Saturday, March 31, 2012
#McCann #DevinDavis - The American People Do Not Belive The Mom's 'Story' Nor It Would Appear Do The Police.
Posting for comments section, in the States the child comes first unlike in England where the McCanns are protected and no one in their camp has any interest in knowing what really happened to Maddie ! First words from McCann ' we are hoping for a good outcome for us .....and Madeleine ' an after thought!
More at Statement Analysis
http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/april-davis-mother-of-missing-two-year.html
More at Statement Analysis
http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/april-davis-mother-of-missing-two-year.html
#McCann #DevinDavis Still Missing - Mom Fails Part Of Polygraph
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Mom-of-missing-toddler-fails-part-of-polygraph-3440869.php
It is looking very much like a McCann HOAX abduction.
Following up on a report from a neighbor that April had lost custody of an older child when the family was living in Virginia, during the press conference on Friday, the Advocate asked April to explain the circumstances of that situation, but she turned and walked away, refusing to answer.
It is looking very much like a McCann HOAX abduction.
Following up on a report from a neighbor that April had lost custody of an older child when the family was living in Virginia, during the press conference on Friday, the Advocate asked April to explain the circumstances of that situation, but she turned and walked away, refusing to answer.
Friday, March 30, 2012
#McCann #Libelreform : #VaughanJones Wins Against Malicious UK Libel Law
Much to celebrate, a victory for free spech. Here a rather unpleasant look at U.K. libel law and just what Vaughan Jones was up against. My thoughts are withTony Bennett .
http://www.popehat.com/2012/01/10/chris-mcgrath-v-vaughan-jones-an-unpleasant-peek-into-u-k-libel-law/
http://www.popehat.com/2012/01/10/chris-mcgrath-v-vaughan-jones-an-unpleasant-peek-into-u-k-libel-law/
#McCann: Audio - Lets Talk #Libel With Hardeep Singh And Vaughan Jones
As Vaughan Jones awaits the verdict in his libel case, he and Hardeep Singh discuss what it’s like to be sued, and what next for libel reform
Follow Vaughan Jones on twitter - in court right now https://twitter.com/#!/vaughanjones82
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/03/hardeep-singh-and-vaughan-jones-talk-libel-reform/
Follow Vaughan Jones on twitter - in court right now https://twitter.com/#!/vaughanjones82
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/03/hardeep-singh-and-vaughan-jones-talk-libel-reform/
Thursday, March 29, 2012
#McCann web of deceit: Portugal “doesn't have a Royal Navy”, nor “Helicopters” and is “Mediterranean”
Gerry: We were expecting a Metropolitan type response and I remember saying to the officers “where’s the helicopters? I want helicopters with heat seeking equipment.” And ye know the officer kind of laughed at us and said “you know this isn’t you know we don’t have a Royal Navy” and this thing... and you just... and I’m sure every single parent can understand this because everyone has lost a child momentarily and the terror and how frightening it is, be it in a supermarket or a playground or a park, and you just want everything done and you want... you want the world to stop, and, and scream, and the response ye know was slow. And that’s been one of the hardest things for us, because ye know, Madeleine could have been moved very easily and the Spanish border is only about 90 minutes away and obviously you are on the Mediterranean, and one of the aspects of why we are campaigning internationally is because she could have been taken anywhere. in The McCann's Stockholm Interview
#McCann #Leveson #SOCA :SOCA setting priorities via tabloid column inches (2005)
The Independent has an interview with Sir Stephen Lander, Chairman of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency and former Director General of the Security Service MI5.
The interview did not ask the question "approximately, to the nearest
£20 billion, how much does Serious and Organised Crime cost the UK annually ? £20 billion or £40 billion ?", but it does, somehow, magically assert that:
"Organised crime is estimated to have a £15bn a year turnover."
Sir Stephen did reveal something of interest to Home Office kremlinologists:
"The priorities that are adopted by Britain's elite crime fighting force will be partly based upon the number of column inches newspapers give to different types of organised criminality, Sir Stephen disclosed.
Researchers at the Home Office have looked at about 30 newspapers, divided equally among broadsheet and compact newspapers, the tabloids, and the regional press, over the past five years. They have calculated which organised crime issues are the most pressing by measuring the column inches and number of stories devoted to each subject.
Organised immigration crime came first, followed by drugs.
Sir Stephen explained: "The brainboxes in the Home Office have been putting together a sort of harm model."
"brainboxes in the Home Office" - your words, not ours, Sir Stephen.
"The model basically articulates the harm that is caused to the UK under a number of headings - the rewards taken and made by the criminal; the social and economical harm to the UK; the institutional harm - corruption for example and illegal immigration - and tries to put a cost [on them].
"It also brings into play judgements about the degree of public concern and they have a proxy for this, which is the amount of column inches in the press. Which is not quite right, but is probably as good as you will get. It is pretty rough and ready but it is asking the right questions. It is asking not, what is the incidence of something, but what is its impact."
So what happened to the British Crime Survey and even focus groups ? Surely these are at least as valid a methodology as measuring column inches in only 30 newspapers, owned by probably not more than five major media proprieters ? What about radio. television and the internet ?
"One of the priorities of the harm model is a better understanding of the problems."
He continued: "The first of the cracks of the methodology suggests that we need to do more on people-smuggling and people-trafficking."
So does this mean that because newspapers are obsessed with immigration issues that Soca will be giving people smugglers and traffickers more attention than it would otherwise?
Sir Stephen replied: "Illegal immigration stories in the media are much the most frequent - they reflect a newspaper's policy line on a subject and they also reflect genuine anxiety."
What about the "climate of fear" hype and spin feedback loop ?
The Home Office and Labour party spin doctors leak, brief, spin, send out press releases to target those 30 newspapers, which are then used by another part of the Home Office as the input to their "harm model" !
"People-smuggling has been growing across Europe and the UK is seen as very attractive location. The best estimates are that 95 per cent of the illegal immigrants who get here are paying someone to facilitate them, so it is a real money earner. It is a lower risk than drugs. It does have an impact that has been growing over the past 10 years."
He did, however, concede: "There is certainly a level of hype in some of the media coverage but nevertheless there is substantial money made at the expense of the UK and taken out of communities from poor countries."
Ministers will set the overall priorities of Soca, which in turn draw on the "harm model".
That is political harm if you have sloganised your policies as "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime".
"But is it right that politicians should have such an influence in the way crime is tackled - why not leave it to the professionals? He argued: "You can't disentangle the political imperatives. If ministers want to have something slightly more important than something else then that is their political judgement.
"They run the country, I don't - it's their judgement that counts. It is a real problem [illegal immigration] - this has weight this problem, the degree of weight you attach to responding to this has to have an element of political judgement about it."
"For a national agency, of course it is going to be political, what else is it going to be?""
Why are the Home Office Civil Servants being employed to do political intelligence gathering at tax payers' expense ?
Yet the Home Office seems to be happy to ignore actual formal public consultations and even detailed reports from the House of Commons Committees on Home Affairs, Human Rights, Public Accounts etc.
The interview did not ask the question "approximately, to the nearest
£20 billion, how much does Serious and Organised Crime cost the UK annually ? £20 billion or £40 billion ?", but it does, somehow, magically assert that:
"Organised crime is estimated to have a £15bn a year turnover."
Sir Stephen did reveal something of interest to Home Office kremlinologists:
"The priorities that are adopted by Britain's elite crime fighting force will be partly based upon the number of column inches newspapers give to different types of organised criminality, Sir Stephen disclosed.
Researchers at the Home Office have looked at about 30 newspapers, divided equally among broadsheet and compact newspapers, the tabloids, and the regional press, over the past five years. They have calculated which organised crime issues are the most pressing by measuring the column inches and number of stories devoted to each subject.
Organised immigration crime came first, followed by drugs.
Sir Stephen explained: "The brainboxes in the Home Office have been putting together a sort of harm model."
"brainboxes in the Home Office" - your words, not ours, Sir Stephen.
"The model basically articulates the harm that is caused to the UK under a number of headings - the rewards taken and made by the criminal; the social and economical harm to the UK; the institutional harm - corruption for example and illegal immigration - and tries to put a cost [on them].
"It also brings into play judgements about the degree of public concern and they have a proxy for this, which is the amount of column inches in the press. Which is not quite right, but is probably as good as you will get. It is pretty rough and ready but it is asking the right questions. It is asking not, what is the incidence of something, but what is its impact."
So what happened to the British Crime Survey and even focus groups ? Surely these are at least as valid a methodology as measuring column inches in only 30 newspapers, owned by probably not more than five major media proprieters ? What about radio. television and the internet ?
"One of the priorities of the harm model is a better understanding of the problems."
He continued: "The first of the cracks of the methodology suggests that we need to do more on people-smuggling and people-trafficking."
So does this mean that because newspapers are obsessed with immigration issues that Soca will be giving people smugglers and traffickers more attention than it would otherwise?
Sir Stephen replied: "Illegal immigration stories in the media are much the most frequent - they reflect a newspaper's policy line on a subject and they also reflect genuine anxiety."
What about the "climate of fear" hype and spin feedback loop ?
The Home Office and Labour party spin doctors leak, brief, spin, send out press releases to target those 30 newspapers, which are then used by another part of the Home Office as the input to their "harm model" !
"People-smuggling has been growing across Europe and the UK is seen as very attractive location. The best estimates are that 95 per cent of the illegal immigrants who get here are paying someone to facilitate them, so it is a real money earner. It is a lower risk than drugs. It does have an impact that has been growing over the past 10 years."
He did, however, concede: "There is certainly a level of hype in some of the media coverage but nevertheless there is substantial money made at the expense of the UK and taken out of communities from poor countries."
Ministers will set the overall priorities of Soca, which in turn draw on the "harm model".
That is political harm if you have sloganised your policies as "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime".
"But is it right that politicians should have such an influence in the way crime is tackled - why not leave it to the professionals? He argued: "You can't disentangle the political imperatives. If ministers want to have something slightly more important than something else then that is their political judgement.
"They run the country, I don't - it's their judgement that counts. It is a real problem [illegal immigration] - this has weight this problem, the degree of weight you attach to responding to this has to have an element of political judgement about it."
"For a national agency, of course it is going to be political, what else is it going to be?""
Why are the Home Office Civil Servants being employed to do political intelligence gathering at tax payers' expense ?
Yet the Home Office seems to be happy to ignore actual formal public consultations and even detailed reports from the House of Commons Committees on Home Affairs, Human Rights, Public Accounts etc.
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2005/01/10/sir-stephen-lander-soca-settin.html
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/leveson-c4news-soca-channel-4.html
#McCann #Leveson : #corruption #beyondbelief it is now a constitional matter !
Michael Doherty has exposed #corruption #beyondbelief its now a constitional matter and he has secured a #JudicialReview follow him on facebook.
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/leveson-c4news-soca-channel-4.html
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/leveson-c4news-soca-channel-4.html
#McCann: #C4 News - Bent Cops - More Corruption And Shocking Revelations Exposed This Evening
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/leveson-c4-news-shocking-revelations.html
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/leveson-c4news-soca-channel-4.html
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/sean-hoare-and-tron-history-repeats.html
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/leveson-c4news-soca-channel-4.html
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/sean-hoare-and-tron-history-repeats.html
#McCann: Alleged Abductions And The American Culture
Maybe because they happen so frequently in the States Mom's look straight at the parents as the guilty party, they know the MO, the old story 'my baby disappeared from the crib' just does not wash with them. And if you notice the child always comes first where as with the McCanns they ONLY ever thought of their own selfish needs and their supporters also follow suit, otherwise they would be asking them to return for a reconstruction and prove their innocence as any normal parent would.
http://www.justicequest.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63385
http://www.justicequest.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63385
#McCann: Defamation UPDATE - Trial For Defamation Against Gonçalo Amaral Postponed Until April 18th
UpDate: Gonçalo Amaral is now speaking live on Portugal tv SIC hopefully soon we will learn what he had to say.
With thanks to Maria via Twitter
mariaccnr @mariaccnr
With thanks to Maria via Twitter
mariaccnr
Todays trial for defamation against Gonçalo Amaral postponed until April 18.
