Prosecution Exhibit 1: 'madeleine' - What's in the book?

I too think the Gaspar's story is questionable to say the least and have stated so previously. With regard to the underlying and recurring theme of paedophilia in this case the seed was sown by the McCann's to support the abduction theory and that is where I think it stops. I can see no evidence to suggest anything like this occured. Portugal is the most child friendly country I have ever had the good fortune to visit, so much so that it makes even more of an absurdity of the notion that an abduction took place which, of course, there is still no evidence to support until this day. However, what I was suggesting was that in the early days the McCanns claim that their child had been taken would of course have naturally prompted interest from some who thought that might be the case. The tapas scenario gave the McCann's an alibi for their absenteeism, but I am inclined to thinking that neither was this the case.

A text book example of psychological projection..

There have been many times when I have struggled to keep myself together and to understand how such injustices have been allowed to go unchallenged over and over again. I have had to keep saying to myself: I know the truth, we know the truth and God knows the truth. And one day, the truth will out.

Yet publishing the truth is fraught with risks for our family. It lays us open to more criticism, for a start. We have discovered that there are those in society who will always criticize. It doesn’t matter who you are, what you do or why you are doing it. We don’t know what motivates these people (although I have a few theories). In the early months, I found such censure incredibly upsetting and sometimes overwhelming.

Our beloved daughter had been stolen from us, we were suffering terribly and I could not begin to comprehend why anyone would want to add to that pain. As time went on, I was able to shoulder it a little better, either by trying to understand why people did it (unfair as it was) or by simply trying to ignore it.

These detractors didn’t care about Madeleine, so why torture myself by even listening to them? We’ve met many wise people along the way who have stressed the importance of not being derailed by those with their own agenda. It has proved to be good advice.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

The Interpretation of Murder by Jed Rubenfield

The Interpretation of Murder, published in 2006, is the first novel by the American law professor Jed Rubenfeld. The book is written in the first person perspective of Dr. Stratham Younger, supposedly an American psychoanalyst. Other events where he is not present he is informed upon so that he has enough knowledge to write and comment on them.

Plot summary

On the morning after Sigmund Freud arrives in New York City on his first – and only – visit to the United States in 1909, a stunning débutante is found bound and strangled in her penthouse apartment, high above Broadway. The following night, another beautiful heiress, Nora Acton, is discovered tied to a chandelier in her parents' home, viciously wounded and unable to speak or to recall her ordeal. Soon Freud and his American disciple, Stratham Younger, are enlisted to help Miss Acton recover her memory, and to piece together the killer's identity. It is a riddle that will test their skills to the limit and lead them on a journey into the darkest places of the city, and of the human mind.

wikipedia

Aside from Sigmund Freud, the author also uses the name of psychoanalyst Carl Jung to add to the plot.

Carl Jung was a leading authority on the subject of psychological projection.

I wonder if Gerry McCann was brushing-up on the subject, when selecting the novel for summer reading .

My reason for writing it is simple: to give an account of the truth. It has always been my intention to set down a complete record of what happened to our family, for our children, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie, so that, when they are ready, the facts will be there for them to read.

It led to a conversation between the three of us about paedophiles.

We faced our biggest fear: that Madeleine had been taken by a paedophile and killed.

This initial discussion, though, was unsettling, focused as it was on the typical profile of a paedophile.

They told us, for example, about a newspaper clipping they’d seized from his house, an article entitled ‘Lock up Your Daughters’, which claimed that Casanova had been a paedophile.

The thought of paedophiles makes me want to rip my skin off.

I don’t mind if it’s in nice surroundings but certainly, in the case of paedophiles, away at all times from ANY contact with children.

Had I ever considered that she may be dead? Yes, of course. Early on that was all I thought, all the time: that some paedophile had grabbed her, abused her and later killed her. Then I’d begun to wonder if she was being held by pornographers

The second stemmed from the revulsion stirred up by my fear that Madeleine had suffered the worst fate we could imagine: falling into the hands of a paedophile. When she was first stolen, paedophiles were all we could think about, and it made us sick, ate away at us.

In one case, the paedophile had put on some of the father’s aftershave in an attempt to soothe or deceive the child.

Gradually, my outlook was growing more positive and I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered.

Night after night, I read of depraved individuals, British paedophiles, Portuguese paedophiles, Spanish, Dutch and German paedophiles, and of the horrific crimes they’d committed.

He warned me that a British tabloid would be running a piece the following day about a convicted paedophile called Raymond Hewlett, who had been staying in Tavira on the Algarve in May 2007

The proximity of Tavira to Praia da Luz and the fact that this man was a paedophile ticked all the boxes for the redtop papers, and they jumped on the story.

We now knew that there had been hundreds of paedophiles on the Algarve at that time and if, God forbid, one of them had been involved,

madeleine by KATE MCCANN  [published May 2011]

Considering team McCanns emphasis place on the paedophile element, almost insistent, it's interesting to observe how readily Raymond Hewlett was dismissed.  As with the latest media suspect, Christian B, you would think team McCann would welcome a patsy locked away in prison, or preferably dead.

Ms Healy had something to say about the matter..

On 22 May I had a phone call from our lead investigator. He warned me that a British tabloid would be running a piece the following day about a convicted paedophile called Raymond Hewlett, who had been staying in Tavira on the Algarve in May 2007. The proximity of Tavira to Praia da Luz and the fact that this man was a paedophile ticked all the boxes for the redtop papers, and they jumped on the story. All of a sudden, Hewlett was cast as the man who could have taken Madeleine.

We were exasperated. We now knew that there had been hundreds of paedophiles on the Algarve at that time and if, God forbid, one of them had been involved, Hewlett seemed a less likely candidate than a lot of others. He was in his sixties, for a start, much older than the man seen by Jane and other witnesses. But to the press that was irrelevant. They had a name and a photograph and they were off.

We were desperate for somebody to investigate Hewlett, not because we thought he had anything to do with taking Madeleine but because we wanted to eliminate him from the inquiry and quickly put an end to the media speculation. But the UK authorities told us they couldn’t help. (‘It’s a Portuguese investigation . . .’)

My main worry was that Hewlett, who had terminal throat cancer, would die before anyone took an official statement from him. Then the media would take the line that it was probably him, Madeleine was dead, game over, and we would be left with an uphill struggle to prevent this theory from becoming established. All the hard work we’d done recently to motivate the public to believe in our search again, and to undo the harm being done by Gonçalo Amaral, would be ruined. Sometimes it seemed as if we spent as much time trying to clear the path for our investigation as we did actually investigating. I wasn’t sure I had the strength for another battle. It was so frustrating.

Sure enough, the tabloid interest in Hewlett raged on until July. In the meantime, he was questioned in connection with a case dating back to 1975, but not by Leicestershire or Portuguese officers. He also spoke to the tabloids, but refused to see our investigators unless we paid him to do so. He died a few months later.

[Text reproduced for research and study only]
......................

So Ms Healy, you had a tip-off from your lead investigator about a report that would appear in a tabloid the following day.  

Who sowed the seed - your lead investigator, or a source closer to home perhaps?

@Verdi

Depending on the Source of the “Leak” of course...

I wonder if the leaking of Information in order to Identify Brückner and having exposed him to possible Death at the hands of other Prisoners counts as attempted Homicide in the U.K.?

Or just Reckless Reporting?

@Silentscope

I haven't the Vaguest idea what you are Talking about.  Nothing NEW there?

It would be Much appreciated if you could at least TRY to make yourself Understood, for the BENEFIT of members and Guest readers alike.

Otherwise YOU are only derailing IMPORTANT threads.

Thank You ....

I do not know how I am to rephrase the above so YOU understand it.

From your Post:

My main worry was that Hewlett, who had terminal throat cancer, would die before anyone took an official statement from him. Then the media would take the line that it was probably him, Madeleine was dead, game over.

Does anyone else not understand that IDENTIFYING CB could lead to him being Killed / EPSTEINED?

Would that be Game over for the McCanns?

Silentscope wrote:I do not know how I am to rephrase the above so YOU understand it.

Am I sensing a little bit of hostility towards the forum's moderator?

Your posts are hard to understand, especially when you do not quote the specific part of the post you are addressing. It would also be nice if you were able to stop capitalizing words when they do not need to be capitalized.

Again, no disrespect to you Silentscope, but I think you oughta take a step back and research the case, before throwing out baseless theories for no good reason.

I will try and get rid of my Germanic grammar, but it is rather stuck in my mind Paulo.

I know Verdi has a difficult job, but I find his lack of understanding difficult to reason. I have seen in my short time here that several previous members have had the same problems. Some have rightly deserved it for being stupid. Some not.

Just because someone does not know as much in four months as you guys who have years of practise, does not make them stupid or your enemy.

Silentscope wrote:I will try and get rid of my Germanic grammar, but it is rather stuck in my mind Paulo.

I know Verdi has a difficult job, but I find his lack of understanding difficult to reason. I have seen in my short time here that several previous members have had the same problems. Some have rightly deserved it for being stupid. Some not.

Just because someone does not know as much in four months as you guys who have years of practise, does not make them stupid or your enemy.

@Silentscope, I have to say, I've been less than impressed by your performance here on CMOMM since you joined just over three months ago.

Sorry but the fact is, you frequently make random meaningless comments which disrupt the flow of discussion - derail the thread.  You have been asked a number of times to cooperate by posting so other members and guest readers can understand your point, which you've ignored. This attitude comes across as antagonistic.

It's got nothing to do with who knows more than another, this is not a competition.  It would however be extremely helpful if you could at least try to research topics before commenting - from my long memory, so much of what you say is internet myth and garden fence gossip which is frankly not welcome here on CMOMM.  No one expects any member to be an authority on every aspect of the case, only a little effort wouldn't go amiss.  Please don't take offence if another member pulls you up on any particular point.

Now, shall we start again and get back on topic .... please?

Saturday 12th May 2007 - Madeleine's birthday

After attending a special Mass for her at the church early in the evening we were visited in the apartment by Cat, Madeleine’s nanny at Mini Club.

She had some news for us: she and some of her colleagues were being sent to another Mark Warner resort in Greece. None of them wanted to leave, and to this day we do not fully understand this decision. We think it might have been made for logistical reasons – after Madeleine’s abduction, guests with bookings at the Ocean Club for the next few weeks were being offered alternative destinations, and perhaps the company needed to adjust their staffing levels accordingly. But from our point of view, it meant the removal of key witnesses from Praia da Luz.

Having spent much of the previous four days cooped up, first with the police and then with the lawyers, by the Sunday afternoon Gerry and I felt the need to escape into the open air. We decided to go for a walk along the beach. Perhaps ‘escape’ isn’t the right word, since we were soon tailed by a posse of journalists, and there could be little escape in any case from the hell engulfing us. Thankfully, we were left alone when we reached the shore, and were able to stroll along the sand in relative solitude.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN
...................

Considering Madeleine McCann was said to have disappeared on the night of 3rd May 2007, why would the childcare worker Catriona Baker, or any other childcare worker be considered key witnesses by Gerry and Kate McCann. According to their version of the truth, Catriona Baker looked after Madeleine during the day - not the nigh.

Or did she?

Then why only nine days after Madeleine's reported disappearance, on her birthday, would the McCanns be meeting with lawyers?

FRIDAY 4 MAY

Friday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN



[For study and research only]

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/p1032158-over-the-hills-and-far-away

Portuguese newspaper Tal e Qual under the headline: ‘PJ BELIEVE PARENTS KILLED MADDIE’.

I heard that my mum had got wind of the Tal e Qual story and the rumours it had prompted, I phoned her. She was so distraught she could hardly get a word out. I texted DCS Bob Small, saying how disappointed I was that the police were claiming Madeleine was dead, without anyevidence, and how unsupported we had felt recently.

As our main liaison with the British police, Bob was not privy to the investigation details. This was for our protection, he told us, as sharing knowledge we would otherwise not have had could potentially compromise us. In the light of the volume of information being released into the public domain by police sources via the media, this seems farcical now. It did emerge, however, that Bob had concerns of his own. He explained that the British police regarded the use of sniffer dogs as intelligence rather than evidence, and he was perplexed at the apparent fixation of the PJ on the idea that Madeleine had died in the apartment. He told Gerry he thought they’d get a shock when the forensic results came back.

The next day Gerry rang Ken Jones, head of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers. He, too, was beginning to despair of the investigation and the way it was being handled. It was good to know we weren’t alone, and that we weren’t going totally mad, but why wouldn’t anyone speak out about this? Many people in top positions were saying the right things to us privately but it seemed nobody could – or would – do anything about it. If someone had stood up and said, ‘Stop! This is all wrong!’ things could have been very different.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

[Book excerpt for study and research only]

Behind every lie there is an element of truth!

No Stone Unturned

Sheree [Dodd] joined us on 15 May and got down to work straight away.

By this time we were using one of the apartments loaned to us by Mark Warner as an office (immediately nicknamed ‘Mission Control’ by the family) and it was fast becoming a hive of activity. Also helping out at that time were my good friend Lynda, who used to keep a sisterly eye on me playing in our road in Huyton when I was four and she was ten, and Father Paul, aka Seddo, an important figure in our family life. It meant a lot to me to have him there, providing spiritual support as well as an extra pair of hands.

These encounters with the press went well – all except for the introduction of two little words. Sheree had thought ‘Team McCann’ was quite punchy and suggested a united, determined and resourceful group, which is what we were.

We have no doubt that M3 made significant strides, but unfortunately, in mid-December, one of their senior investigators gave an overly optimistic interview to the media. He implied that the team were close to finding Madeleine and declared that he hoped she would be home by Christmas.

Gerry and I did not pay much heed to these bullish assertions. While we believed they’d been made in an attempt to cast the search in a positive light, we knew that such public declarations would not be helpful.

Credibility is so important.

That glitch apart, M3 worked very hard for us and, just for the record, their fees were very low: most of the money they were paid was for verified expenses. Although we went on to employ new teams, we maintain good relations with M3 today. We had the sense that they genuinely cared about Madeleine’s fate, something that, sadly, we have found we cannot take for granted.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN
....................

Before the week is out, I fully expect to see the tabloid headlines covered in tales of woe.



More heartache for Kate and Gerry

Beacuse of COVID-19, the poor parents of the missing toddler - abducted from her bed when on holiday in Portugal in May 2007, can't hold a church service, or a congregation around the Roafley War Memorial. Instead they will be forced to lock themselves away, with no family or friend contact for the duration of the festive season.

A double blow to Kate and Gerry, having to face another lonely Christmas without the girl.

The Daily Tablet

We knew nothing about private investigators. As I’ve said, my only concept of private eyes came from freewheeling-detective-cracks-the-case-again shows on the telly, and I imagine the same went for most of the friends who’d suggested them. We pictured a smart, intuitive lone operator, scornful of authority, who somehow always manages to see what everyone else has missed and never fails to get his man.

Of course, the real world is very different. Not that I’m saying real-life private detectives are not smart and intuitive, but most of those we’ve come across operate within companies, ranging from large international firms to smaller ‘in-house’ teams, and most of their work is not quite as simple as it appears on the TV. A lot of it is conducted on behalf of corporate businesses rather than individuals, and probably involves more time on the phone or at the computer than jumping around tailing suspicious characters or physically searching for clues. Private investigators are constrained by many limitations. Unlike the police, they have no authority to question anyone who does not wish to speak to them, they are not legally allowed to search property without the owner’s consent and they do not generally have the same access as the police to resources like criminal records or car registration databases.

Venturing into unfamiliar territory of any sort is never easy, and exploring the field of private investigation has been a total minefield for us. We were approached by many firms and individuals in several countries, all claiming to have the relevant expertise. Where do you start? How do you choose? Who do you trust?

Over the course of four years, we’ve employed several different investigation teams of various sizes and structures. While each of these teams has been working on the case we have continued to review our progress and explore new strategies and options. When we have taken on a new firm or person it is not necessarily because we have been dissatisfied with the work of the existing or previous team. It is simply that lines of inquiry can hit a brick wall, and it is difficult for investigators to maintain the same level of motivation over a long period if results are not forthcoming. Different people have different ideas and often someone with something extra to bring to the search will come along. When it seems the investigation has stalled or needs a fresh impetus, we have responded by changing or adding to the team to keep the search moving forward. It must be said, though, that the time and energy it takes to brief a new team is immense. Just bringing them up to speed is an exhausting and emotional process.

Our first investigators, the Spanish company Método 3, began working for us in October. With private investigations technically illegal in Portugal, we felt the closest we could get would be a firm from somewhere on the Iberian Peninsula, which would have the advantage of familiarity with local systems, culture and geography and the best network of contacts in the region. M3 also had links to the Spanish police, who, in turn, had good connections with the Portuguese police.

We assembled all the source material we could for the investigators, passing on my detailed chronology of events and the research we were compiling, making endless lists of potential witnesses – some of whom we knew the police had interviewed, many more we suspected they had not – and reported sightings of little girls who could have been Madeleine. As a result of the huge publicity the case had been given, the police and press had been overwhelmed by such reports from the outset. Sometimes ‘Madeleine’ has been seen in different countries, thousands of miles apart, on the same day. These tip-offs needed to be sifted and any credible information followed up.

We have no doubt that M3 made significant strides, but unfortunately, in mid-December, one of their senior investigators gave an overly optimistic interview to the media. He implied that the team were close to finding Madeleine and declared that he hoped she would be home by Christmas. Gerry and I did not pay much heed to these bullish assertions. While we believed they’d been made in an attempt to cast the search in a positive light, we knew that such public declarations would not be helpful. Credibility is so important. That glitch apart, M3 worked very hard for us and, just for the record, their fees were very low: most of the money they were paid was for verified expenses. Although we went on to employ new teams, we maintain good relations with M3 today. We had the sense that they genuinely cared about Madeleine’s fate, something that, sadly, we have found we cannot take for granted.

We had one particularly bad experience with a man named Kevin Halligen (or Richard, as we knew him). Halligen was the CEO of a private-investigation firm called Oakley International which was hired by Madeleine’s Fund for six months from the end of March 2008. Oakley’s proposal and overall strategy were streets ahead of all the others we’d considered and the company came highly recommended. As the sums of money involved were pretty hefty, we agreed that our contract with them would be split into three phases with a break clause at the end of each phase. This gave us an opportunity to terminate the contract at any of these points if we wished to do so without incurring financial penalties. An independent consultant was also employed by the fund to liaise with Oakley and oversee the work they were doing.

The first and second phases of the contract ran fairly smoothly. Oakley had put in place systems to gather, collate, prioritize and follow up the information coming in as a result of appeals Gerry and I made around the first anniversary of Madeleine’s abduction. There is little doubt that at that stage progress was being made.

During the third phase, however, we began to have concerns. Feedback appeared to be less forthcoming and contact with certain members of the Oakley team dropped off. At first we couldn’t be sure whether this was a manifestation of the inevitable waning motivation I’ve mentioned or of a more troubling problem. Rumours about Halligen prompted us to make inquiries before we decided whether or not we should extend our contract with Oakley. To cut a long story short, we chose not to do so. The termination of the contract, in September 2008, was quite acrimonious, and unfortunately, that was not the end of it.

Several months later, one of the investigators subcontracted by Oakley contacted us to demand payment for his services. We had already settled Oakley’s bill for this work months before, but apparently the company had not paid him. He was not the only one. Over time several more unpaid subcontractors came to light. We were upset that, although a lot of hard work had been done on Madeleine’s behalf, it seemed money provided by her fund might not ever have reached the people who had earned it.

In November 2009 we heard that Halligen had been arrested on suspicion of fraud after a discrepancy in a hotel bill. He is currently on remand in Belmarsh prison, fighting extradition to the USA in connection with money-laundering and wire-fraud charges, all of which he denies.

For the most part, though, our experiences with independent investigators have been good. Our current tried and trusted team has more or less been in place, with a few modifications, since October 2008. It is spearheaded by a former police officer, with input from strategy advisers and specialists in various fields as required. This enables us to recruit the best-qualified people available to handle particular tasks when they arise, and it’s a system with which we have made encouraging progress.

[This excerpt is for research and study purposes only]

With the inquiry closed, our Portuguese lawyers, Carlos Pinto de Abreu and Rogério Alves, were allowed to consult the case files, and wasted no time in doing so – although the DVD containing the files took ten days to reach them. Given that leaks had become such an epidemic by this time, it will astonish nobody to learn that the prosecutor’s fifty-seven-page summary of the PJ’s final report had been on a Portuguese website since the day after the news broke.

Amaral and his chums had evidently been poised to take full advantage of the long-awaited lifting of judicial secrecy. Now they really went to town: we had staged a kidnap, or Madeleine had died in our holiday apartment and we had hidden her body; we had influenced the British police and organized our campaign to mislead investigators into searching for a living child, and so on and so forth. No longer gagged by the law, Amaral was talking more and more openly to journalists and turning up on television chat shows. A friend in the Algarve kept us updated on his activities. It was unpleasant and distressing to hear what he was saying, but we had to know what Madeleine was up against in Portugal. And it was incessant. With the best will in the world, it is hard for anyone to absorb this stuff day in, day out and remain completely objective, especially when it is never challenged or balanced by an alternative viewpoint.

It is impossible to convey, particularly to people outside Portugal who were not aware of Amaral’s behaviour, just how difficult this smear campaign was both to withstand and to counter. And we desperately needed to counter it: we have always believed that the information that can lead us to our daughter is likely to come from Portugal. This is where the crime was committed, after all. Blackening our names was one thing, but if people there were taken in by Amaral’s theories, they were going to think there was no point in looking for Madeleine, or in passing on any information that might be relevant. We are quite sure that Amaral’s posturing has reduced our chances of finding her.

Why on earth would a former police officer want to convince the world that a missing child was dead – with no evidence whatsoever to support his claim? The only conclusion we could draw was that he was attempting to justify his actions while in charge of the investigation and at the same time promoting his forthcoming book to cash in on our misfortune. It just beggars belief.

I spent many days in tears, sobbing at the injustice being done to Madeleine by the very people who should have been helping her. There were times when I felt so incensed by the conduct of Amaral and his friends I thought I simply wouldn’t get through the pain and anger. It was utterly frustrating that there didn’t seem to be anybody in Portugal prepared to stand up against this man. Surely there were intelligent and knowledgeable people in positions of authority who could see through these offensive allegations. Why were they all staying quiet? Was it because it wasn’t their problem? Were they scared to speak out? Perhaps Amaral had tapped into some kind of national subconscious desire for this to all just go away. The country was already reeling from a child-abuse scandal involving Casa Pia, a state-run institution for orphans and other disadvantaged children (when this finally came to court in 2010, six men, including a TV presenter and a former UNESCO ambassador, would be convicted) – the first such case ever to be tried in Portugal. Perhaps it was more convenient and less troubling to lay Madeleine’s disappearance at the door of her foreign parents, put an end to the matter and move on. Who knows?

On 24 July 2008, three days after the inquiry was closed, Gonçalo Amaral launched his book about our daughter’s disappearance. For this to have been possible, confidential information relating to the investigation would have to have been passed to his publishers, and any number of people involved in the production of the book, well in advance of the lifting of judicial secrecy. Needless to say, it repeated his theories, dressed up with fabrication and speculation. What it failed to include was any evidence – something one would expect to be rather important to a police officer – or any detail that didn’t suit his story.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

[Excerpts for research and study only]

Question:

Why on earth would a former police officer want to convince the world that a missing child was dead – with no evidence whatsoever to support his claim?

Answer:

He didn't.

As they say, the best form of defence is attack .

It wasn't until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day. This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors too.To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently.



They won't take responsibility for anything will they?

They were the ones drawing attention to themselves, sitting at a large table, eating drinking and jumping up every 10 minutes to "go and check on the children"

It was all the fault of the receptionist for leaving the "note" lying around for any passing paedophile to happen along.

The note mentioned is not on the DVD although Tapas reservation lists are here:  missing pages

What ‘note?’ 

It is possible that the P.J. took the original Staff message book, but it’s contents have not been published.

@Silentscope wrote.

It is possible that the P.J. took the original Staff message book, but it’s contents have not been published.

As far as I know, the McCann's had no more access to the PJ files than anyone else, including any missing pages.

Kate in the book states " It wasn't until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day.

Another fabrication, to blame anyone else but themselves.

Anyway, once the booking for the rest of the week had been sanctioned, there would be no need for a note explaining why.

It still seems strange that Kate writes about a ‘Staff message book’
that she saw in the PJ Files.

The ‘Reservation book’ was included in the PJ Files. 

The alleged text about the Children being checked in this ‘Staff message book’ is not?

I think it more likely that whoever the Male member was made the Restaurant booking, saw it lying on the desk, then passed the information to the Author of ‘Madeleine’ for later incorporation.

If it cannot be physically produced as evidence it is irrelevant.

@Silentscope wrote

"It still seems strange that Kate writes about a ‘Staff message book’
that she saw in the PJ Files."

Yes it does, it's something she must have had some knowledge about, to make a comment about it.

"I think it more likely that whoever the Male member was made the Restaurant booking, saw it lying on the desk, then passed the information to the Author of ‘Madeleine’ for later incorporation."

Could be, Kate's remark in her book was made for some reason, another " it wasn't our fault" maybe.

I have searched the PJ files to find mention of the elusive staff message book several times' to no avail.

I venture to suggest it was another example of that simple explanation for anything and everything the PJ  might find [sic].

In short ....cobblers!  It never happened until there is clear evidence to substantiate the claim.

That will never happen for the simple fact - it didn't happen. It's nothing but a tool to enhance the abduction theory.

Gawd knows, go back to the beginning and recognize the reason for the ensuing window dressing.

There was no note at reception for anyone to see regarding the McCann group's Tapas restaurant booking, if there was it would be documented in the PJ files and it's not, the only reference is Kate McCann's claim in her autobiographical novel. Aside,as I've pointed out in the past, a hotel or tourist complex reception does not arrange restaurant bookings.

Why try to find some semblance of reality four years down the line when the PJ files are right their for reference.

Meanwhile down at the O.K. Corral..

FRIDAY 4 MAY

At one point, the British ambassador, John Buck, came down from Lisbon to see us. He was pleasant and obviously concerned.
I recall Bill Henderson telling me there had been several recent cases of men getting into bed with children, but no known abductions. I’m not sure why this didn’t ring a million alarm bells or sicken me to the core. As it was, it remained locked away in the dungeons of my mind for many months. At the time my brain simply couldn’t connect such cases with Madeleine’s disappearance. These were abuse victims, and as awful as such crimes were, Madeleine’s situation was much worse. Our child had been stolen. We didn’t know where or how she was.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN
....................

I wonder if the incumbent British ambassador and/or consul to Portugal has jumped to attention to aid British subjects stranded or affected by the plandemic with such ease? That is after all their true function.

Has the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office assisted British subjects in Portugal under these trying times, or have they just disappeared into their own lavish fall-out bunkers for safety?  If in doubt, try phoning the Embassy or Consulate and see if you get the British ambassador on your threshold within hours.

#makesyerfonkdunnit

Verdi wrote:

I recall Bill Henderson telling me there had been several recent cases of men getting into bed with children, but no known abductions. I’m not sure why this didn’t ring a million alarm bells or sicken me to the core. As it was, it remained locked away in the dungeons of my mind for many months. At the time my brain simply couldn’t connect such cases with Madeleine’s disappearance. These were abuse victims, and as awful as such crimes were, Madeleine’s situation was much worse. Our child had been stolen. We didn’t know where or how she was.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN
.................

It neither rang a million alarm bells nor sickened her to the core because none of that happened to Madeleine.
The idea of which however was not locked away in the dungeons of her mind for months as, following the 'abduction'
she said in her appeal "Don't hurt her, don't scare her" the implication of which suggests that such thoughts occupied the very forefront of her mind never mind being locked away in the dungeons for months. Interestingly the use of hurt and not harm was used. Children can hurt themselves but rarely harm themselves at that young age. 


Furthermore, there really is only one situation that could be much worse isn't there?

For his next trick, Amaral produced a ‘documentary’ based on his book, which was screened in Portugal on 13 April. A friend in Luz who phoned to tell us about it the next day was very upset, describing it as ‘awful’.

I’ve always been considered quite a gentle person but these attacks stirred up terrible emotions in me. It was as if my whole body was trying to scream but a tightly screwed-on lid was preventing the scream from escaping. Instead I was just howling internally. My punch bag certainly came in handy at times. Amaral’s documentary was the last straw. On 20 April we took the decision with Isabel Duarte to sue him.

While she did the preparatory work, we were off to the States again – to appear on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show. We had been asked if we’d consider being interviewed by Oprah not long after Madeleine was abducted but we’d had a lot on our plates then and there was no particular objective it would have served. This time we had our age-progressed image to publicize, and the global reach of Oprah’s massively popular show would give us a fantastic opportunity to stamp this on the worldwide public consciousness.

It wasn’t until we arrived in Chicago that it really hit me what a huge deal this interview was for our search for Madeleine. Oprah has more than once been described as the most influential woman in the world. Certainly when she speaks, as they say across the Atlantic, America listens. I was overcome by nerves.

Getting ready for the interview on the day was an event in itself. A choice of clothes and shoes had been brought to our hotel for me. Later that morning we were taken over to the Harpo Studios and introduced to Oprah’s team. I had my make-up and hair done by two lovely ladies (if only I could look like that every day!). Just before we were due to go on, Oprah dropped in to see us. She came across as smart, strong and warm, and I was completely in awe of her. While she wanted to show what we as a family had had to endure, her main intention, she said, was to emphasize that Madeleine was nearly six, still missing – and alive. We were so grateful we wanted to hug her. In fact I’m sure we did hug her.

The show was recorded live in front of a studio audience. My nervousness intensified, partly because of the enormity of it all, and partly because I knew how important this was for Madeleine. I was emotional, too, especially when I looked at the screens on the set displaying rolling images of our Madeleine smiling back at us. Oprah was as good as her word. She did not dwell too long on ‘human-interest’ topics, concentrating instead on areas she knew would promote our search. And, of course, we launched the age-progressed picture of Madeleine which, thanks to the team at NCMEC and to Oprah, would now be seen by millions.

On Madeleine’s sixth birthday, 12 May 2009, I met Isabel Duarte for the first time. I’d been reluctant to spend this emotional day in a meeting but our options were limited and, as Gerry pointed out, maybe this was exactly what we ought to be doing on Madeleine’s birthday. I was very impressed by Isabel. She was a pocket dynamo: tiny and attractive but immensely feisty, strong, intelligent and compassionate. You could see the desire for justice burning brightly in her.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

[Excerpt for research and study only]

Oprah Winfrey is no better than the holier than thou evangelists that preach their gospel to the American audience.

They are ruthless manipulative megalomaniacs with a lust for wealth.

If anyone resorts to the Oprah Winfrey Show to air their grievances, you can bet your bottom dollar they've got something to hide.