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”

  1. 1
    JR Says:

    Her silence speaks volumes.

  2. 2
    anonymous Says:

    I wish I was one of the masses who read the Daily Mail, and the other trollop rags, and believe their side of the story, then I wouldn’t feel so angry and helpless.

    Just today I was sitting in the dentist’s waiting room and a couple sat close to me and the woman took out her Sun newspaper, looked briefly at the front cover of the story about Madeleine and said to her husband, “I hope they catch the bloke who took her” then turned the page….

    To me, that just about sums up the feelings of most people. They believe the brainwashing and they really don’t care anyway because it was 15 months ago and they seem bored by it.

    I doubt any of them really know that Gordon Brown put pressure on the PJ to have Goncalo removed or that Kate was the one who put pressure on the government. I doubt they know about the cadaver or the blood stained walls, or that the fund is fraudulent or that Goncalo’s dog was killed and he’s been threatened by our government, or that David Payne made those pervy remarks about Madeleine to her father.

    It’s shocking stuff.

    And with the recent photo’s of the blood on the wall I can’t begin to imagine the final moments of Maddie’s short life, particularly in light of Question 41 that Kate refused to answer.

    Maddie was unwanted and I now feel she was abused and died violently.

    And her parents have smiled and smirked about it all ever since.

    The rotten, scummy, crooked, arsehole bastards.

  3. 3
    Pilar Davies-Jimenez Says:

    Middle-upper class children are totally un protec ted, since no institution will ever interfere with a family who has money for lawyers. Obvious deduction, middle-upper class children are totally in the hands of parents with power. As parents are the most common perpetrators of violence against children, middle-upper class children are the most brutalized in the world.

  4. 4
    Jo Says:

    what’s with the freaky picture? is that supposed to be Kate?

  5. 5
    Pete Says:

    The picture is disturbing, agreed. Someone with Photoshop or similar has obviously been exercising their skills. I first came across it late one night and did a double-take. It stuck in my mind and I felt slightly ill. The question I’m asking myself right now is why I saved it.

    I don’t always read comments on sites but I’m glad I did here. Pilar Davies-Jimenez and Anonymous made intriguing (can’t think of a more appropriate description considering the context) points and I’m glad that Jo commented on the picture.

    Some days I view Kate’s silence as legal common sense given that she’s not stupid, in a foreign country and as vulnerable to stitch-ups as the rest of us. Other days I think what I’ve just said is a very convenient excuse to keep quiet and frustrate the investigation

    There is one word that keeps recurring in my mind about this whole case, and that word is ‘bizarre’. I just hope that the truth will out. Like, tomorrow.

  6. 6
    Katja Says:

    She washed the Cuddle Cat.

    That said everything to me.

    This woman is guilty as sin and I hope she rots in Hell.

  7. 7
    Eileen Says:

    I find it very strange that this woman refused to answer so many questions, surely if she was innocent she would have been more than willing to account for her actions to find her daughter. Kate & Gerry should be gagged from saying that Maddie has been abducted as there is no definitive proof of this! My opinion is that this child was sedated along with the twins, but little Maddie subsequently died as a result and the McCanns only way out was to say she had been abducted,thus while everyone else was searching they hid her body (possibly in the church)until they hired a car and disposed of her . They are both guilty and should have been charged with child endangerment the minute they set foot back on English soil. There are documented cases of parents ending up in court for less.

  8. 8
    dan Says:

    Over the years Ive watched this case unravel, and eventhough there are counter arguments are everything pertaining to this case, if I step back and think about it, i get an ache in my gut that tells me something just isnt right.
    Certainly if you look at other abduction cases, sadly those where a body is the final conclusion to the story, they bear absolutely no relation to this case, especially the actions and behaviour of the parents. And the frenzy of media coverage almost insults other similar cases, not to mention the involvement of PR men….who the hell gets them involved unless theres a reason to control the media coverage in some way, or present those involved in a certain way.
    Thats what PR men do!
    Most parents are simply in too much distress to even consider such things, and seeing the authorities as the only people who can help you in such situations, there is usually unconditional compliance with police investigations…thats the way we are brought up from an early age…..thats why when a police man asks you youre name you usually tell him without even thinking about it. Theyre not the enemy, they are there to help….(I know this isnt always the case, but the McCanns seem to have been on the offensive from the start)
    The dogs evidence is very important. Remember, if trained sniffer dogs arent a reliable form of gathering information, why use them at airports for finding drugs and explosives?
    I just get a bad feeling when thinking about the whole thing. Things just dont add up to the presumed claim of abduction.
    By aliens maybe, but human predators…nah.

  9. 9
    Deb Says:

    If I had had a child abducted there’s no way my other children would have left my sight but they just abandoned their twins and swanned off around the world.Too many things just don’t add up.

  10. 10
    zakhar Says:

    Why would you wash Maddie’s favourite toy aka the Cuddle Cat? Just think about it.. If this happened to you, WHY would you take the toy and go wash it???

  11. 11
    J.Marshall Says:

    My gut tells me what happened to the little tot.
    Hope they both have many sleepless nights for the rest of their days.

    G U I L T Y

  12. 12
    Truth Seeker Says:

    Washing cuddle cat and running to the Pope to confess their sins was enough for me. I hope one day Madeline gets justice, and “team McCann” pay for their evil actions.

  13. 13
    dave Says:

    Trouble is with you lot you believe everything the media says….”wash the cuddle cat”. Have you ever stopped to think whether she DID actually truly wash the cuddle cat or are you believing what the Portugese police wanted you suckers to believe so they could convict the Mccanns and close the case because they were running out of money!!

    There appears to be NO evidence that the cuddle cat was washed, only what the Portugese police ‘say’ they have. Abit like all their other evidence then. All that they ‘botched’.

    Suckers… do you feel powerful? Does it make you feel good to call someone, to run them down and accuse? Do all those innermost feelings of yours, deep down come out and make you feel better?

    Take a look at yourselves.

    Admin Reply: Kate McCann told Steve Swinford of the Times on Wednesday August 1, 2007 “I was desperately hoping that Madeleine would be back before the cat got washed. In the end Cuddle Cat smelt of suntan lotion and everything. I forgot what colour it was. “It was special to Madeleine, she took it to bed every night. If she was upset or tired she had Cuddle Cat. It was special to her so it’s special to me.”

    Considering Kate McCann said she washed Cuddle Cat, there’s not much need to stop and think about it. Hence, the Portuguese police asked her why she washed it. Also, there was no need for Kate to remain silent on the question. She had no problem telling Steve Swinford why she washed it. Why couldn’t she tell the police only a few weeks later when they asked her?

    Read the full interview here:

    There is also a video of Philomena McCann describing why Kate washed Cuddle Cat.

    Get over it Dave. Kate McCann DID wash Cuddle Cat.

  14. 14
    nick Says:

    I’ve never bought into the McCanns story. I saw Gerry being interviewed in Germany I think, and when asked by a reporter that people were saying they had killed Madeleine, he replied something along the lines of ” The Portuguese police don’t think that ” !!!!! That is not a normal response, if someone falsely accused me of killing my own daughter, I would be absolutely furious, I certainly wouldn’t make a comment like that, and neither would any other innocent person. I work in mental health, and I reckon I’m pretty good at sussing people out, I’m totally convinced they’ve done it, and I think at some point they’ll be found out. Also, I watched a televised interview with Kate that the media made a big deal out of because she was supposed to be crying- total garbage, there were absolutely no tears what so ever, she made an attempt to look and sound upset, but unless it’s genuine, or you’re a trained actor, it’s actually very difficult to pretend to be crying. I would suggest people revisit this interview, you’ll see what I mean. The pressure needs to be kept on these pair, eventually, the truth will out. Good on the Madeleine foundation.

  15. 15
    Jon Says:

    thank you.

    these questions need to be asked and at some point they have to be answered.

    Questions regarding Parents Medical experience and whether Maddie had taken medication seem too important to be ignored. Suggesting evidence that Maddie or the twins had been medicated?

    Also: “Before the trip to Portugal, did you comment on a bad feeling or a bad premonition?”, sends shivers down my spine. Was this planned prior to the holiday. Did Maddies parents plant the seeds of an “accident” in family and friends minds before the set off on holiday?
    I think that this needs to be quantified and evidence discussed, (if there is any).

    And the news that Dr Kate McCann washed maddies ‘cuddle cat’ makes me feel physically sick!

    I hope the guilty are punished and find eternal damnation.

  16. 16
    Patrick Says:

    One thing I do not understand?..why dont the McCanns offer to take a public lie detector test to end all this speculation?, of course it is not acceptable n a court of law but would be in the court of the public.

  17. 17
    Lyndsey Says:

    The reason we are all on sites like this, talking about this, is because the McCann’s themselves, by their very actions, have brought this situation about. Right from the outset they refused to take any blame, right from the outset they have had scripted answers to read from, right from the outset they have had a spokesperson, right from the outset they tried to manipulate the press, right from the outset they refused a Police Liaison Officer (British I think) and right from the outset if they were unhappy with questions they walked away from the interview. I know that others in similar situations have taken great comfort from a Police Liaison Officer’s presence, keeping them up to date with everything the Police are doing and I would have especially thought in Madeleine’s case, this would have been a good idea, but I think the McCann’s knew from the off that the Police were viewing them suspiciously and did not co-operate. They can only blame themselves now if everyone sat up and took notice of this and their ever-changing stories. They cannot silence people on this because it is of their own doing. They have never co-operated with anything either the Portuguese Police or British Police have tried to do and now they have the audacity to try to silence anyone who questions their version. Its not a case of survival of the fittest, it’s a case of survival of the richest!

  18. 18
    amanda Says:

    It is without doubt a huge cover-up. They do not deserve to be parents,God only knows how this is going to affect the twins.
    Everyone I have spoken to about this case believes that they are truly guilty.
    Things would have been very different if it was a “single parent” or somebody who was in a different financial class to this pair of numbnuts. Why the British police have not arrested them for neglect is totally beyond me.
    What kind of a parent would refuse to take a lie detector test ? How could he go back to work unless he knew what really happened? If my child was missing I would search the World untill I found them,none of this makes sense.
    Far too many questions unanswered.

    SOOOO GUILY………..

  19. 19
    Paul Drake Jr Says:

    Imagine a scenario involving a pre-arranged abduction, assisted by sedation, that goes horribly wrong then go through each of the 48 questions to check their relevance. The scales certainly lifted from my eyes!!

  20. 20
    Sheila Says:

    Imo kate did not answer the 48 questions because she focussed on memorising them verbatim so that she could research legally feasible answers in case she was obliged to answer in the future.

  21. 21
    Paul Drake Jr Says:



    – Why did you say straight away that Madeleine had been abducted?
    – 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.
    – 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?
    – Why did you do to warn your friends instead of calling out from the balcony?
    – Did Jane mention to you that she had see a man with a child that night?
    – Why didn’t the twins wake up during that search, or when they went to the upper floor?
    – Did you request the presence of a priest?
    – How was Madeleine’s face publicized, with a photograph, or other media?
    – Before the trip to Portugal, did you comment on a bad feeling or a bad premonition?
    – What was Madeleine’s behaviour?
    – Did Maddie suffer of any disease or did she take any kind of medication?
    – What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings?
    – What was the relationship like between Madeleine and her siblings, her friends and her colleagues at school?
    – Do your twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, are they unruly and does that upset you?
    – Is it true that at certain times you were desperate over your children’s attitude and that left you were upset?
    – Is it true that in England you considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative?
    – In England, did you give your children medication? What type of medication?

    Although I might have been inclined to ask why no one went chasing after the man Jane had spotted.
    The sooner this lot gets aired in court the better.

  22. 22
    Maya Says:

    I’ve stumbled onto this site while searching for something else, scrolled down the page and I’m left shocked almost speechless. Not only because of the above article, but mostly because of these comments.
    “The court of the public”? I think something like that belongs to the age of the Inquisition, to the witch hunts of the Middle Ages, to the lynches of the “Wild West”, etc… not in the 21st centruy. But, obviously, I’m wrong.
    At this point, I feel more disgusted by all of you who judge and accuse someone you don’t know, only by what you’ve read or heard in the media, than by the remote possiblity that the victim(s) might be the perpertrator(s). What happend to “innocent until proved guilty”? And what happend to the biological activity of engaging one’s brain while speaking (or, in this case, typing)? – I guess it’s the case of backward-evolution for some.

    Reply: Your logic is barmy. A serial killer is innocent until proven guilty by your reckoning. A shoplifter who walks out of the store with stolen merchandise is “innocent” because they haven’t been proven guilty.

    Of course there is a “court of public opinion”. O.J. Simpson may have walked free from his murder trial but more than most still believed him to be guilty. A hitman (Gino Newton) was hired to kill Norman Scott. Newton killed Scott’s dog but failed to shoot Scott because of a malfunction. Newton served time for the firearm’s charges and Jeremy Thorpe faced a conspiracy to murder charge because Newton alleges he was hired by Thorpe to kill Scott. The jury was initially split 6:6 at Thorpe’s trial but eventually found him not guilty. Well…that’s fair enough but we know Scott faced a gunman on Exmoor because the dog died with a bullet. Do you really expect that Newton just talked about meeting a man he didn’t know just to kill his girlfriend’s dog with a gun?

    If the McCanns are innocent then let’s have them face a jury and see what they decide.

  23. 23
    Paul Drake Jr Says:

    Maya, yes we are basing what we say on what we have read – from the DVD of the case files released by the Portuguese police.

  24. 24
    tony Says:

    Just out of curiosity, and it may seem like way too obvious a ploy, but if I had sent any money to the “search” fund and then had found this and other sources of information, my temptation would be to simply file a civil claim against the McCanns and their silly foundations/trusts. They would HAVE to respond in some way and, if the claim filed was for a large enough amount by adding fraud, hurt feelings and all the other legal accusations that could be brought against them deliberately taking money under false pretenses, it would almost be mandatory for them to have to answer the subpoenas and appear in court….
    might be worth a shot, since it doesn’t cost anything to file such a suit if one is in receipt of almost any benefit.

  25. 25
    Arius Says:

    I’ve spent a whole career doing investigations & interviewing suspected persons & the McCanns version of events does not hold water.
    1: Why lie about the apartment being locked when the patio doors had been left unlocked?
    2: Why didn’t the McCanns join in the search for Madeleine instead of playing tennis & updating blogs?
    3: Why lie about the shutters being forced open when the forensics proved they had not?
    4: Why phone the Sun newspaper before phoning the Portuguese police?
    5: Why did Gerry return to the UK for a day so soon after the event?
    6: Why hasn’t Gerry’s holdall ever been found? ( a man with a similar holdall who looked like Gerry was seen on the beach).
    7: Why didn’t Kate insist on answering 48 simple questions that anyone of us could have answered with ease? I would have answered them even if my lawyer had said not to. In fact I would have insisted on answering them if I’d nothing to hide of course.
    8: Why did the McCanns include Dr David Payne (reported to the police by two other UK doctors as a suspected paedophile) in their group & allow him access to Madeleine?
    9: The McCanns maintain that the dead body scent picked up by the sniffer dogs was the result of Kate having dealt with several dead bodies immediately before the holiday. (Glad she wasn’t my GP).
    Why would a Kate,from a family with a combined income of over £100,000 pa, need to take her work clothes on holiday?
    10: The McCanns maintain that DNA with a partial match to Madeleine found in their hire car which wasn’t hired till 25 days after she disappeared, got their from nappies belonging to her siblings. How many of you put unwrapped used nappies in the back of your car???????

    Admin: corrected the error for you on the £100,000

    Regarding your point (1), in the first interview statements less than 24 hours after the reported disappearance, both Kate and Gerry said they entered the apartment through the locked front door. It was only after they got bad press for leaving the toddlers in a locked apartment they changed their version of the story to unlocked patio doors.

  26. 26
    Arius Says:

    Of course none of us knows what happened to Madeleine but the McCanns can hardly cry foul when in the light of their actions above they try to sue & gag anyone who doesn’t blindly accept their abduction theory.

  27. 27
    Arius Says:

    9: The McCanns maintain that the dead body scent picked up by the sniffer dogs was the result of Kate having dealt with several dead bodies immediately before the holiday. (Glad she wasn’t my GP).
    Why would a Kate,from a family with a combined income of over £100,000 pa, need to take her work clothes on holiday?

    Admin: corrected the error for you on the £100,000

  28. 28
    Paul Drake Jr Says:

    Arius, for me the theory that holds the most water is one of a pre-planned mock abduction that went horribly wrong when Maddy was given too much sedative. I haven’t made my mind up about Donal McIntyre yet, but he did talk about a woman with long dark hair of Spanish/Portuguese appearance hanging around the apartment, then he said the “abductors” spent up to ten minutes hiding in the apartment “in the company of Gerry McCann.” In the rogatory interviews, the PJ asked Leics police to ask Rachel Oldfield if she left PDL that day. She is the only one of the T7 who was asked that question – I think because witnesses did see a woman with a dark complexion hanging around. I don’t think it was Rachel Oldfield or Jane Tanner. Four photos of Maddy appeared on the night and it was never really established which printer they came from – certainly not one at the Ocean Club. Kate McCann was asked by the PJ if, before the holiday, she told anyone that she had “a bad feeling or bad premonition” and she refused to answer this question. The PR machine kicked in very quickly after Maddy’s disappearance and some people close to the McCanns talked about the shutters being jemmied which was not the case. Amaral’s theory that Maddy fell off the sofa does not really hold water on its own. If one of the McCanns had come back to the apt and found Maddy injured, would they not simply have said that someone else had done it? The list goes on…
    Why do a mock abduction? God knows. Why did Karen Matthews do it? Why did someone go to the trouble of creating the Hitler diaries, and those photos that got Piers Morgan the sack?

  29. 29
    Carol Taylor Says:

    The Sunday Express has an article about the McCanns on it’s front page today,according to the McCanns private investigator the children were drugged by the “abductor” to keep them quiet while he/she took madeleine,they really are behind the times,i have always believed the children were sedated but i certainly don’t believe an “abductor” sedated them,i believe it was someone nearer to home,i wonder why it took the McCanns five months to allow the twins to be tested for sedation,yes that really is cooperating fully with the portuguese police isn’t it?just like those reasonable unanswered 48 questions,just like refusing to return to Portugal to do a reconstruction(and the rest of the tapas crowd).The Sunday Express wants Scotland Yard to re open this case,perhaps they too like us don’t go along with the “abduction” story.

  30. 30
    Paul Drake Jr Says:

    Carol Taylor, yes if you see the rogatory interviews for Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster they mention the twins being “dopey” on the night i.e in a deep sleep even when they were moved from the apartment. If the McCanns thought an unknown abductor had done it then why didn’t they whip the twins to the nearest hospital straightaway to have them checked over?!?!

  31. 31
    Helen Says:

    Kate Mccan also had said that Maddie was very very tired on the evening before she went missing.
    Wonder why? like the twins she may have been sedated.
    I do believe that the parents are responsible, maybe not intentionally it could have been a tragic accident that was covered up for fear of the twins being taken away from them or loosing their jobs.
    The fact is they shouldnt have left the kids alone, they know that. Something happened, whether Maddie inured herself in the room in their absence to the point that she died from injuries, or an accidental overdose.. who knows.
    The sniffer dogs got a scent from the wardrobe and Gerrys holdall was never found.
    It would suggest that the body was in the wardrobe at some point before being removed that night.
    It would also suggest that the hire car was used to dispose of the body somewhere else.
    There are too many unanswered questions and weird things here to believe that someone took Maddie, its just not possible.
    Take a look at, some interesting insights to their interviews, body language, things they have said and done.
    God knows why they havent been charged yet.

  32. 32
    Mom Says:

    Any good lawyer will tell you…

    “You have the right to remain silent, take advantage of that right.”

    Even when you’ve done absolutely nothing wrong, talking to the police can become an issue. Words can be twisted. Meanings can be misread. There are times when not answering questions really is better.

    As to what happened to Madeleine, only time will tell. Perhaps one day the story will be known.

    Reply: The right of silence is one thing but a jury should be allowed to infer their own opinions from the result of that silence. Silence is a fundamental right of an individual but silence is not an indicator of innocence. In other words, you are just as entitled to say nothing as you are to say something. But a jury should be allowed to determine innocence or guilt based on either situation. Many believe that not saying anything and not cooperating with the police is a sign of guilt.

  33. 33
    Jane Prosser Says:

    The video of ’48 Questions’ (and a few other videos that question the McCanns version of events) have recently disappeared from Youtube. How come these people have so much power…..?

  34. 34
    Paul Drake Jr Says:

    Jane, it could be that as doctors the T9 have some compromising information about a UK public figure. If you ever get the chance, watch a film called “The Bank Job” starring Jason Statham.

  35. 35
    Jane Prosser Says:

    That’s a very good point, Paul. I have seen that film and I know exactly what you mean. On reflection though, there are so many people covering up for and supporting them, I think this goes way beyond simple blackmail. I read recently that the McCanns have asked Scotland Yard to look into the case… To my mind, this can only be because they have received assurance that no questions will be asked that they do not like and the ‘abduction’ route will be followed, no matter what. If the matter should come to court, again any uncomfortable questions will not be admissible and a ‘friendly’ judge who knows the truth (like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and David Milliband and Clarence Mitchell and Brian Kennedy, etc.) will simply rule that the McCanns were not involved.

    On a different note, I remember reading what the judge said in the Diana inquiry. When (I think it was) Michael Mansfield pointed out to Diana’s friend that the fact Diana had given Dodi her father’s cufflinks and the fact that there were letters which showed that their relationship was much more than a ‘fling’ (as the friend had earlier alleged) and when the friend solemnly agreed that yes, it was much more than a fling, the judge interrupted and warned Michael Mansfield to cease this line of questioning. He even said something along the lines of, “Remember what is going on here and the consequences….” The outcome was decided well before the inquiry and the same will happen with the McCanns.

  36. 36
    Paul Drake Jr Says:

    Yes, Jane, it’s amazing to think that MI5 were involved in the McCann investigation from an early stage yet all this time later there hasn’t been a single arrest. These are the guys whose job it is to protect us from further 7/7 atrocities.

  37. 37
    Mary Says:

    Eu acho k o rapto de Medleine MacCan foi um ”teatro” feito pelos pais para n serem acusados de Homícidio da criança pk se eles administraram o tal calmante poderia ser demasiado forte para ela e ela ter morrido pk os gémeos sao tao pekenos k n se dá conta!
    Espero k se foram eles k a mataram mesmo sem kerer então k admitam pk nao se tolera este comportamento!!!
    Tenho mt pena da criança!!!
    Isto é o k eu acho pk se ela foi mesmo raptada então, por favor, PJ encontrem os rapatores e a menina com VIDA ela mereçe!!!ENCONTREMNA

  38. 38
    George Tustin Says:

    On the McCann’s “official” money making site there is a quote ‘It’s never too late to do the right thing’. KATE HEALY TAKE NOTE……. Help to put the guilty behind bars…….

  39. 39
    Helen Says:

    Anyone know what Mary said?

  40. 40
    lizY Says:

    I remember reading that when the bag of bloodstained clothes was found, the response from CM was that the Mccanns were ‘encouraged’!? Also, if sniffer dogs showed that blood and cadaver fluids were found in the apartment, I would be overwhelmed by grief, by the fact that this would seem to prove she was dead, tearing the covers off a ‘abducted’ child’s book is unbelievable. They got Clarence in because I think Kate’s a loose cannon who could say the wrong thing. Gerry’s just an arrogant smarmy bastard, (the same goes for his family) who could talk his way out of anything, no wonder he has political backing, birds of a feather….
    It is so frustrating that they haven’t even been called to explain hundreds of contradictions in their stories.
    They seem to be trying to behave how the parents of an abducted would, but they can’t pull it off because they aren’t. If the abduction theory was true (and it isn’t), not only would you have to deal with that loss, but at the same time have to imagine what kind of suffering and abuse Maddie was going through at the hands of paedophile gangs. It CANNOT, cannot be done whilst appearing that nothing’s wrong. They are guilty or very, very weird. And I am very, very angry and frustrated by this.

  41. 41
    Paul Drake Jr Says:

    Liz,with a further hearing in the Amaral case and the launch of his new book both taking place on 11 December hopefully you won’t have too much longer to wait!

  42. 42
    Helen Says:

    Sign the Petition online for Goncalos rights!!!

  43. 43
    Edward Williams Says:

    The McCains are as guilty as hell.

    Sooner or later the truth of this business will out.

  44. 44
    lairdtc Says:

    They are as guilty as sin if it was not the case they would never have left Portugal , remember they where not leaving without Maddie.These dogs are either correct or they are not ,the consensus is they are 100% on the money. If they where not Doctors it would have been easy to rattle them unfortunitly
    they are aware of all DNA dodges to explain findings . Working class people would be in jail not spending money from a fraudulent fund.Hope she breaks soon ,she is never left alone or aloud to talk
    she could be broken if it were not for the old boys club that is Britain.

  45. 45
    chalky Says:

    They are hard hearted unfeeling, selfish control freaks. Maddie did not fit into their image of what what their child should be so they drugged her so that she wouldn’t spoil their perfect middle class holiday. Then they lied to save their own skins which is all that they really care about. What destroys me is the fact that the british media has been gagged in a so called free country where we are only told what they want the public to believe this applies to this case and information regarding the outside world and politics.

  46. 46
    ANGRY Says:

    how can she smile???? if my daughter went missing i would never ever ever stop looking for her, and i certainly wouldnt be wasting any precious time going to court to stop someone selling a bloody book. i am so fuming that people support them, they should be imprison if only for the fact that they left them in the first place. if i left my 2 year old and 1 year old to go for a meal at our friends house next door, would social services be on my butt, i believe they would, so who is it that they know in “authority” to stop this happening to them.

    THEY DONT DESERVE ANY SYMPATHY, if there is any justice in this world they will get what they deserve and i hope these portugese police stick to there guns and out them for what they are!

    Also they had these children though IVF!!! gods power to not allow them to have children in the first place was obviously correct, but low and behold man has over ruled that just like the same kind of man has over ruled the fact that they killed there daughter, one way or another!

    i pray that maddy is happy and safe but no one will ever no, so the nice people in this world are just going to have to live with the heart break they get from thinking about her, everytime her stupid “parents” require some more publicity or money!

  47. 47
    Cheryl Idrees Says:

    Yes I agree with the probability that Madeline died accidently in the apartment as a result of her parents negligence. If she was supervised she may have been saved… The Mcanns have maipulated the media to take the suspicion away from themselves….. They should be investigated and prosecuted just like any other irresponsible parents….

  48. 48
    Just wondering, that’s all « nourishing obscurity Says:

    […] with the Meredith Kercher case, trial by blogger is hardly conclusive and yet here are the first things I noticed: dan Says: June 11th, 2009 at 6:40 […]

  49. 49
    Michael Goodwin Says:

    The whole story stinks. Whatever has happened the main issue here is that a young innocent girl is either dead/missing or in emotional pain.

    I don’t believe everything the mcann’s say. Most of it I don’t believe actually. Regardless of how careless the Mcann’s appear to have been with their children (leaving them whilst eating at a restaurant), I just cannot believe how weird and unhelpful they have been toward the investigation. Only saying the bare minimum and not answering questions.

    If I ever see either of the Mcann’s whilst out and about I certainly won’t hesitate to kindly ask them what on earth they think they are doing.

    Maybe they are totally innocent and terrified for what has happened to their child. (doubt it so much!).

    The truth will come out sooner or later. I hope sooner though as I wan’t the guilty to rot in prison.

  50. 50
    L boyle Says:

    Why doesn’t Kate McCann answer the questions posed.
    Simple to answer any answers may implicate her and open up to more questions.
    This is a huge cover up at its best.
    In regards to the teddy being wahsed, hell i still have my sons comforter dirt and all . My child is still here but due to it comforts me to smell his smell God only knows why a mother would get rid of the last remaining smell and most precious thing to her child as soon asher child is missing

  51. 51
    V Star Says:

    Frustrating not knowing the truth.. I hope Maddie is safe somewhere. Everyone seems so certain of everything.

  52. 52
    Liz Y Says:

    It is frustrating but it is also obvious that where there are discrepancies, contradictions and plain lies in a story, it begins to smell, and when those contradictions etc. are not answered and explained, as they would have to be in a Court of Law, people with questioning and logical minds will begin to dig and having dug – more discrepancies etc. etc. Can anyone ANYONE who reads the evidence not see that, even if their story was true (which I do not believe) how have they managed to carry on as if they haven’t done anything wrong and they’re being backed up by powerful people.
    Karen Matthews got 7 years and her daughter is alive and well, albeit better off without her. They were ignorant, ill-educated and could have done with the money, so what about Saints Gerry and Kate, just ask them to answer the questions. Yes it is frustrating but it leaves me enraged and feeling so impotent that these people are still allowed to carry on bumming off people who are far worse off than them and smirking all the way to the bank.
    It is another good marketing ploy, to keep up the publicity and the Mantra that we think she’s still alive. Not very lucrative the truth though is it Gerry?

  53. 53
    Liz Y Says:

    Now I’ve got my orange box out, about washing Cuddle Cat, if they can tear the covers off Madeleine book, to put together what they thought was a credible plan, they can do anything, if your child is missing, everything of that child would be irreplacable and precious.
    Finally, forensic science is progressing by leaps and bounds, and I hope the Policia Judiciaria have still got samples of DNA and next time they want it investigating, don’t send it to the UK, because you probably won’t get truthful results. What a terrible thing to have to say. God Help us all.

  54. 54
    shannon Says:

    Please I hope that what I have read is not true and even if they were doing it for money as long as the poor child is still alive…

    And to think that, in my innocent little world I believed that if I wished hard enough on my wishing stone everything would be better and Maddie would be home again..(bearing in mind I was 10 when she disappeared)

    What has this world come to?

  55. 55
    Tim Says:

    This case is so frustrating as anyone with half an ounce of intelligence, who takes time to read some of the case files released to date, can obviously see that there has been a major cover-up here. The McCanns have lied from start to finish & they’re still at it now ‘cos their slush fund is running dry.
    Even more pissed off at the moment after seeing this afternoon’s news that the ban on Mr. Amarals book has been upheld. The book only contains facts from the case files and should be freely available for anyone to read. I’ve recently read the English translation of it and it will open the eyes of anyone who still subscribes to the abduction theory. That’s probably the real reason the McCanns wanted the ban in the first place.
    By the way, does anyone know if the ban just applies to the “sale” of the book? What if it was freely available in pdf format? 🙂

  56. 56
    lyn Says:


    You can read the book on the internet, in English, just Google it

  57. 57
    John Says:

    I find this evidence very concerning. I have personally lost a grown-up child (through a road traffic accident) myself so I absolutely hesitate to criticise parents who have lost one of their own children. However, it is undeniable that the McCanns left a 3-year old child and two babies unsupervised in a room at night when they were well out of ear shot and not ‘in the garden’ as they have compared. All parents know how quickly a young child or baby can get into trouble with choking, being sick, having an accident etc. To leave children in such circumstances (more than once) is not the behaviour of responsible parents and certainly not of qualified doctors (assuming their credentials are genuine) – they took a risk and it went badly wrong. I sincerely hope that Maddie is found alive one day, but it escapes me why Kate and Gerry McCann were not prosecuted for child neglect. 99.9% of parents would have hired a baby sitter, so why didn’t they?

  58. 58
    john Says:

    it seems to me that madeleine died by accident, or reaction from some medication she was given. her death if various parties did not want to be held responsible, could only be covered up by an elaborate story of abduction.(hastily cooked up by the parents& fellow friends with them at the tapas restaurant). all the friends present with the mccanns were fellow professionals with their careers at stake, all doing the same thing.(ie leaving children unattended whilst dining&taking turns to visit the children at timed intervals) ok but if a child starts choking and has no one to help them, not so good. if a child dies from such an event, but hasn’t been purposely left alone, then the parent or persons in charge would not necessarily been in trouble, but when said adults have purposely left them, like the mccanns&their friends did, then they new instantly that an abduction story would be the only way to save their professional skins, and that goes for all involved.

  59. 59
    Tim Says:

    Thanks Lyn @55 but the last bit of my post was a query more in relation to what would happen to anyone if they started making this pdf file freely available as opposed to selling. I think it should be compulsory reading for the British public, instead of having to listen to the rubbish we’re fed by our media!

  60. 60
    Lyn Says:

    Hi Tim

    Don’t know the answer to that, but i do know that the book is freely available on quite a few websites
    Joana Morais website
    The new 3A’s website
    and MANY others.
    Best thing to do is go into one of those sites and Save the book to read at your leisure

  61. 61
    Tim Says:

    Heyup Lyn. Thanks again for the info. I’ve already got a copy and read it but wondered how I’d stand if I started giving it away. The more people who read this (& the case files) the fewer people will support these fraudsters & maybe eventually they will be brought to justice…fingers crossed!!

  62. 62
    lyn Says:


    Don’t know, but Mr Amaral is prohibited from selling/talking about the book…..not you. You can, if it bothers you, always refer your friends etc to the various sites mentioned and they can read it for themselves, that is how many people have found/read it, through others telling them, besides Tim it is a bugger to print off…….save the ink if i were you, just point them in the right direction.

  63. 63
    lyn Says:


    Adding to my last comment, don’t know weather copyright procedures would apply, who knows but so far as i am aware no-one has mentioned it. Anyway i trust you would not be selling copies of this book… i said better to let friends know where they can read it for themselves

  64. 64
    Tim Says:

    Hi again Lyn.
    Deffo not even contemplating selling it but if anyone wants a version in pdf format they can have a copy, obviously FOC. The more people who read it, the more chance I think there is of the McConns being brought to justice!

  65. 65
    jane Says:

    The Smith family said they saw a man resembling JM carrying a small child towards the beach.
    The route he would have taken to be seen in this location has been suggested on the web.
    That route is in the direction of the OLD FORT and its PRIVATE BEACH.
    Robert Murat’s uncle Ralph Eveleigh is pictured with a female jaz singer in his B&B villa SALSALITO.
    The Jaz band that female singer belongs to entertains in the OLD FORT,PRAIA DA LUZ.
    She is around late forties/fifty,buxom, shoulder lenght blonde hair.
    Maybe a match for woman seen in petrol station the night Madeleine disapeared.
    Robert Murat said he had been the victim of the biggest cock up (words to that effect) on the planet.
    Rachel Oldfield/Jane Tanner are on the team for Private Equityfd ,Louis Hunts company set up with funds from AXA this is a top executive head hunting firm.
    BROOMCO a Global Conglomerate set up by RBS,Tom Hunter,Ruben Brother, links back to a Zadik Bino.
    Look up BROOMCO, BINOS, maybe a link with (GABINO) Murats Property com?
    The list of linked companies goes on OLDFIELD&MILLER, NHS DIRECT NAMETAGS, WEBCAM and several others and account/tax firms some now defunct.Conspiracy on Global mass
    Unravel the web and this case could be solved.

  66. 66
    john Says:

    the more i read into this case, the more i think there is definitely a cover up. jane tanners sighting of the apparent abductor at 9-15 on the night carrying the child in the direction of the murats house is most probably made up to support the abduction theory and clear g mccann of involvement. however the smith family’s(from donegal) sighting of a man(at about 10pm)carrying a child fitting the description of madeleine, in the opposite direction(towards the beach)& being 60 to 70% certain that the man was g mccann, seems a lot more believable. it is said that jane tanner has altered her sighting about four times to fit the bill. at 9-15 g mcann was talking to a friend he had met after leaving the apartment on the way back to the tapas bar. no-one else witnessed the abductor, just j tanner. as she is a close friend is she making it up? having watched a couple of early interviews of the mccanns which were only a few weeks after the event, k mccann was already talking about madeleine in the past tense(ie she was a lively child) like she already knew she was dead. strange….

    Site Admin: Joe Moura of CBS Television was on the 48-Hours Special on the Madeleine Case. He is bilingual and speaks fluent Portuguese. He visited PDL and spoke to the tapas restaurant employees and they told him Tanner never left the table that night. Martin Smith actually states he was 60-80% sure it was Gerry McCann (Volume XVI page 4136).

  67. 67
    Tony Says:

    I know there was non investigation regarding abduction.
    1) why the police with Goncalo Amaral didn’t investigate possible abduction theory?
    2)Was he unable to do it?
    3)How the Police investigate the theory of abduction?
    4)Was there any suspect of abduction by Police?
    Thank you for answear

  68. 68

    it stinks rotton, if and i mean IF maddie had been taken there is no way you would leave the twins there alone and go back to the tapas bar—- say no more they are guilty…..o an another thing if you had nothing to hide and got accused of being involved there would be no stopping you telling the press and police to get on with finding her in no uncertain terms, and no-one and nothing would stop you…(i no 4sure if my they said i hurt my girl they i would hit them on the spot.)

    Site Reply: Quite right Patrick. The story is nothing but a fabrication to cover up something more serious.

  69. 69
    Liz Y Says:

    I pray for the day when Scotland Yard announce that they are investigating the manslaughter and neglect of Madeleine, and that the Mccanns are the only 2 suspects.

  70. 70
    Tony Says:

    Why you not accept and suspect some truth about abduction of Madeleine? With Tapas 9, there were more doctors family who did same process of care with children as McCanns. Police should reopen new investigation of abduction and maybe manslaughter Madeline. If there is indication of some witnesses there should be reason to do it now.

  71. 71
    I Costa Says:

    I’m only 11 and now I am scared to hell and scared that I will get kidnapped.
    This whole situation has upsted my siblings too. She should have just admited but no. She has no guts in her. I Think it was Kate. Not her dad.
    I think Gerry is inocent and she hasn’t told him.
    You better tell someone the true because people are starting to realise that this is all a lie.
    For the first year I actually thought that Maddie was still alive.
    Its true I did.
    But now I have no hope left.
    I actually want to meet Kate and if I do I am going to tell her some home truths.
    I hope she gets fined for this.
    Hope Maddie is safe or someone nice in heaven.
    Hope she will have a better life next time.

  72. 72
    jazzy10453 Says:

    @ patrick i agree with the end of your quote except had she done that and hit someone they would have painted her as a violent person and even more stupid speculations would have come about.

    ppl react differently in certain situations. some of the questions she wouldnt answer sounded like they were asking random questions that anyone would answer with just a look on their face.. example..
    1.Did you search in the couple’s bedroom’s closet? (said she would not reply).. wtf would i search my closet for??? thats not the first thing anyone would think to check and if i were her i would have asked them what they know about my child being missing that they pinpointed the closet as a place for me to check.

    Why are the curtains in front of the side window, behind the sofa (photograph is exhibited) ruffled? Did someone pass behind that sofa? i would look at him like he was stupid. i have ruffled curtains …and if someone came through the window and took my kid that might explain the curtains

    How long did the search that you made in the apartment after detecting the disappearance of your daughter Madeleine take? …..wouldnt it seem weird for someone to start their stop watch when looking for their missing child? and my answer would be idk who times themselves when their child has gone missing

    Why did you say straight away that Madeleine had been abducted? ..had she said madeline has went missing they would have asked why she said madeline went missing and why she didnt say abducted oh please……

    asking about her medical background wouldnt have helped find her daughter. none of us know what happened, dont base assumptions off of questions she decided not to answer. questions that i probably wouldnt answer because they are making me sound as if i did something to my child. questions nobody would have answered when every answer they give out of grief is being portrayed as the wrong answer.

  73. 73
    Angelique Says:

    ~71 jazzy10453

    Yes, as you say they do seem odd questions but that’s because they are usually referred to as “leading questions” and as such she would be advised not to answer any of them without advice -so she didn’t. Nevertheless, it is just another reason why we think this behaviour is odd, but it’s not in this case.

  74. 74
    Laurie Says:

    The McCann’s are guilty. The timelines have been documented and researched by one and all and there is absolutely no way an abduction could have taken place, in the time frame the McCann’s say it took place.
    Reality. No one but the tapas 7 and good old Mum and Dad, even saw Madeline after 5:30pm that day.
    We all know that Kate had been having big time issues with mummyhood and the challenges that this little girl was giving them. Even the police asked her if it was true that they were considering placing Maddy in the care of a relative in England. With the complaints about the children crying every night, from neighbours at the resort, it is not hard to imagine that Kate and Gerry were at their wits end. I mean who in their right minds, leaves babies to fend for themselves at night? They had closed the window shutters tight and the bedroom door where the children slept, which means it would have been pitch black in the bedroom. Scary enough for anyone, let alone small children. Reading the accounts of these infamous tapas 7 who claim to have been checking on Maddy and her siblings all night, it is now apparent that no one even physically went into the bedroom to see the children. They simply stopped by the closed door, listening for sounds. Wow. How impressive. No sounds. No problem. Are these people for real? A baby could have choked, gagged, fallen and hit their head, etc. Now, Gerry describes the feeling of coming back to find Maddy gone, like a Mother having lost her child in the grocery store for a split second. Sorry Gerry, not even close by comparisson. Nice try though. Wasn’t this the 5th night in a row that you left the children alone?
    Kate and Gerry’s attempt to look like saints, has most of the public thinking they are. There is so much more information available now, like the blood stains in the apartment, the car, etc. with the McCann’s refusing explain a thing.
    I hope the police get lucky and uncover just one tangible clue, that gives them what they need to arrest the parents and the tapas 7 for the cover up they have all been a part of.
    And by the way Gerry, in every interview I have ever seen of you, you look guilty as sin. Your time is almost up. The truth will come out.

  75. 75
    Helen Says:

    Could agree more with what Laurie said.
    Well said!!!
    I do find it amazing that with the evidence the cadavar dogs found that no-one was arrested.
    There was a similar case in America where a Mother denied killing her daughter, she claimed she went missing etc etc, sounds familiar doesnt it?…
    In the end after suspicions the dogs were sent in and detected blood and cadaver in the boot of the Mothers car.
    She was arrested and charged without a body or any more proof other than the dogs and forensics evidence from the fibres in the boot… again sounds familiar!!
    In the end the little girls was found in the woods and the forensic evidence from the body and clothing put the Mother away for good.
    Why the hell hasnt this happened with the Mccanns???? The evidence is there!!! Why ignore it?

  76. 76
    Viola Says:

    Is it just me or does anyone else think the sketch of the abductor, who Jane Tanner describes seeing, amazingly looks like Jane Tanner? I remember reading somewhere that more often then not when a person makes up a description of a suspect, that it will look like the person giving the description. Which makes me wonder why would she make up a suspect? Also, I read the McCanns vacationed with some of these people before. Which ones? And whose idea were the vacations? How well did the McCanns really know these people? No matter what happened it is sad.

    Another thought is, Did the resort have curb side drains. You know the kind on the side of the sidewalks that don’t always have a grate. I remember reading a story about a small child almost being swept away into one of these when crossing through a puddle with a parent. Fortunately the parent was able to grab the child’s hair, hold on and pull the child out of the drain. The parent couldn’t beleive that a 2-3yr old child could fit through such a wide yet narrow slit. She petitioned to have covers put on such drains. Remembering this story made me wonder if Maddie could have wandered away and fallen into a drain or even a crevise. Remember baby Jessica in the well? It was a tiny hole she fell through. Are there tiny spaces Maddie could have fallen into if she wandered away looking for mommy & daddy? There are so many things that could have happened to this child, including accidental overdose and abduction.

    As far as not answering some of these questions, well, answering the questions either way could have been used to distort the answer against her. Did you check the closet? Answer no and suddenly its “Why didn’t you? You knew she was dead, didn’t you?” Answer yes and its “Why did you check the closet? Why didn’t you hurry to get help? You did that because you knew she was dead, didn’t you?” Etc.

    I pray that Madeleine will soon be found alive and well and able to return to her parents, who will need to earn her forgiveness for leaving her alone without their protection. Though I fear that probably won’t be the case and when I think that I pray she’s found no matter what.

  77. 77
    Angelique Says:


    I think I read somewhere that one of the ‘sketches’ resembles Kate – so maybe the one Jane Tanner describes as being who she saw is an example of this same phenomena. It is something that I myself experienced but in a different scenario. I used draw faces, one in particular. It wasn’t until my tutor asked who I thought it was and I told him I didn’t know, that he told me it was me! So you are right, sometimes we remember features that are not unlike ourselves.

    I have read many blogs regarding the couples and who took holidays with whom. Maybe Stevo can answer this question – but will search and see what I can find. My memory is not good sometimes and refuses to work.