Arguidos: MAC DAM e A.Dores 2 arguidos
Arguidos :Marcos Aragão Correia and university professor António Pedro Dores
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6694044952613630226#editor/target=post;postID=4073045729719958627
Arguidos: MAC DAM e A.Dores 2 arguidos
Arguidos :Marcos Aragão Correia and university professor António Pedro Dores
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6694044952613630226#editor/target=post;postID=4073045729719958627
#McCann: #Twitter - Jailings For Racism On Twitter ! Britain Has Forgotten The Fight For Free Speech.
Libel cases for a tweet, jail time for tweeting a racist comment. Tony Bennett's libel case against him gift wrapped by the McCanns also includes a tweet . When or rather where will it all end ?...Link to article on free speech something we no longer have . The McCanns assisted by Carter Ruck have abused the drachonian libel laws to the hilt in a country that is run by corrupt millionaires or as Murdoch called them this morning 'Toffs'
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1039/jailings_for_racism_on_twitter_britain_s_forgotten_fight_for_free_speech?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
To think a program like Till Death Us Do Part would no longer be broadcast even when it is the Asian who is racist - We have gone back instead of forward where criminals with the right 'contacts' walk the streets and create fraudulent funds to con the gullible !
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1039/jailings_for_racism_on_twitter_britain_s_forgotten_fight_for_free_speech?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
To think a program like Till Death Us Do Part would no longer be broadcast even when it is the Asian who is racist - We have gone back instead of forward where criminals with the right 'contacts' walk the streets and create fraudulent funds to con the gullible !
#McCann : The 'Collective Gaffes' Of The Tapas 9
Latest Swedish interview when questioned on last memories of Madeleine - Gerry McCann had no problem looking down on Madeleine from the open door therefore she could clearly be seen as he watched her sleep and had his 'beautiful' thought. Matt Oldfield however could not only NOT see Madeleine he claims he could also NOT see the bed she occupied !!!
Kate McCann on her 'check' at 10pm also had trouble seeing the bed and of course Madeleine as she claimed it was dark, she did not want to turn the light on to wake the children..and she thought is Madeleine there ?
Madeleine McCann is dead and she was dead before this fabricated scenario there is no other reason for this play acting.
The McCanns would be wise to stop their arrogant interviews and their belief in the fact there 'is no evidence to prove Madeleine has come to any harm' mantra keeps them safe. Every single time the creepy couple open their mouths the proof is there, that Madeleine came to harm on their watch . They may also be wise to remember the Suzanne Pilley murder trial where a cadaver dog without a body or forensic evidence has placed a man behind bars for murder.
AND if there is anyone out there with any clout they should start seriously thinking of the twins mental health because if no one steps in and soon these childern will also come to serious harm and grow into two very disturbed adults.
Gerry McCann: "I think the strongest memory I have is of really, the photograph that was the last photograph we have of her and, errr... you know, we'd had a lovely holiday. Madeleine was having a great time and just after lunch we went over to the pool area and, errr... she was sitting there paddling in the pool and I was sitting next to her and she turned round and she's just beaming. And then the... the last time I saw her, which was probably minutes before she was taken, when she was lying asleep, and it's terrible how... I've said this a few times but I had one of those poignant moments as a parent where... I went into her room, and the door was open, and I... I just paused for a second and I looked, and she was sound asleep, and I thought how beautiful she was. The twins were asleep in the... in their cots and I thought how lucky we were. And within, you know, minutes that was shattered!"
Kate McCann on her 'check' at 10pm also had trouble seeing the bed and of course Madeleine as she claimed it was dark, she did not want to turn the light on to wake the children..and she thought is Madeleine there ?
Madeleine McCann is dead and she was dead before this fabricated scenario there is no other reason for this play acting.
The McCanns would be wise to stop their arrogant interviews and their belief in the fact there 'is no evidence to prove Madeleine has come to any harm' mantra keeps them safe. Every single time the creepy couple open their mouths the proof is there, that Madeleine came to harm on their watch . They may also be wise to remember the Suzanne Pilley murder trial where a cadaver dog without a body or forensic evidence has placed a man behind bars for murder.
AND if there is anyone out there with any clout they should start seriously thinking of the twins mental health because if no one steps in and soon these childern will also come to serious harm and grow into two very disturbed adults.
Gerry McCann: "I think the strongest memory I have is of really, the photograph that was the last photograph we have of her and, errr... you know, we'd had a lovely holiday. Madeleine was having a great time and just after lunch we went over to the pool area and, errr... she was sitting there paddling in the pool and I was sitting next to her and she turned round and she's just beaming. And then the... the last time I saw her, which was probably minutes before she was taken, when she was lying asleep, and it's terrible how... I've said this a few times but I had one of those poignant moments as a parent where... I went into her room, and the door was open, and I... I just paused for a second and I looked, and she was sound asleep, and I thought how beautiful she was. The twins were asleep in the... in their cots and I thought how lucky we were. And within, you know, minutes that was shattered!"
Matthew Oldfield Gaffe !
#McCann: Dr.Martin Roberts - A Picture Of Innocence
Below The 'last photograph', with Gerry, Amelie and Madeleine
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
29 March 2012
A PICTURE OF INNOCENCE
As any half awake reader of 'Madeleine' will have discovered, the McCanns appear to have an answer for everything. Even though there may be questions yet to be put for which they might struggle to offer a convincing response, there is one in particular that they have already demonstrated they cannot answer. They could not answer it when it was put to them in 2007. And they still cannot answer it five years later. It surely does not require a clinical psychologist to point out that there is something seriously wrong when a parent deprived of his or her child cannot adequately recall that child's last moments with them.
When interviewed in 2007 for Spanish broadcaster Antena 3, the McCanns were asked:
"Allow me to take you both back to the 3rd May. What's the last thing you remember about Madeleine?"
KM: "Just a happy little girl. A beautiful, happy little girl"
(Not: 'She was sleeping beautifully' or 'was sound asleep').
GM: "Just think of all the times... the nice times that we've had with her in our house, and in her playing, in the playroom with her... with her... the twins."
The father could not even place Madeleine in Portugal. Instead he describes happy times at home in Leicester.
Fast forward now to 2012 and a very recent interview for Swedish Television:
Fredrik Skavlan: "Errm... If we could start by going back, errm... to... to May, errr... 3rd 2007. What's your strongest memories of Madeleine from that day?”
Gerry McCann: "I think the strongest memory I have is of really, the photograph that was the last photograph we have of her and, errr... you know, we'd had a lovely holiday. Madeleine was having a great time and just after lunch we went over to the pool area and, errr... she was sitting there paddling in the pool and I was sitting next to her and she turned round and she's just beaming. And then the... the last time I saw her, which was probably minutes before she was taken, when she was lying asleep, and it's terrible how... I've said this a few times but I had one of those poignant moments as a parent where... I went into her room, and the door was open, and I... I just paused for a second and I looked, and she was sound asleep, and I thought how beautiful she was. The twins were asleep in the... in their cots and I thought how lucky we were. And within, you know, minutes that was shattered!"
However intriguing one might find Gerry McCann's reference to his reverie being 'shattered,' or the verbatim repetition of his 'proud father moment' anecdote, the more revealing aspect of his response to the interviewer's question is the opener; the description, ostensibly, of his strongest memory of Madeleine from that day, which turns out not to be a particularly vivid memory of Madeleine at all, but the description of a photograph in which both Gerry McCann and his daughter Madeleine appear. As Gerry says:
"I think the strongest memory I have is of really, the photograph."
The 'last photograph we have of her' gives nothing away as regards the date it was taken but that is not the crux of the matter.
When Gerry speaks of his strongest memory being of a photograph he means exactly that. He does not describe his memory of accompanying two children by the pool and being photographed at the time. Oh no. He describes the photograph, from the onlooker's point of view:
"...just after lunch we went over to the pool area and, errr... she was sitting there paddling in the pool and I was sitting next to her and she turned round and she's just beaming."
Look at the photograph in question. Gerry is staring directly at the camera from behind a pair of sunglasses. Madeleine, a sun hat shielding her face, has turned away to her left with a broad smile. But from their relative positions at the time the shutter was pressed, Gerry would not have been able to tell whether Madeleine was beaming, frowning or crying. 'She's just beaming' is a description of what Madeleine looks like to anyone viewing the photograph. It is not a personal recollection of Gerry McCann's, the father who, despite attempts at convincing the PJ that his memory actually improved with time, has, five years on, a stronger memory of a photograph (its details, by virtue of the photograph's very existence, do not need to be remembered) than he does of a later interaction with Madeleine; an interaction which, in keeping with well-documented 'recency effects' in memory (last item(s) in a series best recalled), should constitute the stronger recollection, being nearer in time and, by definition, the last experience of its kind.
Amnesia apart, there are two reasons in particular why anyone should be unable to recollect the fundamental detail of a significant personal interaction: They have either forgotten all about it (it was not that significant after all), or the memory was not established in the first instance, i.e., what was supposed to have happened did not.
The McCanns have been propped up by two classes of supporter over the years: The enthusiastic subalterns with their own political and/or professional agendas, and the cohorts of the gullible. Head of the Portuguese Lawyers Order Dr. António Marinho e Pinto, a witness for the McCann couple in the forthcoming libel action against Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, the first co-ordinator of the investigation to Maddie's disappearance, belongs in the former category, as illustrated by a recent statement of his on Portuguese Television:
"I am highly critical of the options taken by the Judiciary Police officers, namely of Dr. Gonçalo Amaral [MeP seems oblivious to Paulo Rebelo's role as coordinator of the 'second part' of the investigation that lead directly to the archival]. I believe that it is absurd to attribute... first of all to conclude that the child died, secondly to attribute that death to the parents. I believe that an English couple that is holidaying in the Algarve did not come here to murder their daughter. And if indeed she died, due to an accident, the first thing they would do, obviously, wouldn't be to hide the cadaver, it would be to try to save her, to take her to a hospital. A couple that sees their daughter in that situation, in that situation..."
Dr. António Marinho e Pinto (and anyone else sharing his belief in the seemingly absurd) is cordially invited to read/re-read as appropriate, 'There's Nothing to Say She’s Not Out There Alive' (McCannFiles, 27 June, 2009). Anyone capable of playing the game 'noughts and crosses' should be able to interpret a matrix of four possibilities. If they cannot do that then they have no right to opine as 'experts' in front of a T.V. camera. Assuming they can recognise four discrete conditions, then what is it about the following pairing the likes of Dr. António Marinho e Pinto currently fail to understand?
If Madeleine McCann is not 'out there alive' then she is dead.
Abduction is the only route to being 'out there alive,' all other possibilities having been dismissed by the parents. Hence 'out there alive' equates to 'abducted.' So if Madeleine McCann was not abducted then, as surely as night follows day, she is dead - and then some. The statements by Jane Tanner and Aoife Smith tell us, in effect, that Madeleine McCann cannot have been abducted, unless she was tossed in the air like a pancake just before being witnessed (sighted, call it what you will) by Tanner, or else changed out of her Eeyore pyjamas 'on the hoof' before being spotted by the Smiths.
The abduction story more than verges on the ridiculous. It is ridiculous. It most certainly does not deserve to be called a 'thesis.'
As for the second of Dr. António Marinho e Pinto’s 'beliefs,' it too has already been addressed ('A Line in The Sand:' McCannFiles, 19 March). So it's 'back to the drawing board' for April then...?
#McCann: Alleged Abduction - Mom Woke And Child Was Missing From His Bed - Why Are All Of these 'Abductions' Taken From Their Bed Line ?
Mom told investigators that she had bolted the lock on the front door while her children slept and then had fallen asleep for a few minutes.
When she somehow "startled" into waking, she found her son was missing and the front door wide open.
She also told investigators the doors to her Jeep were also ajar, though she had left them closed.
Frantically, she raced around looking and calling for him for about 35 minutes before dialing 911, which eventually triggered an Amber alert.
Evans said the investigation has found nothing so far that indicates the boy's disappearance was anything more than an accident, but he is not ruling out the possibility of foul play.
Devin has red hair, blue eyes, stands 2½ feet tall and weighs 30 pounds. He was last seen wearing a red and gray jersey T-shirt, jeans and was not wearing shoes.
Devin has red hair, blue eyes, stands 2½ feet tall and weighs 30 pounds. He was last seen wearing a red and gray jersey T-shirt, jeans and was not wearing shoes.
