LEVESON - LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE KNEW PORTUGUESE POLICE LEAKS WERE UNTRUE

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/19/leveson-inquiry-twomey-murray-lawton-live

It's quite an interesting read, for once, in particular James Murray's comments, but this is the section of most relevance to us.

Speaking about the Daily Star, quote:

4.28pm: Lawton says he believes the Daily Star's coverage Madeleine McCann disappearance could have gone a different way if the Leicestershire police had briefed reporters off the record.

He remembers how the Portuguese police leaked to their journalists that "forensic test results positively showed that linked her to the hire car, that her parents didn't hire till three or four weeks after she had disappeared".

Those forensic test results became a bone of contention between the UK and Portuguese police. The Leicestershire police did not think the results had shown that but chose not to correct this.

"I don't understand why Leicestershire police on this occasion, even if it was unreportable, did not brief, 'this was not right, the leak was wrong'," he says.

4.32pm: Lawton appeals to Leveson not to recommend restricting police relations with the press.

"I am just looking at the climate we are in and the doors are shutting everywhere … if it's not endemic then you do have the old sledgehammer and nut scenario," he says.

4.40pm: Lawton has now finished giving evidence.
--------------------------------------

I can only assume Leicestershire Police had some misguided notion of sparing the PJ's blushes; if so, it was the wrong decision, and the McCanns would have been spared a mountain of grief if they had spoken out.

And perhaps the forkers now begin to appreciate why the UK media, and the UK police, KNOW - not think, KNOW - that the McCanns played no part in their daughter's disappearance.

There was no 'body fluid' in the car, no 'DNA match', nothing - and the UK police and media know it.

Those forensic test results became a bone of contention between the UK and Portuguese police

I'll bet they did, as they knew Team Gonc was telling a pack of lies.

Look what happened as a result of not correcting all that Gonc nonsense.

Oh well, Gonc will have to fork out a load of bucks as a result of that.

Yes, and let us not forget the stories Gonc made up about the UK police agreeing with him, Lily, in particular his ridiculous story about Stuart Prior.

I would think the UK police actually couldn't intervene, due to Portugal having primacy - can you imagine the shrieks about 'Lusophobia' if someone from the UK police had openly said, Gonc is talking bollocks, Madeleine McCann was never anywhere near the car'?

It's a pity no-one did come out and say that, though.

I'll say it's a shame, Bonny.

This news has totally blown Gonc and Bennett's *cough* facts, theories, opinions, whatever you want to call them, out of the water. They don't have a leg to stand on.

Hmm, I don't see how The Leicester Police could have correct this rubbish with The UK Press. It wasn't their Case, and it would have caused uproar. The Press alone were to blame for the rubbish they printed.
But then I don't understand why The British Government took so long to order a Review when they must have known that the Case had been so badly investigated. They should have done something the minute the Case was shelved nearly three years previously. Three years for leads to go even more cold.

Remember Sir Alec Jeffreys tried?

By Caroline Gammell

7:19AM BST 13 Sep 2007


The world's leading expert in DNA cast doubt on a key facet of the alleged forensic evidence against Kate and Gerry McCann last night as he offered to act as an expert witness for the couple

Sir Alec Jeffreys, who invented DNA fingerprinting, said a match did not necessarily demonstrate a person's guilt or innocence.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562992/Madeleine-McCann-parents-new-DNA-hope.html

Look at his witness statement:

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Jeremy-Lawton.pdf


54. Referring to answer to question 15, it is surely of significance that the cases in
which individual police forces have chosen not to engage with the press have
resulted in some of the most vociferous complaints about coverage. Had
Leicestershire Police chosen to give off-the-record guidance to the press
about the state of the Madeleine McCann investigation then coverage may
have been markedly different. Instead Leicestershire greeted every query
with, "It is a Portuguese police investigation. You need to contact the
Portuguese police", in full knowledge - as you have previously heard in the
inquiry - of the fact the Portuguese police refused to comment officially on
any aspect of the case due to that country’s official secrecy laws.

More:

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-19-March-20121.txt

15 MS BOON: I would just like to return to your comments at

16 paragraph 18 about the police-media operations. We've

17 dealt with the Jo Yeates murder inquiry. Why you are

18 critical of Leicestershire police?

19 A. Saying I'm critical of Leicestershire police -- I just

20 believe that accuracy is only achieved -- or there's

21 a greater chance of achieving accuracy by dialogue.

22 I can't understand how somebody refusing to have any

23 dialogue with you can possibly improve accuracy, and you

24 need to have trust for that, I appreciate that, but for

25 me you do need an open line of communication.


84






1 Leicestershire police in that case -- admittedly, it

2 was a Portuguese police inquiry, it was a very unusual

3 situation, but I just felt, particularly in one specific
4 case, Leicestershire police could have given more

5 guidance that may have changed the way the case was

6 being reported at the contentious time, as we've heard

7 earlier in the Inquiry.