    Please, that awful incident with the drain – yes, I’ve thought this too, one seems to try out every scenario available to explain in a feasible way what could have happened to her – but many on here and elsewhere, still come face to face with the “cadaver/blood dogs” and it seems just so hopeless. This beautiful little child lost amongst a sea of possible lies and deceit. If only we could have the truth – we could then accept and grieve properly.

  78. 78
    Liz Y Says:

    Jane Tanner changed her description so many times, ranging from a faceless figure (strange when you consider the detail in the rest of the image, even down to the classic shoes) and went through several more images – including one who looked like Murat, finally arriving at the devil incarnate and the supposed child went from being wrapped in a blanket, to wearing exacty the same pyjamas as Madeleine, all this in poor visibility (She must have eaten tons of carrots). Even if the abduction story were true, her evidence would be laughed out of court.
    I’m still surprised that people, whom I presume have read about the discrepancies, the lies, contradictions, the weird body language, the refusal to answer questions, the excuses, the money grubbing, the ability to carry on regardless when they should have been on the floor, not all smiles, make-up and colour co-ordinated clothes, the way the fund for finding Madeleine, has been used for Lawyers and Barristers, mortgage payments, petty cash – I won’t even go there… and always bearing in mind that, even if you go with the abduction shit, the fact that they’ve never ever admitted being wrong in any way whatsoever, but people still come here saying I hope Madeleine comes back soon. I’m a reasonably intelligent person, I believed in the abduction at first, it wasn’t the Policia Judiciaria or, in fact, anyone else at all, it was the McCanns and their friend’s actions and re-actions, who made me think that all was not as it seemed.
    They and no-one else, sowed the suspicion in my mind, I didn’t even know I could converse with people of like minds on this and other sites, run by selfless and dedicated people who REALLY did, and still do, care about Madeleine. It came to me slowly but surely.
    So, anyone who comes here still thinking the Mcanns are the poor victims and hoping Madeleine will come home, I’d ask them to go, read anything and everything they can and make an informed decision.
    I personally don’t think Madeleine was alive to be put into bed that evening, or to tell her mum that she’d had the best day ever, just a tiny bit too much information. Or the Gerry thing, on his final check he was struck at how happy and proud he was, to be the father of these beautiful children, again just a bit too much information. These statements may seem innocent enough, I believe though, that they were made deliberately, to re-inforce the abduction scenario, the 30 second/30 minute visit by Payne who saw all the children all clean and ready for bed, very subtle to most, others have alarm bells ringing.
    You see Gerry, you think, that you’re intellectually superior to most, you ooze smug self-satisfaction, something happened to Madeleine, you had to act quickly and you thought you could pull the situation off, but you made careless mistakes due to that viewpoint, EVEN you Gerry aren’t that clever. Now you have a hired voice to hide behind (paid for by the fund, naturally), and you have connections and they enable you to silence newspapers, pull the plugs on sites like these, and to trot around the world (paid for by the fund, naturally).
    The biggest travesty of all, is someone like YOU, going on paid for jaunts, as the perfect, parental role model, when you were an absolute failure as a father, to the CHILD who loved and needed you the most. Kate was right You let her down, YOU fatally let her down, why don’t you just come clean.
    Guilty as not yet charged! The clock is ticking…..

  79. 79
    Tony Says:

    Ok! Jane Tanner changed her description so many times, did you ask her directly why? I think she has reason for to do it like that, because she is woman like many another. I challenge you to ask her in the UK. What I think 98% of the Portuguese people are honest and fair. There are also another people, who are no fair not honest, who did this crime against law may be they are also not Portuguese.

  80. 80
    Liz Y Says:

    Tony, I can’t really see what you mean, Jane Tanner being a woman and that’s why she did it??
    If I approached Jane Tanner, I’d probably be in court on a harassment charge. These people can silence the press, close websites, and sue for hundreds of thousands, they are absolutely determined to make people see it their way, by fair means or foul. I’ve also not made any reference about the Portugese people, I think Portugese Police have done an excellent job, considering their every move was thwarted by the British Police, Embassy Staff, and Politicians. They know some very powerful people.
    I think there may be a bit of a language difficulty beween us.

  81. 81
    Angelique Says:

    79 Liz Y

    I think Tony respectfully means sometimes women forget things and then something reminds them later. But heavens to Betsy – however many times does she Jane Tanner) get reminded of what she has forgotten!

    I am also now wondering if we (in the broadest sense) are all going to be sued for having a different opinion – although I am still yet to be fully convinced there isn’t some simple explanation to the disappearance of Madeleine. Have you read the post on Hunt for Gerry’s missing tennis bag by Widowan, worth reading. Explains the pink hat anyway.

  82. 82
    Jimbo Says:

    The McCanns are scum. Pure and simple.

  83. 83
    ChrisA Says:

    Jimbo maybe, but I suggest you need the body alive or dead before saying that.

    For those wishing to read the book referred to above it’s been at this address for well over a year >>

    If they are innocent I cannot see why the McCanns don’t just answer the questions it raises.

  84. 84
    Lindy Says:

    I foolishly assumed a website called Truth for Madeleine might actually by run by people who wanted to know the truth. Instead, I find it’s run and supported by conspiracy theorists with seriously sick views who are determined to pile more misery onto a couple who have clearly suffered more than any of us could ever imagine.
    I’m reminded of Sally Clark who was persecuted for killing her child except, of course, she didn’t. I bet everyone on this site would have had her hanged before the truth came out.
    Of course it was an error for the McCanns to leave their children unattended and one positive thing to come out of all this is that loads of parents who did it before don’t do it now. But this mistake doesn’t mean they deserve what has happened to them.
    You’re all desperately hoping they’re going to be proved guilty but any sane person can see this isn’t going to happen. And imagine what you’re going to feel like when the truth does eventually emerge and it turns out that Madeleine was abducted and the McCanns were totally uninvolved.

    Site admin: 1) This is not a website about Sally Clark and you would lose your bet, 2) How do you know the McCanns left their children in the manner they stated? Where is your proof that their story indeed happened? It is not substantiated by the evidence and as such is the main reason why their “abduction story” appears to have been staged. The McCanns changed their stories between the two interviews conducted by Portuguese police on May 4, 2007 and May 10, 2007. 3) We are hoping that the McCanns and their friends will face up to a jury at some point in time whereby they can be confronted with the numerous holes in their stories. This is the normal sequence of events in a crime and we support that process – a process that has not yet occurred.

  85. 85
    nic Says:

    Kate was smiling in the park with the twins the next day and that shocked me and made me think,then hearing she had washed the teddy that was it for me, guilty, you would want the smell left on anything that belonged to her,its natural,Kate was obviously hiding something,blood?Why are they still wanting everyones sympathy,they are doctors yet they left their children alone in a strange foreign land with the door unlocked! No sympathy and yes they have got away with murder, even if it was an accident how she died, they covered it up, so to speak,and have now convinced themselves someone came in,you tell yourself something enough times and you will start to beleive.They did’nt want to loose their credibility as doctors, there only way out was to do this to save their own backs,I cant watch them on anything they make me angry,and now all this new hype,shes desperate for people to like and feel sorry for her, well not me!

  86. 86
    annon Says:

    i believe they are guilty it has been a big mistake on there part and they have tried to cover up there story they will be bought to justice. it just amazes me that they havent seen the courts and been forced to answer the questions that are unanswered they are all in it for the money . i believe from day one it was always them and i also still believe it is blood in the car what other proof do they need the whole thing was staged and everyone else was left in the dark about it i mean who in there mind would leave children unattened at such a young age its madnesss time will prevail and i hope they get what is coming to them.

  87. 87
    mark Says:

    Sorry but it’s all a farce. Why are they allowed to keep the other two children, it was blatant neglect leaving 3 yes 3 kids ALONE in a foriegn country. I wouldn’t even leave my kids at home alone and i live here in the uk. The fact most suckers keep putting towards the pot is absolutely ridiculous. Lie detectors may not be 100% but it will definately give a reading of some sort yet none of the 9 has done one. Also, why did she refuse to answer the 49 questions put to her? We had the police officers book stopped from being published over here because of the so called lies, yet the Mcanns can print off their dribble. God only knows and the truth will come out eventually. Knowing our own judicional system, they’d probably get 2 months as after all they are ‘doctors’. Sorry McCanns until you actually answer the questions, guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From a loving devoted father who knows how to look after his kids.

    Site Admin: Well said Mark. However, the neglect story probably never happened – it was the cover story for a more serious homicide. Everyone has been focused on discussing the neglect story when there are many clues that suggest that scenario never happened. In this respect it has been a slick and well coordinated piece of spin. As you say though, why don’t they all take lie detector tests to rule that out of the equation?

  88. 88
    Beverly Says:

    Interested to read above (from Site Admin) that there was a change of story between 4 and 10 May 2007. Is there any material or a link for this? I am also curious about the correction on ‘neglect’ – surely the children were literally left alone while the adults dined? Would like to know more on this if possible. Thankyou.

    Site Admin: Read the police files. You can find copies of the relevant pages on the website: The first interviews were held on May 4 and May 10, 2007. You also need to read early newspaper reports quoting the family. Use the calendar on this website to search those stories from May 2007.

  89. 89
    Notarf Says:

    They don’t feel they have to or need to take a lie detector test due to the fact that the percentage of public opinion about their innocence far outweighs that of their guilt. If it was to sway the other way then maybe they might be pressured into it. Who knows eh? Wonder if I’ll still be alive myself if whatever happened to the little mite ever comes to light. Don’t believe all you read or hear about their innocence or their guilt. Never stop questioning.

  90. 90
    ACPC30 Says:

    Personally I am now getting really fed up with this couple – the facts remain that they felt that it was appropriate to leave their children alone in a strange country and when something happens to one of their children they are making money out of this tragedy! If it had been Joe and Mary Bloggs from Paisley they would have been arrested on their return, charged with neglect and their remaining two children would have been removed under the Child Protection Act which would have been the appropriate action. I know of no one who would leave their most precious possessions in a position of vulnerability under any circumstances – personally I used to have my kids in their pj’s in the buggy right beside me while I ate in the evening on holiday. What is so special about this pair that they think the laws concerning looking after your children do not apply to them! This whole thing looks like a money making scheme which will trundle along for many years to come. Unfortunately I do feel that this child is no longer with us and I in part think that this was due in part to the media circus and campaign which followed – big accent was put on her eye so if she was abducted as they claim they basically sealed her fate by publicising this. This would have been the piece of information I would have kept quiet basically because any abductor could change hair colour, style, dress child as different sex but they could not change that eye – she would be too risky to have around – too easily identified! That is of course if she WAS abducted!! I agree with the other writers as well about the couple not reacting in a way which you would expect. I remember turning around in a shopping centre to get my change and my daughter had wandered off – the feelings I experienced were awful and I have to say it was the worst 5 minutes I have ever had – the reigns came back out after that much to my 4 year olds disgust but hey we all have to do it – why didn’t they???

  91. 91
    Cas Says:

    I have always had my doubts. So many things do not add up. First of all why did they refuse the services of a babysitter for that night? Surely a professional couple who so loved their children would have done! Why did the twins not wake during all the commotion? Why wasn’t one of them taken? My theory is they drugged their children to make them sleep so they could selfishly leave them to go out and enjoy themselves. All this publicity makes me even more determined that they are guilty. All they seem to do is want more and more money – what for? We as a country are going to be paying £3.5 million to hep them; how much more do they want for God’s sake.

    Site Admin: The reason they never used a babysitting service is because the story they told never happened. In other words the story of leaving the children and checking them every 20-30 minutes was concocted to cover for the death of their child. While everyone is debating why they left their children, there is no discussion over what really happened. This is a standard diversionary tactic and most people are sucked into this.

  92. 92
    John Says:

    Apparently Madeleine was last seen by someone other than the McCanns at around 14:30pm on the day she disappeared. The McCanns joined friends for dinner at around 7pm. This would mean that if something happened to her in the apartment they only had around 4 hours to cover this up and to think of a story. That’s quite unlikely to be possible, and to then get away with it for 4 years. However I don’t trust them an inch. They make me sick with their arrogance, their twisting of facts, and their refusal to cooperate fully with the Portuguese police. As for washing a child’s treasured soft toy, no loving mother would ever do that unless she had something to hide.

  93. 93
    Laura Says:

    My almost three year old has a cuddly dinosaur to whom he has been utterly devoted since he was four months old. It goes everywhere with him. I rarely manage to sneak it away from him to wash it. Frankly, it looks and smells utterly revolting most of the time. It doesn’t smell of my son – it smells of soil, dirt, playdoh, several different dinners and occasionally vomit. If I lost my son, I wouldn’t hesitate to wash his dinosaur. I have treasured memories of my son with his toy, but looking at it is what brings those memories back, not sniffing it. I agree it is suspicious that Kate McCann washed Cuddle Cat just before the dogs went out to Portugal, but not that a loving mother would never have washed her child’s favourite toy – if you could smell Stinky Sid, I’m sure you would understand!

    Site Admin: You make a good and valid point. However, the cadaver dog smelled the scent of death on the Cuddle Cat toy. Washing doesn’t easily neutralise that odour.

  94. 94
    Laura Says:

    I know that! I was just pointing out that washing a missing child’s toy is not in itself evidence of a terrible, evil, unloving mother. I was sticking up for myself, not Kate McCann! 🙂

    Since I’m here, could you clear up a question for me? I know the McCanns are hell bent on convincing everyone that Madeleine went missing in the space of five minutes between Gerry checking on the children and Jane Tanner seeing a man carrying a child. It seems to me that they are almost too determined to pin the time down to earlier in the evening, when in reality it could have been any time up to Kate finding her missing (assuming of course that Madeleine was actually abducted). I know Martin Smith and his family are convinced they saw Gerry carrying a child at about 9.55 p.m. Is it possible that Gerry McCann was NOT at the table at that time? Is there actually any independent evidence of his presence in the restaurant at that time, aside from what the Tapas 9 have said? And if people were coming and going all evening, would his absence necessarily be noted by the others anyway, provided he was back in time for the crucial and memorable return of Kate? I’ve checked a few of the Tapas 9 statements, and they seem quite vague about who was where and when – maybe I just looked at the wrong ones. Can anyone enlighten me, please?

  95. 95
    Notarf Says:

    Was wondering if someone could clear some confusion for me. If they hired the Renault Scenic three weeks after the 3rd May and the dogs then discovered those scents, would it not mean they would have to have had contact with a dead body during the time of hire? How, in all that media cirus and police doubt, could they have done that? Surely they would have been taking an impossible risk. It is the one thing that despite my suspicions of the abduction, that doesn’t add up.

    Maybe I’ve missed something here but please clear this up for me

  96. 96
    Chris Says:

    Hi Laura,
    Dont forget we only have their word for the frequency and nature of the checks. I think that there was a certain amount of creative accounting for movements and checking of the children done in hindsight. It is pheasable therefore that noone may have clapped eyes on Maddie from the time she was put to bed. I agree with the views of Pat Brown in her profile of the case, which was that the checks were far more sporadic and many were just listening ones therefore she could have met with an accident very early in the evening and was not discovered for several hours, because everything was quiet. There would be a huge ammount of panic of individuals trying to account for their movements. It is possible that the key players in this tragedy actually improved upon the extent of their checks when in fact all that they did was walk past the window of the appartment, but didnt hear any crying or noise in the appartment, but then driven by their own sense of guilt, needed to step up to the plate to give a more detailed account of themselves, but this was done after the event.

  97. 97
    MCG Germany Says:

    So many questions – so many secrets – so many people who must know the truth …

    The Mccann’s friends (couples) who shared holidays in Portugal all were doctors (father or mother or both).
    All had little children, all left their children alone at night (no babysitter).

    Could it be
    — that they all gave sedativa to their babies at night while they met at the tapas restaurant?
    — that this is the reason why they all cannot admit the truth (that Maddie died because of -overdose- medication), because this could cause an enorm harm to their professional status as doctors (and parents)?

    Reveal the conspiracy of silence – Ask the doctor-couples for the truth – they know much more than they admit!

  98. 98
    jon Says:

    It’s interesting reading all this but it isn’t very smart people clamouring for them to take lie detector tests or answer questions. The place for that is in court, on a murder charge. For that to hold they will have to have a fair trial, with a jury that hasn’t been influenced by potentially biased media or books, as any appeal lawyer would certainly argue. So it isn’t necessarily a bad thing that the book is suppressed. I would say there is far too much comment about how this little girl was left in the apartment and so on. There is no evidence for any of it. She wasn’t seen alive after about 2.30pm. That is all we know. That, and the fact she’s gone, and the fact that their stories conflict and are shot to pieces. It won’t progress until there is a body, which there will be I feel sure. Usually in investigations of this nature the parents/husband/boyfriend are the key suspect. What surprises me is that they seem to have been able to return to Portugal unshadowed and allowed the opportunity to move the body, when by the line of questionning they were already key suspects in the Portugese police’s mind. I thought at first this was just a sedation that went wrong, but looking at the behaviour and the involvement of the media in the immediate aftermath it all looks too pre-meditated for that to be possible. I now don’t believe anyone who had either had their daughter genuinely abducted or accidentally overdosed could have behaved in such a coherent and skilful manner. In the face of severe emotional trauma like that it is very difficult to be collected. Hiring PR people would be the last thing to think of. Unfortunately it now looks to me like it was probably planned and may have happened in the afternoon. What we do know is that short of working in the police these two had the best skills to know how to disguise evidence and leave no clues behind. They probably did a very good job, and the police on both sides might know this. They aren’t stupid as some of you imply. But if the evidence is very well covered up, with the key piece, a body, missing, then I understand there is nothing more they can do but sit on what they have until the appropriate time when it goes to court. Please don’t clamour for evidence to be released before that if you want them eventually brought to justice.
    Where could she be I wonder?
    Lastly I did like the lady’s suggestion that someone who donated to their fund should ask for the money back with a civil action. Very clever. Unfortunately it won’t put them behind bars.

  99. 99
    Jacqueline Says:

    People in Liverpool – Kate’s so called ‘home town’ [pass me the sick bag] know the truth. Those who live in the vicinity of Anfield – in particular a Monica Roberts and her crony Gaynor who lives tweo doors down from her – have inside knowledge of what happened to this little girl and have withheld evidence. but then what do you expect from people like that anyway, we all know what they are like in real life.

  100. 100
    Kenny Says:

    “Be quiet my dear Madeleine, here’s a little something to help you sleep. Trust me, it’s the same medicine you’ve had before – just a little larger to help you rest.
    Sleep now, so that daddy and I can go off partying with friends.”

    “Oh dear Madeleine, why won’t you wake? I only drugged you slightly more than normal, the other kids are ok – why won’t you wake?
    Gerry, we have a problem. Madeleine won’t wake.. we drugged her and left her, the authorities will know this if they find her. We need to protect ourselves and our other children.
    How do we dispose of her…. ?
    …………… well we did a good job of that, and the police suspected nothing (ed: but the rest of the world did). In fact, lets play it out a bit longer.. we can’t bring Madeleine back, but we can certainly earn some cash and publicity in her name. Lets open a charity, well perhaps not a charity but a limited company, that way we can cream a good income from her murder.
    Oh Gerry, what would I do without you!”


    God rest little Madeleine. Thanks to your parents, we may never find you – their macabre secret wil remain with them to their grave.

  101. 101
    Lo Says:

    As two Doctors the McCann’s earnings would have amounted to somewhere in the region of, lets say for arguments sake, 200K pa, if not more. Why if they both had professional jobs would they not hire a nanny to look after the children, unless they had something to hide? Usually parents earning that amount of money have very stressful jobs, and three children would add to that stress. The usual excuse for not hiring a nanny is the parent/parents, as in the case of the Beckhams, want to do the parenting themselves. But, unlike the Beckhams who have the luxury of an entourage, these two people had very full on careers too. It is also obvious from reading Mrs McCann’s Diary and the book that a) she was struggling to maintain a work like balance, and b) that Madeleine was an active little girl.

    Again, as Doctors these two people would have access a vast drugs cabinet. They also whilst struggling to cope with the children, (and who wouldn’t with three children under four years old) felt confident enough each night whilst on holiday to book a table for 8.30 pm and arrived,one assumes, most nights on time. How could they do that? How could they guarantee that all three children would be asleep by that time? As a parent myself I could not do that with one child, let alone three toddlers, and quite often have to leave invitations open ended on arrival times.

    I believe on the night Madeleine went missing, she actually died of a drug overdose, administered by her parents to make her go to sleep, so they could go out to dinner with friends, either that same night or the night before,but unfortunately I think it resulted in the death of Madeleine.

    Mrs McCann has said in a statement that she spent the night before madeleine died in the childrens bedroom because of a fight with her husband, but was it because Madeleine was ill, too ill to take to the hospital incase they where questioned and in the process died?

    Failing that…

    I believe that when the two women claimed they last went into the apartment together and witnessed all the children there, Madeleine was actually dead or in a coma, but Katie McCann did not realise.

    I believe that when Katie McCann went into the room alone on the final visit, it is only then she actually check properly on Madeleine and realised this was the case.

    I believe the book and the diary has been written to throw people off their scent with suggestiveness, but more to persuade people that there was an abductor, when in fact there was not. Also, Mrs. McCann herself actually suggests that the abductor came into the apartment on two consecutive nights and administered drugs to make the twins sleepy so enabling him to slip into the apartment without waking the youngest two children. Did she do that just in case the police took specimens from the remaining children?

    I believe that this is the reason the parents do not see themselves as wrong in leaving the children alone that night, and will not accept the blame, because the blame they do have resting on their shoulders is the result, rather than the cause of that neglect.

    I believe that is why Mrs McCann deleted all the calls off her mobile phone the night Madeleine went missing, to delete especially the ones to her husband when she’d found out what happened.

    I believe that is why the police reported the apartment had been tampered with and forensics lost before they arrived, because on that night she tried in a frenzy to resuscitate the child.

    I believe that is why the toy Madeleine carried every where, the little cat had been washed. To get rid of the forensics, a) to cover up that nights events, as Madeleine most probably was sick, and also, b) to stop any sniffer dogs finding her body from the scent

    What I don’t believe is, if you have a three year old little girl, who by your own admission is an active child, you would leave an apartment door open – I have an eight year old, at the time this happened he was also three, and under no circumstances would you do that. In fact for various reasons you just would not leave three children on their own in an apartment, unless of course you were absolutely sure they wouldn’t wake up, and wander off in the time you were gone.

    I don’t believe that a mother who had just lost her child would have the vision nor willingness to pen a diary, nor indeed the actually strength/imagination put a book together. Yet Katie McCann has managed to pen a book, get it published, and on the shelves. All in the name of finding Madeleine.

    I don’t believe also, that any mother who had just lost her child would strap on her jogging shoes and go jogging a few days after with her husband, unless of course she needed to focus her mind., and lets face it her mind needed focusing because she was about to lose everything if she were found out.

    Finally their appearance at the Leveson Enquiry…. and the outpouring of rage on twitter which is where I began to notice people like yourselves. When you first look at that on face value one assumes, as a doubter, they are doing it for publicity and maybe even a handout of money. I don’t think so, I think they are doing this so the tabloids who carry news to the majority, the same majority Mrs McCann upholds that very prominent scouse accent for, and the same tabloids who, whilst being vile at the way the extract information, kept their story alive, have now served their purpose, and this couple would now like this story pushed under the carpet especially as the funds are running out, and they need to go back to the day job.

    Anyway those are my thoughts – I apologise to anyone they have offended but thank you kindly if you have got to the bottom of this page

    Site Admin: In the 4 1/2 years since Madeleine disappeared, this site has received more than enough information that demonstrates Madeleine died in May 2007. Your comment is well put together and there is no need to apologise for possible offence. How can the truth be offensive?

    Referring to your comment about their potential income, let’s not forget that Kate had become work-shy after the birth of the children. She was only working a few days in Melton Mowbray and that would not have given her the maximum earnings she was capable of.

    Our guess is that the McCanns were hard up because Gerry was having to compensate for Kate not working to her full potential. Add to that the high mortgage and car loans and you have a couple who were probably struggling to keep their heads above water. Their real income was probably closer to 100K than 200K.

    We see these pseudo-middle-class people in many walks of life. They rise from a relatively poor working class background and then they quickly want the trappings of success for bragging rights within their circle of friends. Add a bit of name-dropping and you can see through their fake lives. Look at the way Kate referred to the Prime Minister and Cherie Blair. You’d think she was their best friend with the way she talked about them on first name terms.

  102. 102
    john pocock Says:

    i recently wrote a short comment on friends reunited re, the mccann case and got a varied reaction but one thing i did notice was about 40% totally swallowed the story as related by kate and ,to a lesser extent(we know who wears the trousers)gerry.
    i myself have never been guided by or believed the “story” and am absolutely that a few more are also on our wavelength.
    if you would like to read the piece and the reaction ,good/bad it is on friends reunited over 60,s site

    thanks very much……….john

  103. 103
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Lo! What a well thought out explanation of what may have happened, it’s great to hear of more people coming on board, and John, great initiative, that’s what we need, more people telling more people, every which way.
    Site admin, There is more than enough information to show that Madeleine died in that apartment, and there’s also more than enough information to show who did it but……nothing. That’s why it’s so important to tell others, and tell others to tell others. We need to have a voice that’s loud enough to drown out the bullshit of the whole bang shebang McCann!

  104. 104
    Josie Says:

    I’m open minded about so many things in this case but there is something that bothers me. So many people casually talk about the McCanns drugging their children to make them sleep and Madeleine accidentally dying of an overdose. Often people say this after pointing out that they are both doctors! Perhaps they were giving something to their children to make them sleep, but I cannot for one moment believe that, with all of their combined experience with medicine, they killed their child in that way.

  105. 105
    wifey Says:

    great site and I agree so much no offence here, just so much I am thinking about myself, my heart goes out to poor Madeleine!!

  106. 106
    Chris Says:

    Interesting development ……………. 254th April 2012 the UK Metroplitan Police having spent £2m of our money say they have an announcement to make BBC Tv News.

    Is the shit at last going to hit the fan? I do hope so………

  107. 107
    Chris Says:

    Link to the news item

  108. 108
    Chris Says:

    Panaroma tonight BBC 1 @ 7.30pm………..Madeleine the last hope:-

    The senior Uk investigator speaks out as to why he thinks he can explain her disappearance

  109. 109
    Chris Says:

    I watched the programme! So we have spent £2m and they are only 25% of the way through the investigation. He never explained the disappearance and basically just went over old ground. A picture of what Madeleine might look like now was shown but it did not come from the Metopolitan Police.

    Absolutely nothing new came out of the programme. No questions were raised about the following:-

    1. The unanswered 48 questions.
    2. The deleted mobile phone records
    3. Why they did not search for their child
    4. Why the toy was washed
    5. Why they let their friends et al into the flat thereby destroying the evidence in the flat.
    6. etc etc

    It was stated that the majority have now turned against the McCanns and particularly those in Portugal and many are those who have donated to their fund.

    I will post a link to the programme when and if it becomes available.

  110. 110
    Chris Says:

    The link:-

  111. 111
    Chris Says:

    Just thought you would find this interesting. I was watching the BBC Breakfast programme this morning. Under ‘coming up’ it was reported that the McCanns would be on the programme to discuss the latest developments and that there was a possibility that Madeleine was still alive.

    Surprise, surprise, they didn’t turn up just like they didn’t bother to look for Maddy 5 years ago. Instead there was waffle from one of their legal hangers on.

    Incredible……………….. no point in turning up if they know she is not alive is my interpretation.

  112. 112
    Liz Y Says:

    I find it quite sickening that the media are still courting the McCanns, I find it even more sickening, that they will appear on TV, to answer only questions, that have been vetted by themselves. I feel frustrated to the point of tearing my hair out, and so totally impotent at being unable to help this little girl and get to the truth of her disappearance. Surely this cannot be happening, when there is ‘supposed’ to be a full enquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann taking place, as we speak, how the hell can these people be invited by a TV Company to go onto the television to spout the usual crap being that Madeleine is still alive, during an investigation. They say that they will never give up looking, of course they won’t, it’s a nice little earner, all that it requires is that you pretend to sit around at home waiting by the phone, that they know will never ring. Madeleine is, in my opinion, dead, she isn’t going to be found, she’s gone forever, we know it and they know it. How much more of other people’s money do you want bum, Mr. and Mrs. McCann?? How on earth can The Met., allow these appearances to go unchecked, the McCanns are supposedly, at the very least, prime witnesses to a major crime, if not prime suspects of one, yet they carry on unfettered. It’s all totally insane, 2 people, involved in suspicious circumstances, not cleared, as they would have you think, but freed due to lack of evidence, can get in touch with the bloody PRIME MINISTER who then sets a precedent and agrees to bankroll another enquiry (Joe public take a bow), when they are/were the chief suspects, in the original investigation, which remains unresolved. And, they, (The Met) are processing information from the Private Investigators directed and paid for by the McCanns. (Another bow JP).
    Public’s sympathy is trickling away. Consider, (God Forbid) that another child goes missing, the mother of that child will be asking the authorities, and the general public, WHY WHY WHY??? I know I would.
    WHY is my child less important? WHY could the McCanns prompt the Prime Minister to pay millions of pounds of public money, when everyone is stretched to the limit? WHY did the McCanns never have to face tough questioning and cross examination, as well as the other 7, about the events of that night? WHY did they lie again, and again and again? WHY did MI6 escort them home from the airport? WHY haven’t the Gaspars statements been followed up – at the very LEAST? WHY didn’t they agree to a reconstruction? WHY didn’t she answer the questions? WHY did the dogs (not wrong in 200 prior cases) mark exactly the same places? WHY do they only admit feeling guilty that they weren’t with Madeleine at the moment she was allegedly taken? WHY have they said some really bizarre things? WHY is their body language all wrong? WHY did Gerry’s brother ditch a good job, at a time when they couldn’t have been sure she wouldn’t be found the next day? WHY did Goncalo’s dog die, WHY have witnesses
    mentioned being compromised. WHY make up the inflatable board story? WHY won’t they do a lie-detector? WHY did they leave their twins in the same location as their abducted daughter, to go meet the Pope? WHY did Madeleine cry for her father so long, even though Kate was in the apartment? Why have hundreds of things been said and done, that make no sense whatsoever? WHY did Tanner change her description so many times? WHY did they need a spin doctor? WHY did they tell everyone in the first few hours, that the shutters had been jemmied open? WHY didn’t they use the WHOLE of the fund to look for madeleine, as was promised, instead paying for Top Legal Beagles? WHY were they both laughing days after she went missing? WHY did they feel upbeat enough to go jogging, when everyone else would have folded? WHY do they constantly insult peoples intelligence? WHY is it that, had they been living on benefits on council estate, they would be in prison? WHY did the Social Services not take their other children, on the grounds of criminal neglect?
    As my mother used to say when she couldn’t answer her childrens whys. Because Y is a crooked letter and you can’t straighten it!!!
    New enquiry = Whitewash. Everything changes, but remains the same.
    The secret they hold must be SOOOOOOOOO damaging to someone SOOOOOOOOO important!!

  113. 113
    Liz Y Says:

    Referring to my last comment, you others must have loads of WHYS too. Because there is an enormous amount of reading to do, to be up to speed, (I am nowhere near), can everyone unearth their own niggles, so that anyone new on here, can get a potted version of why we’re here, so that all the niggles are easily read, and in one place, (a bit like the info being collated by the Met). They can read the rest, at their own speed. Besides no-one can retain all the information they have read before, so let’s hear the bits that really struck a cord with you. Let’s remember the niggles are why we are here.
    I’ve just had a thought, it’s occurred to me before, that some of the McCann’s comments make sense in the way they’re phrased, if they had a lie detector in mind.
    One of those has just popped out at me, the McCann’s said they felt guilty that they weren’t with Madeleine, at the moment she was ‘taken’. Which would be true, if taken meant died, because they had enough medics around to resuscitate her (so said one of the 7 I think), which would also cover the ‘we’ve let her down’. Just a thought and probably one posted by someone else 5 years ago, which illustrates the point above.

  114. 114
    Chris Says:

    Hi Liz,

    I suggest you start a list which others can cut and paste into. You could start with the 48 unanswered questions but I suggest not. One little problem is we will probably run out of space on the system!

    I’m happy to add to your list but I will need to do some re-reading.

    Chris (West Sussex UK)

    Ps It really p’s me off that we are spending all this money and there is no sight of the McCanns. Rumour has it they are making some sort of appearance on Wednesday. No doubt they will refuse any unvetted questions.

  115. 115
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Chris, I wish my computer skills were as good as you think they are. I am absolutely hopeless, I don’t even know what cut and paste means, I come across the words often enough, and I am sure that it’s great to have things that cut corners and make things easier, but alas I just don’t get it.
    Nice to hear from you anyway.

  116. 116
    John Says:

    Hi there, I really don’t know what to think about this case. Now the Maddie story is back in the headlines I decided to look around on google for various points of view and I came across this website, which I find very interesting and thought provoking.

    What I don’t understand is that if the McCanns are responsible for the death of their daughter Maddie, why don’t they just fade away into the backgroung never to be heard of again ? I mean if they have gotten away with murder the last thing they would want is more publicity, and the prospect of the case being reopened ? I’m sure these points have been covered on this site, but I’m not convinced its for the money from the Maddie fund.

    I do find this Clarence Mitchell character to be very dubious and creepy, he is in it for the money and the publicity, but if he knew what really happened to Maddie then he would have sold out the McCanns ages ago to the highest tabloid bidder.

    Just another point, I’m English, and I have lived in Lisbon, Portugal for 15 years and I have complete faith in the Portuguese criminal investigation police, they are just as profesional and capable as the UK police, in my opinion.

  117. 117
    William Swithin Says:

    This case stinks from start to finish. It is obvious here that these two are acting with impunity because I think some other eminant person is involved. Point 1/ upon returning to the apartment and fining the child missing it is not normal reaction for a mum to shout,”Shes gone” the normal reaction would be, Hey Gerry, I cant find Maddie, come and help me find her.2/ The theory of the child being abducted by a childless woman or couple is a non starter because the obvious choice for such a woman would be the youngest children and not a 4 year old. I am amazed at the questions being refused an answer because I find nothing offensive in them. What I cant understand is in kight of the evidence against these two why are they still walking the streets. Collin Stagg was charged with nurder on the flimbsy evidence that he daily walked his dog in the murder area. What he done was volunteer to take a lie detector test to prove his innocence, something these two refuse to do. Wth the evidence of the dogs and the gaspar statement these two are guilty as sin and they are making a fortune from killing their own daughter.

  118. 118
    Darren N Says:

    I’ve held my own theory for years – and in the process had to put up with some fairly aggressive responses in the process. These 2 have courted the media to such a degree it’s incredible, whilst all the while hiding behind such a cloak of lies that it beggars belief.

    The papers are just as much to blame, they got onto the parents ‘band-wagon’ and soon realised that their continued support would sell newspapers.

    What a sick, sick society we live in…! If the parents had not been a GP and Consultant then the headlines would have read “Scumbag couple dessert kids to go on drinking binge…!”

    Do you think that’s harsh? Well if you do, just google some of the other stories of Brits abroad who left their kids or didn’t return to their hotel and left their kids etc. ALL were hung out to dry and given the full venom of the British Red Tops.

    I won’t apologise for putting it so bluntly. Remember: Kate, as a GP, would have held the power to call in social services if whilst back in the UK she’d had a parent as a patient who subsequently confessed to going out to socialise whilst leaving his / her minors unattended. Are we that sick and media influenced / driven that we simply just brush all this under the carpet?

    Well educated medical professionals do not simply abandon their children to go for tapas. I cannot swallow this as being credible and, for a lot of the UK polulation, neither can they….

    Whether or not they accidently OD’d this poor child or she was ‘accidently’ shaken to death only they will know the truth. Suffice to say that when administering sedatives to such a small bodyframe and mass as a child then it is actually quite easy to cause unintentional O/D (overdose) – something like gradual respiratory failure would be extremely difficult to detect, even if you were sat watching the child from the bedside.

    Children’s bodies will intitially compensate for the effects of a sedative quite well, and no medical emergency will be clearly identifiable. In this sort of situation, you’d possibly only know that something was seriously wrong when you went to rouse the child and they remained unresponsive.

    Looking at the non-verbal signals (body language) given off in the early interviews / statements I can tell you that the finger of guilt sits firmly with the mother. I firmly believe the father is completely domineering and took hold of the situation once the ‘accident’ had been revealed.

    The mother is the key and either shook the poor child to death, accidently OD’d her or maybe a combination of both of the latter. Either way she then had to inform the husband who then, to my mind, carried as much guilt in the proceedings, by arranging the disposal of this poor child’s body.

    He is the voice and spokesman as she simply cannot carry the guilt and effectively hide it. Gerry knows this and hence he is the ‘lead man’ in this macabre charade.

    If this was your child and you saw websites like this how would you feel if you had nothing to hide, surely you’d feel they had the potential to mask the truth? Therefore, wouldn’t you ‘go public’ and maybe volunteer to take a lie detector test? Thus gaining more public support and assistance once proved innocent, all rumours and theories quashed immediately?

    Would you not leave no stone unturned in you quest to find your child? Like all lies, this has built up such momentum that the point at which it should have all been stopped by the parent has now passed and the inertia of the circus has taken over.

    Likewise with the initial investigations by the Police in Portugal, would you not just answer every single question. Surely your mind would be in such a distressed state that you would’t even be capable of analysing each question to such depth…

    THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT and we will unfortunately find that a huge amount of the populous have been looking for a child that has sadly departed from this mortal coil and that we, as the general public, have been the victims of one of the single biggest lies in history.

    As for this so called husband and wife, well they’re stuck with each other now. I think presonally they’d have gone their own separate ways years ago. But now they are bound for eternity by an awful and shocking set of lies and deceipt.

    Forget the tabloids, forget the PC statements of the police. Ask ANY body language expert or even a serving member of the CID and they will all try to avoid discussing the case. Only once you push them a bit do you find out why…They all belive the parents are guilty.

  119. 119
    norman belfast Says:

    i have alwats said right from the start that kate and gerry McCann O/D their daughter maddie … when are the police going to arrest the McCanns for the MURDER of their daughter …. and after reading all the items wrote about the case … i believe the McCanns are guilty of maddies murder too many things don,t add up with kate and gerry version of the story …. they know what they done ? its time they were charged with maddies murder so the truth can come out ..

  120. 120
    adam Says:

    Always been interested in this case, but only recently have i began to read the facts. It is an extremely intersting case for many reasons, with alot of complex factors into it. I want to keep as much of an open mind as possible until i have read every possible fact about it all, i cant judge before i have maximum information. I would have loved to have been able to work on this kind of case. All your comments were good reading and i will come back and read again after i have tried to come to a conclusion myself, which i will share. good reading people, thanks.

  121. 121
    Chris Says:

    Hi John,

    “What I don’t understand is that if the McCanns are responsible for the death of their daughter Maddie, why don’t they just fade away into the backgroung never to be heard of again ?”

    Unfortunately ‘Maddie’ has been made into a money making machine fo the McCanns. The McCanns do fade into the background. When they ‘pop up’ it is to promte a book (more money) for example. They have nothing new to tell and refuse to answer any proper questions. They refuse to have proper interviews on British TV and send a representative. Well, that is some why to find your missing daughter.

    Why we the British taxpayer are paying £10m to look into this case and the McCanns have not had a public grilling needs answering.

  122. 122
    Liz Y Says:

    The McCanns have had an answer from the start which, would silence their many critics of which I am one, enable them to save thousands of pounds on legal teams, do away with private investigators (all of which could be added to the fund, which was needed to find Madeleine remember).
    It seems that they want to force their opinion us, and have gone to great lengths and expense, to achieve this outcome. Their mantra – no stone unturned – doesn’t apply to lie-detectors obviously, so why not? This small act would prove their innocence once and for all, then all the money would go into the fight to find Madeleine. Surely that would be be better for you Kate and Gerry, you wouldn’t then need to stamp out people’s books, websites and the media, your life would be easier, no more watching what you say, you could sack your legal beagles, you wouldn’t need them anymore, even more money for the fund. It’d be the end of your suffering, so why not???
    It couldn’t be because you’re a rotten pair of liars, could it?

  123. 123
    Chris Says:

    Interesting development.

    I think we all agree that to solve the case we need a body, alive or not. There is no proof that this is not a bluff.

  124. 124
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Chris, I couldn’t get the link to Panorama, it just came on briefly and disappeared. I saw the first link and read some of the articles that were with it and now, I feel like bashing my head against a brick wall, nothing has changed, everyone of them was pro McCann extolling their virtue’s all dripping with pity. I feel a massive disappointment coming on, I feel certain that this new enquiry is already showing all the classic signs of a cover up, and I think it’ll be the final exoneration for the McCanns, as I’ve stated elswhere it’ll be ‘Of course they didn’t do it -even the Met. says so’!! You can tell even at this early stage, that it’s a whitewash, I bet when the verdict is given pro McCann, it’ll be a damned sight harder to say or write anything against them. They want closure alright…. just not the same closure that we have in mind. Unless the Met. are playing everything close to their chests, but it doesn’t seem so. The McCanns want closure as in… it’s over, we’ve done everything we could,(except tell the truth) and now we want to get off the carousel without losing face, especially Gerry, the big I am. They created this monster and now they want rid, well… the donations aren’t as much as they had been and more and more people are starting to wonder…. Perhaps now the investigation has taken over, any monies left in the McCann fund could be donated to other mums with missing children. Hah… Didn’t think so.
    I wonder why it is that all Madeleine finders seem to be South African, quite an interesting article though. Maybe all the arguidos were into something very illicit.
    In my opinion Madeleine had ADHD or some similar disorder, I have it myself and only recently diagnosed, I mention it because the risk of extreme physical and mental violence toward a such a child by an ADHD parent (diagnosed or not). I know because I was just such a child, the sort of child that stretches anyone to the absolute limit, but another adhd sufferer – Parent – Kate possibly, but Gerry ticks all the boxes, he’s brash, rude, cant be thwarted or put down. one of them said Maddie was a screamer, and being ADHD she wouldn’t need much sleep, and if the door was open and I doubt not that Madeleine would find them herself if she wanted to, and that’s the last thing K+G wanted, so maybe she was drugged (not with Calpol I don’t think) maybe phenergan or the like, which is why Kate remained seated in the kids bedroom watching the twins closely, making sure that their chests were rising and falling hence still breathing.I am reasonably sure that Madeleine’s body will never surface, they know she wont be found, they’ve hidden her well.

  125. 125
    Chris Says:

    Hi Liz,

    So what is ADHD – excuse the ignorance? My interest in this case goes back to a post I made just after it happened, on a financial website, saying that the parents had to be the prime suspects. I could not believe the abuse I received. We are very lucky in having a son and daughter both now early thirties. We took them abroad many times and would never have left them alone.

    The McCanns don’t seem to add up, for want of a better word, and I am surprised still that many of my posts never appear or get deleted (Huff post a good example).

    Something very wrong is going on and I do hope we eventually get to the bottom of it.

    btw Another of my posts was just before the Iraq war. “Do you really trust this government?” I still cannot get my head around how anyone, in this day and age, can bomb people from 30,000 feet whether the pilot or the government. You are going to kill thousands of innocent people.

  126. 126
    Liz Y Says:

    I watched the programme last night, about murdered Soham girl Holly Wells’ parents and their quest to have some normalcy in their lives, and what a fight it has been and and still is. You see Kate and Gerry, their daughter died at the hands of a paedophile, and in the days, months and years that followed, they’ve quietly grieved, and tried to recover the tatters of family life they had left after it was engulfed by the tragedy of Holly’s death, and then, immersed themselves way to help people who have suffered similar experiences. Not for them then, the jogging, the cuddle cat, the press conferences, the ribbons and the wristbands, the demands, the tantrums, they didn’t harass the police for the private files concerning their daughter, nor belittled the same for their own agenda. They could have had a field day with the authorities because, the death of their daughter was as a direct result of the complete failure of the system, designed to weed out paedophiles, applying for work around children. What did they do? Quietly accept that sometimes, things go horribly wrong. They weren’t screaming for blood, with their grubby little hands out. Their (The Wells)immediate thoughts were, not to call in the media, nor make a plan of the circumstances they found themselves in, they didn’t have any need, because THEY hadn’t done anything wrong. They didn’t delete their cellphone history, they went looking and carried on ALL night, again and again. I bet they couldn’t sleep after a few days grieving. You can bet your sweet life that they answered ALL the bloody questions, they weren’t on tv or in the papers, being arrogant, or dripping with self pity, trying to leech MORE money off people poorer than themselves.
    Kevin Wells wrote a book also, to be honest I haven’t read it, but I’m probably right in assuming it didn’t touch on their intimate relationship problems after Holly’s death. They gave the police the most up to date image of the girls, taken a few hours earlier. The baby photo’s of Madeleine were sent to the world, and it was days after that, the latest image of Madeleine with the tennis balls, hit the press, and the girl looked nothing like the other Madeleine on the first posters. (Was this buying for time to enable an escape or, could it be a different girl? I’m open to anything with this pair)??
    So Kate and Gerry, do you get my drift? Your behaviour is abnormal – no that’s not the right word, I can’t even think of a word that in anyway describes the actions of you two. Holly’s parents behaved with the utmost dignity and honesty, and they have shedloads of what you totally lack – it’s called dignity, and do you know why? It’s because their daughter genuinely died at the hands of a paedophile, you two can’t do that can you, because you know what happened to Madeleine. So you’re just making it up as you go along – and it shows!!
    Honesty, Dignity and Integrity…..

  127. 127
    James Rooney Says:

    Why did they pop in, to see the Pope?

    It wouldn’t look very good, if we found out that the Pope gives private audiences, to child murderer’s

    That’s why Catholic Portugal, will never charge them.

    The Pope wouldn’t give, a private audience, to child murderer’s, would he?


  128. 128
    Chris Says:

    The Pope did not give them a private audience. He was very clever just a public 30 seconds.

    June 2007 – They handed him a photograph of their precious little girl Madeleine and watched him bless it with the Sign of the Cross!

    Read more:

    I don’t understand where you are coming from.

  129. 129
    norman Says:

    after all this time the uk police are no further forward with the mc canns the case seems to have gone cold along with the cold and bloody murderers of kate and gerry mc cann. they know them selfs that they killed maddie. its now time the uk police start putting pressure on the mc canns and arrest and charge them with the murder of maddie…. look at the guy in the papers at the moment for the little girl who has disappeared in england they have charged him with the murder of her and no body found… WHY dont the police charge the mc canns with the murder of maddie .its the same type of case NO BODY… The mc canns are guilty of murder…. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY

  130. 130
    Rebecca Says:

    I have a few theories…… Theory 1) due to drugs being administered- or not – Madeleine had an accident in the room – which is why blood was detected. The curtain was ruffled behind the couch (where blood was detected- perhaps she became trapped behind the couch. The McCanns (or just Jerry) then removed or had removed her body. Who knows who they knew in that area? They later retrieved her body put it in the boot of the car they hired 20 days later and disposed of it themselves.
    Theory 2)This is closer to what I think happened – Gerry McCann (after drinking throughout the evening)sexually assaulted Madeleine when he checked on her at about 9pm – this would explain him saying he had a conversation outside the room with a man (to cover up the extra time the check took). This assault explains the blood – he took her behind the couch (pulled it out) out of direct sight. (there is an Oprah interview where he speaks of the twins sound asleep and then describes Madeleine lying with her toy, blanket – his voice peters off as he is talking and he does not say if she was awake, sound asleep or anything…. isn’t this a key factor?? AND if you watch it check his change of expression when he describes her – very creepy)He has then either killed or drugged her (or drugged her before the assault) put her in the wardrobe after which she has been removed from the apartment (dead OR alive). He has killed or drugged her to cover up what he has done – to stop her crying/distress etc. He has flung the windows open as a cover up. He has then told Kate that Madeleine is dead – drug overdose or injured herself in the room – he has said they will dispose of her and explained how it is to be done….. her side of it etc. (or that he has disposed of her already)She has gone along with it to protect them all. OR he has just let Kate find the situation out and later told her the story (leaving out the sexual assault and saying she had an accident).
    Theory 3) Kate wasnt coping at all with the kids. She never bonded with Madeleine properly. This was all set up so she would never have to deal with Madeleine again. Her husbands answer to the problem – I have never seen a genuine love or sentiment for Madeleine in all his interviews. I hope she was passed on into a loving situation if this is the case. However she likely loves her parents more than they ever did her.
    I believe Gerry McCann is a tyrant behind the scenes. He is likely Anti-social Personality Disorder (many hold high up jobs/careers). I was in a relationship with one for 8 years and can spot them. Kate McCann is, in fact, terrified of what he is capable of as she knows/sees a side of this man that others do not. He has brainwashed her and she has brainwashed herself to hold things together enough for the twins and to cover everything up. He is the driving force behind all the stories they have told. Perhaps on Kate’s deathbed the truth may come out. Interestingly two of the ‘sightings’ of Madeleine involve a woman who appears to be the same woman – one near where they were staying and the other in Brussels (UK?). (So two sightings – on camera – different countries -possibly same woman) (also fit with woman/child that came into my clothing shop in NZ – this furthers my interest in this case). Maybe after being drugged and removed she was passed on to someone – a payment could of been made to murder her but perhaps that never happened. Perhaps Maddies blood was found in the boot of the car hired 20 days later as it was small amounts off Jerry’s clothes from the assault? I believe she could still be alive and I hope she for her own sake and as she could be the key to the truth. The MCCanns are deeply immeshed in this and the toll of Kate – look at her appearance is due to two things – 1) the loss of her daughter 2) the stories and cover ups. I think money exchanged hands and still possibly does – silence threats? – and the McCanns finances should be gone through with a fine tooth comb.

  131. 131
    chris Says:

    Hi Rebecca,

    Well put, I think we all agree the parents know a lot more than they are telling.

    I would be interested in your comments on the possibilty that Kate ‘did it’ and Gerry is covering ‘it’ up. Kate seems a very weak individual and would imo do as told by Gerry. What brain she has left, it seems Gerry has taken control of.

    Any news on the Met Police investigation! Must be over £20m!! Unbelievable.

  132. 132
    Rebecca Briggs Says:

    I would describe Kate as weak…. I was involved with a Personality Disordered person for 8 years – Antisocial Personality Disorder (term for Psychopathy) – and I would say from outer appearances the victim can appear weak when in fact they are the strongest people around as they are trying to get through and survive the unimaginable. The mind is played with to the degree of feeling one is going mad. I recognise Gerry as a tyrant and I see in Kate this underlying fear of him and his capabilities. This is what has controlled her actions and kept her captive and she would of gotten to the stage of feeling she is in a deep dark hole with no way out. The stories and lies have her further emmeshed. Very sad situation all round as the twins would feel and be affected by all this.

  133. 133
    Rebecca Briggs Says:

    Mistype sorry – it was meant to read “I WOULDNT describe Kate as weak….”

  134. 134
    anon1 Says:

    It’s not as simple as that, it seems to me, Chris. This was not independently the McCanns. There are elements in place which detract attention. Things were organisd. There were people watching the appartment, watching the McCanns at the beach, for example. That was not a coincidence. Further, it is unliklely Jane Tanner would have turned around to concoct her story of a man with long hair with a child upon suddenly being told Gerry the doctor killed Madeleine minutes beforehand. The story appeared very quickly back in the appartment after the alarm was raised. It unlikely to have been invented so suddenly, upon just learning that Gerry or Kate has killed Madeleine.

    Two things: The McCanns are not telling the truth. And, there was something organised going on. What backs up the second point is the fact that the McCanns have been going so strongly, right from the start, for five and a half years now. The sheer determination of anyone involved in the accidental, unexpected death of their child, who can do that consistently for so long, can’t have anything to do with a chance accident. Watching the interviews, they are so assured. Even in the weakness prop times. No-one could keep that up for 5 and half years after an ACCIDENT, later acting to become an ambassador for missing children. They are SO assured. In the face of that their story doesn’t add up in so many ways. It’s not an independent thing. And even how the Tapas group are so tight and organised, easily seems to require pre-planning.

  135. 135
    Liz Y Says:

    This pair are either the weirdest couple ever, or they are lying through their teeth. They don’t seem to be bothered about Madeleine because they know she is dead. You are right Rebecca, they don’t sound right. I have often thought, way back to the beginning, of Kate’s saying ‘She’s Special’ in a flat, apathetic monotone, not She’s soooo special, none of the passion that you’d expect from a mother whose beloved daughter had been abducted, which is bad enough, but by paedophiles!! No it’s all so very wrong. Gerry doesn’t come across any better in his clipped tones, it’s all self-importance, fame and money, it’s a real shame he doesn’t know how bloody stupid he actually is, for even vaguely thinking that we’d swallow his load of bilge. That two people could come together and both act in this manner is bewildering, both coming across as unfeeling and narcissistic, at best, and really strange at worst. You’d expect one of them to try to show some depth, however small, of the emotions a normal couple going through this nightmare, but they’re both reading the same script. If your 3 year old child went missing between your alleged checks on the children, you’d expect, at the very least, one of them screaming for pal (Oldfield?s) blood, for not checking properly or noticing the window being open, if not that then treating him with great suspicion like ‘what did you do to her’ anyone and everyone would be suspicious. Your mind would be all over the place, you wouldn’t be sitting there thinking about writing down 2 plans of the evening’s checks – on Madeleine’s activity book, (which is a no-no all on it’s own), you’d be running wildly searching in dustbins, dark corners screaming Madeleine! Madeleine! You’d be running anywhere just in case the abductor was still in the vicinity. The instinct that makes you panic, if your child has been out of your sight for a more than a moment, is too powerful to be denied, you just wouldn’t be try to steer anyone towards abduction, because you couldn’t possibly know with any certainty, at that time, what had happened. Your brain would be mashed, if, of course, your child had been abducted.
    The fact that you never hear anything of their fellow revellers of that night, not a peep, is very strange. Usually when people have been headline news concerning a crime (even if just for abandonment of their children, never mind an abduction of one of them), the newsmen would still be coming across little snippets here and there, so and so has had a baby, got married or was bitten by a dog, but no, nothing. That’s also suspicious enough to set cogs whirring. The fact that David Payne hasn’t been hauled in for questioning, also speaks volumes.
    What the hell do the McCanns expect us to do, who the hell do they think they are? Do they just think we’re all too thick to realise that there is a pretty extreme cover-up going on. What hold is it that they seem to have, over various influential figures including Prime Ministers and politicians, the fact that they’ve been advised by spin doctors, is self-evident. They have pat answers for every question too, (some so ludicrous, they just make your mouth drop open), all the while pretending to be sincere.
    I think the Mccanns were surprised how easily it was to get people to send money, for them to spend as they saw fit, and by God they’ve milked it, but they’ve had enough now and they want out, the problem for them is the ever-widening audience who are cottoning on. We’re not just a few evil and mad people on the internet, there are thousands of us who will never leave them alone. The only thing I fear is that, having had a review/enquiry by the Met, and let’s face it, if they haven’t by now arrested the McCanns, they ain’t going to, will be a final absolution for the saints Kate and Gerry. They will then be able to sue anyone who says anything, hence their begging for Cameron not to abandon the banning of the no win, no fee option for libel cases. They wont be able to afford top lawyers to keep people from reading or hearing anything other than their ‘truth’ it’s not just because it kept the funds coming in, when (please God) the wider general public find out about how they’ve lied and conned, and how they’ve spent THEIR money, there will be absolute mayhem, people will be absolutely and rightly furious, nobody likes feeling they’ve been made a complete fool of, especially when they’ve parted with hard earned cash.
    I have no ideas left, I veer to and fro, sometimes weeping with rage and frustration. Maybe, just maybe, some light may be shone on this, with the allegations flying round about some of our supposed betters, indulging in or covering-up child abuse on a massive scale. Being what they are, the higher-ups will protect you to a point, but if naming a few a few names will get them out of the shit, they will squeal like babies. Just a thought!

  136. 136
    Chris Says:

    anon1 Says:
    And even how the Tapas group are so tight and organised, easily seems to require pre-planning.

    I believe the child died considerably earlier than we are led to believe. That would allow time for the planning. The group are so tight? They are a bit of a strange lot. Hopefully money is involved (out of the pot). If so cracks will appear and the truth will eventually come out.

    What are the Met Police up too! Must be on a £20m jolly.

    btw Thanks Liz & Rebecca interesting reads.
    Me – I just want justice for Madeleine.

  137. 137
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Chris, Yes a voice for a little girl, that’s all any of us want. Strangely so should her parents, but they are determined she shouldn’t have one. Why is that? There is a solution to all this which would a) Stop people regarding them as suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. b) Cease the need to spend lots of other people’s money on top libel and extradition lawyers, thereby enabling them to spend more money on actually searching for Madeleine. c) Save the rest of us having to fork out for a mortgage and a Met. review, which will, no doubt reveal that they played no part in Madeleine’s disappearance. d) Keep the money coming in. e) Not having to watch what they’re saying for the rest of their lives. All this and more, and how is this possible? Take the lie detector test, that they said they would take, when they were still in Portugal!!
    They were probably told to say it, because the thick people wouldn’t remember, and if we did, then just ignore us, another politicians trick. The poor Met. are going to be busy little bees aren’t they? Mind you I suppose they can lump the two enquiries together because they’re both about child abuse aren’t they?

  138. 138
    john LeClerc Says:

    I notice many people here are banging on about the McCann’s not taking the Lie Dector test. This is silly as “the most common and long used measure is the polygraph, which is considered by the National Academy of Sciences to be unreliable”

    Site Admin: With respect I think you miss the point John. The point of taking a lie-detector test is that it is seen as proof of innocence rather than proof of guilt. Regardless of the reliability, polygraphs are used daily by law enforcement and its use is far from silly.

    The McCanns are bare-faced liars and that is a fact without any polygraph being used. Just read their statements and see how they have altered them over time. Their initial statements to family claimed that the bedroom window had been broken into. They referred to the window as being “jemmied open”. Considering that the window was not jemmied and there was no sign of any forced entry, that is probably as bare-faced a lie as is possible. A polygraph could not improve on the truthfulness of that issue because we already know it is a lie.

  139. 139
    chris Says:

    Hi John,

    I think most of the posters here are banging on about the McCanns answering the questions put to them. They don’t answer any.

    They still insist there daughter was abducted – even yesterday Gerry on BBC (Leveson) news etc. If that is the case it must have been a known threat so why leave her alone? Dream on…………answer the questions — your getting away with………….. murder?

  140. 140
    norman Says:

    what gets me is that david cameron and the british police are doing nothing about kate and gerry mc cann …. when is the british goverment going to wake up and smell the coffee and have kate and gerry mc cann arrested for the murder of maddie … and not forgetting the tapas 7 they should be arrested as well for their part in the cover up as well….. come on david cameron have the mc canns arrested and the tapas 7 as well… and give the british tax payer something for their money

  141. 141
    chris Says:

    Hi Norman

    It’s very stange that Cameron must have spent the best part of £20m of our money on this. Where is the accountability. Why have the McCanns not been called publically in for questioning?

    Guess he doesn’t like the Met Police conclusions.

    I have to agree with you………….so bring in UKIP (I’m not political) but the public spending on this must end.

    As you say we need to see something for our money and truth for Madeleine.

  142. 142
    Liz Y Says:

    I was reading through and a thought occurred to me (it’s probably been brought up by someone else hundreds of times) just imagine Madeleine did say ‘why didn’t you come when me and Sean cried’ Kate and Gerry, far from stepping up the amount of checks, upped the medication instead. If this was a hyperactive child, there’s absolutely no way she would sleep to order, and she would quickly develop a tolerance to medication, maybe she woke and climbed onto the sofa and tried to look out of the window, fell into the gap and smacked her head on the hard floor, perhaps choked on her own vomit, because a sedative could affect the swallowing muscles. That would explain the blood, but not the peadophile undertones of this case. The only thing I’m sure of is that Madeleine is dead, and that weird bunch of people are all involved to some degree (Except, I think Diane Webster). The financial back-up of the McCanns, by businessmen and women is understandable, it was all absolutely believable at the beginning. For me it was the strange behaviour, body language and utterings of the McCanns that spooked me quite early on. Everyone I knew, and everyone they knew were all saying the same things, mainly – The McCanns did something, whatever IT was, they were involved. It was a some time before I found this site, and I can’t even recall how I did, but I immediately found people of like minds, from all walks of life, sharing their individual knowledge gleaned from their experiences of their trades and relationships with others. Doctors and mental health workers, detectives, other professional people, ordinary mums and dads, teenagers, all offering their unique perspectives, people who got all of the various sites up and running, interpreters who translated countless thousands of pages of information, including Amaral’s books, PJ Files etc. etc., All of them, with no other purpose than to speak for a little girl who could not speak for herself. That’s really something isn’t it. We’re not the few bad, evil people on the internet, that the McCanns have labelled us. Where would this world be without those who question, who have finely tuned logical minds, who are willing to speak out against injustice and refuse to give up on a cause, especially one that has been so vociferously opposed. These people who see their work torn down, and just start again. I am in total awe of all you people you’re amazing!!

  143. 143
    Nick Adkin Says:

    I’ve been totally convinced of Gerry and Kates guilt right from the off. I’ve read with interest the views and opinions of others who have also seen right through their web of lies, and I concur with the vast majority of them. The one thing that’s really stood out for me, and I strongly believe this fact alone demonstrates their story is utter garbage, is that in EVERY televised interview or appearance, NOT ONCE did either Kate or Gerry shed any ACTUAL TEARS. Gerry, throughout it all has appeared cold, aloof and totally in control. Kate has done her best impression of being bereft and upset, but as I’ve said; with absolutely NO TEARS AT ALL. You need to be a proper actor to be able to turn on the tears at will, which she’s not. Contrast her ‘performances’ with the obviously genuine appearances on press conferences of parents who had REALLY had a child abducted, and/or murdered. You’d have to be a total moron not to see what’s genuine grief, pain and despair. And you’d have to be a total moron to choose to believe the disgusting lies these two peddle. I shall continue to attempt to convince the (sadly large numbers) of gullible fools more than willing to accept the Mcanns ‘account’ of the truth, as opposed to simply, THE TRUTH.

  144. 144
    chris Says:

    It was also those first interviews that made me start to think there’s the smell of a rat here. If either of my two went missing I would not shout out “he/she has been abducted”. I would have screamed out there name and gone looking for them. I would not have stopped for days. I’d do the same now – they are both now in their thirties.

    The McCanns never bothered. Just deleted all their telephone calls and messages.

    One good thing about this site you can post a comment and it will be published. Have you tried any of the ‘McCann mafia’ ones? You will find it never appears.

  145. 145
    G1 Says:

    I want to reply to Liz in comment 142 above.

    I’d just written lots – so much I was very surprised myself – in reply to someone else about the “accidental death and cover up” scenario.

    I think, personally, it is really, really important – critical – to look at this seriously. And that that theory needs to be really examined and the real prospects of it being a serious possibility or not, really, really need to be shown up clearly. I’d really like people who favour the “accident and cover up” theory to look more seriously at this scenario – as I know it’s a really popular theory. But I don’t feel people are weighing up things fully there.

    So I want to ask you to read a WHOLE LOT I’ve written, in three comments. It is probably hard going (sorry if so, it looks it!), but I’d ask you to stick with it. It’s a lot, but I think so fundamental.

    It’s comments 96, 97 and 98 on the “The Facts Versus the Fiction” article page. Link:

  146. 146
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    I’ve had a quick read so you don’t think it was an accident?

    I’m not sure either. If not it has to be something worse?

    Interestingly my father was a doctor and my mother a nurse. Father long gone but mother going strong at 92. Her remedy for teething was rubbing whisky on the gums. I am one of four and they do experiment on their own from my experience.

    Maddy was not abducted imo what is yours? Short as possible please……..

  147. 147
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris, good to read your thoughts and experiences. I’ll get back to you. It’s hard. I’m not very comfortable with that part. Of course, theory is only theory and no amount of threats or strange actions can make theory mean anything else – ever – but we may have to watch what we “say”.

    I have written this elsewhere in this site, not sure where just now. But I’ll repeat it in a while when I get a bit of time. I just need to think a bit also, about why I think this and if it doesn’t just annoy me. It should annoy me, it is annoying me, it’s just that I have to accept that. I don’t want a miserable life!!!! Booo.

    I need to think a bit about particular possibilities. In the meantime, if you’ve any thoughts or theories, I and others would like to hear them.

    Yes, not an accident absolutely means something worse – no question, no even remote alternative possibility. The awful question, which may always remain unanswerable, is “just how much worse”? Balanced with the question “Is this getting carried away into what, even though possible in a heinous, secret world, is just pointless and not really advancing one’s credibility or thinking to talk about?”


  148. 148
    G1 Says:

    I need to kind of explain the last part …

    ” … is just pointless and not really advancing one’s credibility or THINKING to talk about? ”

    By not advancing one’s thinking – I certainly do not mean that I would be being random, lazy or easily suggestive in a theory or theories I would consider to be likely or very likely to be attributable to this sorry affair. Not at all.

  149. 149
    Chris Says:

    The ‘whisky on the gums’ to solve the teething issue is quite smart. The gums are numbed and the alcohol sends you to sleep.

    I remember coming home one night having raced down the South Downs from Chantenbury Ring on my bike with a best mate. On the way down (in the lead) I hit a tractor rut. Off I came into a barbed wire fence. I split my head open and best mate got me home – fortunately it was a very cold night. Father said ‘hows the bike’ and mum poored a very large glass of brandy. I said what’s that for? She said for me, I can see your skull.

    Dad took me to Worthing A @ E and I was stitched up. Had it been less an injury he would have done it even though you are not supposed to treat you own.

    Point I am making is the McCanns are no different to any others with access to medicine.

  150. 150
    G1 Says:

    … And that means, Chris, they wouldn’t endanger their children with medication accidentally, or without due care, if being genuine. What you experienced was good sense caring, old style. Another thing that’s relevant is that times have changed since then. We are not only in a PC world where professionals have to watch everything they say and how they say it, it’s a world of suits and actions if someone trips or gets the wrong advice, just for a start. The TV is telling you to make a claim whatever might have happened or happen to you.

    Medical professionals have to be very cautious nowadays. Yes, they can ease up with their own children, as any parent can. Though caution, awareness & double checking what they’re not so familiar with is ingrained into them in caring for people, one after the other, who they don’t know from Adam. So, they’re not going to be at all unattentive with the paracetomol for example, with their own kids.

  151. 151
    G1 Says:

    Chris, as your mother, the former nurse, told you she thinks anything in particular about these modern doctors and their doctor friends, and how it seems, and possibilities, which you would share?

    The more I think about the potential ramifications of the possible scenario of Madeleine McCann just dying by accident on holiday, the more I realise there really aren’t any or they’re scarce. Acdident scenario-wise – unless little Madeleine just drowned the night before the 3rd on the seafront as her mother and father kissed and watched her jump into crashing waves to be pulled away forever, there’s really very little indeed they could have been afraid of.

    And, no – there’s no unless. People have built up this false scenario of shame and guilt after some imagined unpreventable, honest accidents. I’m nearly doing it as well, now, after trying to hammer out the absurdness of accident theories. If the girl runs into the sea and drowns, for example, then the girl runs into the sea and drowns. Inquest, accidental death, couldn’t have been prevented as the couple were watching and lost attention for seconds as she ran around, McCann’s go home, keep kids, happy, stay in jobs, care for lots of people, the end.

    Each potential accident scenario would come out exactly the same way. I think it’s such an absurd suggestion, it’s foolish to waste time with it any more.

    Yet, is it an accident itself that the accidental death suggestion hovers there in the air? Perhpas that doesn’t mean anything solid.

  152. 152
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    My mother would have nothing but praise for the NHS and the staff. She would be amazed at the salaries and concerned about the dress code and discipline.

    My father was a very interesting character. Doc Martin must have been based on him. He would not stand for any pussying footing as he called it. He used few words but straight to the point. Worked a seven day week when he was ‘on call’ then never less than five.

    I remember chatting to him about his experiences which he never talked about. He recalled three in particular. One was taking a fish hook out of the eye of Sir Peter Scott , he specialised in EE&T (eyes, ears & throat). Interesting Sir Peter Scott’s autobiography is called ‘The eye of the wind’. Turning down becoming a Brigadier it meant inspecting toilets in India, he hated India where he was stationed in WW2 as a Major. Having fun in Gibralter (WW2) and using the miles of tunnels to get into Spain with some of his mates. They were shot at on their return by the guards.

    So what would they think of the McCanns? Father refused to join the masons. As for the McCanns he wouldn’t give them the time of day they left their children alone. Mother would find some nice things to say………like I’m sure it was an accident

    Madeleine was last seen around 5pm. The more I think about it something happened not long after 5.00pm,. To shout out the words ‘she has been abducted’ (out of the blue) must have been rehearsed.

  153. 153
    G1 Says:

    Interesting stuff, there. It’s funny you post something like that, from your own life, because it’s really kind of relevant now, and when looking at the Madeleine McCann affair, to see how much the old world has gone.

    Nowadays, instead of standing up staunchly for certain things and principles in life, many people seem to just move against what is there, and against what is sensible behaviour in order to keep things working. It’s not just the youth generation anymore, as you could count on for a while int he old days. Many people of all ages seem to have “gone awol” from sense in the last decade or decade and a half or so.

    I don’t want to get into particulars right now, but the Madeleine McCann affair can kind of symbolise that for me. I’ll try to write something about what I think in the next days or a week at least.

    There’s stoicism in your mother, Chris. Maybe there’s sanity in resting it, not quite in concluding, “it must have been an accident” – as I think I’ve wiped out that possibility. But in concluding, “well something sick happened, somehow, it’s unfortunate” and leave it. That was how I felt initially, and for a few years – I didn’t get or want to get involved in thinking of or researching this affair. It was unlike me to do that and I had other reasons not to. I just thought it was some strange, unresolvable anomaly, but not my business. Why would it be? But slowly, curiousity of an unusual type, and some very strange, unidentifiable, quite queer feelings made me get interested, and I can’t shake it off.

    I suppose at times one can put that down to the strange reaction, which even comes months later but doesn’t go away, at watching the McCanns’s appearances with an open mind and not much deep interest in itself, at the time. It’s haunting and not right. I don’t know. I don’t know what could be happening, now.

  154. 154
    Chris Says:

    What sticks in my mind were the first few interviews. I’m sure Kate was on her own. No sign of any emotion. I have never seen that before. No tears just a boring voice. He has a boring voice too – they suit each other.

    It’s those early interviews……………There has never been a proper interview with serious questions asked.

    Abduction? It does not add up.

  155. 155
    G1 Says:

    What do you mean, on her own, about K McCann, Chris? That Gerry wasn’t there?

  156. 156
    norman Says:

    i have said right from the start kate and gerry mc cann are guilty… but i dont understand why david cameron has not had the mc canns arrested …. david cameron and his puppet goverment should get off there back sides and sort the madeleine mc cann case out once and for all in stead of taxing the british tax payer to the hilt and stop spending the tax payers money on the mc cann case… something he could have sorted out 3 years ago… if kate and gerry mc cann were taken to seperate police stations and questioned i think the truth will come out i think kate is the weakest link in the case as she never says anything when she,s with gerry as if he has some power over heri think the mc canns should be forced to do the lie detector test and made to answer the 48 unanswered questions

  157. 157
    G1 Says:

    Why, is the key, Norman. And my thoughts are this one could be (partially) without a why, as much as with a why, the without is the why.

    That, itself, is why understanding it is so extremely elusive. It seems impossible to understand normally.

    In the same way that gang warfare is essentially without a positive why, but is about primitive issues and destructionism.

  158. 158
    G1 Says:

    Replying to Chris in comment 154:

    “He has a boring voice too …”

    Not sure it seems boring to me. Personally, I’d call it frightening. He’s content, in the most part it seems, but not fully, to appear someone who isn’t stupid. I find him frightening. Then there are these parts where suddenly sympathy falls out of me (which I don’t choose) seemingly because of how he’s saying something. I think it’s my great confusion rather than sympathy but it seems like sympathy. I have been used a bit to some Scottish accents and turns of talking, I was on the east coast for a few years, and there were a number of westerners there.

  159. 159
    Liz Y Says:

    They are both speak in monotones, no highs or lows, just flat, which is strange when you consider that Glasweigian and Liverpudlian are dialects where there are more ups and downs in their accents (I know there is a word for this but it escapes me). The same for Brummies and Geordies. Also, to denote family in Liverpool she/he is called ‘our’ so it would be our Madeleine, our Sean or our Amelie, our this for sisters, cousins, brothers, nieces and nephews etc. I have only heard Kate say ‘Our Madeleine’ once, she’s from a working class background, but that wouldn’t make much of a difference anyway, it’s just Our whoever, it gives a sense of belonging, if you like. Maybe they’re doing this so that any natural tones don’t give much away, I don’t know. All I know is that Madeleine’s dead and has been from the beginning, she never left that flat alive. The total lack of forensics to support the abduction theory, are one thing, but two dogs marking the same places separately, are what I try to keep foremost in my mind, as I tend to wander a little, trying to make sense of the insensible. The whole thing is totally bizarre. There’s a supposed abdtction of a British minor, whose parents don’t even bother to search for, all hell breaks loose from the moment it (whatever it is) happened. There’s weird parents and their weird friends, Govenment interference, Prime Ministers, Home Secretaries, spin doctors, Consular support, official spokespersons, major media coverage from almost the moment IT supposedly happened. Seven friends who have a pact of silence, according to Payne, WHY? For what? The investigating officer gets the heave-ho! Conflicting statements that haven’t been explored, massive discrepencies and downright lies. The mcCanns calling all the shots then as now.
    Maybe it is about something they know about the death of Diana, it sounds good, but I continue to come back to the paedophile angle. With the Gaspars revealing the disgusting utterances of Payne and McCann, with no screams of slander and compensation to raise the coffers, then paedophilia it has to be. They (McCann and Payne) would mix in circles where their fellow lowlife, filthy scum inhabit. Making contact face to face or online, they’d know names, secrets, contacts. No bloody wonder the LP told the PJ that the McCanns didn’t have any credit cards including the virtual card that he lost in London. As I have said, I have read somewhere that McCann was put on the sex offenders register in 2002, how true that is I don’t know, but still no screams of libel from the compo-savvy McCanns. With all the news lately about horrendous child abuse allegations, whistling around the corridors of power, which, if investigated properly, with no further cover-ups, could possibly bring about the downfall of the government AND opposition. I’d say Bring it on!! but I am very much afraid that everything will change and remain the same.

  160. 160
    Chris Says:

    Hi Liz

    “They are both speak in monotones, no highs or lows, just flat, which is strange when you consider that Glasweigian and Liverpudlian are dialects where there are more ups and downs in their accents (I know there is a word for this but it escapes me).”

    Monotones to me is another word for boring. My father was born in Cumbernauld. He had a very strong Glasweigian accent. Gerry McCann’s voice to me is also effeminate. When I go to the Doctor (my father was one) I expect to talk man to man. I would not be a patient of his.

    An aside

    I hate the modified female Glasweigan accent. Hazel irvine the current worst culprit. Totally spoils any sports programme she is involved with for me. That means the golf, olympics & snooker.

    The early interviews

    I am sure that Kate was on her own. I know I found that very strange along with the lack of any emotion. No tears, no regret – just Madeleine has been abducted.

  161. 161
    G1 Says:

    I understand, Chris, what you mean by a boring voice, as explained by Liz Y and yourself, and I’m very glad you mentioned it & Liz expanded on that. I think it’s something important – very, very controlled monotones in accents which typically, if one is naturally expressing one’s true emotions, have very noticable high ups and downs. It may not point at anything certain in itself, but I can’t but feel it’s very relevant, seeming to me as if the choice to speak truly, naturally had been taken away from the couple, or they gave that away.

    While I can’t remember thinking Gerry’s voice itself sounds effeminate (maybe it is & I didn’t notice), I agree there is a lot about him which seems effeminate. The way he seems to have chosen to be absolutely, happy to use his appearaances seemingly to grovel, defining himself as only an unfortunate animal who had no choice in misfortune. As with the accents, as you both have said, and other elements, it can nearly always seem too controlled, consistently sustained (never let go, never allowing a natural drop and just suddenly to be fresh), with strange, reasonless intent. I cannot help getting this unsought impression – pre-planned and with incredible, unnatural determination that always gives a sense of being totaally and unfathomably inappropriate.

  162. 162
    G1 Says:

    … And that is partly why I find Gerry’s speech frightening, I suppose. The next bit has these paradoxes which also won’t go away for me. Kate’s speech is less frightenning, it seems to mebecause she is better at it. So controlled, the fear of being hit with a candlestick by a Miss Scarlett is less, while there are worries Prof. Gerry Plum will just lose it, almmost I think the threat is latent, can seem meant to me, and I get the strange thoughts losing it is different altogether with him, and not included in typical Cluedo situations. Kate also seems to have some human sympathy & understanding in there, for those she feels could never understand sometthing aawful that waas genuinely in part beeyong them, unlike Gerry, which humanizes her slightly. This is the second paradox, that seems to anchor or steady the determination that she will never lose her emotionless control.

  163. 163
    Liz Y Says:

    I don’t recall Gerry’s voise being effeminate myself, he’s totally cold, cruel and calculated, and he thinks he’s been very clever. I think it was an interview with Jeremy Paxman, when he was asked whether they’d manipulated the press for their own ends, watch the look on his face, he practically grows horns on the spot, he’s soaking up the rays of his own imagined brilliance, he’s frightening. I wouldn’t like to be around him when he loses it. All the walking down lover’s lane holding hands, is fake. The only time I saw this pair showing their true colours, was when he and Kate were filmed sitting at a table, throwing all the public’s hard-earned cash donations, up in the air, and grinning like Cheshire cats. Conning bastards!.
    Gerry loves all the attention this tragedy has given him, he’s lapping it up, Kate seems worn out and in his shadow, not perhaps as badly as in the early days, but you can tell who wears the trousers in their household. I think that situation existed before Madeleine disappeared. He’s a control freak and a half, only allowing interviews with pre-arranged questions, he has to cover all the bases. When asked an question that he’s not prepared for, he can’t cope, storming off the set, or coming out with crap like ‘Ask the dogs Sandra’. He’s an upstart of the worst order and I think he has some serious mental health issues.
    I continue to come to this site, because I care about Madeleine, but I haven’t anything fresh to say, it’s all been said hundreds of times, but I can’t just quit, and walk away with good conscience.
    I am hoping that Mr. Amaral still has something up his sleeve, as he has hinted, no wonder they want him gagged permanently, and they accused him of making money out of Madeleine’s misfortune, they didn’t, of course,…….and I’m the queen of the May!

  164. 164
    G1 Says:

    It’s very interesting, Liz, you point out you find impressions of extreme egotitistical pride in Gerry McCann, in what he is doing in the media & external relations in the affair. And that he has amamazing confidence in what he sees as his unchallengable intelligence in handling everything. I hadn’t thought within the last year or two of such an attitude, I don’t know why I’d forgotten such thoughts – impressions. (I began thinking of the pair in another way, as having to see something through they’d started, just something they had told themselves, like brainwashed themselves daily and more often to cope with, however they did it. But certainly by pre-planning everything, agreeing very rare new angles or suggestions to put out there, and never deviating like they did at the start.)

    But you’re right in what I can see, that your impressions can clearly fit to me. “soaking up the rays of his own imagined brilliance.” The perception is very well put, and there is this, to me, undeniable element to be found of the persona who will dominate and win in the end, whatever comes, and who will thrive and be known to thrive off that. (It can be thought some or many may have to, in guess or estimate, put that down to righteousness.) What a persona! Even in a good many of his interviews with reasonably sympathetic interviewers he’s always ready to lurch, and / or to use the opportunity to place himself as someone who has a logical / physical requirement of huge amounts of natural sympathy. The latter practice is something that particularly sets aside Gerry & his public persona for me, and appears very strange. In the context, it’s what I find both part of an absurd effimminism in attitude and an untenable, very strange and signifying young boyishness. There’s no doubt this element of the persona has got him through many times without leaving his appearance verifiably, aabsolutely non-credible. And, as you say, Liz, he is prepared or is prepared to adapt and be more spontaneous at times, over certaain arguments he keeps, and seems to relish the chaallenge of bringing his public image out through this at the other side.

  165. 165
    G1 Says:

    ” … has prepared or is prepared to … “, the last comment should read near the end.

    About Amaral, who has done a lot of good, hard police work, Liz, I’d hope he’d begin to reconsider his theory that there was an accident. If you’ve read a lot I’ve wrtten, you’ll see one of the things I’m convinced of is that there was no accident. Even a benevolent, easy-natured soul who though can’t stand to see what seems to be truth obscured, such as Amaral, must sometimes find it hard to believe that 2 people create such a fuss, sue for huge damages, have books withdrawn from the world, merely after an accident. Instead of living quietly while policemen have their throeires as policemen do when there is no trial. Instead of trying to regain parts of a once quiet life away from a retained, ongoing media attention after 5 years.

  166. 166
    Chris Says:

    I thought it was time to rattle a few cages. So I have written to our local MP Andrew Tyrie the Tory boy for Chichester. I asked him for an update on the caase considering the amount of public money that is being spent on it and if the prime suspects had been properly grilled.

    I’ll let you know what becomes of it.

    I don’t think Gerry McCann can be flavour of the month after his attack on David Cameron regarding the Leveson Inquiry. Let’s hope he has shot himself in the foot.

    Still think he is waiting for his ….. to drop. That’s what his voice tone says to me.

  167. 167
    G1 Says:

    That’s a natural thing to do, Chris, and a good thing. I don’t know if anything of any substance would come of it. Others on this site and other McCann affair forum sites have tried writing and phoning officials. Some haven’t been given the time of day, others received letters amounting to a symbolic example of the forms of printed ink on paper, folded then mailed. I think no-one has been told what isn’t already commmon knowldge to those who read around a bit, just a bit.

    You are certainly keeping the right attitude, of course, and acting by it. When it seems to me we can be in different times to what used to be familiar, expected or acceptable humanistically. I hate to turn into one of those peoople who complain consistently about society and governnment and events, but that’s what seems relevant now. I finally gave in and admitted it does actually look like we’re controlled by faceless illuminati, each of the 3 main parties seeming indistinguishable in this now.

    It seems like a time of anti-politics. The few inquiries & investigations that make an opening are hailed in a flash of shiny style magazine like frenzy and glory, talked about for awhile as they develop, and then forgotten, ignored or hidden.

    I followed keenly Chilcot Inquiiry developments as I know that Blair and some of his old colleagues should spend years & years behind bars. (Recently watching part of Mike Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” made me see even more how critical it is they are tried and jailed. Everyone should see that film, particularly the Iraq War footage in the middle, showing the real truth.)

    But the Inquiry was reported as concluded a long time ago, well over a year. Has everything been supressed or manipulated freshly for “a new perspective” in that time? Is any “perspective” going to come out at all? What happened? Cameron, only weeks ago was making atatements he was looking forward to the Leveson findings. And after all the attenntion of that Inquiry, and the pain and toil in order to even have an enquiry established, Cameron decides that he can feasibly decide as a politician to turn the report face down and ignore it outright.

    The characteristic fuss as if the end of The Yellow Brick road had come with relief and happy ever afters, with the announcement of “Operation Grange” into how Maadeleine McCann has been missing – taken or murdered – since 5 and a half years.

    And I think we can expect the end of The Yellow Brick road has indeed come, or is just coming within a couple of months or so. We are to meet The Wizard of Oz soon and perhaps be told, like Lion, we had confidence all along, as if we mistook the investigation for a self-worth seminar day.

    Perhaps there have also been someone or someones working very hard and very genuinely on Operation Grange. Perhaps it is doomed as someone or someones has “limited their scope”.

    Anyway, I hope you get a good response, Chris. It’s those acts, little or big, that might remind the very people who ought & need to know most that the world is still there, with every potential.

    Status updates ought to be online and modified at least weekly in this day and age.

  168. 168
    G1 Says:

    Liz Y and others refer to the increasingly common perception or awareness of corrupt, utterly debased, criminal elements in society, usually including more well known parts of society. Peadophilia is seen as an actual benchmark, and satanism. (Elemennts of satanism may be more palatably said as the old, controlling, subtly & unsubtly, slow and consistent, destruction & torture orientated secret power cult or collection of disparate secret societies, The Illuminati. But I’m also referring to deep, behinnd the scenes satanic group practices that usually aren’t meant to go public.)

    I haven’t been so familiar of this kind of thing in more recent times, unlike Liz and others. And the Site Admin favours these ideas at times with details I probably wouldn’t say myself. (Because they are totally unprovable from the start and so can seem to some pointless, a waste, hence maybe idle to read. But I’m convinced by particular details given by the Site Admin, even which my more strictly logical, maybe part-legal mind would normally have me shelve. In fact I see that’s at times how this case works, and it’s very surprising by “nature”. It will always confound a lot of willing, thinking, but understandably rooted people. It’s (after a while, perhaps predictably), perhaps uniquely outside the norm.

    At earlier times in my life I knew more about secret group, debased corruption by those of power or some sway. That includes the Jimmy Saville situation, for example, which got mentioned earlier in this thread, which many people knew of long, long before the truth openly emerged, posthumously, this year. (The government report into Newsnight’s pulling the story in favour of Savile commendation shows is a whitewash of course, by the way. There was a BBC cover up, and it couldn’t not have been a cover up, that’s evident and undeniable actually.)

    I want to post a link to an article toting the recent outing of Savile as merely a small gate to a huge, secret, connection rife, power orientated social cesspit. (Also, as I was aware, the article contends the 300+ current cases are the tip of the Savile iceberg, yes, that large; it doesn’t overtly state that Savile’s peadophilia and criminal procurement was not mostly limited to the 60s and 70s. My awareness is he was at least as or much more prolific since those two decades.)

    So, I’ll give that link in the next comment. The article may be a good way to prepare your thinking for my (late) answer I’m giving to what Chris’s asked me earlier in this thread – what are my own thoughts on what was behind the Madeleine McCaann mystery. I’m not writing anything new, but will give links to earlier comments I wrote in this site, soon after I started commenting, before I took the tag “G1” when I was returning here and being in discussions more.

  169. 169
    G1 Says:

    For my theory to what’s behind the Madeleine McCann mystery, it’s not fully developed, but these earlier comments may give a reasonable idea.

    Comments start at this link:

    The comments are in the name, Anonymous & start at
    comment 13, and go to comments 14, 15, 16, 18, 21.

    Then there’s a later, separate comment in the G1 tag I took, which is relevant (22).

    There’s a whole lot of text there. Some of it comes based on other people’s own personal theories and impressions.

    I stress, again, it’s theory, a theory I consider, which is just as valid to consider among the others, as I’ve just tried personally to maybe make some sense of the very confusing information available. To me it seems appropriate, and feels right, but, again, is just a theory, while nothing has come up to make me deviate from or abandon it. Another thing is, it may suggest the McCanns involvment somehow, or at least knowledge they haven’t divulged (a popular notion), but I don’t claim I think they themselves had to be the two singularly responsible for the death of their daughter. And I don’t even estimate whether Madeleine was not abducted away from the parents, or if she was taken while they ate Tapas and drank wine. That’s not clear to me, but as others have, including Site Admin, I am persuaded by the possibility that Madeleine McCann was dead before the parents left for dinner, May 3&d* a+d maybe before that day.

  170. 170
    Chris Says:

    Hi GI

    You say

    “I am persuaded by the possibility that Madeleine McCann was dead before the parents left for dinner”

    From memory

    She was last seen alive at 5.00pm

    Kate comes out with the words “she has been abducted” at around 9.00pm. This is not a real expression for a mother to make for a child who is not in her bed unless child abduction was rife in the area. It was not. Kate had to have rehearsed this in her mind for some considerable time.

    I have always believed, from her parents reactions, Madeleine died shortly after she was last seen.

  171. 171
    Chris Says:

    My letter to my local MP has beed passed to Damian Green, Minister of State for Policing, for comment.

  172. 172
    G1 Says:

    Firstly, I forgot the article link I meant to post in comment 168 above (well over a month ago). It’s about Savile and I thought it’s relevant as it part of a base to my ideas from suspicions on the Madeleine mystery. This admits somehow the involvement of peadophilia in the affair, while this is thought may only be a part of connections within a deeper satanist culture – this line of thinking says the real agenda, somehow.

