Review

TV3 chiefs refuse to hand over search cash

by STEPHEN MAGUIRE

Comments

• 1
• 2
• Next

TV3 bosses have frozen a bank account holding thousands of euro raised by the Irish public to help in the search for missing Madeleine McCann.
Almost EUR25,000 was donated by broken-hearted viewers after the station launched its own appeal in June to raise cash to help find the toddler.
But the cash has since remained untouched in TV3's Madeleine McCann fund bank account in AIB headquarters in Ballsbridge, Dublin.
TV3 is now refusing to pass on the cash to the official Madeleine's Fund set up by her parents - because it is not a recognised charity.
And a spokesman for TV3 also admitted the cash raised may never go towards the fund.
He revealed: "It is the intention of TV3 to hold the funds in the account until a properly registered and recognised charity for Madeleine McCann is established.
"If such a charity is not established TV3 will either donate the funds to a registered charity in the area of child abduction and protection, or we may seek the views of the donors on how to disperse the funds."
The fund, which had the backing of the entire station including presenters Lorraine Keane, Mark Cagney and Alan Hughes, was launched in a huge wave of publicity on June 1 - three weeks after Maddy, four, vanished.
It was sparked after what a spokesman for TV3 called "intense viewership interest" in the story of the little girl who disappeared from her parent's apartment in Portugal more than six months ago.
The appeal lasted eight days and featured a number of special TV bulletins dedicated to the campaign to find Madeleine.

Thousands of donations rolled in from across the country, many conscious of the fact Maddy had strong Irish connections and that her grandmother Eileen McCann is from Co Donegal.
Madeleine's disappearance also regularly featured on the station's main news bulletins.
TV3's Lorraine Keane, left, also featured at the 50-day anniversary of little Maddy's disappearance at which hundreds of yellow balloons were released.
The host said: "Like so many people I am devastated by the abduction of little Madeleine McCann.
"As a mother, I can only imagine what her parents are going through."
TV3 chiefs now face a backlash for not telling viewers the cash had been frozen and for not releasing the money so it could be used to actively help in the search.
And despite the cash freeze the TV3 Madeleine McCann Fund Account No 08632098 remains open for donations.
A spokesman for AIB said the account was still active and in a position to accept donations.
Since depositing the cash raised, EUR24,345, the fund has also built up interest which has been added to the original fund.
A TV3 spokesman added that if necessary it would consult with its viewers if station bosses decided they were not giving the cash to the Madeleine's Fund.
He said: "We may seek the views of the donors as to the most appropriate manner in which to disperse the accumulated funds.
"TV3 will act in accordance with best practice in the circumstances."
Madeleine's Fund has so far raised E1.57million since it was set up.
The fund - formally called Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd - is not a registered charity but a not-for-profit company because its scope is not wide enough to get charity status.

Ashes to Ashes.

http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.com/2011/06/funeral-or-christening_10.html

translation

Júlia Pinheiro JP Program "Dear Julia"
applauseclip: In the family home there are many cases of pedophilia and abuse of minors, many fail to be reported, but only last year , 70 arrests were made. This year through the month of August 56 people had been arrested ... ... ... ... ...
JP: I have someone here with me who has certainly encountered many of these situations, and he is in the process of preparing a book called "Life without defense, disappearance, abduction and abuse of children in Portugal." It's Goncalo Amaral , please give him a warm welcome.'JP: Now, let's talk about another kind of worry. Stay tuned right now because there are things that do not happen only to others.JP: 'Why did you feel the need to write a book on this subject?'GA: Well, both the severity of the issue and also because there is very little information on this subject, little has been done. As I have said here several times, we are reacting to cases. The Police and the institutions, they try to give answers but we need to go further, we need to study and try to see why this happens .My book seeks to answer why so many children disappear.Children are vulnerable to victimization and are targets for abuse, mistreatment, neglect, and then they disappear, they are also abducted and abused.JP: Goncalo Amaral has been very closely linked to cases of children who have disappeared, never to reappear. One has to do with the case of ... .. the case is solved, the Joana case, is it not?GA: There have been other cases ....JP: These cases very often bring the media when a disappearance or abduction is reported,  but almost always there is a history of sexual abuse.GA: Yes, there is , always,  and even in the case of Joana that raises an important question as to how do we detect these cases and the case is detected by school teachers alerting the National Commission for the Protection of Children and Youth at risk. Certain behaviour in a child raises suspicions of abuse,  abuse was then confirmed , but she did not confirm who was sexually abusing her, she was also the subject of neglect.This issue of family and school is not only so we can detect cases but to prevent the formation ....JP: In this aspect we have to rely on the teachers and the people who interact with very concrectamente ...GA: Yes, because this is a very multidisciplinary. One area that involves psychiatrists, psychologists, teachers, technicians, social security, police, magistrates and nobody can say that this is the solution. For example, I might say, as the Police, the solution is this but the matter must be discussed with everyone.It is an area that involves people from various areas of intervention because in fact the problem is not just a police or court case. When we watch these cases for judicial intervention it is the last thing that must happen. Prevention and education is what should have happened first. But this does not happen in our country, it does not exist.If you notice the schools do not educate anyone .... look, to give an example:nobody is prepared to be a father. Suddenly one becomes a father and suddenly there is a  child, you can learn to change diapers but do not learn to be a father.It seems that part of us cannot be taught. Today,  this concept of being a father was to have a son, plant a tree and write a book, today is the exact opposite. First plant a tree, write a book then later, have a son. There are things that are being changed in our society and it seems that we are not  following ....JP ... ... ... ... ... .. is also a lawyer, he has also managed to defend someone like a paedophile in court?GA: I can tell you that I recently entered a stage and advocacydo not give to Attorney ... though it was not the ideal way. It's hard.JP But Dr.... here just talking (about pedophilia case) has a point when he speaks of police as to how involved. GA: I remember one case in the Azores, where my colleague who was preparing a final report ... while doing the report he was full of emotion, a three year old child, the story of Little Red Riding Hood, the mean old man and even thento report the facts, we have to be objective and we must find all the evidence.But let me tell you what they say in these cases there are no witnesses, there is only the word of the adult and the word of the child. Not so. It may be that expert evidence, can be taken to children ... ..For example in the case of Joana,  sperm was found on underwear which would have been in the vaginal area....but we had no body. It is possible to do and it is psychological testing when evaluating the child, as has happened in other cases, to tell if the child is, or is not telling the truth.JP: But as a person who is as experienced as Gonçalo Amaral, how does he measure the true voice of a child?GA: I speak from my experience about a case that happened in the Algarve, a mother who reported the situation and there was even the intervention of the Committee on Protection of Minors, and when the child is heard, along with an expert, a psychologist, she is telling the story, drawing what had happened, what had happened ... It is a material witness. Those documents that the child is a child is ... So how to speak with age and that began to express themselves by drawing, as in many cases ...GA: Children usually do not lie but it takes some care, but I can tell you that many of the cases that happen within the family has everything to do with everything: the maltreatment, domestic violence and even the lack of security. The main source of danger to the child is in the home where they live.I like to leave here, if you give me a chance ... there is a very interesting project, which is taking place which is the "Workshop of the hazards, the Hazard House" in Lousã. A project of the City Council where Lousã alert for a number of dangers. And I think it is out there in terms of training, is one of the ways ...JP: and his book now out in October will also talk about it ...GA: Speeches, talk about it in the siage.Children in the family are more dependent, up to 11, 12, 13 years and the cases occur within the family, acquaintances, neighbors.gns and sources of danger, what types of risk, what behaviors and the end result: The disappearance, abduction, death ,children are very vulnerable to victimization .

FOI

The Madeleine Foundation will appeal against the Met Police's refusal to answer 6 out of the 11 FOI Act questions. I've highlighted the most important parts in red:


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


Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011080000691


I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 02/08/2011. I note you seek access to the following information:

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 Questions - Madeleine McCann Review Team Please answer the following questions in relation to the Madeleine McCann Review Team:

1. What is the precise remit of the Review Team?
2. When was that remit agreed?
3. Who decided the remit?
4. When completed, to whom will the Review Report be presented?
5. On 14 May 2011, the Daily Telegraph said that "Scotland Yard's new investigation is being overseen by Commander Simon Foy, one of the force's most experienced detectives". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is in overall command of this Review.
6. On 15 May 2011, the Daily Record said that " Scotland Yard said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command, would be the senior investigating officer in the case". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the senior investigating officer in the case.
7. On 15 May 2011, the Independent on Sunday said that "Mr. Redwood will report to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, Homicide and Serious Crimes Command (HSCC), operational command unit commander." Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the person in overall charge of the HSCC".
8. On 20 and 22 July 2011, an officer from the Intelligence Section of the Madeleine McCann Team, Sam, Pay No. 220629, stated that the policy of the Team was not to answer any correspondence. Please state whether or not this is the case.
9. Please state whether, if evidence or other information is sent to the Madeleine McCann Review Team, any acknowledgement of the receipt of that information will be given.
10. Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a deadline for completing its review? If so, when is it?
11. Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a budget? If so, what is it? Do the funds allocated to this Review Team come from the Home Office or from the Metropolitan Police Authority?

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within the Specialist Crime Directorate - Homicide and Serious Crime Command.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to:

Answer questions 5, 6 , 7, 10 and 11 in full

To refuse questions 8 and 9 by virtue of section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act) as an invalid request.

To exempt questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 by virtue of section 30 (1)(a)(b)(c) and section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act. Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act referred to in this email.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The following questions have been responded to in full:

At question 5 you asked: On 14 May 2011, the Daily Telegraph said that "Scotland Yard's new investigation is being overseen by Commander Simon Foy, one of the force's most experienced detectives". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is in overall command of this Review.

At Question 6 you asked: On 15 May 2011, the Daily Record said that " Scotland Yard said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command, would be the senior investigating officer in the case". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the senior investigating officer in the case.

At question 7 you asked: On 15 May 2011, the Independent on Sunday said that "Mr. Redwood will report to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, Homicide and Serious Crimes Command (HSCC), operational command unit commander." Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the person in overall charge of the HSCC".

The MPS response is: The senior officer with oversight of the review is Commander Simon Foy. Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Andy Redwood is the Senior Investigating Officer. DCI Redwood reports to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell.
At question 10 you asked: Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a deadline for completing its review? If so, when is it?

The MPS response is: The review team does not have a deadline for the completion of its review.
At question 11 you asked: Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a budget? If so, what is it? Do the funds allocated to this Review Team come from the Home Office or from the Metropolitan Police Authority?

The MPS response is: The MPS has allocated a team to deal with this and the Home Office have agreed to reimburse this cost. This is reviewed on a quarterly basis.
The following questions have been refused on the grounds that they do not constitute a valid request under the Act:
At question 8 you asked: On 20 and 22 July 2011, an officer from the Intelligence Section of the Madeleine McCann Team, Sam, Pay No. 220629, stated that the policy of the Team was not to answer any correspondence. Please state whether or not this is the case.

At question 9 you asked: Please state whether, if evidence or other information is sent to the Madeleine McCann Review Team, any acknowledgement of the receipt of that information will be given.
The MPS response is: I have decided to refuse access to the information you have requested under the provisions of Section 8(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Act.

A request under the Act is required by statute to be legible and capable of being used for subsequent reference. After careful consideration, I have decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am unable to ascertain what recorded information you have requested, as defined by Section 8(2)(c).To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your application in accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason you are unable to do so, please contact me for assistance or seek assistance from any other available source.

I attach an excerpt from the Information Commissioner's website which may assist you in composing any future Freedom of Information requests.

What can I request under the Freedom of Information Act?

You have the right to request any information held by public authorities. The Act allows access to recorded information, such as emails, meeting minutes, research or reports held by public authorities in England, Northern Ireland and Wales and some authorities located in Scotland.

You have not made a request for recorded information which may be held by the MPS but questions which require a confirmation of a statement. You will need to be specific as to the recorded information you require.

We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets the requirements stated above. You will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not being exempt.

The following questions are exempt by virtue of Section 30 (1)(a)(b)(c) and Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act:

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act referred to in this email.

