'No limit' to Met's Madeleine probe
God Bless little Maddie and may you finally pay the price.
24 May 2011 01:08pm
Scotland Yard is putting no limits on its review of the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance, Britain's top policeman has said.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said his force's re-examination of the case would be a "significant piece of work" that could produce recommendations about new lines of inquiry.
Critics claim the decision to bring in Met detectives to review the evidence about what happened to the little girl has undermined the force's independence and diverted resources from other crime victims.
But Sir Paul said it was "the right thing to do" and pledged that Scotland Yard would carry out a thorough appraisal of the original investigation into Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal more than four years ago.
"We are not putting any limits on it at this moment in time," he said. "We have no timescales yet because we haven't produced the scoping. It will be a significant piece of work."
No Metropolitan Police officers have travelled to Portugal so far but they are in talks with the Portuguese authorities.
Madeleine was nearly four when she went missing from her family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on May 3, 2007 as her parents Kate and Gerry dined with friends nearby.
Portuguese detectives, helped by officers from Leicestershire Police, carried out a massive investigation into her disappearance. But the official inquiry was formally shelved in July 2008 and since then no police force has been actively looking for the missing child.
Scotland Yard's review of the case, which will be funded by the Home Office, was launched earlier this month after a request from Home Secretary Theresa May supported by Prime Minister David Cameron.
It is being led by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of the Met's Homicide and Serious Crime Command. Sir Paul said the final report would not be published.
Related Stories
- 17 May 2011 Madeleine 'could be found alive'
- 15 May 2011 Madeleine probe 'a ludicrous waste'
- 12 May 2011 Madeleine case decision criticised
- 10 May 2011 Madeleine kidnap shook mum's faith
- 2 May 2011 McCanns mark Madeleine anniversary
31 comments:
Thank goodness for some sensible and honest reporting on this for a change instead of The Sun's ludicrous claims about a McCann letter to the PM.
They wrote that for one simple reason, to try and suggest this was on their initiative. The reality is they are under investigation like never before and this time, I believe the Met will Leave No Stone Unturned in determining precisely what this gruesome couple did with their lovely little girl.
Let us hope the McCann's days of mercilessly cashing in on their own little girl that they got rid of are now severely numbered. Maybe they will stop bullying and threatening people too!
Kate recently commented, in relation to internet bloggers who plainly do not like them, "As Gerry said, we would like to know who these people are". It is you who needs to be afraid, Kate, we did nothing wrong.
I am beginning to understand why the red dress picture of Madeleine has always been so important to their campaign (even though it looks nothing like other pictures of her and is clearly of a much younger child than Madeleine was)
"Relatives have released posters drawing attention to a distinctive marking in the youngster's right eye.
They hope that the picture - which clearly shows how Madeleine's pupil runs into her blue-green iris - will make her easily recognisable."
In fairness to the McCanns though, they have NEVER said Maddie had a coloboma, some bloggers who care not for accuracy invented that one.
But the reality is it is just a small fleck in her eye, surely not what we can see and they describe in the red dress pic. This has been the pinnacle of the McCanns absolutely sickening marketing of their child, to become multi millionaires, that has clearly always been the aim, what with books and films and the initial targeting of football clubs and oil companies. Additionally, the McCanns have always thought big, as with Kate's current book, this is a worldwide business enterprise. The McCanns are so dissimilar to ordinary loving parents they never fail to just stagger me. So disordered only the rest of the world sees them as abnormal, in their own insular little world all their plans make sense, or at least they did till London Met climbed on board. That will not stop Gerry spinning however, he will NEVER give up, it isnot his nature to. Keep him in prison till he is 100 he will still be saying tis a terrible miscarriage.
This is the unrepresentative picture that Kate has chosen to use on the cover of her book and I noted on the Cutting Edge Channel 4 documentary was given pride of place on her desk.
It is that Kate wants the best marketing image or is it that Kate only wants a perfect beautiful child hence the markeup and hair dyes on a two /three y.o.
We know that the image Kate should actually be cherishing is the one of Maddie clutching her tennis balls the genuine last pic of Maddie on the Portuguese Police files. Sadly here we see the reality, some sort of a burn mark on her wrist and terrible bags under her eyes. Poor little Madeleine.
