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 as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!


Go down




l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun, the name itself conjures up an image of brilliance, an image of unsurpassed  witty insightful commentary on the many diverse aspects of the disappearance of little Madeleine McCann.

The Lazzeri wrote scores of blogs on the subject with extensive  detail, so lacking in so many who like to expound on the case with feigned knowledge of the case.  So committed yet so entertaining - a sad day the Lazzeri called it a day.

Best wishes to you lazzeri  hat  your input and inimitable style is sadly missed by many.

Wright Little Weasel

Michael Wright, husband of Kate McCanns cousin took the witness stand at the libel trial in Lisbon.

He lied a lot, sighed a lot, mumbled, grumbled, and fumbled with his notes a lot - he was found out was he not? -

Caught out by Dr Goncalo Amaral's lawyer!

Yip, he had notes!

He had written down, to remind himself, of feelings, and contacts he had in
relation to the McCanns.

This is a man, there to testify as to the distress the book by Dr Goncalo
====================================================== Amaral caused Kate McCann, and he had to have notes?

Had he witnessed any distress Kate McCann suffered it would be etched in his memory!

He would not need the use of notes!

Isabel Duarte the McCann lawyer, in her closing questions asked Michael Wright if he had anything else to say, to add to his testimony.


Do you have anything else you wish to tell the Court within the questions that you have been asked?

Without the use of his safety net –no notes for this one – he’d clearly never missed a rehearsal back home in the UK …

Michael Wright:

In terms of impact on the family, he saw in 2009 an e-mail from a British broadcaster, Channel 5, which offered Gonçalo Amaral €80,000 for an interview.

He adds that Kate's reaction was that it confirmed that all this had to do with money and not justice.

As Dr Goncalo Amaral was not part of any police investigation at this time, whether one thousand and one offers of interviews came his way, and no matter the amount offered – it doesn’t have any bearing whatsoever on this case.  Certainly not a jot to do with the greedy Kate McCann and her clan.

And, interesting he mentions the impact – What impact?

Did Kate throw one of her hissy fits throw a few left hooks at her punch bag, smash up some church pews, howl in her front room while contemplating donning her inflatable armbands for a wee bash, and splash around in the briny?

Why was Wright waffling on about Kate McCann saying it was about money and not justice?

This libel action against Goncalo Amaral – erm what is it about?   What is it Kate McCann is after, oh yeah - 1 million bucks?

Had Dr Goncalo Amaral been paid for any interview he may have done - Why would that be the business of Kate McCann?

Duarte the nasty little lawyer, who spoke to reporters outside the Court, on the first day of the trial, one being Martin Brunt, Sky News, claimed she/they (McCanns) had not as yet found Dr Goncalo Amaral’s money, the profits from the sale of his book!

Who exactly do the McCann couple think they are?

What was it again that Michael Wright said in reference to Dr Goncalo Amaral – money and not justice?

(Loud laughter)

Seems money is more than important to Kate McCann – especially money belonging to others.

For some reason this couple appear to believe that the world should do their bidding, that they are owed something.

They have had £m’s donated to their Fund, which they have squandered, given to criminals.  Lost, legal actions which must have cost this Fund for Madeleine, dearly!  £m’s of UK taxpayers money is being spent on a farce of a police review – and they have the audacity to raise legal actions against others and expect huge monetary payout!

How can anyone respect them in any way?

Their little lawyer Duarte wanted to continue with this line of questioning, and we all know why – it was the McCanns attempt to paint Dr Goncalo Amaral as t greedy man…

The judge saw through this, and wisely over-ruled because as she knew, and everyone else did – Wright had no proof of any interview ever having taken place – Even so, had it taken place – not a jot to do with this unscrupulous bunch that is the McCanns, their extended family and their hangers-on!

The Judge recognised a weasel when she saw one, and a lying one at that!

She sent this particular one packing, long tail between his legs...

And another McCann weasel witness, bit the dust!

Weasels discharge a pungent odor when irritated - I'm guessing the Court was left stinking!
23rd September 2013

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Posts : 11771
Reputation : 4281
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Share this post on: diggdeliciousredditstumbleuponslashdotyahoogooglelive

l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun :: Comments

Tony Bennett

Post on 01.10.18 22:07 by Tony Bennett

@Verdi wrote:Best wishes to you lazzeri  hat  your input and inimitable style is sadly missed by many.


Lazzeri was brilliant while it lasted, and it lasted quite a long time.

It was informative, entertaining and replete with biting satire.

A little bird told me that he still walks amongst us here winkwink

Back to top Go down


Post on 01.10.18 22:32 by sandancer

Lazzeri , oh yes ! I often return to read the blogs again and recommend them to others . 

The knowledge , the wit , biting satire , the ability to use the written word so eloquently 

I often wonder what he would have continued to add to the story today , whatever he had to say would be insightful and worthy of our time . 

Whatever you're up now lazzeri , thank you . 

Your thoughts on Gerry and his radio outpourings on his " mental health " and bonding certainly would have been read of the day ! 

Again , many thanks and respect .

Back to top Go down

Jill Havern

Post on 01.10.18 23:41 by Jill Havern

@Tony Bennett wrote:A little bird told me that he still walks amongst us here winkwink
Glad to hear it!