    Article link:

    Also, I thought “enochered”‘s comment after my comments on the discussion page I linked to above may suggest more of a base for my feeling to a kind of affair the young girl’s disappearance was bound up in.

    Enochered suggests (site link 3 comments ago, scroll to cmt 23) similarities in ways with the Birr Castle scandal (Irish Republic, but hosting international visitors, especially British). That is known to have involved children from the old Kincora Boys Home in Belfast and other child victims. (Site link 2 comments ago, scroll down to cmt 23.) I haven’t bothered to wonder about if the disappearance of Madeleine, during the “holiday” time at least, involved so-called establishment figures or royalty, It’s not what I’d been thinking about particularly. Where other people suggest that seems relevant seems to me would tie-in later in developments, but I’m not sure what such theories suspect exactly.

    Chris, as well as saying “she has been abducted”, Kate McC is said to have said or shouted in the early minutes of the time of alleged disappearance, “She’s gone”, with, “They’ve taken her”.

    It’s the last comment that seems strangest. Why not, “He’s taken her”? And if that, who would “he” be?

    It would be such a particularly thing to say, it can obviously link a disappearaance to a man the McCanns had knowledge of or were somehow involved with, and probably would even suggest nothing other than that. But isn’t “They’ve taken her” just as strange and exactly the same? Why would someone choose either “they” or “he” suddenly when they had no knowledge of a he or group?

    Who are “they”? It’s a very strange thing to say unless Kate was thinking of certain people. That would hold whether or not this part was staged, or if Kate was referring to something that had happened in the past, now enacting something at this time because they had to. It holds for communicating something to the rest of the Tapas group, relevant for a case where they had a good idea what this meant.

    Also, it would hold for an actual abduction by persons recently involved with the McCanns. The exclamation suggests – again, it is a commmunication for some reason, it can’t not be that – the Tapas friends group needed to be told that or Kate couldn’t help telling them for her own reasons. So then Jane Tanner’s alleged sighting of a man, which came within the appartment very soon after Kate’s alerts, serves to change their position from what they’ve been told. Kate made a statement. Jane Tanner very soon makes an act which seems to change the story, something new.

    Tanner strongly pulls the McCann’s and the group’s focus in how they describe things solidly away from the strange, loaded “they” to a “he” now. (While the detail of the alleged sighting has been taken with great scepticism by most). As is known, there are numerous discrepancies around this. For example, Tanner clearly stated a long haired man just before the group pubicly, strongly tried to implicate (or be seen to implicate for a while) neat, short-haired Robert Murat. One thinks of what could have been planned. And that Tanner’s description could, after a fuss, mean Murat could not actually be tried while the group were still seen at a crucial time to have emotional beliefs in abduction, and a potential abductor. This has been suggested by others before. I’ve written in another comment on this site that Murat was the very one man that pinning the business on would be most unlikely to stick.

    (Comment link:

    On that article page, I have to click “Switch to mobile version” after the desktop version loads, in order to display my comment.)

    Chris, I’ve read the Site Admin express the view a few times that there’s no real evidence Madeleine was alive on 3rd May. The theory she died or went before then was suggested by numerous people. What is your understanding of the sighting evidence that has the girl alive at 5pm, May 3rd? I’m not really trying to pin you down to accept or reject that evidence. Actually I steered clear of examining it much (and it was some time ago, I can’t remember much) because at the time I was looking for someone to analyse it comprehensively, but I couldn’t find that.

  173. 173
    G1 Says:

    I want to ask does anyone have any good information about those photos.

    I remember trying to read around at the time, and I read some people said they were taken on the holiday and some people said they were taken after the so-called “last photos”. They may have been speculating and the photos came from before the holiday. But I don’t think I could ever find anything definitive, more or less proving when they were taken or by whom or if there was ever a description given by the McCanns of those photos.

    They may be from some party in England sometime. I just don’t really know anything I can conclude is really accurate about them. So if anyone knows, I’d appreciate the help. (Press Association copyright image linked.) maddie11.jpg

  174. 174
    G1 Says:

    Sorry, I somehow cut off the first part of the comment I wanted to write.

    It was to say that when I was reading that article I linked to (finally linked to! sorry), “The Doorway to the Cesspit”, about details of hidden histories (a tiny amount of details compared the long strains of episodes over decades, most probably not known about beyond inner circles) what happened to come up in my mind were those photos of Madeleine dressed up.

    The thoughts of those photos wouldn’t go away – so that’s why I am asking.

  175. 175
    G1 Says:

    News is beginning to come out linking Savile’s child abuse to his devil worship practises. (I don’t doubt only scratching the surface, but I guess most victims won’t admit, maybe even remember clearly enough to be able to speak about it). Clearly this positions Savile as having been within a ring of practising satanist hardcore sexual abusers. (I say hardcore because it involves rape, however one ought to be aware of reports over the years of rings being involved in deaths of victims.)

    Site Admin: At the peak of the Madeleine McCann story in the summer/autumn of 2007, several forum posters and bloggers claimed that she was killed as part of some kind of sacrificial ritual. It hasn’t been discussed much in this context but bear in mind that there were 10 little blonde girls aged 3-4 staying at the Ocean Club Resort that same week. Most of the parents were doctors and that coincidence has never been properly addressed or explained. From memory I think there were about 110 people staying there that week and the high percentage of blonde girls aged 3-4 always did seem odd. That gave rise to theories about cloning and other clandestine reasons. Knowing what we know about Savile, the theory that Madeleine was ritually sacrificed cannot be totally ruled out. Here is a link to the Bridget O’Donnell story talking about those 10 little blonde girls:

  176. 176
    Jackie Franklin Says:

    Don’t actually have a comment at this time, I just want to register to receive updates from this fascinating site!

  177. 177
    Miss Wilcox Says:

    Hi all

    I think I have read almost everything now to a degree. I am not any kind of great intellectual detective, nor am I particularly stupid. I am struggling with this whole affair in regard to the fact that I have said fully from day one of madeleine going missing that the parents were responsible. In what regard I dont fully know and for what reason I kind of think I know.

    Everything about the case just tells the truth. Madeleine died and the parents were responsible.You do not have to read between any lines and there is nothing hidden the evidence is all there as far as I am concerned.

    What I am struggling with is the sense of injustice. My questions are thus: what can we do? who can we speak to? when up against (seemingly) your own government, where do you turn?

    Bless Madeleines soul. May she rest in piece because I will not.

  178. 178
    Miss Wilcox Says:

    *rest in peace.

    damn corrective text..

  179. 179
    Miss Wilcox Says:


    Another question unanswerable: Why is there no available information about Kate and Gerry McCanns life leading up to the disappearance? I thought in this day and age. Info was so easily obtained? How come neither of them appear to have a credit history indeed not even a current account??
    Help me out please??

  180. 180
    G1 Says:

    Thanks for your first comment. I’ve not read or heard that for a long time. That really helped.
    Yes. Rest in peace.

    I wasn’t intending to post much or anything early this year, but you’ve made me think of something really important, Miss Wilcox, that will help me as much as anyone else reading.

    First, though, I suppose about the parents’ information, their lawyers, investigators and other aides were employed quickly. There are professionals whose job is make private existing and conceivably accessible information in this digital information age. They may have been contracted. I suppose it’s good to remember that that’s anyone’s right, to be able to do that, whatever they have or haven’t been involved with. (It’s not good to let anyone’s life and right to life play havoc with your own. I know certain people can seem to be being provocative in this way, but you should try not to let such thoughts get to you. I know, personally, they really can get to you, and so prise a kind of ready to faint, uncaringly, forget, take anything stance.)

    Miss Wilcox, I want to say, it’s alright. Many things like this happen in this world. I was just reading in the news of a boy who died who’s body has recently been identified. The body was found dismembered, limbs and head severed in a clean, professional manner, inside a bag in The Thames, back in 2001, but only officially named recently. Investigators supposed his death was a ritual worship murder (which really means satanism, there really aren’t ordinary religions or cults otherwise who naturally murder people in this way as part of their belief and worship.) It may have involved the torture, of whatever degree, of dismemberment whilst alive.

    When I say, it’s alright, it’s to stem your worrying personally, because this world is not the be all and end all and anything terrible can, and to extents does happen. It’s not going to change in respsect of what can happen. Of course, that means the world is far from “alright”, but you can say and mean “it’s alright”. Many, many, share your feelings. Personally I think angry senses of injustice, though of course partly very natural, come when you don’t realise how awful the world is. (There are people who organise to portray a “nicely ticking over” world, but which is a world of hidden foulness.)

    I think really unsettling confusion can occur when someone is not, in the forefront of their mind, so aware that a particular awful event happens (which shocks for a few years or more and with good reason) is not however even the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half of the half *etcetera* of “it”. The next thing to be aware of, something worse, is that, to extents, parts of “it” are connected (though this may seem likely to always remain determinedly hidden). And that parts of “it” thus are intentionally, falsely concerned with also promoting the rosy world, ticking over well. Some people talk about that being in the fabric of parts of news publishing, including some of the biggest elements of news publishing, and of course, not for any postive reason.

    I hope you can feel better. Madeleine is gone. It’s hurtful to see that whatever happened, whoever was involved, however many were involved, they pull others’ lives away also. So, maybe, try not to let that happen so much. It’s OK. The world is not a place of justice, actually. Many people want and do good things to try to make it orientated so that justice can be respected, that’s all they can do and they can never get it perfectly, whatever happens. Because the world in itself is a justice-less world and can’t change its spots. I’m not saying people ought to let things go, but there are limits to what you can do. Justice has never been and never will be supreme, nor at all something we could ever take for granted. People just try.

    With good wishes.

  181. 181
    Liz Y Says:

    Just out of interest, Yahoo News message board re Madeleine, accepting anti McCann opinions – a small step forward maybe???

  182. 182
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Miss Wilcox, The PJ wanted bank and credit card details, they were told there weren’t any, this in spite of the fact that payment for the car hire was by credit card, and Gerry supposedly lost a credit card in London on a trip over there, though it was handed in quite quickly??? Stupid things like this infuriate me because they insult my intelligence. You’re right about the lack of history about not just the McCanns, but also the Tapas 7, there is also a total blackout of any information after the fact (except for McCann controlled pieces), the small stuff really, there is nothing at all about this group. Normally when people who’ve been a part of a significant investigation like this, there are usually snippets of info about little things, births, deaths, marriages, bitten by a dog, or any number of silly things, just to pad out the papers, but not a scrap. I share your sense of injustice, and the mute anger it causes. Why oh why have they been allowed to get away with it. All I know is that this is something big, the amount of backing (not all financial) they have had is unexplainable, unless they know something huge, maybe it is about Diana, maybe about paedophilia and/or satanic abuse, maybe something that no-one’s thought about, whatever it is, I hope I know before I die. All we can do is tell people to do their own investigating on the net. I have discussed this with people, and they know nothing about it. So many say they had doubts about the McCanns but left it there, a lot of people would delve further into it if they knew these sites existed. The McCanns will fight like hell to prevent people from finding these places because they know that a hell of a lot more people suspect them, but a hell of a lot do not know where to take their doubts. I came here by accident myself, I knew something wasn’t right, and the McCanns themselves, with their weird statements, actions, body language and pure arrogance, convinced me that I was right. I have written all these things so many times, and I won’t ever go away, because of a three year old little girl called Madeleine.
    Back to Yahoo, the anti McCann posts are supported more heavily than the pro, so everyone seize the day!!
    Welcome Miss Wilcox!

  183. 183
    Chris Says:

    Liz Y Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 11:45 am

    Just out of interest, Yahoo News message board re Madeleine, accepting anti McCann opinions – a small step forward maybe???

    Hi Liz,

    Do you have a direct like? Not sure you can do that here so a few more clues please. Some swine put a virus on my PC so I’ve been out of action for 3 weeks at least!!

  184. 184
    Chris Says:

    Liz for like please read LINK

    You will not be able to post a direct one here so a little more specific would help.

    Watch out for ransom viruses. If you get one I know a good site that will help you remove them.

  185. 185
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Chris, I would have more chance of landing on the moon, than setting up a link… I am a total technophobe computer illiterate. I had a Yahoo email address some time ago, and somehow wandered back there and found the boards, so I think you have to set up an email account, then log in with your name and password. Sorry I can’t be of more help.
    Liz x

  186. 186
    G1 Says:

    News in today or last night, a judge has ruled Mr. Bennett committed contempt of court and defied a previous order not to make certain allegations about Gerald and Kate McCann. Mr. Bennett had said before the ruling that he didn’t intend to defy the previous order and was not aware that he did, if he did.

    For something where there may be a grey area – it is anyone’s right to publish personal suppositions and theories while pointing out undeniable truths and that can’t be denied nor removed and many, many people have been doing this, it’s their legal right – there was a harsh jail sentence imposed upon Mr. Bennett. 3 months imprisonment, suspended for a year. Mr. Bennett has been ordered to pay all costs.

    It is also anyone’s right – particularly someone trained and who worked in an area of social work as a legally trained and qualified person, as describes Mr. Bennett – to petition certain authorities about certain acts of persons which it is legitimate to say are at least questionable objectively. (Personally I have not been able to get to read the words of what Mr. Bennett wrote yet, I hope to do so soon. I am commenting on general issues.)

    The news in which I have read is slight. Links to full law reports would be appreciated if anyone finds them.

    I’d also really appreciate a link to a fund for supporting Mr. Bennett’s legal costs, does anyone know the web page? I’m quite sure I’ve donated a little before, but I can’t find a link. There must be many people who would donate a little or a lot but who give up after a few minutes searching for a link to such a fund for Mr. Bennett.

  187. 187
    G1 Says:

    Judge Tugendhat: “I am sure that he intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter, and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done.”

    But that is Tony Bennett’s, and anyone’s, legal right – to “allege that the claimants are to be suspected of … etc.”

    It is very different and utterly distinct from alleging that the claimants were responsible for … and in fact did do …

    Of course it is to be alleged that the McCanns are to be suspected of what the judge spoke of.

    The British and Portugese police’s position remains, as it has been for years, that there is no evidence whatsoever which can exclude the McCann couple from suspicion of exactly what Judge Tugendhat spoke.

    So, the British and Portugese police, present EXACTLY the allegation that, at least as much as anyone else concerned known about or not known about, it is right and natural that the McCanns are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter, and that it is to suspected that they did in fact dispose of her body and lie about what happened and covered up what they had done.

    Moreover there are many “small matters” (one might whisper in some fear if one might not be obliged to forget now) after such a judgement, for example the inexplicable hounds and the cadaver scent and subsequently found blood at the same locations in an appartment where no-one is recorded as having died.

    It can only be a severe breach of the most basic, undeniable and inalienable human rights that any person is sentenced as Tony Bennett has been by those words of the ruling I’ve quoted. (Not having read the law report, I can’t tell if these words are core elements of the decision or not.)

    The judge attatches his abuse of Mr. Bennett’s human rights evidenced in the judge’s words quoted to what he calls Mr. Bennett’s “campaign”.

    Any campaign, by anyone, keeping within what was described by the words of the judge which I’ve quoted here, could only be a legal campaign, protected in law by human rights, well before the recent HRA.

  188. 188
    G1 Says:


    A longer article than the other, short few. It is early yet, though.

  189. 189
    G1 Says:

    Mr. Bennett has been ordered to pay legal costs of his own and to the McCanns (known for their very expensive lawyers) in their pursuit of him in the courts. (In addition to a jail sentence for saying what most people who say now seem to be saying.)

    For persons interested in donating to help Mr. Bennett, here is the link:

    *** ***

    At this point, it may be worth pointing out that many people have implied potential connections within the so-called British establishment and this case. More particularly – as has been verified – it has been described this has existed in very unusual and potentially utterly illegal interference in the Portugese authorities’ enquiry to not have the McCann’s found guilty. Also, what is very likely, in concerted, successful attempts to have had the head, independent Portugese policeman removed from the enquiry altogether. (Very strange things in legal investigations indeed. Very, very strange, at the very least.)

    At this point, it is worth nothing that the McCanns have been successful, at least in the interim, in swinging the British legal system which exists as a marketplace, adversorial service which often charges people in dire need well over £120 per hour to be helped (over many, many hours), against Mr. Bennett. It is worth noting what is conceivable in particular achievement of this within a larger scheme and symbolically.

    (Don’t forget that the McCanns were treated softly when they did what they allege Mr. Bennett has done against them, clearly against Mr. Robert Murat with no evidence but a great deal of fervour and strangely specific intent. Mr Murat sued newspapers who continued the McCanns’ circles’ lies but chose not to victimise the very troubled people who were the McCanns and their publicly secretive circle. The Bennett case is an obvious demonstration, yes I say again, a clear demonstration, of that the McCanns are happy to show they have one rule for themselves and others for other people. This is an undeniable, objective, impersonal truth, examining the history – the Murat allegations and the Bennett case. It is not in anyway at all a spurious suggestion, it is a simple, blunt, undeniable analysis.)

    This sems to me to be a very serious moment indeed in the McCanns’s campaign.

  190. 190
    Chris Says:

    One good thing about our current Government they don’t waffle.

    I have had a response to my questions. They were basically about the unjust costs the public are bearing on this case.

    The letter is not P & C so here’s for starters:-

    The costs between 12th May 2011 and March 2012 totalled £1,916,531. Additional costs for the financial year 2012-2013 are expected to be in the region of £2.2m.

    Now, not sure I agree with this statement nor will I expect anyone here too.

    “It is worth noting though that, whilst the McCanns were ‘arguidos’ (or suspects) during the investigation by the Portuguese Judicial Police, they were exonerated and the case was eventually closed by the Portuguese authorities in 2008.”

    I like to know where the word exonerated came from? Out of the blue comes to mind. Perhaps someone here knows better please?

    More to come…………

  191. 191
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris, good to hear the “progress”.

    – Did the letter state the costs are thought unjust upon the public? What words did it use?
    (Is this not a disrespectful attack at, firstly and most importantly, a little girl who was, once known as Madeleine, the police, the government decisions, the British public, even valid concerns of the McCanns and every relative whatever happened is entitled to an investigation, they being involved or not. One can argue, especially if involved, they are entitled to be found out and helped.)

    – Who were the signees and in what department?

    – What a strange thing to be told, as you say Chris. Exonerateed? That certainly isn’t the official position of the Portugese police, nor the British, police, of course, that the McCanns are exonerated of anything.

    What kind of legal systems have such notions short of official “pardons” coming from heads of states or people very high up in home office or justice departments?

    Imaginary legal systems? What kind of people believe this is how Western legal systems work? These people sound like pre-school age people having fantasies. No such pardons anyway were issued here, of course.

    It shows a complete lack of respect for the Portugese systems and legal notions. The “arguidos” concept boils down to meaning * persons it appears in seriousness WORTH investigating due to concerns, evidence or simply there being no evidence to exclude *. For someone to be “exonerated” of being an arguido is impossible – it’s not only like kicking the good Portugese system in the face with disrespect but it’s not even giving any value to this world and concepts.

    The arguidos concept doesn’t accuse anyone of anything – it is actually looser than the concept “suspect”. Any parent in the UK where such an event would happen would immediately become a full suspect, among other suspects, due to the known fact that in most cases, the guilty person(s) is close to the victim. There is no way that, whatever happened, the parent anyway could become “exonerated” from being a suspect. That’s the way these things must progress, it must be accepted. These people are living in la-la land.

    It’s very strange that these people are commenting in quasi-legal official ways about legal issues.
    Are they spelling out that they never have taken and never will take the whole thing seriously?

  192. 192
    Chris Says:

    I see she has been spotted in Cyprus!!

    The letter.

    We believe, though times are difficult, the Government does all it can to support the search for Madeleine and that is why the Home Secretary, with the support of the Prime Minister, asked the then Metropolitan police Commissioner to undertake a review of the case in May 2011.

    The review by the MPS is progressing well and officers are going through material nmethodically – some 40,000 pieces of information, equating to approximately 100,000 pages. The intention is to identify from that material investigative opportunities which they will present to the Portuguese authorities, who as mentioned above retain primacy for the investigation. The objective of the MPS review team is to work with the Portuguses authorities with a view to having the case re-opened, in due course.

    Officiers so far have identified around 195 such opportunities within the historic material, and also developing what they believe to be genuinely new material.

    Minister of State.

    So, so far, and it sounds like just the beginning, it’s £40 a page or £20,500 per opportunity. It must be PUBLIC money……………..

    Not sure the Portuguese authority is in the least bit interested which is more worrying to me.

  193. 193
    G1 Says:

    Thanks, Chris.

    I’d thought that the notice being made to unjust costs from public money came from the letter, rather than yourself, as I understand now. (Is that accurate?)

    I’ve not concluded on that personally. Of course, if a £40 per page (with hundreds of thousands of pages) investigation goes on which is paid by public money. And the investigation is not a proper investigation and leaves out elements or begins with and operates from improper notions which are not detatched or fully objective, there is something wrong.

    While I’ve always held myself back from siding with any of those people who give off about the investigation being a waste of funds. If an investigation is properly carried out, I’d really be totally averse to the views that it is wasteful. I guess most people who state the operation is wasting public money have a pretty surely formed view that it is from the word go, unobjective, a botch job from the blueprints, a facade.

    One can only hope that is not the case. Yet, by most of what has been published, the ineffective, improper investigation view would seem to be in keeping with much of this state’s acts, or interferences, in the matter up until that investigation. Also, any botch job from the blueprints investigation, or candidly negligent investigation, knows it relies upon people resting on the hope it is fully proper to get away with it.

    It is worth saying something in the abstract here, then, I feel. A fully proper, objective (as is always necessary and expected) investigation into the mystery of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is fully appropriate and a proper and very desirable use of public funds.

    I know many peoples’ objections to the millions of pounds going on this comes from the perception that it is a through-the-motions establishment act, without a real intention to be objective or fully honourable in being detatched from particular influences upon in.

  194. 194
    Liz Y Says:

    Gi, The investigation is a waste of funds, because the outcome has already decided, it will be found that the McCanns have no case to answer. I cannot fathom out (and I have tried very hard) a reason why the McCanns are being protected to the extent that they are. If it is because they know something extremely damaging, something that another person(s) or organisation(s) want to keep quiet, then that will always be the case. Even the McCann’s somewhat elevated positions of GP and consultant don’t explain why political and judicial figures have just rolled over for them, I mean who the hell are these people??
    As for the sighting in New Zealand, the McCanns must have seen a photo of this girl, who was so like Madeleine, that it needed a DNA test, why the hell weren’t they on the first flight out there??
    They couldn’t be doing with a wasted long haul flight to NZ, what would be the point, because Madeleine is dead. They make me feel physically sick.

  195. 195
    Chris Says:

    Gi, good morning,

    “I’d thought that the notice being made to unjust costs from public money came from the letter, rather than yourself, as I understand now. (Is that accurate?)”

    No, I asked, considering the amount of public money being spent on this one case, had the prime suspects been properly interrogated. That question has not been directly answered. The answer is, I believe contained in the words – they have been exonerated.

    What you are saying is that the case has not been properly investigated by the Portuguese authorities. I am sure they do not agree with that. It will be very difficult for the MPS to work with them or with the Portuguese people who clearly have distaste for the McCann’s – child abandoners.

    The MPS seem to have an unlimited budget and we will easily top £5m on this.

  196. 196
    Chris Says:

    Good morning Liz,

    “They couldn’t be doing with a wasted long haul flight to NZ, what would be the point, because Madeleine is dead. They make me feel physically sick.”

    Many of the things the McCann’s did and do make one wonder whether they actually liked Madeleine.

    Here’s the latest sighting. Interestingly the Huff Post will not allow comment on this article or any connected with Madeleine. I wonder who is shutting them up? The articles they write, are written for comment!

  197. 197
    G1 Says:

    Liz Y: OK. Thanks.

    Chris: Thanks for explaining that, I hadn’t understood.

    Also, I was not making any comment on the Portugese authorities’s enquiries. I think I have refused to and still refuse to. I think it’s a bit too complex to analyse that to come to any clear cut confusions without really going into depth.

    No, I was referring to what people have commented upon in the money spent on the home investigation (British, sorry though, I know this is an international site!) that is now going on, not any previous enquiries. Liz Y explains it well. And after what she has put, I’ve no comment to make.

    Liz is right to say what she says. Strangely it is because I’m actually too jaded rather than too hopeful or strong that, at this point at least, I don’t side with comments about the British Operation Grange being wasteful of public money before it publishes a conclusive report. I’m too jaded.

  198. 198
    G1 Says:

    (Last comment)

    “I think it’s a bit too complex to analyse that to come to any clear cut confusions without really going into depth.”

    Oh dear. Hahaha. “Clear cut confusions”. Let’s not jump to any confusions. Conclusions meant, of course!

    Funny thought, though. Maybe it would work, to plan to jump to clear cut confusions. I’ve never done it, at least not for years. I might have a go and see where it gets me.

  199. 199
    G1 Says:

    Yes, I see fully, Chris. I’m really slow – I only kind of understood. Dim tonight.

    The official state response to your enquiry into the multi-million pound Operation Grange reports that it has been decided that the parents of the missing Madeleine McCann have been “exonerated”. The nation’s authorities report that, not only are the McCann couple not being investigated now for any involvement in connection with the 100% mysterious disappearance of the little girl nearly 6 years ago; but they have also strangely been “exonorated” of ever being glanced at with any suspicion.

    That must be a first the couple are in receipt of. The couple may not even be legally investigated or even suspected or considered in connection. Or, well, you’re sent to jail as Tony Bennett is proof of.

    Yes, I see now what you mean from your letter about what may easily seem clearly to be the waste of millions of pounds of public funds from the blueprint stage probably. One would, of course, start to wonder about what their procedure would be with other “leads” also – some kind of roulette system – bin it or play it, odds on.

    I’m sorry Chris, I hadn’t quite realised the full effect of what you were saying, of what your letter states. Have some office got it completely wrong and are not reflecting the views and acts of the officers in Operation Grange? That would seem to be a fanciful way to deal with the unequivocal report.

    Why isn’t this public knowledge? Your letter seems to me important enough to be picked up upon by newspapers.

  200. 200
    G1 Says:

    I see why you thought I was talking about the Portugese investigation, Chris:

    “Yet, by most of what has been published, the ineffective, improper investigation view would seem to be in keeping with much of this state’s acts, or interferences, in the matter up until that investigation”

    I meant – by most of what has been published about implied (or perhaps known, by some) British interference in the McCann affair prior to Operation Grange.

  201. 201
    Chris Says:

    Anyone know where this has gone?


    I had the sense to copy it into word so have the complete version in English in one document. It was FREE.

  202. 202
    G1 Says:

    Thanks. Chris, for reminding that the book is available free online. I’d come across that before some time ago, was surprised as I’d expected I’d need to be paying when ordering, and then forgot to return to it. Now I can continue reading it.

    Wherever your link was – maybe where G. Amaral published the book online – it’s available here anyway. It may be available in a number of places in The Web, this was the top Google search result I found:

  203. 203
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    If you follow your link where is the English free version? It’s not showing for me anymore. You can buy a Portuguese or German copy. Looks to me it’s been ‘got at’.

    As I say I have the full version in MS word.

  204. 204
    Chris Says:

    Went in under Firefox and the book is there on the front page – ta

  205. 205
    Taytocrisp Says:

    Look Its quite normal for British parents to give their children sleeping drugs and go out to dinner out of sight and earshot. It is also quite normal for British parents to protect themselves by hiring a high profile legal team. British rights are paramount when questioned by any investigative authority so questions do not have to be answered., Finally its quite normal to have an official investigation closed down in favor of a private one that produces the answer that the parents want to see.
    Another well known fact is that he British cadaver scent dogs are notoriously unreliable only indicating when their handler tells them to. The phrase “we’ve let her down” is in common use in British families where a child goes missing. The only possible reason for a previously highly respected police officer to write a book of lies is to make money. So please will the great American people try to understand British customs and culture, all examples found in Kate McCanns book Madeline.

  206. 206
    G1 Says:

    “Look Its quite normal for British parents to give their children sleeping drugs and go out to dinner out of sight and earshot.” (Taytocrisp)

    That might seem rather “normal” to you, but it seems that what you are saying is not legal if the children in question are the ages the three McCann children were in Spring 2007.

    I’m not saying that the McCanns’ behaviour itself is illegal – I might be sent to prison for suggesting that now. But anyone who is not checking every 15, 20, or 30 minutes or more often and genuinely & reasonably thinks they are in good site of the childrens’ position and that it is also a secure place, is very likely indeed to be breaking the law.

    Just going “out to dinner”? Like that? “Normal”? With children not much older than babies?

    Oh dear. You’re not in the real world. The only exception would be dinner in a neighbours’ house, with working baby monitor equipment, and / or frequent checks.

    The British social services seem to have accepted that the McCanns differentiated their position from what Taytocrisp seems to think is a “quite normal”, and illegal position: because of the couple’s claimed belief in their view of the holiday flat and the whole team’s alleged regular checkups.

    There are 2 things to note:

    1. As I’ve said without those things, and without missing a single checkup on time, the McCanns would have been breaking British laws. Anyone doing what you’re suggesting, Taytocrips, without the checks every 20 to 30 minutes or less would be acting unacceptably in law, and even then, it is not possible to make a statement saying that making such checks when leaving the property (and leaving it open) would guarantee legally acceptable behaviour. Not at all.

    2. We didn’t really know in 2007 if the McCanns’ activities were legal or not. The social services merely decided not to press with a charge against them. Without a court decision, it was only possible to guess at if the McCanns acted legally or not. Many, many people think they did not.

    3. There are clearly things worrying about the McCanns’ reputed acts in respect of child responsibility. The most striking of these is that they seem to have left both doors open on a street corner, easy ground access unit. The glass, sliding doors – completely unlocked and maybe not even fully closed. And they seem to have stated that the front door was left open also.

    This is NOT leaving children just older than babies securely. How can you make the mistake that it was?

    They can NOT have been watching the glass doors all of the time, and in fact the view was quite remote, despite their “back yard dining” claims, and hampered by vegetation, later cleared.

    It is a very natural thing to suggest that it seems likely that, despite the social services not making a charge, their reputed child reponsibility acts easily may have fallen short of legal requirements. Consider the child minding options open to them (which they claimed was one major reason they chose the resort in the first place – apparently). Consider that the couple’s companions were using child monitoring equipment, and so the couple were made aware of the importance of this kind of thing, but they chose not to, leaving the very young children a couple of yards from a street, with large glass doors. THEY DIDN’T EVEN LOCK THE DOORS AFTER SOME TIME, THEY CLAIM – if you believe them. (We don’t know what this means, if they even had to claim that because of lack of other options. Their story changed. We don’t know.)

    Taytocrisp, if your statment about the McCanns’ reputed child minding acts was made to suggest they did nothing abnormal (but you seem to think illegal can be normal, generally) and that Tony Bennet had no grounds to challenge it, you are wrong. There are very good grounds to suggest that the McCanns easily may not have acted legally. That the Social Services did not take action can just suggest sympathy for a mistake in circumstances where, whatever happened, their daughted has gone from them. It is any person’s right to petition to have such a question examined in a court, as Tony Bennet has done.

    ” It is also quite normal for British parents to protect themselves by hiring a high profile legal team. ” (Taytocrisp)

    Normal for anyone to hire a respected legal team in a certain field. Innocent people set upon wrongly, train robbers, murderers, satanic ring members, etc. etc. It means nothing in itself.

    I don’t think it is quite normal for British parents to hire “high profile” legal teams – for example THE most expensive legal teams in their fields in the whole of the UK. It’s something at least a bit unusual – a fact – perhaps nothing that means anything in itself, perhaps something that does. But it is at least a bit unusual. Why pretend something unusual is totally normal?

    “The only possible reason for a previously highly respected police officer to write a book of lies is to make money. ” (Taytocrisp)

    Taytocrisp, you’ve decided to post that bit of nonsense directly after a bit of discussion which points out that Mr Amaral had published online his book for anyone to read for free. I’ve heard him say he’d rather anyone could access it, rather it be read, than the preventitive effect of ordering by post and paying online.

    You think Mr. Amaral was waiting to pounce upon some unsuspecting couple to earn money off them? His book only reports his professional findings and opinions continued as from when he was the man in charge of the police investigation. He’d have to have been cowering, ready to ambush unsuspecting British couples in advance, ready to get sacked, ready to lose his job with the plan to publish a book in a get rich quick scheme, according to your belief.

  207. 207
    G1 Says:

    … It’s hard not to wonder if you’re being sarcastic in your comment, Taytocrisp, and making fun of the notions you state, in the context of the McCanns and the missing little girl.

    Where’s the evidence for the “notorious” cadaver scent dog errors, indicating upon command?
    Just how regular is it for parents of missing British children to say “We let him / her down”? Yes, I’ve heard it before, once or twice in the last couple of decades, no more. It’s quite weird to point out that there can be a kind of “marked” or “standard” thing to say. Perhpas it’s significant.

  208. 208
    Chris Says:


    I think you totally misunderstand ‘Spud’. It a clever view of exactly what has gone on.

    I would like to add to his comments that it is typically British to get the publicity seeking Government to exonerate you, particularly of neglect, and then spend £10m of the taxpayers money susposedly investigating the case without properly investigating the prime suspects.

  209. 209
    Mum Says:

    Imagine the scene. Child accidentally dies, and there will be drugs found in the bloodstream, as in the bloodstream of the other twins. Father sits upset wife down. Yes, it’s sad to lose child, but if we tell the truth about this, we lose the other two children, we lose our two jobs, and we lose our home. We lose everything. We will only triple the pain on everyone. Father thinks up Plan B (he’s a cold customer, and being a doctor is used to death). Mum doesn’t think she can hack it, but goes along with it, because he says it’ll be alright. The friends go along with the story, because some of them have used the same drugs on their kids, and they don’t want to lose their jobs or kids either. Our only hope is that when the twins grow up, that Mum will split up with hardman Dad, and tell all to the papers. Why do you think she asked the Pope to bless the bible a short time after her child died? A committed Catholic, it was the only thing that touched the body and was as close as a priest’s blessing as she could get. Do you know what summed it up for me – what Mother, grieving for your lost child, would go jogging “to clear my head” with hubbie with matching hair woggle and Tshirt (that was the absolute clincher), when your child is likely to be being savaged by some killer somewhere….. I hope she owns up sometime, but Dad definitely won’t.

  210. 210
    G1 Says:

    No, I don’t really understand, Chris.

    Unless you were letting me know’Spud’ was being sarcastic – which he may well have been – I can’t agree with ‘Spud’. obviously. Because those who speak loudly to try to “defend” the McCanns generally are much more subtle that he is being, rather than blaringly obvious about a few things which DO suggest a few basic elements of abnormality in the affair.

    But, as there have been prominent McCann supporters, it’s not evident to conclude Taytocrisp is either being sarcastic and showing up strange elements. Or, somehow, genuinely suggesting the McCanns are typical and normal with those words.

    I don’t think it’s really nice or helpful to bring everyone down as well – a typically ‘British’ thing. It’s normal for every country to have particular elements in society – the world is just like that. Yes, in the UK certain elements often seem kind of louder and more staunchly kind of proud and “in your face” and shameless about it – you might say “very hard” (“or very hard indeed”). In the UK it can seem these elements have thought of everything to confuse and stun and fob you off before anyone with any humanity could ever have got there (while you find this elsewhere, too). But there can be few differences between this country and others when it comes to certain elements of society.

    Also – the kind of thing you mention, Chris, is what anyone would be doing in the circumstances – guilty of something or not guilty. Those are the natural routes, routes which anyone would go down, again, guilty of something or not guilty. That is, apart from the abnormal elements – the highest charging solicitors in that area in the country with some of the highest charging lawyers in Europe; instantly when their daughter disappears focussing on lawyers concerned with extradition etc.

  211. 211
    G1 Says:

    209 – ‘Mum’

    I don’t want to force my view upon you or others, but I think it’s a good idea for me to suggest you have a rethink about the ‘accidental’ death involving drugs alone view. It seems not really feasible at all, for one thing judging by how the couple have acted since the disappearance. I’ve written a lot about this – very long coments before in the comments to this article (also ‘The Truth of the Lie’ and others).

    If you can cope with such long comments, have a read. Because I really feel the accidental death scenario that unfortunately Mr. Amaral went with is a real red herring (and perhaps only because of lack of evidence making conviction of the couple for other involvement too unlikely). While, it can seem that it is maybe not as likely that it’s an accident that it hangs about so much. (People often have blind, over-sympathetic emotions to situations they have no involvement in.)

    Discrepancies in early statements were made which, it is known, can have helped the accidental death scenario come about. I think, yes, this is how it arose – pretty early, in the media and in many people who suspected the McCanns of involvement. Many people suspected them, and certain early elements in the investigation and strange acts by the McCanns meant that many of those people put their suspicions down to accidental death. Whatever happened to the little girl, Madeleine McCann, everything says to me that accident is by far the most unlikely situation and quite an outlandish one, considering everything.

  212. 212
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    Spud I read as being Tongue in Cheek. He claims to be American (I think). So a question for him what would America do to the McCanns?

    As for Mum, I am not sure why you are so convinced it was not an accident followed by a cover up.

    I’m sure Spud would say ‘ask the dogs’. Now that is tongue in cheek from me.

  213. 213
    G1 Says:

    I’ll never forget the tone of voice those very words were “spoken” in (more shouted, agressively crowed or barked, actually might be a more appropriate term for the holder of these ears), by Gerry McCann himself, “Ask the dogs, Sandra.”

    Chris, if the “not an accident” part is meant for me, I’ve written SO much here about that. If you’ve read a lot of the comments of the last 6 months or so in the more popular articles on this site, you can’t have missed it. Have a look, if you have.

  214. 214
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    ok re ‘not an accident’. Which of your posts – they are all numbered – best explains your theory?

  215. 215
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris.

    Hmmm! I don’t know.

    I think I’ve read that you’ve at least skimmed through the many paragraphs I wrote about that before. I see I linked for you before, but it was, is (and will be) a lot to read!!! Yes, I know. It’s a bit more intense and maybe emotionally written than I’d prefer. It came just when I was seeing strongly how unlikely the strangely hovering ‘accident’ scenario actually is, how it doesn’t seem to be able to placed with everything else, how it is so out of place, if you take time to think.

    If you mean I should link to this for other people, you’re right (thanks). Because I couldn’t keep on repeating this. And no-one needs to repeat anything here. I can repeat a simple link for people who want to consider my theory – that the supposed death of the little girl could not have been an accident by her parents.

    I really went on about this, because I feel the accident theories amount to kind of like a veil that has settled, found its way somehow to covering over normal, accurate and sensible thinking here.

    Many people seem to be convered by it, and I felt it too before I really started thinking about things. It’s natural – you think ‘I don’t know’, and the kind of child abuse or sect worship / torture thing is so divorced from most peoples’ lives and so terribly hard for people to deal with, even just to place in your mind for a brief moment. When you connect this possibility with what would seem then very, very brazen people indeed on the screen, in newspapers, it can be natural that the ‘accident veil’ remains strong. The more disgusting theories are, yes, very hard to take.

    My thoughts are at:

    “The Facts v The Fiction” – posts 98 to 102

    I know it’s so much to read, so probably the first post is the best place to read. (I think, I may change this. For now, it’s good. I think I’ve also written more in comments for another article in this site, but I can’t find them at the moment.)

  216. 216
    G1 Says:

    … I want to be clear, my thoughts that the accidental death covered up scenario is too unlikely is unconnected to any further theories. This theory doesn’t suggest any guilt by, or that there was no guilt by, Gerry & Kate McCann in itself, or what anyone was or wasn’t involved in. Or could be or couldn’t be involved in. It just says – it seems too unlikely that there was an honest accident, even an accident involving some negligence, covered up. It’s important to get that clear. It doesn’t in itself suggest anything else, just that there was no honest accident. It does not consider who was responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, how it happened, or reasons why.

    I think I may have said everything I could about the case of the disappeared young girl from England in Portugal.

    Maybe I’ll post again though, I don’t know.

    Just a last note – latest news reports that the British investigation is looking for 6 to 8 British cleaners associated with a white van in Praia da Luz during the time of the disappearance. The news articles report it’s thought they were cleaners for the Ocean Club itself, but haven’t been tracked down or identified, and would become suspects if they couldn’t be found.

    I found this a bit surprising. Nearly 6 years later, the people reported 6 years ago by some people as British workers seen in a white van (as I’d read in newspapers back then), thought to work for the hotel itself, haven’t been identified by either investigation. (The articles seem to say this is leaked rather than official investigation information). The situation can seem like something strange, like a cursed kind of enterprise.

    One article:

  217. 217
    Chris Says:

    From the papers today:-

    Scotland Yard has identified several people who may be “of interest” in the case of Madeleine McCann, who was abducted in Portugal in 2007.

    Investigators conducting a review have drawn up a list of people who could be properly explored if the Portuguese authorities re-opened the case.

    Detective chief superintendent Hamish Campbell, head of Scotland Yard’s homicide and serious crime command, said there were a “good number” of individuals who should be questioned.

    So £5m/£6m down the drain and where are we? The Portuguese are not interested no wonder – they know who did it.

  218. 218
    Liz Y Says:

    I knew from the very beginning that this would be a whitewash, the ‘good number’ of inviduals who should have been questioned are the McCanns themselves, and their strange companions. When The Met. didn’t START by questioning them seperately, I knew it wasn’t going anywhere. I am certain the McCanns wanted an out and the situation now will be ‘Well The Met have proved us innocent’ As you say Chris £5/£6m down the drain and nothing. I am heartened by the fact that Yahoo are allowing anti McCann comments on their news pages, and to see that the anti-McCann comments are scoring far more ticks than the sentimental ‘Don’t you think they’ve suffered enough’ brigade So Gerry and Kate, far from being a few evil, dangerous people on the internet (Kate’s words) there are obviously more of us than you think, or want to admit to. I fervently hope that justice will prevail and these awful people will get their just rewards. Meanwhile I’ll just keep popping in.

  219. 219
    G1 Says:

    A follow up to my comments, numbers 186-189 (on the previous page of comments to this article, p4).
    Those comments are about the court decision against Tony Bennett earlier in 2013.

    The judge in the recent Tony Bennett trial, who declared Mr Bennett guilty of contempt of court for breaching an order about what may not be said about the McCann couple, was Judge Tugendhat.

    Tugendhat has very recently concluded in the Sally Bercow libel affair that Ms Bercow was guilty of defamation against Colin McAlpine for publishing (in Twitter), “Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*.” This “tweet” came just after the BBC’s program accusing a man who had been a senior Conservative politician in a sexual abuse situation, but not naming McAlpine.

    Again, I find Tugendhat’s reasoning completely bewildering. Earlier in my life, I have learned at a law college in England and therefore studied the law of defamation and general civil law liabilities and duties. I just cannot see at all how Tugendhat can make guilt from those few words of Ms Bercow.

    Tugendhat makes huge leaps of personal assumptions (and new definitions of legal and actual, social meaning) that I would or could never, ever make myself. These are very strange assumptions which I think the ordinary person could never make, and I’d imagined the law could never, ever make. I find it very frightening.

    Re. “Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*.”
    To quote the BBC:

    “After publishing her comment about Lord McAlpine, Mrs Bercow apologised in four subsequent tweets but denied that her original tweet had been defamatory.

    Mr Justice Tugendhat dismissed Mrs Bercow’s argument that the question she had posed was entirely neutral.

    Her inclusion of the words “innocent face” revealed that the question was “ironical”, the judge ruled.

    The tweet therefore amounted to an accusation that the Conservative peer was a “paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care”. ”

    That is wild.

    The BBC interpret “Justice Tugendhat’s reasoning” (BBC’s words):

    “[Ms. Bercow’s] inclusion of the phrase *innocent face* told readers that she was being “insincere and ironical”, not asking a straightforward question as she had argued.

    It was therefore reasonable to infer that she meant Lord McAlpine was “trending because he fits the description of the unnamed abuser”.

    The tweet was therefore, by implication, a repetition of the accusations of sexual abuse broadcast on Newsnight.

    Due to “repetition rule” in law, Mrs Bercow is treated as if she had made the original allegations herself, but with the addition of Lord McAlpine’s name.

