Do you believe something happened earlier than May 3rd ? If so, how did the McCanns manage to deceive everyone at the creche?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A good point although I'm wary of his wife's article , "all pretty in pink" 

And it could also be said that IF Madeleine wasn't really at the crèche and Jez had not met prior then how could he recognise Madeleine other than the released photos, but then would he not say that isn't the Madeleine I saw? 

What does concern me is that wherever you turn there seems to be people very much in support of the McCanns and their account of the truth....and that is extremely questionable in my opinion. I don't want to call any witness a liar but much of the statements I've read throw a ? mark on many areas. 

I always come back to, what else could they be hiding? 
What else could have been going on in PDL that week or could there have been something going on that needed to be kept a "secret" something separate to the "disaster" that befell Madeleine? 

Would that explain all the inconsistencies and anomalies ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I too suspect that the “exercise” at MW in PdL that week and the situation that befell Madeleine were two entirely separate elements........however, what throws that into question is the speed with which assets were deployed once the tragic situation unfolded.

Unless :
1.   the assets were conveniently in place already as PART of the “exercise” 
2.   the fate of Madeleine (or possibly any of the other pretty little blond girls for that matter - she may just have been wrong place/wrong time) was also part of the known “exercise”
3.   her demise was NOT part of known exercise and was actioned as part of an emergency scenario to assess how the assets coped with a curve-ball being thrown amongst them

I’m really not sure about anything right now

What I infer from Jez Wilkins' statement is, that he got to know Gerry on Monday. On Tuesday, they went together to pick up their children from creche at lunchtime. After this he saw, on several occasions, the McCanns in creche with the same little girl, whom he claims was Madeleine.-

 "I did see her on some occasions with her parents in the creche"..

If it was not Madeleine, he is either lying or we're back to the "fooled by a substitute theory". What I can't fathom is why Gerry would go with him to the creche to pick up Madeleine if he, Gerry, was being so careful about no one spotting that she wasn't there that he even resorted to using less-used short-cuts?

A quote from my blog taken from 'The journalist and the film maker'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can't log in to Maddie Case Files to retrieve the article since JillyCL banned me because I support Tony.

But maybe someone else could have a look if they're members?

I've just re-read Bridget o'Donnell's article 14/12/07 in The Guardian. Its quite revealing. She comes across as rather self-centred and primarily concerned about herself and her family. She did not want Jez to leave her alone on the night of the disappearance: she mentions the inconvenience of having to duck under police tape to get to the supermarket; she refers to the sympathy shown to her and her family for having had such a dreadful holiday experience.
 She definitely believes the McCann story of abduction and is sympathetic to them. However, some of her other comments offer an interesting insight into why people like the Smiths might hesitate to come forward. She describes being hounded by the press and how any comments they gave became dramatic headline news. She recounts how just seven months later her husband's name had been looked up on the internet more than 70,000 times as he was known to be a witness who saw something on the night. She describe how some felt they must have been involved in the disappearance.
 - "There was talk that he was a "lookout" for Gerry and Kate; there was talk that Jes was orchestrating a reality-TV hoax and Madeleine's disappearance was part of the con; there was talk that the Tapas Nine were all swingers. There was a lot of talk." 
She also recounts rather threatening emails advising her husband that he would "regret it" if he didn't talk to them which made them feel he had to "defend himself".
If what she says holds any truth, I'm not surprised about the Smiths' reluctance to draw such attention onto themselves,

Phoebe wrote:What I infer from Jez Wilkins' statement is, that he got to know Gerry on Monday. On Tuesday, they went together to pick up their children from creche at lunchtime. After this he saw, on several occasions, the McCanns in creche with the same little girl, whom he claims was Madeleine.-

 "I did see her on some occasions with her parents in the creche"..

If it was not Madeleine, he is either lying or we're back to the "fooled by a substitute theory". What I can't fathom is why Gerry would go with him to the creche to pick up Madeleine if he, Gerry, was being so careful about no one spotting that she wasn't there that he even resorted to using less-used short-cuts?