#McCann:Defamation - Gonçalo Amaral v. Marcos Aragão Correia & António Pedro Dores
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id398.html
Court Case takes place today in Faro - Goncalo Amaral against Marcos Teixeira da Fonte Aragão Correia and António Pedro de Andrade Dores.
Gonçalo Amaral v. Marcos Aragão Correia & António Pedro Dores
The trial of lawyer Marcos Aragão Correia and university professor António Pedro Dores, for the defamation of former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral, in the Leonor Cipriano case, has been postponed to March 29 2012 at 9.30am
The hearings will take place at the Court of Faro's Second Criminal Circuit and what lies at stake, according to a judicial source, is a document dated April 8, 2008, titled "Report on the torture of Leonor Cipriano perpetrated by the Portuguese Judicial Police", which Aragão Correia wrote for ACED and which was publicised by the Association.
For more information on this case please refer to above link.
http://www.goncaloamaral.webs.com/
Court Case takes place today in Faro - Goncalo Amaral against Marcos Teixeira da Fonte Aragão Correia and António Pedro de Andrade Dores.
Gonçalo Amaral v. Marcos Aragão Correia & António Pedro Dores
The trial of lawyer Marcos Aragão Correia and university professor António Pedro Dores, for the defamation of former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral, in the Leonor Cipriano case, has been postponed to March 29 2012 at 9.30am
The hearings will take place at the Court of Faro's Second Criminal Circuit and what lies at stake, according to a judicial source, is a document dated April 8, 2008, titled "Report on the torture of Leonor Cipriano perpetrated by the Portuguese Judicial Police", which Aragão Correia wrote for ACED and which was publicised by the Association.
For more information on this case please refer to above link.
http://www.goncaloamaral.webs.com/
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
#McCann: Gordon Brown In Leicester To Meet With Two Criminal Suspects - September 2007 ? - There's Really Not Much More To Say Is There !
And let us remember while the case has not been re-opened the simple fact remains as corrupt as Scotland Yard are, even they are not looking for anyone else in connection with Madeleine's death and they know as do we all, that if the day were to come when the case were to be re-opened , the McCanns would become arguidos once more in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. The PJ Summary clearly states the McCanns have not been cleared therefore they are the ONLY suspects !
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/gordon-brown-in-leicester-on-september.html
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/gordon-brown-in-leicester-on-september.html
#McCann: Justice #Tugendhat Throws Out Privacy Case
I am placing this here for the simple reason Justice Tugendhat will hear the McCann vs Bennett case. Tugendhat talks of deception, I hope he takes this into account during the hearing. A great deception has taken place in this case, lies, scams , Leicester police withholding paedophile allegations whether there was anything to the allegation or not, it was not their call to hold it back ! The McCanns are a couple of chancers without morals who have lived from the gullible public for almost five years now, a simple google on the internet will open Tugendhat's eyes . Let's hope he does his homework.
Man loses privacy case over telling his wife about twins
Justice Tugendhat found some of the evidence "particularly unimpressive"
A businessman has failed in his High Court bid to prevent his wife being told of the birth of his twins from a secret relationship.
The man said his second wife and his grown-up children would be "shattered" by the revelations.
But the judge said he would not block the "bare facts" of the relationship.
The twin babies are due in a few weeks.
In written evidence, the man dentified only as SKA, said: "I am certain, for example, that my children would be devastated and would not speak to me if they were given this information."
"The birth of babies is a normal topic of such conversations...”
The Russian woman, identified as PLM, who is a UK resident, had a five-year relationship with the man.
She said the news of the children was known only to a very small group of trusted friends, and SKA would not be registered as their father.
The judge granted an harassment and a privacy injunction sought by the pair which covers photography, financial information and intimate details.
But Justice Tugendhat said: "The birth of babies is a normal topic of such conversations, and there is no reason why it should not be. So too with talk about who is in a relationship with whom."
The court heard that in November SKA had been approached by an associate of an alleged blackmailer, identified only as CRH.
CRH gave him print-outs of emails sent by PLM and a memory stick of photos of her outside SKA's address. A letter demanded £1.5 million for them to be destroyed.
SKA hired private investigators, contacted the police, and sought a civil injunction.
He told the court he was concerned not to endanger his wife's poor health.
'Unimpressive' evidence
But the judge said evidence about his concern for his wife was "particularly unimpressive".
Justice Tugendhat said: "He does not explain how he claims to know that she does not know. Wives and partners do not have to declare it when they believe that they are being deceived.
"Claimants have a tendency to confuse the interests of their wives and partners with their own interests."
It was unlikely the information could be kept from SKA's first family for long, the judge said.
The judge said the case raised questions which had not been fully considered by the courts before, and anonymity was necessary as it was in the public interest to disclose the explanation of the court's reasons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17540384
#McCann: #LisaIrwin - Alleged Abduction - Cadaver Hit - Parents Happy To Talk With The Media BUT Not With The Police.....Both Children Are Still Missing - With Cadaver Hits - Police Are Looking For Remains!
http://www.kshb.com/generic/news/Lisa-Irwin-AMBER-Alert
Gonçalo Amaral ' Unfortunately It Is A Dead Body That We Search For'
http://goncaloamaralbritishmediasmearcampaig.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/maddies-parents-dont-want-truth-le.html
Gonçalo Amaral ' Unfortunately It Is A Dead Body That We Search For'
http://goncaloamaralbritishmediasmearcampaig.blogspot.com.es/2011/12/maddies-parents-dont-want-truth-le.html
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
#McCann : Dr Martin Roberts - The Well Kept Secret - The Night Madeleine Ran Away.
Reading through Dr. Martins latest article I am in no doubt he is unaware of the events that are alleged to have taken place during the holiday.....McCann quote "there's no way she... she could have got out on her own.".......all together now ' 'oh yes there is'.... and there appear to be witnesses to prove it !
http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.com.es/2011/06/danny-collins-madeleine-wanderer.html
AND for McCann to have had to admit that in his police statement he was well aware there were witnesses to the event beyond his manipulative control who may have spoken with the PJ.
EXCLUSIVE to http://www.mccannfiles.com/
By Dr Martin Roberts
26 March 2012
EPILOGUE
Have you heard the one about the man intercepted at the airport, just prior to boarding, with a bomb in his luggage? When asked to explain himself he says calmly, 'the odds of there being a bomb on board the plane are 100,000 to one. The odds that there are two bombs are double that.'
Unfortunately a double indemnity does not necessarily make a situation twice as safe.
In the course of their most recent public outing (on Swedish T.V. this time), the McCanns, not asking for money (cough!) but, like students sitting their 'mocks,' and with script nicely rehearsed, repeated their by now well practised answers, which included Kate's "Yeah, absolutely, there's no way a young child could have got out."
This is clearly an agreed position, as Clarence Mitchell, representing both parents, has previously suggested:
"Kate and Gerry know Mad... know their daughter well enough to know she didn't wander out of the apartment, as has often been speculated."
Gerry McCann has said exactly the same thing, using exactly the same pivotal phrase ('no way'):
"there's no way she... she could have got out on her own."
'No way' is the contemporary equivalent of 'impossible' (not 'unlikely,' 'with difficulty,' or any other imprecise term). It is absolute.
Over a year ago now the question of Madeleine's impediment was discussed (see article: Just Listen, McCannFiles, 5 Feb., 2011). It turns out not to have been the open patio door per se. That being so, we can offer the McCanns 'double indemnity' and, hypothetically lock that door for them without changing the situation. There is still 'no way' Madeleine could have got out on her own.
Why not? What was there to stop her turning left instead of right and leaving through the unlocked front door, as opposed to the supposedly unlocked patio door, even if the latter had been locked? Nothing in principle, as the considered thoughts of Russell O’Brien confirm:
"We were conscious that, that, erm, if you, you only do one lock on the main door then it can be opened from the inside."
In practice however, leaving through a locked door without the key would have been impossible. There is 'no way' Madeleine McCann could have left 5A spontaneously under such circumstances. So, supposing that she was perfectly well, as the McCanns have insisted all along, then the only true obstacle to her freedom was the locked front door, not the open patio. And that of course means, as has most recently been argued, that the abductor was stuck inside also.
http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.com.es/2011/06/danny-collins-madeleine-wanderer.html
AND for McCann to have had to admit that in his police statement he was well aware there were witnesses to the event beyond his manipulative control who may have spoken with the PJ.
EXCLUSIVE to http://www.mccannfiles.com/
By Dr Martin Roberts
26 March 2012
EPILOGUE
Have you heard the one about the man intercepted at the airport, just prior to boarding, with a bomb in his luggage? When asked to explain himself he says calmly, 'the odds of there being a bomb on board the plane are 100,000 to one. The odds that there are two bombs are double that.'
Unfortunately a double indemnity does not necessarily make a situation twice as safe.
In the course of their most recent public outing (on Swedish T.V. this time), the McCanns, not asking for money (cough!) but, like students sitting their 'mocks,' and with script nicely rehearsed, repeated their by now well practised answers, which included Kate's "Yeah, absolutely, there's no way a young child could have got out."
This is clearly an agreed position, as Clarence Mitchell, representing both parents, has previously suggested:
"Kate and Gerry know Mad... know their daughter well enough to know she didn't wander out of the apartment, as has often been speculated."
Gerry McCann has said exactly the same thing, using exactly the same pivotal phrase ('no way'):
"there's no way she... she could have got out on her own."
'No way' is the contemporary equivalent of 'impossible' (not 'unlikely,' 'with difficulty,' or any other imprecise term). It is absolute.
Over a year ago now the question of Madeleine's impediment was discussed (see article: Just Listen, McCannFiles, 5 Feb., 2011). It turns out not to have been the open patio door per se. That being so, we can offer the McCanns 'double indemnity' and, hypothetically lock that door for them without changing the situation. There is still 'no way' Madeleine could have got out on her own.
Why not? What was there to stop her turning left instead of right and leaving through the unlocked front door, as opposed to the supposedly unlocked patio door, even if the latter had been locked? Nothing in principle, as the considered thoughts of Russell O’Brien confirm:
"We were conscious that, that, erm, if you, you only do one lock on the main door then it can be opened from the inside."
In practice however, leaving through a locked door without the key would have been impossible. There is 'no way' Madeleine McCann could have left 5A spontaneously under such circumstances. So, supposing that she was perfectly well, as the McCanns have insisted all along, then the only true obstacle to her freedom was the locked front door, not the open patio. And that of course means, as has most recently been argued, that the abductor was stuck inside also.
#McCann: HOAX Abduction - Cadaver Hit - Mother Found Guilty Of Second Degree Murder!
Shakara Dickens with attorneys
Memphis, Tn - After hours of deliberating, a jury has found Shakara Dickens guilty of Manslaughter and Second Degree Murder.
Nine-month-old Lauryn Dickens, the daughter of Shakara Dickens, vanished in 2010, but her body was never found.
Prosecutors argued that Dickens spun a web of lies after her daughter disappeared, waiting a full eight days to file a missing persons report.
Dickens' told police that a white woman in her 40s had come to pick up Lauryn at the father's behest. Shakara couldn't go any further in describing the woman and Lauryn's father denied the claim as well.
The main piece of evidence for the prosecution was a "hit" that police dogs picked up on when searching Dickens' apartment. Though the dogs caught a scent, they did not find any physical evidence.
Congratulations to the prosecutors in this case for getting a guilty verdict and for pressing on with a trial without a victim's body - this especially unusual in an infant hoax abduction case. Let's hope that other similar cases (i.e. Baby Lisa, Sky Metalwala, and others) will be jump-started by the results of this case.
http://childabuseconsulting.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/shakara-dickens-guilty-in-daughters.html
Monday, March 26, 2012
#McCann: Matthews Who DRUGGED Her Own Daughter
McCanns On SEDATION
http://madeleinebethmccannsedation.blogspot.com.es/
There is no difference between these two women , their souls are as one. Cold and heartless
The aim was, apparently, that Matthews’ tearful television appeals for help to find her missing daughter would eventually encourage a sizeable reward for the child’s safe return. And, indeed, a £50,000 bounty was soon forthcoming.
The nation became gripped by the plight of the missing girl, but also fascinated by the insight the story offered into the desolate life led by some of those on a Northern sink estate that was to be later likened to the hopeless existence of characters in the television series Shameless.
