16 April 2010

Looking back at the McCann Case - A Duty of Care: Criminal Negligence, Bad Parenting or Just Naïve?

A Duty of Care: Criminal Negligence, Bad Parenting or Just Naïve?
Editorial by Dr WG McCarney OBE JP

When investigating the injury or death of a child who has been left unattended prosecutors in the US focus on the nature of the risk taken by the parent, and the nature of the result.

In such cases, the words “foreseeable” and “preventable” are often invoked in debate.

It was around 2pm on July 3, 2007. 18-year-old Jovanna Shiriver was home alone in a third-floor apartment on Classon Avenue in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn with two children for the first time. She was bathing her daughter, 11-month-old Smeily Ordoñez, and her boyfriend’s 2-year-old sister. The 2-year-old’s mother was in hospital. Ms. Shiriver was feeling overwhelmed trying to do everything – mind the children, cook and do housework.

The children were standing in what Ms. Shiriver described as low water when she became distracted by the smell of the rice burning. She went to the kitchen, down the hall from the bathroom to stir the rice. She said she left the children alone for five minutes. When she returned Smeily was lying on her back. The water just barely covered her face. She snatched the baby and ran to a bedroom, trying to revive her. The apartment had no telephone so she then ran with Smeily to her neighbour upstairs. When her neighbour failed to revive the baby they called the police at 2:02pm.

The baby was rushed to the nearest hospital where she was placed on life support. She was later transferred to another hospital which specialises in medical and physical rehabilitation.

Detectives spoke with Ms. Shiriver about what had happened, arrested her and brought her to the Rose M. Singer Centre, a jail for women on Rikers Island. Ms Shiriver’s moments at the stove constituted a criminal act, the prosecutor said. She was indicted on two counts of endangering the welfare of a child, a Class D felony, and two counts of reckless endangerment. She has been in prison since the day of the accident. A law-enforcement official said Ms. Shiriver could face additional charges if the baby dies.

Ama Dwimoh, chief of the Crimes Against Children Bureau of the Brooklyn district attorney’s office said that people have to understand that there is a duty owed to children by the very nature of who they are. To her mind Ms. Shiriver’s action was criminal negligence as opposed to bad parenting. When investigating the injury or death of a child who has been left unattended prosecutors focus on the nature of the risk taken by the parent, and the nature of the result. In such cases, the words “foreseeable” and “preventable” are often invoked in debate.

State law gives a guideline for distinguishing between criminal negligence and flighty parenting. Was the risk of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe? In practical terms, that leads to a series of questions: Does the family have a case history with child welfare agencies? How old was the child? Where was the child left? How many children were left together unattended?

Sitting beside a swimming pool in the Algarve on the evening of May 3 Gerry and Kate McCann were enjoying themselves. The tapas bar of the Mark Warner holiday resort in Praia da Luz was buzzing with holidaymakers and it was quiz night.

The McCanns were favourites to win the contest organised by the resort’s aerobics teacher Najova Chekaya. After all, the two doctors had brains on their side. Around their table were seven friends from England, three of them also doctors and one a top medical research fellow.

 1 jar of Sangria quiz show + 1, 6 white wine, 10 red wine + 1

The group of nine were holidaying in Portugal and wanted to have a good time. As one of the doctors, Matthew Oldfield, was to recall: “We drank. So what! We were on holiday.”

50 yards away on the other side of the swimming pool, the group’s children were sleeping alone. In the bedroom of one ground floor apartment was Madeleine, the McCann’s three-year-old daughter. Her twin brother and sister, Sean and Amelie, aged two, lay in cots either side of her. They had been tucked up at 7pm. Half an hour later the McCanns had joined their friends for dinner at the tapas bar.

Gerry and Kate McCann and their friends are like-minded people, with children of similar ages. And they knew each other in the Midlands. Mr McCann is a consultant cardiologist at a Leicester’s Glenfield Hospital and his wife is a GP. Both are aged 39.

Until recently Dr Oldfield worked at Leicester general hospital. David Payne is a senior research fellow in cardiovascular sciences at Leicester University and his wife, Fiona, is a doctor. Another of the holidaymakers, Dr Russell O’Brien, also worked at Leicester University before moving this summer. Recently they all went to Mark Warner’s in Greece where they had decided to leave their children to sleep while they had dinner nearby.

The McCanns reported that, in Praia da Luz, they were dining just 50 yards from the apartment. However, Madeleine’s bedroom was situated next to the apartment’s front door which is around the corner and a further 30 yards on, next to a road into the resort and a busy car park. The bedroom, and the front door to the apartment, is completely out of the sight of the tapas bar.

The McCanns insist that the children were being checked regularly and their friends support this. However the Portuguese police are concerned about discrepancies in the witness statements. Their stories and the timings of their movements on the night do not tally. Furthermore, emails and phone messages sent between the group - and intercepted by the PolÌcia Judiciaria and British detectives helping the inquiry - are reported to contain conversations that contradict earlier statements.

Mr McCann said he checked on his three children at 9.05pm. He noticed that a door in the apartment which had been left shut was ajar. He thought nothing of it. His daughter was fast asleep so he went back to the tapas bar.

Another of the group, Jane Tanner, says she took her turn 10 minutes later. She claimed later to police that she saw a dark-haired man of about 35 carrying a child as she walked back to the bar afterwards but thought nothing of it.

Soon after her return - at 9.45pm - Dr Oldfield did his round of the bedrooms. In a first statement to police, it is unclear if he actually went inside the McCann flat.

It appears that in many of the checks the children were not visible, but involved listening at doors or even outside the apartments.

In a second statement Dr Oldfield insisted he did look in Madeleine’s bedroom, believes he saw her there, and that there was light coming in through the windows as though the heavy shutters had been opened. Again, he thought little of it until afterwards. Then it was Mrs McCann’s turn. She went to the apartment at 10.00 pm and found Madeleine gone.


What is now perturbing Portuguese police is how could she be abducted when the McCann group were checking so often? Or have reports inadvertently exaggerated how vigilant the parents really were?

A worker at the tapas bar says that only a tall man, believed to be Russell O’Brien, got up from the table during the entire evening. Of course, this witness might be wrong. A busy barman could not have eyes on the McCann party for two and a half hours.

Najova Chekaya, who was running the quiz, was invited over to the McCann table by Mr McCann himself when the game ended at 9.30. She stayed for half an hour. She later claimed to friends that nobody left the table.

There is another conundrum too. It concerns the sighting by Jane Tanner of the man carrying a child. He was wearing beige trousers and smart black shoes. Her report is taken seriously by police. Yet a British holidaymaker, Jeremy Wilkins, has given a deposition that does not support her evidence. He knew Mr McCann because he played tennis with him, and was walking his eight-month-old son in the night air when the drama unfolded. He says that he met Mr McCann, who had come out of his apartment at 9.05pm , and had a word with him. Soon after that Jane Tanner would have crossed paths with Mr Wilkins and his baby. Mr Wilkins says he saw no man carrying a child or Jane Tanner herself. In his statement he said that it was a very narrow path and that it would have been almost impossible for anyone to walk by without him noticing.

Local newspapers and television have criticised the McCann group, who left their children alone for two and a half hours as they wined and dined. One question being asked is why didn’t the parents put their children in the evening crèche which is open until 11.30pm ? Why didn’t they hire a babysitter, bookable at the Mark Warner reception desk?

On July 23 Gerry McCann was grilled by American TV networks on this very point.

Speaking on ABC’s Good Morning America, the heart consultant said: “We didn’t think we needed a babysitter. We are good parents and what we did felt perfectly reasonable at the time. Clearly we couldn’t have predicted what was to happen.”

It seems unlikely that Ama Dwimoh, chief of the Crimes Against Children Bureau of the Brooklyn district attorney’s office would agree. As noted above, New York State law gives a guideline for distinguishing between criminal negligence and flighty parenting. Was the risk of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe?

The outpouring of support which followed news of Madeleine’s disappearance is itself a cause for concern. Was this the reaction of parents who would do as the McCanns had done – leave their children home alone while they go out to dine – and who were now feeling “there but for the grace of God go I”?

A well known spokesperson for a parents’ group in Northern Ireland said on a local TV news bulletin that what the McCanns did was perfectly reasonable.

Gerry McCann was quizzed on American TV about the possibility he and his wife Kate could be prosecuted for leaving Madeleine and two year old twins Sean and Amelie alone in the apartment that night.

He told CNN: “We have been assured by the authorities that what we did fell well within the boundaries of good parenting. We have been advised our behaviour was legally well within the bounds of responsible parenting and have been assured no action will be taken. We were essentially performing our own baby-listening service. What Kate and I did was at worst naïve”.

The Crown Prosecution Service has already dismissed claims that the McCanns, from Rothley, Leics, could be prosecuted for neglecting Madeleine. One can only wonder whether the response would have been the same had Madeleine been the daughter of an 18-year-old single mum from one of our minority groups.

Gerry McCann says he is convinced that the high-profile campaign to find his daughter Madeleine could also help other missing children. While the tragic episode has captured the hearts of the British public in an unprecedented fashion, the blanket media coverage has so far not helped to find the youngster and some argue it may even have hindered it.

The scale of the interest shows that people do care and that they want to help, but all the attention focused on this one incident has glossed over a much more widespread problem. Of course every effort should be made to find Madeleine, but the massive amount of help and money that the search has had will no doubt seem unfair to a certain section of society – the families and friends of other missing people.

An estimated 210,000 people are reported missing in the UK each year and about two-thirds of those are under the age of 18. This means that there are thousands of parents who have gone through or are going through the same ordeal as the McCann’s without being afforded the same hope that the mass media attention brings.

Paul Tuohy, chief executive of the charity Missing People, (formerly called the National Missing Persons Helpline), says the charity offers support to around 2,000 families each year and that 10 missing people are located every week directly as a result of their work.

People go missing for a variety of reasons. Some people go missing for just 24 hours, while others are away for years. Some of them are found, while others are never seen again. When someone goes missing, the effect it has on their family or loved ones can be devastating. They can be left feeling angry, depressed, bewildered and often with a sense of bereavement.

 McCanns, 12 May 2007 - Madeleine's Birthday, Praia da Luz Church, Portugal

The grief that the McCanns are living through very publicly in Portugal is replicated behind closed doors all over the country. While the publicity surrounding Madeleine’s disappearance has not yet resulted in finding her, perhaps some good will come out of it, as it has raised awareness of the widespread issue of missing people and missing children in particular.

The problem of missing children is complex and multifaceted. There are different types of missing children, including family abductions, endangered runaways, non-family abductions, and lost, injured, or otherwise missing children (including disappeared un-accompanied minors seeking asylum). The media is very good at bringing attention to certain types of missing children cases, such as Madeleine’s, but others go by almost unreported.

To combat the inequality, Missing People hoped that as many people as possible would acknowledge International Missing Children’s Day on May 25. The aim was to encourage the population to think about all the children still missing in Europe and around the world and to spread a message of hope and solidarity at international level to parents who have no news about their children and do not know where they are or what has become of them. The day passed largely unnoticed.

The (US) National and International Centres for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC and ICMEC) were established in 1984 and 1998 respectively after six-year-old Adam Walsh was murdered after being snatched from a department store in Florida in 1981.

The case led to a major review of child abduction cases in the US and legislation passed last year - the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act - was named in his honour. The Act significantly strengthens America’s nationwide sex offender registration system and introduces harsher penalties for child sex offenders.

In October 2005 I was invited as a “European Expert” to participate in a US / EU summit organised by the International Center for Missing & Exploited Children in collaboration with Child Focus -the European Centre for Missing and Sexually Exploited Children. The event was entitled “Missing and Exploited Children: The Past, The Present and The Future” and aimed at developing a strategy for moving forward to strengthen our common fight against this phenomena. The summit was held in Buonas, Switzerland on 25-27 October 2005. While questioning my right to be called an “expert” I agreed to attend and to participate in the debates. I was very impressed by Adam Walsh’s father who addressed the summit. I spoke at length with Ernie Allen, President and CEO of ICMEC and was impressed by the work being done by both.

Last June, Madeleine’s parents sought the assistance of the ICMEC to create an international resource that would quickly disseminate pictures of missing children throughout the world. Gerry McCann recently visited the headquarters of NCMEC and ICMEC in Virginia where he discussed the need for disseminating information and images of missing children on a broader, global basis.

On August 10, ICMEC, in partnership with Google’s YouTube, and The Find Madeleine Campaign announced the creation of a new initiative that will provide worldwide exposure to information and videos of missing children. A new YouTube Missing Children’s Channel has been created exclusively for posting videos of missing children. The new channel can be found at:

www.youtube.com/DontYouForgetAboutMe

In launching the initiative Ernie Allen noted that hundreds of thousands of children go missing around the world every year. Some are abducted to other countries, creating unique challenges for law enforcement and family members searching for them. In the US alone, nearly 800,000 children are missing each year or about 2,000 each day. Photos remain the single most effective tool for finding a missing child. This new resource will provide unprecedented exposure for missing children, reaching potentially millions of viewers every day and increasing the opportunity that someone has seen them.

In the UK Missing People and similar organisations are clearly doing what they can. But they can’t do it all on their own. The public and media have a very important part to play. Not every child that goes missing does so in such dramatic circumstances as Madeleine McCann, but the strain on the families and friends is just as much. Madeleine is obviously a very young missing person and that could explain the level of interest, but what the public and media must learn to do is share their attention, sympathy and efforts to help across the board. They need to spread their level of interest across all missing persons’ cases, not just focus on the high profile ones.

Academic report published in September 2007 in the Northern Ireland Lay Magistrate Magazine by the Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates Association Company Secretary Dr Willie McCarney, OBE, JP

Related

Are Madeleine McCann's Parents Guilty Of Neglect? (And Is This Really The Biggest News Story In Britain?)

