The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Laid Bare Blog: So you think Kate and Gerry McCann were "cleared"?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Laid Bare Blog: So you think Kate and Gerry McCann were "cleared"?

Post by Google.Gaspar.Statements on 10.02.16 7:06

Laid Bare blog - Tuesday 9th Feb 2016

I could make this blog entry nice and short, as the simple answer is; neither Kate or Gerry McCann have ever been cleared.

Once again, this is yet another topic that supporters of Kate and Gerry like to twist, and lie through their teeth about. So desperate are they to con the nation in the name of Kate and Gerry McCann, that these supporters resort to many perpetual lies. The more their lies are exposed, the more fantastical and ridiculous they become. Even Kate And Gerry must recoil with embarrassment.

Let's look at the pathetic ways the supporters attempt to push the lie that the McCanns were cleared.

1. Portuguese and British authorities "cleared" the McCanns.

The first question to ask in response to this lie is simple:

Cleared of what?

A question seemingly, no McCann supporter seems to want to answer.

The reason for that is simple. Nobody has been charged with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Nobody has been charged in connection with any crime against Madeleine. So with that in mind, nobody has been cleared, including the parents. The only authorities in Portugal and Great Britain that have the power to clear any suspect, are courts of law. A full judicial process, beginning with an investigation, followed by charges, progressing to a trial, and culminating in a verdict. In the absence of the latter three developments, it is impossible for anybody to have been cleared.

Despite this the lying supporters, press ahead with their ludicrous cries of "but, but, the McCanns were cleared" and, floundering, make an attempt to use the archiving report by Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes, who was, along with João Melchior Gomes the man responsible for producing a 58-page report - the concluding volume of the case files - which explained the reasons behind the decision to archive the process.

Despite reports on Wikipedia and some pro McCann forums this report did NOT clear the McCanns of any involvement in the loss of Madeleine, in fact by raising doubt over their stories, it did quite the opposite, below are some quotes from the report:

“The witnesses’ statements revealed important details which were not entirely understood and coherent”.

“The technique for this is a reconstruction, but despite every effort by the Public Prosecutor’s office and the JP [Policia Judiciara]…this was not possible”.

"We believe that the main damage (through the refusal of a reconstruction) was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified."

“The work of these dogs can be appreciated much better on film...the dogs are trained in detecting dead persons".

“The fact that the parents were the last people known to have been with Madeleine, alive and in a known place, particularly with the possibility of a body having been in the apartment and in the vehicle used by the parents…meant they had to be placed under suspicion. The parents had no plausible explanation for these facts. Faced with the evidence produced by the dogs and the laboratories, they had to be named as suspects…”

"While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched."

"Within the factual context we could be facing an abduction situation, although all possibilities have always been open, as they continue to be."

"This abduction hypothesis was investigated exhaustively, all information leading to this and other possibilities having been examined fully. No ransom request was made, nor were there any sufficiently consistent indications to substantiate this supposed abduction."

......and if this following quote "clears" the McCanns, I'll get down on my hands and knees, and ask Tony Bennett to organise a petition requesting Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth give Gerry McCann a knighthood. The quote has been translated with slightly different wording, something that is perfectly normal. The context of both translations is, however, exactly the same.

First translation:

"Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely."

Second translation:

"No evidence was obtained which would enable the average person…to arrive at a clear and honest conclusion as to how the child was taken from the apartment (dead or alive, and if dead whether by negligent or wilful manslaughter)”

A translated copy of the archiving process can be read here:

So far from being cleared the McCann's it would seem STILL have questions to answer, plausible explanations to give.......remember Kate refusing to answer those 48 questions?

So that exhaustively rules out the McCanns being "cleared" by any court, and also any Portuguese authority. What about the British authorities? Once again supporters of Kate and Gerry will tell us that DCI Redwood, the officer who headed Operation Grange, cleared the McCanns. Someone, as we have already established was in no position, or have the authority to do so. However let's cut those pro McCann supporters some slack, and examine the exact quote they believe he used, that "clears" their heroes of any involvement.

“Neither her parents or any of the members of the group that were with her are either persons of interest or suspects”

I'm not hiding from the fact that DCI Redwood said what he did, but let's think about this realistically. The above archiving report left many possibilities open, in fact it left all possibilities open, including one that pointed toward Madeleine McCann meeting her fate through negligent homicide, and that furthermore, her possible death was then covered up by her parents. It was made clear by the PJ at the start of Operation Grange, that they would be running the show, and not Scotland Yard. So that said, how could DCI Redwood honestly say that the McCanns were not persons of interest if the PJ hadn't said the same?

I know some supporters of the McCanns won't admit I'm right, so let me put another angle out there, and on this front, the McCann's foot soldiers cannot disagree.

Police investigations use many methods; one of which involves a spot of hoodwinking. The investigating force will tell the public one thing, whilst doing the exact opposite. There are a number of reasons for this; for instance, the press will have been continually asking if Kate or Gerry McCann were persons of interest, or suspects. Redwood will have known, given it's complexity, and size, that this investigation could be an extensive game of cat and mouse. Had he not answered those questions from the press, they would have seized it with both hands. The resulting headlines would have ruined the investigation.


Not even Clarence Mitchell could slither his slippery spinning ways around that headline.

Aside from the inevitable headlines, and a huge public outcry, that in all honesty would potentially see the McCanns put into perilous danger. There is another reason police declare people "not persons of interest", and that is to put the perpetrators at ease. As I type this I can hear those pros rocking their 'QWERTYs' and scoffing, "pffft, that doesn't happen"

So, I have some examples for them to digest:

The Philpott case:

This truly terrible, and harrowing crime took place in the early hours of May 11th 2012, and saw 6 children lose their lives in a house fire. Police described the fire, to the public at least, as an accident. They weren't fooled by the histrionics of the father, Mick Philpott, or his wife Mairead Philpott. Many people even commented at how the pair seemed to enjoy the attention from the media, sound familiar?

The Philpotts checked into a hotel, blisfully unaware that the police were onto them, and had already bugged the room.

During one of the recorded conversations, Mick Philpott can be heard saying to his wife, "You notice they’re saying accident ? Not saying it’s a murder enquiry eh?"

To which his wife replies: "Fatal accident, they just said."

It was this intelligence that nailed the couple, and a friend Paul Mosly; all three were charged with murder, later to be downgraded to manslaughter and jailed, despite police indicating that they weren't persons of interest.

Read more here

Another example that is relevant to my point, is the case of Shannon Matthews:

Shannon disappeared aged 9, from Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. on the 19th February 2008. Comparisons were immediately drawn to the McCann case; whilst certain areas of the media drew conclusions of parental involvement, others defended Shannon's mother, Karen Matthews, and her boyfriend Craig Meehan. The Independent even said that the case had developed a cruel overtone and that such questions went far beyond necessity and lifted the lid on an uncomfortable hypocrisy in British society.

Again, sound familiar?

Thankfully, Shannon was found alive by police, at a property not far from where she disappeared, on the 14 March 2008, some 24 days later. Her uncle, Michael Donovan was arrested at the scene, and five days later, charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment and committing acts tended to pervert the course of justice.

Now though to my point; police dismissed the theory that Karen Matthews had been involved in the kidnap, and also stated that the crime hadn't been committed for financial gain. Investigating officers said that Shannon had been placed into social care in order that she could readjust after her ordeal. Karen Matthews thought she was in the clear, even gong as far as to update the media on Shannon's progress.

Read more here

The police though, had played a blinder, and on 6th April 2008, Karen Matthews was arrested, two days later she was charged with child neglect and perverting the course of justice. Those charges were later increased to include kidnapping and false imprisonment.

It transpired in court, that the plan had been to release Shannon Matthews and for Michael Donovan to 'find' her, then claim the £50,000 reward. Both defendants were found guilty of kidnapping, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice, and both given 8 year sentences.

Should I digress a tad? Why not, we're almost done.

In court, Julian Goose QC, stated that Matthews had given police five different versions of her story, and accused her of "telling lie after lie, after lie".

It was also discovered that Shannon had been administered temazepam, a sedative prior to, and during her kidnap.


We'll not go down those roads today, but for those who are adamant that Kate and Gerry McCann were "cleared"....

I think we've well and truly "cleared" that one up.

Posts : 365
Reputation : 236
Join date : 2013-05-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare Blog: So you think Kate and Gerry McCann were "cleared"?

Post by j.rob on 10.02.16 14:45

It is thought that Shannon's family got the idea for the scam when they saw how much money the McCanns were getting for the alleged 'abduction' of Madeleine.

Madeleine's 'abduction' was pretty much unique in that it turned on it's head the finances of a kidnapping. Often, if a child or person is kidnapped or disappears in mysterious circumstances the families will move heaven and earth to find them. They will literally 'leave no stone unturned.' They will pay any amount of ransom on the basis that if they refuse or pay less than asked the kidnappers might harm or kill the child. They might give up their jobs, travel the world searching for their loved one. Families are torn apart by the stress. Finances become unbearably strained unless the family are super-rich. Bankruptcy is not uncommon as families are spending all their money on searching and on legal fees.

The Madeleine McCann 'abduction' turned all this on its head. Rather than having to fork out their own money, the family managed to persuade the public including celebrities to provide them with money to fund their supposed search for Madeleine. They persuaded politicians, the media and other public figures to back them and provide support, money and help.

They were doing pretty well until the sniffer dogs were sent in during the summer of 2007. Then it all became a bit complicated.  

Judging by comments in newspapers and the number of forums and groups on the internet critical of the McCanns I would say they have little if any public support now.

So a different picture is emerging.

But nevertheless they are still walking free and still have The Fund. They have also been awarded large sums of money in libel cases. Using money donated by the public to help find Madeleine to pay legal fees. Fund money was also used to help pay the mortgage I do believe.

So they have got away with it so far, albeit they are now very unpopular.

What makes this case such a disgrace is it gives the green light to any family to fake an abduction of their own child and profit from it financially. 

At least in the Shannon Matthews case the child was found alive and did not appear to have come to any terrible harm. Whereas in the McCann casa there are a great many indicators that Madeleine died during that week in which case not only was the 'abduction' faked but also the (accidental or otherwise) death of a child was concealed. If Detective Amaral is right and Madeleine died that week then that would mean the Fund was a fraud from the start. And it would also mean that the McCann family have made financial profit from the death of a child. Financial profit from a crime.

This really has to be one of the biggest scams of the century doesn't it? Madeleine's face appeared all over the world at one stage. It's just unbelievable really, imo.

Doesn't 'something' have to crack soon?  I wonder what is going on behind the scenes?


Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare Blog: So you think Kate and Gerry McCann were "cleared"?

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 10.02.16 16:22

Great post, j.rob, which keeps us all here thumbsup

Posts : 10524
Reputation : 5190
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare Blog: So you think Kate and Gerry McCann were "cleared"?

Post by whatsupdoc on 10.02.16 19:20

Great post GGS.  

It explains to readers who haven't been following the case closely for all these years that the McCanns are still " in the frame " , being protected by people in authority who obviously think that spending millions of taxpayers money is well worth it to hide a big secret from us all.

I think if DCI Redwood talks to the press and TV then he should explain to us all why the McCanns are not suspects.

Posts : 601
Reputation : 320
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Laid Bare Blog: So you think Kate and Gerry McCann were "cleared"?

Post by j.rob on 11.02.16 20:34

@Get'emGonçalo wrote:Great post, j.rob, which keeps us all here thumbsup


I've come at this from both sides of the fence. In the early years I was a believer and it was only after I saw coverage of Tony Bennett's trial that I started to become curious about the case. The more I delved the more intrigued I became.

I *think* I have pieced together what might have happened that week based on the inconsistent statements, the bodged up time-lines, the unjemmied shutters and the presence of some key witnesses (Jez Wilkins, for instance, also the Smiths) at crucial times and in crucial places. 

If you merge all this with certain sensitive areas in the Tapas statements, the media interviews with the McCanns which are simply dripping with clues and other statements from key people both on the scene (Detective Amaral obviously but also social worker Yvette Martin, neighbour Mrs Fenn and others) and off the scene (for instance the Gaspers who holidayed with the McCanns during the summer of 2206). 

Throw into this simmering pot GM's empty CATS file, CEOP Jim Gamble's utterly unprofessional bias towards the definite innocence (he claims) of the McCanns, Kate's utterly extraordinary book of 'the truth', Carter Ruck, the libels, the reputation managers, the dodgy detectives, Clarence Mitchell and all the other vultures feeding at the trough. Not to mention Rupert Murdoch's media frenzy and the unbearably embarrassing fawning journalists (at least at the beginning) such as Lorraine Kelly. 

And that's without factoring in the 'wayback machine' evidence, the incredibly early setting up of The Fund with John McCann giving up his job and a host of other factors.

The whole thing is a giant pile of dung. And underneath it all, of course, is the untimely demise of an innocent child if Detective Amaral is right and Madeleine died that week.

It's such a disgrace. That poor child. Used and abused, imo, and then treated like a piece of merchandise for people to get rich off the back off.

The case really does disgust me in so many ways.


Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum