Well, Textusa has departed on the annual Starlight Home for the Criminally Insane and Permanently Bewildered coach tour, which we know she looks forward to every year.
Coincidentally, Master Buffoon Bennett of the Worshipful Order of Gobshites is also away visiting distant parts. Come to think of it, you never see them in the same room together, do you?
Anyway, so you don't miss out I will be bringing you a selection of the most lamentable horseshit you have ever read from some carefully chosen suppliers.
Starting with this, which comes to you from the hallowed turf and pitted concrete of Jill Havern's finest emporium. Enjoy.
The post got off to a false start with this
I have been keeping a record of the possible statements missing from the PJ files on the premise that what is missing may well be more important than what has been released! Rather than sit on the list I thought I would stick it on here for others to add to, as I'm sure that it is far from definitive.Well, that was good of you. Thoughtful. I like that.
In no particular order of importance, the following are the statements that I would presume to be missing from the PJ File release. Please correct me if there is anything you feel incorrect.
Hmmm - I am going to stop you there.
You would ''presume''?
Do you mean you are going to decide that a statement ''should'' have existed, regardless of whether it does, actually, exist?
Okay - this could get interesting. Continue.......
Ah Well - if at first you don't succeed, etc....
Kate McCann did not make a statement on the 11th May 2007, regardless of what her mother may have been reported as saying.
So not a missing statement at all - just someone you think should have been asked for a statement who wasn't. His wife was primarily interviewed regarding the key to the church. Why should he have been interviewed?
He wasn't interviewed on the 10th May 2007. The PJ only re interviewed some of the group, and he wasn't one of them. The questionnaire forms part of the UK police file, which was not released
She didn't make a statement on 10th May
That is in her statement of 6th May. I can't see what point you are making here. The statement where she mentions that is in the PJ files
Are you suggesting that they should have taken a statement from her too?
Why? No point taking someones statement if they have nothing to add.
Why would they need a statement from him? He wouldn't be able to disclose anything said to him in confidence anyway
Again, why should they interview her?
Not interviewed by the PJ, probably spoke to the police in the UK, in which case their statements were not published as they are part of the UK police file
Do you mean why didn't they interview the staff from an ice cream stand where they went days before Madeleine disappeared?
Why would they?
I presume you are referring to his original statement given to UK police, therefore not part of PJ file and not published
This appears to be an error in the translation she was shown. She actually said Madeleine ''who nevertheless paid most of her
attention to the children of her own group'' It seems that the
confusion arose over the word 'meninos' which can translate as
'boys' but also as 'children' or 'kids'
There is no missing statement. The passage appears in her first statement
Says who - you? With respect, he wasn't a witness to the specific events prior to the discovery that Madeleine was missing, so I can't see why you imagine there would be an earlier statement
Ditto. Don't forget, these people were going nowhere. Doubtless the police spoke to them prior to that, but there was less of a rush to get formal statements
Why would it? It's perfectly possible they wanted to discuss something with him specifically, such as his reported comments about sedation.
Why? Patricia and Sandy stayed out in Portugal for ages, Philomena didn't.
Why? Heavily involved with what? He's not a witness, is he?
The interview with Janet Kennedy was a rogatory interview. The names of people they wanted to be interviewed were submitted by the McCanns. Janet's name was on it, Brian's wasn't. So there is no missing statement
So not a witness to the events, then. No reason why she should be interviewed
Her name is on the McCann list of people to be interviewed. His isn't. So he was never interviewed and there is no missing statement
So you see, it's really quite straightforward.
Their statements will not be in the published files if they approached the UK police and gave their statements to them directly, not under letters rogatory. (There is one exception to this; I will let you work that out for yourself)
This was under an agreement made between the police and judicial authorities of both countries.
If, however, they were interviewed under letters rogatory, those statements will appear in the files as they, in effect, belong to the PJ and not the British police.
Police do not make a habit of interviewing anyone who happens to know the people involved just for the sake of it
There is also a load of rubbish talked, mostly by Bennett, about Mrs Smith and the other Smiths who did not make statements
There would have been no point whatsoever interviewing everyone especially as some were young children. One interviews those who can give the fullest picture and that's that. Bennett also lies about Mrs Smith ''refusing'' to make a statement. She was asked if she wanted to make a statement and she said she didn't. That is not a refusal.
So in summary, every statement you describe as ''missing'' is either part of the UK file, or never existed, the non-existent ones being the product of an overactive imagination.
I see there was a follow up post, so lets do that too
1/. Philip Edmonds? Why was he staying there and what was he up to? When did he book his flight to Switzerland? (OC knew he was not going home on the matching flight he arrived on). Holiday photos?Why was he staying there? He was on holiday with his kids
What was he up to? He was having a holiday with his kids
When did he book his flights? None of your business.
Holiday photos? Given to the police, so none of your business
You would have to take it up with CEOP
2/. The CEOP instigated photo specialist who was going to examine thousands of photos a day?
(‘Gonçalo Amaral, the former PJ recalls that, with the consent from Portuguese authorities, an appeal was made for tourists to send in photos from the day and the night of Maddie’s disappearance. The purpose was “to identify anyone suspicious who might appear looking at the family”, he says. But despite “much that arrived at the English police, none of those images ever reached us”)
There is a full report from the officer in question, and for approximately the 1,000th time, they were not the McCann's camera or camcorder. They belonged to a couple on holiday in PdL at the same time as the McCanns. And all this information is in the files.
3/. Proper report from Southampton bloke who had the video and Mc’s camera photos sent to him.
What about it?
4/. PJ report/commentary about the greyscale photos released in the files
Well presumably not.
5/. DP's statement to 'the correct forum' if he was ever questioned properly as to what he meant.
The lesson is, there is usually a simple explanation.