Just as Kate McCann had been regularly seen holding her missing daughter’s favourite toy in Portugal, Matthews took to appearing before the media clutching Shannon’s teddy bear.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120798/If-comes-shell-killed-On-eve-release-Karen-Matthews-disgusted-family-issue-warning.html
http://madeleinebethmccannsedation.blogspot.com.es/
There is no difference between these two women , their souls are as one. Cold and heartless
The aim was, apparently, that Matthews’ tearful television appeals for help to find her missing daughter would eventually encourage a sizeable reward for the child’s safe return. And, indeed, a £50,000 bounty was soon forthcoming.
The nation became gripped by the plight of the missing girl, but also fascinated by the insight the story offered into the desolate life led by some of those on a Northern sink estate that was to be later likened to the hopeless existence of characters in the television series Shameless.
Just as Kate McCann had been regularly seen holding her missing daughter’s favourite toy in Portugal, Matthews took to appearing before the media clutching Shannon’s teddy bear.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120798/If-comes-shell-killed-On-eve-release-Karen-Matthews-disgusted-family-issue-warning.html
#McCann :#SuzannePilley Murder - A LOOK Inside The Mind Of Killer David Gilroy.
David Gilroy close-up of eyes
And they are immune to appeals to end the suffering of families because they are selfish and completely lacking in remorse.
Professor Prem Misra, one of Scotland’s most respected authorities on mental health, says the aim is not to hurt relatives of victims since the killers have paid no thought to loved ones in any case.
He said: “They are not capable of remorse or any kind of empathy with those left devastated.
Their sole concern is their own situation.
“At the back of their minds, they are aware they hold certain things in their knowledge no one else is aware of.”
Misra says this kind of behaviour can intensify once the killer is in custody or on trial and no longer has control over events.
He added: “They have been stripped of power.
“So whatever power they perceive to still be available to them becomes intensified and more important.
“This knowledge that they know something the authorities and the relatives do not know can provide a kind of inner strength.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/03/16/suzanne-pilley-murder-trial-a-look-inside-the-mind-of-killer-david-gilroy-86908-23790303/
#McCann : Children Of The Tapas 9 Will Discover It Was Not The Crime BUT The Cover-Up That Made Them Curious.
The Murdoch Empire slowly but surely crumbling and with it the rot of the British Empire exposed to the core , years and years of corruption layer by layer being revealed , scams , cover-ups and the murder of Daniel Morgan who was on the brink of exposing Scotland Yard for corruption at the very heart of this stench.
In many ways the McCanns are repeating the Murdoch's mistakes, they are spending their lives through the media spinning a web of deceit , using the publics money to gag those who are not afraid to stand up and be counted. BUT in a few years time just like the Murdoch's are experiencing now, the tide will turn, the tapas children will be adults and it is they who will gather together and discuss their parents, it is they who will read the police files , it is they who will question why their parents refused to return for a reconstruction to help the police, it is they who will learn that one of their parents is alleged to be a paedophile and that that information was held back from the investigation while three year old Maddie was missing. Then and only then will the cover-up , not the crime expose the McCanns and their 'friends' for the kind of people they really are and it will be their very own children who will turn away in disgust , their response will finally bring some form of justice to their little friend and sibling Madeleine.
To discover there was no need for a fund or campaign , the price of one postage stamp would have re-opened the case, a case that was left to close by Maddie's parents, the devastation to Madeleine's siblings will be beyond repair.
It is not bloggers the McCanns fear when the twins read the internet , their fear is much greater , what greater fear is there than your own child discovering the kind of parent you really are and the years of lies you have fed them ? The twins will then realize for themselves (it will be nothing to do with what has been written ) the greatest shock and horror of all that for all of those years Madeleine was dead.
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/leveson-cover-up-not-crime-brings-down.html
In many ways the McCanns are repeating the Murdoch's mistakes, they are spending their lives through the media spinning a web of deceit , using the publics money to gag those who are not afraid to stand up and be counted. BUT in a few years time just like the Murdoch's are experiencing now, the tide will turn, the tapas children will be adults and it is they who will gather together and discuss their parents, it is they who will read the police files , it is they who will question why their parents refused to return for a reconstruction to help the police, it is they who will learn that one of their parents is alleged to be a paedophile and that that information was held back from the investigation while three year old Maddie was missing. Then and only then will the cover-up , not the crime expose the McCanns and their 'friends' for the kind of people they really are and it will be their very own children who will turn away in disgust , their response will finally bring some form of justice to their little friend and sibling Madeleine.
To discover there was no need for a fund or campaign , the price of one postage stamp would have re-opened the case, a case that was left to close by Maddie's parents, the devastation to Madeleine's siblings will be beyond repair.
It is not bloggers the McCanns fear when the twins read the internet , their fear is much greater , what greater fear is there than your own child discovering the kind of parent you really are and the years of lies you have fed them ? The twins will then realize for themselves (it will be nothing to do with what has been written ) the greatest shock and horror of all that for all of those years Madeleine was dead.
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/leveson-cover-up-not-crime-brings-down.html
#McCann : Two Suspects That To A British Journalist Are STILL Untouchable.
Forums are great places to exchange one's views and debate but sometimes those that do not know the forum miss out on little golden nuggets such as this ...
Interesting conversation on twitter between Nobby-Lobby and Brian Wheeler, (One time newspaper reporter now an editor for Yahoo! (His words!))
@brianwhelanhack: @veniviedivici whatever I think about the mccanns we both know no journalist in the British isles could write that story.
@chris_m_h: @brianwhelanhack @veniviedivici Brain, what are the barriers to journalists writing as they wish? And do you include bloggers in this?
@brianwhelanhack: @chris_m_h @veniviedivici legal barriers, credibility issues, etc.
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4623-from-twitter
A THESIS WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS MEANINGLESS AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE CHALLENGING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION . NONE.
Interesting conversation on twitter between Nobby-Lobby and Brian Wheeler, (One time newspaper reporter now an editor for Yahoo! (His words!))
@brianwhelanhack: @veniviedivici whatever I think about the mccanns we both know no journalist in the British isles could write that story.
@chris_m_h: @brianwhelanhack @veniviedivici Brain, what are the barriers to journalists writing as they wish? And do you include bloggers in this?
@brianwhelanhack: @chris_m_h @veniviedivici legal barriers, credibility issues, etc.
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4623-from-twitter
A THESIS WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS MEANINGLESS AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE CHALLENGING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION . NONE.
#McCann : A Forensic Look At The Very Bizarre McCann Couple And That STOCKHOLM Interview by A.Miller
“Well obviously they were very young, but they have re-counted things that happened prior to May 2007, which has kind of thrown me a little bit.”by A.Miller
The interview in Stockholm has perhaps provided us with the most polished and proficient performance by the McCann couple to date, polished in both their appearance and almost off pat delivery of their tale of abduction.
A McCann ‘outing’ would never be complete though, without a dash of damage-limitation always included for good measure, not solely to serve the purpose of diminishing their part in whatever became of Madeleine - though that too, but rather another desperate attempt, an exercise in painting a pretty picture portraying themselves as not only the injured party but of being whiter than white. Sad faced Kate -I’m damned if I smile, damned if I don’t- McCann, a keen dramatist, coupled with the discomfiting smirk of Gerry -where is the child- McCann never fail their audience, their self-centred conduct always makes for cringe worthy viewing.
An interview with the McCann’s coupled without the main ingredient - the now customary sprinkle of ‘put downs’ directed at the Portuguese Police and anyone else in fact, who may disagree with their abduction theory – is something too that we have come to expect.
The upside is perhaps that each time Kate McCann makes an appearance, deliberately or otherwise there are disclosures.
The McCann twins, Kate tells us, understand the reason behind their parents visit to Sweden – And no, it’s not “All about the Money” it is to ask the good people of Sweden for their help in finding their missing daughter...
She tells us too, that the twins are able to re-collect events prior to May 2007 which she states has “thrown her”. In what way one might wonder? Does Kate McCann hope that they may recall the night of 3rd May 2007 and be able to throw some light as to who removed Madeleine from Apt 5A? Does it worry her that they might remember something crucial, or, was she simply thwarting an unwelcome question by the interviewer when he made the point that the twins may be too young to actually remember Madeleine?
When asked what her thoughts, now almost five years on, as to what happened to Madeleine, Kate McCann replies:
“Well my view hasn’t changed you know since 4th May really, and that is, that a man took Madeleine. And that man was the person who our friend Jane Tanner saw carrying a child away from the area of the apartment. And sadly I don’t really know anything else since.”
No prizes for spotting the deliberate mistake... But what possible reason could Kate McCann have for stating 4th May and not 3rd? Another red herring, she is rather fond of fish! Time will no doubt tell, but one thing we can be sure of - this was not a faux pas...read more
http://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccanns-stockholm-interview.html?utm_source=BP_recent
A THESIS WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS MEANINGLESS AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE CHALLENGING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION . NONE.
The interview in Stockholm has perhaps provided us with the most polished and proficient performance by the McCann couple to date, polished in both their appearance and almost off pat delivery of their tale of abduction.
A McCann ‘outing’ would never be complete though, without a dash of damage-limitation always included for good measure, not solely to serve the purpose of diminishing their part in whatever became of Madeleine - though that too, but rather another desperate attempt, an exercise in painting a pretty picture portraying themselves as not only the injured party but of being whiter than white. Sad faced Kate -I’m damned if I smile, damned if I don’t- McCann, a keen dramatist, coupled with the discomfiting smirk of Gerry -where is the child- McCann never fail their audience, their self-centred conduct always makes for cringe worthy viewing.
An interview with the McCann’s coupled without the main ingredient - the now customary sprinkle of ‘put downs’ directed at the Portuguese Police and anyone else in fact, who may disagree with their abduction theory – is something too that we have come to expect.
The upside is perhaps that each time Kate McCann makes an appearance, deliberately or otherwise there are disclosures.
The McCann twins, Kate tells us, understand the reason behind their parents visit to Sweden – And no, it’s not “All about the Money” it is to ask the good people of Sweden for their help in finding their missing daughter...
She tells us too, that the twins are able to re-collect events prior to May 2007 which she states has “thrown her”. In what way one might wonder? Does Kate McCann hope that they may recall the night of 3rd May 2007 and be able to throw some light as to who removed Madeleine from Apt 5A? Does it worry her that they might remember something crucial, or, was she simply thwarting an unwelcome question by the interviewer when he made the point that the twins may be too young to actually remember Madeleine?
When asked what her thoughts, now almost five years on, as to what happened to Madeleine, Kate McCann replies:
“Well my view hasn’t changed you know since 4th May really, and that is, that a man took Madeleine. And that man was the person who our friend Jane Tanner saw carrying a child away from the area of the apartment. And sadly I don’t really know anything else since.”
No prizes for spotting the deliberate mistake... But what possible reason could Kate McCann have for stating 4th May and not 3rd? Another red herring, she is rather fond of fish! Time will no doubt tell, but one thing we can be sure of - this was not a faux pas...read more
http://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccanns-stockholm-interview.html?utm_source=BP_recent
A THESIS WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS MEANINGLESS AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE CHALLENGING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION . NONE.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
#McCann : Madeleine McCann Died In Apartment 5A - AND Her Parents Are Concerned About Justice - BUT Not Maddies Justice - Yes Folks Their Own - As Usual It Is ALL About Money.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/mar/26/mccanns-cameron-media-libel-legal-aid?CMP=twt_fd
Cameron is rather busy at the moment with his own sleaze ' CruddasGate to worry about 'McCann sleaze' whims and attention seeking to keep their names in the ever fading limelight boring and very predictable ,using real victims is a typical McCann ploy, just ask Maddie !
Very amusing: even Rupert Murdoch says "no one will believe Cameron" -
Also this evening
http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/03/cruddasgate-video-cameron-refuses-to.html
A THESIS WITHOUT EVIDENCE IS MEANINGLESS AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE CHALLENGING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN ABDUCTION . NONE.