Fantastic blogs. It would be lovely to read some new ones thumbsup

Back to top Go down


Post on 02.10.18 0:12 by Verdi

Tony wrote:A little bird told me that he still walks amongst us here winkwink

That is so gratifying to hear.  

As suggested by sandancer, a piece on Gerry McCann's mental torment would be brilliant - and perhaps inspirational smilie?

Last edited by Verdi on 02.10.18 0:20; edited 1 time in total

Back to top Go down


Post on 02.10.18 0:19 by Verdi

@sandancer wrote:Lazzeri , oh yes ! I often return to read the blogs again and recommend them to others . 

The knowledge , the wit , biting satire , the ability to use the written word so eloquently 

I often wonder what he would have continued to add to the story today , whatever he had to say would be insightful and worthy of our time . 

Whatever you're up now lazzeri , thank you . 

Your thoughts on Gerry and his radio outpourings on his " mental health " and bonding certainly would have been read of the day ! 

Again , many thanks and respect .

Lazzeri was on the right track as regards Kate McCann's mental torment, painfully exposed during the Lisbon grande finale. Alan 'don't tell them' Pike, made a right royal pig's ear of trying to convince the presiding judge that Ms McCann was rendered mentally unstable by Gonçalo Amaral's wicked version of the truth..


'She spent many day in tears sobbing about the injustice being done to Madeleine by the very people who ought to have been helping her' Mr Pike told the Court.

'There were times when she felt so incensed by Amaral and his friends, by which she meant his publishers, that she simply couldn't get through each day with the panic and the anguish she felt.

These were things Kate told me when I spoke to her that she'd recorded in her diary in September 2008. ' He added:

'I remember Kate further being devastated by the content of the film.'


I wonder when Pike spoke to her? Sometime after September 2008? He doesn't say it was in September 2008 that she told him this, only that she told him that there is an entry in her diary dated September 2008 where she recorded how angry she was at Dr Amaral and his friends, the publishers.

So when was the consultation when she told him this? Surely if she was so distraught in September 2008 she spoke with him then, and face to face?

Or, did Kate tell Pike this, shortly before he was to appear in Court, a week, a month before whenever the witnesses were being prepped?

How often did this man Pike speak with Kate McCann and was it in person or in the same way he dealt with the twins, once by telephone in a period of 6 years?

More intriguing is that in September 2008 Kate McCann was still writing in her diary.

I wonder if she wrote in her diary about the E.Fits around this time? Perhaps an entry recorded regarding how she felt when her private detectives told her they were not too happy with the inconsistencies in her, Gerry's and their tapas companions police witness statements, an entry detailing that when produced and presented to her, that the private detectives advised that the E.Fits should be distributed asap - which of course the McCanns didn't do.

I wonder if there is an entry in her diary detailing what she thought of the E.Fits, whether she herself saw the resemblance to Gerry?

Or, is Kate rather more selective as to what makes it into the diary?
6th January 2014

Back to top Go down


Post on 04.10.18 1:12 by Verdi

Operation Grange 

The McCann case stinks to the high heavens for sure.

If we were to sit David Cameron, Teresa May in front of a TV Camera and read to them the statements given by the group to police, then ask Cameron, if his £multi million Metropolitan Police Investigation, Operation Grange should be funded endlessly, ask him then if he believes this case is as special, as he stated in the beginning, over four years ago now, when he then told the public also he was funding the operation from  a special fund, with no limit to the spend!

Ask Cameron and May, if they can reconcile the police witness statements given by McCanns and their buddies, as not another person on the planet is able to, no police authority anywhere in the world is able to, and certainly not the Metropolitan Police!  They haven't reconciled those statements!

And the reason for that is, the statements the McCann group gave police are not truthful.   They cannot be reconciled!

And that is the reason the group of adults who were there on vacation together with Gerry and Kate McCann all refused to co-operate with police, it is the reason they all refused to take part in a re-enactment of the events of the night they reported Madeleine as missing.

Unless the Metropolitan Police investigation is investigating the McCanns and their buddies, it is nothing but a farce, and David Cameron and Teresa May, KNOW FOR SURE which one it is!

  • If a farce WHY does Cameron continue to finance it?

  • If a genuine investigation WHY is it being financed endlessly when there is no breakthrough?

Over four years now and nothing from the Metropolitan Police. 

I say that, as we absolutely cannot include the nonsense from DCI Redwood.  His contribution during his time on Op Grange consisted of inventing Crecheman (see Crecheman blogs above) and the introduction of two E.Fits which no one can be sure, how, where and when they were produced or by whom (as Redwood was as vague on this as he was Crecheman) two E.Fits of what he described as his main suspect.  A suspect who did not fit the description of the burglars he claimed were running around Praia da Luz attacking young British kids in their vacation rental apartments/villas. Redwood was not interested in Smithman.  Thousands of calls were received by the Met he said in relation to the E.Fits, and zilch!

Redwood took the world for as big a ride as McCanns and their buddies have.    He took months to put together a Crimewatch programme where he would present the E.Fits of his main suspect.

So no urgency there then to find the guy.   Madeleine could rot while he ponced around for 4/6 months making up his story for Crimewatch.