Woman in court over discovery of baby’s body

One Neglected British child dies every week


Understanding neglect

British couple facing child abandonment charges after boy found alone by Tenerife beach

The children failed by social services

Why Baby P was doomed to die

In figures: British child neglect

Madeleine McCann saga reflects our society

[Dr McCarney has been a Lay Magistrate (a part-time, voluntary role) in Northern Ireland for the past 29 years. He sits in the Youth Court dealing with young offenders aged 10 to 17 and in the Family Proceedings Court dealing with children in need of care and protection aged 0 to 17.

Dr McCarney is a Justice of the Peace for the City of Belfast.

He is a psychologist who taught for 13 years in Secondary Schools in Northern Ireland where he concentrated on working with disaffected, underachieving, boys aged 11-18 years old. He then moved to St Mary’s College, a Department of the Queens University of Belfast, which concentrates on teacher training. He lectured there for 21 years and his task was to show future teachers how informal teaching methods could help disaffected young people, preventing them from dropping out of school and keep them from getting on the wrong side of the law.

Dr McCarney has edited a number of books and is author of numerous articles on youth justice and child welfare. He is Editor of the Northern Ireland Youth and Family Courts Association’s ‘Lay Panel Magazine’ and Editor-in-Chief of the Chronicle – the magazine of the International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates.

Dr McCarney is a past Chairman of the Northern Ireland Youth and Family Courts Association and a past Chairman of the British Juvenile and Family Courts Society (now renamed Children Law UK). He was elected President of the International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates at their Congress in Melbourne, Australia, in October 2002 and will serve until the next Congress in 2006.]

168 comments:

  1. Her twin brother and sister, Sean and Amelie, aged two, lay in cots either side of her. They had been tucked up at 7pm. Half an hour later the McCanns had joined their friends for dinner at the tapas bar.

    xxxxxx

    On the morning Wed 2nd the cleaner in her statement noticed ONE cot in the parents room and ONE cot in the room where Madeleine slept. The bed pushed against the wall was messy as was the cot. The bed just inside the entrance to the room was neat and tidy. This is the bed Madeleine was alleged to have been abducted from. An unused bed.

    I still believe neglect was simulated to prove abduction. In all their statements they mention one was sick each night. Yet in the day no one was sick and they enjoyed their holiday. The one who was 'sick' stayed with the children. What ever happened to Madeleine it had nothing to do with neglect IMHO

    ReplyDelete
  2. The person who wrote this needs to read the Files.

    According to two Tapas workers Gerry McCann was missing from the table from 9.30pm to 10pm.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The editorial article is from September 2007, obviously Dr McCarney at the time wasn't aware of the Maddie McCann case process files, which were only released of judicial secrecy in July 2008 by the Portuguese Public Ministry; either way I thought it was an interesting article to share not only for the experience of the author in child welfare and law, but as well for his views and comparisons at an early moment of the case.

    ReplyDelete
  4. #2 This report was published in September 2007 and parts are lifted directly from newspaper reports - most notably the Daily Mail article about Najoua Chekaya (11 August 2007) that was riddled with errors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is a very interesting article and thank you Joana. Here is also an interesting video. Aunt Phil tells of Kate being asked to confess and the deal she was offered. Kates lawyer spoke publicly that this 'Offer' never happened.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7gZg9jYDDo&feature=youtu.be&a

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with post 1; there was no neglect; The 'neglect' is their alibi.

    Judy

    ReplyDelete
  7. Point taken Joana at 3, but no doubt the person must have heard of the findings of the dogs.

    Perhaps its the Northern Irish connection that is making me think this person is simply an apologist for the McCanns trying to pretend they are something else, and at the same time reinforcing the McCanns' abduction scenario.

    Or is it that I am getting far too wary of people now that Gamble has so obviously shown his true colours? Some people who had high hopes of him have had to wake up. The supporters of the McCanns are everywhere trying to brainwash the public with this constant spin of the abducution of Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I never thought for one second that she'd walked out. I knew someone had been in the apartment because of the way it had been left." (Kate McCann)

    I also agree with Ironside (1) and Judy (6).
    The neglect was their alibi for the abduction scenario.
    From the beginning the McCanns would have nothing to do with other possibilities. Why not?

    M.NL

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with poster #1. I don't believe nine adults (including six doctors and a grandmother) agreed to leave eight children under 4 years old alone in four strange dark apartments, out of sight or earshot. I don't believe they did it for even one night, let alone five!

    One adult was sick or a child sick with an adult in attendace, every night, apart from the day they arrived, when they took the children to dinner with them.

    I believe this was the reason why they were fully lawyered-up from the start - the risk of being charged with neglect was covered. IMO, the 'neglect issue' was a trade-off for something far worse; a necessary smolescreen for what really happened to Maddie.

    No neglect = No abduction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I find Jane Tanners description that the abductor was wearing ‘black shoes’ rather suspicious when recalling a description in fading light but then to make a point that he was wearing black shoes proves she made the whole thing up as she imagines an ‘abductor’ from head to shoes. There are too many discrepancies in this case. I believe Maddie died before the 3rd, the group used the 3rd as their alibi of all being together as other nights they were not all present. On 2nd Kate stayed in the apartment that evening. The sleeping arrangements in their apartment for the family seem strange, beds and cots not slept in etc. The 2nd was the evening Maddie was heard crying by Mrs Fenn for ‘Daddy, Daddy’ which also seems odds because distraught children would normally cry out for both parents, not just the one. I believe the Mccanns brought attention to their negligence in order to push the abduction theory. A group of people consuming all that alcohol, eating dinner, chatting, would not be bothered to keep getting up every 15 minutes or so to check their children, they would have used the babysitting service that Mark Warner offered. I believe they never checked on the children, children were probably all left together every night in one of the apartments, hence the one baby monitor for the entire group. It would not have been acceptable in a group of friends for just one couple to have a monitor the other couples would have looked negligent in the eyes of their friends. This left the other apartments empty for whatever activities this group were involved in but It was important on the 3rd to all be seated together and for Kate to raise the alarm at 10.00pm when it was dusk and getting late, police were probably running a skeleton staff it would not be until the morning when searching would start in earnest. Kate never left the apartment after she raised the alarm she sat on the bed. If her child had genuinely been abducted she would have been frantically tearing the place apart. The pair deleted text messages, went jogging on the beach days after the child disappeared, regularly seen in church not out looking for Maddie and if they were innocent, why tamper with their phones. They were both unhelpful to the investigation. The dogs detected the scent of death in the apartment. The pair was very keen from the on-set to involve the media to enable the abduction theory to be used they courted the media and then when it suited them sued the media. They stated their shutters had been tampered with, which was not the case. Jeremy speaking to Gerry never noticed Jane Tanner yet he should have done, Jane never mentioned anything about ‘bundle man’ until hours after Maddie had first disappeared. Why did Gerry need to speak to the Priest that same night, why couldn’t it wait until morning, he should have been searching for Maddie. The Smiths’ statement that they saw Gerry carrying a bundle walking towards church and beach. Leaving the twins for meeting with Pope. There is so much confusion in this case but the facts are that the Mccanns have lied and lied and they are involved in the concealment of their daughter. I think Maddie suffered dreadfully at the hands of her parents and also Paynes paedophilia behaviour, re; the Gaspars statements. All this is bad enough but then to start a fund is despicable, they have deliberately defrauded the public, sued for thousands of pounds, and attempted to ruin people. This fund is not a charity for missing children it is a limited company, the family are all directors and the purpose of the fund is ‘ to give financial support to Kate and Gerry’ this is their 30 pieces of silver for betraying their daughter. I pray Justice will prevail these people are not human they are monsters and so are their accomplices.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And the silence of thre McCanns is deafening now that there is an election campaign underway.

    It was very revealing when yesterday the Liberal Democrat exposed the lies of the other two party leaders - they quietly vote in different directions to their words in the public arena.

    Lies lies and more lies pour forth from the mouths of our so-called leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  12. A very `safe` article - not really making any impact, but to be expected by someone in his position.

    To begin with I got the impression the article was highlighting and comparing the polarised distortions of justice - one mother doing her best to run a household and family turns her back for 5 mins and walks a yard or so down the corridor to attend to burning rice is seen as a criminal. Comparing her with two doctors who purposely leave their children for hours to go socialising over 50 yards away are not even judged negligent enough to be prosecuted. Good point, but I wish the author had stayed on that track.

    I wish he`d made more of the fact that "there are different types of missing children" by making more of the point that `there are different types of PARENTS of missing children` and that our judicial systems are blinded (or corrupted) by the old boys networks and money.

    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you Joana for all your hard work.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mccanns asking for PJ files is suspicious, at the beginning of this case they wanted holiday makers snaps of PDL to be sent to them - to check for evidence against them and they need to feel they are in control of this investigation - they are very quiet at the moment, probably because their mouthpiece Clarence is busy with his mate Dave in the forthcoming elections, he won't be getting my vote - Mccanns are so guilty this is a white wash but they will all be exposed. Well done Joana and Co all my mates now read your forums JUSTICE FOR MADDIE.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The good people of PDL helped the Mccanns - and look how they have repaid them, these two excuses for parents are corrupt and money grabbing, they feel they are above the law BUT they have lied and defrauded so many people not least of all poor Madeleine this will not go away, even if it takes years we will find the truth of what happened on 3rd May. The night 9 people sold their souls to the devil.God bless you Joana Morais for all your good work.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To Ironside @ 1: As well as the adults, I believe one or more of the children were also ill in the evenings. Do you know if the poorly one(s) still attended creche the next day? It would just seem unlikely to me to send them in, if they'd been genuinely ill the night before, so I am just wondering. Also, if the creche is anything like school, rules might prevent attendance for 48 hours after vomiting etc. to avoid the other children catching any bugs. I would think this would be particularly important for a resort where families have forked out a lot for a holiday; the last thing they want is their kids coming down with anything. Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't see how anyone could say this article is in any way pro McCann or that Dr McCarney is an apologist for them, as he makes it clear his interest is in missing or endangered children in general and in parental responsibility, with reference to the American case and that of Madeleine. He certainly doesn't sound too impressed with the McCanns, both in the matter of their checking system and in their high-profile approach to publicity.

    I imagine he had no intention of turning his attention to the question of what actually happened to Madeleine; given his background and position, I'm sure he had no intention of making any comment on that at all. A very wise man, as events since then have shown, since even the smallest hint of non-belief in the abduction theory would probably have been enough to find himself on the receiving end of a letter from Carter-Ruck.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon 10, 9 & Ironside - Agreed.

    The world has been up in arms about this team of doctors who all left their children unattended - unbelievable that doctors would do such a thing and a grandmother there as well. Well the fact is - they didn`t.

    IMO the children all slept in the Payne`s apartment - it would be the obvious thing to do for all those couples with children. And either one person stays behind each evening to babysit or thats why Diane Webster went along. Diane Webster was supposedly dining with them on the Thursday night and thats why the Paynes had the baby monitor with them. The query is whether Madeleine was kept separate - maybe she was disruptive and kept the others awake, or perhaps still waking occasionally at 2am. Mrs. Fenn supposedly heard Maddie calling for her Dad on the Tuesday night and heard it coming from flat 5A. Its said Kate was in 5A that night because she was upset that Gerry had asked the tasty fitness instructor over to their table. Is that why Maddie was crying for her Dad for so long - because Kate was in the flat but ignoring her.
    Also, there is a nanny`s statement saying that the twins cots were not in the 5a flat when the alarm was raised initially but we see they were there by the time the police arrived.
    This is why they had to make the statement that Maddie said "where were you when Sean and I were crying" to get everyone to think she was sleeping in the same room as the twins. Who knows whether Kate was referring to the Tuesday or the Wednesday night. IMO she died on the Tuesday or Wednesday, the night of the full moon. I believe the kids club registers could have been adjusted.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon 16...No it seems this sickness only took effect in the evening..No children were reported to have missed creche..

    ReplyDelete
  20. http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2010/04/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-ronald.html

    British Press through Mitchell were quick to jump on this...Americas Maddie ..child abducted from her bed...Soon forgotten when police started looking at the family. Haleigh has never been found and by the looks of things they have made sure she never will be.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks Joana,
    Ive just had a light bulb moment regarding this!!!!!!
    Ironside @1 of course that is why they have quiet happily pushed the "we left the kids we thought it was safe" "why didnt you come when Shaun and I were crying last night"
    Yes they were quite happy to be thought of as child neglectors, this poor child and what she had to put up with......OMG who knew Maddy was been abused,how do they live with that on their conscience, that poor poor child! what where her last moments on this earth, my heart breaks for her 3 years of age.....GOD BLESS HER!!

    I find a light bulb monents like this make me more determined then ever to see this case throught to the end, I will NOT give up however disheartened I get.

    Thank you Ironside for my light bulb moment.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Slightly off topic, just listening to Sky News, they are speaking of Cameron dropping down the polls regarding Clegg going up the polls, due to his popularity after the UK TV debate and that its has seriously effected Cameron walking stright into 10 Downing Street.
    Ha ha!! it must be KARMA! taking Clarence Mitchell on board.......BRILLIANT, hope it only just starting to take effect, and there is more to come!!

    UK Voters!!!Please Please give Nick Clegg a chance, I have never in my life voted Liberal, but I aint voting for either of the other two McCann protectors!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have been following the Madeleine Mccann´s case from the day one and found out that there is much more to the case than neglect and abduction. I would say the whole thing has been premeditated at least partially in order to legally launch broader and wider agenda (Gerry´s words)with the huge media attention. Now we have to specify what he means by these words, what is broaded and wider agenda ? Based on his deeds we can conclude that this agenda focuses mainly on missing children THROUGHOUT THE WORLD who constitute the most vulnerable part of each society except elderly. Citing the above mentioned text - " Gerry McCann recently visited the headquarters of NCMEC and ICMEC in Virginia where he discussed the need for disseminating information and images of missing children on a broader, global basis." - this is the agenda Gerry was talking about right from the start. Considering assistance the McCann couple gets from the govermental and diplomatic circles we can assume that those circles are well aware of that pre-planned agenda Gerry is spokesperson for. Now the question is how the Gaspars statements match Gerry´s broader and wider agenda ? Does it mean that what happened to Madeleine will also happen to many of children proclaimed officially missing by the agency ? And fooled people will be searching for them forever ?