#McCann: 'The COLLECTIVE Mistake' Being Discussed On The Jill Havern Forum
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4554p40-still-running-away-with-it
Haggard and drawn from five years of constant lying about Maddie, her dead daughter's remains somewhere in a lonely shallow grave . The witnessing of pure evil etched into this woman's soul as she continues to spin a web of deceit, a folklore abduction for financial gain. The pathetic LOOK as she searches for sympathy ONLY for herself and not little Madeleine who died in apartment 5A not having 'the best day ever.'...another Kate Healy lie whom as each day passes looks more and more like Geraldine Chaplin's sister.
Last but not least the disgusting Matt Oldfield who betrayed a three year old child for the arrogant McCanns.
http://kingstonhospitaldrmattewoldfield.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mccann-libel-trial-if-called-oldfield.html
http://svtplay.se/v/2752582/skavlan/del_11_av_12
Haggard and drawn from five years of constant lying about Maddie, her dead daughter's remains somewhere in a lonely shallow grave . The witnessing of pure evil etched into this woman's soul as she continues to spin a web of deceit, a folklore abduction for financial gain. The pathetic LOOK as she searches for sympathy ONLY for herself and not little Madeleine who died in apartment 5A not having 'the best day ever.'...another Kate Healy lie whom as each day passes looks more and more like Geraldine Chaplin's sister.
Last but not least the disgusting Matt Oldfield who betrayed a three year old child for the arrogant McCanns.
http://kingstonhospitaldrmattewoldfield.blogspot.com.es/2012/02/mccann-libel-trial-if-called-oldfield.html
http://svtplay.se/v/2752582/skavlan/del_11_av_12
#McCann:'Not abducted' would mean Madeleine is dead and her parents are aware that that is so..One Of The Tapas 9 Removed Maddie's Body From Ap.5A - Concealment Required To Cover - Up A Possible Homicide Of A 3 Year Old !
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts 25 March 2012
ANOTHER STORY
A primary objective for both believers and non-believers in Madeleine McCann's abduction has long been one of establishing that someone (or no-one) broke into 5A on Thursday night, 3 May, 2007.
The evidence however, coupled with various statements to police, is sufficient for us to conclude that no-one actually left the apartment around the time of the Tanner sighting.
Whoever crossed the road in front of Jane Tanner, if indeed anyone did so, they had not just emerged from 5A.
Furthermore, if no-one of an abduction persuasion left the apartment at any time before 10.00 p.m. that evening, it can only have been because they were not inside it in the first place!
A contingency explanation might be that Madeleine was 'taken' after Matthew Oldfield's 9.30 p.m. 'check,' not before.
Hence the Smith sighting nearer 9.50.
But whoever it was that members of the Smith family actually saw being carried, it could not have been Madeleine McCann in her Eeyore pyjamas.
The child seen by Aiofe Smith was said to have been wearing a long-sleeved top.
If one is prepared to accept that Jane Tanner can discern the colour of a garment from some distance away, in the dark, when she cannot even see the item in question, then it is even more reasonable to accept the accuracy of Aiofe Smith's close-up description.
As previously discussed (Crystal Clear: McCannFiles, 19 March), Jane Tanner's sighting of only one individual means that there was no accomplice.
The window becomes completely irrelevant therefore.
No-one climbed through it in either direction.
No-one exited via the patio at the time of the Tanner sighting (Gerry McCann or Jez Wilkins would have seen them) and, in any case, 'the abductor' was spotted further up the road.
Since the Tanner-approved artist's impression confirms the 'abductor' was not wearing gloves (that topic was visited long ago), he might well have left his fingerprints on the door handles, both inside and outside, when opening and closing it.
The door opened inwards and could not have been 'kicked shut' from outside.
It was not reported open.
Although no fingerprints were actually recovered from the front door to the apartment, one or two additional details remain to be accounted for.
The front door was recessed.
If the intruder were left-handed, he would have struggled to open the latch had he been carrying a prostrate, sleeping child, who might easily have awoken when her feet and legs inevitably came into contact with a solid vertical surface.
If he were right-handed he would have struggled to pull the door closed without risking contact with the child's head; both of these possibilities being governed by the position of the child's body on removal from her bed, where her head would have been to the right.
Of course the 'abductor' could have overcome this small problem to some degree by operating the door with the opposite hand on one or other occasion.
But the smarter solution, surely (and the culprit has been recognised, by Kate McCann at least, as smart), would have been to carry the child vertically, as described by the Smith family, freeing either hand at a stroke.
This small matter of orientation alone confirms that Jane Tanner's 'suspect' did not set off to cross the road from apartment 5A.
Since the child was not passed through an open window, any re-positioning would have been entirely (and literally) in the hands of the one person who had entered the apartment and picked Madeleine up directly from her bed.
Notwithstanding the problems associated with opening and closing the front door thereafter, whichever way round Madeleine may have been facing, one has only to ask the simple question of why anyone should alter the position of something they are carrying?
The equally simple answer is: To make their grasp of the object more secure and/or more comfortable. No 'abductor,' in the circumstances envisaged, would transfer his burden to a less comfortable position. Had Madeleine been picked up in a 'fireman's carry' initially, her remaining in that position would have enabled her captor to open and close the exit door straightforwardly. And from the door to the head of the road, where the pair were apparently seen, is a distance of just a few steps - hardly far enough for the porter, a decently proportioned individual by all accounts, to want to re-think his carrying style.
In any event the 'abduction' was accomplished with little or no time to spare. One has therefore to picture the perpetrator seizing Maddie in his arms from where she lay, her head to the right, then making his way out, albeit awkwardly, through the front door.
A 'change of ends' in the interim would not have made escape any easier.
Nor would a similar manoeuvre, once outside, have resulted in a more comfortable position.
Since such a switch would not have been advantageous by any measure, it would not have been made.
Madeleine would have been carried out directly, her body in exactly the same position throughout. Which renders Jane Tanner's sighting of her impossibly back-to-front. Thus it is that Jane Tanner's insistent account of a child, clad in pink, being carried through the streets of Praia da Luz, actually negates the possibility of its having been Madeleine, since the physical circumstances of her holiday accommodation mitigate against, rather than support, Tanner's claims.
The child, if she saw one at all, could not have been Madeleine McCann.
But she saw no-one else.
And if no-one is known to have left 5A, carrying a child, at any time between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m., it is because there was no-one inside to have done so.
Apart, that is, from Gerry McCann at 9.05 and Matthew Oldfield at 9.30.
It's a lock-out There is yet another important aspect to the fugitive's dilemma.
The front door, the only exit he could conceivably have availed himself of that night, was locked. And he did not have a key.
Let us allow Messrs. McCann, Oldfield, O'Brien and Payne to explain the situation more fully: First, Gerry McCann: 'Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked.
At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children.
She went into the apartment through the door using her key.' (Statement to Police, 4 May, 2007). '... he fully confirms the statements made previously at this police department on 4 May 2007, being available to provide any further clarifications.'
(Statement to Police, 10 May). Hence Gerry first states that he unlocked the front door with his key (he didn't simply 'open' it) then later confirms his statement. He goes on (10 May, italics/parentheses mine): (Re Sunday): 'They left the house (for the Tapas bar) through the main door, that he was sure he locked, and the back door was also closed and locked.'
'On this day (Wednesday), the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children.
He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.' (The last, it should be noted, is a general observation, not specific to Wednesday).
'Back to Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the back door, the deponent having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the back door from the inside.'
So far the account has been consistent throughout.
But then he has a dramatic change of heart: 'Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside.
Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.' This aspect of his 10 May statement is questionable on two counts. The first is the certainty with which McCann seeks to override his earlier testimony. Memories do not improve over time, they deteriorate (that's been tested scientifically, Sandra). Hence Gerry McCann's immediate recollections will have been more accurate than those he decided to advance a week later. The second doubtful observation is that concerning the front door ('although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.').
The doors to apartment 5A were logically and physically independent of each other.
They did not operate in tandem.
Hence it makes no sense to claim that 'it is unlikely that it (the front door) was locked, because they left through the back door.' Even if the statement is taken to be an imprecise reference to the McCanns' behaviour rather than the doors' function, it still fails to convince.
The McCanns claim to have adopted a policy of patio door access for their own convenience, not to jeopardize security unduly ('Part of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise coming through the front door.
We didn't want to disturb them.' - Gerry McCann in 'Madeleine Was Here').
The fact is, they say they could see the patio, even if only just, from where they claim to have been dining. They could not see the front entrance at all. Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that a professional couple would adopt the attitude of, 'We're leaving the back door open, so we might as well leave the front door unlocked too.' Notice also that Gerry's observation concerning the degree of front-door security does not flatly contradict his earlier statements in that regard. He merely says it is 'unlikely' the door was locked. Not a categorical statement of fact at all. It is important to understand the significance of 'locking' the main entrance doors to the Ocean Club apartments.
As others of the Tapas fraternity will go on to explain, the mechanisms were not of the Yale variety, although Kate McCann (6 September), knowingly or otherwise, gives the impression that a Yale type lock was in place: 'They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked.
Main door was closed but not locked.
She thinks it could be opened from the inside but not from the outside.
' Matthew Oldfield, on the other hand, appears to have been rather more observant: 4078 "Okay. Did you leave by the patio door?" Reply "Yeah, back the same way, because this door would have been locked and that's the shortest way anyway of coming through there, so I would have gone back out the same door." What Oldfield tells us here is that, supposing the front door to have been locked, he would not have been able to unlock it and exit that way had he wanted to. Never mind shortening the distance of his journey, he would have been unable to unlock the door, despite being on the inside.
Further into his rogatory interview, Oldfield has more to say about locking doors, his own patio for example, and helpfully concludes with: 4078 "So at night times you'd always have that door locked when you'd exit?" Reply "The patio door would be locked and you'd go out through the..." 4078 "Gone through the other..." Reply "Main door and lock that one." 4078 "Which then you locked behind you." Reply "Yeah." 4078 "After you went." Reply "You had to lock it because it would open on the, it wouldn't shut through like a Yale lock it would close just on a, on a handle that opened it."
The front door locks, it appears, did not operate on the commonly understood Yale principle therefore. In the course of his skirting the issue as far as the McCanns' practices were concerned, Russell O'Brien, in his rogatory interview, makes the function of their respective front door locks absolutely clear: "On Sunday I recall I checked Kate and Gerry's apartment as well as Rachael and Matt's. I had taken Matt's keys and I believe that their (Rachael and Matt's) door was deadlocked the same as ours and that I would have needed to turn the key two times. "I needed Matt's key to check on their room and I had it, but I didn't need Kate and Gerry's key because they went through the patio door', erm, we went through the patio door to cross in and look into the children's bedroom. So, at the time, I have to say, I didn't really think that, you know, about the differences in how, in how we were, the security in the, in the rooms was, but, erm, I definitely did not go in through Gerry's and Kate's main, you know, double locked door or anything, I'm sure I went through the patio." And now the focal point:
"We were conscious that, that, erm, if you, you only do one lock on the main door then it can be opened from the inside but if you double lock it then, then, then you need the key to get in or out.”
It is noticeable, on reading this episode of his rogatory interview in full, that Russell O'Brien is panicked somewhat by the possibility of the interviewing officer's interpreting his observations of other peoples' careful security measures as applying to the McCanns also.
He is at pains, on several occasions, to re-iterate that he did not avail himself of their door key in order to enter 5A at any time, as they were behaving differently to everyone else in leaving their patio door unlocked.
Thus is he, O'Brien, supporting the McCanns' contention that they left their patio door unsecured, whilst at the same time avoiding any specific reference to the status of their front door.
The following is typical: "...on one of the visits at least, erm, I went back to five 'D' and checked on our children, but I also went to five, erm, 'D' on Matt's and I, I'm pretty sure that I needed Matt's key to do that, so I think they were doing the same as us.
But when, for Kate and Gerry, I just went in through the patio steps and, and just across to the room." O'Brien's filibustering aside, what we can very reasonably conclude from all of this is that if the front door to 5A were double locked, then a key would have been necessary if one wished to get in or out.
Importantly, three 'witnesses' (McCann, O'Brien and Oldfield), albeit not truly independent, all alluded separately to the locked door at the front of 5A, one of them being the occupant himself who, as we know, later modified his account. O'Brien in particular refers to the McCanns' 'double locked door.' How would he have known (why should he have assumed even) that was the case, given his claims not to have used it? And why should anyone be particularly 'conscious' that 'if you, you only do one lock on the main door then it can be opened from the inside'?
