SteelMagnolia

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
29 April 2011

DORMANT ISSUES

Like the first of the Tudors discussing the last of the Plantagenets, the McCann's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, described the content of the Wikileaks revelations late last year as "a completely historical note." (Meanwhile artists and authors busily adjust their images of the deposed accordingly). A publisher favouring the use of footnotes might well find an account of the McCann case incorporated pages with as much commentary beneath the main text as within it, there being so many 'historical notes' of relevance, if not significance. Dangerous as a magician's chain of regurgitated razor blades, they are inevitably linked.

Take, for example, the historical documentary Madeleine Was Here. Supporting actor Dave Edgar is given the line: "It's like I said, there are, you know, inconsistencies, you know, in every major investigation." Whilst it may not be Shakespearean in eloquence, it is dramatic in implication. Whereas Kate McCann opens said documentary with "I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we'd left it," husband Gerry brings up the rear with "So, I actually came in and Madeleine was just at the top of the bed here, where I'd left her..."

A minor variation perhaps. A two-part invention possibly. There are a good many others in the volume.

It would be repetitious to discuss in any detail here the parents' conflicting early accounts of their own use of door keys, which can only be interpreted as suggesting that they were incapable, within 24hrs., of recalling whether they had last entered their holiday accommodation by the front door or the back. Togetherness was clearly not their strong suit.

Kate said in her (6.9.07) statement to the Portuguese police that on the Thursday, during breakfast, Madeleine said to both of them that she had been crying and that nobody had come to her room.

Gerry had previously told police (10.5.07) that when they were having breakfast, Madeleine addressed her mother and asked her "Why didn't you come last night when Sean and I were crying?"

Another slightly different story told slightly differently. Perhaps Gerry wasn't giving Madeleine his full attention at the time she made that 'passing remark' to her mother/her parents about what she/she and her brother had been doing.

There are 'inconsistencies' in this major investigation certainly, and whilst some test our belief to the limit others go beyond it.

So Kate continues (6.9.07) with: 'They also kissed Madeleine, who was already lying down. She was under the covers, she thinks, because it was a bit cold. She normally clutched the soft toy and if she wasn't holding it then it was next to her, on the left. She remained lying down on her left side, with the soft toy and a pink blanket, which she thinks was covering her.'

Kate's role in the production of the aforesaid documentary appears to have been in 'casting' (we see her in the process of liaising with Jane Tanner by 'phone over her forthcoming contribution). What a pity for the McCanns it wasn't in 'continuity.' Had it been we might not have had the benefit of Gerry's indelible piece to camera:

"So, I actually came in and Madeleine was just at the top of the bed here, where I'd left her lying and the covers were folded down and she had her cuddle cat and blanket, were just by her head."

So Madeleine was not under the covers after all, and her covers did not include the pink blanket either. How, therefore, did she arrive at this indeterminate state?

KM (6.9.07): 'After Gerry arrived the children went to brush their teeth and she then read them another story, this time all four of them sitting on Madeleine's bed. She thinks that Gerry entered the room, but does not recall him sitting on the bed. During the story Madeleine was lying on the pillow, but alert and paying attention to the story. Afterwards both twins kissed Madeleine, she thinks that Gerry was in the room, and each one of them, the deponent and Gerry, placed a twin in its cot at the same time, between Madeleine's bed and the bed under the window. They also kissed Madeleine, who was already lying down.'

You'd suppose, wouldn't you, that a mother would recollect whether she handled one or two of her infants on this particular occasion, and that, since the parents each put one down for the night, Gerry would have done so from within the bedroom, whether he had previously been sitting on the bed or not; although Gerry says he had been.

GM (10.5.07): 'At around 19H00, he made his way to the apartment, finding Kate and the children playing on the sofa. About 10 to 15 minutes later, they took the children to the bedroom and they all sat on Madeleine's bed to read a story.'

Gerry has indicated that he wasn't listening at times. Kate goes one better and gives the impression she wasn't even there.

Kate, again, on 6.9.07: 'They talked while they drank, until they left for the Tapas restaurant at around 8.30-8.35 p.m. Before leaving they checked on the children, she doesn't know who; however Gerry says it was him. She only knows the children were quiet. She doesn't know if they were in their same positions. She says she is sure that they were asleep, because Gerry told her so and all was quiet.'

If you don't know 'who' then you don't really know 'whether' either. That someone should tell you something offers grounds for assumption but doesn't evidence the fact (Believe half of what you hear, etc.). Being 'sure that they were asleep' requires a little more than 'Gerry told her so' before it can be regarded with certainty. And the basis of Gerry's confirmation was?

GM statement (4.5.07): 'At 20H35, they left the apartment towards the "Tapas." Before they left, and because the children's bedroom door was ajar as always, he opened it a little more, listening from the outside and, as there was complete silence, he did not even enter, returning the door to its previous position, with a space of about 10cm.'

It must have been Gerry who 'checked on the children' after all - Matthew Oldfield style. Matthew Oldfield, it should be remembered, is that individual with remarkable night vision, able to see in the dark and, from a distance of some ten feet plus, determine that an infant is in its cot (the opaque end nearest), and is breathing. There were three children breathing in the room that night, so we are told, all in complete silence.

Pursuing the subject of sleep, how many pairs of pyjamas might three small children need for a week's holiday, in a setting where laundry facilities are to hand and anything washed in the morning will be dry by the afternoon? Three (i.e., one pair each)? Six (two pairs each)? More? Madeleine alone had three pairs apparently.

We have long known of the pink Disney outfit Madeleine was wearing when she was taken from the apartment. Kate's washing of the top after breakfast that Thursday illustrates just how little time it took to dry. We know also that the McCanns had a duplicate set (for Amelie) with them in PdL. They were shown to UK viewers of 'Crimewatch' before being taken on a tour of the European capitals at the end of May/beginning of June. We have also been told, by Olga Craig, writing for the Sunday Telegraph (27.5.2007), that when the McCanns moved to an apartment near to the one from which Madeleine was taken they "unpacked their missing daughter's clothes...laying out her pyjamas on what would have been her bed."

Self-evidently these pyjamas were not being worn by Madeleine at the time of her disappearance. They couldn't have been or they wouldn't have come back. Equally self-evidently, for something to be unpacked it must first be packed. These pyjamas (that's two pairs so far) obviously travelled in the luggage and, since they awaited Madeleine's return, they would have been clean (would anyone welcome their lost child home with dirty pyjamas?) Hence these pyjamas were neither the recently washed pair since departed with Madeleine, nor the unwashed pair thrown hurriedly into the back of the Renault Scenic hire car at the time the McCanns moved house.

The Daily Mirror (19.9.2007) had the following comment to make: 'It is believed the entire Portuguese case rests on DNA evidence from body fluids which allegedly suggests that Madeleine's corpse was carried in the boot of the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic.

'But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'

To have been somehow soiled with Madeleine's DNA these unwashed pyjamas must have been worn earlier in the week. They could not have been worn by Madeleine after May 3, the day when Kate McCann saw fit to wash the pink pyjama top on account of an overlooked tea stain, whilst Madeleine's previously worn and unwashed pair remained - unwashed.

So far that's three pairs of pyjamas for Madeleine and one each, at least, for the twins (who have equal needs), making five pairs in all. Might that be seven? It might if one takes into account the fact that Amelie was denied the use of her Disney pyjamas all the while they were touring Europe. She must have had at least one spare set herself. If so then so too did Sean. Unless of course they were each dressed, once again, in 'Maddie's jammies.'

....... while readily admitting that he himself does not believe their daughter was abducted from her bed. Walking a fine line Danny also touches on the Gaspar statement without a sniff of libeling himself... he does not agree with the 'ludicrous' ideas of GA, however he does suggest you read his book. I think thats all anyone has ever asked for Danny, both sides of the argument.

Danny, it must be said helps to support the fraudulent fund with sales from his book, more fool him. Danny's suggestion that Madeleine was sold to gypsies, a pretty 'ludicrous' idea but then Danny writes fiction as 'Vanished' bears witness.

Danny also stuck in the 'groove' of GA , coming to the conclusion of Madeleines death all by himself when it was in fact a team effort by British and Portuguese police officers .

Danny also omits a crucial part in his 'review' the fact that Paulo Rebelo when he took over the case said the Investigation still points in the right direction....meaning the McCanns remained the prime suspects in the disappearance of their daughter.
-------------------------------
La Verdad De La Mentira

DETECTIVE CHIEF Inspector Gonçalo Amaral is the policeman who led the search for Madeleine McCann, if in fact the poor mite was ever really searched for on that night of 3rd May 2007. Despite the child being left in an unlocked apartment with her two younger siblings, out of view of her parents who were dining more than a hundred metres away, her parents insisted she had been abducted.

In my own book, Vanished – The Truth About the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (John Blake 2008), I voice my suspicions that the McCann’s put forward the abduction theory because they feared a police prosecution for the abandonment of a minor. DCI Amaral agrees but far from believing my conclusions that Madeleine wandered out of the unlocked apartment of her own volition and was carried off by Romanian gipsies to be sold for begging, Amaral believes she died an accidental death in the apartment and her death was covered up by her parents.
I find that hard to believe and Amaral’s attempts to convince us of his conclusions strike me as a cynical assumption based on an immense dislike for the McCanns and for the misguided attempts by them and members of their holiday group to mislead the investigation regarding how the group’s children were left and checked on. However, one can’t deny the police inspector and his team unearthed some startling facts, including that about a member of the group that could be contrived as playing a sinister part in Madeleine’s disappearance. Clearly DCI Amaral, who retired in order to write the book, has a policeman’s nose that twitches at every scent, even putting forward the ludicrous assertion that the McCann’s used a hire car, rented 23 days after Madeleine’s disappearance, to remove her body to a place of clandestine burial.

However, other than a few similarly bizarre assertions that seem to deliberately overlook established fact – for example, Amaral insists that cadaver dogs have been successful in 200 cases without mentioning that given the scientifically declared success rate is between 66 and 69%, it must mean they have proved unsuccessful in a further 100. This is, of course, a policeman’s logic and not mine but his conviction is unshakeable that Madeleine died in apartment 5A on 3rd May 2007. For myself I believe that every fact must be considered before a conclusion is reached and for that reason I recommend it to RTN readers who can handle Spanish. The book was banned from sale by the Portuguese Court following a plea by the McCann’s lawyers in September 2009 but was lifted following a successful appeal by Amaral on 19th October 2010.

http://www.roundtownnews.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28473&Itemid=38
Author: Gonçalo Amaral
Publisher: Esquilo (Spanish language paperback)
Price: 13.50€
ISBN: 978 989 8092 40 3
Reviewed by Danny Collins

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Friday, April 29, 2011

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Monday, April 25, 2011

Sunday, April 24, 2011