26 May 2010

Portuguese Attorney General Office On the Recycled McCann Spin


The PGR [ Portuguese Attorney General Office] does not consider Carlos Moreira alleged Maddie «sighting» in Benavente reliable


In Portugal, this and other similar accounts do not have the «undisputed credibility» necessary to reopen the Public Ministry archived process relative to the investigation of  Madeleine Beth McCann' mysterious disappearence.

A source from the Portuguese Attorney General Office explained yesterday that «none of the informations which have reached the official investigators of the case [Portuguese Judiciary Police], amongst them various alleged sightings, had the required degree of probability and/or plausibility to reopen the process».

«The same [Maddie's Case Process] will only be reopened if and when we are presented with accounts that have an acceptable amount of reliability», added the source.

A Judiciary Police source also said that no new leads have arrived to them recently and, that all the informations received up until now were not considered as being of unquestionable credibility by the Portuguese Public Ministry, in order to prompt the reopening of the Maddie case.

An official source from that same institution guaranteed that «despite the process is archived, the Judiciary Police keeps a commitment to explore all the leads».

Note


Early this year begun the hearing sessions relative to the injunction requested by the McCann couple against a book and a documentary; the request was made in their own name, in missing Madeleine McCann's name [a Ward of Court since the 2nd of April 2008 - PDF link] and in the twins Sean and Amelie names; it was requested trough their Portuguese lawyer Isabel Duarte and was temporarily granted until the main action is trialled - the main action is a libel action against Gonçalo Amaral where the McCann couple asks for 1,2 million Euros in compensation.

The anti-constitutional injunction banned the book 'Maddie, The Truth of the Lie' from the Portuguese market [only] and forbade the broadcast by TVI Portuguese TV Channel [owned by the Spanish group PRISA] of the documentary based on the book or any divulgation of the contents expressed in both. The commercialization of the documentary by Valentim de Carvalho Filmes was prohibited and the book publisher Guerra & Paz was barred from editing, publishing and selling the book copyright to other book editors.

The injunction also obliges the former PJ chief-coordinator Gonçalo Amaral, author of the censored book to silence - otherwise he would forcefully have to pay 1000 euros each time he would give an opinion based on the factual conclusions shared by the joint investigation made by the PJ [Portuguese Judiciary Police]/MET -NSY, NPIA & some Leicestershire Police Officers, codenamed Operation Task (PDF) [Interpol - Europol also co-operated with the PJ closely]. The end results and similar conclusions of a premature archived investigation are presented in the Portuguese Public Ministry Process.

During the above mentioned hearing sessions in a Lisbon Court, sworn witnesses stated in court the McCanns and their numerous teams of private detectives [Kevin Halligen, Metodo 3, Dave Edgar, Henry Exton, etc...] have failed to send any new leads or any kind of information to the Portuguese Judiciary Police, the only criminal police who has the jurisdiction to investigate the case in the Portuguese Republic, a sovereign territory.

Personal Comment


The McCann's Carlos Moreira of the Lazzeri's SUN exclusive non-news article is simply another dismissed 'witness' account from the PJ 'sexed-up dossier' files, that Isabel Duarte and the McCanns themselves, via Clarence Mitchell and some of the UK media [mainly Murdoch's News Corp media outlets] have been trying to exploit and hype - each with its own agenda. Nothing will come from the re-hashed spin, except an intentional Team McCann machiavellian spin to attempt validate a previous cock-and-bull story on Raymond Hewlett's [and re-accuse the now dead and defenceless Hewlett (another scapegoat like Murat)], bringing back the «old» tale of the white van as a «new» lead. [which by now was distributed via the news agencies and published by the world's mainstream media in an ad nauseam copy cat journalistic style]


The McCann couple can and could have easily asked for the reopening of the process of the investigation to their daughter's disappearance to the Portuguese Public Ministry at any moment, yet they've allowed its archival in 2008 without moving a straw or in this particular case, by leaving the vast majority of stones unturned [ 'We will leave no stone unturned. In the search, for our daughter, Madeleine' - Gerry McCann], which is by the way the name of the non-charitable registered trade mark name for the  Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned started on the 15th of  May 2007.

If the McCanns decide to answer the PJ questions which they refused to answer in 2007, or if they do the official reconstruction as requested by the authorities [not a crime watch style nor a biased mockumentary] or if they explain the many incongruences of the Tapas 9 statements, the McCanns' daughter case will be forcefully reopened in Portugal. We are still waiting for the McCanns to take some action so that goal is achieved - and expect that they stop censoring and filing lawsuits against all those who do not believe in their uncorroborated version of the events that took place on the 3rd May 2007.

Info

Ongoing translation of the Process Files from Portuguese to English at The Maddie Case Files Forum

The book the McCanns added to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum at Truth about a Lie, translated to English.

The forbidden documentary based on the banned book in here, subtitles in English.




Related

Exclusive Video: McCanns Press Conference
«The following video was recorded by a journalist, the only journalist who dared ask the McCann couple tough questions. You may have seen some of the footage broadcast on your own countries' TV channels, edited to suit the spin, and some even altered or omitted the fact that the McCanns only mentioned that they would like the archived process of Madeleine McCann to be re-opened or reviewed after the former PJ coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral, told the media a few hours earlier that he was evaluating the legal aspects to constitute himself as an assistant in the process in order to pressure its reopening, so the investigation into Madeleine's disappearence can continue.

The whole of the mainstream media also didn't make any reference to a press note distributed among the journalists during the court lunch break by 'Citizens in Defence of Rights and Freedoms - Project Justice Gonçalo Amaral' featuring an appeal to 'the English subjects, and especially to the English media, to pressure the police to open their archives' and that 'the world wants to know what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Premature shelving is not an answer'.

In this video Gerry McCann says that he would be 'delighted' if the case is reopened. We eagerly wait for the McCann Couple to request the reopening of the case and for their participation in a reconstruction.»

Kate McCann Forced Political Pressure on the Investigation
«To increase the political pressure”. The phrase, by Kate McCann, written among the notes that were found in her house which the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) apprehended, is clear about the manner in which Maddie’s parents intended to manage their daughter’s disappearance, bringing it into the press’ first pages and turning it into a case with political outlines.»

'Maddie died and the parents concealed'
«The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in Praia da Luz, in May 2007, started as if it was an abduction. But “Kate and Gerry McCann were made arguidos because the elements that were collected during the investigation pointed towards death, simulation of abduction and concealment of the child’s cadaver”, chief inspector Tavares de Almeida, one of the PJ investigators who held the case until he was removed from it – in early September 2007 – when he requested the change of the coercion measures into preventive custody “to prevent them from leaving Portugal”, said in court yesterday.

“We always spoke about an accidental death. Even prosecutor Magalhães Menezes [holder of the process] believed in Maddie’s death, just like Kate herself, at a given point in time. But the PJ does not have the power to accuse and the process was archived”, Tavares de Almeida explained – in front of the McCann couple – during the first session of the opposition to the injunction that prohibited the sale of former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral’s book ‘The Truth of the Lie’.

“The dogs detected blood and cadaver odour in the apartment and in the rented car. And all that was collected was [done] jointly with members of the Birmingham laboratory, in order to avoid any discrepancies. But, as incredible as this may sound, after the first result showed that 15 out of 19 alleles from the sample of Madeleine’s DNA coincided, they came and said that they had contaminated the samples”, Tavares de Almeida accused

All information regarding Madeleine Beth McCann disappearance should be forwarded to the only official and criminal Police force that can investigate crimes in Portugal, not to rent-a-cops or dubious organizations, nor to Police forces that withhold vital information for more than 5 months. Please forward any information that can help re-open the archived investigation of Maddie's disappearance to the Portuguese Judiciary Police to:

Directoria Nacional da Polícia Judiciária
Rua Gomes Freire n.º 174 1069-007 Lisboa
T./P.: +351 21 864 10 00
Fax: +351 21 353 73 37
E-mail: biad.sipc@pj.pt

Unidade de Cooperação Internacional
Rua Gomes Freire, 213 , 1150-178 Lisboa
T./P.: + 351 218 641 000

Or to:

Departamento de Investigação Criminal de Portimão
Rua Pé da Cruz, nº2, 8500-640 Portimão
T./P.:+351 282 405 400
Fax: +351 282 412 763
E-Mail: dic.portimao@pj.pt


All image credits belong to my dear & very talented friend Himself at The McCann Gallery and Good Quality Wristbands - Clarence Mitchell spinning suspects sequence in full here


455 comments:

  1. Cear,neat and concise: mccanns all your stuff is just NOT credible and once again you"ve been told and this time via official channels.
    Now,come on and officially ask for the reopening of the case.
    What are you waiting for?Either that or please,just go away and make sure never to be seen ever again.
    You"ve damaged enough people around your miserable life including and for a start your very onw child
    GO AWAY

    ReplyDelete
  2. It sounds as though the Portuguese authorities are displaying both intelligence and integrity.
    Unlike ... ( insert name as appropriate)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very very good article as always Joana,
    It is so clear to see for all that the McCanns tried to collect a pile of stones on Madeleine's grave instead of turning them trying to find her. Poor little girl.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am not holding my breath the the case will be re-opened,

    Yesterday I planted a beautiful Clematis Montana for Maddie, Its called Maddies flower (tree) and its a climber plant/tree which will stay with me forever. I will watch it grow and pray for sweet little Maddie every day.

    As for Princess Kate and King Gerry - they can both drop dead for all I care

    GOD BLESS MADDIE

    ReplyDelete
  5. A bofetada de luva branca aos que dizem que os McCann ajudaram a lançar o sistema de Alerta Europeu para Crianças desaparecidas

    «Curiosamente, Portugal, através da PJ, foi dos primeiros países europeus a criar o programa "Alerta Rapto". As linhas gerais de como funciona o mecanismo foi ontem apresentado por Luís Neves, director da Unidade Nacional Contra o Terrorismo (UNCT) durante a V Conferência Europeia sobre "Crianças Desaparecidas e Exploradas Sexualmente", promovida pelo Instituto de Apoio à Criança (ver texto ao lado). O programa criado em 2009 nunca foi usado. Aliás, o uso "pode ser também um pau de dois bicos", explicou Luís Neves, dando a entender que a divulgação rápida de um rapto tanto poderá ajudar à captura do agressor, como ajudá-lo a esconder-se. O programa tem como parceiros, entre outros, os meios de comunicação social.» DN de hoje http://dn.sapo.pt/inicio/portugal/Interior.aspx?content_id=1578539

    IV Conferência Europeia Crianças Desaparecidas e Exploradas Sexualmente, Novo Auditório da Assembleia da República, Lisboa - video aqui http://www.justicatv.com/

    O Instituto de Apoio à Criança (IAC) organiza hoje [Ontem dia 25 de Maio], Dia Internacional das Crianças Desaparecida, a IV Conferência Europeia sobre Crianças Desaparecidas e Exploradas Sexualmente.

    A Conferência, transmitida em directo na JustiçaTV, é subordinada ao tema «As novas tecnologias aplicadas à busca e recuperação de Crianças Desaparecidas» e decorrerá no Novo Auditório da Assembleia da República.

    Conta com peritos nacionais e internacionais nas questões do Alerta Rapto de Crianças e da Base de Dados de ADN, para além da presença dos Ministros da Administração Interna e da Justiça, do Procurador-Geral da República e do Provedor da Justiça.

    Irá ainda ser apresentada a situação nacional relativamente ao combate do fenómeno do desaparecimento de Crianças.

    O programa completo é o seguinte:

    9h30 - Abertura
    Presidente do IAC, Dr.ª Manuela Eanes
    Ministro da Administração Interna, Dr. Rui Pereira
    Ministro da Justiça, Dr. Alberto Martins
    Procurador-Geral da República, Juiz Conselheiro Pinto Monteiro
    Provedor da Justiça, Juiz Conselheiro Alfredo José de Sousa

    11h00 - 1º Painel - As Novas Tecnologias ao dispor da Busca de Crianças
    Presidente: Dr. Carlos Farinha – Director do Laboratório de Policia Criminal da Policia Judiciária
    «Alerta Rapto de Crianças», Dr. Luís Neves, Coordenador da Unidade de Combate ao Crime e Banditismo da Policia Judiciária
    11h30 - «Base de dados criminal de ADN», Prof. Doutor. Francisco Corte Real, Director IML de Coimbra
    12h00- «DNA ProKids”», Prof. Doutor Jose Lorente, Laboratório de Genética, Universidade de Granada
    12h30 - Debate

    12h45- Almoço

    14h00 - 2º Painel As Novas Tecnologias ao Dispor da Protecção à Criança
    Presidente: Juiz Conselheiro Armando Leandro
    «A Linha Europeia 116 000 – Linha Europeia para as Crianças Desaparecidas», Prof. Dr.ª Alexandra Simões, Coordenadora da Linha SOS Criança Desaparecida e Membro da Direcção da Missing Children Europe
    14h30 - «Projecto Rua», Dr.ª Matilde Sirgado, Coordenadora do Projecto Rua, Instituto de Apoio à Criança
    15h00 - «A Linha Alerta», Dr. Gustavo Neves, Coordenador da Linha Alerta, Fundação para a Computação Científica Nacional
    15h30 - «Não estás à venda» Dr.ª Luísa Maia Gonçalves, Directora Central da DCIPAI do SEF e «O SEF vai à Escola», Dr. António Carlos Patrício, Director Regional de Lisboa do SEF

    16h00 – Encerramento
    Presidente Executiva do Instituto de Apoio à Criança, Dr.ª Dulce Rocha
    Secretário Estado da Protecção Civil, Dr. Vasco Franco
    Secretário de Estado da Justiça e da Modernização Judiciária, Dr. José Magalhães

    IV Conferência Europeia sobre Crianças Desaparecidas e Exploradas Sexualmente”: press release aqui http://wp.me/pHf0t-DO or here http://criancasatortoeadireitos.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/image001.png

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the PGR states that none of these sightings, etc. are not reliable and do not merit reopening the case then I guess that Isabel Duarte can't put the blame on Ricardo Paiva, as she already tried.

    Caroline

    ReplyDelete
  7. Despite what the McCanns say publicly, that they want a reopening /review of the case, it's clearly not what they want at all! They only say it to come out looking good in the picture, a weak response to the criticism more and more people are letting out at them because of their blatant lack of action.
    In this matter, the portuguese PGR is their best friend, he is playing their game and doing exactly what they want him and the portuguese authorities to do, which is NOTHING AT ALL!

    ReplyDelete
  8. A super article Joana. I only wish this could be on the front pages of our so called 'newspapers.'

    Just by the way I wouldn't have described Hewlitt as either fat or good looking......
    obsessed

    ReplyDelete
  9. Esta na hora da PJ os 'encurralar' investigando os casos paralelos: Comecem pelo Aragao Correia, o Leandro e os Cipriano. Quem fez o Madeirense abandonar a Ilha e rumar ao continente? Quem lhe pagou a estadia? Qual foi o papel do actual e do ex-bastonario da Ordem dos advogados? E a M3? Bem investigada larga muita uva.

    Os Mccann estao por tras de tudo o que serviu para distrair e descredibilizar a PJ. Basta revermos com atencao as datas em que as coisas foram acontecendo- A carta do De Telegraaf, depois da viagem a Holanda. Hewlett e as historias marroquinas, depois da viagem a Espanha e Marrocos, etc, etc. Fabricaram e alimentaram tudo desde o inicio com a bencao de Clarence mitchell e dos advogados ( Que a vergonha cubra de negro a cara dos advogados portugueses que sao a maior vergonha da nossa democracia).
    Se foi para nascer um sistema de justica assim que foi feito o 25 de Abril, entao deixassem estar o M. Caetano no poder para purgar salazar e reformular o pais. Alguns dos que hoje estao em cargos de relevo na justica, ja eram Seniores quando se deu o 25 de Abri, mas nem assim se coibem de falar para os jornais nos dias em que se lembram os desaparecidos, exigindo penas mais duras para os pedofilos? Para que, penas mais duras se eles sao julgados a ' La CARTE' e so os pobretanas chegam a barra do tribunal? Um policia, no exercicio do seu trabalho, dispara uma arma para conter um assalto... e condenado a varios anos de prisao, se acertar no criminoso. O criminoso mesmo que seja detido em flagrante, apanha um juiz que o livra da preventiva e o manda com termo de identidade. Fica anos assim, sem se coibir de continuar com a sua vidinha criminosa. E isto se ele ja nao for um daqueles cadastrados com passado e direito a subsidio de reinsercao. Porque estes gozam duplamente com quem trabalha honestamente e paga os impostos que os sustentam.
    E para si PGR, esta lenga-lenga. Quem disse que nao ha materia para reabrir o processo? Ha, e muita!!!! releia os jornais, faca um trabalho cronologico nesta saga, encurrale-os. Chame as testemunhas que eles trazem para os jornais, a depor. Cace as mentiras e exponha-as. Se for inteligente, sabera como faze-lo.
    O rapto foi uma fraude e o Fundo tambem o e. Ha imensa gente que perdeu o emprego por causa desta fraude enquanto imoralmente, os criminosos continuam a facturar, pedindo esmolas para uma crianca que nunca conseguiram provar, ter sido raptada.
    Numa epoca em que se pede moral a sociedade e sacrificios para conter a crise, como e que se pode ficar insensivel e cego perante um golpe similar ao dos banqueiros sem escrupulos?
    Os jornalecos do Murdhoc ainda hao-de servir para 'encurralar' os Mccann, se em Portugal houver gente com inteligencia e T....

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why wait for new leads - the facts stated above make it quite clear the mccanns are guilty- someone in authority should take over and sort this mess out re-open the case the mccanns are making a mockery of just about everything.

    ReplyDelete
  11. KK 3

    The mccanns will NEVER ask for the re-opening of the case: NEVER

    ReplyDelete
  12. Obviously, like 99% of us on this blog I feel nothing but utter loathing and contempt for the McCanns and all who continue to help them evade justice but to be honest, my hatred is now turning towards the Portuguese for not re-opening this case and for banning Goncalo's book.
    What the hell is going on?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Merci for this very complete and clear article.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Peter Mac 2

    Sorry dont agree at all this isnt about intelligence and integrity its about the Portuguese authorities running scared, they know what Team McC are doing, and are prepared to let TM make them look stupid to all Countries around globe...............but why, imo this case will never be re-opened no matter how stupid Team Mccann make PT look. NO WAY WOULD THE UK PUT UP WITH IT, SO WHY DOES PT??

    I not only pray for Poor little Maddie I pray that one day PT will find the strength to fight back, by not letting polictics come befor justice for Madeleine Beth Mccann.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous/obsessed @8 wrote:-

    "Just by the way I wouldn't have described Hewlitt as either fat or good looking......"


    Neither would I. He wasn't aged 40-42 (?!) either, not even 3 years ago. Hewlett was in his mid-sixties.

    Thanks for all your hard work, dear Joana - yet another cohesive and well set-out post. Sad as this case is, Clarence Mitchell's absurd stunts open it to ridicule, as usual. The images have me =))

    ReplyDelete
  16. To be fair to the Portuguese, the PJ were let down badly by the British inappropriate political involvement of the time, by the unprofessional bias of CEOP and the unreliability of the FSS. Even Leicestershire police were too close to the McCanns. With better DNA results they could have done more. The Mccanns have shot themselves in the foot by their behaviour and they will never be cleared of this.

    In cases like this, somebody always spills the beans when placed under the right pressure. That will happen at some time, ahd the suspicion will always be there. They will never be free.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Poster 13 asks what's going on. Many of us have known for a long time that the Portugese are part of this cover-up. It is their part in the cover-up that is more significant than the roles played by the British Media and Government. All that is left is for the McCanns to apply the coup-de-grace at the pre-decided libel trial later this year. Does anyone seriously believe that the McCanns would be taking action against Mr Amaral if they thought their was the remotest possibility of not succeeding? I'm afraid to say that this despicable pair are untouchable.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "An official source from that same institution guaranteed that «despite the process is archived, the Judiciary Police keeps a commitment to explore all the leads»

    An OFFICIAL source,not a pink stream of pink lies....
    The mccans have still not understood they are bouncing against a big wall: the inflexibility of the Portuguese justice system.
    They will crack up.Or somebody will but NOT Portugal. :D

    ReplyDelete
  19. The only piece of evidence left that the authorities haven,t got,which would enable the case to be re-opened is, a "confession" (and thats not going to happen),other than that what on earth are they waiting for??the latest suspect (last seen 3 years ago ,a good looking gypsy abductor ) to bring Maddie back safely ?? we know none of their tapas friends are ever going to say any thing to help ,as once they open their mouths about any thing that would help the authorities,they,d be putting their whole livelihoods in jeapardy because in the type of jobs they hold ,once its proven you,ve neglected your children (ie leaving them unattended for long periods ),you can not hold down a job, such as a doctor ,or have I been misinformed on that issue ?I am basing this on a very reliable source,but,other than that ,would appreciate being corrected if I am wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The following just about says it all to me. It demonstrates that the McCanns have it within their power to get the case re-opened, something that any "normal" person would have done a long time ago. It would not prevent them continuing to use their own investigators too, so they could have 2 lots of stones being turned at the same time. As yet I personally do not think they have turned one stone, all they have done is turned people's stomachs because their actions are truly sickening.

    "If the McCanns decide to answer the PJ questions which they refused to answer in 2007, or if they do the official reconstruction as requested by the authorities [not a crime watch style nor a biased mockumentary] or if they explain the many incongruences of the Tapas 9 statements, the McCanns' daughter case will be forcefully reopened in Portugal. We are still waiting for the McCanns to take some action so that goal is achieved - and expect that they stop censoring and filing lawsuits against all those who do not believe in their uncorroborated version of the events that took place on the 3rd May 2007."

    ReplyDelete
  21. i agree with 15,the Portuguese should call thier bluff,what are they afraid of.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cadaver was found on Kate’s clothing but not Gerry’s, this is odd especially as Gerry ‘supposedly’ carried Madeleine as witnessed in the Smith statements so he should have had a strong cadaver on his clothing, if the Smiths are mistaken about Gerry, there appears to be no other credible witnesses for the 3rd that actually saw Madeleine. The crèche records could easily have been faked, nobody knew Madeleine.
    I also found it odd that Kate admitted to the police that Madeleine said her and her brother were crying and why did the parents not come. This statement serves no purpose except to place Madeleine still alive on the morning of the 3rd. When I was searching other sites I came across CCTV images of all the Tapas Group with the exception of Kate and Gerry on the afternoon of the 3rd at the Paraiso Resaurant, so where were they? You can view the group at ( Pamalam’s site http/wwwgerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PJ/PARAISO.htm ).
    IMO Payne went looking for Gerry found him on tennis court to see how things had gone with the disposal of Madeleine; he popped into see Kate to see if she was alright. Kate in her statement also said she had a bath and shower in a short space of time perhaps psychologically she felt dirty. The group knew there was CCTV in the Paraiso Restaurant which gave them their alibi for the afternoon just in case anything went wrong.
    Now IF (and this is a very big if..) the group had already hired the scenic for that week Kate and Gerry would have used it to dispose of Madeleine whilst the rest of the group were in the Paraiso her DNA stayed in the vehicle because when it was returned to the hire company it was never steam cleaned and so 25 days later when they re-hired the car her DNA was still there. IMO they would have hired a boat and gone out as far as possible, the ocean is the obvious choice because they did not know the area and this is where the blue holdall would have been used between them they could have managed that. Holiday makers are always wandering around with baggage. The twins were in the crèche.
    The Tapas group are all careful to state that none of them actually saw Madeleine when doing their checks that evening because she was not there. The fund reached its first million, easy money Carter Ruck, Clarence and all the others saw this and that’s why they have all climbed on the bandwagon and through their contacts they have managed to manipulate just about everybody involved and silence the media and stopped the proper investigation from reaching its obvious conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 23-brilliant post, I bet my bottom dollar it was like you stated or very very similar.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am going to email the mccanns and ask why they havent asked for the case to be reopened.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 53 I have always thought the letter emanated from the MCCanns.
    I believe a lot of people from the expat. community in Praia de Luz know a lot about this case and that there has been a lot of local "chatter"

    ReplyDelete
  26. My feeling is the cadavar could have been cremated at the pet cemetary, the ashes taken to uk and put under that tree or bush they recently planted. I read somewhere that police interviewed a man at the pet cemetary. food for thought. god bless u maddie

    ReplyDelete
  27. Good point anon.@23,
    Cadaver scent on kate clothes but not on Gerry:

    -A pair of trousers ( cream color, described by the Smiths an Jane on one of her changed stories) were on top of Mccann's bed in one of GNR pictures.( available at Mccannfiles) Kate said to PJ,the trousers were Jeans.

    - The Tapas 7 ( I think 6 because the old lady was not there) were caught on the CCTV at cafe paraiso during the tea time of May 3. Where had been Kate, Gerry, the childs and Fiona mother?

    - If the Smiths sight is true ( and I believe is because Amaral and PJ gave high importance to it), the girl who Gerry was carrying on was not Madeleine but one of the Tapas 7 girl, with same age as Madeleine. Some witnesses said the girls have some resemblance. Why Gerry carry that girl? Because he wants at least one independent witness to make the abduction theory reliable, in case the police buy their story straight away. Soon ( on the same night) they realised that GNR and PJ were suspecting them, due to the questions and the doubts police posed to them, this is why in my opinion, they never mention the Smiths. In many fabricated sights, their spin machine never come up with a witness claiming the Smiths sight ( their plan on that issue went wrong, then need to be dismissed).

    - The Pyjama which they conveniently delivered to the Press with a picture, after the coloboma picture ant the Happy family portrait, was the one the Smiths saw in the girl carried by Gerry. In my opinion, Madeleine disappeared wearing the clothes which match with the T Shirt picked by the dogs with cadaver scent ( dogs don't lie). The same Pyjama was seen in Amelie, in Rothley ( I read that somewhere).

    - A blue tennis bag was in GNR pictures (in a shelf in the wardrobe) but magical went missing and Pj did not find it. The same happened to a child blanket.

    - Two Tapas 9 were out of the table for long time and more or less at the same time(Gerry and O' Brien) with O' Brien giving a curious excuse- One of his childs vomited and he had to change the bed ( no any spare bed sheets were asking).

    - Kate and Gerry admitted in the last interview with Sandra Felgueiras, that the twins behaviour ODD on May 3 night, they must be sedated. But at the time they accused PJ of having visions and did not gave permission for the twins to be tested in the hospital.

    - Gerry said at 'Las mananas de 4': ......." when we found her ".

    Just a theory, but if we do an attentive review to the information available in a chronological way, the pieces of the puzzle start matching.

    ReplyDelete
  28. # 23 you raise some very valid points...

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm sure the UK police wouldn't be making a song and dance about investigating Madeleine's disappearance and giving out daily bulletins if this had happened in the UK, so why do we expect the Portuguese to do it?

    Just because the McCanns and their spokesman regularly put out what is patently complete nonsense through their willing helpers in the media, doesn't obligate the Portuguese police or judiciary to respond in the same vein does it?

    So why is everyone so certain that nothing is being done? It's really quite paradox that one of the few who don't hold this view is Gerry McCann himself. He is far from certain that nothing is being done, which is why he has to go on and on with a charade that get's more ridiculous with every new initiative.

    IMO he's still trying to provoke a response from the Portuguese police which might reveal that they have some piece of information which he didn't know they had. In fact both he and his wife seem obsessed with the possibility that a piece of information is 'out there' as they are wont to put it ad nausem in every interview.

    I wonder how long they can keep going before one of them cracks; it can't be easy living a lie and wondering with every knock on the door, whether the game is finally up.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anon @23
    The Smiths are Real and their statements are most creditable and independant of any of the tapas group.

    The Dogs are Real and extremely reliable.
    Mrs Fenns statement is real and undisputed.
    In my opinion Gerry Mc cann knew he had been witnessed by an entire family carrying Madeleine, so is it not possible and logical that he would have destroyed those clothes he was wearing at the first chance he got because after all when the Smiths gave their description, those clothes he was wearing would have been identified .?
    So perhaps that was the reason for no Cadaver on g mc canns clothes?.
    It took Jane Tanner a few hours to create her multi appearenced "abductor" after g.mc cann told her he needed an alibi because he had been seen by an Entire Family.?

    I recall reading somewhere that Kate mc cann had been made aware of Mrs Fenns statement regarding the crying that lasted for over 70 minutes before she was questioned by the pj ,Thus in my opinion getting her spoke in first before the pj queried her about it.?
    It appears to me their are one or two posters trying in vain to discredit the only reliable creditable witnesses in this case( THE SMITHS)in each and every news item that Joanna and the team post on these blog and always off topic and Anonymous 23 I think you are one of them .I strongly beleive you are Anonymous 24 also aswell as anon 77 and 78 in a recent previous topic so for your punishment I am going to give you a million lines to write of the following.

    The Smiths are Real and Very Creditable witnesses.
    And dont come back until you have them learned off by heart!!

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sorry Anon 23.
    I forgot to also point out that nobody assosciated with the tapas gang or team mc cann had previously rented the car that the cadaver was later found in.
    If you care to go through the maddie case files you will clearly see that the pj checked out thorughly ALL previous renters of that car,no accident or bloodloss incidents involving any of them.

    A.Dubliner

    ReplyDelete
  32. T4two @30 I entirely agree with you on that.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  33. A Dubliner
    My post @ 23 is not attempting to discredit the Smith family I clearly stated if they were MISTAKEN then it is plausible that Gerry removed Maddie in the afternoon. I watched the video of the entire group taken from CCTV on the website Pamalam and the mccanns were absent which seems odd especially as it was the end of the holiday, and I can assure you that I am not poster 24, or the other two posts that you refer to.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No indication that the case is about to be reopened then.

    That must be music to the ears of the McCanns.

    As for Gerry's clothing, it would have been easy for him to have taken them back to Rothley to dispose of them there before the dogs were brought in.

    That's the place that Madeleine should be searched for too.

    How can this case be shelved until searches have been made in the UK? There has never been searches for a dead Madeleine there.

    There is still a lot to be done, including publicising those Gaspar statements. Who knows what further information that would throw up if the public knew of the great concern of doctor friends of the McCanns, who were witnesses of what they suspected were paedophile tendencies amongst person or persons in the group.

    Why is this not being treated much more seriously, it even took months for the Portuguese to receive the information? No doubt if it had concerned Murat the Portuguese would have been sent it swift time.

    The LP still haven't answered that.

    Perhaps this information, if made public in the media, would bring enough new information to reopen the case and to bring charges. Perhaps even a confession.

    Two things the McCanns would fear is a reopening of the case, and the widespread publishing of the Gaspar statements.

    No wonder, because those statements are damning.

    As far as they are concerned, it is OK to point fingers at Murat, ect, trying to implicate in some kind of paedophile behaviour, but not at them.

    Yet in the case File there it is, provided by their very own friends.

    ReplyDelete
  35. By Jane Tanner giving the supposed man she saw the same clothing as the man seen by the Smiths, she has also given Gerry McCann an alibi in case the investigators believed the man the Smiths had seen was Gerry McCann.

    Without her saying she saw the supposed abductor at the same time as she saw Gerry, he would have been given much more of a grilling because it would have been the Smith sighting that was their main lead.

    Notice also that Kate McCann was quick to describe what Gerry was wearing that night, which of course was something completely different to the man described by the Smiths. She got that into her statement, even though she was not asked.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I don't believe Madeleine ever said"why did you not come last night"..., etc.
    The McCanns made up this story to speculate the abductor had come once, he did not succed and he returned the following day.
    If I remember it well, that was what Gerry "concluded" from those words.
    The children had "seen" the abductor and started crying.
    If Madeleine died the night before, it means that ladies who worked at the crèche lied to the police and allowed Kate to sign the document of leaving the crèche at 5.30pm.
    There is a statement that says Maddie went on a boat trip on the morning of the 3rd.
    It intrigues me indeed that there were those words"why didn't...etc" at breakfast and the "last"photo at 2.25pm.
    Too many alibis?
    The McCanns were worried about that whole Thursday.

    ReplyDelete
  37. One thing that is clear from the Wilkins statements is that he is not really certain what time it was he met Gerry McCann that night, although he is certain he did not see Jane Tanner passing them.

    Did that meeting with Gerry actually take place about 9.30pm when two of the Tapas workers said Gerry McCann left the restaurant for half an hour, and not at an earlier time of between 9pm to 9.15pm.

    This later time of 9.30pm to 10pm also coincides with the Smith sighting of a Gerry McCann lookalike carrying a Madeleine lookalike child.

    Did Jane Tanner's earlier check on the children in which she alibis Gerry, and her partner, ever take place?

    No wonder they had to write it all down to get their supposed checking coordinated. What a mess. Yet didn't Gerry say confusion is best. What a thing to say, but yes, it is much easier to confuse than to tell the truth. The McCanns have certainly managed it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. There is only one reliable sighting uptil now, that is the one of the Smiths.
    As far as I know, they are prepared to come to Portugal to be witnesses.

    I wonder if Murat would be prepared to ask for re-opening of the process or if he is deadly tired of this case.

    A public prosecuter can not start a process based on rubbish, gipsies, clowns,cows and rats.
    The Justice in Portugal knows very well Maddie is dead.
    They have to re-open it based on statments of people who know more about her death, the whereabouts of her body, the church, etc

    I have some hope that the lady who often cleans the church must have suspected something, smelt something.
    Sometimes I also hope that the person who knows where her body is, will take it and put it on a public place, near a bus station or in a park.
    Maddie deserves a funeral.

