I Dreamed A Dream

From the Sun newspaper, 13 Jan 2010, by "journalist" Antonella Lazzeri (who is hardly impartial, but we'll let that slide for the moment.)

Insp Paiva told how tearful Kate told him about her dream in a phone call two months after Maddie vanished - and asked cops to search the hill she had "seen".

He said: "She gave me the impression she thought Madeleine was dead." He added police combed the area but found nothing.

Quizzed by the McCanns' lawyer Isabel Duarte, Paiva admitted Kate told him Maddie might be on the hillside as she had seen a lot of cars heading there.

He said sniffer dogs were then brought in from Britain.

Now listen carefully to the video below.

For those who are not up to speed with the characters involved, Inspector Paiva acted as intermediary between Kate and Gerry McCann and the PJ. He was therefore in a position of much personal contact with the McCanns, and it is a matter of public record that he was a witness to their "odd" behaviour on many occasions.

According to Inspector Paiva's own testimony the McCanns grew increasingly more negative in their reactions towards the activities of the police investigation, in particular after Martin Grime and his blood and cadaver dogs were drafted in.

So did Kate have a "dream", or not? Somebody must be lying - Doctor Gerry McCann or Inspector Ricardo Paiva. But who?

Who "murdered" Madeleine?

Gerry reassures us - or maybe himself - that the PJ are not looking for a "murdered" Madeleine.

The Invisible Woman

Jane Tanner claims that she left the Tapas bar and went to check on the children. She "might have seen Madeleine being abducted." But both Gerry McCann and the man he was chatting to, Jez Wilkins, claim to never have seen her on the narrow road leading up to the apartment.

"The interviewee [Jane Tanner] recalls that, around 9.10pm, Gerald McCann left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to see the children. Five minutes later the interviewee left, in her turn, to go to her own apartment to check on her children. She saw Gerald McCann talking to a British citizen named Jez. They got to know each other during the holiday and played tennis together. She went past them knowing that Gerald McCann had already checked the children in the apartment." [From Jane Tanner's Rogatory Interview]

So was she there, or was she not?

And who was actually carrying a "child"? Listen carefully to this video.

Geography 101

This blog is published from İçmeler, Turkey. Turkey is an independent republic straddling both Europe and Asia, governed by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey making the laws, which are then upheld by an independent judiciary.

The blog itself is kindly hosted by Blogger, originally founded by Pyra Labs in San Francisco, CA, and later bought out by Google, another American company registered in Mountain View, California. California is the most populous, and third largest, state in the USA.

But let us get back to Google. Google hosts all the blogs on various datacenters throughout the world. This particular blog just happens to be hosted on a server in a datacenter in Germany. The Federal Republic of Germany is an independent state within the EU.

Q: What do each of these countries have in common, apart from this particular blog?

A: They each have their own legal systems and jurisdiction. And none of them are bound by out-of-court settlements, or undertakings, made in the UK.

So I am afraid that sending threats to this blog, that Carter-Ruck are after it, simply cuts no ice here. This blog, and the contents, are staying put.

Rachel Mampilly Oldfield Wades In To Assist

Some extracts from Rachel Mampilly Oldfield's rogatory statements. First, she describes her parenting skills with her one-year-old baby daughter. Then, she gives us her ideas on what possibly could have happened to Madeleine.

“She, yeah because erm, we didn’t, we don’t really like sleeping in the same room as her but there wasn’t really nowhere else to put her cos you know, obviously she was going to bed at seven thirty and then we’d have had to kind of hide in the bathroom or something for the rest of the night, so we put, yeah she slept in our room as well erm”.

“Yeah. So basically we’d go and have dinner and then we’d sort of run back you know every fifteen twenty minutes and have a listen at the door and make sure nobody’s screaming their head off”.

“Erm well we’d go into the room, which ordinarily we wouldn’t do to be honest, erm but she seemed to have diarrhoea and kind of, I mean she’d settled quite well actually cos she’d been tired every evening, erm but every morning when she woke up, she had diarrhoea and it had gone right through her grow bag and so there’s all of this sort of horrendous smell, so in the evenings when we were checking, we’d go into the room just to see if you know, there was any sort of smell yet, erm and just to make sure she was alright, to make sure she hadn’t been sick, partly I think cos Matt had been sick, just wanted to make sure that she hadn’t been, in case it was some sort of bug”.

1578 “Okay, and the route taken”?

Reply “Was up the road and then in through the car park at the back and in through the front door”.

1578 “In through the front door”?

Reply “Mmm yeah, I mean the patio doors were locked, erm yeah I didn’t really like going up there by myself, it was, like going through that car park was quite dark and there was never anyone around, it was a bit, you know made me feel a bit uneasy”.

1578 “Okay. Did you want to mention something about Doctors in the group”?

Reply “Yeah I was just going to say that, you know Kate and Gerry are both Doctors and you know there were three other medics in the group, erm four others actually sorry, four others, erm you know so if by any chance they’d accidentally done anything to Madeleine or she was ill or erm you know something wasn’t quite right, I mean they wouldn’t have just left her and sort of tried to cover it up as an accident or you know, they would of sort of you know, come and got Matt and Russell and Dave and Fi, erm I mean you know, not just because they are Doctors, because you know they’re parents and you’d kind of go to anyone to see who could help but if you’ve got, you know Doctors as friends who were there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there who if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child, erm”.

The £300,000 Questions (Updated)

In the summer of 2008, the McCanns employed a firm of Private Detectives, called Oakley International, to search for missing Madeleine. Oakley charged £300,000 for approximately six months worth of their services, which apparently yielded no results.





The McCanns were duped, at best - Oakley International turned out to be a one-man band, headed by Irish national Kevin Halligen, who has since been arrested for attempted fraud, his assets frozen and today**, he faces an extradition hearing at City of Westminster Magistrates Court.

He is wanted by the US in relation to money taken from a Dutch company, Trafigura, as part of a deal to secure the release of executives under arrest in the Cote d'Ivoire. Instead, the money was spent on a mansion and a high-maintenance girlfriend.

Now given that the Find Madeleine Fund has, in all probability, been royally ripped off by this man, you would think that the McCanns would also be pursuing him to recoup at least some, if not all, of their £300,000.

But there are two interesting twists to this tale, which I believe is far from over.

1. Please Google for today's extradition hearing. You will find no mention of it at all, anywhere, in the UK media. Yet this is potentially, very explosive news indeed.

2. Far from pursuing Mr Halligen for any sort of refund or recompense, the McCann's spokesperson, Clarence Mitchell, has quite firmly stated that the matter of Oakley International is "closed".

Halligen was originally "recommended" by double-glazing and Rugby tycoon, Brian Kennedy, of the Latium group. His company lawyer, Ed Smethurst, is seconded to No Stone Unturned.

**Kevin Halligen's Extradition Hearing has since been postponed until August 18.

Now, NO-ONE is permitted to question the McCanns!

As a direct consequence of publishing the Amaral leaflet and the 48 questions video*, Tony Bennett has since been in receipt of this letter from the McCanns' libel lawyers, Carter Ruck. Please read it carefully, as it threatens dire repercussions against anyone who dares to question the McCanns' version of events.

Carter-Ruck

As you are of course aware, we act for Gerry and Kate McCann.

You will recall that on 13 November 2009 you formally undertook (amongst other
things) not to repeat any allegations about our clients to the effect that they were
guilty of, or to be suspected of causing the death of Madeleine McCann; and/or of
disposing of her body; and/or of lying about what had happened and/or of seeking to
cover up what they had done. These undertakings were enshrined by way of Court
order of 25 November 2009.

You have continued to 'campaign' on issues relating to the disappearance of our
clients' daughter, and while you have purported since then to have abided by your
undertakings, it is clear that you have on a number of occasions breached those
undertakings.

For example, it has been brought to our clients' attention that in a post entitled "A
short letter to Theresa May about her proposed re-investigation into the
disappearance of Madeleine McCann" you referred to a letter you apparently sent the
Home Secretary on 4 July 2010. This post continues to be published at the following
page:

http://iillhavern.forumotion.net/mccann-case-f3/a-short-letter-to-theresa-may-about-herproposed-re-investigation-into-the-disappearance-of-madeleine-mccann-t1151. htm

The text of the letter you quote states:

"Could you please let me know in writing whether any such re-investigation will
actively pursue the line of enquiry mentioned in the interim and final reports of the
Portuguese Police that Madeleine may have died in the McCanns' apartment and
her body hidden?"

In the post you make it clear that your intention in publishing the letter is to
encourage others to adopt it as a template so that they will send similar letters to the
Home Secretary. You then go on to state:

"Well, the letter-writing to the Home Secretary has begun, let's make the early
trickle into a mighty flow from all those who do not believe that the McCanns are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the disappearance
of Madeleine McCann."

Your actions in respect of the so-called "Goncalo Amaral Support Project" have also
been brought to our clients' attention, in particular the so called 'Goncalo Amaral
Awareness Day" which is scheduled to take place this Saturday 17 July 2010 and your
leaflet which has been circulated by way of email and is headed:

"Your questions answered about Gonr;alo Amaral
The man who declared the McCanns suspects over the disappearance of
Madeleine"

This publication goes on to state that
"Mr Amaral stunned the world by pulling in the McCanns for questioning as
suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. Three days later, an interim
report from Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, the senior investigating officer
in the case, gave reasons for the police's belief that Madeleine had died in her
parents' apartment'
and
"In [Amaral's book, 'The Truth about a Lie], he explains why he and his team
had good grounds for believing Madeleine had died in her parents' apartment
and covered up her death."

The rest of the piece is dedicated to defending Mr Amaral, to correcting the "many lies", and to rebutting criticism made of him generally and in particular in connection with the investigation into the abduction of Madeleine McCann.

There can be little doubt that, as you no doubt intended, readers of this publication will have understood it to mean that there are indeed strong grounds to support Amaral's suspicion that Madeleine McCann died in our clients' care and that they subsequently conspired to cover up her death.

Similarly, our clients are aware of a posting you published at 1:03am on 12 July 2010
in which you state:
"Goncalo Amaral is a Portuguese detective who has sacrificed the rest of his
career to bring us what he sees as the truth about a missing three-year-old
British girl, Madeleine Beth McCann."

As we note above, Mr Amaral is well known for having espoused the view that
Madeleine McCann died in our clients' holiday apartment, and that our clients covered
up her death to evade any liability - this is, of course, a central thesis of his book "The
Truth about a Lie." As such, readers would again have understood this posting to
suggest that Amaral's theory is correct and that our clients did indeed conspire to
cover up the death of their daughter. This theory is, however, completely untrue and
simply does not withstand proper scrutiny.

In case you are labouring under a misunderstanding as to the law, you cannot hide
behind quotes or purported quotes from other people when publishing outrageous
slurs of our clients.

Finally, your video recording entitled "Madeleine McCann: The 48 Police Questions Kate McCann Refused to Answer' has been brought to our clients attention. The video,
uploaded to You Tube on 13 July 2010 continues to be published at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZQOlx7WAMA&feature=player embedded

In light of the conduct to which we refer above, there can be no doubt whatsoever that
notwithstanding your undertakings, you remain intent upon continuing to allege at
every available opportunity that there are strong grounds to suspect our clients of
being responsible for the death of their daughter, and of conspiring to cover it up.
We have advised our clients that your conduct represents a number of clear breaches
of your undertaking to the court.

Our clients have exercised extraordinary restraint to date, and from the outset have
been reluctant to dignify your utterly misguided 'campaign' by engaging with you.
However, they are extremely concerned that your misconceived and deeply offensive
attacks against them are harming the search for their daughter Madeleine. Indeed
your behaviour often appears deliberately designed to do just that. As such, they
cannot and will not allow you flagrantly to continue to libel them and to continue to
breach the undertakings which you gave to the Court.

The purpose of this letter is to require your immediate confirmation:
1) that you will not republish (or authorise anyone else to republish) the leaflet to
which we refer above concerning Goncalo Amaral, and in particular that you
will not distribute (or allow others to distribute) any hard copies of the leaflet;
2) that you will remove the leaflet from your website(s), from where we
understand it can be downloaded;
3) that you will immediately remove the video referred to above from You Tube
and will undertake never to publish it again; and
4) that you will not otherwise breach the terms of the undertaking you gave,
whether by suggesting that Goncalo Amaral's widely-publicised (and entirely
baseless) suspicions about our clients are correct, or in any other way
whatsoever.

We look forward to hearing from you by no later than 4pm on 16 July 2010 and in the
meantime must expressly reserve all our clients' rights against you, and in particular
their right to bring proceedings for contempt of Court against you.

No doubt you will show this letter to your fellow members of the "Madeleine
Foundation". Should they, or indeed anyone linked to them, disseminate serious
falsehoods about our clients, we shall advise our clients to pursue those individuals
directly for appropriate legal relief.

We would urge you to seek legal advice upon this letter and in particular on the
consequences of your repeated breaches of the Court undertakings you gave.
Yours faithfully
Carter-Ruck

This blog and the author are not connected to Tony Bennett, or the Madeleine Foundation, in any way. I do not approve, or endorse, many of their actions; but equally, I can't stand bullies. Or people who think they can buy justice, or silence. I believe in laying out the facts so that everyone can judge for themselves.

My understanding of this letter is that now, no-one is permitted to even question the McCanns' version of events, without the threat of legal action. Since when did the UK become a Dictatorship?



*The letter and video are in earlier posts on this blog.