Thursday, 15 December 2011

Who's Lying to Leveson?...

Kate McCann's diary... modern day plague, capable of extreme violation and mental rape - but only in the English language it would seem.  The diary entries previously made the front pages in Portugal, without so much as a whimper from the McCanns.

So where did the diary come from and who did or didn't give permission for its extracts to be printed in the News of the World.  Despite the newspaper sitting on the story for some time, Mr and Mrs McCann and their spokesman deny all knowledge of it's then impending print.  The main players at the News of the World maintain every authorisation was given to go to print, and that emails and transcribed phone calls exist giving permission.

The important job of tracking down, translating and forming a story on the diary was given to intrepid reporter Daniel Sanderson, in his own words... the most junior reporter on the paper.  He was originally unaware of the ultimate source although when repeatedly pressed by Counsel, contradicted himself and said it could have come from the Portuguese police.  He was reassured that the story would not run without the green light and express permission from the McCanns. 

Former Legal Affairs Manager for News International, Tom Crone played some part in clearing it up afterwards, his understanding was that the representative of the McCanns had given permission to the head of the news desk to run the diaries.  Mr Crone claims there are supporting emails.

Former News of the World editor, Colin Myler is adamant that the paper had permission to print from Clarence Mitchell (the man paid to speak on behalf of the McCanns).  During his appearance at the Leveson Inquiry, he stressed over and over that Mr Mitchell had given his utmost assurance that permission was granted. was absolutely clear from the Friday to the Saturday that that assurance had been given to him (Ian Edmondson) and given again to me.
Because I was given an absolute categoric assurance that Clarence knew what we were doing.  Ian Edmondson was probably at that stage almost in daily contact with Mr Mitchell.  What conversations had taken place, I don't know. But I know that they had a very close relationship and a very close working professional relationship.
...Ian Edmondson had assured me on more than one occasion that Clarence was aware of what we were intending to do and had said, "Good".  I think it was very clear from Mr Edmondson's point of view how he'd spelt out what he was doing,
Mr Edmondson, given the number of times I asked him for the assurance to make sure that there was absolute clarity and understanding, had no view that there was anything ambiguous in what we were going to do.
Daily contact... very close relationship?...  Mr Myler and the McCanns also had a very close relationship.  Until Mr McCann accused Mr Myler of being irate and berating him on the telephone, that is. Something which disappointed Mr Myler to hear and which he categorically denies. 

A 4-page transcription of a phone call between Mr Edmondson and Mr Mitchell was submitted to the inquiry.  Mr Mitchell last night issued a denial and described the phone call as brief...
At no point in the one brief call that I received from Ian Edmondson on the Friday evening before publication did he spell out categorically that he had purchased a version of Kate’s diary that had been leaked by the Portuguese police and that they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did.
Brief = 4 pages?  Perhaps the caller forgot to hang up and all that was transcribed was background noise. Or the dialling tone.  Ding dong. Interesting that Mr Mitchell contradicts himself by saying that he had no knowledge of the purchase of the diary, yet he was also unaware they were planning to publish it in as big a way as they subsequently did... Were the News of the World planning to simply translate the original Portuguese press reports?  If so, where did the other extracts come from?

The jungle drums are already beating on McCann supporter sites, thanks to Counsel to Inquiry, Robert Jay QC's persistent references yesterday to the diary's original source as being the Portuguese police.

Did Mr Edmondson tell you clearly that he had told Mr Mitchell that a copy of the diary had been obtained via the Portuguese police...
I think it was a woman journalist, but it's not going to matter.  Made clear to you that the Portuguese police had translated the diary and therefore they remained in Portuguese.
Were you concerned by the fact that the diary had been obtained from the police in some way?
But were you aware of some of the background which comprised this: that the police had obtained the diary, having seized it from Dr Kate McCann, and then there was an order by the Portuguese judge for the diary to be returned, but I think a copy by then had been taken?
But it was clear to you that the ultimate source -- the proximate source was the journalist, but the ultimate source was the Portuguese police.  That much was clear, wasn't it?

While the proximate source is brushed over, the ultimate source has been named over and over as fact.  A very serious allegation to make and something which is against the law in Portugal. Was Mr Jay so sure of his facts today when he questioned Mr Sanderson's thoughts on whether the McCanns put the diary out in some way themselves?  A very pertinent question which should be explored further.

The Portuguese speculation has in turn led to the usual suspect, Goncalo Amaral to be named, shamed and put in the line of fire by supporters of the McCanns.  Smeared yet again, and tied up with a pretty ribbon ready for the libel trial in February?  

[Unlike some, I don't find it easy to lie, neither would I write something which I deliberately knew to be untrue.  Thanks to an excessive amount of muppet froth directed at me, I've been alerted an error on my part and have removed the said error.  My mistake gov, it's a fair cop...  I would like to thank the said muppet for alerting me on this matter, although for speed of correction, it would have been helpful if a comment had been left instead of just whining with Kermit and co.  Thankfully, I never blogged under oath...]

Another claim from Muppetland is if Clarence Mitchell really did know about the diaries being printed, then the News of the World could have cut out the middleman and headed straight to Kate McCann for an original copy of the diary. The only problem with this theory is the price - the diary most certainly wouldn't have been available at the Portuguese snippet price of £20,000.  We have some seriously deluded muppets prancing about, tread carefully.  Side splitting stuff yet again, they really should go back to knitting.

Mr Jay asked...
The newspaper was very supportive of the McCanns, and you wouldn't adopt the stance that other national newspapers had taken by printing malicious stories which had no foundation and emanated largely from the Portuguese press. So that was your position.
Isn't that what the News of the World did, took old news from the Portuguese press and regurgitated it to the gullible British public?  The diary could be described as a British 'exclusive', but the NOTW were really just paying a cut price for old, already printed news.

A week after print and nipping at their ankles, there followed the swiftest of negotiations between the News of the World and Mr Thomson from Carter Ruck.  An apology was given and the McCanns' palms were oiled, with a substantial amount of dosh being paid into their private company, the Madeleline Fund.

All done and dusted within the week.  The way things are looking, the Team could well be commended for pulling a blinder on Murdoch... good play.

And the question remains... who lied under oath?


  1. @anonymous I couldn't agree more. I greatly admire you MMM for your excellent blogging .We can always trust what you write knowing that you have the integrity to correct a mistake should one occur.Respect to you.

  2. What is it you are having trouble understanding here Anna? Leveson has seen the transcript of the exchange with Mitchell, and he didnt think it was giving permission AT ALL. If the NoTW had proof that Mitchell had authorised it they would never have paid up and made an apology. Sanderson was USED, and completely mortified. He wrote a piece which exposed the sickening way the diary's contents had been twisted by the Portuguese press. They substituted large parts of her actual words without the author's permission or knowledge. They lied - you have all lied with your nonsense that the Mccanns wanted the diaries published - and the PJ either leaked or sold a diary WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED by the orders of their own judiciary. It's a disgrace, that's what it is, and you hate the truth coming out. Leveson has made mincemeat of the whole scheming, butt-covering pile of them. And your desperation is hanging heavy in the air. BTW, if you wonder how I know your name, that FB page where you told Frances/Blondie about the 'revision' is not private.


    I guess 'ambiguous' means just that, and why after reading, Mr Jay wondered why Mr Myler had even bothered to apologise to the McCanns 'at all'?...

    Deluded muppet - you have not failed to surprise with the above frothing monologue and dare to post my name under your own 'anonymous'. What a snivelling coward, go back to your hole.

  4. my take on this is that mitchell gave his consent to print that poor excuse of a diary with the mccanns blessings,then wam bam it printed and poor kate didnt know anything about it,pull the other one kate,gerry and mitchel, you all knew this was going to be printed. this was all done for £££££££££

  5. @anonymous 3. Of course Kate wanted the diary published it already had been in Portugal and she didn't bat an eyelid but she wanted lots of money for it if it was published in English and that's why she wrote her bewk which she says is based on the diary.A disgusting book I might add written for her children .With sick awful descriptions which would be more fitting if a paedophile had been the author and this was for her childrens eyes .
    Edmondson and Mitchell need calling to the inquiry then maybe we will get the whole truth unless of course Edmondson also has a gun to his head.

  6. Perhaps the diary was destroyed as ordered by their own judiciary. In which case we all know who had the original? Here's hoping that the AG doesn't take the British 'facts' lying down, like the rest of the inquiry.

  7. Unless the name of the Portuguese journalist is revealed I shall continue to believe the diary used was not a copy but the original held by Kate.

  8. Well of course there are two possible sources - the Portuguese police & Kate McCann. From Dan Sanderson himself - the NOTW sent the paper's most junior reporter out to obtain and MAKE A DEAL for the diary! Totally bizarre. Especially if it was such a big front page scoop that we're meant to believe it was. As if a big company like NI would give that kind of responsibility up to their MOST JUNIOR REPORTER? And dont forget, he had no idea at all about the provenance of the diary until he contradicted himself. He was just told to get the diary from wherever.

  9. Very interesting blog, I enjoyed reading it, thank you.
    My thoughts
    1) Kate could have secretly known the diary was going to be printed but feigned knowledge after the event - specifically aiming for £££'s in compensation. She clearly didn't want any heads to be rolled so what else was there in it for her?
    2) Someone mentioned 2 sources - the cheap source from Portuguese police, the expensive source Kate. What if NI tried both sources & went with the cheapest? Kate would have already known their intention to publish - but seeing as they published the cheaper version and not hers, she wasn't in control (anyone who's studied Kate & Gerry will know they hate giving up control) meaning Kate could have said she didn't know (the Portuguese copy) was going to be printed (instead of hers). She'd have missed out on a serious amount of money by NI using the cheaper copy and wanted to redress that. Given Kate was ok with the diary being in the public domain in Portugal, I can't think of any other logical explanation.

