder. It would be wholly unjust, in my judgment, for him to be able to resile from his signature on the grounds of his own failure to take any let alone any reasonable step to check what it was he was signing. Therefore, I have no hesitation whatsoever in issue number one in concluding that the contract is between the claimant and the defendant.
32. I move to deal with the second issue: what were the relevant terms? The starting point must be the terms were as contained in the quotation which was accepted. Therefore, the price of the work is to be calculated in accordance with that document. Beyond that it seems to me that I need to go to the pleaded cases to see what, if any, other terms which are in issue between the parties there were and then make a finding about those terms. Mr Boyle submitted that I should not make findings about each and every term but that the defendant should be permitted to argue at a later stage for the incorporation of terms during any subsequent hearing. I reject that as a proposition. The whole point of the trial of a preliminary issue is to resolve those identified issues so that the litigation can then proceed in the light of those findings. It would be contrary to the order of His Honour Judge Bird and indeed contrary to the overriding objective if a party were able to raise later in this litigation matters which had been resolved or should have been resolved in the trial of the preliminary issue.
33. In order to deal with this I must look at the amended defence. The relevant paragraphs seem to me to be these. Paragraph 3.3 deals with the offer of a five per cent discount to the contract price. I have already dealt with my findings in relation to that and there is no issue that if the claimant succeeds in this case then the quotation price should be reduced as a result of a five per cent main contractor’s discount and I find that to be a term of the contract.
34. The next relevant paragraph seems to me to be 4(a) which pleads:
“He had fitted other boreholes in the area and was confident based on his local knowledge that a plentiful supply of clean water would be found at a depth of 90 to 100 metres. Water extracted at such depths would be perfectly safe to drink and would not need further treatment as bacteria is not present at such depths.”
That is not in fact formally pleaded as a term of the agreement but it is raised as an issue and may well seek to be relied upon as a term of the agreement in due course. However, in reality there is no evidence from either Mr Smethurst or Mr Lear to support that suggestion so if it is sought to be argued that there was an implied or express term in relation to the quality of the water that would be supplied I find that that is not made out. The defendant has not brought evidence to support such a term and, therefore, I cannot find that such a term exists. In the light of evidence I have heard I find that there was no such term.
35. Paragraph 4(b) is dealt with in the findings that I have already made. The price and the cost of the work is in accordance with the quotation.
36. Paragraph 4(c) reads:
“The works will be carried out in a timely manner to allow Mr Smethurst to move into the property in May 2010.”
Again, there is no evidence that time was made the essence of the contract or indeed that it was ever agreed that the works should be completed by May 2010 and, therefore, I find that there is no term to this effect.
37. In relation to paragraph 11 there is pleaded an implied term that the claimant would exercise reasonable care and skill in carrying out its services. That is not in dispute and clearly was a term of the contract between the parties.
38. I hope that that deals with all the issues that arise in the two preliminary issues unless there is anything else I need to deal with.
(End of Judgment)
(Further discussions followed)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Well, if they're going to they'd better hurry up while I've still got a leg to stand on.
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
I think this David Edgar guy wants to be viewed with great suspicion. He is the person on record as saying "held in a hellish lair"Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Ex Policeman, Dave Edgar: Maddie is in a secret lair in a lawless village in PDL
Dave Edgar
Cheshire resident Dave Edgar was a retired police Detective Inspector. The Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy, who was responsible for managing the McCanns’ controversial private investigation, appointed him in November 2008 to lead the investigation. This followed the debacle of the previous investigation led by rogue and crook Kevin Halligen, who will appear on ‘Rogue of the Day’ before long. Edgar didn’t look for Madeleine but was paid to carry out his master’s directions. His initial task was to ‘beef up’ a TV documentary released by Channel 4 in May 2009, which simply regurgitated, uncritically, the McCanns’ claims that Madeleine had been abducted. He was wheeled out during the documentary to proclaim the McCanns ‘totally innocent’. When the documentary shed light on a major contradiction between two key witnesses, he calmly brushed this aside by saying: ‘You always get discrepancies when witnesses try to remember the same event’. Throughout his work for the McCanns, he was noted as promoting any old line that suited the moment. Thus, when the McCanns were promoting an especially unlikely story that Madeleine had been abducted by a Victoria Beckham-lookalike on a yacht bound for Australia, Edgar threw caution to the wind and calmly told a TV press conference: “The person seen by Jane Tanner on the night Madeleine disappeared might have been a woman, not a man”. At this point, his rapidly vanishing credibility slumped right down to zero.
thus alluding to paedophile groups. What is the source of this information and given that he is retired without any access to intelligence reports, how did he research / come by this information? Posing as a closet perchance? I hope that is not too close to the knuckle.
