The Facts versus the Fiction


Kate Healy/McCann launched her book in the United Kingdom on May 12, 2011—4 years and 9 days after Madeleine McCann was reported missing. Simply called “madeleine“, the book is Kate’s account of the events of that fateful day in May 2007 with a potted history of the McCann family and the events of the 4 years since the alleged abduction.

Eagle eyed followers of the Madeleine case have no doubt been dissecting every sentence of the book in the search for yet more clues as to what happened to the tiny 3-year old tot.

Meanwhile, Faked Abduction by Steve Marsden is back on sale after a second edition has recently been printed in the USA.

So how do the two books fare in terms of unraveling the mystery of Madeleine McCann?

To answer this question, it is essential to understand that the Madeleine disappearance revolves around a set of important facts that have not been satisfactorily dealt with by the McCanns and their friends who accompanied them on the holiday to Portugal. The main body of reliable evidence consists of the 11,300+ page, Portuguese police file that was released in August 2008. Additional evidence was provided by the chief investigating officer—Gonçalo Amaral—through his own personal account in his book Maddie: A Verdade Da Mentira (The Truth of the Lie.)

These important facts are the focus of Faked Abduction and are also dealt with by Kate in madeleine. Some of these issues are:

  • Mrs Fenn hearing Madeleine crying for 75 minutes on May 1, 2007
  • The status of the patio doors
  • Madeleine’s whereabouts during the day on May 3, 2007
  • The Smith family (nine people) who saw a man looking like Gerry McCann shortly before 10pm on May 3, 2007
  • Jane Tanner’s sighting and the associated detail of that account
  • The Yvonne Martin encounter on May 4, 2007
  • The McCanns did not physically search for Madeleine on the night of May 3, 2007
  • The David Payne/Gerry McCann paedophile allegations from the Gaspars

Mrs Fenn

In Kate’s book she was quite disparaging towards Mrs Fenn. Not mentioning her by name, she described the elderly tenant of the flat above apartment 5A as a woman with a “plummy voice“. Kate also admitted that she and Fiona Payne abused Mrs Fenn because of her reaction to the reason for the commotion in apartment 5A on the night of May 3.

Considering that Mrs Fenn’s testimony blows a big hole in the McCanns’ insistence that they checked their children every half hour or less, there is little wonder that Kate was so demeaning in madeleine. The Mrs Fenn issue is dealt with simply in Faked Abduction—there is a full copy of Mrs Fenn’s witness statement to police.

The Patio Doors

Early stories from the McCanns claimed that they entered the apartment through the front door adjacent to the car park and opposite the poolside tapas bar. This alibi subsequently changed when observers noticed that this would have meant the McCann children were all locked inside apartment 5A and therefore would be at risk if a fire broke out inside the apartment. The change in alibi was that the McCanns switched to claiming that they entered the apartment through the patio doors.

This aspect is not without problems and it doesn’t seem to be logical. The patio doors only lock from inside the apartment. On page 45 of madeleine, Kate claims “after the first couple of days we barely used the front door, coming and going through the patio doors and up and down the steps.” Is Kate really suggesting that each time the family left the apartment they left it unlocked with all their possessions inside? Who goes on a holiday and leaves their room or apartment unlocked like that? It makes no sense and this change in the alibi seems to be another part of Kate’s revisionist history.

Madeleine’s Whereabouts on May 3, 2007

The author of Faked Abduction is unconvinced that Madeleine was alive and well all day on May 3, 2007 and there is no cast-iron evidence to prove otherwise. Three weeks after the disappearance, a photograph—the so-called Last Photo—appeared in a blaze of glory to prove that Madeleine was alive in the middle of the afternoon on May 3. However, Faked Abduction provides evidence that the Last Photo was probably faked. Interestingly, on page 65 of madeleine, Kate stated “Fiona told me she’d spotted Ella there but not Madeleine” in reference to Fiona seeing the children from the creche at a beach activity on May 3.

The Smith Sighting

The sighting of a man carrying a small girl through the streets of Praia da Luz just before 10pm on May 3 is an important sighting because it also blows a huge hole in the alibi of Gerry McCann. For newcomers to the Madeleine disappearance, the story goes like this: A family—Martin Smith and eight others—were leaving a bar in Praia da Luz and walking back to their apartment around 9:45pm. They encountered a man hurrying through the streets carrying a small girl and their reaction was that it was a man and his daughter. 4 months later when Martin Smith was watching television back home in Ireland, he noticed Gerry McCann disembarking the Easyjet plane at East Midlands Airport while he carried his sleeping son, Sean. The sight of McCann carrying his son in the exact same way he remembered the man carrying the girl in the streets of Praia da Luz jogged his memory to the extent that he realised the man in the streets was Gerald McCann. This bombshell evidence was kept quiet from the press back in 2007 and until Amaral’s book and the police files were released in 2008, this aspect of the case was publicly unknown.

Faked Abduction discussed the facts about the Smith Sighting whereas madeleine deals with this by claiming it to be another encounter with the same man allegedly seen by Jane Tanner. A casual reader of the case could interpret Kate’s version of the Smith Sighting as being a logical extension of the Tanner Sighting. The reality is that the Smith Sighting always was a sighting of Gerry carrying Madeleine and it is something never addressed by the McCanns.

Jane Tanner’s Sighting

The detail of Jane Tanner’s sighting has changed numerous times and is flawed because of its inconsistency. One detail that has emerged in the past 4 years is that Tanner and fellow holidaymaker Jeremy “Jes” Wilkins claim to have encountered Gerry McCann in the street outside apartment 5A on the same side of the pavement as the apartment. However, McCann claims this 3-way encounter happened on the other side of the street. In madeleine, Kate addresses this but fobs it off by saying “…exactly where they were standing is not crucial” (page 71).

The Yvonne Martin Encounter

On page 86 of madeleine, Kate describes an encounter with British social worker Yvonne Martin on the morning of May 4. Only, she doesn’t mention Ms Martin by name. Again, this is another vital issue in the case that has been dismissed by the McCanns. Ms Martin thought she recognised David Payne from another case back in England and both Payne and Kate Healy refused any assistance from Ms Martin despite her professional credentials in social work. Why did Kate Healy not wish to elaborate on why this helpful lady made her feel uncomfortable? More to the point, why did Kate claim to not know “who she is or what she was really trying to achieve?” Kate has read the police file and she will therefore know who Ms Martin is and why she tried to help. Why did David Payne try to usher this lady away from lending her assistance?

No Searching by the McCanns

It is a well established fact that the McCanns never searched for Madeleine on the night of May 3, 2007. Instead, a small army of fellow holidaymakers and locals were out looking for the missing tot. This aspect is covered in Faked Abduction but in madeleine, Kate is not exactly truthful when, on page 83 she writes “As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search.” The plain fact is that they never searched the previous night so how did they resume a search?

The Gaspar Allegations

On May 16, 2007 Savio and Katherina Gaspar were interviewed by British police in England in connection with concerns they had about Gerry McCann and David Payne. The Gaspars, Paynes and McCanns had all been on a previous holiday together on the Spanish island of Majorca in September 2005. What happened during that holiday caused the Gaspars to approach police with their concerns. Katherina told police when talking about David Payne:

I remember questioning whether looked at my children or the others in a different way. I imagined that he maybe visited Internet sites related to small children. I thought that he may be interested in child pornography on the Internet.

The Gaspar statements (included in Faked Abduction) are absent from madeleine. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, Kate did not want these allegations from their doctor friends, the Gaspars, to be revealed in her book.

Obtaining the Books

Buy madeleine from major bookstores in the UK and online from Amazon (here).

Buy Faked Abduction online from (here).

150 Responses to “The Facts versus the Fiction”

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All

  1. 1
    I Don't Believe It Says:

    Some very telling discrepancies.

    I think the key one is the patio doors. One thing upper middle class professional types do not do is leave their apartment with all its possessions, including passports no doubt, inside unlocked.

    Does the author deal with Kate’s story of the slamming door? Someone else has claimed her story is false because one open window woudl not cause a through draught – that only happens where you have another opening or a chimney (and there was no chimney). I’ve been thinking about that today I believe that the contention of the critics is correct.

    Another I would add: Matthew Oldfield claimed to be able to see an infant’s breathing through the mesh of a cot in darkness, possibly under bedding (it was a cold night), while he was standing outside the bedroom – several feet away (it’s on film – the notorious “reconstruction” nonsense). This is not credible. And you have to ask why is such an incredible claim being made? Also I have often wondered what my reaction would have been in Kate and Gerry’s place if their story was true. If so, you then have to say that Matthew Oldfield is the last person to see her alive. Why were they not far more demanding of an explanation from him….surely you would want a very full account from him of what had happened, and you would want to check out his story.