But why would there be any urgency, the McCanns had the E.Fits for years and years, before Redwood got his hands on them we are told, and they, kept them from the public.

So no urgency with McCanns either to trace the man, the main suspect, the man who they claim stole their daughter.

No one seems to be in any hurry to trace this missing child.

Because she is dead and they know it?

How many cases of any sort in the UK are funded in this way, endlessly, for years on end, no limit to the spend (and bear in mind the Portuguese Police have primacy in this, this is not the same as a crime having been committed on UK soil, with the Metropolitan Police, being the lead investigators ) with a team of, what is it, 37 detectives, some from murder squad? 

How many investigations in the UK remain open/active for years on end, when there is no sign of any imminent arrests/a missing person being found?

That has surely got to be unheard of for a crime committed in the UK - therefore, for one committed elsewhere in another country, where the police of that country have an active ongoing investigation..?

Now why would that be?

Why would the case of missing Madeleine McCann receive the attention that no other case has, that no other missing person/child has?

Why, when the parents of the little girl, and their buddies have been far from honest in their accounts of the events of the night they reported the child as missing, would that be?

And not a police officer on the planet who cannot see that they have been dishonest in their accounts.

Even IF they, the parents are suspects of the Met Investigation, as some believe, a case is not kept open, on the off chance that one day, years down the line, the police may acquire enough evidence to bring charges.  Nowhere in the world does that happen.

Cases are closed, shelved, officers assigned to other duties, and should such credible information which enables charges to be brought/or a missing child to be found, come to light, then a case is re-opened.

So WHAT exactly is keeping Operation Grange, the Metropolitan Police investigation, open/active?   And WHY?

And how active is it?   Are these 37 detectives (or whatever the number) still reporting each day and working on the Madeleine case?

Ever heard of a crime committed in a country outwith the UK where the UK cops do not have primacy, where they investigate for years and years, commit so many detectives to said case, and are told to spend what they like, the funds will be available no matter how much or for how long?

And what in hell is going on with Portuguese Police authorities, the lead in this?  

Have they interviewed Crecheman?   Course they haven't, he's figment of DCI Redwood's imagination.

Operation Grange have they interviewed the McCanns and their buddies with a view to reconciling those police witness statements?   Course they haven't!

The invention of Crecheman tells us that much, that their aim was to aid the McCanns, else Redwood would have gotten to the bottom of Oldfield and Gerry McCanns lie about their checks, about the 'more open bedroom door'

Redwood could not go down that road on Crimewatch as if he introduced the more open bedroom door, his own little tale of Crecheman would have been blown out of the water.   His tale of an intruder just before 10 pm blown out of the water, as neither part of Redwood's tale fits with Oldfield and McCanns, more open bedroom door.  The timing is all wrong.

And if Redwood was worth his salt he would have been able to tell us why Gerry McCann changed his story SEVEN days after little Madeleine was reported as missing.

Operation Grange is going nowhere.  Nowhere close to the truth.  A truth they know of but for whatever reason cannot go there.

Never has there been a case more obvious where those closest to the missing child are involved, are hiding the truth of the events, (and this voiced by police officers, retired police officer, ex police officers) than that of missing Madeleine McCann.  Never has there been so much money thrown at a case, yet Madeleine, justice for her remains as far off now as the day she was reported as missing.

We must keep asking WHY that is.

More resources afforded this case than any other, more than any other case, statements which are not truthful, statements which the police know are not the truth, and yet Madeleine is still failed.

Someone, somewhere preventing the Met doing the job they should have been these past four years, as they've had it handed to them on a plate and they are still plodding along?

How much longer can this nonsense go on?  And I have to ask, how many more years down the line, will some still be saying the Met are about to catch the McCanns?
23rd August 2015

Back to top Go down


Post on 10.10.18 23:58 by Verdi

Payne Pops In...
[size=18]for what reason?
The following is taken from the rogatory interview- Leicestershire Police, UK interviewing David Payne, the McCanns friend who holidayed with them at the time Madeleine vanished. 

The officer is asking Payne if the McCann children, Amelie, Madeleine and Sean acknowledged him when he popped in on Kate McCann and the three children (Gerry playing tennis) before they all headed out to dine on the evening Madeleine was reported as missing.
Officer 1485 ”  
Did they actually acknowledge you?”