8 Did you want me to elaborate or are you happy?

9 LORD JUSTICE LEVESON: Please do.

10 A. Yeah. It was about -- I'm flying blind because I don't

11 know fully what Leicestershire did or did not know, but

12 they were the UK arm of the Portuguese investigation,

13 and it relates to the forensic test results, which

14 became the key aspect. Portuguese police leaked in

15 briefings in Portugal to their journalists that the

16 forensic test results positively showed that Madeleine

17 had been in or linked her to the hire car that her

18 parents didn't hire until three or four weeks after

19 she'd disappeared, and that story became a -- created

20 a sea change, without overusing that word, in the way

21 the story has been looked at.


22 Those forensic test results became a bone of

23 contention between the UK and the Portuguese police.

24 I was present when a Portuguese team of forensic experts

25 and detectives arrived in Leicester to discuss these


85






1 results. Of course, they'd already leaked a version of

2 the results. Leicestershire police presumably knew --

3 although it turns out obviously that those test results

4 did not prove that and that the Portuguese police had

5 somehow misinterpreted these results. I just felt that

6 had this been -- that Leicestershire police could have

7 briefed, off the record, even unreportable, that the

8 Portuguese police had misinterpreted those DNA results.

9 MS BOON: Are the Leicestershire police not in 10 a particularly difficult position there? Is it for them

11 to divulge the results of forensic tests carried out by

12 police from other jurisdiction, whether on or off the

13 record? Is it right for them to do that?

14 A. No, it isn't. It absolutely is not. The only issue is,

15 taking it to another crime, in my experience, if a fact

16 has emerged during the course of an ongoing

17 investigation and that fact is actually incorrect but

18 it's sneaked into the media and become more widely

19 reported and then steamrolled as if to become fact, the

20 police have clamped down on that immediately, largely

21 for their own reasons, operational reasons. It's a huge

22 hazard to a police inquiry to have an erroneous fact

23 about an investigation out in the public domain.

24 Because all of a sudden, when you're relying on public

25 appeals, people are being swayed by something that is 86






1 completely wrong.

2 So looking at that many example -- and that's

3 happened on several educations. I don't understand why

4 Leicestershire police, on this occasion, didn't -- even

5 if it was unreportable -- give the guidance that this is

6 not right, this is not how we've interpreted those test

7 results, the leak is wrong. The leak was very specific.

8 I've been told by my colleagues in the Portuguese media

9 that the leaks weren't a case of spurious gossip.

10 Portuguese reporters were shown extracts of police

11 files, hence the detail in some the leaks, which of

12 course subsequently it's turned out to be in the police

13 files. 14 So it isn't a case of spurious gossip. That went

15 out there. It was wrong, or it was misinterpreted,

16 entirely innocently, presumably by the Portuguese

17 police, trying their best to solve a difficult case.

18 Leicestershire are in a difficult position, as you've

19 described, because they're a force in a different

20 country handling -- it isn't their jurisdiction, but

21 when you realise, and you can see the steamrolling

22 effect that that fact is having, particularly on the

23 McCanns, Gerry and Kate, I just wondered why

24 Leicestershire police chose not to correct. Even if it

25 was completely unreportable -- it didn't even have to be 87






1 reported. It could have just been a discreet guidance:

2 "This is not as it is", and I think you would have

3 noticed a distinct change in the coverage of the case.

4 Q. You would have corrected that in your paper, would you?

5 A. We would have agreed -- we could have agreed a mechanism

6 with the police whereby we would put the situation

7 right, yes. We only wanted to know what happened with

8 Madeleine, and so that would be something that -- we

9 would want to be carrying accurate information. That's

10 the whole point. So if we are carrying something that

11 is misinterpreted, that's maybe leading people in the

12 wrong way -- I just felt the police could have done

13 something. I don't want to be overly critical, but I'm

14 just looking at ways forward in future cases and how

15 things could happen, and if you have that open dialogue, 16 if you have that trust, that is the kind of way you can

17 work to bring -- to remove erroneous material.

18 Q. Do you have any idea why Leicestershire -- if it is

19 a question of trust -- might not have felt they could

20 trust the media?

21 A. I've no idea. I don't know why. Every time you rang

22 Leicestershire police on that inquiry -- and it was

23 a lot, from every media organisation -- you were told:

24 "It's a Portuguese police inquiry. You'll have to

25 contact the Portuguese police." And of course, they 88






1 were fully aware that the Portuguese police had judicial

2 secrecy laws and they wouldn't talk about the case.

3 You've addressed all this elsewhere in the Inquiry. But

4 I don't know.

5 Q. Thank you. The last area I want to ask you about is the

6 future, where we go from here

It was wrong, or it was misinterpreted,

16 entirely innocently, presumably by the Portuguese

17 police, trying their best to solve a difficult case.