  2. 2
    Daina COUTO Says:


    Unfortunately, JNL sent a letter home stating the fact, although some contacts noted that as a matter of fact they do not want to accept (not sure why, but we respect …). And even JNL hope she is alive and hope for it, but in his view, there isn´t possibility.
    And he believes the police should focus on research and investigations there in Luz
    Because that’s where the answers to the solution of this barbaric crime is .
    Although it is a premonitory dream, the letters were sent before the fact to be realized.And I believe that Jucelino is correct with his premonitory dream. We cannot deny on spite of his letters before it happens..You can see picture of letters at this link:
    Unfortunately, JNL sent a letter home stating the fact, although some contacts noted that as a matter of fact they do not want to accept (not sure why, but we respect …). And even JNL hope she is alive and hope for it, but in his view, there
    And he believes the police should focus on research and investigations there LIGHT
    Because that’s where the answers to the solution of this barbaric crime.
    Although it is a premonitory dream, the letters were sent before the fact to be realized.

    Mario Ronco Filho.(journalist ) ( see at this link)

  3. 3
    Liz Y Says:

    Having looked at the plan of the bedroom, Matthew Oldfield would have been in the doorway, with the door opening inwards to the right so he’d have seen madeleine first. Madeleine was in the first bed immediately to his left, then there were the cots, then the spare bed under the window. Also, I remember somewhere that Kate said she knew Madeleine had been taken because cuddle cat, was on a place too high for Madeleine to reach. There isn’t any such a place in the bedroom plan. There was just a chest of drawers a little higher than the mattress, and a chair by the window. Doesn’t make sense…….again!

    Site Admin: One archived article about Cuddle Cat being on a high shelf is here in this website (

  4. 4
    I Don't Believe It Says:

    Liz Y –

    If I recall correctly, I think that is why some surmise that Matthew Oldfield had to change his story in the “reconstruction” programme the Tapas 9 did for TV. So in the programme we see him standing well away from the doorway, where presumably he couldn’t see Madeleine but he could see one of more of her siblings breathing in their cots! I haven’t got a link to that TV programme but I will see if I can find it.

    I am not sure I have ever seen a verified KMC quote about Cuddlecat being placed in a high place out of reach…with the McCanns very often we get stories coming through friends and relatives which of course offers perfect deniability.

    The thing with these stories and claims is that there is nearly always a reason behind them. An example: Madeleine had to become a placid child who never woke in her sleep to avoid the charge that she might have got up and wandered out by herself with no abductor. But then we found out there was a star chart at home where she was being rewarded for not getting up in teh middle of the night! (i.e. as with many toddlers of her age she was prone to get up in the middle of the night and seek the solace of her parents’ company).

  5. 5
    Roy Exeter Says:

    Hi everyone.
    the more i read about this, and i have read loads, the thicker and thicker the plot gets, and from what i can see, does the MCcann family no favours at all.
    i have read many conspiracy theories on lots of different incidents, but this one must never end up as just a conspiracy theory, for people to muse over in years to come.
    i have read them all, and have secretly decypered most of them, going by the facts and clues given.
    but the maddie story is different.
    we are talking about a little innocent girl here. there are so many inconcistencies.
    i want maddie to be alive, but with everything i have read so far….i still fear the worst.
    it must never be another oswald, jfk thing, not another Elvis dead or a live thing, or another Paul Macartney dead or alive thing.
    this has got to have an answer to it.

    among the many things that bothers me about this.
    i reckon most mothers would say this to,
    what parent, or self respecting mother would happily go out, and leave their children all alone, especially in a foriegn country on holiday, irrespective if they usually trusted the resort or not.
    it dosent matter how close you might be eating, they are still alone.
    and whilst alone, anything can happen.
    they could get up, switch on a cooker or something, pull a hot kettle over themselves, or even get kidnapped and killed. these are suppose to be doctors. i mean who could trust a doctor who would do a thing like that.
    even i know that, and i’m only a mere bloke.
    most women i know, wouldn’t go anywhere too far from her kids, unless at least she had a baby sitter, else most women would entertain such a ludicrous notion.

    i am right arn’t i ladies?.

    just supposin (which would be nice!) that maddie was found alive an well, even after all these years, would she still be allowed to go back to her original parents again?.
    i have heard about lots of cases where children get taken away into care, because of parents doing the very same thing…so why are the rules different for maddie’s parents.
    is it because being doctors, they can knowingly work the system in their own favour.
    if that is so, isn’t that a tad unfair?.
    or am i just being a mere bloke here, and i dont really understand, or am i absolutely spot on.
    i dont have any kids, i wish i did, and even as a mere bloke, i would never ever leave my kids home alone, not even at home.
    these are the most precious pieces of cargo a human, or any living beast can have.
    could you really, (doctor or not!) put your kids at risk it such a crass way.
    isn’t this a case for neglect?, i am still surprised that they were allowed to keep the twins.
    am i the only one who see’s it this way?.
    you must forgive me, i am only a bloke.

    sorry i have to speak my mind.
    such people, should never be allowed to have children.
    there are lots of women whom would love to have kids, but cant, the sort of people whom would never let her kids down, and i bet there are a few of them now, whom are absolutely p###ed off with these parents.
    i’m no expert, but even i know that being a parent, means just that…you are there to protect them.
    in other words you dont go out leaving them all alone…do you?.
    once you are a mother, your days of clubbing it, drinking, staying out late with your friends, even going out eating and drinking with friends at tapas bars become very limited…you cant have it both ways…you are either a mother, or you are not….which is it?.

    one more thing.
    what about this 4th child!?.
    i have only read bits an pieces about this.
    if it is true, this has got to be looked into too….hasn’t it?.
    it would be rellevent…wouldn’t it?.
    this is very vague at best.
    obviously i am not looking in the right places.
    i want to read a full account of this especially.
    this so called 4th child could be the very key.
    please tell me where to look.

    you all should be congratulated…i love the way you lot are kicking over stones.
    i love the never say die attitude you all seem to have.
    it seems to me that the police are not going to get to the bottom of this, but i reckon with a team collective effort between us….we are.
    i hope they are reading this thurorely, because i bet that the real truth is here within our writings. keep searching you police, because the truth is defanately out there….or here.
    once again, thankyou for letting me join in.

    i only wish it was under better circumstances.
    a little girl is missing, perhaps dead, and that is all that should matter.
    however they get to the truth in the end…..who cares.

    would you do any less for your child.

    i would kill, to save my child. (if i had one!)

    take care
    Roy Exeter.

  6. 6
    Rosemary Says:


    This is best response I have seen yet – you really do have the angle on this dreadful occurrence. It is imperative that ‘someone’ (and who that is I really don’t know) gets to the bottom line. I have a daughter, grand-children and great-grandchildren and I too would kill to protect any of them.

    ‘Take care’ just about sums it up.


  7. 7
    Roy Exeter Says:

    Crucial points!

    First of all, please allow me to quote a line, which is something that Kate McCann says in her book…Madeliene.


    What a stupid thing to say.
    A little girl is still missing….presumed dead.
    Of course it is crucial, everything about this is crucial, especially if they really want to see Maddie alive again. If she don’t know that, then she cant be a very good mother.
    Wouldn’t it be crucial to get her Daughter Maddie back?.

    I have been scrutinising the so called “Tapas Nine”

    why would it be important to have a hair cut, and go for a jog, the very day after his daughter goes missing…surely compared to the latter, a hair cut and a jog would be trivial. Plus if not before the fact, surely now after the fact the hairdresser would know if he cut his hair or not…….he must have read all about it by now!.

    My point, why not go and look for Maddie instead?.
    And who would give a damn about their looks or fitness regime, if one’s daughter had only gone missing the night before.
    What doting Father would ever get these kind of priorities wrong?.

    Why not much emotion?.
    Haven’t seen many believable tears!, every mother that I know, wouldn’t be able to stop.
    They would be beside themselves…horrified.

    Why would a child be crying for 18 hours a day…bit excessive wouldn’t you say, unless the child was a teething baby, was Maddie still teething at 4?.

    Dr David Payne…(Egg-Head!!!!!!!)
    A Surgeon would know how to dismember a body!.
    How does he know for certain, that “THEY DIDN’T DO IT!”?.

    Didn’t do what?…….what is this “IT”?.
    What is he alluding to?.
    Is this just a bad choice of words?.

    He also is reported to have said
    How would that party member just had assumed right then that an abduction was in progress?.
    And if that is the case, fearing for the child’s safety, why didn’t that person intervene, thus stopping any abduction from taking place?.
    Most people I know, would have done just that, especially where a child is concerned!.
    That is normal, human nature!.
    And is this saying that that person, ignored this so called incident and walked away?
    That is weird.

    Was this child crying whilst being carried?.

    The word abduction was used, so wouldn’t one assume that a crime was being carried out?, so thinking this, wouldn‘t any right minded person raise the alarm?.
    No mother especially, would just walk away, no matter if the child was one of their’s or not.

    Even as a concerned bystander, wouldn’t you question that right away, especially if you knew it to be a child?.

    Why didn’t Kate use a baby monitor?.
    Fiona Payne used one.
    As Friends, you would have thought they would have all followed suite!.

    Dianne Webster. 1-9=8.
    Apparently she stayed at the Tapas Bar, whilst everyone else, ran back to the compartment!.
    Would everyone, mean……the other 8!?.
    If this is so,
    Would Jane Tanner be one of the 8.?.

    Didn’t she dine with them all?.
    If this is so, how could she had seen the abductor, if she was with everyone else?,
    and if that was the case, then every one else would have seen him, or her, surely.

    8 against one lone abductor…there would be no contest.