”Err oh yeah, you know I’m very sure that if you’d have asked them, you know that evening or the next day they’d all say ah yeah, I popped in.
So Sean, Amelie, and Madeleine if asked either on the evening of 3rd May 2007 or the next day, if ‘Uncle David’ came a calling, Payne is sure they would all say ‘ah yeah he popped in.’
Was that, ‘popped in’ to the apartment as in going inside?
‘Popped in’ as in standing on the little area outside the patio door?
There seems to be some dispute between Kate McCann and David Payne as to whether Payne ‘Popped in, in’ or whether Payne just ‘popped in’ as in, he stood outside the patio door?
Rather reminds me of that comedian the cockney chap when he speaks of going out for the evening – going ‘out, out’ or just popping ‘out!’
Further, Kate McCann disputes the length of time Payne’s ‘popping in’ lasted.
One says 30 minutes.  The other 30 seconds.
I imagine it rather depends whether he ‘popped in, in’ or, just ‘popped in!
The McCann children, Sean, Amelie and Madeleine, the evening of 3rd May 2007 or the next day Payne said, he is sure, would have been able to tell anyone who cared to ask, that indeed Uncle David had popped in, and presumably they would have been able to say too, whether, he popped in, or popped in, in?
Now, if we are to believe Kate McCann, when 3 months later, she said she was surprised when Amelie, said to her  ‘I miss my sister’ – surprised, as she, Kate McCann, said she did not know her daughter  Amelie, then almost 2 and half years old could speak so well!
It has puzzled many as to why Kate and Gerry McCann did not ask of their twin children, on the night of the 3rd May, after Madeleine had been removed from the apartment by whomever, if they had seen or heard anything, if anyone had ‘popped in’ whilst mummy and daddy had popped out!
Payne tells us they, the McCann children would have been able to do so, in fact he said they would ALL have said – ‘ah yeah Uncle David had popped in.’
Now some us might be thinking, Payne must have meant Madeleine would have been able to tell, if asked, if Payne had popped in - as Kate McCann has led the public to believe the twin children, or at least Amelie (they are not one, but two persons, so, regarding speech and all else their developmental stages could have been quite different, one walking before the other, one talking better than the other) would not have been able to,  but Payne said:
‘If they were asked on THAT evening or the NEXT day’
Little Madeleine was not around NEXT day to answer any questions!
So he must mean all three children would have been able to do so on the evening of the 3rd, but only the twins on the ‘next day’ would have been able to verify that he had ‘popped in!
At the time of Madeleine’s mysterious disappearance the twin children would have limited vocabulary, but, if asked in a gentle way they may have been able to give a positive or negative answer as to whether someone had been in the apartment, be that early in the evening before their parents popped out to dine leaving them alone for the 5th consecutive night, or afterwards.  And, maybe, just maybe, if that person was known to them they would also have been able to say Uncle Payne, or whoever called round?
But the twins unusually were in a very deep sleep that night, what could be described as a comatose condition – they wouldn’t be able to tell anyone anything about who came and went that night.  Convenient?  Perhaps!
Were they given something to aid sleep?  Perhaps! 
There seems to have been a clear pattern that week, either one or both twins would cry, waking Madeleine, who in turn would go to inform her parents of the crying.
Sometimes they were not there, they were out dining with their holiday companions.
Madeleine too was prone to waking whether disturbed or not by the crying of her siblings.
It would be fair to say then that it is most likelythat the child did indeed wake on this night too.
Both parents, Kate and Gerry McCann – regarding the more open bedroom door- have stated that they thought Madeleine may have woken up and gone through to their bedroom!
Unless Madeleine was prone to sleep walking too – then they are saying that there was every possibility that this is what she had done.
Neither McCann parent immediately thought something was wrong – both simply thought Madeleine had gone through to their bedroom!   So they tell us!
So, yes, it is highly likely this child did exactly that – woke and went looking for her parents as was usual for her to do!  As both parents have indicated she would have done if she woke up!  Their words – not those of crazy people on the internet!
It has then got to be considered that Dr Goncalo Amaral, the investigation were absolutely correct also to include this in any theory – that the child had woken up, and then an accident followed as the little one looked out through a window perhaps, had a fall, when looking to see if her mummy or daddy was there.  Or, the child opened that patio door left in a position which she could quite easily have done, and had an accident!
The McCanns say Madeleine was very articulate for her age.  If Madeleine saw someone she knew in that apartment – someone who should not have been in there – did they fear she would be able to ‘tell?’
A burglar would not know if the child was articulate. And besides she would not be able to say much other than a stranger, a man/woman had come in the apartment.  If it was dark, how much could a sleepy eyed child have taken in?
Burglars plan – and they don’t go where there are three young children who would be easily disturbed who would cry!   And they certainly would be very stupid if their plan involved bursting open a shutter, a window, but not just any shutter or window, the shutter and window of the bedroom the children slept!
A nonsense!
Andy Redwood suggesting Madeleine disturbed a burglar is laughable!  And to state as I mentioned in a previous blog that there were several apartments burgled and entry each time through windows is also nonsense!  We know where he was headed with that one – if through a window – then it suggests – ground floor!

If she had the guy would leave quicker than he came in!

And what would any burglar expect to get in the McCann holiday apartment, they had nothing worth taking!
Any burglar with any grey matter, seeing that they left that patio door unlocked would know instantly – nothing worth taking, as in material goods – why else would the McCanns have left the door unlocked, open most likely so that they could slip  their fingers through to slide it open as it had no handle on the outside!
What should have been most precious to the McCanns – their three children however – were left on display, there for the picking, the taking – but not by any burglar!
And most unlikely that hoards of paedophiles were circling the apartment!  They would have been seen by what we are led to believe was a very diligent holiday group who were checking the children regularly.

It would seem more possible that whoever removed this child from apartment 5A was someone known to her!
And perhaps Uncle David is right – had these children, Madeleine, Amelie and Sean been asked – they, or at least Madeleine would have been able to tell who that ‘someone’ was!
Madeleine was either not able to, did not have the chance to tell, or was not allowed by someone ‘to tell.’

No matter what became of this child it is tragic, and it should never have been allowed to happen.   Her parents allowed it. 

In fact they ‘invited’ it in!

