Documented Evidence

It's absolutely infuriating, to read of all the inconsistencies in ALL the testimonies, which were pointed out by Mr Amaral! Anywhere else, with less powerful friends, they would have been locked up, the whole pack of them!

Date: July 31st 2007 - 8pm. Report:

Participants:

PJ: Tavares A. & Ricardo P. Inspectors
UK: Mark Harrison, Martin Grime (UK Forensic Canine P SM Expert),
Eddie & Keela (English Springers)
Silvia B. Manager of the Ocean Club complex.

On that date, inspections were conducted in the apartments occupied by members of the McCann family as well as the group who were with them at the time of Madeleine McCann's disappearance. It was only on that date that the apartment, identified as that of the parents, was empty allowing further investigation which was authorised by the respective occupants. Thus, at the appointed time, the search with the dogs began, covering the following apartments:

Apartment 5A:

From 8.30pm to 9.20pm, the dogs go through.
8.20pm: The cadaver dog, "marks," the couple's wardrobe area in the bedroom.
8.22pm: The cadaver dog, "marks" an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road.
From 8.47pm to 9.20pm, the blood detecting dog goes through.
8.10  The dog, "marks" an area of floor behind the sofa in the sitting room, near the window overlooking the road.

Apartment 5B: 9.24 to 9.27pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.

Apartment 5D: 9.29 to 9.34pm: The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.

Apartment 5H : 9.35 to 9.38pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.

Apartment 4G : 9.42 to 9.45pm : The cadaver dog did not alert on anything.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm

It follows from this investigation that there are indications, in practice and in the facts, of the crime of murder such as defined in ArticleQI310 of the Penal Code.

Jane Tanner's rogatory interview - April 2008

4078 “Okay. Up until this point then, Sunday evening this would be, had there been a kind of discussion between the group about child care or was it something that just sort of happened as you went along?”

Reply “Err…”

4078 “The reason I ask is because I’m aware that later on in the group people started to take it in turns to check other people’s children.”
Reply “Yeah.”

4078 “How did that come about?”

Reply “I think we just probably became more comfortable with the arrangements and it was sort of like a pop your head in if you, I think the first night I think we were all checking our own but as we became more comfortable with it, it was if one person was going back they would listen, listen you know at the door as well so, I don’t think, it wasn’t a, I don’t think it was a specific decision right now we all stopped, we’ll start checking on each other’s children, it was just a you know, you’re going back, you know, have a, have a listen as well.”

4078 “And was there any kind of set time that you started…”

Reply “Yeah we did try to do it every half an hour and I’d say out of everybody Kate and Gerry were the, the most strict on that, they were, we almost took them as the lead at times for when we, you know when we checked because they were definitely, you know were definitely every half an hour whereas we were the same, we probably did it at course, you know we probably do it because we tend to get to there at different times but err but you know I think it was more or less, more or less every, every half an hour.”
.....................

Strip this down to the bare bones and what do you have - eight adults 'bobbing up and down like this' all night. The attending waiter/s would have noticed such activity - surely?

If, big if, they were sort of checking each others children at frequent intervals, why was it also necessary for one of each couple to check? At some point, Jane Tanner was said to be flap-flipping about the streets in the vicinity of Gerry McCann who was having a natter, having just checked his three children - the same occasion when he gazed down upon his three year old daughter and thought how lucky he was to have such a beautiful child.

There should have been more investigation into the 'more checking on that particular night' . In highlighting their vigilance in caring for their children, because they are all wonderful parents, he has pointed out that the 'abductor' was more likely to get caught either entering or leaving the apartment than on any other night. Unnecessary detail again.

I'm still not fully convinced they did any checking. This snip from F Payne's rogatory statement admits they knew they would all be housed near to one another. They took baby monitors intending to leave the kids alone at night. so, but then I made the point and Dave had lots of emails with them saying 'Well if you can't, if you're not doing that I feel your brochure is misleading and we would like all our apartments to be at least together if you can't', you know, 'if you're not offering that can you at least guarantee that'. And there was a lot of emailing to'ing and fro'ing before about this, erm, maybe me being a bit difficult, I don't know. Erm, but, you know, as it was altered, they did manage to put us all close together as a group. Erm, so, you know, we thought well in the evenings we could at least get them to bed and with our baby monitors we can at least sort of have a drink together on, on a, on a balcony and still be all together, you know, looking after the children, so that was our plan before going really, that's what we'd do.

I don't think they did either, which is why Payne's remark about more checking than usual on that night didn't reinforce the story, but stood out as a stupid thing to say. The entire bunch of them should have been suspects. But as momac said, they had powerful friends.

If Madeleine died as early as Sunday and they were already having to explain the disappearance of one child, no way would they go out leaving the children alone and at risk.  Imagine if they had to explain how another child had come to harm.

There was talk of all the children being cared for in one apartment.  We know that at least one of the group stayed behind every night.  

Would that explain the contradictions in the checking system?

Besides, even if one of them was feeling under the weather, if they were in a neighbouring apartment why didn't they do the occasional checks on the children?

I'm not convinced Madeleine died as early as Sunday, surely they would have played out the abduction scam earlier for their own sanity!

Sure, they are lying & covering their backs, thinking only of themselves, spineless yes, but I don't think they are evil.

I think it was an accident and they covered it up, for whatever reason.

I'm not convinced the children were all in one apartment either, surely someone would have seen them being moved about late at night, not to mention all the cots being clattered about.

None of this charade makes any sense - but then the main players couldn't have known that their riddle, their labyrinth of deception, would find it's way into the public domain.  Otherwise I think they would have been more careful about what they said and how they said it.

There is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine McCann was alive and well after the first few hours of the family's arrival at the Ocean Club - Sunday would appear to be the last time it could be reasonably said she was alive and well.

The hidden detail I strongly believe lies in the circumstances that led to her 'disappearance' (read fate) - the reason why the alarm was delayed for 3/4/5 days.  The priority of course being to destroy all evidence, including a body and fake an abduction.

Do I think evil?  Mmmmm - perhaps not evil but..



There is only one thing I can think of that would warrant such a massive cover-up, for two insignificant medics from the Midlands.  A global plague that infiltrates every level of society, a revolting scandal that is plugged faster than the holes appear.

And I ain't talking 'Made in China'! Although a few Asiatic haunts might throw in a few clues.

Cambodia - did I say anything about Cambodia ?

It's interesting to observe, it was indeed the McCanns themselves who introduced the concept of paedophilia - can't blame folk for thinking or commenting.

Why would it immediately occur to the parents that their loving child had been stolen in the night by a sexual predator - a child molester.  Whilst the inner self might fear the worse the instinctive outer being would hope for the best, like their child actually did wander off into the night looking for her parents - or anything rather than ....

The story doesn't add up, it never did, not from the word go early May 2007. As I said, clearly they didn't anticipate release of the PJ files into the public arena, they thought they could control public opinion through media misinformation.



So here we are!

They didn't envisage this forum being set up, with so many people of varying professions able to analyse their hoax. Wanting to destroy Gonçalo Amaral is pretty evil.

Wanting to destroy Gonçalo Amaral is pretty evil.

Couldn't agree more. And that particular course of action is well and truly documented to this very day - with their hacks still trying to promote the delusion of a ECHR hearing.

They play dirty.

I can agree with that, to ruthlessly  go after G Amaral and anyone else for that matter, like they did was bordering on evil.

The Birthday picture above, thank you Verdi, is one of the reasons I very early on came to the conclusion they knew what had happened to Madeleine.

If your child had been stolen in the night, you would "go off your head".
No way could you go out, make statements and carry on, as these two did not knowing where your daughter was & how she was being treated.
If, however, you knew that your daughter was dead, you  held her & said a proper goodbye,  would the trauma be slightly less?
Would they, knowing what happened to Madeleine, be more likely to act as they did a few days later?
To me, the difference between knowing the end of your daughter & living with the thoughts you are bound to have if you didn't know where she was, would have an effect on how you acted in the days to follow.

They look relieved, don't they? 'We've fooled 'em' - except you haven't, McCanns.

What is the saying, You can fool some of the people, some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people, all of the time... It's coming, the truth will out.

CaKeLoveR wrote:They look relieved, don't they? 'We've fooled 'em'  - except you haven't, McCanns.

Don't they just?

This, of all the pictures of them, gives me the hebejeebees.

They know alright.

I saw a video clip yesterday but it was from the Daily Express so I couldn't get the code to embed here on CMOMM. Beyond a shadow of doubt, Kate McCann was sat there looking all glamerous but feigning the distraught grieving mother of a lost child, whilst Gerry McCann was sat beside her smirking.



They are taking the wee-wee big time.

This is probably the most significant indication of early subterfuge, at least in my view.  Within 24 hours Gerry McCann can stand there before the cameras, pretending to be distraught with feigned faltering voice, reading from a script by torchlight with the wife clinging to him like a naughty child, looking as though she's just jumped out of the shower.

It you're making a public appeal it should be from the heart - not a piece of paper..



Frozen in time - the 2nd media appearance on 5th May 2007 ..

Good to see he found his wristwatch.

Was it Gerry who said 'Nothing of value was taken'?

The video featured in the Express #244 ^^^..



https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13407p850-video-of-the-day#413854

BBC Reconstruction: Tapas seating plan 3rd May 2007




The Holy Grail ..

The Blue Bag

This has been the subject of extensive discussion over the years, and like so many other aspects of this case, has been obfuscated by forum myth and unwanted interference.  The various photographs circulated across cyberspace are a prime example, enlarged, reduced, flipped, added to, taken from, to say nothing of colour enhancement.

There is undoubtedly a cloud of doubt over the origin of the 'blue bag'  (?) photograph in the McCanns apartment 5a bedroom wardrobe photograph.  At least to my mind.

For a start, if Gerry McCann was in possesion of a sports bag at any point of the May 2007 holiday in Portugal, it's more than reasonable to presume he traveled with his own tennis gear - also, if the intention was to spend a lot of time banging balls with his wife, the natural inference would be that she also traveled with her own tennis gear.

There is no mention of this in any official documentation to my knowledge so I think it can be safely assumed it didn't happen.  Why would a couple going on a 2 week holiday with three very young kids bother to take their own tennis rackets and whatever else, just for a knock around at the holiday resort?  Not impossible but highly unlikely in my view.  Point 1 - why would McCann take a sports bag on his holiday, without any sports equipment in it?  This raises the important question .... was there a bag, blue or otherwise, in the pictured wardrobe at any time?

Now, getting down to the photograph itself, before anything else look at the quality compared to the other PJ forensic teams photographs featured in the files.  Then, why isn't this particular photograph included in the portfolio of PJ photographs taken by their forensic team on the afternoon of 4th May 2007.  



https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm



https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

The photograph of the wardrobe showing a bundle of clothes and something that could be a bag, or could be anything else for all I can see, appear in the PJ files on the page concerning Kate McCann and the unanswered questions posed in September 2007.  That doesn't make any sense.

There is the wardrobe picture showing something behind a door, if there was a sports bag or some similar sized bag - now you see it now you don't - I would think the PJ would have been very interested, enough for the subject matter to feature prominently in their investigation.

I've always been very sceptical about this particular aspect of the case.  The photograph does show the watermark of the PJ but there could be any number of explanations for that.  I know David Payne went to great lengths to babble his way through when questioned during the rogatory process, but that was one year after the event, a lot of mischief had been done in that year.