Leave No Stone Unturned

jaluky wrote:Hi, I spoke to the find Madeleine group within the first 3 months of the event, I was living in Spain at the time and she was reportedly seen in a 4x4 at a petrol station in Cartagena. My statement was focused around a property where a young professional couple were renovating, extremely remote with no service at all, they had a 10 minute warning of any approach due to the terrain yet I was requested to install a solar powered alert system ? these people wanted notification of any visitors. The property was being surrounded by a 12' high wall ? the property had no mobile/tv signal and the woman was sadly 'Barren' and they could not have children of their own. I hope she is here as she would be well cared for, these people were very successful commodity brokers, had just refurbished 5 properties in a very upmarket Spanish town each furnished in a Moroccan theme as they had links with Morocco. My questions were why would so much hard earned money be spent converting a hut into a palace using eastern tradespeople only, a palace where you could not watch tv, make a phone call, deep in a valley surrounded by a high wall...keeping people out or in? It has taken 8 years to find the property on Google Maps due to the imagery not being refreshed until recently...worth a visit? No one seems to thinks so...just another stone

Why would such a wealthy couple, allegedly unable to have children, pay for a nearly 4 yr old girl to be abducted and handed over to them?
A child who had to remain concealed forever from prying eyes including family and friends?
This story is pardon my Spanish, complete cobblers.
These days infertile couples have multiple ways of having a child, IVF or the various versions of it, surrogacy, fostering and adoption.
There is no reason for a couple to not be able to have a child if they cannot have one naturally.
In cases where there has been a child taken because of infertility, the woman, as it is always a woman is either infertile or has just lost a child and they will take newborns either from a home or hospital or is some cases, fortunately very few, they have attacked and killed a pregnant mom who is near to term and taken the pre-born child, sadly sometimes fatal to the infant as well.
In these cases the abductor will have taken steps to prepare for the infant, claiming to be pregnant, wearing fake pregnancy suits and so on, somehow even convincing the hubby/partner they are pregnant and then once successfully obtaining the infant, claiming they have just given birth and presenting the child as her own to her family and friends.
Most times they get caught because of suspicious family/friends/neighbors who notice something isn't quite right for example telling everyone they were expecting a child of one sex only to show up with one of the opposite sex, timings being off such as a super fast labor and birth especially if it would be their first.
Rarely does a child not get recovered within hours or days, sometimes the child growing up believing the woman is their mom only to learn they aren't when they apply for something and need a birth certificate or similar or their blood type cannot mean they are the mother's child.
These cases are tragic as they only ever knew the woman as their mother and then they learn she isn't and then learning they have a whole different family.
What they would not do is take a child who is old enough to talk, know their name and sometimes address or phone number, who cannot be claimed to be a new arrival such as foster or adopted when said child will say they aren't.
The child would have to be kept isolated from everyone and how to explain to visitors why you have things for a child they can't see and didn't know existed as you would always miss something.

Perhaps the wish is that she was taken to be loved by a childless family.
This is all it could ever be, a wish.

However kate and gerry told us it was a paedophile abductor and we all know what kind of 'love' they inflict on children.

Maddie is long dead, she died early that week in PDL in either apartment 5a, one of the other apartments where she was promptly moved back to 5a in under the 90 minutes so that no cadaverine would have been left or outside the apartment and her body being moved back to 5a either before the 90 minutes and then being left there long enough for the cadaverine to be enough to contaminate the areas and be detectable by the trained cadaver and blood dogs.

The mccanns have told us repeatedly that Maddie is dead and we should believe them.

There is ample forensic evidence in the apartment, on items of clothing, a cuddly toy and in the hire car, a car hired several weeks after Maddie was allegedly abducted by the way, that told us Maddie was dead and the mccanns and chums were involved in her death, disposal and cover up.
There is not one atom of evidence to show a stranger entered the apartment and abducted Maddie alive, only the words of the mccanns and chums claiming abduction and even then they deny their own words.

People are entitled to privacy, they build high walls even out in the middle of nowhere to ensure they get that privacy.
Just looked around the countryside here in the UK, houses with lots of land and they still have walls, fences, hedgerows to separate their land and house from the public, to make sure strangers don't go wandering through their garden.
Cases have taken place in the UK where a public footpath, a public right of way that has been so often for decades, centuries and millennia has had a landowner whose property it runs through decide to block it off so they don't get strangers wandering past their kitchen or sitting room.
They always lose as it has been a right of way for so long.
An agreement may occasionally be worked out that allows for a slight diversion whilst still allowing the public to use it.
That the couple did it in Spain is nothing unusual, illegal or evidence they have something to hide such as an abducted child.

Maddie is long dead, she cannot come back, she cannot be resurrected, revived or reanimated, perhaps the group tried to do CPR and failed.
They had to dispose of Maddie's remains for a reason.
They could not allow for her to be autopsied.
This tells me that what cause Maddie to die, it could not be explained away as accidental.
Accidental overdoes could have been explained away, however if they tested hair samples and found evidence of long term sedation, that could not be explained away and would result in serious charges as well as losing their jobs.
Other injuries perhaps cuts and bruises either new, healing or old such as scars, or evidence of fractures or other injuries that would have resulted in a hospital visit yet none were recorded would result in child abuse and neglect charges and again loss of jobs.
Worse, other internal injuries either, new, healing or old could not be explained as accidental and if old would point straight at the mccanns.
had her body been found within a couple of days, they may have gotten away with the new injuries but not old ones that predated the vacation.

Given the little chat between payne and gerry, paedophile rears its ugly head pointing straight at them, especially given we know payne likes to bathe little children other than his own.
This would mean serious charges, loss of their children and jobs as well as family and friends

There was a need to dispose, hide according to gerry, Maddie's body, to prevent autopsy and to save their jobs and reputations which was by far the most important reason.

Kate spoke of the hills, perhaps we should believe her and look there.
They both spoke of running up the hill, their best time 19 minutes.
How better to keep an eye on the location to check it hasn't been disturbed by animals or the environment.
They mentioned it because it was important to them.

Some good points raised and I have heard them all over dinner, for every point there is a counter argument, who knows why they can/could not adopt, foster a child?...Why bother with pretending to be pregnant and have to wear a baby bump when you can move to another country?...why not consider investing the monies you have earned by pure hard work and intelligence and lose it all by converting a hut into a fortress where NONE of todays services are , and never be, available?...why choose to be off the grid and put yourself in a position that assistance will never find you if an emergency arose etc etc etc. My thoughts are as wild as yours...but need to be eliminated don't you think? if the McCann's were trying to mislead everyone wouldn't  they follow up the possibility?...there I have cast doubt on my own concept...keep an open mind

Sorry Verdi, never meant to imply that I took offence to your comment but as I was the person who dealt with these people and visited the property I guess I will have to go back myself to find out the truth.  Five years in Spain and I learnt so much about people from a loud mouthed character who ended up on the front page of the daily mail for being a child abuser on the run, a woman the papers called the Black Widow due to her partners she had disappearing and a young boy who took a mans head off with a pick axe...I have seen how easy it is to re-invent yourself, hide or start a new life. Interesting forum but seems like it has already hung, drawn and quartered the McCann's.

As PeterMac suggests - leave no stone unturned....

If taking the premise that the Madeleine McCann case involves deception and cover up, then the way to leave no stone unturned would be to employ methods used in intelligence analysis. 

This is a classic work in the field and a good starting point:

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

At the risk of this being removed by Verdi for being “contrary” or “theorising”, many of the key issues that lead to “intelligence failures” can be seen in the approaches taken in this forum - which is hardly surprising since these are typical. 

To quote from the Book’s conclusion:

“Analysis can be improved! None of the measures discussed in this book will guarantee that accurate conclusions will be drawn from the incomplete and ambiguous information that intelligence analysts typically work with. Occasional intelligence failures must be expected. Collectively, however, the measures discussed here can certainly improve the odds in the analysts’ favor.”

