Saturday, 27 May 2017


An interesting post  by  Dr. Roberts from:

Miriam Hyman Collateral Damage?

Another extremely thoughtful and well argued piece from the inimitable Martin Roberts.

Miriam Hyman Collateral Damage?

By Dr Martin Roberts
19 August 2015

Death and the maiden

The story of Miriam Hyman’s death on the morning of Thursday July 7, 2005 is reminiscent of the John Ford movie ‘The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance’, insofar as the genuine executioner is not the one the audience are led to believe did the deed.

Miriam is understood to have been one of thirteen victims of the explosion aboard a no. 30 bus in London’s Tavistock square that occurred at 9.47 a.m. on the morning in question. Her parents realised she was missing and unaccounted for later that day and, in the course of their distress, proceeded to give interviews to the media, who reported as follows:
(John Hyman): "She certainly wasn't injured on the Underground because I spoke to her and at that time she was with a crowd of people evacuated from trains on the pavement outside King's Cross station. The only other possibility, apart from a road accident, is if she was on the bus that was blown up. The reason we think that is unlikely is because it wouldn't make sense for her to take that route. And I was speaking to her about that time and her office ‘phoned her at about 10 a.m., which was about 10 minutes after the explosion to say 'don't come in'. We think maybe she has gone into shock. Her mobile is off. She could have walked away from her handbag in shock. I think she's still in the Greater London area because when I checked yesterday afternoon her car was still in the local station car park." (The Independent, 10 July 2005).
The article continues:
"We would be gibbering wrecks if it weren't for those two ‘phone calls which give us a lot of hope.”
Likewise the International Herald Tribune (11 July 2005) reported:
‘John Hyman, whose 32-year-old daughter, Miriam, is missing, knows a few things for certain: She was not wounded when she left the Underground. She was not on the bus because the bus exploded at about the time he was on the ‘phone with her. Soon after, she called her workplace, and was told not to bother to come in. That was at 10 a.m., after the attacks, he said.

‘"I don't see how she could have got into the bus that exploded," he said. "And the route makes no sense, whether she's going to work or home." Her cellphone goes unanswered. Hyman's friends have papered the town with her image and raced to hospitals.’Miriam’s mother Mavis was quoted to similar effect by the Jewish Journal of 14 July:

‘Other Jewish families face an agonizing wait. Miriam Hyman, 32, a freelance photo editor, called her father, John, from King’s Cross Station at 9:45 a.m. Thursday to say she was all right. That was the last anyone has heard from her. After a fruitless search of London’s hospitals, “we are just waiting,” Hyman’s mother, Mavis, told JTA. ‘She ‘phoned work to say she was going to be late, she was still obviously determined to get in. I think she didn’t understand the seriousness of what was going on.’

‘Something Jewish’ picked up on corroboration given to the Sun Newspaper earlier by Miriam’s sister Esther. They (SJ) posted (11 July 2005):

‘Speaking to the Sun newspaper, her sister Esther said: "Something is stopping her answering the ‘phone or contacting us. It’s so scary because my dad spoke to her as soon as he heard about the bombs. She told him she was sitting on the pavement outside King’s Cross after her train had been evacuated at the station. We have heard nothing since and are frantic.”’

Matters arising

The first detail to bring attention to here is this observation on the part of John Hyman:
“The only other possibility, apart from a road accident, is if she was on the bus that was blown up. The reason we think that is unlikely is because it wouldn't make sense for her to take that route. And I was speaking to her about that time.”

Discounting any road accident (there were none involving pedestrian fatalities that day), Miriam was thought unlikely to have caught the doomed no. 30 bus anywhere near Euston Station for two reasons. First, her intended destination lay in the opposite direction, and second, she had only just concluded a ‘phone conversation with her father while outside King’s Cross (the bus had already left from Euston approximately half-a-mile away).

Things get more puzzling from here on in.
Esther Hyman: “It’s so scary because my dad spoke to her as soon as he heard about the bombs.”
Implying that Miriam’s anxious father rang to speak to her, as one might reasonably expect.

The Jewish Journal, however, would have it that: ‘Miriam Hyman, 32, a freelance photo editor, called her father, John, from King’s Cross Station at 9:45 a.m. Thursday to say she was all right. From her mother Mavis we learn “That was the last anyone has heard from her.”

Not, perhaps, a significant contradiction, but then there are others, which, given a common family origin for the story, are perplexing.

John Hyman (quoted in the Independent):
“And I was speaking to her about that time and her office ‘phoned her at about 10 a.m., which was about 10 minutes after the explosion to say 'don't come in.'”
Whereas the Herald Tribune’s report of Miriam’s conversation with her father proceeds:
‘soon after, she called her workplace, and was told not to bother to come in. That was at 10 a.m., after the attacks, he said.’
This was apparently echoed by Miriam’s mother in the Jewish Journal:

“Hyman’s mother, Mavis, told JTA.  
‘She ‘phoned work to say she was going to be late, she was still obviously determined to get in.”
Again, the directionality of the call might be considered of less importance than the fact of its occurrence. However, the one speaks to the other, metaphorically as well as literally, particularly in light of John Hyman’s remark:
"We would be gibbering wrecks if it weren't for those two ‘phone calls which give us a lot of hope.”
Irrespective of who dialled whom, once John Hyman’s conversation with his daughter was concluded and Miriam went on to speak to her colleague(s) at work (at 10.00 a.m. or thereabouts), how did either John or Mavis Hyman come to learn of that all-too-significant second call, given Esther’s statement that they had had no word of Miriam since the initial (9.45 a.m.) conversation (“She told him she was sitting on the pavement outside King’s Cross…..We have heard nothing since and are frantic.”’)?

‘“We are just waiting,” Hyman’s mother, Mavis, told JTA.’