I don't know about others, but for myself I am not trying to prove she WASN'T seen.  Some witnesses MAY have seen her. I am also not suggesting there was a substitute child.  Merely the possibility that  they MAY have been mistaken.

What I tried to discover was a witness that gave  a statement that was relative 'proof' that they saw Madeleine. (Fatima being the most credible)

The 'effort' was to try to establish with reasonable assurance that she was ACTUALLY seen on a specific day.  'One of a group' or a description of a child that was 'shy and timid' etc. does NOT give me assurance that it was Madeleine they saw.

I have therefore looked for the past 8 years to see a witness statement after Sunday that gives me that assurance.  I have seen NONE!

There is a BIG difference in searching for SPECIFIC sightings that she WAS seen, as opposed to to trying to prove she WASN'T seen.  I have never claimed the witnesses lied.  I absolutely don't believe they did lie.  Only the POSSIBILITY that they may have been mistaken.

I am NOT looking to prove a theory.  I am looking for the facts in the files to guide me to what happened.

Phoebe wrote:When people think about proof of whether Madeleine was seen during the week they immediately consider the nannies and ocean club staff. It has been claimed that some of these are mistaken or lying. However, according to the McCanns the playground photo was taken on May 2nd. It captures Raj Balu standing right next to Gerry and Madeleine and looking their direction. The P.J were suspicious, they felt he might have been observing the family. Their suspicions were further fueled when Balu was photographed in the company of Murat. The police quickly identified him and asked for him to interviewed. Presumably he was asked to account for how, when and why he came to be in these pictures. He must not have contradicted the day they were said to have been taken as the police record them as being from May 2nd. Therefore, that would mean that Raj Balu is another person who claims to have seen Madeleine on May 2nd.

From my understanding, and suggested by Goncalo Amaral in his book, Robert Murat was 'targeted' by the McCanns in many different ways.  One was a suggestion about his association with Raj Balu, and I think he is suggesting that they specifically released the playground picture to give further credence to the association being of importance...


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

@ HiDeHo" From my understanding, and suggested by Goncalo Amaral in his book, Robert Murat was 'targeted' by the McCanns in many different ways.  One was a suggestion about his association with Raj Balu, and I think he is suggesting that they specifically released the playground picture to give further credence to the association being of importance.."


I don't follow this logic? It was the P.J. themselves who first became suspicious of Raj Balu without any media interference. He was seen "observing" the McCanns in the playground and later in the company of Murat, the prime suspect. Whom were the press allegedly trying to make suspicious about Balu by producing this photo? It cannot be the police, as they had already investigated and ruled him out. It cannot be their general readership, since they would not know that Balu was seen anywhere near Murat and, therefore, would have no reason to connect the two. 

I am having difficulty reconciling the statement below with the claim that the McCanns spent part of the week desperately avoiding being seen with only two children. It has been claimed that so great was their concern to prevent themselves being noticed with only the twins in tow, that Gerry took to using a less overlooked short cut to creche and they all used different doors when entering/exiting the apartment. All lest it be spotted that there were two children instead of three. 

From the statement of Graham McKenzie -

"During our stay we had seen the McCann party when the children had tea together and also when eating at the Tapas bar in the evenings. We had not really had anything to do with them other than the odd word when the children were all playing together after tea."
From McKenzie's statement it is clear that the McCanns were around the Tapas with the rest of the parents when all the kids were having tea and afterwards while there was playtime on the grass. Wouldn't this undermine their short-cut and different doors strategy? Here they are, in full view of other parents and their kids, apparently unconcerned that it might be noticed that there was no Madeleine present. This, combined with the fact that Gerry happily accompanied Jez Wilkins to creche on Tuesday at lunchtime in order to pick up their respective children is at odds with the portrayal of the McCanns furtively scurrying through alleyways to hide the fact that they were a child down. Add to this that there is a potential witness (Balu) who could verify whether Madeleine was in the 
playground on Wednesday evening and that, if the ice-cream beach trip did go ahead as claimed on Tuesday, the nannies would HAVE to check exactly which pre-schoolers they were taking off campus in case of any emergency.  