    By now people of Tapas 9 must have already tension in their marriage because of this case and there must be relatives of them or best friends who know the truth.

    An anonymous letter to the Portuguese police would help a lot.
    Just write the police what you know or suspect.
    I mean the Portuguese police!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Letter from Iberia
    Looking back on this disgusting set of events.
    A group of UK swingers Holiday in Portugal
    Each night they go together to a swinging boozy diner all leaving their children unattended and in danger
    On one such a swinging boozy diner due to The McCann’s negligence a child goes missing.
    The Portuguese police are eventually informed.
    The Portuguese police follow procedure etc
    The McCann’s start an internet appeal for money
    The McCann disinformation machine provided via the office of the Prime Minster in the UK point the finger of suspicion at other individuals
    The Portuguese police continue to investigate all leads including all the McCann’s disinformation.
    An innocent man is made a suspect after the McCann disinformation system diverts the blame from them selves
    The individual by good policing is eliminated and cleared but his reputation and life generally being destroyed
    Dogs and UK police specialists are invited from the UK by the Portuguese Police
    The Portuguese Police under the leadership of Mr Amaral work diligently and eliminate all but the McCann’s as suspects
    The Portuguese police interview Mrs McCann as a suspect.
    The McCann’s put pressure on their contacts in the UK government
    The UK government puts pressure on the Portuguese Government at the signing of an EU treaty
    Mr Amaral is removed from the investigation is such a manner that he is forced to resign his job and as such has no means of supporting his family
    The McCann’s are released by the Portuguese police on instructions from “above” without any charges and without any mention of endangering their children
    The McCann’s are given a police escort to the airport and removed from Portuguese legal jurisdiction
    The McCann’s tell the world that the Portuguese police and population are stupid etc
    And so on and so on
    The McCann’s sue everyone and anyone that disagrees with their version of events and start to amass a huge amount of money to fund and spend it whatever they want to.
    Mr Amaral writes a book about the truth and has it published
    The book is a success
    The McCann’s can smell the money
    The McCann’s apply to the Portuguese courts to ban the book and claim millions of Euros in damages
    A Portuguese Judge rules that there is no free speech in Portugal and allows temporary ban on the book.
    So now the whole focus of the Case is not McCann Versus Amaral but rather McCann’s Versus the Portuguese justice system and they are winning.
    The same system that let the parents of Madeleine McCann leave Portugal the same parents who failed in their duty of care to their child in leaving her alone and in danger and due to that negligence she is missing and probably dead.
    This whole fiasco has brought shame upon the Portuguese justice system, a system that is trying to ruin an honourable and hardworking ex-policeman who is only guilty of writing a book to enable him to feed his family.
    A system that is rewarding two individuals that are responsible for what has happened to their daughter, two individuals who have never said sorry or admitted any contrition and are so happy to make more and more money from their daughters suffering.

    Only Portugal can bring Justice only Portugal can right these wrongs
    We all wait and watch to see if Portugal brings justice

    ReplyDelete
  40. @23, @31 I think the Smiths are NOT mistaken about Gerry, but maybe the child Gerry was carrying was a sedated Amelie.
    Just a thought: Could the Tanner 'abductor' be a father that had taken his child from the nightcreche?

    ReplyDelete
  41. - The Smiths saw Gerry carrying a live child wearing the pyjama, Kate kindly and conveniently delivered to the press ( not immediately but when they were sure that police don't frame them and put them under surveillance). The girl was not Madeleine, but walking in a street which lead to the busy night with bars and nightclubs is very convenient to raise independent witnesses which can testify and give credibility to any faked abduction. The plan was perfect if the Smiths did not recognise Gerry and be more then 80% sure about him ( that was the stone on this plan). If the Smiths just stated the sight without recognising the abductor, The tapas 9 will reported it to the police and the media will be full of witnesses confirming the Smiths sight. Unfortunately for Gerry, the night was full moon, the Smiths are a family with several members not an individual and they recognise him and noticed that he don't want to be disturbed. They know Murat and clear said, the man was not Murat.
    - Trousers with the color reported by the Smiths were caught in GNR pictures, on top of mccann's bed. I believe the trousers were checked and no beach sands on them.
    - The body could not be disposed in the beach or outside. Too risky for the all group which don't know the reaction of the police after raising the alarm. Imagine if the police frame them and put them in 'preventive' immediately. What about the body disposed in the church or somewhere out? A child, a person or a dog could find it.
    - A huge and specialized search was done by Binomia DOG/MAN since early. Carlos vaz, a cameraman hired by Sky News in early morning of May 4, was one of the first arriving to the resort. When he arrived he saw already the police with dogs searching. Amaral claim on his book that due the amount of searches they have to do in a short time, the houses and flats where not properly searched with dogs. I tend to think... the body on the first hours was disposed in a house, safe, and not easy to the police to reach it. The Tapas 9, should be 10. The Tapas 10 known from the beginning what to do if PJ buyed the abduction theory. The first 48 hours were crucial for police and criminals. The police were looking for an alive girl wearing a pyjama who could wonder off the flat by herself and be close to the resort but outside ( due to absolute no evidences of a break in in the flat done by a stranger). CONT

    ReplyDelete
  42. CONT:
    - Mccann's did not went out to join the searchers or look for their daughter. They were in, busy with their agenda: contacting the media and political friends in UK. The editor of the news in RTP, was in London on May 4 morning. he was surprised because in UK, was not only SKY NEWS but also the papers waking up the country with Madeleine at the front pages. in portugal, the press just start receiving the first notes and sending the first journalists to PDL, the UK press already had armies of freelancers arriving to the crime scene.
    - The Media circus which went well to pressure police and politicians, scared the Tapas 10. mccann's have to hire a car to deal with body when they realise the police was not buying the abduction and are searching houses and flats far from the resort. If the body was handed into a car in a garage, no strange witnesses to suspect the situation.
    - The car was rented with Gerry being the driver and another relative, but no Kate. Why, if Kate has a drive licence and naturally should be? A cousin of Kate stated to the police that he noticed a very bad smell in the Renault Scenic when he visited them in the new Villa.

    ( MCCANN'S WILL NEVER REOPEN THE CASE. They know, PJ and british police have enough evidences to do a criminal investigation with all their life's including the pass deeply combed. To do that, even dutch police will be involved and the origin of the letter sent to De Telegraaf will be investigated. No any fund can support the amount of money they need to hire lawyers and corrupt people including polices in many countries. They pray and make that circus of pretending to reopen the case, trying to pressure the PGR to come out with an official note saying the case was definitely closed and the mccann's cleared, WITHOUT FACING A COURT OR ANY INVESTIGATION. This is impossible, because PJ have strong evidences against them this is why they were made arguidos and this status was maintained for long time. That was MCCANN'S KARMA, for the rest of their lifes)

    ReplyDelete
  43. people there should not be in fighting on this sight, 99% of people here beleive or know in their hearts that the gruesome twosome were involved in that poor childs end. However for all the facts of which there are many to back-up involvement from that vile couple, how it transpired knowone really knows. Did Madeleine perish on the 2nd or the 3rd, this has been well covered up, so we all view it differently yet ultimately we believe they are the culprits, who for god knows what reasons evade justice.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon @34
    The Entire family were "MISTAKEN"??
    Has any man ever come forward to this day to identify himself as being the man the Entire Smith family witnessed that night?
    Two adult members of the Smith family later stated with an almost 80% certainty that ,that man was Gerry MC Cann.
    What have you got to say about the theory I posted?

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  45. #23,

    Have you ever considered the possibility that when Gerry was seen by the Smiths he was not carrying a dead girl (Madeleine) but a live child (not Madeleine but another similar girl, let's say...a friend's daughter)? Do you think he would risk carrying a dead child in his arms through the streets of Luz, at that time of night, when people are coming from diner in restaurants or on their way to bars, etc.? Imagine if he met a local policeman on his rounds and got asked if all was o.k. with the little girl ( due to the paleness and stillness of the child the officer might be worried and offer assistance), what would he do? Far too risky!
    You might ask, if it was not Madeleine, why would he be walking the streets with a child anyway? Well, maybebecause there was the absolute need to have other witnesses who would come forward saying they saw a man carrying a 4 year old blond child! It would give credibility to Tanner's sighting!

    Take the time to read Textusa's blog, go back to the old posts, you'll have to go back several pages, but it is worth reading her and Ironside's theory about what the Smith sighting was all about.

    textusa.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  46. #23,
    There is no record of them or anyone connected with them hiring any car around the 3rd/4th May. I suppose the police thought about that possibility and surelly checked all the people who hired that car from April 2007 on.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The mccann case is extraordinary and I agree with posters 23 and 40. At the moment the fund is paying to reinforce mccanns innocence, and to raise their profile putting them above suspicion through the money they have amassed they have managed to turn everything around to make themselves appear victims. The tapas group lied not only to protect Kate and Gerry but to cover their own backs perhaps they were involved in recreational drugs and Madeleine took some or was given something, perhaps she was sexually abused by individuals within that group and this is why she was hidden. Whatever happened to her this case should be re-opened with proper investigators sifting through evidence there are so many inconsistencies and lies being spun. Sr. Amaral should have been allowed to publish his book, it was based on actual files but Kate and Gerry managed to shut him up, they are afraid of him because he knows the abduction theory is rubbish. Could he be allowed to request the case be re-opened when they take him to court for libel so that his book could be proven or disproven? Could Robert Murat or even Justice Hogg ask for the case to be re-opened? One day we will find what evil lies below the surface for this gruesome, twosome. Well done Joana for all your work.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The McCanns have done everything for the case to be closed. It's naive to think that one day they will ask it to be reopened! Just from the very beginning they employed very expensive extradition lawyer (the same saved the skin of the dictator Pinochet!). They've been running away from the place of their crime.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anon @ 36

    "By Jane Tanner giving the supposed man she saw the same clothing as the man seen by the Smiths, she has also given Gerry McCann an alibi in case the investigators believed the man the Smiths had seen was Gerry McCann."

    I don't believe that. Gerry don't want the Smiths alibi. Placing him on that street, as the abductor is something that he avoided. This is why they never reported Smiths sight to the police or gave any importance to it. The Smiths sight will be very useful if the Smiths removed the '80% sure about Gerry'. If the sight just fit any abductor matching Jane description... The egg man, the Creepy man or another one. Fitting Gerry... was a disaster and on that point the plan went wrong. There is no perfect crimes. What they still have is a perfect cover-up.
    It is about us to not give-up and let the cover-Up crack on any point. Will crack one day because a lie cannot survive forever.

    ReplyDelete
  50. 45 - you are misrepresenting the Smith family's collective memory. Only one person thought, 5 months later, that this was Gerry, despite having said earlier that he would not recognise the person because he did not see the face. His wife agreed with his 60-80% certainty, but declined to give another statement. The others disagreed and thought he was wrong. Can you not see why this makes the entire episode useless from a legal point of view? Such a shame, because I think the Smiths saw the person who took Maddy, I just don't think it was her father!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anon @ 46 - thank you for the information I'm just going to go have a read. If Gerry was carrying someone other than Madeleine many more pieces of this puzzle fit. Nothing in this case should be taken at face value there are too many hidden agendas. (23) x

    ReplyDelete
  52. I too don't believe Madeleine asked Kate and Gerry why they never came when she and sean cried on the night of 2nd May,because according to Kates statement on the evening of the 2nd May she returned to the apartment early because she was upset that Gerry had invited a female employee of the tapas bar to their table,and she also stated she slept in the childrens bedroom that night,so she would of heard the children crying wouldn't she,because according to her she was in the very same bedroom as the children,so Madeleine would have had no need to ask her that question the nest morning of the 3rd May,Kate was already there with them.

    ReplyDelete
  53. It isn't difficult to look at the various pieces of evidence, put them together and come to the conclusions that both the Portuguese and UK police investigators came to, namely that Madeleine is dead, her body was in the apartment and 3 weeks later in the Renault Scenic, and that the McCanns and their accomplices simulated an abduction and concealed her remains.

    What is difficult is establishing what acually happened, why it happened, who was involved, and then being able to prove it.

    In fact, the McCanns not only simulated an abduction but also simulated the neglect scenario and the 'checking' regime with its tangled timelines to 'facilitate' that abduction. IMO this was done to take attention away from the disappearance itself. If the discussions of the past three years are anything to go by, the tactic was incredibly successful, as poster after poster filled the response pages of newspapers and blogs to castigate the McCanns for neglect, thus deflecting the discussion away from the disappearance itself; effectively turning it into a discussion of the wrong issue.

    The issue is not whether the McCanns were neglectful; the issue is what happened to Madeleine, why and who was involved. Bearing in mind that cadaver odour was detected by highly-effective and reliable specialist dogs in several places, what we are talking about here, is in effect a murder investigation.

    The question is often asked as to why the Portuguese authorities did not prosecute the McCanns for neglect. The answer is probably, because virtually the only evidence for neglect comes from the McCanns themselves, together with their accomplices.

    It isn't difficult to imagine the 'outrage' that would have ensued had the McCanns been charged with neglect, or for that matter the outcome of any subsequent court case. I'm sure the McCanns would have welcomed such a prominent stage and having been aquitted, would have had no difficulty in presenting the outcome as having cleared them of all complicity in Madeleine's fate. Rather like a gang of jewel thieves speeding away from the scene in their getaway car and subsequently only being charged with exceeding the speed limit, leaving them to enjoy the proceeds of their crime.

    As it is, the Portuguese did not fall into that trap and so the case remains open; archived but open. The McCanns remain under suspicion; they are not cleared and they never will be.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ 31 A.Dubliner:

    Good post - I agree with you. I would add, however, that I believe only 1 or 2 members [perhaps DP and FP?] truly know what happened outside of the McC's. I think JT is an easily-led person; I reckon GM said to her something along the lines of:

    "You need to say you saw me at 9.15 otherwise I will be the last person to have seen MBM."

    Maybe others have been misled by the McC's as well? I can't believe they would ALL cover up for a crime?

    I agree with you about the Smith family - they are very reliable and credible witnesses and did see what we all suspect they saw. The evidence to back this up? TM hardly ever mention this sighting and have NEVER insisted it should be followed up because "the time lines don't match."

    Trouble is, when one is lying, virtually every details has to be a lie to make it 'fit' - so I don't believe any of the timelines in the witness statements of the T9. Infact, some statements from other people prove that the T9 timelines given were false.

    May the truth one day be known.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @ 48 I agree, something happened to Madeleine that had to covered up.
    An accident could have been explained to the authorities, but not drugs and sexual abuse which I am convinced is what happened, especially the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  56. no answer from kate and gerry

    ReplyDelete
  57. somewhere i read that the smiths recieved a visit from someone in team mccann, were they threatened, paid off??or what, since when is the accused allowed to visit a witness. i am trying to recall where i read this, because when Amaral was going to call them there was doubt.
    and as for no cadavar smell on errys clothes, agree with a dubliner, he intelligent enough to get rid of these clothes,with a little help from his friends

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anon. @ 51,

    Can you tell us where that special abductor went with Maddy after been spotted by the Smiths?

    with great respect, your post raise a huge smile on me. Must be from a PRO or from somebody who don't read the files or anything related with that case.
    The street is the way to the busy PDL at night. An abductor fitting Mccann's abduction will do everything to avoid public places and be seen by anybody.

    On top of that, can you imagine an abductor carrying a dead girl? For what? If he was a paedo belonging to a net of paedos( like the Mccann's pretend us to believe), which is the use of a dead girl? He must be VERY, VERY STUPID to fit your theory and off course will be caught very early in the morning by a huge team of polices searching the surrounds, controlling the sea and the roads. A stupid guy, even passing with girl trough an open door will leave evidences at the crime scene.
    If I want to be sarcastic and morbid I have to ask you if for a minute you think about the weight of a dead body. A dead body, even if is a child, remark a lot his weight making the transport of the body very difficult. Will be a great moment of humour if Gerry provide on his 'moccumentary' the reconstruction of an abductor carrying dead Madeleine- two steps and a stop to rest and rearrange the body. Now imagine the guy passing the window, lifting the shutter without making noise, without damaging it or leaving traces. He will need several windows of opportunity to accomplish his task and hours with more then 6o minutes.
    Don't buy Mccann's stories or come here to trow sand at our eyes. We love to discuss different opinions, but reliable. Not illusions and fiction.
    The magic can fit Mccann's fairy tales, good to entertain childs brain.
    A crime is based on facts and evidences. The evidences must corroborate the facts. And I believe they do. Because of that they were arguidos for one year and the status was lifted by pressures, not by police conviction. They were not cleared and remain the main suspects. They know that, this is why they will never VOLUNTARLY REOPEN THE CASE. But if the Fund dry-up, the cover-up will break.
    Lawyers work for money and they will never dirty their names on that crime if they don't got a huge amount of money, as a feed-back.

    Aplying Mitchell famous sentence to Mccann's saga here: " everything has an innocent explanation...". The innocent explanation on Smiths sight is: Gerry planned everything to make the faked abduction credible to the police but the Smiths memory ruined it. He was so desperate that even used the cover of Madeleine activity book to write down a time table trying to help the all group memorizing the main story. They fail on the details, because details could not be stickied, must be experienced. Which father of a real abducted child will destroy her belongs?... will preserve it as a thresor.
    Which friends of a family of a real abducted child will runaway from the place where the child went missing, so quickly? The Tapas 7 rushed to fly back to UK. PJ had to record their statements for' memoria futura'. This is relevant on that case. They appear now to be very close to the Mccann's and pretend to show a strong relationship with them but Was not like that immediately after May 3... they runaway leaving the Mccann's behind to search their abducted child. WHY? WHAT A FRIENDS.... gave the back at the beginning, scared by the true situation. After were caught and framed by the Mccann's with their fraudulent money.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anon 51 no that's not right. "Only one person thought, 5 months later, that this was Gerry," And how do you know what the family were thinking? when as you say there was no further statement, due to the disruption of the investigation at a crucial time. So the Smiths weren't called back to Portugal.

    Let's not forget that sniffer dogs (Eddie and Keela)have been brought in to find cadaver evidence in the case of the misising sex workers in Yorkshire UK. That's because they're so reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 46 - "You might ask, if it was not Madeleine, why would he be walking the streets with a child anyway? Well, maybebecause there was the absolute need to have other witnesses who would come forward saying they saw a man carrying a 4 year old blond child! It would give credibility to Tanner's sighting!"

    But Gerry did not know about Tanner's supposed sighting at the time he was carrying a child through the streets, did he?

    ReplyDelete
  61. @ 46
    The link to Textusa.blog.spot is marvellous they have done a very detailed evaluation of the night Gerry was seen carrying ‘ Madeleine’ and I agree with their analysis why would anyone carry a dead body through a busy area, it could have been Jane Tanners daughter he was carrying. Gerry was probably hoping as mentioned by Textusa more witnesses would see him carrying ‘Madeleine’ and come forward and then that would give strength to their abduction theory. Gerry was playing out the part of the abductor. Textusa a very informative blog thank you for the link. 23

    ReplyDelete
  62. I have thought for a long time that the McCanns never intended 'the search' to drag on this long. They hoped Madeleine's body would be found sooner so they could blame a random pedophile, have a funeral and be grieving parents, then put it all behind them.

    When the body was not found they moved it to a location they hoped would make it easier and it was still never found. They hid Madeleine's accidental death because they were afraid of losing their reputations, careers and that they would lose their other children to child protective services.

    Their friends are all in on the ruse, perhaps even the extended family at this point. They are in over their heads. They thought they were special, clever people who could get away with anything, and now they are drowning in their own machinations.

    This kind of lie takes it toll on people eventually, unless they are psychopaths, which I don't think they are. They are ordinary people and eventually one of them will break under the strain and confess.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Slightly off topic but of interest to all I'm sure. There may be no big pay day for the likes of the McCanns and others intent in suing everybody in sight to either make money or to bludgeon them into submission.


    A Libel Reform Bill has been tabled in the House of Lords
    Lord Lester QC has published a Private Members’ Defamation Bill to reform England’s outdated and unjust libel laws. This is the first attempt in over a century to put forward a wholesale redraft of our libel laws to address many of the issues our campaign has highlighted.
    Lord Lester’s Bill covers a great deal of the recommendations of the Libel Reform Campaign including a statutory defence for responsible publication on a matter of public interest; clarifying the defences of justification and fair comment, which will be renamed as ‘truth’ and ‘honest opinion’.


    The Bill will also:

    require claimants to provide evidence their reputation was damaged by an alleged libel before they can bring a case forward (they don’t have to do this at present) and make corporations prove financial damage before they can sue.
    Address the problems introduced by the rise of the internet and the culture of online publication including the multiple publication rule that makes each download a fresh instance of libel, and alter the responsibility of forum hosts for what is posted on their sites.
    Encourage the speedy settlement of disputes without parties having to bring in costly lawyers.
    Promote the speedy settlement of disputes without recourse to the courts.
    There is a great piece by Lord Lester on why he is doing this now here.
    And Simon Singh has written his thoughts on the bill here.
    Thanks to your support we’ve made the case that libel law reform is an issue politicians know they have to act on.

    There is widespread Parliamentary support for reform … the majority of eligible MPs signed up to an EDM supporting libel law reform in the last Parliament.
    There were general election manifesto commitments to reform from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and Labour.
    Now, there is a coalition Government promise to reform the libel laws in the Queen’s Speech …

    …But we need new libel laws!
    In light of Lord Lester’s Bill, the Libel Reform Campaign is asking: will the Government now make clear its plans for reform? Will it support, adopt or develop this Bill?
    Help us keep the pressure on. Write to your MP asking them what the Government intends to do.
    Best,

    Mike and Síle
    PS - for more details of the bill and complete coverage see www.libelreform.org

    ReplyDelete
  64. Justice Hogg won't ask for the case to be reopened, IMO, because (also IMO) she is well aware of what is going on behind the scenes. National security and all that rot.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anon @51
    I am not misrepresenting the Smith families collective memory (as you put it)what so ever.
    Firstly it was four months later when Martin Smith realized up to an 80% certainty that Gerry MC Cann was the man he saw carrying Madeleine that night, his wife as you say agreed with him (thats 2 people as i said before)You are incorrect to say the rest of the family thought Martin Smith was wrong they just didnt perceive it as he and his wife had, Remember the family were slightly spread out and each saw this man from different positions as he walked by.
    Martin Smith and his family said they couldnt identify this man due to lack of lighting that night.
    But they described the way he walked and carried her and according to Goncalo "This image is strongly fixed in their memory"
    And this is what Martin Smith and his wife (two people)recognised that night when Gerry MC Cann was stepping of the plane back in England.
    Goncalo Amaral stated "the Smiths Testimony was and is very credible and nothing that sounds invented"
    Goncalo was taken off the case, The portugese and the British covered it up for whatever reasons and thats that So far.
    Anon 51 you said " I think the Smiths saw the person who took Maddy, I just dont think it was her father"
    And why is that 51 ? enlighten us with your reasoning for stating that.

    SOME PEOPLE ARE CLEARLY RATTLED BY THE SMITHS TESTIMONIES !!

    A.Dubliner

    ReplyDelete
  66. Just out of interest.
    Latest news in the UK is a man charged with the murder of three women.
    Only ONE body has so far been found.
    "Find the body and prove that we did it" GM, very early on - long before anyone had even thought about a death, and when everyone was still concentrating on finding a missing child.
    Answer - they don't have to find the body. You can be charged with all the relevant offences without it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. There's another valid angle to this. If Gerry was carrying a live child, and not Madeleine, in the way the Smiths describe, that is, imobile and quiet, how would Gerry keep the child imobile and quiet. Has anyone tried to carry a three year old child outside, in pyjamas on a cold night? If they have, I assure you, the child will not remain imobile or quiet. It will struggle and try to get down as soon as possible and will not stay put anywhere in the cold streets, it will scream and try to get down and run home.

    Let's put this silly theory to bed shall we?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Just been on twitter someone posted a link and it appears not just Gerry robbed cancer patients for his LTD company ,but 4 others riders donated to the fund its disgraceful

    ReplyDelete
  69. Poster @63 totally disagree ,IMO The Mcs know full well Maddies body cannot ever be found (acids pools Heluva ?)That is why Gerry made his arrogant quote "Find the body and prove we killed her" there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER they will risk her body ever being found,too much planning/scheming has gone into this for them to take one single risk ,thats why they started the "fund/company/family business"IF they thoguht they could be charged over this on top of murder they would never have started the fund up in the first place ,These are not stupid people, this has taken 3 years now and still no closer to them being charged ,they have played a good game and loath them as i do and Im sure everyone on here does you have to hold your hands up and say they are not stupid ,They above anyone else have too much too lose £s ,if Maddie body arrived was found ,they are the last people who want her found and have made certain she never will be

    ReplyDelete
  70. #46 Textusa - sensational and awe inspiring. READ IT the work that has gone into this is phenominal. Textusa.blog.spot.

    ReplyDelete
  71. ANON @57.It was Brian Kennedy(Mc Canns relation) who contacted Martin Smith asking him to take part in a photo fit excercise, Mr Smith Refused and also sent solicitor letters to SIX news papers who had libled him. Martin Smith was and is still a proper witness who is abiding the law at all times since his initial Testimony.
    Goncalo Amaral was making arrangements to have some of the Smith family come back to Portugal to bring the investigation on further When he was taken off the case and the cover up gained momentum after this.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  72. A.Dubliner # 55 in your earlier post at 45 you clearly state that it was the 'ENTIRE' smith family that were 'MISTAKEN' (you actually typed it in capitals!!)then as poster 51 corrects you, you then change your post to 'two people' and the rest of the family were spread out - please make up your mind you are a very confusing person!! I think it is you that are rattled by our analysing of the smiths sighting.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The Smith sighting is far more credible than that of Jane Tanner's who has twisted and turned with the telling.

    It is doubted she ever did a check at that time when Gerry was talking to Wilkins.

    But she has been mightily valuable to Gerry Tanner and his abduction scenario, and kept the focus off the Tapas group who should have been the main suspects in the death of this litte girl.

    ReplyDelete
  74. PeterMac 67

    "They don't have to find the body. You can be charged with all the relevant offences without it".

    Very true but for some obscure reason (s) it unfortunately wont happen or not just... yet
    Time will tell although people can start writing an other volume of "it"

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anon # 61 if it was premeditated then Gerry would have known about Jane Tanners forthcoming statement...

    ReplyDelete
  76. If the death of Madeleine had been accidental the McCanns could easily have covered it over. It would be so easy, it would be child's play for people as resourceful as the McCanns.

    Something far more sinister caused the death of Madeleine and led to the need for her to be hidden.

    There needs to be a reopening of the case as a murder investigation and all the Tapas group made suspects.

    It must not be assumed it was accidental death, but it is in the interests of whoever is responsible to have people think that it is, if the abduction scenario fails to convince.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Thursday, May 27, 2010
    McCanns: Libel trouble?


    "It is (I believe) a fact very often British newspapers, when sued in libel, give up and settle when one would not expect them to do so...Libel law is tilted against the media".

    However, soon the McCanns will find themselves in trouble if this new libel law gets passed in Parliament.

    http://jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  78. If the smiths saw gerry carrying a 'fake' madeleine (which appears highly likely)then maddie was disposed of in the afternoon or early evening of 3rd.....suggest you visit textusa.blog.spot.

    ReplyDelete
  79. 53 Kate got upset when her husband invited another female to sit at the table and went back to the apartment. Not true, Gerry would be interacting with females of all ages, shape and form on a daily basis in his line of work so this would not have been the reason Kate left the group.

    She left the group but probably not because of the invited female
    there was some other reason she needed to be in the same room with the children that night.

    ReplyDelete
  80. #69 the child was obviously drugged - the mccanns were panicking, they needed to arrange the abductor theory.

    ReplyDelete
  81. ANON @ 23, 34 and 62 (one and the same poster)

    One minute you are saying "if the Smiths were mistaken about seeing gerry then it is plausible that Gerry removed Maddie in the afternoon".
    Then the next minute you are suggesting the Smiths did see Gerry but it was with Jane Tanners Daughter as a decoy of sorts.
    Which is it
    If they were mistaken they saw Gerry then it wasnt Gerry Full stop.
    If they did see Gerry but with Jane Tanners daughter as you suggest ,then they Did see Gerry didnt they? one way or the other so they were not mistaken were they?
    You ask why would anyone walk the streets with a dead body?
    To get rid of it of course, is the answer, if Gerry Mc cann was spotted (and he was by the Smiths)then all he had to do was get Tanner to put plan b into action i.e. create a false Abductor ,give Gerry mc cann his alibi ,lie about the timeline to have himself sitting at the tapas table at the same time the Smiths witnessed him.
    Simple but True in my opinion.
    The question you should be asking is why would he complicate things to the extent of involving Tanners Daughter(Daft)When he had his fabricated timeline and alibi to conteract anything the Smiths witnessed Simple.

    THE SMITHS TESTIMONY HAS A LOT OF THE MC CANN TEAMSTERS RATTLED.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  82. If the Gerry lookalike wasn't carrying a dead Madeleiine that night, and just wanted to be seen so it would look like an abductor was taking a girl, then he would be taking a great risk, as not only did he have to take her away, he had to get the living child (whoever she was) back again.

    The child Mr Smith saw looked lifeless and it did not make sense, no doubt that is why he asked the man if the child was sleeping.

    Otherwise, why ask the obvious?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Jane Tanner is part of team mccann and therefore not a credible witness. I believe that far more sinister goings on happened to Madeleine some of the tapas group were involved in that is why they lied, Gerry always seems to be one step ahead, but by going over the facts as we do I believe we will eventually find that one piece of evidence that will prove beyond doubt that he was implemented in Madeleine's disappearance and thank you Joana for your tireless work through you we will find justice for Maddie.

    ReplyDelete
  84. #81 - very confusing post!! - after viewing Textusa.blog.spot I believe Gerry 'acted out the role of abductor' can I say to you without sounding contrite 'we look but we do not see' this whole scenaro has been played out before our very eyes that it why gerry and kate are able to continue with this lie and their fraudulent fund, just open your eyes to what they are doing, nothing is what is seems everything is said and done for a purpose, you should take nothing at face value.

    ReplyDelete
  85. At 81

    I do not believe the Smiths statements has the Mccanns rattled Mccanns planned it, they wanted people to see Gerry carrying a blonge 4 year old it weas part of their plan to fit in with the ab duction.

    ReplyDelete
  86. A.Dubliner at 81

    It is you that is rattled!!!

    ReplyDelete
  87. Madeliene drugged to stop her waking after the night she cried...overdosed, but awoke and fell, down the stairs as she sought her parents. They cam back and found her, took her to back to the apartment and hatched their plan to dispose of her and cover the death.

    Why is this so hard to believe when so many times these things happen? Simple, the McCanns are well connected.

    ReplyDelete
  88. 74 Yes, Tanners testimony has, in the public eye, diverted attention from the natural suspects and given McCann an alibi.

    Clearly he disposed of Madeleine and it makes me sick that he is allowed to loudly procliam her abduction and play the 'proud father' - our so called authorities sitting back and allowing this because the McCanns are well conected and have money. Though they couldnt have had much money or why use the fund so publically to pay their martgage.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Poster @ no.73 Alas it is you WHO IS confused NOT ME.
    Firstly: If you read the posts PROPERLY you would have known that it was ANON @NO 34 who suggested the Smiths could have been mistaken, NOT ME.
    In my post at no. 45 I merely asked him a question i.e THE ENTIRE FAMILY WERE MISTAKEN ?
    Secondly: If again you had opened your eyes you would have seen that I didnt post at no 55 EITHER.
    Thirdly: ,The entire Smith family saw a man carrying a child that night and they were all CONVINCED it was Madeleine,only two of them were 60 to 80% certain it was Gerry Mccann who was carrying her,
    COMPRENDE? O CONFUSED 73?
    And last but not least: My mind is made up, no confusion here or rattlement of any description .
    The Smiths witnessed Gerry MC Cann that night carrying Madeleine,
    The p.j know it ,the mc canns know it and Jane Tanner knows it.
    Its Sqeeky bum time.
    THE SMITHS TESTIMONIES HAVE DEFINITELY A LOT OF PEOPLE RATTLED.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anon 82 - No according to the reliable dogs, the child was dead in the apartment. My my the Smith sighting is truly very important isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Did Gerry say to Jane Tanner when she came up with her sighting? (which incidentally gives an alibi to her partner), 'did you see me talking to Wilkins at the same time', and of course by agreeing she did, that is a way of getting her sighting? validated.

    Yet Wilkins says he did not see her, and of course Gerry has to say that also, as she should have been seen if she had been there at all.

    The rest of the JT description changed with the telling, starting with the jeans which she had originally said the man was wearing, and telling that to other Tapas members, which then changed into light coloured trousers.

    If Gerry had been the man carrying the child and knew he had been seen by the Smiths, then what better way of making out he could not have been that man because the Smith man and the JT man must have been the same as they were dressed alike, and Jane saw him at the same time as the man.

    Nice alibi for Gerry that one.

    Then came JTs description of the colour of pyjamas, etc, as more information about what Madeliene was supposed to have been wearing started coming out.

    Has JT been prompted and primed from the beginning? She appears to be not that sure about anything, as she pointed the finger at Murat as being the man and then changed her mind when it was proved he could not have been.

