Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

by Guest 09.02.14 14:17

Don't forget the Payne poppets too!

How eternally thankful must the remainder of the Tapas group be that it wasn't one of theirs that "disappeared"......

by jeanmonroe 09.02.14 14:30

Andy and his mates better get to MW OC pronto, otherwise there will be NO 'staff' to question if MW OC is suddenly 'closed' due to totally 'unfavourable publicity' in the UK 'Madia'

I haven't seen in the Express, in their holiday section, highly recommending MW OC, PDL as a prime holiday 'destination' for all the family, it being so 'child friendly' and all that.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.02.14 15:07

I want to raise this question.

Has DCI Andy Redwood, or one of his team, identified this 'maintenance worker' and supplied the Editor of the Express with his conasct details, just so that the Express could run a juicy and highly profitable story on its front page?

I now raise a second question. Could exactly the same apply to the 'Uzbek gypsy' story in the Mirror? Has Redwood, or one of his team, deliberately leaked that story in order to produce another sensational tabloid front page story about the claimed abduction of Madeleine McCann?

If the answer to both, or either, of the above questions is 'yes', then we have moved into the territory of very serious professional misconduct, if not outright criminality:

[ From the Crown Prosecution Service website:

Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence. It can only be tried on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is committed where a person:

does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)
which has a tendency to pervert and
which is intended to pervert
the course of public justice.

The course of justice includes the police investigation of a possible crime (it is not necessary for legal proceedings to have begun). A false allegation which risks the arrest or wrongful conviction of an innocent person is enough. The word pervert can mean 'alter' but the behaviour does not have to go that far - any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice. All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the suspect has done "without more" might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person (Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58). ]

by Liz Eagles 09.02.14 15:09

This article certainly puts a different spin on the continuing reputation management of Madeleine's parents imo. If you take recent readers' comments in the press (Daily Mail have been allowing them) there are quite a few of the great British public who are not so forgiving anymore and not afraid to voice the fact that the Mc's left their kids alone. That's a big ouch moment for the McCanns.

What is presented/inferred today in the Express is that this holiday company didn't take care of spare apartment keys and their staff are possibly dodgy. What is presented in today's Mirror is creepy foreigners targeting blonde British children on holiday in Portugal.

None of the 'information' is directly related to any source - not the McCanns, not Scotland Yard and not the PJ as is usual.

Who's talking to the Press?

Who's selecting which press titles to speak with?

My opinion only.

by Liz Eagles 09.02.14 15:10

Tony Bennett wrote:I want to raise this question.

Has DCI Andy Redwood, or one of his team, identified this 'maintenance worker' and supplied the Editor of the Express with his conasct details, just so that the Express could run a juicy and highly profitable story on its front page?

I now raise a second question. Could exactly the same apply to the 'Uzbek gypsy' story in the Mirror? Has Redwood, or one of his team, deliberately leaked that story in order to produce another sensational tabloid front page story about the claimed abduction of Madeleine McCann?

If the answer to both, or either, of the above questions is 'yes', then we have moved into the territory of very serious professional misconduct, if not outright criminality.

apologies Tony, my post came in at the same time as yours.

by ultimaThule 09.02.14 15:22

From Stephen Carpenter's statement; events of 4th May 2007:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm

"SC: After he left, he explained that Gerry was frustrated with the way in which the case was being handled and they went to talk to John Hill.

DCF: Yes..

SC: In Mark Warner and he asked that all the Mark Warner rooms be opened so that he could check them and asked the cleaning ladies etc. to help open all the empty apartments that were not necessarily in the Mark Warner complex, but for which they might have the keys. At this moment I also met an English man called Dave who lived in the area and helped the Ocean Club to authorise entry into all the apartments possible, some of the apartments in Gerry's block belonged to local owners and Dave helped to get the keys to these apartments so that they could check them and search them, they checked them all in a general manner."

When authorising access it would seem John Hill failed to notice that his maintenance department's collection of keys to properties in block G were missing and begs the question of when this matter came to his attention and what steps were taken to either locate the lost keys or replace them?

In the meantime, it appears John Hill's oversight has blown the case wide open as literally anyone who was in or around Luz from the time these keys went missing may have found them and availed themselves of the opportunity to steal a child from her bed while her parents were otherwise engaged out of sight and earshot.

May we expect a further Crimewatch update with AR producing thousands of e-fits and appealing for help in identitfying all of the possible suspects?

by **Tony Bennett** 09.02.14 15:26

aquila wrote:
None of the 'information' is directly related to any source - not the McCanns, not Scotland Yard and not the PJ as is usual.

But the Express article says this: "Amid claims that Portuguese police are about to arrest three former workers at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, based on information gathered by Scotland Yard, we tracked down a former maintenance worker at the complex whose revelations could change the direction of the international investigation".