What kind of responsible parents when their child of almost 4 years old tells them that she and her baby brother were crying in their absence, once more go out in the evening, leaving the children alone, and not only alone but leaving a door open?

Doesn’t happen!

The patio door – most probably introduced to serve their purpose – to cover for what did happen on that evening.   To give the couple ‘more options’ or rather to give the imaginary intruder ‘more options’ as McCann said when being interviewed by Piers Morgan.

MORGAN: Do you know that yet? Do you know -- is there any evidence how this person came in the room? 

G. MCCANN: I mean no doubt there are a NUMBER OF OPTIONS. And -- 

MORGAN: No, actual evidence. There's nothing they could find to say this is unequivocally how this person came in? 

G. MCCANN: No. I mean, it's possible they came through the window. They could have come through the patio doors, although that was in sight of where we were dining. So I think that's probably less likely. For all we know, they could have had a key, you know,
lots of people stayed in that apartment over years to the front door – 

How easy for McCanns – they know it is not possible for someone to have gone through that window.   They know too they could not see the patio door from where they sat in the covered area of the tapas restaurant, their backs to the apartment, and they know too, indeed lots of people stayed in that apartment over the years,  and they didn’t all lose the keys, or keep them – why would holidaymakers do so?  And if for some strange reason someone did not hand the key back, it would be noted by the Ocean Club – and if it had been for some dubious reason – that apartment would have been burgled before the McCanns arrived!
The ease with which they sit there and let this nonsense drip from their tongues – it is astounding!

So did Payne pop in, or pop in, in?

Did he stay 30 seconds, or 30 minutes?

Would the McCann children all three of them have been able to tell someone that he had popped in and what he did when he did pop in?

I note in Crime Watch programme, David Payne, Fiona Payne, and Fiona Payne’s mother only popped in (or up?) in the video – they were not named but referred to as the remaining members of the party?
Makes one wonder if the Payne’s have popped in to their local police station at some point – A reason for them not to have been mentioned by name like the other McCann companions in this little drama?
Payne’s the only ones not to have left the table that evening – the companions did!

Have Payne’s been removed as suspects – but the others – the more ‘key players’ are they still ‘up there?’  

We must not forget Fiona Payne, her statement to the Leicestershire Police in the UK in reference to that unlocked patio door and what her best friend Kate McCann told her at the dinner table the evening Madeleine was reported as missing.   Remember also the McCanns have stated that Madeleine would NOT have been able to exit that door!

Fiona Payne:


“She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying ‘ Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can GET OUT AND FIND US or erm, locking it and, you know, finding that we’re not there and the door’s locked if she woke up.’

Kate McCann interview on Late Show:

[size=19][size=24]“And even if they want to say theoretically ‘Oh she (Madeleine) wandered out of the back door of the apartment’ basically saying a three year old has:[/size][/size]

[size=26]Opened the long curtains, closed them behind her.[/size]

[size=24]Opened the patio doors, closed them behind her.[/size]

[size=22]Opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed it [size=24]behind her.   (A child security gate)[/size][/size]

[size=24]And, done the same at the bottom, it’s just not, it’s just not possible!


Do note also Kate McCann by her above statement tells us that the long curtains which draped the patio doors were drawn closed!

This is contradictory to other statements she has made.  

***She is also by the above statement confirming that when she arrived at the apartment to do her 10 O'clock check that the:

Gate at the bottom of the stairs was closed.
The child safety gate at top of stairs was closed.
That patio door was closed.
That the long curtains were closed.

So nothing when she arrived to indicate that anyone had gone in through the patio door! ***

Why would any intruder be so 'tidy' at one side of the apartment, if he had used the patio entrance, to bother to make sure all was intact, gates, curtains closed behind him - then at the other side, be so messy and careless - leave a shutter and window wide open -  a window he knew if this was planned would be seen by the members of the holiday party when doing their checks?

I think McCanns options are narrowed somewhat by his wife's statement!

So who was telling the truth re the patio door – Kate McCann or Fiona Payne?   Neither?  Both telling porkies!

Who was telling the truth about the 'popping' in to apartment 5A – Kate McCann or David Payne?  Both telling porkies!


I think the McCann children were the only ones who could have if they had been able to – given a truthful account of events.


None of the parents did!

And the Payne's - well they must know that what they have said is not truthful - or at least it contradicts that of the McCann couple - Some conflict going on there now, now that this case has been re-opened by Portuguese Police and all of these matters will be looked at once more?
30th October 2013

Back to top Go down


Post on 11.10.18 0:05 by Verdi

Redwood's Crimewatch Farce

When Crimewatch - the Maddie Case was aired back in mid October 2013 I didn't pay too much attention to it, mostly because to watch and listen to the McCanns is something one has to build up to, hearing their voices and watching the expressions as they tell yet another tall tale is, shall we say, not easy to stomach!

I saw little clips here or there, read snippets. Today though I decided, before Andy Redwood's next batch of rerrverlations hits our screens to take the bull by the horns!  I haven't yet recovered, but that said, it was all that I would have expected it to be - lies heaped upon lies - a never ending, ever changing tale of a couple who can do no wrong - but actually did!