Di has emailed to say she is having difficulty posting this ( I entirely agree Di and hope you can get back on soon)xxx:
I have looked in my local Tesco and Sainsbury's but as yet have not seen the book, not that I intend to buy it. I suppose the pros would say this is because it is flying off the shelves and the publisher cannot keep up with the demand hmmm.
I think the comments on Amazon speak for themselves, most people are not fooled.
Family and friends are shocked, and myself likewise, that Kate says she wrote this book for the twins and Madeleine to read. Kate shows herself to be one classy lady, not!
WE all make silly tongue in cheek posts on this case from time to time, myself included.
It seems a real shame that some of the very best posters on MM get unceremoniously banned for it, including Porky and Weary who were clearly intelligent, amusing and insightful on this case.
Sometimes what goes on over there is anyone's guess, but public lynchings for one stupid remark, oh dear!
Demented Kate is not going to take a very resolute legal NO to shutting Amaral up. Once the law turns against you on a case Kate there is no going back, a lesson you clearly need to learn. Attacking Goncalo with your book wealth is not money well spent in defending yourself, it just confirms to the Portuguese people in particular something really horrible about you and your husband.
Just like with the British Police Kate, you really cannot win!
Annabel Today at 13:31
http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2011/05/kate-mccann-book-libel-case-against.html
On page 346 Kate McCann goes into detail regarding taking Mr Amaral to court to have his book and DVD banned, how they had initially won and later how, on 19th October 2010, the Appeal court had reversed the injunction and lifted the ban.
On page 347 she continues with her explanation:
“The latest verdict was that Amaral’s poisonous allegations did not damage our investigation in any way and nor did they affect our human rights. Common sense tells us otherwise. How could spreading the word that a child is dead not damage the search for her? There was more waffle about the injunction contradicting the constitution of Portugal and undermining democracy by prohitibing free speech. Does this mean that a person could go out and start accusing their next-door neighbour of being a serial killer? As I understand freedom of speech, it does not equate to freedom to slander and libel someone with impunity.
It was impossible to comprehend. I felt utterly beaten. In a sixth decision on 2011, our appeal against the reversal of the injunction was rejected. We are at a loss to understand why, but we struggle on. We plan to appeal against this latest decision and a libel case against Amaral is pending.”
Sixth decision? Does this mean that the McCann couple have already expended monies on six appeals and lost? How much money does that equate to I wonder?
Obviously another libel case on the horizon means more money needed – funds are depleting rapidly and donations have plummeted. It doesn’t take much to work out where the money for the next lot of court fees will be coming from (the sale of Kate's book is doing quite well). But it has to be asked why they continue to expend vast amounts of money (presumably from the ‘search for’ Madeleine Fund) on yet another court battle, especially as the people of Europe – with the exception of the UK – have already bought the book. Not to mention the fact the British public (being unable to buy the book) have already read it online.
Perhaps they feel that if they can get Mr Amaral’s book and DVD banned once more then they will somehow feel forgiven and have a banner to wave at the public declaring they had nothing to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.
On Page 346, Kate asks: “how many appeals is Amaral going to be allowed?” So far as I can tell he has made one appeal and that was to overturn the McCann ban on his book and DVD.
But the same could be asked of the McCann couple. The answer (going by Kate’s book) is that it seems they have already attempted six appeals – and lost.
Sometimes their reasoning dumbfounds me.
Posted by Sasha at 12:07
Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz
The McCanns have spent the last four years dredging up decidedly dodgy "evidence" of creepy men and bombarded British and Portuguese Police with all this rubbish to waste their time and slow down their genuine inquiries.
Now we have certain posters who are indicating an intention to send their videos and ideas on this case to Scotland Yard. I WOULD APPEAL TO EVERYONE BLOGGING ABOUT THIS CASE TO NOT WASTE THEIR TIME AND LET THEM GET ON WITH THE IMPORTANT JOB OF GETTING TO THE TRUTH
UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY HAVE FIRST HAND EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE MCCANNS OR THEIR FRIENDS DID, LEAVE THE MET ALONE PLEASE, THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!
