Madeleine – Freud – Why the McCanns?

What is is that Sir Clement Freud saw in the Madeleine McCann case that made him invite the McCanns to his holiday rental villa not once, but twice, in 2007?

The starting off point is where these visits were reported. As far as I know these visits were never reported other than in Kate’s book “Madeleine”. There was nothing reported in the media at the time. It would appear that Freud did not blab about these visits. There is ‘nothing’ in the PJ Files. And Gerry McCann’s blog of the time is reputed to be absent of any mention of meeting Freud in Casa da Colina.

So the first question that has to be asked is simple. Other than Kate McCann’s book, is there any evidence of these visits?

Without even digging into the case, the answer has to go heavily in favour of a yes. To write the relevant parts of her book, Kate had to know that Sir Clement was a visitor to Luz, and that he was in Luz on the dates she mentioned. Plus she would have needed to know about the people owning the villa from 2002, Philip and Andrew Wright. Otherwise her statements would have been shredded by now, which they haven’t.

The next port of call has to be the PJ Files. There is no reason for me to think that the notes supposedly written by Sir Clement Freud would have found their way into the files, but phone communications to and from the Tapas 9 were being monitored and analysed, so it is reasonable to make a first assumption that something should surface here.

The bit you need is the Luz phone records, and the particular set is the Vodafone records, which are detailed at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PHONE_LISTINGS.htm These are the records for the 3 Vodafone numbers known about by the PJ, and Gerry McCann was on Vodafone.

I have not hacked through all of these records, but there were 5 calls from Gerry’s mobile to the number of Casa da Colina land-line. Gerry’s mobile was 7786986188. The land-line for Casa da Colina was 282789879, under the name of Philip Wright.

The first 3 calls are 3 July 2007 at 21:19, lasting 3:31; 4 July 2007 at 10:01 lasting 1:07; 4 July 2007 at 12:46 lasting 1min 55secs. These appear to fit well with an invitation by Freud to visit him for a meal at Casa da Colina for a meal, when 5 adults and the twins are stated as having participated.

The last two are 2 Sep 2007 at 15:42, lasting 1:45; 3 Sep 2007 at 16:51, lasting just 59 seconds. These are a relatively poor match for a visit that is supposed to have occurred on the day both Kate and Gerry were made arguidos – 7 Sep 2007.

According to Vodafone, these telephone records were sent to the PJ on 14 Dec 2007. This was months after Kate and Gerry McCann had been made arguidos, and they had long since departed Portugal for the UK.

There was also no reason to suspect at the time that Casa da Colina or Sir Clement Freud were involved in anything. The first connection to Sir Clement appeared in Kate’s book Madeleine around the 4th anniversary in 2011, roughly 2 years after Freud died, and that does not appear to have been recognised as potentially significant until Vicky Haynes read the book some 2 years later, or about 4 years after Sir Clement Freud passed away.

So it has all been very late in the day, though it appears Vicky Haynes raised her concerns with Operation Grange, and the UK police have checked out what was going on at the relevant dates with the current owners of Casa da Colina. There is nothing on the horizon that seems suspect, at least as far as the media are concerned at this moment.

So what was Freud up to in inviting the McCanns twice to his holiday home?

Option 1. He was simply being benign. It was nothing more than simply extending a hand to a couple in trouble. This may be correct, but Freud was getting more reclusive with age, and 5 strangers plus the twins seems a bit of a leap.

Option 2. He was trying to find out what was going on in the case. He did seem to be interested in this aspect, but was that in any way unusual in Luz in 2007?

Option 3. It was simply a frisson of excitement. Even at his age, he was still plugged into the celebrities, whether that was horse-racing, popular game shows like Just A Minute, or one of the biggest circuses in history, the McCanns in Luz.

Option 3 sounds the most likely to me, but there is a major problem. Why didn’t this come out in Freud’s lifetime? Why didn’t Freud or the McCanns relate this while Freud was alive? I have not scrutinised what has been kept of Gerry McCann’s blog, but surely these two visits were worthy of a comment or two? It is claimed that Gerry’s blog had nothing.

Option 4. Paedophiles. Since Sir Clement Freud had sold Casa da Colina in 2002, anyone trying the paedophile idea has to stretch it to the ridiculous. This would require that Casa da Colina, under present ownership, was implicated in paedophile activities in 2007 at a time that Sir Clement Freud was in the UK. For me, that one goes straight into the rubbish bin.

The alternative version of option 4 is that Sir Clement Freud was plugged into some paedophile ring in Luz, either in 2007 or much earlier. To date, I have seen zero to support this.

Therefore, my choice is option 3, that Freud got a bit of an insider view, and a vicarious thrill. He seemed to be a person who thought that normal social conventions did not apply to him. But of course I cannot prove this, and you are free to make up your own mind.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Madeleine – Freud – Why the McCanns?

  1. HYPOTHETICALLY, the main implication you’ve placed as a mention under 4 (b) subsection 2… now, if there is any evidence to suggest that was the case, I do not have it. This is purely hypothetical.

    I think you’ve been reading stuff I haven’t seen. You’re focussing on the house, whereas I was more interested in the knighted paedophile. Unless there is evidence to suggest the house were used for what you mention, or anything to implicate the then owners, I’d leave that. And I haven’t seen anything along those lines at all. If you’ve anything to suggest otherwise, please elaborate.