We heard how they would be upset if they thought for a moment their children were crying on any night when they abandoned them in an unlocked holiday apartment, dark and unfamiliar to them in a country foreign to them, left in danger - Of how though, knowing their children HAD BEEN CRYING AND UPSET ALONE IN THE UNLOCKED AND UNFAMILIAR HOLIDAY APARTMENT IN THE A COUNTRY FOREIGN TO THEM, they still went out and left the kids to meet up with their holiday buddies.

They knew their children had been crying the night before when on their own, because guess what - their three year old daughter told them so!

But let us play along - Gerry McCann the proud father of the three beautiful children on hearing this decided he would take a mental note of what the child had told him, and he/they would be sure not to be late when doing their usual checks of the children.

That was rather thoughtful of him - 'a mental note' - gee these kids were lucky to have such a wonderfully thoughtful and caring father.  No danger of them coming to danger, when their daddy was taking mental notes.  A novel way to stave off abductors!

I must remember this 'mental note business' next time anyone asks us to do a bit of babysitting - can still pop out and have a few beers, as long we make sure we check on any kids in our care bang on being late.  I know, we'll wear watches, that will help!

I take it Kate and Gerry wore watches?  Why of course they did...

Kate McCann 'Madeleine' -

"Gerry left to do the first check at 9:05 pm by his watch."

There we are Gerry had his watch on.

What lucky children the McCanns were a watch wearing daddy who takes mental notes...

[size=22]Kate McCann - 'Madeleine'

"We mentioned to the others what Madeleine had said that morning.  Obviously we didn't want any of our children waking and wondering where we were even for a few minutes, and if the chances of that happening seemed remote, it was enough of a concern to make us absolutely prompt with our checks on the kids.  That is why Gerry and I were subsequently able to be so accurate about timings."


What lovely parents - even if the chances of their children waking was remote - they would make sure their checks were prompt!   I can hardly write this for laughing!   

The chances were not 'remote' their little toddler children had woken and cried and not just on one occasion in their absence, and they knew it!

Hell they must polish each other's brass necks of a morning. 

Do they think anyone who reads or listens to this claptrap actually believes it?

Whether their neglect story is true, is another matter, but that is the story the McCanns decided to go with.

It's probably the one thing in this tragic case that they didn't have any control over.  They were able to manipulate pretty much all else but the one thing they could not - was the fact that they had left those kids alone while they went out for their nightly wine and dine sessions with their so called buddies - most of whom they really didn't know that well.

Unless they were going to tell the truth - they left themselves with some stark choices.   The neglect of their children being one of those things they had to accept in as much as the story they were forced to tell in this regard.  

There was no way either of them could say they spent the night at home in the apartment as then they would have to have been made accountable as to what happened to the child.

It was necessary that they were 'both out' even if this meant they had to take the criticism for so cruelly abandoning their children, that would have perhaps been to them, the lesser of the two evils they faced.

And that is exactly why I believe whatever happened to Madeleine was so serious, something which would affect the rest of their lives their careers, their other children remaining in their care, or they in their children's lives, that they made the choice they did!

If Madeleine McCann had been abducted, her parents and their companions would have had no need to concoct the stories they have, to have lied, hindered a police investigation by refusing to fully co-operate, and most of all they would not have lawyered up to the hilt if they had nothing to hide!

Never do I forget the words of retired British detective John Stalker, who believes the McCann party are hiding something!

To cover for whatever it is they are covering up, and they are covering up there is no question about that - they had to lie and cheat and make themselves out to be rather more negligent, horrible and nasty parents than I am sure they really were.  And having had to do so, some of the nastier natural traits they have came to the fore. A case of they will do whatever it takes to keep secret to protect themselves from the truth of what happened to Madeleine.

I fast forwarded a lot on the Crimewatch video but still the obvious things the usual lies, misleads, inaccuracies, flashed like a belisha beacon. 

Got me thinking McCanns and Redwood, his Metropolitan Police colleagues ALL must have known it was not a truthful account so many inaccuracies.

The list was endless and that was without studying the production.

The seating plan at the tapas table - all wrong.  We had Oldfield sitting with Kate McCann.  Tanner sitting beside Gerry McCann, which was quite funny as Tanner hates the guy, she said she felt uncomfortable in his company, not someone she would want as a friend!

Gerry is seen pushing a baby buggy with twins in -they said in televised interview they didn't have a buggy to use, the reason, or one of, for not taking kids out to dinner with them.

The door in the bedroom opened in the opposite direction from the room in Praia da Luz where they had left their kids.

All small things, but together, and having listened to the McCanns tell a different story, then one realised the extent of their deceit!

Kate's check had me doubled up - every shot of Madeleine's bed was different - the blankets folded down, the blankets up and crumpled, cuddle cat neatly placed, no cuddle cat, cuddle cat with comfort blanket neatly placed on bed with blankets folded down neatly...

Gerry going in the apartment by the patio door when we know he told police first time around he entered by front locked door.

Gerry not looking in his bedroom and Kate McCann in her book 'Madeleine' said that is was Gerry McCann did first on entering:

"He glanced into our bedroom to make sure Madeleine hadn't wandered in there as she was prone to do if ever she woke in the small hours. Seeing no little body curled up in our bed, he went over to look in on the children"

Question - Why would Gerry McCann look in on his and Kate's bedroom to look for Madeleine BEFORE looking in the children's bedroom.  Was Madeleine put to bed in her parent's room?