If this case simply involved criminal dishonesty, it would have been put to bed long ago. This involves deception by government. Use of some of these basic intelligence analysis techniques Is needed to unravel this.

If no stone is to be left unturned, then the possibility of Madeline’s death after 8:30pm on 3 May should not be ruled out unless there is a sound basis for doing so. As I intend to show, the arguments given by the Madeline McCann Research Group (‘MMRG’) on this do not stand up to scrutiny.  It is not my purpose to attack the 29 April theory, but instead to show that Amaral’s Theory should not be ruled out as argued by the MMRG here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The flaws in the MMRG's arguments do not appear to have been addressed to date:

There are those who still insist that Madeleine could have died and been killed in the four hours or so after the alleged ‘high tea’ on Thursday. These individuals criticise the hypotheses of researchers like PeterMac, Lizzy Taylor and Richard Hall.... Yet these armchair critics never make any detailed criticisms of the facts and arguments presented by them. It’s a remarkable fact that there has never been an adequate response anywhere to the weight of evidence advanced by ‘PeterMac’, Lizzy, Richard and Marti

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
My intention is to give systematic detail criticism of these arguments put forward by the MMRG and others.  
 
 
1. At least 90 Minutes must have elapsed from time of death to Madeleine’s body being moved.
 
A key argument given by the Madeline McCann Research Group (‘MMRG’) that MM could not have died after 5pm on 3 May  is this:

for Martin Grime’s cadaver dogs to have alerted to the scent of a corpse, no longer present, some three months after the McCanns had vacated their holiday apartment, Madeleine’s body must have been lying in the McCanns’ apartment for at least 90 minutes, probably two hours or longer.

From what I can see, there is no scientific basis whatsoever supposing this minimum period of 90 minutes.
 
Firstly no citation is given by the MMRG to support this contention as might be expected. What then might have been the basis for the MMRG treating it as a 100% certain that Martin Grimes’ dog would not have alerted to cadaverine unless the body had been dead for at least 90 minutes?  This page on the forum provides some information on this:

In trials the shortest post-mortem interval where a correct response was received is one hour and 25 minutes. These results were from tests done using cloth which had been placed on a body for specific times which trained cadaver dogs then located.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Unfortunately no citation was given to be able to find this study. However after some searching I found this which is presumably the source of this information:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
The key information from the study is given below:

NUMBER OF DOGS USED: Five different dogs
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.
 
All post-mortem scent samples consist of sterile gauze pads, (sealed until just prior to use) placed on abdominal area of decedent for exactly 20 minutes.
All trials are done on a hard surface, either asphalt, cement, or hard packed dry dirt ground.
 
We emphasize our inability to control all variables during our project. It has been impossible for us to obtain scent samples and carry out the trials under strictly controlled conditions. We had no control over the environmental conditions under which our samples were gathered, manner and cause of death, nor could we exercise tight regulation over the quantity of samples of any one given time interval. Since there are periods in which our samples are few and far between, this project has no set deadline and will be ongoing for a time. Our intention is not to offer an absolute answer to the questions posed, but to initiate an ongoing dialogue and offer what we hope is a point of departure for other exciting research projects. This will shed light on the under-navigated and sometimes mysterious arena of canine olfaction applied to body recovery.
 
In addition, there are many obvious variables not addressed by this project. It will be exciting to undertake future studies that deal with such factors as difficulty of detection according to age, sex, and race of decedent and manner and cause of death.
 

Some points to note:

1.  As noted by its authors’, the study was not conducted under strictly controlled conditions and it was not the intention to provide categorical answers on detection times. Moreover this is not a study published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Nor does the study appear to have been replicated. 
   
2. In this study cadaverine was detected 85 minutes post mortem. This is not 90 minutes as stated by the MMRG.
   
3. As noted by the study, factors such as age, sex, race and manner and cause of death may effect detection. It appears there is some evidence that detectible cadaverine is produced more quickly in young children than in adults. The study presumably used an adult corpse (it would be unlikely to ask parents of a recently deceased child to consent to such a study). In any event it is unclear whether the corpse used was that of a girl of Madeleine’s age.
   
4. The ambient temperature during the post mortem period is not given. It is likely that the apartment in the Ocean Club was warmer than in a mortuary that might have been used in the study and the microbial action more rapid than that in the study. In any event it cannot be assumed that the temperatures were the same.
   
5. In the study the gauze pad was placed on the body for only 20 minutes. Studies show that the detection improves with length of contact. 70 minutes contact with a body that has been dead for that time would thus be more readily detectible than a mere 20 minutes contact with that body. 
   
6. The study used a gauze pad: a much smaller amount of cadaverine would have been transferred than would have been the case with MM whose whole body lay on the floor, with face, hands, legs and feet exposed and in contact with the floor. Whatever the position of her body this would almost certainly be a considerably larger area.
   
7. There may be greater retention by the fibres of the gauze pad than the tiles of a floor thus requiring greater quantity to be transferred in order to be detectable.
   
8. Testing in the study was conducted outdoors rather than in the interior of an apartment. Wind conditions are not noted, but this may also have impaired reliable detection.
   
9. The study used 5 dogs from the canine search team. This does not state the breed of the dogs used. From the site it appears that the current breeds used are German Shepherds, Border Collies and a Golden Retriever. As shown by the study, some dogs were able to detect sooner than others. Martin Grimes’ cadaver dog Eddie is a Springer Spaniel which has won awards and is considered the best in the world for cadaverine detection. There seems no reason to suppose that Martin Grimes’ dog would not be able to detect much sooner than the five dogs used in the study.
   

The conclusion that has to be drawn from this is that there is no sound basis for the MMRG’s key claim that “for Martin Grime’s cadaver dogs to have alerted to the scent of a corpse.., Madeleine’s body must have been lying in the McCanns’ apartment for at least 90 minutes.“
 
It is known that cadaverine is produced within a few minutes of death. Martin Grimes’ dog is exceptional in detecting cadaverine. There is not a shred of evidence showing Martin Grimes’ dog could not have detected this scent if Madeleine’s body has only been lying in the apartment for 30 minutes.
 
This is crucial, because this 90 minute minimum period was the most compelling reason to rule out Madeleine having an accident in the apartment on the evening of 3 May. 

2.  Too little time to make all the necessary decisions and take relevant actions

The MMRG argue that a whole series of decisions would have to be taken. On top of this the MMRG suppose that it was probable that this would have been discussed with their friends.  The MMRG then conclude that this is implausible:

If we stop and pause for a moment to consider the above list, it is truly hard to conceive how they could possibly have made all these decisions, and carried them out, whilst all sitting down together for dinner in a public place at about 8.30pm until 10pm as if nothing had happened.

Of course it is implausible if all that is supposed. But that does not reflect Amaral’s theory and it is not necessary to suppose that they had to make all the various decisions. There is no reason to suppose this must have been discussed with the Tapas 7 before hiding Madeleine’s body. Indeed all the MMRG say is this is probable. However the MMRG do not consider a scenario where this is not discussed with the Tapas 7 as per Amaral’s theory.  Instead MMRG make a series of unnecessary assumptions which render implausible the hypothesis constructed by the MMRG. That does not amount to a substantive argument that Madeleine  could not have died at some point after 8pm on 3 May as Amaral has proposed.   

In considering the arguments given by MMRG against Amaral theory, I will show that there are plausible possibilities which cannot be excluded. The onus is on MMRG to show that this can be excluded otherwise Amaral’s theory would be written off based on mere assumptions.

A. They would first have to decide if Madeleine really was dead, or could be revived or resuscitated. This may or may not have taken some time to decide.

