Search of The Second Apartment

Images of the McCanns second apartment in Praia da Luz, Algarve, Portugal. The Portuguese police searches the McCanns apartment and finds several sleeping medicaments, confidential CEOP manuals, books about murder like The Interpretation of Murder, and smell of corpse in the cuddle toy which belonged to Madeleine. Video released by Spanish Antena 3 TV. 10 September 2008

The video cannot be viewed. Instead there is a message saying 'The content is not available in your country due to a legal complaint.

The police were surprised on having seen the bedroom. Kate seems to be mourning. In her small bedside table are many photos of Maddy [sic] surrounded with rosaries and a Bible, which had bookmarked, with a picture a fragment of the Old Testament in which it could be read: " "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die" [2 Samuel 12:14]".

At the other side of the bed, on Gerry's bedside table the attention is given to, between other books, "The interpretation of Murder ". In the study [office space] where Gerry writes his blog and where he works at the campaign to find his daughter, another surprise: CEOP manuals, books with access restricted to police and governmental entities.

It seems to have been banned from youtube and other sites too.

The Search of the Second Apartment Vid can be viewed on this link:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmy3y7_exclusive-new-video-madeleine-mccann-case_news

But surely the images were representations of fact, rather than being deceptive or prejudicial?

So what could possibly be the Legal grounds for them being whooshed?

The End Is Nigh wrote:But surely the images were representations of fact, rather than being deceptive or prejudicial?

So what could possibly be the Legal grounds for them being whooshed?

The drugs? 'Personal' information about medication (prescribed or otherwise?)??

The End Is Nigh wrote:But surely the images were representations of fact, rather than being deceptive or prejudicial?

So what could possibly be the Legal grounds for them being whooshed?

Just maybe, it isn't McC and Co removing these images,
but legal observers smoothing a path for a future trial?
Some may view certain images as prejudicial towards
a fair trial. A claim that 'trial by media' may need to be
removed before possible future legal actions?
We may not like the whooshing but if it serves to bring
these two to justice without impediments, then it may
all be worth it.

marxman wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:But surely the images were representations of fact, rather than being deceptive or prejudicial?

So what could possibly be the Legal grounds for them being whooshed?

Just maybe, it isn't McC and Co removing these images,
but legal observers smoothing a path for a future trial?
Some may view certain images as prejudicial towards
a fair trial. A claim that 'trial by media' may need to be
removed before possible future legal actions?
We may not like the whooshing but if it serves to bring
these two to justice without impediments, then it may
all be worth it.

I really like your way of thinking.

Yup.

Nice one. marxman.

That's the great thing about Forums ---- if something escapes one, pose the q. and somebody will have the answer

Since this was taken in 2008 , marxman, I hate to burst your balloon but the Lawyers are not as forward thinking as that.

I think the McCanns had it banned because in this instance justifiably, why should any Tom Dick or Harry be allowed to see the Apartment , especially when it was so untidy, I too would feel aggrieved at this .I presume it was being filmed by Portugese Detectives so how did it get on youtube?

Perhaps it was part of the files released? Would make sense in my opinion.

I also think it has been removed from youtube on request of McCanns - I also note that a few videos are being whooshed about them lately too. Youtube is owned by Google is it not and google has started censoring viewing. In fact I have been refused viewing of a couple of McCann sites in the past (states legal reasons).

gillyspot wrote:Perhaps it was part of the files released? Would make sense in my opinion.

I also think it has been removed from youtube on request of McCanns - I also note that a few videos are being whooshed about them lately too. Youtube is owned by Google is it not and google has started censoring viewing. In fact I have been refused viewing of a couple of McCann sites in the past (states legal reasons).

Hi gillyspot, yes I agree, Clarence would have told youtube that hs clients were distressed, and abracadabra, like the photo of the McCanns Laughing, the video disappears. I agree it was too intrusive and rightfully remeoved and I suspect it was a rogue PJ who sent it to youtube. as for the laughing
photo, no, the Press should not have been so keen to obey the demands of the Mccanns.

Panda wrote:

gillyspot wrote:Perhaps it was part of the files released? Would make sense in my opinion.

I also think it has been removed from youtube on request of McCanns - I also note that a few videos are being whooshed about them lately too. Youtube is owned by Google is it not and google has started censoring viewing. In fact I have been refused viewing of a couple of McCann sites in the past (states legal reasons).

Hi gillyspot, yes I agree, Clarence would have told youtube that hs clients were distressed, and abracadabra, like the photo of the McCanns Laughing, the video disappears. I agree it was too intrusive and rightfully remeoved and I suspect it was a rogue PJ who sent it to youtube. as for the laughing
photo, no, the Press should not have been so keen to obey the demands of the Mccanns.