Why else would he look in their first?

And Madeleine she was in a different sleeping position each time - the child who Gerry McCann said on his check was lying exactly as he had left her!

Well not in the Crimewatch video she wasn't!

A million and one inaccuracies in this Crimewatch production which makes one wonder how it was allowed to go out as it was?

The interesting things though were the Payne's not being mentioned by name and David Payne's visit to Kate McCann not being mentioned.

Also, Oldfield returning to the table BEFORE Gerry McCann returned from his check.

Their witness statements, Oldfield said that he listened at McCann bedroom window at 9pm, returned to the table, told McCann this, then McCann went to do a check of his children.

Not according to the Crimewatch production.  
Oldfield left 9pm.  
Then McCann left - couple minutes later.
Then Oldfield returned around 9.15.
McCann returned around 9.20pm.  

So Oldfield was gone according to Crimewatch almost 20 minutes, and not the couple of minutes he has stated in his police witness statement?

He therefore could not have listened at the McCann shutter at 9pm and returned to tell Gerry McCann all was quiet, before McCann headed off to do his 9:05pm check!

In Crimewatch production, Oldfield and McCann are gone each of them around 15/20 minutes, each of them being gone most of that time at the same time?

Now whoever was responsible for putting this production together, I am not entirely sure - how much input the Met had, how much of it was on the McCann instruction.

Either way, both parties know that it was farcical, far from the truth, or rather far from their previous accounts, and far from the statements they gave the police in Portugal and the Leicestershire Police.

So what is Redwood up to?

Covering for all of their lies and inconsistencies, as it certainly is looking that way, by allowing that production to go out, or...

And what of all of the people the McCanns have been involved with since Madeleine's disappearance, if any of them have read those police files, listened and watched their interviews over the years, they too must know that this case, their story stinks.  The presenter of Crimewatch Kirsty Young, has she ever taken the time to read up on the case I wonder..?
28th November 2013

Back to top Go down


Post on 14.10.18 0:34 by Verdi

Another classic from the keyboard of the inimitable Lazzeri.  Reminiscent of the caustic wit of CMoMM member Jean Monroe - hello2 if you're reading this..

Where and When Andy?
Much has been made of the Metropolitan Policing being very different from that of the Portuguese Police, particularly so where the secrecy laws which exist in Portugal are concerned.
The McCanns and their companions complained in this regard – they could not tell the public this, could not tell them that.  Could not, they claimed, answer freely during interviews, particularly so when they were made arguido ‘persons of interest’ by the Portuguese authorities due to the restrictions of these laws.
Yet, when their arguido status was lifted, still they could not or would not explain, give answers to specific questions asked of them during interviews.
Seems they used the arguido status when it suited them – Fair play one might say.
But their gripe in general was that the Portuguese, according to the McCanns their spokesperson, ‘leaked information’ despite there being secrecy laws.
This got me wondering.
Andy Redwood, the Metropolitan police has been leaking like dear Old Henry’s Bucket for months now – No Dear Liza, Dear Liza, to fix it, to fix it… and to my knowledge, the McCanns their spokesperson Clarence Mitchell have not voiced their concerns in this regard.  Not offered Dear Andy, Dear Andy, some straw, nor suggested, he use his head to mend mend it, to mend it…

Double standards it would appear.
So what has the Redwood Bucket leaked?
Well for one –
He has announced he wants to (but requires the permission and assistance of the Portuguese authorities) to interview 38 persons who have previously been interviewed by the Portuguese Police during the initial investigation.
They are not suspects. 
Redwood said he could not go so far as to say these persons are suspects…So they are NOT!
The persons have though in the UK press been wrongly described as such – but that is what happens when the Metropolitan Police leak information using wrong terminology…(deliberately to get the attention and desired effect) and then back-track somewhat…
These persons are simply persons picked from the Redwood hat!   Persons whose names appear in the original police files as witnesses!
At this point in time, they remain exactly that - witnesses in the case of missing Madeleine McCann, same as:
Kate McCann
Gerry McCann
David Payne
Fiona Payne
Matthew Oldfield
Rachael Oldfield
Russell O’Brien
Jane Tanner
Dianne Webster
So why did Andy Redwood decide to describe the 38 witnesses differently from the other 9 witnesses which make up the McCann party?
As yet he has not according to reports, re-interviewed these people, that make up the 38. 

Whatever it is Redwood thinks he “may” discover by re-interviewing these 38 persons it is clearly not at this stage anything of credible value not sufficient to have this case re-opened in Portugal.

Had Redwood anything of any real value, that is the route he would have gone down – a re-opening of the case with any “evidence” he felt he had uncovered being delivered immediately to the Portuguese authorities so that this could be considered and perhaps a re-opening brought about.

So, why did Redwood see fit to leak this information, in so doing one might argue, alert the 38, and should any of them have played any part in this child’s disappearance (though extremely doubtful else why have they not moved with haste in this regard) they will have taken the opportunity to fly the coup - knowing that Andy and his team are hot on their heels – well, perhaps not hot on their heels – more dragging their heels…

Or, if the 38 have nothing to fear, nothing to hide, they will happily be re-interviewed and perhaps they may even be able to throw some light on the McCanns and their companions - be able to allow the Met to discover why their stories do not tally, and why also they changed them?