This might have taken all of 15 seconds if Madeleine  had a broken neck which is very possible. It would be evident that it would not be possible to revive her. What might take a bit longer would be finding Madeleine’s body behind the sofa, which might take up to a minute or two in the small apartment.

B. They would have to deal with the initial shock of what had happened. Doctors, despite being trained not to show emotion over the circumstances of their patients, are also human beings, and in this case parents. There would have been a severe emotional reaction and initial panic, and maybe a series of irrational responses, before they could properly gather their thoughts and begin to come to terms with the shock of losing their daughter and start planning how to cover it up. How long this initial phase lasted can only be guessed at.

This can only be guessed at. It might have been very little time. The first shock might have been replaced in seconds by fear at the consequences they might be facing for child neglect: loss of career, potential serious criminal liability and loss of the twins. That initial shock might have been a mere 15 seconds. It may have been longer, but it needn’t have been so.

C. (If the twins were there) The McCanns would have had to make swift arrangements to move them out of the way whilst they decided what to do. That would take some time and probably they would have had to take them to one of their friends’ apartments.

It would not be necessary to move the twins and it is unclear why the MMRG suppose this. The twins were in the bedroom. Madeleine’s body was in the living room behind the sofa – as evident from blood marks and detection of cadaverine.  We know the twins were in the apartment when the alarm was raised at about 10pm.  It is just silly to suppose the twins were moved to one of their friends’ apartments while the McCanns decided what to do and then moved back again once they had made their decisions. 

We also know that the twins slept through the significant activity in the apartment after the alarm was raised. It seems likely that they had been sedated. This might have been at the time Madeleine’s body was discovered or it might have been earlier before the McCanns went to dinner.  This further shows that moving the twins would not have been necessary.

D. There would then have to be a rapid decision-making process during which all the following decisions would have to be taken:

(i) Do we take her to hospital?

(ii) If so, what are the risks?

(iii) Can we pass this off as a genuine accident?

(iv) Is there any other reason why we dare not risk going to hospital and possibly facing a post-mortem?

(v) Would we be investigated by the police?

It might have been a very rapid realisation that they could be facing very serious consequences. This should be considered in context. The Children Act 2004 required each local authority to establish a local Safeguarding Children Board by 1 April 2006. Safeguarding Children was a topic which was very high on the agenda at the time, with frontline staff being trained. This included GPs such as Kate McCann. There was very high awareness of the issues with training to “identify and prevent maltreatment and ... ensure children are growing up in circumstances consistent with safe and effective care.”

There may also have been other factors. For example, Madeleine  appears to have been ‘loud’ and ‘a handful’.  It is possible that MM might have been considered by the McCanns to have ADHD. If so, they may have been medicating her with a drug such as methylphenidate (Ritalin).  Although a stimulant, this has a calming effect on children with ADHD, and this may account for the emphasis on sedation and medication in the statement analysis. NICE Guidelines as used in the UK stipulate mediation may only be used to treat ADHD in children of 5 years or over. The use of the drug on Madeleine would have been unlawful. The presence of the drug would show up in a toxicology report which would be expected. As doctors they would have been aware that unlawful supply of a class B drug is a serious criminal offence with penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment and potentially unlimited fine. They would certainly be struck off, face a lengthy prison term and would lose the twins.  

Hence it is entirely possible that they might have been a very real and almost immediate fear of the consequences.  Gerry McCann was described as a ‘very dynamic type’ who might well have immediately taken the situation in hand. They would have to conceal Madeleine’s death.  That decision might have been arrived at in less than 30” from discovery of the body. 

E. Then (assuming that they then decided that they are not going to inform the authorities of Madeleine’s death) there are more decisions to be made about what to do with Madeleine’s body:

(i) Hide it straightaway?

(ii) If so, where?

(iii) Or ’phone a trusted friend first and ask for advice?

(iv) Where can we get a car quickly so as to hide it?

(v) Have we got anything we can carry her body out in, without anybody thinking there might be a body in it?

(vi) Can we get all this done before 8.30pm, when we’re supposed to meet our friends for dinner?

Maybe they would have had other related questions.

As at 3 May the McCanns had spent time at PdL and had frequently been out jogging. As I’ll argue more fully later, the most probable location to hide the body which would have occurred to them would have been the local church. At that time there was ongoing construction work at the church and this might have offered possibilities for concealing the body, at least in the very short term. As example, inside the drum of a concrete mixer or under an upturned wheelbarrow. No one would be searching for a dead body at that point. Gerry was out ‘searching’ the streets after the main search had finished at 4:30am. The body might have been moved again in the very early hours having had more time to find a suitable hiding place. The church was a mere 5-6 minutes away. Again this decision might have been made very quickly given the association of death and churches, and a church being a place of sanctuary, and hiding their daughters body in or near a church might be some measure of comfort given their Catholic faith.  This again might have occurred to them almost immediately.

How to get the body there? The first thought might be a bag of some kind, such as the tennis bag seen on the shelf in the wardrobe.  However carrying a body weighing approx. 25 kg in a bag would quickly become impractical.  As Madeline’s body might have had no visible sign of injury with no blood on her or her clothes, carrying her in both arms as he would if she were alive would be the most realistic option given the weight.  There would be no reason for anyone to suppose that the child was dead rather than just sleeping. 

F. Then there would be another very tricky question to answer:

(i) Who do we tell about this?

(ii) Just our very good friends David and Fiona?

(iii) Just our other good friends Russell and Jane?

(iv) All four of them?

(v) Matt and Rachael as well?

(vi) What can we say to the staff, to our other friends we’ve met on holiday?

It needn’t have occurred to them to have told anyone about this – they would simply fake an abduction and raise the alarm.

G. They then will have to consider what possible excuse they could have for not having Madeleine anymore?

(i) They could say that Madeleine must have wandered off somewhere

(ii) They could say that they took her down to the beach and she got swept out to sea

(iii) Or could we get away with faking an abduction

Maybe other ideas might be discussed.

Earlier in that week there had been discussion of paedophiles in relation to taking photographs of children at the pool.  Public fears of paedophiles was thus a recent topic that might immediately come to mind. An abduction would account for Madeleine’s disappearance.  This might have been seized on very quickly as the solution, quite probably before thinking about how then to conceal the body.

H. Let us presume at this point that they decided to tell all their friends: Dave, Fiona, Russell, Jane, Matt, Rachael (I assume at this point that those who say that Madeleine died after 6pm fully accept that the McCanns must have let all their Tapas 9 friends know what had happened to Madeleine - and that they all agreed on a plan - though I am aware that some still maintain that maybe, in this scenario, the McCanns didn’t say anything to any of their friends, none of whom therefore knew that Madeleine was dead).

There is no need to presume this (unless one wishes to construct a highly implausible narrative which is inconsistent with the evidence). That scenario is not part of the Amaral theory and so the various issues with that scenario do not apply.

I. In such a scenario, the McCanns would probably contact their friends on their mobiles. Or quickly nip round and knock on their doors.

N/A.

J. Could they have discussed this desperate situation bilaterally? Surely not. They would surely have to have a meeting about it – at the very time they were all getting the children ready for bed and beginning to dress up for dinner.

N/A

K. In such a scenario, how likely is it that all six friends would have agreed within, say, 5-10 minutes that they would all play their roles in a fake abduction? We suggest that it is unlikely in the extreme. Even had they all rapidly agreed to go along with an abduction hoax later that evening at 10pm, there would be all manner of questions and suggestions.

N/A

We also need to bear in mind that on the basis of the PJ theory as it stands, this was a holiday to a place the McCanns had never been to before. AS far as we know, they knew no-one in the area who could help them. They had no immediate access to a car, and so on. Madeleine would have been happily playing with her brother and sister, her friends in the Lobsters club, and her Mum and Dad for six days.

N/A

L. So the McCanns and their friends would be rapidly tossing these sorts of ideas around:

(i) Where are going to hide the body?

(ii) What about down the beach?

(iii) In the sea, using a boat?

(iv) In a derelict house in Praia da Luz?

(v) Get hold of a car and drive the body somewhere well away from Praia da Luz.

N/A

M. Then, again assuming that they had all agreed to a plan of action, there would be loads more questions about (a) the apartment and (b) how to execute the hoax.

N/A

N. The apartment. If there had been a bad accident, or something equally bad had happened, who would clean the room?

(i) How would it be done?

(ii) Was there any blood to clear away?

There is no evidence that there was significant blood loss.

As I will show more fully in a subsequent post, the evidence shows there was very little blood.  The room would not need cleaning. A couple of spots of blood would have to be wiped from the wall and floor with a wet tissue that could be disposed of down the lavatory.  The sofa would then be pushed back against the wall to hide these wet marks on the wall.  (the unnatural position of the sofa was noted by one of the GNR officers who responding on the 3 May and is seen in the photographs.

Altogether that cleaning might have taken no more than a minute or two. 

O. Then there would be questions about how the abduction hoax was going to be performed.

(i) Who will raise the alarm?

(ii) What shall we all do after we raise the alarm? – Do we go frantically pretending to look for her?

(iii) Or do we ring the police?

(iv) Do we inform the Ocean Club?

(v) When shall we do all this?

(vi) Do we need someone to pretend to see an abductor?

(vii) Who will do it? Jane perhaps?

(viii) What time shall we get her to say she saw someone?

(ix) Where shall we say she saw the abductor?

The decision making would fall naturally into place. Gerry would naturally have to be the one to hide the body given the weight to be carried. To the church and back would take about 10-15 minutes. To linger too long away from the table would raise suspicion. Kate might raise the initial alarm by going to tell the Tapas 7 as soon as Gerry was clear of the pathway leading from the front of the apartment to the west.  As soon as she could see Gerry was back – or in 15 minutes, Kate might start screaming from the balcony drawing attention. There is no need to make decisions at that point about informing the Ocean Club, police, etc. or inventing a sighting of an abductor.

There was a very poor rushed decision to simulate an abduction by opening the window and shutter of the children’s bedroom. That would not take long to carry out. 

P. What about a description of the abductor? Jane would need to have a believable description to give to the police.

N/A

Q. Then we come to them all sitting down for dinner at 8.30pm to 8.45pm. Do those who suggest Madeleine had died after 6pm honestly believe that all nine of the Tapas 9 could have, with every appearance of calm, nonchalantly sat down for dinner that night as though nothing had happened?

N/A

R. With the body already hidden by that time? - somewhere where no-one could find it?

N/A

S. The room forensically cleaned of any blood?

N/A  (except it wasn’t forensically cleaned of any blood.  And wiping away a couple of spots of blood wouldn’t be difficult).

T. Cleaned the curtains of blood spatters and any other traces of what really happened?

What basis is there to suppose that there was more than a couple of spots of blood to clean up after the accident?

U. The abduction hoax ready scripted and ready to carry out?

N/A.  It is simple. They go the apartment, find Madeleine gone and the window open when it had not been before. That is all the story that is needed. Later of course they embellish this and get into all kinds of contradictions. That in itself shows there was nothing worked out and scripted as might be expected if planned in advance.

V. All of them back to their apartments and showering or washing and getting changed for dinner?

N/A

W. Getting all the children changed and ready for bed and asleep before they set off for dinner?

N/A

All of this seems highly unlikely.

Yes it does, but only because all kinds of unnecessary assumptions are made by MMRG.

X. Could they chat away merrily to the Carpenter family and their children, for example (as indeed they did that night), knowing that their first-born daughter had suddenly died within the past three hours? That also seems unlikely.

N/A   They can appear distraught almost immediately – Gerry only has to get the body to the hiding place.  There is no need to pretend all is well for four days or even four hours.  Doing so would indeed seem highly unlikely.   That only argues for the PJ theory.

Y. Some suggest that maybe the body wasn’t hidden before 8.30pm, but lay there while they were eating, with someone - presumably Gerry McCann – later carrying his dead daughter to a temporary or final resting place somewhere after that.

N/A.

Z. Some even suggest that Gerry McCann went back to the apartment during the meal, picked up his dead daughter, clad in her pyjamas, and carried her for about half a mile or more through the streets of Praia da Luz, being seen at 10pm by the Smith family, who negligently failed to do anything about their extraordinary sighting for 13 days afterwards.

It is very possible that the Smiths did see Gerry carrying Madeleine. The quietest route to the church from the apartment would have taken Gerry to the spot where the Smiths sighted Smithman. This would also fit into the timeline.

If the Smiths were somehow co-conspirators as seems to often be suggested, then surely in this elaborate conspiracy the sighting would have described someone who has some distinctive feature which would not link with Gerry – e.g. a man with dark hair and a ponytail.  Why also would Mr Smith identify Gerry later?

That theory would require Gerry McCann to have made an extremely risky, not to say crass, decision to walk for some 15 or 20 minutes across the village, carrying his dead daughter, at the very moment that his wife and/or others was raising the alarm.

The streets of PdL at that time of night at that time of year would be very quiet.  It would take approximately 5-6 minutes to get to the church, significantly shorter than the 15 or 20 minutes carrying the body that MMRG suppose.  While at that time the Tapas 7 might have been alerted and have just started searching, there would not have been a general alarm. There were not sirens wailing and helicopters overhead at 9:50 to 10pm.  It would simply appear that Gerry was a father carrying his sleeping daughter.  The main risk would be that someone might see his face and come forward with a good description.  Carrying Madeleine would actually help hide his face from view.  Among other things, the beige trousers with buttons on the side however helps link Smithman with Gerry. 

Yes, it may have been risky, but the risk of not moving the body would have been seen as far greater.  Once fixed on it being imperative to conceal the death, such risks just have to be taken.

The fact that we might see it as a crass decision has no bearing at all on the matter. To Gerry it might have seemed that he was saving his family. And taking Madeleine to the church might have seemed to him to be a good thing to do. It is not unusual for parents to hold the body of a deceased young child. That time holding her may have enabled Gerry to process her death more quickly – as seems to have been the case. This scenario is far less outlandish than the McCanns concealing the death of their daughter for 3-4 days, laughing, telling jokes, having fun until the Thursday when they would then have to change the act to being distraught and distressed. 

AA. Finally, they would have to arrange the ‘crime scene’, that is, the children’s bedroom, to make it look like an abduction had occurred - moved the beds. placed the two cots in position, placed a bed by the window, opened the shutters, windows and curtains to make it look like an abductor had broken into the apartment. In this respect, the fact that the only fingerprints found on the opened window was that of Kate McCann is highly significant. .

Why would the beds have to be moved?  What reason is there to suppose these were not arranged like this before? The only thing that would need to be done in the bedroom would be to open the curtains, window and shutters. Obviously that was done by Kate McCann and wasn’t very well thought out, showing this was done in the rush of the moment. Quite possibly it was an afterthought by her after Gerry had left. He might well have been more collected and realised that this would be over-the-top.

In addition to all these considerations, for Martin Grime’s cadaver dogs to have alerted to the scent of a corpse, no longer present, some three months after the McCanns had vacated their holiday apartment, Madeleine’s body must have been lying in the McCanns’ apartment for at least 90 minutes, probably two hours or longer

There is no basis for claiming that Madeline’s body must have been lying for at least 90 minutes in order for Martin Grimes’ dog to have made this detection – as considered above.

It is possible that Madeleine had an accident trying to get to the window at the time her parents left for dinner at approx. 20:30.  (She may have heard them outside just after they had left and went to the window).  The body might have been moved at 21:50 – giving a full 80 minutes.  This would give the McCanns 20 minutes from entering the apartment to Gerry leaving with the body. That timeframe is by no means implausible.

