Madeleine – Freud v Exposure

Exposure Abused & Betrayed : A Life Sentence

This aired on ITV1 on 15 June 2016, and looked at the impact of paedophilia on victims in general, and considered the activities of Sir Clement Freud in particular. As Freud died in April 2009, he cannot be defamed under UK laws. His wife, Lady Freud, is still alive, therefore she is protected by UK legislation. And as in Portugal, a person is entitled to a good name for 50 years after death, I shall be using the word ‘allegedly’ frequently.

To clarify a minor point, the gist of the programme appeared in newspapers from early on 14 June 2016, making that the starting point for subsequent reporting about Freud. If the newspapers were informed earlier than that, but the story was embargoed until 14 June, then following events can have an even earlier start.

Exposure focussed on 4 cases in general, with only two of these relating to Freud. Other allegations about Freud have arisen subsequent to the programme. I would like to deal with all of those that I know of in another post, so for the moment, I want to look only at the two in Exposure.

Of these two, the one that got most air-time was Sylvia Woosley, as she was prepared to appear on TV, waiving anonymity. A summary of her story is that she met Freud in the south of France in 1948 when she was 10 and Freud was 24, and working as the manager of a posh hotel in Cannes. Freud befriended the family and befriended Sylvia, buying her clothes and gifts, and taking her on trips in the area. About a year later, on a bus trip, it is alleged that Freud stroked her inappropriately and French-kissed her, definitely not things to do with an 11-year old.

Freud returned to England and married his wife, normally referred to as Jill from her stage career. Sylvia’s family hit rocky times, and Sylvia was sent to England to live with the Freuds. According to Sylvia, the grooming intensified, and the inappropriateness of Freud’s actions escalated. Sylvia was in the Freud home for much of her teen years, but adopted tactics for staving Freud off, such as getting a friend Sonya Markham, to stay.

Then she left the Freud household and set up a flat with her friend. She did it without informing the Freuds where she was, but she had told the nanny she had an incidence of abuse, and that was relayed to wife Jill.

Somehow, Freud managed to track her to her workplace, and wrote her a letter to her complaining about her behaviour. The balloon had gone up. Sylvia got it in the ear first from her mother, then from Jill Freud. And Sylvia then told Jill she had lied about the allegation against Freud.

The second alleged victim wished to remain anonymous and Exposure used an actress instead. This victim surfaced after making critical comments about Freud’s obituary, and Exposure was able to track her down from this.

She met Freud when he came to their family flat in 1971. Note we have jumped forward 23 years from 1948, when Sylvia’s story started. The pattern in this victim’s story is similar. She was aged 11 when she met Freud, and Clement befriended the family, before allegedly starting to groom the child. It is alleged that Freud was making improper suggestions to her, (and more) by the time she was 14. In this case, the victim says she was brutally raped by Freud when she was 18.

It is impossible for me to conclude what was going on here as there are pieces that ring true for me, and pieces that don’t.

Towards the end, Exposure had a short piece from Nazir Afzal, a former chief prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Service. He opined that in the instance of Sylvia Woosley, there was enough evidence to bring a prosecution against Freud had he been alive, and that in Nazir’s tenure, he would have done so.

I have to say I am extremely dubious about this. Sometime around 1980, Sylvia confronted Freud. A short while later, he wrote letters to her, inviting her to a weekend in Cambridge. She accepted, and there, by her own admission, had consensual sex with Freud.

In 1987, Sylvia visited Jill to state that she had not lied. It appears Sylvia was down on her luck, and Jill gave her £100 to help. Later, she contacted Clement Freud, and he added a further £500.

Make of these actions what you will. I am simply pointing out that in any prosecution of Freud, Sylvia Woosley would have been facing trial by ordeal.

Now, the bottom line in Exposure is that it did not have a single mention of Madeleine McCann, of Luz, or anything implicit or explicit that tied Freud to either, so how did this particular hare get started running? The clue may be the pre-release news coverage of ‘Freud-is-a-paedophile’. The trick from that point was making the leap to Luz and to Madeleine.

In the meantime, other people and other stories have emerged re the activities of Sir Clement Freud.


10 thoughts on “Madeleine – Freud v Exposure

  1. Same problem with comments, I’m afraid.
    How’s that Brexit going down over there?

    So, what happened to my comprehensive list of paedophiles who are linked to Luz/the Algarve/Portugal?

    On Luz alone, sure you’ve got your work cut out. Reading the story you recommended from the Sun, I thought the kiddy-fiddling DJ who used to work down the ol’ Pig and Paedo was the same nonce that was strumming a guitar at the expats… but no, it’s a different one… and it seems the music lover in Luz had the choice of two different hostelries in which to enjoy the musical stylings such talent over a beer.

    Your piece on the running route… very detailed and lengthy, just to conclude that Kate and Gerry probably didn’t jog along those streets passing the corpse of their beloved eldest daughter between them like a rugby ball… but might have managed it if they’d stashed her along the way. Really? Jesus wept.

    You could do a piece next on how they probably didn’t shoot her with a nuclear missile, UNLESS they managed to enrich some uranium down on the beach that day. Could be a lead.


    • Not sure which planet you are on at the moment, to be honest.

      My post on jogging makes it clear that any suggestions the McCanns used the plateau/cliffs as a hiding place that night is nonsense.

      • Hehe… did you not PROVE they’d set up a photo op in an exclusive, then explore the hypothesis that they’d gone on a jog to hide the child’s body, but found it improbable… UNLESS they’d binned her along the way and done it in two separate laps? Whose curiosity are you trying to satisfy, I wonder?

      • ‘Anyone suggesting the McCanns used this for body disposal or body concealment has to factor in the time required to carry a fairly heavy weight to either the plateau or to the cliff top. It is totally inconsistent with the timings of 3 May 2007, so some interim storage point has to be built in.’

        I’m not sure what planet you’re on, either.

  2. Whether you happen to like it or not, there is at least one theory in circulation that Madeleine’s body was moved more than once.

    And an obvious tale that Casa da Colina was a centre of paedophilia.

    I am simply tackling these points in a logical manner.

    • It’s not whether I approve or not, it’s whether there is any merit in postulating it. As you will know, there are countless insane theories floating about the forums where you get your info, but if you’re going thoroughly to investigate each of them or try to make them fit with reality simply because they exist, then, I’m afraid, logic will not be accompanying you in that endeavour.

      • Logic is really not your best friend in this case. Just because the trolls suggest a perverse theory, it does not follow that it is therefore de facto worthy of investigation.

        I know you’ve always sat firmly on the fence. I used to think it was because you wished to remain impartial and objective. Then I thought, and I still do, that you were seeking to court the trolls. Now, I’m starting to think you might actually have read enough of their nonsense to have started to believe it yourself.

        And originally it had occurred to me you wished to remain non-committed because this case to you is some kind of murder mystery thriller. Therefore you look at it dispassionately, because that’s the most fun for you. So, if I offer to prove logically that each and every conspiracy or accusation against the McCanns can be dispelled by applying the most basic logic, you’re miffed because that would make the case less of a lark. It would be like me spoiling the ending of your Agatha Christy.

        The thing is, though, you’re dealing with the murder of an innocent child and an unimaginable tragedy for her family. It’s not an episode of ‘Midsomer Murders’, it’s very real. And respectfully, I think you’d do well to keep that in mind.

        You don’t want to hear about it, but logic certainly is not your friend when postulating about any gruesome plot involving the McCanns doing something heinous. I could show you why in a few words, but I know that for whatever reason you wish to keep yourself in a position of what you wish to present as neutrality, whether it’s true neutrality or not.

        But, approaching the case as you are, and supposedly thinking it’s possible the McCanns are guilty of some conspiracy, I think for the sake of decency you’d have to have something major to back up the reason why you’re discussing the plausibility of the parents murdering their daughter and stashing her corpse while on a jog. Because if not, I really think that’s needlessly cruel and even tasteless, and I don’t suppose that’s how you intend this to come off.

        Plus the fact of the matter is you can only have zero reason which would justify you treating that as a serious possibility. Or, at least, if you have something concrete, or wish to critique somebody else’s theory, you’ve left out that person, their reasoning and any specifics which led them to that conclusion, at which point you could have discussed its plausibility. But you didn’t, and instead just threw that jog’n’stash story out there like it were a valid hypothesis. And it is not.