If I were the suspicious type (which of course I am) I would say this post last night is what got Weary the boot, too near to the truth.
weary Yesterday at 9:36 pm
As I've said elsewhere, I've been thinking that the latest news story in which Sir Paul Stephenson says there will be no limits to SY's search, everything will be looked at, and it won't be made public, is in part a message to Kate and Gerry: "We're looking at everything, if we're given the PJ's permission: everything LP has, and the Fund, too. We may also subpoena the accounts for the Fund, your bank accounts, your credit card records, medical records, the children's medical records, Social Services' reports on the twins, or anything else we regard as potentially informative." The Portuguese were limited in what they could do, as I understand it; they were refused certain records, and they couldn't force the T9 to return for a reconstruction. I think that SY will have more power, within Britain; if SY makes a case that the McCanns' credit card records, etc., are worth examining, I think they'll get what they ask for as a routine matter.
I'm assuming that this is initially a review and fact finding mission, and making charges comes when they've asked all the questions they want to and gotten all the papers they want to examine. That suggests to me that SY may require people who have already been interviewed to be interviewed again. When SY says they're going to look at everything, I think that means "Once we've looked at everything, we may still have questions, and if so, we'll interview anyone who might be able to shed light on our questions, whether it's your friends, neighbors, work colleagues, or you--anybody who can answer our questions. If we have questions about the T9's statements, we'll ask them to come down to the station. Of course, all of you have the right to have an attorney present; but such interviews aren't optional. 'It's not convenient for me' won't work. When you were in Portugal, you had to go to the police for interviews if the PJ requested it, but they were hampered by legal BS when you skipped the country. That's not a problem for us now that you're in the UK. If we want you, we'll call you, and you'll come to the office at the time you're told to come. Sit and sweat."
I imagine that if British people are potential suspects in a case, their attorneys tell them and their "spokesman" to shut up, because things they say may be used against them. The McCanns may not like that, but it's what any sensible attorney would advise. (A sensible attorney would also see them as a complete nightmare because they can't keep their stories straight, have talked and written way too much, and may have shot themselves in the feet so many times they don't have toes any more. But anyhow:) If they're re-interviewed they will virtually certainly be told not to discuss the interview, because anybody who discusses an interview jeopardizes a case. I'm assuming it's much like the US--doing so can get you serious jail time.
Am I right in thinking that Clarence hasn't had anything to say about the McCanns in the very recent past, the McCanns haven't spoken to the British press since before they left for Portugal, and no one "close to the McCanns" has said anything about them in the recent press, either? What I am wondering is, HAVE THEY HAD TO SHUT UP BECAUSE OF THE SY INVESTIGATION??? Can we look forward to them NOT making statements, releasing balloons, asking for funds, calling the press at Christmas and Madeleine's birthday? Has SY muzzled them?
Pleased to see Bren has been spotted posing as Marosiala (alias!) on Slipping Through my Fingers.
But what makes people think she has actually changed sides? She has always attacked me (apart from when I was prepared to bleat some rubbish about dogs) and most importantly, she has always attacked Leicester Police and CEOP.
Does it not occur 3 As was a place to house all the genuine people like me who want justice (haters) and spread the McCann propaganda, they make a lot of money out of silly doggy stories. And as for Tony Bennett.,..! She signed his barmy letters to the House of Commons..
Maybe people should think back and try and explain to themselves why she posed as other posters to pick on other poster and why she ultimately just like Bonnybraes would not tolerate anyone talking about "sexual abuse", that is libellous don't you know.
Quite when people are going to wake up, stop slagging off the police and see they have been had, I am not sure, but do keep trying. London Met are for real, no matter what they tell you!
I think it would be reasonable to assume that Sir Paul believes he is presiding over the investigation of a murder case...Re-spinning this for the McCanns is a tricky one!
In the Telegraph today:
"Sir Paul Stephenson: Falling murder rate allowed Maddy investigation to proceed
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police yesterday revealed that he decided to take on the Madeleine McCann investigation because London’s falling murder rate meant that he had detectives spare.
Sir Paul said that Scotland Yard's experience and expertise meant that they were the perfect force to lead a review into the Portuguese investigation in Madeleine's disappearance Photo: APBy Mark Hughes, Crime Correspondent 6:51PM BST 26 May 2011
Follow Mark Hughes on Twitter
Sir Paul Stephenson has previously denied that Scotland Yard was forced to investigate the case by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.
The Commissioner has stressed that he made the decision and there was no political interference from David Cameron.
Yesterday, under questioning from Metropolitan Police Authority members, he detailed his reasoning for taking on the investigation.
Sir Paul said that one of the reasons is the number of murders in London – which has fallen to 124 in 2011 from 172 per year in 2006.
He explained that it meant there is now no need for 24 murder teams across the capital and the number will be reduced in the next nine months, leaving experienced detectives free to take on the McCann case".
This vile character John Cooper, burgled raped and murdered people and for him, thankfully the Judge has announced today life will actually mean life.
Not that he is admitting anything of course, watch the video, where he immediately has to have a good tug of his itchy ear when the blood rushes to it as the police finally ask him, will you tell us...
I know of someone else who always has to grab his ear in times of trouble. Gerry McScam.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-13538545
At the trial of Cooper the Prosecuting Barrister said:
Mr Elias said police forces routinely re-examined unsolved murder cases and in early 2006 "a cold case" review into the murders was set-up.
Times nearly up Gerry.
Cooper screamed at the jury
"you have been at the internet".
Instrumental violence:
Instrumental violence is goal-oriented aggression or violence that occurs as a by-product of an individual’s attempting to achieve a superordinate goal. Early 20th-century theorist Edward Thorndike’s law of effect is useful in understanding the nature of instrumental abuse, as it is based on the observation that many behaviors appear to be efforts to obtain some desired results or avoid the occurrence of other unwelcome outcomes. Such goal-oriented behaviors are labeled “instrumental” because they appear to be deliberate attempts to achieve specific results.
Instrumental behaviors are common in interactions between two people, occurring whenever one person attempts to influence the other to act or refrain from acting in specific ways. In this sense, these behaviors lie at the core of reciprocal exchanges. However, when the tactics of influence are covert, overly harsh, and entirely one-way, behaviors that might have shaped and sustained relationships can become abusive and destroy intimacy.
The primary motivation for instrumental abuse appears to be manipulating another person to comply with a demand for access to some asset (e.g., money, power). As with all coercive behavior, the force behind instrumental aggression is threatened or actual delivery of some feared consequence. This could be threatened or actual violence toward the other or objects valued by the other, refusal to engage in interactions desired by the other, or forms of withdrawal including ending the relationship. Physical harm may be a product of instrumental abuse.
In theory, instrumental abuse may fall on a continuum between maliciously destructive predatory abuse, in which the primary aim is to injure the other person, and affective abuse, in which the goal is essentially self-protection or the expression of emotion, albeit through aggression. It should be noted that some have conceptualized this continuum as simply ranging from expressive to instrumental abuse. In certain cases, it may be difficult to determine whether a specific act of violence is instrumental or expressive, as some behaviors may share the characteristics of both.
It has been argued that instrumental abusers are inherently narcissistic; have a weak, albeit not absent, sense of empathy; and have at least mild psychopathic tendencies. This description stems from the willingness of instrumental abusers to exploit others in pursuit of some personal gain. Intervention outcomes are likely to be inversely proportional to the presence of these antisocial tendencies.
http://what-when-how.com/interpersonal-violence/instrumental-violence/
On a less serious note to other behaviours:
I want Goncalo Amaral's house./..I want all the money he has made etc...no one else is entitled to cash in on his asset, "the child" as he has described her.
I have tried repeatedly to post this on Jo Morais without success, if there is any conspiracy I would say it is the McCanns spamming blogger to stop people posting about them!
I have seen an awful lot of evidence that British Police are seeking "build a case against the McCanns", but nothing of what they would have us believe they are "protected".
CEOP wrote a report a long time ago, recommending a review of all the evidence. The McCanns have been spining the "review" word and who was apparently going to conduct it, i.e West Yorks Police for over a year. Then Gerry tries to push for the review he wants that only look at his faked "evidence" and writes to Cameron.
Who genuinely believes CAmeron is going to commit political suicide by allowing Gerry McCann a self confessed child abuser to outsmart him. Remember, even if the McCanns account were true, that is still serious child abuse by two "doctors" who definitely are smart enough to evaluate risks to children.
Hi Viv
I am sorry that weary and porky have been banned, like you I found their posts informative. So many good posters have now disappeared from MM, it is such a shame.
I hope SY are allowed to get on with the review without any outside pressure, especially from the McCanns. Hopefully the fund will be looked into as well. I notice Brian Kennedy has gone extremely quiet as well, not a peep out of him for some time now.