If we stop and pause for a moment to consider the above list, it is truly hard to conceive how they could possibly have made all these decisions, and carried them out, whilst all sitting down together for dinner in a public place at about 8.30pm until 10pm as if nothing had happened.

This is indeed implausible, but that is only the MMRG’s hypothesis of 3 May. Telling friends, round table discussions, moving twins, washing curtains etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

But we suggest that instead of having four hours to plan an abduction hoax, they actually had four days. That’s 24 times as much time to think, plan and carry out a hoax abduction. Now let’s examine why we say she died on the Sunday. .

Four days would have given them time to have got things right. Not making silly mistakes like opening the window.  Stories wouldn’t have been contradictory.  The whole thing wouldn’t have aroused the suspicion that it did.

However it is not the purpose here to show that an earlier date is untenable. The aim instead is simply to show that the PJ theory (or variant with Madeleine’s death on the evening of 3 May) should not be ruled out as the MMRG have argued.  

Other evidence put forward by the MMRG indicating MM died on 29 April might be considered separately.  It is not necessary to do so here as what is put forward on that does not show that Madeleine  could not have died after 6pm on 3 May.

However to be clear I do think there is something clearly very fishy about what is going on in the days prior to 3 May. There is a danger of putting two and two together and coming up with five.  Shady dealings prior to 3 May might be unconnected with an accident on the evening of 3 May. Treating this all as part of a single conspiracy may only obscure a much simpler and more straightforward explanation. 

To illustrate this, consider the issues raised by MMRG on Robert Murat:

These and a number of other considerations about Robert Murat lead us to think that he was summoned to Portugal during Monday 30 April because something serious had happened to Madeleine the previous day, and that his help was needed to cover this up

It is also possible, for example, that Murat rushed back to Portugal for another reason. As example, it may be that Murat was somehow involved in child pornography. Perhaps a seedy waiter or barman overheard Gerry and David Payne having the kind of exchange reported by the Gaspers and offered to put them in touch with Murat. Murat eagerly rushes over to join in with childrens’ bathtime and getting ‘glamour’ photographs of Madeleine and possibly others, with Gerry and David getting paid by Murat in cash or in exchange for access to Murat’s child pornography collection. 

The accidental death on 3 May might have been entirely unconnected. However because of reports of child abduction, Murat might be anxious that the police might come to suspect him.  He therefore seeks to get onside with the police by assisting in translation etc. He is also keen to help out his new friends. Perhaps he thinks that they are holding Madeleine as a sex slave and he wants to be in on that too.

Murat and Gerry would want to conceal that they knew each other. Murat appears to be an unpleasant dishonest character who is not very capable. He is unconvincing, he is fired by the police for trying to look at confidential documents, he is easily caught out in lies by the police.  The notion that he is some kind of trouble-shooter working alongside Alex Woolfall does not really seem credible. Murat just isn’t anywhere close to that league. Sometimes 2+2 = 2+2.  Trying to see this as all connected in a complex conspiracy may obscure both the death of Madeleine and the shady matters prior to this.

As I’ve said before, I am not advocating abandoning the 29 April theory. I’m not trying to divert attention away from what might be uncovered about Murat etc. That should be looked at – leave no stone unturned. Instead it is about not drawing unsound conclusions that the Amaral theory must be rejected.

How long have you been studying CMoMM Dannz?

More to the point why ....

Verdi wrote:How long have you been studying CMoMM Dannz?

More to the point why ....

7 days.  

There is clearly some cover up of Madeleine’s death and protection of the McCanns. That is intriguing.

Dannz - apologies if I have missed it as I've only skimmed through your last detailed post, but how does the evening of 3 May timeline for an 'accident' and disposal explain why none of Madeleine's DNA was found anywhere else in 5A (apart from, most likely, behind the sofa in between the tiles)?
 
You state:
 
'As I will show more fully in a subsequent post, the evidence shows there was very little blood.  The room would not need cleaning. A couple of spots of blood would have to be wiped from the wall and floor with a wet tissue that could be disposed of down the lavatory.  The sofa would then be pushed back against the wall to hide these wet marks on the wall.  (the unnatural position of the sofa was noted by one of the GNR officers who responding on the 3 May and is seen in the photographs.
Altogether that cleaning might have taken no more than a minute or two'. 
 
There was no DNA found in the sitting room (apart from the tiles behind the sofa); none in either bedroom; none in the bathroom. Why would Madeleine's toothbrush be disposed of (sharing tooth brushes is implausible)? Why no DNA on the pillowcase from the bed that Madeleine was reported to have slept on? Surely the lack of her DNA can't be explained away as part of some sort of bizarre reverse psyop to create false conspiracy theories to deflect from a 3 May timeline?  I am more inclined to believe one of two other alternatives i.e. that either Madeleine was never in 5A or that the Mcs (or others) had sufficient time between whatever happened and the raising of the alarm to carry out a deep, considered clean of the entire apartment.

skyrocket wrote:....why none of Madeleine's DNA was found anywhere else in 5A (apart from, most likely, behind the sofa in between the tiles)?

The PJ forensic team were not looking for Madeleine's DNA - why would they be? The were looking for Madeleine!

People seem to get confused between the initial forensic examination by the PJ team and the later inspection by the dogs Eddie and Keela. They are two entirely separate issues.

It's a subject best avoided. Otherwise the forum reverts to age old forum myths about toothbrushes, forensic cleansing, washed curtains, supermarket receipts etc etc etc.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Thanks - you’re right to question this. It does need more explanation.

The police wanted a sample of her DNA for the investigation. This was presumably in case a body or partial remains might be found, matching to samples in house or vehicles of a suspect etc. They weren’t able to obtain this. That doesn’t mean they scoured every inch of the apartment to investigate whether or not Madeleine had been there - that has never been in question by the police and that kind of examination was not conducted.

At the time DNA could not be identified from a hair, only the root of a hair. Also low copy analysis was still new and introduced potential error. Obtaining a suitable sample required a sufficient amount of cellular material. People don’t naturally shed sample sized amounts of DNA (by 2007 standards). This isn’t comparable to no traces of Madeleine’s fingerprints being found in the apartment - which would certainly be significant. 

The apartment was serviced, with cleaning included. Presumably towels and bedding were also changed. The cleaning was evidently pretty good and thorough as the only fingerprints found on the window were just one set of Kate’s.  

Madeleine spent most of that day in the crèche. From about 6pm she was in the apartment where she was given a bath. (By a doctor who was particular about Madeleine being ‘perfect’). After Madeleine was scrubbed and squeaky clean, there wasn’t a lot of opportunity for her to deposit significant amounts of cellular material. 

As I mentioned, I think it more likely that her accident was at approx 20:30 when her parents left. They may have just put her to bed, counting on her to be a good girl per her star chart used at home. Then as soon as they left she got up and went to the window, possibly hearing her parents outside. 

So not finding suitable DNA sample on the pillow or bed doesn’t seem in any way extraordinary. Apart from the toothbrush, as I recall they didn’t look anywhere else for the sample they wanted for their purposes.  

As to the toothbrush, one cannot completely rule out the possibility that while on holiday this was shared as they claimed. (Who knows - they might have only packed one, intending to buy a new ones for the twins at the airport or in Portugal, but that never happened, so they made do). 

It may be that for some reason the McCanns did not want the police to have a sample - e.g. because it might be matched to traces of her in the Murat house or some reason of that kind. 

They could have very quickly and easily sterilised Madeleine’s toothbrush. So I think it most likely that this was simply shared as they said. 

In any event, I don’t see that toothbrush as compelling evidence that she could not have died in the apartment after 20:00 on 3 May. 

And from the Last Photo, we know she was there on the Sunday, presumably brushing her teeth on the Saturday night and Sunday morning. 

There is a short story by Isaac Bashevisc Singer about a peasant who disappears from his village in Russia. The villagers get together and try to find explanations. Perhaps he ran off with a woman? No he was happily married. Perhaps he was swept away in the river and drowned? No, he was a good swimmer. etc. They eventually come to the conclusion that he must simply have suddenly ceased to exist. It might be unlikely that the peasant drowned, but that cannot be discounted.

This is similar. The conclusion that there must have been a complex conspiracy involving crèche workers etc. etc. is far far more unlikely than supposing that while on holiday here they shared a toothbrush. (Or that they made up that story to be obstructive for some reason.)

So the police not being able to obtain a suitable sample of Madeleine’s DNA does not strike me as highly significant (except perhaps to make it slightly more likely she died near the time when her parents left rather than when Gerry was talking with Wilkins as Amaral supposes). 

Saying the apartment was ‘forensically cleaned’ is loaded language and it supposes something that is not necessary. The neutral question is ‘why were the police not able to obtain a suitable DNA sample’

And why on earth would someone ‘forensically clean’ the apartment, but leave the most incriminating traces behind the sofa?  (Perhaps because those weren’t there when the cleaner came to service the apartment earlier that day?)

The police wanted a sample of her DNA for the investigation. This was presumably in case a body or partial remains might be found, matching to samples in house or vehicles of a suspect etc. They weren’t able to obtain this. That doesn’t mean they scoured every inch of the apartment to investigate whether or not Madeleine had been there - that has never been in question by the police and that kind of examination was not conducted.

In the long term yes, the PJ did require a clean sample of Madeleine's DNA, her DNA profile in order to assist the investigation.

When the Portuguese police were first called and arrived at the crime scene, the most logical initial assumption was that Madeleine had wandered off.  However, from the beginning the McCanns themselves were shouting paedophile abduction from the rooftops, this included conveying a similar story line back to their family and friends in the UK.  The GNR/PJ were misled from the start, this seemingly orchestrated diversion wasted so much valuable time, the early hours/days/weeks were all but lost.  It should also be noted here, the crime scene was compromised before the arrival of the GNR/PJ.

At that stage, before the tide started to turn, the PJ forensic team took DNA samples from the McCann group, Ocean Club staff and anyone else who may have been in apartment 5a.  This is routine policing in order to identify individuals who shouldn't be there, not those who were there legitimately.  There can be no disputing that Madeleine McCann was at the Ocean Club, did reside in apartment 5a for some time with her family - analysis of her parents and siblings DNA would suffice for that purpose, at that stage of the investigation.

It is on public record that later on in the investigation Dr Amaral, the case coordinator at the time, required a profile of Madeleine's DNA to confirm that Gerry and Kate McCann were the biological mother and father of Madeleine - this was a positive.

When the investigation started to shift and the spotlight focused more on parent culpability, the PJ investigation then required the profile of Madeleine's DNA after inspection by the specialist dogs, Eddie and Keela,  seconded from the UK to advance the investigation.  Unfortunately despite the initial optimism, the forensic analysis undertaken by the now obsolete Forensic Science Service, were never coroborrated.  That as they say is another story, as is the mystery of Gerry McCann's visit to the UK and the provenance of the pillow case saidto be used by Madeleine exclusively.

Dannz wrote:

Verdi wrote:How long have you been studying CMoMM Dannz?

More to the point why ....

7 days.  

There is clearly some cover up of Madeleine’s death and protection of the McCanns. That is intriguing.

My my, you are a fast worker - I'm impressed!  It's gratifying indeed to know you selected CMoMM to base your research but I'm at a loss to understand why you didn't start with the most obvious source of information - the PJ files!

However, a bit of advice for your edification.  Clearly you've jumped in at the deep end with your very extensive forum research so far - in short, you've commenced your private investigation of CMoMM from the end, as opposed to the beginning.  Plucking out random commentary in order to prove a point is a poinless exercise.

In order to present your observations you need to acquaint yourself with all the research and case analysis that led to the conclusions reached.  The document sent by CMoMM in conjunction with the MMRG, is intelligence and informed opinion proffered to add a new perspective and impetus to the Portuguese investigation.  It is not a legal or official police document nor binding in any way shape or form.

You really need to read back over the past nine years of CMoMM work and commentary as clearly you've got the wrong end of the stick as well as the wrong end of CMMoMM research.  This might take considerable time but in the long term it will save much of your valuable time, as already wasted on extensive irrelevant commentary.  Oh, before I forget - this isn't a court of law.

Still, you seem to be a fast worker with time on your hands.  Are you in-between jobs per chance?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The issue in question here is whether one can categorically rule out the possibility that Madeleine died after the McCanns left the apartment at approx. 20:30 on 3 May.

This was not 'plucking out random commentary'. It was a response to what was presented by the MMRG arguing that Madeline could not have died in the apartment after 8pm.

Can you or anyone show good sound reason to rule out that possibility?  Or is it now generally accepted that these arguments given by MMRG are flawed and the Amaral theory should not be rejected as unsound?

That is a simple and fundamental question. If there is not a transparent explanation as to why the Amaral theory is unsound, then it can be taken that this should not be ruled out.

As to your other points:

It is hardly a pointless exercise to seek to establish whether or not Madeleine might have died on the night of 3 May. That is a fundamental question.You suggest that considering that is starting at the end. That's your view. To me that is a sensible place to start as this may or may not significantly narrow down possibilities. In any event, the purpose of the post was to show that a 3 May hypothesis should not be ruled out on the basis of the reasons given by MMRG; if one wants to leave no stone unturned, then a 3 May hypothesis must also be considered.

In order to present your observations you need to acquaint yourself with all the research and case analysis that led to the conclusions reached

In relation to the question of whether Madeleine could have died on the night of 3 May, the reasons for that conclusion were set out by MMRG. It is true that the basis for these conclusions was not always clear in the paper. For example, as noted, there was no citation of relevant literature on cadavarine detection. However I was able to identify the relevant study, and did acquaint myself with that research. That research does not support the conclusion reached by MMRG on cadaverine detection for reasons set out in the observations I presented.

My post addressed the arguments given the the MMRG in their paper. Trawling through 9 years of posts on the forums for random additional reasons should not be necessary. It is of course open to you or others to respond if there is additional research and case analysis that answers to the points I made or provides other compelling reason to exclude the 3 May hypothesis. Your suggestion that full answer to the points I make might be found by reading through 9 years of forum posts is not a convincing argument that the conclusion reached by MMRG is sound on the 3 May question.

clearly you've got the wrong end of the stick as well as the wrong end of CMMoMM research

The MMRG paper is unequivocal, as for example in this statement in the introduction:

However, and with the very greatest respect, the force of evidence means that we must part company with them on the date of Madeleine’s death, which they say occurred within four hours of her being reported missing. We explain in this paper why it must have been earlier.

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

My post responded to the explanation given by MMRG and showed that this conclusion was not supported by the force of evidence or reasons given in the paper. In what sense did I get the 'wrong end of the stick'? 

I of course realise that the MMRG paper was not setting out a legal case or anything of the kind, and clearly this is not a court of law. My response to the paper was not of that nature either as should also be evident. What I was doing was showing flaws in the analysis in relation to the 3 May question.

My purpose was not to discredit the research and work by CMoMM and the MMRG. Some very fine and exceptional work has been done and an amazing amount has been uncovered. With a complex topic, it is inevitable that there might be some errors and mistakes in the analysis. Identifying those is not a negative. It is part of the process of refinement and improvement.

It is certainly not my intention to divert attention from what might have been going on before 3 May, which does indeed add an important new perspective. Also I am not trying to shift attention away from the 29 April theory or other hypotheses that Madeleine died before 3 May.

What I am seeking to do however is to show that the Amaral theory remains a valid hypothesis. Discussion of that should not be shot down as 'plainly incorrect' or the like because it is supposed that it has been conclusively and categorically shown that it must have been earlier. If such discussion is discouraged or 'off limits', this isn't leaving 'no stone unturned'.

Forum member and I hope I can say forum friend, PeterMac, maintains the view that every aspect of the case of missing Madeleine McCann should be scrutinized to the ninth degree, leaving no stone unturned, to bleed it dry until there is nothing left to ponder.  I can't say I necessarily agree with this view because it opens the doors to crazy theorizing but who am I to contest the wisdom of a former UK police superintendent?  

So to the point of this thread.  Members, old and new alike, are invited to raise any issue or question they have on any topic whatsoever without fear of being off topic.  Issues raised can be thrashed out by interested parties until all avenues have been exhausted - who knows, as PeterMac maintains, something new might come to light to change the course of research.  No theory throughout history is set in stone

At the moment taking the view that Madeleine died on the night of 3 May is treated as crazy theorizing. I am contending that it should not be. That should be thrashed out until it is established whether or not there is a sound basis for excluding any 3 May theory.

I don't know if you've watched Richard D. Hall's film 'When Madeleine Died', but it starts at the end (i.e. Thursday 3rd May) and works backwards to the likely date of death.

As I suggested in my previous post in this thread, since this case is clearly a difficult problem involving deception and cover up, methods and techniques used in intelligence analysis should be considered if one is looking to unravel this. One of the most important techniques used in intelligence analysis is ‘analysis of competing hypotheses’. This is discussed in Chapter 8 of ‘The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis’ by Richard Heuer. This also highlights one of the key pitfalls that i have been trying to draw attention to.

When working on difficult intelligence issues, analysts are, in effect, choosing among several alternative hypotheses. Which of several possible explanations is the correct one? Which of several possible outcomes is the most likely one? ...
 
The principal concern is that if analysts focus mainly on trying to confirm one hypothesis they think is probably true, they can easily be led astray by the fact that there is so much evidence to support their point of view. They fail to recognize that most of this evidence is also consistent with other explanations or conclusions, and that these other alternatives have not been refuted.
 
Simultaneous evaluation of multiple, competing hypotheses is very difficult to do. To retain three to five or even seven hypotheses in working memory and note how each item of information fits into each hypothesis is beyond the mental capabilities of most people. It takes far greater mental agility than listing evidence supporting a single hypothesis that was pre-judged as the most likely answer. It can be accomplished, though, with the help of the simple procedures discussed here.

Source: Chapter 8, p95:  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Good effective intelligence analysis is produces from competition between alternative hypotheses.  I am interested in getting to the bottom of this.  I would expect some of the most robust and informed criticism of any 3 May theory to be given in this forum – which only helps.  My critique of the arguments made by the MMRG is not about throwing a spanner in the works at CMoMM.  We may favour different hypotheses, but that is a good thing if there can be fair honest and civil debate and competition between these. Although it may be taking different ‘sides’, it is all working to the same end and helping each other towards that.  Instead of being disruptive, it significantly improves effectiveness, much in the way that having the challenges presented by a ‘red team’ taking an adversarial role can improve effectiveness. That is how to scrutinize to the nth degree - just as PeterMac said was needed.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Well, carry on Dannz, but we've been here for 9 years and literally looked at everything already. We've reached our conclusions and sent our findings to the Portuguese Attorney-General. You're about 9 years too late for us I'm afraid. There's no reason at all why you can't submit your own findings.

sharonl wrote:The Portuguese AG has accepted the earlier death evidence from MMRG.  If its good enough for the investigation, its good enough for me.

Has the Portuguese AG really revised the view and decided that Madeleine died earlier in the week on the evidence given by MMRG? Can you point me to the relevant letter or other communication confirming this?

"Justice works in silence" in Portugal Dannz. Be patient.

You've got your own section of the forum to do your own research, so as I said, please carry on.

I don't know if you've looked at the whole forum to see all the various sections where research threads have been filed away over the years. The forum is massive. Please take a look around.

sharonl wrote:The disappearance on May 3rd theory is far from a stone unturned, it has not only been well researched, it has been investigated by the Portuguese and the UK police on a large scale, this has proved fruitless.  Going over this time and time again leads us nowhere. 

The Portuguese AG has accepted the earlier death evidence from MMRG.  If its good enough for the investigation, its good enough for me.

Can you clarify the last paragraph please, the Portuguese AG have notified that they have received the 'evidence' not accepted, there's s world of a difference.

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

Do you know - the more I read of you the more I'm in awe of your perspecacity, no let's not under play this, let me say genius.

What a travesty that you only arrived on the scene a week ago. Just think, had you taken an interest in this case eleven years ago, not only would you have changed the course of this forum but you could have been instrumental in solving the case, had your intellectual analysis been taken on board.

Clearly your talent is wasted here on CMoMM but I strongly advise you to pass on your genius to the Portuguese authorities, or failing that the UK force responsible for assisting the official investiation - the Metropolitan Police. Particularly the neglect homicide aspect - I think they need all the help they can get.

Feel free to continue using CMoMM as a sounding board, a place to think out loud and expand on your genius if that's what it takes. Keep us informed of developments and/or progress, you could at last be the one to make that big difference where all else have failed. I can hardly contain my excitement at the prospect.

As you said, at least I think it was you, CMoMM are in no position to make that difference - as a professional in the field of law, it could be you that makes that difference.

Do the right thing - you know it makes sense !.

It doesn't take a genius to fact check arguments. It just takes a bit of diligence.

But of course that wasn't what you were getting at in this satirical attack.

Believe me - I'm in earnest. Would I lie to you?

PeterMac's e-book

Chapter 18: Say SO, or Say NO

Was Madeleine “Abducted” ?

The PAID . . . . say "SO"

Not paid . . . . . say "NO"


In PAID we include those paid directly in money, but also those who received benefit from saying SO.
We include those who would never think of compromising a family member.
We include those who received other benefits, but more indirectly - from book sales, or TV appearances, newspaper sales, radio interviews . . .

So who are they ?

Gerry and Kate - obviously
Close family members
Clarence Mitchell
Paid shills on various web-site and social media outlets
Web site manager
Alan Pike. The crisis councillor who pretended to be a psychologist
PR firms, notably Bell Pottinger ( £ 0.5m), and Hannover (£ not known)
Summers and Swan,
Danny Collins and other authors who have wilfully avoided presenting or considering the evidence
Antonella Lazzeri
The SUN - generally
Olive Press - in the form of Jon Clarke - of Angolan basketball player fame
Other newspapers - possibly
Metodo 3 - Francisco Marco, Antonio Gimenez Raso, Julian Peribañez, Antonio Tamarit
ALPHAIG - Edgar and Cowley
Oakley - Kevin/Richard Halligen, Henri Exton,
Gary Hagland
Oprah Winfrey
MISSING PEOPLE - who have undoubtedly raised their profile, even though it has had the effect of causing people to investigate their internal waste of money.
Melissa (e-fits to fit) Little
Jim Gamble
and then
LAWYERS !

This is more tricky, since some species of lawyer have a duty to speak for their client, whether they believe them or not. That decision is not theirs to make.
English barristers are obliged to accept a brief if the fee is paid, and to argue it to the best of their professional ability. Often they deliberately do not speak to the parties concerned. Their client is the instructing solicitor.

Solicitors are slightly different. They have a role in advising the client on the best course of action - which may be to stop !
It is not clear for example whether Carter-Ruck ever investigated the McCanns’ account of events, and the performance of Mrs Martorell in the High Court tends to suggest they deliberately did NOT ask any pertinent or searching questions, perhaps in case they got answers which would have deprived them of a fee.

Carter-Ruck, in the persons of Adam Tudor and Mrs Martorell
Edward Smethurst
The 20 or so other lawyers paid - in money - by the McCanns
Isabel Duarte, who brought the ultimately failed case in the Portuguese courts

and several others.


So, from the above list of those who say SO, how many genuinely believe the story ?
It may be that some do, but of course it is not actually necessary for ANY of them to believe it. Money and family ties could provide the incentive to repeat the word “Abduction” as often as possible.

We may note that over the past few years their word of choice has become “Disappearance”. Even Mitchell now uses this form.


In NOT Paid, we include all those who although they are clearly in receipt of their salaries, are not paid directly or indirectly to do anything other than their professional duty, and to be impartial.

The Portuguese GNP
The PJ
The fingerprint expert
DCI Gonçalo Amaral,
DCI Paulo Rebelo
CI Tavares de Almeida - investigation co-ordinator - wrote final report
The public prosecutors - Magalhaes e Menezes, Gomes
The judges in the Court of Appeal - De Almeida, Manso, Branquinho,
Martin Grime (dog handler)
The British police officers sent to Portugal
The British Police advisor Mark Harrison
The British Police advisor Keith Farquharson
NPIA Criminal profiler Lee Rainbow
The British consular and Embassy staff

and so on, not forgetting many amateur researchers, and hundreds of people who have followed the evidence and the debate on the internet.

All those who had a duty to investigate and consider the evidence in any depth are of the same view. It is not believed that a single instance exists of someone with professional skills or training and taking a dispassionate and detached look at the scene, or the evidence, or the files released by the PJ, coming to the conclusion, even on balance, or even allowing a remote possibility, that there was an Abduction.

To this must now be added the name Peter Hyatt, a statement analyst, who works with, and trains law enforcement agencies in the US. He was recently invited to look at the film and the transcript of an interview with the McCanns done in Australia some years ago. It seems he had little, if any, knowledge of the research into the various issues he addressed.

His conclusion was that within the interview there is a series of ‘Embedded confessions’, as well as many outright lies. For example he identified the story about the open window and the whooshing curtains as a lie, even though he had no knowledge that this had already been so identified by consideration of the weather reports, and the lack of any such details in any other statement. He had no knowledge of the photos of the curtains trapped behind the bed and the chair, nor of the fact that Kate had previously stated that the curtains were wide open.

He went on to show how the McCanns provide all the details, about a fall, death, cuddling the dead body, and the concealment and disposal THEMSELVES. They volunteer the information, whilst believing they are denying it.

So again we have an independent person - an accredited expert - who for good reasons, which he spells out so that everyone can understand them, comes to the same conclusion as others who have come from a different angle.

Refs to the YouTube films are given below


THIRD Category

There is then a third category - lest I be accused of false dichotomy.

These include the British police officers, in Leicester and the Metropolitan forces, who seem to have failed to investigate, or to properly and impartially consider the evidence, and in some cases have presented themselves as openly supportive of the McCanns.

They include

Det Supt Stuart (call me Stu) Prior, Leicestershire Police
Det Ch Supt Hamish ( remit - as if the ABDUCTION had been in Britain) Campbell
DCI (Madeleine alive is not in accordance with all of our thinking, we have found crecheman) Redwood
DCI Nicola (haven’t yet done very much except cut the team from 38 to 4) Wall
Det Ch Supt Mike (still believe Madeleine could be found alive) Duthie

and sundry others who have had years to revise their views in light of the evidence they have collected, and that which has been sent to them, but still appear to be doing nothing substantive

The Met officers who were given a strangely restricted remit - to investigate an Abduction - seem powerless to act. One has to consider whether going outside the remit, and actually investigating, or considering the logic behind the absence of evidence, has been and is still being officially prohibited.

If so, this could amount to something else entirely.

Whether any of the members of this category actually believe there was an abduction, is an entirely different matter which cannot at present be ascertained.

* * * * *


So how has this story been perpetuated for so long ?



On Proof and Truth

[This is copied from the previous chapter, but is included here, so that the reader does not have to refer back]

We talk of Proof. Simply stating something does NOT make it so. Even if it is stated several times, the position does not alter. Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) used the device humorously in the epic nonsense poem The Hunting of the Snark,


"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,

As he landed his crew with care;

Supporting each man on the top of the tide

By a finger entwined in his hair.



"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:

That alone should encourage the crew.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:

What I tell you three times is true."

This is instantly recognisable as ridiculous nonsense, and yet it was exactly the technique used by the propaganda minister of the Third Reich.

". . in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily,"

often misquoted or paraphrased as:

"The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."

(It is actually from Mein Kampf (1925), A.H. vol 1, ch 6 “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”)


Variants include

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.
If you repeat a lie many times, people are bound to start believing it.


* * * *

So the long term strategy of having the word “Abduction”, associated with the name Madeleine McCann, and endlessly repeated in newspapers, TV, radio, and books, for the past ten years, has probably led to a significant part of the population subliminally thinking it has been established as some sort of fact.
If so, the strategy of paying vast amounts to Bell Pottinger, Hannover and Clarence Mitchell was well worth the expense.

The use of frankly mendacious, not to say “ludicrous” stories to fill out this farrago has reinforced this.


The story of Madeleine whizzing down the water slide is a perfect example. In the next sentence she is said to be wearing a pink top and a blue skirt, and a sun hat. The obvious contradiction does not register in the script writer’s mind. She is then said to have played football for an HOUR. Still in the skirt and sun hat. Kate was said to be sunbathing whilst this was going on.

All this might be dismissed as journalistic hyperbole, but the FACT that there is no water slide, and that on the day in question it was dull, cloudy, cold and windy, and the FACT that Kate makes no mention of any such incident in her autobiography, giving a totally different account of events on the day in question - is also inconvenient factual detail which would otherwise spoil the story.

The damage to the truth has been done. Readers may not remember the article, nor where they read it, but the totally false impression is left.

I leave it for you, the reader, to make up your own mind

The McCanns benefit

Truth and justice suffer

Madeleine Beth McCann has no memorial.

 to the forum julia_plumley.

How so?

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

I know it's been suggested in the past but I really can't see any reason to suppose it to be even a possibility.  Before considering anything else, when would the opportunity have arisen?

Personally I don't go along with the hard line criticism leveled at the Portuguese police, I believe they conducted a professional investigation (as far as was possible) as can be expected from any European country.  I feel sure they would have uncovered some evidence or intelligence if indeed Madeleine was transported to Salsalito.

Is the photograph even real?  It doesn't look very convincing to me - which could of course raise the question as to why it was put in the public domain in the first place, only to attract harsh criticism - deservedly I hasten to add.

I feel it's looking for a clue that just doesn't exist.

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

After reading through your post regarding her possible accidental death on the 3rd, I would like to say I belive it to be sound.

Although... I would never be one to say it was accidental. Kate immediately suggested "they've taken her".

It was pedo pedo pedo from the start, and the fact that Gerry has been reported to state and laugh about bath time with kiddies I would be very reluctant to say her death was accidental.

So it's just a suggestion but I wouldn't use the word accidental death, just death

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

You might find this of interest..

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

Truthseeker96 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

After reading through your post regarding her possible accidental death on the 3rd, I would like to say I belive it to be sound.

Although... I would never be one to say it was accidental. Kate immediately suggested "they've taken her".

It was pedo pedo pedo from the start, and the fact that Gerry has been reported to state and laugh about bath time with kiddies I would be very reluctant to say her death was accidental.

So it's just a suggestion but I wouldn't use the word accidental death, just death

You are of course at liberty to sound out the ponderings of someone who only took an interest in the case a week or so ago, however it might be more constructive if you ponder the research of people who have dedicated years of time freely to uncover the truth of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

Perhaps you might like to view this for starters..

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