Surely the focus of concern should be with intruders breaking in, not occupants getting out!
For his part, Oldfield, without explicitly stating that the McCanns' front door had been 'double locked,' nonetheless intimated that he could not have opened it from the inside.
This despite the McCanns supposedly having left their apartment that night via the very same patio door through which he claimed to have entered.
Oldfield says he eventually left via the patio door himself 'because this door (the front door) would have been locked.' With a key, obviously, and from the inside no doubt.
Many question whether he even set foot inside the McCanns' apartment that night.
Ironically, in this instance, it might have been better for them had he not done so, but peered through the patio doors from outside instead.
That way he need not have known, or assumed, anything about either door - front or back.
Once inside however, he, like the abductor, has to get out and, again like the abductor, would have done the obvious thing, i.e., exit the way he came in (which leads directly to where he intended to go next) without a further thought, for the front door in particular.
Not only does he give it further thought.
He cites it as the primary reason for leaving via the patio door, despite not even being asked about it!
The question was, 'Did you leave by the patio door?' not, 'Why did you leave by the patio door?' One should not overlook the fact that Oldfield's explanation for his actions is retrospective.
His rogatory statements were made well after the event, by which time he will long have known that the McCanns had left 5A via their patio on the night in question. And yet, even in hindsight, he still sees fit to proffer the explanation, 'because this door would have been locked,' in the knowledge (?) that the McCanns, atypically, did not exit through this door themselves and might therefore have merely closed it without locking it, as Kate McCann had contended eighteen months earlier.
Since Oldfield has consistently asserted that he entered 5A on that fateful occasion, his statements concerning the interior, including the doors, shift logically from supposition and toward reliability.
From outside he can only assume certain things.
Once inside his actions are governed more by knowledge than assumption (unless of course we're talking about safeguarding children.
There again, he was outside the room).
Be that as it may, his justification, 'because this door would have been locked,' given in hindsight, warrants additional consideration.
If the statement is interpreted as having been expressed in a tense the classical grammarian would describe as 'future perfect in the past,' then it simply reflects the timing of a situation or event, not its degree of certainty.
In that case 'The door would have been locked' is a statement of fact with regard to a past moment in time, not a conditional suggestive of doubt. The continuation (understood) might be, for example: The door would have been locked by the time I arrived. If, on the other hand, the statement is construed as a conditional one, it must obey two constraints (in this case): It must still make sense if appropriately expanded. But what it tells us must also conform to what else we know. Does it succeed on both counts? Let's examine a few more hypothetical possibilities:
1. The door would have been locked as usual.
2. The door would have been locked on that occasion.
3. The door would have been locked by Gerry.
4. The door would have been locked had the McCanns left the apartment that way themselves. All make sense, but only the last actually introduces an element of doubt.
It is also the interpretation which best fits the circumstances as we have been given to understand them.
Nevertheless, although the situation described, as well as Oldfield's concomitant action, is in the past, the statement describing it is made in the present (accepting, of course, that Oldfield's 'present' was April, 2008).
We know, as Oldfield knew, that the McCanns had not left the apartment that way, making the statement under consideration (version 4 above) superficially pointless.
We are obliged then to turn our attention to Oldfield's thoughts at the time of the action, not when he made his statement.
And these too are suddenly portrayed as vaguely absurd.
Following a quick 'recce' (or hasty abduction) the protagonist would instinctively go out the way they came in, or otherwise take the line of least resistance.
For Oldfield the patio gave onto the path leading directly to the Tapas bar, as he himself pointed out.
The front door did not.
The obvious answer to the question 'Did you leave by the patio door?' therefore is something akin to 'Obviously.' As simple as that. The front door has no role to play in proceedings, and certainly should not feature as the primary motivation for leaving via the back entrance.
What this points to is Oldfield's knowing, at the time he made his statement, that the front door was locked - at the time of the incident, i.e. 9.30 p.m. on May 3, 2007.
In which case it will have barred the passage of an aspiring abductor fifteen minutes earlier.
At last we may properly understand why Gerry McCann, having introduced the open patio door into the equation, thought it expedient to add that it was 'unlikely' that the front door had been locked.
Because he had previously, and consistently, distinguished between 'closing' and 'locking' the front door and first described locking and unlocking this door with his key (not closing and opening, or closing and unlocking); implying that a key would afterwards have been required to open it - from either side.
As an anonymous commentator speaking unofficially for the McCanns has observed: "The front door has two locks - one which is self-locking. When they are referring to 'locking' the door, they are referring to locking the deadbolt with the key as opposed to the springbolt (latchbolt) which was self-locking." Exactly. No worries though. From the catalogue of possibilities offered up by Kate McCann in 'Madeleine,' they need only select the 'duplicate key' option.
" So unless we're looking at some particularly disgruntled member of the OC staff who, one supposes, might have had a master key, and despite a lengthy holiday season ahead decided that it simply had to be Madeleine McCann on 3 May, 2007, what we're faced with is an abductor who enters 5A much like an insect enters a pitcher plant.
He comes in through the unlocked patio doors and then - fails to emerge. He is not seen to exit via the patio. He does not exit via the window. He cannot exit via the front door. And yet Jane Tanner is convinced she saw the newly hatched 'abductor' carrying Madeleine, back-to-front.
Through the looking glass Co-incidentally, we have evidence, in the form of an 'off the record' statement by Gerry McCann, that he was aware (or had been made aware) of this conundrum.
During a recent interview for Portuguese television, Goncalo Amaral revealed the following: "There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, on the kitchen's counter.
Right away, the lies started." (Interview on SIC, 17 February 2012).
Why, one might ask, is such a crucial observation absent from Gerry McCann's own statement to police on both 4 and 10 May?
Reporters David Brown and Patrick Foster, informed readers later that year: 'Mr McCann first contacted private investigation companies less than three weeks after his daughter was reported missing on May 3.' (The Times, September 24, 2007).
Less than three weeks in this instance is more than two weeks, or Brown and Foster would have written 'less than a fortnight.' The relevant data gathering by Control Risks Group was therefore carried out after Gerry McCann had made his statements to police, when, unsure of what exactly to reveal about the status of the front door to the apartment, he opted for the non-committal 'likelihood' of its having been unlocked on the Thursday night and 'not necessarily' locked on other occasions, despite every itemised departure being accompanied by the rigorous locking of both doors, front and back.
And locking the front door, don’t forget, meant a key would be required if one wished to go through it afterwards, in whichever direction.
An earlier discussion (Reinforcements: McCannFiles, 10 April, 2011) examined how and why elements are introduced into a story to compensate for a weakness of some kind.
Since the two are inter-related (the element and the weakness) consideration of the one should help identify the other.
If the front door key left in the kitchen was an accommodation to circumstance, then the front door will have been the weakness.
But the story of Madeleine McCann's 'abduction' is not Alice in Wonderland.
Nor is Gerry McCann Scotland's answer to Lewis Carroll.
An intruder unfamiliar with the Ocean Club apartments, who is in a hurry to enter one such, and just as eager to depart, will have their 'eyes on the prize.' Even if they enter through a window they will seek to exit through the nearest available door.
So, having had to await the disappearance of the Lone Ranger, 'Elvis' (who, we should remind ourselves, is anything but 'tonto') snatches Madeleine up and makes for the front door. Finding it locked, what does he do? Well, if he came in through the window his attention would immediately turn to the patio door which, as he would quickly discover, he could open.
Had he come in that way he would of course have known that already and not even have considered leaving via the front door, unless it were in some way advantageous so to do.
Anyway, out he goes.
Except he didn't.
Why not?
He could not possibly have known there were people standing in the street opposite the gate to the steps until he was outside the door.
So what if there were?
He could not have known either that one of them was the tenant of 5A, whom he had neither seen nor heard speak during the brief time they were in the apartment together.
Maybe he just didn't feel like taking a chance on being seen.
But what choice did he have?
How was he to know the two conversationalists were blind to passers by?
He had no choice it seems.
Unless he realised that the key on the kitchen counter - the one with the 'Use Me!' label attached - was his means of escape.
The abductor had entered an apartment in darkness, looking for a child, not a key.
But then the kitchen counter would still not have been in his line of sight. It would only have been so on first entering, or if he had gone out through the patio door, turned round and come back in again! (the 'I must avoid those witnesses' decision).
So now, if he has not already done so, he tries the front door.
Whether or not Elvis's attempts at escape are front-then-rear or rear-then-front, he's in a tight spot and needs to leave in a hurry.
The minutes are ticking by.
Tarzan is standing outside and Jane's just leaving (or left) the restaurant.
Thinks he: 'Surely whoever's staying here will have left a key to the front door lying around somewhere.' Don't they all? (He hadn't previously met Messrs. O'Brien, Oldfield or Payne) But where? Oh! What's that I can almost see among the clutter on the kitchen counter? (from just inside the patio door, in the dark, Madeleine cradled in his arms (see forensic photographs of 5A interior).
Or, if standing at the locked front door, 'Damn! I'll have to go out through that bedroom window after all!
Mustn't forget to close the curtains behind me!' It looks like it might be a key. I wonder if it fits the front door? Let's take a closer look. If I can pick it up without this child's body skittling everything else on the shelf and waking her up, I might just make it out in time for the next 'check on the children,' due any second now.
' Instructively, the Control Risks observation on behalf of Gerry McCann, that a key had been left on the kitchen counter, does not address the inevitable question of where exactly this same key was found subsequently, after the abductor had perhaps made use of it.
Was it discovered in the door, for instance?
It was fortunate for the McCanns that the intruder did not take it with him.
The point is, if it hadn't moved from the kitchen counter, then it would not have been employed by an abductor desperate to exit the apartment (unless, perhaps, 'Please return to kitchen counter.' was written on the reverse of the 'Use me!' label intended for Alice).
This shortcoming probably explains why the story came and went like Halley's comet.
Gerry McCann no doubt felt it safer not to include it in any further statements he might make to the police; in September, say.
So he didn't.
In the real world, being unconstrained by the timing of Jane Tanner's anticipated 'sighting,' the criminal waits quietly out of sight at the top of the patio steps, until McCann and Wilkins wander off - and so does he - carrying Madeleine.
And a change of pyjamas.
The situation is cut-and-dried.
If Madeleine McCann's so-called abductor did not leave 5A in time to be spotted by Jane Tanner at 9.15 p.m., then he could not have been seen by her.
He might perhaps have left later (via the patio) in time to be seen by the Smiths, but only with a different child, or Madeleine in a change of clothes, and having successfully hidden himself from Matthew Oldfield's view in the meantime (Not difficult. He had only to sit silently on Madeleine's bed. But he would not have known that!).
In any event Gerry McCann was 'fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21h05 and Matthew's visit at 21h30.
' Notwithstanding which, he and the abductor were in each other's company, apparently, just before 9.10 p.m.
Why would the culprit wait twenty minutes or more before leaving the scene?
They wouldn't.
And even if they did, is it not highly improbable that two significant sightings, the only two in fact, should have been of innocent parties, whilst the individual actually carrying Madeleine through the streets of Praia da Luz went unnoticed?
No mysterious unforeseen abductor can have emerged from 5A between 9.00 and 10.00 that night.
The only people to do so were those that actually entered the apartment.
Such a conclusion would lead, inevitably, to a chain of postulates: 'Not abducted' between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. would mean 'not abducted at all,' since she was reported alive at 9.05 and her parents were present in the apartment after 10.00.
'Not abducted' would mean Madeleine is dead and her parents are aware that that is so.
Parental awareness of Madeleine's true fate would reveal subsequent, unremitting emphasis on abduction to have been a ploy.
An effort to conceal Madeleine's death, having been publicly acknowledged by the parents as unnecessary in the event of an accident, would mean that, rather than accidental, something deliberate may have occurred to bring about fatality.
For its own sake Society owes it to victims past, and as an endeavour to safeguard those who might become victims, to demonstrate that the avoidable death of a child is unacceptable, much less that those responsible should go on to profit from it with their continued liberty or, worse yet, financially.
The door handle/lock on apartment 5A PJ Files Click image to enlarge From: Processo 09 Volume IXa, Page 2318 Finally, there also proceeded the detailed analysis of the door and of the windows of the target apartment there not being detected the existence of any clues/traces of break-in/forced entry on them. Photos 38 to 40: Detail of the lock of the door of the apartment front entrance where the non-existence of break-in/forced entry was verified. .