    So, did she leave the table, witness the abduction, then go back, without saying anything, then run back to the apartment with everyone else?.
    And only then, say something!!.

    She described an Egg-head shaped person, in the dark…Murat’s head is not Egg-Shaped,
    But David Payne’s head looks slightly that way?….see photo!!!.

    Christ, she must have had a good look to be able to tell this, from 5 meters away, in the dark, perhaps long enough to even be able to save Maddie from being carried away, or at least raise the alarm, and if she was that close, she would probably have been able to see the front of the mans face,
    but oops!!!!!,
    didn’t she say she saw him from the back?.

    Dr Russell O’Brien..
    Why would he lie, about asking the house keeping, to change the bed linen!!!?.
    One faction is lying here.
    If this is a conspiracy, exactly what would be O’Brien’s part be in this?.

    Dr Mathew Oldfield…
    He apparently checked on the McCann children 9.30pm, but he didn’t look to see if Maddie was in bed.
    If he didn’t see Maddie, how could he have been the last person to check on Maddie,

    He didn’t see her!!!!.

    She had been crying for a long time, would she have suddenly stopped conveniently at that time, and if she was crying, surely he would have noticed her then, then presumably gone back and told the parents that Maddie was crying…..again!.

    Perhaps, Maddie wasn’t there at 9.30pm!.
    Perhaps she was gone, before 9.30pm!

    What time did Jane Tanner say that she saw Maddie’s abductor!!!!!!!?

    I am sure it was later then 9.30pm, (unless I have read something wrong!)

    I have scrutinised the Patio doors part, which I am sure you all have.
    Why would they change their story, from going in through the front doors, and then say they went through the Patio doors?.
    Were they drunk!, blind!, how could they not know.?
    They are 2 different entrances aren’t they?, I presume one at the front, ie…front door, and presumably the patio doors would be at ……the back.

    The doors, only lock from the inside.
    Does this mean that these so called responsible people, kept these doors open all day long?. With all of their things, and precious children inside, each time they went out and ate at the Tapas Bar?.

    Surely that is a crime in itself alone!.

    I agree, this makes no sense at all!.
    Does any of it!?.

    Maddie’s last photo.
    How can they prove that this picture was indeed taken on the 3rd of May.?.
    Is there a date stamped on it?/

    It is said, that when Kate looked, she didn’t notice (see) Maddie with Ella.
    And if not, why didn’t she look for her right then.
    Was she not concerned right then?.

    I have read enough today, starting to get tired.

    It still stinks to high heaven.

    So far my summation tells me. (but I will be happy to be wrong!)
    Maddie was gone before the 3rd of May.
    And if that is so, and she wasn’t seen in her bed……where was she really?.

    What is the real honest truth of this terrible event?.

    One last suggestion.
    Perhaps that sighting of a child being carried was on one of the nights before!.
    And all they have done, is brought this abduction story, or lie to the 3rd of May, for some kind of convenience, and they knowingly used this to point the finger at Robert Murat,
    Whom I believe is totally innocent.
    Perhaps they knew he would be in the right place, at the right time, for their concocted web of lies to work?.

    In other words….he was set up to take the fall!.


    Christ, if you cant trust a Doctor, (especially all those mentioned!) whom can you trust?.
    And we put our lives into these peoples hands, every single day!.

    The quest for Maddie continues!!!!.

    Take care
    Roy Exeter.

  8. 8
    Liz Y Says:

    Roy, I think Madeleine cried for a long time the night before she disappeared, crying for her father, strange that, because most kids want their mum. Was this the night Kate stormed off, back to the apartment in a huff, because Gerry was flirting with a woman he’d invited to join them? I’ve read somewhere that Kate was in the apartment long before Madeleine stopped crying, and she phoned a friend in England at around 10 o’clock. Everyone feel free to correct me. There is so much info, a lot of facts, newspaper reports, and then other’s opinions, it’s difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in my mind.

  9. 9
    The Facts versus the Fiction: Faked Abduction Vs Madeleine « Exposing myth, distortion, corruption and truth Says:

    […] under Famous Articles, TRUTH For Madeleine. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this […]

  10. 10
    Supersleuth Says:

    Hi everyone just want to put my sixpennies worth into the mix regarding the now famous tennis ball photo.

    The McCanns want you to believe that this was taken on the 3rd of May 2007, when it clearly was not, how do I know you ask, well I did not need any fancy software to check out the photo, in fact our Kate and Gerry told me.

    Ok the proof ok here we go folks for another McCann porky.

    Kate and Gerry did an article for the Sun newspaper, I copy a transcript as well as a link, so you can judge for yourselves.

    For Kate and Gerry the picture of a happy three-year-old clutching a bundle of tennis balls evokes a carefree time before they became household names.

    Speaking in the documentary about the now-famous photograph, Kate says: “Gerry loves that photo.

    “As part of the kids’ club, they did mini-tennis and she really enjoyed it.”

    Gerry smiles and adds: “One of the tasks was to gather all the balls up and she’d obviously managed to get three in and she turned round to Kate and she’s like, ‘Look, I’ve got them all’.”

    Ok I hear you say but all that says is that it was taken at the mini tennis. Right lets look at the Kids Club activity list followed by the attendance register for the 1st of May 2007.

    1. Activity sheet.

    So mini tennis is on a Tuesday not a Thursday.

    2. Attendandence register for the 1st of May 2007.

    So K & G clearly state that this photo was taken at mini tennis which is on Tuesday the 1st of May 2007, and just to confirm this, god bless our Kate she even put it in her diary.

    Then we have the allegation that the photo had a taken date of 5th of May 2007,

    So a photo taken on the 1st of May but dated on the 5th of May, does that mean all the photo’s taken from that date are 4 days earlier as well.

  11. 11
    supersleuth Says:

    Back again and boy are those McCanns weird or what.

    Tap down to that famous last photo, according to our favourite couple in the same atricle in the Sun our Gerry says the following.

    He also speaks about the moment the last known picture of Madeleine was taken.

    It shows her sitting alongside her father and her younger brother Sean, dangling their feet in the swimming pool, just seven hours before her disappearance.

    So Maddie is sitting alongside her father, should that not be sitting next to Sean and her father, because the girl at the end you have shown to be Maddie, see link.

    Ok, but peeps have you noticed the two kids, look closely, look very closely.

    What do you see, have you got it yet, both are wearing girls clothes. Now strange that, Sean from what we are lead to believe is a boy, why for f*** sake is he wearing a goddam dress. Either that it is Amelie, or you lot need some real help, Jesus man dressing your 2 year old boy as a girl is a bit sick don’t you think.

  12. 12
    Super Sleuth Says:

    The famous tennis ball photo that was allegedly taken on the 3rd of May 2007 was in fact taken on the 1st of May 2007. If you read an article dated 30th April 2008 in the Sun newspaper Gerry states that this photo was taken at the mini tennis. Well if you look at Kate’s diary, and the activity rotor for the kids club you will find that it was on Tuesday the 1st of May not on Thursday the 3rd of May.

    Gerry then goes on to discuss the famous last photo, he states it was a photo of him sitting alongside Madeleine and her younger brother Sean, well first it should be sitting alongside Sean, secondly if that is Sean why is he wearing a dress.

    Site Admin: Hi Super Sleuth. The Tennis Photo was never allegedly taken on May 3, 2007 and I don’t believe the McCanns ever said it was. It was always cited as being taken on May 1. The Associated Press had this picture in their database with the correct dates right from the time of publication. Some people have incorrectly attributed its dating to the 3rd and henceforth that myth circulated. Your point about Sean is a good one but where did Gerry state this?

  13. 13
    Super Sleuth Says:

    Site Admin

    Its on

    About a quarter of the way down.

    A copy of Gerrys blog that Pamalan has kept it also refers to a documentry but not which one.

    I have also done a bit more digging on the pool photo, and it looks 99% sure that the mans face has been photoshoped. Suggest you download a copy then blow it up to poster size, then check out the mans face. You can see that the sun glasses are to high up the face for the arms to meet the ears, also you note that the nose, forehead, are sharper, check out the nose to the mouth looks totally wrong, and then look at your leftside of the photo where the hair meets the skin you can see a that there is a pinky coloured skin same as the jaw, then a browner forehead certainly not the same colour. And finally I think I detect a thin line again on yourleft side of the face running from the ear to the glasses exactly where a pair of glasses would be. Then download this picture of Dr David Payne and flip it so he is looking right, then compare the jaw and mouth area of both pictures. Looks similar doesn’t it.

    So is this a photo of David Payne, if so why, why photoshop the mans body into this photo, then change the face, when a simple Gerry photo photoshoped in would be a lot easier. The picture screems out FAKE is it a subliminal message ie the Sean slip up and a photo of David Payne, are one or both of the McCanns pointing out who was involved in Maddies death/abduction.

    Site Admin: Thanks for the links and comments. We have always felt that the pool photo was a fake in some respect. It was allegedly the most recent photo of Madeleine but instead of releasing this picture to police and press they released a picture taken at least six months earlier. Then they released the tennis photo that had been taken on May 1. Why did they wait 21 days to release the pool photo? It makes no sense unless it was produced to provide an alibi for Madeleine being alive on May 3.