    The tweet therefore amounted to an accusation that the Conservative peer was a “paedophile who was guilty of sexually abusing boys living in care”. ”

    It’s wild.

    Tudendhat is able to lay down that the words “innocent face” meant by the very fact of their use, the very opposite of what “innocent face” honestly denotes, and hence that someone can be convicted on this basis.

    Very, very Kafka indeed. It’s really, really scary.

    “Mrs Bercow said she had learned her lesson “the hard way”, adding that the ruling should be seen as “a warning to all social media users” because comments could sometimes be “held to be seriously defamatory, even when you do not intend them to be defamatory and do not make any express accusation”.

    Again, Tudgendhat is the man responsible for the case with the verdict against Tony Bennett, a case which I could not understand in comprehensible legal terms either. That verdict appeared to me to issue new laws as regard what a UK citizen can and can’t say or write to other people.

  220. 220
    G1 Says:

    [ … Sorry. I see I’d mistakenly written Colin McAlpine in the last comment. The man who sued Ms. Bercow is Alistair McAlpine.]

  221. 221
    Chris Says:

    Today ……Madeleine McCann News: ‘Weird Stranger Seen Lurking Near Apartments A Day Before Disappearance’

    How long do we have to put up with this rubbish.

    Liz keep smiling

  222. 222
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Chris, Sadly it wasn’t the weird stranger that Madeleine had to fear, it was her even more weird, slimy family and friends. How long do we have to put up with this….. as long as it takes!! I will try to keep smiling, very difficult to do so when thinking of Madeleine.

  223. 223
    chris Says:

    Hi liz,

    The more I think about this Madeleine’s body has either been cremated or subjected to an acid type bath. Both parents are Doctors so they know exactly how to dispose of unretraceable remains.

    As I have said before my father a Dr. mother a nurse. Dad was very impressed with Worthing Crem. one of his responsibilities, many years back, and is where he chose to depart.

    So the McCann charades, has a long way to go yet. There will be no body………..

  224. 224
    Liz Y Says:

    You’re right Chris, for me, the McCann’s confident demeanour is evidence that Madeleine’s remains, in whatever form, will never ever see the light of day. Bastards!!

  225. 225
    G1 Says:

    I’m writing something as follow up to my comments about the court libel convictions against Mr Tony Bennett

    (see my comments numbered 186-189, on the previous page of comments to this article, page 4,
    and also my comment 219, 6 comments above this).

    Tony Bennett was ordered to pay damages in two cases, £52,713 in favour of Mr Edward Smethurst, and £370,000 in favour of Gerry and Kate McCann. (A total of £422,713, going near to half a million pounds, but with thousands of pounds more for legal fees and expenses.)

    I’ve said previously how I can’t make sense of Justice Tugendhat’s decision in the McCann case (similar to another seemingly nonsensical decision in an unrelated case by the same man against Ms. Bercow in favour Alistair McAlpine.)

    I report from The Campaign from the committee of The Campaign for Opressed Libel Defendants (COLD 2012 – ) Tony Bennett has accepted an purposive offer by both parties, after negotiation. The demands to pay upon Mr Bennett in “both these costs have been reduced substantially, by 93% in the McCann case and 86% in the Smethurst case.”

    The specific and very, very significant demands upon Mr Bennett within what became agreed clearly highlight the desperate position he was in. Mr Bennett has outlined how his financial position falls remarkably short of being able to cope with the McCann’s original demands of payment by going through the court system.

    It is Mr Bennett’s legal right to lodge and have heard an appeal hearing to the decided McCann’s case against him, and indeed, Mr Bennett had had his papers lodged for the appeal to come.

    An appeal hearing would have happened, it seems. However, it seems Mr Bennett was faced with demands from the McCanns in their negotiations, enabling Mr Bennett a vastly lower amount to pay (the 93% reduction) on the McCanns’ conditions:

    1. That Mr Bennett withdraw the request he has made to the court for a court decision on whether 3 of the 16 undertakings he gave to the High Court in 2009 be allowed to be varied.

    2. Most significantly, that Mr Bennett DOES NOT make an appeal hearing against the recently decided case brought by the McCanns which was decided by Justice Tugendhat.

    As Mr Bennett’s appeal papers had been lodged and accepted already, for the 93% reduction in what Mr Bennett would be forced to pay it has been required by Kate and Gerry McCann that Mr Bennett withdraw that legal appeal application. The McCanns further require Mr Bennett commits by agreement to a position of never making a further appeal to a court.

    I know, or believe (as very often the party with the advantageous position in such a situation demands the other party is forbidden from telling about it) that this kind of agreement as to court proceedings, including that one party is forbidden to take the natural court action, occurs not so infrequently. I believe that it is something to be found.

    However, I’ve always thought it to be wrong, to forbid a court action by a person or party, for any reason, to mandate that the party must agree to that in order to receive a benefit they may need.

    The situation always seemed to be something similar to, if it did not actually amount to, the crime of blackmail.

    Blackmail means demanding something unwarranted with menaces to make a gain or cause a loss for someone else, or both. Menaces in law means a threat, which may, in the least sense, mean any vague threat to cause “something bad” to happen to some other person, except when certain demands are met. The law of Blackmail has been developed incorporating that even vague threats of “bad things” should not be able to affect the mind of an ordinary person.

    It seems clear that the law would not include in what could be a blackmail threat the conditionaly offer remove a huge debt that the other party has been made to pay by a court of law of the same country.

    So, of course, no blackmail, by law.

    But, for one thing, I have always felt this was quite close at least to that criminal situation.
    And secondly, when a party makes an offer after a legal demand of a large amount of money from another who does not have that amount of money, saying that the other need not pay what he can’t afford, if he foregoes his legal right to a court hearing, does not seem right to me.

    It has been recorded in the past that blackmail in English Law can typically come about when someone is attempting to deprive another person of a benefit or normal part of life which they can be assumed to have as of right. While that is what is happening here, where someone is being deprived of their legal right to simply have a case and decision examined, as the law sets out is standard and available. Again, it seems that the law is not really going to conclude that one party offering the other party that they don’t have to pay what they can’t pay, if they forego their citizen’s right to a court hearing, could be menaces (as the court issued the payment demand anyway).

    So, this is kind of agreement which the McCanns demonstrate here could not be blackmail on the evidence. I wasn’t suggesting it was, but, this kind of thing always seemed to be, at least not distant from the waters of wrong and untenable behaviour which ought to have criminal sanction against it. I’ll try to explain why.

    I have long thought that the law should never allow someone in such an inferior and desperate position to be preyed upon in the respect that his legal right to have a court case looked over once more is relinquished because of desperation. How frequently are first instance cases overturned – not infrequently, appeals are a benchmark, an inextricable part of the fairness of the legal system? Without the appeals procedure, and based upon the quite frequently occurring evidence of appeals being successful for a plaintiff, many would claim there is not a fair or acceptable legal system.

    This would mean that the opportunity of one party to be able, legally, to manipulate another person in a desperate position with the removal of that person’s ability for a normal, appeal hearing (legally available to any citizen) to be brought – TAKES that person OUTSIDE OF the standard, FAIR and ACCEPTABLE and COMPLETE legal system. The court system does not exist without only first instance trials, without access to appeal hearings. There is no such court or legal system here. I don’t know where there is such a system, but here it has been decided that that would not equate with, not just a fair legal system, but a legal system.

    It seems to me that no-one should have the ability or opportunity to do this to another person, in this case involving Kate and Gerry McCann, or any other case.

    It seems to me that it ought to be criminally prohibited.

    It seems to me that, by all means, parties should be able to negotiate as they wish, before and after court decisions. But that the law ought to enforce that any private agreement reached between two parties to an court action, be made with the provision of having to be subject to what may occur upon the appeal decision, if applied for. And that any agreement between parties CAN NOT exclude the right of any party to go through the full court process. For the presence of the appeal option, if taken or being decided to be taken, means the full court process would be interrupted.

    An appeal hearing is different to a first instance hearing. The court action has already been brought, but can be considered not concluded where one party sees the relevance of appealing, and indeed lodges an appeal.

    I feel that people can be allowed to agree between themselves, rather than choosing to go to court in the first instance. After that, where one party seems to be have been successful yet the legal action has not really finished because an appeal is pending or to be pending, yet that party seems to have the other “over a barrel”, they ought not be allowed to offer based upon condition of the other must withdraw appeal.

    It may be that (again, beyond what I, personally, could see as sensible or even imaginable, I believe) an appeal court would still find for the McCanns and such a high amount of money to be payable to them.

    However, it ought not to be possible in any event, ever, for the party who becomes in a desperate position after the first instance decision, to find themselves too afraid or desperate to exercise a legal right to appeal. Because of an offer made by the party who has been awarded damages during only part of the full legal system process.

  226. 226
    G1 Says:

    The web link in the last comment to the Campaign for Oppressed Libel Defendants should have read:

    The news about the agreement administered by the McCanns with Tony Bennett is currently given on this page (I don’t know how long it will stay there):

  227. 227
    G1 Says:

    To wind up about this – something I feel very strongly about, something I feel should be realised generally by the courts in this country – just some words for Mr Bennett.

    I am very sorry he has been subject to all of this in the courts. I am very sorry then he has been put in a position, after years of distress and financial burden, where it seemed beyond a chance too far for him to go with the full court process and taken his appeal hearing, and felt he had to accept the McCann’s offer for a reduction in damages payable.

    Finally, I am very pleased for Mr Bennett personally, that he is not subject to such a huge demand for money, of coming up to a half a millions pounds (when considerable amounts from the legal actions have already been paid by Mr Bennett). Of course I see rightly the wisdom in his choice in the circumstances. Especially where, in the harsh way the world can be, there may not have seemed any choice, practically. His choice seems to have been the most sensible, and I am very pleased for this retired man who has done so much, that things have worked out such that his future personal life will not suffer complete financial ruin.

    Mr Bennett did all that he could, and it is harsh to hear of what he has been subject to, especially as of the part in his belief he had been complying with what the law allows and suggests for as a citizen, to inquire as of the potentially negligent acts of parents upon children in their care.

    The concerned Mr Bennett believed as his legally sponsored and seemingly encouraged right to inquire into the very most high profile acts by parents regarding their children, which must seem as examples to British persons and further afield. Subsequently, Mr Bennett found the law wished to stop him in this concern, ending up that he was ordered to pay a huge sum of money and then found it seemed clear he was not able to continue to completion of a full, standard legal process.

    You can still support retired Mr Bennett in the thousands of pounds he has to pay through the COLD 2012 web link given. The organisation states that if it would get donations of help above the amount that Mr Bennett would have to pay, their general concern of libel defendants in bad positions will still be maintained by the donations.

  228. 228
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    From your link I found this:-

    “According to evidence at the Leveson enquiry, Mr Cameron was ‘bounced’ into setting up a £3½ million ‘review’ into the disappearance of Madeleine by former CEO of News International, Rebekah Brooks. She threatened Cameron with ‘a week of negative headlines’ about his Home Secretary, Theresa May. The review, headed by D.C.I. Andy Redwood, has been widely criticised and now lacks credibility. Redwood appeared on TV to coincide with the publication of the paperback edition of Dr Kate McCann’s book, ‘madeleine’. His ineffective performance and claims that his ‘review’ could go on for years, costing millions more, have led some to suggest that Redwood and his team of near-retirement-age detectives are not looking at all the available evidence and are biased in favour of the abduction theory.”

    If it is true and I have no way to prove it, then it STINKS. Just confirms my suspecisions.

  229. 229
    G1 Says:

    Mr Bennett explains everything in his

    “Additional Statement from Tony, 3 May 2013”

    which is someway down this webpage (JillHavern Forumotion)

    It shows the sad state of affairs which has been brought about by attempts to stop people asking what can be right and what ought not to be right, in fact involving the courts.

    I have mentioned that “the law” ought not to allow persons who appear to have gained a huge (or indeed any) position of advantage by the end of a first instance trial, to use their position unfairly. This means to use their new position against the other party at their time of apparent desperation by being allowed to act to bring about that the full court process, including appeal, may be made practically unavailable. As the first instance unsuccessful party is too daunted by the damages to appeal in the face of the potential of reduced damages.

    However, Mr Bennett points out in his statement that, he is considered by the law as someone with insufficient funds to: 1. be represented in court as everyone is entitled by law (though Judge Hugendhat seemed to ignore this and perhaps pretend otherwise), 2. honour significant libel damages awards.

    He points out that “Legal Aid is simply not available to defendants in libel proceedings, despite rulings by the European Court of Human Rights stipulating that defendants who cannot afford the high costs of defending themselves in defamation cases should be entitled to state aid.”

    Mr Bennett points out that “All High Court judges who rule on libel cases are aware of this situation.”

    Mr Bennett was forced to defend himself in court without the legal, professional defence that the law states needs to be available to a plaintiff as standard.

    In this context, and in the light of the particularity of High Court Judge Tugendat’s decisions (including the bizarre, bizarre decision explained in comment 219 again, against Ms. Bercow) one must be aware of the seeming inappropriateness of such concerns as having the law changed to forbid first instance successes from using their position to keep the other party “over a barrel” in legal terms.

    In this day and age, in this nation, the law can seem to develop not in a positive way generally, but more towards a more ancient age, perceived less right and less fair. That has been my general view of the law within the last decade in this nation, and it seems to get worse. (Such that, I must note, my actual surprise when British judges had to decide and try to make clear to Home Secretary Teresa May quite recently that they may not decide against the existing laws based upon a “direction” by the Home Secretary to do the opposite, without Parliament making new statutory law. I suppose things can seem to have gotten so bad, I may kind of have expected them even to go with it!!! Anyway, they didn’t.)

    I’m sorry if this seems rambling or not so relevant, but I believe the Tony Bennett affair to be very important and in terms of more than just the missing child, Madeleine McCann, but in terms of how determined people can appear to use the law at will to their advantage, and how the law in the UK seems primely disposed to allow or encourage this.

  230. 230
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris, I just saw your response after posting my last comment, where I coincidentally mentioned also about the mad Teresa May in her desire to declare how the judiciary will decide in court cases.

    Considering this is rather typical behaviour of May, it would not be at all surprising if Cameron had been threatened in this way. It can be quite funny how Cameron and his cronies want to shut her up, but publicly show the only way to deal with her is celebrate her and her “difference”.

    Whilst, there’s nothing really different about Cameron and his inner circle – they’re the ones who started the whole class wars in modern British society which have come to even define the place large respects. The people who work against those who can’t find work and subsist on £65 or less per week (made out to seem like some kind of palatial reward for nothing), the workers against those unfortunate people who are disabled and unable to work and no doubt would love to work.

    All because the government decided to start this class war, using a tiny fraction of people who rely on benefit when they shouldn’t (much, much less than those avoiding tax) instead of quietly improving the system it is their job to pull together and be more effective.

    Anyway, it’s getting side tracked, but more and more, as you say, there is a great “STINK” coming around in this country it seems from people who are there to make sure THE RIGHT is THE RIGHT and actually occurs, and as normal, and is seen as normal.

    That latter notion seems to have been lost in this recent age. Of course, with people like those in authority, all types, generally, more and more, THE RIGHT begins not be seen as normal or even desirable by many people. And things get worse.

    You mention the initial British police review of this high profile case. How strange that it would be headed by a man who was head of the team who engineered to have falsely convicted and imprisoned in another high profile case, not so long after it. The Jill Dando murder. I understand he wasn’t the only member of that Jill Dando investigative team in the Madeleine McCann review, and one can’t suppose everyone gets it right all of the time. But to put the head of that chronically mistaken or abused high profile case as the head of this high profile chase into a child’s disappearance surely is doing something provocative. Is that how rewards happen and professional respect occurs in the authorities in this age?

    Just have been watching the first two programmes in the BBC’s “The Iraq War” series. And I have to conclude neither Labour, nor the Tories are desirable because they either want to destroy this society or carve up millions abroad. And at best the Liberals come out as wetter than anything. How did the country get like this, with those people seeming to show us daily “there are no options”? What a country!

  231. 231
    Chris Says:

    Maddy had a lot of publicity last week. Was it 28 or 38 leads the MET want to follow up.

    All promoted on TV, we have spent over £4m and a Maddy could be still alive they say.

    So where were her parents? Surely they should have gone live on TV but they turned it down!! Maddy might be watching……………dream on the dogs say she’s dead.

    Clearly they don’t give a 4X. More likely frightened of being found out as any TV interview would have been MET minutely analysed.

  232. 232
    Chris Says:

    from the Telegraph – Kate McCann faces former police chief in £1m libel trial over Madeleine’s disappearance.

    Kate McCann will come face to face with the former police chief when their libel case against him starts in Lisbon today Thursday 12th September 2013.

    Not quite sure where the libel is? He stated facts and a conclusion.

    One thing is for sure Kate will get a poor reception from the people of Portugal. Gerry has whimped out!

  233. 233
    Chris Says:

    Madeleine McCann Parents To Make TV Appeal As Police Trawl Through Mobile Phone Records

    The McCanns will appear live in the studio during an episode of BBC Crimewatch on Monday October 14, which will also feature a reconstruction and pre-recorded interviews with the couple.

    From a book…..

    “Between April 27th and May 4th, Kate did not make any calls. Hum…

    – None either, between 11.22am and 11.17pm on the night of the disappearance.

    – Kate mustn’t like making telephone calls…

    – For Gerald, there’s nothing before May 4th at exactly 12.15am

    – What does that mean? They never made phone calls then?

    – On her telephone, her husbands’ number is logged: she called him on May 3rd at 11.17pm, but on Gerald’s, nothing, no trace of that call!

    – How can that be explained?

    – It’s simple as anything: the list of calls has been deleted.

    – Always the same old question: why?

    Summing up: the first phone calls were exchanged one hour after the disappearance. It could be imagined that in that lapse of time, they were busy looking for their daughter. Nevertheless, it’s astonishing that they didn’t need to speak to each other at such a difficult time.

    Later I learn that the English secret service had already placed the couple under telephone surveillance. If that’s true, the Portuguese police were never informed.”

    So will they appear live on Crimewatch? As one who enjoys the odd bet I know where my money will be.

  234. 234
    G1 Says:

    The statement about the secret service telephone surveillance, Chris, where was the source?

    Even in hypothetical cases where security services are certain that a child has been kidnapped, it could be standard protocol to monitor the relatives’ phones in case kidnappers try to make contact. The relatives may be informed of this, but they may not.

    Did you understand this could not be the reason for the McCanns’ phones being monitored, Chris?

    It’s another very strange thing – the deleted call records.

    Where the McCanns don’t explain this adequately, the possibilities are only:

    1. Calls were deleted by the McCanns and they have their own reasons why they would be covering this up / covering it over.

    2. Someone else interfered with the phones. Were there others around to intervene in the immediate day / days after the child was declared missing?

    There are no other possibilities.

  235. 235
    Chris Says:

    G1 Says:
    October 4th, 2013 at 9:03 am
    The statement about the secret service telephone surveillance, Chris, where was the source?

    Gonçalo Amaral book Chapter 3 under the subtitle:-

    From the book:-

    “Later I learn that the English secret service had already placed the couple under telephone surveillance. If that’s true, the Portuguese police were never informed.”

    Surely, the English secrtet service should have informed the Portuguese police?

  236. 236
    G1 Says:

    Thanks. (I’ve read that a number of times but had forgotten.)

  237. 237
    Chris Says:

    G1 Says:
    October 4th, 2013 at 5:54 pm
    Thanks. (I’ve read that a number of times but had forgotten.)

    Deleting telephone messages reminds me of Cowboys.

    That’s what they did when they were being chased!

  238. 238
    Chris Says:

    For those that don’t understand my train of thought and Cowboys.

    Cowboys would cover their horses tracks when being followed. If they had had mobile phones they would have deleted the records!!

  239. 239
    G1 Says:

    Two things I found interesting at the moment, from early to mid October 2013.

    1. I thought it is interesting that as the police announce publicly their development in investigating something close to every phone call possible in the area around the claimed time of the disappearance of a child, the McCanns announce they believe the police seem likely to be very close to finding perpetrators and potential arrests.

    2. The police announce they will be investigating all phone calls in the area, while many people are aware that the strangeness in the call details / lack of call details of the parents ought to be cleared up first anyway. Surely the police are aware that people are aware they are aware of this? Still, this development is healthy.

    In this age when there can be a norm of people acting to kind of thwart peoples’ natural tendency to point out what seems interesting, I’m just glad I’m able to do that here. It is not saying it means something in particular. Because I need to know I don’t know the truth about this case with so many clues but no results.

    I’m glad the police are looking at all the phone calls of the time, and I really hope it leads somewhere. I’ve never alleged the McCanns were the perpetrators of their daughter’s disappearance, at least on their own. I’ve never alleged specifically that they must have been involved, as I don’t know, but, like the others, find so much that is strange and intriguing and wonder why it all was never officially explained. I’ve always thought that, in the event that the parents were involved somehow in the disappearance of their daughter, it could not have been either unplanned or without involving other, experienced people.

    Comments such as mine are not meant to be hurtful against the parents. Naturally, people read, investigate, wonder, think, communicate, discuss. It’s a criminal case being talked about, it’s no personal thing and, of course, for genuinely uninvolved parents everyone would sympathise.

  240. 240
    Tayto the Crisp Says:

    Post 209, Mum
    You’ve nailed it exactly. The disturbing thing is that they have got the support of some high level people within the Government and also the BBC. Someone high up in our establishment is guiding this, I just hope there is enough revulsion in the international community to vilify their actions

  241. 241
    Tayto the Crisp Says:

    How shockable are the members of this forum. I have made suggestions in the past on other media and have been told it is too graphic, yet I am only quoting from the bewk Madeleine with some different emphases.

  242. 242
    Chris Says:

    The McCanns have a lot to answer for. This subject matter is “The Judiciária’s 48 questions that Kate did not answer”.

    They are certainly guilty of neglect, they left their children alone when a nanny service was available.

    They refuse to answer probing questions yet they are happy to take a fortune of public money. They come across as a most unpleasant couple so many assume the worst for Madeleine.

  243. 243
    G1 Says:

    Chris Says:
    October 13th, 2013 at 10:40 am

    “They are certainly guilty of neglect, they left their children alone when a nanny service was available.”

    There are many who would, actually and do agree with that Chris, it has been communicated by great amounts of people for years, it being a separate issue entirely to any question of what happened to Madeleine.

    While, after all that has happened, I know you kind of mean guilty of neglect in the sense of a basic meaning, rather than laws. For look at what happened to Mr Tony Bennett (a trained solicitor who was a specialist working in social care for year) when he attempted to put that basic meaning in the context of laws.

    With that point it’s entirely impossible for me, personally, however I try, to see how anyone can’t agree with this part. That is, that leaving children alone in a secured unit if visiting neighbours next door, with frequent, careful checks is one thing, and might be OK (perhaps even if 120 metres or so walk away). Doing that with two doors unlocked, one 2 metres from an unfamiliar, unknown public street where especially the door is glass and easy for anyone to look through and try, is another entirely. It’s hard to see why that has been kind of ignored officially, when it is so high profile and the most eminent example. Is that what the authorities want families doing all of the time?

    OK, the authorities might conclude not to punish the parents in the circumstances based on that it can seem that the couple may be suffering enough. But to simply ignore the facts, to particularly not acknowledge the nature of the activity seems bizarre. Then there is what happened to Mr Bennett, in part for speaking about this, which is every step further.

    It seems to me you and I Chris have every moral and legal right to make our opinion here, and anyone else, such as Mr Bennet. The opposite, it seems, could only be against morals and legal principles.

  244. 244
    G1 Says:

    … I should add – that’s all if what we’ve been told by those people paid to communicate things to us (in more reliable sections of the media) turns out to be true.

    Todays’ and yesterdays’ headlines were about the British police saying that previously communicated information about the disappearance of the little girl has been wrong, particularly the timeline. And that a fresh timeline will be presented tomorrow night on Crimewatch on BBC 1.

    You have to suppose this is very recent news inded to the police themselves, otherwise, why would they not have communicated it publicly at all, through the papers or in a press release? For that would only have harmed the public hunt for the little girl.

  245. 245
    Chris Says:

    From extracts of the Crimewatch schedule:-

    McCanns live!!

    “Crimewatch presenter Kirsty Young will speak to the McCanns live in the studio during the programme, while presenter Matthew Amroliwala has been to Praia da Luz to explore the new focus of the police investigation.”

    Well she won’t be allowed to ask any probing questions. If the McCanns turn up and don’t like the questions they will walk out.

    A new time line……..

    “We know at 8.30 that was the time Mr and Mrs McCann went down to the tapas area for their dinner and we know that around at 10pm that was when Mrs McCann found that Madeleine was missing.”

    Here is the chronological sequence of visits to the apartment:

    – 21.05: Gerald McCann (the children are fine);

    – 21.10/21.15: Jane Tanner (states having observed the alleged abductor with a child in his arms);

    – 21.30: Matthew Oldfield: (goes into the apartment, but doesn’t go into the bedroom. He only sees the twins);

    – 22.00: Kate Healy (goes into the apartment, and finds that Madeleine has disappeared).

    So what is new or were the Portuguses police given false time lines and by whom?

    I still think the MET are trying to justify our/their £10m+ jolly.

  246. 246
    G1 Says:

    “Speaking on tonight’s Crimewatch, Madeleine’s mother, Kate McCann, said:

    “We are not the ones that have done something wrong here. It’s the person who’s gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family.””

    Ian Johnston article, The Independent, Monday 14 October 2013.

    The first part of that statement has been difficult for many to take. Whatever sufferred, and whyever that very unfortunate, troubled couple have suffered, it has for a long time just been very hard to see why, exactly, someone would make the first part of that statement. I suppose there is something in meaning behind the need to say that, maybe only covering up shame because the couple do not mean it. The most evident reason (again, given that the information communicated to the public has been true) I put 2 comments above here, and is clear. It has been reported the street (more or less) doors were completely unlocked.

  247. 247
    G1 Says:

    “Well [Kirsty Young] won’t be allowed to ask any probing questions. If the McCanns turn up and don’t like the questions they will walk out.”

    While we don’t know what the McCanns have been like with the British police (who quite quickly deemed them not suspects beyond everything that happened), who has ever been allowed to ask any probing questions? You’re right, Chris.

    Even just to clear up a lot of the confusion and gladly shut us confused, concerned people up. I still comment from great confusion and concern rather than any specific suspicion that the McCanns killed, or were somehow involved in the death of, their daughter.

    One would hope the passing years could mean Kirsty Young could be given better treatment than the Portuguese police in the days after a disappearing child. But the estimation lies on the side of that rational, true and genuinely concerned parents would prefer to answer the investigating police’s questions in detail within days of a child being missing, rather than a TV journalist 6 years later.

    It’s a bit strange for me, anyway, I often got the impression that Kirsty Young seemed somehow afraid of, or at least ready to butter up, many of her interviewees, from TV to Desert Island Discs. But I hope it goes well, objectively, not knowing what the truth is about the little girl and that the truth could still be found. (While, personally, I estimate this is much more unlikely now than it ever was, contrary to the news stories).

  248. 248
    G1 Says:

    Chris, we shall wait until after everything has been released, in the program and more if it comes, to see what the changes are, what was “wrong” as the police have said with the previously held information.

    Here I know there are much more alert people than myself who have come to these discussion pages a long time ago. People who knew or remember the details of the old information much better than I would, who I hope could post.

  249. 249
    Chris Says:

    Well Gi

    They have released two identity pictures. One looks remarkably like Gerry. The hair, the nose and the face size and shape are like his. The other has a hair cut and nose remarkably like his too.

  250. 250
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris. I watched the Crimewatch program but had a migraine and couldn’t pay too close attention, so I’ll try to watch it on the iPlayer before it goes.

    About the E-fit identity mock-ups, a serious news journal was saying before the program something like – the police allege that the two pictures may be of the same man. But it didn’t categorically say it was. That article, I thought was leaving it open, because I thought there were two pictures from different sources, and they may not know if they were indeed of the same man.

    While on the Crimewatch show I got the impression that the police were more or less stating it was supposed to be the one man. So, it’s a bit bewildering. Especially when the relative watching the program with me said that they don’t look at all like the same man.

    I don’t know, people look different in different views. There you go. It’s just maybe not so clear if they are saying it’s the same man or they’re not sure.

    I didn’t think there was anything different at all, timeline wise, but these different identity shots. But things were a bit more odd, as in the near full withdrawal of the old long haired Gringo-carrying-girl, Jane Tanner’s artist’s drawing as a suspect.

    That was a bit strange. The police said they were nearly certain that, after 6 years, in the latest investigation by the British police, “that man” was ruled out a suspect. I thought it likely to rule a person out as a suspect they would have had to have found that man himself. If they had indeed found the long haired, thin man himself, why were they only nearly certain, rather than certain, he is not a suspect (if he exists). It seems an odd thing to say. If they were trying to say they don’t believe a man with such a likeness was in the area around that time at all, it came out the wrong way completely, and suggested the opposite.

    Perhaps Jane Tanner’s evidence has broken down as completely unreliable to the police. I don’t know what to make of it.

    It was a means for the McCanns to present their story with very little development news indeed from the police. Nearly nothing had changed. I suppose, in the circumstances, Kirsty Young may have taken the most reasonable route. Her interview was mature enough in the circumstances. The police are guiding how things are going, the program only follows the police, ever. In that case, giving the two parents a platform was the only possibility. I see there was never a chance of an interview that would clear up all the confusing, contradictory and bizarre elements that have been published from the McCanns’ accounts of events. I think nearly all of what the couple said is repeating what they’ve said before, also.

    Were the two newly published identity pictures from the Smith family (the rest of the Smith family, rather than the father who previously gave a high likelihood that he identified Mr McCann in the lane)?

    Oh, I think the fair haired man or men sightings, if not new, were newly collected. Which is a good idea. But all that’s known is someone’s hair was fair. In some of the acting shots they looked quite dark. Was the man slim? Strange that they didn’t say, I don’t think I heard that, while the actor or main actor of a fair haired man or fair haired men was a standout slim man. You don’t know if they know that or not.

    Overall, I got the impression the couple may want to wind down now. Despite the news articles about developments and potential arrests, all I can see is that there are huge numbers of possible clues the police have, but in the end they seem to “have” close to nothing on the case which leads anywhere. It seems there may be a large difference between what the recent news articles were saying and what the police were presenting.

  251. 251
    G1 Says:

    In response to your last message, above – yes, Chris.

  252. 252
    G1 Says:

    From the longer comment I made, two ago, regarding the original slim man with brown jacket carrying child suspect, I see the police did find the person they are nearly certain this was. That was what was meant.

    I watched the Crimewatch program again on iPlayer. With my migraine I’d missed that first time, why things didn’t make full sense to me. (Sorry)

  253. 253
    Chris Says:

    The new two suspect identity pictures (I couldn’t paste them in here for some reason)

    Tell me if I am wrong but these recollections were in the dark. I am amazed how like Gerry they are. In particular the one on the left.

    Same hair, same face shape, same eyebrows, same nose, similar eyes, neat ears etc etc.

    The guy on the right same hair, same eyebrows, similar nose etc. The face is slimmer but this was a sighting in the dark and shadows may have played a part……………

    The mind boggles

  254. 254
    G1 Says:

    I didn’t think of that, Chris, until your first comment above. Then I just went to, type Gerry McCann in Google Images and was very surprised how very similar the elements you mentioned are. I thought I may have to scroll down to find very similar likenesses. I didn’t, I didn’t touch the scroll bar. I thought the photos or Mr McCann at the top of the listings were remarkably similar in those ways, and as a whole impression, especially to the photo fit which doesn’t look as if it has been cut out.

  255. 255
    G1 Says:

    I’ve read back my long comment after I first watched the program, above, 248.

    Just to explain, first time around watching the program, I also missed that the 2 E-fits published are of the same man from the single event sighting by the Smith family in the lane.

    The article I’d read before the program didn’t state that, but the program made it clear these likeness images were the old Smith family sighting. They decided to make E-Fits at last, from the family.

    It’s not news at all, thought, the sighting, it has been central to reports of the disappearance of the child for years, and known by most of the millions who have closely followed the case.

    It’s just that the E-fits are released, which the police stated had not been in the public domain before last week.

    This is the same sighting where the father of the family said he’d thought likely was Gerry McCann.
    (“I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.”)

    There was never any reportage of the other members of the family saying that they thought it wasn’t or couldn’t be Gerry McCann, as far as I’m aware. I think the rest of the family also could have eased Mr. Smith down from near certainty to a later report of 60-80% personal certainty that who Mr. Smith saw was Gerry McCann.

    One can guess this was because other members of the family, being mature and thinking things over, could not claim they knew that the person they saw was Gerry McCann or that they were sure of their sighting enough to name that person, as Mr. Smith had done. It seems that this does not mean that the rest of the family were saying, by any means, that the man they saw was not or could not be Gerry McCann. Perhaps just as much as they don’t name Mr. McCann. I think it seems, from what is known, the rest of the family just didn’t have a sighting or recollection of a sighting of enough detail or surety by which they could say that man was or wasn’t Gerry McCann.

    The thing here is that it is difficult to place Mr McCann at that place at that time, anyway. My guess is that the police aren’t taking seriously the notion that this sighting could have been of Mr. McCann for this reason.

    So I go from considering Mr. Smith’s deliberation, coupled with Chris alerting me to similarities in E-fits coming from the Smith family which I can’t fail to see, naturally, to having to wonder if the sighted person could have been Mr. Gerry McCann.

    I can’t remember the exact reported timings of everything, and now the Crimewatch show is off the BBC iPlayer, so I can’t see the new timeline. If someone can post the salient points of this, it would be interesting, to see how the police are working here, in, presumably, ruling out the sighting as being Mr McCann.

    It’s one thing for the police to do that with many interviews, we don’t know just what they know. But most people in the “don’t know” camp like myself would come from a perspective where I know such a high percentage of all solved abductions and murders of children, from historical data, involve someone known or close to the child. So, it’s from where it would be bizarre in the hypothetical realm to rule out the possibility of family and / or their friends or associates being involved. Then, of course, it only makes sense to assess what could potentially be evidence in the same direction, towards such people, rather than turn blind eyes to it.

    I know many people here seem frustrated that the police seem to be doing the opposite.

    Anyway, back to the sighting. I suppose it all depends on the timings given by the McCanns and the people they holidayed with or got friendly with. And perhaps others – were there staff / others who gave a certain time of when Mr. McCann was sighted which would make it too difficult to be sighted by the Smiths? It’s interesting to think how reliable timings can be, especially involving the Tapas Bar, when the Tapas group dined there most nights and were up and down at various times and it would be really hard, a real feat, for anyone to actually certainly remember something just from glancing at the table at one time. However, the police seem satisfied.

    You have to remember, if that could have been Mr. McCann, it seems he could not have been involved on his own. It seems too improbable. It seems to me he could only have been going to a car / boat / meet someone else, and as likely coming from a car, before he walked for a bit.

    Anyway, that’s just what has to be considered. It’s normal. The police have – they’d have to have, whether they have evidence that this could not have been Mr. McCann or just no certain evidence that it was to enable them to proceed with anything (like the Portuguese police by when the ended the case). I know, I’ve learned, the opinion of this forum so far is that they would not proceed anyway because they are not taking that scenario seriously.

    It would be interesting to check out the timeline possibilities, anyway. I guess it has been done on numerous other forums, but there’s so much to read to get to what you want to learn.

  256. 256
    Chris Says:

    Hopefully all our suspicions are wrong and the parents are squeaky clean.

    At the moment they (still) have to be the Prime Suspects.

  257. 257
    G1 Says:

    Yes. I think an open mind would help anyone.

    Also, whatever else has happened, it’s not in anyone’s own interest to allow that whatever else to prevent you from having even an open mind anyway, separately and as related, even if only in a smaller way.

    An open mind does not mean any kind of “faith”, least of all blind faith.

    With very close to two and half thousand responses from the recent publicity campaign, the police must be worked off their feet, and would be for some time to come. New leads all over the world, possibly. Spending time liaising about the possibility of truth in the leads, then going to places maybe. It’s a great deal of work, I suppose. Good things might come of it. They might not, it has been a long time. But they might.

  258. 258
    G1 Says:

    I have to say, I was struck by the similarity of Gerry McCann in some features to the photo fit image person. But, after considering it is possible, I don’t feel that man was Gerry McCann.

  259. 259
    Chris Says:

    So what do you make of this? The pictures obviously too like Gerry if you ask me!!!

    Evidence recently presented as a “breakthrough” in the hunt for Madeleine McCann was reportedly produced for her parents by a group of former spies in 2008.

    Kate and Gerry McCann hand-picked a team of former MI5 agents after becoming fed up with the pace and direction of the original Portuguese investigation.

    The intelligence report was kept secret for five years as it was deemed “hyper-critical” of the McCanns and their friends, reports the Sunday Times (27th October 2013) .

    The e-fits
    The contents were only made public after Scotland Yard investigators requested a copy when conducting a fresh review of the case

    E-fits of a man seen at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance shown on a special edition of Crimewatch last week and presented as new evidence are in fact from the 2008 report.

    Detectives also said the accepted version of events surrounding the disappearance the little girl in 2007 had “significantly changed”.

    One of the authors of the 2008 report said he was “utterly stunned” the evidence had been presented in such a way.

    Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief, who led the group, confirmed they had been silenced by the McCanns.

    He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report

  260. 260
    G1 Says:

    On the one hand, that all doesn’t sound / look good for the McCanns. On the other hand, it also is probably not unexpected behaviour by the McCanns, or by any parents whose child really had been taken by someone else against their will when they are still seeking their child and don’t need thrown around more.

    The McCanns’ behaviour from the very start can’t fail to be seen as highly suspicious by many people. That really means – very notably, very significantly strange indeed, the type of behaviour which leads people to enquire and question and suggest and not be able to help wondering, it being very natural. One of the biggest things is leaving most questions completely unanswered very soon after the child was reported missing, and seeming to draw a line between themselves and the police that would even force the police into a position of mistrust of them.

    Going back to the “other hand side”, it’s a good idea to look at all possibilities. One is that perhaps these people are not very intelligent people whatsoever. Personally they never seemed that to me, anyway. They’ve been paraded strangely as middle class icons, people from backgrounds that weren’t rich who earn a lot, socially and intellectually able people. But, apart from their double doctor (including specialist doctor) incomes, and the fact that they had their nose in the books and memorised the definitions and doses etc. given to them at medical school, perhaps they really aren’t too intelligent, normally able or socially aware at all.

    I guess it’s a good thing on this forum which is largely critical of the McCanns to sometimes bring up the other possibilities. That is that they didn’t have a clue what to do soon after Madeleine was reported missing, and they in fact were suffering very, very public but really unidentified total nervous breakdowns.


    Anyway, that side of the events, that possibility rather, shouldn’t be disregarded, otherwise people are just not being balanced.

    At the moment, while I don’t know, I don’t think the man who the Smiths saw was Gerry McCann. I don’t know, but now the idea that there was an actual abduction, not by the McCanns, seems something serious to me. (Unfortunately, though, I am unable still to weed out my thoughts from before that wonder if the McCanns were involved. It’s a very old suggestion, including selling their daughter because they simply could not cope with her – this even fits in with the unintelligent, practically incapable notion above. Or people have made guesses that Madeleine was beginning to speak of things from her short past that would have some people in tricky positions.)

    These thoughts go to show there are a lot of possibilities. It’s really healthy to be aware of this, for one thing so that whoever carried whatever out isn’t pinning you down to be obsessed with something you can’t know (whatever it is). What is very clear is that there were grossly evil, sick people at work in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

    I can’t say why, but at the moment, to me, it seems at least a very valid theory that the young child was kidnapped or murdered by an intruder who had planned a lot. This shouldn’t be dismissed, honestly. I feel it’s very serious indeed. (Again, though, especially in a flat with unlocked doors, it doesn’t mean that no-one else was somehow involved, even if against their wills, but having been shut up.)

  261. 261
    Chris Says:

    do hope this site is not being got at.
    Where are “Tayto the Crisp” two post? They have been emailed to me.

    As I have said before my father was a doctor.
    He was a man of principle. He was a Major in WW2 with the Army in India. He turned down being promoted to Brigadier because of what it involved. He would never discuss why but mention latrines as one of the duties.
    He also refused becoming a Mason. Full of people with little ability but clout.
    The amount of money being thrown at this case stinks of the Masons.

  262. 262
    G1 Says:

    “do hope this site is not being got at.
    Where are “Tayto the Crisp” two post? They have been emailed to me.”

    There’s one anyway at comment 205 (page 5), Chris, on this machine at least.

    What’s going on? Someone is emailing you posts? Is that one of the site admins, did you ask where the posts were, or something?

    I’m not a member of this site, it has been closed to new members for years, or it was only ever open to those who write articles, or maybe some others also. I don’t know who can see your emails – people coming to the site in recent years, like me, can’t, I think.

  263. 263
    G1 Says:

    … I meant – can see your email address. Only registered members, or maybe just a few site admins can.

  264. 264
    Chris Says:

    Hi GI

    I just get notified if a post is made on the site with the contents. So obviously it has my email address which I have to decalre each time I post.So I know you posted twice recently and apparently so did Tayto the Crisp.

    This is one of them…. I’ll take a look

    Post 209, Mum
    You’ve nailed it exactly. The disturbing thing is that they have got the support of some high level people within the Government and also the BBC. Someone high up in our establishment is guiding this, I just hope there is enough revulsion in the international community to vilify their actions

  265. 265
    G1 Says:

    I understand about the emails.

    I didn’t get emails about “Tayto” posting this time.

    However, the same thing has happened to me in the past.

    Sometimes my posts say “awaiting moderation” (sometimes they don’t then get published).

    In the past, I’ve actually got an email alerting me to someone else’s new comment, which I’ve then replied to, as I thought it was awaiting the moderator’s click for it to appear. But it never did.

    So, there is at least one reply somewhere in these comments to a post I got emailed about but which never appeared.

    I guess it’s that the moderator doesn’t click it in. But I don’t think this is necessarily because the admin decides that – it may “time out” because the admin is returning to the site at times only to keep it ticking over, and comments awaiting a click may disappear from the system before that.

  266. 266
    G1 Says:

    … (A guess).

  267. 267
    G1 Says:

    “He also refused becoming a Mason. Full of people with little ability but clout.
    The amount of money being thrown at this case stinks of the Masons.”


    I see the relevance in what you’re suggesting.

    Dipping over onto the side of questioning the McCanns’ again, their whole public appearances over a long time can be seen to be a kind of exercise of control and perceivable daringness, in itself.

    I can’t shake this off.

    Maybe it’s just unfortunate that their behaviour leads that to be seen in them, and more unfortunate that it’s discussed as relevant to anything. Maybe not.

    Everything with them is so, so odd, though. As I wrote above, without really thinking about it, they really did seem to very much force the Portuguese police to treat them the way they were treated. Everything seemed brought upon themselves, meaning exactly that the McCanns were in a position then whereby it could be seen objectively that they could feel it legitimate that they ought to “get out” and, at least for some years, distance themselves from the Portuguese investigation.

    If this were a couple of real, serious nervous breakdowns – not unlikely for parents in the circumstances – you can only conclude that those people helping the McCanns, particularly Clarence Mitchell – people with a lot of responsibility, could indeed have been seriously negligent indeed. How did he deal with, for example, the Portuguese police situation? By allowing them to be demonised further. It fits in with the “breakdown and escape from hostile surroundings” scenario that came about, further. Unfortunate. But it was more than unfortunate. For someone with such very serious responsibility, it was more than strange. Easily I could guess it could be negligent. What did he think he was doing, unless he was just a puppet?

    It’s the land of nothing making sense.

    However, I really don’t want to distract your attention from that it seems to me now (involvement of McCanns somehow or not), Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a gang involved in organised child trafficking / prostitution.

  268. 268
    Chris Says:

    Tayto the Crisp has to be our friend Spud. I do like his sense of humour.

    “However, I really don’t want to distract your attention from that it seems to me now (involvement of McCanns somehow or not), Madeleine was taken from the apartment by a gang involved in organised child trafficking / prostitution.”

    I don’t buy that.

    All the evidence says she died in the apartment. When exactly is a very interesting question.

    As a smart person pointed out an anagram of Maddie is “I’m dead”.

  269. 269
    G1 Says:

    “All the evidence says she died in the apartment. When exactly is a very interesting question.”


