14 Sep 2008

THE GREAT DETECTIVE JOHN DOE

The Interviewer: A big welcome to you . I first became aware of your interest in this case via your well thought out posts in Internet Forums. What was it that made you become so interested in this case?

Mr John Doe

John Doe: More or less from Day One, I thought there was something very odd about the case.

For a start, I heard the parents were checking their children ‘every 15 minutes’, then ‘every hour’, then ‘every half hour’ etc. The idea that they would all be getting up in turn to check on their own children like that during a meal or drinking session struck me as strange behaviour.

Then I saw them on TV gallivanting round the world, meeting the Pope, going to America, being interviewed on German TV and so on. I wondered if their young twins were with them on these trips, and I discovered that mostly they were not. I saw one clip of the McCanns taking two very quiet and submissive-looking twins to the nursery in Praia da Luz so that the parents (their own words) could ‘carry on campaigning’. I would have thought that having lost one precious child, they would want to spend every possible moment with the other two.

I thought no more about it particularly until journalists started asking questions and watched the McCanns’ nervous reactions. Then as there were rumours about the McCanns becoming suspects, like tens of thousands of others I became interested in the case and wondered if the police, the Pope, and the public had all been victims of one almighty hoax. I noted that Gerry McCann was already talking about ‘a long-term political campaign’ and ‘a ‘wider agenda’ and again this seemed strange, as if he never expected to get his daughter back.

Since, I’ve researched the Madeleine McCann case avidly, and pretty soon realised that the parents - and probably their friends - knew exactly what had happened to Madeleine on 3rd May -but had perpetrated a cunning hoax on the media and the public.

The Interviewer: Do you think Kate and Gerry McCann should be prosecuted for their neglectful attitude towards all of their children?

John Doe: It is not so much their ‘neglectful attitude’ as the facts of what happened during their stay in Praia da Luz. According to public statements on TV, on the radio and in the press, and indeed in Gerry McCann’s own blog, the McCanns left their children night after night on their own in Praia da Luz whilst they were out eating and drinking. Six nights in a row, and no mention of ‘checking every half-hour’ -until we get to what is claimed to have happened on the evening of 3rd May. These were three very young children, all aged under 4.

Anything could have happened. They could have woken up and become frightened. They could have had a fall, wandering about in the dark. Fire could have broken out. In many similar cases, the parents have been prosecuted and either fined, placed on community service orders, or even imprisoned. I cannot understand why Leicestershire Social Services and Leicestershire Police have failed to prosecute in this case.

British law which covers this is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which covers such things as leaving very young children unattended. Various categories of neglect are classed in this Act as ‘child neglect’ or ‘child cruelty’. You can get a copy of it on the Net.

In recent weeks in the U.K, parents were successfully prosecuted for leaving a toddler alone in a car for just half-an-hour. In another case, the parents went out all night drinking leaving a 9-year-old on his own .He was found wandering the streets the next day looking for them. Again, they were successfully prosecuted. So why not the McCanns?

The Interviewer: Do you think Kate and Gerry are receiving top-level support from the upper echelons of British society?

John Doe: Well, we know for certain that Gerry McCann had several conversations with Gordon Brown about his missing daughter, just before he became our Prime Minister. And we learnt that it was ‘only after an intervention by Gordon Brown’ that the Portuguese police - most reluctantly and perhaps against their better judgment - allowed Gerry McCann to make that strange announcement of a possible description of an abductor.

Virtually all we were told by Mr. McCann was that the abductor was a man of about 5′ 7″ of medium build. The Portuguese police wanted nothing to do with it, as this description was based entirely on a dubious description given by his friend Jane Tanner which lacked credibility for a number of reasons. Yet it was Gordon Brown’s initiative that persuaded the Portuguese police to go along with Gerry McCann giving out even this scarcely credible description.