Hiya Di
Like you I enjoy reading around the blogs and it does seem such a shame when some of the best posters just get silenced. As you say, there has been an unfortunate exodus of some of the best posters on this case.
Ah Brian Kennedy, now I was just thinking that Di. If ever there was a tenth TAPAS he would be the man. The only one in fact who continued to pledge such undying support and money, note his employed solicitor still sits on the board, or does he, that seems to be another exodus!
So glad you could get back on, I really miss you and Wiz when you are not around and I have to talk to myself lol!
xxx
I have tried several times to post this in response to McCann chimp Guerra on Jo Morais, just does not seem tobe working!
Are you seriously expecting people to accept that the Home Office have accepted the recommendations of CEOP for a full review of the evidence in this case to be conducted but NOT with a view to solving it? This was originally requested by Alan Johnson (Labour) and then accepted by the conservatives when authorising the funding for it. Are you seriously asking us to accept that Cameron would allocate all those resources for no other reason than to annoy the electorate and make himself look a fool? The McCanns may not like him, you may not, I do not vote conservative but I think he deserves a little more credit than that!
I think you exemplify the points The Home Office are making. Take the offence of fraud for example. UK have jurisdiction for serious (not negligence the McCanns would have liked to walk away on that basis) offences committed by the McCanns abroad (in addition to Portugal and it would be a matter of mutual co-operation where the investigation could best continue and any trial take place) But, as Goncalo has pointed out, and you seem to have overlooked, in relation to fraud, only UK can investigate and prosecute that offence because it actually originated in UK. In all legal systems it is accepted practice for a party to bring his whole case to court, i.e one court in one jurisdiction. It is not an option to simply try the McCanns in UK for the motive for the crime (money - fraud) and not the more serious crime itself (disposal of little Maddie by whatever means). There would have been little to achieve by forwarding financial information to Portugal in relation to matters they did not have the jurisdiction to investigate. That would also be the case in relation to a UK based paedophile ring that may have been in existence and abusing a long time before they ever set foot in PDL. Do you see what I mean, this is not simple like you think it is, where would Portugal get the jurisdiction from to investigate that and how could they investigate Brits in Britain! The other issue is, so far as UK law is concerned, and the HOme Office confirm above, information belonging to an ongoing investigation cannot and will not in any circumstances be disclosed to the public and prevent a trial from taking place. That again would please the McCanns.
I think you also seem to have overlooked that the McCanns were taken to the European Parliament by Mr McMillan Scott. He was then expelled from the Conservative party by Mr Cameron, in short, they do not like each other! If memory serves he then joined the liberals! Trying to suggest that politicians, aside from the rather unsavoury Mr McMillan Scott side with Kate and Gerry is decidedly lacking in hard evidence although seems to suit your own purpose. The reality is rather different, Labour ordered a review by CEOP, CEOP made recommendations and the conservatives have accepted them. That makes the two major parties anything but friends of the McCanns. To most of us that would hardly come as a surprise, on their own admission they are at the very least, cruel and vicious child neglectors, who care not when a little girl supposedly says where were you mummy, they go on TV to brag about how they did it again.
cont'd..
The McScams can say they did not kill Maddie until they are blue in the face, one thing they need to learn, that is not the reason most of the British public just cannot stand them. The same goes for the Portuguese people IMO. No amount of poster campaigns or any other media exercise will change that. They are the parents from hell, self confessed "she just moved on". They have no reputation to damage. They do not even have any shame it is what they can make out of a TV interview that matters to these two, always has been.
Their so called "pending" word for the libel action against Goncalo Amaral made me laugh. That exemplifies the fantasy world this couple live in. The highest court in the land of Portugal have already said he was exercising his right to free speech and he was not damaging their reputation, res ipsa loquitur, res judicata.. That is an end to the matter! Of course Kate may think well we can got to the European Court of Human Rights, fine if she has 5 years or so to wait and hundreds of thousands of pounds for the costs bill (on the millions I am going to make from my sensational book). And you know what, they will still lose. Kate, they, are bitter and angry, not rational. Goncalo may not be exactly correct, but broadly he is, everyone knows that.