    Thanks for your comment, Chris. I didn’t at all believe what I’ve written there above in the past, and felt that much more persuaded to go with what you think. But here I want to take what you’ve said. If we’re going to make deductions, let’s be methodical.

    The evidence you mention seems to be cadaver scent and human blood specks. Is there any more than that, Chris?

    It is far from flimsy evidence to me. I do not discount it.


    1. If Madeleine died on May 3 2007, or on a day before then, in the apartment, evidence pointing to that does not mean in itself that the McCanns were the ones who caused the girl’s death. Consider this, McCanns were seen leaving apartment at 8.30. Someone(s) entered then. Whyever it happened, Madeleine was killed. The intruder put the corpse in the cupboard. Crucially, through the following checks until the alarm was raised around 10 p.m., the family claim Madeleine (or her corpse) was not herself seen again, ever.

    Possibility: intruder returned for Madeleine’s corpse later, wanting to take evidence. OR, the intruder remained hidden in the apartment for a longer time. Is around 1 hour thirty minutes long enough for Cadaver to become present? I don’t know, I think so. I think 1 hour may be long enough. What is the significance of an enclosed space – a wardrobe – that even light cadaver would transfer to and linger on the materials sooner? The possibility that an intruder was still hiding in the apartment during Gerry’s check was suggested by himself, also.

    However, while this line of thought shows that cadaver and blood, even if from Madeleine’s corpse, does not prove a link to the death of Madeleine with blame attatched to the McCanns, it also conveniently can fit with something that the parents could want to present if they had blame. Why didn’t Gerry look at his children when making a so-called “check”? This may be very, very important. What kind of a “check” is that? Why did he bother? Especially considering the doors were not locked. Why just check for no noise? What if a child has fallen and hit its head, unconscious? What does he really think he’s actually checking for? What does he think it means? Why was that done, as said, if it was? Could this “check” have been planned by Gerry, not looking at the children, in order that the suggestion of a dead body with increasing cadaver scent in the cupboard could potentially explain away the scent if it were found? Or did Gerry meet someone in the apartment who he expected to be there or was not so surprised to find there? Or at least, did he just not check all of his children were actually there and safe, during his “check”, for a planned reason?

    This is really important, I feel. Just as important, at least as the other points in possibilities I’m mentioning here, for perhaps it’s within some of the strangest occurences of the time. I’m suggesting the cadaver and blood evidence might be explained without the McCanns in the picture, but this strange part does stick out.

    2. It has been suggested that both cadaver and blood (possibly from the full corpse) came from after May 3. It has been suggested that it could have been planted. It could have been.

    3. I feel this is important and not to be sniffed at. There had been break-ins to these appartments (as far as I remember including 5A and the one above) before the week of the disappearance, and no signs of break-ins mostly. I have read it had been concluded publicly, before, it was likely that either A. Ocean Club staff member / member(s) were complicit in letting criminals enter flats; and / or B. Keys were stolen from reception for enough time to get copies made (even in Faro perhaps, even with a gang’s own key reproducers). As far as I remember (and, though it’s years ago, I searched and read all I could about this) these were the only two possibilities, beyond criminals with poltergeist abilities also. Could some of these appartments, including 5A, have been used when unlet, without being lit inside, by a trafficking paedophile group involved in child abduction, selling sex and more?

    I say this, for one reason, because I feel strongly that a gang of criminals involved in “professional”, commercial paedophilia – children for monsters – are very likely to have abducted Madeleine McCann. I’m not saying this is, but also I’m certainly not now saying this isn’t, something that could have involved the parents of Madeleine McCann. Somehow. Or that they have hidden knowledge.

    If the McCanns were somehow involved in this, then, as I’ve always said it must have involved more than them, and they are playing fools among other things.

  270. 270
    G1 Says:

    Back to more strangeness, however, and putting what I’ve said I think to be very likely, about a gang abduction / murder, aside.

    The Telegraph are publishing an old article they did from 2010, because of the libel trial in Portugal against Mr. Amaral surfacing once more, now.

    It highlights that it’s not a recent thing that the McCanns were never going to be considered as suspects in a British enquiry, despite the statistical link to relatives and close people in such cases. (After Chris’s letter from the British authorities claiming that the McCanns are somehow exonerated from even suspicion, if there can be even such an actual state of meaning logically.)

    It goes back to 2007-08, and importantly, can only be viewed as something critical in bringing about a situation whereby someone is able to say that these people are, whatever it means, exonerated from suspicion. It must have happened very quickly:

    Very, very strange.

    Then, again, you have to wonder if the Met Police take anything like this seriously, at all.

    I posted this link in a comment to a different article in this site recently, about the police’s approach to the Jill Dando murder. See bottom. (I hope it is reliable. But I’ve read it before, elsewhere, but longer ago than this. I remember wondering if the Met Police would come around to questioning Mr Lindsey again soon. Years later, no.)

    This news comes a long time after they had falsely convicted the sensitive man with emotional and behavioural difficulties, Barry George, but has lead to nothing.

    Remember that policemen involved in the Jill Dando murder investigation have since been involved in Operation Grange, including the head detective of Operation Grange.

    So what’s going on?

    With what I quote above from 2007-08, bringing about a state of affairs where someones think they are able to claim the McCanns are exonerated from suspicion?

    With the false conviction of Barry George, and complete disinterest in the best evidence of the real murderer of Jill Dando?

    What’s going on?

    With the first situation, involving the McCanns, it can seem that the British police know something – whatever it is – and therefore have made a decision from there. There seems no other way of truly explaining such very abnormal police work.

    “We’re going to exclude you as suspects because parents never hurt their children without exception and we feel very sorry for you. Despite the high statistics in these kind of cases.” Is that it? Or what else is it?

  271. 271
    G1 Says:


    I meant to include the relevant, short paragraph from the Telegraph article.

    This should be before the first link in the comment above … :

    “Mr de Almeida also complained that Portuguese police efforts to investigate the McCanns had been frustrated by their British counterparts. “We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,” he said. “

  272. 272
    G1 Says:

    Quickly – the “checks” part.

    People talked about this a long time ago, but I haven’t read much about it lately.

    Simply, it is so strange. It has to be questioned.

    This is a simple truth:

    It is one thing to be in the same flat or even multi-story house as children being minded and go to check upon them every so often, only looking in the door to see if they seem to have gotten up, or even just listening at the door.

    This is because you have been listening to noises in the property, and would have been aware if there seemed a reason to be more enquiring.

    But why on earth would anyone do this who has left the property and gone out completely (especially leaving the doors unlocked)?

    To make a listening check, after having been out for a meal a considerable distance away?

    Both Gerry McCann, and Matthew Oldfield.

    Unquestioned by police.

    If these people can be just innocent victims of child abductors, with nothing more complex at all, it leaves serious worry. Not just of neglect, but of mental illness, if they seriously contend there was checking going on.

    There were no checks. Obviously. A girl who it was claimed was there at the beginning of the evening, is missing for over 6 years.

    Meanwhile, Tony Bennett, a trained solicitor who worked in social care, has been sued for questioning the legality of this and other things. And subsequently silenced from proceeding with his natural right to appeal the strange decision of Judge Tugendhat.

    Ruthless? I’d guess most dictionary defintions don’t suggest the word means anything as scary, determined or efficient as this, were it to have all been effected by will. It all was effected by will somehow, by people recently claiming on TV to have done “nothing wrong”.

  273. 273
    Chris Says:


    You say:-

    The evidence you mention seems to be cadaver scent and human blood specks. Is there any more than that, Chris?

    I think we should start making a list of questions we need the McCanns to answer.

    Just a couple for starters

    1. Why did Kate call out she has been abducted? A normal mother would be screeming out the childs name and look for her. I suggest the ‘she has been abducted’ was premeditated.

    2. Why did Kate not search for her daughter? Did she know it was pointless?

    2. Why were the telephone records all deleted?

    3. Why did Kate wash the cuddly toy? That is the last thing any normal mother would do.

    4. Why did Kate say ‘ask the dogs’?

    Liz I need some help please but this is going to be a long list. I can cut and paste your questions into the list. btw Hope you are well.

  274. 274
    G1 Says:

    That’s why I’m so confused and have been for years and years now, Chris.

    Your 4 questions, indeed, turn out to be just a drop in the ocean.

    As I was suggesting in comments 260 and especially 267, above – it’s the biggest mystery why so much simply hasn’t been simply answered. As you say in your comment above. It’s even a deeper mystery in itself. The McCanns establish a huge fund of money. Why could they not hire the best psychologists and proper P.R. and communications consultants to properly take care of them and just sort things out? Instead of the highest charging solicitors in extradition law, and libel law, and so on, targeting genuine, concerned people such as Tony Bennett. Why not simply explain and accept natural criticism, rather than the crusades we’ve seen? Because they’re still suffering ongoing nervous breakdowns? Why aren’t there professionals there helping them, explaining that to the public? Instead of all that money going to absurd detective companies who end up breaking the law, or a police man who just had his professional opinion, but could never prosecute anyway.

    I do think it is likely Madeleine McCann was taken by a “professional” gang, whether taken living or dead.

    I have not ruled out the McCanns’ involvement, of course because the “Ocean” I refer to above just won’t let me, whatever I try. I’d love to, though.

    As you said, above, “Hopefully all our suspicions are wrong and the parents are squeaky clean.”

    For the physical acts of what happened to Madeleine, you also said, “At the moment the [McCanns] … (still) have to be the Prime Suspects.” I did mostly agree with you until recently. I can’t say why at the moment, but there are very good reasons. I’d hope to say later. What I suspect has changed to something solid, as described.

    But the physical acts of what happened to Madeleine McCann are only the physical acts of what happened, and may not be everything. Again, because of the “ocean” of something more strange than very strangeness, it is really hard to think this is a simple affair of abduction, whatever went on.

    I’ve thought it’s also possible the McCanns do know about what happened, did nothing to involve themselves, but can’t speak out because of what would happen.

    If there is a professional sourcing gang of peadophiles, known in Europe, you can be quite sure they’re well known among certain circles in the UK and feature in personal phone books. Don’t forget the Savile parties with bus loads of underage children driven in, girls and boys, for underage rape and abuse by many people in country houses and other locations. We know that of Savile because he was famous and it came out in the end. How much else does this happen with faces that children don’t know to identify? Look at Kincora in Belfast – just an old one where people can’t raise doubt about because it’s known to have happened – bus loads of children taken from that boys home, with other bus loads of other children, driven to parties and weekends for men to take advantage of. And so on. And so on. There are many other instances of this kind of thing hidden.

  275. 275
    G1 Says:

    Here’s a go at your five questions, I think from a bit of a different perspective to yours, Chris.

    – – – “1. Why did Kate call out she has been abducted? A normal mother would be screeming out the childs name and look for her. I suggest the ‘she has been abducted’ was premeditated.”

    … Or coming from knowledge she had of what may have been threatened upon the McCanns. Because of what Madeleine may know. Perhaps she had to be removed because of this, and the McCanns were ordered not to interfere.

    – – – “2. Why did Kate not search for her daughter? Did she know it was pointless? ”

    Again, this would be answered by what I’ve said above.

    – – – ” Why were the telephone records all deleted?”

    Even moreso, where people, perhaps including well known people, may have ordered that young Madeleine must be taken because of what she knows, with the McCanns knowledge at least, deleted call records would be very significant. Especially if the police turn the blindest eye possible to this, yet search all other phone records in Praia da Luz.

    – – – “Why did Kate wash the cuddly toy? That is the last thing any normal mother would do.”

    Under instructions? Or someone else made sure of it?

    – – – “Why did Kate say ‘ask the dogs’?”

    Because the dogs are able to say more than the McCanns can say? Perhaps they want to be able to say more than they can? Because they are stressing they are the dogs – they are describing that the dogs, who can only bark incomprehsively rather than speak real words, are indeed being asked at that moment.

  276. 276
    Chris Says:

    My list is getting longer

    I don’t buy the abduction theory sorry–

    1. Why did Kate call out she has been abducted? A normal mother would be screeming out the childs name and look for her. I suggest the ‘she has been abducted’ was premeditated.

    2. Why did Kate not search for her daughter? Did she know it was pointless?

    3. Why were the telephone records all deleted?

    4. Why did Kate wash the cuddly toy? That is the last thing any normal mother would do.

    5 Why did Kate say ‘ask the dogs’?

    6: Why lie about the apartment being locked when the patio doors had been left unlocked?

    7: Why didn’t the McCanns join in the search for Madeleine instead of playing tennis & updating blogs?

    8: Why lie about the shutters being forced open when the forensics proved they had not?

    9: Why phone the Sun newspaper before phoning the Portuguese police?

    10: Why did Gerry return to the UK for a day so soon after the event?

    11: Why hasn’t Gerry’s holdall ever been found? ( a man with a similar holdall who looked like Gerry was seen on the beach).

    12: Why didn’t Kate insist on answering 48 simple questions that anyone of us could have answered with ease? Most would have answered them even if the lawyer had said not to.

    13: Why did the McCanns include Dr David Payne (reported to the police by two other UK doctors as a suspected paedophile) in their group & allow him access to Madeleine?

    14: The McCanns maintain that the dead body scent picked up by the sniffer dogs was the result of Kate having dealt with several dead bodies immediately before the holiday.
    Why would a Kate,from a family with a combined income of over £100,000+ pa, need to take her work clothes on holiday?

    15: The McCanns maintain that DNA with a partial match to Madeleine found in their hire car which wasn’t hired till 25 days after she disappeared, got their from nappies belonging to her siblings. How many of you put unwrapped used nappies in the back of your car?

    More to follow – thanks to the posts above

  277. 277
    Chris Says:


    No offense I think you need a doctor

    You say:-

    Or coming from knowledge she had of what may have been threatened upon the McCanns. Because of what Madeleine may know. Perhaps she had to be removed because of this, and the McCanns were ordered not to interfere.

    Then why the HELL leave the child alone!!

  278. 278
    G1 Says:

    “No offense I think you need a doctor.”

    There is no need to insult me, Chris, because there is an aspect (or more) of what you publish you believe which I do not agree with anymore. For some reason you feel the need personally to say I need a doctor, when I’m being as methodical as possible in dealing with what everyone is only guessing and wondering about.

    Does that really offend you so much? You seem to think that you know, and can rule out another’s suppositions and seem to attempt to prevent their discussion. You say I need a doctor, but it’s your controlling attitude which is unhealthy, especially where it seems you need someone to agree with you.

    Did you really mean, the “no offense” part, Chris?

    I quote Chris, below, from comment 277:

    “You say:-

    Or coming from knowledge she had of what may have been threatened upon the McCanns. Because of what Madeleine may know. Perhaps she had to be removed because of this, and the McCanns were ordered not to interfere.

    Then why the HELL leave the child alone!!”

    OK, this was not so clear. Threatened may not be the best word. I only meant that the McCanns might have been told this would happen, but they were still not sure it would happen. The doors might conceivably have been open anyway, as could have been directed to the McCanns, as part of former relations and goings on.

    Everything I’ve considered does make complete practical and logical sense, Chris. But they’re only suppositions, here. If you know better than suppositions and working things out logically, practically, it would be good to know about it.

  279. 279
    G1 Says:

    I completely agree, Chris, that making a list of questions from within the ocean of very strange, unanswered areas is a very good idea. These are the old questions thousands and thousands of people have been asking online (and off) in many online locations for years, and it is good to group them together. (Most forums which are not actively pro the McCanns are much more detailed and searching that this one, with very knowledgable people).

    But, I can’t think of a point of asking all the questions again if you’re not willing to allow rational discussion that isn’t pre-formed, and insult peoples’ personal thoughts and deductions.

  280. 280
    G1 Says:

    Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying you’re wrong or anything, Chris.

    For example, you say,

    ” I suggest the ‘she has been abducted’ was premeditated.” ”

    It may easily be one of the more likely explanations, and the one I thought of most for a long time. And I’m certainly not discounting it now.

  281. 281
    Chris Says:


    “No offense I think you need a doctor.”

    There is no need to insult me, Chris

    Come on where is your sense of humour? It was tongue in cheek/joke (as per Spud) I should have added make an appointment with the McCanns!

    The big joke in this is the £10m + of public money being wasted on it.

    As I have said my father was a doctor. Nobody would have told him what to do or tell him to leave his kids alone.

    I’m off to bed – will add to the list tomorrow.

  282. 282
    G1 Says:

    I see. You say you make a joke. That’s up to you. whether you really do or not.

    I don’t post here on such an extremely serious thing to get involved in joking about this in any way.

    I really, really don’t. I’m not going to bother bringing up appropriacy. Again, it’s just up to you, your business. But, so that you know, if indeed you could have been joking then (I’ve never seen one before on this whole site, or many others about this topic, while you claim the person calling himself Tayto was making “humour”), please don’t include me in them.

  283. 283
    G1 Says:

    I came back to this site after deciding not to post anymore, quite a while ago. (Though I returned to respond to the extremely weird Judge Tugendhat cases – Tony Bennett and Sally Bercow, and the McCanns manipulation of Mr Bennett after that while reducing the money he owed by a huge amount.)

    So, I returned in the new spate of news, and also have changed a material opinion of what I think happened, in physical acts alone at least. But I’ve said a lot, and don’t have much more to say for a while, I think.

    But before that, I want to ask you, Chruis, what on earth this means:

    “As I have said my father was a doctor. Nobody would have told him what to do or tell him to leave his kids alone.”

    What has it got to do with the subject of this site?

  284. 284
    Chris Says:

    You (GI) said above:-

    Or coming from knowledge she had of what may have been threatened upon the McCanns. Because of what Madeleine may know. Perhaps she had to be removed because of this, and the McCanns were ordered not to interfere.

    So you are saying that Maddie knew something and her parents let her be abducted!!

    I am saying:-

    “As I have said my father was a doctor. Nobody would have told him what to do or tell him to leave his kids alone.”

    You say:-

    What has it got to do with the subject of this site?

    I say{-

    I thought the McCanns were doctors of medicine. Exactly the same circle as my father and if so ordering doctors about is fantasy. Beside they have had 4 years to say all this and answer the 48 questions. Instead they write books and say nothing.

    With regard to the British Government and the £10m+ I see that as Cameron hoping to gain some political points. If the crime is solved he has to win if not he has little if anything to lose it’s taxpayers money.

  285. 285
    G1 Says:

    Ok, Chris. Why I was asking, why I didn’t understand what you were trying to say, is because, you know, whatever happened, the point is that the McCanns aren’t anyone else. The point is that this is very specific.

    I didn’t know why you were mentioning your parents to compare to the McCanns. Or indeed, mentioning doctors anyway. Sure, doctors are supposed to help people.

    But it’s a bit simple to say of all human nature, to think that all people operate in an ideal way, and so make value judgements from that people are doctors, for example.

    I’m not just saying there are exceptions, some bad apples. I’m saying, actually, helping people is often enough not the impetus for a significant amount of people to go into being a doctor. The same with being a teacher. The same with being a lawyer. The same with being a policeman or politician. The same with being a surgery receptionist.

    There are people who identify positions with personal social status, opportunities for personal control and to gain respect and, of course, the kind of respect (whatever it is, respect may be the wrong term) that having a good deal of money deals among some people. This is really not uncommon amongst high earners. Sure, there are loads of people who earn a few hundred thousand per year or more between the couple, or each, who are lovely people, very caring in whatever they do and in life. But also, there are really significant elements of society – every society – who make a beeline, not for “the good life” (which there’s nothing wrong with in itself), but for a life of extravagance and social status, to mark themselves out. They see what they think is perceived positions in society suitably becoming to their character and person, which others should not have. Many of these people do not care at all about people.

    I understand what you were suggesting, I think, Chris. That doctors ought not to be like that, and more often, probably it’s quite true at least.

    But, again, in every case that makes high profile news, we’re not talking about most cases at all. The point is that this isn’t about your parents, who you can vouch for. The point is we don’t know who this is about, and are wondering, through all the immense strangeness we find.

    My more recent point, that you didn’t understand, is actually putting what I’ve mentioned with another side of society.

    I mean putting the more seedy side of the kind of well off society I described – well off to very moneyed people who want to control and don’t care about others and get involved in illegal activity – with the seedy, illegal side of people not typically used to high incomes. (Here I was meaning a gang of child abductors, involved in trafficking of children for sex).

    Then I was also wondering if or how the McCanns might conceivably be involved. Wondering, guessing, deducing, estimating, wondering again. That’s all.

    In parts of Europe trafficking of children, sometimes including children of very young ages, is big, big business, with hundreds to thousands of children involved.

    You don’t buy the child abduction theory (with or without the McCanns involvement?). And I don’t buy that at all that the McCanns accidentally allowed Madeleine to die, a pure accident, and spent the next 6 years covering this up every day in bigger and bigger ways.

    There are many who suggest an accident, including Amaral, but that is the most ridiculous thing attributable to normal, well, mature, professional doctors I can think of. An accident is just an accident. Basic, honest, negligence can be covered up by doctors and a group of willing friends much easier than cooking up the huge 6 year story after an accident.

    Therefore, it seems to me, if the McCanns had some kind of blame or knowledge in what happened to Madeleine, it must involve something very serious indeed, involving other people. What reason would normal people have just to kill off their 3 year old daughter?

  286. 286
    G1 Says:

    … Or be part of having her abducted?

    … Or be submissive in not saying what they know about people who warned them their daughter would be taken?

    Nearly the only possibility seems to me if they had been part of something really serious and significantly wider.

    (Excepting the possibility that they weren’t able people at all, just could not cope with Madeleine, were going quite mad, and arranged for her to be kind of adopted, illegally. But again, the unstopping police and press presence could never be detatched from that. So it also seems a really unlikely choice for people who were having difficulty coping. To change their lives so incredibly for it.)

    Whatever happened, if the McCanns were in any way knowingly involved in the disappearance of their daughter, they would have been very aware that their lives were going to change incredibly and that there was no going back ever. It suggests something really, really serious rather than something like an itch Gerry or Kate had been developing against keeping their daughter.

    Then there is the context, with certain portions of society providing such unquestioning, unsual help, but when the circumstances with the parents are far, far stanger than with most missing children incidents.

  287. 287
    G1 Says:

    “ordering doctors about is fantasy.”

    What does this mean, Chris?

    Everyone is different.

    You seem to think that a couple of doctors could somehow have been responsible for the death of their 3 year old daughter in a holiday flat and covering it up, lying to the world and police for years. But that they’d never act with or under other people in a wider affair.

    One thing to say, also, which I suggested above, is that a possibility that the McCanns have been silenced against their will, or by a kind of blackmail. There may be evidence against them. They may willingly be in a satanic group.

    I suppose you may find the latter far fetched or absurd or something, Chris, but it does happen.

    Look at the fragments of what’s probably a huge story about Savile which have come out (as indeed the head detective described things, fragments of something huger) – involving satanic rituals and ritual sexual abuse of children.

    It’s far from irrelevant to consider this as possibly relevant. There is a missing 3 year old girl, there has been for over 6 years. The whole situation is extremely strange indeed.

  288. 288
    G1 Says:

    Chris, I didn’t mean to be insulting or cold about your making a joke, above. It’s just that it’s not for me, in this, that’s all.

  289. 289
    Chris Says:


    I’ll pick you up on these points

    “There are many who suggest an accident, including Amaral, but that is the most ridiculous thing attributable to normal, well, mature, professional doctors I can think of. An accident is just an accident. Basic, honest, negligence can be covered up by doctors and a group of willing friends much easier than cooking up the huge 6 year story after an accident.”

    The McCanns as doctors, had ‘free’ access to drugs just like some criminals have access to guns. They had the tools for an accident. You also say they are ‘normal, well, mature, professional doctors’. Their behavour says that is very questionable.

    ‘Cooking up the huge 6 year story’.

    Then answer the questions which is what this column is all about.

  290. 290
    G1 Says:

    “Then answer the questions which is what this column is all about.”

    Chris, once again, just because I don’t agree 100% with that what are only some of your suggestions are known to be the ultimate truth, you ought to consider there is no need to be so aggressive.

    If you’ve read what I’ve written above, you’ll see my WHOLE point of view, WHOLE approach is making absolutely clear that no-one can answer those questions, Chris.

    However, again, I make deductions, theories, estimations, guesses. I’m happy just to do that, as a normal person, and not be some kind of psychic superman who knows his rightness, in fact.


    ‘Cooking up the huge 6 year story’.

    This is so important. What I was saying is that, if there was an accident, the McCanns would be ABSOLUTELY aware of the MASSIVE lifetime choice they’d be making in faking an abduction. To prison or new lives outside of prison, lying all the time, getting worse and more complex all the time. Suddenly.

    If there was an accident, just an honest accident, they were, just hours or minutes beforehand – fine, upstanding, reasonable, sensible, caring, loving (while maybe stressed) doctors and parents.

    Everyone makes mistakes, Chris. Accidents happen to children every day. And children die from them. It’s actually totally natural.

    Yes, I’m saying “cooking up a 6 year” etc. story including the books, media appearances, funds – from what were minutes before an accident – reasonable, rational, loving, caring, upstanding, honest, probably sensitive, law fearing citizens – is just MASSIVE. Massive. Massive. Massive.

    The only possibility I can think of, in such an eventuality of an accident, is that these people would have been two of nearly the most nervous people conceivable. They would have been the most highly strung people, ready for breakdown in personal and professional lives (which they partly abandoned to lie full time for years after honest accident), and shattered instantly.

    It’s just so, so far from what normal people would do after an accident.

    The difference between before such an “accident” and after could be so utterly, utterly VAST. Immense. Can such esteemed, balanced professionals just crack like that as if they never had a life or sense of rationality developed over decades before then? When what they’d have done was hardly even their fault?

    To me, it would seem only to mean in April 2007, these were dormant utter psychopaths, waiting to explode.

    Normal people are nothing like this.

    Doctors, typically, are nothing, whatsoever like this.

    What I was also saying is, given their profession, contacts and experience and that they could rely on support in their group, it would be A MILLION TIMES easier to concoct an accidental story leaving out any negligence – than the absurdist story including abduction.

    Easily, all they had to do was say something like, we left the tablets in the bathroom, out of Madeleine’s reach, but she must have got a stool. Or, “We’re sorry, they must have just been in her reach. We didn’t think she’d ever do that. We warned her.” End of story. Maybe they would get some light reprimand, but it wouldn’t be very much.

    No, instead of that, if there was an accident, we have propounding lie upon lie. In the first few months – hour after hour, day after day and so on. Then documentaries they participated in, books, websites, you name it.


    “They had the tools for an accident.”

    I think you’re confused, Chris.

    Accidents don’t require “tools”. There can’t even be “tools” to accidents. Tools are only ever 100% purposive.

    Once again, Chris, unfortunately I can’t “answer the questions which is what this column is all about.”

    I can only make theories.

    Your theories are very valid, Chris. I don’t know if mine were or weren’t what happened.

    But, if you don’t want your theories to be scrutinised at all, why publish them in an open, public forum.

  291. 291
    G1 Says:

    “You also say they are ‘normal, well, mature, professional doctors’. Their behavour says that is very questionable.”


    Not at all, Chris. You haven’t understood.

    What I was saying was that it would be a very strange thing for anyone at all to create an absurd story for life involving a false abduction.

    Particularly, it would be a very strange thing for well, mature professional doctors, suddenly, after an accident.

    What I was saying was that anyone who would have done that is likely to have been seriously mentally ill, ready to crack, before such an “accident”.

    I don’t know of evidence that these people were really, really unstable people before the disappearance of their daughter.

    Your accident suggestion suggests the co-incidence of two very, very unprobable circumstances in themselves coming together to form a single extremely unprobable circumstance:

    1. Doctors who deal with lots of illness every day and are used to theoretically, abstractly treating unfortunate human states and coping well. They have had training in coping with the worst things in life, as routine. But these ones were highly nervous, probably mentally ill and only just able to cope, but ready to crack. They would lose their rationality easily, despite their professional experience. (For to invent the abduction theory after an accident would b a massive, profound loss of rationality). They would be unable to deal with the fact that, honestly, bad things just happen to people naturally, every day, despite being trained about this and dealing with it every day in their working lives.

    together with

    2. While accidents do happen to children, they are very rare. But Madeleine died by accidental death in the apartment.

    Again, the main thing about this is that the McCanns would have no trouble covering up any part of negligence they might have had (see my last comment), if they wanted to. Rather than creating a completely irrational and absurd story for life.

  292. 292
    G1 Says:

    I wrote:

    “I don’t know of evidence that these people were really, really unstable people before the disappearance of their daughter.”

    The only thing I’ve ever read that might have some relevance in that respect is a report that a relative was reported to have said that Kate couldn’t cope with Madeleine one time before the holiday.

    1. This is amongst a heap of unverified claims which arose in the early parts of the Portuguse investigations in the newspapers, mostly the sensationalist, unreliable papers.

    2. How many mothers or fathers say at least once or numerous times to a relative or friend, “Can you mind my son / daughter for the afternoon. I’m so tired and just can’t cope at the moment.”? A third? A half? More than a half? Probably most.

    Being balanced (and I guess Chris may fly off the handle at me being so balanced and abstract), after the child goes missing, it’s a different story altogether.

    Actual nervous breakdowns from people who’ve had their child abducted suddenly may be expected.

    Indeed, while it’s still very strange, it is actually possible that there can be explanations for much of the McCann’s behaviour after the disappearance of Madeleine.

    I don’t want to shut out proper consideration and say that point is not true.

    I’m not making arguments to back up something emotional I might have originally felt. I don’t want to do that.

    Rational men and women don’t do that.

    Arguments that are not made seeing everything, weighing up all sides, are simply not worthwhile.

    Which means also that, despite my theory that accidental death of Madeleine is by far the most unlikely possibility – it’s still a possibility.

    I’m not saying it’s impossible (Chris).

  293. 293
    Chris Says:

    You say hiding the ‘truth about the lie’ would be massive.

    The humongous likely consequences of telling the truth.:-

    1. Struck of as doctors.

    2. Likely prison terms.

    3. Their other kids put into care.

    4. Unable to profit from their books etc etc

    I suggest you read this book for FREE.

    You will also find the odd video of Gerry showing what a lovely person he is.

    Tell me one other thing, why didn’t they appear on TV in front of the press,like other normal parents of missing children, beg everyone for help, and more important answer all questions put to them without. Walking out not acceptable?

    Apparently they only miss Maddie at birthdays and Christmas if you watched them on Crimewatch!

    If they are innocent except of neglect they have the most odd way of going about it.

  294. 294
    G1 Says:

    “You say hiding the ‘truth about the lie’ would be massive.

    The humongous likely consequences of telling the truth.:-

    … etc.”


    Nonsense, Chris.

    After a mere “accident”? Earlier you alleged that accidents have “tools”. I think you need to check a dictionary, basically.

    As I said, what’s mostly likely would be a light reprimand.

    Chris, when do people get prison terms after accidents which can happen to anyone? Even negligence is a civil matter, nothing to do with prison. It would not be professional and would be unlikely to seriously affect the parents’ professional lives. As far as leaving the children and checking a few times an hour, British social services have no problem with this, even when the child is gone. I don’t agree with that personally – but it seriously suggests that there would not be much of a problem at all if a simple accident had been known.

    I can’t make any sense of what you’re writing about.

    However, once again, I’ll bring up a really simple, clear fact that will never go away and will always for me throw out the accident theory as being so unlikely.

    If the child Madeleine did indeed happen to die in a sad, unfortunate accident, and the parents were suddenly, irrationally frightened and wished to hide it, why did they not simply make a story that easily covered up the parents’ potential negligence?

    We would never even know about a dead child, probably. A child was irritated one night as her parents dined outside, making regular checks, and the girl opened the sleeping pills and overdosed. Or fell on her head in a way that killed her. These things happens. There’s no real blame in those circumstances. That’s life. Doctors know this very well. Doctors also know, if there could have been some blame, to easily make a story without blame, if needed.

    Doctors such as they would be easily believed at the drop of a hat, in an issue which doesn’t seem to involve crime. If there was a bit of negligence from the parents, making it a simple domestic story which didn’t tie them to negligence would have been the simplest thing possible.

    No newspapers would have reported this, most likely. We’d never know that Madeleine McCann is not around.

    The fact is, Chris, only a megalomaniac or a couple of them, real out and out psychopaths, would instead suddenly eradicate their child’s body with immense determination. Given the choice of easily hiding any negligence in an accident involving their much loved daughter, and instead telling the world she was stolen, is an incredible possibility to me. It’s absolutely stark raving mad.

    They would be doing this, knowing 100% that the all of the British media, Portuguese media, and probably beyond would descend upon them. AND THAT THIS MEDIA WOULD STAY WITH THEM, GETTING MORE HEATED AND MORE HEATED, because the girl WOULD NEVER BE FOUND, COULD NEVER BE FOUND. Any fool would know that. Doctors, certainly, would know that.

    Their decision would only be known to involve having to lie about an absurd story in increasingly more complex ways for the rest of their natural lives. Instead of hiding a little bit of unintended negligence over their much loved daughter.

    Possible, of course. Anything’s possible in circumstances you are guessing about.

    But to me just highly, highly, highly unrealistic indeed.

    “I suggest you read this book for FREE.

    Good to let other readers known about this, Chris.

    Though if you’ve read my previous comments, you’d know I’ve read Mr Amaral’s book numerous times, and I feel it’s a simple book. There is throught provoking stuff in there. But why would an intelligent policeman claim he is professionally fairly sure there was an accident, specifically, when there is no evidence of accident over murder? There is no such evidence, whatsoever. But Mr. Amaral talks with reasonable surety, as if his conclusion is a really obvious, likely one. The truth is there is no surety of an accident, nothing to suggest it over murder whatsoever, and it’s by far the least likely possibility.

    Re. Accident because …

    “4. Unable to profit from their book etc etc”

    What? An accident occurred to allow the McCanns to write a book about it and profit?

    Isn’t there a clear categorical error in there, Chris?

    Chris, you’re making no logical sense whatsoever, now. People may have reasons to suggest there was an accident, but you’re more confused than anyone.

    I’m thinking now that you are not, and perhaps weren’t ever really, taking the matter too seriously, Chris.

    I’m not sure I want to be posting on this theme any / much longer.

  295. 295
    G1 Says:

    The other thing is, the McCanns as likely or more likely – I would say MORE or MUCH MORE likely – to be found as negligent parents, with action taken against them, easily with their remaining children taken away from them, by making up a scenario involving a false abduction including that they left open flat doors.

    If the couple wanted to avoid close inspection for negligence and possibly losing their children – why on earth would such an absurd story be given which has the McCanns leaving 3 children in a flat with unlocked doors, and in fact a stranger stole one child?

    If there had been an accident, and they were going to make such a story, IN ORDER TO AVOID BEING INVESTIGATED FOR NEGLECT and being incapable of caring for their children, it simply WOULD NOT involve that they left 2 babies and one very young infant in an unlocked, unguarded flat for hours.

    No-one would be so stupid as to do that, in order to avoid losing their children / being found negligent in civil law etc.

    There could even a question of gross negligence – criminal behaviour – with leaving babies in an unlocked, unguarded premises on the ground floor, for hours.

    But it is really very, very, unlikely indeed that gross negligence (which would probably affect their jobs, while civil negligence probably wouldn’t), criminal liability would be considered after a genuine accident. It wouldn’t be considered.

    So actually, in terms of potentially being found negligent – the accident with the absurd abduction theory would only leave the parents in the same kind of position or worse, in terms of possible consquences upon them, than they would have been in by just plainly saying there was an unfortunate accident.

    Obviously, the McCanns would have known that it would come down to admitting the flat doors were unlocked. Again, it would be a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE thing to invent the false “abduction by stranger” theory. And there is NO WAY they would have done this without checking the physical reality of the flat at that time. Including that it would mean having to claim that the flat was left unlocked.

  296. 296
    G1 Says:

    … And, of course, the risk of being caught after inventing such a story, is massive, and would SURELY means prison or secure psychiatric wards for a very long time.

    Reporting a genuine, unfortunate accident carried no such risks, it seems clear to me.

    If there had been some negligence, and even if the parents admit this, they might be sued by British social services for a negligence judgement in civil law. Their guardianship over their babies would be questioned. But only for a while. They’ have to go through procedures of counselling, being interviewed, courses, proving they have learned their lesson and are responsible enough to care for their two children.

    To me that seems really like the worst case scenario for the McCanns, in being honest that there was some negligence involved in Madeleine’s accidental death.

    And that is just nothing compared to the real events which did occur, especially if those parents were suffering anyway because their much lover daughter died due to a bit of a lack of care on their behalf. The real events which did happen after Madeleine was reported missing are in the deepest world of nightmare – whether or not the McCanns have been fully honest.

    They’re saving themselves nothing at all (Chris) by “making up” an absurd story of a false abduction.

    They’re making it much harder for themselves than it would be.

    They’re running the hugest gamble possible, that it would take psychopaths to run, of getting caught and incarcerated for life. … When that would never happen if they were to be honestly admitting an accident.

  297. 297
    Chris Says:

    I find your ramblings and repetitions very difficult, tedious, and impossible to follow.

    I suggest you look up the word concise.

    Have you read the FREE book?

    I shall await the outcome of the libel case with interest. I know who should lose.

  298. 298
    G1 Says:


    Well done.

    You know very well, it seems what A WORD means – concise, and what it doesn’t mean.

    Chris, well done for working out that I have not been trying to be concise.

    However, I cannot for the life of me work out why you would bother reading what is very serious, and obviously not concise, when you can read many things in many places which ARE concise. About Madeleine McCann, or not about Madeline McCann.

    This comes in your continuing insults, Chris, including apparently pretending that you were making a joke, like a baby does, when your arguments don’t even make sense themselves in the words you use.

    After all of that, please don’t try to establish that this forum has a requirement of being concise.
    Or that you can prevent me from writing what is not concise here.

    I, for one, would however, think it is valid to suggest that it, like any forum, should have a requirement of choosing words that make sense. And not continuously insulting another when he points out to you that your words and phrases do not even make basic, logical sense.

    Anyway, I think I may have posted enough for a while.

    Yet, Chris, I may not. I don’t know.

    I’ll just end, wondering after all I’ve posted – which was in fact in response to your questions to me which didn’t make sense in themselves – what next that’s nonsensical to support your theory.

    It almost seems as if the theory or any theory doesn’t matter itself, as long as you manage to be confusing and illogical and using words beyond what they can mean.

    Anyway, hail ho, sir. Best of luck.

    That’s me over and out for a while.

  299. 299
    G1 Says:

    But to say two things:

    1. Why do you even bother, anyway Chris? In comment 297 you’re asking about something I’ve stated in the simplest terms numerous times in the past. And I even repeated after you asked last.

    Why do you bother?

    “I suggest you look up the word concise.

    Have you read the FREE book?”

    2. Actually, personally, I don’t feel that the case against Goncalo Amaral for libel is a bad one at all. As someone who went to a postgrad college to study law (while not going into law), it’s interesting to me, and it’s certainly not in legal terms a ridiculous case to take against Goncalo Amaral.

    Rather than it being ridiculous of the McCanns, it seems it can be a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Here was a police man whose professional job was to make a case. When there was not sufficient evidence there, the man uses his professional findings to publish against the subjects of the case rather than bring them to trial.

    If Amaral had made his findings outside of his job, things would be different. But they’re not. Objectively, in theory, it can be a very unacceptable thing for a policeman to take his professional knowledge of something and publish against someone.

    International law is on the side that someone is considered not to be guilty unless proven so in a court of law. Therefore, especially as Amaral is using police work and making assumptions from there, the McCanns have every right to bring him to trial for libel.

    It was very different, I thought, with Tony Bennett, who I supported much more.

    I don’t suppose all of that is anywhere near as “concise” or Fisher Price for your needs, Chris. But first and foremostly, I’m writing in an open forum, whether writing what I think first of, or replying to someone, and not someone’s Facebook page or similar.

    So, ultimately, I’m not and have not remotely been, writing just for you or your conciseness preferences, Chris.

    If you don’t want to read or work out what someone is saying, why even reply? Just leave them be. It’s better than insulting and seeming to suggest that you own the forum and can ordain who writes what and how.

  300. 300
    Rebecca Says:

    In the fear of the moment I doubt they’d be thinking 100% straight and there is no way they could foresee the future to know how this would all unroll and maybe they were hellbent on protecting EVERY aspect of the lives they’d made for themselves so far (ie not prepared to be looked at as negligent) and maybe they also firmly believe despite mucking up they are fit parents for the twins (which they could well be). I find most of what Ive heard Kate say fits with grief for a daughter no longer alive and a sickening feeling for letting things go so far. Ive always thought if Madeleine died due to their actions that Kate was pressured by Gerry to take a certain course of action – at times she has deeply regretted this. If the truth ever comes out it will be from her. I have my own picture and theory of what took place as do many and there is no way with so many doubters that something is very fishy indeed and I think is sad theyve dragged so many through this with them because child abduction cases tear at our heart strings.

  301. 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.

  302. 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).”

  303. 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.

  304. 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….

  305. 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.

  306. 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.

  307. 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).

  308. 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.

  309. 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.

  310. 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.

  311. 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?

  312. 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).

  313. 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.

  314. 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?

  315. 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.

  316. 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.

  317. 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).

  318. 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.

  319. 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.

  320. 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.

  321. 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??

  322. 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!

  323. 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.

  324. 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.

  325. 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….

  326. 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.

  327. 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?

  328. 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.

  329. 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?

  330. 330
    Chris Says:

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

  331. 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?

  332. 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.

  333. 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?

  334. 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.

  335. 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.

  336. 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.)

  337. 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.

  338. 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.

  339. 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.

  340. 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?

  341. 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.

  342. 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.

  343. 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.

  344. 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:

  345. 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.

  346. 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.

  347. 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.”

  348. 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.

  349. 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.

  350. 350
    G1 Says:

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

  351. 351
    Chris Says:

    I like the conclusions :-

    “Amaral and his many supporters completely reject the notion that Madeleine was abducted – and, indeed, there is no hard evidence to support the theory.

    In using the term ‘abduction’ or ‘kidnapping’ of Madeleine McCann, the mainstream media rarely qualify this assertion with words such as ‘alleged,’ ‘possible’ or ‘suspected.’

    Nor were such words used when Redwood said last week: “The Metropolitan Police Service continues to offer a reward of up to £20,000 for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3rd, 2007.”

    Twenty thousand pounds! It’s a far cry from the £2.5 million reward offered within days of Madeleine’s disappearance, and a drop in the ocean compared to the millions Kate and Gerry have since received in donations, on top of the amount the Met has spent so far in its fruitless search.”

    Clearly the MET are not looking in the right place………….

  352. 352
    Chris Says:


    Like to pick up on one point you raised:-

    ” 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.”

    Exactly, who says she was alive on the evening of the 3rd May? If she was not then their was ample time to plan and dispose of the body. It would also explain the strange/stupid remark ‘she has been abducted’.

  353. 353
    G1 Says:

    You’ve been quiet about the shadow analysis shared of the last photo. To me this looks like real, hard evidence of something. (However there will always be the potential angle for it to be said that the photo was adapted and planted on the McCanns. Was this the one in the camera that had made it back to the UK and Gerry had to go fish out, supposedly, when he says his credit card was stolen?)

  354. 354
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    Not really looked at this

    “You’ve been quiet about the shadow analysis shared of the last photo. To me this looks like real, hard evidence of something.”

    I’ve not really seen the significance of this except it looks like it has been ‘brushed’. My question would be where was the arm/hand? In an improper place? If not why brush it out?

  355. 355
    G1 Says:

    There’s too much for me to say about that at the moment. I mean I wouldn’t know where to start, but also feel silly because the photo suddenly seems to make the whole situation like something from an involved thriller. How can you edit such important evidence to remove a shadow of a body part? And why on earth would it be done?

    The missing arm / elbow shadow in the purported last photo os SO important, hugely important. (Indeed it is also containing whole conspiracy theory possibilities in itself, which I wouldn’t normally pay attention to. But that I have to here. I can’t just throw them away as silly or pointless because there will be no answer to be found, however much my normal instinct is to. Because the blatancy of such important evidence having been doctored or fabricated in a photo editing program won’t allow anything that could seriously relate to it to be easily dismissed.)