    As with all things McCann, confusion plays a massive part in this story.

  10. Regarding the muppet froth, "you hate the truth coming out" that's a ridiculous statement, unless you're indicating the writer of this blog was gaining some kind of benefit or financial reward for the truth to remain hidden? If that isn't the case, why actually blog a question that actually asks for the truth?

    If the writer is on some kind of benefit to hide the truth, then who would be behind the bribe? Are you imparting the McCann's are actually bribing somebody to lie?

  11. I'm sure you will get an answer at a reasonable hour.Meanwhile enjoy the fact that the other muppets will be gloating that your comment remains unanswered through the night enabling them to think that you have stumped the blogger.
    The Mccann's are proven liars so nothing they do would surprise me and that includes bribing or blackmailing people.

  12. Oh yeah you don't answer a McCann troll within minutes they'll be shouting LIAR, HATER and probably blogging about it too! I don't hate the McCanns but I sure hate these PR twats who work for them and hope they all do time for their part in this massive FRAUD.

  13. Philomena McCann, Gerry's sister, said she advised her sister-in-law to keep the diary to show Madeleine how much they loved her.

    I thought a psychologist advised Kate to keep the diary or is Philomena the psychologist?

    Ms McCann questioned why the Portuguese authorities wanted the diary now, saying: "God knows what they are expecting to find."

    Madeleine perhaps?

  14. I wasn't aware until now that a Portuguese newspaper had published Kate Mccanns diary (months before the NOTW, apparently). This really is beyond belief given Kate McCann claims she was "Mentally raped" by NOTW but it seems she did not feel violated by the Portuguese publication? Has this fact been raised at the Leveson Inquiry? If not, then the inquiry is nothing more than a farce?
    From what I've seen so far, Leveson does not appear impartial, i.e. he has referred to Madeleine's disappearance as an 'abduction' though no evidence exists to support that and the case has not been been officially archived as such. But most disturbing of all is the way Leveson (and Jay) has attempted to put words in peoples mouths. Following Crone, Myler & Sandersons testimony, I fully expected Leveson to summon Ian Edmondson & Clarence Mitchell to give evidence but as far as I'm aware he has not. Sadly, I have no faith in this inquiry at all, there's just too much corruption involved in this case.

  15. Well at least we ,ve seen something SHE hasn,t done before,CRY,"real tears",very questionable IMO ,anyone out there know a mother so completly in control of her emotions when her little girl could be having unspeakable things being done to her? NO neithet do I!!!!but one just had to carry on with the things that really matter to you ,don,t they Kate when others were out there searching for Madeline ,what was your priority Kate ,well same as the usual,"just going out for a 3 mile run Gerry,make sure you pick the other two up from the creche on the way back from your tennis" !!!As for Leverson,we can see which side of the fence he,s sitting on,ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING,someone remind him there IS NO PROOF OF AN ABDUCTION PLEASE.

  16. Well at least we ,ve seen something SHE hasn,t done before,CRY,"real tears",very questionable IMO ,anyone out there know a mother so completly in control of her emotions when her little girl could be having unspeakable things being done to her? NO neithet do I!!!!but one just had to carry on with the things that really matter to you ,don,t they Kate when others were out there searching for Madeline ,what was your priority Kate ,well same as the usual,"just going out for a 3 mile run Gerry,make sure you pick the other two up from the creche on the way back from your tennis" !!!As for Leverson,we can see which side of the fence he,s sitting on,ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING,someone remind him there IS NO PROOF OF AN ABDUCTION PLEASE.

  17. How many diaries were there ? here it claims two and some notes..therefore how easy would it be to cherry pick what the McCanns wish to use and leak through their bunch of thug PR team in Portugal. The McCanns are pure evil and no words can express what I feel on how ANY parent can do this to the memory of their own child.

    From The PJ Files.


    2. Authorise the Public Ministry to validate the apprehension of the “two diaries” and a block note obtained during the search authorised by the dispatch contained in pages 2082 and 2083.

    Therefore a sealed envelope is presented which I proceed to open now.

    Inside the envelope is another sealed envelope containing 188 photocopies, 187 are handwritten and one typed.

    My examination of these photocopies indicates that this is a “diary” as most of the texts begin with “Fri 4th May”, “Day 30”, etc.

  18. Who has the mind to start writing a diary on the following day ? when they wish the world to believe their child is in the hands of a paedophile. This diary was clearly fabricated at a later date for nothing more than financial gain to be sold. Evil is as evil does.


Please refrain from bad language, insults and biblical references.