    ReplyDelete
  24. To those posters who said that neglect is alibi to abduction and that there was no neglect. I agree only to the alibi bit.

    The logic being: if they hadnt left those children alone all those nights how did they manage to have adult dine out nightly? It would mean the children had to be left alone, most likely without checking system, resulting in complaints where mccanns were summoned back by management from another restaurant farther away to attend to Maddie's racket.
    I think they kept the same schedule ie left the children also on the 3rd, but this time they included a rota check 1) to cover the neglect issue and 2)to create alibi for the abduction. Simple as.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Someone made the point

    “Art. 1915 Portuguese CC uses a general clause which covers not only mens rea by parents that leads to serious harm to the child (Art. 1915 No 1 1st part Portuguese CC and Art. 192 Portuguese Child Protection Law) but also involuntary harmful behaviour, such as that resulting from inexperience, illness or absence (Art. 1915 No 1 2nd part Portuguese CC and Art. 192 Portuguese Child Protection Law).

    note the last part!

    SOURCE:
    http://celebrity.uk.msn.com/forum/thread.aspx?page=238&thread=00000071-0000-0000-4eb0-140000000000&board=00000071-032c-0000-0000-000000000000

    Why haven't the McCanns been prosecuted in Portugal then? Is it just a lack of political or judicial will?

    V.

    ReplyDelete
  26. To nit-pick, but it's so important that whatever details we DO have are held onto - the piece above has an inconsistency.
    In paragraph 12 he states "Her twin brother and sister Sean and Amelie, aged two, lay in cots either side of her."
    But according to the accompaning diagram, the twins'cots are sited together in the middle of the room and the two single beds are against the walls.The bed apparently used by Maddie is the one against the inner wall.
    Dr W.G.McCarney would not have had access to the files when he wrote this.We of course have the advantage of photos of the unmussed bed that she apparently lay on top of, not tucked into.
    And Anon 18, I am intrigued by the idea of trekking upstairs/outside to another apartment with entire cots, plus toddlers., and back again.Someone would have seen them all?
    What those little children could have told, if they had been gently and carefully questioned!

    ReplyDelete
  27. The Mc`s have claimed that never were the chidren in danger ,it was like being in your own garden .....IF you were "in your own garden"would you do checks every 5 mins ? when did these people eat ?their food must have gone cold ? As my late father in law ,a wise Irishman used to say"I dont mind anyone thinking im an idiot ,but they must never treat me as one"How true Jim,how true

    ReplyDelete
  28. Good points about keeping the children away fom the creche if they had been vomiting. Even if they were not prevented from attending. good parents would want to keep an eye on their children themselves the following day- but these were not good parents.

    ReplyDelete
  29. so many difering storys not real facts except the sent of death.

    imo i think they were involved in maddies "dissaperance" but unless the pact of silence is broken we will never find out what really happened

    trainer

    ReplyDelete
  30. Im voting for Nick Clegg; the only one not to have given the McCanns an audience- to my knowledge. If he does , I'll have to reconsider.

    ReplyDelete
  31. And a man who reported that an intruder has burgled the house and murdered his wife .....
    has just been charged with her murder.
    There was no evidence of an intruder, you understand.
    No evidence.
    That is how it works. You look for evidence, Kate.
    Real proper strong EVIDENCE.
    And without it you look for some other explanation

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anyone else think that 2 bottles of wine and possibly 1/4 pitcher of Sangria each IS A LOT of alcohol.

    One might even say they're BINGE DRINKERS!
    1 bottle of wine = 10 units
    So possibly ~23 units per night.
    I don't know about the rest of you but could you:
    1) Honestly walk straight after that let alone think clearly?
    2) Keep the time so that you were checking on your children every 15-30 minutes?

    It's great to see UK Doctors setting a great example not only to the general public in the UK but the rest of the world.

    I wonder if I could use this as a precedent when I leave my kids <4yo home alone to go for a piss-up down at the pub <50 yards away. I'll be there in court being tried for neglect and use the defence "but the McCanns & Co did it!"

    Judge: Oh in that case carry on - case dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I agree with Ironside and others that the neglect issue has been used to cover something far more serious. Indeed, the level of criminal energy displayed by the parents and their closer supporters during the past 3 years, indicates that something far more serious than an accident is concerned here. The involvement of the paedo chappy Gamble from a very early stage and the delay in relaying statements from credible witnesses by Leicester Police to the Portuguese investigation until Dr. Amaral had been removed, only strengthen this suspicion. Gamble's atrocious behaviour in support of the parents leaves me in no doubt that he will seek to discredit anyone with an opposing view. His apparent criticism of Leicestershire Police is nothing more than a smoke screen concocted to blur their complicity in the early cover-up activities.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well, if the Labour Party wins the UK election they can always try to use the new 'Digital Economy Bill' legislation to block dissenting voices on blogs, to make Gamble's Review whitewash watertight. But since when does 'Freedom of Speech' breach copyright Mr Brown?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Clarence Mitchell can deal with the hunt of a black man from Plymouth with a dodgy timeline. I was wondering why the Tories hired him.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I agree with those who think the neglect is the best position for the McCann's.

    At best they were not checking by looking, even Kate admits she wasnt going to actually enter the room when she noticed the door was in a different position, even then she said she went to close the door, again without checking.

    Its incredible she admits these things on their 'documentary' - they are so well protected they are foolish and get away with it.

    Hard to beleive they are qualified doctors - proves that passing a few exams doesnt make you bright!

    ReplyDelete
  37. The volcanic cloud spreads a breath of fresh air in the press instead of constant McCann c---
    Silence is golden...but is it? this is the calm before the storm...and where is señor Goncarlo? has anyone any news how he is doing?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Why haven´t they requested the case to be reopened?????
    Guilty through lack of interest or what?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Im with Ironside I dont believe Madeleine was alive to be neglected nor do I believe that the twins were in the apartment until later- the closest they could risk to Kate screaming "theyve taken her."

    No doubt their stories might change now enabling the phatom egg abductor to have an hour and a half (or whatever) clear entry.

    That doesnt explain the dogs indicating though does it? Nor the initial DNA results.

    That said I think they need to answer to the PJ and its up to them what they investigate them for and recomend theyre prosecuted for.

    For them it seems an easy choice though -either an impossible abduction (within five minutes) or time enough for the eggman to clean up after himself.

    So Gerry and Kate are you going to throw negligence into the ring?

    ReplyDelete
  40. If you have a difference of opinion to the McCanns abduction theory,based on available evidence and you voice that opinion. That is fair comment!

    Carter-Ruck is well aware after BCA dropped their charges against Dr Simon Singh,that fair comment is an allowed defence in libel cases in the UK.

    Bullies come in all shapes and sizes and money talks, Well done Dr Simon Singh for standing up to the bullies.

    Lets hope a change of government in the UKs 2010 elections throws up at least a few MPs with integrity, who really do want to see and work for change.

    My fear is that a Lib/Lab/Con hung parliament will not be good for the UK where the imposition of Lisbon treaty and the imposition of the EU Superstate are concerned

    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  41. 'Maddie poll sicko- The Sun '


    By NEIL SYSON at Mccannfiles


    AGAIN THIS SICK JOURNALIST.... A pro-mccann, reinventing old news trying to make them FRESH-NEWS. How much money from the Fund run on his hands and which candidate is he supporting with that article?

    Normal, on every investigation around the world, In a child murder the parents are always the first suspects. It is about the parents to work close with police to show the police their innocence, if this was the case. Mccann's choose to work and act against the police, refusing answering several questions, doing the reconstruction and handing by their own initiative some vital information, such mobile calls, SMS and bank movements. This MADE THEM SUSPECTS NOT ONLY AT POLICE EYES, BUT ALSO AT THE EYES OF THE ALL PUBLIC. NOBODY BELIEVE ON THEIR ABDUCTION FAIRY TALE. THE ONLY DIFERENCE IS SOME OF US COMMENTED ON BLOGS, OTHER COMMENTED IN CAFES, ETC, and the most courageous EXPRESS THEIR FEELINGS TROUGH LEAFLETS, BOOKS OR RUNNING FORUNS, SITES AND BLOGS IN THE INTERNET.
    THIS JOURNALIST MUST BE SACKED. EVEN NOW WHEN UK IS UNDER THE PRESSURE OF NEW ELECTIONS HE DID NOT FIND A MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TO WRITE ABOUT? THIS ARE OLD NEWS, AND THE MCCANN'S JUST BRING DISGRACE TO THE LIFES THEY TOUCH. LIKE A DANGEROUS MEDICINE, THEY HAVE A LOT OF SIDE EFFECTS, then serious and honest journalists avoided them.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anon 22, this is exactly how I am thinking. Criticism against lib dems from the other 2 parties is solely that they can't pay for their proposed reforms. But there are no guarantees that Labour or Conservatives can pay for their policies either, so its a hollow criticism. I will take that risk and vote Lib Dem.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Although Dr Amaral did not yet get the result he desired as regards his book, the recent court case was like a breath of fresh air.

    We have now heard the people who really know, have worked on, and understand this case, stating clearly they believe Madeleine is dead.

    They also said the McCanns' abduction story was a fairy story.

    Carter Ruck can go put that in their pipe and smoke it, as it is not going to be so easy to try and silence those who have dared to say Madeleine is dead, because they are simply stating what the OFFICIAL INVESTIGATORS concluded and believe.

    If the McCanns want us to believe their abduction story then they should first be asked to prove it.

    It is a disgrace they are allowed to continue soliciting money for that Fund of theirs on the strength of their say so with no evidence to back it up, and trying to stop the general public from knowing the true facts of the case and that Madeleine is dead.

    Come on Portugal, give the McCanns what they don't want and reopen that case.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon 45 - Off topic again sorry.

    I probably won't be popular with some, but I couldn't agree more. We must vote for policies not faces. There was a very famous Liberal, Sir David Steele,who we have to thank for pushing through the abortion bill, since when hundreds and thousands of babies have ended up in slop buckets in hospitals around this country. At least the Tories are trying to get the limit of 24 weeks lowered and so they should. I myself was born at 25 weeks and have lived a long and happy life, so to abort babies at that early stage is nothing short of a national disgrace. We wouldn't do it to animals, so why babies?

    ReplyDelete
  45. 45 What are you on about? Putting the UK at risk? Surely a party that employs Mitchell is never to be trusted - the man is a media manipulator and it is extremely dangerous to allow such people to influence our political leadership.

    Of course we must not forget that he worked for Brown and Brown is not to be trusted He has not given us our right to decide if we give our country to the EU or not.

    But to be frank, I just dont like your arrogant and dictatorial post!

    Remember the tories are greedy self servers, they represent 'barrow boys' and Lords, small minded capitalists.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 41 I'd have read your post, but I really dont like people shouting at me!

    Drop the capitals -you dont need to shout to make a point if the points worth making.

    ReplyDelete
  47. At least by voting UKIP there might eventually be a chance we would get out from under the oppression of the EU dictatorship. The three main Parties in UK have all backtracked on the vote they said we could have on the Treaty/Constitution.

    The trouble with being in the EU, (which we have never been given a chance to vote on), is that we can never get rid of the likes of Blair, Brown and Co as they simply move on from Westminster to get top unelected jobs in the EU as Commissioners, Councillors or even as President.

    It's all about jobs for the boys. No wonder they are in favour of us being in the EU.

    Let's face it, why rule over one country when you can rule over many! No need to be elected by the people either. They give each other the jobs. Nice, if you can get it.

    The EU is a dictatorship fronted by a show case elected Parliament which has no power whatsoever, it simply passes on the wishes of the unelected elite. That is the clever design of it, because it poses as a democracy.

    It is the MEPs themselves who will tell about this, those who are honest enough to tell the truth about what is going on inside this expensive step in the direction of the New World Order, One World Government, that certain leaders have been trying to bring about for years now.

    They are getting their wishes granted.

    We will eventually be silenced about anything that the elites wish, and there will be nothing we can do about it.

    We have been sleepwalking into this because most people think in terms of democracy, and the EU is far from being that.

    ReplyDelete
  48. If there was a paedophile at large amongst the Tapas group, then all the children should have been examined.

    Alone, asleep in their beds, they were all very vulnerable.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Abortion and IVF are multi million pound industrys this is why the Labour party are the party of killing its all part of a bigger plan our politicians are the frontmen for a more sinister plot. No UK political party has the guts to stand up for the unborn child. Be violent to the Innocent unborn, be violent to anyone its ok. As for little Maddie whoever ended her life, did it because, life is cheap and to be disgarded, and the perpetrators to be protected at any cost.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anon @ 48,

    NOBODY SHOUTED AT YOU. IF YOU DON'T LIKE DON'T READ IT. HERE THERE'S FREEDMON OF EXPRESSION on WHAT YOU SAY and HOW YOU SAY IT. THE ONLY THINGS WHICH ARE NOT TOLERATED IS LIES AND INSULTS. I DON'T SEE ANY LIE OR INSULT ON POST 41.
    It is a fact, for most Pro- Mccann's journalists they become a Product for consumption and to sale the product they use all strategies, like bringing old news to sanctify the poor Mccann's ( the natural victims) and label all the others who don't believe in an abduction with shameful and evil names.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It's very difficult to imagine that the McCanns are naive. On the other hand th McCanns seems to believe that other people are naive enough to buy their abduction scenario and the are angry when someone refuses to do that.

    Nevetheless, I still believe that they are neglegent parents though their contribution to Madeleine dissapearence is much bigger than just neglegence.

    The difficulties of this case lies in UK PM intervention. If that happens in UK or th McCanns were Portugese, the case could has been solved.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @#41+52

    You seem to misunderstand. The use of capitals is accepted internet-speak for ''shouting'' and normal etiquette indicates that we don't shout at people. It's rude.

    If you want people to read your posts, stop using the capitals. Normal type is easier to read, the brain registers the words more rapidly, and I think you'll find that people are more inclined to listen to your opinions if their brain doesn't perceive that you are yelling at them. Just some friendly advice.

    ReplyDelete
  53. When will the case be reopened or reviewed?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Bientôt le 3 mai, jour anniversaire de la disparition officielle de Maddie. Les parents n'ont pas l'air de faire une 3ème commémoration ? Que peut vouloir dire cette discrétion subite ?

    Lorsque les jumeaux seront en âge de comprendre, ne seront-ils pas choqués par tout ce qui a été dit, écrit, contredit... Quel destin lourd à porter pour ces enfants !

    ReplyDelete
  55. 54 Thanks, they are probably just beginners so I guess we will have to give them time to settle in. Pity though, I've not read their posts - they might have been relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  56. 52 You are lowering the tone, please dont shout!

    having said that, your post is a rant and itprobably best to ignore it anyway (whether shouted or not).

    ReplyDelete
  57. 46 Sorry not follwing, how is abortion related to madeleine, except of course that Gerry mcCann ought to have ended up in one of those buckets to which you refer!

    Personally I dont consider an embryo any more a completed lifeform as sperm. Are you seriously suggesting one off the wrist is murder?!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Regarding Cameron using Clarence Mitchell.

    Maybe, just maybe, Cameron decided to employ the odious Mitchell (who lies through every tooth in his head), just to prevent Gordon Brown from employing him again, also preventing him working for the equally odious McCanns for the duration.

    After all, when Cameron gave an audience to the McCanns, he wasn't reported as saying anything really helpful to them, almost he was saying he would try to get to the bottom of it all (in which case, look out McCanns!!!! LOL because that's what we all want). Significantly, NO mention of Abduction at all.

    Well it's a thought.

    aunty anti

    ReplyDelete
  59. We're all voting for Nick Clegg, not one of us can stand creepy clarence mitchell, seen enough of him defending the Mccons.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Post 47 I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS - WELL SAID

    ReplyDelete
  61. Joana you are brilliant everyday I log onto your forums, thanks for all your work - Justice for Maddie (prison for Kate and Gerry)!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anon 10 - My thoughts exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Was Jane Tanner Gerry's mistress - whatever possessed her to defend such a monster?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Looking back at the Maddie Case when Kate and Gerry Mccann are eventually found guilty, and they will be, as there is too much public interest (and money) in this case for it to just fade away - what will be the position of Carter Ruck. The following is from their website regarding Adam Tudor who is (foolishly) representing the Mccanns “Adam is best known for representing Kate and Gerry McCann in their libel and privacy complaints. In 2008, he secured unprecedented front page apologies from the Daily Express, Daily Star and their sister Sunday titles, as well as £550,000 in damages for libel. Adam also obtained apologies and £375,000 in libel damages from the Express group for the seven friends who were dining with the McCanns on the night Madeleine was abducted. All the damages in these cases were applied to the search for Madeleine” IMO the Mccanns have defrauded the public, manipulated the media. Carter Ruck are on dangerous ground protecting two murder suspects. Their creditability and reputation will diminish when this finally comes to court - also what will become of the revenue the Mccanns have fraudulently secured from the public in donations and from libel trials from newspapers to boost the Madeleine Fund – will it be returned to the Daily Express and Co with an apologetic letter from Carter Ruck - for possible publication on their front pages

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anon 59 -

    I wasn't saying abortion had anything to do with the Maddie case, I was merely replying to a post suggesting we should vote for the Liberals because of the loathsome CM's attachment to the Tories.

    But if you want an answer,it's my opinion (and I respect yours) that a civilised society should not be allowing abortion at all except in cases of rape or danger of death to a mother. Immediately on conception the embryo's heart is beating so that means life. And, when all is said and done, contraception is widely available to everyone.

    Having said that, I don't think this blog should be about party politics at all, but about justice for Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  66. 65, not only Tanner protected the McCanns.
    The whole Tapas 7 did it, all of them manipulated by Gerry, the control freak.
    By now I even suspect Payne never went to 5a, to check on Kate and on the children.
    He must have gone some other moment, to help planing the disappearence of the body.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Im not sure this is the right place to discuss pro life issues.

    As for caps they dont worry me I judge the post on content and the feelings behind it.

    Now Drs McCann are you understanding what is needed now? You being charged by the PJ- nothing else- any party that backs you is like everyone else tainted by you (you must have noticed by now) Its no good lying low or hiding behind excuses its not GBrown TBlair or Murdoch anyone is interested in but you.Lies and smoke screens (PR) havent worked.

    Prosecutions have been brought without a body before you know and in this case it seems evident (if the PJ agree) that thats whats needed here because nobody whose read the files believes Madeleine was alive by tapas time and lots (like me) believe she died the night before/early morning. That means you and you alone bear the ultimate responsibilty for what happened to her.

    You are both the embodiment of the little boy who cried wolf and the only thing most people are interested in is what YOU did to your daughter a straightforward confession without fantasy masons and government paedo rings is what we require. The daughter you morphed into a product never 'belonged' to you but as her parents was given to you in trust by the God you say you believe in; nobody who has the proper feelings towards their children could ever describe them being 'taken' like a watch or camera.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 1 Ironside,

    on amaral's documentary you can see Kate signed on 5.30pm, at the creche, when she went to pick up madeleine.
    unless that is the signature she put on the document of the twins creche.
    it seems that there is a video of madeleine dancing with Gerry at about 5.10 pm (Tapas bar?).
    What intrigues me is the fact that, if she died short after 5.30 of thursday, how could the mccanns find a place to conceal the body on such a fast way? Father Pacheco is the only answer for me.
    when did she make a trip by boat? was it on that thursday during the morning?

    ReplyDelete
  69. I wonder what really happened the night before to cause Kate to sleep in that bed in the childrens room and just when did Kate get all those grab marks around her arms and that large bruise on her elbow (which looks a lot like she got shoved and fell on it or went up the wall or something) Did she dare to disagree with "plans"?

    Who was that cot for in the parents room, is it because Maddie had been injured?

    I am not sure if it is just press gossip or fact but I do remember hearing that Kate was "loud and out of control" the night before.

    When you watch her on the Jane Hill first interview, erm erm as Gerry said (odd smirk) the first 48 hours (she was not even being asked about HER first 48 hours) search...no, not as such...I think she looks completely and utterly unbalanced, scarily so, those mouth clicks. Not that I am suggesting this is the only time she has appeared that way.

    I am still struggling to believe they actually planned to murder Madeleine, but it has always been a clear possibility. They are both such inredibly weird people, he is the plotter, she is just plain scary.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anon 70

    Where to conceal a body.

    A fridge comes to mind.

    Payne said the McCanns had problems with the fridge in their apartment which he mentions in his witness statement. Yet he doesn't say which day that was and what happened to the fridge.

    Was he questioned further about the breakdown of the fridge episode? Nothing more is mentioned in his statement, though he does say he has other things he wanted to say about the disappearance of Madeleine, but not to be put in his statement.

    Perhaps the UK interviewer didn't realise the significance of a fridge at the time the questions were being asked.

    ReplyDelete
  71. As regards the video of Gerry dancing with Madeleine, that was said later not to have been Gerry and Madeleine, but some other child.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anon 65

    Reading Jane Tanner's words about Gerry McCann in her statement, it does not seem like she and Gerry hit it off that well.

    Don't forget that bundleman sighting of hers also gives her husband an alibi as well as Gerry.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous said... 65 Was Jane Tanner Gerry's mistress - whatever possessed her to defend such a monster?



    Close post 65 you are very close...Now go back and think what a certain PJ said on Panorama about the group in the very early days.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anon 70...cadaver scent in the Mccanns wardrobe.....also a certain blue bag is missing. I thought the boat trip was on the morning she died. But, when looking at the statements the nanny is not sure of the morning. The Mccanns have mixed two days into one ,for reasons known only to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  75. When Kazlux met G. Amaral.............

    Q: Have you considered the possibility that Madeleine died on the previous night or even when mrs. Fenn heard the crying?
    A: Naturally - the investigation begins with establishing if the person who disappeared, does actually exist and then, who was the last person to see her - the investigation shows clearly that she was last seen around 17.30.

    Q: Have you any doubt as to the validity of Madeleine attending the creche on 3/5?
    A: No doubt whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Here Here anon 66...
    Couldn't agree with you more a very true and an accurate account! Now let's concentrate of Madeleine's short life and what happened to her. God Bless Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @68,you say the tapas were manipulated by gerry,i think not,oh no they know exactly what happend to madeleine and they could IF THEY WANTED go to the pj and do a real statement and not the f*** lot of l***** statements they have given so far.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Jane Tanner has been in Portugal 3 times before May 3rd 2007. Twice on holiday and once for a week- FISHER SCIENTIFIC LEICESTER. Have a look at Fisher Scientific's products- an eye opener.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I'm ANON 41,

    Sorry to all people here who feel that I shouted at them. If you read what I said you realise that I use the capitals just to highlight my ideas, not to shout at anybody. Unless you disagree with what I say and have a sliced sympathy with that Pro-Mccann's journalists. For me become a ridiculous issue, discussing the way I write instead of the message but I agree, capitals difficult the reading of the posts.
    I didn't know that capitals in the Internet have the meaning of shouting ( I learned it now and thanks to the poster who highlighted that) but I'm not new here or in blogs in general and I use several times the capitals here and in other blogs to highlight my ideas and only here I received comments saying that I shouted to people. Sorry to Who feel offended by that, it was not my intention. If my poster was endorsed to a poster in particular with capitals, then I agree could be classified rude or shouting, was not the case. Shouting or been rude is more related with punctuation(!!!!) not with capitals.
    Here I will stop the capitals. I don't want to be rude to anybody, not even to the Pro-mccann's ( I respect different opinions )and I always use my brain to disagree and build my opinion, not bad vocabulary or strategic spellings to achieve an objective. Mccann's don't deserve it and I believe they come to that blog everyday to check what is going on and what people say about them. I can imagine how we become a joke for them, when they realise that in a blog like that where the big majority of posts are anti, blogers are spending time highlighting the way at how some people write.
    Sorry if you find spelling errors ( could be maybe the next complaint) but I'm not english.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anon. @ 69,

    I'm anon. 41. Thank you for your Post. Totally agree with you.
    Even long, I read your post and totally agree... Madeleine is a product for her parents and most pro- VIP- Mccann's.
    If was not the anti-feeling expressed by blogers in the Internet, the world will have few months after May 2007, a fashion childs trademark called 'Madeleine' or 'Maddie' with clothes, perfumes, dolls, cuddle cats or even the hair-cut.

    ReplyDelete
  81. A signature can be put on a documeent at anytime- the McCanns were not being investigated but clearly even if they had been there was plenty of opportunity for Kate to attend the creche and put her signature there in the morning- or later- who would notice or question her presence with the twins? Unless the book being signed has a time related video with Madeleine on?

    As for a video of them dancing does it definately and clearly show Madeleine and is that also timed?

    Yet even timing can be interfered with so what is really needed is an independent witness who can say without doubt they saw Madeleine leave the creche alive- not a nanny but someone beyond reproach.

    As for Father Pacheco I doubt he ever saw Madeleine- the McCanns were not Church goers nor were they likely to have put the body in such a temporary location that they had to retrieve it so soon- I believe these are stories put out by Team McCann to muddy the waters.

    What would a group of reasonably intelligent people do in such circumstances? I know what Id do if I were the McCanns (thank God Im not) Id look for an empty property that was able to be secured (locked). As the police were looking for a wandering child or one being held forcibily by a paedophile (he would need to break in)- a property securely locked would be unlikely to be searched (in the early investigation). So Id get one of my friends (not on TV so unlikely to be recognised) to go rent a property in the area or failing that view one with an aim to renting it- much more satisfactory than Madeleine being discovered- if of course autopsy was out of the question.

    Its semantics anyway Gerry was not likely to be seen moving Madeleine after the alarm was raised and there is more evidence to suggest Madeleine was dead before tapas than not.

    So what could be easier than a couple pushing the lost pushchair across PDL and returning without it? If that couple werent the McCanns who would even link it to the disapearance?

    Go on holiday with three children and no buggy Drs McCann? Ask any frazzled mum with three babies/toddlers how likely that is- even a trip to the local shops would be a nightmare (with car).

    Pull the other one its got bells on.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Can anyone help please ,Ive got a friend interested in the case ,and I have been trying to find the Gaspar statements but cannot find it ,can someone point the way please? i have read them and re-read them not long ago but cannot find it now ,thank you and sorry Joanna for going off topic

    ReplyDelete
  83. Poster 81.

    You spell better than most in the failed comprehensive state schools.

    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  84. @45
    The public vote for who the hell they want WHO ARE YOU TO TELL VOTERS WHO TO VOTE FOR!! Get off your high horse.

    My vote is with Clegg yes just becuase Mitchell has been employed by the CONS, so what that is my VOTE to do as I wish, deal with it!.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anon 81.

    Your excellent post is a good example how freedom of speech works. That's why Joana's great blog is a big success.
    Never seen such comments at pro McCanns blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I'm really surprised there are still people who seriously think the McCanns will ever be charged with anything. That's just wishful thinking, it bears no relation to reality. In my opinion that's because they didn't do anything other than indulge in some fairly standard early 21st century mild child neglect, for which they would have been made to answer by now if that were ever to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous 86

    You are right its your vote to do with as you please.

    But sadly the Political Party leaders of the three failed main political groups, Brown,Clegg and Cameron are treacherous where the EU Superstate is concerned. All have deceived the British electorate, regarding the self amending "Lisbon Treaty" and what it means.



    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  88. 81 Well done! I read that post!

    ReplyDelete
  89. 66 On conception there is no heart to beat.

    Abortion is, in many people's views,a necessary evil.

    I think its wrong to make it seem more evil than it is. Before twenty weeks and embryo is not a person, it just has potential to become one.

    ReplyDelete
  90. to @84

    at your service.

    http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post516.html#p516

    ReplyDelete
  91. to @ 68

    IMO Payne never visited Kate at all.
    If he was going to play tennis and already late, he would (normaly) go straight to his appartement for his racket instead of taken a big turn around to go to the tennisfield. That is why there is a difference in their statements.( Kate and Payne).
    An alibi had to be created. Gerry could have used his GSM !!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Annon 41/82 Thanks I agreed with your post too- Im sorry for the length of my posts.

    Well Viv maybe they didnt go there to murder her- I think thats unlikely also.How about this?

    They went there in connection with the proposed adoption of Madeleine (hence Gerry's comment on bus). But before or after their meeting Kate and Gerry had a row and Kate returned home in anger and took her frustration out on Madeleine.

    Those marks on her arms who says theyre not from chasing Madeleine and the small scratch she had on her eye and scratches over her face could have caused those spots both could be from Madeleine fighting back.

    If your little Miss Perfect is an innocent battered wife she ought to come clean but then what shes told her family and friends is probably as truthful as what she told the media and about as informative as what she told the PJ; in fact if she told anyone anything I suspect it would be Father Pacheco in the confessional box- bound as he is by the oath he took- in her deluded mind she thinks that through him God has forgiven her- no doubt enabling her to go on in the role she has created- aided and abetted by those around her- after all Madeleine is "taken" from them but the twins are very much alive- who could blame her relatives for believing her innocent despite the evidence?

    Kate try reading you Bible properly give to Caeser what belongs to him (lawful Earthly justice belongs to the State -in this case Portugal) you'll be judged by God in the Afterlife.

    ReplyDelete
  93. IMO Maddie died 2nd May and was then hidden in the wardrobe wrapped in the missing sheets from the twin’s cots whilst the Tapas group worked out their alibis hence the dogs detecting the scent of death in the apartment. Her death was no accident due to the lengths this pair are prepared to go to cover it up she probably had a violent death due to the blood present under the tile and died behind the sofa, which they attempted to wash and this is also where the dog detected death. Gerry would have moved her body on the 3rd at dusk when he was spotted by the Smiths, it was also confirmed that he had left the dinner table at that time by staff working; he was on foot so she was hidden around PDL, unless there was somebody else involved and he took her to them. I believe he went to the Church that was why he needed so urgently to speak to the priest just after the alarm was raised that same night. If she was hidden in the church Father Pacheco would have been aware of this also he gave the Mccanns the keys to the church but he did not give them to the Mccanns directly, if you read his statement they were handed to the Mccanns via an Englishman which is rather odd! Later he states he has been ‘deceived’ Maddie could even be buried somewhere in the church now, her body probably never left PDL they simply did not have the time – all Gerry had was 30 minutes to hide the body. He was seen by the Smiths walking in the direction of the Church and Beach. There should be a full and thorough search of the church and grounds, ‘Leaving no stone unturned’. Then for the remainder of their holiday they both stayed very close to the church, had a lot of time alone in the church. When he returned to PDL again he visited the church never once did they go out searching for Maddie.

    ReplyDelete
  94. poster 84...most were i have seen it..now says does not exist...but this may be of some help for you....

    http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2010/01/dr-katherina-gaspars-statement-about-dr.html

    ReplyDelete
  95. An interesting article, which seems to have a few FACTS wrong, for example the quiz night - yes it did take place on one of the four nights the McCanns left the children, but not the night Madeleine disappeared.
    I feel the writer has a lot more to say, the choice of the joyful McCann images, show an ambiguity that as a psychologist doesn't dwell on to try to explain.

    Thank you for bringing this article.

    Meadow.

    ''The grief that the McCanns are living through very publicly in Portugal is replicated behind closed doors all over the country''

    The writer has a lot say but for some reason has pussy-footed around the issues. Nevertheless it is a good article, would be interested to know when it was written.

    Yes, all but for the grace of god go I, but I wouldn't leave three young children, night after night in an unlocked apartment with public access, ''doing my own babysitting''. Conscience is a strange bedfellow.

    ReplyDelete
  96. When will the mccanns be brought to trial? Probably quite soon - Their guilt is ever evident in their actions and speech through their unhelpfulness with the investigation. The PJ should insist it is necessary to re-open the case, not review it, RE-OPEN IT. The Tapas group will not go back to Portugal for a reconstruction because they are afraid they will all be made Arguidos in the disappearance of Madeleine. Jane Tanner in her statement confirms this as their reason for none co-operation. Proof that they all know Madeleine was never abducted; otherwise they would have nothing to fear. The Mccanns have hired FOUR high profile lawyers to protect their reputations. Michael Caplin QC specialises in Extradition Orders he represented General Pinochet. Clarence Mitchell costs in excess of £70,000 p.a specialises in spin. These (very expensive) high profile lawyers have been employed by the Mccanns. Why employ such people if the Mccanns were innocent. Gerry and co have been able to manipulate the press BUT unable to control the internet and this annoyance is ever present Gerry’s speeches when he states ‘I do not have to look very far on the internet to find distressing comments blah blah’ clearly he would like to silence the internet. They have stopped some web sites when I attempt to log on I get ‘error – this page cannot be displayed’ etc. But this only makes me more determined. Gerry’s early blog is a record of his guilt, in the early days we were pressurised by the media into believing the Mccanns were innocent, but how things have changed since then, just look at all the different web sites and they all say the same and now with hindsight we can see they are both guilty, what a wonderful gift the internet and freedom of speech is. Well done Joana.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I'm voting for Nick Clegg - he's genuine, not involved in Clarence Mitchell spin and wants to scrap trident (which is a waste of tax payers money ) and the £250.00 baby bonds, well done Nick we're with you. A genuine and decent polititian at last. Oh by the way Nick will you sort out this Mccann mess - Kate and Gerry are long overdue for a spell in Holloway and Pentonville - thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  98. What about the people of PDL they did not deserve this from the Mccanns, we owe it to them to clear their beautiful town of these false child abductor claims, and let tourists once again enjoy this beautiful place.

    ReplyDelete
  99. WELL DONE POST 81 - I FIND YOUR COMMENTS INTERESTING AND I FEEL THE SAME - CAPS ARE GOOD AND ARE NOT SHOUTING - I THINK THE PARENTS ARE FIRST SUSPECTS AND NEED INVESTIGATING.

    ReplyDelete
  100. @88
    And the reaction of the dogs....what was that all about?

    ReplyDelete
  101. 84, about all statements, including the Gaspars', look above, right side,

    McCanns Case Facts and you will find

    The Maddie Case Files*new

    The Mrs.Gaspar's statement is not compleet.
    It used to be before.
    The part that is missing says about Gerry.

    ReplyDelete
  102. When is the Maccann Libel trial to begin anyone please. It was supposed to be May.
    Regarding abortion 91 you are very much mistaken, the unborn child is a human being with potential, from the moment of conception.
    Women deserve better than abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Possibly Jane Tanner was protecting Kate, who knows.

    Because the PJ concluded that the accident was caused by Kate and Gerry concealed the body.
    Am I right?

    ReplyDelete
  104. On McCannfiles there is an article published by Sun, I think today, where the Sun talks about Tony Bennett's theories and a comment about freedom of speech, made by UKIP (United Kingdom Independent Party).
    Interesting that the Sun is daring to write about it.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Please would you be so kind as to refrain from discussing politics, abortion and any other side issues. You make it terribly hard to moderate this blog by mixing up such issues with Madeleine case-related matters. As we cannot edit your comments, we have to either approve them in full - or reject them in full. Be kind to your hosts and leave side issues at the doorstep; they are important but they are also highly divisive and not the core issue of this blog.

    Thank you for your cooperation, as always.

    ReplyDelete
  106. 'When investigating the injury or death of a child who has been left unattended prosecutors in the US focus on the nature of the risk taken by the parent, and the nature of the result.

    In such cases, the words “foreseeable” and “preventable” are often invoked in debate.'

    About the above I like to share with you a comment made by a lady from Praia da Luz in a portuguese newspaper blog about Kate ( Maybe several portuguese read it and I think it was made about the news when they come back to Portugal for the injunction).
    The Lady was recalling the May 4, 2007, morning and she was with one friend in the supermarket Baptista ( the supermarket where the Mccann's use to go and most of people from PDL as well). OFF-course the top comments were the disappearance of Madeleine and everybody was saying that the parents are lying about the abduction. The lady and her friend had immediately the feeling that Kate was involved because they saw sometimes Kate and Madeleine in the supermarket and they don't like what they saw ( she didn't reveal ) but she will be not surprised since the day one if the police suspected the parents. Something on Kate and Madeleine attract their attention and it was not the beauty of the girl or the mother. The lady even said that Madeleine was not so beautiful as she appears on the first picture her parents delivered to the TV ( the one with coloboma). She wonder why they delivered that picture instead of one most recently taken in PDL during the holidays, showing recent clothes, the environment from where she disappeared, one more close to how Madeleine look alike when she disappeared. A recent picture from the holidays will help people around the place to remember the girl and recover moments and places where they saw her.
    The picture of a beautiful Madeleine become useless for the little girl( most of the locals and holidaymakers had to do a memory exercise to stick that picture to the girl they saw in Baptista supermarket or in the resort) but become a marketing image for what her parents have to sale at people all over the world- a beautiful toddler abducted from her bed in a foreigner country, when her parents were dinning close by after leaving her with her siblings sleeping because they had the feeling that the place was safe and they are good parents. Marketing from day one with an abduction and the image of a child to be sold as a product for massive and long and wide consumption. This is why the events were planned always many months ahead of the exactly day and publicised widely to the entire planet with them always absolutely confident that the girl will be not recovered before the event day, ruining all the plans.

    Wonder to know what the lady in Baptista supermarket saw which made her suspect Kate immediately. I'm sure was something not related with good parenting or with a lovely and quite Madeleine.

    I hope the police investigate Mccann movements in the Algarve with their childs, before May 3. What people saw can hold some clues.

    Wonder also why they travel with 3 small childs to Holidays without baby trolleys to take the kids ( they said they don't take the kids to the restaurant because they were sleeping and they don't have baby trolleys). Then they have already the idea of dumping the kids in a creche, with young nannies without experience, and having the risk that their childs were the only ones dumped in the creche for most of the days. Good parenting...

    ReplyDelete
  107. (Annon 94) "Her death was no accident due to the lengths this pair are prepared to go to cover it up she probably had a violent death due to the blood present under the tile and died behind the sofa, WHICH THEY ATTEMPTED TO WASH and this is also where the dog detected death".,,,

    IS IT FORUM MYTH OR IS IT REALLY TRUE THAT ATTEMP TO WASH THE WALL?

    ReplyDelete
  108. The nannies and the way they were dropped in mccann's fairy tale it was absolutely 'fantastic'.

    I travel with my Kids to several places in the world and several hotels. I never saw a hotel with a creche and with a Nannie stickied to a child or a Nannie for childs with 2 years old and a different one for a child with 3 years old. Hotels have Clubs split by a range of ages which can go from o-6, 7-11, 12-17 or just 0-11 and 12-17. The childs on the same club share the same nannies, even if they are doing different activities. Why Madeleine has a different Nannie then the twins if they fall on the same age group? WAS MADELEINE A CHILD WITH SPECIAL NEEDS?
    Normal in the hotels, parents don't meet the nannies outside the clubs or out of the clubs working hours. Unless they are doing private babysitting. Why the Mccann's stated they arrived to the resort and they meet the nannies? Is this normal, meeting the nannies when arriving at the first time to a hotel or resort? Strange.
    Normal the nannies feed the childs ( all childs in the club) during the working time of the club as part of the facility and out of the parents. Why the mccann's stated that the Nannie feed Madeleine and the twins on May 3, close to their parents? what about the other kids in the Club? Only the Mccann's were in the club? If the parents were close by, why they need a Nannie to feed the childs? Was Madeleine a difficult child or this statement was to made an alibi- Madeleine alive on may 3 and her parents available inside the resort?
    Why the Mccann's avoided to deliver the names of the nannies to British newspapers for quite long time and why they visited their home in Rothley and still framed very tight by Kate and Gerry?
    Wy M. warner sent Katriona ( Maddie nanny) to Greece immediately after the girl went missing and after answering the first questions to the police? And she was never allowed to come back to PDL.
    Which clues this nannies are holding? Important, I believe. They are so young that become vulnerable at the hands of professionals, such Mitchell and the lawyers. They can be easily manipulated and scared. Katriona, was reported in British news, she abandoned M. warner resorts and did not work anymore as a Nannie.
    M. warner employers in PDL, special the Tapas workers were also forced to resign, shut their mouths and become anonymous, in the opposite of the Mccann's which became celebrities.
    A lot of strange situations surrounding a pair of parents who claim innocence.
    The investigation must be reopened to deep follow all the clues. For me this nannies and the fairy tales around them are very important to understand the last days of Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Anon 100 How very true that is.

    Anon 103 I did not know the part about Gerry McCann is now missing from the Gaspar statements.

    Does anybody know why this is? Has it been deleted from the Official Files also? Are the McCanns able to exercise control to such an extent.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Does anybody know if the shower curtain in the holiday apartment was missing?

    Are there photos of the bathroom in the holiday apartment, or have they been deliberately held back like most of the information in the File.

    ReplyDelete
  111. We are the naives. We who believe in justice and in truth, and I speak special about me.
    I cried when the first reports appeared in TV showing a little girl more or less the same age as my younger son. I feel like if the case happen to me, even because I use to do summer holidays in the Algarve and I always feel safe there. I feel the pain which Madeleine went trough if she was at the hands of a paedophile or even just a normal strange. I can't imagine my son on that situation. This news coming everyday, a lot of time to the screens of our TVs, developed a Kind of paranoia similar to the Sep.11. I remember to check my main door every night to see that is locked, to check the kids every time I wake-up. My oldest one even made a video with Madeleine and was prepared to sent it to Mccann's website to see if they want it for their campaign. Everybody was talking about the little British missing in the Algarve and the doubts about the parents start raising the conversations, based on their behaviour. My oldest stop the video saying that in the School, a British School there is no pictures about Madeleine, even if the majority of the population in the School were British and traveling a lot to Europe. The School raise money to everything and everybody. Madeleine was out of School issue and this was May 2007. Wonder what message the embassy passed to the School.
    One night, after reading a story to my youngest boy, he ask me: Do you think Madeleine had a story tonight? I fall in tears immediately. I said Maybe. Then he recall me into reality: Why are you crying? I never saw her mum crying in the TV. I think her mum knows where she is, this is why she never cry.
    Amazing how even little childs noticed bizarre attitudes. From that night, I start looking at the case with 2 point of views: real abduction and faked abduction, and over the time become very unbalanced the evidences reported in the news and the behaviour of the Mccann's. Faked abduction is getting more points day after day and THE PARENTS GOT AWAY WITH WHAT HAPEN IN MAY IN PDL.
    In the last Portuguese parliament session, there was an episode between Socrates and Louca and the cameras were going around. what I saw- Ferreira Leite seating side by side with Arnaut. She was the ex-leader of PSD( The party who dropped Amaral) and he (Arnaut), Isabel Duarte was reported to be part of his office.
    I don't see green lights in Portugal to reopen the case, with any of the partys, unless PP Coelho resisted to the lobbies of the lawyers. But he will buy a war. AND UNLESS PEOPLE IN THE INTERNET AND SOME MEDIA START ASKING PERTINENT QUESTIONS AND HIGHLIGHTING ISSUES FROM THE INVESTIGATION WHICH ARE NOT MATCHING WITH GOOD PARENTING, AND THE TOTAL ABSENCE OF EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT AN ABDUCTION.

    ReplyDelete
  112. poster 94 , i agree with 99% of what you say ,the only bit i disagree on his where her body is ,dont forget the dogs found odour in the hire car ,i think they kept her in the church until it was safe to move her ,maybe in the middle of the night,they had the keys so it would not have been a problem ,I think they took her to Heulava and the acid baths ,i remember the extra unaccounted for mileage on the car,I have always beieved she died on the 2nd ,they are far too smart as to not leave themselves time to attempt to clean up and concoct an alibi with tapas group and staff of Warners

    ReplyDelete
  113. I hadn't realised there are spying devices that are able to observe people and places from miles away that can even see what is going on inside a house, even INSIDE A BEDROOM.

    Though of course evidence discovered like this could not be presented in court.

    What's the betting certain people have been under observation for quite some time, and much more is known than we could imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I've often wondered about the staff at the Baptista supermarket as they were just opposite the 5a apartment.
    As a detail for 109 above, it would be interesting to find out if the McCanns, for instance, bought bottles of bleach - surely someone would have remembered that - IF, of course, it happened - I don't want to start another forum myth.
    And often in shops one sees how parenting really goes on. If a parent can be unkind/unpleasant to a child in public, what are they likely to be treating their child like in private, where there are no witnesses?
    (I usually stand and stare at them and make some encouraging remark to their child!)

    ReplyDelete
  115. #103, what do you mean by the Gaspar statement not being complete? I read it in McCann Files and in McCann Case Files and it still is the same I remember reading before. She indeed mentions Gerry, so I'm confused, in what way is it incomplete? Was there more on Gerry? Did she say more about Gerry and now it has vanished? If it is so, I cannot remember it, as I said before the way it is now is the way I've always read it.
    Maybe Joana or Astro can clarify the subject? Or maybe not...if the Gerry parts of that statement had to be edited under a super-injunction...

    ReplyDelete
  116. Anon 114

    Or somebody wants people to believe Madeleine went into the acid baths and cannot be found. A bit like the photo and map left around for the finding.

    Somebody is pointing the search in certain directions.

    Yet is not pointing in one particular place.

    The case needs reopening and the property of the McCanns should be searched before they do anything else.

    Why wasn't it searched previously when the McCanns were arguidos? Was that because of all the false leads and clues as to where she was?

    If people had the means at their disposal the McCanns had it would have been no difficulty to take a body back to UK, and if any of us had a child that had died abroad where would we want the child to end up.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Anon 116

    Never heard about bottles of bleach being bought, but there was supposed to have been a lot of soda of the kind that covers smells used in the apartment.

    Where this information comes from who knows!

    ReplyDelete
  118. Hi 116. I do exactly the same! Stand and stare, smile at the child and say something to diffuse things like 'Oh it's so boring in here isn't it' because it upsets me to see parents being unkind to their children. I agree that it looks as if the person who saw KM and Madeleine was upset too at the way Kate behaved towards her child. Didn't we also hear of witnesses who saw Kate shouting at Maddie and smacking her outside the apartment? I'm sure I saw this somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Sorry, off topic, but this has bothered me so long ;)


    Part of Kate`s diary

    Tuesday 01.05.2007 (holiday)

    Kids club beach, sunglasses
    Ice cream
    13:30 → 15:00 ish
    Kids club? 15.15
    ? time not so good

    "TIME NOT SO GOOD" - I think it is a bit strange comment. What was the problem and why didn`t she write why time was not good. It was anyway her diary. Any idea?

    ReplyDelete
  120. In the various Maddie files late 2007 back then it looked as if McCann’s were about to be arrested British and Portuguese police were suspicious especially of Mrs McCann, the public were beginning to question their innocence, conflicting statements from Tapas, DNA in scenic and apartment, sniffer dogs etc etc, media were calling them guilty, McCann’s fled Portugal because they believed they were going to be charged in Madeleine’s death they were told they could only stay at their house in Rothley if they returned to United Kingdom and if needed a European Arrest Warrant would be issued to take them back to Portugal for trial ....and then it all changed.... Clarence Mitchell sent from the Foreign and Commonwealth office and Head of Government Media Monitoring Unit left his job to work with the Mccanns – why!! Surely they were about to be arrested any day now, why would the government get involved with murder suspects!! Clarence certainly had all the contacts in the Government and Media, he fed them the stories they were to print and the press obeyed, anyone stepping out of line was made an example of and sued such as The Express Group and forced to make a front page grovelling apology to the murder suspects! And so the circus continued. Looking at posts here it becomes apparent that people feel this was all premeditated, their Christmas 2008 appeal video, old clips pasted together but view it as if it was made with ‘abduction’ in mind, and at about 1.40 Maddie is looking at a present she looks at the camera and she really does look scared, some are lingering shots – an uneasy video. The team supporting the McCann’s Caplin specialises in Extradition, Angus McBride dealing with media protecting relationships, not what you would expect if the parents were innocent. Supposing it was premeditated that explains the fund, they knew it would reach the million pound and beyond and no sign of Maddie but there was no need of a fund in the first place as police on both sides were working to find Madeleine free of charge. Their first interview 25th May was 22DAYS after Maddie disappeared, long enough for the media to spread the abduction theory and for Kate and Gerry to believe the lie they started. Its seems too awful for words that parents could take a child on holiday and do whatever they have done to her, but looking at Gerry outside the Whitehouse, meeting the Pope, Branson and Co, standing ovation, the list goes on, the fame he is loving every minute of it, he and Kate were never distraught parents, never genuinely broke down, they are manipulative liars who have done this for money, I don’t know if paedophilia is also par for the course with this lot re; Gaspars statements David Payne I just despair that for some reason or other they are being protected when they should have been exposed 3 years ago. Amarel was right to be suspicious of them, but just look how they have attempted to ruin him, what has happened to justice and common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  121. @ 122 I agree with every word you say.

    The video of Madeleine in the "snow white" dress when she looks at the camera before looking away scared,biting her lip, one can clearly see her colomba as she turns and the light changes its not so visible- thats their next move to destroy the idea that Madeleine had a colomba and so enable photographs of some other child (perhaps she wasnt so pretty/didnt look like her photos ect,in order to confuse) but Madeleine remains the lttle girl in the red velvet dress and the blue "snow white" dress.

    Gerry even if you could do it you would need to produce a live child- one who tested as yours and Kate's child before you can move Madeleine outside the apartment- at this stage after your behaviour anything else you come up with is just going to make people wonder even more why you havent been arrested.

    Keep lying low there's no political will to reopen the case- yet- just a lot of questions about what you and your wife (and circle of friends) know that makes you so special. Eventually all stories like yours break and your enemies/opponents have as much access and skill with PC's/electronic surveillance as you could ever buy (theyre probably watching you now as you tag others)- one day the PJ will get you- there's just too many people involved for any other result.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Anon 121

    What I don't understand is when this diary of Kate's was written because some people say it was written after Madeleine went missing.

    As for the 1st, wasn't that the day after Kate and Gerry were supposed to have had a row the night before. If so, it would not have been so good a day if they had not made up.

    ReplyDelete
  123. "where were you when we cried"
    Madeleine

    "And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"
    Gerry

    One of the things that always works in favour of sociopaths is that their actions are so far out of the normal moral scope that people can not imagine that to be true. The neglect part is just that. The pros will think that abandoning the kids must have been "like dining in your backyard" and "they could see the apartment" because they can't imagine a group of doctors and a granny could leave 8 toddlers and babies them all by themselves if not.
    The group that believes it is a cover up to make the abduction story possible say the same: they just cannot believe doctors, well educated people and a grammy could do that, see Jilly's post on 9. I have to say here that for the rest I mostly agree with Jilly.

    But read the rogatory interviews and shudder: these people are not to stupid to even realize how amoral their attitude is. Rachel does not have to tell she does not want to check on her daughter who is sick with violent diarrhea because she is scarred of the dark. The same dark she left her baby alone in.

    They are too stupid to know what a "normal" person would do.
    Why do you think Fiona tell this story of Kate checking on the twins breathing? She is trying to say what a good mother Kate is, and how concerned for her kids. Since neither one of them has any "natural" mother instincts she comes up with an example of learned behavior (Fiona being an anaesthesiologist and Kate have dabbled in anaesthesiology as well) the finger under the nose check.

    This whole group has not only shown criminal negligence, they continue to demonstrate their criminal stupidity as well.

    @ Robert 32:
    Although the number of bottles of wine vary, the overall picture including their cocktails, beers, wine so cozy at the couch before dinner and the after dinner aperitif, they must have been every night in a condition that had they been caught behind the wheel of a car they would have been convicted of zDUI.

    If a babysit would drink that much and watch your kids you would fire her.

    @ 70
    I think none of the UK interviewers did want to realize any of the important follow up questions. The whole rogatory interviews were a joke, especially the one were R O'Brien can go over his wife's, oh yeah that's right she is not officially his wife just the mother of his children, his not officially wife's interview so he can adapt his own statement.

    @ 41 and other posts about shouting: I know that for example in Mexico, but also in other latin countries the use of caps is very normal, even on the internet even in email, even in normal mail
    .

    ReplyDelete
  124. 111, no, I don't believe Gerry's part was deleted from the official files, of course.
    At the beginning, this blog published the part about Gerry but it disappeared some time later.
    I think there could have been a pressure from the McCanns themselves, through Carter Ruck, and that part was eliminated.
    Interesting that David Payne did not react against the publications about himself.
    And Gerry did, imo, because it vanished.
    Even Amaral did not publish this part in his book but I read it long ago, on the Mrs. Gaspar's statement.
    If I'm not mistaken, it was also published here.
    Í will not tell you here what I read about Gerry.
    But if it is true, it is dreadfully serious.
    Intuitions, suspicions, observations from Mrs. Gaspar.
    But intuitions, suspicions, observations are no evidences.
    They remain what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  125. @122
    I don't like to crticize styles of writing - I don't even mind 'shouting' in the form of block capitals. But my defective old eyes really can't take in a long post in the form of one paragraph. I doubt if anyone with perfect eyesight could take it in. Next time could you pretty please do paragraphs.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Post 122and 123 I agree with both you posts,these videos say much more than Kate and Gerry realise and reading post 108 that is also very interesting concerning the supermarket in PDL. This all appears premeditated the Mccanns friends and their behaviour as mentioned in post 125. RE-OPEN THE CASE. Mccanns are quiet Clarence is busy with election, and they are unable to speak without his script Clarence is as guilty as the Tapas Group. WHERE IS JUSTICE

    ReplyDelete
  127. McCann Files today shows Kate McCann and Fiona Payne talking to the press outside the Court. Kate, the loving mother, says "There is no evidence that any harm has come to Madeleine"!! Does she really think that being snatched from her bed by a complete stranger wouldn't have caused grave damage immediately, notwithstanding what she could be suffering since then. Is this woman living in a dream or does she know something we don't? What a strange mother Kate McCann is!

    ReplyDelete
  128. I don't know if people here are having a look on what is going on in Mexico with Paulette Gebara investigation- A COPY OF MADELEINE CASE in all the bad sides which disgrace the investigation. Now the lawyers are controlling the investigation using their political influences to victimize the parents and crucify the police. WHAT HAPEN TO THE GIRL, HOW SHE DIED, WHY SHE APEARS DEAD IN THE BED AFTER THE FIRST PHOTOS SHOWING AN APARENTLY EMPTY BED, become secondary and totally irrelevant. A shame. Another country showing how the money can corrupt justice and another parents which probably got away without charges. In fact only the poors have to take care about their childs with responsibility.
    The new forensic report about paulette seems to be manipulated to clear the parents and transform her death in a bizarre accident. The girl died of suffocation peaceful because there was no enough space to breath. The report forgot what was previously reported- blood on the bed, where was the body.
    Now, the main issue is to judge the police instead of clarifying what happen to the girl and who did it. Off-course polices always do mistakes, special in mysterious cases with a lot of media pressures. But I don't know what is more condemnable, if the mistakes of the police or the manipulation of the investigation to sack polices which politics don't like. Off-course to sack a police, they always have to accuse him of incompetence and clear and victimize the murders. WHEN ARE POLITICS TO ACT WITH MORE RESPONSABILITY by RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILDS. A child, even disabled, has her rights. Her disability was already disgraceful for her life.
    Journalists were right when they call Paulette, the Mexican Maddie.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Tuesday, August 14, 2007
    "Cheer up Gerry, we're on holiday"
    One of the Tapas Bar 9: "Cheer up Gerry, we're on holiday".

    Gerry McCann: "Fuck off!".

    If he responded like this to an adult when he was upset, how would he respond to a 3 year old child?

    http://dnl.interoute.com/%7Bbc1915ab-648e-4fb8-94ef-12f9747146a7%7D/%7Bac74360a-8ab4-40fe-8f43-a05440f527af%7D/Maddy%201.avi

    Mick Hume in the Times warns about letting the McCanns madness grip the rest of society. He concludes: "Let’s remain alert for warning signs that society’s sense of perspective has gone missing".

    http://jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com/search/label/%22Cheer%20up%20Gerry

    ReplyDelete
  130. @ 121 and @ 124

    It is understood that Kate's diary was written after Aunty Phil suggested it would be something nice to give to Madeleine when she returned.

    Part of Kate`s diary

    Tuesday 01.05.2007 (holiday)

    Kids club beach, sunglasses
    Ice cream
    13:30 → 15:00 ish
    Kids club? 15.15
    ? time not so good

    Is this supposed to be a diary (for Madeleine)?. Imo it is an agenda to suggest Kate 'to be honest' is really honest.
    Better a little admit things, that are common knowledge for those who were with the McCanns and other witnesses, than deny or tell the whole truth. SPIN.


    @ 125 "This whole group has not only shown criminal negligence, they continue to demonstrate their criminal stupidity as well."

    WELL SAID

    ReplyDelete
  131. Nao ha comemoracao do desaparecimento nem do aniversario de Madeleine em anos de eleicoes. Ate onde vai a hipocrisia...

    ReplyDelete
  132. @ 122 - brilliant post - I agree 100% with your comments. Thanks to Joana and all for their hard work, we are getting closer to the truth. This will be the year the Mccanns answer for their crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Joana, o site ' Madeleine mccann, justice for all the family' e completamente difamatorio da sua pessoa e de Goncalo Amaral.
    Hoje, pela primeira vez e acidentalmente, entrei nele e foi um choque. Acusam outros de difamacao quando tudo o que esta no site nao sao mais do que conteudos feitos com o proposito de difamar e manipular a opiniao de gente distraida, sobretudo dos ingleses.
    O site tem comentarios estrategicamente copiados do seu Blog para dar a ideia de que aqui se cultiva uma perseguicao e a eliminacao fisica dos Mccann. Acho muito perigoso este tipo de manipulacoes, porque de facto em 3 anos que visito o seu Blog Joana, nunca vi mentiras, manipulacoes nem perseguicoes fisicas ou de qualquer ordem aos Mccann. Nao sei quem gere o dito Blog, mas parece 'gentinha' sem escrupulos muito na onda do Aragao. Sera alguem ROSIE?
    Se calhar seria bom arranjar alguma maneira de tornar os comentarios que fazemos aqui impossiveis de serem copiados para que nao sejam usados fora de contexto de modo tao vil.

    ReplyDelete
  134. With regard to neglect, may I draw your attention to the advice of the NSPCC. May I encourage you to have a look at what they have to say about the issue here: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/helpandadvice/parentsandcarers/homealone/homealone_wda35965.html

    Even more chilling is what they have to say in their ‘Home Alone’pamflet (http://www.nspcc.org.uk/helpandadvice/publications/leaflets/homealone_pdf_wdf36243.pdf). It says such things as:
    “If your child is under the age of about 12, they may not be mature enough to cope with an
    emergency. They should not be left alone for more than a very short time. And remember to put all obvious
    dangers out of reach before you go, such as medicines, matches and sharp objects.”

    “There’s no legal age limit for leaving a child on their own, but it’s an offence to do so if it places them at risk. Parents can be prosecuted for neglect if they leave a child unsupervised “in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health”. (Children and Young Persons Act*)”
    [I think that is the basis upon which Tony Bennett attempted to bring an action against theMcCanns]

    “It is never safe to leave your young children home alone at night, even if they are asleep. What if they suddenly woke from a bad dream and came looking for you? As a single parent, finding time for you may be difficult. Why not try to find another parent in your area and arrange to take turns to babysit?”

    “It is never OK to leave your baby alone in the house, not even for a few minutes. What if she had woken up just after you left? For a baby, 15 minutes is a long time to feel abandoned and left alone to cry. The risks are dangerous too – what if you were delayed or your baby was sick?”

    I am amazed that the NSPCC has not spoken out about the McCann case, it would be an ideal vehicle to promote their message of not leaving children alone. But no, they are part of the establishment and the critical gag remains firmly in place.

    Whether it is true or not I do not know but on other blocgs I have read that the NSPCC have been instructed not to comment on the case. The infamous pink pro-site also purports to have communication from the NSPCC which seems to indicate they are less than enthusiastic to criticise the McCanns. However, it does seem to me that their advice is unequivocal,others have tested this with the NSPCC, in one response they said (without acknowledging the McCann link)
    “The answer is, under no circumstances should young children and babies be left home alone even for a few minutes.
    The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 states: 'Parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave a child unsupervised in a manner that is likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health'.”

    The cover up is wide and deep and shows little signs of weakening.

    Mr B

    ReplyDelete
  135. Totally agree with 122 and 123 , I have always said Maddie in both these videos is a VERY scared little girl ,in the "Snow White"video she cowers from whoever is taking the video ,the biting of her lip ,all signs of an abused child ,very scared ,how sad ?

    ReplyDelete
  136. #118

    I also agree that their property should have been searched. I was reading again about their hired car and its unexplained mileage of about 1700km and the boot left open for days on end. Would it be too far-fetched to suppose that, as soon as they hired the car, they actually drove, with the body in the boot, to the north of Spain and arranged for someone with access to some sort of preferably refrigerated van to take the body back to Britain, where it would also be out of the reach of the PJ. Any parent who has lost a child would indeed wish them to be "safe" and close to home somehow, although I'm not sure how any normal feelings actually apply to that pair. I'm not sure how much under scrutiny they were at that stage, if tags were kept on their every move, but one can travel quite fast overnight from south to north, although it would be fairly tiring to drive straight back again.

    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Poster 134 like many other posters on here, simply does not grasp the fact that the McCanns have the governments of both England and Portugal protecting them (the outcome of the General Election in England will make no difference). Poster 136 is nearer the mark when he or she intimates that this cover-up shows little sign of weakening. Rather than this being the year when the McCanns crimes are exposed, it will the year when in essence a Portugese court will declare them innocent. Does 134 honestly believe that they will lose in their libel action against Mr Amaral? Does 134 honestly believe that the McCanns would be taking Mr Amaral to court if they thought there was the remotest chance of them losing? It was crystal clear that the recent hearing that extended the injunction on Mr Amaral's book was pre-decided. Mitchell announced a press conference BEFORE the verdict in the McCann's favour. The libel case later this year is also pre-decided.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Mr B

    I think that is true about the looking away from the McCanns as regards publically blaming them for 'neglect' of their children.

    They have managed to reinvent themselves with the media and establishment, but not with the people, who, when they are allowed to make comments, make it obvious what they think about the McCanns and parenting.

    Yet the thing about this case is that the COVER UP of what really happened to Madeleine is the use of that so called, 'child neglect'.

    'Neglect' is part of the false 'logical' reason as to what supposedly happened to Madeleine, in that we are supposed to believe it aided the abduction of Madeleine.

    People have been brainwashed for three years into thinking Madeleine was abducted, and so far, publically, that fairy story is still working, especially in the UK.

    So this issue of 'neglect' is still OK with certain people because it focuses attention away from the truth.

    The truth is that the official investigators concluded that Madeleine was not taken by an abductor because Madeleine died in the apartment.

    The best blood and cadaver dogs in the world, and never been wrong yet dogs, are telling us Madeleine died in the apartment.

    Nor, nor did she die peacefully in her bed.

    Madeleine died behind the settee where the dogs have indicated the blood and cadaver scent, and until this case gets reopened as a murder investigation, which it clearly should be, we will all be pointed in the wrong direction, still looking for an abductor who got into the apartment and took Madeleine because of the supposed 'neglect' of her parents, and be running around in circles for years to come.

    The ball is in the court of Portugal, who should knock it back firmly with a reopened case and 'murder investigation' tag, and make it very clear to the British public that Madeleine is dead and put an end to the spin of the McCanns.

    ReplyDelete
  139. No 136

    For this reason (and I say this with sadness) the NSPCC will not receive another penny from me. I am sure they have done loads of good work but as the flagship children's charity in the UK, they should have spoken out. Since Madeleine, I have given to other worthy children's charities.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Anon 75

    Must have missed it, so what did a certain PJ say on on Panorama?

    ReplyDelete
  141. Anon 132

    Did Kate have two diaries?

    It can hardly have been helpful to give Madeleine a diary saying her mother couldn't cope with the kids.

    So how were these trivia jottings supposed to do that either?

    ReplyDelete
  142. I cancelled a donation to the NSPCC because they failed to contradict the repeated assertion that the mccanns had been advised that what they and their friends did was OK. I also vetoed a suggestion to donate to them and fully explained my reasons why. In both instances the money went to another childrens charity. If that alternative charity ever aligns itself with the mccanns than I shall direct any future donations elsewhere. Charities need to understand, regardless of what has happened to Madeleiene, that it is dangerous to other children to endorse the mccanns repeated wilful neglect and emotional abuse of their children as anything approaching "normal" let alone heroic. Carter Ruck can take my assertion that leaving babies alone the way the tapas nine did is "fair comment" and should not ask for it to be removed as recent precedent has established in UK libel law-hallelujah!

    ReplyDelete
  143. This story is so strange and ever changing that I have wondered if a changeling will be produced at some point and passed off as Madeleleine. It would be harder these days to do that with DNA testing but I'm sure that whoever helped the McCanns cover up the original crime could help them pass off a changeling as well.

    ReplyDelete
  144. No 145

    This story is so strange that if Madeleine appeared today, I would firmly believe that she was a changeling!

    As for the portuguese police, I don't think they will re-open the investigation for the following reasons:

    a) the massive cost involved
    b) the massive insults they received last time
    c) nothing has changed since last time (no new evidence)

    and last but not least

    d) the portuguese government supports the McCanns

    Lets just hope that at some point c) and d) change but after everything that has happened any new evidence would have to be cast-iron, water-tight and totally solid.

    ReplyDelete
  145. @ 140 Mr B - Spot on post, I totally agree with all your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  146. 117, yes, there was more on Gerry, on Katherine Gaspar's statement.
    Probably it is published on the PJ's DVD, that is why the MacCanns want to prohibit it.
    As far as I can remember, Mrs. Gaspar's suspicions and opinion about Gerry are not good at all.
    It was published for a very short time and it disappeared from the blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  147. All animals are born with certain instincts which are inbuilt, present at birth and do not have to be learned. Humans, we must remember, are animals too. We are also born with certain instincts.
    One such is the instinct which we possess as humans to care for, protect and nurture our young. It's one of the reasons why to lose a child is so utterly devastating. It is so against the natural order of things. One is not supposed to outlive one's children. It strikes a discordant note, it feels wrong. Ask any parent who has been touched by the tragedy of losing a child, whatever the circumstances, and they will tell you that the guilt they feel never really leaves them
    For me, I suppose more than any other aspect of this case, the fact that the parents completely abrogated all responsibility for Madeleine is what bothers me most.


    And this is where I despair not only at the ready acceptance of the McCann's abrogation of their responsibility, but at the lack of child welfare groups prepared to say ''You know, we have every sympathy for you in your loss, but what you did was appalling, and we appeal to all parents never to treat their children the same way''
    If I drive my car under the influence and I hit and kill someone who steps out in front of me, it's my fault. Were I not impaired by alcohol, I could have stopped in time.

    In terms of my analogy, the McCanns did the equivalent of driving a car on the pavement with bald tyres, defective brakes and zero visibility through the windscreen, whilst drunk.

    Presumably, they were born with the same innate senses we all were, so protecting their children from harm should be something they didn't even have to think about.
    So why leave tiny children alone?
    Why leave them in a flat with an unlocked door?
    Why make only the most perfunctory checks on them even though they were aware that at least two of the children had lain awake crying for parents who didn't come?

    Their innate senses should have told them that all of these behaviours were placing their children in danger. We see other parents behaving in a similarly irresponsible fashion - nearly always there are social problems which have impaired their ability to make good choices. That would not appear to be the case here.

    Uniquely, these are parents who in my opinion neglected their children, and not only fail to accept responsibility for what they did, but seem to want to change the definition and perception of what constitutes neglect.

    Animals will go to extraordinary lengths to protect their young from predators, often attacking the much larger predator themselves, at enormous risk to their own safety, rather than letting them steal their young.
    The McCanns never even considered predators, or so they would have us believe

    Why not?
    Isn't that what being a parent is about? Protecting one's young?
    It isn't all about feeding them organic vegetables and making sure they don't have too many sugary drinks. It's a bit more basic than that. It's about keeping them safe. Safe from predators, safe from accidents, safe from harm, however it happens.

    But not only do they not accept their responsibility, they also refuse to accept that what occurred - whether you believe them, or think two springer spaniels have a better take on things - resulted in harm for their daughter. And what's more, they will drag into court anyone who dares to question their account or suggest that she has indeed come to harm.

    These are parents who utterly failed their child. They did. No-one else.
    She was not fast asleep in a locked apartment with her parents in the next room
    She was doing for her younger siblings what her parents should have been doing for her.

    And that, Mr and Mrs McCann is wrong. It's just wrong, okay? Even animals expect, and receive, better parenting than that.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Bridget @ 149 What a marvellous post you have put into words so elequantly what we all feel as parents. So why are the Mccanns raised to celebrity status and lauded by the media the whole thing beggers belief!!

    ReplyDelete
  149. Bridget at 149

    This 'neglect' of their children is out of their own mouths, and presumably if the McCanns were going to be charged with neglect then all the Tapas should have been, as they all had been leaving their children alone from the start.

    Nevertheless, the supposed 'accidental' death of Madeleine has never been proved. It might have been a theory Sr Amaral and the other investigators put forward to try and be kind to the McCanns because they know Madeleine is dead and the McCanns have lost a child.

    But the death of Madeleine could also be far more sinister, and have been made to look like an abduction not to cover an accidental death, but because the child's body must not be found and the truth discovered that reveals that Madeleine died by the hand of another person.

    Madeleine did not die in her bed, or the cadaver dog would have alerted to that, and an accident could easily have been covered over, even if it happened while the parents were out of the apartment. So easy to change the time of death to later when the parents were in bed asleep.

    Meanwhile, as regards 'neglect', the truth is more than likely the McCanns and their friends are not going to be charged with that, the moment is past.

    Until the case gets reopened nothing is going to change, and the McCanns will continue to run the show until they will be given some position as Governmental ministers for children, or some other post, probably in the EU. The whitewash will have been complete.

    Sr Amaral has tried to tell the truth that Madeleine is dead, and has been slammed in the media for doing so. It is even hard now to get a comment printed which is anti McCann and anti their parenting.

    Why?

    Because we don't have a free press, at the moment it is as controlled and manipulated as the rest of us. The McCanns have used it to great effect.

    Yet, perhaps like us, the UK media is waiting for something to break in Portugal in the McCann case. But until this case gets reopened the tide will not be turning, and the media will keep on churning out whatever the McCanns want.

    The McCanns are fighting hard for that reopening not to happen. Sr Amaral has said there was enough evidence to bring charges, and although it didn't happen, with a different prosecutor it could.

    We have not seen the bulk of evidence the investigators have in the File that is hidden.

    Do the McCanns already know what that evidence is, and know that if the case gets reopened then they will have lost their position with the media, and people will no longer be discussing 'neglect' 'abductor' or 'accidental death'.

    Come on Portugal, here's hoping this case can be reopened very soon and the truth be known.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Bridget 149 - Thanks for that and I totally agree that this case highlights one example of how some people perceive their offspring with such disdain and irrelevance. Its beyond my comprehension and I`ve given up trying to understand why there are people like this in the world - there just are. Seems it comes down to some humans having such big egos, their children are way down the list of importance.

    For me this case also offends my sense of justice and the unfairness in the class/money divide. I hate the arrogance of TM and how they obviously think they are superior and they can spit out any stupid waffle and all us dimlos will believe it. If they had shown some humility and not got on the money-making bandwagon,I would probably have had more sympathy for them. I hate the corruptness of the large organisations and the political involvement but worst of all I`m hating the threat to freedom of speech - I just sense a strong movement in general away from democracy and towards fascism.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  151. Bridget @ 149

    Im afraid neglect isnt the issue. Although I agree leaving tiny children alone is appalling.

    The McCanns have quite cleverly used the neglect issue- no doubt posting both sides of the fence to keep moving the ball back into that court (Im not suggesting you Bridget but others). Then they come out and say oh but who hasnt taken their eyes off their children for one moment-who hasnt made a mistake? Our mistake had the gravest outcome no critism or court can punish us as much as we have already been punished-so pulling at the heartstrings and making those who still question them seem unforgiving monsters.


    Yet its a HUGH FAT LIE Madeleine wasnt alive when they went for Tapas- Gerrys description (proud father moment)Madeleine in featol (recovery) position- Kate's story of Madeleines unconcerned complaint (a child with night terrors!)are obvious lies. They are pure rubbish and anyone who looks codly at the facts can see.Listen to their words and let it grow on you - the extent of the lies these monsters are telling.

    Thats why there is so much opposition to this pair-it unites us all from every background, every walk of life - their child was dead and they made her disappear- how she died- I would say who really knows but thats not a truthful answer Kate and Gerry know and we want them to tell the PJ so Madeleine can final be put to rest with a proper registered Christian burial.

    Amaral made a promise that he would find Madeleine I suspect amongst the PJ he wasnt alone. I believe the PJ will find out what the truth of what happened to her no matter how long it takes and whoever opposes them.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Thank you for the feedback.

    There are a couple of points I feel I need to pick up on.

    In any discussion about this case, I prefer to stick to what we know, and to what can be proven. Most people have their own theory - as do I - but that wasn't really what I was getting at.

    There are only two possibilities in this case.

    Either whatever happened to Madeleine happened to her as a direct result of the lack of care exercised by her parents, and by that I mean whether you believe that she was abducted, wandered off or met with an accident, as none of those eventualities were possible if Madeleine was being properly supervised,

    or

    the entire story about the children being left alone is an untruth, and one must presume some element of planning and/or pre-meditation.

    Now, what I believe is immaterial.

    The first scenario - let's call it ''home alone'' - is supported by admission and to a certain extent by the evidence.

    The second scenario isn't.Yet.

    I am not addressing my comments to what I believe the McCann's role might be, to what Dr Amaral's theory suggests their role might have been, and to what the various theories put forward suggest their role might have been.

    I am addressing them to the actions to which they have admitted, and what the response has been to those actions.

    No universal condemnation by child welfare groups.
    No clarification of the law as regards leaving children unattended.
    No admission by the parents that they could possibly be at fault. They were ''at worst, naive'' remember?

    I refuse to speculate on how much worse the real explanation of that night might be. I was trying to illustrate how unacceptable the behaviour was to which they HAVE admitted.

    The best word to describe the McCanns is Chuzpah.

    They are the repulsive equivalent of the man whom having killed both his parents appeals to the court for mercy, citing the fact that he is now an orphan.

    Are they using the issue of neglect to cover up something worse? I don't know. Frankly, no-one does.
    What I object to is the lie that says that level of neglect is okay, is understandable even because 'they could never have imagined someone would come in and steal their child'

    Bollocks.

    We lock our doors and windows because we can well imagine that someone could come in and steal our laptop. I would expect my insurance company to tell me to sling my hook under those circumstances.

    I just feel that not enough people who mattered told them to sling theirs.

    ReplyDelete
  153. I downloaded the Gaspar statements some time ago, when both David |Payne and Gerry were named by Mrs Gaspar." I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine.." She then goes on to describe the gestures Dave made and how she looked at Gerry, to see their reactions. Does anybody remember a statement with more information than this?

    ReplyDelete
  154. 156

    Yes good point was there anything else in the Gaspar statement other than your quote, I am also curious as to what is missing?

    ReplyDelete
  155. Bridget 155 - agreed - its a shame the NSPCC didn`t bring neglect charges - maybe they would have had more luck than Mr. Bennett.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  156. Did the McCanns really leave the door unlocked, or did they have to say that when they discovered the investigators weren't buying 'the abductor broke in through the window' load of rubbish.

    After all, if the shutters weren't jemmied, then the door was the only way the abductor could have entered, and there was no evidence the door was jemmied either.

    Is that when they decided to say they left the door unlocked? Then they could say the abductor must have come in that way and then gone out by the window.

    As they are insisting there was an abductor, he had to have come in some way. It doesn't sound like the abduction scenario was thought out very well. Was that because it was assumed the shutter could be easily opened from the outside.

    Also, did Payne really go visit Kate, or was that supposed sighting of Madeleine included to vouch that she was still alive in the early evening?

    Was it important to make sure there was somebody to say they saw her then, apparently alive and well?

    After reading Payne's statement he appears very unsure as to why he paid the visit, or why Gerry asked him to go.

    Gerry McCann, on the other hand, implies it was Payne himself who simply went and visited and it was nothing to do with him.

    Even if Payne did visit, did he actually see Madeleine running around, alive and well? He does not say that he did, just that the children were behaving like angels and questioned Kate about them going to bed so early. How many children did he really see?

    That supposed visit is certainly very strange and isn't really explained at all.

    All this sounds like an abduction scenario gone wrong and last minute improvisation.

    It is hard to believe they would admit to having left the door unlocked unless they were forced into it by the non believable 'shutters were forced' story.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Anon 159 It`s odd that Kate and Payne both remembered their lines about the length of Payne`s visit when they both said it was "30" - but one of them forgot whether it was minutes or seconds.

    Its like kids involved in a lie - they get it right EXCEPT the most important bit.

    ReplyDelete
  158. @ #156

    I've had another look at the statements on the maddie case files site, and I have to say they are pretty much as I remember. I am just wondering if they have been translated into Portuguese, then back into English at a later date? That might mean there could be some slight differences. I don't think they are significantly different, though. Sorry not to be of more help.

    ReplyDelete
  159. @159 Excellent post.

    I do remember the McCanns changed the story about the locked/unlocked door.

    ReplyDelete
  160. In his statement Payne says there is something he would like to say about the disappearance of Madeleine but he did not want it put in his statement.

    Would that information have been included in the rest of the Files that have not yet been released, or was it ever passed on by LP to the PJ?

    Did the McCanns know what that information was?

    Just how important was that information?

    ReplyDelete
  161. Louise at 152 I share your sentiments exactly and agree with Bridget too. I hope you both have a relaxing weekend because this case is very draining on the emotions. We all need to re-charge and carry on putting on the pressure where we can.

    ReplyDelete
  162. I believe the police should check their house at Rothley with the sniffer dogs, it wouldn't surprise me if Gerry on one of his many visits back to the UK actually brought Maddie's body back.
    I know it sounds far fetched but reading previous comments it is quite possible,he only had half an hour to hide the body on the 3rd, probably in the church then it was removed in the scenic, he did not know Portugal well enough to hide a body, so I reckon its back in the UK.
    Gerry knew if it was in Portugal eventually it would be found, he travelled on private jets so would not have been subjected to customs, he's the type of person that would do this, he believes he's invincible maybe not so much now, but in the early days, remember his blog, his arrogance.
    by removing floor boards he could have buried her in the foundations, no one would have seen him and its the last place people would look. When he came to Britain on one of his trips he made out he'd lost his wallet and was late for a meeting by several hours thats when he probably did it. Get Eddie and Keela to search Rothley Towers.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Anon 165 Agreed, their property in UK should be searched with the dogs. Why was this never done when they were suspects?

    When Kate said she had a dream (which has since been denied by Gerry), and had investigators searching up the hills in PDL for a dead Madeleine, is when they should check out what Gerry was doing at that time.

    He was said to be on a flight to Washington on one of his friend Branson's planes.

    But it was also a flight via the UK.

    Was any of Gerry's luggage offloaded in UK to be picked up, or was any luggage handed over to somebody at the airport?

    No doubt that chasing up the hills caused quite a bit of distraction in PDL, but was anybody watching Gerry at the same time?

    ReplyDelete
  164. Anon @ 165 and 166 - totally agree and how ironic that Leicestershire police have spent so much tax payers money travelling to and fro Portugal that Madeleine was under their very noses in Leicestershire all the time - its probably true, it is the type of twist that would prove their guilt beyond doubt - check the house Leicestershire police.

    ReplyDelete
  165. get the house searched. Put an end to this farce. All the milage the Mccanns clocked up on the Scenic and the trips they made, Kates dream, sightings of Maddie were all red herrings - I suspect she is buried in UK Gerry thought it was the safest place to hide her whilst everybody was searching PDL - surely this comes under UK police duristriction

    ReplyDelete
  166. Gerry is very manipulative, everything he does is done for effect. The day his wallet supposedly was stolen, he said he also found a drunk lying in the road in Portugal and attended someone who was ill on the place which he made a great fuss of on his blog.
    What factually happened was he needed several hours to do something, thus making the excuse of needing to phone credit card companies to cancell cards etc.
    Nobody knew where he was at this time in UK he was hours late for his meeting, when he returned to Portugal Kate met him at the airport, whatever he did in UK it was important enough for Kate to meet him and he lied about having his wallet stolen.
    Maddie is buried at Rothley, he lied too much on that day to cover whatever he was doing. What are the police so afraid of - get a search warrant and do your job.

    ReplyDelete
  167. The dream is a distraction, he probably told her to say that once he was on the plane. Same as they mentioned Maddie saying 'where were you when Sean and I were crying last night' - statements that do not make any sense this pair plan everything it has all been thought through.
    They are very guarded and careful of what they say. Hence they are never interviewed separately, they watch out for each other. Why would they bring attention to their negligence unless it was for another reason, to make us believe Maddie was still alive that morning, same as the police searching the hills - they are playing with the police, even I can see that and I'm not privvy to the file, come on wake up. Maddie died on 2nd, 3rd was alibi night hid body in church, later returned to United Kingdom where it still is. The cost of Eddie and Keela checking out the house is minimal compared to what has already been spent on this investigation.

    ReplyDelete