IFLG - hmmm!

by Guest 31.10.11 18:11

And of course wasn't it they who according to Kate in her book (so it must be true!) advised her to set up the limited company in their discussions with her over the weekend of 12th to 13th May 2007?

by **Tony Bennett** 31.10.11 18:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stella wrote:I have checked all the other statements now and they are all consistent. So if by some chance another one did change their statement, maybe they changed the whole thing.
Just to clarify for Stella and others, what the 'insider' source was telling us about the International Family Law Group 'helping' Jane Tanner with her statements appears to refer to the period between her first statement to the police (4 May) and this (second) one on 10 May:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It looks like the International Family Law Group turned up at just the 'right' time.

Further to the above post, I understand that the information provided by the source has been challenged on the grounds that IFLG didn't arrive in Praia da Luz until 11 May, whereas Jane Tanner had made her two statements on 4 and 10 May.

Now, one thing I will say is that it is possible that the source might be mistaken as to precisely who assisted Jane Tanner with her recollections. It seems that Control Risks Group may have been involved. Or Leicestershire Police. Or others who may have had connections to one or other of the security services. All I will add to that is that (1) other information given to us confidentially by this source has been confirmed and we are fully satisfied that the source is authentic and (2) that the source has both first-hand knowledge of certain events and also second-hand knowledge. The information about who helped Jane Tanner with her statements is second-hand rather than first-hand.

The role of IFLG is covered on pages 124-7 of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'.

In brief, this is what she says about IFHG:

p. 124

"One of the offers of help we'd received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry's. He worked for a firm specialosing in family law, the International Family Law Group".

COMMENT: Dr Kate McCann does not give the date this offer of help was made.

She says: "It was difficult to know what this company could do but we decided it would be worth meeting with them to discuss the possibiities".

COMMENT: The date this decision was made is not stated in the book.

Dr Kate: "So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We'd warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key, so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media...In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces - the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading 'lawyer'."

Dr Kate says there was a meeting with these two on Friday and then two more 'over the course of that weekend'. She says: "..the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour [in leaving the children alone while they dined over a minute's walk away] was not negligent and was indeed 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'."

COMMENT: So far as I am aware, this barrister has never been named.

She says the IFLG then advised about making Madeleine a Ward of Court. She then gives a short description of what is involved in wardship proceedings.

p. 125

Dr Kate says the idea of setting up a fighting fund came from IFLG. "One of Gerry's colleagues...had called to say that the staff in his department wanted to make a donation to assist with the search for Madeleine but didn't know how or where to deposit it. IFLG told us that we neded to set up a 'fighting fund'. They would devise the objectives of the fund and instruct a leading charity law firm, Bates Wells and Braithwaite (BWB), to draw up articles of association".

Then Dr Kate writes:

"At the last two meetings the barrister and legal assistant were joined by a consultant called Hugh, whose profession was not at first explained ('Just call me Hugh', he said engimatically). It transpired that he was a former intelligence officer, now a kidnap negotiator and counsellor. We were told that an anonymous (but evidently very generous) donor had set aside a considerable sum of money for us to put towards the cost of hiring a private investigation company if we wished. Hugh had been brought in by a firm called Control Risks, which was primed to help. This company is an independent specialist risk consultancy..."

"The first session Hugh attended, which took place at night, had something of a James Bond atmosphere to it, and not in a good way..."

p. 126

Dr Kate: "By the Sunday evening [13 May - the day after Madeleine's 4th birthday] we found ourselves giving our statements again, this time to a couple of detectives from Control Risks. We were concerned that parts of the statements we had made to the Portuguese police, especially on that first day, might have been lost in translation...we made the mistake of assuming that the transcripts would be correct and discovered only many months later that these...contained inaccuracies".

Later: "It was after one of the IFLG meetings that Hugh asked me whether I was keeping a diary...'You should', he said. He didn't elaborate on why. The barrister handed me a spare A4 notebook he happened to have with him".

p. 127

Dr Kate: "On the day of our first meeting with IFLG, I had gone over to the Tapas area to meet up with Paddy, the husband of Bridget, a good friend of mine in Leicester. Paddy is, as Bridget put it, 'a man of God'. He's also six foot three, a big fella generally...he had decided to come out to Praia da Luz and join the search parties...I had asked Paddy if he had a Bible with him I could borrow. He brought me one that had been a Christmas present from him to Bridget several years earlier. That Bible is still sitting next to my bed. I must get round to returning it one day!"

by Guest 31.10.11 18:49

IFLG has a Solicitor called Mandeep Gill. She graduated from Leicester University and her speciality amongst other things is 'International Child Abduction'. If you look at the OC Guest lists, you will see someone under a Donos booking, i.e., the owner is using their own apartment, booked in there on the 2nd May 2007, under the name of GILL.