That remark was published on 14 July, by which time, according to journalists Becky Barrow and Amy Iggulden (“Families receive the news that destroys all hope”), the Hymans had already been advised (13 July) of their daughter’s death (The Telegraph, 14 July 2005). In point of fact they knew by the 11th, as reported by the Jewish Chronicle Online (29.4.2010) and by Esther Hyman personally in an on-line video posted by the Guardian (6.5.2011) wherein she states: “So, we waited until the Monday and our family liaison officer came here and explained to my parents that ‘Mim’ had been identified by her dental records.”

All of which makes the appearance of Mavis Hyman’s ‘we are waiting‘ statement in the Jewish Journal afterwards rather difficult to understand.

The question as to how any of Miriam Hyman’s relatives could have been appraised of any subsequent cell ‘phone call of hers, whether to or from her place of work, remains unresolved however. It is a ‘phone call of the utmost significance, and not just because any such conversation at 10.00 a.m. that morning would rule Miriam out completely as having been a passenger aboard the devastated no. 30 bus.

In actual fact, the significance attaching to the ‘phone call between Miriam Hyman and her office does not reside in the ‘phone call per se, but in her work‘s location – Canary Wharf.

Trouble in the East-end 

Mid-morning on 7 July saw a solitary Radio Five broadcast recounting news of a shooting carried out by security services at Canary Wharf. The announcement was never repeated, although various news outlets worldwide carried the story.

Miriam Hyman has been accepted as dead since July 7, 2005. As far as her father was concerned, at least initially, “the only other possibility, apart from a road accident, is if she was on the bus that was blown up.“

There were only five fatal incidents in London that day – no reported suicides, no road traffic accidents of the ‘person in collision with a road vehicle’ variety; nothing except the four bombs detonated on London Transport and an unspecified shooting at Canary Wharf, Miriam Hyman’s declared destination.

The first three events can be discounted on the grounds that Miriam was safely evacuated from King’s Cross after they had occurred.

That leaves only two feasible explanations for Miriam’s death that Thursday:

Either she died aboard a bus which, according to her own father’s account, she could not have caught, or she was shot at Canary Wharf.

There are no other possibilities.

And now we may begin to appreciate the true significance of Miriam’s telephone dialogue(s) that morning.

The first, at 9.45 a.m., compromises the idea that she may have boarded the no. 30 bus. Rachael Bletchly of the Mirror (4 July, 2015) remains convinced however:
“Ten years ago on Tuesday, the 31-year-old picture researcher rang dad John to say that she had been evacuated from King’s Cross tube station in London and not to worry as she would get a bus to work.”
Given her declared determination to get to work, there was no reason, in principle, why she should not have done so eventually, at least in time to meet a lunchtime appointment she is also understood to have made. Nevertheless, since she has been declared dead as of the Thursday morning we know she could not have arrived, either at her office desk or for lunch.

Not only must we ask ourselves how the Hymans might have known about their daughter’s second crucial ‘phone call that morning (which did not involve either of them), but we should also question what purpose it may have served as far as they were concerned, given Miriam’s earlier personal assurance that she was safe and well.

The key detail of the alleged conversation is that Miriam was advised not to continue on to work (at Canary Wharf). The Hymans (and anyone else) might then reasonably suppose, at least initially, that if she didn’t arrive at her office that day it was because she had been told not to bother.

(This state of affairs is a dark and subtle reflection of the McCanns’ various references to their daughter’s en passant remarks, whereby they manage indirectly to suggest that she was alive when she made them).

Nick Kollerstrom (author of Terror on the Tube) has researched the events of 7/7 in considerable depth and posted the following comment on an internet forum discussing the case:
“From King’s Cross, one gets to Canary Wharf by bus travelling Eastbound, by taking the 30 bus half way then changing. There is no way you would walk back to Euston, which is in the opposite direction, to get the no. 30 bus, which by the way left Euston station before she rang her Father at 09.45 – when she said she was at King’s Cross. So, one must agree with what the Father was quoted as saying, about his daughter’s fate. When I spoke to him (today, a second time) he denied having said this, and said he had been misreported.

“Speaking to her father, on the ‘phone, he confirmed that she had rung him at 09.45, however he denied that she had rung her place of work at ten o’clock. He is convinced she was dead by then.”
That makes three people (John, Mavis and Esther Hyman) all separately misreported by at least three different media outlets.

So what, exactly, has John Hyman retracted? His doubts about Miriam’s having boarded the no. 30 bus, obviously, as well as his daughter’s conversation with colleague(s) at Canary Wharf, about which he couldn’t have known in the first place – except he did. That was prior to his acceptance of the ‘official line’, which then made the office ‘phone call story (as an explanation for Miriam’s non-arrival at work) redundant. The bus bomb was ultimately considered to have taken care of that.

One cannot but feel sympathy for any truly grieving parent, and I have no wish to impugn the Hyman family. However, in the light of what appear to be something other than trivial contradictions on their part, together with the lack of any categorical confirmation by them of exactly what they knew and when they knew it, there are genuine grounds for suspecting their daughter Miriam did not fall victim to a bomb at Tavistock Square, but to a bullet at Canary Wharf, and that her 10.00 a.m. ‘phone call to work was a ‘storyline’, fed to the Hymans, so as to defer further inquiry until such time as a more appropriate location for their daughter’s demise could be decided upon. Either that, or (heaven forfend) it was a storyline constructed by the Hymans.


Nick Kollerstrom again:
‘On 10th July 2005 the Observer reported that “Police have put a tracking device on Miriam’s ‘phone so that if it is activated they will be able to find her.”‘
Whereabouts in relation to Miriam’s body was her ‘cell phone eventually found? It was clearly functional after the bombings that morning or the Police couldn’t have downloaded a tracker ‘app’ onto it; something there would scarcely have been any call for beforehand. The answer – it was never reported as having been found. That is not to say of course that it was never actually found.

Miriam’s mother Mavis is Indian, born in Kolkata. Miriam was therefore of mixed race (Jewish-Asian), and exhibited traits of each. Being an artist/picture editor, and based professionally at Canary Wharf, might she perhaps have been carrying a camera, a lap-top computer bag or portfolio case, and did these various characteristics conspire to appear suspicious when viewed through a telescopic gun-sight?