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts 25 March 2012
ANOTHER STORY
A primary objective for both believers and non-believers in Madeleine McCann's abduction has long been one of establishing that someone (or no-one) broke into 5A on Thursday night, 3 May, 2007.
The evidence however, coupled with various statements to police, is sufficient for us to conclude that no-one actually left the apartment around the time of the Tanner sighting.
Whoever crossed the road in front of Jane Tanner, if indeed anyone did so, they had not just emerged from 5A.
Furthermore, if no-one of an abduction persuasion left the apartment at any time before 10.00 p.m. that evening, it can only have been because they were not inside it in the first place!
A contingency explanation might be that Madeleine was 'taken' after Matthew Oldfield's 9.30 p.m. 'check,' not before.
Hence the Smith sighting nearer 9.50.
But whoever it was that members of the Smith family actually saw being carried, it could not have been Madeleine McCann in her Eeyore pyjamas.
If one is prepared to accept that Jane Tanner can discern the colour of a garment from some distance away, in the dark, when she cannot even see the item in question, then it is even more reasonable to accept the accuracy of Aiofe Smith's close-up description.
As previously discussed (Crystal Clear: McCannFiles, 19 March), Jane Tanner's sighting of only one individual means that there was no accomplice.
The window becomes completely irrelevant therefore.
No-one climbed through it in either direction.
No-one exited via the patio at the time of the Tanner sighting (Gerry McCann or Jez Wilkins would have seen them) and, in any case, 'the abductor' was spotted further up the road.
That leaves 'Elvis' with just the front door at his disposal.
Since the Tanner-approved artist's impression confirms the 'abductor' was not wearing gloves (that topic was visited long ago), he might well have left his fingerprints on the door handles, both inside and outside, when opening and closing it.
The door opened inwards and could not have been 'kicked shut' from outside.
It was not reported open.
Although no fingerprints were actually recovered from the front door to the apartment, one or two additional details remain to be accounted for.
The front door was recessed.
If the intruder were left-handed, he would have struggled to open the latch had he been carrying a prostrate, sleeping child, who might easily have awoken when her feet and legs inevitably came into contact with a solid vertical surface.
If he were right-handed he would have struggled to pull the door closed without risking contact with the child's head; both of these possibilities being governed by the position of the child's body on removal from her bed, where her head would have been to the right.
Of course the 'abductor' could have overcome this small problem to some degree by operating the door with the opposite hand on one or other occasion.
But the smarter solution, surely (and the culprit has been recognised, by Kate McCann at least, as smart), would have been to carry the child vertically, as described by the Smith family, freeing either hand at a stroke.
This small matter of orientation alone confirms that Jane Tanner's 'suspect' did not set off to cross the road from apartment 5A.
Since the child was not passed through an open window, any re-positioning would have been entirely (and literally) in the hands of the one person who had entered the apartment and picked Madeleine up directly from her bed.
Notwithstanding the problems associated with opening and closing the front door thereafter, whichever way round Madeleine may have been facing, one has only to ask the simple question of why anyone should alter the position of something they are carrying?
The equally simple answer is: To make their grasp of the object more secure and/or more comfortable. No 'abductor,' in the circumstances envisaged, would transfer his burden to a less comfortable position. Had Madeleine been picked up in a 'fireman's carry' initially, her remaining in that position would have enabled her captor to open and close the exit door straightforwardly. And from the door to the head of the road, where the pair were apparently seen, is a distance of just a few steps - hardly far enough for the porter, a decently proportioned individual by all accounts, to want to re-think his carrying style.
In any event the 'abduction' was accomplished with little or no time to spare. One has therefore to picture the perpetrator seizing Maddie in his arms from where she lay, her head to the right, then making his way out, albeit awkwardly, through the front door.
A 'change of ends' in the interim would not have made escape any easier.
Nor would a similar manoeuvre, once outside, have resulted in a more comfortable position.
Since such a switch would not have been advantageous by any measure, it would not have been made.
Madeleine would have been carried out directly, her body in exactly the same position throughout. Which renders Jane Tanner's sighting of her impossibly back-to-front. Thus it is that Jane Tanner's insistent account of a child, clad in pink, being carried through the streets of Praia da Luz, actually negates the possibility of its having been Madeleine, since the physical circumstances of her holiday accommodation mitigate against, rather than support, Tanner's claims.
The child, if she saw one at all, could not have been Madeleine McCann.
But she saw no-one else.
And if no-one is known to have left 5A, carrying a child, at any time between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m., it is because there was no-one inside to have done so.
Apart, that is, from Gerry McCann at 9.05 and Matthew Oldfield at 9.30.
It's a lock-out There is yet another important aspect to the fugitive's dilemma.
The front door, the only exit he could conceivably have availed himself of that night, was locked. And he did not have a key.
Let us allow Messrs. McCann, Oldfield, O'Brien and Payne to explain the situation more fully: First, Gerry McCann: 'Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked.
At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children.
She went into the apartment through the door using her key.' (Statement to Police, 4 May, 2007). '... he fully confirms the statements made previously at this police department on 4 May 2007, being available to provide any further clarifications.'
(Statement to Police, 10 May). Hence Gerry first states that he unlocked the front door with his key (he didn't simply 'open' it) then later confirms his statement. He goes on (10 May, italics/parentheses mine): (Re Sunday): 'They left the house (for the Tapas bar) through the main door, that he was sure he locked, and the back door was also closed and locked.'
'On this day (Wednesday), the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children.
He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.' (The last, it should be noted, is a general observation, not specific to Wednesday).
'Back to Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the back door, the deponent having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the back door from the inside.'
So far the account has been consistent throughout.
When recalling specific instances of departure, Gerry McCann affirms that he locked the front door using his key, an observation of some significance as it turns out and one to which we shall inevitably return.
But then he has a dramatic change of heart: 'Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside.
Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.' This aspect of his 10 May statement is questionable on two counts. The first is the certainty with which McCann seeks to override his earlier testimony. Memories do not improve over time, they deteriorate (that's been tested scientifically, Sandra). Hence Gerry McCann's immediate recollections will have been more accurate than those he decided to advance a week later. The second doubtful observation is that concerning the front door ('although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.').
The doors to apartment 5A were logically and physically independent of each other.
They did not operate in tandem.
Hence it makes no sense to claim that 'it is unlikely that it (the front door) was locked, because they left through the back door.' Even if the statement is taken to be an imprecise reference to the McCanns' behaviour rather than the doors' function, it still fails to convince.
The McCanns claim to have adopted a policy of patio door access for their own convenience, not to jeopardize security unduly ('Part of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise coming through the front door.
We didn't want to disturb them.' - Gerry McCann in 'Madeleine Was Here').
The fact is, they say they could see the patio, even if only just, from where they claim to have been dining. They could not see the front entrance at all. Under these circumstances it is inconceivable that a professional couple would adopt the attitude of, 'We're leaving the back door open, so we might as well leave the front door unlocked too.' Notice also that Gerry's observation concerning the degree of front-door security does not flatly contradict his earlier statements in that regard. He merely says it is 'unlikely' the door was locked. Not a categorical statement of fact at all. It is important to understand the significance of 'locking' the main entrance doors to the Ocean Club apartments.
As others of the Tapas fraternity will go on to explain, the mechanisms were not of the Yale variety, although Kate McCann (6 September), knowingly or otherwise, gives the impression that a Yale type lock was in place: 'They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked.
Main door was closed but not locked.
She thinks it could be opened from the inside but not from the outside.
' Matthew Oldfield, on the other hand, appears to have been rather more observant: 4078 "Okay. Did you leave by the patio door?" Reply "Yeah, back the same way, because this door would have been locked and that's the shortest way anyway of coming through there, so I would have gone back out the same door." What Oldfield tells us here is that, supposing the front door to have been locked, he would not have been able to unlock it and exit that way had he wanted to. Never mind shortening the distance of his journey, he would have been unable to unlock the door, despite being on the inside.
Further into his rogatory interview, Oldfield has more to say about locking doors, his own patio for example, and helpfully concludes with: 4078 "So at night times you'd always have that door locked when you'd exit?" Reply "The patio door would be locked and you'd go out through the..." 4078 "Gone through the other..." Reply "Main door and lock that one." 4078 "Which then you locked behind you." Reply "Yeah." 4078 "After you went." Reply "You had to lock it because it would open on the, it wouldn't shut through like a Yale lock it would close just on a, on a handle that opened it."
The front door locks, it appears, did not operate on the commonly understood Yale principle therefore. In the course of his skirting the issue as far as the McCanns' practices were concerned, Russell O'Brien, in his rogatory interview, makes the function of their respective front door locks absolutely clear: "On Sunday I recall I checked Kate and Gerry's apartment as well as Rachael and Matt's. I had taken Matt's keys and I believe that their (Rachael and Matt's) door was deadlocked the same as ours and that I would have needed to turn the key two times. "I needed Matt's key to check on their room and I had it, but I didn't need Kate and Gerry's key because they went through the patio door', erm, we went through the patio door to cross in and look into the children's bedroom. So, at the time, I have to say, I didn't really think that, you know, about the differences in how, in how we were, the security in the, in the rooms was, but, erm, I definitely did not go in through Gerry's and Kate's main, you know, double locked door or anything, I'm sure I went through the patio." And now the focal point:
"We were conscious that, that, erm, if you, you only do one lock on the main door then it can be opened from the inside but if you double lock it then, then, then you need the key to get in or out.”
It is noticeable, on reading this episode of his rogatory interview in full, that Russell O'Brien is panicked somewhat by the possibility of the interviewing officer's interpreting his observations of other peoples' careful security measures as applying to the McCanns also.
He is at pains, on several occasions, to re-iterate that he did not avail himself of their door key in order to enter 5A at any time, as they were behaving differently to everyone else in leaving their patio door unlocked.
Thus is he, O'Brien, supporting the McCanns' contention that they left their patio door unsecured, whilst at the same time avoiding any specific reference to the status of their front door.
The following is typical: "...on one of the visits at least, erm, I went back to five 'D' and checked on our children, but I also went to five, erm, 'D' on Matt's and I, I'm pretty sure that I needed Matt's key to do that, so I think they were doing the same as us.
But when, for Kate and Gerry, I just went in through the patio steps and, and just across to the room." O'Brien's filibustering aside, what we can very reasonably conclude from all of this is that if the front door to 5A were double locked, then a key would have been necessary if one wished to get in or out.
Importantly, three 'witnesses' (McCann, O'Brien and Oldfield), albeit not truly independent, all alluded separately to the locked door at the front of 5A, one of them being the occupant himself who, as we know, later modified his account. O'Brien in particular refers to the McCanns' 'double locked door.' How would he have known (why should he have assumed even) that was the case, given his claims not to have used it? And why should anyone be particularly 'conscious' that 'if you, you only do one lock on the main door then it can be opened from the inside'?
Surely the focus of concern should be with intruders breaking in, not occupants getting out!
For his part, Oldfield, without explicitly stating that the McCanns' front door had been 'double locked,' nonetheless intimated that he could not have opened it from the inside.
This despite the McCanns supposedly having left their apartment that night via the very same patio door through which he claimed to have entered.
Oldfield says he eventually left via the patio door himself 'because this door (the front door) would have been locked.' With a key, obviously, and from the inside no doubt.
Oldfield's enterprising 9.30 visit to 5A holds further clues.
Many question whether he even set foot inside the McCanns' apartment that night.
Ironically, in this instance, it might have been better for them had he not done so, but peered through the patio doors from outside instead.
That way he need not have known, or assumed, anything about either door - front or back.
Once inside however, he, like the abductor, has to get out and, again like the abductor, would have done the obvious thing, i.e., exit the way he came in (which leads directly to where he intended to go next) without a further thought, for the front door in particular.
Not only does he give it further thought.
He cites it as the primary reason for leaving via the patio door, despite not even being asked about it!
The question was, 'Did you leave by the patio door?' not, 'Why did you leave by the patio door?' One should not overlook the fact that Oldfield's explanation for his actions is retrospective.
His rogatory statements were made well after the event, by which time he will long have known that the McCanns had left 5A via their patio on the night in question. And yet, even in hindsight, he still sees fit to proffer the explanation, 'because this door would have been locked,' in the knowledge (?) that the McCanns, atypically, did not exit through this door themselves and might therefore have merely closed it without locking it, as Kate McCann had contended eighteen months earlier.
Since Oldfield has consistently asserted that he entered 5A on that fateful occasion, his statements concerning the interior, including the doors, shift logically from supposition and toward reliability.
From outside he can only assume certain things.
Once inside his actions are governed more by knowledge than assumption (unless of course we're talking about safeguarding children.
There again, he was outside the room).
Be that as it may, his justification, 'because this door would have been locked,' given in hindsight, warrants additional consideration.
If the statement is interpreted as having been expressed in a tense the classical grammarian would describe as 'future perfect in the past,' then it simply reflects the timing of a situation or event, not its degree of certainty.
In that case 'The door would have been locked' is a statement of fact with regard to a past moment in time, not a conditional suggestive of doubt. The continuation (understood) might be, for example: The door would have been locked by the time I arrived. If, on the other hand, the statement is construed as a conditional one, it must obey two constraints (in this case): It must still make sense if appropriately expanded. But what it tells us must also conform to what else we know. Does it succeed on both counts? Let's examine a few more hypothetical possibilities:
1. The door would have been locked as usual.
2. The door would have been locked on that occasion.
3. The door would have been locked by Gerry.
4. The door would have been locked had the McCanns left the apartment that way themselves. All make sense, but only the last actually introduces an element of doubt.
It is also the interpretation which best fits the circumstances as we have been given to understand them.
Nevertheless, although the situation described, as well as Oldfield's concomitant action, is in the past, the statement describing it is made in the present (accepting, of course, that Oldfield's 'present' was April, 2008).
We know, as Oldfield knew, that the McCanns had not left the apartment that way, making the statement under consideration (version 4 above) superficially pointless.
We are obliged then to turn our attention to Oldfield's thoughts at the time of the action, not when he made his statement.
And these too are suddenly portrayed as vaguely absurd.
Following a quick 'recce' (or hasty abduction) the protagonist would instinctively go out the way they came in, or otherwise take the line of least resistance.
For Oldfield the patio gave onto the path leading directly to the Tapas bar, as he himself pointed out.
The front door did not.
The obvious answer to the question 'Did you leave by the patio door?' therefore is something akin to 'Obviously.' As simple as that. The front door has no role to play in proceedings, and certainly should not feature as the primary motivation for leaving via the back entrance.
What this points to is Oldfield's knowing, at the time he made his statement, that the front door was locked - at the time of the incident, i.e. 9.30 p.m. on May 3, 2007.
In which case it will have barred the passage of an aspiring abductor fifteen minutes earlier.
At last we may properly understand why Gerry McCann, having introduced the open patio door into the equation, thought it expedient to add that it was 'unlikely' that the front door had been locked.
Because he had previously, and consistently, distinguished between 'closing' and 'locking' the front door and first described locking and unlocking this door with his key (not closing and opening, or closing and unlocking); implying that a key would afterwards have been required to open it - from either side.
As an anonymous commentator speaking unofficially for the McCanns has observed: "The front door has two locks - one which is self-locking. When they are referring to 'locking' the door, they are referring to locking the deadbolt with the key as opposed to the springbolt (latchbolt) which was self-locking." Exactly. No worries though. From the catalogue of possibilities offered up by Kate McCann in 'Madeleine,' they need only select the 'duplicate key' option.
Here it is again: "For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door." Nope. As David Payne explains in his rogatory interview: "...essentially you needed the key you know, to use, if I remember to gain access into the, err into the apartment, and you know generally it was difficult because there was, you know we'd ask about more than one key, there was the only one key to the apartment.
" So unless we're looking at some particularly disgruntled member of the OC staff who, one supposes, might have had a master key, and despite a lengthy holiday season ahead decided that it simply had to be Madeleine McCann on 3 May, 2007, what we're faced with is an abductor who enters 5A much like an insect enters a pitcher plant.
He comes in through the unlocked patio doors and then - fails to emerge. He is not seen to exit via the patio. He does not exit via the window. He cannot exit via the front door. And yet Jane Tanner is convinced she saw the newly hatched 'abductor' carrying Madeleine, back-to-front.
Through the looking glass Co-incidentally, we have evidence, in the form of an 'off the record' statement by Gerry McCann, that he was aware (or had been made aware) of this conundrum.
During a recent interview for Portuguese television, Goncalo Amaral revealed the following: "There is a report from Control Risks, the first private detective agency which was brought to the case [by the McCanns] in the very first days, where they state, after speaking with Gerald McCann and other witnesses in that group [Tapas 9], that the key that Mr Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, on the kitchen's counter.
Right away, the lies started." (Interview on SIC, 17 February 2012).
Why, one might ask, is such a crucial observation absent from Gerry McCann's own statement to police on both 4 and 10 May?
Reporters David Brown and Patrick Foster, informed readers later that year: 'Mr McCann first contacted private investigation companies less than three weeks after his daughter was reported missing on May 3.' (The Times, September 24, 2007).
Less than three weeks in this instance is more than two weeks, or Brown and Foster would have written 'less than a fortnight.' The relevant data gathering by Control Risks Group was therefore carried out after Gerry McCann had made his statements to police, when, unsure of what exactly to reveal about the status of the front door to the apartment, he opted for the non-committal 'likelihood' of its having been unlocked on the Thursday night and 'not necessarily' locked on other occasions, despite every itemised departure being accompanied by the rigorous locking of both doors, front and back.
And locking the front door, don’t forget, meant a key would be required if one wished to go through it afterwards, in whichever direction.
It does rather look as though someone 'wised up' to the implications of conscientious adult behaviour on this occasion and subsequently left a key at someone else's disposal; or would like others to believe they did.
An earlier discussion (Reinforcements: McCannFiles, 10 April, 2011) examined how and why elements are introduced into a story to compensate for a weakness of some kind.
Since the two are inter-related (the element and the weakness) consideration of the one should help identify the other.
If the front door key left in the kitchen was an accommodation to circumstance, then the front door will have been the weakness.
But the story of Madeleine McCann's 'abduction' is not Alice in Wonderland.
Nor is Gerry McCann Scotland's answer to Lewis Carroll.
An intruder unfamiliar with the Ocean Club apartments, who is in a hurry to enter one such, and just as eager to depart, will have their 'eyes on the prize.' Even if they enter through a window they will seek to exit through the nearest available door.
So, having had to await the disappearance of the Lone Ranger, 'Elvis' (who, we should remind ourselves, is anything but 'tonto') snatches Madeleine up and makes for the front door. Finding it locked, what does he do? Well, if he came in through the window his attention would immediately turn to the patio door which, as he would quickly discover, he could open.
Had he come in that way he would of course have known that already and not even have considered leaving via the front door, unless it were in some way advantageous so to do.
Anyway, out he goes.
Except he didn't.
Why not?
He could not possibly have known there were people standing in the street opposite the gate to the steps until he was outside the door.
So what if there were?
He could not have known either that one of them was the tenant of 5A, whom he had neither seen nor heard speak during the brief time they were in the apartment together.
Maybe he just didn't feel like taking a chance on being seen.
But what choice did he have?
How was he to know the two conversationalists were blind to passers by?
He had no choice it seems.
Unless he realised that the key on the kitchen counter - the one with the 'Use Me!' label attached - was his means of escape.
The abductor had entered an apartment in darkness, looking for a child, not a key.
He had crossed the main floor with his attention directed towards the bedrooms, not the kitchen (had he come in through the window he could not yet have noticed the kitchen even).
Suddenly he hears someone else slide open the patio door ('Not another one after this little girl!' he thought) then hid from view somehow.
After he'd heard the toilet flush and the patio door slide shut, he reasoned that the 'coast was clear' and carried his prize anxiously to the front door, when the kitchen counter would have been out of view, or the patio door, if that is how he came in.
But then the kitchen counter would still not have been in his line of sight. It would only have been so on first entering, or if he had gone out through the patio door, turned round and come back in again! (the 'I must avoid those witnesses' decision).
So now, if he has not already done so, he tries the front door.
Whether or not Elvis's attempts at escape are front-then-rear or rear-then-front, he's in a tight spot and needs to leave in a hurry.
The minutes are ticking by.
Tarzan is standing outside and Jane's just leaving (or left) the restaurant.
Thinks he: 'Surely whoever's staying here will have left a key to the front door lying around somewhere.' Don't they all? (He hadn't previously met Messrs. O'Brien, Oldfield or Payne) But where? Oh! What's that I can almost see among the clutter on the kitchen counter? (from just inside the patio door, in the dark, Madeleine cradled in his arms (see forensic photographs of 5A interior).
Or, if standing at the locked front door, 'Damn! I'll have to go out through that bedroom window after all!
Mustn't forget to close the curtains behind me!' It looks like it might be a key. I wonder if it fits the front door? Let's take a closer look. If I can pick it up without this child's body skittling everything else on the shelf and waking her up, I might just make it out in time for the next 'check on the children,' due any second now.
' Instructively, the Control Risks observation on behalf of Gerry McCann, that a key had been left on the kitchen counter, does not address the inevitable question of where exactly this same key was found subsequently, after the abductor had perhaps made use of it.
Was it discovered in the door, for instance?
It was fortunate for the McCanns that the intruder did not take it with him.
That could really have spoiled their holiday, since there was only the one.
The point is, if it hadn't moved from the kitchen counter, then it would not have been employed by an abductor desperate to exit the apartment (unless, perhaps, 'Please return to kitchen counter.' was written on the reverse of the 'Use me!' label intended for Alice).
This shortcoming probably explains why the story came and went like Halley's comet.
Gerry McCann no doubt felt it safer not to include it in any further statements he might make to the police; in September, say.
So he didn't.
In the real world, being unconstrained by the timing of Jane Tanner's anticipated 'sighting,' the criminal waits quietly out of sight at the top of the patio steps, until McCann and Wilkins wander off - and so does he - carrying Madeleine.
And a change of pyjamas.
The situation is cut-and-dried.
If Madeleine McCann's so-called abductor did not leave 5A in time to be spotted by Jane Tanner at 9.15 p.m., then he could not have been seen by her.
He might perhaps have left later (via the patio) in time to be seen by the Smiths, but only with a different child, or Madeleine in a change of clothes, and having successfully hidden himself from Matthew Oldfield's view in the meantime (Not difficult. He had only to sit silently on Madeleine's bed. But he would not have known that!).
In any event Gerry McCann was 'fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21h05 and Matthew's visit at 21h30.
Why would the culprit wait twenty minutes or more before leaving the scene?
They wouldn't.
And even if they did, is it not highly improbable that two significant sightings, the only two in fact, should have been of innocent parties, whilst the individual actually carrying Madeleine through the streets of Praia da Luz went unnoticed?
No mysterious unforeseen abductor can have emerged from 5A between 9.00 and 10.00 that night.
The only people to do so were those that actually entered the apartment.
It has been pointed out before now (A Line in The Sand: McCannFiles, 19 March) that the one thing neither the McCanns nor their legal representatives would be able to fend off would be a proof, evidential or logical, that their daughter Madeleine could not have been abducted during the one hour in which they suppose it to have happened.
Such a conclusion would lead, inevitably, to a chain of postulates: 'Not abducted' between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. would mean 'not abducted at all,' since she was reported alive at 9.05 and her parents were present in the apartment after 10.00.
'Not abducted' would mean Madeleine is dead and her parents are aware that that is so.
Parental awareness of Madeleine's true fate would reveal subsequent, unremitting emphasis on abduction to have been a ploy.
An effort to conceal Madeleine's death, having been publicly acknowledged by the parents as unnecessary in the event of an accident, would mean that, rather than accidental, something deliberate may have occurred to bring about fatality.
For its own sake Society owes it to victims past, and as an endeavour to safeguard those who might become victims, to demonstrate that the avoidable death of a child is unacceptable, much less that those responsible should go on to profit from it with their continued liberty or, worse yet, financially.
Whether inspired by the McCanns or not, a spate of recent 'abductions' is evidence of a disturbing trend in peoples' perception of what they might get away with.
It cannot be allowed to continue.
Otherwise we are as good as signing the death warrants of 'at risk' children everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)