At question 1 you asked: What is the precise remit of the Review Team?
At question 2 you asked: When was that remit agreed?
At question 3 you asked: Who decided the remit?
At question 4 you asked: When completed, to whom will the Review Report be presented?
The MPS response is: This information is exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) and Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the ActConstituents of this information attract Section 30 and other constituents attract Section 31 of the Act. It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 30 & 31 to the same pieces of information.

Under Section 30(1)(a)(i)(ii)(b)(c) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information if it was obtained or recorded for the purposes of investigations, criminal proceedings or civil proceedings. In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future reviews. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test(PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

Under Section 31(1) (a) (b) (c) of the Act Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release could compromise Law Enforcement. In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future criminal and /or civil proceedings. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.
This email serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

I have considered your request for information within the provisions set out by the Act . I have addressed your request in order to both confirm if the requested information is held by the MPS and then to provide this information to you. Where I have been unable to provide the requested information to you, I have explained my decision in accordance with Section 17 of the Act.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have considered the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals, or any possible criminal and / or civil process.

Information of this nature needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity, as it could have a detrimental effect on a review and the operational effectiveness of the MPS and it's ability to fulfil its core function of law enforcement.
High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.
Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Disclosure of this information would enlighten members of the public as to the action taken by the MPS in this investigation. This may go some way to promoting awareness, accountability and would reinforce the MPS's commitment to openness and transparency. Release of this information would assist in any public debate on the MPS's action during this investigation and would demonstrate the willingness of the MPS to be open and transparent with the public showing what procedures are carried out.
Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Information relating to an ongoing review will rarely be disclosed and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure. In this case, release of the requested information could allow individuals to use the information contained in the remit to undermine the methodology and techniques employed by the MPS and impede current / future investigations. Release of the remit and the other details could inform suspects of the progress of the review and allow them to use the information contained in it for criminal activities and to avoid justice.
Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to your request for information about the remit of The Madeleine McCann Review. The MPS will rarely disclose information relating to an ongoing review as to do so could adversely harm that investigation.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on 020 7230 2003 or via the email address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Beaumont
SCD Information Manager

Legal Annex

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 8(1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request-

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of—

(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained—

(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,

(b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct, or
(c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.

Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c) the administration of justice


In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London, SW1H 0BG.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
PublicAccessOffice@met.police.uk

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700


The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Hacked by Ross Hall, Murat set up by his partner Lori Campbell.

http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com/2011/09/hackgate-mccanns-wish-to-be-part-of.html

Questions.

With the arrest of Ross Hall I believe it is now becoming evident that the McCanns phones were hacked. There are now far too many coincidences with hackgate and the McCanns to be ignored. Hacking has been going on for years, not just with Murdoch but other British journalists have been hacking peoples phones to get  that all EXCLUSIVE 'scoop'., David Leigh for example now editor of the Guardian has admitted to hacking .The Daily Mirror and Piers Morgan are also in the spotlight and an article  written by Lori Campbell for the Sunday Mirror has drawn my attention for two reasons...the questions that were included in the article suggesting what the PJ might ask Kate McCann has been removed... and secondly question nine, stating the McCanns have admitted giving the children a pain killer ?

NOW, only in Kates book does she claim the children were sedated on two occasions, a ridiculous assumption but not so ridiculous if the McCans knew four years ago that their phones had been hacked and 'someone', Ross Hall for example had heard one or other of them telling a family member they had given the children a 'mild' pain killer ...then passing this information on to Lori Campbell for her article in the Sunday Mirror ONLY by hacking the McCanns phones would this information have been confirmed by the McCanns themselves, publicly they have denied giving the children any form of medication. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506110/Portuguese-police-seize-Madeleines-Cuddle-Cat-again.html

Police suspicion around CC

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id60.html

CC
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sunday-mirror/2007/08/05/i-m-sorry-madeleine-98487-19573670/

——————————————————————————–

1 – Did you kill your daughter? – Kate has never been asked this question outright before in the whole inquiry.

2 – What did you do with her body? – Although cops are convinced Maddie is dead,they have no body and is still missing.

3 – Why did you hire a car? – The McCanns managed without a car until 25 days after Maddie vanished.

4 – Why did you hire the car the day before going to see the pope? – Cops say it makes no sense to rent a vechicle when kate and gerry were about to fly to rome.

5 – Did the hire car contain any of Madeleines belongings? – Police say Maddies blood was found inside the car and want to rule out any legitimate explanation.

6 – Why was Maddies blood found in the villa and in the car? – Kate was asked did she have a normal accident.

7 – Did you move Madeleines body in the hire car? – Police are convinced that forensics evidence places maddie inside the car hire after she vanished.

8 – Why did sniffer dogs detect traces of a corspe on your jeans and t – shirt,and Maddies cuddle cat toy? Kate, a doctor insists she was present at the deaths of six patients shortly before flying to portugal.

 

9 – Did you sedate Madeleine? – The McCanns admit giving the children an infant painkiller. But they insist they never gave sedatives and deny giving Maddie an accidential overdose.

10 – Did you have any syringes in the apartment? – Kate insists she did not but thinks they may be referring to a “Dropper”used to give the children medicine.

11 – How much did you drink that night? – The McCanns have denied reports that their group downed 14 bottles of wine at dinner.

12 – Who checked on the children and at what times exactly? – The McCanns have given a timeline but police are trying to iron out alleged possible inconsistencies.

13 – Did you ever leave Madeleine unattended for much longer than you claim? – Witnesses are said to say she was heard crying for her parents for long periods on evenings that week.

14 – Does your husband know about it? – The police want to know if Kate will implicate Gerry in their theory.Their bond is tight but police see her as the weaker of the two.

15 – Does anyone else,including your friends know about it? – The police theory may require a conspiracy involving some of the couples highly reputable friends.Police are focusing on alleged discrepancies in their statements.

16 – Why did you shout, 'Someone has taken my little girl'! after returning from her room on the night of her disappearance? – Cops want to know why she automatically assumed her girl had been snatched and not just walked off.

17 – Did you ever leave Madeleine all evening to go into town? – A barman claimed he saw the McCanns in Lagos, five miles away.They insist they were in Paraia da Luz that night.

18 – Did you call police as soon as you found Madeleine was missing? – There have been suggestions that a neighbour offered to call police but Kate insisted she had already rung – than waited another 40 minutes before actually making the first call.This is disputed.

19 – Why did you call a priest on the night Maddie vanished? – Police beleive devout christian Kate may have been feeling guilty.

20 – Why did you wash cuddle cat after Maddie went missing? – The cuddly toy was Maddies favourite and had her distinctive smell.
Kate carries it wherever she goes.

21 – Did you hide anything in the church? – Kate and Gerry were given keys to the church in Praia da Luz so they could pray there alone.

22 – Why do you want to go home now? – After four months in Portugal,the McCanns planned to leave as DNA test results were due.

Statements

Here is Kate McCanns witness statement from May 4th, as you can see there is no mention of Madeleines toy on a high shelf /ledge. I believe Ross Hall should be questioned by the MET as to where he got this information from because it is not as Lori Campbell suggests in any police statement. Lori Campbell the partner of Ross Hall who tried to set Robert Murat up as the person who abducted Madeleine...

http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

Kate McCann witness statement May 4th...

http://newsoutlines.blogspot.com/2011/09/ross-hall-lori-campbell-articles.html

The following articles regarding the McCann case were written by either Ross Hall or Lori Campbell. (see above Link)

Lori Campbell is the journalist who brought suspicion onto Robert Murat as the potential abductor of Madeleine McCann.

Lori Campbell and Ross Hall *appear*  to have originated the reports that Cuddlecat had been found on a high shelf, thus supporting McCann's abduction claims. Ross Hall claimed that the Cuddlecat / high shelf story was uncovered by a News of the World investigation. Lori Campbell claimed police source.

Ross Hall and Lori Campbell are allegedly now married after traveling the world for a year. Ross Hall is allegedly the originator of the "Dear Neville" email - at the center of the News of the World hacking scandal.  Ross Hall was allegedly arrested in connection with the hacking probe early Sept 2011.

Implication : That the McCanns phones were hacked and intercepted when the REAL story of what happened to Madeleine was being relayed to a family member and the fact the toy was on a ledge and Madeleine had an accident resulting in her death.