Answers to these several questions are provided by the Jewish Chronicle Online (29 April, 2010) in commenting upon the belated inquest into the many deaths, five years previously, on 7/7. Albeit lengthy, the following passage from the Jewish Chronicle is richly informative:
“The family of Miriam Hyman, who died in the 7/7 terror attack, was forced to wait four days to be officially told of her death, even though identification documents were found on her body.

“In the High Court this week, lawyers acting for the Hyman family and that of Israeli Anat Rosenberg, who was also killed by the Tavistock Square bus bomb in July 2005, urged the coroner to resume the inquests and investigate whether the security services failed to act upon information known about the bombers before the attack.

“The hearing heard that many families had suffered long delays in being informed of the deaths. One had to wait 11 days.

“Counsel Janine Sheff told the court that relatives of Ms Hyman, a 32-year-old picture researcher from Hampstead Garden Suburb, had to wait "four agonising days" to be told she was among the 52 victims.

“Ms Sheff said: "She was found with her bag strapped to her, with numerous documents with her ID on her."

“She added that the parents of Ms Hyman were unable to travel to London and search hospitals, instead relying on her friends, who were told the police had no information.

“Ms Sheff said: "So troubled were they from the lack of information from the police - who said they had to live with that lack of knowledge - that they sought a [bomb] survivor to help them understand what happened."

“Ms Hyman's mother, Mavis, said: "Those four days of no news were unquestionably the most horrendous of my life. Nobody had any suggestion as to what had happened. Her family and friends couldn't just sit still and we spoke to the media and survivors to try to get any information we could.

"The police were not helpful and gave us little information. We would have appreciated knowing about the identification found."

Note how "She was found with her bag strapped to her, with numerous documents with her ID on her."

Whether taken in or out of context, this is an altogether extraordinary turn of phrase, no doubt originating with the person(s) who actually ‘found’ Miriam in the first place.

Miriam is not described as having ‘a bag over her shoulder’ nor, however unlikely, ‘wearing a rucksack or back-pack.’ Instead her bag is ‘strapped to her’, conjuring up images elsewhere of an explosive waistcoat. To which we are invited to add ‘numerous documents with her ID.’ Well it was London, so I suppose even a pedestrian might be expected carry one or two means of identification – but numerous examples?

All we have to do here is bring forward the conventional wisdom of the day (that suicide bombers were wont to deposit evidence of their identity at the scene of their martydom, as Mohammed Sidique Khan is posthumously accused of having done at two locations on the London Underground, despite being credited with only one bomb) and we have the Blair government blueprint for a long-haired, dark-skinned terrorist.

And yet there was no mobile ‘phone, nor any information of immediate interest to the parents for four whole days?

Miriam may well have been found with ‘her bag strapped to her body,’ but where exactly was her body at the time?

It gets murkier.

Distortions in Space-Time

This from Esther Addley of the Guardian (6.5.2011):
“At around 9.45am one sunny morning in July 2005, John Hyman took a call from his daughter Miriam. There had been some sort of problem at King's Cross, she said, and she had been evacuated from the tube. She was fine, though, and he wasn't to worry. Her father suggested she find a coffee shop and wait until things calmed down.

“In the hours and days that followed the terrorist attacks on London, the Hyman family clung to that phone call like a lifebuoy, desperately telling themselves the call had come after 9.49am, the moment when 18-year-old Hasib Hussain blew himself up on the upper deck of a number 30 bus to Hackney.

“Four days later, after touring the capital's hospitals, putting up posters and making appeals via the media, they were at last told by a police family liaison officer that Miriam had been identified by her dental records. She had been sitting directly in front of Hussain at the moment of explosion, and was blown from the bus and on to the pavement, where she died very shortly afterwards.”
We ought here to interpolate another statement by Esther Hyman, again recorded within the Guardian video of the same date, which specifies even more precisely the location of Miriam’s corpse, an observation shortly to assume particular significance:

“She was thrown from the bus onto the pavement directly outside the entrance of the BMA building.”

Notice how this Guardian article allocates Miriam two additional minutes in which to catch the no. 30 bus, how the police somehow knew whose dental records to track down (presumably from the ID they were decidedly reluctant to reveal to the parents), and exactly where this lady was sitting in relation to other passengers on board the bus. (Reported at the inquest to have had an inboard seat, she is nevertheless catapulted onto the nearside pavement).

It doesn’t end there. The Guardian continues:
“The Hyman family made an even more striking discovery. They had been contacted, two years after the bombings, by Clive Featherstone, who had been working in Tavistock Square when the bomb went off, and who had held Miriam's hand in her final moments. "At first we didn't get back in touch with him … [But] since then we've become very close with him."

“It was only during the inquest process that they discovered the existence of another man, a passer-by called Richard Collins, who had gone to Miriam's side after Featherstone had been told to move along by a policeman. Initially they thought he must have been mistaken and confused Miriam with another victim, but no. "Richard told us afterwards: 'I would have felt a bit silly if it had turned out not to be Miriam, as I actually had her initials tattooed on my chest.' It's his only tattoo but it turned out that he had been so moved that he had this indelible mark put on himself. We find that exceptional."*
The Hymans thought at first that Richard Collins had been mistaken, yet he had sufficient confidence in his identification of their daughter as to have her initials tattooed on his chest afterwards. Thus confirmation of Miriam Hyman’s last moments becomes a pre-requisite for validation of Collins’ tattoo! We are not told the basis for Clive Featherstone’s identification of her.

Featherstone and Collins’ displayed their separate acts of sympathy toward the same young lady, whom counsel at the inquest would make every effort to identify as Miriam Hyman. There were however several dark-skinned female victims aboard the no. 30 bus, two of whom are known to have taken their last breaths at the roadside. Neetu Jain was 37 years old and originally from Delhi. Gladys Wundowa was black. Both are said to have been occupying nearside window seats.