    Here at Truth for Madeleine we believe Madeleine died on May 1 or May 2, 2007. The McCanns had no hard evidence of her being alive that day because the only evidence was that contained in the various witness statements. As the McCanns did not know what had been said in those witness statements they had to take matters into their own hands and produce a rabbit out of a hat or…in this case a photo to “prove” she was alive on May 3. Without this photo, there is no tangible proof that Madeleine was alive on May 3. The creche records are a shambles and are proof of nothing.

  14. 14
    Super Sleuth Says:

    With reference to Madeleine if you shorten it should it not be Madie why Maddie

    Maybe another subliminal message Mad Die

    Is one or both of the McCann’s indicating how she died, ie someone got Mad and she Die(d)

    More stunning reverlations to follow.

  15. 15
    Super Sleuth Says:

    Site Admin

    Our Kate has yet again opened mouth before engaging brain this ones a jem. She states the following.

    In the Sun dated 10th of May 2011 that

    THURSDAY May 3, 2007: Some images are etched for all time on my brain. Madeleine that lunchtime is one of them. She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie anglaise shorts from Monsoon.

    A peach coloured top would be more like theses colours.

    PS error mini tennis was a Monday 30th May 2007.

    Site Admin: Some of the McCann tales are filled with incredible amounts of detail – sometimes too much detail than is necessary. At other times, their tales are devoid of the sort of detail one would expect. The description of that peach smock top is a case in point as you have rightly demonstrated. I think everyone would have described it as pink prior to that description in Kate’s book. Is Kate dropping a hint that the color balance of the photo was tweaked as well?

    In her book, what happened to the detail of taking out the hair bead at bath time? Where is the detail of the pair of them drinking a bottle of their favorite New Zealand wine?

    It seems that as time wears on, new detail is added because that’s what a lie is – a work of fiction. Lies grow whereas the truth remains set in stone. People tend to forget details but Kate is a modern day miracle. She remembers more and more things over time!

  16. 16
    Super Sleuth Says:

    Re the date of death I would say 1st night or 2nd early morning, you got to remember to leave that odour the dogs smelt a body must be dead for over 1hr 45 mins. Then of course rigermortis will then be starting, that can take a while before the body becomes supple again. That is if Madeleine even went to Portugal I am working on that as we speak.

    PS I think that even the tennis ball shot was tampered with, another thing to work on.

    Site Admin: Madeleine’s body was most likely stored in that blue tennis bag that we see on the 2nd shelf up in the parent’s bedroom wardrobe. Gerry had placed the tennis bag in the flower bed at some stage – perhaps only briefly.

    Remember that the McCanns denied owning a blue tennis bag – despite the photo clearly showing it in the wardrobe in a photo taken by the PJ on the night of May 3, 2007. See here:

    Quite how Clarence Mitchell could say that Gerry never owned such a bag is ridiculous in the extreme. He can only have been parroting what the McCanns told him to say.

  17. 17
    I Don't Believe It! Says:

    Site admin mentions the hair bead…yes, another odd use of detail.

    You can see how the McCanns get into trouble.

    You wonder why on earth the removal of the bead is so important (and you wonder whether in reality trying to remove a hair bead from a toddler at the end of a tiring day on holiday is likely to be a good idea…not in my experience…and why before the end of the holiday). Then you think – well the bead is in the “last photo”. But then, if the photo is photoshopped, then you can see why removal of the bead might be thought important…

    But why? In case the body were found? – Hmmm…so you end up in that dark place.

    The problem I find when the McCanns give detail is that there is no reassuring “surrounding” detail. In the case of the hair bead there is no convincing explanation of why the bead has to be removed ahead of the end of the holiday.

  18. 18
    Super Sleuth Says:

    I Dont Beleive It.

    Eureka the hair bead thats it by god, the faked photo and the so called last shot of Madeleine is true, but thats a shot of Madeleine taken previously and photoshoped in, as site admin said earlier. The girl in the tennis ball shot is Maddie.

  19. 19
    Super Sleuth Says:

    Have had a look into genes reunited and found this strange anomily.

    Transcription Record
    Name Madeleine Beth McCann
    Year of Registration 2003
    Month of Registration June
    Registration District Leicester
    Registration County Leicestershire
    Mother’s maiden name Healy
    Volume Number 6001B
    Volume Page B21D

    Then I found these 2

    Transcription Record
    Name Oisin Valentine McCann
    Year of Registration 2003
    Month of Registration June
    Registration District Leicester
    Registration County Leicestershire
    Mother’s maiden name McCann
    Volume Number 6001A
    Volume Page A24D

    Transcription Record
    Name Oisin Valentine McCann-O’Leary
    Year of Registration 2003
    Month of Registration June
    Registration District Leicester
    Registration County Leicestershire
    Mother’s maiden name McCann
    Volume Number 6001A
    Volume Page A24D

    As you see the last two have the same Volume Number/Page this means an adoption.

    The name Oisin is a boys name, so an identical twin of a girl and boy is possible due to the IVF treatment, this is not good as this can result in the girl getting Turners Syndrom, which fits as Madeleine was very small for her age.

    I attach links to the two relevant web sites.


    Is this why Madeleine’s medical record was not provided.

    Site Admin: Interesting find but what are the implications? Is it a mix-up with 2 children or is it just 3 children registered in June 2003 (Madeleine plus a pair of twins?) Simpler still, isn’t it just a correction of the original registration to add the hyphenated name on Oisin’s record?

    There is an article in this website from back in 2007 that discussed the possibility of Turner’s Syndrome. Here is the page:

    Girls with Turner’s Syndrome can cry for hours on end with colic-like symptoms and Kate has told us that Madeleine would cry for up to 18 hours when she was a baby. The PJ asked Kate if it was true if they considered giving Madeleine away to another family member. What made them ask that question? It seems that the PJ did some very thorough research that we perhaps cannot see directly in the police file.

  20. 20
    Super Sleuth Says:

    Site Admin

    Turners syndrom is very prevelant in an identical girl/boy twin.

    Maybe an error but I am awaiting a reply on the same volume/page number, implications the twins nuclear DNA is identical to the girl, so his blood would be the same as Madeleine, so the blood could have been planted as proof Madeleine was in PDL ie she cut herself, no other DNA was found to prove otherwise. So did Madeleine ever go to PDL are we looking in the wrong place.

    Note O’Leary is Irish and the McCanns went to Ireland 2 weeks before they went to PDL so getting a blood sample would be easy, and they found a syringe in the appartment.

    PS Note the appartment was owned by a Ruth McCann says she is not related true not blood related but is there a Mr McCann that is? Reason I say is that appartment 5a was not a Mark Warner appartment so how come it was booked by Mr D Payne as a Mark Warner package.

  21. 21
    Jim (Derby) Says:

    I have just finished Kate’s book and have taken a passing interest in this case since the event happened. I applaud the analytic approach of many contributors here and especially the good people who want an answer to this tragedy. I am inclined to think we lose sight of what shock does to the system. We do not behave or react normally when in a state of shock so we must bear that in mind when dismembering events. I am also inclined to believe Kate and Gerry despite many irregularities in their account. Another feature of human nature we must not forget is the inexactitude of memory. You must have heard the song ‘we met in June,’ ‘You wore blue,’ etc ‘I remember it well! The system overwhelmed the McCanns and how on earth can we expect them to behave normally when under such stress? I believe they are loving parents and good people and it would be impossible for them to keep up a ruse when so many family and friends were involved . ‘You can fool some of the people all of the time….’ It is a sad reality that when police forces get hold of complicated cases they soon allow the detail to submerge… their egos and their self interest takes over. I think the answer is to be found in the criminal underworld in the area. If you want to find a rat you must get down in the sewer. I would put some of the funds towards a project to hire a couple of ex SAS to penetrate this criminal world – not to find the kidnapper directly (that would give the game away – but to beat out the names needed to shed light. Let’s have names and then let the police make what they can of them.

    Site Admin: We are grateful for your measured comments Jim. However, the only way to truly get to the bottom of this horrendous case is to have the McCanns and their friends answer those tricky questions under oath. Until the McCanns can be eliminated from the inquiry and we can firmly establish that an abduction took place, they will always be under suspicion. They have told far too many lies and there are too many contradictions to believe them on other aspects of the case. Remember, it is only the McCanns who claim “abduction”. They make this claim without one scrap of evidence. Kate says she knows Madeleine was taken because of the way the room was left. That makes no sense at all and she has offered us nothing to support that notion. The curtains could not have blown up like she says – look at the photos of the apartment from the night of the 3rd – the curtains were trapped behind the bed at the side of the window.

    Also, who in their right mind leaves an unlocked apartment 6 days in a row? They left passports, keys, personal effects and the most valuable possessions of all – their children. This “cover story” doesn’t make any kind of logical sense at all. I have never gone on a holiday and deliberately left the door open – have you?

  22. 22
    Roy Exeter Says:

    this case just gets worse.
    i am not the most brightest light in the box
    but, for what it is worth.
    this is my take on the last few posts.

    this might sound stupid, or obsurd, but it now seems to me, that they were expecting to loose maddie, or have i got the wrong end of the stick here?. and if i am holding the clean side of the stick, then perhaps, they did sell her, and had already made the secret arangements, perhaps this is why they all seemed to have a simular flawed story.

    going by everything else i have read, i wouldn’t be surprised about anything anymore.

    what say you?.
    just a thought

    the quest for maddie goes on!.

    take care
    Roy Exeter

  23. 23
    Roy Exeter Says:


    hi everyone again, i’m sorry to keep on about maddie’s unseen justice.

    please dont think i am a crank or a bit wierd, i am just frustrated, and all out of answers.
    if it was up to me, this is what i would do, and although you probably wouldn’t admit it,
    i am betting that secretly you would do this to, if you could.

    i would get mr and mrs McCann, along with the other 7, perhaps tied up naked in the stocks,for all to see, with a man in a mask cracking a whip,asking all those unanswerd questions, and we would all stay there untill they cracked and told us the whole sorry truth.

    they all know the truth…dont they?.
    you know they do!.

    sod their dignity….what about maddie’s!?.

    perhaps not all of them, but i bet that someone would crack, especially the more weak minded ones.
    miss tanner, for instance, even Kate…she dont look that strong.

    yes, i know it sounds draconion, but what else is there for maddie.
    it worked in the dark ages, yes i know this isn’t the dark ages.
    desperate measures, remmember!.
    one way or another, it is certainly a dark age for little maddie.
    how much darker can it get for her?.

    this has gone on far to long,(4 years, and counting!)dont you agree.
    something soon has got to give!.

    it seems like everything else has been tried, so perhaps desperate measures really do need to be applied.

    they seem to find most of the other murderers of other people, by more humain methods, ie minnie dowler etc, so why is maddie so different.

    we need to know, where,(be it alive or dead) she is, especially if she is dead, so she can be found, brought home and buried properly, perhaps with all of her toys…and if she is alive with new parents, after she was sold, she cant stay with them!. she has to be brought back, because that is the right thing to do…isn’t it!?.

    i would even vollenteer to crack the whip.
    i promise…i would get the truth, and now i wouldn’t care how inhumain my methos might be.
    someone,or all of them is/are defanately lying, which means that there is a real truth, and if you think about it, there is only ever one real truth in the end.

    their stories are so flawed, and confusing, and perhaps this is the whole point of them doing it this way, perhaps they really are trying to confuse the whole issue, perhaps a purpose joint venture to deflect everything away from the real truth.

    ie, they’ve all got their stories, and they are sticking to them.

    and have you noticed, that now and again, their stories, seem to change a bit?.
    perhaps its just me, but that suggests lies to me. always has in the past!.

    surely the real truth, can only be the truth.
    lies, no matter how small are never the truth.

    but, put your whips away, because we dont do things like that do we….anymore?
    we’re civilised….but tell me honestly people, how civilised is either killing your child, or selling her?.

    surely my draconion stance, is nothing in comparrison to what happened to poor little maddie, between the 1st and the 3rd of may, 2007 weather she is alive or dead.

    this whole thing is absoluetly deplorable.

    please forgive my angry stance on this.

    come on you detectives, pick up the ball again.

    the quest for maddie continues……forevermore.

    thankyou everyone.
    take care
    Roy Exeter

  24. 24
    Super Sleuth Says:

    Roy of Exeter

    Two secenarios one is the perfect crime, and end up rich, other is Madeleine Beth McCann never went to PDL she died or was sold/abducted either in the UK or Eire. Am building a case up to prove that she never went to PDL and once I have that Scotland Yard will be informed, and if they do jack shit well the Sun newspaper would be fed the info, so guys and girls wish me luck.

  25. 25
    Roy Exeter Says:

    well done super sleuth, i am 10,000% behind you
    i will be watching, just like everyone else here
    i know i seemed a bit over the top….but i am serious….deadly.
    if scotland yard cant be bothered, then i am sure that the media will lap it up, but sadly, only because it sells papers for them…but its a start, and it will get people interested again.
    it does seem to me, the interest as it once was…has fallen off.
    yeah, give em a jolt of what they like best.

    (spiritual message!)dont worry maddie, we will not forget you.
    and one day, people will have to face up to what they did too you.
    all is not lost… will have your day in court.
    what d’ya say super sleuth?….am i right?.
    take care
    Roy Exeter

  26. 26
    Super Sleuth Says:

    Roy Exeter

    Yes its ass kicking time, used to work in a fraud investigation team a long time ago, and we had a saying ” A case is like an acre of pine forest, just find that acorn ” Once you have that the rest just collapses like a pack of cards.

    Only prob is we are dealing with free masons but Im sure we will get there in the end, well cup of coffee time, and then back to the case just found another lead to persue.

  27. 27
    Jonathan Marsden Says:

    Ihave read through all the comments above. In isolation some of the points may make a modicum of sense – in context however they are nonsense. How does a foreign couple keep a body hidden from the local police? If it is such a good hiding place why do they then move it three weeks later? If they dismembered a body – it would be impossible for blood to have been completely cleaned up. The dogs, brought in three months later, were unreliable at best. The DNA was too complicated (this by the best DNA analysis in the world – as per the PJ).
    GFinally why are the McCanns continuingt with the hunt so many years later – even asking for a judicial revue. Guys give them a break they are innocent – have lost their precious eldest daughter and yet you continue to accuse them with so much acrimony.
    If Madeleine is found – and I pray with my whole being she is – I hope each of you will have the grace to humbly beg their forgiveness. (Yes they left the children alone – you know what, they made a massive mistake – as a much wiser man once said – “Let He who is without sin cast the first stone”

    Site Admin: Jonathan, you really need to have seen the interview with British serial killer Dennis Nilsen to understand the lack of blood with a dead body. Nilsen chastised his interviewer when they were discussing how he cut up the bodies in his kitchen and the interviewer remarked that there would be blood everywhere. Nilsen (an army chef) made some remark about a human body being just like meat you buy from a butcher and he was quick to point out that meat does not bleed everywhere because it is dead.

    My ex-police source in Portugal said that Madeleine was definitely frozen and that makes most sense of all. If the police had employed a scorched-earth policy of checking every dwelling in Praia da Luz and the surrounding area, it would have made anyone hiding the body very nervous about the prospect of it being discovered. That’s why it would have been a temporary situation. The Nilsen story aside, there seems to be no inference that the body was ever dismembered.

    You say the McCanns are continuing with the hunt. What hunt? There is not one photograph or video that shows the McCanns doing any kind of search. They need the perception of Madeleine still alive so they can keep their gravy train running. These are people who have wasted over a million pounds on the recruitment of a commercial fraud investigation team (Metodo 3 in Spain) and an Irish con-man (Kevin Halligen). Those two outfits had zero experience in finding a missing person so why did the McCanns sanction that kind of spending with those people? If you have a flat tyre on your car do you get it fixed at the doctors? Do you get your teeth cleaned at the zoo? Of course not! So why were Metodo 3 and Halligen recruited at all?

    There is no acrimony. There is only justice for Madeleine. Until something changes, the prime suspects are the parents.

    As you’re from South Africa, can you shed any light on the McCanns’ strong connections with your country? Kate called someone there during the night of May 3-4, 2007. Then we had that fraudster with the Heath-Robinson contraption, Danie Krugel, smuggling his equipment into Portugal without passing through the x-ray machine at customs. What was his real involvement?

  28. 28
    Super Sleuth Says:


    I have more evidence that with a small amount of police checking will solve this if what I found matches up. but I am not saying what it is on here, even know where the body probably is.

    Lets say there are two scenarios I hope that the first one is true, the second is not worth thinking about.

  29. 29
    Super Sleuth Says:


    PS The police follow procedures ie take DNA interview all the suspects etc I dont work that way I look at it from an entire different angle also my advantage is I only got intrested again in the last few weeks so I havent been poluted with 4 years of dross and bull shit to confuse me. Though I never beleived the Mc Canns, body language screams out they are telling porkies but not to the degree I have found.

  30. 30
    Jonathan Marsden Says:

    Well there you go then Super Sleuth – you present your evidence to the judicial revue board and the police can do your bidding. If its as solid as you say, no doubt we will have the case solved in the next short while!

    Site Admin – sorry it still doesn’t add up. How can they possibly have hidden a body (being strangers in the country) and it not being found by police or search parties. Once again despite this hiding place being so secure, they apparently moved it three weeks later – why, what was the point? And still no-one saw them….?

    Danie Krugel is a well meaning person. He has been featured on a number of television shows in SA. Although his claims sound impressive I don’t know of any instance when he has been accurate. I understand there is absolutely no verifiable science behind his equipment. Whatever you do, please don’t make him part of your fiction – his services where negotiated by a local South African lady, after seeing his equipment being “tested” on a local news show called “Carte Blanche” He offered his services. Wherever he goes he insists on the same secrecy – all apparently because he doesn’t want the technology copied.

    Regarding the “gravy train”. Sorry that’s not fair. The fund is administered to very strict standards of independence. They are not allowed to be paid a cent in any cost other then those directed at finding Madeleine. This is audited and factual. The fact that we have regular promotional inserts and publicity as far away as in South Africa, is enormously expensive and, to my mind, proof of their continued search activity.

    If you were in their shoes (assuming they are innocent) how would you proceed differently? How would you find your little girl out of 7 billion inhabitants on earth?

    As in all great conspiracies (NASA never went to the moon, who killed JFK etc) – there is one fundamental flaw – human nature dictates that eventually someone will spin the beans. Look at the Watergate scandal, “Deepthroat” revelaed himself before he died.

    For your “ex police” source to say that the body was “definately” frozen is absoloutely absurd.

    There is absolutely no evidence in this regard. The freezer would have had body fluids (and possibly tissue) left inside which would have been impossible to clean. The police would have definately found this with their investigation.

  31. 31
    Super Sleuth Says:


    What the company that isnt a charity that has admitted that living expenses, and legal fees have been taken out of the fund, mmm. You mention that the fund is administrated to very strict standards, explain how. Are you going to say that on the company returns that an audit has taken place, that means jack shit, all that means is that Company McCanns have complied with all TAX, VAT, and Company regulations, and that monies received is accounted for, ie paying in book matches bank statement, invoices match payments, salaries are NI and Tax correct. But if their is no internal control procedure in place to ensure that all monies received are accounted for, especially in regards to cash, how do you know that what cash comes in is paid into the fund, fine having bank statements matching paying in books, but if the cash isnt put on the paying in book well you aint going to spot it by the paying in/ bank statement method are you.

    By the way I should know, it what I did as a living once, so dont tell me how to suck eggs.

  32. 32
    Super Sleuth Says:

    Site Admin

    Hi need a bit of help is their any record of the McCanns 2005 holiday to Majorca being a Mark Warner holiday.


    Reply: Not sure Super Sleuth. The Gaspar statement doesn’t mention it being a Mark Warner Holiday. Kate mentions Mark Warner in this context in her book here:

    “It was on New Year’s Day 2007 that the idea of a spring holiday in Portugal was first raised. Fiona and David Payne, who had come with their children Lily and Scarlett to spend the day with us, were planning a week’s break at a Mark Warner resort in the Algarve, probably with two other couples and their families, and they asked us if we’d like to join them.

    We’d been away with Fiona and David on several occasions and we’d always enjoyed ourselves. They favoured the same kind of holidays we did – we’ve never been interested in swanky hotels, preferring a reputable resort with good sports facilities and, since the arrival of the children, plenty for them to do, too. Gerry and I took the kids everywhere – in fact I’d only ever been apart from them for one night – so they were used to travelling. They had been on lots of family trips, to Glasgow, Liverpool, Stratford, Skipton and Crieff, Donegal, Guernsey and Spain, and they loved their ‘mini-holidays’, as we called them, to visit friends and family.”

    From this account it isn’t clear whether the trip to Spain in 2005 was a Mark Warner holiday. Perhaps it was and Kate is hiding the fact.

    Why do you ask?

  33. 33
    Suoer Sleuth Says:

    Site Admin

    Because their isn’t a Mark Warner in Majorca, but dont you find it strange no 2006 holiday. Have found something though today but I dare not put it on here as I bet the McLiars read this, am trying to get the press intrested as it could be a major factor in the case, to the point it sinks the entire witness statements hook line and sinker. And will prove my theory.

  34. 34
    Taurus Says:

    If you have evidence of a crime you go to a serving police force. You do not go to the press as they will see you as attention-seeking or worse. If you have been given information subversively the action again is to a serving force. I would recommend not theories but facts. Indeed, facts are that there is no way that anyone could have not attacked Stephen Carpenter to access his daughter when walking home to his flat at 9.15 .- 9.20 that night. But that man as Ray Wyre would have said if he wanted a child, a child of three or four then he would have taken one out there already in the street and coshed the carrier of that child. Why did that not happen?

    The answer is that due to the randomness and open door of a certain apartment and a certain lady even a domestic incident could not ensue without as we know it being heard, or a person being seen as sinister on that afternoon in question. The ‘criminal act’ and ‘criminal intent’ being the cognitive act confirming a gate did not make a sound in daylight, and it did make a sound. By testing the gate the man knew how to open and close it to show it was shut.

    Therefore when the occupants came back it would closed fully again. But then it would have to be opened again by the said man and make a noise. Either said gate was opened for a reason and left open for some person later to come in and not make a noise. No.
    Or the man seen by 5G above by the iron railings gap as visual access was coming back later and wanted to leave in a hurry and not have to open the gate. Thus the only forensic action of this is to take something in both arms and have no hands to open a gate. Logic.

    It the logic of any person who has to carry fully laden any package that cannot be put down as a cognitive act of going in a door that has to be manually opened.
    Our man is then able to go later and take an object or item from any of the flats using the wall to climb over as his height is suggestive of this dexterity and fitness by the witness. He was tall enough to climb over when on the steps and inside gates 5C, 5B to go along to 5A and climb over to the window as the tree of course obliterates the view. But the only thing not taken was those children who were lighter, smaller and visually seen in mesh cots. This in contrast to an unseen person or object behind a door. This says either enticement by a ‘voice’ she knew that should not have been there, or that had made that connection of enticement by vocal instruction to come out this way. That to me makes the most sense of how this was done. If you call a name someone will answer, if not the right name you can then run and go over the wall to 5B and then 5C and be out and gone back to where you are sitting so nicely in the Tapas Bar.

    Thus, the Tapas Bar was vital to the use of the gates in the lane and at a certain time of darkness. But find a better one as to be an armchair tourist is not ecological validity. It cannot be done by using theories that do not show orientation insitu.

    Therefore, find the man who wanted the gate of 5B not to make a noise who was seen by the party above of sound mind, and you have not hallucinations, but fact. A man did leave 5C that was empty, or supposed to be, and then enter by the wall 5B, and then come out of 5B after doing something inside 5B or 5A when unoccupied or occupied and unseen. Which? Time.4.30 p.m. Why this time and this place adjacent to 5A with access via the bedroom patio areas that have gardens and stairs below the wall of Warner visibility. Someone has military training skills, and is not a vagrant. This leaves a fit man that can vault easily as a sportsman and one who has logistical skills of course. I state that as the man did not see the occupants that far back above who were sat back due to the weather as stated. He could not of course look up to see. That means whoever this was entered a certain flat before the party came back that were in 5G above on the terrace. What had he been doing all that time?
    Find that out as police will have most certainly have been investigating in silence as UK police forces and NPIA. Any information of relevance call ‘crime-stoppers’ or local police, but not visions, theories or hallucinations please.

  35. 35
    Super Sleuth Says:


    I tried to advise crime stoppers the minute I mentioned the McCanns didnt want to know, dealing with the british police who ave deliberately withheld certain records, why tell them, they would tell me to come back when I have 100% of the info before they will get of their ass and I have 95% the other 5% only they can get.

    I will try but I hope someone out there will get that 1 bit of info I have confirmed as being acurate, then that is the last piece in the jigsaw.

    It is not some hairbrained idea, I have an idea what happened but that changes depending on what relevant data is obtained, so I am open minded on this case, but if i can nail this bit of info, the hole PDL event becomes null an void appertaining to MM’s death/disapearrance in April 2007 and dates whatever happened to her prior to that date, then maybe the police might consider a visit by those dogs to the McCanns house.

  36. 36


  37. 37
    Super Sleuth Says:


    Thanks, trying to collate as much info as I can, have passed some onto Scotland Yard already but I am not holding my breath, seems they are not thinking outside the box so to speak. If it were me I would start with the only two real facts we know.

    1. A dead body had been in appartment 5a prior to the dogs visit. FACT
    2. No collectable DNA for Maddie/Madileine/? was found in 5a FACT
    3. Blood was detected by the dogs in the same place a dead body had detected, so blood was deposited prior to the dogs visit. FACT
    4. DNA to verify the blood was taken from data obtained in the UK house of the McCanns. FACT

    So all we know is that sometime in the past a dead body with matching DNA from the McCanns UK house was present, how de we know its Maddies/Madeleine/?

    How do we know when the dead body/ blood was deposited, how do we know whose DNA we have.

  38. 38
    Super Sleuth Says:

    You are not going to believe this one, yet another pesky McCann popping up, and guess where, yep a child minder at the Ocean Club in PDL.


    Of course not related, yes well, this is getting to spooky for my liking, a McCann under every bed.

  39. 39
    Taurus Says:

    To the bounty hunters.
    The loss of the £1.000.000 as one million UK pounds reward money from the
    News of the World creates a different ball game.

    Will the other three benefactors still pay out for the conditional release of Madeleine? Integrity says they would, but they would not profit by newspaper exclusives.

    They would investigate the person who led them to who took Madeleine, who hid Madeleine, and who owned Madeleine. It is not a coconut shy of who gets the prize.

    No reward and no imposters, no fake sightings, and no psychics who say where she is or was.
    No more causation as in Shannon Matthews intrafamiliar abductions and doping, and no more sensationalism.

    It means every missing person from point last seen has to have ‘proof of life’ as in another case that is revealed of men missing.

    Now let us see how much this changes things as the Sun is not the payout vehicle, the News of the Word was.

    It means that in the best interests it is not a ransom as the paper expected and for the exclusive rights to the story, nor a bounty for the bounty hunter, nor an incentive for others to gain as Karen Matthews highlighted.

    Nine children in one party of tourists, one child of school age missing. Most missing children are an isolated case as in Robert Black as a single child seen on their own who is a ‘sexual being’ to a paedophile, not a unit of currency. Consider the Lyndbergh baby and you would of course easily take any of the infant children, certainly the twins as to their weight and ease of transportation.

    Something far sinister has gone on.

    Usually it is in domestic situations of disputes this happens as to intrafamiliar abduction when children are taken abroad to one parent as custody battles and power.

    But here out of nine children coming up to school age that were in one condensed group left alone, the only one to go was the least of the nine that should have been taken by an extrafamiliar as stranger person

    Did she leave with someone she knew, or she did not leave at all

    Was she chosen and taken as hypothesised by choice for some sinister reason?

    Or by someone she knew and trusted as this one could shout? But did not.

    Scotland Yard do not need Murdoch’s money to find out what happened to one of the nine children left in a holiday flat alone all that week. All they need are the witness statements and experience with other files which will never come into eyesight of anyone but serving police officers on the case. Full stop.

    As for crimestoppers, mention the word psychic and theory and that is time wasting. It does not take theories but information. Who saw a fair haired tall child of nearly four exiting in any way the patio door or doors of flats or gardens along this lane during that evening? No one. Block 5.

    Jane says and is filmed to say and heard to say in her first interview. ‘Never in a million years would I think that was Madeleine’.

    Now a million pounds reward by that time had been offered, and it was in big bold letters at the Church.

    Cognition says this million and a million years were as she later stated from media that she read of as influencing. She says it herself.

    The Million Pound reward is no more from the News of the World.

    The word million is the incentive like the National Lottery as to cash as a windfall for one individual.

    It is sad that only one child was selected to be the focus of this in contrast to others still missing who were riding bikes, sitting on benches or out in the community of good old England, Scotland and Wales.

    No money is needed to search for this missing then school age four year old in days, but common sense and good united policing on the evidence held by police forces. It will be there in the defects of the stories and the impossible being unravelled. Man hours of experts with no bias of what they find. Interviewing is an art, and I have listened to experts on that very subject.

    The good news is there is now no incentive to be a bouncer with a story, or a caller with a sighting of a child that has blonde hair with the million pound sign shining down on that golden head.

    Site Admin: Remember that the reward advertised in the NOTW was for £1,500,000 not £1,000,000. And, it was not a donation from the newspaper but moreover, the paper was just coordinating the pledges from rich (and gullible) benefactors. I think that News Corporation has a lot more on its plate right now than to be wondering about the Madeleine McCann reward!

  40. 40
    Super Sleuth Says:


    1. Forget the plods at Scotland Yard they will get interfered with just like the original case, remember we are dealing with Free Masons here.

    2. The reward money would never have been paid as I beleive found alive was part of the requirements to claim.

    3. The so called latest private detectives are leading the plods at Scotland Yard a merry dance, with the latest id of who ever is todays photo fit at which ever the flavour of the months location it happens to be in.

    Site Admin: The NOTW reward was just a piece of propaganda. From a psychological perspective, a lot of people seeing a reward published in a prominent newspaper will believe that Madeleine is still alive and well. Most view a reward like a ransom note. It was nothing more than spin.

  41. 41
    monteChristo Says:

    I’ve been reading ‘Madeleine’ for the last few days. I didn’t want to give the McCanns money but I also needed to find out what happened. And that is exactly what the book has helped me to do – but not in the inept way that Kate thinks.

    The strongest impressions I get from this book are:

    1) A woman desperately trying to ‘contain’ the information that she and Gerry don’t have control over. That’s always the problem faced by someone trying (as Amaral noted from the earliest moments of the investigation) to convince everyone of the ‘abduction story’. This book is clumsy the way it tries to address and dispose of information that messes up their view of the world.

    2) Her complete lack of responsibility. There’s a pervasive sense that everything is everyone else’s fault, all the time. At worst, she and Gerry are guilty of giving an abductor an opportunity – but the real fault lies with the abductor.

    3) Her obsession with paedophiles and Madeleine’s surface ‘beauty’. I agree with others here that the ‘ripped genitals’ reference feels like a strong ‘tell’. There are many other ‘tells’ like this – including (not related to paedophilia) where she casually mentions worrying about the possibility of one of their children ‘falling off something and hitting their head’.

    4) Her absolute rage and hatred of US, the ‘anonymous’ bunch of perverted, faceless cowardly internet hate-mongers. Actually, her hatred of anyone who questions her account of things.

    There is so much more besides about this book. I found myself turning page corners as markers on practically every page; pencilling notes and underlining passages with clusters of exclamation marks. I got the strong feeling that it was a kind of ‘suicide’ she was committing by providing people like us with the information we need to ‘triangulate’ what’s really been going on.

    A couple of specific things that struck me as utterly revealing / significant – which I’m surprised not to have seen picked up on:

    A) The way that Kate accounts for Gerry witholding information about Jane Tanner’s 9.15pm ‘sighting’ of the supposed abductor. This is an incredible situation: according to Kate, Gerry has received from JT the single MOST important piece of information possible in this situation (that a man was seen probably carrying your daughter away from your apartment) and yet decides not to tell his wife this until something like 7am the following morning? The ONLY ONE piece of information a mother whose child has been abducted would care about – and, according to her, Gerry AND the rest of the Tapas 7 decide (agree?) to withhold it from her to spare her feelings??? In the book, she reports this withholding of this piece of information without comment – other than to say how relieved she was that the information at least proved to her that Madeleine had been abducted. This shows me that what she’s really MOST concerned about at this moment isn’t finding Madeleine (likely dead..) but being believed.

    B) Explaining away the Tapas 7’s refusal to take part in a reconstruction. Having painted herself out as the person MOST desirous of a reconstruction of events in order to help find Madeleine yet frustrated throughout the first year by the inept PJ’s inability to organise such a reconstruction, Kate then has to account for why, when the PJ eventually DID call for one, the Tapas 7 conspired to refuse to attend. She does this with a masterstroke – a single sentence using a piece of jargon that is likely to pass completely undetected (and with no effect) most of her readers. She stages this by first recounting the PJ’s ineptitude in not organising a reconstruction, then by saying that their request to the Tapas 7 (when they came) went from polite to demanding, alerting the Tapas 7 to the possibility that they might come under heavy – and unsympathetic – scrutiny. Look how badly the PJ treated us, Kate says. It’s no surprise then, that the Tapas 7 consulted lawyers to make sure they didn’t get abused in the same way. Then, in a final sentence, she says just this: “In the end there was no quorum and the plan was abandoned.”

    This is the most camouflaged way of saying “the Tapas 7 were too afraid to face a reconstruction that would blow apart their inconsistent version of events so they consulted legal advice and refused to take part.”

    In the last couple of days, I also read Pat Brown’s criminal profile of this case (itself subject to a Carter-Ruck gagging action) and her conclusions are similar to my own.

    There is something about this case that I just can’t put down. No, Kate, I’m not some hateful lowlife scum (I think that’s the language you used in ‘Madeleine’ to describe me and all these other decent, intelligent, outraged people). I’m someone who believes that you are both guilty of whatever happened to Madeleine that night. I hope (strange to say this) that what happened that night was that Madeleine died and didn’t suffer long. What I fear is the possibility that she suffered far more, and for longer, at the hands of sexual predators in this group of friends. I really do hope I’m wrong in that respect.

    Site Admin: Well said!

  42. 42
    Super Sleuth Says:

    Hi Monte Christo

    Well I beleive she was not abducted, have a theory that she died not in 2007 but 2006, and 2007 was the cover up and the money making scam. To much was in place in 2007 the phone numbers for the press/TV etc, the speed of everything being in place the lawyers, the fund, the spin doctors etc

    Add to that the creche records all signed by KM not KH bar 1 not sure even if GM signature is his. (see chapter 23 she only became KM after MMC went missing). Catriona Baker had been working for MW at OC in PDL from June 2006, the flat is not a MW but owned by a Ruth McCann, another McCann called Pauline worked in one of the creches, and appears to share the same accomodation as CB.

    To many McCanns of course they say not related, but was the male in the family related????

    Site Admin: Super Sleuth…when Kate says in her book she became Kate McCann she means that the media called her that after the disappearance became public. It is not very sound sleuthing to take that statement and try to imply that she means her name changed by deed poll or other legal means. Sure there is a money making scam, but likewise, it is unsound to fit other pieces of flimsy evidence to your views that Madeleine was in Portugal in 2006. Coincidences abound every day in life. Just because there were other people called McCann, it does not mean they were related. If you come up with proven evidence that these “McCanns” are all related then even that doesn’t prove anything beyond a familial relationship. Sorry to put the mocker on your theories but I haven’t seen you come up with anything new that we didn’t know back in 2007. So what if they did everything fast. I can create a brand new website from a new domain and have it online in under an hour. It’s the same with a UK Limited Company. Also, what difference does it make whether Catriona Baker was at the Ocean Club in 2006?

  43. 43
    girl88 Says:

    One question that has always stuck in my mind, why enter through unlocked patio doors and leave through a window?? Its vitually impossible to have left through that window in apartment 5a without standing on the bed or leaving some trace evidence on the window sill or frame, unless there there were 2 abductors and one passes madeleine out the window!

  44. 44
    mee44 Says:

    i have just suddenly become much more interested in this case, of course i remember the day i first heard of it back then, but i was far too young and thought it was a missing child and no more, as i got older i heard stories of the possiibility of the parents being involved but i never looked into it any further than what people around me said, have always felt bad when i hear Madeleines name, as anyone would. but the past few days,i dont no why,iv suddenly started looking into it online alot more, its like she just popped into my head the other day and since then i havent stopped reading everything i can find,maybe its from becoming a parent myself,but i never ever imagined there was SO much involved in this, i think anyone, from just a few hours reading up on this can conclude something very sinister is going on, and it has nothing to do with an abduction. i am proof of this as i have just started reading up and already see there is just too much there for it too be an innocent mistake on a parents part by leaving a door unlocked and an oppurtunity arising for an abductor. i feel for some reason that this truth may never fully come out, i pray it does, but it seems there is a whole network of people covering something up, and while it is inevitable that eventually someone will crack there are still too many unanswered q’s and too much covering up done that i imagine only more will be done, and until little Madeleine is physically found, we will not have a definate answer. the entire case is baffling, and heartbreaking, and by the sounds of how sinister it all is i truly do hope that whatever took place leading up to that night, (and this will sound horrible) that it involved Madeleine dying so she was not subjected to anything even more sinister than i would like to think of. i just hope that soemone does crack,and that someone knows enough about what happened to tell where she is so she can be put to rest and the whole world can say their farewells to a little girl whos face i believe will remain in the minds of every single person who was old enough to rememeber the first day they heard about this for the rest of their lives. one thing i would like to ask,as i am abit confused on the matter, what is this about an “oisin” that someone mentioned, and i presume was indicating that Madeleine was a twin??

  45. 45
    mee44 Says:

    one thing just popped into my head but im prob totally wrong here, but what girl 88 said made sense to me, could it be possible that assuming someone Madeleine knew was involved, but to either lessen the risk of the twins being woken, or lessen the risk of the “abductors” dna being in the apt, or for some reason i cant think off, and maybe that Madeleine was awake like she had been the night previously and maybe her parents/friends knew this, or had purposly had her stay awake or something i dont know, but is it possible that someone spoke to madeleine through this window someone she knew,maybe saying to come open the patio door (as it only locks from inside so presumbly you cannot unlock from outside,and i no they said it wasnt locked at all but i dunno this is just a theory) and she does so, being quiet so not to wake her siblings, and it went from would stop the noise of a front door being opened, which means that would only be noticed by possible ear witness’s when they did there “checks” also by the looks of the pics right around the corner is a road, could there not have been a car there, with how long it took kate to go back to the bar and alert people, surely this car could have drivin away unnoticed?i dunno. it just makes no sense to me as to why someone would use a window rather than an unlocked door..?but then again maybe it was all set up,and someone wanted it to seem like an intruder got in the window,but they shot themselves in the foot then with the door ebing unlocked etc.. i just dont know.

  46. 46
    Chris1 Says:

    A lot of discussion is about “who would react like that” and “what would a normal person do”. Hopefully I will never find out what I would do and how I would react but if you are going to use this as an argument you have to consider the alternative. For instance Gerry and Kate never searched for Maddie on the night of her disappearance. Fair enough, sounds wierd. So lets consider the alternative – They know what has happened to Maddie and they are trying to cover it up by pretending she has gone missing. What would they do ? Search like mad !!! Remember they are going to react in the way they would imagine a parent going through that would react. But they dont. Police in this country will always ask you to remain at home in case they return and strongly encourage you not to join the search. Who knows how they felt or what they thought on that night but the more their behaviour differs from the way you would imagine a normal person would react the more it goes against the theory that they really know what happened and are deliberately acting the part of worried parents. Im sure they would act much better than that.

    Not only do people need to imagine how Gerry and Kate would have reacted if they were innocent and knew nothing of her dissapearance but it is equally important (if your going to go down that road) to imagine how they would react if they were guilty and had full knowledge of what really happened. Do this and the holes are much bigger on the side of them being guilty and their innocence becomes a lot more obvious.

    Would a normal loving parent leave their child a few hundred yards away while they had a meal making regular checks ? No. I agree.
    Would a normal loving parent murder their child and dispose of the body ? No. Most definately not. The leave them for a meal option suddenly looks not so unlikely.

    Take for instance the comment “Where they were standing is not crucial” That seems to have angered some people. Understandable. In deciding the guilt or innocence of Gerry McCann we need to examine his story and come to conclusions about how reliable it is. Did he check on the children ? Did he carry Maddie away ? etc etc. This is very crucial in any investigation that may involve Gerry as a potential suspect. HOWEVER, remember this comment is made by KATE. Lets assume for arguments sake. Everything she says is genuine. Two loving parents have lost their child. They don’t know how or why. People ask you which side of a particular road he was on ???? What the hell has that got to do with anything ??? That would be my reaction and its a totally natural reaction for her to have. Why ? because she is not contemplating her own husband as a suspect so the whole aspect of this encounter is totally and utterly irrelevant and not something she ever needs to consider or think about. Its just something that clouds the important facts of WHAT HAPPENED !!

    I read the comments on the patio doors and thought, yes that does sound unlikely. Then I considered myself. I have just been on holiday in a cottage in cornwall. At home I lock my doors every night and double check them. On holiday I dont think I locked any of the doors once. I never even thought about it until reading this article.

    I will finish by saying this. Im a police officer. Im suspicious of motives and open minded on theories. I’ve seen parents do horrific things to their children and I’ve seen parents behave in incredibly surprising ways when under pressure. Trust me. People do not act the way you expect them to act under these circumstances. In my experience the only time people do exactly what you expect them to do in any particualr situation is when they are acting the part and trying to do what you would expect them to do. The more their behaviour varies from the norm, the more believable in my experience. In considering this case please remember the following.
    Put yourselves in their position and consider there reactions, behaviour and motives. When you have done there DONT stop and rest on your findings. You then need to look at the flip side and compare it.

    You may find that a reaction or behaviour is totally unbelievable to you, but hey, thats life. Whats the most likely reaction or behaviour out of the two or three possibles. Thats the real question.

    I haven’t formed an opinion about the guilt or innocence of the McCanns. I’ve only recently started reading up on the facts. My gut feeling will probably be obvious from my comments but I’m open minded. Just please people don’t jump to conclusions too quickly. Truth can be stranger than fiction. In fiction the facts always fit together. In fact they almost never do. Why ? The human factor. The most unreliable part of any police investigation are witnesses. Keep an open mind. Consider the facts, but stay grounded. and ALWAYS consider both sides. Now please read the other posts and articles again with this in mind. Looks different doesn’t it ?

  47. 47
    Helen Says:

    Its quite easy to look into whether the other 2 Mccans are related by marriage or not at all.
    Websites such as or genes reunited.
    Will take a bit of searching through marriage certificates and possibly birth certificates that give mothers maiden names but it can be done.
    I know this as i have spent lots of time tracing my own and other peoples family trees.
    It is very odd to have the Mccann family and 2 other ‘unconnected’ Mccanns working at the complex, its not exactly a common name is it!!!
    I can have a look but would need the place of birth of Gerry and what siblings if any he has to get started… anyone know?
    Then you can rule this one in or out about the other Mccanns.

  48. 48
    cherry&white Says:

    From what I’ve read, the last reliable evidence for Madeline being alive was
    two days’ before the disappearance, when the neighbour in the above flat said
    that she had heard Madeline crying for 75 minutes.

    As an aide, this is yet another example of the Mc’s cruel disregard for their
    children that we ought to bear in mind, even within the context of what is
    likely to be the horrific murder of a young child.

    The Mc’s have taken some trouble to ease us into believing that Madeline was
    still alive on the 3rd of May: at breakfast on the 3rd, K claimed that M had complained
    that she’d been crying the night before; if so, then the neighbour above, whom
    I’d include along with the dogs as one of the few credible witnesses, didn’t
    hear her.

    Kate doesn’t mind volunteering yet another example of her callous neglect of
    her children, and she even provides an emotional context; she’s happy to trade
    this so long as the public picture Madeline sat there at the breakfast table
    on the 3rd. Later in the day, David Payne rolls up just in time to see K wearing
    nothing but a bathrobe. He remembers seeing Madeline but he can’t remember what
    she was wearing. Neither can he recall the colour of whatever K was wearing.

    This is supposed to be the last time that someone other than the Mc’s saw
    Madeline and it does not ring true.

    I’ll go back to my previous point and ask: when was the last date and time
    that we know Madeline was alive?

  49. 49
    kittykat Says:

    After reading Kate’s book the most startling point was that she never mentioned once the mark in Madeleines eye……….surely she would want the world to read over and over again the most distinguishing feature in looking for her daughter?

  50. 50
    Michael Says:

    Did anyone interview the other two kids how old are they now and how old where they then.

Pages: [1] 2 3 » Show All

Leave a Reply

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.


Log in | Designed by Gabfire themes