Who's talking to the Press?

I am sure that it is Scotland Yard who are doing this, albeit via a third party. We have had maybe a dozen or two dozen stories about possible suspects and leads etc. in the British tabloids since the Crimewatch programme, and on every single occasion IIRC the press have said 'Scotland Yard want to interview...', 'Scotland Yard want to tale to...', 'Scotland Yard have spoken to...' etc. etc.

Who's selecting which press titles to speak with?

Clearly someone, somewhere, is arranging for these profitable tabloid stories to be shared out on a sort of 'Buggins' Turn' principle

My opinion only.

It is not possible that ANY of the stories which have appeared since around the time of Crimewatch, and more recently, could possibly have done so without the full-hearted consent and encouragement of Redwood and his team (and those above him, for that matter). Craftily, we get Scotland Yard spokemen wheeled out on most occasions to make lofty comments like: "We will not be commenting on this story" - whilst at the same time they are actively conniving at and promoting all these stories appearing in the tabloid press.

Allegedly.

by NickE 09.02.14 15:41

One thing I'm thinking about is how they can get someone prosecuted for the offense when there is no technical evidence,DNA,fingerprints,body,murder weapon,witnesses,etc
I see it as impossible or?
dontgetit

by Okeydokey 09.02.14 15:57

russiandoll wrote:
juliet wrote:Bishop Brennan makes such a good point: that people are now being persuaded that the apartment was secured and locked...

Maybe so, but same people saw the open window and Kate doing her WHOOSH on CW.

I have a spare set of keys to block 5. I want an under-5 girl [ more than one similar to Maddie in the group, all accessible in their locked apartments using spare keys]. Let's say access via the front made sense, car park for getaway. Unlocked patio doors not an issue.
I simply start at the corner apartment, the first I come to, and luckily find a child of desired size and age there, I have not targeted this child at all, just been lucky, I do not have to enter any more apartments and can be away sooner than expected.

I unlock the front door, enter, find the child.
Do I

a] simply pick her up and leave via the front door, which is next to the room I am in and can be in my car very quickly to drive off before I am
discovered?

or
b] before picking up the child, waste time by walking around travel cots to the other side of the room, open the curtains, window and shutters, go back to get said child and repeat the journey, either passing her out to an accomplice who is of course at the open window but also very near the door [, which I can or if alone, go through the awkward and time -consuming process of climbing onto the bed and out of the window with this child in my arms ?
Also risky if I fall. This would not be considered imo, never mind done ,if there was quick exit available via a DOOR !

Many people will remember the tale as told by Kate and the family.....open window, curtains and shutters.

Why on earth would this be the case, had a key been used?

Not credible.

Yes - especially as, in the event of a witness coming along unexpectedly, it would appear to the witness to be perfectly normal to see an adult emerge from an apartment carrying a child, but not to see a child being passed through a window!

by Guest 09.02.14 15:59

Tony Bennett wrote:

It is not possible that ANY of the stories could possibly have done so without the full-hearted consent and encouragement of Redwood and his team (and those above him, for that matter).

Allegedly.

How is that not possible? Alledgedly.
It seems all junk. Anyone can make it up. With or without encouragement or consent.

by Liz Eagles 09.02.14 16:01

Isn't there some sort of talk (perhaps Tony can help out here) recently of the Press being required to reveal sources (something like that) in the light of the Leveson Inquiry? The Press would hate this but SO would the government and the police. There's a libel case (Brooks) going on at the moment and I seem to think sources have been refused.

The corridors of power and greed are too much for me to understand.

by Okeydokey 09.02.14 16:06

At the risk of p'ing some people off here, I would say this story does differ from many others in having some specifics that can and should be investigated thoroughly if that has not already happened.

However, I think we need to acknowledge that even where there is no malice (and this guy didn't like the other guy) memory is an amazingly malleable tool. We tend to merge real events with wishes and expectations to produce a narrative that we feel is credible or interesting. It is quite possible for instance that this guy has taken an incident that happened to someone else two years before Madeleine disappeared, applied it to a guy he didn't like and then transferred it to the time period around Madeleine's disappearance.

Various parts don't ring true, not least the bit where the guy is frightened about losing his job but is telling everyone about the keys having disappeared...if you are really frightened about losing your job, wouldn't you be more likely to keep it to yourself? - wouldn't you be more likely to be looking for excuses? - or trying to make out it was theft rather than confessing to losing them?

Also I want more info on this "spate" of burglaries. I think we have in fact one unconfirmed claim of theft which I think was reported AFTER MMcC disappeared. People lose money on holiday all the time - it's quite normal - and people do suspect theft..."I'm sure I had £50 in my shorts yesterday...where's it gone? Do you reckon someone's been in the room and nicked it." Is that the sort of claim we are talking about?

by tiny 09.02.14 16:20

So why has this man not told the pj even now, but sold this to the express,all rubbish

by SixMillionQuid 09.02.14 16:39

tiny wrote:So why has this man not told the pj even now, but sold this to the express,all rubbish

If he was a colleague of Tiago Silva he has to be one of these guys in maintenance who gave statements to the PJ during that same week he mentions but could not recall the date.