Personally, I don't believe it was done 'entirely innocently' by Gonc and co - if it had been innocent, they would not be spouting the same falsehood to this day.

But I don't see Gonc's Fridge Theory lasting long in court.

bb1 wrote:It was wrong, or it was misinterpreted,

16 entirely innocently, presumably by the Portuguese

17 police, trying their best to solve a difficult case.

Personally, I don't believe it was done 'entirely innocently' by Gonc and co - if it had been innocent, they would not be spouting the same falsehood to this day.

But I don't see Gonc's Fridge Theory lasting long in court.

Now we know why Morais is in such a tizzy. Her beloved Armadildo is going to be shown for the lying bastaard he is.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/now-i-understand-why-hate-mccann-crew.html

Precisely, Tony.

It's all over for him. If he persists in defending the case, all Ms Duarte has to do is ask him if he was told by both the forensic people and the UK police that he was plain and simply wrong about the DNA.

Doubtless he will try to bluster and lie his way out of it, but in the real world, it's over for him.

So The PJ misinterpreted The Forensics, did they? Don't they have any Forensic Experts they could have asked?
These were Detectives of many years standing, so they hadn't come across DNA before? Just how thick were they?

No, It wasn't an innocent mistake. It was done quite deliberately to falsely implicate The McCanns.

And as for The UK Press, I am sick of their whinging. Look what they did Mr. Jeffries in The Joana Yates Case.

So The PJ misinterpreted The Forensics, did they? Don't they have any Forensic Experts they could have asked?
That statement doesn't wash for me either Sabot.
However, what does annoy me more than Gonc's lies, is the Portuguese Judiciary's forensic scientists, they, did nothing to correct Amaral's lies. Which makes them as bad as him.

This should have been stopped long ago, IMO - it should never, ever have been allowed to stand until the civil courts did something about it.

bb1 wrote:This should have been stopped long ago, IMO - it should never, ever have been allowed to stand until the civil courts did something about it.

Why did they lie, Bonny?
A little girl is out there somewhere and; the ones who should have been helping her, had metaphorically killed her off with their lies. What harm did she ever do to them?

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:This should have been stopped long ago, IMO - it should never, ever have been allowed to stand until the civil courts did something about it.

Why did they lie, Bonny?
A little girl is out there somewhere and; the ones who should have been helping her, had metaphorically killed her off with their lies. What harm did she ever do to them?

WHY indeed Tony?

There has got to be a link to these lies and Madeleines abduction. no matter how you look at it.
These f*****g need investigating and soon

There has to be a reason why a clique of people persistently and deliberately LIE about the disappearance of a missing child, with no other purpose than to hurt that child and her family.

I think it's time Portugal launched one or two public enquiries of her own; the stench of corruption coming from Portimao seems to be getting stronger.....

Portuguese police leaked in

briefings in Portugal to their journalists

So much for the secrecy of justice. No sign of Morais commenting on this?

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/what-did-this-child-do-that-was-so.html

Disgusting sub-humans, it is time the law dealt with them and their sick hatred.

crazytony wrote:

bb1 wrote:This should have been stopped long ago, IMO - it should never, ever have been allowed to stand until the civil courts did something about it.

Why did they lie, Bonny?
A little girl is out there somewhere and; the ones who should have been helping her, had metaphorically killed her off with their lies. What harm did she ever do to them?

I hope they can live with themselves. I also hope that sooner or later their consciences start playing weird tricks.......

A reminder of just how early on it was known that Team Gonc was telling a pack of lies about non-existent 'DNA matches':

http://regretsandramblings.com/2012/03/21/those-forensic-results-leveson-inquiry/

and this:



If Reis was the person he pretends to be, he would have made that public, not tried to keep it hidden.

If Martin Brunt was the person he pretends to be, he would have retracted and corrected his early statements - Brunt has done appalling damage to Madeleine and her family for spouting crap about 'bags' and 'DNA matches' - and not once has he had the backbone to set the record straight.

And he has the cheek to speak about credibility.


ETA: He is no better than Duarte!

To me, Reis is actually worse, Tony, because he pretends to be high-minded.

As for Brunt - he is responsible for more forum myths and pitchforking than just about any other individual, and not once has he set the record straight.

Brunt has an audience of millions, remember, and is generally regarded as truthful - clearly, he shouldn't be. He has let falsehoods stand for years = he is no more to be trusted than Levy.

bb1 wrote:To me, Reis is actually worse, Tony, because he pretends to be high-minded.

As for Brunt - he is responsible for more forum myths and pitchforking than just about any other individual, and not once has he set the record straight.

Brunt has an audience of millions, remember, and is generally regarded as truthful - clearly, he shouldn't be. He has let falsehoods stand for years = he is no more to be trusted than Levy.

Brunt, really is a nobody here, Bonny.