22 Jun 2011


You’re meeting seven neighbours, with eight children under four between you, in one of Ranelagh’s many restaurants, only 120 metres or so from your homes which you can’t see from the restaurant; what do you do about childcare? That was the ‘almost’ equivalent dilemma faced by Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends on their holiday in Praia da Luz in May 2007 – except they were not on their home patch as you were in Ranelagh. The group, which became known as the Tapas nine and six of whom were doctors, decided to make 30 minute checks. This system, Kate claims, had worked on previous evenings but when she checked at 10 pm on Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine was not there and, despite an international search involving the Portuguese and UK police and private detectives, she has still not been found.Last month Kate McCann published “Madeleine - our daughter’s disappearance and the continuing search for her”. 

In the foreword of the book she states that her “reason for writing the book is to give an account of the truth”. Isn’t that odd phraseology - surely there can only be one version of the truth? All kinds of tales have circulated about Madeleine’s disappearance according to Kate, and indeed they have; the publication of this “truthful” book seems to have accelerated the internet debates on the discrepancies in the McCanns’ story. The book is actually the story of Kate’s life to date. It covers her childhood, her education, her meeting and marriage to Gerry McCann and the births of their three children. The McCanns needed a series of IVF treatments to become parents which makes it all the more odd that they would leave three children under four in an unlocked apartment on the ground floor in a foreign country. According to Kate, all three children were good sleepers. She did not want to use the evening crèche provided by the holiday company; understandable as her children had a routine and were in bed by the time the crèche opened at 7.30 pm. 

She argues on p. 54 that it would have been unwise to leave the children with someone neither they nor themselves knew. Yet her children were happy in the day childcare facilities and had come to know the staff who were available, at extra cost, to babysit for clients in the evening. She states “we felt so secure we simply didn’t think it was necessary (to hire a babysitter) and our own apartment was only 30-45 seconds away”. An astonishing statement. Surely security concerns are not the main reason parents organise babysitters? As a GP, she more than anyone, would appreciate that the risks of leaving children alone at night do not relate to “security” but to other factors, like vomiting and choking, waking up from a nightmare, wetting the bed, and febrile convulsions which affect one in twenty children under five. Kate does not mention a witness statement by Pamela Fenn who lived in the apartment above stating that she heard a child crying for 75 minutes on Tuesday May 1st calling for “daddy”. This contradicts Kate’s statement of 30 minute checks. The book cover proclaims that all royalties are donated to the Madeleine Fund. 

A company called Madeleine Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd was incorporated on 15 May 2007. According to Kate, over the weekend of 11th, 12th and 13th May she and Gerry had meetings in Praia da Luz with a paralegal from the International Family Law Group and a barrister. The barrister told them “our behaviour (in leaving the children unattended) could not be deemed negligent” and was “well within the bounds of reasonable parenting”. The legal pair suggested the McCanns use London solicitors Bates Wells and Braithwaite to set up a company to manage the funds that would be donated. On p.137 she records that this firm drew up articles of association for the fighting fund (limited company) and talked to the Charity Commission who ruled that the proposed company did not meet the requirements for charity status as it focussed on one child and did not meet the public benefit test. Hence Kate says, the decision was that “it would be a ‘not for profit’ private limited company. It was set up with great care and due diligence by experts in the field”.From the dates Kate gives, it would appear that Bates Wells and Braithwaite could not have had instructions to act until Monday May 14th, yet they were able to incorporate the company the very next day. A day is very little time for the solicitors to have drafted company documents for this proposed company which was not an ordinary trading company, to have agreed the documents with their clients the McCanns who were in Portugal and also to have obtained a ruling from the Charity Commission.And what was the hurry given that Madeleine could have been found at this early stage of the investigation?On p.138 Kate says “everyone agreed that despite the costs involved it (the company) must be run to the highest standards of transparency”. 

To date, three sets of accounts have been filed with the UK Company’s office. In the first set going to March 2008 an analysis of expenditure is given though this is not a statutory requirement under UK law. However the accounts filed for the years to March 2009 and to March 2010 give no expenditure analysis. Now this is perfectly legal but not the “transparency” to which Kate referred. In 2009 for example the only expenditure information filed gives the merchandising and campaign costs as £974,786 and the administration expenses as £30,865. Not very informative!When the McCanns were made arguidos (suspects) in September 2007 Kate refused on legal advice to answer the 48 questions put to her. This was her legal right but the refusal fuelled the doubts about her story. It is understandable why she might not want to answer questions in a foreign country with the possibility of mistranslations complicating her difficult situation but surely there is no reason now not to put the record straight by answering the questions in her book. She doesn’t do so.British sniffer dogs Eddie and Keela and their handler Martin Grime were used by the Portuguese authorities. These dogs had a 100% accuracy rate in 200 cases and found both blood and cadaver (dead body) traces in various places in the holiday apartment and in the boot of the car rented after the disappearance. Kate says that research Gerry conducted after the Portuguese police showed them the video of the dogs’ search revealed that dog evidence is unreliable. She quotes Gerry as dismissing the sniffer dog video as “the most subjective piece of evidence gathering imaginable”. She claims that the dogs had merely been trying to please their instructor.

If you read this book without having read the other material available which questions the abduction theory, you could not fail to have the greatest of sympathy for the McCanns. However, it is a statistical fact that in the majority of missing children cases, a family member, a neighbour or someone known to the child, is involved. The Portuguese police would have been negligent if they did not consider this possibility. They did not find any forensic evidence of an intruder in the apartment which had been to some extent contaminated by the Tapas group searching the apartment when Kate raised the alarm.Since the book was published last month, Scotland Yard has agreed to conduct a review. A reconstruction of that evening which the Tapas nine initially agreed to do but which never happened would help. Hopefully the review will be independent with the co-operation of all and with no possibilities excluded. 

The book costs €15.99 in local shops and is published by Bantam Press.


viv said...

I suppose it is hard to get a book that is completely honest and accurate, this one does claim that "cadaver traces" were found which is simply not true, (perhaps this is a quote from one of her sources, The Madeleine Foundation) but that aside, it is properly questioning the bizarre conduct of Kate and Gerry McCann.

I especially like this ( as we know, rather than mention this important evidence, Kate chooses instead to attack the late Mrs Fenn)
Sometimes in a police interview, what the police are really interested in are the issues the accused wants to gloss over and not mention. Those are the ones that go right to the heart of their own guilt and what they do not want the police to deal with. But they are going to deal with it Kate! Again, I would just slightly correct one thing here, Mrs Fenn says Maddie was crying Daddy Daddy, she does not say "for" Daddy. Quite a subtle difference I think. When someone inserts a word like that, that changes the meaning so dramatically, they are inserting their own subjective view upon the reality of the evidence, i.e. changing it which is what leads people astray IMO.

Kate does not mention a witness statement by Pamela Fenn who lived in the apartment above stating that she heard a child crying for 75 minutes on Tuesday May 1st calling for “daddy”. This contradicts Kate’s statement of 30 minute checks.

viv said...

And so if Kate wanted to give us an account of "the truth", she would have dealt with one of the most vital witness testimonies in this case because it clearly goes right to the heart of what happened to little Maddie. But, ah, that is what she wishes to conceal.

viv said...

When giving evidence in January or Feb 2010 in Goncalo Amaral's initial appeal against a temporary injunction upon his book; The Portuguese Prosecutor in the case Mr Menezes says that it was known the McCanns lied about the 30 minute checks on their children. He also said the McCanns could have been prosecuted for kidnapping and trafficking Madeleine. This clearly suggests there is a great deal the general public do not know about the evidence. It would also fit with what seems obvious, Gerry was setting Maddie up to be abducted and therefore had a hand in it.

When he was hauled back in again on 10 May 2007 for further questioning, he insists that he was wrong on the 4 May, they did not exit the apartment via the normal exit/entrance the front door, that you could deadlock, no, Kate was right in what she stated, they exited via the open rear patio door. Therefore he says it is possible the front door was not locked at all. This is absolutely staggering. He claims that the next day he could not even remember which door they used to check their kids and worse still, they left the apartment wide open back and front.

This case is not as clear cut and simple as people think and those who just keep harping on about cadaver dogs have an agenda to pursue, the need to be right and they need to cashin, they are no better than Kate and Gerry McCann.

viv said...

These people even ignore what Grime himself says, that Eddie reacts to human decomposition which could be blood from a still living person. They even change the name of the dog, calling it a "cadaver dog", when in fact it is an "enhanced victim recovery dog".

Kate says the dog just wanted to please its owner, that obviously makes people even more certain that Eddie did smell Maddie's corpse. Maybe that is what Kate wants them to do. I think she wants the general public to think that one way or another this was an accident and they were just negligent, rather than something so much worse than that.

So much worse that Gerry even had postcard type photos, in duplicate, ready to hand to the police in Portugal. Again, this is vital evidence against Gerry that people just ignore in their quest to make the dogs right. As Grime says, their alerts needed corroborating, it seems possible the alerts of Keela were and some of Maddie's blood may have been found. I would be more interested in mixed samples and know that forensic science has moved on a lot since 2007 to the point where they are pretty good at separating out all those components from different people in just one sample and saying who they all belong to. That might be really awful for David Payne (who finally has to admit to the police, yes, I was in the apartment at 5 pm that night, not 6.30 though - he originally lied) Might be really awful perhaps for Gerry and Russell too. Why would Mat Oldfield say he did a check at 9.30 when plainly he did not and go along to do Gerry's reconstruction with him. What is the glue that binds all these men together?

viv said...

From The Times 8 April 2008, I wonder if Kate has troubled to explain in her book why she was refusing to return to reconstuct her daughter's disappearance, unless and until she was formally "cleared" of being involved in it? I think it is justice to this day, that most cherished desire has been denied to the McCanns and now they want to just ignore a further proper review of the evidence being carried out by our most senior murder cops in London. But they are going to get to the truth Kate, surely you want that? I do not think Gerry's reconstruction for Channel 4 where his wife did not wish to attend and the actress playing her part did not play it, was quite what British and Portuguese Police had in mind, but it is true, the more times a suspect tells his story, the more the police can see where the lies really are and what worries him the most. Like erm what was going on on Tuesday 1 May, that was nothing to do with their fantasy abductor.
The unprecedented reconstruction is planned for the middle of next month, shortly after the first anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance on May 3. Portuguese police have written to witnesses, asking them to cooperate by attending the event.

Mr and Mrs McCann have not been to the Algarve resort since they were made arguidos (official suspects) on September 7. Friends of the couple have indicated that they would refuse to voluntarily return unless they are formally cleared of any wrongdoing.

Di said...

Hi Viv

To answer your comments on the last thread.

I hope Halligen sings like a canary, I am sure he must have plenty of information on the McCanns. I would love to know how he was paid and by whom. I find it so strange that the McCanns have never gone after him and Clarence even said he had done a good job.

I have been over to Amazon and read Honestbroker. He/she just won't let go of the dogs, I wonder why?

It would appear since JATYK has closed many seem to have found their way over to Amazon.

Interesting to see Pat Brown posting and answering peoples questions.

Di said...

I'm afraid I can't read today's post but have picked the article up from Town & Village.

Well done to Enid O'Dowd, finally someone who is prepared to stick their neck out.

I am glad Enid mentioned about Kate not wanting to leave her children with a babysitter, yet was prepared to leave them with the very same people day after day.

Also glad Enid pointed out firmly that the fund is not a charity, I am sure many people are still unaware of that.

It was a good and honest review, but not, I am sure, for the McCann camp.

What a pity our papers won't follow suit.

viv said...

Hiya Di

It is a good book it would seem, honestly written and looking at the big issues that the McCanns do not want to deal with. It is also honest, I believe, in not seeking to assert, as a fact, that Maddie died.

For me, that is the reality of this case, we do not know exactly what the McCanns did with her, but we do know they were involved. She could have been murdered, she could have been kidnapped by her own dad, Mr Menezes seems to think so and he should know!

I do not understand why you cannot read the post, do not have the tecchie knowledge, lol, but will change it somehow to see if that makes it appear! I can see it so wonder if it is something like flash player not on your computer or some other programme you need, really don't know!

This A level law Honestbroker is making an idiot of himself for reasons best known to himself, I wonder who he is?

I am afraid I still do not trust Pat, she says their reactions and emotions were "normal" and to me is leading people up the garden path by the hand. If their reactions were normal and an abduction was possible, I mean I am not telling you what to think, but....


viv said...

Maybe Honestbroker just likes to argue and is convinced he knows best. I noticed on Justathoughtyouknow he repeatedly argued legal matters with san souci who was trying to put him straight and very clearly does know an awful lot about law. I would say sans has a degree and is a barrister or solicitor the way he/she writes. Presumably just another of the paid lackies on Team McCann.

viv said...

oooh well I had a mess with it and it looks weird, not sure whether you can see it now Di, lol!


Di said...

Hi Viv

Crystal clear now, thank you. I wish someone else would let us know if it is only me having a problem then I can resolve it, if I knew what the problem was of course.

viv said...

Hiya Di, Well glad about that!

Maybe I am too harsh on Pat, she is in part doing what I suggest, keeping an open mind, I suppose it is her observations on Kate and Gerry I cannot agree with.

The telephone conversations Robert Murat had that were intercepted by the PJ are very weird to say the least. If he overheard Maddie on 1 May and decided to relocate her....well all options are open, I suppose! But then Pat would be completely correct!

In one conversation with his girlfriend he repeatedly insists no need for the police to be following me my life is an open book.

He says it was "for Madeleine" which kind of rings alarm bells, it is not clear what he means.

I believe it is Sally Eveleigh warning him it got out there is porn on his computer and saying he must confess to Leicester Police and make it plain another (I believe Sergei Malinka) put it there.

He also refers to having a very similar little girl and points out in a conversation that could go against him... it is not beyond the realms of possibility he felt resentful he could not have his and the McCanns were just dumping theirs day and night.

It is also not beyond the realms of possibility he took part at the behest of Gerry McCann. I will always find it odd he rushed back to Pt on 1 May or was it 2 May, cannot clearly remembr now!


viv said...

I suppose the key thing looking at it this way is, the McCanns are telling lies about the checks they made. The Portuguese Prosecutor Mr Menesez said so when giving evidence for Goncalo Amaral.

They were clearly not checking every 30 minutes on 1 May because a witness that Kate now wants to discredit heard her crying for one hour and fifteen minutes.

Jill Renwick I think it was said at the time they checked her at 9 and 10, that seems to be correct and means that once again Maddie was left alone for a lengthy period.

I think Wiz has said in the past, and I obviously agree, even stranger abduction can be ruled out. In the second timeline they created that night a check by Mat Oldfield was inserted at 9.30 pm, thus the 30 minutes checks in line with former Mark Warner checking scheme was achieved and they made a great deal of reminding us of this in the early stages.

So, at the very least that leaves us with a couple of doctors who go abroad with their tiny kids, from 9 am to 5 pm dump them in the creche all day and then from about 7.30 pm dump them in bed and go out and leave them all night, perhaps making just one or two checks at intervals of at least one hour apart. Not only that they leave the doors open. If we believe this and believe stranger abduction it still leaves us with the parents from hell who should have had the twins removed from their care. Particularly given their failure to wholeheartedly apologise and just admit what they did and fully co-operate with the police, for Maddie.

If Kate does believe that Murat removed Maddie because they left her alone, it could explain her oft repeated view, she is out there, she is still alive. "You are right someone was watching us". Clearly Murat could have been doing that. But there again, Kate has not gotten herself a reputation for being an honest, truthful and caring mum, that is for sure.

viv said...

Di, the problem of you reading some posts is to do with formatting I think. I am copying things that have been put into formatted boxes and then have a huge problem trying to remove the formatting. Because I left that post in a formatted box you could not read it, when I removed the formatting, you could. So will try and remember in future and remove it.

Quite why people want to use these complicated boxes to put things in I just don't know, too old and past it to care, lol!

viv said...


If anyone wishes to read those weird calls that Murat had, bugged by the PJ, they are on the above link.

viv said...

Interesting extract from a Daily Mail article at the one year point. if she feels eaten up with guilt, that is understandable, he needed to be persuaded not to be on call, but I suppose he felt they needed the money given she cannot work:

Appearing fragile after a week-long media blitz to publicise the hunt for her child, Kate had held her head down for much of the service at St Mary and St John, in Rothley, Leicestershire.
Gently sobbing at times, she appeared a broken figure, one year on to the day her then three-year-old went missing from Praia da Luz, Portugal.
Next to her in the front pew of the packed church sat her husband Gerry, holding her hand and staring ahead.
At the end of 40 minutes of prayer, Kate, wearing blue jeans, a floral blouse and a beige jacket, rose unexpectedly to thank friends and say how much their three-year-old twins Sean and Amelie missed their sister.
She was barely audible, and struggled to hold back tears, as she said: "I have spoken quite a lot this week so I will keep it short.
"It is just to say a huge thank-you really for coming to remember, for your support.
"We have been quite strong but couldn't have got through without you.
"You know how much she means to us, and to Sean and Amelie.
"We know you have been praying and we ask you to keep going."
As Kate, 40, returned to her pew, the 200-strong congregation applauded and friends rushed to console her as she fell weeping into her husband's arms.
Also in church were David and Fiona Payne, and Rachel and Dr Matthew Oldfield, four of the 'Tapas Seven' friends who were dining with the McCanns when Madeleine vanished.
Gerry, 39, was hugged by friends and wept at the end of the service ? which included a prayer written by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu.
Kate's aunt, Janet Kennedy, said: "How Kate mustered the courage to speak, I don't know. But it was very inspiring."
Kate and Gerry only finally decided to attend the service yesterday after a relentless tour of TV studios.
A friend revealed Gerry had to be persuaded to not volunteer to be on call over the weekend at Glenfield hospital, in Leicester, where he is a cardiologist.
Kate has vowed not to return to work as a GP until Madeleine is home.
The friend said: "They are trying to get their lives back to normality.
"But Gerry could see in the end that he couldn't be on call on this weekend."
The couple's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, admitted they were finding the anniversary more painful than they had anticipated.
He said: "It is an intensely private day, very difficult. In some ways being at home is the best place but in other ways it is the worst."
On his blog, Gerry wrote: "It has been the longest year of our lives, yet it does not seem like a year."
In a Portuguese newspaper Gerry admitted he has struggled with guilt over enjoying time with the twins while Madeleine is missing.
Meanwhile, Gerry's brother John, 48, arrived in Praia da Luz before a candlelit mass.
He said: "We are here to thank the people of Portugal who have supported Gerry and Kate. We really do feel we can get Madeleine back."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563826/Madeleine-One-year-Portuguese-police-ashamed-says-attorney-general.html#ixzz1Q5pk5MgP