    Did she ever apologise to him, did the others ever apologise to him? He has been put through hell, and did not have the spin doctors, PR, media machinery etc, to help him, as did the McCanns. In fact, he was up against this. Just as Dr Amaral and the PJ have been from the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  92. And by the way POSTER NO.73.
    I would be delighted to read what your analysis of the Smiths sighting actually is, what post number is YOUR analysis at?

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I doubt Madeleine's body has been been disposed of in Portugal.

    I also think it will be sentimentality that will catch up with certain people.

    ReplyDelete
  94. A man has been charged in Yorkshire UK today with three murders, two of the victims are missing and the bodies have not been found.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anon@71 What I find difficult to understand is how the McCanns managed to deal with it all so quickly. eg. if M had an accident or something how do you think they worked out rapidly how to dispose of her and where to take her bearing in mind they were on holiday, and to my knowledge in the place they had never been to before. Would they have known where a pet cemetry was or more to the point knew someone who would dispose of her there, would the have known about acids pools Heluva. Would they have risked involving anyone else. These are only things I ponder I have no conclusion or answers. I find it absolutely amazing however that the press,TV & magazines have not persued other members of the Tapas group for their version of events, it seems they are obsessed with white vans and spooky men

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anon 80

    If Kate didn't leave the table because she was cheesed off with Gerry talking to another woman there (she has said he was ignoring her), then what was the reason?

    You have left it hanging in the air as to what was the real reason she went back to the apartment.

    As for Gerry interacting with women every day, perhaps there was a particular woman there that night who was not like most women, and had a WOW!!! can't take my eyes off you!, factor.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anon 82

    So did they go round and ask somebody 'can we borrow your child for the night, and by the way is it OK if we drug her'.

    How many people are in this plot?

    ReplyDelete
  98. 54@totally agree with you

    ReplyDelete
  99. Fencesitter - post 96

    You are making the assumption that we know the timetable - we dont know which days things happened on. The McCanns admit to Madeleine asking where they were on the night of the second - she asks this on the morning of the 3rd according to the McCanns. This means that it is likely that she di not ask on the 3rd, but on the 2nd and it was the night of the first when she cried...obviously I dont know when these things happened, but I do know that if the McCanns admit anything, then it is a lie. Remember also that the disposal in Huelva acid beds (if that happened!) was a long time later - they would have hidden her body in between and had time to consult.

    Of course we dont know the detail but this doesnt mean that we arent wrong, as we know for sure that Kate lied when she claimed to have noticed the door in a different position, Gerry lied when he claims the 'proud father' moment etc etc!

    ReplyDelete
  100. 94 Huelva - acid beds.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I have posted a few comments on this sight, I am not as up to date as most. However to me there is something far more sinisiter going on here. What I will refrain from stating,is however that given an opinion, peadophile activities are i believe are connected in this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anon @no.87 Sorry to disapoint you .
    I have NOTHING to be Rattled about in this whole case.
    Im merely a poster like most on these blogs,but im delighted to be of the opinion that CLEARLY The Smiths Testimonies has Team mc cann
    including the Tapas gang RATTLED and giving them Sleepless nights.
    I Wonder has the pending Murat v Tanner &co court case anything to do with it?
    I Hope So.!

    A.Dubliner (Totally Unrattled ,Are You???)

    ReplyDelete
  103. The problem about conspiracy theories and those who promote them is that they disregard 95% of the evidence in favour of the 5% which does not appear to fit.

    I have to beg to differ with previous posters with regard to Textusa's theories. They are for the most part completely nonsensical and owe far more to wish fulfilment than anything else.

    There is so much misinformation around, on both sides of the fence, and the trouble is that some of it has been repeated so often it has become accepted as fact in some quarters.

    You have to begin with what you know. It isn't necessary to have to cover every base. It's okay to say, when it comes to a certain point, that beyond that point we don't know what happened, and no amount of theories will alter that basic fact. Stick with what we do know and which can be proven - I think you will find it is still pretty compelling.

    There are, however, only two ways in which this case will ever be solved.

    The first is that someone confesses to their involvement
    The second is that Madeleine is found

    It doesn't matter how much anyone bleats about it, the PJ will not reactivate the case unless or until some compelling evidence emerges to warrant it, and nor should they. A sighting three years ago by a man at a snack bar is not compelling evidence. This country has already spent a ridiculous amount of money trying to find a child who is missing entirely because of bad parenting, especially when those same bad parents do nothing but complain about the lack of success and inefficiency of the police.

    They might not be the best investigators in the world, but they are better investigators that the McCanns are parents, that's for sure.

    We can all come up with daft theories about people wandering through the streets, carrying sedated children and deliberately trying to get themselves noticed - achieving nothing but making ourselves look like obsessed fools - or we can start to get a bit smarter about this.

    The McCann's would like nothing better than to leave a lasting legacy. Sadly, they seem to imagine that they will be remembered as parents who never gave up the search for their daughter

    So let's ensure that never happens

    The child is lost; she's gone. She isn't coming back.

    So why not campaign for a change in the law? As things stand it isn't actually illegal to leave young children and babies alone and unattended. It damn well should be.

    Just think what Madeleine's Law could achieve.
    What happened to Madeleine - whatever happened to her - could never happen again without the guarantee that the parents would be prosecuted. People would no longer be able to dump their kids in bed and slope off for dinner, leaving them to deal with whatever fate threw at them.

    The Urban Dictionary has a number of definitions of ''McCann'', you know?
    To 'do a McCann' is to bugger off out for the evening leaving your kids alone.As in 'My mum and dad are going out tonight' 'have they got a babysitter?' 'No, they are doing a McCann'

    Well, it would be nice in future if the conversation went something like 'Haven't seen Pete around lately' ' no, haven't you heard? He's in prison. he and his Mrs did a McCann the other week and got caught'

    We have zero tolerance when it comes to drink driving. It does not have to have dire consequences - the very fact of being over the limit is sufficient - and leaving one's kids alone should be regarded in the same way.

    It would be a better use of energy and resources than endlessly theorizing about routes, bodies and disposal.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anon 80,Kate says this in her statement,she was upset because Gerry had invited a female employee to the table,obviously it must of been an attractive woman,and she was jealous,Gerry btw said he thought Kate slept in the childrens bedroom on the 2nd because of his snoring.I personally don't think Kate and Gerry were that close,i'm sure i read that they were going to previously seperate.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anon@ 63,

    Non. They hide the body to avoid an autopsy.

    The body had the key to solve the case. No way to manipulate body evidences.

    The body could say:

    1 - the dead was not accidental ( only if Madeleine fall down without sedation or the intervention of a third person will fit an accident).

    2- the dead was a crime without 'dolo' ( Madeleine took a drug or was beaten but not to deliberately cause her dead)

    3- the dead was a crime with 'dolo' ( she was drugged or beaten to deliberately cause her dead)


    ( HIDDING THE BODY COULD ONLY FIT THE REASON 2 OR 3, THEN NO ACCIDENTAL DEAD). They are doctors, they know that. They will never ever be charged with anything or lost their jobs and childs if what happened to Madeleine was an accident).

    ReplyDelete
  106. Mr Prout was charged without a body !

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anon@100 I think it fair to say that many of us are making assumptions when it comes to the actual time lines. It is difficult to work things out when it is obvious that many lies have been told by the McCanns & Tanner with their ever changing versions of events.

    Bridget@104 comments are brilliant IMO. We do not know FOR SURE, that the McCanns had anything to do with M's disappearance. There are many other possibilities even if it is proven that M died in the apartment(although if she did the McCanns would be my main suspects). However WE DO KNOW FOR SURE, they put themselves before the welfare of their kids, they have not co-operated with the police, and they are leaving many stones unturned. I am sick of seeing them in the forefront of campaigns for missing children etc. as they are not suitably qualified as they did not even have basic parenting skills. I agree let's have Madeleine's law as Bridget suggests. Let the McCanns be remembered for what they really are.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Anon @ 69,

    If the girl was sedated due to Calpol night, Actifed, Claritine, Zyrtec or any other common antihistamine, easy available to doctors, she will be carried in a.....deep sleep or with drowsiness.

    Everybody knows what doctors advise us, as a side effect, when we take that medicines: 'avoid driving or working with machines because your alert system will be affected. You can easily fall sleeping.'

    THEN DON'T PUT THE THEORY IN THE BED. The picture of the pyjama was conveniently delivered to credit independent sights of an abductor carrying a girl with that pyjama.

    ReplyDelete
  109. poster at 96 ,i am poster 71
    I believe and have always done ,that Maddie died on the night before ,the night the tapas group were not close by ,and did no checks(Maddie crying )IMO the mcs are far to bright as to not give themselves time to try to clean up the blood ,dispose of her body,get all the group together to concoct alibis that SHOULD have matched ,bribe Warner employees (creche records etc) ,The day they went to Heulva (no need for THEM to go, they could have asked anyone to take leaflets it did not warrant a personal trek ) there was unaccounted for milage on the car,on its return it was left for days and nights with the boot and doors left open ,i admit this is only my opinion

    ReplyDelete
  110. @104
    I agree, a much better use of energy. The truth will come out at some stage so park the quest for answers at this time. If only some mp would jump on Madeleine's law never mind them and their amber alert. The cheek of them. Next time they turn up at an event as the public face of a lost child they should be asked to leave. I would.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Their revised timeline is a direct consequence of the Smith sighting. It gives us Jane Tanner's sighting, Mathew Oldfield's check, unlocked patio doors and just listening. Their proof of abduction was the open shutters/window. By the way Textusa we know it was Gerry that was spotted carrying Madeleine, Jane Tanner's sighting tells us all we need to Know.

    ReplyDelete
  112. to poster no.105

    It's obvious that Kate and Gerry are NOT close.
    Just watch the mockumentary that they made.
    He has no affection for her whatsoever, and in the mockumentary they were trying their BEST to show a happy family!!!

    When he comes in from work, she offers to take his bag and he shrugs her away and makes a bee line for his son.
    He makes his son (and Amelie as an afterthought) a milkshake, and IGNORES Kate, instead of encouraging her to join in the fun. She just looks on with an embarrassed smile.

    In the garden he kicks a football which HITS Kate, and he says a very casual "Oh sorry" without even looking at her - totally uninterested.

    As for their behaviour in interviews, who has ever seen another couple keep touching each other incessantly like they do, it's almost obscene sometimes & certainly obnoxious. Exactly. well it's all stage managed, just for show.

    There were reports from PDL, that they held hands for camera opportunities but - when not in the spotlight - acted as if they couldn't bear each other.

    aunty anti

    ReplyDelete
  113. I believe Mr Amaral's version of events that night, the rest is speculation we are all playing detective, because we are all hungry, for a conclusion, in this case. The Maccann's have been very cunning, and had lots of help in this that's for certain. The Portugese justice has been very slow, under lots of pressure from the UK. Let,s all trust in God and Mr Amaral, The Maccann's will come down with a bang that is for sure,

    ReplyDelete
  114. Anon 98 I'm not 82, but for me the Smiths sighting is the only reliable one. And IF Gerry was carrying an other child it was Sean or Amelie. Remember Kate checked the twins, because they didn't wake up, according to Fiona Payne. I'm almost sure the tapas friends would never have 'borrowed' their children for this purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Anon 53,80,105

    This is part of Kate`s statement 6.9.07

    When asked if she ever slept in Madeleine's room, she says that this happened on the Wednesday, because she was annoyed with Gerry. He ignored her after dinner when they went to the Tapas bar, which only happened that day. She decided to retaliate by sleeping in the other room, in the bed next to the window. She doesn't know if Gerry realized this because he was sleeping when she left, and if in fact her husband was aware of this, he made no comment.

    ... so there is nothing in her statement to suggest that Kate got upset when her husband invited another female to sit at the table and went back to the apartment...

    ReplyDelete
  116. Bridget`s post (104) says it all and I agree with every word - thanks Bridget.

    I`ve always been appalled that there isn`t a law against leaving children alone. But I must say that it would be quite difficult to make clear guidelines. Would it be `not to leave children alone in a house`?, would that include the garden and what if the garden is very large and you leave the child while you sit at the bottom of your garden;
    what if you live in a mansion where the childrens` bedrooms are 2 mins walk away?
    would it be `not to leave children alone in a building` so would that make it alright for people to pop up to the flat upstairs while they leave their children unattended in their flat downstairs?
    I suppose it could be refined down to `not leaving children unattended within a radius of 20/30 metres, but then it would be ok to leave them to go to the flat upstairs.
    And then the use of baby monitor must be considered as the range they extend to is about 200 metres and you can also get video versions so you can actually see your baby from a distance. So, with these, one could go to the pub down the road and still be monitoring your baby.
    It is such a cloudy area and would raise so many points for the law makers.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  117. How about we all join up and march on 10 Downing St,and demand Justice for Madeleine,it's disgusting that no one has paid for the disappearance of that child,poor Madeleine,left alone in life,left alone in death.

    ReplyDelete
  118. KM tells us about Maddie asking where they were when she was crying that night, and as some have also mentioned Team Mccann never give info that they don't want us to have. Therefore i feel certain that KM, or one of the Tapas9, was indeed in the flat with maddie at that time.

    ReplyDelete
  119. #114,
    the only "flawed" point in Mr. Amaral's(and the whole police team, it's not just Mr. Amaral's theory) is the time the accident happened. If Madeleine fell from the sofa at around 9:15 pm, trying to see her father because she could hear his voice talking to Wilkins under the window, then there would not be enough time for the cadaver scent to develop in that place(behind the sofa). And she had to have died instantly from the fall, or be unconscious, because if she fell and was conscious and in pain she would have cried and Gerry and Wilkins would have heard it.
    I'm not saying Mr. Amaral is wrong in the whole thing, just the timings.

    ReplyDelete
  120. '''bribe Warner employees (creche records etc) ''

    Oh, it's as easy and casual as that is it? I must remember to go and bribe the staff of the establishment the next time I kill a child there, getting them to perjure themselves......what you suggest is utter tommy-rot.

    ReplyDelete
  121. #105,

    The female worker invited to the table was Najoua Chekaya, she conducted a quizz-night at the Tapas, and she IS indeed VERY ACTRACTIVE!

    See in McCann Files:
    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id53.html

    Scroll down to "I just want to go home, says fitness teacher..."

    ReplyDelete
  122. I never understood what some people mean with the "Huelva acid beds"! For all I know, Huelva has one of the largest chemicals factory in Europe, for acids, but I fail to see how they could get into the factory and the tanks to dispose off the body there!

    ReplyDelete
  123. Anon 51

    I am at a loss to know what your point is. Of course I have read the files, that's why I know the important details of the Smiths and what they claimed to have seen, and when, and what they agreed on and what they didn't. I suspect you have never really looked at it that closely and just assume that some of the wilder statements made by internet posters are true. I see there is a very determined effort to push the idea that Gerry was carrying Amelie or another child around, the logic used to try and explain WHY is sometimes very funny. But quite why is this? Especially when it's clear that the whole idea that the child died before the 3rd is so bonkers and untenable - the PJ never gave it a moment's credence, and I think you should ask yourself why.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Let's all concentrate on the McCanns and their neglect. Let's forget that Madeleine disappeared and is probably dead. But hey! let's not forget Madeleine. We'll make her death meaningful by calling for a law that makes neglect illegal; we'll start a movement for 'Madeleine's law', make her an icon, give her a place in history. She'd have loved that no doubt - nothing like becoming an icon for a good cause; helps compensate for the 70 or more years of life that someone brutally deprived her of.

    Anyway, the main thing is that we could then all stop our endless bleating, secure in the knowledge that if we make a law against something it will never happen again. Together with Textusa, Himself, Nigel, Pamalan, Joana and all the other dedicated people too numerous to mention we can then all move on and feel better at the same time.

    It will certainly make the McCanns feel better if we bring the discussion back to where they want it to be, namely about responsible or irresponsible parenting, because as we should all know by now, the McCann brand is immune to criticism of their parenting skills. They've long since won that discussion in the market sector that their brand is targeted at, you know, the one where they all do it?

    Just a minute though, what if Madeleine's disappearance had nothing whatsoever to do with whether her parents dined next door, nearby, 40m, 100m or indeed 10 miles away? What if neglect never happened, had nothing to do with it at all? What if neglect really is a red herring? As long as questions remain unanswered, shouldn't we remain dedicated to pursuit of the truth rather than acceptance of defeat against seemingly overwhelming odds?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Well Posted
    Bridget@no 104 and Inspector Clouseau @no 112.
    Lets all stick to logic here,and disregard the minority illogical posters who in my opinion are pro MC Cann Rattled timewasters.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  126. 124

    Ask yourself why the 'abductor' didnt avoid the no doubt noisy Smiths!

    ReplyDelete
  127. Anon 120, The cadaver dogs were brought in from the UK several days after it apparently happened so there would be time for them to detect the smell.

    ReplyDelete
  128. A secret can only be kept between two people when one is dead!! so goes the old saying. Well, the secret held between the two mccanns must be ripping them apart. If they can be separated by divorce or other, the secret will out!

    ReplyDelete
  129. T4two 125 - absolutely brilliant post I couldn't have put it better you are spot on.... well done and thank you to Joana, Textusa and co for your tireless work and research. Justice for Maddie.

    ReplyDelete
  130. From Amaral book about the day May 3:

    It was reported to the police that Madeleine went on a trip boat with other creche childs at 11 O'clock (yellow catamaran).

    It is hard for me to believe that no any parent of the childs who went on the trip took a picture of the childs ( I don't know if there is pictures about that event on the police files, I did not find any information regarding that).

    I believe there is pictures about that trip because proud parents normally record important events of their childs in holidays, and the nannies also use to take pictures of that trips.
    Why the Mccann's did not use that pictures to show Madeleine and instead. use one which was delivered to press and police, as the 'last picture', after 20 May and after Gerry trip to UK?
    Could be because Madeleine was not in the boat trip?
    There is no independent witnesses saying that they saw Madeleine on May 3, a part the Nannies, with strange Creche Records, and the some tapas 9.
    The trip boat happened in a public place(the beach), then even workers in the cafe paraiso(who already know her because in one of the previous days she went there with Gerry for an ice-cream), must have seen her if she went in the catamaran.
    I'm afraid she was already not alive on May 3, this is why the Mccann's spend the day out of the rest of the Tapas. Mccann's will not lost the opportunity to show Madeleine in the Catamaran if she was there.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Anon @ 131

    I too believe Maddie was not alive on the 3rd, there are no photographs of her and nobody saw her on that day, not even at Breakfast!! sadly she was already gone. The Mcs used 3rd to create their alibi and put forward their abduction theory. That is also why Mcs did not go to Paraiso restaurant because they knew the CCTV would prove that Maddie was not there. IMO maddie was a victim of sexual abuse from within that group that is why they have all lied.

    ReplyDelete
  132. @ T4two.

    I clearly have a different take on this to you.

    Firstly, lets be honest. The chances of this case being solved by a bunch of people typing away on the internet is pretty remote.

    I have long held the belief that espousing bizarre theories and over-analysing the available information achieves nothing more than to actually play into the McCann's hands. It makes those who do not believe their version of events look obsessed if they are constantly looking for links which don't exist, coming up with theories which will remain forever unproven, and ignoring anything which, inconveniently, doesn't tally with their version of events.

    Evidence is only as good as what it proves. The PJ went astray in some respects - it is crystal clear that there was a breakdown in communication in terms of what could be determined from the forensic evidence, for example. To this day, it is still blindingly obvious that many posters derive their understanding of the forensics from the rumour, speculation and tabloid reporting at the time, rather than from a proper analysis of what the samples collected actually revealed.

    I would never knock the PJ for the errors they made. The investigation was only ever going to be as good as the information reaching it, and there were hurdles to overcome in terms of language difficulties, useless witnesses and what I have always considered to be a witch-hunt centred around an innocent man.

    Should the case be reopened? No, not in my opinion. There is nothing new to work with, and it isn't as if Sherlock Hopeless and his sidekick are coming up with anything new.

    Should people interested in the case continue to come up with bizarre theories ? (If I hear one more mention of Freemasons I shall scream)Well, there is nothing stopping them.

    Will it help?

    No, of course it won't.

    People have to understand a few things about evidence. Firstly, how reliable is eyewitness testimony ? Not very reliable at all, frankly. Two people may have very different recollections of the same event; it does not mean one of them is lying. It just proves that memory is an imperfect thing.

    So if a waiter recollects - according to a newspaper report - that a family dined at a restaurant and the father played on the sand with his daughter, and states that that family was the McCanns, yet everyone else state they were not present, does that mean he is lying? Does it mean they are lying? No, of course it doesn't. It means someone is incorrect, because they can't both be right, but all it means it that there is conflicting testimony and further investigation is required in order to determine which account is actually correct.

    So I have a suggestion to make.

    Either accept that this investigation is going precisely nowhere unless significant new evidence emerges - and I mean new evidence, not some numpty on a website deciding that half a dozen witness statements are a tissue of lies because Charlotte Pennington said something different to a newspaper - or do what police do when an investigation stalls. Cold case review it. But without all the fanciful bollocks. Using only witness testimony, contradicted or not, and properly validated forensic reports - not a load of crap from the NOTW about bodily fluids and large amounts of hair in car boots.

    I would have thought that something along those lines, together with my earlier suggestion of campaigning to have a proper law in place to punish those who abandon their toddlers, might be a more effective use of people's time than endlessly casting the eye of suspicion over witnesses and trying to work out how they were 'involved', when the chances are they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    To do so would not be to abandon Madeleine or to in any way accept defeat. It would be to accept the need to be a bit smarter.

    ReplyDelete
  133. I have just watched the interview outside court in Portugal again ,the fear in both faces is palpable, they are scared stiff of someone asking the type of questions they avoid being asked,no editing,no pink ponce to moniti=or what is asked ,they were out of their depths,and then what happens? a reporter laughs at the mention of ABDUCTOR, Kate FLIPS !! shes over the edge ,Her nose flares,she is LIVID Gerry is well uncomfortable and ends the interview claiming they have a plane to catch ,THIS is the type of thing we need more of ,Kate im sure would crack

    ReplyDelete
  134. T4two, 54!
    EXACTLY, MY FRIEND, EXACTLY!
    ALL MY THOUGHTS!

    ReplyDelete
  135. 127
    But I thought that was his objective, to be spotted but not recognised. How long was he prepared to stroll about for in the hope of being spotted but not recognised? How could he have known if he'd been spotted but not spotted the spotter? What if he'd been spotted on his return to the apartments still carrying the substitute Madeleine? Why is it that in achieving his mission he then needs Jane Tanner to provide an alibi for him that destroys his original abduction scenario and has the abductor only 400 metres away from the scene of the crime some 40 minutes later?

    ReplyDelete
  136. poster 133.If you understand the proper analysis of the samples taken from"the scene of the crime" I for one would appreciate you allowing the rest of us to know where we also can read and digest those facts,especially if they can discount the cavader found in the apartment ,clothes and car all used by the macaans? If in fact those results were of no significant use, WHY are police still using those same highly trained dogs to carry out this highly specialised work, today in the Bradford search for the two missing murdered women ?I do agree however, with your view that trying to implicate so many of their friends in that fateful night is in my opinion,sometimes a step too far in the wrong direction BUT they never say anything to stop us from suppositioning do they?WHY ?That to me is quite unique as most people would try to distance themselves from the sort of innuendo we have in this debacle.

    ReplyDelete
  137. @125,good post,i believe the neglect is a red herring also i for one dont think the madeleine was alive on the 3rd may

    ReplyDelete
  138. I totally agree with everything that Bridget & most that Fencesitter has said.
    A lot of good analysis is written on this forum. I just hope that it is being read in the right quarters.
    For me, two of the things that stand out & really bother me, are.
    1. THE POPE VISIT. I immediately got the gut feeling that Kate was taking the kissing the photograph, as like a funeral blessing for Madeleine.
    2. THE PRIEST. I had alway had suspicions about Madeleine being hidden in the church. Then the Priest, Father Pacheco, made some sort of comment afterwards, to suggest that the McCann case had ruined his life.
    Although I have always believed in "Innocent until proven guilty", this is the strangest case ever.

    ReplyDelete
  139. If Freemasonry is not an element in this, what explanation is there for the strange position of both McCanns as they knelt on the apartment bed? They look like pilgrims at Mecca.Two police are standing in the doorway. (I think this photo is in Goncalo's The Truth of the Lie).
    And I remember a photo somewhere of Gerry prostrating himself outside the pavement of 5a while Portugese police look on, bemused.
    Both these actions were more than normal expressions of grief and looked like semaphore messages to an outside source.

    ReplyDelete
  140. The Smiths statement reports that they observed Gerry carrying an imobile inert girl of Madelein's description. That's clear. The rest is clever pros trying to muddy the waters and confuse the issue. What that tells decent people is that the Smiths sighting is very very accurate and vital to the case, that's why some posters are desperately discrediting it bit by bit, a little at a time. Don't let that happen.

    ReplyDelete
  141. 141 Exactly - and strangely the Smith sighting is not and has not been discussed by the McCanns and the Tanner sighting has.

    Why do they prefer one to the other I wonder? Surely both should be held up by the McCanns as evidence, one supporting the other?

    In fact the second sighting surely is more valuable than the one which is too close to the McCanns to be considered as unbiased.

    Oh, of course, that one identifies the abductor as Gerry McCann!

    Oh dear, Gerry, your mistake was carrying the twin down the steps of the plane in the same way as you carried poor little Madeleine!

    OOOPS!

    ReplyDelete
  142. Poster 139 Yes me too! I always thought it may have coincided with the transporting of the corpse to Huelva acid beds.

    ReplyDelete
  143. 125 Yes I agree with this. They too easily accept neglect and yes the market they aim that at is the media - especially female media professionals - its the only way they can have a career and children - Fiona, the English slut, the scottish slut (I forget her name), the Italian slut...Richard and Judy (Judy is not really adeuate in the looks department to call her a slut!).

    ReplyDelete
  144. 136 Yes, food for thought isnt it!

    One thing for sure, there wasnt an abductor.

    ReplyDelete
  145. @ Lynn, poster 137.

    Lynn, please don't misunderstand me. I do not for a second discount the findings of the dogs - far from it. However, it remains a fact that in order for their indications to be confirmed, further evidence is required, and unfortunately the forensic evidence was not very helpful.

    It is my belief that somewhere along the line there was a misunderstanding not so much in terms of what was found, but in terms of what interpretation could be derived from those results. This was illustrated by the assertion that 'Madeleine's DNA' had been found in the car, when it simply was not possible to determine whether the mixed sample contained Madeleine's DNA, or not.

    I must stress, I am not a forensic scientist, but I do have some knowledge of this area and I am happy to try to answer any questions. So much of what has been written is complete nonsense, and it is such a shame. It is also important to realise that the failure to pinpoint samples consistent with Madeleine coming to harm in the apartment does not mean that she didn't, nor does it mean that the dogs were wrong. It simply means there was insufficient forensic evidence to confirm what the dogs indicated. I hope that makes sense?

    ReplyDelete
  146. @ anon #140

    I think the photos you have seen are from dramatisations of the events. There are no actual photos of what occurred. Surely you don't think that whatever position they assumed inside their bedroom, inside their apartment, with only two police officers for company was some kind of message to people in the outside world, because I would have to say that is stretching credulity just a little too far

    ReplyDelete
  147. Bridget, at 104,

    what you have written must be music to the ears of the McCanns.

    In other words you are saying we should only discuss this case in terms of neglect.

    Yes, the McCanns would like that, and that we keep away from the Gaspar statements and making people aware of them, or any suggeston that the death of Madeliene was not a simple accident, though the investigators themselves have an open mind on that. There was even talk at one time of charging Kate McCann with causing the death of Madeleine, and obviously not regarding accidental death.

    All aspect of this case should be discussed, because not to do so will mean the McCanns will get their way in dismissing the evidence of the dogs for a start. The Gaspar statements will also be covered over.

    As for the case being reopened, many people still have hopes of this and say it is possible, including Dr Amaral, and he knows far more than we do.

    ReplyDelete
  148. If the Smith sighting had not mentioned the lookalike Gerry McCann, no doubt the McCanns would have been shouting about it from the rooftops. They would have been rolling Mr Smith out just like they do Jane Tanner.

    As it is, hardly a passing reference to what has to be the best possible sighting of Madeleine that night.

    To the McCanns it's important not to mention it.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Lynn 137

    I agree. The dogs are saying Madeleine is dead. The investigators know this.

    This case goes far beyond neglect. The finding of the cadaver would reveal much of the truth of how the little girl died.

    Somebody amongst that group knows the truth of what happened and why she had to be hidden and a fake abduction set up.

    An accident is just that, an accident. It could have been revealed as such and nobody charged by putting the time of finding Madeleine much later when the parents were back.

    This case cannot be discussed only as neglect, it is far more than that, if it was ever really that to begin with. Or is that what we are meant to think.

    ReplyDelete
  150. @ Bridget: an explanation of my position

    Joana will I hope please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that Portuguese law already deals quite harshly with the issues of neglect and failure to protect minors and that where it can be, the law is strictly enforced.

    In my opinion there are three possible reasons as to why the law was not, could not, or was chosen not to be, enforced in this case.

    The first is that there is an ongoing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice which would of necessity also have to involve the Portuguese authorities.

    The second is simply that the Portuguese authorities did not choose to prosecute the McCanns for neglect because they did not see the possibility of doing so successfully.

    The third is connected to the second, in that the disappearance and likely death of the minor and suspected involvement of the McCanns, where it is not possible to rule out foul play by either of the parents or their accomplices, is far too serious to put a possible prosecution at risk through forcing a failed prosecution for neglect at this stage.

    I tend towards a combination of the second and third. Why do I think that the authorities made that decision? Because the only evidence for the case of neglect comes from the McCanns themselves and their accomplices and it is patently obvious, as it was to the police, that their evidence consists of a pack of lies from start to finish. That the McCanns and their accomplices lied concerning the arrangements for looking after the children is not just my opinion, it is quite clear from the police files as well as from their subsequent back-filling, that it is so. Small wonder then that they could not tear themselves away from more important matters to return to Portugal for an official police reconstruction.

    If we rule out a conspiracy therefore, then as far as the Portuguese authorities were concerned, it was their decision not to prosecute the McCanns for neglect under existing laws due to there being no reliable evidence and/or due to their suspicion that something far more serious was being concealed, the investigation and possible prosecution of which, they did not wish to prejudice.

    There is nothing which suggests to me that the McCanns were not prosecuted for neglect because the law itself is deficient in some way and by the same token, nothing which suggests that a new law would have changed the outcome to date in any way whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Quite a few pros on here lately, especially this particular thread.
    They stand out like sore thumbs.
    You can also spot exactly what it is they are worried about if you read between the lines of their comments.
    They are running scared.

    ReplyDelete
  152. I Bridget @ 133,

    The only think that I have to say to you is 'some theories are scaring too much, some people'.... 'even people who use to come to that blog pretending to defend the truth and Madeleine rights'.

    We maybe, at Internet, never solve the case or raise enough power to achieve justice, but 'THE POWER' CANNOT IGNORE US FOR LONG TIME IF WE FIGHT AND HIGHLIGHT THE INCONSISTENCIES ON MCCANN'S ATTITUDE. That girl, like many childs victims of crimes, was abused until May 3, 2007 and still abused now... not by us, who defend some theories, but by her parents and some members of her family who use her image and her drama to raise money and fool the justice.

    In a crime, we have to apply Science methods. There is some fiction who Mccann's want us to believe, which by practical and scientific proof we just have to say.... IMPOSSIBLE. We don't need a body or a lot of forensic evidences to say:

    -Passing a toddler trough the window of the flat 5A is impossible.
    - Opening the shutters without damaging them or leaving evidences is impossible.
    - sedating 2 sleeping childs with a strong possibility of being 3, in a short time, without raising strong defensive reactions on them, is impossible. And I'm talking about sweet syrups. If I talk about injections.... TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
    - It is impossible to collect forensic evidences from places if this forensic evidences did not exist, with or without dogs to alert for them. In the 5A and the Renault scenic, the dogs alert for them and the forensic team found and collect the evidences, proving that dogs don't lie.
    - Forensic evidences said that Madeleine was moved dead from the flat( forget the second FSS report which did not corroborate the first and could be easily manipulated). Dead Madeleine is useless for the egg-man, the creepy man or any abductor, paedo or not. Dead Madeleine is a huge problem for her parents and the all tapas 7, special if her body could not easily show an accident. Who removed her must be the one for who, she is a problem.
    - Who removed dead Madeleine did not walk with her in PDL streets. Who removed Madeleine did not take any risk to be seen by anybody.
    - Who removed Madeleine will do everything to stick the crime to others.
    - Who removed Madeleine will do everything to fake all the situation and save the skin. Even using another sedated girl to walk in public places and raise alerts for an abduction. At that moment, no relationship between the girl and the criminal was took in account or respected. In Psychology we call it 'inate reaction'. Something that an individual( including the humans) could not control, and lead the people to egoist behaviours when they face very dramatic and extreme experiences. At the end... we all do everything to survive, special if we know that what happened is irreversible.

    Textusa is doing a wonderful work by removing the impossible from the possible.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Post 133 (Bridget)

    a rare window of lucidity at this late stage of paralysis by analysis-bravo, thank you for a non-partisan/non-hysterical post.

