Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

I believed that, because the old photos were made available immediately to the media, they had been supplied by the McCanns who for whatever reason had them with them. I remember seeing a home video of Madeleine on the BBC news on 4th May 2007. I fully accept that I was wrong to make any assumption as to who supplied the material. Administrators: please delete my earlier message if you think fit. Vanya: I understand that Gerry's trip back home was to collect some personal items of Madeleine's for DNA purposes - that of course raises the intriguing question, why was there nothing in the apartment that could be used?

I have discovered that Jayelles has posted this up in another place (PFA2) - SEE BELOW.

I'll reproduce her post with my replies in red interleaved.

Before doing so, here's a quick resume of Jayelles' pronouncements:

1. "I would love to go head to head with Bennett"

and then (a few days later)

2. "I want to challenge him on his "Reasons".

Now it seems she might want a debate on the Madeleine McCann Reasearch Group's '50 FACTS' leaflet, but she might not.

So here's my latest reply to Jayelles:

Dear Jayelles,

You began by saying: "I would love to go head to head with Bennett".

But you then changed that by ducking a head to head challenge and saying you just wanted 'keyboard to keyboard'.

And I said OK.

Then you said: "I want to challenge him on his "Reasons" (keyboard to keyboard).

Again I said 'Yes'.

Now you think you want to debate the '50 FACTS' leaflet, not the '60 Reasons'.

Once again I say: 'Yes, OK'.

When are you going to contact me, agree the subject and the terms of our debate, and begin our debate? It's nearly two weeks now since you issued your challenge.

Sincerely, and looking forward to hearing from you,

Tony Bennett



JAYELLES' LATEST PRONOUNCEMENT

Apparently, there has been some confusion about my challenge to the HG (honourable goon).

REPLY: First sentence of Jayelles' post, and there's the abuse again. She simply can't help it, can she?

Over the past few days, there has been a growing concern expressed about the legality of my discussing Bennett's "Reasons" with him. These concerns became clear to me yesterday when it emerged that some people thought I was preparing to discuss Bennett's "60 Reasons" with him.

REPLY: Er, Jayelles, you actually wrote, quote: "I want to challenge him on his 'Reasons'."

This is not the case, not least of all because both his “60 Reasons” and “10 Reasons” are the subject of a High Court order (see (i) below) and Bennett has undertaken NOT to repeat the allegations he made in them. As a staunch supporter of the search for Madeleine McCann, there is no way I would contemplate stirring these murky waters.

In fact, the list I was angling to nail Bennett about was the Madeleine Foundation’s “50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you” crapola...

REPLY: Oops! More abuse!

...which was a precursor to the “163 Questions...” crapola which Tony Bennett sent to The Sun and Transworld. The “50 facts...” crapola appeared around the same time as another heap of manure entitled “60 Reasons why the McCanns should never have published that photo”.

REPLY: Look, Jayelles, you keep moving the goalposts, which I full expected. So your real purpose was 'to nail Bennett about the 50 facts', was it? I ACCEPT YOUR NEW TERMS. Let us debate each one of the 50 facts, from No. 1 to No. 50, I have no problem with that, and let us start the debate ASAP, starting with your response to Fact 1. (By the way, the leaflet is not actually a Madeleine Foundation production, but is by the Madeleine McCann Research Group.

Bennett has a habit of touting his foundation’s various lists of attacks against the McCanns as “facts” or “reasons”. Understandably, one loses track. I know I have referred to the aforementioned “facts” as “non-facts”, “reasons” and even “lies” and that the only thing I have remained consistent with is putting it in quotes as an indication of my derision.

Now, I have no idea whether Tony Bennett also thought I was referring to the banned “60 Reasons” but I would hope that a former solicitor, especially one who has given an undertaking to a High Court, would at least have questioned this. To the best of my knowledge he has not and so perhaps he has indeed realised that I was referring to the “50 Facts...”, especially as I have referred to my “rebuttal in progress” of these “facts” many, many times over the past few months. Also, in my opening post here on the “Jayelles vs Goon Bennett” thread, I specifically referred to “fact” #44:-

However, I am not interested in discussing any point which is a non-starter on account of Bennett getting his facts arse about face (i.e. that only 13% of the search fund was actually used to search for Madeleine).

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7651

Finally, I have actually never seen the “60 Reasons” leaflet. My attendance on the forums tends to be erratic and I was mainly absent during the “60 Reasons” debacle. In essence, it appeared and got a High Court order slapped on it before I ever saw it. I have however commented on his “10 Reasons” here:-

http://justice4mccannfam.forumotion.com/t18 ... airy-tales

Now I don’t know whether this changes anything. Perhaps the HG won’t want to discuss his foundation’s “50 facts...”? After all, they are just a heap of crapola!

REPLY: As they say on 'Just a Minute': Repetition

References

From the Madeleine Foundation website:-

(i) Our Secretary Tony Bennett has given an undertaking to the High Court not to sell or distribute ‘60 Reasons’, to deliver up all hard copies of the book in his possession or control, and similarly not to distribute further copies of a summary of that book in a 4-page leaflet: ‘10 Reasons’ - and to deliver up all remaining hard copies of that leaflet. The remaining hard copies of both publications were delivered by hand to Carter-Ruck’s office on Saturday 31 October 2009.

He also undertook to ‘to use his best endeavours’ to delete or otherwise prevent access to any previous defamatory allegations of his concerning the McCanns published on four websites mentioned in a letter from Carter-Ruck. This he also did, as the record shows.

He further undertook not to repeat allegations that the McCanns are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann, and/or of disposing of her body, and/or lying about what happened and/or seeking to cover up what they had done.

This undertaking was not given by The Madeleine Foundation as an organisation. However, we are mindful of the terms of that undertaking, and therefore we shall not be selling or distributing either the ‘60 Reasons’ book or the ‘10 Reasons leaflet’.

False information was posted here by ScenicBoots who is in fact Ian West of Norwich, also known as 'muratfan' and by many other aliases.

His post has been deleted.

And he has been banned.

Again.

And again.

And again.

P.S. He does most of his nastiest work at 2am to 3am.

Admin.

Err still here Bennett. Try to have a debate if you want Bennett, but you run and hide all the time don't you.

I have said i will provide the forum along with a Moderator of your choice to oversee things,yet you are scared of that idea...WHY ?

ScenicBoots wrote:Err still here Bennett. Try to have a debate if you want Bennett, but you run and hide all the time don't you.

I have said i will provide the forum along with a Moderator of your choice to oversee things,yet you are scared of that idea...WHY ?

I am still waiting for Jayelles to approach me direct.

P.S. 'ScenicBoots' is Ian West of Norwich = muratfan.

Tony Bennett wrote:

ScenicBoots wrote:Err still here Bennett. Try to have a debate if you want Bennett, but you run and hide all the time don't you.

I have said i will provide the forum along with a Moderator of your choice to oversee things,yet you are scared of that idea...WHY ?

I am still waiting for Jayelles to approach me direct.

P.S. 'ScenicBoots' is Ian West of Norwich = muratfan.

Have a look at my Facebook page and add me as a friend Bennett, then we could share photos.

Rest of muratfan = Ian West's post deleted - Admin.

ScenicBoots wrote:False information was posted here by ScenicBoots who is in fact Ian West of Norwich, also known as 'muratfan' and by many other aliases.

His post has been deleted.

And he has been banned.

Again.

And again.

And again.

P.S. He does most of his nastiest work at 2am to 3am.

Admin.

Just so you know this was the hideous post I posted

Deleted again - and banned again - Admin.

The so-called challenge from Jayelles: latest.

Tonight one of the most fervent of McCann-believers has posted an article in another place which includes these passages:

QUOTE
How many more years do we have to watch [Bennett] hound an innocent grief stricken family, under the guise of righteousness? He has verbally abused and accused the family of a crime no justice system has convicted them of, the death of their child. He glorifies in their pain and aching sorrow; he torments them with their own daughter’s name. All the time pretending he, is a justice seeker when at the same time he is showing contempt for the laws of his country. He boasts of his achievements but forgets his failures, which are many.
When he is finished with this family, as he has done so in the past, he will move onto another and; the vicious circle will begin again with the same ego-stroking followers cheering him on. When will the law step in and stop this man’s activities? Will they wait until one of his followers actually causes bodily harm, to the family? Already there have been threats to fire bomb their home, must the law wait until the deed is completed?


UNQUOTE
In the same place, Jayelles has found time to read this article and to proclaim it to be 'excellent'.

But she has been unable to respond to my acceptance of her challenge to a debate on the '50 FACTS' leaflet.

There were claims made on the pro-McCann side that I would be 'too cowardly' to be prepared to debate openly with Jayelles.

The true coward in all this, however, has now been revealed.

TBH Mr B I wouldn't have entertained any sort of contact with 'Jayelles' whether in person or keyboard to keyboard. To say they are obsessive is an understatement.

I first ran across Jayelles many moons ago on an american forum dedicated to the grisly murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Having never come across the kind of all-consuming interest I witnessed in this individual I read open-mouthed as they explained, without a hint of embarrassment, how they had made a model of the same size and weight as JonBenet in order, if I remember correctly, to test whether some kind of underwear which was claimed to be the childs did indeed belong to her. To say that I was shocked that an adult would take such an bizarre interest in what is a rather macabre subject is rather an understatement. In fact their seemingly obsessive behaviour is the reason why the name stuck in my mind, although admittedly it only came to the fore again after hearing our 'Jayelles ' also had an interest in the Ramsey case.

My advice to you Mr B would be to consider carefully whether you really want to have your name forever linked to a person of 'Jayelles' character, even if it is only in cyberspace.

Regards
ThePlebian

ThePlebian, thank you.

I am reasonably content for the 'link' with Jayelles to be one of opposition, then.

What you say does indeed suggest a disturbing obsession.

Be that as it may, just to summarise what has happened so far:

1. Jayelles says 'I would love to go head to head with Bennett'

2. I accept, and suggest a head-to-head debate

3. Jayelles so NO but then says she would like to debate 60 Reasons keyboard to keyboard

4. Once again I accept

5. Jayelles moves the goalposts again and says 'No, I want to debate '50 Facts' not '60 Reasons'

6. One more time I accept

7. Jayelles does not reply

8. I call her a coward for running away from the debate

9. Tonight she replies: "He calls me a coward for not debating one to one with him."

10. My reply: Too right.

Jayelles said this on 17 April (just reported to me from PFA2):

He calls me a coward for not debating one to one with him. Will he have the balls to answer the following? (4 questions follow)

REPLY by TB: Sadly you do not have the balls even to sustain your own challenge.

You wanted a head-to-head debate.

I agreed.

You ducked out and said ‘only keyboard to keyboard'.

I agreed again.

Then you said you wanted to debate ‘60 Reasons’.

I agreed, and said, ‘let’s debate them point by point’.

You then changed your mind again and said: ‘No, I want to debate ‘50 Facts’ not ‘60 Reasons’.

I agreed once again and said: ‘OK, let’s debate 50 Facts, one by one'.

You have failed to respond to that for 2 weeks, but, absurdly, you think you can now demand me to answer four questions of your choice.

That is not the way things are done, Jayelles.

If you say you challenge someone to a head-to-head debate, you have lost if you then back out.

If you say, no, let’s debate by keyboard instead, and then duck out of that again, you have lost twice.

I have just one question for you.

Will you, or will you not, debate the truthfulness of ’50 Facts’, one by one?

Or will you not?

From the horse's mouth - posted on JATYK by Jayelles yesterday:

bnnnybraes wrote: "Don't hold your breath for getting any sense out of Benentt, Jayelles - he seems to be set in end-stage, full-blown, self-destruct mode".

Jayelles replied: "Which is one reason why I am not going to waste my time 'debating' his 50 lies 'Facts' with him".

There's only one word to decsribe Jayelles' public climbdown and rapid escape down a rabbit-hole to avoid debate.

Well, OK, two actually:


UTTER HUMILIATION

game set and match ......well done tony done with dignity intact ...more than can be said for them ....

Muratfan also writes on Martin Brunts log on sky.

Apologies if this is already on here somewhere, can't see it? Jayelles has (finally) put up something in response. It does, however, seem incredibly flimsy as iot doesn't actually say anything other than "inaccurate/misleading - source police files" against most, which is as useful as a chocolate teapot!

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

edited to add: actually there's more there than I thought but you have to click on the blue text. doh. Reading it now...

C.Edwards wrote:Apologies if this is already on here somewhere, can't see it? Jayelles has (finally) put up something in response. It does, however, seem incredibly flimsy as iot doesn't actually say anything other than "inaccurate/misleading - source police files" against most, which is as useful as a chocolate teapot!

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

edited to add: actually there's more there than I thought but you have to click on the blue text. doh. Reading it now...

Hi C.Edwards
I have merged your post with the existing thread on this subject.

Can we now expect a rebuttal of their er rebuttal from Tony?

Me wrote:Can we now expect a rebuttal of their er rebuttal from Tony?

C. Edwards has said that Jayelles' response is, and I quote: "...incredibly flimsy as it doesn't actually say anything other than 'inaccurate/misleading' - source police files' against most, which is as useful as a chocolate teapot!"

Far be it from me to disagree.

A rebuttal to the rebuttal is not top of our priorities right now. There won't be another meeting of the Madeleine McCann Research Group for a while, anyway.

It's a 50 plus page response to your leaflet, with sources and referenced back-up running to many more pages Tony and make the point most convincingly indeed that virtually all your 50 Facts are false, innacurate or misleading. Do you really not have the time or energy to defend yourself against this? Perhaps you have less confidence in your leaflet now that you have seen this.

Jayelles has taken months to reply and you and he/she can't expect Tony to down tools and reply immediately.

You'll all have to wait a while.

No one was expecting an instant rebuttal from Tony, however the speed with which he was happy to agree with C.Edwards ludicrous assertion that 'Exposing The Myths' is "incredibly flimsy" seemed to suggest that he wasn't planning to give it due consideration. A few weeks ago Tony seemed very keen to have his leaflet rebutted by Jayelles, but perhaps this is a little more than he had bargained for!

Ringo wrote:No one was expecting an instant rebuttal from Tony, however the speed with which he was happy to agree with C.Edwards ludicrous assertion that 'Exposing The Myths' is "incredibly flimsy" seemed to suggest that he wasn't planning to give it due consideration. A few weeks ago Tony seemed very keen to have his leaflet rebutted by Jayelles, but perhaps this is a little more than he had bargained for!

To be fair, my comment was made before I realised there was more detail there. I did add a postscript.

I am struggling to read it all but I'll try tomorrow. A skim read of a few points seem to show a very biased document, however.

Ringo wrote:It's a 50 plus page response to your leaflet, with sources and referenced back-up running to many more pages Tony and make the point most convincingly indeed that virtually all your 50 Facts are false, innacurate or misleading. Do you really not have the time or energy to defend yourself against this? Perhaps you have less confidence in your leaflet now that you have seen this.

Well, much of our energy in recent weeks has gone into distributing the leaflet, [SNIPPED]
The remainder of this post has been removed by Tony Bennett at the request of Edward Smethurst, based on an agreement reached at the High Court on 7 December 2011 in settlement of his libel claim against me.


It's going well, though extra distributors are always welcome.

Maybe as we gear up for a second edition we shall be able to take account of Jayelles' suggested improvements.


P.S. I haven't actually seen any '50-page plus' response, can you ask Jayelles to send it to me, or at least tell me where I can find it, thanks!

My thoughts, this 50 page whatever, is climbing out now perhaps because they are wanting to use your platform. I would simply ignore it seeing as it was you who accepted the challenge first up onlu to be duped. Why bother. Maybe they are afraid of becoming extince but by answering you would be letting them have a vile voice for a little longer..
My advise, let them die out..

Tony Bennett wrote:

Ringo wrote:It's a 50 plus page response to your leaflet, with sources and referenced back-up running to many more pages Tony and make the point most convincingly indeed that virtually all your 50 Facts are false, innacurate or misleading. Do you really not have the time or energy to defend yourself against this? Perhaps you have less confidence in your leaflet now that you have seen this.

Well, much of our energy in recent weeks has gone into distributing the leaflet, even to places where apparently folk like Edward Smethurst and Brian Kennedy have rushed to the front desk at Greater Manchester Police to complain that the leaflet is 'harassing' them [by the way, two weeks later, I haven't had a 6am dawn 'knock at the door'].

It's going well, though extra distributors are always welcome.

Maybe as we gear up for a second edition we shall be able to take account of Jayelles' suggested improvements.


P.S. I haven't actually seen any '50-page plus' response, can you ask Jayelles to send it to me, or at least tell me where I can find it, thanks!

Each rebbutal on the 50 points page is in fact a link. Click on that link and it takes you to the detail, source, quotes etc.

For example here's the detail to point 1:

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077415/Rebuttal-of-%22Fact%22-1

Here's the detail for point 1:

1.
The McCanns originally claimed they found the shutters and window of
the children’s room open. They ’phoned relatives that night saying: ‘An
abductor broke in and took Madeleine’. But when police and the managers
of the complex declared there was no sign of forced entry, they changed their story,
saying they must have left the patio doors open. The window had been
cleaned the day before. Only Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on
the window.

Verdict - False and misleading. The McCanns didn't change their story. Kate's fingerprints were on the inside of the window;
it's not known what was found on the outside. Also, MMRG failed to
mention the inclusion of the unidentified partial fingerprints which
were found on the shutters.
Source - Media articles and police files.

Summary of Verifiable Facts Extracts from the files, with relevant sections highlighted in red Re shutters and window Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, 2007/05/04 at 14:20hrs Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 2007/05/04 at 11:15 Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann 2007/09/07 Witness statement of Amy Tierney 2007/05/06 Witness statement of Antonio Henrique da Conceicao Duarte 2007/05/16 Portuguese Forensics examining the apartment on 4 May 2007, their report is dated 2007/05/08 Algarve Resident"Concern grows for missing child in Algarve" Updated 17:41 2007/05/04 Re calling relatives and friends Witness statement of Patricia Cameron 2008/04/15 Witness statement of Paul Seddon(McCann Priest) 2008/04/16 Yorkshire Post "Frantic hunt as British girl feared abducted" Published on Fri May 04 19:08:14 BST 2007 Kate O'Hara Yorkshire Post "The couple for whom every parent's worst nightmare became a reality" Published on Sat May 05 10:21:58 BST 2007 Re cleaning window/fingerprints Witness statement of the cleaner of the apartment, Maria Julia Serafim da Silva, 2007/05/07 Report by Joao Barreiras, Assistant Specialist 2007/05/04 Report by Irene Trovão, Assistant Specialist 2007/05/04 Report by Irene Trovão, Assistant Specialist 2007/05/18 Compare MMRG statement with the actual FACTS

Summary of Verifiable Facts

1. The McCanns didn't
   change their story. Right from the start, in official statements to the
   Policia Judiciaria (PJ), they said the patio doors were closed but
   weren't locked.
   
2. There's at least one independent
   witness who's stated that when she went to the bedroom the shutter was
   raised and the window was partially open.
   
3. Madeleine's parents were upset and in
   shock. They called people late that night informing them Madeleine had
   been abducted. After a sleepless night, it was Trish Cameron (Gerry's
   sister and Madeleine's aunt) who contacted the press telling them about
   Madeleine's disappearance. She mentioned; the open door, window, raised
   shutters and what they thought had happened.
   
4. The statement given by the cleaner of the apartment, doesn't give any indication of her ever cleaning the window.
   
5. Five fingerprints on the inside of
   the window were identified as belonging to Kate McCann. The PJ's report
   doesn't mention how many inadequate fingerprints were found on the
   inside or the outside of the window. In fact it doesn't even mention if
   the outside of the window was checked. There are a number of
   unidentified/inadequate fingerprints recovered from the patio doors and
   the shutters. After a two week period, there was also a fingerprint
   found, identified as belonging to a GNR officer.
   

Extracts from the files, with relevant sections highlighted in red




Re shutters and window




Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, 2007/05/04 at 14:20hrs



"At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked,
as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her
children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the
shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having
closed them all as she always did.."



Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 2007/05/04 at 11:15



"The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed."



Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann 2007/09/07



When questioned, he states that from the first moment, after the first fruitless searches, he thought that Madeleine had been abducted and it was this information that he gave to everyone to whom he spoke. He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the blinds and window in the room.
When questioned, he says that on that night he made several phone calls, including calls to two sisters, a couple of Kate's uncles, his brother or certainly sent him a message, father Paul Seddon who baptized Madeleine and married G. and K.



Witness statement of Amy Tierney 2007/05/06



She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on
duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised
she asked the parents whether Madeleine’s shoes were there, to which
they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine
could have been taken by someone.
However there was a bed against the window, which could have enabled the girl to climb up onto it and then up to the window, the witness thinks it would not be possible as she would not be able to open the shutters and
even if she had done so she would have fallen outside as the window is
too high for a child of that age to be able to descend without falling.



Witness statement of Antonio Henrique da Conceicao Duarte 2007/05/16



After Roque checked that the child was not in the apartment, he
gathered information from the mother and father. He was told by the
patrol, that the father had put forward a theory saying that it could
have been an abduction. He was also told that there was a shutter that had been 'raised'.



Portuguese Forensics examining the apartment on 4 May 2007, their report is dated 2007/05/08



Finally, there also proceeded the detailed analysis of the door and of the windows of the target apartment there not being detected the existence of any clues/traces of break-in/forced entry on them.



Algarve Resident"Concern grows for missing child in Algarve" Updated 17:41 2007/05/04

"There were no signs of forced entry, and the door to the apartment was undamaged and closed, although it is believed that one of the windows was open."





Re calling relatives and friends

Witness statement of Patricia Cameron 2008/04/15



"I remember hearing about Madeleines disappearance by phone on
the night of 3rd May 2007. I usually go to bed late but I was
particularly tired that night and went to bed early. I was woken by the
phone ringing at about 23.30. It was Gerry
telling me that Madeleine had been taken. He was very upset on the
phone, it was the worst phone call I have had in my life. remember asking him for contacts of people in Portugal so that we could call them. Gerry was in no state to say much.
I tried to remain calm for him, I suggested that he contact the British
Embassy and I remember him telling me that he had spoken to the local
police but they were not taking the situation seriously. I remember
Gerry saying that they did not treat the matter with urgency and only
stated that Madeleine must have left on her own and that she would be
back later. It was so frustrating, Madeleine did not do things like
that, she was not that kind of girl.
Gerry is normally very calm and serene, he has a logical perception of things, but he was hysterical he was shouting.
He mentioned the possibility that that she could have been taken by a
paedophile, I tried to calm him but there was nothing I could say to
help him. I had never seen him so out of control. The pain and the
anguish, it was the worst scenario imaginable, the waiting was
unbearable.
In total frustration, I contacted our local police to ask for help and advice but unfortunately they were not able to help us.
Sandy
began to search for phone contacts on the computer and there were phone
calls back and forth to Portugal and to the Embassy in Lisbon. I think
Kate had called her aunt and uncle. I was left with the task of
informing our family here. As my mother is quite vulnerable and fragile I
decided to give her the news personally. That
was one of the worst things I have ever had to do. We sat in her
apartment feeling incredulous, wondering what to do next. I feel the
necessity of contacting the media and called the BBC, gave an interview to a reporter and afterwards there were more reporters and more interviews. "



Witness statement of Paul Seddon(McCann Priest) 2008/04/16



"The first time I heard of Madeleines disappearance was in the early morning of Friday 4th May 2007.
I
received a phone call from Linda who told me what had happened, and I
immediately sent a text message to Kates mobile, telling her that my
prayers were with them. I received a reply almost immediately and I
remember Kate wrote that she felt as if the world was about to fall
apart.
At about 1.30 that morning Kate called me in a state of great agitation.
I tried to calm her as well as I could saying that Madeleine could have
had a bout of sleepwalking and that she would be all right. I remember
that Kate was worried by the fact that Madeleine was wearing short
sleeved pyjamas and that she could catch a cold. I felt that only a
mother could think like that and say such a thing. I could perceive the
trauma that Kate was experiencing from her voice. I led with prayers and
other situations in my role as priest.
Gerry phoned me on the same night and he also seemed to me to be quite
traumatised and at the same time very upset and angry. His Scottish
accent, which was normally very slight, became so heavy that his
sentences were almost incomprehensible. I spoke to them again the following morning and their state was practically the same."



Yorkshire Post "Frantic hunt as British girl feared abducted" Published on Fri May 04 19:08:14 BST 2007 Kate O'Hara



Madeleine’s aunt, Trish Cameron, who lives in Dumbarton near
Glasgow, said her brother Gerry, the girl’s father, called her on
Thursday night “breaking his heart”.
His wife had gone to check on the children and “came out screaming”, she said.
“The door was lying open, the window in the bedroom and the shutters had been jemmied open.
“Nothing had been touched in the apartment, no valuables taken, no passports.
“They think someone must have come in the window and gone out the door with her.”



Yorkshire Post "The couple for whom every parent's worst nightmare became a reality" Published on Sat May 05 10:21:58 BST 2007



Speaking in Glasgow, Ms Cameron told BBC News 24: "The front door was lying open, the window had beentampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open, or whatever you call it,
and Madeleine was missing."It looks as if somebody has come in the
window, they've either been watching or they've targeted her.




Re cleaning window/fingerprints




Witness statement of the cleaner of the apartment, Maria Julia Serafim da Silva, 2007/05/07



"With respect to her activities performed directly in the
apartment, she declares that the last time she entered the apartment was
on the Wednesday prior to the events, specifically on the 2nd of May,
when she cleaned the apartment. When questioned, she declares that as
opposed to what is established, on Thursday the 3rd and due to other
chores, she did not have time to collect the garbage bags.
She
remembers that when she entered Apartment A on the Wednesday, the
parents were inside. After being duly authorized, she entered and
carried out her work, because they were already on their way out. While
she was in the apartment, there were no children there, and she supposed
that they were in the creche. While performing her work, she remembers
having noticed that the couple was sleeping in the room located opposite
the entrance, where she confirmed the presence of a child's bed (crib).
The room gives onto an outdoor garden by means of a terrace, as it is
on the ground floor,. In the room next to the entrance to the apartment
there was a bed placed next to the wall (where she supposed the missing
child slept), and also the second child's bed (crib). All these beds
were untidy at the time, meaning that they had been used. She also
declares that in the room next to the entrance was another bed that had
not been used.
On the following Friday, the day after the
child disappeared, she states that due to police formalities, she did
not clean apartment A"
No mentioning of how long she's stayed in there, what she did and if she's cleaned any windows.



Report by Joao Barreiras, Assistant Specialist 2007/05/04



At apartment 5A, Ocean Club: Inside glass of the window in the
children's bedroom. Five prints were recovered; three of the middle
finger of the left hand and two of the index finger of the left hand of
the mother of the missing child.
Only the inside of the glass was examined
at this time due the fact that it was night and the location was sealed
until there was sufficient light to allow the examination of the
residence to be completed.



Report by Irene Trovão, Assistant Specialist 2007/05/04



At 11:00am on 4 May 2007 I, IT, assistant-specialist, began to examine the following location:
At apartment 5A, Ocean Club:
- Side of the patio door: One adequate print recovered but not matched to known persons.
- Outside of one patio door: Eight inadequate prints were recovered.
- Outside of [the other] patio door: One inadequate print was recovered.
- Outside of the external blinds to the children's bedroom: Three inadequate prints were recovered.



Report by Irene Trovão, Assistant Specialist 2007/05/18



This morning Officer Silva delivered various fingerprints
belonging to his officers who were on duty at the apartment on the night
of 3 – 4 May 2007.
These were compared to the finger print which was identified as being that of Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa of the Lagos GNR.




Compare MMRG statement with the actual FACTS



MMRG quote:
the McCanns changed their story after the police and the managers of
the complex declared there was no sign of forced entry, saying they must
have left the patio doors open.
Actually: They
didn't change their story. Kate said the side door was closed but
unlocked, the door to the bedroom was open, the window was open, the
shutters raised. As you can see, that's what they told the GNR. Kate's
statement was made beforethe PJ or the manager of the complex said there was no sign of a forced entry. Her statement has been unchanged throughout.


MMRG quote: they ’phoned relatives that night saying: ‘An abductor broke in and took Madeleine’
Actually: After
the initial unsuccessful search and thinking it wasn’t possible for
Madeleine to go out on her own or have opened the bedroom shutters and
window, Gerry told everybody (including his sister) Madeleine was
abducted. His sister said in a newspaper interview: "They think someone
must have come by the window and gone out the door with her.”


MMRG quote: the window had been cleaned the day before.
Actually: How
is it possible to verify whether the window was cleaned the day before
if there is no record of this in the statement given to the PJ by the
cleaner of the apartment? There is also no other mention in the official
files stating that she or anyone else had cleaned that window.


MMRG quote: Only Kate McCann's fingerprints were found on the window.
Actually: Using
the word "only" is disingenuous. It suggests there were no other
fingerprints found other than Kate's. Five fingerprints belonging to
Kate McCann were found on the inside of the window, which isn’t unusual for someone who was residing in the apartment. But these are not the only
fingerprints that were found. The fingerprints report also mentions
three inadequate fingerprints found on the outside of the shutters. The
report doesn't mention the outside of the window and the inside of the
shutters ever being examined or the doorknobs.

Ringo wrote:No one was expecting an instant rebuttal from Tony, however the speed with which he was happy to agree with C.Edwards ludicrous assertion that 'Exposing The Myths' is "incredibly flimsy" seemed to suggest that he wasn't planning to give it due consideration. A few weeks ago Tony seemed very keen to have his leaflet rebutted by Jayelles, but perhaps this is a little more than he had bargained for!

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think the way it's laid out means as a first impression there's not much there. It's only when you click on the details do you see the detail.

Maria wrote:My thoughts, this 50 page whatever, is climbing out now perhaps because they are wanting to use your platform. I would simply ignore it seeing as it was you who accepted the challenge first up onlu to be duped. Why bother. Maybe they are afraid of becoming extince but by answering you would be letting them have a vile voice for a little longer..
My advise, let them die out..

No i think that this document produced by Jayellles (whoever that is) has to be addressed by Tony & the Foundation really as soon as possible. It is essentially calling Tony & the reasearch group liars and stating:

WARNING! : 54% of these "facts" are either partially or entirely FALSE!

32% are significantly misleading or misrepresentative of the facts!

1 is a rumour (even the source says it is a rumour)!

Many others are unsubstantiated or simply irrelevant.

Finally, despite what the MMRG claim,

68% have the (frequently British) media as their source!

If these points aren't answered it will undermine the legitimacy of the 50 facts leaflet. In my opinion this has to be treated as the highest priority by the MMRG.

Me wrote:

MMRG quote: Only Kate McCann's fingerprints were found on the window.
Actually: Using
the word "only" is disingenuous. It suggests there were no other
fingerprints found other than Kate's. Five fingerprints belonging to
Kate McCann were found on the inside of the window, which isn’t unusual for someone who was residing in the apartment. But these are not the only
fingerprints that were found. The fingerprints report also mentions
three inadequate fingerprints found on the outside of the shutters. The
report doesn't mention the outside of the window and the inside of the
shutters ever being examined or the doorknobs.

In my eyes, there is a clear divide between the window and the shutter. The fact remains Kate's fingerprints were the only ones found on the window. Yes, we still have some unusable prints found on the outside of the shutter, but in my opinion that is a different matter altogether and should be treated seperately.

Your comment about "someone residing in the apartment", up until recently I would have to agree with. But now that Kate mentions in her book that she never once opened the window or raised the shutter and as such that it remained dark in the children's bedroom all week. If as she claims she never opened the window or raised the shutter, why was her prints found on the window? Also, if the room was dark all week during the day, would she have bothered to close the curtains at night?, I somehow doubt that very much. If she left them open, who closed them on the night Madeleine was reported missing?