More recently, our new Home Secretary, the inexperienced Jacqui Smith, called on the Portuguese police to ‘find Madeleine’ and ‘focus on the search for Madeleine’ etc. instead of bothering the McCanns. I found this most odd, given that the McCanns are prime suspects in what may turn out to be a suspicious death, and that the McCanns had refused to answer the police’s questions, despite repeatedly maintaining to the world that they had ‘nothing to hide’.

Why did she not simply say: “I advise the McCanns to co-operate fully with the police and answer their questions”?

We than have to consider that two high-profile millionaires, Sir Richard Branson and Brian Kennedy, have promised large amounts of help towards the McCanns’ legal fees. On top of that, the British media has totally failed to analyse this case properly and seems to lean favourably towards the latest press releases and ’spin’ from the McCanns’ PR man, Clarence Mitchell. Again, another cause of concern is that prior to helping the McCanns, Mr. Mitchell was the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit at our Foreign Office.

There may be much that we don’t know going on behind the scenes of this compelling drama being played out before our very eyes. But it might be a reasonable guess that the British government for one reason or another might be putting pressure on the Portuguese police to drop this case.

After all, Gordon Brown admitted he had discussed the case with the Portuguese government when he was in Lisbon for the European Union summit in October.

The Interviewer: Do you have any thoughts or explanations as to why the McCanns would have wanted to hire Michael Caplan QC?

John Doe: Michael Caplan Q.C. became famous as the lawyer engaged to represent General Pinochet, the former dictator of Chile. He was in Great Britain and the Chilean government wanted him extradited to Chile on account of those killed or missing during the repression under his government. Caplan is an expert in extradition proceedings. It is possible that the Portuguese government may require the McCanns to return to Portugal for further questioning, or to face trial.

In that case, under internationally-agreed European Union procedures, they would issue what is called a ‘European Arrest Warrant’. No doubt Caplan would be about the best person in Britain to help the McCanns to resist such an application.

The Interviewer: If the McCanns are charged and subsequently found guilty, what are the implications of that for the Madeleine Fund?

John Doe: The ‘Find Madeleine Fund’ was founded on the basis that it was to help find Madeleine and then to help other abducted children. It was set up not as a charity but as a private limited liability trust - the Find Madeleine Fund Trust. It is therefore technically answerable to no-one, except that it has to file a summary of their accounts at Companies House each year - nothing too onerous.

After the McCanns had already collected a large amount of money from private donations, they then announced that the Trustees had decided that the Fund could be used to ‘help the McCann family with expenses’. This has already been used to pay two of the McCanns’ mortgage payments on their house, amounting to £4,000, emphatically NOT what people gave the money for.

As I understand it, the running of the Fund would be basically unaffected if they were charged with an offence; after all, you are deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But if they were to be found guilty of murder, manslaughter or even lesser offences like disposing of a body or perverting the course of justice, that would suggest that the whole of the Find Madeleine Fund had been a deliberate fraud from the word ‘go’ (as I personally believe today).

In that case, I would expect the McCanns to be prosecuted in this country for ‘obtaining money by deception’. And it’s a large amount of money too. About £2 million has been donated to the Fund to date.

The Interviewer: From your own independent research have you found any anomalies you’d like to share with us?

John Doe: One point that sticks out a mile is the number of straightforward contradictions in the case - and the number of times the McCanns and others have had to change their stories. These are two tell-tale signs of dishonesty and a cover-up of the truth.

In recounting events of any one incident, there may of course be minor inconsistencies in people’s recollections, one always has to allow for that. But not major contradictions.

To give just one example, the McCanns originally claimed to their relatives and to the police that the apartment shutter had been ‘jemmied open’ by the abductor. The McCanns and their spokesmen claimed at the time that the abductor climbed in through the window, after forcing open the shutters, and then unlocked the patio door and walked out of that with Madeleine.

But when it became abundantly clear from what both the police and Mark Warner’s said about the shutters NOT having been forced, the McCanns craftily changed their version of events to say that they now thought the abductor came through the patio door (which they now thought was unlocked rather than locked), and climbed out of the window with Madeleine.

