Another - by Dr Martin Roberts

by **PeterMac** 26.11.13 20:49

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
22 November 2013

A BEDTIME STORY

Olga Craig (Sunday Telegraph, 27.5.2007), wrote that when the McCanns moved to an apartment near to the one from which Madeleine was taken they "unpacked their missing daughter's clothes...laying out her pyjamas on what would have been her bed."

The Daily Mirror (19.9.2007): 'It is believed the entire Portuguese case rests on DNA evidence from body fluids which allegedly suggests that Madeleine's corpse was carried in the boot of the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic.
'But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'

[Kate McCann (under oath, to Lord Justice Leveson): "These were desperate times. You know, we were, having to try and find our daughter ourselves and needed all the help we could get and we were facing (we'll come onto the headlines) 'Corpse in the car.' How many times I read 'body fluids in the car,' and it gets repeated so often that it becomes fact. There were no body fluids."]

Kate McCann (Statement to police, 6 September, 2007):
'She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it out to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; nevertheless the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.'

Inventory of pyjamas owned and/or worn by Madeleine McCann between April 29 and May 3, 2007 therefore:
Three pairs - one unpacked (presumed clean), one soiled, one abducted after washing.
Three pairs of pyjamas for a week’s holiday? It won’t wash. Nor could Kate get the machine in 5A to do so.

"On Tuesday 1 May, after my tennis lesson, two maintenance workers came to have a look at our washing machine, which I couldn't get to operate."

Gerry appears to have been on crèche duty that morning. He signed in both Madeleine (9.30) and Amelie (9.20), although Sean's whereabouts are unconfirmed. Kate's tennis lesson was scheduled for 9.15 a.m. The maintenance workers arrived at 10.00. So either Kate McCann had attempted to operate the washing machine before, during or immediately after breakfast that Tuesday morning or she did so the day/evening before. In any event she had some washing in hand and knew better how to deal with it by the time she left to join Gerry at the tennis courts. Having attempted to deploy the washing machine on or before Tuesday morning, is she likely then to have deferred doing so for a week or more?

Returning now to Kate's statement regarding the tea stain, 'the stain did not appear during breakfast (Thursday), maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.'

The stain on these pyjamas was unlikely to have arisen the previous night, as Madeleine did not drink tea that night. Nevertheless, she must have been wearing these pyjamas on the Wednesday night, and Tuesday night as well if 'maybe it happened another day', even Monday night if Tuesday morning/evening are considered to have presented opportunities for tea drinking and/or pyjama staining. We may gloss over the question of how Kate managed to not see the stain before Thursday morning in that case, in favour of one the McCanns clearly did not anticipate when they put their September 2007 proposal to the Daily Mirror, that 'Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas ... were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'

What unwashed pyjamas?
The only pyjamas that can have been worn by Madeleine between the Tuesday and Thursday nights were the pink 'Eeyore' set that was washed, for the purpose of stain removal, before disappearing along with the child. It would of course be entirely reasonable to suggest that she wore a different pair for the first three nights of her stay in Praia da Luz, i.e., Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and that these may well have been soiled by then. But we know, because she has already told us, albeit indirectly, that Kate was keen to do some washing as early as Tuesday morning.

Are we therefore to suppose that, after so short a period, and with concomitantly so little soiled clothing as a result, Kate would not have washed whatever other pair(s) of pyjamas Madeleine might have been wearing during those first three days? And since Madeleine was not present to wear pyjamas of any description after May 3, there can have been no soiled, i.e., unwashed pyjamas of hers in evidence from that date onwards, whether in the Ocean Club apartment or the boot of the Renault Scenic.

Hence the notorious 'body fluids', perjured into nothingness during the 2011 Leveson Inquiry, were probably not introduced by Madeleine's soiled pyjamas after all, as her various pyjamas (assuming she had more than one set), should either have been washed earlier or else unused. However, we must not overlook the fact that Kate was able to suggest at least one other potential source for those absent body fluids.

'But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'
These sandals, perchance?
"...she looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals that I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls." (Kate McCann, in 'Madeleine')

Sandals worn with socks covering the feet?
Silly me. That photograph was taken on Tuesday, before the afternoon beach trip, when Madeleine may have taken her shoes and socks off, although she didn't enjoy the wet sand. Maybe mum and dad didn't bother to put the socks back on her feet before returning her to that already empty crèche for the last hour and a half.

At least we know how Madeleine dressed for tennis that Tuesday morning. We have Kate's photograph to prove it. We do not of course have Jane Tanner's photograph from either the Wednesday or the Thursday, since Kate had already taken it. But we do have both her own and Rachael Oldfield's description of Madeleine's involvement in tennis after Tuesday. And how was Madeleine typically dressed for tennis? In 'ankle socks and new holiday sandals' was how.

And from this combination of clothing we are invited to infer that 'body fluids' were deposited, first onto the inner sole of a pair of sandals, then transferred, via the under sole no doubt, onto a solid surface in the back of a car.

It would appear, on reflection, that Kate McCann was correct when she declared, while under oath, 'There were no body fluids', at least none that might have originated with recently washed pyjamas, or sandals worn over ankle socks. However, the behaviour of a blood detecting sniffer dog suggests, and the FSS examination of cellular material confirms, that there was body fluid in the wheel space of the McCann rental vehicle, albeit in miniscule amounts. So where did it come from?

Secondary options were also put to the Daily Mirror all those years ago (19.9.2007), in the form of 'dirty nappies belonging to twins Sean and Amelie, who have similar DNA to their four-year-old sister' while 'at least 30 people connected to the family, including close relatives, used the Renault before police searched it.'

What manner of desultory people would toss unwrapped, or worse yet unfolded nappies, lining downwards, into the rear of a rented vehicle, alongside the spare wheel? The stench alone would have put any one of the car's thirty plus (!) users off of changing the tyre!

On a less flippant note, the Portuguese police were minded to 'lift' biological debris from the Renault Scenic at the suggestion, so to speak, of a sniffer dog, whose forte was the detection of blood residues – human blood residues, which in itself puts paid to the fall back positions of either 'weepy nappies' or careless passengers. Unless the McCann twins suffered from internal bleeding or haemorrhoids, and/or an overly inquisitive passenger or two cut themselves whilst trifling unnecessarily with the car jack, there seems to be no reasonable explanation for the presence in the vehicle of the body fluids examined by the FSS, especially that detected by the dog.

No soiled pyjamas. No skin cells on sandals. No bloody stools. No bleeding passengers. Hence 'no body fluids', according to Kate McCann. The same Kate McCann who knew immediately her daughter had been, er, 'taken'. Perhaps Gerry McCann, when loading the car with leaflets for the highly publicised journey to Huelva, accidentally cut himself on Occam's razor.

As you know I love going back to the basics of what they all said. And then picking at it until it bleeds.

by Guest 26.11.13 20:56

So do Nigel and Dr. Roberts ... yes

by MarleneP 30.11.13 23:26

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

Another - by Dr Martin Roberts Crimewatch001b

By Dr Martin Roberts
30 November 2013

I SAY, I SAY, I SAY

Kate McCann (re-enacting her frightening discovery for the benefit of Crimewatch viewers):

"...the curtains - that I say, were closed - just kind of 'whoooosh!'"

Funny. That's not what either of you told police on May 4, 2007.

"At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and saw right away that the children's bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed." (Gerry McCann).

"At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open,the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did." (Kate McCann).

"And then I could see that the window had been pushed right over and the shutters were up."

Barely half-an-hour earlier and fellow diner Matthew Oldfield witnessed a similar scene, or so he claims; one which he also reported to police, on May 10, 2007.

'That he did not enter the bedroom where Madeleine and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains – green in colour – were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open...'

Oldfield could not have seen the bedroom window at all from where he repeatedly claims to have been standing, given that the door was only 'half-open'. That is why he saw green curtains instead of the blue gingham that were actually in place, and why he would not have known if the window was open or closed. (He claimed in an earlier statement that there were in fact two windows). Nor would he have been able to see the status of the shutters or, for that matter, the infant occupying the nearer of two cots. He would have to have been in the room in order to do so. In which case he would have had sight of Madeleine's bed also.

So what else are you all lying about? Oh don't bother. We know.

by jeanmonroe 01.12.13 0:23

"for that matter, the infant occupying the nearer of two cots. He would have to have been in the room in order to do so. In which case he would have had sight of Madeleine's bed also."
.....................................................................................................

And THAT is WHY CW and German CW showed the kids door on the LEFT hand side of the doorframe, when in reality it was, (and still is?) hung on the RIGHT.

They really think people are so STUPID that they tried to say the door was, and portrayed, on the LEFT so MO 'couldn't' SEE Madeleine.

WHY BOTH CW's did it, (MOVE the door) is anybody's guess!

ONCE is a 'mistake' TWO is a 'conspiracy'!

Anyone know what side of door frame the Dutch CW 'had'?

by Guest 01.12.13 6:19

you can make it 3 strikes in a row.

the dutch version recycled the brittish cw and besides that it was the up most presentation of a pro-mccann story you could have.

a recognizable, normal, happy family!

you can view it back yourself from this site i hope http://avro.nl/opsporingverzocht/Zaken/20131015/praia_da_luz_madeleine.aspx

by lj 01.12.13 15:08

onehand wrote:you can make it 3 strikes in a row.

the dutch version recycled the brittish cw and besides that it was the up most presentation of a pro-mccann story you could have.

a recognizable, normal, happy family!

you can view it back yourself from this site i hope http://avro.nl/opsporingverzocht/Zaken/20131015/praia_da_luz_madeleine.aspx

Indeed, the way they first of all had to make it clear that the parents are not suspect or even persons of interest is nauseating.

The door is hinged on the left side. I think those scenes are taken straight from the British version. Here no critical and independent thinking the Dutch were known for.

Andy is as repulsive as Gerry. The way he asks those people to come forward is so immensely creepy, I doubt many will call.

Onehand, I know what you mean with recognizable, but there is no one I know who'll leave 3 toddlers alone, even after one of them asked "why didn't you come when we were crying".

by Guest 01.12.13 19:04

i put that sentence in , because it was how the mccann's where described in the program, it is also the sentence that was totally out of place, leaving young children alone is also not a recognizable and normal parenting skill in my surroundings.

i don't have children of my own, but lots of experience in babysitting, short episodes or long episodes, there was never said, it was alright to pop out if i want to when they sleep, but it would also not get up in my head to do so. sometimes they where parked in my office or living room, in a buggy, pram or those handy seats, other times it is just hop over to the house of one of the neighbors with a book or magazine to read for a short period, but it is still instinct to give them back in one piece without any damage. leaving a little child one there own is you only heard of in cases of serious neglect.

also me and my siblings never left alone by our parents, there where always neighbors or family or friends and we where for sure not a recognizable normal happy family, in our family pictures maybe, but not in our everyday life.

but would it made a difference in madeleine's case? if there would be proof of an abduction by a stranger maybe, if she leave the apartment on her own, maybe, but otherwise i would think a big no.

the only things there are even after 6,5 years are statements and a statement, if it comes from a dog, or a human, needs always back up from facts.

do this pair of parents deserve help, for me a big no, for madeleine it feels like an obligation, but the parents had put up so much of a smokescreen, a complete circus and why if there was an abduction by a stranger, why would confusing be good, why need a pact of silence by friends, why not deliver the information needed to find your child by the authorities of portugal, why destroy lives of other people or let that happen. how could this help to find madeline?

after hours of reading and reading again, the only stated fact i can say is sure is the phone call to the gnr, the rest is hanging between, unbelievable, not possible or rubbish. even hollywood can't make a believable script from this.

by StarsOnYou 01.12.13 23:40

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

By Dr Martin Roberts
30 November 2013

I SAY, I SAY, I SAY

Kate McCann (re-enacting her frightening discovery for the benefit of Crimewatch viewers):

"...the curtains - that I say, were closed - just kind of 'whoooosh!'"

Funny. That's not what either of you told police on May 4, 2007.

"At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and saw right away that the children's bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed." (Gerry McCann).

"At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open,the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did." (Kate McCann).

"And then I could see that the window had been pushed right over and the shutters were up."

Barely half-an-hour earlier and fellow diner Matthew Oldfield witnessed a similar scene, or so he claims; one which he also reported to police, on May 10, 2007.

'That he did not enter the bedroom where Madeleine and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains – green in colour – were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open...'

Oldfield could not have seen the bedroom window at all from where he repeatedly claims to have been standing, given that the door was only 'half-open'. That is why he saw green curtains instead of the blue gingham that were actually in place, and why he would not have known if the window was open or closed. (He claimed in an earlier statement that there were in fact two windows). Nor would he have been able to see the status of the shutters or, for that matter, the infant occupying the nearer of two cots. He would have to have been in the room in order to do so. In which case he would have had sight of Madeleine's bed also.

So what else are you all lying about? Oh don't bother. We know.

Excellent sharing! Which reminds me of the early lies: the McCanns' family and friends repeating what the McCanns had told them on the phone on the 3rd to 4th May night: the window was "smashed"!! The shutter was "damaged"!! In fact none of this was true. Facts like these prove lies, so why have they not been arrested and tried upon these lies??!! (as at least it would start it; the child neglect would be a plain base too; then all would follow, pyjamas and all. I can't see why they are allowed to escape standard justice; had they been Portuguese, would they have been allowed to run free despite these lies, despite contradictions in statements and despite claiming high and loud of having left their 3 young kids unattended?!

Amaral stipulated in his book that the PJ didn't pay attention to press statements, yet now they have had ample time to lean onto this (since some of us do, with many positive results! and we're not detectives for most of us!) so what's holding the PJ back right now?

Amazing lies, I thought so, as well, that the MCs had stated that the curtains were OPEN. So why change the story? Because it IS a story. My oh my, PJ... Eh guys, the case is re-opened so please do your duty!)

by Guest 02.12.13 7:12

telling lies and story's is no problem, a bit more for a witness in some country's, but surely not for a suspect, nobody has, as a suspect, the burden or task to take part in any way to their own conviction.

hearsay or press statements are never facts and this has good reasons, press have the honour to protect their sources and a not known source, you can't rely on in court.

something said is also not a fact in itself, facts in short are actions or things you can take to a test, you could reproduce it, by looking, smelling, tasting, hearing or feeling it or bring it in a state that you could do that, like forensics could do. but only if done under supervision of a competent officer or investigator. if done in a proper way a fact in a certain case has to be proven that it only could happened in that specific case and not in other way's, on other moments, or by other people then by or trough the suspect.

a witness statement in itself could never be a fact or proof of something, it is far more a source for an indication or a clue of what has happened. you always need extra information from other sources to verify it.
in the pj files you see that brittish there is given a caution to witnesses, but it is not in every country the usual way. a witness can easily take back a statement or ask for a correction, they also could change their story when they come before the judge in court.
this can be seen as obstruction, but that is dependent of the moment of withdrawal or way the do it.
even sometimes you can ask the court to hear a witness as an involuntary witness.

for a suspect there is far more protection, but it is not his task to prove his innocence, that's a task for the investigation. even a straight confession by the suspect in itself is not enough. cautions used around a possible suspect are also different in individual country's. you can had also the same person be first a witness, then a person of interest and after that a possible suspect, in my country you became only the full suspect status when brought for a court, after the court has spoken you could be proven guilty or not proven guilty or the prosecutor can take the case out of court before the court speaks out. lots of cases could get on hold because the first statement that there was a crime that had taken place was not granted by court.
if one party is not satisfied by the verdict there could be an appeal.
every time you change the title of a person by law, there are restrictions in what you can use in instruments of law.

no country gives the opportunity to investigators of a case, to make the decision that a person is guilty, that is a right of a court only.

but let's not forget before you can use certain instruments of law, you first have to make it stand that there was a law broken, in the mccann case there is until now not enough evidence of any crime, so the hands of the investigators are bound to the first stage process, to prove there is a possibility that a crime taken place.

it is not what we think or what the investigators think or even know by heart and mind, but you have to prove in this case that there is more then a missing person. the dogs did excellent work, they are asked to deliver dead scent and scent of human blood and they did, but you must see this as a type of witness statement it must proven by forensics, that is without any doubt and that it was part of this case. the forensics fail to a certain standard and are for this moment not solid evidence of a crime.

it is always hard, not only for the public, but also for investigating officer's that feeling and knowing by heart that somebody must be guilty of a crime and the proofing fails to deliver. but lowering the rules means that you could ruining lives of innocent people. look how many 'suspect' there are named by the press, lowering the standard would mean a lot of them would be in jail by now, but we weren't any nearer to know what really happened to madeleine.

the story of the window and the whoosh curtains are, as far as was possible, proven as noise, they did not deliver any proof or fact that it was part of a crime or proof that there has happened any crime.

matt's statement about green curtains is quite normal, it was not in bright daylight so lots of colours could be look different, lots of people would not notice anything more ten a curtain was there or the mind trick them and let them make a assumption. like it was dark and there where sleeping children so there would be curtains in a closed state. in my experience men are also not the best in saying what color something has or had, with one exception cars!

that there where some jewel finds by the public in those 6,5 years is great, but even now there is a obligation to proof them and find the facts that could do that, and that is not a easy task to do. in this case it is not about competence or ability in the police force, but just no proven facts to go by. if you read carefully this is never been a case for the portugese that was shelved and did nothing then gathering dust deep down in the archives, there was always time spend, not by a full force, because that is what happen in cases you once worked on, every tiny bit news go trough a lot of minds and is tried if it could fill in something still blank. if someone thinks it could mean something it is put in the dossier, but until recently there can't been much to restart the investigation in full, i do hope that is changed.

by Guest 02.12.13 9:47

onehand wrote:
that there where some jewel finds by the public in those 6,5 years is great, but even now there is a obligation to proof them and find the facts that could do that, and that is not a easy task to do. in this case it is not about competence or ability in the police force, but just no proven facts to go by. if you read carefully this is never been a case for the portugese that was shelved and did nothing then gathering dust deep down in the archives, there was always time spend, not by a full force, because that is what happen in cases you once worked on, every tiny bit news go trough a lot of minds and is tried if it could fill in something still blank. if someone thinks it could mean something it is put in the dossier, but until recently there can't been much to restart the investigation in full, i do hope that is changed.

This is a seriously good post. With many/most readers of this forum I share the conviction that the Mcs are guilty as hell. I'm just not entirely sure what of. There is plenty of doubt to be found here about the veracity of the last photos and the creche sheets; perversely, virtually the only "proof" we have of Madeleine's presence there that week is her own parent's claim of her abduction.

When Millie Dowler disappeared, CCTV footage was found and broadcast of her getting off a train only minutes before she disappeared. I would have thought that the CCTV footage of the McCann family arriving at Faro airport would have been ideal for jogging the memories of anybody who had been at PdL that week, what with it being the last "independently" produced images of Maddie then available. Where is it?

by worriedmum 02.12.13 15:07

When was the minibus video released? Live footage is much more compelling than photographs...

by Mikey 02.12.13 15:24

I cannot be the first to ask... but I do just wonder eh; What would have been the consequences if the McCanns had taken a babysitter, and said babysitter had thought "oh, its ok to go and have a few drinks with my friends, the kids are asleep and they never wake up and cry half the night"... and only one of them disappears, without a trace, without even the slightest hint of any break-in or abduction, etc, etc, etc...

I just wonder.

Different story from them (the McCanns) entirely. I would put money on it. Won't find a price on that though...

by Guest 02.12.13 15:34

worriedmum wrote:When was the minibus video released? Live footage is much more compelling than photographs...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698737.stm

Late May 2007.

by Guest 02.12.13 16:01

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
worriedmum wrote:When was the minibus video released? Live footage is much more compelling than photographs...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698737.stm

Late May 2007.

I wouldn't give one grain of credibility to anything released directly by the family.

I see the fantastic billboard also made an appearance in that story.

by worriedmum 02.12.13 16:21

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
worriedmum wrote:When was the minibus video released? Live footage is much more compelling than photographs...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698737.stm

Late May 2007.

Thanks NFWTD!

That footage must have been in PDL when Madeleine disappeared. What a pity it wasn't made public immediately.

by Guest 02.12.13 16:25

Indeed but I suppose the reason is that it isn't very good quality and wouldn't have helped as far as knowing what Madeleine looked like.

The reason why the "last photo" at the poolside wasn't released immediately is harder to fathom.

by sar 02.12.13 17:16

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
onehand wrote:
that there where some jewel finds by the public in those 6,5 years is great, but even now there is a obligation to proof them and find the facts that could do that, and that is not a easy task to do. in this case it is not about competence or ability in the police force, but just no proven facts to go by. if you read carefully this is never been a case for the portugese that was shelved and did nothing then gathering dust deep down in the archives, there was always time spend, not by a full force, because that is what happen in cases you once worked on, every tiny bit news go trough a lot of minds and is tried if it could fill in something still blank. if someone thinks it could mean something it is put in the dossier, but until recently there can't been much to restart the investigation in full, i do hope that is changed.
This is a seriously good post. With many/most readers of this forum I share the conviction that the Mcs are guilty as hell. I'm just not entirely sure what of. There is plenty of doubt to be found here about the veracity of the last photos and the creche sheets; perversely, virtually the only "proof" we have of Madeleine's presence there that week is her own parent's claim of her abduction.

When Millie Dowler disappeared, CCTV footage was found and broadcast of her getting off a train only minutes before she disappeared. I would have thought that the CCTV footage of the McCann family arriving at Faro airport would have been ideal for jogging the memories of anybody who had been at PdL that week, what with it being the last "independently" produced images of Maddie then available. Where is it?

"....perversely, virtually the only "proof" we have of Madeleine's presence there that week is her own parent's claim of her abduction."

I find this interesting.

by mysterion 02.12.13 17:28

Passport Control and the airline could confirm that Madeleine travelled to Faro. Security is tight these days.

by Guest 02.12.13 17:38

mysterion wrote:Passport Control and the airline could confirm that Madeleine travelled to Faro. Security is tight these days.

They'd be able to confirm that a child of similar age and basically the same colour travelled.

by Guest 02.12.13 17:40

Yes, I don't want to get into bizarre swapped children scenarios but, as the passport photograph was of a baby of about six months, any child could have been presented as being her.

by Guest 02.12.13 17:49

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes, I don't want to get into bizarre swapped children scenarios but, as the passport photograph was of a baby of about six months, any child could have been presented as being her.

So is there any record of the CCTV from Faro or (IIRC) East Midlands being obtained?

It's easy to sling criticisms at the PJ in retrospect. But for me the biggest mistake they made was in taking everything at face value, despite their own misgivings about the parents. There was no way on earth they could have guessed at the scope of what was going on, IMO.

by sami 02.12.13 17:54

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes, I don't want to get into bizarre swapped children scenarios but, as the passport photograph was of a baby of about six months, any child could have been presented as being her.
So is there any record of the CCTV from Faro or (IIRC) East Midlands being obtained?

It's easy to sling criticisms at the PJ in retrospect. But for me the biggest mistake they made was in taking everything at face value, despite their own misgivings about the parents. There was no way on earth they could have guessed at the scope of what was going on, IMO.

Just because footage was not released, does not mean it was not checked.

As far as I know, Portugal has quite strict regulations surrounding CCTV and its use. Of course it would be installed at an airport, I'm not so sure it is something they would release to the public though, similar to their attitude to e-fits.

Perhaps a Portuguese friend would be able to clarify.

by Guest 02.12.13 19:09

Mikey wrote:I cannot be the first to ask... but I do just wonder eh; What would have been the consequences if the McCanns had taken a babysitter, and said babysitter had thought "oh, its ok to go and have a few drinks with my friends, the kids are asleep and they never wake up and cry half the night"... and only one of them disappears, without a trace, without even the slightest hint of any break-in or abduction, etc, etc, etc...

I just wonder.

Different story from them (the McCanns) entirely. I would put money on it. Won't find a price on that though...

***
I think someone - and IIRC it was PeterMac - who said that IF such a thing would have happened, would they have called it "responsible babysitting"? The heck they wouldn't! They would have sued her, quartered her, skinned her and hang her to dry ...!