Could that Gill booking, be one Mandeep Gill from the IFLG ? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 31.10.11 19:11

What a Trojan our Kate is. Someohow on Madeleine's 4th birthday 12th May she manged to get herself together enough to meet with the IFLG and thrash out the details of the K & G Pension Fund, sorry it's to help find Madeleine of course.

by Guest 31.10.11 19:46

This is interesting from the IFLG website.

The Hague Convention is an international Convention which has at present been signed by 70 countries. Each country agrees that it will not enter into a full investigation of custody, contact etc in respect of the child which will be left to the Court in the Country where the child was last Habitually Resident and instead merely secure return.

In England a parent from whom a child has been abducted is awarded public funding as of right. It is not means tested. The Central Authorities will then appoint an experienced panel solicitor to represent them. iFLG is regularly instructed and please [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and we can liaise with the Central Authority for you.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.10.11 19:56

It will be noted that all three IFLG folk said to have jetted out to Praia da Luz on Friday 11 May are anonymous.

One is said to be a Leicestershire 'paralegal'.

Another, who is said to be a barrister, notoriously said that leaving three children for the evening while dining out of sight over a minute's walk away was 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'.

The third is said to be an ex-intelligence officer who said 'Just call me 'Hugh'.

This put me in mind of the children's nursery rhyme: 'The butcher, the baker, the candlestick-maker':

Rub-a-dub-dub,
Three men in a tub,
And how do you think they got there?
The butcher, the baker,
The candlestick-maker,
They all jumped out of a rotten potato,
'Twas enough to make a man stare.

Which I've amended as follows:

THE ANONYMOUS THREE
FROM THE IFLG

Rub-a-dub-dee,
Three men from IFLG,
And how do you think they got there?
Paralegal and barrister: two
Plus the anonymous ‘Hugh’,
They all jumped on to a plane out to Luz
An offer the McCanns couldn’t refuse.

by pauline 31.10.11 20:21

i think the identity of the barrister is clear if you go into the IFLG website and put Madeleine McCann into the search box. You will then find a press release issued by David Hodson on 13 May 2007 in which he says the IFLG have been retained in the matter and also Michael Nicholls QC of Hare Court London. Surely he must be the barrister who went to PDL and approved the McCanns parenting style?

It is very surprising that Kate does not name the IFLG paralegal whose advice she took - I mean on his say so (apparently) she set up the Fund and made Madeleine a ward of court. You would think that he deserved a proper mention!.

by Xavier 31.10.11 20:30

Tony Bennett wrote:

"Now, one thing I will say is that it is possible that the source might be mistaken as to precisely who assisted Jane Tanner with her recollections. It seems that Control Risks Group may have been involved. Or Leicestershire Police. Or others who may have had connections to one or other of the security services. All I will add to that is that (1) other information given to us confidentially by this source has been confirmed and we are fully satisfied that the source is authentic and (2) that the source has both first-hand knowledge of certain events and also second-hand knowledge. The information about who helped Jane Tanner with her statements is second-hand rather than first-hand"

Is it possible that your source is Team McCann and is a bit of a double agent, and seeking to embarrass you and the Madeleine Foundation in front of Scotland Yard?

by aiyoyo 31.10.11 20:43

What would be interesting to know is on whose authority did the 'three' IFLG act for when they went out to PDL?
Who authorised and financed their trip, and is that level (high by any standards - come on 'three of them') common and afforded to other missing child case? If not, why the mccanns?

The pertinent question is why did they voluntarily (or was it?) become heavily involved in the mccanns case going to the extreme extent of advising them that1) their parenting style was within responsible limits 2) to set up the fund and offered help to set it up 3) advising them to make Maddie WOC and 4) asking kate to keep diary?

Are any other cases where the parents of missing child are given even a fraction of the help they offered mccanns?

Another worrying aspect is if mccanns 'internal source' had already been talking to SY team and no one seemed to have shown interest in getting a statement off her then is she endangering herself ? If the SY team is about whitewash then risking exposure of her identity is not going to be worth the cause because it would be contrary to the one instructed to SY.
One would have thought the SY team would have invited her in for a statement by now surely. The SY review remains very much an enigma b/c of the secrecy surrounding it.

Let's hope my skepticism is proven wrong.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.10.11 21:00

Xavier wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:

"Now, one thing I will say is that it is possible that the source might be mistaken as to precisely who assisted Jane Tanner with her recollections. It seems that Control Risks Group may have been involved. Or Leicestershire Police. Or others who may have had connections to one or other of the security services. All I will add to that is that (1) other information given to us confidentially by this source has been confirmed and we are fully satisfied that the source is authentic and (2) that the source has both first-hand knowledge of certain events and also second-hand knowledge. The information about who helped Jane Tanner with her statements is second-hand rather than first-hand".