Lands_end- Posts : 164
Activity : 256
Likes received : 86
Join date : 2015-03-08
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"The British Priest staged everything"
Father Pacheco
In a sense, all Roman Catholic priests are rogues. They do not owe their loyalty to God, but to the Pope, the ‘Holy Father’. Most sinister of all, priests must carry out the practice of the ‘confessional’. Unlike other Christians who confess their sins directly to God, Roman Catholics are required, on a regular basis, to confess their sins to a priest in the confessional booth. This gives the priest a ‘hold’ over his flock. But far worse than that, successive Popes have decreed that even if Catholics confess the most serious of sins and crimes, these must ‘stay within the confessional’ and must never be disclosed to the police.
We know that Kate McCann disclosed ‘secrets’ to Father Pacheco.
We know that as the international media storm broke over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Father Pacheco fled from Praia da Luz and went to ground for three weeks.
During this period he disclosed that the McCanns had shared very personal things with him, but added (in line with Roman Catholic policy, and as McCann detective Arthur Cowley was to do four years later) that “I will take the McCanns’ secrets to my grave”.
This was an investigation into a missing 3-year-old girl. To keep anything secret which might be relevant, and might enable the mystery to be solved, gives him a well-deserved place on ‘Rogue of the Day’.
-----------
Gonçalo Amaral: "The Priests also know very well what happened that night."
Translated by Joana Morais
McCann Case: 'The British Priest Staged Everything'
We went to Praia da Luz to speak with Father José Manuel – the priest of the local church – who accompanied all the sequence of events, lived after the disappearance of the English girl. Refuting all knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the blanket, the Father also denies the insinuations against his past.
Have you participated in all of the British community celebrations?
-In all.
And, specifically, you participated in religious acts for the girl Madeleine. Have you ever noticed in the existence of a pink blanket that belonged to the child?
- I participated, but I don’t know anything. The British priest, called by Madeleine parents, it was him who celebrated all the masses. In that context, the only thing that I could do for her was to pray. The other priest is the one who knows a lot – and he staged everything – it was him who made statements and who spoke to the PJ.
But, where could Maddie’s blanket be?
-It would be good to know, it’s possible that the other priest and the PJ know.
The PJ doesn’t know. Does that mean that they have ‘lost’ the evidence?
- I don’t know anything; I only know that, when everything was too ‘hot’, various stories were told, badly told and even more about me: that I was ‘exiled’ to the Vatican to speak with the Pope… Just because I missed 2 or three days, I was made an ‘exiled’.
Was it normal to hand out the church keys?
- It’s not me who decides. [silence]
There are some who have accused you of, when you where at the Gaia Seminary, having participated in act of harassment and sexual abuse.
- It’s all a lie; the media have nothing else to do. It is easy to attack the image of a priest. But, at this moment the defamers are being sued.
in Semanário Privado, 1 July 2009 - Paper Editon Only
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Can some kind soul please lead me to the source of this information, I'm concerned as to it's authenticity - or at least the inference. I recall it being mentioned on CMoMM some while ago but can't locate anything using the forum search. There have been so many false alerts over the past 9+ years that, by word of mouth, are later accepted as fact. I think it wise to be cautious with every aspect before accepting anything as factual.Get'emGonçalo wrote:
In the McCann case, he sent his subsidiary company Resonate to Praia da Luz days before Madeleine was reported missing.
Thank you .
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Hi Verdi, I got it from here:Verdi wrote:Can some kind soul please lead me to the source of this information, I'm concerned as to it's authenticity - or at least the inference. I recall it being mentioned on CMoMM some while ago but can't locate anything using the forum search. There have been so many false alerts over the past 9+ years that, by word of mouth, are later accepted as fact. I think it wise to be cautious with every aspect before accepting anything as factual.Get'emGonçalo wrote:
In the McCann case, he sent his subsidiary company Resonate to Praia da Luz days before Madeleine was reported missing.
Thank you .
