The 48 questions that remained unanswered

Source: Correio da Manhã, 03.08.2008, paper edition. Translation by Astro

Investigation – What the PJ inspectors wanted to know

When she became an arguida, Kate stopped talking to the inspectors

September 7, 2007. Kate McCann entered the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão in the morning and the questioning extended into the evening. She was heard as a witness, but the tension in the air was evident. For the first time, people were concentrated at the PJ building’s door and murmured words of mistrust regarding the couple.

On that day, CM had reported that the dogs had detected cadaver odour on Maddie’s mother’s clothes. A piece of evidence that the authorities intended to use as a trump, during a questioning that only changed course on the next day, after the PJ failed to see their doubts clarified.

Kate began by replying all the questions, but when she was made an arguida, she stopped talking. She went silent, in the company of her lawyer, and accepted all the insinuations in a provocative manner. Less than 48 hours later, Kate and Gerry travel to England with the twins, leaving the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter, who meanwhile had become four, behind.

They later guaranteed that they would return if necessary – which they never did, although they were never formally requested to return – and they are no longer arguidos for the suspected involvement in concealing the child’s body. Today, CM reveals the 48 questions that Kate did not want to answer during the interrogation and which reflect the investigators’ doubts. More than a year after Maddie disappeared, many of these questions remain unanswered.

Jeers for the McCann couple

The day that Kate and Gerry went to the PJ’s offices in Portimão marked a turnaround in the relationship between the local people and the couple: the curious bystanders that spent the day on the street jeered at Maddie’s mother and father, mainly criticizing the “absence of visible suffering” from Kate. The foreign press also attended in great numbers.

The Judiciária’s 48 questions that Kate did not answer

  1. On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when you entered the apartment, what did you see, what did you do, where did you search, what did you handle?
  2. Did you search in the couple’s bedroom’s closet? (said she would not reply)
  3. (Two photographs of her bedroom’s closet are exhibited) Can you describe its contents?
  4. Why are the curtains in front of the side window, behind the sofa (photograph is exhibited) ruffled? Did someone pass behind that sofa?
  5. How long did the search that you made in the apartment after detecting the disappearance of your daughter Madeleine take?
  6. Why did you say straight away that Madeleine had been abducted?
  7. Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins alone at home while you went to the Tapas to raise the alarm? Even because the supposed abductor could still be inside the apartment.
  8. Why didn’t you ask the twins at that moment what had happened to their sister, or why didn’t you ask them at a later point in time?
  9. When you raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly did you say and what were the words?
  10. What happened after you raised the alarm at the Tapas?
  11. Why did you do to warn your friends instead of calling out from the balcony?
  12. Who contacted the authorities?
  13. Who participated in the searches?
  14. Did anyone outside of the group learn about Maddie’s disappearance during the following minutes?
  15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
  16. What does the expression “we let her down” mean?
  17. Did Jane mention to you that she had see a man with a child that night?
  18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was called?
  19. During the searches, and already with the police present, in what locations was Maddie searched for, how and in what manner?
  20. Why didn’t the twins wake up during that search, or when they went to the upper floor?
  21. Who did you call after the facts?
  22. Did you call SKY News?
  23. Did you know about the danger of calling the media, because that could influence the abductor?
  24. Did you request the presence of a priest?
  25. How was Madeleine’s face publicized, with a photograph, or other media?
  26. Is it true that during the search you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
  27. How did you behave that evening?
  28. Did you manage to sleep?
  29. Before the trip to Portugal, did you comment on a bad feeling or a bad premonition?
  30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour?
  31. Did Maddie suffer of any disease or did she take any kind of medication?
  32. What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings?
  33. What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings, her friends and her colleagues at school?
  34. Concerning your professional life, in how many and in which hospitals have you worked?
  35. What is your medical specialty?
  36. Did you work by shifts, in emergency rooms or in other departments?
  37. Did you work on a daily basis?
  38. Did you stop working at a certain point in time? Why?
  39. Do your twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, are they unruly and does that upset you?
  40. Is it true that at certain times you were desperate over your children’s attitude and that left you were upset?
  41. Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative?
  42. In England, did you give your children medication? What type of medication?
  43. Within the process, you were shown films of cynotechnical inspection of forensic character, where the dogs can be seen marking indications of human cadaver odour and equally human blood traces, and only of human origin, as well as all the comments that were made by the responsible expert. After the visualization, and after cadaver odour was signaled in your bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, you said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said?
  44. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood behind the sofa by the detection dog
  45. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of cadaver odour in the boot of the vehicle that you rented a month after the disappearance?
  46. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, concerning the marking of human blood in the boot of the vehicle?
  47. You said that you could not explain anything apart from what you had already said, upon being confronted with the result of the collection of Maddie’s DNA, which was analysed by a British lab, behind the sofa and inside the vehicle’s boot?
  48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in the disappearance of your daughter?

The question that she answered

Are you aware of the fact that by not answering these questions you may compromise the investigation, which is trying to find out what happened to your daughter? She said “yes, if the investigation thinks so.”

Process becomes public tomorrow

From tomorrow onwards, the entire investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine will be made available to the arguidos, to the witnesses, to the lawyers and also to the journalists, because it is a case of manifest public interest.

The process, which was archived on the 21st of July, will also be available to the general public, a situation that will allow for an authentic scrutiny of the work that was developed by the Polícia Judiciária. This decision, which came as a surprise due to the fact that the case involves a child, was only announced at this point in time, after the Portuguese lawyers for the McCann family, Carlos Pinto de Abreu and Rogério Alves, requested the Portimão Court for priority in the access to the process.

Last Wednesday, the Court had requested the interested parties that had already asked for the consultation of the process to leave a CD at the secretary’s office, given the fact that the process will be supplied in a digital format.

The archiving of the investigation into the little girl’s disappearance, which happened on the 3rd of May 2007, in the Algarve, precipitated the lifting of the judicial secrecy, which had been extended precisely until the month of August.

425 Responses to “The 48 questions that remained unanswered”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 » Show All

  1. 301
    G1 Says:

    Hi Rebecca. It’s good to have some debate about this. I’m not sure but it seems you’d prefer to consider the McCanns are likely to have been responsible for the death of their daughter, but not an intended death. Most people know exactly what you mean, about the fishiness, of course.

    I don’t want to go on too much about my theory that an accident is the most unlikely eventuality. I’ve already put a lot of really serious points to respond to the accidental death theory. But to respond to one point you made, from my theory:

    Yes, it’s possible the McCanns would not have been thinking 100% straight if they discovered their daughter was killed in the appartment and thought themselves at least a bit to blame in negligent behaviour. It would upset any parent, even those not used to people suffering and being hurt and dying in every day life (as the McCanns were in their jobs – Kate had just come from cutting up a dead person for students in the UK before the holiday, for example).

    So, that’s a good possibility – they wouldn’t have been thinking 100% straight in this theory of an accidental death. Sure, that makes sense.

    So, what does that mean? If you think of a scale of 1 to 100 of straight thinking – if they were off straight thinking by 5%, or 10% or even 20% or a quarter or so, that’s one thing.

    Though, to go from the completely unintended accidental death of a loved daughter to disposing of the body and inventing the really serious, mad story that a child abductor took Madeleine is right up there at 100%, right at the limit of not thinking straight. The story they’d have to follow and lie about for the rest of their lives, decades, or not only lose their other two children and their jobs, but be imprisoned for decades.