Is it possible that your source is Team McCann and is a bit of a double agent, and seeking to embarrass you and the Madeleine Foundation in front of Scotland Yard?

That is a matter we have carefully considered over the past two years since she first contacted us.

It was back on 18 and 22 July 2009 that I first published information from our source, on the now-defunct '3 Arguidos' forum.

The disclosures I made on that forum, together with other comments made by me on 3As around that time, led to a libel letter from Carter-Ruck dated 8 September 2009 on behalf of Brian and Patrick Kennedy. I responded to that on 17 September and cite extracts from that letter below. None of the information I published about Kennedy's centre of operations being in Knutsford and about Patrick ('Paddy') Kennedy's role in the McCann Team's private investigations has ever been refuted or contradicted [ETA: And the Kennedys took no further action after my reply of 17 September]:

QUOTE

From: Tony Bennett M.A.
66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
Essex
CM17 0DJ
Tel: 01279 635789

e-mail: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Isabel Hudson
Carter-Ruck Thursday 17 September 2009
International Press Centre
76 Shoe Lane
LONDON
EC4A 3JB

For the attention of Isabel Hudson

Your ref: IH/DH/13837.1

Dear Sirs,

re: Brian Kennedy and Patrick Kennedy

I reply to your letter of 28 August.

I deal firstly with the four allegations you set out on page 1 of your letter:

(1) “That Brian Kennedy bought a house (in Cheshire) where he regularly met with intelligence operatives he appointed including those from Metodo 3”

RESPONSE: You say this is ‘untrue’, but do not say whether the whole or part of that statement is untrue. We do have what we consider to be sound information that there is indeed a house in Cheshire, in Knutsford in fact, which is used by Brian Kennedy as the centre of intelligence-gathering operations connected to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Further, if you look at the long article by Mark Hollingsworth, below, it is plain from that that Brian Kennedy did indeed in effect ‘run’ the intelligence operation as I described in my post on 3Arguidos.

Indeed, that article makes some serious allegations against Brian Kennedy. For example, Mr Hollingsworth alleges that:

[SNIPPED]

(2) [SNIPPED]

(3) “That Patrick Kennedy was said to be intimately involved with the McCann operation or cover-up”

RESPONSE: At this point, I need to reproduce the recent article on your clients penned by Mark Hollingsworth of the ‘Evening Standard’:

[SNIPPED]

From this account [which was published AFTER my posts on 3As on 18 & 22 July 2009 - T.B.], it is clear that Brian Kennedy’s son Patrick featured strongly in the intelligence operation his father managed, precisely as I alleged in my postings on 3Arguidos dated 18 and 22 July 2009. I cannot therefore withdraw my assertion that he was ‘intimately involved with the McCann investigation’, but I am content to give you an undertaking not to not to publish an allegation that he was ‘involved in a cover-up’, or any similar allegation, in any medium.

(4) “That I identified Patrick Kennedy in a post which is part of a thread [on 3Arguidos] which alleged that a particular individual was involved in the actual disappearance of Madeleine McCann”.

RESPONSE: I am aware of the existence of that thread and indeed other threads on 3Arguidos which alleged that either Brain Kennedy or a teenage son of his, or both, were in Praia das Luz at the same time as the McCanns. There has even been further speculation that one or the other (father or son) was in some way involved in the actual disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

However, you will not find on the now-defunct 3Arguidos site nor anywhere else where I have ever made that allegation myself. I have always viewed it as an unsubstantiated rumour and you will not be able to find anything in writing from me anywhere which suggests otherwise.

I do not have access to the posting I made on 3Arguidos in which I referred to Patrick Kennedy. However, I do have a clear recollection of it and I can be certain that what I said was in effect intended to contradict assertions that Patrick Kennedy was in Praia da Luz in April/May 2007. I recall specifically stating that his probable age was 20 to 30 and that therefore he could not be the ‘teenage son of Brian Kennedy’ whom others (but I emphasise not myself) were speculating was in Praia da Luz that week. I have no fear of your clients ‘referring to the totality of the discussion threads in question’ as I know that at no time have I ever suggested that either of your clients was in Praia da Luz that week.