Moreover, Gerry McCann now claims that when he supposedly checked on his children at 9.05pm (I am personally doubtful that he did), he popped his head round the door but couldn’t recall if he saw Madeleine sleeping. He now adds that he thinks the abductor was hiding behind the door, quietly, as he checked (!).

Unbelievable, really, but this change of theory was really forced on the McCanns when their original claims that the shutters had been forced open were exposed as untrue.

Either their first story was untrue. Or the ‘new’ story. Or, of course, both.

There were reports in September that the Portuguese police were trying to work out where Madeleine was during a ‘missing six hours’ between about 2pm in the afternoon and 8pm that evening. I’d advise those looking at the anomalies in this case to consider that all the reported ’sightings’ we have been told about by third parties concerning Madeleine that afternoon may be untrue.

We cannot even be certain that Kate McCann’s ‘last photograph’ of Madeleine, reportedly at 2.29pm, is genuine. There have been claims that Madeleine may have been ‘added in’ using Photoshop techniques, from another photograph, and even that the time may be a forgery. Nothing is quite what it seems in this bizarre case.

I would also advise that there is a high degree of probability that most of the statements made by the McCanns and the rest of the ‘Tapas 9′ about events from 8pm to 10pm on 3rd May are untrue. There are many tell-tale signs that their stories are made up.

Look for example at Jane Tanner’s original ’sighting’ of a man with an egg-shaped head, possibly carrying something in a blanket. Then, three weeks later, to suit the needs of the McCanns, she comes up with a sudden recollection of far more details than before - a child in pink pyjamas etc.

And I don’t for one minute buy Dr Russell O’Brien’s excuse for why he was so late at the table that night. He says that his child was vomiting so badly that he had to make sure she was all right - and order a change of sheets. Then, we are told, he comes down to the Tapas bar, to join his mates in a drinking session. Either he is lying, or he is a cruel man. And I would like to know the REAL reason why there had to be a change of sheets that night.

There are many many more anomalies in this case. Sadly, there is much more good quality information about this case on Internet blogs and forums than there is in our newspapers. No wonder their sales are plummeting.

The Interviewer: Thank you Mr. Doe.

29 comments:

Ecolab said...

Thanks docmac

Eddie & Keela in 5a

It's much more informative than the Sun one, you are right

Ecolab said...

Things are getting a little ruff now, and I`m very angry with the McCanns spinning maschine.


"A while ago, I wrote something about bodylanguage espcially the facial expressions of Kate and Gerry. I anylised a video from YouTube.

This analyse(nothing wrong with it)I cant find."

I have a request, if anybody knows, where it is? I can`t find it myselv?


I would like so much to pep it up, now where I have improved my English writing skills, and put it in a more puplic place, too.

Can anyone help me?

Regards
M

ps. The McCanns are some big huge liars

*Justice for Maddie*

docmac said...

Hi Ecolab, where did you find that? :-))
Regarding your question, is it perhaps your post on the article from December 26th 2007?

Had a quick look at some news while the outlaws and the rest of their guests pile into more lunch.

I discovered that 'Kate's Diary' has been printed by NOTW. I have not managed to read all of the extracts yet, but it is so obviously faked it deserves no further comment really. One thing I would like to know is why it suddenly starts on April 28, 2007. We have all read previously that the 'diary' was started after May 3rd after advice from Aunty P (or a psychologist, depending on which news report is to be believed).

The first entry printed was supposedly written on May 3rd:

THURSDAY, MAY 3: Milk and biscuits for the kids. I left them with this and books and games and went to have a quick shower/wash my hair. M (Madeleine) tired—sitting on my lap—I read the story of Mog (favourite children’s book).

Brush teeth. To the bedroom with the kids. M pulls away and puts her head on pillow. Kisses goodnight for M. Pulled the door to as far as possible without shutting it. Silence.

Dry hair. Put make-up on. Glass of wine. Restaurant.