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

If he wasn't then we're looking at another pack of lies courtesy of the press.

by SixMillionQuid 09.02.14 16:49

Amid claims that Portuguese police are about to arrest three former workers at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, based on information gathered by Scotland Yard, we tracked down a former maintenance worker at the complex whose revelations could change the direction of the international investigation.

The retired man, whose identity we have agreed to protect, said: “I have kept this to myself for long enough, so now it is right to tell people what happened.

...................

The man said: “This has been on my mind for a long time and you are the first person I have told about it. I did not want to get the other man into trouble, I suppose.

The Express tracks him down but they are the first persons "I have told about it". So who told the Express to track this individual down? This information could only have come from an investigation.

by worriedmum 09.02.14 16:58

Tony Bennett quoted from the article

"I didn’t really like the man and I didn’t want trouble from him. He was always doing nasty pranks. Once he put fibreglass in my work trousers which is not nice because it rubs against the skin and hurts.''

So, are we now looking for 'Fibreglass Pranks Man'? Will this actually fit across the red-top front page?

Sorry, Okey Dokey, but I cannot take this seriously. The big problem with this latest addition to our ever-burgeoning list of 'suspects' is that awkward word, EVIDENCE. Any defence lawyer is going to weigh up the ers, the ums, the maybes- against the the reactions of Eddie and Keela, the forensic results and the list of rather jarring inconsistencies.

by justathought 09.02.14 17:03

"That to carry out his work he sometimes needs the keys to the apartments and these are always requested from maintenance or from the OC reception. Whenever a key is requested, a register is made of the request."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 09.02.14 17:14

MarcoG wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

It is not possible that ANY of the stories could possibly have done so without the full-hearted consent and encouragement of Redwood and his team (and those above him, for that matter).

Allegedly.
How is that not possible? Alledgedly.
It seems all junk. Anyone can make it up. With or without encouragement or consent.

I accept the point you make. It could be completely fabricated, e.g. by the press itself. Or by others, for whatever reason.

So could some or all of the other stories.

But given my point that Scotland Yard is nearly always named as the ultimate source for these tales, I suggest Scotland Yard must be participating or consenting.

Otherwise they could, if they wished, deny that there is any truth in this procession of stories and apparent 'leaks'.

But they don't.

by **PeterMac** 09.02.14 17:20

It might though be a 'dignified silence' on their part.
It would take an entire department to counter Mitchell' lies and nonsense, and they may feel they have better things to do with their time.

by mysterion 09.02.14 17:26

There might be police protocols about responding to msm speculation or stories. It seems so when press conferences take place.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.02.14 17:36

PeterMac wrote:It might thought be a 'dignified silence' on their part.

But they were even co-operating with the BBC in promoting ridiculous stories for public consumption before the Crimewatch Special in October, so as no doubt to maximise the BBC's audience for that McCann show. And for what? For two e-fits hidden for over 5 years by the McCann Team (per the Sunday Times) and which weren't even drawn up by the Smiths, as Redwoood misleadingly suggested.

It would take an entire department to counter Mitchell' lies and nonsense, and they may feel they have better things to do with their time.

If Scotland Yard really wanted to kill off this succession of bogus stories, Redwood could easily do so by calling a press conference and making a short statement along the lines of:

"The Metropolitan Police thoroughly condemns those who have been circulating these stories to the press, many of which are baseless and have no foundation in fact. Speculation of this kind about what happened to Madeleine in the tabloid press and on what lines of enquiry we are claimed to be following is not only pointless but could well jeopardise promising lines of enquiry and our hopes of finding Madeleine".

Why doesn't he? Because he would be criticising himself.

As Rebekah Brooks - close friend of the top brass of the Met Police* - once said: "We are all in this together".

* See: current hacking prosecutions

by mysterion 09.02.14 17:50

Wasn`t the Smith efit a trap for the McCanns on Crimewatch? Therefore a ligitimate part of police work.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.02.14 18:06

mysterion wrote:Wasn`t the Smith efit a trap for the McCanns on Crimewatch? Therefore a legitimate part of police work.