    The girl vanished

    Sean's & Amelie's big sister vanished

    that is the state of play..anyone professing to have anything more adjacent to the truth---good luck to you



    isar

    ReplyDelete
  154. Anon 41

    Amelie was much smaller than Madeleine and had very blonde hair.

    The child the man saw did not. It was a darker blonde, even brown colour, as was Madeleine's colouring, which was streaked colour with some blonde highlights. Also the length of the hair was different.

    Mr Smith, having had children and grandchildren of his own would not have mistaken a two year old for a child who was short of four years old by only a few days.

    Looking at the photos of Madeleine, contrary to what the McCanns say that she was small, she looked tall enough for her age in the playground photo which was taken during that holiday. No way would Amelie have been mistaken for her.

    ReplyDelete
  155. T4Two - my thoughts exactly, you speak logically and factually.Justice for Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  156. @ anon # 148.

    No - where have I said that we should discuss this only in terms of neglect ?

    I wish people would actually read posts before employing a kneejerk reaction.

    As I think I made clear, I can see little to be gained from hypothesizing ''how they might have done it''. I believe it loses any credibility.

    If you seriously believe that endlessly going over things like the Gaspar statements will actually make a blind bit of difference, then by all means carry on. I'll have to disagree, I'm afraid.

    Perhaps you would like to explain why you think endless theories about witnesses, body disposal etc will prove successful ?

    ReplyDelete
  157. Anon at 153 well said I agree with your post and Joana and Textusa have spent a lot of time and research on this case, we must all work together eventually the mccanns will crack. Madeleine was abused and still is now by the mccanns.

    ReplyDelete
  158. psychology/sociology/---body language--- we are all dab hands at any of these subjects in forum land...aren't we ?

    No, we flipping aren't, we are amateurs..looking in, at best out of
    genuine interest at finding out what happened in Luz..at worst out of some morbid voyeurism

    psychology on't fora..? a bit like learning tree-surgery from youtube..you are bound to lose at least one extremity

    opinions are fine..opinions dressed up as 'I know what I'm talking about' are just shabby and cheap--and self-serving

    isar

    ReplyDelete
  159. @ T4two

    I made no mention whatsoever of the failure or otherwise of the Portuguese authorities to prosecute the McCanns for neglect, and you appear to have completely missed the point of my posts

    Nowhere did I mention the law in Portugal. Perhaps you can illustrate where you think I did

    ReplyDelete
  160. Bridget@133. Another brilliant post which makes a lot of sense to me. The only reason I call myself a fencesitter is because I will only make accusations based on what I know to be true because I have witnessed it myself (that is why I am so critical of the McCanns generally). I have read all the reports and witness statments and it is true there are conflicting stories and evidence of cadavarine but the police have privy to far more information than we have but appear not to have enough to charge anyone. Therefore I cannot with the limited details I have categorically state the McCanns are guilty. I can however categorically state that I have been to view 5A and in my opinion no way was M taken out through the window.

    In defence of those who are still coming up with new theories, I believe this is because we all know the answer is out there somewhere and everybody who gives a damn about Madeleine is desparately trying to find it. I do not think picking over the same old is going to find the answer. I agree with you, new evidence is needed and I do not consider a sudden recall 3years later of the white van story to be new evidence.

    In defence of SOME pros who genuinely believe the McCanns to be innocent, I understand why they think sites like this are evil for persecuting grieving parents. Regrettably because they are so pro they cannot see or accept the way the McCanns acted at the time and subsequently was far from the norm. Other pros just are not worth wasting breath on because they even defended the McCanns leaving the kids in the first place. The Madeleine Law that you suggested is a brilliant way to do something positive but I have feeling if it gathers momentum the McCanns and the pros will do everything in their power to stop it. However this is one occasion when the McCanns can not accuse slander and lies being spread about them because they told the world themselves "they left the kids"

    ReplyDelete
  161. BRAVO @ 153

    Gerry never carried a dead Madeleine through the busy streets with people coming out of restaurants and tourists... too risky. Madeleine was hidden in the wardrode probably for the best part of that day, where the dogs detected. She suffered a violent death hence the blood. Nobody saw him returning to the apartment because he did not want to be seen. His mistake was carrying his child off the plane in the same position as he carried the child the night he wanted to be seen as the fake abductor. Madeleine died 2nd, it was not an accident because there would be no need for the cover up, something far more sinister was going on within that group that is why they have all lied, not to protect Kate and Gerry but to cover their own backs.

    ReplyDelete
  162. @ anon #152

    If your comment was supposed to be aimed at me, at least have the good manners to say so. I am quite used to this response. Idiots jumping up and down, pointing fingers and shouting ''Pro !!'' simply because I don't happen to subscribe to this need to come up with 25 ways they might have disposed of a body.

    @ anon #153

    Likewise - do you seriously think that jumping up and down telling people what they already know is going to make any difference?

    With respect, your post reveals that you are rather confused over the forensics, and this was what I was getting at. Many people are confused, there has been a great deal of misinformation. But it is a situation which will not be helped in any way, shape or form by one hypothesis after another about 'Walkers', 'Strollers' and 'Undertakers'.

    Really, seriously now - who in a position of authority is going to take a blind bit of notice?

    You are not investigators. None of you. You are desktop sleuths. Sorry, but that's the truth of the matter. Anyone could sit down and pick holes in these theories if they could be bothered, but what would it achieve?

    I do think it's incredibly bad manners to accuse people of supporting the McCanns simply because their opinions do not accord with your own.

    ReplyDelete
  163. So, Bridget, "review the case"? Well, well... . Sounds very familiar. Not REOPEN!- REVIEW? Who are you, "Bridget"?

    ReplyDelete
  164. Anon 153

    Much as I think Textusa's site is a very good, interesting read, this theory of hers that the child being carried was not Madeleine but a substitute child, does not make sense if it was Gerry McCann who was carrying her.

    If he had bumped into somebody he knew he would still have to explain why he was carrying a child, whether dead or alive at that time of night. Not only would he have the journey out, he would have the journey back. He had already bumped into Wilkins, who else might have been around. What a risk to take pretending to be an abductor.

    As it was, if it was Gerry, Mr Smith had seen him, Mr Smith even spoke to him, but he put his head down and mumbled. Fortunately Mr Smith was not somebody who knew him, yet could describe his clothing.

    Rather worrying, but we notice there was a pair of light coloured trousers on the bed, and Gerry was next seen in photos with jeans on, and there we have Jane Tanner with her sighting of an abductor at an earlier time than the Smith sighting, but wearing the same type of clothing as the man in the Smith sighting.

    Not only that but she is also saying she saw the man at the same time as she saw Gerry McCann and Wilkins, who claim neither saw her. But why look a gift horse in the mouth, Gerry McCann is willing to promote Jane Tanner's sighting, which evolved with the telling regarding description, etc, (she had originally said the man wore jeans), and also gives him an alibi to contradict any statement made by Mr Smith should he have recognised him, which later Mr Smith has said he did.

    As for the carrying of a living child, I can understand what Textusa is getting at, it would indeed set up the abductor scenario, given that Gerry McCann may not have realised Jane Tanner was going to say she had seen somebody carrying something that has since turned into a child with legs, pyjamas, etc, etc.

    It should not be forgotten that by saying this, Jane Tanner also gave her partner an alibi because he was absent from the table for quite some time also that night. Can she be believed at all?

    I personally think she may have seen something, but not at the time Gerry and Wilkins were talking, it was later, when she returned after O'Brien returned to the restaurant to finish his meal. The time was about 9.45pm and I believe she caught the back of a man carrying a child. I also think she is highly suggestable and easily manipulated into saying whatever is required, just like she picked out Murat, and then changed her mind about him.

    Somebody moved Madeleine that night to a safer place so she would not be found when the police had to be alerted to her being missing.

    That needed a risk taker, somebody who was a quick thinker in case of an emergency. The beach area, which could have been gone over earlier for such a hiding place would have been fine for a few hours until the child could have been taken somewhere else.

    No doubt Madeleine has been moved to several places before her final resting place. No doubt it was necessary for her never to be found because the finding of her would reveal what happened. No doubt certain people think they have been very clever. No doubt they are fooling themselves.

    I also believe there is a large piece of forensic evidence that will be found, that has not been discarded. I also believe that charges will be brought in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Can I just add to my last comment that I see nothing wrong with posters theorising and trying to sort out the possible from the impossible. There have been some interesting and sensible suggestions over the years which I hope have been read by the PJ for consideration. However, like it or not, it is far easier to theorise than it is to convict so until such time as someone talks, or M's body is found I cannot forsee any further changes.

    T4two@150 I believe you are correct re the law on neglect in Portugal, however a big campaign in the UK would not go amiss and the stars of the piece can be the famous publicity seekers (although I am sure they would not welcome this kind of publicity)

    Anon@148 Yes I believe it will be music to the McCanns ears but not the kind of music they want to hear. People have been dancing to their tune for too long, time to change the record and put the record straight, and still push for the gaspers statements to be reviewed

    ReplyDelete
  166. Anon 152

    How right you are. Perhaps the Murat V Tanner case? Or is it something else?

    I always think, if they proclaim so much that people are discussing things about this case that aren't worth discussing, why the hell are they on here reading it? Surely they must think it is not worth reading either.

    Bet they would be willing to discuss the abduction theory as fact though.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Being as how the Gaspars are, or were, friends of the McCanns it is very important to take the Gaspar statements seriously and not let them be ignored.

    Here's hoping that Dr Amaral will get to mention them at the libel trial that is supposed to be still going ahead.

    Just the mention of them will be enough for the media to want to know more, and if it is being referred to at a trial they will have no worries about printing it.

    That is one of the last things the McCanns want, besides the reopening of the case of course.

    ReplyDelete
  168. a dubliner
    I agree with you in regards of the Smiths, and gerry disposing of his clothes so no cavadar scent. I just cant understand why the police have not brought them forward.

    ReplyDelete
  169. @ Fencesitter.

    Thank you for your excellent posts and insight.

    I completely concur with you. I think what I have been trying to get across is that it doesn't matter what we think, or believe. It doesn't matter what we think we know.
    One cannot go into a courtroom and say ''Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please find these people guilty because a load of people on the interclickyweb say so''

    I have been concerned for some time that in the desire to find answers, some people are in serious danger of losing sight of that fact. As it appears unlikely that the case will move forward without a significant development, I was voicing my opinion that nothing is being achieved in certain quarters.

    I fail to understand why people assume that makes me pro-McCann. That's like accusing a doctor of being pro-death when he tells you your condition is inoperable.

    Thanks again, Fencesitter.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Stop repeating about "they left the kids"!
    The sexually unbridled group of swingers killed the child. One way or enother.
    Is there anyone who believes in their "one day confession"!?

    ReplyDelete
  171. Bridget 104
    i believe that the law states no child under the age of 12years should be left alone,that was the law and maybe it changed but i doubt it. thanks for a good post.

    ReplyDelete
  172. @ Isar

    Thank you, and I concur with you entirely

    I loved your Tree surgery/youtube analogy, and will shamelessly steal that from you, if I may

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  173. @ Bridget

    Current laws in Portugal and the UK pertaining to neglect and the protection of minors are already perfectly adequate, new laws are not required.

    However my point is that the whole neglect issue is not relevant to the McCanns. There was no neglect; it's a McCann smokescreen covering what really went on.

    Rest assured that I have understood your various points very well and know exactly where you're coming from and what you want to achieve :)

    ReplyDelete
  174. @ Dubliner.

    Thanks for your comments. I share your views, and profess to being, as I have observed with yourself, baffled at the criticism of the Smith family from certain quarters, too.

    The discussion and criticism of witnesses to this case is something with which I am very uncomfortable, from wherever that criticism arises. I have seen appalling things said by Pros about the Gaspars and Yvonne Martin, and equally appalling things said about the Hubbards by antis.

    In my book, there is no excuse for this. These people did not asked to be involved in these events, and I am sure the last thing they deserve is to have aspersions made as to their involvement, character and behaviour. More than anything, the accusations still being made about Robert Murat are especially reprehensible.

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  175. This article states that it is The Portuguese Public Ministry that is refusing to reopen the case without what they consider to be credible new evidence. How can The McCanns be held responsible for this?

    And just as a matter of interest, in what other way might anyone be expected to carry a child, sleeping or otherwise?

    ReplyDelete
  176. Anon 153 "Who removed dead Madeleine did not walk with her in PDL streets. Who removed Madeleine did not take any risk to be seen by anybody."

    I don't have a theory, but your sentence above is just common sense. I totally agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  177. @ Sabot 176


    An official source from that same institution guaranteed that «despite the process is archived, the Judiciary Police keeps a commitment to explore all the leads».

    The mccanns ARE responsible for lying along with being totally irresponsible parents.

    1.- for spinning "news leads" which are ALL investigated by the PJ and which are a WASTE of time and money for the PORTUGUESE STATE.At least,something has changed: there are no "sightings" anymore which means they know they had to stop this kind of spin because it does not work anymore.It is obvious if Madeleine was alive she would have been found by now,thanks to the global event of her "disappearance",either that or her abductor would have got rid of her by now on acoount of the global publicity.

    2.- The mccanns are responsible for NOT asking OFFICIALLY for the reopening of the case as any normal and INNOCENT people would do.They would have never allowed it to be shelved in the first place,wouldnt they? If they dared ask for the reopening the Portuguese state would certainely comply.I have no doubt about it.

    Now,what is all this pink spinning is about? the gypsies,a new white van,and whatever else all of a sudden?Is there something going on behind the smoke screen?

    ReplyDelete
  178. Anon at 178 - totally agree with your post - you state the obvious well said.

    ReplyDelete
  179. To Quote ANON # 164
    ''Anonymous said... 164

    So, Bridget, "review the case"? Well, well... . Sounds very familiar. Not REOPEN!- REVIEW? Who are you, "Bridget"?''


    I am Bridget - who are you, ''anonymous'' ?

    I suggest you take something for that paranoia.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Anon@170 Are you saying I have got it all wrong and they never left the kids because I am convinced they did otherwise there would not be a statement that Madeleine was crying for hours, or do you consider that witness unreliable too. Also why are you saying they KILLED the child, what evidence are you privy to that makes you say that, even Dr. Amaral thinks it was an accident.

    Bridget@171 I find it interesting how different people view your comments. It is clear that 174 thinks you are a very clever pro who is trying to divert people away from other issues. Only you know who you are and what you are hoping to achieve, so only you will know which posters work things out accurately and those who add 2+2 & get 6. Over the years I have also been accused of the same because I refuse to accuse (I leave that to the police).

    I am very anti McCann & I welcome anything that knocks them off their pedestal. That is why I am so in favour of the suggestion you made receiving coverage in the UK papers. It is about time people who have not followed this case are made aware of all the information. As yet the papers have danced to the McCanns tune but once something shows them in a bad light more revellations could esculate. To those of you who also think I am a "clever" pro (there is no such thing BTW) I say wake up and smell the coffee. Even if the neglect thing was a McCann smoke screen, they said they left the kids so if they lied they have shot themselves in the foot. If this is proven to be a lie, then they are totally discredited and it will open up a big can of worms. Even if it only achieves making people realise that the McCanns are not whiter than white it is better than nothing. If their fund dries up because of this so much the better, if it stops the papers printing rubbish like the white van sighting, better still. Sometimes going backwards helps to go further forward at a later date. My sincere hope would be that a newspaper takes up this challenge & in time asks the McCanns the questions that we all need answering. eg Why lack of co-operation with the police, why no police reconstruction, why have they wasted so much of the fund money, the list is endless. Also remember the rest of the Tapas group supposedly left their kids too, so they should all be named and shamed too which could result in one of them blowing the whistle to save their own neck. Nothing ventured nothing gain is my view

    ReplyDelete
  181. @ T4two

    to quote you

    ''

    @ Bridget

    Current laws in Portugal and the UK pertaining to neglect and the protection of minors are already perfectly adequate, new laws are not required.

    However my point is that the whole neglect issue is not relevant to the McCanns. There was no neglect; it's a McCann smokescreen covering what really went on.

    Rest assured that I have understood your various points very well and know exactly where you're coming from and what you want to achieve ''

    I think you might want to add the words ''in my opinion'' to the end of your first paragraph, as I'm afraid I don't agree with you, and neither, I am sure, do thousands of others.

    My personal belief is that it is not okay to have a society where we say that if you drink and drive, you will face prosecution if caught, regardless of whether you cause an accident, but when it comes to leaving your children alone, well, basically you are likely to get away with it unless something actually happens to them

    Maybe you think that is an adequate provision. I don't.

    I must be speaking a foreign language at times because I don't know if it is the case that people are too enmeshed in one way of thinking, or just unable to deal with a concept without reacting as if someone just mentioned witchcraft.

    You state ''
    However my point is that the whole neglect issue is not relevant to the McCanns. There was no neglect; it's a McCann smokescreen covering what really went on.''

    That is your opinion. You don't know what ''really went on'' any more than I do. I believe I made myself perfectly clear.

    People can either carry on doing the same thing and achieving the same result - nothing - or use their heads.

    The McCanns want the world to see them as tireless campaigners who will never give up the search for Madeleine - I want the world to see them as they are, ie, the people responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

    It is not possible at this moment in time for any agency, be that the PJ, Leicestershire police, or the internet gang of Cops'R'Us to prove the McCann's responsible, no matter how many daft theories the latter come up with.

    But a change in the law WHICH MADE IT AN OFFENCE TO LEAVE SMALL CHILDREN ALONE would be a damning indictment of their behaviour. As things stand now, that is all there is. Because of one thing I am quite certain, no amount of pressure from 'internet sleuths' is going to make them suddenly 'crack' as someone suggested.

    As regards your comments in your last paragraph, you can shove your opinions sideways where a light source won't reach them. I am used to idiots declaring that I am a pro-McCann simply because I use my brain, and refuse to subscribe to the nonsensical. It should be obvious to anyone who can read, that I am not

    ReplyDelete
  182. @ anon 172

    to quote you ''Anonymous said... 172

    Bridget 104
    i believe that the law states no child under the age of 12years should be left alone,that was the law and maybe it changed but i doubt it. thanks for a good post. ''

    Thank you.

    In fact, no. The law does not state that, and this is my point, really.

    The actual legal position at the moment is that there is no legal age at which children can be left alone, although it is an offence to place them at risk. The NSPCC produce an excellent leaflet (joana I am not sure how you feel about links, so please do remove this if it's a problem
    http://www.nspcc.org.uk/help-and-advice/for-parents-and-carers/positive-parenting/leaving-children-home-alone/leaving-children-home-alone_wda72908.html )

    I imagine most people, like yourself, believe that to leave young children alone is an automatic offence. It isn't. Hence my views

    I dare say the same people who trot out the ''we've all done it'' line are the ones who also declare that they have, on occasion, had a few then driven because ''we've all done it''.

    Well, I haven't, and if they have it's nothing to be proud of. I think the law needs to be tightened up

    ReplyDelete
  183. As a general point, especially as regards things like the Gaspar's statements, the theories about people carrying children dead, alive or sedated through the streets until they get noticed, priests giving keys to the church, bodies being moved, non-existent blood splatters etc. it is important to remember something.

    Accusation does not equal evidence

    Nor is the plural of accusation, evidence.

    Repeating something loud and often cannot make it true if it wasn't true in the first place.

    There are lots of theories about what happened that night. They cannot, by definition, all be correct. None of them amount to a hill of beans if they can't be proven in court

    ReplyDelete
  184. @ anon #167.

    Nope.

    My personal opinion is that the 'abduction theory' is bollocks. Sorry to disappoint

    ReplyDelete
  185. Some people are showing their true faces and Isar quickly and conveniently jumped on their wagon.

    Negligence was far overtaken by the Mccann's on the first moment of May 3, 2007, and GNR and PJ soon realised that negligence were peanuts, compared with crime which appears behind scenes. Will be a huge error if they charged the Mccann's with negligence on the first week, based only on their statements, unbelievable timetable and Mrs Fenn witness. THIS IS WHAT MCCANN'S WERE PRAYING TO HAPEN to dismiss the real crime, which look at police eyes more like an homicide with body concealment. Polices and prosecutors were not stupid and they cannot look at a single tree dismissing the all forest. They look at the forest trying to recover the important trees and find the true.
    Negligence, in the worst situation is charged with 5 years in prison. An homicide with concealment of the body could go up until 25 years in prison. No any police will commit such error.
    But here we are not blind. We recognise police made some errors. I can highlight quickly 3:
    - police fail to frame the all Tapas 9 since the beginning. If they were made arguidos on the first hours, they will got their movements and mobiles under surveillance and they will be forbidden to talk about the case to any Media. No place for spin or spin-mans
    -police fail to stop the Tapas 7. They should be obliged to stay in Portugal until police clarify the all situation.
    - Police fail to talk at one voice. It will be very useful if the spoke-person talking in PJ behalf showed strong confidence in english and in dealing to the Media to clearly pass the message that the case was a sensitive police investigation and not a novel with episodes delivered to the public by vultures in the press.

    ( UNFORTUNNATLY THE MAIN PROBLEM WAS THAT PJ DID NOT HAVE AT THE TIME A STRONG TEAM OF SPOKE-PERSONS TO DEAL WITH MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC. I HOPE NOW, the reality is different) CONT

    ReplyDelete
  186. CONT:

    Some Pro, came here to distract our attention and accuse us of basing our theories in our feeling. Huge error. Most of us read the files, Amaral book, all other books related with case, Gerry Blog and the Media( even the British rubbish tabloids) and we base our theories, not in feelings but in facts. THIS IS WHAT IS SCARING THE MCCANN'S and making their lawyers run to threat blogs and Amaral. They know... the theories are touching the truth and damaging not the search for Madeleine but the 'money income' on the Fund. Gerry had to assault really charitable Funds. last time. If we achieve our goal, which is alerting the world for the truth and making people think and don't buy Mccann's fiction for free, GERRY AND KATE WILL END-UP IN THE STREETS GIVING AN HAT TO COLLECT COINS.
    But they just do that because they want. They know the truth and they don't want the world to know it. It is their choices with a lot of side effects. Now, since they went in our houses trough the screen TVS since May 3, 2007, asking support (financial as a must) to look and search their daughter, WE DON'T GIVE UP. We are here looking for Madeleine, for justice.
    In fact, when we review Madeleine saga we find out that Mccann's never asked the public to help them 'find the true'. If we pay attention to the words of most of other parents of missing childs, we easily recognise on their messages, that over the time, what became very important for them, was not only found their childs (alive or not) but FIND THE TRUE.
    Behind Kate and Gerry words and attitudes, there was always a message underlined: THEY KNOW THE TRUE. The big problem for them, is their nonfactual fiction did not match the factual evidences police already collect. I believe, strong evidences are under the judicial secrecy, at PJ hands. They are not enough, only because Portuguese justice follow the German method- until prove in contrary everybody is innocent and to prove the contrary they need the body with a deep autopsy or a confession from somebody of the group.
    They will crack... 20 years is a long way to keep a secret. Today, we know much more then in 2007... all delivered by the Mccann's, trough their words, their interviews, their strategies, their team, THEIR ATTITUDE. ALL FACTS. NOT FEELINGS, NOT FICTION.

    ReplyDelete
  187. 177 Actually there is so much more to this. These sightings must have been fabricated to create an impression that htere was an abduction - no abductor clever enough to have slipped in and out like the SAS would have followed up the escape with so much high visibility wandering around!

    However, the checks are all fabrications anyway - as (for example) someone who went to check their children wouldnt just go to close a door on the children without actually looking in on them - Kate McCann is one big silly liar!

    ReplyDelete
  188. @ Louise.

    Hi Louise, and thanks for your comments.

    I agree to formulate a workable law would be a challenge, but I think it should be possible to come up with something workable and sensible, which achieves the aim of ensuring children are not placed in danger, and that those looking after them take responsibility for their actions.

    I remember being especially incensed by Kate McCann's comments to journalists about 'personal responsibility'. If ever there was a person with absolutely no qualifications to lecture others on personal responsibility, then it's her.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Anon @ 165,

    Mccann's holidays package with resort, include the breakfast and the dinner. Just think about the importance they gave to the money, taking in account that their financial account was not so health at May 2007. They will never waste a dinner they paid already to go to The restaurants and night-clubs in busy PDL. Their agenda was more committed to their friends group then to new people. The chances of Gerry meeting somebody he knows on that street were very, very few and the circumstances left him without no choice.

    About the wilkins. We need Textusa to comb That issue as well because what I never understand was the statement made by his wife about GNR, coming to their flat on the next day with a wrong picture of madeleine. I don't buy that nonsense statement. This had an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Bridget,

    Could you please tell US where is the confusion with forensics on post 152?

    Forensic evidences where collected by a FSS team and the police, from Flat 5A and the renault Scenic. from flat 5A, Ricardo paiva stated again in Lisbon court, they match Madeleine ( first Lab report). What he don't understand was the second report which take ages to be delivered to PJ and was very poor to defend an inconclusive result.

    You seem to get offended very easily. Please kindly clarify US: Where is the confusion on post 152?

    Your post about a new law for neglects is wonderful to entertain us but I'm afraid, useless. We have already many laws in our countries to protect childs, including THE CHILDS RIGHTS accepted by all countries and part of the HUMAN RIGHTS at the United Nations. What we need is different judges, different people to apply the law and made justice to work.
    That means, we need new laws to avoid corruption in justice, to frame who let investigations to be manipulated and perverted.

    ReplyDelete
  191. The sound of rattled cages on here is deafening!
    How the truth hurts.
    Definitely people from the McCann inner circle here now.

    ReplyDelete
  192. When a person or person's lie, they gain crederbility, from some people they are as bold as brass, and will take the world on with their lies, they lie and lie and lie, and live every second of the lie. Its a solid brick wall around them, and the lie. It only comes down by constantly challenging the lie and behaviour, because lies show in the persons behaviour, sounds familiar.

    The Maccann lies and brick wall could be demolished by the witness stand in a court of law trouble is are the powers that be, in Portugal and the UK interested, in what happened to a liitle child in May 2007, Don't hold your breath. They and we on this blog are all now trapped by the Lie.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Joana, I dare say you've already noticed it but this place has been invaded by a bunch of nutjobs. Probably Rosiepops and her gang.
    I would suggest you stop publishing the nonsense of the trolls.
    They cloud the issues here....which is exactly what they are trying to do.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Bridget I have just read all the latest comments & I think some posters have made up their minds that you and possibly me are on here working for the pros. You know as well as I do that there are super sleuths on the net who have all the answers (based on bugger all), so we might as well confess :-)

    Seriously though, Although I agree with many that trying to get a law passed will be difficult and to be honest getting it through is not so important to me as getting this case back in the UK papers on a completely different angle i.e Bad publicity for the McCanns and hoping it will lead to something more as I said previously.

    If anyone after reading all I have said is still convinced I am a rattled pro then please explain why then I would want to find a way to get them back into the papers under a bad light and hope that it will lead to further articles about sightings such as the Gaspers instead of white van McCann bullshit

    ReplyDelete
  195. Bridget 171

    You sound very uncomfortable all round.

    Now are you really complaining we are criticising Jane Tanner especially, and its not actually to do with Mr Smith, that is just an excuse for trying to stop JT being mentioned?

    All the mutual admiration society stuff that is going on is certainly ringing warning bells that this site is being targeted for closure, just as was the MF and the 3As. There were many pros presenting as anti McCanns on there and all agreeing with each other and telling how excellent they all were, though it was more than likely the same person with different names, as I was informed this can be done. How, I do not know, not being sophisticated in this kind of thing.

    We have heard it all before. Disruption and deflection is the name of the game.

    Whereas people should be allowed to discuss the various ideas and suppositions as to what happened without being made to feel they are doing something wrong, and as it is Joana's site, she is the one to say what can and cannot be discussed.

    Even Textusa, though some may not agree, still may have valid arguments to put forward with truth in them. Nobody is being compelled to read anything they don't like.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Quote ''Anonymous said... 191

    Bridget,

    Could you please tell US where is the confusion with forensics on post 152?

    Forensic evidences where collected by a FSS team and the police, from Flat 5A and the renault Scenic. from flat 5A, Ricardo paiva stated again in Lisbon court, they match Madeleine ( first Lab report). What he don't understand was the second report which take ages to be delivered to PJ and was very poor to defend an inconclusive result.

    You seem to get offended very easily. Please kindly clarify US: Where is the confusion on post 152?

    Your post about a new law for neglects is wonderful to entertain us but I'm afraid, useless. We have already many laws in our countries to protect childs, including THE CHILDS RIGHTS accepted by all countries and part of the HUMAN RIGHTS at the United Nations. What we need is different judges, different people to apply the law and made justice to work.
    That means, we need new laws to avoid corruption in justice, to frame who let investigations to be manipulated and perverted.''


    As post 152 does not mention forensic results, I am a bit confused as to what you are referring here, so I am going to have to answer this in general terms. If this isn't what you were referring to, come back to me again.

    DNA recovered from the Scenic was a mixed sample, containing 37 markers and which had to come from at least three individuals.

    Madeleine had 19 markers

    The sample contained 15 of Madeleine's markers.

    In general terms, and in some circumstances, this would be considered a match. However in this case, it is not possible to say that or to give, as I think John Lowe said, any meaningful interpretation.

    Why?

    Because between them Kate and Gerry also carried all the same markers that Madeleine did - that's where she inherited them from. Some of those same markers would also be likely to be found in her brother and sister.

    So all that can be said is that 15 of the 19 markers which Madeleine carried were represented in that sample. What cannot be stated is that they came from Madeleine.

    I have read the report where this is explained, and it is quite clear. I am speculating now, but it looks to me as if there were early misunderstandings and miscommunications about either the DNA results themselves, or what conclusions could be drawn from them. There is no indication that there was anything amiss with either the collection of, or analysis of, the samples. It appears to be in the matter of interpretation that the confusion arises.

    What the results cannot be interpreted to say is that it constitutes proof that Madeleine was ever in that car, dead or alive.

    As I say, come back to me if that wasn't what you meant, or have a look and find the post in question.

    We will have to agree to differ on whether the provision in law is adequate. My opinion is that, in the UK at least, it is not.

    I am amused by your suggestion that I am easily offended. Not as easily as those who object to having their whacko theories challenged, it would appear.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Bridget @no 133.
    I Have to disagree with you on a number of points you make.
    True the chances of this case being solved by a bunch (as you put it)of people typing away on the internet is remote but not impossible.
    But what the bunch of people typing away on the these and other forums achieve is that they keep the interest in this case very much alive and not forgotten thus in fact quite the opposite of playing into the hands of the mc canns.

    True there are some wild theories being bandied about but without
    them this and other forums would no longer exist and you and I and the Bored(boring )Isar among others would have nothing to read ,debate or write about on this case.

    As for your opinion that "the eye witness testimony is not very reliable at all,frankly"
    I have to disagree with you there also.
    The Smiths testimony of the man carrying the child (whom they taught could have been Madeleine and Gerry)is not concrete evidence but just as the dogs "testimonies" it gives an indication that no abduction took place and that the parents were involved in concealing and disposing of Madeleine.
    The entire Smith family witnessed a man and a child fitting both descriptions that night and remember they are totally independent from the tapas gang, Very reliable and credible according to Goncalo Amaral.
    If the Murat v Tanner and friends goes to court and Murat wins Tanners "abductor" is out of the equation and this leaves the Smiths sighting as the only credible sighting that night.
    I would hope this ensures the case being re opened,which in my opinion would be a good thing as it would bring all the issues surrounding this case into a Global spotlight .
    Whilst the mc canns may never be charged with anything in this case(unless a witness cracks and spills the beans)the MC Canns name and "reputation" would be ruined for ever and at least that would be one form of justice they wont escape.

    A.Dubliner.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Bridget

    Would you like us also to stop discussing and promoting the Gaspar statements?

    Would you like us also not to mention Payne and the doubts the Gaspars had about him as regards paedophile activities?

    So worried were they that they made a brave decision to go to the police with what had been witnessed, even though they were friends of the McCanns. The missing Madeleine mattered more to them than retaining a friendship.

    Would you like us to shut up altogether about this incident?

    Keep us all quiet, and discuss a new law for neglected children instead is that it, although there are many such laws already.

    If so, you are wasting your time. The Gaspar statement wont be stopped, though no doubt Gerry McCann would very much wish that.

    ReplyDelete
  199. Oh dear - what a lot of over-reactions we have here when all Bridget is saying is that `no one knows for sure what happened` - that does not make her pro-mccann fgs.

    I have my own theories and have read hundreds of other peoples` theories, but surely we all must accept that we could be wrong. I may be wrong, but my theory is that the mccanns were involved with CEOP in setting a trap to catch a paedophile ring and it all went terribly wrong. I am an avid reader of murder mysteries and psychological thrillers and have a mindset that has to solve things. I also cannot bear to think of arrogant law breakers getting away with things and treating the public as if they are idiots.

    I would be shocked to the core to find out that Goncalo Amaral is wrong and am guided by his experience - its a gut feeling that tells me this man is morally decent.

    I agree with Bridget and feel that we loose all credibility by getting obsessed over non-facts and turning into a lynch mob. I do it myself on occasions but I have to step back and think `is this proof?`. There is a whole mountain of cirumstantial evidence and we all think we know what happened, but its not proof.

    And in saying this - it does not make me pro-mccann.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete