Thursday, 28 April 2011

Madeleine McCann - The police files video - Updated


Saturday, 23 April 2011

Madeleine McCann - The police report video


Tuesday, 12 April 2011

Madeleine McCann - without Jane Tanner's abductor the house of cards falls.


The question has been asked many times: where is the proof that Madeleine McCann was abducted? Without Jane Tanner's alleged sighting of an alleged abductor, what is there?

The shutters were not 'jemmied,' there was no DNA left by a stranger and the only fingerprints on the window of Madeleine's bedroom belonged to Kate McCann.

Jane Tanner's first description of the person she had seen was of a man carrying a bundle that could have been a child. Her description went through various developments over the course of the next few months, but the first development was following what she referred to as 'a cognitive technique.'

Jane Tanner - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007, 23.15pm

"Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas."

- Quoted in The Sun, 20 November 2007

So, we then had the addition of the pyjamas, which Jane Tanner was able to identify as white or 'light pink,' a colour that would, in my opinion, not be recognisable under sodium street lights.

About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain. ( )

On October 25th, 2007, a sketch of the alleged abductor appeared in the press. This was the most detailed one to date, one which Jane Tanner agreed matched the person she had seen carrying the child, which by this date was definitely Madeleine. Now, I realise that I'm skipping a lot here, but the important detail I'd like to focus on is the actual pyjamas that Madeleine was said to have been wearing when she disappeared on the evening of May 3rd 2007 from the unlocked apartment in Praia da Luz.

So, on October 25th 2007, this was the image of the abductor which was presented. Note the legs of the pyjamas, reaching the ankles, tight around the legs and ankles.


Here is the campaign photo of Kate and Gerry McCann holding a pair of pyjamas, which were said to be identical to those worn by Madeleine when she disappeared.


Note the legs of those pyjamas, the ones that are identical to those reported to have been worn by Madeleine when she disappeared. Would those pyjamas have been tight around the legs and ankles of the child who was wearing them? They're baggy and cropped. It's my opinion that if a child wearing those pyjamas were to be carried in the manner illustrated, the legs of the pyjamas would ride up over the knees. The child's calves would be seen to be bare and if any of the pyjama bottoms was visible, it would be just the frilled parts, peeking over the knees.

What can we conclude from the above?

Jane Tanner's memory was not as good as she thought it had been perhaps. She did see a man carrying Madeleine away from the apartment, but she just didn't quite recall what the pyjamas were like, though she did state that she had seen bare feet and not bare legs.

Still, Jane could have just been a bit hazy in her recall. The person who would know what the pyjamas were like and what they'd look like on a child whom she probably helped into and out of them on quite a few occasions would be Kate McCann. Surely Kate McCann would look at the sketch and realise that it wasn't accurate? Wouldn't she? Wouldn't Kate McCann know and tell us that those pyjamas would not have been seen to be tight around the legs and ankles of a child being carried like that because they were baggy and cropped?

If Kate McCann did not contradict the details shown on the sketch, why not? If she presents an inaccurate image as true, knowing it to be inaccurate, then she is colluding with a lie. Whether that lie is just about the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing or is about anything more sinister, only she and Jane Tanner and a few others may know. We do know that Kate McCann is lying about the accuracy of the sketch, simply by her actions.


(* Still is from the video posted below)

It would seem that the sketch is not an accurate representation of the way Madeleine was said to have been clothed when she was abducted. So, why does Kate McCann have what appears to be the original of the sketch next to her computer? Why isn't Kate McCann pointing out the inaccuracies? Why isn't she saying that if Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child in pyjamas like that it wasn't Madeleine? By accepting that sketch and using it in her campaign, she is colluding with the inaccuracy of it and, in my opinion, lying by omission.


Perhaps because that sketch is all she's got to back up a story about an abductor having taken her daughter. And if that is false, then what is left? Nothing. The house of cards built on Jane Tanner's alleged sighting of an abductor falls.

* Image is shown at 4.49 on this video.

Monday, 11 April 2011

Spam called Maddie McCann


Spam: spam, spam or trash is an unsolicited communication via email. In general, it's sent in huge numbers for advertising reasons.

Four years after her strange disappearance, a photo of Madeleine McCann may very soon arrive in your email inbox. In any case, that's what an Australian daily newspaper tells us, quoting aunts of the little British girl.

According to Phil and Diane McCann, this will be the case for 80% of internet users world-wide. "
I am asking everyone I know to forward this chain email, because the case is not covered outside the United Kingdom, Ireland and Portugal," says Phil McCann, stressing that the family do not believe that Maddie is still in Portugal.

The objective of this initiative, according to Diane, "
is to highlight the distinction in Madeleine's eye," - information, however, which has already been broadcast world-wide. "The pupil runs into the blue-green iris."

Maddie's disappearance was reported on the night of May 3rd 2007 in Praia da Luz, a very peaceful tourist village in the south of Portugal.

As the fourth anniversary of the disappearance approaches, Maddie's parents, Kate and Gerry, are getting ready to publish a book which tells their version of the case.
Originally planned for release on April 29th, the book, "Madeleine," finally comes out on May 12th, "
to avoid clashing with media coverage of the marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton."

Further reading:

Kate McCann teme ser agredida (In Spanish)

Hunt for Madeleine McCann: the next chapter (In English)

Duarte Levy

SOS Madeleine McCann 10/04/11

Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry are 'negligible parents,' who were dining in the restaurant next door!

It's that perennial problem when there's been some kind of serious problem in the family. "What shall we tell the children?"

So, what have Kate and Gerry McCann told their twin children, Sean and Amelie and what will they tell them as the twins grow old enough to ask serious questions and perhaps find information for themselves on the internet?

Well, Aunty Phil, what have Sean and Amelie been told has happened?

Philomena McCann, in response to the question, "Sean and Amelie, what have they been told has happened?"

'No, they haven't been told. Eh, they ask about Madeleine, they ask quite regularly, but Gerry and Kate have not told them where she is...'

They have not told the twins where Madeleine is? What?!! Does that mean that Gerry and Kate know where she is?

Quick correction by Aunty Phil!

'Well, we don't know where she is, but they haven't actually said, eh, that she's missing. They think that maybe she's with...'

They? Which
they? The twins or Kate and Gerry? Whoever they are, who is it that they think Madeleine is with? And why should they think Madeleine is with that person/persons?

Quick change of course here for Aunty Phil. Bet she wishes her niece had disappeared in the pre-internet days when interviews were paraphrased by reporters and it was easy to deny having said something! But woops! It was out of her mouth and recorded! Who thought Madeleine was with the unnamed person/people? Kate and Gerry? Who would they think Madeleine was with? The twins thought that? Maybe they assumed or were told that Madeleine was with her grandmother in Scotland or were just allowed to think that?

And so Philomena carries on, waffling away to try to cover up, in my opinion, that she's just said that and the rest of what she burbles on about is not an answer to the question and it's really apropos of nothing.

No, (No what? What was she saying 'no,' to?) because we have a large family and they appear regularly (They 'appear,' like Frankie Howard might say, 'Just like that!'? The members of this large family just 'appear,' and Madeleine just disappears into thin air! for their next trick!) out in Portugal or when they were down in Leicester. (Which they?) So, they're kinda used to the kids being taken away for a day or their..(Suspended sentence here? Their what? Or their who? Doing what?) And you know, kids at two don't realise how long a period of time is. You know, it's different. They know they're not seeing Madeleine (It would be pretty strange if they didn't know they weren't seeing her!) They'll ask and then they're away playing again.

Well, I think that was not very helpful for Kate and Gerry, Aunty Phil! You've given the impression that Kate and Gerry know where Madeleine is and that they or the twins think they know who she is with. Not helpful at all!

And oh dear! Here's one you made earlier!

'The childcare facilities, you're leaving people (the children?) with other folk that you don't know. (Well, actually, it was the nannies who ran the daytime creche who did the evening child care!) Gerry and Kate are in a clear line of sight of their kids (No, they could see the top of the balcony. So, unless the kids or an abductor walked out on very tall stilts, no hope of seeing anyone coming or going!) They regularly go across to check maybe if the kids have been disturbed, or crying or anything or if they'd come out the front they'd have seen them. (Right!)
It is obvious that someone with malicious intent went through that window (Skinny Malinky?) and took Madeleine from the safety and security of her family. (She was in an unlocked apartment and her 'family,' couldn't even see any of the doors. Safety and security? So, how were they keeping her safe and secure?)'

Here it comes folks!

'To suggest in any possible way that Kate and Gerry are negligible par...negligent pair....negligent parents...'

I'll stop there! The rest is just more damage limitation waffle!

So, what will Kate and Gerry tell the twins when Sean and Amelie start asking those very awkward questions, like, 'Where were you when our sister disappeared?'

Mr McCann said: ‘Sean talks all the time about finding Maddie and what he will do to the person who stole her.

‘They know they went to sleep and when they woke up she had disappeared. But they still don’t understand that somebody took her.

‘When they become aware of this I think they will want to know where we were. And we will have to explain to them that we were having dinner in the restaurant next door.’( Daily Mail May 2nd 2010)

Now look, Kate and Gerry, I wouldn't try telling the twins that because they'll find out for themselves when they can browse the internet that the 'restaurant next door,' was 120 yards away, down a public road, through a reception area into the secure (ha!) resort, and round the swimming pool. I guess your excuse could be that you just didn't say what it was next door to! 'Well, it was 'next door to' the swimming pool. Silly me,' says Gerry, 'shoulda said that!'

Sean and Amelie move into the junior section of their school this year. And they're going to be mixing with children up to the age of eleven, some of whom will have heard people discussing Madeleine's disappearance or found information for themselves on the internet and kids cannot always be relied on to keep their mouths shut! So, what will Kate and Gerry tell Sean and Amelie when they come home asking questions, perhaps in the not-too-distant future? Those school kids will come out with some not very helpful things. I imagine the response might be that it's just those 'internet nutters.' There's a lot of us nutters around, Kate and Gerry. So, I think you'd better start practising your script for when those questions get asked!

'Why did you hire all those dodgy detective agencies mummy and daddy?'

'What did you spend three million pounds on mummy and daddy?'

'Why didn't you go out looking for Madeleine on the night she disappeared?'

And many more I should think!

It's coming Kate and Gerry. And what will you tell them? What indeed!

Thursday, 7 April 2011

Gonçalo Amaral interview April 4th on W9 with Sidonie Bonnec and Paul Lefèvre.


Sidonie Bonnec

The preview: (This programme was due to have been aired about 2 years ago, but was cancelled)

On Monday April 4th at 8.40pm on W9, through two unpublished documentaries, 'Enquêtes Criminelles' proposes to focus on the strange disappearance, on May 3rd 2007, of little Maddie McCann.

Maddie: the banned investigation.

Gonçalo Amaral, the Portuguese police office who directed the investigation before being thrown off it, is convinced of the parents involvement in the death of their daughter. According to the police officer, the little girl died accidentally in the apartment where the family were spending their holiday. Then the parents made it look like an abduction. For Gonçalo Amaral, the McCann couple lied to the investigators "because they were negligent with their children. They went to dinner leaving them alone. Such behaviour is reprehensible. They then set up the kidnapping story." Gonçalo Amaral returned to the scene of the drama. Before our cameras, he reconstructed, minute by minute, everything that happened on the day of the disappearance and put forward the contradictions from the various witnesses. You will see exclusive images recorded by the Portuguese police, which notably show the reaction of the police dogs as they went through Maddie's parents' apartment.

The parents' argument

In spite of Gonçalo Amaral's statements and the archiving of the investigation, Gerry and Kate McCann still believe that their daughter is alive. A few weeks ago, they published an age-advanced image of their daughter in the hope of finding her. Moreover, they have engaged two detectives who continue the investigation. The two men went back to the scene in Praia da Luz to produce a filmed reconstruction of the day of the drama. They found new witnesses who stated that they had seen a man hanging about near the McCanns' holiday apartment, several days before Maddie's disappearance. For them, that leaves no doubt: the man is the abductor. Following the detectives' investigation, you will see how, two years after the events, the McCanns are trying to live in their home near Leicester, in the English midlands, with their twin children.

What follows is a translation of a transcription of the programme which aired on the evening of Monday April 4th. Bonnec and Lefèvre present, 'Enquetes Criminelles' on French TV Channel W9.

The documentary produced with Gonçalo Amaral, based on his book, 'A verdade da Mentira,' (The Truth of the Lie) was shown first, followed by the interview with Gonçalo Amaral. Then came a video entitled, 'The parents' argument,' which is no longer available on the W9 web site, but from the transcript it seems to be part of the programme made for Channel 4, otherwise known as 'the mockumentary.'

This is Part 1 of the Amaral documentary, the rest of which I shall post at the end of this transcript.

Start of the broadcast. Sylvie Bonnec recalls the circumstances of May 3rd and how G Amaral was thrown off the investigation but remains convinced that sooner or later the truth will see the light of day (images from the documentary) She introduces Paul Lefèvre, a legal journalist. She recalls that 4 years later, the parents were exonerated after having been suspected. She presents surprising images recorded by the police. Kate’s appeal to the abductors is shown from start to finish and then a voiceover says that the official conclusion of the investigation states that the little girl had been abducted while she slept. SB then says that according to Amaral, the little girl died on May 3rd (and that the parents were involved in her disappearance), a version that many would like to see quashed.

She leads into the two documentaries, stating that they are unpublished in France: Amaral’s and the McCanns’ (with no further clarification as to their provenance) If I heard the phrase “4 years after,” correctly, it may be that the programme has been partly remade and the old footage added. It’s quite confusing.

Amaral footage: female voice commentating in French, apparently faithful in translation and intonation.
Return to the set with Amaral. Interview. (rough transcription from what I can remember, but there are certainly gaps) Transcription by frencheuropean.

L: You were taken off the investigation. Why does it bother you?

A: Before replying, I’d like to clarify one point. The parents were not innocent. That’s wrong. The case was closed, the parents could have opposed it but they preferred to use private detectives. It’s wrong to say that they were innocent.
It bothers me because I am telling the truth. The book represents 5 months of the investigation: the theory from the investigation. It’s the conclusion of the process in September 2007. Afterward, only one theory was retained, that of kidnapping. Other people were asked to keep quiet (myself and others)

L: I have experience of police investigations and sometimes the police have convictions and want to fit everything into that conviction. That’s the feeling I have here. No other theory seems to interest you.

A: That’s wrong. There is a beginning, a middle and an end to an investigation. The book ends in the middle of the investigation. At one time it was leaning towards kidnapping. But an investigation needs to run its course. Well, the investigation was prevented from concluding. The book is police work that some would like to be kept hidden.

B: I don’t understand why you attach so much importance to the fact that Kate did not shout from the balcony, took the long way round rather than the shorter route to warn the tapas, bearing in mind the dark night and the cold.

L: It’s a minor point but specialists say that the first reaction is to protect the remaining children. Kate left them alone (in these circumstances)

B: Why not have taken the little girl to the hospital (in the case of an accident)?

A: The investigation was half-way through. We were just beginning to see things. It should have run its course. There were perhaps other theories: a burglar who could have killed the child and taken her body elsewhere, for example….other tracks. (Note: the reply does no really relate to the question. There is a cut in the interview?)

L: OK, you say that the police officer who followed you gave up, lay down and that there was political pressure.

A: Your interpretation is correct.

L: (Explains the different roles of the two dogs) What were the English dogs looking for, a living or a dead person?

A: They were looking for a body.

L: You say the child was killed falling from the sofa. Can a child really be killed falling 60 centimetres?

A: It’s possible.

B: What more could you have done?

A: Look for the freezer, who had one. At that time I was dismissed and nobody looked in that direction.

L: How could the parents have got rid of a body? They were under constant surveillance that evening.

A: We should bear in mind that the police were informed well after the alert was raised. The alert doesn’t coincide with the “kidnapping,” any more than the witness statement from Tanner who says she saw the kidnapper at 9.30pm and didn’t alert the police. Why? In reality, when the parents gave the alert, all worries about transport (of the body) were taken care of.

McCanns’s documentary. Return to the set.

L: 3 witnesses (those who saw a man watching the apartment) were heard by their detectives: did you rule out these witness statements or did you miss this?

A: Everybody near that busy road was interrogated. The police interrogated all the witnesses, even a musician who was sleeping in his car.

L: Did you find that man?

A: It was D Payne, the McCanns’ friend who was often with them and the witness statement of the young girl was not reckoned to be of any value. (Note: the one who saw the horrible spotty man, I assume)
Concerning the man carrying the child seen by Tanner: there is a huge problem. J Tanner produced a lot of discrepancies, going from great uncertainty at the beginning through certainty with the progression of successive statements.
The Smiths were 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann…The film (the McCanns’) speaks of two witnesses (with similar statements) but Smith talks about the child carried with her head on the shoulder and Tanner across the arms.

L: You are a well-known man in Portugal, a man of experience. Do you really think that this nice, middle-class English couple, are calculating and Machiavellian enough to have done this?

A: It’s not the problem posed by an individual who believes something. It’s a police investigation, within the context of police work
Someone goes on holiday in a foreign country and thinks the laws are the same. Concerning the law, in England abandoning children is severely punished…

L: (cutting Amaral off by bursting out laughing) Everybody does it!

A: (Raising his voice, sounding angry) Yes, it’s abandonment to leave children on their own like that….it’s non-punishable negligence in Portugal. In England it’s punishable and the tapas know it.

L: Is that why they concealed the body?

A. There could be other reasons: so that the state of the body would not be known. But there wasn’t time to explore the theories. Perhaps if the investigation had been completed they’d all have been done?

End of the interviews. S. Bonnec concludes by saying:

Maddie’s parents did not wish to come and have their say.”

Friday, 1 April 2011

On Monday this week, Kate McCann was having an 'emotional battle' finishing her book about Madeleine.


And today, we read in the very same newspaper, the Daily Express:

Kate’s 384-page memoir, Madeleine, is being published on the missing girl’s birthday on May 12 and has been translated into several languages, including Portuguese and Spanish.

So, on Monday March 28th the book wasn't finished and by Friday April 1st, the book has been translated into several languages? Bear in mind that the Express article was featured on the Sky News web site before midnight on March 31st and available to read online after midnight. So, the book had been translated by Thursday, just three days after Kate McCann was struggling with her 'emotional battle' to finish it. Now, I may be just one of those internet nutters, who are still not convinced that Madeleine McCann was abducted from her bedroom in apartment 5A in Praia da Luz, but I really don't believe the publishing industry works like that or as fast as that.

The family’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Kate is writing the book to raise awareness of her daughter’s disappearance and to pay private investigators to continue the search to find her.

If there is anyone in the developed world who has never heard of Madeleine McCann and needs to have their awareness raised after nearly 4 years of the McCanns seeking every possible opportunity to keep themselves and Madeleine's name in the media, then that person has been in a coma or lost somewhere in one of the few places in the world where the internet has not spread its web.

And those private investigators, where have any of them looked? There was Metodo 3, who had no previous experience of finding missing people, Kevin Halligen, now fighting extradition to the USA on charges of fraud and money laundering, and Edgar and Cowley, working from their office in Knutsford. Have they checked out those 'hellish lairs,' just a few kilometres from Praia da Luz? Have they interviewed that ex nightclub bouncer, who claims to know for certain that Madeleine was abducted by an international paedophile ring and taken to the USA?

Kate, and her husband Gerry hope the book will be read by Madeleine’s abductors and even by their daughter, who will turn eight next month.

So, are they trying to tell us that they think the international paedophile ring that abducted Madeleine will have taught her to read? And if Madeleine had been abducted by a bunch of paedos, who for some reason have not responded so far to all the media hoop-la, those abductors will buy a copy of the book, have a good cry, and take Madeleine back home? 'Oh we have been such naughty paedos. Here she is and we have made sure she has not missed out on education or been harmed in any way.' Remind me of the date today, someone. It is April 1st, isn't it?

A friend said: “Kate is hoping the book will keep the search going for another year.”

So, not expecting Madeleine to be found in the near future then? The McCanns think it may take more than a year for the abductors to feel really bad or for that 'someone who knows something,' to have an attack of conscience? Who's the fool today? The Express for printing this carp or anyone who believes it? Both probably!

'Family warns kidnappers.'? Warns them about what?

A friend said last night: “The book is another warning from the family that they will never stop searching for their beloved daughter. Whoever snatched Madeleine should be warned that the book will only bolster the search efforts.”

They will never stop searching? I didn't know they'd started. Paedos and residents of 'lawless villages,' beware! A horde of people armed with copies of Kate McCann's book will be descending on you, to beat you about the head with the 384 page hardback. I'm sure they're all quivering!

They also hope “whoever may be with her is treating her with the love and respect she so deserves”.

Right! So, the McCanns will be hoping that those kindly abductors are not leaving her on her own to go down the pub, then?

Kate has recently accused the Government of giving up the hunt for her daughter, saying a series of ministers had shrugged off her pleas for help.

She said: “We need action, not fluffy, worthless words.”

Action? Kate McCann wants action? Well, she could take action herself. She could go back to Portugal and answer the 48 questions she refused to answer, knowing that her refusal could hinder the investigation into her daughter's disappearance. She could also insist that a reconstruction of the events of the evening of May 3rd 2007 is carried out. If she is expecting us to believe that after nearly 4 years, her book could jog someone's memory about Madeleine's disappearance, then a visual re-enactment of the events, as outlined in the witness statements given at the time, would surely be a very helpful compliment to the book.

'Not fluffy words,' words, Kate, but I have my doubts that your 'account of the truth,' will be anything more than that, unless you will be explaining all the contradictions and discrepancies in witness statements from you, your husband and your seven holiday friends, and how your daughter managed to disappear into thin air with absolutely no trace of any stranger having entered the apartment and no credible sighting since then.

But hey ho! You hadn't finished the book on Monday and by Thursday it had been translated into several languages. Who am I to question this? I'm just an internet nutter of a blogger!