No.

by justathought 09.02.14 18:17

May I suggest these additions/amendments to Mr Bennett's idea?.................
"The Metropolitan Police thoroughly condemns those who have been circulating these stories to the press and those in turn reporting them, many of which are baseless and have no foundation in fact. Those doing so, risk criminal or civil proceedings if found to be perverting the course of justice/committing libel. In addition, speculation of this kind about what happened to Madeleine in the media and on what lines of enquiry we are claimed to be following is not only pointless but could well jeopardise promising lines of enquiry and our hopes of finding Madeleine. To assist in minimising the damage to the search that these stories are doing. The Metropolitan Police will be giving regular updates as to the case. ".

by tasprin 09.02.14 18:17

If this is not interference in an official investigation I don't know what is. Why didn't James Murray of the Express pass this info to Scotland Yard if he thought it was relevant to the inquiry? Instead he splashed it on the front page and put another individual in the frame (complete with name and photo).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Tony Bennett** 09.02.14 18:42

justathought wrote:May I suggest these additions/amendments to Mr Bennett's idea?.................
"The Metropolitan Police thoroughly condemns those who have been circulating these stories to the press and those in turn reporting them, many of which are baseless and have no foundation in fact. Those doing so, risk criminal or civil proceedings if found to be perverting the course of justice/committing libel. In addition, speculation of this kind about what happened to Madeleine in the media and on what lines of enquiry we are claimed to be following is not only pointless but could well jeopardise promising lines of enquiry and our hopes of finding Madeleine. To assist in minimising the damage to the search that these stories are doing. The Metropolitan Police will be giving regular updates as to the case. ".

justathought: I am very happy to accept your amendments in full

by Jemmied_Shatter 09.02.14 18:45

Woofer wrote:So they came through the front door with a key, but left through the window

Impossible, they would have just opened the shutters, not jemmied them.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.02.14 18:46

tasprin wrote:If this is not interference in an official investigation I don't know what is. Why didn't James Murray of the Express pass this info to Scotland Yard if he thought it was relevant to the inquiry? Instead he splashed it on the front page and put another individual in the frame (complete with name and photo).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

YES: Also running the risk (as has happened in dozens of other tabloid stories about Madeleine) that the real perpertrator of the abduction would go to ground, on seeing details about him splashed in tabloids read by millions.

In fact we not only have the two 'red herrings' referred to above...

...we have veritable shoals of red herring...

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

'Shoals of Herring', sung by Ireland's best-known folk group, The Dubliners

by Jemmied_Shatter 09.02.14 18:55

russiandoll wrote:
juliet wrote:Bishop Brennan makes such a good point: that people are now being persuaded that the apartment was secured and locked...

Maybe so, but same people saw the open window and Kate doing her WHOOSH on CW.

I have a spare set of keys to block 5. I want an under-5 girl [ more than one similar to Maddie in the group, all accessible in their locked apartments using spare keys]. Let's say access via the front made sense, car park for getaway. Unlocked patio doors not an issue.
I simply start at the corner apartment, the first I come to, and luckily find a child of desired size and age there, I have not targeted this child at all, just been lucky, I do not have to enter any more apartments and can be away sooner than expected.

I unlock the front door, enter, find the child.
Do I

a] simply pick her up and leave via the front door, which is next to the room I am in and can be in my car very quickly to drive off before I am
discovered?

or
b] before picking up the child, waste time by walking around travel cots to the other side of the room, open the curtains, window and shutters, go back to get said child and repeat the journey, either passing her out to an accomplice who is of course at the open window but also very near the door [, which I can or if alone, go through the awkward and time -consuming process of climbing onto the bed and out of the window with this child in my arms ?
Also risky if I fall. This would not be considered imo, never mind done ,if there was quick exit available via a DOOR !

Many people will remember the tale as told by Kate and the family.....open window, curtains and shutters.

Why on earth would this be the case, had a key been used?

Not credible.

Perfectly credible Doll. Kate McCann is a Doctor so is going to be telling the truth about jemmied shutters, Whoosh , Clunk, red herrings ****ing tossers and engagement rings.
empathy

by Lance De Boils 09.02.14 18:55

This latest story is yet another pile of dung, imo.

It's impossible to take it seriously. C'mon - how many different theories and suspects have we been fed during the last 7 years?
I see nothing in this fairy tale that makes it any more credible than the vast array of previous attempts to divert the public's attention.

As for the Met - I have no reason to suspect that they are the source of the bull. They've been on the case for a couple of years but these pathetic stories are not a new phenomenon. The press have been churning out this nonsense for far longer than SY have had anything to do with it.

Some have suggested that if the Met were not the source of these 'leaks'* they would (or should) deny the headlines. But why would they? It probably suits them just fine for people to be way off course with their discussions and speculation. It's not hampering their investigation and lets them get on with it whilst the public's eyes are focussed elsewhere. Besides which, to start denying some stories would be dodgy. They'd have to deny all or none if they wanted to keep their cards close to their chests. And they really haven't got time to respond to all of these stupid stories.

* 'leaks' is misleading. It implies that info has spilled out of the official investigation. A better choice of word would be spin/borrocks/guesswork/horsesh*t.