viv said...

Whatever happened to little Maddie I still find it entirely repugnant that so many bloggers feel the need to just keep on chanting she is dead, even going into gory detail. That is just plain sick.

viv said...

This is the final para of that Daily Mail article, I not pretend to understand, but there are so many theories!

Last night, it was revealed the McCanns' financial backer, tycoon Brian Kennedy, had met Robert Murat, the first suspect in the case.
The meeting took place at Mr Murat's aunt's house in the Algarve last year.
Mr Murat's lawyer, Francisco Pagarete, said: 'We had a very pleasant dinner with Mr Kennedy.
"He came here to give his support to Robert and to say he doesn't believe Robert was involved in this story in any way.
"And he asked if Robert could help the investigation for the finding of Madeleine."
It is understood the meeting in November was also attended by Mr Kennedy's lawyer, Edward Smethurst, who is co-ordinating the McCanns' legal affairs.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563826/Madeleine-One-year-Portuguese-police-ashamed-says-attorney-general.html#ixzz1Q5wibo98

Di said...

Hi Viv

I am glad you have sorted things out.

Thanks for the link to Robert Murat's phone conversation I have not read that before.

I will read it again but have a busy evening. The following conversation struck me as odd though.

R- I am worried about this, I am worried to see what is happening around me. I told him, “I guarantee that this is the case”...and it was the case. Simply it is the case. I said to Reis Santos “If you want to talk to me I am here, just call me, I am here. You can talk to me freely. I have no problem with this. None”
M – And do you think he was telling you the truth?
R – No...I think not, I think that ...he doesn’t know the full situation, but he knows that something was going on, do you understand?
M – Hum, hum!
R – Its difficult by telephone, but much easier face to face. But simply, my life is an open book. I have nothing to hide.
M – I know Robert!

What does Robert mean, Reis Santos doesn’t know the full situation, but he knows that something was going on.

Just what exactly was going on that Reis Santos did not know about?

viv said...

Hiya Di, and his insistence that "something was going on" and "it is difficult to talk by phone", clearly realising he may well be bugged. If innocent what could he have to hide and what was going on in relation to little Maddie that he knew about?

I have always thought it is patently wrong and utterly foolish to attack the integrity and actions of either the Portuguese or British Police who are both, undoubtedly, very professional outfits.

They added the McCanns to the prime suspects list along with Murat. Whilst it is true they may have just wanted to keep Murat quiet so kept him as an arguido, I somehow think it is more likely the police know an awful lot that we do not and I remain horrified as to what may have been "going on" and how his actions were "for Madeleine". In the circumstances it could clearly be implied that it was helpful to her to be removed from that situation. I do continue to think the British Police think abduction is far more likely than death, but that the McCanns are involved.

viv said...

Just had another read, I gather Murat is angry and upset about being followed by the PJ. When he talks about work and for Madeleine I think he is meaning the translation he did and this is how they thank him.

But if the PJ are denying they were following him (although likely they were as they were clearly bugging his phone) well I wonder, Kate and Gerry employed Control Risks Group in the early stages, were they having him followed? Unlikely, more likely as budding celebrities they needed the services of this firm to manage the risks to their reputation etc. In similar vein perhaps to them employing a celebrity lawyer who manages the reputation of those under investigation by the police or the media, Angus McBride, an equally expensive partner to their extradition lawyer, Caplan.

But even if Maddie was abducted by a stranger they could have feared a term of imprisonment of up to ten years in Portugal for abandonment leading to serious harm to the child. Reason enough not to want to go back!

viv said...

Kate and Gerry do like to repeatedly tell us there is absolutely no evidence of any serious harm to Madeleine, maybe she has the thought of that ten year jail term at the back of her mind.

In terms of saying that, AnnaEsse made a good point the other day, well she is missing you stupid bint, that is serious harm!

In the circumstances it is the most ridiculously defensive comment to make and clear confirmation the McCanns know for a fact they seriously broke the law in relation to their "care" of Madeleine, whether than was neglect, the facts of which they pretty much admit although not the crime, or something much more serious that neglect is being used to cover.

I remain utterly baffled by a couple of doctors who could willingly act in such a thuggish and callous way towards their children and how much worse this could be.

viv said...

and the rather major issue, which again they admit, of those kids being drugged.

Sex offenders drug kids.

To drug a child up to go on the razz causing her death is not far short of murder. In fact I could envisage a Court of Appeal case arguing the point between murder and manslaughter, after all the drugging would be "intentional".

I just want answers to this case!

Come on London Met!

Mar said...

Hi Viv,

I've been reading your blog for a while and I'm really enjoying your insightful comments.

I admire your optimism regarding the SY/Met review. Seeing that smiley photo of the McCanns was enough to persuade me that somehow they know they are safe.

I dearly hope I'm wrong though!

Will keep reading you :-)

viv said...

Hiya Mar and welcome to the blog and thanks for your kind comments.

I think the only way the McCanns could know they are safe is if their crime amounted to serious neglect of Madeleine allowing her to be heard by a predator and taken.

It is too late for them to be prosecuted in Portugal for that, and UK never did have the jurisdiction.

As you will know, I find it unlikely that is all the McCanns did and I think they try to put on a brave face but Gerry only genuinely laughed a long time ago. Now he has a wooden smile that does not use all the face muscles because it is false, like everything else about him.

It has been announced that any report will be kept confidential, this is undoubtedly to protect the McCanns from the general public. Maybe that is their lasting sentence, that they need to keep trying to tell us how innocent they are and they live in fear of the public reaction to them. I would not wish to live the rest of my life needing police protection.

If they are not going to face any prosecution, I think they will emigrate so somewhere they feel safer, maybe NZ, Australia, Amsterdam. Maybe the book and the visits to promote it are part of that research?

I do try to look at a number of possibilities!


viv said...


Gerry McCann, Feb 2010.

No wonder Kate has taken over!

Mar said...

Thanks for the welcome Viv. Like everyone else I struggle to understand whether they are indeed 'protected' or not. I sometimes think that's utterly ridiculous and who are they anyway to get that level of protection, but on the other hand they have enjoyed a number of privileges that other parents of missing children could only dream of.

It seems to be the case that there are people out there who don't want the truth of what actually happened to be known. Whether these people are above the Met and/or SY remains to be seen. I really want to believe that this review will bring Madeleine justice at long last but I daren't get my hopes up if you know what I mean!

This is probably a silly thought but I was reading somewhere else about the lack of Madeleine's DNA in 5a (so much so that Gerry had to go back to Leicester to get some from their house). Could it be that she wasn't actually staying in 5a during the holiday? I mean, no DNA surely equals no Maddie.

Could she be staying at a different apartment during the holiday and could that be related to whatever happened to her? As I said, it's probably just a crazy thought but I have been pondering about it all afternoon (I know, I should find more productive things to do LOL).

Lastly, apologies if my English sounds a bit weird sometimes, it's not my first language.

viv said...

Hi again Mar

There is no doubt the McCanns have been given a heavy degree of police protection. I believe they were even accompanied by Special Branch when returning home from Portugal.

When you consider the gravity of the crime they committed, even on their own admission (of leaving three under fours every night witht he door open to go on the lash) and the result a beautiful little girl is gone, I do not find that the least bit surprising.

I wonder if people abroad do not realise that here in Britain there are a huge number of people who will quite literally take the law into their own hands and act as serious vigilantes. There is no way the police could take the risk of this happening to the McCanns and of course those innocent little twins. They had to be protected from the "baying mob" that had been ramped up in the media, including by the McCanns themselves. Frequently in UK when serious child abusers are brought to court there are a vast number of people waiting to scream abuse, try and get at them, bang on the prison van etc. Can you imagine the fear British authorities would have about the twins being exposed to such people?

Goncalo Amaral admits he was angry with British Police and spoke to the media. I know how officialdom works in UK, that would have caused complaints to be made about him and the damage he could cause the case and yes, it may well have come from Gordon Brown that he should be removed from the case.

People complain that British cops returned from Portugal when the McCanns did as though that confirms they were not interested in the case. What people seem to overlook is the simple fact it is the offenders they are interested in, Kate and Gerry McCann. That is the reason they were in Portugal and that is the reason they followed them home again.

They have used their own intellect to try and politicise this case and reach out to high level politicians. It is not a privilege what they have now unleashed, something far worse for them than Leicester Police. They now have the best detectives in the whole of UK investigating this case. In his naivety, Gerry believed that as he has made sure Madeleine cannot be found, and because he has such a superior view of his own intellect, he could outweigh the evidence against him by getting other information into the investigation. He actually thought all this rubbish about poshalikes etc would influence hard headed and intelligent police officers. That just shows how disordered he is.

I personally do not believe that the McCanns only crime is that of serious child neglect and I most definitely believe that 30 hard headed murder cops are not going to be told to protect the McCanns, they are going to be told to go and get the evidence and prosecute them.

I have always pointed out that once the case was shelved in Portugal, that was because it was sensible to do so. The Portuguese had spent a huge amount of money and if the McCanns killed Madeleine abroad, sexually abused or allowed her to be abused abroad, instigated a fraudulent fund when they knew all along what happened to her etc, this are very serious crime that Britain can and most certainly will prosecute them for.

As Pat Brown has pointed out, the dogs alerting does not provide evidence of what they actually did with Madeleine, it is no more than an indication. There would have to be a totality of serious evidence demonstrating exactly wht they did with her. I believe that is what London Met are not doing.

As it said on Wikileaks Brit cops are building a case against them. We just have to patient, the only way the McCanns get to walk is if Maddie was stranger abducted, in which case the London Met will ask Portugal to investigate further. I do not believe that will ever happen, hence I have always pointed out the case will never be re-opened in Portugal. They will be prosecuted here just as soon as there is sufficient for charges to be made against them.

viv said...

Hiya again Mar

I think the lack of Madeleine's DNA in the apartment is the way the McCanns planned it. I do not think Maddie had slept in that bed since the cleaner changed the sheets on the Wednesday, she was either in a cot in the parents room or in bed with Kate under the window.

I wonder if Russell was doing some laundry to destroy any DNA from Madeleine?

My understanding is that when Portuguese Police asked for some article that smelt of Maddie, i.e. her clothing from that day the McCanns were not forthcoming, perhaps already in the washing machine, perhaps Russell helped sort it all out that night?

British Police therefore escorted Gerry back to his home address to get a proper sample of Madeleine's DNA from her pillow at home. That was devastating for Gerry McCann, I just cannot really fathom how people think they have been so nice to him!

I post below an article demonstrating what the British public can be like in relation to suspected child abusers. Remember Tony Bennett even went to the McCanns own road to distribute his ridiculous leaflets, I am actually surprised he was not arrested for that. I have always thought he works for them but he could just be a complete vigilante nutcase who believes in taking the law into his own hands. But he does have the intellect to know he could whip up a dangerous mob that could cause harm to the McCanns. We do not do modern justice with lynch mobs!

viv said...

Tuesday, 25 July, 2000, 00:57 GMT 01:57 UK
Vigilante attack on innocent man

Mistaken identity: Iain Armstrong was wrongly named
An innocent man who was mistaken for one of the 49 paedophiles named and shamed in a national newspaper has told of his fear following an attack on his home.
Iain Armstrong, 49, from Greater Manchester, was confronted by locals in the street after vigilantes thought he was a child abuser named in The News of the World.

A panic button was installed inside Mr Armstrong's house on Sunday and at 9pm it was activated when a brick was thrown through the window of his former wife's home next door.

I have got three kids of my own. I don't want one of them living near me same as you don't

Iain Armstrong
When police arrived 12 women and children moved off after being spoken to by the officers. No one was arrested for the damage.

Mr Armstrong told how he was watching television with two of his sons when he heard people from neighbouring streets chanting "paedophile" outside.

He had to go outside and show them his passport and driving licence to prove they had got the wrong man.

'Irresponsible reaction'

He said: "They were saying 'Here he is, here he comes' and the policeman was saying it's not who you think it is.

"So I looked at them and said 'I have got three kids of my own. I don't want one of them living near me same as you don't.'"

Assistant Chief Constable Alan Green said the incident, which happened at 9pm in the Beswick area of Greater Manchester was an "irresponsible reaction of emotive stories in a national newspaper".

But News of the World editor Rebekah Wade said the newspaper's campaign to name and shame more of the UK's 110,000 convicted child abusers would continue, despite widespread criticism from ministers, police chiefs, probation officers and other experts.

Murdered schoolgirl Sarah Payne's parents Michael and Sara also repeated their backing for the campaign, saying it would protect youngsters.

'Overwhelming public support'

Ms Wade said the News of the World did not condone vigilante attacks but "every parent has an absolute right to know if they have a convicted child offender living in their neighbourhood".

She said: "The disturbing truth is that the authorities are failing to properly monitor the activities of paedophiles in the community.

"The continued support of Sarah's family for our campaign plus the overwhelming public support means that the News of the World will continue it's long tradition of exposing and investigating those who are a danger to our society."

viv said...


I do not think you wondering whether Maddie was staying in another apartment is a crazy thought at all.

We know that on a former holiday, the Paynes took Maddie out for the day, so they could have some time with the twins. That is completely odd, why would they need to segregate Maddie in order to have some good times?

I do not know whether they murdered Madeleine or had her adopted or sold her to paedophiles, but I do think they went on that holiday with a plan in place to get rid of that poor little girl.

Gerry even had postcard sized duplicate copies of older photos of Madeleine to hand to the police. He says these were printed out that night. But they are clearly old pictures and we know from Kate the new picture of Maddie on holiday was the tennis balls picture. One that they repeatedly and inexplicably (if they were actually innocent) fail to use in their so called search for Maddie.

I think there were times in the early stages where Kate nearly gave the game away to the Police. Ricardo Paiva was getting very close to her, but Gerry always stepped in and shut her up.

I even wonder whether she killed Madeleine to take her to a better place than she had whilst alive. That actually fits with the bible passage Kate was reading.

Pat Brown says she does not accept the apartment door was left open, I think the rear door was. Mrs Fenn reports that on 1 May Maddie was crying for one hour 15 minutes shouting Daddy Daddy. Kate's mobile was used and so people say Kate was there. But what if it was him? I think it was. I think there was great disharmony between Kate and GErry on that "holiday" and Kate sustained a lot of bruises in that process. I think that was him too.

viv said...

What I meant to add was Mrs Fenn says the crying stopped when the rear patio door opened. She assumed it was the McCanns returning, it could just as well have been someone leaving.

If Maddie was not drugged up, quite obviously she could easily have got out that apartment. My boys could do the most amazing things at two, let alone nearly four. Stair gates etc, that would not stop a fit and intelligent four year old. The McCanns acknowledge the children were drugged and expect us to believe this predator was messing about drugging the twins as well, what absurd rubbish.

I believe Gerry was Madeleine's abductor, if not Payne or O'Brien, I just don't know whether she was dead or alive. But I do know it would be enough to make this group want to keep their mouth shut.

Pat Brown does point out, this group never speak up supporting them and the abduction, that is a fact. Maybe they figure they are in enough trouble! |I do not think Tanner and O'Brien speak to the McCanns any longer and there has always been tension there. I think Jane just saw Mr CArpenter carrying his child and she got stitched up, but I could be wrong. It could be to alibi Gerry because the Smith sighting is real and that was him carrying Maddie off, but if that is so, it was incredibly poor planning on his part. I would be surprised because this man is a control freak who likes to work every detail out, like the photos, that was just too worked out!

viv said...

But News of the World editor Rebekah Wade said the newspaper's campaign to name and shame more of the UK's 110,000 convicted child abusers would continue, despite widespread criticism from ministers, police chiefs, probation officers and other experts.

Quite often when I worked as a probation officer the job was just as much about protecting the offender from the public as protecting the public from the offender. That is our law, they are punished for their offending, no one has the right to further persecute them. Kate and Gerry are not even convicted and thus are entitled to the same freedoms and safeguards as anyone else.

Di said...

Hi Viv & Mar

Viv, regarding Mrs Fenn on the night Madeleine was crying for over an hour, which stopped when she heard the parents return. As we have said before, could someone have been leaving, but could someone have been leaving with Madeleine. Perhaps Madeleine was drugged, which would account for the crying to stop suddenly, and removed.

viv said...

Hiya Di

I had not worked that one out, but I think you are probably spot on as usual!

It makes sense to me and does fit with what Mrs Fenn was saying.

It kind of explains what everyone has found hard to understand.

How come Maddie just stopped crying at around the same time as the doors?

As you say, drugged and then through the doors with her. It is quite horrific.

I did post on Jo Morais blog but last time I checked it wasnot there. Mrs Fenn's evidence would now be unquestionably admissible in evidence even though she is dead and cannot be cross examined upon it. Section 116 Criminal Justice Act 2003. The laws here are much less favourable to the McCanns than they would be in Portugal, another reason for that shelving decision IMO. There was too much other purely UK stuff for the Pt to be able to investigate and prosecute there.

viv said...

So impressed with your post Di have put on side of blog, although not naming you, I think it is key to what was going on and the reason the McCanns needed to change the night etc to try and make out it was someone unknown to them.

The last picture of Madeleine is that morning, the tennis balls pic.

viv said...

I do not know whether it is just me, but I get very fed up and almost breathless trying to read "Dr Martin Roberts". I want to know what he has to say, but one has to suffer all that flowery verbosity. He makes me quite breathless and I just give up. Would someone please scream at him, there is no need to show us how clever you are, just get to the bloody point!

Di said...

That's fine Viv, I have never understood how a child that had been crying for so long could immediately stop, something had to have happened and that is the only plausible possibility I can come up with.

By the way I love the picture of Nanday.

I have not read anything from Dr Martin Roberts recently, I assume it is on McCannfiles so will have a look.

Di said...

I have read Dr Martin Roberts post Viv, I found one thing very interesting.

Seeing no little body, Gerry

'no little body' Kate

for someone to carry a 'little body' across the street.

Kate does seem to be fixated with bodies in her book. I find this terminology extremely bizarre to say the least.

viv said...

Hiya Di

It has sometimes seemed to me like Kate was trying to protect Madeleine when she slept in their room the night before. We know there were clean sheets on Maddie's bed on the Wednesday and yet when the police did forensics I do not think they found any trace of her ever having been in that particular bed as Gerry McCann claims. Kate seems to say they all sat on her bed and had a story on the Thursday night. If this to try and cover lack of specific evidence of little Maddie on there.

Who would have drugged Maddie on the Wednesday night and carted her off to another apartment? Could it have been Kate? I think it is horrific the way she writes in her book about her "perfect little genitals being torn apart".

The McCanns seems to want to keep alluding to paedophilia, are they paving the way for the biggest media spinning they have ever needed to mount?

I will take a look at Martin Roberts, keep calm and try again. But frequent references to body, yes of course I take your point. I hate what I am thinking and so hope I am wrong.

viv said...

sorry I mean who would have drugged Maddie on the Tuesday night and carted her off. We know Kate was making frantic phone calls early the next morning.

viv said...

Ah my gorgeous Nanday, the cuter and naughtier he is, the more we love him! He got himself onto the table near his cage, tipped the plant over to an angle then got back on his cage and let it have it!

Luke and I found him with a large slice in his beak and he just looked so sweet, it is not the first time he has decided to shred a plant. Variegated yucca this time, spider plant last, bless him.

He likes to do similar to a piece of pine, makes neat shreds just like match sticks and then drops them all over the floor.

viv said...

Di, I have had another read of "Dr" Martin Roberts and short of the point you pick up on, Kate's use of the word "body", I think it is a ludicrous load of old bunkum, and what is more he is a pompous twit who likes to sound important whilst being an utter fake. He seems to positively revel in drivel that no one can follow or understand and indeed, there is nothing to understand. Oh dear, how annoying is he! No sorry, I must continue, pompous prat!

Oh God Forgive me how could I be so insensitive and hurtful?

But ah well, confusion is good for the bloggers, just ask Gerry, lol!

viv said...

But it is a belly aching good laugh when the bloggers tell us how intelligent he is and what a good read, erm only trouble is erm I need to read it several times to try and figure out what this super intelligent erm "Dr" is rabbitting on about. Cannot stop laughing really!

It takes all sorts...there is only one other notable blogger I can think of who is quite as pompous as this..and you know I love him really.

viv said...

In another place, a little Angel writes:

Yes - another welcome article from Dr. Roberts. Manner from heaven!

I agree it will take a good couple or three reads.

But I do so enjoy reading them!


simply priceless, indeed manna from heaven!

viv said...

and then we have:

Yes, I also had to re-read this several times to understand the post and I don't agree that it's scraping the barrel....let me try to explain what I think it means....


moi? extracting the urine? would I do such a thing?

viv said...

and he conspiratorially continues:

This story allows for the possibility that an abductor was hiding inside the flat while he was checking


ummmmm loooooooooooooool

viv said...

and Jane Tanner can be almost as amusing. They all arrived at 9 pm ( I am going to miss out the erms ahhs and yes rights etc for clarity), but oh no hang on a minute, no but, Gerry had been there for half an hour so went to do his half hourly check.

OK Jane thanks for that and so eloquently put:

Yes, what JT said.

“Yeah. Erm, so, yeah, I think everybody, everybody arrived about nine o’clock. I
think we ordered fairly, as soon as Dave and Fi arrived we sort of like ordered almost
straight away I think. And almost I think as soon after Dave and Fi arrived Gerry
went to do his check, because they’d already been there since sort of half past eight,
so, you know, sort of like it was half an hour, a half an hour check for them.

viv said...

This is the major witness for the McCanns who can manage to completely contradict herself all within the space of just two sentences.

How unfair and nasty can those PJs be, failing to believe this lot?

Just how very dare they question such compelling evidence?

viv said...

So what can we deduce from this?

Everybody, yes everybody (she says it twice come on) arrived at 9 pm, ergo Gerry did not sod off to do a check at 9.05 then did he Jane, what was he actually doing, dear?

Even The News of the World told us they all arrived at 9 pm you silly lady!

viv said...

It must have been like Musical Chairs that night. In walk the Paynes, up jumps Gerry, in walks Russell O'Brien up jumps Kate.

And those big bad PJs say they were staging things? That is just plain wicked of them.

Di said...

Ha ha Viv, with all this jumping up and down, how on earth did they manage to eat anything, let alone down HOW many bottles of wine 12 was it? and they want us to believe this!

Di said...

Going back to the night of the first Mrs Fenn.

We have no idea what checking was in place for the night of the 1st only the supposed checks for the 3rd.

As I said earlier, Madeleine could have been sedated and removed that night, when Mrs Fenn thought she heard the parents rerturning but actually someone was perhaps leaving.

Has it ever been proven that the McCanns were not at Chaplins that night? Perhaps someone else was babysitting!

Kate's phone was tracked as being in the apt. Clarence said they had no mobiles on them, the 3rd, maybe Kate did not. When hubby and I go out he normally takes his phone and I leave mine at home.

Perhaps the pings from the apt were from someone using Kate's phone?

I suppose we also have to look at the theory that the parents did return to the apt as Mrs Fenn said, and Madeleine was immediately silenced.

Sad I know.

viv said...

Well you know Di,most of them are nice and slim, that must be the secret to their success. Wolf, jump, guzzle, jog, wolf, jump, guzzle, jog, lol!

I must try it sometime and get my former sylph like figure back, just so long as their is a toilet handy, I feel a bit queazy...

viv said...

Hiya Di

I cannot really recall the phone activity in the apartment that night. Will check the times of the calls and someone was using it, would this have been at the same time Maddie is crying?

I do not think the McCanns would have instantly silenced Maddie by killing her the moment they walked through the door, I think your other scenario, someone just drugged her to shut her up and maybe then walked off with her makes a lot more sense. I have always felt it is Gerry Payne OB and find it hard to sway myself from that view.

UK clearly thought she may be a sexually exploited child, CEOP!

micks59 said...

In Kates book ch23 I beleive she opened mouth again before engaging brain. She stated that only after MMC went missing did she become Kate McCann before that she was Kate Healy as per her passport. So one would asume that all the creche signing in records would be Kate Healy, well no only one Kate Healy on the 02/05/07 the rest either K M McCann or K McCann. Add to the fact apt 5a is not a Mark Warner apt, but privately owned by a Ruth Margret McCann. As well as the only DNA found was in the blood and the data to verify that was hair obtained in the McCann UK house. We have no proof that MMC was there in 2007.

viv said...

Hiya Mick and thanks for your comment.

I think that in Kate's book she is trying to tell us little things that will, in the final analysis go towards her own defence.

There seem to be lots of little instances. I have always found it odd that seemingly Maddie got put in the creche for a few mins and then taken out again, almost as though they had to show her off to someone.

I think that what Kate is clearly trying to tell us here is that only those signatures K Healy are actually her, the rest are Gerry, faking here which I am very clearly he would not be above.

The apartment management and ownership are two different things I believe. It seems clear from the explanations at the rogatory it was being managed by Mark Warner, handing out keys, taking to room, sening in the cleaners etc. This is not uncommon in many holiday setups.

I think the police took Gerry back to Rothley to get a clear sample of Madeleine for reference purposes because there were obviously so many different DNA samples in the apartment and they needed to be able to separate her out from everyone else. I also think it may be because the McCanns were not forthcoming with items of clothing worn by Madeleine that would obviously have provided excellent source of DNA from her, i.e. inside her clothing, skin flakes etc that would only be from her.

I think there is a lot of witness evidence to confirm Maddie was there and so was her passport etc. The police could probably check airport cctv and Payne videoed her getting onto the plane on his mobile phone. Also there is the tennis balls pic which is on the PJ file and accepted as being the last pic of Maddie (contrary to what they say I believe).

If there is any connection between Ruth McCann and Gerry British Police will obviously know that.

viv said...

In fact the British Police accompanying Gerry back to Rothley confirms what I have always thought, they were onto him immediately. But proving what he did with her, another matter!

micks59 said...

Hi Viv

You mean the video that the Met police know nothing of, the one that is on youtube, the one not shot at East Midlands Apt or the bus that isnt in Faro Apt. Why fake a video prior to departure. Video shot in Ireland on the Easter 2007 visit. Probably collecting the fake Maddie, MMC passport is issued when 2 months old, any same sex/ethinicty 4 year old could travel on that.

micks59 said...


The ocean club is not solely MW this is a private appartment, why would MW sub let 5a for £1,500 for a week. You can get 2ads 1 child now in July peak season in the OC for £2,100 that includes flights/ half board/ wine with dinner etc. No way would MW sub let in off season financial suicide.

viv said...

Hiya Mick

How do you know what London Met do and do not know or where a video is shot?

The holiday was booked via Mark Warner by David Payne, that is on the police files. I think generally you are going a sub let too far £1500 was quoted as the total cost of the holiday which seems about right/pretty cheap to me. £2100 now also seems right.

If you do actually have any valid points to make I would be pleased to hear from you again.

micks59 said...


Because I spoke to them personaly got treated like a child. peed me off, that was a big mistake. I sent you an email by clicking on your viv sign on, would love to send you my theory on that video. You will see I did a thorough investigation an no way is it what it says it is.

micks59 said...


PS They said what video, thet had never heard of it. Well doesnt sound much effort is being input, another white wash.

viv said...

Hiya again Mick, you can email me what you like, that is fine.

If you ask the police for information about any investigation at all, you will get a very short answer. Even when a case goes to trial the full police file in never revealed, they just select the witness statements of evidence they intend to lead at trial. Quite often information is even kept from the prosecuting barrister! If there is one thing UK love, it is secrecy. But I do think it is right that the public cannot gain access to information about an investigation. Look how frustrated the McS have been by not being able to find out what the police know, if people were discussing all of the evidence in the Maddie case on the net there would be no chance of any trial. Fortunatley, I am sure there is a huge amount we do not know, UK files have never been released and even three years ago, were said to contain 11000 pieces of information. I wonder how vast it is now!

I never do take what the McCanns say as gospel, someone released that video, from reading the rogs Payne took it and so it may have been him who released it. I am sure he has his own reasons for doing so, I would have thought to do with his own self preservation.

viv said...

Oh sorry you mean the police said, what video, TBH I am amazed you have approached the police to try and discuss the evidence in the case with them. You might have guessed they would tell you where to get off. They only want to hear from people who are witnesses to the case, they would not feel you could teach them anything and with respect, I very much doubt that you can.