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
6. Evidence that an abduction hoax was planned over a period of four days
It follows from all that we have said above that, if Madeleine did indeed die on Sunday 29 April, those who knew she had died must have carefully planned an audacious hoax over a period of four days, so cunning and clever that most people still believe that she was abducted. Here, quite apart from the matters dealt with above, are several other specific indications that an abduction hoax was indeed planned over a four-day period:
A. The presence of the Director (and his deputy) of a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company - the PR company, Resonate - in Praia da Luz during the days before the alarm was raised
The relevant facts are these. Immediately following the reported disappearance of Madeleine, the holiday company who arranged the holiday, Mark Warner, brought their PR company, Bell Pottinger, to Praia da Luz. Its Head of Risk, Alex Woolfall flew there the very next day (4 May) and he was later joined by another top Director of the company. But it later emerged that the Director and his deputy from a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company, Resonate, had flown out to help Mark Warner just days before, possibly on Monday 30 April. No satisfactory explanation for this has ever been provided. Were they sent ahead of Bell Pottinger as a kind of advance party because something serious had already happened to Madeleine? (The McCanns incidentally paid the amazing sum of £500,000 to Bell Pottinger to keep Madeleine’s name on the front pages of Britain’s newspapers for a year. That money appears to have come from donations made by the general public.
I think it was either NickE or Doug D who brought it to our attention some months ago.
-----
A Mod writes: Verdi & all readers of 'Rogue of the Day' > The original source for this information is PRWeek, 9 May 2007, at this link:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
What is plain from this article is that although Resonate were sent out some days before Madeleine was reported missing, by the time the 'big guns' from Bell Pottinger arrived, Resonate were somehow effortlessly absorbed into the role of suddenly meeting with Ambassadors and senior Portuguese and British police officers. Mightily handy! Whether PRWeek has told us the full story about why Resonate was sent out early is a moot point.
It was indeed our Scandinavian researcher NickE who brought this important find to CMOMM'
There are many references to Michael Frohlich, the former Director of Resonate, on the net - Mod
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Cammerigal likes this post
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
Aha I see - much obliged!Get'emGonçalo wrote:Hi Verdi, I got it from here:Verdi wrote:Can some kind soul please lead me to the source of this information, I'm concerned as to it's authenticity - or at least the inference. I recall it being mentioned on CMoMM some while ago but can't locate anything using the forum search. There have been so many false alerts over the past 9+ years that, by word of mouth, are later accepted as fact. I think it wise to be cautious with every aspect before accepting anything as factual.Get'emGonçalo wrote:
In the McCann case, he sent his subsidiary company Resonate to Praia da Luz days before Madeleine was reported missing.
Thank you .
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
6. Evidence that an abduction hoax was planned over a period of four days
It follows from all that we have said above that, if Madeleine did indeed die on Sunday 29 April, those who knew she had died must have carefully planned an audacious hoax over a period of four days, so cunning and clever that most people still believe that she was abducted. Here, quite apart from the matters dealt with above, are several other specific indications that an abduction hoax was indeed planned over a four-day period:
A. The presence of the Director (and his deputy) of a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company - the PR company, Resonate - in Praia da Luz during the days before the alarm was raised
The relevant facts are these. Immediately following the reported disappearance of Madeleine, the holiday company who arranged the holiday, Mark Warner, brought their PR company, Bell Pottinger, to Praia da Luz. Its Head of Risk, Alex Woolfall flew there the very next day (4 May) and he was later joined by another top Director of the company. But it later emerged that the Director and his deputy from a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company, Resonate, had flown out to help Mark Warner just days before, possibly on Monday 30 April. No satisfactory explanation for this has ever been provided. Were they sent ahead of Bell Pottinger as a kind of advance party because something serious had already happened to Madeleine? (The McCanns incidentally paid the amazing sum of £500,000 to Bell Pottinger to keep Madeleine’s name on the front pages of Britain’s newspapers for a year. That money appears to have come from donations made by the general public.
I think it was either NickE or Doug D who brought it to our attention some months ago.
Perhaps when next online NickE or Doug D (or whoever else) would be so kind as to identify their source of information. It was probably said at the time but I can't remember.
Apologies for disrupting the thread, although it's not a bad thing to give the link you provided another plug . Resonate or no Resonate, he's still a rogue.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'ROGUE OF THE DAY'
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Alex Woolfall, the McCann's first spokesman
Alex Woolfall
Alex Woolfall, on the day Madeleine McCann was reported missing, had a very important, and very well-paid job. He was the Head of Risk at that contemptible PR agency, Bell Pottinger, that makes money out of promoting some of the most disgusting and oppressive regimes in the world. They also skimmed a cool £500,000 - half a million - from the Find Madeleine Fund, just for ‘keeping the McCanns on the front page for a year’.
As ‘Head of Risk’, Woolfall’s job was to help clients identify risk, where possible prevent or minimise such risks, but if not - where actual risk had occurred - to eliminate it or minimise it.
One of the biggest risks for the McCanns was what was in their camera.
For from what we now know, an examination of it would have revealed four dated photographs of Madeleine from the holiday, three in the playground on the Saturday, afternoon, and one from Sunday lunchtime by the pool: the ‘Last Photo’. And after that…nothing.
Apart, that is, from one other photo that we know was on the McCanns’ camera, thanks to the sterling work done by Dr Martin Roberts in his article: ‘[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]’, a ‘must read’ for anyone researching the Madeleine McCann case. In that article, Dr Roberts conclusively proves that on the morning of 3 May, Kate McCann not only washed Madeleine’s pyjamas, but also took a photograph of them. Amazingly, just five weeks later, they had the gall to hold up Madeleine’s pyjamas on a BBC Crimewatch programme (5 June) and a press conference in Amsterdam (7 June), pretending they were Amelie’s.
It must have been clear to Gerry McCann and Alex Wolfall that Something Had To Be Done about these embarrassing and incriminating photos.
The Portuguese police must never get their hands on the SD memory card from their camera.
As early as Friday 4 May, Alex Woolfall was on the plane to Praia da Luz. It was as if someone had told him two or three days beforehand: “You’ll be needed any day now. Pack your bags, and as soon as we call you, get on that plane to Faro”.
We know that as early as the following day (5 May), Alex Woolfall was sitting with the McCanns, going through all the images on their digital camera, and deleting, editing and cropping them. A carefully edited selection of these photos would be transferred to a computer disk, which the Portuguese police say was handed to them by Gerry McCann on Wednesday, 9 May.
An article in the Times reported:
“The McCanns had photographs of Madeleine on their digital camera, which Mr Woolfall began transferring to a laptop computer.
Woolfall said to Kate, “Let’s try to identify pictures where her face is visible”. Downloading the images was a very difficult process for them. It was upsetting.
"They were trying to do two things at once: one, emotionally deal with what was actually, really happening to them; two, operate in some sort of logical way to help get her back.".
“Mr Woolfall transmitted the photographs to the Press Association in London, from where they were distributed to the media. The portfolio included the now famous image of Madeleine wearing a hat on a tennis court.”
We know that the Last Photo was on the McCanns’ camera and almost certainly taken on the Sunday. So what did Alex Woolfall and Gerry McCann do with it? The suggestion is that someone, somewhere, altered the metadata to make it look as though the photo had been taken on Thursday 3 May. It was not published until 24 May, two days after Gerry McCann returned from a weekend in England.
Woolfall said he wanted the press to have good quality photos of Madeleine. Why didn’t he send the Press Association the Last Photo?
The Times article mentions the controversial ‘Tennis Balls Photo’. Was that on the McCanns’ camera? Since two different people claim to have taken it on three different dates, there must be some doubt about its authenticity. Probably Alex Woolfall is one of only two or three people who knows who really took the Tennis Balls Photo - and when.
The McCanns’ Canon camera was boldly placed on the McCanns’ living room table of their apartment, the night they reported Madeleine missing, as can be seen on the Portuguese police photos taken that night, and now in the PJ files. Had the McCanns already taken their SD memory card out of their camera? - and cunningly substituted another?
HideHo on her website made this pertinent observation on the Last Photo many years ago: “It is surely extraordinary that the 'Last Photo' of Madeleine, showing her full face, should not have been chosen for release at that time. Even if the photograph had been grainy and indistinct, its significance to the investigation, as [what was claimed to be] the last 'living' picture of Madeleine, cannot be overstated”.
Some would argue that Alex Woolfall was ‘only doing his job’ as Head of Risk.
Just, well, ‘obeying orders’.
Others might argue that in tampering with an SD memory card which should have been handed to the Portuguese police, he was actively perverting the course of justice.
____________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MAGA [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]MBGA
Page 3 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Similar topics
» New DCI
» How rogue SAS would murder Princess Diana
» Clarence Mitchell - Rogue of the century
» Private Detective London Blog: The Disappearance Of Madeleine McCann - Rogue Investigators?
» How rogue SAS would murder Princess Diana
» Clarence Mitchell - Rogue of the century
» Private Detective London Blog: The Disappearance Of Madeleine McCann - Rogue Investigators?
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Research and Analysis :: Maddie Case - important information
Page 3 of 6
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum