EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance

I haven’t read every part of the pj files, but am I wrong in thinking that
1) tapas kitchen staff member (back of house) claims the only one of the tapas 9 still at the table between 9.30-9.40pm was the older woman - Diane Webster.
2) tapas bar staff (front of house) claims the only one of the tapas 9 still at the table at 9.30pm was the older woman  - Diane Webster.

If so, and apologies if wrong, then Kate could neither have left for her check when she says nor come running back shouting at 10pm.

no, you are right, there are so much times around, it is impossible to get to a set timing. so it is hard to go around the old and trusted way to use the nearest hour as an indication. 

people could have been mistaken, watches and clocks could be off time, people tell porkies, so it is not uncommon to work with a larger margin around named times at all. 

letting the spokesperson of choice to tell they had no devices with timings, like watches, was plain stupid, when daddy mccann told in his statement how he told the missus it was time to check the children with an exact number of minutes. 

the tapas 9 had their conference about the timelines, multiples even, so it is just guessing what is real about times and the timeline and what is not. and it showed their amateur status, because they have forgotten to leave a nice chunk of time to let the fake abductor doing its job. 

there are more statements about earlier happenings. the strangest is the statement from the carpenters, he told his wife had heard calling out something like maddie, but they left the tapas around 9.30 and did not been there when kate set the alarm. 

many people have tried to work out all the traffic of the tapas 9 that evening and i did also and it is impossible to get into an acceptable story. 
and there are also statements, with a time in it, that tell about nothing happening on times something has to be happening per tapas 9. 

so that reconstruction that was planned could have told how the things had or not had been happening that evening. extremely useful even when you want to give a third party the role of mister bad guy. 

the people who tell about an earlier alarm, are also the people who had to work that evening, and from personal experience i am used that, you look more and more on a clock or your watch at the end of your shifts. these people usually have still to do some clean up work before they can go home. it never became really clear if the tapas 9 minus jane were the only guests left, or that there have still been people at the bar, people on holiday in southern countries 22.00 hours would be quite early for all to have left already from the bar. none came forward. 

well we all have seen what happened when the mccanns got into doing their own version of a reconstitution. gerry blew a hole in it. all other reconstructions with the timeline all had silly doors and missing parts. and of course all missed the whoosh of the curtains. even the drama department of the bbc productions could not fake that. 

so how could proven pretty intelligent people can not understand, that the portuguese police could not clear them based on all their own versions of the truth. and we have only the written versions, these police officers had also the full experience, from behavior and reactions on everything. 

and if we want to believe them, about times, it also means that they do not have both a full alibi for that evening and the night following that. when a burglar only needs 2 minutes to step into the role of abductor, why could one or two parents not do the same actions in 5, or even 10 minutes. they had that time that evening. so it would be silly to call it a alibi.

But isn't that point at the core of the problem faced since the beginning - the total absence of reliable witnesses?

In fairness, the Ocean Club staff wouldn't have been clock watching as regards the minute by minute movement of guests, they weren't anticipating being questioned as witnesses when they turned up for work on Thursday 3rd May 2007.  If you ask me tomorrow what time I went to bed, never would I be able to give an accurate time unless for some reason the time was relevant - even then my recollection could be considered unreliable.

I believe the important factor to be the difference in timing between Kate McCann's alert and the time the police were called.  Witness statements can only be a guide to events requiring supportive evidence to move an investigation forward, to get an idea of time scale.

Barend Weijdom said in his statement he heard about a missing child from Paul Wortelboer about 9-30.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm

Stephen Carpenter also said in his statement his wife heard someone calling Madeleine at about 9-30 when they were leaving the tapas restaurant.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm

that is always the case with bystander witnesses, because you ask questions about moments who could be meaningless for them as a person. people usually needs a connection or a stressmoment to set it against a moment in time and remember that. 

still half an hour of differences in more statements in a group of equals like the workers in the restaurant forms a conflict. 

and as is indeed often in this case, because they did not have to pay after their dinner, there is also not a time registered on the checkout. a lingering party could be such a stressmoment. end of your shift is near, you want to go home, so usually it will be common to think and tell your co-workers, are they still there. and for most people that would be natural moments to look at a clock or watch, or the till to see the time. there could not have been much going about to keep their minds of the time. 

time devices are often not fully correct, so differences of about a 10 tot even 15 minutes could be possible. 
but in this case 21.30 hours against well after 10 is a lot. if it was just one statement, it could just be a mistaken witness, 2 of more and you want to know more of it. but outside the tapas 9 group, there are more statements and stories out that could make the earlier time more likely. the carpenters, the lady that told the creche workers a girl was missing. also one of the other restaurants had a perception it happened earlier that evening. the chef who only got in and out of the tapas. 

but is was quite busy that night on that street, the moyes hanging on their balcony had walked back to their apartment in block 5, the couple of the maintenance man who traveled that street, the carpenters. and jez wilkins. and another couple that left from another block. totman is missing with a statement, but must have been around, if he was tannerman, or just the outline for the tannerman we do not can be sure about. 

and no one did see anyone of the tapas 9 out and about, and they all had traveled this streets twice every time the told they did go out to check. 

there is no back up to the timeline concocted by the tapas 9, not in paperwork, not in statements.  and it is their very own timeline that made third party involvement extremely unlikely, and the burglar, who left a empty room without looking and taking things of his liking and would end up looking in bedrooms, that could have people in them, that is not how 5a looked at all. burglars do not clear a house first, they just get what they want on the go, they know the can be discovered at any time. so that burglary gone wrong is still extremely silly as a working theory. 

making a timeline, during all running on about, is there really another reason to think , why had these 9 people the idea they needed an alibi. it was a very unusual thing to do. usual is, to write down your own times as careful as possible about your actions to be asked by a police officer. and that is not asked because they think you have done something, but you need to get a timeline to know where the time could have been for a third party to act in. even if the child disappear by her own actions, you want to know how long she has been gone. you need to set the boundary for the search area, that gives also the number of people you need to search.

all this, the mccanns translated from the start as they think we did it. and it could have been they have been very right in that. suspects usually know, you know they did something that was out of order. still it does not matter what those officers think, your protocol is so deeply imprinted in your brains, you go for all and every possible kind of actions in every case. 

and even it is well known through instructions that parents and/or carers are the most common predators of the children in their care, it is extremely hard to not want to think parents would not to that to their very own child. so parents and carers usually get far more credit than logic implies. 

and in principle there is nothing wrong with the jim gamble approach, as in first start off with clearing parents and or carers, but in the majority of cases you can not clear them because they are the perps. and when they start off with lies and porkies, how could you ever clear them, or see them as innocent. 

and i am in line with the first investigation, but there is so little to get something proven as happened, but that is something you get used too, but that does not make them innocent. there is in the world of law not such a thing as innocent in the same meaning as in your day to day life. in law it means nothing more than we could not prove you have been part of a crime. working the law has very little use for a hard no or yes, it has far more margins, but all stands with what you can prove or not. 

and investigations are never about conclusions, conclusions are the privacy of the courts of law, investigations are all about gathering all facts and circumstances and from there finding evidence, but the conclusion of that is not the task of an investigation, that part is for the courts only. the case itself never got that far. 

there are usually routes to ask a verdict about your status in a court of penal law, but it means you risk letting all your dogs out. but they choose the civil courts and had the idea they could pump out nasties on the other party. without getting smeared themselves. well that did not worked well, they could not do that, because a civil court only looks into the exact questions you ask them to look into. and amaral is right justice one this one. 

i still like that first case judge, yes she voiced against amaral, but she made the dogs a legal instrument for eternity. so yeah, the mccanns have been the ones who did leave the dogs in. it was this judge that named them as facts in this case.

"ONEHAND:   still like that first case judge, yes she voiced against amaral, but she made the dogs a legal instrument for eternity. 
so yeah, the mccanns have been the ones who did leave the dogs in. it was this judge that named them as facts in this case."


But what that first judgment also did is to  fix as a 'fact' that Madeleine disappeared from 5A 
on the evening of Thursday 3/5/7 between 9.15pm and 9.50pm

And it is that 'Fact' which has been shown to have less evidence than was at first supposed.
The only testimony for it comes from the McCanns.   
And from NO ONE ELSE

i have not much problem with that, as a fact is would only be seen as by the knowledge of that moment. 

and i still think it is possible to let all of what happened be restricted to that thursday evening. 
the only proof that no one could deny is the not seen by us footage at the airport that the pj had used to establish a child of that description and age was traveling in the company of the mccanns. 

that specific time and date is just from the official investigation. and it can only be used in one single case, the dogs as an instrument did not had any legal standing in portugal. and that can be making a difference in another case in the future. 

but you are true, the only account of a disappearing child is the result of the words of the parents. and that is only be accepted because of the footage from the airport, not in the files, because the pj could never claim ownership and that means you have also no rights to publicize it. so it was accepted a child of the description and age has been arriving in portugal, and the statements of the nannies from the creche was used to make het existence harder. 

we have the same principle duty for witnesses to only tell the truth as portugal, but it looks to be we handle it in a much less dominating way. there is most times no budget and manpower to bring a witness that tells porkies in a statement during an investigation before a court of law, i would not advise to do the same during the court fases of a case. it looks to be the case that portuguese have a difference of opinion in what can be accepted from a witness. looking into their history, i can see were that was coming from. 
so you get a bunch of non portuguese witnesses that did not recognize that, and just did as at home, and only told what they liked to tell, often more or less not so much a true story. 

so when a non portuguese witness was asked a question, the lacked the seriousness that the pj was expected to get. so we end up with a lot of frivolous statements, even with a lot of porkies in it. they did not feel the duty of the witness. 

the tapas 7 could not go beyond the mccann version of the truth, a lot of the workers would already have had the feel, that being honest could flow back on them, and their job. and overal there is always escapism, not their child, not their responsibility , so keep your mouth shut and get out. and there already were a lot of uk boots on the ground, so no one knows how much instruction is given to witnesses. 

gerry mccann was not even 5 minutes in for his first formal statement and got a hard lie out, and it was his missing child, from his accommodation, under his duty of care.

usually to get confirming, the people who have working access to a place, are te easiest to use, but it had been better to get signed statement from all parents with children at the so called high tea. and all parents who had been around the children of that creche. 

more time to execute things, would make it easier to do. but with what is known, i can write up a theory starting from that footage after arrival. or grab one that is already out there. and even an event well before is to defend, because we only have to accept the mccanns word for that girl in pictures is truly madeleine beth mccann. my own opinions do not go that far, but there is very little to prove it can not have been. 

over 90% of all intel in this case is just verbal, the small pieces who are there are easy to replicate forms, absolutely not unique. no checks on the computer files the guest listings have been a print off from. no entry registration anywhere they went. and the millennium was only numbers of guest on the listings, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 check, you can eat, nice dinner. 

but they needed a date and time of the start of the even for an investigation, same like the choice to start from a possible abduction. there was little else to choose from, because need a crime to get it to the criminal investigation fase. otherwise, their hands would be bound to the help task. beyond searching that would not have resulted in any kind of useful competences at all. and it is not uncommon to see the crime type and dates changed when more facts and circumstances decide that is needed. 

and in reality it did changed from possible abduction? to disappearing, because no crime was named when the case was rested. from the witness statements there is nothing to get that in another light. and it could officially already have changed again because of the latest arguido. 

as a fact is does not have any restrictions on the case madeleine mccann, or any other case after it.

onehand wrote: a lot of the workers would already have had the feel, that being honest could flow back on them, and their job. and overal there is always escapism, not their child, not their responsibility , so keep your mouth shut and get out. and there already were a lot of uk boots on the ground, so no one knows how much instruction is given to witnesses.

Am I reading you rightly - are you suggesting Ocean Club staff deliberately lied in their witness testimonies because they felt compromised?

If so I totally disagree, such an implication leads to the widely rumoured theory 'they were all in on it !?!'.

I've had a rummage around the relevant witness statements documented by the PJ investigation, bear in mind here the possibility of errors in translation.

The majority of recorded witnesses specify a timeline of around or between 22:00/22.30H when first alerted.  Much of this was second hand information passed on by colleagues - according to the witnesses themselves.

One Tapas bar worker said he thinks the alarm he was raised between 21:30/22.00H, he also said he remembers one or so members of the group were absent from the table for a while every evening, he didn't know why until he saw a press report the next day which said they were checking on their children.

Go figure ....

ETA: Apologies if I've misunderstood your meaning.

i had be more clear. no people with some distance to a victim who feel compromised do usually not go into telling lies, but in keeping what they think they know just for themselves. so all you get is a meager answer on an exact question, not a witness that is telling how it was in their thinking and or believe, and telling the whole story as it was seen to their eyes. 

and they always will feel already compromised because they would not be treated as equal human beings, but as second class to the holiday guests.  they always would be the minor minions. as a result you will get a natural distancing. usually you would end up with a lot as vague as is possible information. 

you can see the difference for yourself between the statements of the tapas workers and the others who had far less direct contact with the guests. 

and i can understand it, choosing just shut up and leave, look how many have pointed out with; it must have been someone who worked there, know all about 5a, have given keys, or sold keys, and that is the usual thing. 
you do not have to tell these people what happened if they end up to testify before the courts, you get a lawyer telling you, you are just a very wrong lying filthy piece of s...t in 100 more eloquent words. and most would lose their job well before that , because their boss don't like people as you to be honest when it is about a guest. they find something on you.

the reality is this is a bunch of people used to work on the clock. they keep an eye on the guest, a glass can not stay empty for long. but i can understand, that keeping shut up is often better for themselves and their families. and it is not even uncommon a boss instruct you to not speak out. 

most times you can still get the story, but only informally and of the record. you have still to find a way to make use of it, without that person in it. 

i have no negative feelings about people who choose not to speak up officially when they have no direct role in the crime itself, and have need to protect their own private life. it was pretty quickly clear there was no living child at risk. and that is usually what is the great decider, if the locals and workers have had the idea the child was in need and alive, they would have found a way to speak up. most would have seen some mccanns acting out well before these formal statements have been made.

OK fair enough, I agree to disagree.

In reality I can't see how this has any particular relevance anyway.  Established fact, as near as you can get, Kate McCann raised the alarm on the night of 3rd May 2007, timing differs from one witness to another but the fact remains consistent - Kate McCann raised the alarm that her three year old child was missing on the night of 3rd May 2007.

It is not known precisely what questions were asked during the witness interview process, being a routine investigation I venture to suggest questions posed would be set and differ little from one witness to another.  Only as an investigation progresses and develops will specific witnesses become of more interest to the investigation - so on and so forth.

Can I have your full name, DOB and address
Were you working on the night of 3rd May 2007
What time did you arrive for work and what time did you leave
Can you recall the time you first heard a child had gone missing
How did you hear of the missing child
Can you describe the night of 3rd May, did you see or hear anything suspicious
Do you have any information that you think might help our inquiries
Please contact us if you remember anything unusual

Words to that effect.

The witnesses were just that, they were not suspects.

If, as suggested, management leaned on staff before being interviewed by the PJ, it's more likely it would be solely related to the Ocean Club and Warners reputation rather than a covert attempt to influence a witness deposition - to tell a deliberate lie in order to deceive the investigation.

I very much doubt the consensus in early days unanimously agreed on any case detail for the simple reason they wouldn't know how the investigation was progressing, who had been interviewed, why when and where.

The most important anomaly, as I see it, is the absence of any evidence to suggest Madeleine McCann was a living healthy child on or around Thursday 3rd May 2007.  Establish that and see how insignificant a slight discrepancy in timing between one witness and another becomes.  This particular point of interest concerns only when - the exact timing, Kate McCann raised the alarm.  I don't think a matter of minutes between one witness and another signifies anything of note.

Anyone else noticed how suddenly very quiet it has gone.
Gamble 
Clarke
Gurney
Kandohla

gurney was back on twitter, ant the rest of the acolytes also, but most have been missing only short times, sadly. 

the other 3 i expect to find a small hole again to pop up through. now i now how the sound in silence, i must say i do like them better silent. kandohla is most at risk, there is a lot of talk the gym can no longer stay open because of the energy bills. and a lot of tea rooms are also at risk of having to back scaling the opening hours. so that could be a big problem in contacting the source and friends. 

at least clarcke can keep himself warm by burning some unsold books and the already printed papers with the story of the victory of the mccann's. 

jimmy is still alive and kicking, but kept busy with the old wayback machine story on twitter. he has little form lost. 
but he maybe would has still all the addresses of nice counseling people like mr. pike, that he met during his actions in portugal, so he must know where to get help if needed.

Anyone else noticed how suddenly very quiet it has gone.
Gamble
Clarke
Gurney
Kandohla

There's a lot going on behind the scenes..


Gamble


Clarke


Gurney


Kandhola

The 'three months to appeal period' is now up. No change to the portal as yet, showing the same as when first announced in September. 

Any appeals to the ECHR after judgement look pretty pointless statistically in any event.

Any appeals to the ECHR after judgement look pretty pointless statistically in any event.

Well yes, but a couple from Leicester who tried to prove that the entire Portuguese Constitution was wrong 
would surely not be worried about trying to prove that the European Convention on Human rights 
and decades of Case Law was was also wrong, and the fact that it is binding on 47 member states is just a boring detail

Delusions come in many forms.

It's finally over!

Reply received from ECHR this morning:

noreply, echr
Mon 09/01/2023 09:09
 
Application no. 57195/17
McCann and Healy v. Portugal
 
Dear Sir,
 
I acknowledge receipt of your email.
 
In reply, I would inform you that, no request having been made under Article 43 of the Convention for the application to be referred to the Grand Chamber, the judgment became final on 20 December 2022 at midnight (Central European Time), in accordance with Article 44 § 2.
 
The judgment is available on the Court’s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int) (Article 44 § 3 of the Convention and Rule 104A of the Rules of Court).
 
Yours faithfully,
The Registry of the European Court of Human Rights

I wonder if the Olive Press will publish this as an "Exclusive" ?
And if not, why not ?

Let us be clear about the implications.
The Highest Court in Europe has accepted the statement of 'facts' from the Supreme Court of Portugal
and has held that these did not in any way infringe any of the McCann parents' rights.

Took a while for Fricker to catch up, but he finally got there! He should check this forum more regularly. 
 
One of the few ‘exclusives’ that actually seem to be, as it doesn’t seem to have jumped across to all the other tabloids yet.
 
Not sure about the ‘definitif’ bit as the portal still hasn’t changed and I can’t find it, but the ECHR system is pretty messy and it’s probably there somewhere.
 
'The McCanns were given the right to lodge an appeal – but the Mirror can now reveal they have admitted defeat. The three-month appeal time limit has expired and the case is now listed as “definitif” – final – on the ECHR system.
There was no compensation or costs order made, although Kate and Gerry still face a massive legal bill.
Earlier this week the Mirror revealed the couple had used cash that was raised to find their daughter on legal fees. Newly filed paperwork from Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned disclosed it paid £6,695 in legal costs over the libel action.'


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-admit-defeat-28942384

Found it.



https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-219530"]}

15 minutes of Infamy ?

This is quite a development and a setback for the parents.

No surprises that the MSM has generally ignored it.