    It’s the absolute limit of not thinking straight – 0% thinking straight for these professionals used to peoples’ mishaps, accidents, death in life. That’s a big part of what I’ve been trying to say – it’s really far from just not thinking 100% straight.

    If there had been an accident, the McCanns acted in furthest possible way ever from thinking straight, I think.

    It would be even far beyond most possible examples of stark, raving bonkers I could think of after an unfortunate accident by which their loved daughter died.

    And that’s not impossible – more or less the worst nervous breakdowns possible in both parents at the same time might possible explain it.

    But they managed so much control from the day after, unbroken.

    Sorry, if Chris thinks I’m “repetitive”, (I know I am, but it makes sense). But it’s the most logical answer to a new point made; and also beats copying the old questions everyone knows in terms of avoiding being repetitive.

  2. 302
    G1 Says:

    Sorry, mistake in last comment.

    In the third paragraph I meant:

    “It would upset any parent, even those USED to people suffering and being hurt and dying in every day life (as the McCanns were in their jobs – Kate had just come from cutting up a dead person for students in the UK before the holiday, for example).”

  3. 303
    Rebecca Says:

    I think the death of ones child could push someone to 100% of not thinking straight and for parents who were living the professional lives as doctors to be at fault? – it may be accidental or non- accidental but really a similar thing if she was sedated and managed to get up and hurt herself – most likely coming off the couch onto the concrete tiles by the window – they would know a biospy would show the level of sedative in her system. Or one parent has injured her which would also likely show on biopsy. Also with their careers they’d have a differing approach and outlook to handling bodies – even their own daughters. But most importantly the point I shall make is that this would certainly NOT be the first case of people disposing of bodies and concocting extreme cover ups and stories in a bid to explain things away. I realise you believe they’d of looked into the future with a crystal ball and seen how far things would go but perhaps they really thought it’d die into the background alot more than it has. And they could then go on living and raising the twins. I used to think she was alive – mainly because a girl very like her right down to the columba in the eye was brought into my clothing store in NZ in 2008/09 by two foreign woman but of course once I started reading about the case and watching the body language of the McCanns it became apparent it is highly unlikely it was Madeleine I saw. I have asked myself what I’d do in their position if they had a hand in her death – maybe to raise my remaining children I’d do the same. People may judge me for that but Ive heard Kate McCann interviewed she repeats she has to keep telling herself they are good parents. Also when she speaks Gerry often watches her intently with his mouth covered by his hand. I do this when one of my kids blurts out something embarrassing or that I wouldnt want others to know or if I worried about what they might say….. (ie please dont tell them Mums car broke down this morning and she was driving us to school in her jammies that kind of thing)… he is worried about Kate speaking in case she mucks up. If my child was genuinely taken Id have NO fear of what the other parent might say – and this is but one example Ive seen watching them.

  4. 304
    Rebecca Says:

    also…. as you say the extremes to which theyve gone – ie the marathon running, the never giving up – if you watch interviews around this you will find when Madeleine is brought up they get uncomfortable and Kate tries to switch focus to its being for ‘Missing People’ and for all parents who’ve had a child taken. I have to say if my daughter was missing for me it’d be all about her. Selfish some may say but thats how I think any and all parents would be given that they (supposedly) believe their daughter is alive. I would also like to add that fear has likely fueled many of their plans and actions – ie whats the best way to prove/cover ourselves? And Kate says theyre glad the police are doing all the work as it eases the burden etc for them. We may all be surprised yet and Madeleine may well turn up alive and well…. and that would certainly challenge any ideas we hold about the actions of parents of abducted children as it seems so far from what one would think….

  5. 305
    G1 Says:

    Just to take one point for now.

    “I think the death of ones child could push someone to 100% of not thinking straight and for parents who were living the professional lives as doctors to be at fault?”

    I see I made you consider something that seems to me a lot different – from originally suggesting they may not be 100% thinking straight, to considering 0% thinking straight (100% not thinking straight). Just making this clear.

    Maybe. While – it’s sensible to point out – it’s so rare it’s nearly unknown in the world, after a real accident, even if involving some parental negligence where harm was never intended. Occurrences like this would happen to people with no dubious history once in a very blue moon. Very close to all of the time, even the rare occurrences of this happening when there has been an actual accident (rather than child abuse), the parents nearly always have a considerable history of neglect / other.

    Again, when what you describe would occur, I think one would only be talking about the most serious nervous breakdown, there, though. That seems to me the only fathomable explanation where there was an unfortunate accident.

    You can guess, I can guess, that may have been what happened. But, looking in a wider sense for what amongst possibilities could be the answer, how do we square that with that the couple must have gone through mental health assessments?

    There would have been at least one, as mandatory. My guess is there were three or more. One arranged by the Portuguese authorities, by British social services, and probably also a psychological assessment and therapy session is likely to have been independently ordered by the risk assessment man sent by the Mark Warner company.

    I’m close to sure I remember reading in reasonably reliable sources that both Portuguese and British authorities carried out these professional assessments, separately – so two of them. I think I remember reading that the holiday company arranged something similar.

    So, perhaps they were really, really mentally ill, and in their severe illness managed to fool the professionals.

    One thing this suggestion doesn’t solve, indeed makes more questionable and bewildering is, why has this not been investigated, why was anything like this possibility dropped altogether, involving people in authority? In such strange ways. The evidence shows the British authorities interceded to kind of make sure the Portuguese authorities were unlikely to succeed with charges against the McCanns. After that, the British authorities used that the Portuguese were unable to make a convincing case in claiming the McCanns were officially “exonerated” of not only involvement in blame, but suspicion.

    People here, including myself less strongly, have questioned why the McCanns have been completely removed from official suspicion in a seemingly determined way.

    It’s just that I find this all very, very hard to connect to an accident.

    It’s a different point from the one I started with (which I finished – the serious nervous breakdown deduction but that mental health professionals did not spot any part of it.) But very relevant, I think.

    Finally, I want to go back to that I was suggesting the extreme rareness of the situation in your theory, Rebecca. But you were suggesting that that is not the case.

    “But most importantly the point I shall make is that this would certainly NOT be the first case of people disposing of bodies and concocting extreme cover ups and stories in a bid to explain things away.” (Rebecca).

    What do you mean? After a simple, unfortunate accident involving a couple too many over a day or the girl falling on her head? I can’t agree. Sure, it wouldn’t be the first time ever, but I don’t think it would be very far from there, for people not known to social services before then. In the cases when bodies were disposed of and lies made, nearly all of them where when the adults beat or starved the children to death.

    While I still say what you suggest is a possibility, Rebecca, I think it is a good idea to be aware of the rareness and the sudden, serious mental illness involved in it. It’s so far from what 99.999% of adults would do after an accident where they made a simple mistake not forseeing the danger.

    Maybe there was an accident and the McCanns did take this mad route, as part of nervous breakdowns. I think that means they’d still be stuck, deep in those breakdowns. Maybe that’s what we’re seeing. Is it known for nervous breakdowns to show in such drawn out ways of extreme control? I don’t know the answer to that, only specialists medics would.

  6. 306
    G1 Says:

    I wanted to end there (sorry), but I have to answer this point:

    “I realise you believe they’d of looked into the future with a crystal ball and seen how far things would go but perhaps they really thought it’d die into the background alot more than it has.” (Rebecca)

    Yes, exactly, Rebecca. There are only two possibilities if they invent a lie after an accident. It’s not possible for those two people not to be 100% aware of this fact.

    The two possibilities –

    1. They lie for life, because there is no abducted Madeleine to be found.
    2. They are caught, convicted and imprisoned, or deemed extremely mentally ill involving being held in asylums for a very, very long time.

    There is no way the McCanns could not have been aware of the two possibilities, and that there is nothing in the middle, and no other possibility.

    Don’t forget – if you think there is stuff which happened that you describe as “crystal ball” stuff – the McCanns themselves decided on nearly all of this. They easily could have slid away into quiet lives, especially after the Portuguese investigation closed. But they have been the ones making nearly all the events you say they could not have expected, Rebecca. The McCanns have been the ones behind keeping the media attention going, in the most part.

  7. 307
    G1 Says:

    Sorry – I’ve another mistake in typing.

    It’s not clear what I meant in the 3rd paragraph in the last comment, sorry it’s confusing.

    I meant – yes, exactly I believe they’d have looked into a crystal ball. Because, in the essentials of it all, the only two future possibilities from concocting an abduction story after an accident necessitate that they’d know their choice would never end. (Unless they were imprisoned.)

    And, again, beyond the essentials of making up a false story, the couple themselves were the ones who brought about nearly all of the crystal ball events. They didn’t have to do anything like that. It’s not that it all happened to them after the disappearance, they did it (nearly all of it).

  8. 308
    G1 Says:

    “I used to think she was alive – mainly because a girl very like her right down to the columba in the eye was brought into my clothing store in NZ in 2008/09 by two foreign woman” (Rebecca)

    Just to say, quickly, Rebecca, though I guess you already have contacted some authorities before, and maybe the current ones also – it certainly wouldn’t hurt to pass on what you can describe to Operation Grange. If you haven’t already. Even though it’s about something from some time ago, even if years ago. You can also copy the email, just in English, and forward it to the Portuguese investigation just opened.

    We don’t really know, so, why not?

    Child sex trafficking happens in fact much, much more than even most people who are aware of it going on would estimate. It often involves parents or guardians who are complicit, and, then, it also doesn’t – it involves child kidnapping.

    We don’t know what happened to Madeleine McCann, so, please, if you haven’t contacted these two authorities, even if you think this is really unlikely, it can’t hurt to make a simple contact.

    Emails, re. Madeleine McCann.

  9. 309
    Chris Says:

    Doctors prescribing drugs for own kith & kin.

    As I have said before my father was a doctor. He would never prescribe drugs for his family. We, I am one of four, were always sent or taken to our local GP or hospital (rugby is a dangerous game). When I was seriously ill, aged three, with scarlet fever I can remember being taken to an isolation hospital and not treated at home. I was not happy about it.

    From the GMC:-

    The GMC recommends that, as a general rule, you should avoid treating yourself, your family or persons with whom you have a close relationship. In their Good Practice guidelines, they specifically state that ‘Controlled drugs can present particular problems, occasionally resulting in a loss of objectivity leading to drug misuse and misconduct’. They go on to state that you should only consider prescribing a controlled drug if:

    There is no other person with a legal right to prescribe and

    Treatment is immediately necessary to save life, avoid serious health deterioration or alleviate uncontrollable pain

    You must record your actions and be able to justify them as well as record the circumstances that led to the situation.


    I always understood that such a practice was also illegal. Times may have changed slightly.

  10. 310
    G1 Says:

    Wise, Chris.

    I suspect most people feel exactly that way, and doctors would be aware of this and have G.P.s for their children.

    Just out of interest, it is known definitely what sedative drug or drugs were found in the apartment? Would it definitely have been a prescription drug? People mentioned Calpol – was it that, or similar, or different?

    I’m copying from an article which discusses both prescription drugs for children, and how common that use of them has become amongst parents, but also discusses over the counter sedating remedies:

    “the arrival of the dizzying range of over-the-counter options – Calpol, Calprofen, Nurofen, Medised, Medinol, Anbesol – is fairly recent. Nurofen for Children – number two to Calpol’s market leader – has been available only since 1998.”

    I’m interested to see what was stated about what drug was used. I don’t remember at the moment. If you know, Chris, or anyone, please comment.

    I was interested because it was not hidden, or taken by one of their friends, though it could have been. The parents of Madeleine also had it in full view for those coming to search the flat.

  11. 311
    G1 Says:

    This article mentions the potential of an accident happening during sedation of a child – describing “paradoxical rage reaction”. This is when a child wakes up “half out of it” and is confused and aggressive.

    I know this type of thing is exactly what most who favour the accident scenario – with the McCanns lying for life – think happened.

    Specks of unidentified human blood were found in the apartment, and in the car key in the boot of the rented car, rented after the girl was missing.

    One can say – where did the blood come from? Someone hurt themselves and there’s cadaver scent.

    One can say – (as I have been) but that could happen to any parent and child. And why the nonsense to hide it; it doesn’t make any sense; it’s a sign of sudden absolute, continuing, consistent, highly improbable, statistically highly unlikely, psychological profile unfitting madness.

    The opening of the article above, to me, identifies how an accidental death after NORMAL sedation could happen to any parent and child. It is very rare, but that does not itself change that it could happen to anyone, as accidents do happen.

    I suppose there’s no answer without more evidence but for looking at probabilities. What’s probable, very likely, very rare, very unlikely and the degrees of that.

    Is it UNLIKELY or VERY UNLIKELY that both cadaver scent and unidentified human blood specks found came from Kate McCann’s coat? Not really, no, and I think that’s very important.

    It’s not too unlikely – meaning it is a fully good, possible explanation. The cadaver dog, for example didn’t at first identify cadaver on the Cuddle Cat toy, though it examined it and tossed it away. Only when the toy had been placed at the cadaver scent in the cupboard did the dog identify cadaver on it.

    Kate’s coat can have had cadaver and blood. It is a reasonable explanation, especially with the rental car, rented after the disappearance, being identified with cadaver scent and blood. The “six corpses in six weeks” statement from Kate McCann would have to have been checked, and there’s no way that Kate wouldn’t have known that. Further, the article link above mentions from a doctor’s perspective that 6 corpses in 6 weeks for someone in a part time position that Kate was in would be really rare indeed. For Kate to make that up on the spot, when it could be checked, would have been insane.

    Is it UNLIKELY or VERY UNLIKELY also that the unidentified specks of human blood could have come from a nose bleed from Madeleine, or that she grazed her leg or arm slightly, unused to wearing shorts and short sleeves? It’s really not unlikely.

    Theories. Worth saying. Worth being objective. For all I know, Madeleine died in the apartment.

    Indeed I feel it is as strong a possibility as abduction. (But so also is child abuse in the apartment). But, as regular visitors here know, I tend to think that most things point away from an accident, very strongly. And there isn’t actually any evidence at all which could put an accident as more likely to the other possibilities.

    I’m definitely resting it, now. I’ve said a lot to put the typical accident suggestion in a much more critical light, which is only healthy, I feel. I may go and find some basic legal definitions for fault in such circumstances, though.

    Thanks for putting up with this deviation from the standard suggestions of accidental death.

    But, for something so serious (and this is that serious – it’s the subject of a site, not something someone started chatting about online rather than football or whatever) it’s worth thinking long and hard about, isn’t it?

  12. 312
    g1 Says:

    I’m back again!

    I’m confused, and I think have to withdraw something. I definitely read reports which said that a sedative was on display on a shelf or somewhere prominent early on, when the McCanns had still not moved out of the Ocean Club, nor moved from their things out.

    I suppose I may have read some unreliable, maybe salacious and false rumour making it papers. Although it was repeated in a few publications. I think this is my fault to rely on believing that so long ago, of the early, more dubious reports. (There were a lot of those.)

    I think now what is said is that no evidence of possession of any sedative was ever found on the McCanns, while the Portuguese police say they made a mistake in allowing the McCanns to clean up the holiday flat and move their possessions unchecked.

    Does anyone else remember early reports of someone being in – an interviewer or someone – and saying a sedative was on clear display? Any links?

    I guess I have to drop this as one of the early, wild reports which can’t be substantiated, perhaps based on gossip being called around to reporters. Perhaps not, but it seems so.

    (Sorry about mentioning that, then, in an earlier comment – number 310).

  13. 313
    Rebecca Says:

    OK – so this is what occurred in the Summer of 2008/09 (the timeframe could be hugely narrowed down as I have information that could be looked into to get it down to a month or much less). I had a secondhand childrens clothing store in NZ. Was working alone. A short woman wearing tight white clothing with lots of gold jewellery and with short dark hair comes in with a boy aged 8/10 and a girl aged 5/6 , short shorts and a tee on and very dry cropped shoulder length hair. Suntanned. She (woman) vaguely looks through a few things but appears to be not shopping. The little girl comes to the counter stands there and stares up at me (which she does for the entire time theyre in the shop). I see a mark/scar in her eye – I know of another girl with this so I ask her how it happened (making conversation I thought I could say I know another girl like you) her head turns sharply to the dark haired woman who calls out – she was born that way. I asked her her name she mouthed it at me. Not wanting the woman to hear. I asked again and she said it louder the woman said she always says that and no its not its….. (a name with a T sound. Like Caitlyn, Matty or Katie). A while later a tall thin blonde woman comes in. The two woman have a heated discussion in a foreign language. The short dark haired woman comes to the counter and asks for work in the shop – she has a strong accent. I ask where she is from she says they been living in Aussie I ask how long in NZ she says X weeks. I can tell you this woman is not australian and no aussie accent. She leaves her number about a job. (I laer speak to her on this number as she continues o ask about work)(there is a bit more than this ie discussing the children not being in school/the woman having no income etc). When they go to leave the girl doesnt want to go the woman is leaning hissing at her and pulling her the boy pulls her also – its quite awful and I recall thinking there is no way I will give her a job). A day or two later I see the dark haired woman with a man across the road from my shop. Two years (roundabout) later I see a picture of Madeleine in the news – there she is – the girl who was in my shop looking up at me with the mark in her eye. So I give all this info to the correct people. I do so again to Operation Grange, I do also to the Find Madeleine site and NOTHING ever happens about it so you see WHY??? I ask myself. Because maybe she is not alive. For surely this possible sighting is one to be followed up and given they could (authorities) maybe even obtain the phone number we talked on which was to an address/landline and from there then where…..?? It could be a direct trail growing colder by the minute since I provided it two years ago or more.

  14. 314
    Rebecca Says:

    Also you say complete madness/insanity to make up the abduction story – I am saying it happens – it wouldnt be a first – if others have/do then why should the McCanns be any different. Either Madeleine was in my store OR a very much lookalike. And if she is alive then I pray for her safe return to her family but its of course a possibility she was not taken in the 8 minute timeframe that existed for her to be taken and were not 13 of 15 markers of the blood her DNA? The more Ive read the more body language Ive seen the more Ive wondered?

  15. 315
    Rebecca Says:

    Fear drives people to keep up facades… so to say they could of slipped away into a quiet life… doesnt sit well with me. Liars will go to all extremes. Ive known a few and seen it before. And once hey became suspects (which they could not of known 100% would happen)then even more driven to be seen doing the right thing including media attention. If my child was missing I would want from the Police all the leads they are following and where those leads have led yet they say now they even ignore all possible sightings and do not get hopeful etc. that there have been 1000’s of possible sightings. his is news to me. Ive only heard of dozens.

  16. 316
    Chris Says:

    Rebecca I hope this helps:-

    A Scotland Yard spokesman confirmed that following the DNA submission police were ‘satisfied’ that the girl identified in New Zealand was not Madeleine.

    Police launched a five-day investigation in January when a Queenstown retailer became suspicious of a man and the young girl.

    The ‘sighting’ on New Year’s Eve was the second time the girl was mistaken for Madeleine last year, the other being in March.

    Unfortunately the Met police are not good at keeping one up-to-date. My daughter was stalked and even though the stalker got hold of my details and involved me I was not kept up to speed with exactly what was going on. The MET/CPS were brilliant in the end and the stalker jailed.

    So maybe no news is good news.

  17. 317
    G1 Says:

    Ok, Rebecca, thanks, for posting the story of your experience in New Zealand. I appreciate that.

    “[they say] that there have been 1000′s of possible sightings. his is news to me. Ive only heard of dozens.”

    (Rebecca, comment 315)

    I think it was news to the McCanns also, originally. They applied for police files which they hadn’t had access to, some time after they were made. The police files contained that they had recorded thousands and thousands of sightings from the public of girls suspected as likely to be Madeleine McCann in the first few months alone, most of them in Portugal alone. After that time, it has not been published how many (beyond the random ones that make the newspapers).

    Considering that, I guess it would mean that not being wrapped up in each sighting is at least very understandable (perhaps absolutely necessary).

    I just wanted to say, I thought, your sighting seems very serious, to me. There is – the physical details, that the child thinks she has a different name, that a 5 year old is kind of strangely controlled, and guardians who are very suspicious about something in her eye (on the other side of the world to Portugal).

  18. 318
    G1 Says:

    I’ve just seen Chris’s post 316.

    Of course, as you assume, Chris, it is possible that the girl seen by Rebecca could be the same girl.

    I can’t find any published details of the parents or guardians of the girl who’s DNA was taken in New Zealand to compare. There were other NZ sightings that made it to the newspapers, with guardian details which seemed strange. One was of a couple who were working in NZ or from NZ and had sold their possessions to tour around the country, for something different. I don’t think that one fitted with the notorious Queenstown sighting that has been ruled out as being Madeleine McCann.

  19. 319
    G1 Says:

    ” So I give all this info to the correct people. I do so again to Operation Grange, I do also to the Find Madeleine site and NOTHING ever happens about it so you see WHY??? I ask myself. Because maybe she is not alive. For surely this possible sighting is one to be followed up and given they could (authorities) maybe even obtain the phone number we talked on which was to an address/landline and from there then where…..?? It could be a direct trail growing colder by the minute since I provided it two years ago or more.”

    (Rebecca, comment 313).

    I recently gave some evidence to the three investigation points, myself, Operation Grange, Portuguese police investigation and the parents’ Find Madeleine investigation.

