Unsolved Madeleine McCann

[Tony Bennett]

Tony,

Can you talk about exactly what your first book was banned for/under? What was the ruling

The history of this matter may conviently be set out as follows:

3 May 2007: Madeleine McCann reported missing

7 September 2007: McCanns made official suspects

2 October 2007: Original senior investigating officer on the case, Dr Goncalo Amaral, removed from the invesigation, claiming the reason was 'political'

July 2008: Final report of the Portuguese Attorney-General archives the invesigation, saying, in terms: this might be a case of abduction, this might also be a case of the child dying in the parents' apartment and has been covered up, but there is insufficient evidence to charge anyone with either crime. Dr Amaral, having voluntarily resigned from the police force months earlier, publishes his book on the case: 'The Truth About A Lie'

October 2008: As Secretary of The Madeleine Foundation, I set up a website. It publishes an article by me: '30 Key Reasons which suggest that Madeleine McCann was not abducted'. I get a death threat three days later (reported to the police)

7 December 2008: My book published: "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted". It sells steadily. A copy is sent to every MP in the House of Commons

June 2009: McCanns initiate libel claim against Amaral, demanding £1 million damages.

27 August 2009: Following widesprerad distribution of a mini-leaflet headed '10 reasons which suggest Madeleine McCann was not abducted', McCanns threaten legal action against me and one other

September 2009: Amaral's book banned by lower Portuguese court

2 October 2009: I receive legal advice that if even one sentence in my book is deemed libellous, I risk losing everything as a result of likely damages and costs awards. I give in, and agree to a list of 16 demands, including the banning of the offending book and leaflet, closure of our website, and removal of alleged defamatory posts in a number of places on the internet. I do this by giving the McCanns and the court a series of undertakings

October 2010: Portuguese Appeal Court un-bans Amaral's book. It has been unbanned ever since

1 December 2011: McCanns being proceedings against me for 'contempt of court'. Whilst I have complied strictly with 13 of the 16 demands, I have continued to write about the case and the McCanns say that some of my comments breach the undertaking I gave to the court. I have made a counter-claim within these proceedings to have these 3 undertakings removed. The case should be heard early next year.

There is a bit about the history of the book on Wikileaks, here:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_Madeleine_Foundation_book_by_Tony_Bennett,_2008

 

[Chief]

Isn't it strange that Dr. Payne has such a serious suspicion raised about him and does absolutely nothing about it?! He chose to lie down and play dead about it...no libel suit against the Gaspars or Mrs. Martin...?!

I don't mean to pretend that I know much about the case, but suppositions on how someone should behave presented as solid (or at least circumstantial) evidence raise a red flag with me. Specially if they relate to an ABSENCE of actions.

As with all theories, there are multiple reasons why something might or might not happen.

Do you have a cause of action based on something said in a police report? If your friend's child is missing and they are running a publicity campaign, would the friends ask that you not take action for fear of muddying the waters or taking publicity off the main campaign? Would you even have enough money to go chasing everyone who said there was something amiss?

 

[Tony Bennett]

Tony – wasn’t Gerry given arguido (I think that’s the term) status at some point, maybe early on? How and when was he cleared, and how does that fit with your first point re the detectives believing they were suspects?

The McCanns were both made arguidos (= suspects) on 7 September 2007. This followed evidence from the two cadaver dogs, DNA evidence, and circumstantial evidence including numerous contradictions and changes of story.

It is not possible to say that the McCanns are 'cleared'. On the contrary, the police investigation has merely been archived, not closed. The police have explicitly stated on a number of occasions that they will re-open their investigation if there is 'new and credible evidence'.

It is a curious fact in this case that the McCanns themselves, using (very controversial) private detectives costing millions of pounds, have produced a total of 19 suspects, 'persons of interest', or 'people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries', 17 of them men, and two of them women - one of these said to be a Victoria Beckham-lookalike who had an Aussie accent and had taken Madeleine to Australia. Yet after all this, the McCann Team is still unable to give the general public one usable fact about who might have taken Madeleine and where to.

 

[Chief]

KM: "My memory of that evening is really vivid. I mean she was really tired, but she was just cuddled up on my knee. We read a story, mmm...had some treats, some milk and biscuits, errm... and then after they'd done the usual 'toilet-teeth', errm... we went through to the bedroom and read another story 'If You're Happy And You Know It', errm... (long pause)...yep..." (silence).

And there it ends. No description whatsoever of actually putting the children to bed, despite Kate's 'vivid recall' of that evening. The account simply stops dead without a conclusion. This is a classic example of an unbalanced story, and one that's easily viewed with suspicion. Put very simply, if a story does not have a conclusion then there isn't one.

Absence of the finish to the story? At a point that a normal person would find very traumatic anyway? I don't find this compelling at all.

And "if a story does not have a conclusion then there isn't one." What does that even mean?

 

[grizzlym]

Absence of the finish to the story? At a point that a normal person would find very traumatic anyway? I don't find this compelling at all.

And "if a story does not have a conclusion then there isn't one." What does that even mean?

Well, an absence of a conclusion is no proof of an absence.

 

[rayven]

I don't know about this one, maybe the parents relationship had an obsessive compulsive aspect to it and with the loss of the child, that dominated. Maybe that then manifested into something all on its own that clinged to anything that would justify its very own (find maddy campaign) existence.

Some posters here have police training, I'm not sure of the numbers but every so amount of witness's, one's telling you what you want to hear..

 

[nicky]

June 2009: McCanns initiate libel claim against Amaral, demanding £1 million damages.

27 August 2009: Following widesprerad distribution of a mini-leaflet headed '10 reasons which suggest Madeleine McCann was not abducted', McCanns threaten legal action against me and one other

2 October 2009: I receive legal advice that if even one sentence in my book is deemed libellous, I risk losing everything as a result of likely damages and costs awards. I give in, and agree to a list of 16 demands, including the banning of the offending book and leaflet, closure of our website, and removal of alleged defamatory posts in a number of places on the internet. I do this by giving the McCanns and the court a series of undertakings

Why are you so sure the parents are involved? Are you sure beyond any reasonable doubt?

because if they're innocent and you're publishing books that they're responsible for the death of the child they are grieving then it's understandable they want you to stop.

If their story is true then they're going through a nightmare of not knowing what happened to their daughter, whilst defending against speculation that they are responsible.

I'm playing devils advocate here and don't anywhere near as much as you..... but.....

If you had the slightest doubt in what you're publishing then i'd like to think you wouldn't publish it - yeah? And if you are sure, what makes you so?

 

[bunsen burner]

I just watched all 6 episodes. The deal breaker for me is the dogs. Hard to believe a coincidence that they would get multiple false positives.

Questions

Where was Madelaine's body stored between the night she went missing and the day she was allegedly dumped?

Why were the McCann's able to hire a car, go pick up a 3 week old dead body, and dispose of it very well as it hasn't been found. Weren't they suspects? Wasn't someone watching them? Police? Media?

If the narrator is to be believed, why has this been covered up? What motivation do politicians have to sabotage the case?

 

[Sanders]

Why are you so sure the parents are involved? Are you sure beyond any reasonable doubt?

because if they're innocent and you're publishing books that they're responsible for the death of the child they are grieving then it's understandable they want you to stop.

If their story is true then they're going through a nightmare of not knowing what happened to their daughter, whilst defending against speculation that they are responsible.

I'm playing devils advocate here and don't anywhere near as much as you..... but.....

If you had the slightest doubt in what you're publishing then i'd like to think you wouldn't publish it - yeah? And if you are sure, what makes you so?

These conversations have much more value when we all stick to the facts.

 

[Colin D'Cops]

1 December 2011: McCanns being proceedings against me for 'contempt of court'. Whilst I have complied strictly with 13 of the 16 demands, I have continued to write about the case and the McCanns say that some of my comments breach the undertaking I gave to the court. I have made a counter-claim within these proceedings to have these 3 undertakings removed. The case should be heard early next year.

Hmm, interesting. If you've breached one of those conditions you originally agreed to, I imagine you're facing an uphill battle.

Good luck on your quest.

 

[grizzlym]

If the narrator is to be believed, why has this been covered up? What motivation do politicians have to sabotage the case?

I struggle on this too. Why?

 

[bunsen burner]

I struggle on this too. Why?

Perhaps Tony Bennett can provide a theory on this as well as a theory on where the McCann's hid the body for 3 weeks and how they managed to retrieve and dump it under heavy media scrutiny.

 

[Sanders]

I struggle on this too. Why?

Public fervour and anti johnny foreigner jingoism. Plus the way they have sued every major news outlet.

Its not a cover up, but because of public support you'll need to be sure of the evidence before breaking ranks

The media was very very suspicious of parents to start with.

In other words its the same reason they don't report on parties at cliff richards house

 

[grizzlym]

Perhaps Tony Bennett can provide a theory on this as well as a theory on where the McCann's hid the body for 3 weeks and how they managed to retrieve and dump it under heavy media scrutiny.

I haven't made my way through all the videos yet, but do they discuss the Irish witnesses, who claim to have seen someone leave the Villa carrying a child?

 

[grizzlym]

Public fervour and anti johnny foreigner jingoism. Plus the way they have sued every major news outlet.

Its not a cover up, but because of public support you'll need to be sure of the evidence before breaking ranks

The media was very very suspicious of parents to start with.

In other words its the same reason they don't report on parties at cliff richards house

If this is indeed a cover-up, on the parents', and presumably with other willing assistance at the crime scene, then a good deal of planning, resources and action has gone into it the whole thing. Why?

 

[nicky]

These conversations have much more value when we all stick to the facts.

Not quite sure what you mean.

My point is if they're infact innocent then they're still going through the nightmare of not knowing what has happened to their daughter, whether she's dead or alive. And they're also dealing with public speculation that they're responsible.

It's a very shitful scenario to be in.

 

[rayven]

A welcome to our new UK posters. Great to have you on board. Given the paucity of information down 'ere, coupled with the rather narrow reporting, it almost feels like a new case.

Remember this?

Witch press was it stirred up this case, only because they could,because it sold papers and at great personal cost to the victim of a serial killer.?

 

[bunsen burner]

In other words its the same reason they don't report on parties at cliff richards house

Or Tom Cruise's house.

 

[Sanders]

Not quite sure what you mean.

My point is if they're infact innocent then they're still going through the nightmare of not knowing what has happened to their daughter, whether she's dead or alive. And they're also dealing with public speculation that they're responsible.

It's a very shitful scenario to be in.

My point is that none of the above has anything to do with why we should not discuss factual elements.

 

[Sanders]

If this is indeed a cover-up, on the parents', and presumably with other willing assistance at the crime scene, then a good deal of planning, resources and action has gone into it the whole thing. Why?

Nothing of the sort I imagine.

No cover up, just a hard work to rule on facts - you cannot divorce the perverse uk libel laws from the process.

 

[debunker]

A little bit of background. The history of the McCann case on the internet is complicated and from the earliest days involved a wide range of opinion. From the earliest days there were extremists on both sides- those who believed that the parents were sainted and would hear no bad spoken againsts them, and those that believed that Madeleine had been (for instance) wrapped in the carcass of a dog after being killed by the parents and incinerated in a pet cemetery! For several years there were forum wars with sites being attacked by various means and some being pulled by providers, or imploding under internal disagreements. The current position is that there are still two extremes of opinion with open and closed forums on both sides. Neither side can discuss with the other because there is no common ground- they disagree with the actual language used to describe the case, and use of the wrong words leads directly to offenders being banned from boards on either side.

I stand in the middle- I have no liking for the McCann's known behaviour (leaving children alone in an apartment to enjoy themselves) but respect the findings of the Portuguese Legal System that has said there is insufficient evidence to charge anyone with any crime.

You will find that the usual suspects will turn up here eventually- some are already here!

This should be fun!

 

[nicky]

My point is that none of the above has anything to do with why we should not discuss factual elements.

I'm not trying to shut down discussion of facts and don't know how you interpreted that i was.

 

[debunker]

My point is that none of the above has anything to do with why we should not discuss factual elements.

The problem is knowing what is fact and what is interpretation. Both sides interpret the same basic information in contrary ways.

 

[grizzlym]

Nothing of the sort I imagine.

No cover up, just a hard work to rule on facts - you cannot divorce the perverse uk libel laws from the process.

Well, presupposing that Madeline McCann died in that Villa, which seems to be the conclusion of the Portuguese detective leading the investigation, then to successfully hide the body, then dispose of the body, create alibis and enough smoke and mirrors, then to deceive police, takes some sort of coordination and resources. And, being in a foreign country too. Sure, I buy the subsequent media strategy coupled with the blunt horror of libel action for misplacing a comma, as a major factor.

 

[debunker]

The McCanns were both made arguidos (= suspects) on 7 September 2007. This followed evidence from the two cadaver dogs, DNA evidence, and circumstantial evidence including numerous contradictions and changes of story.

It is not possible to say that the McCanns are 'cleared'. On the contrary, the police investigation has merely been archived, not closed. The police have explicitly stated on a number of occasions that they will re-open their investigation if there is 'new and credible evidence'.

It is a curious fact in this case that the McCanns themselves, using (very controversial) private detectives costing millions of pounds, have produced a total of 19 suspects, 'persons of interest', or 'people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries', 17 of them men, and two of them women - one of these said to be a Victoria Beckham-lookalike who had an Aussie accent and had taken Madeleine to Australia. Yet after all this, the McCann Team is still unable to give the general public one usable fact about who might have taken Madeleine and where to.

They have no duty to do so.