        Anyway, that’s my 2 cents’ worth. Suppose we’ll have to agree to differ. All the best.

  3. Logic is my best friend.

    I have no interest in courting trolls. To expand, I have no interest whatsoever in courting pro-McCanns or anti-McCanns. One will not get to the truth of what happened to Madeleine down either path.

    Please feel free to refute, by logic, any assertion made on this blog. I have pointed out in the post you are objecting to that the idea that the McCanns used the Freud route for concealment or body disposal is nonsense. If you wish to dispute that, then it would surprise me, but comments are always welcome.

    I do not accept that we are dealing with murder, nor have I ever said so.

    Whether I have true neutrality or not is both open to question and a matter of opinion. I have my opinion, and I am entitled to it. You have your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

    Repeat, I have not said murder. Stashing a body on the Freud route is one I have shown, logically, IMO, amounts to a perfect 0 out of 10.

    The jogging connection quite clearly appears in the Antonella Lazzeri article re Clement Freud, Casa da Colina, paedophilia, the Pig’s Head, the Plough and Paedo. And I see the Daily Star has welded Freud and Murat as regular acquaintances at the Pig’s Head, which is a crock of s***.

    There is a lot of stuff out and about at the moment depicting Luz as a centre of paedophilia, with the Pig’s Head coming under attack by implication.

    So guess where I’m heading later tonight. The Pig’s Head, which will be showing Portugal v Wales live. Now, I’m going out for three reasons. First, to converse with my current visitor to the area. Second, to assess what happens on a major game, relevant to the Madeleine McCann case. Third, to see who makes it to the final.

    Now if all I wanted to do was to see who makes it to the final, the easy route is to stay at home and watch it on my TV. But there are bigger fish to fry. It is time to converse with a friend. It is time to test a theorem or two.

    Logic is my best friend

    • Interesting answer. I disagree on a couple of points- namely, you didn’t refute said theory, you just amended it to make it what you would consider plausible, i.e. the McCanns probably didn’t jog up there to fling their daughter’s body into the sea… unless they took a break at some point, hiding the corpse of the child, which you describe only as ‘a fairly heavy weight’. To me that seems a tad insensitive.

      Second, whether you’ve said murder or not, or want to remain on the fence on that too, all logic would suggest that is the case, with the other options existing out at the further edge of the realm of probability.

      Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, as am I, as is anyone. Given. But, the difference between you and me is I tell you what my opinion is openly, whereas you prefer to be arcane; at least on your blog, anyway.

      Maybe over a pint down the ol’ Pig’s Head you’ll lay your cards on the table while chatting with your friend tonight.

      You say Luz will forever be tarred with the association with this crime. I don’t know. Time passes. People forget.

      I remember a young Cristiano making an appeal for information back in 2007. He’s now a footballing phenomenon at the other end of his career. I wonder does he remember? Do the Portuguese? Do they care? Selective memory? Traumatic amnesia? Or the comfort of blaming the McCanns and seeing the question vanish, along with the child. It was their fault. nothing to see here. All is well.

      But to call tonight’s match- Wales have been a far better team throughout the tournament, they’ve a better spirit and a better coach, with their own slightly more costly Real superstar and not a great deal of quality elsewhere. Portugal have bigger players throughout, but this team is far weaker than teams of the past 20 odd years. Pepe… Nani… if they’re the stars once you’ve counted Cristiano, you’re in trouble. And they’ve been playing less as a team, more as individuals trying to keep yerman happy- and when they’re not cutting the mustard, he’s the first to let them know. That’s very different from the Bale situation with Wales.

      In short, I’d certainly have had a punt on Wales tonight (as I did against Belgium, huzzah!) IF Ramsey were not suspended. They don’t have anyone who can fulfil that role. AND Portugal finally listened to me and started Sanches in the last game, who is an incredible talent. I think the Welsh will be overrun in the centre of the pitch for those two reasons. Therefore: PORTUGAL TO QUALIFY.

      See? That’s calling it. I’d ask you, but I’ve a feeling your prediction might be more vague- something along the lines of ‘I do not accept we’re dealing with a situation where a team will qualify’, or ‘I’ll tell you who will win; but first answer me these riddles three…’ 😛

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.