I wonder whether Graham McKenzie was familiar enough with the McCanns to know about Madeleine at all before the search on the Thursday evening. His child was 18 months old, so at the same crèche as the twins, but at the Tapas with a larger group of children, it might not have been clear which children belonged to which parents. Graham may well have recognised Gerry & Kate as the parents of the twins, but if he only exchanged the odd word with them, that might have been the extent of his knowledge. Although Graham said he saw the McCann party, that does not necessarily mean that he saw both Kate & Gerry at tea time each day, although he probably would have done so in the evening when the other adults were present, making a big and obvious group.

Let's put Graham McKenzie into perspective. He contacted UK Crimestoppers after reading a report in the Sunday Express on 16th September 2007 about the McCanns phone records. That's over four months after his holiday, I venture to suggest his recall of the McCanns and their family, total strangers, was quite sharp after a lapse of so much time. Red flag number one!

Graham McKenzie came forward only a week after Martin Smith came forward, both September 2007, the former because he read a news report the latter because he saw news report. Red flag number two.
----------

Crimestoppers Bureau

Force : Leicestershire

Date: 16/09/2007

Text: Kidnapping McCann ** Caller Removes Anonymity**

Caller involved in search on night of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

Caller name: Graham McKenzie

Mr McKenzie states that:

On e hour into the search by holiday makers of the hotel and surrounding areas, about 23.00 hrs, Mr McKenzie approached the McCann's apartment from the bushes at the rear of the apartment.

He was searching the gardens. He did not know it was the McCann's apartment.

He saw Mr Gerry McCann standing alone in the doorway at the rear of the apartment talking on his mobile telephone.

Mr McCann was looking our over the swimming pool and did not see Mr McKenzie.

Mr McCann was absolutely distraught telling the person receiving the call that he feared 'she (Madeleine McCann) had been taken by paedophiles'.

He does not know who the person receiving the calls was but presumes it to be a family member.

Mr McKenzie recognises Mr McCann from being in the same holiday complex at the same time.

Mr McKenzie cannot remember what Mr McCann was wearing at the time. Mr McKenzie is willing to give a witness statement and be contacted by police on his home telephone number above.

He is giving this information now after reading about the McCann's telephone records being checked, in the Sunday Express dated 16/09/2007.
----------

HOLIDAY MAKER 06 DEC 07

Surname : Mackenzie

Forenames: Graham

Occupation : Company partner

Statement date: 06-12-2007

Earlier this year we went on a family holiday in Portugal. At the time we only had our eldest son ***** and (my wife) was expecting ****. We had booked with the travel company Mark Warner to stay at their resort in Praia da Luz. We flew out of Gatwick on the 28th April to Faro.

We were staying at a self-catering apartment at The Ocean Club Resort. During our stay we used the child care facilities during the day and when we picked ****up we would chat with the other parents but other than that we pretty kept ourselves to ourselves and just enjoyed our time relaxing together.

There was a couple we got to know in a nearby apartment, their names were **** and Raj Balu. We also chatted to another couple, his name was Neil but I don't recall hers, they had booked for two weeks but left the resort early.

The apartment on one side of us was vacant, throughout our stay, an Indian family moved into the one the other side part way through our stay. I do not know their names but they had a daughter who was about three years old.

During our stay we had seen the McCann party when the children had tea together and also when eating at the Tapas bar in the evenings. We had not really had anything to do with them other than the odd word when the children were all playing together after tea.

On the night of Madeleine McCann's disappearance we could not get a table at the Tapas bar and decided to get a takeaway from there and have it at the apartment. (My wife) went to collect it at about 8.30 while I stayed with ****.

It was later that evening around 10 ' 11 that I heard a commotion on the complex, I decided to go out and see what was going on. I walked round a saw a group of people gathered. John Hill the resort manager was there with some of the Mark Warner staff. I heard that a little girl called Maddie was missing, at that point I did not realise which child it was. John Hill was organising a search of the complex as it was thought that she had wandered off at that point in time. I let (my wife) know what was going on and went to join the search. I went to search the area around the back of our apartment where there is a little garden with a big palm tree in the middle. I was looking in the shrubbery and the little gardens to the apartments.

I worked my way around the area, eventually coming around the back of the tennis courts and up towards what I now know to be the McCanns apartment a couple of hours later. I was looking in the little gardens on the poolside of that block, I was in the end garden when I heard a male voice, he sounded distraught his voice cracking with emotion. I looked to see who I now know to be Gerry McCann stood above me on the balcony/patio about 3 metres away speaking on a mobile phone. I cannot recall his exact words but I got the impression that he was speaking to perhaps a family member or someone he was very close to due to the nature of his conversation.

He said something along the lines of there being Paedophile gangs in Portugal and that they had abducted Madeleine. I was so shocked by this, having originally thought that she had just wandered off.

I had looked up by now and we actually made eye contact, his conversation did not change at all when he realised that I was there. I felt as if I were intruding on a private moment and so I left the garden at that point. I had overheard only a snippet of it. It was only then that I realised whose child it was that was missing. I went back to the apartment to tell my wife what had happened, had a drink and went out again. There were lots of people just standing round looking, the police eventually turned up later in the evening. There didn't seem to be any real organisation of the searching and I eventually went back to our apartment for the night.

We went to the Millennium restaurant for breakfast the following morning, they were handing out flyers with her photograph on. Everyone was very, very upset.

The following day we saw Kate McCann when she came to collect the twins from the creche at lunchtime, she was distraught and broke down sobbing.

We didn't have any other involvement with their group for the remainder of our holiday and flew home on the Saturday. On the day of our departure we had to move out of our apartment and Mark Warner gave us another to use during the day until we left.

It was across the road from the McCann's apartment and the public balcony overlooked the side of their building and the road. You could actually see the front and back of the building from that view point. I noticed on the balcony that there was a pile of cigarette butts as if there had been someone stood there for some time smoking. I thought that was odd , and it could have been someone watching the McCann's apartment to monitor their comings and goings.

It was when I heard that the police were trying to pinpoint telephone conversations made in the resort that I decided to get in touch about what
I had heard. Signed
----------

Again, a witness comes forth after the McCanns return to the UK in September 2007 and Brian Kennedy takes the McCanns under his wealthy wing. Later in the year the notorious Rothley Court Hotel conclave meet towards the end of November 2007 - lo and behold McKenzie is interviewed shortly after on 6th December 2007.

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone was familiar enough to know Madeleine (apart from her parents /family and Tapas7) 

I'm beginning to wonder if she ever attended the crèche? 

If these photos have been tampered and released with the incorrect dates purposely to divert attention from the "real" Madeleine because she was not possibly alive long enough for anyone to recognise her or get to know her personality, does this then come down to an accident or pre-planning? 

A child goes missing in the night, an "abductor" is seen purposely walking carrying a child yet no one follows that route. Tanners sighting was written on the torn off cover of Madeleine's colouring book, yet she said she didn't let the McCanns know till later ? It's all rubbish to coin a phrase. No one , not one parent would sit around writing out a timeline whilst a child is missing, they would be running around PDL screaming their  name and upturning everything they could and they certainly would not be obstructing the police nor would they be gathering fighting funds left right and centre. Nor would they be posing like a prince and princess for Press articles. 
The McCann's have protested their innocence too much, it's over ten years and even SY can't pin Madeleine's disappearance and probable death on them and are still looking for a scapegoat. A scapegoat costing millions.... 




Everything has become too convoluted! 


There are opposing theories and as far as I can see the McCanns are laughing all the way to the bank, I can't ever see justice for Madeleine  and that makes me sad.  Another  decade could pass and be no further, whilst the press roll out their fake news and those in the know, those who  are playing the game, well it's all  KerChing!

MayMuse wrote:I'm beginning to wonder if anyone was familiar enough to know Madeleine (apart from her parents /family and Tapas7) 

I'm beginning to wonder if she ever attended the crèche? 

If these photos have been tampered and released with the incorrect dates purposely to divert attention from the "real" Madeleine because she was not possibly alive long enough for anyone to recognise her or get to know her personality, does this then come down to an accident or pre-planning? 

A child goes missing in the night, an "abductor" is seen purposely walking carrying a child yet no one follows that route. Tanners sighting was written on the torn off cover of Madeleine's colouring book, yet she said she didn't let the McCanns know till later ? It's all rubbish to coin a phrase. No one , not one parent would sit around writing out a timeline whilst a child is missing, they would be running around PDL screaming their  name and upturning everything they could and they certainly would not be obstructing the police nor would they be gathering fighting funds left right and centre. Nor would they be posing like a prince and princess for Press articles. 
The McCann's have protested their innocence too much, it's over ten years and even SY can't pin Madeleine's disappearance and probable death on them and are still looking for a scapegoat. A scapegoat costing millions.... 




Everything has become too convoluted! 


There are opposing theories and as far as I can see the McCanns are laughing all the way to the bank, I can't ever see justice for Madeleine  and that makes me sad.  Another  decade could pass and be no further, whilst the press roll out their fake news and those in the know, those who  are playing the game, well it's all  KerChing!

A fine short summary MayMuse. Beggars belief really. I'm still intrigued as to how they disposed of that poor little girl though. We're due a breakthrough on that sometime soon after so long....surely

Just explain why I feel the likelihood that something happened earlier as opposed to Thursday evening.....

Based on what we know from the Police investigation...

Madeleine died, they hid her body and simulated the abduction.

Presuming that to be the case, the first question I asked is WHY would they (if it happened Thursday evening) would they 'rush' to accomplish by 10pm?

Why not give themselves more time to 'organise' by making it 11pm? (or later)

An hour and a half to accomplish all that was needed (including alerting the other T7)  just seems so absolutely impossible in my opinion.  It also seems unnecessary.

Why not give themselves time to take it all in and make arrangements and create the fake 'abduction' for the following night?

Is that, in fact, what happened?  Madeleine died (or was fatally ill)  earlier in the week and 10pm Thursday was the chosen 'time'?

Huge discrepancies started on Tuesday morning, indicating to me that they were trying to hide SOMETHING by Tuesday.  What else could it be apart from something happening to Maddie?

My thoughts are that there was no need to rush the simulated abduction, EXCEPT they needed to ensure that they were careful to place Maddie 'alive' during the week.

Many people do not believe that happened, in which case WHY is there so much controversy about the last picture?  The tennis balls picture?  The playground picture?

If most people believe that it was a 'normal' holiday up until Thursday evening, (which is, of course, their prerogative)  then they would not question the photos or any other contradiction or issue during the 'normal' week.  Unless there could be ANOTHER reason to question their timeline and contrived contradictions and comments throughout the week.

Discussions about the weeks timeline and photos would be irrelevant as the ONLY issues would not have started until Thursday evening.

I believe that anyone questioning anything that happened during that week, are actually suggesting that something happened earlier!

When I first started comparing the statements and timelines, I had NO IDEA what I would find.

I don't know of ANYONE that has compared the statements similar to the research I have compiled on the Remembering Madeleine Research Forum so it stands to reason that most people are unaware of HUGE amount of discrepancies I found.

If, as I believe, something happened and they needed to put something in place to show that Maddie was 'around' they would first need to establish photos.

They would also need to ensure that they were not involved in outside activities where it would be obvious that Maddie was missing (Breakfast at Millenium, trips to beach (Paraiso) etc)  The files tell us that they did not share their time with the T7 during the day.

However... the most difficult to achieve would be to 'cover' themselves at the creche.  Hence this thread.

Knowing the creche was not run to the strict protocol of a school, is it POSSIBLE that they felt the nannies would not miss one child (or be able to identify a specific child)  in a roomful of sometimes 14 children and maybe knew they could sign the register easily with only one child entering but two different parents arriving at similar times (note that RoB was often present at the same times as Kate or Gerry when they were signing the register)

Studying the creche records shows this as a POSSIBILITY to me.

It's not about why it's not likely...it's about whether the records show us it COULD be a possibility.


Once studied and the circumstances understood there IS a possibility

For those of us that believe something happened earlier there HAS to be an answer about how they managed to deceive everyone.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  "An hour and a half to accomplish all that was needed (including alerting the other T7)  just seems so absolutely impossible in my opinion."
 Afraid I don't get - "an hour and a half to accomplish what was needed". If Madeleine had died shortly after 5.30 - 6pm (the last independent sighting of her) that evening that leaves four - four and a half hours before the first alarm was raised. That's half an eight hour working day!

Remind me of the “independent” sighting at 5.30/6.00 pm

polyenne wrote:Remind me of the “independent” sighting at 5.30/6.00 pm

The P.J. accept that she was seen at the end of creche and at tea. The phrase "independent sighting" means seen by someone other than the T9.  Whether one actually believes that sighting or not is irrelevant to my point re. the time available. The fact remains that after Madeleine allegedly returned to her apartment that evening there was at least a four hour period before her disappearance was announced.

Phoebe wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  "An hour and a half to accomplish all that was needed (including alerting the other T7)  just seems so absolutely impossible in my opinion."
 Afraid I don't get - "an hour and a half to accomplish what was needed". If Madeleine had died shortly after 5.30 - 6pm (the last independent sighting of her) that evening that leaves four - four and a half hours before the first alarm was raised. That's half an eight hour working day!

We KNOW (according to Daniel Stuk) that Gerry was playing tennis until approx 7pm.

That leaves 3 hrs...

In the next 90mins (presuming she died before Gerry arrived back from tennis) whatever blood that was present would have been cleaned and the sofa moved back.

Preparing her body and saying 'goodbye'.

Her body would have been moved to the parents bedroom.

DURING this time there is no doubt in my mind that even if Gerry was able to decide what to do and how to effect it, that Kate would have been stunned by grief.

* The decision to not call authorities
* Contacting the other T7 that they chose to tell
* Assembling the scheme to be sure they could get away with it in the long run (photos, etc so noone would be aware Maddie was no longer around)
* Putting in place the activities of the night... Who was going to do what...and when.
* ALL of the T7 dealing with the shock and grief
* Taking a shower and preparing for the 'normal' night at the Tapas,
* Making sure that NONE of them showed any sign of tears or sadness
*Arriving at the tapas ON TIME!

There is so much more that would have taken far more time in reality. imo

Here’s an alleged scenario : DP goes to 5A at 5.30/6.00 and something  happens to Madeleine that he & KM are party to. GM gets back from tennis and DP is still there with KM in a complete tiswas. 

GM takes charge in his inimitable style and none of the other T6 actually know what happened but become accessories because they are threatened with exposure of the real reason they are in PdL.

All IMO.......discuss !

Phoebe wrote:"We KNOW (according to Daniel Stuk) that Gerry was playing tennis until approx 7pm" 
. Where was Kate from 5.30 onward? Where is there any evidence that Gerry was present when Madeleine died? There would have been little enough blood, certainly not a huge pool of it or it would have soaked into the grouting between the floor tiles and left traces. Liquid stains are almost impossible to remove from grout due to it porous nature. It is a matter of minutes to mop up a bit of blood and wipe with detergent/bleach. To move the sofa is the work of seconds. I take Kate "stunned by grief" with a pinch of salt. This woman was sleeping soundly mere days later, jogging, changing her earrings, and having her highlights done and grinning on her daughter's birthday ater just nine days! Normal she ain't!! We have only their word re what transpired at the Tapas bar that night or indeed any other night. I see no reason to believe anything they say without proof. Remember too, that according to them Russell was moping up vomit and changing bed-linen that night. I believe the only thing that preoccupied the T9 after Madeleine's death was saving their own skins from any fallout. Grief was a postponed luxury. I am not saying any of this actually happened, merely pointing out that it is possible and that there is no hard proof to the contrary.

We all have the prerogative to have our own opinions.

Whether rightly or wrongly, I could NEVER believe a mother, upon finding her child unexpectedly dead, could act normally within an hour or so, or at least show no signs of redness and puffed eyes.

In the days AFTER a death, as many of us know from experience (with the activity of a funeral, maybe) can appear to be 'normal'.

I cannot comprehend the possibility of Kate or ANY of the T7 looking/acting as though nothing has happened, with no red eyes and tears.  Impossible, I would say, for NONE of them to show grief.

The point of this thread is to those that DO believe something happened and how the McCanns managed to deceive everyone into believing that Maddie was at the creche.

I can never get past Kate saying - " I know what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep . I know it happened under other circumstances " 

" I know more than you do . I know because I was there " 

I would love to know what the " other circumstances " are .

Kate is an " actress " , not a good one you only have to watch the ” slamming door and wooshing curtains " video to see that ! 

A good enough " actress " to go and wine and dine with their friends at the Tapas shortly after her daughters death ? NO , and that's definitely an emphatic NO ! Imho Oscar winning actresses would struggle with that one .

The rest of the group , they can barely put a coherent sentence together so to act like nothing had happened in the preceding couple of hours , the death of a child cleaning and covering up what happened while eating in public ? None of that sits well with me at all . 

Did Madeleine die on Thursday 3rd May and they all quickly colluded to cover it up ? 
Personally , I cannot think that .
Did Madeleine die earlier in the week and a plan was set in motion ( a plan that went wrong on the night ) ? 
Personally , I think that's what happened . Under what " circumstances " " it " happened I don't know . Maybe we never will , but not for the want of trying .

sandancer wrote:
Under what " circumstances " " it " happened I don't know .
Maybe we never will , but not for the want of trying

Maybe we WON'T ever know exactly what happened.

Maybe they will NEVER be charged.

But WE can make a difference.  A BIG difference.

We can continue what we are doing to keep the facts of the case out in the public and MAYBE even with only one person at a time, the facts from the files will become known.

We only need ONE credible media outlet that would tell the truth about the files and MAYBE the UK public would start to learn the truth.

Once the UK public learn the FACTS of the investigation that have been hidden from them then things may change.

The McCanns have gone to extreme lengths to stop the UK from learning the facts.  They NEED support from the UK public....


Once their support starts to dwindle, as it did when they were made arguidos then the TRUTH will finally be recognised...

I believe that is the ONE thing the McCanns FEAR THE MOST.....

It is why I am here and thanks to EVERYONE who takes the time to keep this forum and all the Facebook groups going.

We CAN make a difference


McMinute Playlist of 35 short videos.... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

sandancer wrote: Maybe we never will , but not for the want of trying .

I don't believe the truth will ever be known - the world is still shilly-shallying about many a conspiracy theory but the truth remains concealed. When I say the truth will never be known, I think I should have said acknowledged.

The important thing is not to let it fade into obscurity and that's why we are all here today !

The Mc case has assumed the notoriety of the JFK case. In the latter, the FBI were already in place muddying the waters. In the former, we have the UK security services doing the same. Their crooked tendrils thread through Government and the MSM.
When we see such political intervention then whatever did happen is way beyond our security clearance. 
Now why that is, with the Mcs outwardly seeming to be mere Mr and Mrs Joe Bloggs bods, is the question, but one, as Mr Verdi intimates, is not one we will likely ever be privy to.
However, we know there is a terrible extant injustice that obtains, therefore, it is that, at least, that compels us to never give up on Madeleine.