  356. 356
    G1 Says:

    Oh, Chris, so you think the missing arm or elbow shadow was because it had to be removed for some offending reason, but the situation was real and photographed otherwise.

    I was coming from the point of view of the large number of people, some photo specialists (while also other photo specialists disagreed), saying the last photo is a cut and paste kind of job.

    So, I’d read that for years, it was suggested by so many people. But, though I always though the photo was really strange looking, I had to conclude it could easily be genuine because I couldn’t pin down anything. Until I saw the simple photo shadow analysis I linked to above.

    My simple assumption was, if the shadow should be there – HAS to be there – in a normal photo, but is missing, the photo has been concocted somehow. Other fake shadows would be likely to be added then, “drawn”, for the alleged time of day there. But one was just omitted. Because of the missing shadow, you can suggest – all of the persons in the photo were pasted in to that pool background, or one or some of them.

    A missing shadow can suggest so much when the photo seems to be the real evidence of something. The photo has been taken as evidence that the young girl was alive, present, normal or happy and hadn’t suffered evident bodily harm on the afternoon of the 3rd, hours before the reported missing time.

  357. 357
    G1 Says:

    Chris, so you thought the missing arm or elbow shadow was because it had to be removed for some offending reason, but the situation was real and photographed otherwise.

    I was coming from the point of view of the large number of people, some photo specialists (while also other photo specialists disagreed), saying the last photo is a cut and paste kind of job.

    So, I’d read that for years, it was suggested by so many people. But, though I always though the photo was really strange looking, I had to conclude it could easily be genuine because I couldn’t pin down anything. Until I saw the simple photo shadow analysis I linked to above.

    My simple assumption was, if the shadow should be there – MUST be there – in a normal photo, but is missing, the photo has been concocted somehow. Other fake shadows would be likely to be added then, “drawn”, for the alleged time of day there. But one was just omitted. Because of the missing shadow, you can suggest – all of the persons in the photo were pasted in to that pool background, or one or some of them.

    A missing shadow can suggest so much when the photo seems to be the real evidence of something. The photo has been taken as evidence that the young girl was alive, present, normal or happy and hadn’t suffered evident bodily harm on the afternoon of the 3rd, hours before the reported missing time.

  358. 358
    G1 Says:

    Sorry for repeated commenting. The first didn’t seem to be published for a while.

  359. 359
    Chris Says:

    Hi GI

    Can’t see the photo proves anything. It certainlty doesn’t prove she was alive at anytime that afternoon.

    Perhaps you can explain to me why if anyone puts forward some constructive comments on places like the Huff post, they all eventually get deleted!

    What do the McCann Mafia have that makes this happen.

    Why be interviewed on BBC by Katie Durham (a whimp) and not say Paxman. The answer is obviuos.

    I see Kate is going back to the holiday home —– bluff not a chance. She will need a police escort and not get one….

    Must be time for another money raising book!

  360. 360
    Chris Says:

    Fox News today 5th May 2014

    “British police plan dig around resort area where Madeleine McCann was last seen”

    Interesting it says LAST SEEN. No mention of an abduction.

    My money is on one of the Tapas 7 has broken. Now if you take out the McCanns that makes Tapas 5

  361. 361
    G1 Says:

    “Can’t see the photo proves anything.” (Chris)

    Ok, Chris. I just thought the blinding lack of a shadow where there needs to be one in a photo does say something big.

    That was one of two things, because a very doctored photo has to be doctored by someone, and for a mighty important reason.

    The first possibility was that the McCanns were involved in doctoring or consented to doctoring the photo. (Because it’s their photo, published as evidence of whereabouts of themselves and the missing daughter at a certain time, on a certain date.)

    The second possibility was that the photo was removed from their digital camera and doctored by someone else who wanted to try to scapegoat the McCann parents, and saved in the camera or memory card again, back where the original was deleted from. I know, writing to Chris just here, you’re not likely to agree with this possibility, but it’s important – if a credit card was stolen, or if it is possible the camera could have been taken and replaced within a day, in Portugal, UK, wherever.

    The second possibility IS very important because it seems to me the photo is so evidently doctored. The missing elbow shadow. If this were the McCanns photoshopping a photo – it can seem quite unlikely the family would submit as evidence something so blatantly doctored. Wheras, if an organised group of abductors stole & replaced the camera, photoshopping the photo to try to put serious suspicion on the McCanns, a whole, evident missing elbow shadow is a likely target.

    The thing is, but for these two possibilities, I can’t thing of any other legitimate possibility as to why there would be a missing elbow shadow in this supposed piece of evidence. So, surely one of the two possibilities must be true?

    I’ve gone on about this, from the photo analysis link posted in comments above, quite a lot. But it’s the most important thing I’ve come across in all of the evidence, I think. It does say one thing or the other happened. But it has been ignored by police and most of the media.

  362. 362
    G1 Says:

    To reply to your comment, 360, Chris, the Fox News article – that’s an interesting article.

  363. 363
    Chris Says:

    Hi GI

    Well, I find this even more interesting. From another website:-

    Gonçalo Amaral:
    There are other expressions. Mr Gerald McCann said, a few years ago, two or three years ago, “if she is dead then show us the body”. He will know why he says “show us the body”. There are other elements that point towards the fact that no body exists. Those elements should be taken into account. Those that are in the investigation should think how a body could disappear, how it is possible for this body to disappear under those circumstances.

    Gonçalo Amaral, let me ask a final question for a quick reply. Will we ever find out what really happened that night?

    Gonçalo Amaral:
    Yes, we will. When MI5 opens the case files, we will find out. Don’t forget that the British secret services followed the case right from the beginning. On location.

    Anchor: So only in ten, twenty years…?

    Gonçalo Amaral:
    I don’t know if that information will be made available, but if it’s like in the United States, it takes years to have access to that kind of confidential information. I’ll just tell you this. I recall that – this is not conspiracy theory. The searches that we made with Eddie, with Keela, with the British police, with the planning that is being carried out now, with the British forensics experts, and everything else, there was one person that was responsible for those searches, a British citizen.

    And at the end of those searches, at the end of that result, he returns to England, and he’s at the airport in Faro, waiting for the plane to return to England, and he receives a phone call. He is accompanied by one of our colleagues. And he then explains to our colleague that there was a member of the MI5 at the airport, waiting for him, to talk with him about the result of the investigation.

  364. 364
    Truth Says:

    June 2014

    OPERATION JUSTICE – Campaign to OUT the McCanns and bring them to JUSTICE!

    CHARGES (see points below):

    1. MURDER of their daughter MADELEINE McCANN (2007).
    4. Participants in possible MASONIC-PAEDOPHILE RING.
    6. Perverting the course of justice for MADELEINE.
    7. DEFRAUDING the general public.

    (i) The McCanns themselves, have given evidence that they left their three children alone in apartment 5A for six consecutive evenings. Holiday neighbour reported to Warner Management that children in apartment 5A were crying for approx. one hour in the evening.

    (ii) Strong likelihood that the McCanns belong/have connections to a top level paedophile ring: Both GM and KM are registered on the CHILD SEX OFFENDERS'(CATS System) REGISTER – File 19309. GM convicted in 2002. The details of offence(s) have been wilfully removed.

    After Madeleine “abduction” alert, GM is suspected of telephoning a certain Belfast University professor (paedo involvement?) who was a top consultant in Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s governments BEFORE Pria de Luz police were informed. Rupert Murdoch (paedo involvement?); Murdoch’s Sky News broke the story first. David Payne,close friend of the McCanns, holidayed with them in Pria de Luz; suspected paedophile.

    WHY did MI6 meet the McCanns at the airport when they first returned from Pria de Luz? WHY have the McCanns not been criminally investigated in the U.K.? WHY are the Secret Service protecting them? WHAT do the McCanns KNOW that, if revealed, would do so much damage to the British Government?

    (iii) Justifiable suspicion that Madeleine was sexually abused by her parent(s)and Payne – at the very least! Was she made to su.k their nonce di.ks? Did they have their f.ngers up her?!

    The McCanns (both doctors) were ILLEGALLY dosing their children with a sedative (to send them to sleep, enabling the McCanns to go out partying), which is believed to have been a children’s hospital pre medication to be given prior to surgery.

    Justifiable suspicion that ‘hyperactive’ Madeleine was overdosed, woke up, climbed on the settee to look for her parents out of the window and fell to her death, banging her head on the hard floor. Blood traces and corpse scent behind the settee were picked up by highly trained sniffer dogs that had a 100% accuracy record.

    (iv) Justifiable suspicion that GM initially hid Madeleine’s corpse in nearby church/grounds. GM description was seenby The Smiths carrying small child at the significant time. Suspicion that either GM or accomplice(s) subsequently buried Madeleine at another location or disposed of her at sea.

    KM refused to answer 48 questions put to her by Pria da Luz police. The Cocky B*tch: “We’ve done nothing wrong! You should be out there looking for her!” answered only one:

    Q. “Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?”

    A. “Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.”

    ‘The Tapas Nine'(all doctors) refused to do a television reconstruction and clammed up (as hospital doctors notoriously DO when there is a suspicious death accountable among them).

    (v) The McCanns have hired spin doctors – suspicion of DELIBERATELY defrauding millions of pounds out of the general public by ‘sympathy commercialising’ the “abduction” of Madeleine.

    CHECK IT OUT: (and the hundreds of responses).
    Main Crime Unit – Info on Gerry McCann a RECAP from Steel Magnolia.
    Gonçalo Amaral: “Maddie: L’Enquête Interdite” – The Forbidden Investigation”
    Madeleine: The Truth Behind the Lies.

    Etc. etc. etc.


    COPY and paste, and forward email to as many as possible! Primary school websites, creches, nurseries, charities, Girl Guides, Scouts, Parent & Teacher Associations, childminding agencies etc. etc.

    SPREAD the knowledge to the GENERAL PUBLIC! It is useless to inform authorities who already know, yet are powerless to act!

    In the interests of Justice for Madeleine, getting the McCanns’ other two children safe from their parents, OUTING the McCanns and their connections, doing YOUR BIT to protect children at large from sick paedophiles….

    Public outrage is overdue!
    WE are the ones who will bring them down!
    ACT NOW!!

  365. 365
    G1 Says:

    To respond to your point (ii) above, “Truth”, I’m genuinely interested how you know or believe you know that Gerry McCann has a CATS file entry, and one which is a “conviction”, from 2002.

    Yes, it’s known that there is a CATS file entry in the file reference you gave against the name of Gerry McCann, father of Madeleine. But I don’t know how people are aware this is from 2002. Do you have a definite source?

    The two main points, questions really, about the existing CATS file entries are, firstly, was this registry in the system created when Madeleine disappeared, or before? If the entry was created for and at the time of the initial investigation of Madeleine’s dissapearance, it doesn’t mean anything conclusive, perhaps even suspicious about Gerry. As, in the UK, no abuse or negligence allegations were formed seriously then about the parents by the authorities. However, a child interference issue is known because the child is missing, so a file may have been opened in the father’s name at this time, for any associated information that might appear. But it would not be any mark alleging blame against the father in that case.

    “Truth”, you state the year 2002, though. This has been stated numerous times on the internet in the last 6 or 7 years and you can find people repeating this. But there is no source at all for it, none! There is nothing in the internet or in the printed media which backs it up even slightly. It may be true, it may be a legend (another forum legend). People have repeated what someone alleged once, but there is no proof of that the CATS file entry was made in 2002 or that it was not just made for the missing Madeleine case.

    Secondly, even if Gerry McCann’s referenced CATS file entry did appear before May 2007 and is not to do just with his daughter’s appearance, there is no source to say that this entry carries any blame. There is just no source nor knowledge about this CATS registry for Gerry. Although CATS file entries need to have information connected, this one didn’t have any relevant information, as passed between two elements of the police.

    So, I could guess that Gerry as a doctor, maybe in 2002, came into contact with an abused child and the police made an entry connected with his name. It’s not an unlikely scenario – doctors are usually, if not always, connected officially when a child abuse victim is discovered.

    Again, maybe indeed Gerry McCann had a child abuse conviction in 2002. Maybe not. There is no known evidence, however, to support that his CATS file entry is either innocent or criminal (or potentially criminal).

  366. 366
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris. Amaral’s information about the UK secret services, and their control over the early investigation in the UK (perhaps ongoing still), is really interesting indeed.

    I don’t mean to turn things around which you have brought up to my own theories which are often different to yours, Chris. But it’s worth noting this info of Amaral’s is very interesting whichever way you look at the possible truth of what happened to Madeleine – isolated killing by her parents and / or their holiday partners, or, abduction.

    There is a distinct possibility that abductors took Madeleine, a group. But rather than being unknown, they are well known to British secret services for past (maybe present) relations with politicians and other VIPs. Such a group involved in abduction I suggest might hold parts of the British establishment by their throats, keeping catalogued blackmail material collected over the years. I believe it was the secret services which were ultimately involved in trying to hush most of the child abuse scandals in the UK over the years which involved public figures, from Angell Road, Brixton and Kincora Home to numerous others.

    The sheer bewildering nature of the phenomenon of the McCanns and friends might be explained by their very involvement with the same group prior to the child going missing (where the extent of how much any involvement was consenting or as victims may be vague).

  367. 367
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    Well the MET admit they are back to square one.

    Why do they not interview the prime suspects?

    That has to be Kate and Gerry McCann and their dubious frinds.

  368. 368
    G1 Says:

    I’m beginning to think Operation Grange could be a whitewash, but not to cover up that Kate and Gerry McCann killed their daughter. (Why would police do that?) But, to cover up police involvement / political involvement in people who were involved with Madeleine or took her, people known to the McCanns, perhaps. But also to certain police members.

    If you find information on the Elm House abuse scandal in Barnes, basically a gay brothel featuring politicians, high ranking clergy, and numerous policemen, the police element is coming out strongly now. The police are said to have taken protection money from the owners to hush it up and allow it to keep going. Victims of abuse there report that policemen threatened them to keep silent about everything. Police officers were involved in sexual activity there, frequent visitors. One of the policemen who raided the premises in the investigation that ultimately came had been known there for sex, and returned a few weeks after he raided it, a worker reports. The same masseur reports many police were involved in sexual activity at the den of abuse of boys. Over a hundred police files made over the abuse, probably containing some names of people in authority, have been disappeared, with all of the evidence, witness information and other connections left unknown.

    Because, as others have said, why would police and politicians cover up the death of Madeleine, child of two simple doctors in the Algarve, with nothing of their own interest involved? It seems not enough that Gerry vaguely knew Gordon Brown and a few other connections. Whether he was a mason or not, it seems not enough on its own for a cover up.

    Interestingly, a consensus is rising in places that the reason Jill Dando was murdered was because she was adamant she was going to delve into deep peadophile activity in the authorities as a journalist. I’ve posted before here clear evidence that, not only did the Met ignore strong witness evidence in Dando’s murder, it was basically suppressed in order to allow them to bring about the miscarriage of justice against Barry George.

    It’s no light thing, it’s a huge thing for police who are supposed to genuinely investigate.

    As mentioned before, the head of Operation Grange was the head of the Dando case, Redwood, who reports Madeleine case info to his superior, a former head of the Dando case. After such a miscarriage of justice on a stooge (authorities seem to further somehow bend the law in not compensating Barry George) HOW could these policemen be REWARDED by investigating and leading the most famous case not only in UK in much of the world?

    It seems a good guess at least that there is something to cover up, and that cases might be linked. Why the same men? The same knowledge, the same pursuit? The same thing being covered up?

    The coincidences in the two cases are there. The question, why all the covering up if there was just an accident or Gerry had a bit much to drink and knocked Madeleine over with smack?

    I suggest covering up does not go on without strong concerted interests which those doing the covering up have to make (or, they or someone’s they stand with, go down in a big way).

    Jill Dando wanted to expose corruption in the authorities involving child abuse. I think the Madeleine case is connected to organised child abuse, people connected to it in big, big ways. And where there is a cover up, it is likely to be similar to the Dando case, where there may bigger interests than G and K McCanns at stake.

  369. 369
    chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    That was a very interesting post of yours thanks for the trouble.

    Reminds me locally of the last Bishop of Chichester in charge from 2001 to late 2012.

    Under his watch loads of child abuse was going on by most of his guys in cloth.

    So what do ‘we’ do, we give him Freedom of the City of Chichester.

    I hope for his good he doesn’t come across me, as I will tell him what I think of his perverted religion.

    So what do you think about this comment?

    “Kate McCann tells libel trial of moment son asked about police chief’s claims she hid Madeleine”

    My view:-

    Well of course a 9 year old is going to ask questions. He probably remembers what happened and his pictures of the event will out.

    I think the McCann’s again, are being pathetic.

    Over to you………..

  370. 370
    G1 Says:

    I don’t know what to say, beyond that it’s very sad and whatever happened, anyway, the McCann parents are in such a sorry position. I concluded a long time ago anyway (even when the disparities of the holiday group had me very suspicious) they’re so troubled, so disturbed whatever happened, blameless or guilty, sympathy is appropriate.

    Chris, re. Bishop of Chichester, abuse & freedom of the city. I understand this kind of timeline is typical.

    I’ve heard also that people were placed in the media in advance who were involved in large scale abuse, infiltrated somehow, to ‘deal’ with it if / when it should appear in public. Remember that next time you’re watching whichever present for producer on BBC etc. argue strangely ‘isn’t a historic inquiry just a complete waste of time when things are wrong now?’ ??!!??? (Just watching today Kirsty Wark and her strangely picked guests on about this immensely strange desire to let sleeping peadophile politicians lie, or at least to just keep working as politicians in parliament. Do police do that with other crimes – murder, serious bodily harm? No they don’t, even many years later. This request to leave child abuse inquiries into major public figures alone is inexplicable in the normal way of things.)

  371. 371
    G1 Says:

    Here we go again. It seems to have been the same methods all the way, and they tried again. Why would they not?

    Theresa May hires the politician child abuse review head. Who? The “baroness” who allegedly told an abused child victim she couldn’t name a high-up clergy member who was the victim’s abuser because society needed protecting against such a reality, even a true reality! What would the press do, she wondered! This is just ignoring the less important story in the press just now about Butler-Sloss’s brother “containing” child abuse by politician information from going anywhere court bound (or media bound) in the past.

    May tells the political committee questioning her decision that this woman was THE perfect person to head the review.

    Through the Wilson Doctrine, MPs enjoy a right not to be spied on by police or secret services – meaning have any communications intercepted, recorded or held. It seems thd Houses of Parliament may be really a beneficial place to be if you have secret criminal interests. For another thing, separately, it could never be discovered now who, with May, proposed or furthered Baroness Butler-Sloss head the child abuse review.

  372. 372
    G1 Says:

    Butler-Sloss was also the author of law forbidding warning being given about peadophiles.

    What better pedigree for May, or anyone else wishing a review for containment, could be found?

    The other thing is, the way this kind of procedure has happened, typically, is by a daring, threatening blatantness. It’s “in your face”.

    I see the member of clergy who Butler-Sloss tried to keep a secret (even pretending this coukd be reasonable to the child abuse victim) turned out to be the same Bishop of Chichester you mentioned, Chris. The man later to be given “Freedom of the City”, as you say. I remember the situation now.

    I know I’ve been getting away from the 48 questions which the article is on. But, as sbown above, I am thinking this is all a part of a certain culture that could be related to Madeleine’s disappearance. Anyway, I’ll stop this line here, probably.

    I know I questioned ” Truth”‘s post, 364 above, about the CATS file. But this was not suggesting that Gerry McCann was not involved in child abuse at some time, only making clear that, from the information available, this can’t be known, unfortunately. You can guess what you like, but the facts aren’t available, only this ambivalent, inconclusive fact that Gerry’s name has a CATS file entry for it (while maybe this is only because his daughter was recorded presumed abducted.) It may be the most important element of the case, to know about that, I don’t know.

    The Jill Havern site removed a lot of new comments about the CATS file last month. So you have to wonder if that’s coming from Carter Ruck warnings, or if the site is just being cautious. (While with many of the comments there which don’t get removed, they’re very far from cautious.) It depends on what was said in the comments, but I’d have thought Carter Ruck would ignore most comment about the CATS entry if Gerry actually had a black spot, personally, somehow for abuse of a minor, from some time. Perhaps they’d be more likely to litigate or warn if the CATS entry carried no blame around Gerry personally.

    It’s a mystery that may never be known.

  373. 373
    G1 Says:

    More historical evidence of the British police putting a clear stop with threats to anyone talking about peadophilia and child abuse in the authorities.

    (I think the secret services were typically very closely connected with the police in these public figure abuse situations. So the information Goncalo Amaral gives about an MI5 figure being behind everything in the British inquiry, and seemingly pulling strings with politicians in the Portuguese enquiry is something very significant.)


    …former newspaper editor, Don Hale, was handed a dossier at some time in the early 1980s about 16 high-profile political figures who appeared sympathetic to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

    The document was given to Hale, the then editor of the Bury Messenger, by the late [MEP] Barbara Castle, the veteran Labour politician.

    an astonishing operation kicked in to silence the claims.”

    First, Hale said he was visited by the Liberal MP for Rochdale, Cyril Smith, who tried to persuade the journalist that it was “all poppycock”.

    Second, Hale said special branch officers arrived at the Messenger’s office, showed him a D-notice and warned him of imprisonment if he failed to hand over the dossier.

    Hale had agreed with Castle that he would run a story the week after she handed him her documents.

    Then came the special branch visit. Hale said: “I was sworn to secrecy by ­special branch at the risk of jail if I repeated any of the allegations.

    “When I met Barbara again, she apologised for the ‘hassle’ caused and reluctantly admitted she was fighting a formidable foe.”

    The revelations follow revelations about a dossier compiled by the late Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens detailing an alleged Westminster paedophile ring.

    [end of article copied text]

    Just to be aware, the police forces do operate child abuse and peadophilia operations all of the time. The current Operation Notarise and, from 1999, Operation Ore are prominent examples. There was a great deal of fuss about Operation Ore being to a large extent a great bungle. You have to be aware, with police covering up child abuse inquiries into authorities including policemen, to what extent can they be thought capable or honest in such matters anyway? (No doubt there are many, honest, passionate specialist police force members, but one supposes their data can be controlled by people above them. In any case, a simple D Notice can put certain public figures outside investigation.)

    The current Operation Notarise specialised in arresting people who had child pornography, a very worthy pursuit for the authorities. But there will always be questions. Such as – how many actual child abuse rings, involving authorities, perhaps including those that made the pornographic images have been and are being covered up? And, how many people involved in such rings and activity who have been known personally or professionally to members of the police and other authorities have been hidden, or removed from suspicion or arrest?

  374. 374
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi,

    Gerald McCann CATS system registration number 19309

    “Gerry McCann was convicted for child sex abuses in 2002, althought the evidence has been hacked and emptied from the case file by someone who has access to the National Sex Offenders Register, namely Jim Gamble though the CEOP mainframe connected to every police station crime files in the UK, the reference for this conviction still exists in the judiscial reference files and confirms that Gerald P McCann was placed on the Child Sex Offenders Register following conviction in court, and is still on that register today! ”

    That came from:-

    So his case did go to court and he was found guilty according to the above. Gi anyway of getting that confirmed?

  375. 375
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris.

    I did a lot of looking about the CATS issue, and after a lot of effort, some time ago, concluded what I’ll put below. When I get a chance, I’ll have a look at the articles and forums which come up from your link. But I suspect I’ve already been there before, and there is nothing new to learn. I may be wrong, though, which would be very interesting. I’ll give it a go in a while. In the meantime, as I did spend a LOT of time researching this on the Web before now, here is what I learned from searching and reading a lot in the past:

    I’ve read that claim you’ve quoted so many times from around 5 or so years ago in the internet. And I suppose I probably more or less believed it, took it at face value, for a while, not really thinking about it. I mean I guessed it was probably true as I hadn’t seen anyone say it wasn’t. Then I realised I hadn’t really looked around, and indeed I did find numerous people questioning it, and then I’d also found what others were saying was the original source of the claim.

    Firstly, it had become repeated from some unknown source, blindly, by many. People were just repeating the same quote, like a viral Tweet or something. But a reliable or official source or means of confirmation wasn’t found. As far as I know, no official information is available about Gerry & CATS other than the tiny, very ambiguous mention by British police in the Madeleine case.

    I think this is the only, sole piece of verifiable evidence linking Gerry to CATS which is and has been available for those of us who’ve spent a lot of time looking on the web, over the years. There is no court record, no actual police record that can be verified as to contents (Eg. conviction or investigation, perpetrator, witness or doctor, year), no local, regional or national press report about police inquiry, arrest, charge or court session, no witness reports. There is nothing reliable indicating anything at all, which I or anyone else (probably a lot of people) were able to find and share.

    As before, all of this doesn’t mean that what you quoted is wrong, for sure. It’s just that it is unable to be verified as anything other than someone’s forum allegation which has been repeated a lot.

    However, if I remember rightly, I believe the claim came from someone simply and openly putting numerous things together, snd just wondering if the 2002 CATS conviction claime were the right conclusion.

    Although many people have taken it on face value, I remember reading a number of other forum conclusions over the years where, after debate, the posters have all agreed to discount the quote you made as there is nothing to say it is anything other than the typical suggestive claim or theory made about many people and acts around the disappearance of Madeleine.

    One discussion once whittled its origin down to a forum made up of two elements, and indeed I had also read the original source they pointed too, some time before then:

    1. The ‘source’ online forum had people ESTIMATING when exactly and why Gerry was ‘sacked’ or left his job in the UK and moved to The Netherlands (I believe for a couple of years or so). They “worked out” that this “meant” that the CATS entry made in the Madeleine case could be calculated to have come from 2002, and must be a conviction of abuse if Gerry “had to leave” the country after it, for work. (Maybe true, maybe not, no way whatsoever of knowing, though, from everything I’ve read.)

    2. The same forum had people with conspiracy allegations, but no clear information or sources, against Jim Gamble (I understood based upon something else ‘disagreeable’ it was said to be known he’d done). The whole discussion was made anyway on the knowing premise of making suggestions, trying to work things out “as the police do”, one said, meaning just the guesswork stage.

    So, some posters went down a road in what’s thought to be the original ‘source’ forum of just making suggestions or guesswork or simply asking questions. Then someone posting summed up suggestions and things questioned in the quote you copied, Chris, which so many people have copied on the web. The other, later forums I read concluded, from what can be found, that’s all the claim amounted to, and that there is no other source to be found for what the claim alleges.

    As far as I’ve been aware, from the reliable information available, you can toss a coin as to what the Madeleine case mention of the CATS file refers, and you’ll be none the wiser! Whether it points to a past child abuse connection with Gerry McCann, or that the Leicester Police (or other force) opened a CATS file in 2007 in Gerry’s name because his daughter was missing (meaning an abuse case in itself if abducted, OR a possible child neglect issue yet to be investigated by social services), who knows?

    After much research on the web, I and others concluded, there’s really nothing to know from the CATS entry.

    I’ll apologise if what you’ve linked to is a real source I and others had missed! 🙂 But I just wanted to get this all down first – as well as to tell you, to allow me to be clear for myself and remember before I go and get myself lost in more forums and claims and suggestions which may or may not have reliable sources.

  376. 376
    G1 Says:

    As far as I remember, one claim that holds no water, as found by a number of others and myself who searched and read some official people who had been involved in the implementation of the CATS system explain: a CATS entry did not have to be made before March 2007. It could be made afterwards, depending on which police force made it. (And I believe I remember Leicester was one which could make it after that date.) The system for registering illegal or suspected illegal child interference changed in different regions / forces of the country at different times. But CATS was, and I believe is still used by a good number of forces, and certainly, I remember was used in May ’07 and after.

    The thing about the CATS and Gerry McCann issue is a lot of wrong things were claimed. It took me a great deal of searching and reading to find them utterly debunked – reliably and in some cases, officially. This included being dismissed by social workers explaining their knowledge or the system and in one case a clerk who worked up the CATS system for one or more police forces. I don’t have links, unfortunately, but I am very clear in what was said. And, again, I remember other discussions featuring numerous questioning posters, concluded the same thing, all together. These weren’t “pro-McCann” forums, but long, detailed, questioning, intelligent, balanced discussions wanting to get to the truth – to what could be said of the CATS issue and what was seemed just to be pure or wild speculation.

    I can’t see anything new in the link you gave, Chris, and the links from there. The quote you copied has been concluded by many not only to be a much copied forum legend, but it seems was actually written in the first place as plain, open guesswork from a line of theorising on a thread. It looks authoritative, but as far as I’m aware it was written in just putting a number of previously stated suggestions, questions and estimations together during a forum thread. As the final post in the Jill Havern thread goes, linked to from your link, there again someone suggests the claim of the quote can’t be taken seriously, being speculation at best.

    Who knows what the CATS issue means? Honestly, we’ve no idea. It could be the most innocent thing, a police force’s sharp reaction to a missing child in Spring ’07, it could be very serious. It seems there’s no way of knowing.

  377. 377
    G1 Says:

    Phew, long replies / comments! Sorry about being so long!

    The last posts had everything seeming probably hunky dory in the land of the police regarding child abuse investigations: You tell the police, they kindly make a CATS or similar system record, and go about catching some really, really bad guys – abuse of children being one of the most heinous things.

    And at times that does happen. And at times police will arrest and charge and imprison actual historic abuse victims for speaking out, often depending on who the perpetrators were, I’ve been reading recently. Others, I remember including some people who made allegations against Savile just after the abuse, were either warned they’d be put into asylums if they didn’t shut up, or actually were, at least until they agreed to stop the “nonsense” against Savile. Which, perhaps is not as bad as being arrested and jailed for telling authorities of your sexual abuse, I don’t know. (The latter linked with Welsh care homes in one case.)

    One thing to add to what I shared about the police and Secret Services covering up public figure child abuse in post 373 above, involving Barbara Castle’s and Don Hale’s attempt to make it public in the 80s… In this article, Don Hale says that the police who came to stop the abuse scandal news getting out were Londoners and,

    “It was obvious this was a Metropolitan Police raid, planned in the capital.”

    So there, historically, is testimony of the Met police involved in the powerfully arranged covering up politicians and public figures paedophilia in the 1980s. It is known the Met police, or some members able to, were actively involved in this before then, keeping things contained in the London child abuse ring involving the Krays (which included policemen) and other historical “VIP” child abuse rings in London going back to the 1950s, and I think before. I read a long article on the pedigree of those in the Met police in this way over the decades a year or two ago. I’ve mentioned members of the Met illegally covered up Elm Guest House abuse scandal in the 80s, including threats against abuse victims, and some were involved sexually in the business of the place.

    This is all precedence to the strange approach by The Met to the murder of Jill Dando who had told some people of her determination as a journalist to delve into public figure paedophilia, involving the miscarriage of justice with hushed evidence police had to the contrary. They ignored the issue of who really killed Jill Dando, and more strangely still, seem to have continued to have ignored it years after their prosecution ‘error’, not doing much since then.

    … Then there is the Madeleine McCann case and the Met and MI5, and some of the same faces connected with the Dando “bungle” they never talk about, and a little girl who did suffer some terrible kind of abuse, whatever it is. Do they know the ring, or people involved, whoever they are, whatever happened to Madeleine? How?

    Very worth considering, in any case. The historical record is not questioned by those who know the situations.

    Politicians and journalists today, in an absolutely huge, growing by the day historic “VIP” child abuse situation, say it’s the place of the police, not the politicians with vested interests, connections or involvement, to do the inquiring. Do they just forget there are many victims and witnesses saying police members have long been involved?

    Is there any answer?

    This article thread is about 48 questions unanswered by the parents of a missing girl. They never had to be put these questions again, over 7 years, including in the current, large scale, high profile British case. People disagree about what they suppose happened to the little girl. But, you have to ask, whatever it is that happened to the child, is there something that The Met police know, something which means they are not going to ask those 48 questions of the parents, or any others?

  378. 378
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi,

    Thanks for all the detail. The question is why was the case file wiped? Smacks of dirty deeds.

    You say:-

    “People disagree about what they suppose happened to the little girl. But, you have to ask, whatever it is that happened to the child, is there something that The Met police know, something which means they are not going to ask those 48 questions of the parents, or any others?”

    Met say:-

    They are back to square one.

    So that being the case with the Met, surely they have to start asking at least the 48 questions. They must have hundreds.

    I say, like you:-

    What makes the McCanns untouchable.


    One thing that has to happen is the McCanns lose their so called libel case against Goncalo Amaral.

  379. 379
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris.

    “The question is why was the case file wiped?”

    I think you’re talking about the quote you made which also suggested there was a 2002 “conviction”.

    Again, I don’t think there’s any evidence there was a wiped CATS file, this was part of the random claim which popped up and has been copied.

    I know that CATS entries system regulations state that a file has to include details, and the police described the CATS entry connected with the McCanns as being just a file reference. But I’ve also read people who worked with CATS say that in some cases with no clear information available, an entry would be made for the description to follow afterwards. Although this wasn’t strictly what the CATS procedure guide directed, there was no way around this.

    In some cases this would happen because there was no other way of officially recording child interference information – CATS was the only available system within a police force – yet there wasn’t information yet beyond a names or names in connection, maybe not of the perpetrator. Where an abuser was not known, but there was evidence or serious concern of interference, the entry would be made against another connected name – who reported the abuse, relative, or doctor involved etc.

    This could also mean the CATS entry could have been opened in 2007 after the girl went missing, when the British police knew nothing apparently, and were barely doing any investigating as this was thought to be the Portuguese police’s job.

    Copied CATS info from the Madeleine case, police letter in May 2008:

    “Searches made of the local section of child abuse investigation shows a registration number 19309 in CATS (system of action location). A consultation with the DC Soand from the department in question confirms that this is just a file reference, but as a complement to Operation Task system for the purpose of reference, if any investigation should be necessary by the department. No work has been done on the basis of this file.

    An examination of all other police files using a search system does not reveal any information about [Gerry or Kate McCann].”

    The other thing is we don’t even really know at all what the police letter means.

    Does it mean there is just a near empty file made in the CATS system?

    Or does it mean that there is a CATS file which might contain significant information – but Operation Task (the original, sparse British Madeleine enquiry) only contains a simple file reference to this past CATS file, which may or may not become freshly investigated within the Madeleine case?

    The letter refers to a mention of a CATS file as “a complement to Operation Task system for the purpose of reference, if any investigation should be necessary by the department”.

    It’s not clear if the policeman means a CATS case investigation may be made more or less from scratch if necessary where there is a near empty CATS file so far. OR if he means there is already an investigated CATS case for which a basic file reference alone has been transferred into Operation Task records, and he is talking about investigating stuff from an old CATS file stuff within Operation Task.”

    “No work has been done on the basis of this file.”

    Again, it can’t be known if he means no work was done for a CATS case which has just a basic file reference; OR if there was a CATS case with work done, but no work has been done yet in connecting it with Operation Task.

    Though we can read the words of the police letter, we don’t even know the context at all, and so, nor what it is saying. It is a basic personal data search request. But is it sending information about a past CATS file connected with the McCanns that hasn’t been looked at yet by Operation Task, and might have work done on it? Or does is just outline that the disappearance of Madeleine – illegal child interference whatever happened to her – has led to the opening of a fresh CATS file, but it has no information yet.

    I’m really going on about this CATS thing, but two things I learnt are: what it means could be really important to the disappearance of Madeleine; and, however, it’s important to see that it’s not possible currently for members of the public to know anything at all about what the CATS information means. The web is full of guesses and claims, but I suppose that no-one publishing really knows.

    Here’s something else…

    From The Mail on Sunday, 3 Sept 2007, article by Sam Green hill:

    “The McCanns are campaigning for political action after learning that great swathes of Europe are havens for sex offenders.

    They want an EU-wide register of sex offenders and greater sharing of information about those banned from working with children.

    Mrs McCann said: “Over these past terrible months, Gerry and I have learnt much about missing and abducted children. We have been shocked to learn the truth. Sex offenders can roam around with no checks.” ”

  380. 380
    G1 Says:

    “Met say:-

    They are back to square one.

    So that being the case with the Met, surely they have to start asking at least the 48 questions. They must have hundreds.”

    Unless they already have the answers, or kind of know, and they’re to keep them to themselves. I don’t know. Or, MI5 or someone has the answers, as Amaral says, and are ok to have Operation Grange go on a wild goose chase.

    Perhaps my instinct is being clouded by what’s topical in the news – decades of covering up paedophile linked histories of the authorities, including police and The Met. Perhaps OG is working away earnestly and is also not hindered by powers beyond their own authority.

    Perhaps not. I wonder if anyone mentioned on D Notices has been linked to the disappearance of Madeleine. Perhaps there’s a lot of the case covered by a D Notice and even police are prevented from investigating where they should be looking. It might explain some things.

    Now it’s known with what’s been in the news recent!y that this is how the police have operated, whether forced to, or by command from within police.

  381. 381
    Chris Says:

    This won’t be published in the British Press from Gonçalo Amaral:-

    “21 Jul 2014

    Dear friends,

    Upon reading the news about the most recent trial session, I am certain that the vast majority of journalists don’t know what is being discussed in court, and have not reported correctly.

    Let us be clear. What is at stake is to find out:

    – Whether the writing of my book “Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira” was a lawful or unlawful action;

    – Whether or not the plaintiffs have suffered damages and whether or not there are facts to prove it;

    – Whether or not it is possible to establish a causal nexus between the book and such damages.

    This is what is at stake.

    Concerning the book’s lawfulness, I suggest to anyone who has doubts to read the Lisbon Appellate Court’s decision within the injunction that preceded the current action. The truth is that for the Appellate Court’s Illustrious Judges, as can be concluded from that decision, the lawfulness of the book’s publication is indisputable.

    With proof of the lawfulness of the book, the matter should rest here, without the need to investigate anything further, namely concerning the damages that the plaintiffs complain about.

    Nonetheless, we should note that even if the lawfulness may still be at stake, there is still the need to establish a causal nexus between the publication and the damages that the plaintiffs complain about, such as deep depression, social isolation, etc. And, of course, to prove that said damages, no matter where they originate from, really exist.

    Concerning the social part, it seems obvious to me, if we pay attention to the countless social events that the plaintiffs have participated in, including speeches at the British Parliament, interviews on television shows like Oprah Winfrey’s, gala dinners with illustrious personalities, namely British, among others, that said social isolation is totally false.

    Concerning the depressions, although they are in no way proved within the case, in my opinion, in fact it would be very strange if they didn’t exist. The disappearance of a daughter, whether she is dead or alive, whether or not she was abducted, has to originate enormous consequences of that kind. How strange would it be if that wasn’t the case! But about this issue I won’t say anything further, given that the plaintiffs seem to attribute to me and my book all of their pain, as if said disappearance, followed by their arguido status and other circumstances that surround the case, were of no importance, or weren’t more than enough!

    Unfortunately, due to clearly dilatory manoeuvres from the plaintiffs, that have once more forced a postponement of the hearing, I am afraid that the trial will drag on – as they clearly wish – and we won’t have a sentence soon, as I wish would happen, and as I long for. Furthermore, the judicial holidays have already started and, as the Illustrious Judge explained, with the new judiciary organisation coming into force on the 1st of September, the process’ slowness will be considerably increased.

    However, my trust in Portuguese justice remains steadfast.

    All that is left for me is to recognise and thank you for all the support that I have received, from all those that believe in justice and in truth, without which it would have been impossible for me to fight this lawsuit. Or to lead me to ponder, as I do, to file a lawsuit against the McCann couple and others, in order to be compensated for the enormous damages that they have caused me already, on all levels, such as moral, professional and financial.

    The time to judicially react to all those who have put my privacy, my intimacy, my freedom of expression and opinion, and my survival conditions at stake is approaching.

    They have tried to assassinate me civilly, but due to the support and solidarity of all of you, they were not successful.

    Thank you very much,

    Lisboa July 21st, 2014

    Gonçalo Amaral”

  382. 382
    Chris Says:

    Here is an interesting comment from above:-

    “The time to judicially react to all those who have put my privacy, my intimacy, my freedom of expression and opinion, and my survival conditions at stake is approaching.”

    New lawyers, new approach, maybe no win no fee. Has my full support. Would shut the McCanns up, then again ………….. would that be a good idea?

  383. 383
    Chris Says:

    This is the link referred to in Gonçalo Amaral’s letter above

    This is decision in 2010:-

    III – Decision

    In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:

    The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.

    Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.

    Costs to be paid by the appealed parties [the McCann couple and their three children].

    Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010

    The Appellate Court Judges,

    Francisco Bruto da Costa

    Catarina Arelo Manso

    Antonio Valente

    I cannot see how the McCanns expect a different verdict.

  384. 384
    G1 Says:

    I’ll have a go at the legal meanings of the trial in a bit, but one important thing is, even if Amaral might be found against in the case, he ought not to be in any position of fear regarding his financial position.

    Amaral’s letter, the sum of everything in it, shows he is in a good position, much better than I thought, to be successful in court.

    “Concerning the book’s lawfulness, I suggest to anyone who has doubts to read the Lisbon Appellate Court’s decision within the injunction that preceded the current action. The truth is that for the Appellate Court’s Illustrious Judges, as can be concluded from that decision, the lawfulness of the book’s publication is indisputable.

    With proof of the lawfulness of the book, the matter should rest here, without the need to investigate anything further, namely concerning the damages that the plaintiffs complain about.”

    To me, this means, even if there were a ruling against Amaral, he should not be compelled to pay any damages. He should also have his fees, costs and damages for hardship from the McCanns’ legal pursual, including loss of income potential, paid to him. This would be paid by the state, if he loses, and maybe paid by the state if he wins, if the McCanns might be thought to have a good point, worth challenging, so might or might not have to pay fees / damages if they lose.

    It could not be right for a court to hold that the man could not rely on the prior court’s decision, even if they decided freshly that, in law, what he did is not sanctioned. This would seem to breach fundamental human rights, and whatever the court verdict, if Amaral would be told to pay damages and costs, that should be appealed in a higher European court.

    It’s a very important legal area indeed, though.

    Amaral is distinguished from other people the McCanns sued or threatened to sue because, obviously, in theory, a person can feel it important to query how right and acceptable it is for someone to make firm, ongoing acusations about others from official work done as a police officer. (And to make money pesonally from that)

    The question is always there, shouldn’t that information be confidential? If the state prosecutes a one time suspect, the state prosecutes. But if not, and a policeman personally pursues the subject, making his own public arena, can’t ongoing public accusation breach a fundamental human right to be assumed not guilty of an offence unless proven guilty? The state isn’t saying the McCanns committed an offence. But should officers or former officers of the state, using their privileged, official position or former position (including official information), be allowed personally to pursue ongoing, firm accusations of guilt against the legal right to be publicly assumed not guilty unless convicted?

    On the other hand, the other consideration is at least as important or more important here. Theorrtically, a police investigation appears unusually and suspiciously stalled to an involved or once involed officer. In this theory, he or she understands there is vrry good reason, with evidence, to continue and very probably prosecute. But that route is unusually and suspiciously declined by the autborities. It’s a very special situation in law, always. And it is right that in such cases his right to open, free, public speech about this (such as through the media, or whatever appropriate waya are open to him) will be something he can clearly rely upon in law? (Otherwise, in a legal system there can be easy systematic abuse of power, the law and the authorities may not be clear, open and transparent, and the rule of law itself may be invalidated.)

    Thinking about it, I think the need for free speech by persons about legal systems and cases and details is much, much more important.

    (The countless organised paedophile cases in the press now, involving public authority figures from wardens up to councillors through to police and politicians have proved this and have shown its great importance. Where “the word” is given by a higher command not to make or proceed with a police case, or events are hidden altogether, there MUST be an inalienable right for present or past members of the authorities, police included, to freely express their experiences and opinions, including their knowledge, as relevant.)

    Personally, I think defamation should be limited to cases of intentionally hurting or harming people with no related, genuine, subjective, understandable reasons. Therefore, I suppose, that Amaral would have done nothing wrong in the general way of his intentions.

    Though Amaral might not have been so thoughtful in how he has chosen to express his concerns, I don’t know.

    In ay case, I think it couldn’t be acceptable for damages against him to be found in the light of his right to be able to rely on the former court’s advice.

    Yes, the right to freedom of expression where someone is not representing the state’s opinions is a lot more important than that he may be thoughg interfering with others’ right to be assumed not guilty unless convicted. All Amaral is doing is making personal claims, at the end of the day. He was never speaking for the state after he was released from his position. Of course – they made sure of that.

    Personally, I think Amaral’s theory that Madeleine was killed in the apartment, involving the parents, are wrong. (Which is not saying that I think the McCqnns have been telling the truth, necessarily, I don’t know.). But I think his situation, a really important one which a proper legal system needs to recognise, means he has the right to make that theory, legally. And I do see the distress it can cause, but he is a human being and can make theories, I suppose. So, earlier I said “accusations”. Maybe the semantics of this is what the whole court case will boil down to. I also said Amaral has not been subtle or overly thoughtful in his presentation of things. Everything may rest on that.

  385. 385
    G1 Says:

  386. 386
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi,

    From your link:-

    Former Portuguese policeman being sued by Madeleine McCann’s parents for claiming they faked her abduction is planning to sue them BACK


    No win no fee, sounds good to me!!

  387. 387
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chria. It’s gone really messy, but I guess it always was for Amaral, and also, if the McCanns are innocent, for them. It’s just a really sad situation.

    Amaral is kind of much more ruined, though, in terms of his financial and related parts of his personal life. The McCanns don’t have that part. Whether suffering undue emotional distress or not, it seems they’re in solid positions otherwise. I thought it was likely Amaral would counter-sue. I expected it. It makes sense, probably, for someone in his position who thinks he understands the law based on advice, research and the existing court judgement.

    Defamation can be very often a really troubling, perplexing area of law anyway, which can heinously wipe out normal, free speech of the most basic, necessary part of the human right.

    (Look at Judge Tugendhat’s decision about Sally Bercow I wrote about above last year. People were talking on Twitter, Bercow asked why they were talking about someone, Alistair McAlpine, because Twitter listed the name as “trending”. Tugendhat ordered a new law saying, somehow, that very question itself was a repetition of the BBC’s suggested defamation of McAlpine, and as bad as making allegations against him. Even though the BBC were never sued. Tugendhat is, on the face of it, wildly insane, but happens to be a high court judge, unfortunately.)

    But this is a troubling, duel like situation. It’s a shame.

    There are 2 serious considerations in the Amaral McCann case, though, very important ones, which I went on about above. I think the Portuguese legal system is probably much better than ours, though. I may not have much hope of British authorities making anything sensible out of the situation anymore. This place is a madhouse, legally, I find rather consistently.

    So, perhaps the cases are being decided in the best place. But I guess this may be going to last a few years.

    The article says about the McCanns:

    “If successful, the family stand to gain around £1million in damages. A judgment is not expected in the trial until later this year.”

    I don’t know how, I don’t think Amaral has that kind of money. The McCanns may want to show a suing for principle more than damages picture though, like they did to Tony Bennett. But, crucially, only on condition the financially crippled man relinquish his human and legal right to appeal the decision. But he was also emotionally rather crippled by that time, I think. And anyway Bennet didn’t think he had the financial option anymore after the McCanns got him into a corner with the terrifying, draconian dragon Tugendhat and threatening him severely not to use his right to appeal. (Amaral is learning from the McCanns past tactics, setting up to counter-sue in advance.)

    I’m so disgusted and appalled our country can allow people to do that to others, the Bennett tactics. It is to “use”, manhandle, play games with the legal system like wary vultures, interfering with such a basic legal right which defines the legal process.

    “No win no fee, sounds good to me!!”

    Is that the legal deal which Amaral has, Chris?

  388. 388
    Liz Y Says:

    Gi, Post 368, Absolutely agree on every point.

  389. 389
    Chris Says:

    Hi All,

    This is certainly worth watching. I’m afraid it’s about 4 hours in total.

    Forgive the adverts at the begining. Wait a minute or so and the films will start.

    The presenter has gone to a lot of trouble.

    Each part is around 1 hour.

  390. 390
    G1 Says:

    Thanks Chris.

    It was an interesting watch. It got a lot better as it went on. The first two sections didn’t have much that was new in them, did have a good, enquiring attitude, but could be quite hasty on details, I thought. The second two sections were more informative about the wider picture in the case.

    I just chanced across this old, short article about the McCanns in relation to the state (UK), government, intelligence and police – and “national security” concerns.

  391. 391
    Chris Says:

    Hi GI,

    Well done The Mirror…………..not the sort of paper we buy!

    ““No win no fee, sounds good to me!!”
    Is that the legal deal which Amaral has, Chris?”

    No but it is the one he will have to negotiate!

    Any idea what the Robert Murat connection with Gerry is?

    If all else fails I think someone will have to ask the Pope. I am referring to the pulling of all reference to the McCanns on the Vatican website.

    Thought you might find this link interesting.

  392. 392
    Chris Says:

    From above……………
    Does Gerrry McCann know Robert Murat?
    Very interesting.

    Watch the following video.

    At 47 mins in – you can skip straight to it after the ad.

    Mobile phone records of both Gerry Mccann and Robert Murat show a remarkable coincidence. At 3.00pm on Wednesday 2nd of May, within 6 mins of each other, both switch theirs off. At 11pm on 3rd of May again within 6 mins of each other both are switched back on. This was 1 hour after the supposed abduction was declared.

    At 48mins 30 secs.
    On camera Gerry Mccann is asked “do you already know Robert Murat?”
    His reply “I am not going to comment on that”. His body language clearly indicates he does!!

    The video also suggests they met at the Palmares Golf Club before Madeleine went missing.

    By Martin Evans, Crime Correspondent Telegraph
    2:11PM GMT 19 Nov 2014
    Detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann want to speak to British expat Robert Murat as part of their ongoing enquiries, it has been claimed.

  393. 393
    G1 Says:

    It’s interesting you ask that, Chris, and I wonder why. Previously, you only considered the accidental death of the girl Madeleine due to neglect or recklessness or drunkenness or something by her parents.

    What seems clear is that, if there were any hidden relationship between the McCann parents and Robert Murat, it is difficult to see what that could have to do with accidental death / neglect etc. I can’t see how it would be relevant to that.

    The only way I could see such a thing being relevant, is if the parents were somehow involved with people involved in the disappearance of their daughter where it doesn’t concern an accident. (This doesn’t mean that the McCanns need to have been involved in the disappearance of their daughter, only *involved* somehow with people who were involved in the disappearance of their daughter.)

    I am convinced that Madeleine McCann was abducted, and lived. So, therefore, I would be interested in any relationship between Gerry McCann and Murat, for example, or anyone else.

    Where the girl was kidnapped, it seems something very organised and professional took place, by very prepared, probably experienced people. People who are networked. Probably people who have ties in some way to some people of influence or power. People who may control many people who will never talk about what goes on. That might involve supposedly reputable people living in the area.

    It might even involve people who knew or got to meet the McCanns quite a long time before the time their daughter disappeared. Perhaps they would not be aware of this.

    But perhaps they would – some conspiracy theories state this, even where they say the girl was abducted. That all seems very complex and difficult to penetrate, but still a possibility. There may be very complex issues involved.

    It seems to me, Chris, what you question about a hidden relationship between Gerry McCann and Robert Murat would only be relevant in such affairs, though.

  394. 394
    G1 Says:

    You ought to be aware, Chris – I’ve said it before, but I’ll remind you – my opinion has changed strongly on what happened, and who may be to blame for the girl being missing.

    As you know, originally, for some time, I thought that the McCann parents did seem suspicious and that is was possible that Madeleine died in the appartment, and that covered up.

    Now I’m convinced that the McCanns did not kill their daughter. I am convinced that Madeleine was indeed kidnapped from the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz.

  395. 395
    Chris Says:

    Hi GI
    And the evidence is?

    Very clever abductor/abductors. Didn’t break in, didn’t break out, and left no DNA. Can also create imaginary gusts of wind.

    I’m with John Stalker. “The McCann’s are hiding a big secret.”
    5 minutes in.

    You should watch all the lies in part one. It takes about 40 minutes.

    Even more interesting is Gerry 43 mins in
    “there is no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine’s DEATH.”
    Note DEATH, not abduction!

    Look at his body language when asked if they administered drugs to their kids.
    I am the son of a doctor. They DO………………………….

    From Pat Brown:-

    1) I still strongly assert the McCanns should be the top suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.
    2) I absolutely believe Maddie disappeared on May 3rd and not anytime earlier; the crime scene and what appears to be a cover-up hardly represents any kind of intelligent staging one might expect if there were more time to consider a better plan. I find the last photo to be completely irrelevant and since the crime scene indicates an accident that occurred in the flat, I see no grand conspiracy of pedophilia or involvement by any other adult in Maddie’s demise.
    3) I believe David Payne may have lied about seeing Maddie (something the McCanns might simply have felt necessary to prove an alibi, that Maddie were alive when they left for the restaurant and “the abduction” occurred whilst they were with others) or why he was at the flat but I do not find any reason to suspect his involvement in the crime.
    4) I do not find the Gaspar statement credible at all.

    5) I find it most likely Gerry moved the body and moved the body alone and he is the only person who truly knows where Maddie is buried.

  396. 396
    G1 Says:

    “Very clever abductor/abductors. Didn’t break in, didn’t break out, and left no DNA. Can also create imaginary gusts of wind.”

    Yes, actually, very, very, clever abductors, I’d say, Chris. Meticulous professionals who scouted for days, and were prepared not to leave any trace when the time came, after having watched the routine. No-one has said it, but Madeleine could easily have been drugged a minute after Kate & Gerry left first for the Tapas bar, the abductors to return 20 minutes or whenever later.

    Child abductors whose “profession” involves taking children for a lot of money. Not only are they actually professional as it’s where their living comes from, but for the other meaning of this word (meaning very well prepared, experienced and very efficient) – yes, absolutely, that’s what they do.

    However – for the “didn’t break in, didn’t break out” part – that’s not a requirement when both front and back door seem not to have been locked. The parents seem to me to be at fault here, for negligence. Though it seems senseless then to ignore this state of things in a theory that it was too hard for abductors to have taken the child.

    I understand you can be suspicious – the doors left unlocked – makes everything easy and convenient, doesn’t it? But you can’t at the same time use this for an argument that abduction would have been too hard to be that perfect a job. And, it’s not perfect, anyway. Look at all the sightings of people hanging about, and particularly spying on appartment 5A, and a couple of unknown men chasing children on the beach that week.

    This was not one or two random men, anyway. As you said, it had to have been a really organised, actually professional group, scouting all the time.

    Re. John Stalker. He has said he thought there is something the Tapas group are not saying publicly, a big secret (which I still believe is very possible). But not that he ever agreed with Amaral that they killed Madeleine. No, he believed only that there was an abduction. Again, Richard D. Hall used a source falsely, turning it around nearly completely to mean what Richard D. Hall wanted it to mean.

    There are some good bits of journalism in Hall’s long documentary, but nearly all of those are limited to his pretty good investigation of the organisations surrounding the McCanns in the later video parts. Most of the earlier parts of his documentary have some of the weakest theories and most easily explained questions ever published about the McCanns. It’s really lax, most of it, and again, he can turn things around to mean nearly the opposite of the truth, as with John Stalker’s comments.

    I hope to reply to the rest of your arguments soon enough. But, just to add that Pat Brown has very little going for her as a Criminal Profiler – her plain, obvious guesswork is just tossing coins. This woman in particular, of all the commentators about the Madeleine case, seems to have no qaulms about writing anything unsupportable.

  397. 397
    G1 Says:

    “Look at his body language when asked if they administered drugs to their kids.
    I am the son of a doctor. They DO………………………….”

    I think you’ve mentioned that before, Chris – body language.

    Quick, lock them up, tell the judge that the man’s hand movements were the hand movements of a suffering man who neglected his daughter who then fell to her death, rather than the hand movements of someone who’s daughter has been kidnapped by sex traffickers. Yeah, the judge must have the handbook of hand movements for convicting people and sentencing them to life in jail. Sure. It’s a wrap.

    You’ve also said this before – that, as the son of a doctor – you know they “do”. What on earth does that mean?

    I have to say, at one time, I read a report by a student who was studying body language in an academic context who said that she thought everything pointed to that they were lying. And I think I was persuaded by her, back then. Thankfully, I caught a grip on reality. Their body language may well suggest they are very uncomfortable, that emotionally they are holding things back, that they feel victimised and paranoid and on trial by the public and the media. Which they have been. When that it is the state of things – it can explain such body language. But anyway – they are enduring some sort of trauma, and I believe body language experts don’t try to distinguish any further than that, for the general belief there is that it would be foolish to try to say exactly what.

    Anyway, I pulled myself together and dropped my persuasion by the body language suggestions. But, even if I would take such things to mean anything really serious – body language experts do not go beyond signs of trauma, generally they do not think that anything exact beyond that can be pinpointed by body language.

    It’s you who I have to ask where is the real evidence – all complete supposition and building things from feelings you have. Which I was guilty of too, for a while.

  398. 398
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi,

    You write
    “I think you’ve mentioned that before, Chris – body language.”

    Well GI here’s a whole hour of a squirming Gerry McCann…………

    Like the following comment there are 1000’s.
    “Did anyone have access to Midolazam ?Benzodiazepine ? Holoperidol ? Chloropromazine or even Largactil ?Might Gerry have used a Dog Tranquilizer ? If they OD’d Maddy then they couldn’t afford to allow the recovery of her body ”
    BTW GI I’m just pointing at the evidence. Don’t claim, I say things I don’t.

    I say……………
    Surprised you don’t understand this, but then again, not!
    “Look at his body language when asked if they administered drugs to their kids.
    I am the son of a doctor. They DO………………………….”

    Doctors administer drugs to their children as do most parents. As they obviously have access to many drugs the question is who prescribes them? That does not rule out themselves although it is against their code of practice. Fact – very easy for the McCanns holiday friends to also prescribe for them as several are Dr of medicine.

    The good news is the McCann Mafia have been unable to get at all the websites/newspapers out there so there is plenty of evidence if one has the time to look!!

    You didn’t reply to this……………….

    Chris Says:
    November 28th, 2014 at 3:44 pm
    Hi GI
    And the evidence is?

    Please keep it succient.

  399. 399
    G1 Says:

    Also relevant:

    Ignoring happenings such as this is just really proving confirmation bias. By all means, I think it can be natural to theorise about what happened to Madeleine McCann, from what you learn in this strange, awful case, and I found I couldn’t help doing it for a long time. But, unfortunately, I have seen some people pick and choose evidence very, very “liberally” indeed.

    Though I have had a theory that to me the McCann parents seemed not to be telling the full truth, for quite a long time, I have always noticed strongly the pick and choose attitude from many people who believed the McCann parents were guilty of something very serious indeed (more than just neglect). (I hope I’ve not been guilty of it, though maybe you can’t be so sure sometimes.)

  400. 400
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi,

    You say:-

    Also relevant:

    I say:-

    As I have been saying for a long time ‘ no break in, no break out no new DNA. Has to be a keyholder’.

    That makes the Tapas 9 prime suspects. Looks like the MET are desperate to find another keyholder!!

    This is interesting:-

    Questions when Maddy was last seen alive and suggests Tuesday not Thursday. Problem is the Tapas 9 have a secrecy pact (I’ll find a link) so you won’t find out from them – why?

    There is a possible future development. Maddys brothers are growing up and they will have in their subconscious memories of the holiday. They will start to ask questions and will want answers. No comment or ask the dogs will not do.

  401. 401
    Cheis Says:

    Hi Gi

    Looks like my post before yours of 9th December has gone missing.

    The McCann mafia?

  402. 402
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi,

    I think the moderation team don’t like the word M.f..

    In other words the truth.

    I ask a favour if you have my missing post please can you submit it? You will meed to take out the word M…

    btw where is all your evidence? All I see is just points in one direction.


    Site Admin: Not sure what you mean about the moderation team not liking the word M.f. Nothing is censored in here unless it’s spam or a truly idiotic comment. Occasionally the spam filter may deem a good comment to be spam but as we get hundreds of spam messages daily it’s not practical to check for the odd message that may not get through. Retry if you feel the comment hasn’t been posted 🙂

  403. 403
    G1 Says:

    “‘ no break in, no break out no new DNA. Has to be a keyholder’.”

    Chris – I just have no idea why you bother re-quoting the article I made, when you’re either not willing or just totally unable to consider the points I made and what they mean.

    The link you re-quoted (I don’t know why):

    1. That article shows that, as well as another time reported some time before May 2007, someone stole keys to The Ocean Club apparment.

    2. As I’ve said, the two prominent members of your Tapas 9 group admit they believe they left both doors unlocked.

    Yet you, again, somehow – somehow (I don’t quite know how, myself) respond to these points with – I’ll quote you again for I’m utterly bewildered by your “logic” processes:

    “‘ no break in, no break out no new DNA. Has to be a keyholder’.”

    I don’t even think you’ve been reading anything published about this case one bit. If you had you would see that there is much unidentified DNA from the appartment.

    Chris, it seems your two theories – 1. no-one could have broken in and 2. no unidentified DNA are pieces of nonsense just imagined in your mind.

    There are scores of newspaper articles reporting these little details. What’s going on at Chris land? 😮

    I’ve no doubt some people could find other ways of trying to further your theory that the child died because of neglect and the parents covered it up. But, somehow, you choose to use the exact parts refuted by the most published accounts in the press, recently.

    And you seem to base everything on, either that doctors “Do……” and the McCanns don’t, or that the McCanns “Do…..” but other doctors don’t. I can’t work out a single bit of sense either way I try to see what it means.

    And what is this:

    “I think the moderation team don’t like the word M.f..”?

    You OK?

  404. 404
    G1 Says:

    POST 395, Chris, you seem to think there is good reason to quote Pat Brown:

    “2) I absolutely believe Maddie disappeared on May 3rd and not anytime earlier; the crime scene and what appears to be a cover-up hardly represents any kind of intelligent staging one might expect if there were more time to consider a better plan.”

    then POST 399 and you seem to have discarded that theory which was good enough to be published and read, and which I read thinking this was what you believed now, seriously considering it. But it’s all gone a few posts later, again, back to:

    “Questions when Maddy was last seen alive and suggests Tuesday not Thursday. Problem is the Tapas 9 have a secrecy pact (I’ll find a link) so you won’t find out from them – why?”

    I’m not sure that it matters to you which angle you take about your theories. Does it? Again, I’m wondering if you just seem to have feelings, which to me doesn’t seem to be enough for adults making serious theories. OK, if you think there is something worth talking about in the very sad situation where this high profile couple have lost their daughter can seem very suspicious somehow (many have thought so) – but you’re not really giving me any reasons why.

    Surely you’d agree, if you thought about it, it’s good, solid reasons that will stand up that would only make sense?

    So, if I come now from the perspective that anyone who was not there does not know what happened to Madeleine McCann, I would need solid reasons to believe that the little girl died in the appartment and the parents covered this up. You’re not offering any of those, as far as I can see, and you seem not to care about solid reasons.

  405. 405
    Chris Says:

    Not as reported in the British Press – I prefer this version:-

    Posted on 23 January 2015.

    Kate and Gerry McCann seemed to suffer a setback this week in suing former detective Gonçalo Amaral over his controversial book about the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.

    In Lisbon’s Palace of Justice, Judge Maria Emília Melo e Castro handed lawyers in the civil action a written statement evaluating as proven or not a list of 37 points on which she intends to base her verdict. Neither the McCanns nor Amaral were present.

    Amaral supporters said afterwards that the statement made them feel cautiously optimistic.

    The McCanns are seeking €1.2 million in damages for the severe distress they say has been caused to them by the book, A Verdade da Mentira (‘The Truth of the Lie’), and a subsequent documentary.
    The judge ruled that while statements in the book may have psychologically affected the McCanns, the anguish suffered by the couple over their missing daughter preceded the book’s publication rather than being a consequence of it.

    She pointed out that the book was very largely based on facts in police files. While Amaral put forward the theory that the McCanns had hidden Madeleine’s body and fabricated a story about her abduction, he did not say they had killed their daughter, the judge said.

    In personal statements to the court last July, both Kate and Gerry McCann spoke not only of the great harm they believed had been caused to their family by allegations in the book, but that the allegations had hampered the search for Madeleine.

    The judge said Wednesday it had not been proved that the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance because of the book’s contents.

    Amaral insisted last year that the lawfulness of his book was “indisputable” because of a decision of the Appellate Court in Lisbon that overturned an earlier ruling banning it.

    The McCanns now have time to seek and present authorization from the British High Court to formally represent their daughter in this case. Madeleine was made a ward of court at the instigation of her parents in April 2008. This could have a bearing on the amount of any compensation eventually awarded.

    This long-running case in Lisbon has been suspended several times over the past five years, including in January 2013 when the court allowed the two sides to try to reach a private settlement. No agreement was reached.

    No date has been set for a verdict but it is thought to be more than two months away. Even when it comes, the verdict will probably not be the end of the matter. An appeal is likely.
    Also, Amaral has let it be known that he is considering instigating a counter defamation lawsuit against the McCanns to seek compensation for the enormous damages on different levels he claims they have caused him.

  406. 406
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Chris, Let’s hope that for once, the McCanns aren’t allowed to run the show, fingers crossed!!

  407. 407
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris. I got an notification to my email that you’d made a recent comment in this thread.
    However, on looking, I see it’s not come up (yet at least).

    As the site administrator said before, there is a automatic spam comment finder.
    Try posting again.

    It may be because you gave the full names of some common drugs which can be sold over the internet. That can be a big spam alert, with so many people trying to sell pills through the web. So maybe have a try to adjust the comment (maybe a couple of times) in a way in which the site accepts it? Leave it for a day or two each time, to see if the comment pops up.

    You ask about my evidence from comment 195.
    Yes, OK, what I’ve been doing is establishing that you haven’t really been giving any evidence, though I don’t claim really to have been giving any clear evidence either. It was first of all my aim to show that you weren’t establishing any evidence, to show that we were both on the same footing and, prima facie, neither of us would have any evidence to make solid claims in either direction. But you don’t seem to agree with that, while you haven’t given any evidence which tells anyone why.

    My main gripe was that you were ignoring the common sense arguments I’d brought up which suggested that your claims that it seemed no-one could have broken into the appartment were nonsense. I’d brought up that it is known that keys to most or all of the flats were stolen twice from the Ocean Clubs, once even in the week before Madeleine went missing. I’d mentioned that the McCanns thought they’d left the doors unlocked, apparently. But you were still ignoring that, and coincidentally trying to suggest that the lack of evidence of break in was some kind of evidence, nonetheless.

    It doesn’t make sense to me.

    Thanks for the foreign article on Amaral. It is interesting.

    I think this is going to come down to intention, from Amaral. I’m guessing the judge may be going to say that
    the McCanns were emotionally affected by their daughter’s loss,
    But Amaral’s statements came from his police work and so could not be intended to have caused further harm to the McCanns.
    If Amaral had deliberately set out to bring the McCanns into disrepute itself, then that would be libel. But as he was a policeman, and what he said came from a police investigation, there could be no intention to defame the McCanns. Therefore, what he has said would just be a normal part of everything connected with the disappearance of the McCann’s daughter which has harmed them.

    It’s an approach I didn’t quite expect – but it seems understandable. Still I’m only guessing.

    This bit is a little concerning, though. I’m only trying to rationalise / understand it, above, and the transaltion we got in English may not be good:

    – “The judge ruled that while statements in the book may have psychologically affected the — McCanns, the anguish suffered by the couple over their missing daughter preceded the book’s – publication rather than being a consequence of it.”

    Of course, the McCanns are suing for psychological harm from the statements in the book, not psychological harm suffered from before then.

    It’s a strange comment, and ambiguous. It can seem that the judge is not even bothering to assess the McCanns’ legal case.

    But on the other hand, it may show that the situation is more complex than you may think at first. It may not be so possible to break down the psychological harm into from the book alone – it may be legally thought of as part of everything which can normally occur from the disappearance of Madeleine. Because Amaral (perhaps) is not found to have established a new intention to defame, as he only published his legitimate police work. Defaming must have a context of illegitimate and intentional putting people into social disrepute. I suppose it may be claimed Amaral did not have that.

    It’s a strange issue – one on which I’m sure various judges (even in the same country) would be likely to decide in complete opposite ways.

  408. 408
    G1 Says:

    Just to add my own opinion.

    I would feel that – if the judge were to conclude- that Amaral’s book is a legitimate operation just because he had been a policeman and that was his work – well, I’d feel that this would be wrong.

    I wouldn’t feel it would be right in the normal run of things for the policeman to write that book, at least within, say 5 or 7 years of the girl’s disappearance. Because it could hurt the family, and it could hamper the search for the missing child. So, I would say that, this man using official state files in the public realm with his own agenda which was not the state’s legal opinion, could well be defamatory in the harm it has caused.

    However, in the Amaral case, I feel there is an exception because of that he was abruptly and perhaps suspiciously taken off the case, and therefore this exception arises which gives him the right to write about it.

    If Amaral were still a policeman and wrote that book within, say 5 to 7 years, but the Portuguese police still took no legal action against the McCanns – I’d say that would indeed be defamation. However, because Amaral was sacked and there was interference from high positions and potential suspicious circumstances, that means that the potential harm from the book is an exception to defamation. It would be allowed. People in these circumstances ought to be allowed to speak out, because the alternative can be a really, really terrible Kafkaesque or “1984” world. It’s a really special exception which always needs to be heeded.

    To sum up – I’d say the book would indeed be defamatory (which I gues is not what the judge is going to say), but for the exception of the suspicious circumstances which means that Amaral should be allowed to make his claims, and defamation is excepted as it is not his real intention to defame. His intention is to get out information from his police work which he believes has been supressed.

  409. 409
    Chris Says:

    Hi Liz

    Lovely to hear from you. I trust you are very well.

    I have no sides on this but just want justice for Maddie and I don’t think the parents behave anything like we do – we have two great kids (adults).

    Hi GI

    Nice to hear from you. I think my post was removed because of a certain 5 letter word beginning with M and ending with a. I was hoping you had a copy of it as I forgot to do that and is now too had to repeat.

    Take your points on Goncalo but he was only trying to do his job.

    So at this point in time I think the McCanns are hiding a big secret form all the evidence out there. They have 48 questions to answer and a judges 37 conclusions to come.

    WE shall soon see

  410. 410
    G1 Says:

    “Take your points on Goncalo but he was only trying to do his job.”

    Yes, that’s exactly why I’m saying that in this situation there should be an exception to what I’d feel, otherwise, should be defamation.

    Amaral was trying to do his job,
    was sacked,
    it seems there was the unusual intervention of people who wouldn’t or shouldn’t normally be involved,

    therefore this kind of situation where someone ought to be able to speak out should be an exception.

  411. 411
    Liz Y Says:

    Hi Chris, I am very well thank-you. I ‘m almost certain that the McCanns and their friends were involved in some way, in Madeleine’s disappearance. Gerry, response to a reporter’s question – how did you feel when you realised Madeleine had gone – It felt like finding out you were overdrawn on your student loan!! And, the statement which runs along the lines of… FORTUNATELY?? So many people were saying this and that, that no-one knew what was true and what wasn’t!!! Surely that statement would only be uttered by someone who was glad that the waters were being muddied because he considered it to their advantage, there is no other explanation for that remark. Add to that the old chestnut about the brilliant marketing ploy. And, all the discrepancies, lies and strange behaviour…… Enough said for me.

  412. 412
    G1 Says:

    On a tangent to this main news about the Goncalo Amaral / McCanns trial, but taking a cue from the Express article, I’m now thinking that the McCanns are victims in this whole affair, and subject to overlords in politics and police, etc.

    The Express says:

    Despite the costly Scotland Yard and Portuguese police investigation, the Sunday Express found that key witnesses have still not been spoken to.

    Jenny Murat, 78, the mother of wrongly accused Robert Murat, has potentially breakthrough evidence but no one has spoken to her. At 8pm on May 3, 2007, she went to a supermarket and then drove past Apartment 5a and saw a woman hanging around. Her notes from the time say: “There was a woman standing on the corner under a lamp post.

    “I don’t remember much of her other than she was of slight build and was wearing a plum coloured jacket. She moved around the lamp post as if trying not to be noticed.”

    As she turned into the driveway of her home, Casa Liliana, she was nearly hit by a car going the wrong way. “When I stopped to open the gates I could not see the car but the woman was in the road looking in my direction.”

    After her son was wrongly made an arguido (Portuguese for suspect), she contacted Hugo Swire, a Tory MP in Devon, and Leicestershire police about her sighting but, astonishingly, she has not been interviewed to this day.

    Speaking at home this week, she told the Sunday Express: “I am happy to speak to Scotland Yard. This woman was just outside Apartment 5a and it didn’t look right. It could be relevant.”

    After 12 years she has put Casa Liliana up for sale. “It is very sad but the place has become a tourist attraction for all the wrong reasons,” she said. “I get people banging on my gate and someone broke in once. I don’t feel safe. Robert’s life has been badly damaged by lies. It never goes away, it never ends. It gets you down.”

    The making public of the sheer extent of what seems to be a massive cover up over politicians, councillors and also now known to be policemen involved in widescale, highly organised child abuse over decades (and murder of children and allegedly murder of adults who attempted to tell about or investigate the stories) has changed my views involving what is likely to have happened to Madeleine McCann.

    I feel now, putting this particularly with the murder of Jill Dando and that Redwood and the Scotland Yard team refused to interview or listen to the main witness (who refuted their claim that Barry George was the murderer), and possibly also the murder of Diana, Princess of Wales, there is something huge going on behind the scenes which the authorities may be deeply involved in hiding.

    Now, again, it leaks out that they don’t bother to question Ms Murat, who has evidence that no-one wanted to listen to again. It may not even matter that it may be very relevant and may be irrelevant evidence – it goes to suggest that this attitude could easily par for the course in the investigation. Here, I feel, people other than the relatively very unimportant McCanns may be being protected by some connections in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann which some people in the authorities know about / are actually connected to.

    Were members of this police investigation team (and / or those who tell them what to do and what, specifically not to do) actually present in places in the past, but not to investigate??? For example in Elm Guest House in Barnes and so on and so on and so on??? Now, I would not find it surprising anymore. Something is going on, something terrible, no doubt, and I don’t feel the McCanns even are really in the picture there.

  413. 413
    Chris Says:

    Hi Gi

    Picking up on one of your points, on the morning we all heard that Princess Diana had died everyone around me was saying how tragic etc etc. My response was I bet the Queen is pleased. She was turning into a load of trouble.

    Amaral will appeal and I’d say win.

    So where do we go from here?

    btw. Does anyone here know what the itemised bill at the Tapas bar was on the evening Maddie disappeared? I am particular interested in the liquid side.

  414. 414
    Chris Says:

    Hi GI

    Picking up on the trial I think the judge was got at.

    She had circa 40 points to sum up on. What happened to them?

  415. 415
    G1 Says:

    Hi Chris, I hope you’re OK.

    Funny, I’d just been discussing somewhere else about illegal things “beneath the radar” in the UK, and another person also brought up the Royal Family.

    You might be right. While, personally, I always thought that The Queen particularly had less to gain and less to lose from the death of Diana, except everyday personal things. At the end of the day, I thought there was nothing to annoy the Queen much, and she had liked Diana, times before.

    What is important to me is that The Queen is the one person who actually spoke out, “There are dark forces at work”. When the rest of the establishment and mainstream media etc. etc. would much rather spend their time trying to level paranoia accusations at anyone who asked questions.

    The thing is there were numerous other persons / bodies who felt more comfortable with Diana gone. For example, perhaps going back to some USA / Israel connection. Or at the time an unknown, developing USA / Saudi Arabia connection. But the main element is The USA – a certain group of people, say 40 or so, if you know anything about that. To them, they ruled the world by force and by underhand, covert black ops. They did not want new more or less political, charismatic world leaders such as Diana. It was known Diana was ready to question and criticise USA publicly about various things, from the Israel favouring and inhumanity to Palestine to organised child abuse by the highest politicians in the USA.

    Personally, I think some people had so much more to resent in Princess Diana than The (apolitical) Queen.

    I forgot all about the Amaral trial. I’ll have to do some reading. Amaral can appeal?

  416. 416
    Chris Says:

    Amaral on the verdict 15th May 2015:-

    Were you surprised?

    “I wasn’t surprised, it was one of the open possibilities, but after the decision about the matter of fact, which was favourable to me, I trusted that the verdict would come in the same direction.”

    Do you think there are errors in the process? Do you feel wronged?

    “Those are not mistakes, but value judgements and understandings that are contrary to mine and to that of many other jurists. As for feeling wronged… What do you think? I can only ask if those who, for more than five nights, left their three children, aged three and two, to their own devices in a house within an unknown space, subjecting them to a thousand dangers, while they were partying with friends – not to mention the amounts of alcohol that was ingested on those occasions -, still has the right to be compensated. They practiced a crime of exposing and abandoning defenceless children and they weren’t even accused of that fact. Looking at our criminal legislation, at the English child protection legislation and at cases that recently happened with British subjects in the Algarve, after drunken nights, all that I can say is that the McCann couple is primarily responsible for their daughter’s disappearance. She only disappeared because they neglected her guard and, as parents, they were obliged to it. It is a fact that they lost their daughter, but that doesn’t give them the right to sue anyone or to be compensated. They can’t escape their guilt, which is enough to rob them of their sleep, to provoke a lack of appetite and even rage, but against themselves and not against someone who only wrote down what happened during the first five months of the investigation, according to what is in the case files. If compensation takes place, all that I can do is warn you: be careful, there’s people who may turn this into a new business!”

    Interesting from above:-
    not to mention the amounts of alcohol that was ingested on those occasions

    Why is this not in the public domain?

  417. 417
    G1 Says:

    The case is interesting, Chris. I’ve still not much idea what the verdict is about, and hope to get familiar with it later.

    “Those are not mistakes, but value judgements and understandings that are contrary to mine and to that of many other jurists.”

    It is interesting.

  418. 418
    Chris Says:

    I am pleased to see there will be an appeal…………….

    Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral’s Legal Defence account has received since April 28, 2015

    – through Paypal:

    € 5643.62 (five thousand six hundred forty three euro and sixty two cents) and

    $ 90.57 (ninety dollars and fifty seven cents)

    – through the GoFundMe page created by Leanne Baulch:

    £ 23,910 (twenty three thousand nine hundred and ten pounds)

    These amounts will be applied to cover expenses with the defence of Gonçalo Amaral, in the civil suit brought against him by the McCann family.

    The appeal is being prepared by Mr Amaral’s lawyers and will be filed in due time.

    Once the appeal is filed, PJGA will publish a statement.

    At this point, we would like to, once again, thank you for your immense support – and patience.

    Our trust in Portuguese justice remains firmly in place.

    Thank you.

  419. 419
    Chris Says:

    £30,184 of £25k
    Raised by 1,858 people in 2 months

    Dear friends,

    Today, the 15th of June, my appeal against the sentence that has recently been produced in the trial concerning my book, “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira”, was filed at the Civil Court of Lisbon.

    Now I serenely await the Appellate Court’s decision, reaffirming my confidence in Portuguese Justice.

    The wave of solidarity that was generated to support me has been very moving and makes me feel extremely humble. I am so very grateful to each and every one of you, who have supported me and continue to do so; none of this would have been possible without you.

    Winston Churchill said: “All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honour; duty; mercy; hope.”

    Truth is also simple. It is truth that guides me, and it will continue to do so, in its simplicity and greatness.

    Thank you very much.

    Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral

  420. 420
    Chris Says:

    Update … I wonder how the British Press will receive this?

    Dear friends,

    Since it was started on April 29, 2015, by Leanne Baulch, the gofundme page dedicated to Gonçalo Amaral’s defence has collected donations in excess of 50 thousand pounds. These funds have been transferred to the bank account that is held by Dr Paulo Sargento and other friends of Mr Amaral. Less than half of this amount has been spent on legal expenses for the defence of Gonçalo Amaral.

    The Paypal account that is associated to the bank account has received over 6 thousand euro during the same period. Donations totaling a smaller amount have also been made directly to the bank account.

    We believe that it is time to close the gofundme page, as the bank account currently stands at an amount that seems largely sufficient to face eventual future expenses.

    As we await the verdict of the Appellate Court of Lisbon on the appeal that has been filed by Mr Amaral’s lawyer, the remaining funds will be kept in the bank account. They will be used if necessary in the future. Any unused funds will, as we stated in 2009, be donated to a Portuguese children’s charity.

    May we use this moment to wholeheartedly thank those who have expressed their support of Gonçalo Amaral’s right to an appropriate defence? Whether you have contributed financially or by sending a support message – you have made an impact. You have made a difference.

    Thank you so very, very much.

    The gofundme page will be closed on the 28th of October, 2015.

  421. 421
    Chris Says:

    Sense at last……………

    Madeleine McCann News: Goncalo Amaral Wins Appeal Over Book Alleging Kate And Gerry’s Involvement In Disappearance
    The book is titled ‘The Truth of the Lie’.

  422. 422
    Chris Says:

    Only just came across this:-


    Enquiries by British (and Portuguese) police forces have cost around £15 million in 8 years. The public is now entitled to a full report on how that has been spent. The report should cover the role of the government, the security services & UK police forces. Please click connection to sign and share the link.

    Only 2 days to go you need to be quick if you agree

  423. 423
    chris Says:

    Expensive game……

    Madeleine McCann News: Goncalo Amaral Wins Appeal Over Book Alleging Kate And Gerry’s Involvement In Disappearance
    The book is titled ‘The Truth of the Lie’.

    4. From the above mentioned, it is agreed, in accordance with both appeals, to revoke the appealed decision and, considering the action against them to be unfounded, to acquit the appealing plaintiffs of the totality of the requests.

    “The costs, in both instances [courts] are to be paid by the appealed subjects [Kate and Gerry McCann].”

  424. 424
    Chris Says:

    3. Under articles 635, number 4, and 639, number 1, of the Civil Process Code, the matter of the appeal is delimited by the appellant’s conclusions.

    The matter subject to decision is thus essentially centred on the evaluation of the alleged wrongfulness and the responsibility that derives from it, imputed to the 1st defendant [Gonçalo Amaral], now the appellant, of the publication, by the 2nd and the 3rd defendants, equally appellants, of the works at stake.

    As far as personality rights are concerned, article 26, number 1, of the Constitution states that everyone has a right to a good name and reputation and to the protection of the intimacy of private and family life.

    The same fundamental law protects, with equal dignity, freedom of expression, by stating under number 1 of article 37 that everyone has a right to express and to publicise their thoughts in words, image or by any other means, as well as the right to inform, to inform oneself and to be informed, without impediment or discrimination.

    And also, under number 2 of article 38, freedom of press, by consecrating freedom of expression and of creation by journalists and their collaborators.

    Number 2 of article 18 establishes, in the case of conflict between fundamental rights, that any legal restrictions to those rights must be limited to whatever is necessary in order to safeguard other rights or interests that are constitutionally protected.

    On the other hand, in ordinary law, article 70 of the Civil Code consecrates, as a principle, that the law protects individuals against any illicit offence or threat to offend their physical or moral integrity, while article 80 of the same diploma states that everyone must respect someone else’s intimacy of private life.

    Whenever there is a collision of rights that are equal or of the same kind, the holders must, under number 1 of article 335, cede as necessary in order for all of them to produce their effect equally, without greater damage for any one of them – while (under number 2 of the same article), if the rights are not equal or are of different species, the one that is considered superior must prevail.

    Therefore, and as the dominant jurisprudence understands the matter:

    “One of the limits to the freedom of information, which therefore is not an absolute right, is the safeguard of the right to a good name. Journalists, the media, are bound by ethical and deontological duties, and duties of rigour and objectivity.

    – The media have the right, the social function, of spreading news and giving critical or non-critical opinions, and it is important that they do so with respect for the truth and for someone else’s intangible rights, as are personality rights.

    – The right to honour, in a broader sense, and the right to freedom of press and of opinion are traditional areas of conflict.

    – Criticism has a boundary in the rights of its targets, but it remains legitimate if it is sharp, steely, as long as it is not injurious, because so often therein lies the style of the author.

    – To criticise implies to reproach, fault-finding that is aired in the media only stops being legitimate as a manifestation of individual freedom when it expresses objective antijuricity, violating rights that are extremely personal and which effect, in a more or less lasting manner according to men’s memory, assets that need to be preserved as are the rights here at stake, to honour, to a good name and to a social standing” (decision by the Superior Court, dated 20/1/2010,

    In the case at hand, apart from the reporting of the facts that are part of the inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, an analysis of the book and of the rest of the published material finds that the now 1st appellant [Gonçalo Amaral] therein sustains the thesis that an abduction did not take place, but rather the accidental death of the child, followed by a cover-up – through the concealment of her cadaver and the simulation of that crime – by plaintiffs Gerald and Kate McCann, now the subjects of the appeal.

    It results from the aforementioned publication that the means of evidence and the indicia that it reports to are, essentially, those referred to and documented in the respective criminal enquiry.

    Nevertheless, the exposed thesis, that the child died accidentally and that fact was concealed by the parents, who have broadcast, in order to deceive, the hypothesis of an abduction, is not new – the same is equally contained in the report which is mentioned under number 9 of the proven facts, determining the arguido constitution of said subjects of appeal [Kate and Gerry McCann], and was, after a copy of the inquiry was made public, published in the media (numbers 65 and 66 of proven facts).

    As was stated in the decision, from this Section, concerning the appended injunction, the 1st appellant [Gonçalo Amaral], wanted, through this book – because the institution to which he was bound did not allow him to reply to attacks against his pride and honour, as a professional of the criminal investigation police – to expose his vision of the facts, and therefore the publication of said book has to be considered a legitimate exercise of the right to an opinion.

    And because from the proved matter results that – apart from it being about facts that have been profusely published in the inquiry and even publicised through an initiative of the Republic’s Prosecutor General’s Office – it was the subjects of the appeal themselves [Kate and Gerry McCann] who, benefiting from an easy access, multiplied themselves in interviews and interventions in national and international media, one must conclude that it was them who, voluntarily, limited their rights to reservation and to the intimacy of private life.

    By proceeding in this manner, they opened the way for anyone to equally express an opinion about the case, contradicting their thesis – without losing their right to exercise a legitimate, and constitutionally consecrated, right to an opinion and a freedom of expression of thought.

    On the other hand, we cannot see how the right of the subjects of this appeal [Kate and Gerry McCann] to benefit, following their constitution as arguidos, from the guarantees of the penal process – including the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety – may be offended by the contents of a book which, in its essence, describes and interprets facts that are part of an inquiry whose contents have been published.

    Nothing opposes that, although they have not been deemed sufficient to lead to a criminal charge, said facts are subject to diverse appreciation, namely in a work of literary nature.

    Therefore, and because it is contained within consecrated rights, namely under numbers 37 and 38 of the Constitution, the publication at stake must be considered lawful.

    Nonetheless, it is understood, in the decision under appeal, that because the 1st appellant, Gonçalo Amaral, was, until October 2, 2007, the coordinator of the criminal investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, he was, after his retirement on the 1st of July, 2008, subject to the duties of secrecy and reserve that are imposed to the employees that serve the Polícia Judiciária.

    And, under such terms, although the introductory note in the book invokes personal reasons, in a situation of conflict with the rights to a good name and reputation of the subjects of the appeal, the appellant [Gonçalo Amaral] could not benefit, faced with the results of the investigation, of a broad and full freedom of expression – and thus his conduct would be unlawful, under article 484 of the Civil Code.

    From what was above said about this matter, it is clearly understood that such argumentation cannot be sustained.

    In effect, and independently of the reasons invoked by the appellant for the publication, it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media.

    Appeal conclusions:-

    In the absence of its primordial presupposition it must therefore be concluded against the previous decision, due to the lack of precedence of any of the requests that have been formulated by the current subjects of the appeal [Kate and Gerry McCann] – while the re-appreciation of the matter of fact that had been secondarily requested remains impaired.

    4. From the above mentioned, it is agreed, in accordance with both appeals, to revoke the appealed decision and, considering the action against them to be unfounded, to acquit the appealing plaintiffs of the totality of the requests. The costs, in both instances [courts] are to be paid by the appealed subjects [Kate and Gerry McCann].

  425. 425
    Chris Says:

    Justice at last for Goncalo Amaral 7th Feb 2017

    Former police chief who accused Madeleine McCann’s parents of cover-up over her death plans SECOND book after winning libel trial

Leave a Reply

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.


Log in | Designed by Gabfire themes