You are making a lot of assumptions about why the video was removed Panda. Fact is we don't know who complained or why. And mischievous of you to suggest a rogue PJ sent videos to Youtube. I don't how you repeatedly get away with making assumptions without links to back up what you say.

From MaddieCaseFiles:

Given the repeated denial of the British police to send different reports about the married couple, the Portuguese police made a profile searching throughout the McCanns second house, in Praia da Luz.

This way, officers accompanied by two police psychologists, carry out a meticulous search in the main bedroom [the parents' bedroom].

In a case of abduction, the family circle is always investigated. The police were surprised on having seen the bedroom. Kate seems to be mourning. In her small bedside table are many photos of Maddy [sic] surrounded with rosaries and a Bible, which had bookmarked, with a picture a fragment of the Old Testament in which it could be read: " "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die" [2 Samuel 12:14]".

At the other side of the bed, on Gerry's bedside table the attention is given to, between other books, "The interpretation of Murder ". In the study [office space] where Gerry writes his blog and where he works at the campaign to find his daughter, another surprise: CEOP manuals, books with access restricted to police and governmental entities.

Before this discovery, Mark Harrison, the British police officer sent from the United Kingdom to coordinate the case, does not give credit. He wonders how many married couples had access to these manuals, which are exclusively reserved to police officers.

The Portuguese Officers confirm in this way their suspicions regarding the contacts which are provided to the McCanns, which for them is translated in a big political pressure that to their judgement, limits the investigation.

Also, the police find numerous medicines, which they examine in search of these sedatives that they fear that were given to the children by the McCanns on the night of the 3rd of May. They also register the side effects caused by the medicines that they find, and verify that the majority of them provoke sleepiness. They examine as well the drawers, closets, as well as the twins' room and that no longer sleep in cots but in beds.

The final report of the process, in contrast to the images included in the same report, state that independently of the curious and morbid conclusions, the only fact that one can determine, as such, is the disparate behavior of the couple at the time of facing Madeleine's disappearance.

Source: Antena3 (Spanish)

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic5048.html

Re the video going on Youtube, the English police were out there as well so presumably an English copper could have had access to the video so IF it was a police officer who put it on You Tube I guess it equally could have been put on by an English police officer. I imagine there would have been other people who werent police who may have known about the video as well so I dont think we can point the finger at who may have done it as could have been a number of people imo.

Panda do you honestly still believe the reason the McCanns wanted the video removed was because they thought their apartment looked untidy?

I think they would be more concerned about the items found by the police in the search:

CEOP Manuals. Mark Harrison, the British police officer sent from the United Kingdom to coordinate the case, does not give credit. He wonders how many married couples had access to these manuals, which are exclusively reserved to police officers.

The interpretation of Murder ". In the study [office space] where Gerry writes his blog and where he works at the campaign to find his daughter,


numerous medicines, which they examine in search of these sedatives that they fear that were given to the children by the McCanns on the night of the 3rd of May.

a Bible, which had bookmarked, with a picture a fragment of the Old Testament in which it could be read: " "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die" [2 Samuel 12:14]".

Perhaps a certain person was worried as well about it being known that GM had CEOP manuals!

Autumn wrote:

Panda wrote:

gillyspot wrote:Perhaps it was part of the files released? Would make sense in my opinion.

I also think it has been removed from youtube on request of McCanns - I also note that a few videos are being whooshed about them lately too. Youtube is owned by Google is it not and google has started censoring viewing. In fact I have been refused viewing of a couple of McCann sites in the past (states legal reasons).

Hi gillyspot, yes I agree, Clarence would have told youtube that hs clients were distressed, and abracadabra, like the photo of the McCanns Laughing, the video disappears. I agree it was too intrusive and rightfully remeoved and I suspect it was a rogue PJ who sent it to youtube. as for the laughing
photo, no, the Press should not have been so keen to obey the demands of the Mccanns.

You are making a lot of assumptions about why the video was removed Panda. Fact is we don't know who complained or why. And mischievous of you to suggest a rogue PJ sent videos to Youtube. I don't how you repeatedly get away with making these sort of wild assumptions with nothing to back up what you say.

Well who else would have been taking photos other than a Portugese Policeman Autumn ? As I say, if the Mccanns saw it on youtube they had every rignt to ask for it to be removed.

Panda wrote: Since this was taken in 2008 , marxman, I hate to burst your balloon but the Lawyers are not as forward thinking as that.

I think the McCanns had it banned because in this instance justifiably, why should any Tom Dick or Harry be allowed to see the Apartment , especially when it was so untidy, I too would feel aggrieved at this .I presume it was being filmed by Portugese Detectives so how did it get on youtube?

Hi panda, you are probably right lawyers not being
forward thinkers, but I was only suggesting that
others with a vested interest in justice and how its
preceived as being fair and equal may want the
pathways clear of hurdles.
Why have an expensive investigation when there
may exist legal impediments to bringing the accused
before court? Better I think, to remove such hurdles
as in claims of 'not getting a fair trial' or 'trial by media'
before criminal charges are placed.