Is that it? So when did 'you' write this entry then? This and subsequent entries are patently rubbish and a rather poor attempt at reinforcing their 'alibis' and 'innocence'. The only word in the whole 'entry' that I agree with is 'silence'. NOTW readers and other sheep will lap it up though. Pathetic attempt. Next.

BBFN

bath theory said...

Obviously faked to anyone who has the ability to eat solid foods.

Ecolab said...

docmac thanks

It was not the right one, but it has to be close to that date. Found some other stuff, thanks to you.

But I do think, it was this interview

http://video.news.sky.com/skynews/video/?&videoSourceID=1279448

I`ll make a little thing with the one " . . . take us trough your feelings, when someone says, they definitely seen Madeleine"

It was something about Gerry seeing a ghost!

nancy said...

Docmac -

I have a feeing this diary has been raked up to coincide with the printing of GA's story into English. They wanted to get something in print before him.

Where Kate said to Madeleine:

We would never 'intentionally' do anything to harm you Madeleine. Does that mean it was an accident then Kate?

I hope your party is going with a swing!!

nancy said...

Ecolab -

Glad to see you are still on 3A's and it was only a thread they pulled!

Your English has come on in leaps and bounds too.

nancy said...

Did anyone notice that Kate quickly skimmed over her 'interview' with the PJ's and failed to mention she didn't answer the questions because her Portuguese lawyer had advised against it! She obviously didn't want to bring that up.

bath theory said...

In legal advocacy a lawyer will advise and persuade third parties their client is in the right.

Legal advocates and also PR personnel are trained to listen to what their clients wish to say and explain to others what they need and what they want.

These hugely expensive people the Mcscammers have around them are effectively paid to keep them out of prison.

In general cases where no body has been found then the evidence would mostly come from eyewitnesses. However, what if you had say a rich backer who personally went to see such eyewitnesses and paid them off. No body no witnesses to testify no time behind bars.

Just one further question. Has a rich backer turned up to speak to Eddie & keela yet?

JFM - whether 'intentionally' or 'accidentally'

nancy said...

Ecolab and Docmac -

Thanks for the video link to Sky when the McCanns were in Portugal.

I thought how glamorous they both looked considering what they were supposed to be going through, and the photo of Kate on the front page of the bog paper today sees her looking completely worry free. It's not the face of a mother completely devastated by the loss of her daughter.

Whereas most parents would have aged considerably after their dreadful experience, these two seem to get better looking as time goes by!

Pathetic child neglecters.

Kate was asked what she would say to Madeleine if she was there.

She mumbled something about M knowing that she loved her.

A normal grieving Mum would have said something like:

"Madeleine darling - we are so sorry we left you to go out and enjoy ourselves every night - it's our fault you were abducted by a paedophile. We are so glad you are back and we won't ever let you out of our sight again!"

How anyone can believe a word these two says beggars belief!

nancy said...

Bath Theory -

You could be right about the pay-offs to witnesses and a certain double glazing salesman springs to mind!

It might be more than just a pay off though, because after all these witnesses could tell their stories to all the rags and make a lot of money

Perhaps it was more threatening than that!!

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Nancy

He probably threatened to replace their windows with his own product.

nancy said...

ICTOAN -

LOL!

I know one thing - if ever I need replacement windows again, I'll give his a wide berth! He is a real ducker and diver in my opinion!

Di said...

Good evening all

So milk, biscuits, story, then silence. I wonder what was in the milk then??

Hi Ecolab

You are doing some great investigating, keep up the good work. I await with interest the next microfilm report :o))

Di said...

Posted by Ecolab on 3A's

I never read the Mirror forum so never saw this. It is a very odd coincidence!!

Posted by Ecolab..


Pulled from the Mirror before it got deleted.

This child does seem to have been born some months before Madeleine but it is interesting the birth is registered in Somerset – - - - - - Exeter, Somerset - the home of Tanner and O'Brien!



”I was looking for the birth details of Madeleine, Sean and Amelie on ancestry.co.uk - you can look up the registration details (not actual birth dates) plus mother's maiden names...

I found Madeleine, Sean and Amelie, but I also discovered another child registered as being born, in January 2003, to a father whose last name is McCann, and a mother whose last name is Healy. The place is registration is Somerset.

I wonder how many McCann - Healy couples there are out there? I looked up marriage records and there is only one couple with those surnames who were married between 1984 and 2005. It is possible the couple with the same last names were not married, so there would be no record.

I also looked up death registrations, and there is no record of this child dying between 2003 and 2005. So this child is still alive.

I won't post the child's name because of privacy issues.

The obvious question comes to mind, if this child is registered in january 2003, and is the daughter of Gerry and Kate, how could Madeleine's birth be registered in June 2003 and her birthday be in May 2003?

Were these two children actually twins, and were actually born in January 2003 (not May)?

I apologise in advance if this child turns out to be completely unrelated to Gerry and Kate, but it is very interesting nonetheless. "



>>>>>>>>>>>
Rules about birth registration?

Civil registrations works like this:

A child had to be registered within 42 days after birth at a register office

The registers are divided into quarters and then sent to St Catherine's House in London for each quarter Jan- March; April -June; Julyy- September: October - December.

So, for example, if a child is born on 15 of March, it may not show up intil the April-June quarter, if they didn't register the child in the month of March. (remembering that they have 42 days to do so)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Regards
M



*Justice for Maddie

Di said...

I can't quite get my head round this one, but the coincidences of the names Kate & Gerry & McCann & Healy, what are the chances of that bizarre!!

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Birth Registrations in Somerset are done in Bridgewater, Shepton Mallet, Taunton, Willton and Yeovil.

Exeter is in Devon.

Normally registrations are done near to the place of birth.

I'm not sure what happens to a child born abroad but imagine that would be done at the relevant British Embassy.

Di said...

Just saw this posted by William1 on 3A's. It was in answer to why, did the dog handler seem to be guideing the dogs.

Hi Nit +Wit,

Just read your concern regarding Eddie's handler and the Scenic. I understand why you comment on it, and I'm sure a lot of other people would note this and wonder too. The dog knows it's job, and the scent it is trained to find. It's excited and full of energy and bounce - it's happy to be 'working.' The job of the handler is to aid and guide the dog. If Eddie was sent in without his handler the dog would probably run around from, in this case, car to car, and not properly focus, be easily distracted. The handler must ensure that the dog works thoroughly and is given every chance of locating the scent. The dog will NOT alert if the required scent isn't present, thinking 'Aha, I may get my treat if I pretend the death scent is here..anything for a free bonio!' That is the beauty of using dogs and not humans, who probably would.. So, it is very much required of the handler to persist in focussing the dog and returning it to the object in question, enough times. Even if the handler had commanded Eddie to the Scenic 1001 times - the dog still would NOT have alerted if the death scent was not present. I have asked this question too of my friend who is a Police dog handler. I cant convince you as he did me - but all I can say is he truly convinced me of this

Di said...

Hopefully the other side will now understand the amazeing abilities of these dogs.

Please remember they have 100% track record. In otherwords the dogs are never WRONG!! and more importantly they have NEVER BEEN WRONG!!

Wake up!! How much longer are you going to support this couple who have absolutely no loving parental feelings for Madeleine. Kate's words in her diary COMPANION!!

If I was describing my daughter it would be, beautiful, full of life and fun, a pleasure to have her in my life, my best friend, if I lost her, my life would never be the same.

Sorry Kate are they your words??

Di said...

Off now to watch some tv.

Going back to Wales tomorrow but will catch up there.

Enjoy your evening.

docmac said...

Di

William1 has it spot on. Don't expect it to convince anyone with a closed mind however.

Like I said a couple of days ago, if the dog/s had reacted in that manner in Murat's apartment and car, any right-thinking person would have had to have believed him to be guilty. I would have been the first to put my hands up.

docmac said...

Also off for some TV.

BBFN

viv said...

Hiya all

Eco, thanks for a great new thread and lovely to see you back. I have not seen this interview before but agree with almost everything he says which makes a lot of sense.

For me, the fact that the McCanns told both their friends and relatives that the shutters were damaged and the window jemmied from a break in to get Madeleine and then had to change their story to say they left the door open always told me quite categorically this couple are a couple of guilty liars! As it progressed of course we also got the contradictory stories from another wicked fantacist, Jane Tanner, not only very wicked to seek to waste police time investigating the death/disappearance of a little girl, but also in her blatant attempts which she later sought to retract on Panorama to frame Robert Murat. I believe she definitely deserves custody for this. Maxine Carr went down and in my book, Tanner's conduct has an additional element to it, in not only seeking to exculpate the guilty man (who Carr was very afraid of ), cause extreme distress and waste police time, Tanner also sought to frame someone who was completely innocent. I think she deserves five years and cannot understand how or why she was persuaded to do this, I can only conclude it may be linked to her own partner's conduct in this matter. As the above article explains you just do not go out and leave a sick child AT ALL EVER, IN FACT YOU NEVER LEAVE A FOUR YEAR OLD ANYWAY!

I can only conclude he was assisting Gerry McCann in finding an immediate hiding place for Madeleine's body. Gerry would have pointed out how much trouble they were in, I have no doubt, so Jane felt compelled to "keep a lid on it" as it were. I would not show her any mercy at all if I were the Judge, she is the mother of a little girl the same age and behaved in a callous and sickening way. Would she really want her own child just disposed of in such a terrible way? I do not think so!

Totally incredible liars!



xx

ICantThinkOfAName said...

Viv

Am I right in thinking that it would not be possible to convict Tanner unless a conviction of the McCanns rules out an abduction.

viv said...

Hiya ICTOAN

Yes of course you are right, in such cases Tanner would be charged with perverting the course of justice as a subsidiary offender to the principal ones and there would probably be just one trial encompassing all defendants.

My understanding is the Portuguese Police have already categorically stated there was no abduction! It would of course be necessary to produce evidence that Tanner actually intended to pervert the course of justice and I am assuming that ultimately the police would be able to prove this, principally due to her changing her account to implicate Murat but it is hard to hazard a guess what else they may have!

xx

viv said...

I would just like to add that it is not reasonable to suggest that members of LP or UK gov are seeking to let the McCanns off, they would be committing extremely serious offences e.g. I think they would rather prosecute the McCanns!

R v Donald [1997] 2 Cr App R (S) 272 - the defendant was a detective constable who accepted various sums (totalling £18,500) from a man who was the subject of criminal proceedings in return for the disclosure of confidential information about the inquiry and to destroy surveillance logs. He received a sentence of 11 years imprisonment.

viv said...

but we should remember that this is precisely what Kate and Gerry McCann admit will happen for helpful information and Clarence Mitchell admitted that M3 had "paid" witnesses. To suggest there is not bribery and corruption involved in this case would be very naive, but that corruption involves the McCanns using their private detectives to harass prosecution witnesses and "paying" defence witnesses which is just not a good idea, at all!

xx

viv said...

just who is it, that is pointing the bribery and corruption figure at Mr Grimes, the Portuguese Police, LP and UK government, I believe the two who are organising it all with their many benefactors and advisors who have nothing to do with the police or the government. The only former connection being Mitchell, who is not welcome back as an employee of the government.

viv said...

*finger* not figure lol, but throwing a few figures around must have been on my mind and affected my typing! What serious business these Fund directors are involved in, good luck to the ones who had the decorum to er leave! I think that Smethurst who jumped in and even appeared on the Panorama soap docu looks and acts in a very smutty way and would have a job working as a solicitor elsewhere methinks! Sue me, tee hee, just my opinion, Mr Smethurst:-))))