One never knows!

So much has been made of the ‘38’   So much hype, so much made of them perhaps being re-interviewed.  Quite extraordinary really, not simply because it would alert any would be suspect – extraordinary in that the same procedure, same practice was not applied to Kate and Gerry McCann and their companions.
For many weeks, months now we have heard the hullabaloo re this re-interviewing of 38 persons.
But when the McCanns and their companions were to be re-interviewed/were being re-interviewed by the Metropolitan Police – we heard nothing!
No drum rolls – No Jerry Lawton announcing to the world that the tapas bunch, all of them disgraced parents, were either about to be re-interviewed or that they had been re-interviewed.  Nothing to announce to the world, question why, Gerry McCann CHANGED his story regarding his movements on the night Madeleine vanished.  

Now is that not strange?

Strange that Andy had not a thing to say then...

... but stranger still that Gerry McCann changed his police witness statement after colluding with his holiday companions!

For the parents of a missing child under suspicion of involvement, to some degree in their daughter’s disappearance, the involvement of their companions also – why was there silence?
Why did Redwood NOT leak information to the media before re-interviewing the McCanns and their companions, as he has done in respect of the 38?

Perhaps a little matter of a libel trial which has the McCanns running scared?

The McCanns and everyone else in those files, the 38 included were/are witnesses, not suspects but witnesses in the case of serious crimes committed against a then 3 year old Madeleine McCann – So why the difference made between the two groups of people?

In fact WHERE and WHEN were the McCanns and their companions re-interviewed?
Did those interviews if they ever took place, discover why
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
David Payne
Fiona Payne
Matthew Oldfield
Rachael Oldfield
Russell O’Brien
Jane Tanner
did not give the Portuguese Police honest accounts of the events of the night Madeleine was reported by them as missing?
Did they discover why the stories and accounts by this group of people have changed over the years, particularly so that of Kate and Gerry McCann.
If Redwood was to be asked would he be able to tell the public –
Would Redwood be able to do likewise with Kate McCanns account?
If he can do, he should be knighted!  
Would he be able to tell us which account is the truth in respect of those given by the companions of the McCanns specifically so:
Matthew Oldfield
Russell O’Brien
Jane Tanner
David Payne
They have all given accounts which are not truthful!
So how did Redwood and his team establish their innocence, or rather come to the conclusion they are not suspects?
We must remember, Redwood cannot declare them innocent only a Court of Law can!
Just as Redwood cannot declare that Madeleine is alive he has no proof of this.
One understands he is basing his comment as he said on not having any definitive proof otherwise.
One would assume then that he is speaking of a 50/50 chance dead or alive if he has nothing to go on…
But that throws up a problem…there IS within those police files, much to go on, which would allow the pendulum to swing in the direction of death having occurred in the McCann apartment… Redwood it would appear has missed this information?
Has he?

But Redwood is not saying, based on having no definitive proof that it is 50/50...


He has also stated that he genuinely believes that there is a good chance that Madeleine McCann is alive…
So there has to be something, something within those files which has allowed this man to reach such a ‘genuine’ belief. 
Perhaps his ‘genuinely’ new leads?   Hmm!
Thus far his genuinely new leads have taken him back to old haunts, and as he himself said – he still cannot guarantee any result!
These genuinely new leads, whatever they are supposed to be (and please not the taxi driver story – even Clarence Mitchell, Kate and Gerry McCann are yawing at that one) they just don’t seem to hold any urgency!
We have had heard again, the stories that Madeleine may be alive and that the McCanns may know who took her…drip drip drip…which brings us rather nicely back to the McCanns, and their companions being re-interviewed by Andy Redwood/Metropolitan Police…
For Andy to have reached any conclusion as to them not being suspects they would have of course had to explain away all of the lies…and from reading their statements in particular with regard to the night Madeleine vanished and their checking of the children – that is pretty much impossible without having to resort to the truth…
And resorting to the truth, they then have to explain why they lied in the first instance, which HINDERED a police investigation into the disappearance of a little 3 year old girl?
And that is pretty serious stuff…
And if they were able to supply Redwood with any information which has led him to ‘genuinely’ believe that Madeleine may be alive –
What could that information have been?
If it was, that they, the McCanns and their companions know who took Madeleine – WOW then they are in deep trouble…and a little matter of a Fund comes in to play also…
So what has made Redwood genuinely feel that Madeleine may be alive?
Where and when exactly was the tapas gang re-interviewed, and what information gathered, allowed Redwood to announce that none of the party was a suspect? – a statement, which in itself is ‘suspect’- and what allowed him to state that the perpetrators of the crimes against Madeleine were not known to McCanns?
Unless Redwood knows who the perpetrators are – he cannot possibly make such a statement!

So many ridiculous stories and statements made by Redwood and the Metropolitan Police and not just in recent months...Redwood started rolling out the 'abduction by a stranger ball' in May 2012...and its been bouncing along since...

Redwood is genuinely leading some, straight up his garden path...

But just who is he leading up there, the public or the tapas gang?
31st August 2013

Back to top Go down

Back to top

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