How about the News of The World printing extracts from her maj's diary with what they thought was her permission only to find that madame was feeling 'mentally raped'?
Who knows how much stuff has been 'planted' out there in cyberland so that these desperados can cash in.??
They can't sue if there's nothing out there.
I wouldn't put it past them. They've got a track record for this kind of thing.
Who knows who put it out there?

NoStone wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:But surely the images were representations of fact, rather than being deceptive or prejudicial?

So what could possibly be the Legal grounds for them being whooshed?

The drugs? 'Personal' information about medication (prescribed or otherwise?)??

It could be to protect Kate`s Dad`s privacy as I believe they were all his Parkinson`s drugs - he must have been staying with them at the time.

the slave wrote:How about the News of The World printing extracts from her maj's diary with what they thought was her permission only to find that madame was feeling 'mentally raped'?
Who knows how much stuff has been 'planted' out there in cyberland so that these desperados can cash in.??
They can't sue if there's nothing out there.
I wouldn't put it past them. They've got a track record for this kind of thing.
Who knows who put it out there?

Kate had no difficulty in telling us all in the book about herself and Gerry's, shall we say lack of intimacy. Shuuder at the image.

Not only was it in the book, she was happy to have it as a main headline splashed across the Sun in the serialisation of the book. It is the same old story, everything on their terms.

marxman wrote:

Panda wrote: Since this was taken in 2008 , marxman, I hate to burst your balloon but the Lawyers are not as forward thinking as that.

I think the McCanns had it banned because in this instance justifiably, why should any Tom Dick or Harry be allowed to see the Apartment , especially when it was so untidy, I too would feel aggrieved at this .I presume it was being filmed by Portugese Detectives so how did it get on youtube?

Hi panda, you are probably right lawyers not being
forward thinkers, but I was only suggesting that
others with a vested interest in justice and how its
preceived as being fair and equal may want the
pathways clear of hurdles.
Why have an expensive investigation when there
may exist legal impediments to bringing the accused
before court? Better I think, to remove such hurdles
as in claims of 'not getting a fair trial' or 'trial by media'
before criminal charges are placed.

Hi marxman, I think the McCanns were more than happy to court the Press , didn,t Kate in her book say they arranged a photoshoot of she and the twins walking in PDL not long after Madeleine went missing? They have courted the Press from day 1, yet cry wolf when the Press take liberties and actually photograph them laughing......that would never do !!!!
photograph them laughing.....that will never do.

Panda wrote:

Autumn wrote:

Panda wrote:

gillyspot wrote:Perhaps it was part of the files released? Would make sense in my opinion.

I also think it has been removed from youtube on request of McCanns - I also note that a few videos are being whooshed about them lately too. Youtube is owned by Google is it not and google has started censoring viewing. In fact I have been refused viewing of a couple of McCann sites in the past (states legal reasons).

Hi gillyspot, yes I agree, Clarence would have told youtube that hs clients were distressed, and abracadabra, like the photo of the McCanns Laughing, the video disappears. I agree it was too intrusive and rightfully remeoved and I suspect it was a rogue PJ who sent it to youtube. as for the laughing
photo, no, the Press should not have been so keen to obey the demands of the Mccanns.

You are making a lot of assumptions about why the video was removed Panda. Fact is we don't know who complained or why. And mischievous of you to suggest a rogue PJ sent videos to Youtube. I don't how you repeatedly get away with making these sort of wild assumptions with nothing to back up what you say.

Well who else would have been taking photos other than a Portugese Policeman Autumn ? As I say, if the Mccanns saw it on youtube they had every rignt to ask for it to be removed.

Fortunately the vid can still be viewed on other sites and people can make their own minds up about the reasons the McCanns may have wanted it removed.

How long has this video been available online...i have seen it...just wondering

Would be interesting to know who gave them the ceop manual...guessing jimbo & more importantly why

mossman wrote:

the slave wrote:How about the News of The World printing extracts from her maj's diary with what they thought was her permission only to find that madame was feeling 'mentally raped'?
Who knows how much stuff has been 'planted' out there in cyberland so that these desperados can cash in.??
They can't sue if there's nothing out there.
I wouldn't put it past them. They've got a track record for this kind of thing.
Who knows who put it out there?

Kate had no difficulty in telling us all in the book about herself and Gerry's, shall we say lack of intimacy. Shuuder at the image.

Not only was it in the book, she was happy to have it as a main headline splashed across the Sun in the serialisation of the book. It is the same old story, everything on their terms.

I'd forgotten the Sun headline mossman.......here it is along with Lazy Antonella's prose...

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html

'I COULDN'T MAKE LOVE TO GERRY'

neither could I Kate....