In March 2006 Michelle Du-Feu, a doctor, described having treated a middle-aged Middle-Eastern or Asian-looking woman lying on the road at the rear of the bus. At the Inquest in January 2011 she said that when shown a photograph of Miriam Hyman a year earlier she had become confused, “because things obviously weren’t how I had remembered them.“

Despite attempts by lead counsel Hugo Keith to get Dr Du-Feu to admit she had treated Miriam Hyman, she did not do so. Ms. Gallagher, counsel for the Hyman family acknowledged that Dr. Du-Feu was thus “not so sure” to have treated and seen Miriam.

A Dr Michael David Peters, who was also invited to testify at the Inquest, said that when he came out from the BMA building he saw a torso:
“There was a sort of mass of sort of tissue, red, about one metre by a metre there. And then, on the other side, to the left as I was looking from the square in, there was a body of, I think, a black woman who was wearing a dress. The body seemed to be swollen, motionless, and I presumed she was dead.“ 
Although Hugo Keith once again tried to convince Dr. Peters that he may actually have seen Miriam Hyman, Peters insisted the woman he saw was black.

Hence two critically injured females were immediately attended in the road (or on the pavement), one of them Asian. Yet neither was identifiable as Miriam Hyman. According to ‘the Mirror’ (20.1.2011) Clive Featherstone described at the Inquest how Miriam “kind of moved to try and lift herself up or towards me” as he knelt beside her. However, the first thing Dr Peters noticed on exiting the BMA building was a torso. If this were Miriam’s body, which, according to her sister Esther, had landed in that very entrance, then she would have been killed instantaneously and there could have been no attempted movement whatsoever.

When asked about an earlier statement he had made concerning the absence of Miriam’s left leg, Richard Collins replied:
From the knee down, halfway across the knee down”. Loss of the lower half of one lower limb does not represent a ‘torso’.
Unless, therefore, an additional female body is known to have been lying in the immediate vicinity, then there are few grounds for believing Miriam was ever there, especially given the death also of Shahara Islam, another Asian female on board the no. 30 bus, positioned originally, it is supposed, among the group of seats directly across the aisle from the exploding bomb.

The eyes have it

Bearing in mind that Featherstone and Collins each claimed to have comforted the same individual, it is worth recording their respective observations regarding her facial appearance, especially as they were complete strangers to each other.

First Featherstone:
“I noticed that she had these little polystyrene balls in her eyes, which apparently later I heard was from the padding of the seats.”
And now Collins:
“Looking at my witness statement, I recalled that her eyes were green, if that is the case. So obviously, I was looking in her eyes, but I don't recall any polystyrene balls.”
Miriam Hyman’s eyes were unquestionably hazel brown, as one might expect of a lady of Asian extraction. Extraordinarily however, the eyes of 20 year old Shahara Islam, herself a victim from the rear of the upper deck, were considerably paler, and might easily have been taken for green. (See: HuffPo (Or below Ed)

Both Featherstone and Collins comforted the same badly injured, green-eyed lady, not an incomplete corpse. That lady was clearly not Miriam Hyman, and Richard Collins’ subsequent tattoo does not make it so. The inquest account of the state in which Miriam was found does not include mention of where, nor does it lead one to suppose that her body was other than intact, despite Esther Hyman’s announcement of her sister’s last known whereabouts in death, and what that would necessarily imply.

As further informs us:
“According to the Daily Star, inquests were opened on 13 July 2005 into the deaths of Miriam Hyman and others. No family members, however, were invited to attend the hearing which was held at St Pancras coroner’s court. It has not been explained why no family members were invited to attend. Dr. Reid then adjourned the inquests until after the end of police investigations.“
Miriam Hyman is said, conventionally almost, to have died aboard a no. 30 bus, in a misguided attempt to reach her place of work at Canary Wharf. Her name is after all included on a wall plaque placed in memory of the Tavistock Square victims. It is a bus she could not have caught, unless of course one subscribes to the Times Group account of 28 December 2005, which renders the father‘s contention false from start to finish:
“Miriam Hyman, 32, a freelance picture researcher was travelling to work, but was told by her agency not to bother coming in. Amid the chaos, she was evacuated from the Tube train she was travelling on at King's Cross. She walked to Tavistock Square, from where she rang her parents to let them know she was alright. She then alighted the doomed number 30 bus.”
John Hyman’s story is indeed questionable, especially the part where he describes a later ‘phone call he could have known nothing about unless informed of it by someone else. Miriam could have walked to Tavistock Square, where, according to the Times, she actually got off the ‘doomed no. 30’ bus, rather than on it.

Such verbal carelessness however hardly inspires confidence in the content of the report, or the belief that John Hyman’s own twice confirmed account was significantly incorrect.

That being the case there is only one place Miriam Hyman could have died that morning, and it would not have been as the result of any random act of terrorism.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has publicly lamented the deaths of British soldiers sent to fight in Iraq, as well as the many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, who also perished as a direct result of the West’s unprovoked ‘War on Terror‘. It is tempting to speculate that his dogmatic refusal to authorize a public inquiry into the London bombings of 7/7 stemmed, at least in part, from his being unprepared to countenance the revelation of an innocent British citizen, a Londoner, being shot dead on the streets of their own capital, and by a member of their own security services. The state-sanctioned murder of Jean Charles de Menezes a fortnight later proved difficult enough to handle - and he wasn’t even British.

Dr Martin Roberts

Blair attends 7/7 memorial, full of contrition no doubt.


Never Forget … Your Country Admits to False Flag Terror

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror

In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally, in writing, or through photographs or videos:

According to Scotland Yard, the attack on the crowd leaving the Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena, 22 May, has been perpetrated by Salman Abedi. A bankcard has been conveniently found in the pocket of the mutilated corpse of the ‘terrorist’. [..]His father Ramadan Abedi, with whom Salman lived, is a former officer in [Gaddafi’s] Libyan Intelligence Services. He specialised in the surveillance of the Islamist movement, but two decades later has failed to notice that his son has joined Daesh (IS).

In 1992, Ramadan Abedi was sent back to Libya by Britain’s MI6 and was involved in a British-devised plot to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi.


Saturday, 22 April 2017


In view of the upcoming Australian revelation this post gives some background - thanks to McCannfiles and Pamalam (see further reading topic for links) this interview may be of interest. Interview link:

By Dr Martin Roberts
28 July 2011


They haven't got a clue down under - literally. The reporter fronting the recent Seven on Sunday programme announces an exclusive interview with Kate and Gerry McCann thus:

"Kate and Gerry McCann have lived a never-ending ordeal and they still don't know when, or if, it will ever end. It began on a family holiday in Portugal when Madeleine, their four-year-old daughter, simply vanished. She hasn't been seen since. Tonight the mystery deepens. You are about to see home video never shown before and learn the vital clue Madeleine left behind."

Unfortunately for the expectant viewers, they never get to learn what that vital clue is. [...]   There are however other clues which, thankfully, did not drift onto the cutting room floor.

(Voice over): "On Thursday night, Kate put her daughter to bed for the last time."

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.

Kate next tells us that when the curtains blew up, they revealed that the shutter was 'all the way up' and the window had been 'pushed right across.' One of several highlights from the Channel 4 documentary (Madeleine Was Here) to be spliced into the proceedings, viewers are treated anew to the episode of the door being 'open much further than we'd left it.' Strange how Matthew Oldfield didn't notice the cold air inside apartment 5A, the various doors and windows having been open for twenty minutes by the time he is said to have peered into the children's bedroom from the lounge. Even stranger that Kate didn't notice the drop in temperature a further half-hour after that. (It was cold enough for Jane Tanner to have borrowed a fleece before setting off up the magic path of invisibility).

But the best is yet to come.

"Did you kill your daughter?" asks the lady journalist. Gerry answers:

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous."

Let's take this a step at a time.

"Did you kill your daughter?"

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.'"

This is Gerry speaking don't forget. For any other innocent mortal 'Absolutely not' would have been a sufficient response. Not for Gerry though. Despite his subsequent claim, he gives a decidedly unemphatic answer - 'No.' What follows is meta-language, where he is describing his earlier articulation of a word and does not address the underlying semantics in any way. Incoherent and unnecessary expansion then takes us away from the original question, referencing what has been 'purported' in Portugal, namely that 'Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.'

Next comes a cunning locking of the incident to a specific time frame, with the suggestion that Madeleine could only have had an accident when unattended. But Gerry slips up in questioning how it would have been possible for them to have disposed of Madeleine's body. In immediately substituting the phrase hidden her body he has already told us what in fact happened. Excitedly he goes on to ask why the parents should have covered up an accident. Why indeed.

It hardly comes as a surprise that Kate leaps in at this point, before Gerry's mouth can write any more bad cheques. She loses no time in elaborating upon the 'hide-and-seek' scenario played out that Thursday night, and the 'ludicrous' idea of their hire car being involved afterwards. But the damage has already been done.

The script, charitably outlined by Goncalo Amaral and fleshed out here by the McCanns, so as to exonerate themselves, depends entirely for its effect upon the premise that little Madeleine disappeared inexplicably that Thursday night; a premise that becomes less clear the closer it is examined. And Gerry is right. It wouldn't make sense to conceal an accident.

Thursday, 20 April 2017



We flew out from Gatwick airport having stayed the night with Matt and Rachael at their home which was near to the airport.  The others flew out later the same day from East Midlands Airport.[..]


We were taken out of the airport and out onto the buses waiting nearby, we sat in the middle of the coach on the right hand side.  I recall that Charlotte PENNINGTON who was a nanny at Mark Warner was also sat on the bus- I believe that she looked after Fiona and Dave’s kids.  It was reported in the press that she had seen Kate and Gerry at the airport but I don’t see how that would have been possible as I don’t believe they had arrived by then, I believe that their flight arrived an hour or so after ours did.


1578    “Yeah”.
Reply    “Erm, the first three paragraphs are fine.  I think, I suppose, the only comment is, when I’m talking about Charlotte PENNINGTON in the fifth paragraph, erm, I said that she, ‘I believe she looked after Dave and Fiona’s kids’, then, then there’s a separate, a sort of a separate sentence there.  Erm, and it might be worth clarifying that, at least in popular Press, she erm, she, there was a report that she said she saw Kate and Gerry at the Airport, but I think she’s, and I don’t think that would have been possible, because we had left the Airport on the coach with her, so I think she’s probably confusing that with, with one of us.  So that’s, that’s only a report from the popular Press rather than anything that she said”.

1578    “So how do you wish us to word that'”
Reply    “I suppose, erm, ‘I believe she looked after Fiona and Dave’s kids’, full stop, erm, ‘In the media at least she has reported seeing Kate and Gerry at FARO Airport on our arrival, but I don’t think, I think she’s mistaken because they had not arrived by then’”.  I mean, it, it is potentially, theoretically possible that she was nipping in and out of the bus, but I don’t think she would have, erm, they were, they were a good hour landing after us and we weren’t extensively delayed at the Airport, from my recollection, it seem, probably less like”.

1578    “So they arrived some time after you'”
Reply    “Yeah, I think they, they were, they were landing about a full hour after us, but I think by the time we’d got luggage out and we were on the coach, they were actually coming by taxi anyway, so I don’t think they would have been expecting to meet anyone from MARK WARNER, erm, because they’d made their own, because they’d changed the flight, they’d made their own independent means of getting from the airport to PRAIA DA LUZ


Charlotte Pennington:

The witness clarifies that between the 29th of April and the 04th of May 2007 she worked with a group of children staying in the aforementioned complex between the ages of 4 months and one year of age (the Baby Club)

Charlotte has the following childcare experience National certificate in child care and education level 3 . Worked as a live in and out nanny, as a summer season nanny for mark warner and as a nursery practicioner where i was situated mainly with the under 2's. (In Greece she may have used her stepfather’s name:  Wighton.



A closer look at Charlotte Pennington

Nigel Moore
31 January 2008

Pennington, who was employed as a nanny at the Mark Warner Ocean Club at the time of Madeleine's disappearance, would appear to be blessed with an uncanny knack of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Although, from Kate and Gerry McCanns' perspective, it could be said that the opposite is true. As if by magic,
appears with a 'sighting' at just the right time to support the McCanns' theories on what happened that fateful night of May 3rd.

The fact that she claims to have worked as a fairy since the age of 14 may go some way to explaining her remarkable abilities.

So, what did she see?

She says was there with Madeleine at the kid's club on 03 May 2007, the day of Maddie's disappearance. Thus providing herself as an 'independent' witness to the fact that Madeleine was still alive on 03 May 2007.

She was there, inside the McCanns' apartment, within five minutes of the alarm being raised, and claims to have witnessed both Kate McCanns' emotional state and the words spoken. Thus supporting the belief that this was the time of the abduction and that Kate could not have acted that amount of grief.

She was there to see Robert Murat hanging around the Ocean Club. Thus supporting the McCanns', particularly Kate's, desire to imply that Murat was involved in some way. It was reported, on 27 January 2008, that they believe he may have acted as a 'look-out' for a gang of paedophiles.

She was there to see Robert Murat speaking with a suspicious looking man, the following day at the local supermarket, who now appears to match the description and artist's impression produced for Gail Cooper's 'Creepyman'. Thus further connecting Murat with an 'abduction'.

And, finally, she was there to see a suspicious man kicking something in a boat, 2 days after Madeleine's disappearance. Thus supporting one of the McCanns' theories that the abductor escaped by water - probably to Morocco.

But do Charlotte
's crucial testimonies stand up to scrutiny? Unfortunately, like a great deal of this case, they are riddled with inconsistencies.

, who also works as a part-time actress - having briefly played the part of Libby Bailey in the New Zealand soap 'Shortland Street' - would be familiar with the need to arrive on cue.

But then, as we all know, sometimes actors get their lines wrong...

Time with Madeleine on 03 May 2007
The Daily Mail published details of an interview with Miss
on 25 September 2007, in which she dismissed claims that the McCanns were not seen for six hours leading up to Madeleine's disappearance.
She said: "I was helping give the children high tea. The twins were there and Madeleine and both parents.

"It was supposed to finish at 5.30pm but because they were a big group and really social, it didn't finish until about 6pm. There was nothing out of the ordinary at all."

However, speaking on the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary 'Searching For Madeleine', aired on 18 October 2007, she says:

"On May the third, it was just Madeleine I was reading a story to. I later saw them around lunchtime. That's the last time I saw them together as a family."

So, which is true? Did she last see Madeleine and the McCanns at 6.00pm or at lunchtime? And why the discrepancy?

The Daily Mail report of 14 October 2007, reporting on Madeleine's movements at the kid's club, only mentions nanny Catriona Baker being with her that day. The report states that Maddie was placed in a small group of children between the ages of 3 and 5 years with Miss Baker.

Pennington was employed as a nanny in the Ocean Club resort's Baby Club, looking after children aged four to 12 months. So, why would she have been looking after Madeleine, who was not a member of her Baby Club, and reading her a story that particular day?

Interesting topic to read. Extra cots and an extra bed were requested before the McCanns and Payne’s left  the UK.  It is entirely my opinion that it is likely that Charlotte Pennington was  looking after all the children in the Payne’s apartment.  As can be seen from the  arguido interviews,  an extra cot is mentioned and denied or accredited to the Paynes.

As can be seen in the rogatory excerpt above, ROB twice states that CP looked after the Payne’s two children.  It is quite possible therefore, that Charlotte Pennington didn't know the McCanns before the holiday.  However, at least one of the Payne children was too old for the Baby Club.  Taking the extra cot(s) and bed in consideration, ordered before the holiday, it is likely that this was arranged precisely to take care of all the children over the holiday and it would not be a large leap of the imagination to add the Nanny who looked after the Payne's children. The Payne's children: one was about 2yrs 9 months and the other 1 yr old.  Possibly the 1 yr old would have been in Charlotte's Baby group. If she did indeed work there during the day.
So why tell the staff and holiday makers that they were collectively leaving their children alone?  Why also, according to some of the staff, did they only leave the table  for checks on the 3rd of May?

Kate McCann DID scream 'They've taken her' claims new nanny witness Daily Mail By DAN NEWLING  Last updated at 16:41pm on 25th September 2007

 "There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends. unquote (This is quite impossible, the children were seen in their cots by the police who arrived well after Ms. Pennington. Therefore it follows that the children had not yet been put in the room. The police noted that there were no sheets for the children to lie on. The twins were later moved when G.McCann said they should go to their 'own' apartment.)

Here is Charlotte Pennington's  statement. Apparently chunks are missing. But useful to check against the above. So Charlotte Pennington - in my opinion - was interviewed by the Mirror. She would have been 19 or twenty in 2007.

Also read  Peter Hyatt's Statement Analysis  on the Mirror article:
"Madeleine McCann: Nanny's Statements"


Tuesday, 18 April 2017


Mirror Article 17-4-2017

What REALLY happened the night Madeleine McCann disappeared as nanny breaks her 10-year silence
'Gerry frantically looked under cars while Kate paced up and down crying: "they've got Maddie"' says child-carer who worked in the Praia da Luz resort where Maddie vanished

22:00, 17 APR 2017

A nanny who looked after Madeleine McCann has told how the youngster’s parents were plunged into despair and panic when the ­horrifying truth she had vanished sank in.

The former child minder said she is still haunted by the image of dad Gerry desperately trying to find their missing daughter while she tried to comfort weeping mum Kate who cried: “They’ve taken her.”
 There you are. Only one nanny I believe confirmed this. As has been pointed out many times, for someone to know that there was a ‘they’ – foreknowledge was required. ‘Madeleine has gone!’ would have been believable.

Breaking her silence after 10 years, the witness also claimed the resort from which Madeleine vanished was considered so unsafe nannies were handed rape alarms and told to not go out alone.

And she slammed the Portuguese police’s handling of the disappearance, insisting their ­blundering scuppered any chances of finding who had snatched three-year-old Madeleine.

Such an expert on police procedure. Details please.

Kate and Gerry make emotional appeal after their daughter was abducted while they were at dinner (Photo: Getty)
Speaking of that dreadful night in May 2007, the ex-nanny –who looked after the girl several times – said: “A parent came to me and said there was something going on, and said someone’s looking for a child, I didn’t instantly think it was Maddie. Most nannies were alerted by other nannies. Thanks.

"A couple of minutes later I walked into Kate crying, friends comforting her, Gerry looking under cars, and it just blew up. I don’t even think she saw me. I just stood next to her and tried to comfort her.

As far as I know the only recorded (although recorded by Kate McCann in her book and not by any independent source) search by one of the parents that night was on the beach. Not counting looking in cupboards in the apartment to see if she was ‘cowering’ there. We do know for sure of some other activities. Deleting all their calls from their mobiles and writing and correcting a timeline of the evening.

“She was pacing up and down. The worst possible thing had just happened to her.

Cop who searched for Madeleine McCann says she might be hiding in plain sight 'and not know who she really is'
“I think I said something like, ‘She’ll be found, these things happen all the time.’

She was crying, but almost in a catatonic state, and Gerry was very distressed. That’s the one thing I really remember from him, looking under the cars. I can’t forget that.

Catatonic and crying are mutually exclusive.
Why Gerry looked under cars. Makes no sense at all. Unless she was hiding there. No-one would drive over a child and decide to leave the car parked over the body?

“We were told to start looking in bins in case her body was in there. It was at that point we realised this was serious.
Along with other staff, the ex-carer, who worked for travel firm Mark Warner at the the Ocean Club resort, sifted by hand in the dark through industrial-sized bins and piping leading into the sea in their hunt for Madeleine. Hmm. first time I heard that one. Never mind. The parents themselves, according to the book KM wrote, spend a whole hour (during which they were also on the phone) rifling through bins and jumping in ditches. Around 7 in the morning, as they'd had a little rest during the night. As you do. Besides it was dark, although they did have a torch when they met the assembled journalists the following evening.

They also walked Praia da Luz’s small, winding streets searching for the missing girl until they were told, against their wills at 5am, that it was time for bed.

But the woman, who we are not naming, said she is still furious with local police , who she claimed took 90 minutes to arrive on the scene.
The police were called at 10.41 – they arrived at 11.00 pm. Documented evidence. Winesses, call records and so on. Police could not get there any earlier coming from Portimao. I’m sure it would be the same if  UK police received a call from Withering-in-the-Wold when the nearest police station (as Oxiadere was)  would be some 18 kilometers away. Google gives driving time of  around 16 minutes. In any case officers Roque and Da Costa arrived at 11.00 P.M. - 90 minutes later there were some 6 officers present who had been arriving between 11.00 p.m and 00.15. By 02.00 dogs were deployed. Two hours later the McCanns  went to the Payne's flat for a lie-down. Gerry managed to sleep a bit. All on record.
And she told how people were in and out of the apartment where Madeleine vanished from – contaminating a ­potential crime scene.
People like the nanny herself? The friends and so on. Besides – see link 1)  
The former nanny added: “I know I didn’t step into that apartment but pretty much everybody else did. So, evidence gone, nothing. There was nobody there to say, ‘We need to lock this off now.’ The police didn’t get there for ages, maybe an hour and a half, so we were looking for her. And at the end of the day, no matter how much you’ve been trained with ­children, we were children, mainly ­teenagers, we’re not police.

Now it’s maybe an hour and a half. 90 minutes repeated, hope the reader got that.  Forget that bit please. There was somebody there, namely Silvia Batista, who said just that. The apartment must be cleared.  As for you being children yourselves,  don’t know if you’re in the photograph of the nannies having a semi-nude party in PdL. I wouldn’t call you children. Anyhow, the Mirror calls you ‘a woman’ now. So you’re all grown up and everything.

“That’s why police were trying to get everyone’s timelines, because they weren’t there.”

This is hilarious. Those timelines, you know the ones they wrote down in original and corrected form, instead of searching for Maddie,  weren’t meant for the police. The police  impounded them.  The police obviously wasn't  there whilst the crime was committed. This is often the case. The police generally come after the event and ask questions so they can reconstruct the event. With, for instance, timelines.  Which were very important to the parents,  considering they tore up their newly abducted child’s colouring book to write their timelines whilst they could have been searching instead.

She also told how she was interviewed by officers in the wake of Madeleine’s disappearance and later detectives from ­the Met’s Operation Grange handed her two pages of statements they had retrieved from their Algarve compratiots.

This is interesting. She does not say she was interviewed in the rogatories, but says Operation Grange handed her some documents. She does not say they interviewed her. So did OG officers simply go round and show all the witnesses what interesting papers  they had?

Her original statement was four to five pages long, but the one the Portuguese had been working from was only two pages long – missing a number of details from her interview. The woman claimed “whole chunks of information were missed out”.

If this is true then the simple solution is that part of her statement is amongst the 20% of documents withheld by the Portuguese investigators. Only 80% of the files was published. Obviously they found it of some interest. Did she see the original copy of the statement or something that was retyped by OG? In that case five pages could go to two.
She added: “I think a lot of things should’ve happened differently. ­Unfortunately the effects were catastrophic.”

And the carer told how she was astonished Kate and Gerry were ever deemed suspects in their own child’s ­disappearance. She is still constantly quizzed by people about the case who ask if “the parents did it”.

She said: “I tell them no, there’s no way at all. A, timings and B, where it was, their reactions, the whole thing. Not a chance.”
 Well done. Skated right over the evidence of two Tapas workers and an Irish family. No problems there then. Not that the above makes sense in any way.

The woman also told how Madeleine was a favourite among the child minders. Her allocated nanny was Catriona Baker, but others also got the chance to look after her. The carer added: “I remember her character and ­temperament. She was slightly shy, very sweet. Not loud or precocious.

“We obviously give the same care to all the children, but she was a real cutie and a real sweetheart. If you asked her, ‘Can you just pass me that?’ She’d be like, ‘Sure.’

“She was easy for us, and you were happy to sit and help out this pretty little girl who’s really nice.”
She could be a screamer. She could throw a tantrum. All remarks from her close family, which said  in the wake of the abduction I’ve always found very strange. But the intention here once again is separating Maddie from the rest, by virtue of her loveliness. 'Please look for Madeleine, her mother said, 'she's lovely.'  

While the Ocean Club was clearly popular with British holidaymakers like the McCanns, from Rothley, Leics, the former child minder claimed it was considered an unsafe place for those who worked there. So holiday makers were safe and MW workers were easy to tell apart from the tourists? For rapists and suchlike? 

After she arrived she was stunned when a fellow nanny passed on a message from hotel staff to never venture off the site alone.
We now need the statistics for Praia da Luz for  risk assessment. Off the site' gives the impression it was separate from the town. It is not, to go from one MW  building to another you go through ‘town’.  The supermarket is ‘in town’ but diagonally opposite the MW tennis courts. 100 meters down from 5A.

She added: “I just couldn’t get over how different it was to other Mark Warner resorts.

Thank you. So you’re one of the few nannies who had worked elsewhere for MW. That pares it down a bit futher.

“We were told, ‘Here’s a rape whistle, don’t go anywhere by yourself, ever.’ There’d been a girl attacked the year or so before in Praia da Luz. It didn’t sound like a family resort to me.
Would not surprise me if that ‘attacker’ was another holiday maker. If it is true.

“I just got the feeling the locals didn’t want us there.” It emerged in 2014 that 11 years earlier a 10-year-old British girl had been sexually assaulted “in the heart” of Praia da Luz.
That would be all those locals who stayed away from work to look for Maddie? Who selflessly kept on searching all through the night? Who couldn’t believe parents would leave small children alone in the dark?

The victim came forward three years ago after a Scotland Yard appeal revealed a string of potentially linked sex assaults on young UK girls across the Algarve between 2004 and 2006.
So eleven years earlier there was an attack on a British girl, is this part of the saga allegedly imparted by the consul to the McCanns that there had been a string on incidents where men had tried to get into bed with British girls?  This has not been backed up by any witness statements anywhere.

Mark Warner, which operates in resorts all over the world, quit Praia da Luz in 2015.

Yes, fine, clearly all MW’s fault. We got that. Rapes going on all around, people getting into bed with British girls. I particularly love that British bit, Algarve has German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Irish  tourist families visiting all the time. But clearly British were preferred - superior -  stock – something luckily only a small portion of British people believe.

Madeleine vanished as her parents ate with friends at a tapas bar just 40 yards from where she slept next to twin siblings, Amelie and Sean. Honestly, that distance is given as 50 meters, but that’s only if you can walk really fast through the pool in the middle.  KM said 49.2 but you'd still get very wet. It’s a 100 meters (you see?  Like the 100 meters to Batista supermarket which was such a long way from the MW complex) from the Tapas to the back entrance of 5A. Of which they had a very poor view through thick plastic. Even if the view had been clear, they’d only have seen their own bedroom window (in fact patio doors too) and the patio door of the living room next to it. For reasons best known to the parents, they decided to put the children in the front bedroom where the window and front door were totally invisible from the Tapas.

But the former nanny, who couldn’t face child minding again after the Algarve horror, said dining while kids were in the apartments was “really normal” in such resorts. And she insisted there was no evidence Kate and Gerry would ever neglect their kids. She said: “I remember thinking, even before I knew them, how they were the picture perfect family.’’ 
I’m lost now, even before you knew them you knew what a perfect family they were. Glad you remember thinking that – before as it were. Fine.  As for dining whilst kids etc. despite you being a nanny, you appear to have forgotten that there was a free evening nanny service and many families used this. So they could dine in peace. It was so ‘not normal’ to leave children alone in the dark in a strange environment that it appears no-one else did this.

The tapas bar was not far from the family's apartment Asked if she thinks Madeleine is still alive, the woman said: “Think possibly is the wrong word, but hope. I hope she is still alive.

“It’s probably very naive, but the best case scenario of a very horrible situation, is that she was procured and taken for a rich person who didn’t have children.
Then they would have taken the completely comatose Amelie. Who, together with her twin brother was apparently left alone in an apartment from which their sister had just been abducted. For KM trotted back the full 100 meters or so to the Tapas. Whilst she could easily have shouted from the balcony. It’s all academic anyway. There was no evidence of an abduction, no shutters interfered with or broken.

“I can’t go anywhere else in my head. I can read it about other people and know how horrible that seedy world is where children are sold. But my brain won’t go there with her. I just switch off.

“But I think the only person who knows exactly what happened is Madeleine. Can I believe it’s 10 years on? Yes and no.

No because 10 years seems like a really long time, she’d be nearly 14.

“And yes, because sometimes, when I talk about it, it feels like I’m right back there again.

“I wonder if she’s alive. Does she even remember? Does she remember her parents?

“I’m probably less harrowed by it now, but that’s just because, although it’s awful, it’s become accepted.

“‘It’s Madeleine, she’s gone missing but it would just be the best day ever if I could be told that she’s been found.”
Basically waffle in order to enter words like ‘alive’ present tense ‘does she remember?’  And  ‘she’s been found’.

Operation Grange, which was last month given £85,000 of Home Office funding to extend its probe until September, still speaks to witnesses. 
Slow but steady is the message here. What is needed here of course, is another sighting or a dead paedo’s confession to close the whole thing down. Except in the latter case, the gutter press will carry on with competitions to find the poor child’s grave.

1)  This link gives a factual account of the main events.