    Actually, I really only decided to pass it on to all three investigations in the end because – as I put to Operation Grange in my contact – they’ve recently received nearly 3000 new potential leads in the space of days or weeks. My guess is that they might just get around to reading and basically discussing my evidence and what could be done (which came late) by early 2014.

    It is evidence which, to me, ought to be closely followed up, and, like Rebecca’s, is about somewhere else in the world to Portugal and the UK. But how many other potential leads like this have they got that need work? It must be 10s of thousands of manpower hours of work.

    So, I accept a missing child case like this is one of the hardest things. This particular one – the highest profile in the world – might just be too far closer to impossible. Sad, but maybe true.

    The new evidence I submitted is from years ago, but I remembered it only recently. It has only been a couple of weeks or less since I gave it. I don’t want to talk about it online, in a well known site for Madeleine, in case people involved read this and would be alerted.

    However, it is why I have suddenly changed my opinion to holding that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a gang of “professional” criminals. Sorry I didn’t explain that before, though I suggested it, and sorry I don’t feel it’s right to share the information here just now.

  20. 320
    Rebecca Says:

    I am quite sure the Queenstown girl is NOT the girl I saw – she was from a family who lived 100’s of kilometres from where I saw her and this girl I saw was travelling (from Australia apparently) with the dark haired woman, a boy and perhaps the man I saw them with – perhaps even the blonde woman also. his girl did in no way look like or seem to be the daughter of the dark haired woman. This dark haired woman fits almost totally the EFit released of a woman seen at a Port 2 days after Madeleine disappeared mistaking someone as the person bringing her her ‘new daughter’. I would add to the Efit more plumpness in the face and a few lines also very short even with heels she had on, slim but curvy in places. It would be very easy to mistake many blonde haired little girls as Madeleine – indeed my now 22 yr old daughter was very very like her when little. However in my possible sighting we have the foreign woman, the story, the girls wrong name, the columba and the desperation (pressure) of the dark haired woman (who matched the woman at the Port) to work in my store. It was once believed possible by the McCanns that Madeleine was taken on a yacht to Ausralia – now is this why this little girl had terribly dry looking hair? I have looked at age advanced pictures of Madeleine and thought if this is her they have it wrong. She is more olive than dusky tanned, shorter drier hair, chubbier, unhappy looking with a turned down mouth.(back in 2008/09). I thought even then it was odd these children had been in NZ for some time, term time to and not in school the lady hadnt even looked at school. Also to note is back then I had the same blonde hair and similar cut as Kate McCann. It crossed my mind that not only could the parents be looking for Madeleine but she also is looking for them. I believe she remembers (if this is her) and she will one day tell someone who she really is. I can recall back to age 3/4 especially especially anything traumatic. I only hope they get round to looking into this and its not that they think/know she has died.

  21. 321
    Rebecca Says:

    Also with her eye what I also recall is a white lump next to the dark bit so if this is her I suspect they have tried to do something to the columba. If I went back in time I would of picked her up and ran around the corner to the Police Station. I looked through every paper I had to try and find this dark-haired womams number (she said her name was Tina) I am hopeful it could be located through phone records. Even better would be to narrow the dates right down and find everywhere in town who had video surveillance (our Police do have it all over town) and look that way. I dont understand why they do not pass this on to NZ Police to investigate on their behalf??

  22. 322
    Chris Says:

    Hi Rebecca,

    You say above ‘I do so again to Operation Grange’.

    My experience of the MET is they keep everything very close to their chests.

    It is very unlikely you will be contacted until they have a result.

    When my daughter was being stalked – it was for over 9 months – we were kept in the dark. The stalker used many mobile phones so he was very difficult to trace. The text messages were horific with numerous death threats and worse.

    We doubted at times we were being taken seriously but the stalker was caught and jailed. The DI was brilliant and we became very friendly during the trial.

    So my experience says they are on your case so to speak. You could always call them up/contact them. We had to leave several answer phone messages!

  23. 323
    Rebecca Says:

    thanks for that Chris. I would think they’d contact me to narrow down the time frame and get access to the phone records. And definately to question me. I had two workers in my shop (one hen laer another) either AFTER this woman Tina tried to get work there or IN BETWEEN the two employees I had. I also know it was Summer so once records are checked to see when I hired the first of these woman that gets the time frame right down. Ive a feeling it was in between to of been Summer. It could be gotten down to a space of 3 weeks and the village/suburb they were staying in is very small. only 100’s of residents not even 1000. Maybe 200- 400? Over here in NZ Police do things a bit differently – they interview me as a starting point to gather all possible information.

  24. 324
    Chris Says:


    You have done what any decent citizen would do and reported your suspicions. Many would not even have bothered. So I say well done and it is a pity you have had no feed back as yet.

  25. 325
    Rebecca Says:

    thanks – through the Find Madeleine page on Facebook I was asked to forward them the info which they have forwarded on and as this page is linked to the McCann family I am hoping some priority will now be given. Will keep this link updated for those following….

  26. 326
    Chris Says:

    “Scotland Yard has identified three prime suspects in the hunt for Madeleine McCann’s kidnapper – or kidnappers – following analysis of mobile phone data.

    The Mail reports that the three men – believed to be part of a burglary gang – may have panicked after they woke Madeleine up by mistake and decided to take her away with them.

    A source told the newspaper: “After all the far-fetched theories about what may have happened to Madeleine, there may be a far more simple explanation: that a burglary went horribly wrong.”

    Well I always thought most police officers were on the less intelligent side but I never believed in flying pigs.

    Nobody is going to abduct a 3 year old as part of a bungled robbery and there must be much better targets than a holiday apartment.

    Do the obvious, stop wasting public money, grill the parents and their dubious friends.

  27. 327
    G1 Says:

    You’re right. Absolutely. For weeks, seeing Mr Redwood, the head detective’s face in the news, thinking of the witness to the murderer of Jill Dando who that man and his team ignored (who the police still ignore), all I can see is a cartoon. Intentional or not. A cartoon and nothing bearing any relation to sane, honest adult life. I’ve held out for a long time and not condemned the investigation outright. But now… The end is nigh. That’s all I can make out.

    They can’t actually expect you to take them seriously with this latest publication, if the Daily Mail are to be reliable here to a reasonable degree.

    If there was a bungled robbery, or anything to do with robbery, some of the more unprobable coincidences in human history would have taken place. I guess I’ll publish my own evidence here after all, though it may put me at risk. I’ll leave it another while.

    The way this case appears to be progressing now, and the attitude of the authorities, remind me of the disgusting authorities in Italy who are involved in the Knox & Sollecito case. Through all of the Italian authorities’ thick, thick lies, year after year, on top of that are the ridiculous, bizarre proposals the crooked authorities have alleged for a motive of Amanda Knox. Absurd, wild lies have been suggested and have had to be withdrawn on reflection by the prosecution or were rejected by the court, during the various cases. The latest motive given by the authorities is that Ms Knox (who wasn’t even there) saw excrement left in the toilet bowl by Rudy Guede and became so embarrassed and disgusted she went and killed her housemate and friendly acquaintance, Meredith Kercher. That is, in fact, after the previous, absurd motive suggestions, the current motive in the case where the authorities say they want Knox and Sollecito imprisoned for 30 years.

    After everything with the Madeleine McCann enquiries, it seems the same type of situation. A burglary? With nothing taken? When all theives might get would be fairly petty anyway – maybe a £1500 gold watch worth half that pawned and a netbook worth £150 in Ebay if they’re lucky (unless they like Hawaiian shorts and flip flops particularly.) It’s nothing they’d kill anyone for. And how did such petty thieves get absolutely, utterly peofessional, suddenly, at cleaning any trace of them out of the house within a few minutes, without bringing materials. Which they wouldn’t have done for a petty theft, not expecting to kill a 3 year old girl and abduct her corpse. How could they have done that better and quicker than anyone in the special ops business?

    Completely absurd. These petty thefts can be quite common in resorts. I’ve stayed in hotels for which many reviews said there were items stolen from the guest room, often the theives disturbed the guests or friends or relatives who they were with. The common report is they seemed not to care much, and probably even expected that guests were in. The theives were sometimes struck by the guests, which made them exit more quickly. The theives were used to it, were not shy, guest out or at home, and only gave up their aims and ran when an adult confronted them. They would not have been bothered by an infant. The chance that Madeleine was accidentally killed by a thief who then expertly removed all traces and abducted the corpse, fooling the world, is incredibly remote.

    What threat is a 3 year old girl going to seem to a petty resort thief, especially where there isn’t really going to be anything very worth entering for? None. They would run rather than do anything serious. If a confrontation would have occurred, Madeleine would have made herself heard. The twins would have awoken and she’d have been heard upstairs probably.

    Why is Redwood suggesting something everyone believes is so unlikely, and absurd? In allying this investigation with the kind of incomprehensible mentality of the heinous miscarriages of justice in Italy in the Kercher case, more and more the similarities of madnesss show. Redwood and others in Operation Grange have already been involved in an incomprehensilble miscarriage of justice – ignoring who really murdered Jill Dando and fitting up Barry George to be wrongly convicted and jailed.

    Were they ever even slightly serious?

  28. 328
    G1 Says:

    Are they trying to make the public think they’re bumbling along madly?

    What could it be that would make trained police assume from increased mobile phone activity that might correspond with the time of the girl going missing, that that means thieves rather than child abductors or indeed a few people known to the parents, were not on their personal, Portuguese SIM mobiles?

    It seems a guess they’ve made suddenly. Maybe as good, (but more likely bad due to the evidence and so on, as any). A guess for the headlines. But showing blatantly, anyway, that the police have not got the first idea about what happened or how to proceed, and nearly no chance of finding the person or persons responsible. Or, for whatever reason, they don’t care, professionally.

    After all the appeals and leads and developments and new suspects, and so on.

    You think this is a timely message?

    Ain’t nothing going on here.

  29. 329
    Chris Says:

    “Are they trying to make the public think they’re bumbling along madly?”

    Probably, they have a taxpayers budget of at least £10m to justify.

    Why haven’t they asked the McCanns to explain why they, and presumably their friends, deleted all their call records at such a crucial time?

  30. 330
    Chris Says:

    The mistery might be solved. The smiles suggest they think they may have got away with it!!

  31. 331
    G1 Says:

    The headlines are saying ‘Grange police to arrest 3 burglars’. Ok, so it’s not clear what that means when the media itself is putting its own spins on things. That has some papers saying police to arrest burglars for murder of Madeleine McCann, others saying the suspects just to be found and interviewed to be ruled in or out of suspicion.

    But what is going on? How do the police know there are 3 burglars whose phone recorded phone numbers had increased activity? Do the Portuguese police hold 3 mobile phone numbers of known burglars? But now those people can’t be found? Are the Grange policemen suggesting 3 phone users were burglars? (Where did they burgle or do they always keep a swag bag in their hands?) If there are phone numbers of recorded burglars, the Portuguese police will also have criminal mugshot photos from the last time of arrest for burglary. What happened to the men depicted in the Crimewatch (and earlier) witness photos? Dropped? Is the police team’s investigation founded on that burglars picked up Madeleine and brought her away because they thought suddenly they could get a lot of money for her in a certain market (and so is burglar just a less scary term than kidnapping sex trafficker?) If not, do the Grange detectives now believe, as burglars are claimed to be the main lead now, that the child is not still alive?

    Many departures here, possibly. Not making much sense. Strange the public nature of this when any developments have been held close to their chests for long times previously. Again, are they making a point, publicly?

  32. 332
    G1 Says:

    Some more, professional support for Tony Bennett, at least.

    While a social services committee might decide there’s not quite enough evidence, or it’s not desirable to make a legal charge against the McCanns for neglect in the high profile case; and while also, a court might decide neglect to be not definitely proven for some reasons from legal points, it is heinous to hold it is against the law to say what Mr Bennett and this barrister in the article have said they thought. It’s an abuse of any legal system, to falsely take control of it in this way.

  33. 333
    G1 Says:

    As I’m reading someone say somewhere else, the fact remains that the McCanns left their children for a night out with much boozing, and this is probably the most suspicious part of what is known. They were not poor but there were numerous options to leave their children in a more secure way. Even if this be the cheapest option of driving to a large supermarket and spending about £60 or so on a baby monitor, like their friends at dinner had, for a flat further away.

    But there were more options and great options. They refused them. I don’t know if the McCanns’ own activities on holiday were paid for with the Ocean Club booking, or if they paid extra most days. But they surely filled up their time with activities, the kind of things that don’t come so cheaply on holidays, but no night creche, no babysitting in the room, no child listening service and no intercom monitor. Instead what was it? Leaving the sliding doors unlocked, or slightly open also, and, it seems, the front door unlocked also, plus suing legally trained people who dare to mention their personal opinion of the relevance of considering neglect here at learning of this behaviour.

    So, lots of activities and alcohol day and night for themselves, no expense at all for their infants’ security, doors a few yards from the street left open (come on, why?), and if you dare to say that’s beyond proper and acceptable, they’ll sue you in court for most of a million pounds and order you to shut up for the rest of your natural life. Is that the likely attitude of parents who really felt the regretted all they ‘did’ that night? So strange, it seems.

    Have people following this ’48 questions’ post seen this post by dewdrop in the ‘Last Photo’ thread with his photo analysis (see his photo link)? So strange. Very strange indeed. Inexplicable is all I feel I can say. Gerry’s elbow casts no shadow. What has he done with it?

  34. 334
    G1 Says:

    Re. The burglars story. Either the press or the investigation’s briefings have been misleading. It seems this can’t be thought to be anything of progress in the case.

  35. 335
    Chris Says:


    One of the points you raise, which I find interesting and had not thought of before, is exactly how drunk were the McCanns at 10.00pm on the night of the 3rd of May 2007?

    That potentially raises lots of questions.

    Like the shadows question as well.

  36. 336
    G1 Says:

    It is interesting, Chris. To me because I can’t say how relevant that is either way.

    What about the scene Gerry made and the scene Kate made when the police first went to the apartment? Evidence of being drunk? It certainly wasn’t normal. I know it can be awful and stupid to suggest there can be a normal way of acting. But the pair were psychics, suddenly, knowing that Madeleine hadn’t wandered off, knowing that she wasn’t nearby because a neighbour had heard her crying and come down and looked in and took the girl to the babysitting service. The parents seemed to know Madeleine wouldn’t be found if they went outside and looked. Instead they made that amazing scene on entry of the police.

    Normal would be great, great concern, natural hope and probably not immediately fearing the worst. Why would they? Why wouldn’t they simply go out for an hour and search and call on appartments and talk to the receptionists and the babysitters, people in the restaurant, search all over the pool area, some streets? Why would they leave this to other people while they noisily went absolutely made before having anything confirmed?

    All I am doing is highlighting how this is not how most people who’s child may have gotten lost for a while (because they left her alone with the door open) would react. Especially when the twins are there and undisturbed and asleep, why can’t they estimate that the older girl may have wandered off looking for them, or be talking with a neighbour 30 yards away in another room? Or in a corner in the pool area?

    On the other hand, my estimate is that the couple were likely to have been more or less borderline (or beyond) functional alcoholics anyway. I use a term ‘functional alcoholic’ where the person is really rather in control of the alcohol in their lives, knowing what it can do, knowing they are addicted but appreciating that, and having been that way for years.

    These people don’t tend to get drunk unless they really go all out – over 2 bottles of wine per person in 4 to 5 hours, for example. (I know, because I was like that, once, myself, for years.) It’s not that they don’t think they’re drunk but other people notice – it really is that their system is so used to alcohol and they are sensible and healthy with food and exercise and relaxation and tasks, that drinking a bottle of wine and even some more in a night has nearly no effect on them. (Not talking about susceptibility to accidents if actually driving – that would be a totally different matter.)

    Re. the reactions early after the child was missing. It seems to me that alcohol alone cannot explain that – but perhaps it could explain why that particular reaction in a situation where things were known by the McCanns, rather than another reaction.

    Chris, I guess you were thinking about how likely it is the McCanns harmed Madeleine, in part because of having drunk a lot of alcohol.

    It is a different angle, and perhaps makes the accident scenario slightly more possible to me. But it would have to include that one or both of the couple tended to get angry and violent at times when drinking. (Yet, I think they were very familiar with alchohol, so that behaviour would not have been new, I estimate. Still, it’s possible.)

  37. 337
    G1 Says:

    … However, it would still go against some evidence I know of, and would make for a huge coincidence if Madeleine McCann had been killed at the hands of her parents, or one of them.

  38. 338
    Chris Says:


    My initial reaction to the McCann’s possibly being drunk is that it might explain why they did not go looking for her – perhaps they were not capable of do so.

    It may also explain the comment ‘she has been abducted’ as Kate knew there was no point in looking for her anyway. A comment she must regret.

    It may have given Gerry the confidence to remove the body to be hidden for later disposal – the ID pictures look remarkably like him.

    I prefer to think there was an accident followed by a cover up.
    The deletion of the entire phone records may be that of a confused mind under the influence of drink.

    These are my initial thoughts on intoxication.
    I still don’t see a resolution without the body/remains.

  39. 339
    G1 Says:

    Where I was thinking their intoxication would be relevant relates to this. As I’ve said before, if the couple were somehow involved in something happening to their daughter, whether death other than by accident or abduction, their behaviour on the night of May 3rd may be telling to some degree.

    It may have been before the couple could have prepared adequately, and had conferred and planned a tightly drawn future. Perhaps they could have been surprised just how much the drinking took them away from what they could have planned, in extremely unusual circumstances. Not used to lying and acting (if that’s what occurred) but used to drinking quite a lot, they expect the latter will help the former. Instead, it has the opposite effect, I’m considering. They experience effects of being unusually very drunk, in fear, perhaps very suddenly, despite them being used to drinking similar amounts within routine ways or normal comfort zones of acting.

    I guess that’s more or less what you’d been considering, Chris, but you for an accident. Where I don’t estimate that (as I rant about!) where the parents had involvement or were responsible, it’s quite as simple as an accident.

  40. 340
    G1 Says:

    Reading this article, which just builds up to a greater extreme what has been built up before, I’m struck by just how odd this is. It’s immensely odd, immensely, if things are as we’re led to believe.

    It seems to me this has never happened before in crime and journalism relating to this country. The world’s media make a fuss and increase it in intensity over a long time, a massive fuaa by then, about how some free men are (still) just about to be either arrested for questioning in connection with murder / kidnapping, or arrested and charged with murder / kidnapping.

    Why would the police do this through the media? It seems incredible to me, unbelievable. Are the media making this up? Or, if not, why is so much about this McCann case around the limit of strangeness? Now it seems to me the police, or media or both wished to turn an investigation into a cartoon, and then convert it to a show stopping cliff hanger thriller. Why, after so long of nothing would police make such an ongoing fuss about this? Are they resigned in private to that they will conclude nothing in this case, for whatever reason, and so are making a public exit route?

  41. 341
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    They are burning through £10m plus of taxpayers money. It is just a bit of flag waving. No doubt they will be staying in 5 star accommodation along with their families.

    I notice that there was renewed interest this week in the incinerators by the British police see article below. I forgot to copy the new article and now it has been deleted!

    12:01AM BST 17 Sep 2007

    As the McCanns begin a new campaign to clear their names, further allegations emerged over the weekend.

    The hire car: The Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns 25 days after Madeleine went missing. New claims centre on its high mileage. Between May 27 and July 3, it was driven 1,700 miles, with police looking into the possibility that it may have been used to dispose of a body. Mr McCann puts the mileage down to regular trips to and from Faro airport to pick up family and friends. There were also reports that detectives were waiting for permission from a judge to seize and dismantle the car to search for “traces of skin”.

    The incinerator: Rumours that Madeleine’s body may have been burned led to reports that police had sealed off two incinerators near Praia da Luz. There were also claims that Portuguese police were investigating furnaces in Spain, although they said incinerators had not formed part of their investigation.

    The 40 questions: Pedro Daniel dos Anjos Frias, the investigating judge, is said to want Mrs McCann interrogated again after she refused to answer more than 40 questions about her daughter’s case. It is thought she could be questioned later this week by detectives in Britain. A spokesman for the couple refused to speculate.

    Discrepancies: There have been claims of discrepancies in the McCanns’ version of events the night Madeleine disappeared. Mr McCann allegedly told police he entered the apartment via a locked front door, but later said he had gone in through the open back terrace that overlooked the tapas bar where the couple were eating with friends. Mrs McCann’s claim that the back window was open and the blind raised when she discovered Madeleine missing was allegedly contradicted by other witnesses. The couple say they checked their children regularly but have not gone into details because they are bound by secrecy laws. Mrs McCann described this gagging order as “really, really frustrating”.

    I also came across this:-

    Worth scrolling down to this post June 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM next to the bottom. Sums up what many think.

  42. 342
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    Your last post that was emailed to me does not seem to have appeared.

    Question for everyone. Has the bill for the Tapas bar on 3rd May come into the public domain? It would reveal exactly how much alcohol was being consumed.

  43. 343
    G1 Says:

    Hello Chris. What was it about? This site system can be weird and slow and post things a long time after they’re sent.

    Just thinking, Chris, after your last post: First I would make a guess that things like who got what wine wouldn’t even have been recorded by that café bar, maybe as tables bills were written on one paper tab, later disposed of. After the night itself, the bar may only have a tick off record of how many drinks were sold in the bar as a whole. Maybe there would be the table total, unitemised after the itemised one was destroyed. Maybe not – just the record of which room guests had been and who had paid already, if not charging to end bill. In any case, a lot of bottles of wine had by McCanns might be disguised amongst 8 guests, some drinking much less. I don’t know, but it’s worth pointing out this kind of thing can be disguised.

    Secondly this kind of thing might lead one to think things like – wouldn’t that be known? Even, however it happened, weren’t the McCanna etc there because the Ocean Club was the way it was? Possibility of leaving door unlocked, children at home, dining “in the garden”, knowing records not kept? (If they weren’t kept.)

    2 things for me:

    1. I’m completely sure there was a very, very professional underground peadophile, child abduction and grooming gang around the Ocean Club before and when Madeleine vanished.

    2. Looking at the last photo offered by the parents, with the shadow of Gerry’s elbow missing (for one thing), impossible, a photo which seems even doctored for hidden meaning to me, this is more than just suspicious. Before that, it seems we’d been piling up a lot of things which, though very suggestive seeming to many, could have more than one explanation, in terms of being sure.

    I wonder how the group got to that very place, with the “garden” restaurant which may be of the simple, old world which may not keep itemised bills. Was it just a random internet booking as claimed, after a good experience in a Mark Warner place in Greece, before? Maybe the group were involved in some determined choice to stay there. Maybe not, but there was still some determined choice to get them there.

    I am sure of my point 1, above. But the missing shadow in the last photo changes everything. This seems, potentially, very involved indeed. Answers are very hard to get at and shielded, possibly, exactly because the truth may be so kind of far fetched seeming that investigators don’t want to, or find they can’t go there. They couldn’t defend theories against easy, guaranteed criticism of unevidenced absurdity.

  44. 344
    G1 Says:

    Re. Talking about the last photo as something impossible. Most readers here will be familiar with the last photo showing a poolside, and theories for and against the photo being genuine.

    But it was the site visitor “dewdrop” commenting in this site in the article, “The Last Photo” and his simple light and shadow analysis which showed me that it is impossible to me for that photo not to seem doctored anymore. The main point is it seems that Gerry (or someone) has done something with the shadow of his elbow – it is missing. (Though one doesn’t know which to ask – what has Gerry done with his arm? Or what has he done with the shadow of the arm?) If indeed this was Very, if it’s not beyond his doing.)

    Here’s dewdrop’s light and shadow photo analysis:

  45. 345
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris. I’d just like to ask you about another theory I’d been thinking of, if you can set aside thoughts of an accident for a moment. I know you’ve had some reckoning that Madeleine wasn’t there on the 3rd May, or at least evening of that date.

    Have you read this article on Chaplins (there is a Chris commenting after it, I’m not sure if it’s you)?

    Anyway, if not, or whatever, you don’t need to.

    It’s just to try a theory that Madeleine went missing before 3rd May, she was abducted by a child prostitution grooming ring, the parents weren’t in the Tapas Bar that night but ate out further away, well beyond the Ocean Club. They parents left the apartment as they claim of May 3rd, with door unlocked maybe, to stop Madeleine crying perhaps, leaving door slightly ajar maybe.

    Obviously that would mean the parents would have been guilty of severe, criminal level neglect. There would be no “[more or less] eating in your backyard” excuse. It would be one possible explanation for all of the strange things which don’t fit, the 48 questions unanswered and the umpteen other things. Because, by this theory, the parents would not have been responsible for the death of Madeleine, but for leaving her where she could be, the girl’s abduction (to a potential fate worse than death, I regret so much I have to point out).

    Obviously, if not yards away in the complex, with people checking as soon as another returns, the McCanns would have a conviction against them, gross negligence, criminal, perhaps a jail term. Probably, they would not be able to be doctors for years. Probably, if they were having some difficulty with their home mortgage before the holiday, they would lose the house. It seems very unlikely they would get to keep the twins at all. Perhaps they would not even be allowed to see the twins, if they would be fostered.

    For a natural accidental death, dining at the Tapas bar, the McCanns might use their influence and seeming amazing rhetorical control of so many people to have little consequence.

    For an abduction before May 3rd, leaving the children so far away without being minded at all, it’s the opposite end of the consequences spectrum. I mean there is no chance they wouldn’t suffer terrible consequences to the very bases of their personal lives, the very essence of their lives.

    Could this explain things, including the adjustment of the last photo? (Or could things be more sinister still involving the McCanns? Or are they as innocent and ignorant of everything as they state?)

    On May 3rd, there is evidence that there was “1 stood up as another returned” checking on the children (funnily without bothering to look actually). Perhaps this is more than the parents would ever have done, because they thought they had to make a really good go of it, with the alibi of the nearby Tapas Bar to keep negligence claims at bay.

  46. 346
    G1 Says:

    To me, here is some promising news in the investigation for a change. I really believe it is in the correct direction.

  47. 347
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    Not aware you had been posting. I will travel back in time.

    My comment on your last link is that I see this as another Red Herring.

    We all want to think, and certainly I do, that this was a tragic event that is being covered up by the parents. However their behavour throughtout makes them very untrustworthy.

    I leave it to this comment made elsewhwere:-

    “Embedded confession ‘we killed her’ I think Amaral is being generous when he assumes as accident, he just can’t conceive of the depravity of this couple. Given their behaviour since, their callous self-regard, their attempts to financially destroy anyone who stands in their way (of making more money) the great swindle of millions of pounds from the general public, I believe they are capable of anything.

    But the question for me is what do they have on the British govt that they are untouchable? Police, press, courts. Unprecedented and very disturbing.”

  48. 348
    G1 Says:

    Just quickly to pick up one thing, it is their attempt to destroy the British social worker after admittedly leaving their children unattended that is most suspicious to me. It suggests a heart of iron, stone, barbed wire and missiles underneath, to me {nothing like normal people who would have in fact neglect their children such that they could be simply snatched or hurt anytime would do). It’s as if we’re to forget the McCanns did most of the things Mr Bennett said were not acceptable, but as if they’re preventing anyone from getting near them, for some reason.

    With Amaral, being objective, I have to step back, detatched and say, what the McCanns have done against him could be normal in any similar kind of situation. He was working as a national policeman and he may have a duty of care not to make his personal allegations in public if he cannot bring a case successfully. The thing with Amaral is, he had no clue how to go about writing a book about the McCanns, no idea. He could have said everything he wanted to say and more if he had taken a little bit of time and made the wording non-controversial. When a policeman did not take the effort to do that, actually it may be expectable for a couple to sue him for defamation. His national crime agencies do not support his personal thesis, but he did not make them from personal experience, but from working as a company member within those national crime agencies. Again he seemed to forget the responsibility of such a position, but all of this could have been organised successfully, Amaral publishing his thoughts, if he’d just worded it acceptably, along the lines of theory and personal feelings from that. Instead, his approach was tabloid.

  49. 349
    G1 Says:

    … Which is not to say we can’t discuss Amaral’s writings and take them seriously, Chris. It’s just a shame he didn’t know how to write and did indeed find himself, as I see it, in the dodgy area of legally questionable stuff. Again, he could have avoided it easily enough and still made his points.

    But, this is different to the essence of what Amaral says as a former policeman to us. The McCanns may be right to contest it (I think it’s acceptable of people like them in such a situation). But it has been written by a former policeman, and, regardless of that it may be defamatory, for us who want the truth, should not be ignored.

  50. 350
    G1 Says:

    Update: Madeleine McCann’s case in a right old muddle – by Len Port

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 » Show All

Leave a Reply

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.


Log in | Designed by Gabfire themes