Clutching at Straws - Dr Martin Roberts

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
11 May 2011


CLUTCHING AT STRAWS


The McCanns' high hopes for the book 'Madeleine' are what might be expected of a garlic necklace by a Transylvanian virgin. Indeed Kate's 'account of the truth' is already hanging about their heads, but has more the appearance of a large white sea-bird than a string of protective beads. Kate McCann's version of the terracotta army takes the form of a multitude of straw men. In the final analysis they should prove just as efficacious. For while her thoughts are regularly punctuated by the idea of paedophiles, she is probably misconstruing what her inner voice is telling her. Her secret fear is really the P.J.'s Files.

The archive which the McCanns had translated at considerable expense (an exercise no-one appears to have paid for by the way) holds a wealth of information. So much so that some data attributed to it can be very difficult to find; to the point of their seeming non-existence in fact. According to the Sunday Express, "Martin N bears a remarkable resemblance to the photo-fit of a man seen carrying a child in his arms near the McCanns' Praia da Luz hotel in 2007." The McCanns' Praia da Luz hotel of course does not exist. Nor, for that matter, is said photo-fit anywhere to be found in the official police files; something like it maybe (see PJ Files Vol. XV p.3986), but similarity is not congruence.

Paradoxically, the photograph of Martin N also bears a passing resemblance to one of Gerry McCann's friend, Jez Wilkins, who could in turn therefore be said to 'bear a remarkable resemblance to the photo-fit...' It would be of no little interest to discover whether someone was actually guilty of tampering with police evidence in support of the Sunday Express story.

As if to lend credence to this scurrilous speculation, Kate McCann herself offers an explanation as to how criminals at leisure in Praia da Luz can still have an eye for an opportunity. They could, for instance, read the notes made by a receptionist when taking orders for dinner and gain some understanding of the client's movements thereby; something Kate had discovered from reading the files. How careless can people be?

As straw men go this one is the pied piper!

Translating the P.J. files cost the McCanns approximately £100,000, apparently. They felt it necessary because they did not speak Portuguese, the native tongue of the receptionist who made the written observation (about the McCanns' intention to leave their children alone in their apartment) in a staff message book (kept at a pool-side desk if one believes the Daily Mail, the Tapas restaurant reception according to the Daily Mirror); the book that is not to be found archived among the Tapas reservation sheets recorded by the P.J., nor anywhere else among the files for that matter, whether one searches them using the word 'staff,' 'message,' or 'book.' Whatever is the case, Kate, who does not speak Portuguese, claims to have read it - in translation, surely.

That this intelligence might have come to the attention of an inquisitive predator can only have been a by-product of what was intended, i.e. an explanatory note, written by a Portuguese, for other Portuguese, in Portuguese. Had Kate herself noticed the original script in situ she would not have understood it, any more than would a German, even given that many Germans speak better Spanish than many Brits speak English. Portuguese is sufficiently unlike Spanish as to make even a single sentence quite unintelligible to the casual reader, who might otherwise be quite at home, linguistically, elsewhere on the Iberian peninsular. Kate McCann is perfectly clear on the point: "... the receptionist had added that we wanted to be close to our apartments as we were leaving our children alone there and checking on them intermittently." Not the simplest of sentences, and not specific to the McCanns either, as they only rented one apartment. The note, as translated, appears to reflect the collective approach to childcare.

So Madeleine was abducted - not by an opportunist passer-by, but a forward-thinking child-snatcher, able to garner information on his target's status from a glance at a hand-written note in a foreign language.

I don't think so somehow.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

If Kate read this message and understood it, why didn't she tell the receptionist to remove it from sight because it would put her home-alone children at risk of abduction?

ufercoffy wrote:If Kate read this message and understood it, why didn't she tell the receptionist to remove it from sight because it would put her home-alone children at risk of abduction?

Because she only came across the note in the files many, many months after the event.

Oh right, thanks, that'll teach me for skimming the article and not reading it properly won't it?

Does that mean Kate knew about this before she allowed the case to be shelved? You'd think she would want to keep the investigation open to sort out things like this.

Wouldn't you?

ufercoffy wrote:Oh right, thanks, that'll teach me for skimming the article and not reading it properly won't it?

Does that mean Kate knew about this before she allowed the case to be shelved? You'd think she would want to keep the investigation open to sort out things like this.

Wouldn't you?

What I would have thought is that the police investigating the disappearance at the time might have taken evidence such as this a little more seriously than they obviously did. However, as with the five sex attacks on British children in their holiday apartments at nearby resorts prior to Madeleine's disappearance they didn't seem able or willing investigate potentially important leads very thoroughly or at all. Did the police ever interview all the staff at the MW resort for a start? Did they interview every guest staying there at the time? If not, why not?

Yes, Ringo, but what ufercoffy is saying is that, if K McCann came across this "information" and it appeared to her that the police investigation was substandard and had missed what she thought was a vital lead, why did she allow the case to be shelved, or remain shelved? She could easily then, and she could easily now, say to the police "hang on, what about this? It looks like it may be relevant, why haven't you followed it up?"

On your other point, Ringo. I don't think I'm being controversial by characterising the British reporting of this case over the last four years as xenophobic and jingoistic. Against that background, why do you think it is that of the five alleged cases of grown men with paedophilic tendencies getting into bed with stranger British children on holiday in the Algarve, none have been reported in the media here. Not by their parents even as a warning to others, not by the police, not by anyone. Why do you suppose that is?

I have my own opinion and that is that it is because they never happened. What is yours?

The Shelfstacker wrote:Yes, Ringo, but what ufercoffy is saying is that, if K McCann came across this "information" and it appeared to her that the police investigation was substandard and had missed what she thought was a vital lead, why did she allow the case to be shelved, or remain shelved? She could easily then, and she could easily now, say to the police "hang on, what about this? It looks like it may be relevant, why haven't you followed it up?"

On your other point, Ringo. I don't think I'm being controversial by characterising the British reporting of this case over the last four years as xenophobic and jingoistic. Against that background, why do you think it is that of the five alleged cases of grown men with paedophilic tendencies getting into bed with stranger British children on holiday in the Algarve, none have been reported in the media here. Not by their parents even as a warning to others, not by the police, not by anyone. Why do you suppose that is?

I have my own opinion and that is that it is because they never happened. What is yours?

On your first point, the police badly let down the McCanns and missed vital leads. They decided pretty early on in the investigation to pursue only one line of inquiry and that was that the McCanns were guilty. They put pressure on Kate McCann to confess to a crime she did not commit. Under those circumstances I too might be reluctant to go back to the Portuguese police for help in finding my missing daughter. That said, it is my understanding that the police would only re-open the case if new evidence came to light, ie: information that had not already been gathered and assessed by the authorities. This information we are talking about is not new, it was already in the files. The police just chose not to attribute any significance to it.

On your second point, these cases have been reported in the media here, as a direct result of the Madeleine McCann case. That is how we know about them. The parents of these abused children, after being so poorly served by the PJ, DID go to the British police as a direct result of the Madeleine McCann case. They did this in the hope that their experiences would shed some light on Madeleine's disappearance - that is why there is information in the files about them. Now, ask yourself this question - how could Kate McCann hope to get away with inventing completely fabricated information claiming it came from the files, when these files were collated and written by numerous police officers both here and in Portugal, police officers who would easily be able to prove that she is making it up? In Portugal, why would police officers not refute most strongly these claims of abused British children in holiday resorts if they were completely false, thus showing up Kate McCann, Bill Henderson and Dave Edgar as fantasists and a liars?

I'm puzzled about kate's revelation about their booking in the Tapas bar. she says she told the person taking the dinner booking for the 9 of them that they wanted to be near the apartments as they were checking on their children from time to time rather than getting a babysitter. now as they admit you could not see the apartment from the tapas bar why would they put in such a request - and why would they admit to leaving so many children home alone? i think there would have been about 10 very small children involved. it wouldn't make any difference where they sat in the tapas bar as there would be no sight of the apartment. Was the tapas bar so huge that there would be a 100 metre difference between sitting near the door and sitting at the back? I don't think so.

now it is quite normal to put in a request for a window table or not to be near the toilets or whatever but this request does not make sense. She is now using it to cast aspersions on the staff member who took the booking and to explain how it was that the kidnapper knew there were children home alone and seized the opportunity.

And i wonder why this matter did not surface at the time.

Now there used to be a restaurant 100 metres away from our home (but in the next street) where my husband and I dined on occasion. Now if we had left our three daughters home alone which we never did anyway, why would we have asked for a table near the door and told them we had left 3 children at home as the reason? If we had done this, the local staff would probably have informed the social services.

pauline wrote:I'm puzzled about kate's revelation about their booking in the Tapas bar. she says she told the person taking the dinner booking for the 9 of them that they wanted to be near the apartments as they were checking on their children from time to time rather than getting a babysitter. now as they admit you could not see the apartment from the tapas bar why would they put in such a request - and why would they admit to leaving so many children home alone? i think there would have been about 10 very small children involved. it wouldn't make any difference where they sat in the tapas bar as there would be no sight of the apartment. Was the tapas bar so huge that there would be a 100 metre difference between sitting near the door and sitting at the back? I don't think so.

now it is quite normal to put in a request for a window table or not to be near the toilets or whatever but this request does not make sense. She is now using it to cast aspersions on the staff member who took the booking and to explain how it was that the kidnapper knew there were children home alone and seized the opportunity.

And i wonder why this matter did not surface at the time.

Now there used to be a restaurant 100 metres away from our home (but in the next street) where my husband and I dined on occasion. Now if we had left our three daughters home alone which we never did anyway, why would we have asked for a table near the door and told them we had left 3 children at home as the reason? If we had done this, the local staff would probably have informed the social services.

The reason they asked for a table outside the restaurant was so that could have a clearer view of the apartments, which were all visible (though not in their entirety, admittedly) from the table where they sat. Had they sat inside the restaurant then their view of the apartments would have been much less clear.

They have always admitted leaving the children alone so there is no change to their story in this regard. Nor is Kate casting aspersions on the restaurant staff for writing this comment in the book - it's just one of those things, that with hindsight, was probably not the most sensible thing to do, but had Madeleine not disappeared that night would have been completely unremarkable.

Ringo,

I am going to go along with you as far as I can to attempt to nail this issue down. Can you point me to where in the media these cases were reported? I consider myself pretty well informed through various media (radio, TV and print) and I cannot recall any of these alleged cases making it to national prominence, which would have been a given if these things had happened and so frequently. Where is the evidence the parents went to the British police with their allegations? And do you not think they would have gone to the media or a PR man at the same time or (increasingly these days) even before?


You also say "the police badly let down the McCanns and missed vital leads. They decided pretty early on in the investigation to pursue only one line of inquiry and that was that the McCanns were guilty. They put pressure on Kate McCann to confess to a crime she did not commit. Under those circumstances I too might be reluctant to go back to the Portuguese police for help in finding my missing daughter."

No you wouldn't. You wouldn't be reluctant at all and neither would K McCann if her daughter were truly missing, whereabouts unknown. You would move heaven and earth and use every available resource and put personal misgivings aside.

You also said "That said, it is my understanding that the police would only re-open the case if new evidence came to light". Let us set the record straight for the benefit of all of us and particularly anyone who may be new to this discussion forum. The only thing the McCanns need to do to get the case reopened is to ask for it to be reopened. That was the position when the case was archived and it remains the position today.

Ringo wrote:

The Shelfstacker wrote:Yes, Ringo, but what ufercoffy is saying is that, if K McCann came across this "information" and it appeared to her that the police investigation was substandard and had missed what she thought was a vital lead, why did she allow the case to be shelved, or remain shelved? She could easily then, and she could easily now, say to the police "hang on, what about this? It looks like it may be relevant, why haven't you followed it up?"

On your other point, Ringo. I don't think I'm being controversial by characterising the British reporting of this case over the last four years as xenophobic and jingoistic. Against that background, why do you think it is that of the five alleged cases of grown men with paedophilic tendencies getting into bed with stranger British children on holiday in the Algarve, none have been reported in the media here. Not by their parents even as a warning to others, not by the police, not by anyone. Why do you suppose that is?

I have my own opinion and that is that it is because they never happened. What is yours?

On your first point, the police badly let down the McCanns and missed vital leads. They decided pretty early on in the investigation to pursue only one line of inquiry and that was that the McCanns were guilty. They put pressure on Kate McCann to confess to a crime she did not commit. Under those circumstances I too might be reluctant to go back to the Portuguese police for help in finding my missing daughter. That said, it is my understanding that the police would only re-open the case if new evidence came to light, ie: information that had not already been gathered and assessed by the authorities. This information we are talking about is not new, it was already in the files. The police just chose not to attribute any significance to it.

On your second point, these cases have been reported in the media here, as a direct result of the Madeleine McCann case. That is how we know about them. The parents of these abused children, after being so poorly served by the PJ, DID go to the British police as a direct result of the Madeleine McCann case. They did this in the hope that their experiences would shed some light on Madeleine's disappearance - that is why there is information in the files about them. Now, ask yourself this question - how could Kate McCann hope to get away with inventing completely fabricated information claiming it came from the files, when these files were collated and written by numerous police officers both here and in Portugal, police officers who would easily be able to prove that she is making it up? In Portugal, why would police officers not refute most strongly these claims of abused British children in holiday resorts if they were completely false, thus showing up Kate McCann, Bill Henderson and Dave Edgar as fantasists and a liars?

The bit I have put in bold - I may have missed something, how do you know they went to the British police, have you seen it in the files?

The Shelfstacker wrote:Ringo,

I am going to go along with you as far as I can to attempt to nail this issue down. Can you point me to where in the media these cases were reported? I consider myself pretty well informed through various media (radio, TV and print) and I cannot recall any of these alleged cases making it to national prominence, which would have been a given if these things had happened and so frequently. Where is the evidence the parents went to the British police with their allegations? And do you not think they would have gone to the media or a PR man at the same time or (increasingly these days) even before?


You also say "the police badly let down the McCanns and missed vital leads. They decided pretty early on in the investigation to pursue only one line of inquiry and that was that the McCanns were guilty. They put pressure on Kate McCann to confess to a crime she did not commit. Under those circumstances I too might be reluctant to go back to the Portuguese police for help in finding my missing daughter."

No you wouldn't. You wouldn't be reluctant at all and neither would K McCann if her daughter were truly missing, whereabouts unknown. You would move heaven and earth and use every available resource and put personal misgivings aside.

You also said "That said, it is my understanding that the police would only re-open the case if new evidence came to light". Let us set the record straight for the benefit of all of us and particularly anyone who may be new to this discussion forum. The only thing the McCanns need to do to get the case reopened is to ask for it to be reopened. That was the position when the case was archived and it remains the position today.

I will address all your questions if you at first at least address the question(s) I put to you in my previous post, i.e:

Now, ask yourself this question - how could Kate McCann hope to get away with inventing completely fabricated information claiming it came from the files, when these files were collated and written by numerous police officers both here and in Portugal, police officers who would easily be able to prove that she is making it up? In Portugal, why would police officers not refute most strongly these claims of abused British children in holiday resorts if they were completely false, thus showing up Kate McCann, Bill Henderson and Dave Edgar as fantasists and a liars?

candyfloss wrote:

Ringo wrote:

The Shelfstacker wrote:Yes, Ringo, but what ufercoffy is saying is that, if K McCann came across this "information" and it appeared to her that the police investigation was substandard and had missed what she thought was a vital lead, why did she allow the case to be shelved, or remain shelved? She could easily then, and she could easily now, say to the police "hang on, what about this? It looks like it may be relevant, why haven't you followed it up?"

On your other point, Ringo. I don't think I'm being controversial by characterising the British reporting of this case over the last four years as xenophobic and jingoistic. Against that background, why do you think it is that of the five alleged cases of grown men with paedophilic tendencies getting into bed with stranger British children on holiday in the Algarve, none have been reported in the media here. Not by their parents even as a warning to others, not by the police, not by anyone. Why do you suppose that is?

I have my own opinion and that is that it is because they never happened. What is yours?

On your first point, the police badly let down the McCanns and missed vital leads. They decided pretty early on in the investigation to pursue only one line of inquiry and that was that the McCanns were guilty. They put pressure on Kate McCann to confess to a crime she did not commit. Under those circumstances I too might be reluctant to go back to the Portuguese police for help in finding my missing daughter. That said, it is my understanding that the police would only re-open the case if new evidence came to light, ie: information that had not already been gathered and assessed by the authorities. This information we are talking about is not new, it was already in the files. The police just chose not to attribute any significance to it.

On your second point, these cases have been reported in the media here, as a direct result of the Madeleine McCann case. That is how we know about them. The parents of these abused children, after being so poorly served by the PJ, DID go to the British police as a direct result of the Madeleine McCann case. They did this in the hope that their experiences would shed some light on Madeleine's disappearance - that is why there is information in the files about them. Now, ask yourself this question - how could Kate McCann hope to get away with inventing completely fabricated information claiming it came from the files, when these files were collated and written by numerous police officers both here and in Portugal, police officers who would easily be able to prove that she is making it up? In Portugal, why would police officers not refute most strongly these claims of abused British children in holiday resorts if they were completely false, thus showing up Kate McCann, Bill Henderson and Dave Edgar as fantasists and a liars?

The bit I have put in bold - I may have missed something, how do you know they went to the British police, have you seen it in the files?

We had this discussion yesterday - I quoted the passage from Kate's book in which she describes coming across them in the files, and how she realises that these must be the same cases mentioned to her by Bill Henderson. Of course I realise that Kate is not considered all that reliable by most of the posters on this forum so I will reiterate my question from earlier -

how could Kate McCann hope to get away with inventing completely fabricated information claiming it came from the files, when these files were collated and written by numerous police officers both here and in Portugal, police officers who would easily be able to prove that she is making it up? In Portugal, why would police officers not refute most strongly these claims of abused British children in holiday resorts if they were completely false, thus showing up Kate McCann, Bill Henderson and Dave Edgar as fantasists and a liars?

The post where you quoted the sex attacks, I have just found the article it came from....................News of the World 10th May 2009 You omitted to tell us that bit


So this is a really old story. 2 years ago!!! Why have we heard no more about it. What have the private detectives been doing in those 2 years, being paid out of the fund, and no results! The title of the piece even says they have the name of the suspects!!! Obviously another red herring


Here's the article...............

We have names of Maddie suspects

Brit detective team hunting missing youngster reveal new leads

Exclusive by Dominic Herbert May 10, 2009

HUNTING FOR MADDIE: Cold case chief Edgar THE British team of cold case detectives investigating Maddie McCann's disappearance today reveal sensational NEW LEADS.


Senior ex-police officers hired by parents Kate and Gerry now have the names of at least FIVE new possible kidnappers after a flood of calls from the public last week.


And they have found vital evidence never properly investigated by blundering Portuguese cops.


It includes a list of 18 PERVERTS and a sinister series of SIX SEX ATTACKS on other British kids within an hour's drive of the Praia da Luz resort where Maddie was snatched.


The former detective inspector leading the squad, Dave Edgar, also believes the youngster-who would be six on Tuesday-is ALIVE and could still be hidden in peasant villages ten miles away. Police have never searched these.


Opening his case files exclusively to the News of the World, Edgar said: "Is it possible that Madeleine is alive and living in the Algarve despite all the publicity? The answer is yes.


Identify

"There is a very strong possibility that Madeleine is still within that area. We are following evidence with this."


Edgar, 52, revealed how his team has been sifting through responses following the release of an image of how Maddie would look today-plus a TV reconstruction and artist impressions of a man seen watching the McCann's holiday flat before the abduction.


"We have had between 200 and 300 good calls," said Edgar. "There are five or six really important ones we are focusing in on now. We have had names come in and information with which we can identify others."


They will also cross reference the names of new suspects with their database of British sex offenders living in Portugal at the time. As the cold case hots up, Edgar's team are virtually certain ONE MAN carried out the kidnapping that shook the world and NOT child traffickers. And Edgar says the Portuguese cops probably had him in their grasp but let him slip through their fingers.


"There is no evidence that there is more than one person involved," he said. "And I believe there is a real chance the police have spoken to him during their inquiry."


But hardened cop Edgar - used to leaving no stone unturned in UK investigations - says he was astonished to find vital evidence in Portuguese police files that was never made public during the search.


He said it seemed they had failed to run thorough checks on 18 sex offenders living within easy reach of the McCanns' apartment.


Edgar added: "I have had a look at the files and it is very difficult to assess them as the documents I have been given are not very satisfactory.


"All I can say is that so far we have eliminated only two of the offenders because they were in prison at the time. The remaining 18 weren't investigated to the standard I'm used to. But we will take this forward."


Former Northern Ireland and Cheshire cop Edgar, 52, Edgar and his hard-core squad of four hand-picked investigators -drafted in by the McCanns last November - are also looking at records of six sex attacks against youngsters in the Algarve leading up to Madeleine's kidnap. Again, these are poorly documented by the Portuguese.


"Most of attacks were overnight, in apartments and at least five involved British children," he said. "I am looking for links to the Madeleine abduction - geographical links, links with the descriptions."


The attacks are:


APRIL 14, 2004: Praia do Carvoeiro, Lagoa, 20 miles from Praia da Luz (PDA). Sex assault on 10-year-old girl.


JUNE 9 2005: Sao Rafael, near Sesmarias, 50 miles from PDA. Sex assault on nine-year-old girl.


JUNE 2 2006: Praia do Carvoeiro, Lagoa, 20 miles from PDA. Sex assault on seven-year-old girl and her 10-year-old sister in separate rooms.


OCTOBER 29 2006: Albufeira, 45 miles from PDA. Sex assault on eight-year-old girl


CHRISTMAS DAY, 2006: Silves, 35 miles from PDA. Attempted abduction of three-year-old girl.


MAY 28 2007: Albufeira. 45 miles from PDA. Intruder disturbed at the bottom of nine-year-old girl's bed.


Edgar told us: "Some of the attacks were in the files and some were in other documents that were not terribly obvious. Again I am subject to the frailties of the Portuguese authorities and have to work with what I have been given. I have tried to build bridges with them but have had no response. But we have access to other files that have not been released to the public and the media."


As well as sifting through case files, Edgar has pinpointed a wilderness just 10 miles north of the tourist strip where Maddie could be hidden in peasant communities live in isolation.


Memories

"Once you get beyond the tourist strip it is a different world. The geography is a really important factor," he said. "These are isolated areas, it is impoverished and villagers live the way they have done for years. Children change physically and a child's memory changes.


"Madeleine will have memories but at that age you develop very quickly and especially if you are living with people from different backgrounds.


"The other really important point is that no body has been found."


Edgar's belief that one man alone took the youngster was backed by revelations last week that a mystery man with a pockmarked face and pointed nose was spotted by two separate witnesses watching the McCanns flat in the days before the kidnap.


The ex-cop thinks it could be the man seen by Jane Tanner, one of the holidaymakers who had been with the McCanns in the tapas bar before Maddie was snatched.


Edgar said: "I think it could be the same person - some one with knowledge of the area. The descriptions given are very similar. And Jane is a very reliable witness."


He dismissed many of the established theories behind Maddie's disappearance - like the involvement of child traffickers. "From the evidence I just don't think this is the case," he said. He has also ruled out Maddie being carried aboard a yacht at a nearby marina after interviewing the key witness behind the theory.


And he said the Portuguese police were WRONG to focus on the McCanns and local Robert Murat as suspects.


"A closed mind gives you closed options. They had a theory that focused on, Kate and Gerry and Murat. There is not one shred of evidence against any of them."


The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said last night: "Kate and Gerry are very pleased at the response from the publicity of the second anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance. And they are pleased with the good work Dave and his team are doing."

£1.5m REWARD INFORMATION

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/notw/news/298893/Ex-police-officers-hired-by-parents-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-have-the-names-of-at-least-FIVE-new-possible-kidnappers-of-Maddie.html

Ringo wrote:Now, ask yourself this question - how could Kate McCann hope to get away with inventing completely fabricated information claiming it came from the files, when these files were collated and written by numerous police officers both here and in Portugal, police officers who would easily be able to prove that she is making it up? In Portugal, why would police officers not refute most strongly these claims of abused British children in holiday resorts if they were completely false, thus showing up Kate McCann, Bill Henderson and Dave Edgar as fantasists and a liars?

I do not know enough about Mr Henderson to be able to label him in the terms you use, which some might say with some justification could be applied to K McCann and D Edgar. You ask additionally how K McCann could hope to get away with "inventing completely fabricated information". In answering I would merely point you to the passage in the serialised excerpts where she talks about "resuming the search" in the morning of 4th May 2007 when she is already on record categorically admitting that she had never physically searched for her own daughter. This is just one of very many examples of glaring and important discrepancies. Clearly she believes she could get away with these things.

candyfloss wrote:The post where you quoted the sex attacks, I have just found the article it came from....................News of the World 10th May 2009 You omitted to tell us that bit

No I didn't. This is what I wrote to you yesterday, and then went on subsequently to quote from the relevant article in a follow-up post:

Re: Super injunctions: Carter Ruck: Paedophiles and the McCanns

Ringo Yesterday at 15:50

candyfloss wrote:Yes, I'm sure Mr Amaral will give us his views when he has read the book!!

I'm sure you can get us the link somehow

I had a look but could only find this - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3567599/MADDIE-MUM-MY-TORTURE-Madeleine-McCanns-mum-Kate-reveals-paedophile-fears-in-new-book-in-The-Sun.html

Why do you need me to provide the link anyway - do you think I am making it up?

As these sex crimes against British children were first revealed in the British press back in May 2009, Mr Amaral has had two whole years to let us know if these were made up or not - as far am I'm aware though he has never commented on them.

[quote="candyfloss"]

So this is a really old story. 2 years ago!!! Why have we heard no more about it. What have the private detectives been doing in those 2 years, being paid out of the fund, and no results! The title of the piece even says they have the name of the suspects!!! Obviously another red herring quote]

Yes, but still you have once again avoided the questions:

1) Why would the PJ not have refuted these allegations of attacks if they were false, either back in 2009 when the story first appeared in the press, or more recently this week when they have been referred to again?

2) Why would Kate McCann risk being so easily caught out as a liar by inventing things that appeared in the official files into her daughter's disappearance?

The Shelfstacker wrote:

Ringo wrote:Now, ask yourself this question - how could Kate McCann hope to get away with inventing completely fabricated information claiming it came from the files, when these files were collated and written by numerous police officers both here and in Portugal, police officers who would easily be able to prove that she is making it up? In Portugal, why would police officers not refute most strongly these claims of abused British children in holiday resorts if they were completely false, thus showing up Kate McCann, Bill Henderson and Dave Edgar as fantasists and a liars?

I do not know enough about Mr Henderson to be able to label him in the terms you use, which some might say with some justification could be applied to K McCann and D Edgar. You ask additionally how K McCann could hope to get away with "inventing completely fabricated information". In answering I would merely point you to the passage in the serialised excerpts where she talks about "resuming the search" in the morning of 4th May 2007 when she is already on record categorically admitting that she had never physically searched for her own daughter. This is just one of very many examples of glaring and important discrepancies. Clearly she believes she could get away with these things.

If there is a discrepancy in her story I would like to see that discrepancy laid out side by side so that I can see it for myself. However, whatever discrepancy you think you have found it hardly compares to blatantly inventing 6 sex attacks with locations and details of the attacks which is what you are suggesting has been done here, and which could easily be shown to be an invention if they were false.

Actually Ringo, and with respect I would suggest that the discrepancy I have highlighted is one of the most, if not THE most important departure from the truth in this entire saga, simply because of the subject matter it addresses.

Put simply, did K McCann upon finding that her 3 year old daughter was missing at night in a foreign country, go out immediately to look for her? Or did she not? This issue is fundamental yet K McCann is now on record by her own words as having searched and having not searched.

Against this, the other discrepancies pale almost into insignificance. I said "almost". For there are very many others and they all tell us something about the McCanns and their gang.

[quote="Ringo"]

pauline wrote:


They have always admitted leaving the children alone so there is no change to their story in this regard. Nor is Kate casting aspersions on the restaurant staff for writing this comment in the book - it's just one of those things, that with hindsight, was probably not the most sensible thing to do, but had Madeleine not disappeared that night would have been completely unremarkable.

Yes they always admitted leaving the children but there seems to be inconsistencies as to why. In the serialised extracts of the book she says she felt safe in the resort and in any case did not want her children being left with strangers. Now this is inconsistent with the FACT that the McCanns left their children in the playgroup and creche for the best part of the day (I'm not criticising them for this - parents need a break) so the McCann children would have got to know the English childcare staff who would also have been the babysitters for hire in the evening. Now as doctors they would be more aware than most parents that children may vomit, have pains imaginery or otherwise, need the toilet, have nightmares or have febrile convulsions (my daughter did and thank god I was there as while many such convulsions cease naturally with no harm done, in my case getting her to the hospital quickly prevented brain damage). So the McCanns preferred to have no-one there, albeit a girl who might not know the children that well, and risk the things I have listed. now these children were all born by IVF which you would think would make the McCanns over protective - yet they leave Maddie babysitting in effect (aged 3) with the responsibility of getting the twins out if there was a fire. I cannot understand this.

I am wondering if they normally left the children alone if they dined nearby on earlier holidays with their friends. it would be very interesting to know this. Or what do they do in the UK when they go out. Who babysits?

The Shelfstacker wrote:Actually Ringo, and with respect I would suggest that the discrepancy I have highlighted is one of the most, if not THE most important departure from the truth in this entire saga, simply because of the subject matter it addresses.

Put simply, did K McCann upon finding that her 3 year old daughter was missing at night in a foreign country, go out immediately to look for her? Or did she not? This issue is fundamental yet K McCann is now on record by her own words as having searched and having not searched.

Against this, the other discrepancies pale almost into insignificance. I said "almost". For there are very many others and they all tell us something about the McCanns and their gang.

Once again I appeal to you to set side by side the two completely conflicting statements so that we can judge for ourselves.

In the book Kate describes the initial minutes of panic on discovering Madeleine missing, her searching the apartment, the car park and the immediate environs of the apartment. She then says that Gerry, David, Russell and Matt split off and went on a wider search of the neighbouring apartments which took a couplle of minutes. She also writes that Gerry was 'running from pillar to post, urging me to remain in the apartment with the twins so that I'd be on hand if Madeleine was found and brought back there".

So, if she writes that the next morning Gerry and I resumed our search, I really don't see any contradiction there.

Perhaps you would have preferred it if she had written "the next morning Gerry resumed the search and I went with him for the first time, having only searched the apartment and the carpark the night before" - in the interests of strict accuracy?

Anyway, this is all deflecting very neatly from this - whatever discrepancy you think you have found it hardly compares to blatantly inventing 6 sex attacks with locations and details of the attacks which is what you are suggesting has been done here, and which could easily be shown to be an invention if they were false.