    The most gruesome hypothesis is that Freud added his name to the extensive list of Luz sex offenders and paedophiles not on a whim or by massive coincidence, but due to an organised network. Sure, did he not share an office with Sir Cyril Smith, a great friend and colleague? And was he not pals with countless other disgraced perverts… you think it’s a stretch that people like that get on together, protect each other, organise themselves?

    And again, please note, you don’t have to be a paedophile to be knighted by the Queen… but it certainly seems to help.

    Sure, the people eulogising Freud reads like an A-Z of the sordid and depraved.

    Anyhow, I’m suggesting these people communicate and organise themselves… in his day in person or by phone or letter, these days by the internet.

    Now, what we know about Freud is limited. But, let’s just postulate that his choice of Luz were not by chance. Let’s hypothesise that he chose it because people who shared his interests had recommended it (Luz or the Algarve). What then?

    Could he have been directly or indirectly involved in a child snatched to order, in short? And then have sought an inside track on the case, not for mere curiosity, but out of self interest? Or if he were not directly involved, for the interest of his cohorts?

    The worst case scenario was always an ordered abduction by a paedophile gang- and the press ran with that to place that order in Belgium or Germany or wherever. But as we’ve discussed before, there are far softer targets for such a crime in far poorer countries where the disappearance of a little blond girl would not cause an international press storm, compared to making a British child disappear. In the case that the worst case scenario is true, is it not most likely that said gang would be operating quite close to the scene of the abduction? Logically, I would suggest that is so.

    And there are plenty of previous incidents in the UK and in Portugal to make that horrible idea not all that far fetched at all, sadly enough. Those things happened, and we know about them. The lid is kind of half off that can of worms, but half on – suppressed in both countries, but, were it to be taken off completely. the truth would shake the democracies in both states to their cores.

    Freud is, in that sense, a very interesting name to pop up in the case, because he is so very establishment… and if you know what the establishment got up to, and had organised for them, then suddenly all of these hypotheticals become potentially important. What do you think?

  2. For Luz in general and Freud in Luz in particular to be a connection in the Madeleine case, we would need answers to a number of questions, and those answers are missing at the moment.

    Why did Freud pick Luz, rather than a resort with a few more stars? I don’t know for sure. His estate was valued at £800,000 when he died, which for someone in his bracket is not a lot, so perhaps the relative cheapness of Luz was a factor.

    Did Freud and Smith get into nefarious activities together? The only connection I have seen is that they shared an office. I am not familiar with Smith or his story, but in scrutinising Freud I have seen nothing to suggest they socialised to any degree.

    Is Luz, the Plough or the Pig’s Head some hotbed of paedophile activity? To date, the only place I have seen this notion is in the imagination of some sensationalist reporting. Obviously, I can’t check the OG claims without further information, but they also seem not to involve a paedo ring, the Plough or the Pig’s Head.

    As to establishment, I cannot remember whether I wrote up the PT authorities assessment of paedophilia in PT some years before 2007, but that does hint at the involvement of the type of people who think they have less reason to fear the law than most of us.

    • Again, I’m not too interested in the building or establishment, lest there be cause to suspect… so pass on the Villa Paedophilia, and on the Pig and Fiddle or the Plough and Pederast. The suspicion surrounds the individuals, rather than the edifices, as far as I can see.

      I’m certain if you scratch the surface there, there is plenty to uncover. Now, whether or not it is linked to this case I cannot say. But enough of those ‘types’ showing up for no apparent reason makes you wonder, surely.

      You know that I am certain Madeleine was snatched. That’s my opinion on the case- whether you agree or not, it doesn’t matter. She could have been snatched by someone seeking to raise a child, but that’s a long shot. She most likely was snatched with the motive of paedophilia. So, that leaves a lone predatory paedophile or an organised gang, acting for themselves or others.

      Now, a case like that will throw up countless false leads, invented sightings, incorrect memories, imaginings of various dodgy characters that were likely just locals or holiday makers, for sure.

      But, good grief, the sheer number of people acting weirdly around that flat, seemingly on surveillance, really does make it look like you’re not dealing with a lone predatory paedophile.

      Just off the top of my head, you had the 1 or 2 blond men scoping the joint from outside or the empty flat, fat-faced man in the stairwell, the ugly bastard scoping, the Moroccan-ish creep, Creepyman, Tannerman (excluded), Smithman, Polish kiddy photographer man, 27 people running various scams, and a Rastafarian for good measure, plus Murat and Sergey and a crowd of gypsies and the rest… it’s too many for them all to be involved… but also too many surely for each and every one to have been a false lead. Save Smithy, I’m really interested in odd people seen watching G5A.

      I’m not certain, as it could still be a lone offender, but if pushed, I’d be throwing my lot in with the countless detectives who concluded the family was stalked. That means most likely you’re dealing with more than one person being responsible for the crime. And that leads to the whole raft of questions regarding just how organised they were, and for whom they were acting- themselves, or a 3rd party.

  3. Hey, do you think you could please do that piece on known paedophiles who have been legitimately linked with the Algarve or Luz since 2007 next? I’d be very interested to see what you put together.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s