I just wish some people would realise the battle was lost, a long time ago. I understand the McCanns cannot and will not see that, but the hangers on? Have you actually looked at very serious UK cases, sometimes twenty or thirty years later, Mr Cooper yesterday, cold case review for a few years and erm then they get locked up. We have the technology, maybe as in his case it will be fibers and DNA that do actually sink the McCanns. You should read all about that case, an 18 month review by the scientists alone, of course they were not trying to solve the case, now were they!
Ok going to bed now, but one thing is certain, when the McCanns are feeling desperate up goes their spin campaign and up go my own posts because they just make me sick. A fund to find Maddie, how dare they! To pay all of their sycophants, that is all, people who feed off the misery of a little girl - serious child abuse. I do not know how they can live with themselves or pay their bills with blood money. They are not even clever.
When you listen to Trish Cameron (Gerry's sister) she talks about the shutters being "jammied".
Well the word is actually jemmied. Is this Scots talk or was she told what to say by Gerry but being a non technical female (not apprised of what a jemmy is) got the word a bit wrong. If so, that looks even worse for Gerry really...I suppose he was bawling and wailing as Philo told us, so maybe she just misheard him a bit. But it does seem a bad slip.
I was looking at the pic again of the forensic lady with all her pink dusting powder on those shutters, it looks to me as though there are lots of fingerprints on the outside of it. Mind you, there is no doubt much the police have held back, that is good, we want this case in court.
But ooooh Gerry might have been wearing his surgical gloves the PJs found handy in his bedside drawer with his CEOP and murder manuals bless him.
Then there was Kate's side of the bed, the shrine to Madeleine...one could forgive the police for being rather convinced at that point Kate knew she was dead. The bible passage as well. I don't suppose she explains in her book what "they have taken her" means, but she must have known who "they" were to utter such a phrase.
Both front and back doors open according to Gerry but they know she did not walk out. Well then she must have been drugged because any other four year old could have done precisely that.
The Smith Sighting
The Jane Tanner Sighting
Gerrymandered. I still believe that was to establish the timeline, but Maddie had long since been removed. He needed people to be clear Maddie went whilst they were at the restaurant otherwise it was obviously them. Simple really.
Smith spoke to the press, police witnesses are NOT allowed to do that. In Portugal, in Feb 2010 Gerry was asked what evidence of abductors, TAnner and Smith he said, nothing else. Now, do you believe him?
Gerry needs to be in the press, Smith's amazing realisation several months later that it was Gerry, arranged by Gerry, he knew it could not be proved because it is pure rubbish. He likes rubbish.
There is always a reason for Gerry saying something, he says he messed with the shutters to see if they would open from the outside. That is to cover for the fact that his prints are on them.
I do not believe the Portuguese have released ALL of the details.
Both Portuguese and British Police are far too smart for that and after all would have a vested interest in doing what coppers want to do all over the world.
Bang up child abusers.
Gerry is just completely desperate for the Portuguese and British Police to put all of their files together and let him transparently have a look at them. That is what he has kept on hassling Home Secretaries about.
And now he has had it and they are still NOT letting him see all of the evidence they have against him.
Here is another one from Gerry, "it was a warm night and so I did not cover her up".
Here is what Jane Tanner says, "it was freezing I had Russell's big baggy jumper on"
Here is what Kate says: "It was freezing sitting in that TAPAS at night, I had several layers of clothes on".
A check of the weather on that date confirms it was not a warm night at all.
So what is Gerry trying to cover by saying this?
I believe the fact that there is only forensic evidence of people being on top of the bed, not in it. Remember Kate says, we all sat on Madeleine's bed. If they could only get a mixed DNA sample of that bed it might not be possible for the police to be certain whether Madeleine was placed on top of that bed that night, drugged, or whether the DNA they have got is merely from others, but there again, what about her pillow?
What I think Gerry is essentially covering is this, the cleaner came in on the Wednesday and presumably put new sheets on the bed. Maybe there is no forensic evidence of Maddie ever being between those sheets. Maybe she slept in the other bed with kate on the Wed night (because she was so upset at what happened the night before perhaps, maybe even Kate wanted to hold her one last night)
I believe the police have put to Gerry, how come on such a cold night the child was not even put into her bed? We know that she was not.
Kate no longer appears to repeat her claim about Madeleine apparently saying as she tucked her up "the best day I have ever had". Although I am not certain, I will not buy that book!
What if Kate is a party to drugging Madeleine to get her to sleep but not actually a party to removing her from the apartment? Would Gerry blackmail Kate and say you say anything about me and my mate David and I will tell them you were drugging the kids and overdosed them? There is something desperately troubling Kate, she looks positively haunted and tormented, she is sometimes the obedient wife and sometimes she interrupts him and makes him look wrong. She gets that terrifying look from him when she misbehaves. When Kate yelled they have taken her I still believe she knew who had done that.
I believe Maddie may have been put on that bed, but only after she had been drugged and in readiness for the "abduction" her father had planned for her. I do believe he is one of the most wicked and scheming men one could possibly imagine and Kate is very fearful of him and may still hold out some vague hope of getting Maddie back.
I also believe that he intended to "jemmy" the shutters but got confronted by Wilkins and also realised it was just too noisy to achieve. But that was his plan and that was what he, in his immediate panic was saying to his relatives,just as he had planned.
I believe the PJ/Brit Police hauled him back in again on 10 May because they just knew he was telling lies. There was no breakin through those shutters.
Kate insists it is quite impossible for Madeleine to have walked off, she knew that because the child gate was shut, all the rear doors were shut behind them. So picture this, there is no way any abductor went through the back with Madeleine and the McCanns have never once said he did. How could you carry a child in the manner that Tanner described and close the patio door back to hop over the child gate and close the rear gate as well, you could not. What is more, Tanner could not have seen him in the position that she did if had exited from the rear.
So the Police know the abductor did not go out the back, they know he did not come in or out the window, so what does Gerry comes up with next on the 10 May, well I was wrong saying we used our key on the front door and checked our kids that way or left that way, we did not, and I cannot remember if I locked the door.
In short the desperate idiot is still trying to insist to the police, look there is a way this abductor got in and out.
Oh and then what does he do, a few weeks later we get the Smith sighting, the position the child is being carried in changes, suddenly the abductor does have a free hand perhaps to manage those doors and gates?
Gerry is a scheming conniving liar who needs to keep on changing the evidence to try and keep himself free, but the police have always known what he is.
But the thing is, they STILL need to find Madeleine and PROVE exactly what it is he did with her before they can charge Gerry. As it is clearly possible he came home and got some cadaver scent to further frame Kate, they cannot be the least bit certain that Madeleine is dead. Her safety, her possible life will always come before Gerry McCann, but they WILL get him.
WE are told the McCanns wanted the sniffer dogs, ummm I think that was Gerry.
IMO people continue to underestimate the incredible lengths this scheming liar will go to, or just how much he loved and fed those doggy stories.
Philomena, Kate is "furious, screaming.... they offered her a deal to confess"
Who is that authorised to make those comments to the world press, surely the answer to that one is obvious.
I hope Philomena put on even more weight, thinking how she got used by her own brother knowing what a big mouth she has.
But the intervention of Sheree Dodd and Clarence Mitchell, I still wonder if you are not quite as smart as you think you are Gerry.
As far as I am concerned, anyone who attacks Gordon Brown, or the Portuguese Police or the British Police or the respective governments is a McCann supporter. Of course many of them pose as being just the opposite. TAke Bren, Bonnybraes and Tony Bennett as typical examples, and "Photon" or "Dr Val". I can always remember feeling my flesh creep when joining 3As and getting a little pat on the back from Dr Val, like what you are saying about the dogs, well said, something like that. It was enough to make me start to work out just how much this is all costing the Find Maddie Fund. 3As was put there to round up and manipulate the "bloggers" which Gerry has always thrived upon, you keep him in the news and add to his "sympathy" levels.
Who believes Debbie and Bennett were for real when they delivered their 60 Reasons leaflet? That is what you call propaganda.
I would just urge people to remember one thing, whenever you are parting with cash in relation to books or pamphlets about Maddie McCann, remember whose pocket you are lining, the Managing Director of the Maddie Limited Company, her own "father".
A man who is simply not satisfied with being a heart consultant on a mere £75 a year, that does not satiate his narcissistic supply needs at all, but now it is now more about his very survival than what he actually planned as he stood smirking outside the Whitehouse.
Thank goodness for London Met one of the best serious investigative forces in the world. They will bring you down Gerry and I just cannot wait!
Post a Comment