In addition to asking me to give undertakings, you have asked me to ‘use my best endeavours to remove the posting complained of from the 3Arguidos forum’. In your letter of 28 August, you noted correctly that “the 3Arguidos forum appears temporarily to have been suspended”. On 28 August, when you wrote to me, the site was not visible except for a holding page saying that the site was temporarily unavailable. Since then, however, the whole site has been removed from the internet and comments made by the owners and former Moderators of that forum strongly suggest that the 3Arguidos site will never return. There is no way that I nor others can access the threads on that site.

However, in line with your clients’ wishes, and in case the 3Arguidos site should ever be revived in some form, I have earlier this week written to the e-mail addresses I hold of the former owner and Moderators, asking them not to re-publish any allegedly defamatory postings I have made which refer to Brian Kennedy or Patrick Kennedy. I can produce copies of those e-mails on request.

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett

UNQUOTE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On the subject of the 'help' Jane Tanner had in compiling her statements of evidence, I have said that she [the source] told us that this was carried out by IFLG. In this respect she may be mistaken, in that the help to Jane Tanner around this time (3 to 13 May 2007) appears to have come from several sources: Control Risks Group, Bob Small and fellow detectives from Leicestershire Police, IFLG and other individuals associated with Britain's security services, possibly from others as well.

I have conceded that our source may be mistaken about exactly who helped Jane Tanner.

But no, this is not the work of a 'double agent'.

by Guest 31.10.11 21:36

Tony, do you know if your source has already contacted the PJ with their information ? Did they appear to be more interested and on the ball, compared to SY ?

by **Tony Bennett** 31.10.11 21:57

Stella wrote:Tony, do you know if your source has already contacted the PJ with their information?

REPLY: No, I don't know.

Did they appear to be more interested and on the ball, compared to SY?

REPLY: Without a doubt, the source is more than interested in what she did within the McCann Team and the implications of what she discovered. I really cannot say more about what she knows, I am sorry.

As to being 'on the ball', so far as the SY Review Team is concerned, they are keeping their cards close to their chests, and rightly so, so it is impossible to say whether they are 'on the ball' or not.

I think they've been given 'mission impossible' - to 'support the McCanns', whilst at the same time being faced with the cadaver alerts of two highly trained and experienced police dogs and an array of circumstantial information which would seem to point away from the claim that Madeleine was abducted.

How they will resolve that remains to be seen - and I very much suspect that their final report may be suppressed. In a 30-minute 'phone call to me a week last Friday (21 October), the source (inter alia) asked me to remind the Head of the SY Review Team that four months ago she had offered in a 'phone call to them to help the Review Team with first-hand information about the McCann Team's activities, but had not yet heard from them. This I have done.

by Angelique 31.10.11 22:03

I would also like to thank Tony for this update.

But like jd has stated - I am worried that this could go wrong. The fact that SY are slow in contacting/interviewing this source. Also that you had to, obviously, divulge her name. But in doing so, this source has placed themself in danger.

I simply don't trust SY any more. I would have been the first to laud them against all criticism having worked in the legal profession - but now as we have all seen with "hackgate" my earlier fears have been confirmed.

I would be very worried if I was this source.

by Guest 31.10.11 22:13

Perhaps she could also be encouraged to contact Ana Paula Rito, head of the PJ direct, to prevent anyone from potentially sitting on very important information.

by pauline 31.10.11 22:26

Stella wrote:Perhaps she could also be encouraged to contact Ana Paula Rito, head of the PJ direct, to prevent anyone from potentially sitting on very important information.

I think it is vital the source does so.

That SY have not followed up this witness after so many weeks is very worrying.

If an insider from team McCann is prepared to tell the truth, as it would appear, then this case can be solved. You would expect SY to be jumping for joy and getting this woman in. But she has been ignored. Very strange.

by **Tony Bennett** 31.10.11 22:30

Angelique wrote:I would also like to thank Tony for this update.

But like jd has stated - I am worried that this could go wrong. The fact that SY are slow in contacting/interviewing this source. Also that you had to, obviously, divulge her name. But in doing so, this source has placed themself in danger.

I simply don't trust SY any more. I would have been the first to laud them against all criticism having worked in the legal profession - but now as we have all seen with "hackgate" my earlier fears have been confirmed.

I would be very worried if I was this source.

The source has been in touch with ourselves more than once, and with the SY Review Team.

She has also indicated recently via us that she wishes to divulge her information to the SY Review Team, and has asked us to jog D.C.I. Redwood's memory about her 'phone call four months ago.

One other thing. We have preserved all the written information we have had from the source and have made contemporaneous notes on all she has told us.

by Xavier 01.11.11 2:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
Xavier wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:

"Now, one thing I will say is that it is possible that the source might be mistaken as to precisely who assisted Jane Tanner with her recollections. It seems that Control Risks Group may have been involved. Or Leicestershire Police. Or others who may have had connections to one or other of the security services. All I will add to that is that (1) other information given to us confidentially by this source has been confirmed and we are fully satisfied that the source is authentic and (2) that the source has both first-hand knowledge of certain events and also second-hand knowledge. The information about who helped Jane Tanner with her statements is second-hand rather than first-hand".

Is it possible that your source is Team McCann and is a bit of a double agent, and seeking to embarrass you and the Madeleine Foundation in front of Scotland Yard?

That is a matter we have carefully considered over the past two years since she first contacted us.

It was back on 18 and 22 July 2009 that I first published information from our source, on the now-defunct '3 Arguidos' forum.

The disclosures I made on that forum, together with other comments made by me on 3As around that time, led to a libel letter from Carter-Ruck dated 8 September 2009 on behalf of Brian and Patrick Kennedy. I responded to that on 17 September and cite extracts from that letter below. None of the information I published about Kennedy's centre of operations being in Knutsford and about Patrick ('Paddy') Kennedy's role in the McCann Team's private investigations has ever been refuted or contradicted [ETA: And the Kennedys took no further action after my reply of 17 September]:

QUOTE

From: Tony Bennett M.A.
66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
Essex
CM17 0DJ
Tel: 01279 635789

e-mail: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Isabel Hudson
Carter-Ruck Thursday 17 September 2009
International Press Centre
76 Shoe Lane
LONDON
EC4A 3JB

For the attention of Isabel Hudson

Your ref: IH/DH/13837.1

Dear Sirs,

re: Brian Kennedy and Patrick Kennedy

I reply to your letter of 28 August.

I deal firstly with the four allegations you set out on page 1 of your letter:

(1) “That Brian Kennedy bought a house (in Cheshire) where he regularly met with intelligence operatives he appointed including those from Metodo 3”

RESPONSE: You say this is ‘untrue’, but do not say whether the whole or part of that statement is untrue. We do have what we consider to be sound information that there is indeed a house in Cheshire, in Knutsford in fact, which is used by Brian Kennedy as the centre of intelligence-gathering operations connected to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Further, if you look at the long article by Mark Hollingsworth, below, it is plain from that that Brian Kennedy did indeed in effect ‘run’ the intelligence operation as I described in my post on 3Arguidos.

Indeed, that article makes some serious allegations against Brian Kennedy. For example, Mr Hollingsworth alleges that:

[SNIPPED]

(2) [SNIPPED]

(3) “That Patrick Kennedy was said to be intimately involved with the McCann operation or cover-up”

RESPONSE: At this point, I need to reproduce the recent article on your clients penned by Mark Hollingsworth of the ‘Evening Standard’:

[SNIPPED]

From this account [which was published AFTER my posts on 3As on 18 & 22 July 2009 - T.B.], it is clear that Brian Kennedy’s son Patrick featured strongly in the intelligence operation his father managed, precisely as I alleged in my postings on 3Arguidos dated 18 and 22 July 2009. I cannot therefore withdraw my assertion that he was ‘intimately involved with the McCann investigation’, but I am content to give you an undertaking not to not to publish an allegation that he was ‘involved in a cover-up’, or any similar allegation, in any medium.

(4) “That I identified Patrick Kennedy in a post which is part of a thread [on 3Arguidos] which alleged that a particular individual was involved in the actual disappearance of Madeleine McCann”.

RESPONSE: I am aware of the existence of that thread and indeed other threads on 3Arguidos which alleged that either Brain Kennedy or a teenage son of his, or both, were in Praia das Luz at the same time as the McCanns. There has even been further speculation that one or the other (father or son) was in some way involved in the actual disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

However, you will not find on the now-defunct 3Arguidos site nor anywhere else where I have ever made that allegation myself. I have always viewed it as an unsubstantiated rumour and you will not be able to find anything in writing from me anywhere which suggests otherwise.

I do not have access to the posting I made on 3Arguidos in which I referred to Patrick Kennedy. However, I do have a clear recollection of it and I can be certain that what I said was in effect intended to contradict assertions that Patrick Kennedy was in Praia da Luz in April/May 2007. I recall specifically stating that his probable age was 20 to 30 and that therefore he could not be the ‘teenage son of Brian Kennedy’ whom others (but I emphasise not myself) were speculating was in Praia da Luz that week. I have no fear of your clients ‘referring to the totality of the discussion threads in question’ as I know that at no time have I ever suggested that either of your clients was in Praia da Luz that week.

In addition to asking me to give undertakings, you have asked me to ‘use my best endeavours to remove the posting complained of from the 3Arguidos forum’. In your letter of 28 August, you noted correctly that “the 3Arguidos forum appears temporarily to have been suspended”. On 28 August, when you wrote to me, the site was not visible except for a holding page saying that the site was temporarily unavailable. Since then, however, the whole site has been removed from the internet and comments made by the owners and former Moderators of that forum strongly suggest that the 3Arguidos site will never return. There is no way that I nor others can access the threads on that site.

However, in line with your clients’ wishes, and in case the 3Arguidos site should ever be revived in some form, I have earlier this week written to the e-mail addresses I hold of the former owner and Moderators, asking them not to re-publish any allegedly defamatory postings I have made which refer to Brian Kennedy or Patrick Kennedy. I can produce copies of those e-mails on request.

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett

UNQUOTE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On the subject of the 'help' Jane Tanner had in compiling her statements of evidence, I have said that she [the source] told us that this was carried out by IFLG. In this respect she may be mistaken, in that the help to Jane Tanner around this time (3 to 13 May 2007) appears to have come from several sources: Control Risks Group, Bob Small and fellow detectives from Leicestershire Police, IFLG and other individuals associated with Britain's security services, possibly from others as well.

I have conceded that our source may be mistaken about exactly who helped Jane Tanner.

But no, this is not the work of a 'double agent'.

Thank you for that very detailed response Mr Bennett. Quite reassuring, I think. But, and there is always a but in these matters, be careful. From what I have heard, seen and read, Team McCann appear to be quite cunning, and it seems would not be above stooping to a "dirty tricks" campaign to discredit you.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.11.11 3:28

Xavier wrote:Thank you for that very detailed response Mr Bennett. Quite reassuring, I think. But, and there is always a but in these matters, be careful. From what I have heard, seen and read, Team McCann appear to be quite cunning, and it seems would not be above stooping to a "dirty tricks" campaign to discredit you.

You have heard, seen and read that the McCanns 'appear to be quite cunning'. Hmmm, cautiously phrased, I note. But have they time to engage in such cunning and deviousness when they are utterly focussed on the search for Madeleine?

by Xavier 01.11.11 3:52

Tony Bennett wrote:
Xavier wrote:Thank you for that very detailed response Mr Bennett. Quite reassuring, I think. But, and there is always a but in these matters, be careful. From what I have heard, seen and read, Team McCann appear to be quite cunning, and it seems would not be above stooping to a "dirty tricks" campaign to discredit you.
You have heard, seen and read that the McCanns 'appear to be quite cunning'. Hmmm, cautiously phrased, I note. But have they time to engage in such cunning and deviousness when they are utterly focussed on the search for Madeleine?

That depends on whether they are focussed on the search for Madeleine. I hope they are, but you never know. Just as so many people seem to be playing games in this case, it is sometimes difficult to tell whose side anyone is on.

Cautiously phrased? Well, having been accused of being a "troll" by various members here, it is not surprising that I am a bit cautious, is it.

by aiyoyo 01.11.11 10:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
Angelique wrote:I would also like to thank Tony for this update.

But like jd has stated - I am worried that this could go wrong. The fact that SY are slow in contacting/interviewing this source. Also that you had to, obviously, divulge her name. But in doing so, this source has placed themself in danger.

I simply don't trust SY any more. I would have been the first to laud them against all criticism having worked in the legal profession - but now as we have all seen with "hackgate" my earlier fears have been confirmed.

I would be very worried if I was this source.
The source has been in touch with ourselves more than once, and with the SY Review Team.

She has also indicated recently via us that she wishes to divulge her information to the SY Review Team, and has asked us to jog D.C.I. Redwood's memory about her 'phone call four months ago.

One other thing. We have preserved all the written information we have had from the source and have made contemporaneous notes on all she has told us.

By risking exposure of her identity, the source would be better off jotting down all she knows and have it kept in secured place and/or with a trusted friend in case anything should happen to her. If this is a huge cover up involving govt and secret agents then it's not an overstatement to say that even being overly cautious may still be insufficient.

by aiyoyo 01.11.11 11:04

Angelique wrote:I would also like to thank Tony for this update.

But like jd has stated - I am worried that this could go wrong. The fact that SY are slow in contacting/interviewing this source. Also that you had to, obviously, divulge her name. But in doing so, this source has placed themself in danger.

I simply don't trust SY any more. I would have been the first to laud them against all criticism having worked in the legal profession - but now as we have all seen with "hackgate" my earlier fears have been confirmed.

I would be very worried if I was this source.

It is indeed odd SY didn't follow up with the source even when the source indicated readiness to offer evidence.
I mean if her/his identity becomes known to Team McCann after SY invited her/him in, then wouldn't the 'leak' source become so obvious?

So in that respect, if the SY is about a real review in the full and true sense of the word, then the 'source' identity should remain anonymous where Team McCann is concerned (hopefully). Nonetheless, if I were the source I would still take precaution by storing the evidence with a trusted friend.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.11.11 12:54

aiyoyo wrote:It is indeed odd SY didn't follow up with the source even when the source indicated readiness to offer evidence. I mean if her/his identity becomes known to Team McCann after SY invited her/him in, then wouldn't the 'leak' source become so obvious?

So in that respect, if the SY is about a real review in the full and true sense of the word, then the 'source' identity should remain anonymous where Team McCann is concerned (hopefully). Nonetheless, if I were the source I would still take precaution by storing the evidence with a trusted friend.

re: Nonetheless, if I were the source I would still take precaution by storing the evidence with a trusted friend.

REPLY: Such a document already exists.

by Bebootje 01.11.11 14:02

Can the source be persuaded to give evidence to the PJ, to make a shortcut? (f.i. if the evidence is material that could reopen the case).
As I understand, NSY is only performing a review. They're not going to investigate the new evidence, although they would probably include it in their final report as a lead to be investigated. The review still could be take several months to carry out.

by Guest 01.11.11 14:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:It is indeed odd SY didn't follow up with the source even when the source indicated readiness to offer evidence. I mean if her/his identity becomes known to Team McCann after SY invited her/him in, then wouldn't the 'leak' source become so obvious?

So in that respect, if the SY is about a real review in the full and true sense of the word, then the 'source' identity should remain anonymous where Team McCann is concerned (hopefully). Nonetheless, if I were the source I would still take precaution by storing the evidence with a trusted friend.
re: Nonetheless, if I were the source I would still take precaution by storing the evidence with a trusted friend.

REPLY: Such a document already exists.

Maybe a document is not enough in this instance. I would support this with a video interview, held in the presence of their Solicitor and a relative and several copies stored in very secure places. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by jd 01.11.11 14:48

You would hope that the source has already stored her evidence safely. Every link I have put up is backed up and stored and even in a different country! We all know soon as link goes up carter ruck whooshes most of them

The fact SY have not followed up on such a source really says everything you need to know about them..we know how corrupt SY are from hackgate and things haven't changed. We just have new puppets at the helm thats all, and some empty words to appease the public. I have never trusted them in this review but have always said I hope they prove me wrong, but as yet they are a long way off from this and proving me right more than I possibly thought

by **Nina** 01.11.11 16:19

What an interesting and intriguing thread this is. As is obvious by the number of reads.

I do really hope that this lady is taken all precautions she can for her own security.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.11.11 16:22

I have decided to make no further comment about the source who first got in touch with us in May 2009. She has information; she must decide how and when to convey that information, but clearly the apparent lack of response from the Scotland Yard Review Team to date is not an encouragement. If there is anything more I can say, I will post it here.

But I want also to have a short word about other possible sources.

Take Kevin Halligen. What could he, for example, disclose to the SY Review Team about e.g. his terms of appointment...his brief...how much he was paid...about why (according to the MD of iJet) he didn't follow up any calls to the McCanns' 'information hot-line'...about the 'stake-out' of a house and the intimidation of witnesses (as per the Mark Hollingsworth article). Surely if D.C.I. Redwood is carrying out a thorough review, he would wish to make a trip to the U.S. (with one of his colleagues) to whichever prison Halligen is currently incarcerated in, awaiting trial on fraud charges?

Then what about interviewing former Metodo 3 detective, Antonio J(G)imenez? He's also now in prison, serving 18 years for stealing (in 2004) £25 million of cocaine from a ship in Barcelona harbour, in league with drug dealers, and all the while employed as one of the top police officers in Catalonia. Just think what he could yield up to D.C.I. Redwood and his team. Why did Brian Kennedy choose to work with him of all people? What exactly did he do in Portugal and Morocco to develop all those 'sightings'? How much was he paid? What exactly was his brief? How was it that Brian Kennedy and the McCann Team chose two crooks to carry out the bulk of their investigations in 2007 and 2008? What did he and Marcos Aragao Correia discuss when they met at the Arade Dam in December 2007, two months before the very public search for Madeleine's remains there? That suggests a trip by D.C.I. Redwood and a colleague to another prison, this time in Spain - oh, and not forgetting to take a Spanish-English translator.

Come to mention it, what about the SY Review Team interviewing lawyer Marcos Aragao Correia? They could ask him about why he lied about Madeleine being abducted, raped, killed and thrown into the Arada Dam. And why he changed his story. They could quiz him about what he and Antonio J(G)imenez were doing at the Arade Dam in December 2007. Then again he could be asked to disclose exactly what the McCann Teram paid him via Metodo 3. Plus how he came to represent murderess-of-her-own-child Leonor Cipriano and bring proceedings on her behalf against Goncalo Amaral - and how much he was paid for doing that. How much was he paid for those searches of the Arade Dam? Were these searches genuine? The SY Review Team could interview both men on a trip to the Iberian peninsula.

Another source might well be the NatWest Bank - bankers to Madeleine's Fund - and of course the accounts of Madeleine's Fund, which retired accountant Michael Linnett, Find Director, could help with. How much money has come into the Fund, and what has it really been spent on?

Of course, no Review would be complete without discussing in detail the lines of enquiry pursued by and the evidence accumulated by the original team of detectives. That would suggest that the Review Team ought to interview men like Goncalo Amaral, Ricardo Paiva, and Tavares de Almeida.

Then what about interviewing Brian Kennedy's right-hand man, Andrew Dickman, who mysteriously registered the domain name alphaig.co.uk on 12 January 2009. He could be asked why he did that. And who asked him to.

It might be of interest to interview Gail Cooper and Paul Gordon about the extent to which Brian Kennedy pursued them in order to obtain a News of the World splash at the end of January 2008 about 'Cooperman'/'Monsterman'. Gail Cooper objected to the News of the World spin' on her story, and of course the Portuguese Police noted how she changed her original story about 'Cooperman'. Paul Gordon complained he'd been pressurused by Kennedy and his team. D.C.I. Redwood could learn much by talking to these two.

I've listed some possible sources above.

I have no doubt there are other as-yet-untapped sources who could shed a lot of light on matters surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

by Bebootje 01.11.11 17:16

With all respect Tony, I don't think they aren't going to do that. As you said before NSY stated that they are only carrying out a review to find possible leads or flaws in the Portuguese investigation, which means IMO they aren't going to investigate themselves at this point. That, maybe is also the reason why they didn't contact your source yet. Their purpose is a review, not an investigation.
Hopefully they will include the information in their final report. If there is evidence - important enough - that could reopen the case, IMO at this point it would be wise to inform the PJ.
(Besides, with all I have read about the phone hacking scandal and involvement of top police officers I'm not convinced that the review will be fully unbiased, but that is my opnion of course)

by **Tony Bennett** 01.11.11 17:45

Bebootje wrote:With all respect Tony, I don't think they aren't going to do that. As you said before NSY stated that they are only carrying out a review to find possible leads or flaws in the Portuguese investigation

REPLY: Two points by way of reply, Bebootje.

I don't think that NSY have ever explicitly or implicitly said that they are trying to 'find possible leads or flaws in the Portuguese investigation' (unless you can source that for me?). We derive that assumption from e.g. the comments of David Cameron's spokesman: "We are doing this to support the family".

I agree that they have always said this is a review not an investigation, but a review does not by any means exclude talking to others, far from it. Indeed I think three of the NSY team have already had a trip to Portugal and met with their opposite numbers over there, and D.I. Dobson told us they were in regular touch with the lady head of the investigation (whose name they wouldn't divulge but we now know).

At all times with this NSY Review, and bearing in mind your reservations below (which I fully share), I have in mind what the police ought to be doing. David Cameron nailed his colours to the mast by allowing his spokesman to say that the whole NSY exercise was 'to support the family', and the publication of his decision in the Sun on the very day that Dr Kate McCann's book 'madeleine' was published was a carefully choreographed event all designed to give the impression that the NSY team were being told to expose the (allegedly) bungling Portuguese Police investigation and come up with some horror stories of 'important leads' that the Portuguese Police had wilfully overlooked etc. etc.

But as I've said before, the police have, e.g. ...

* procedures

* guidelines

* policies on missing persons investigations

* the legal duty to conduct robust investigations, to follow the evidence wherever it leads without fear or favour.

They cannot avoid those. Every decision has to be recorded and supported. If for example they were to decide that they will set aside as totally irrelevant the evidence of Martin Grime, Eddie & Keela, such a decision must be recorded in their policy folder. And justified.

If they do not religiously follow police procedures, recommendations, guidelines, policies and practices, and do not follow the evidence, and do not investigate Madeleine's disappearance without fear or favour, one day those who have failed in this respect may have to give an account, and could end up being heavily criticised.

, which means IMO they aren't going to investigate themselves at this point. That, maybe is also the reason why they didn't contact your source yet. Their purpose is a review, not an investigation.

Hopefully they will include the information in their final report. If there is evidence - important enough - that could reopen the case, IMO at this point it would be wise to inform the PJ. (Besides, with all I have read about the phone hacking scandal and involvement of top police officers I'm not convinced that the review will be fully unbiased, but that is my opnion of course)