Mark Saunokonoko's Madeleine McCann Podcasts

PODCAST [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The Missing Calls - Police explore what appears to be unusual activity on Kate and Gerry's mobile phones.

If you love this episode remember to RATE & REVIEW on iTUNES!

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


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


Podcast [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Man with No Face from Mark Saunokonoco 



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



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





-----------------------------------






PODCAST Episode 1 - LISTEN NOW! - 9NEWS Australia 

by Mark Saunokonoko Twitter -  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


COMPANION WEBSITE - 9NEWS - 9news.com.au/maddie

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[size=36]The troubling and perplexing case of Madeleine McCann: What happened to Maddie in quiet seaside town?
[/size]
The Madeleine McCann mystery is full of big questions, of course none more important than how does a little girl vanish off the face of the earth, never to be seen again?

Yet packed up in that troubling, overarching question, which has puzzled police forces from Portugal and the United Kingdom for over a decade, is a perplexing and sometimes disturbing chain of wider, unresolved concerns.

The Maddie podcast is the culmination of two years' of painstaking work, investigating how Madeleine, a small three-year-old British girl, vanished in Portugal in such unusual circumstances in May 2007.

 Kate McCann, parents of missing British girl Madeleine McCann, show a picture of their daughter at a press conference in Amsterdam, Netherlands in June 2007. (AAP)

While researching and making Maddie, a project which has included many interviews of key people in seven countries spread across three continents, some have asked, why now?

The simple answer to that is Madeleine is still missing. And there are lingering questions which appear to have never been adequately answered with a reasonable sense of finality.

Maddie is a wide-ranging investigation which tackles those questions.

This case is so complex it requires a probing, multi-episode podcast to properly examine what could have happened to her, and scrutinise all the unexpected avenues that search opens up.
RELATED ARTICLES


Inside Apartment 5A, where Madeleine McCann's family stayed

Gerry McCann's changing account on night Maddie vanished: does it matter?

Timeline: What happened on the night Madeleine McCann vanished?


To make sense of the evidence, test theories and understand crime scenes, many experts and people close to the case agreed to be interviewed. Former police officers and a criminal profiler, a DNA scientist and crime scene pathologist, experts in cell phone data and deception, private detectives who worked for the McCanns and reporters who covered this story all appear on Maddie.

Missing British girl Madeleine McCann, who vanished on May 3, 2007 while on holiday with her family in the Algarve, south Portugal. (AAP)
When it comes down to it, there are really three likely scenarios when you consider what happened to Madeleine in the small coastal town of Praia da Luz, on Portugal's Algarve.

One: A paedophile or child trafficker somehow broke into the holiday apartment where the McCanns were staying and abducted Maddie.

Two: A thief broke into the McCann’s apartment 5A, bungled the robbery, and stole Maddie from the bedroom where she slept alongside her younger brother and sister, Sean and Amelie.

Three: Something else happened to Madeleine involving someone known to the family, and there has been an elaborate cover-up that has somehow lasted for more than a decade.

As one former long-serving police officer said in his Maddie interview, this is a case which can strongly divide opinions around a family dinner table.

Since 2007, her mum and dad Kate and Gerry have steadfastly denied they were involved in any crime which occurred inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club Resort.

Police have never charged Madeleine's parents, but during the investigation they were at one time declared arguidos, the Portuguese term for formal suspects.

Cann, the mother of missing British girl Madeleine McCann, arrives at the police station in Portimao, southern Portugal, to be questioned in September 2007. (AAP)
Law enforcement officials who appear on Maddie have highlighted possible "red flags" in the accounts the McCanns and their seven adult friends, known as the Tapas 7, gave to police. They also examine the evidence that supports the theory that Maddie was abducted by a stranger.  

In Maddie, a highly respected figure in the field of solving crimes zeroes in on what was a potentially case-changing piece of evidence in the original police investigation.

That interview could radically alter the direction of the case, and help answer the question: what happened to Maddie?

LISTEN TO MADDIE PODCAST NOW

Maps, graphics, stories and all episodes of Maddie can be found at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Podcast investigation of Madeleine McCann disappearance. (Nine)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IS THIS WHAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR? The truth told in the media?

It seems that there will be a PODCAST (maybe as many as 10) from one of the few journalists that we can trust to tell the facts, Mark Saunokonoko from 9NEWS Australia.

I have no idea on any dates but I will update ASAP. It may be worth checking Mark Saunokonoko Twitter

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

9NEWS Australia  PODCAST info with Mark Saunokonoko

The Maddie podcast series explores what many believe is the well-known story of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance but this is an investigation of the evidence which could make you question everything you thought you knew about the case.


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

Better late than never I guess - this has been in the pipeline for a very long time hasn't it?   Professor Thomas Horan, member of CMoMM, is yet to come up with the goods, despite his promises when picking our brains.

Maybe it takes a long time to produce a podcast.  Personally I don't like them, it's like a white noise coming from the attic or cellar.

What a pity it's only a podcast by an Australian journalist, I only hope his source of information is more reliable than the Austrailian 'new evidence' documentary televised two years ago!

Isn't Sonia Poulton supposed to be the dastardly daring freelance journalist flying the flag for Madeleine McCann against all opposition from British media and authorities?

Verdi wrote:Better late than never I guess - this has been in the pipeline for a very long time hasn't it?   Professor Thomas Horan, member of CMoMM, is yet to come up with the goods, despite his promises when picking our brains.

Maybe it takes a long time to produce a podcast.  Personally I don't like them, it's like a white noise coming from the attic or cellar.

What a pity it's only a podcast by an Australian journalist, I only hope his source of information is more reliable than the Austrailian 'new evidence' documentary televised two years ago!

Isn't Sonia Poulton supposed to be the dastardly daring freelance journalist flying the flag for Madeleine McCann against all opposition from British media and authorities?

I am saddened to see such a negative comment about something so positive!

Mark has proven to us in all his articles that he seeks only the facts that we have been discussing over the years. We are fortunate to have a respected investigative journalist from a major network, finally expose some of the facts that other media are to afraid or unable to expose.

With the knowledge that one of his articles was, suprisingly, picked up by the UK media (The Sun etc) gives me hope that this podcast will open up some new opportunities for MSM to be able to report the facts and to allow the UK public to finally learn the truth.

Negativity may have its place but I, for one, rely on a more positive approach to keep me motivated and I firmly believe that Mark will produce an excellent and much needed coverage of the investigation.

 I believe it to be, what the McCanns fear the most....

I want to second Lizzy's comments. While podcasts may not be everyone's cup of tea, when done well they are enthralling. Look at shows like Crime and Scandal, they're like audio versions of 48 Hours. They take you on a journey.

Mark has been very meticulous with his research, sourcing everything, filtering out the chaff so to speak. He has spoken to several prominent researchers to get a wide view of the case and will be analysing several angles with an objective view. Unlike Horan he isn't hawking ebooks or trolling around (that was a cringey read when Horan was posting).

Taking a while to make means it was done with care. He also works for a major network, one that wont want their name on something litigious. It's not a 'one person show' so to speak like a Sonia Poulton or Pat Brown.

Of course, we can't ask anyone to like something at a whim, but I do think - especially given his form with past articles about the case, he deserves a chance.

Mainline wrote:Mark has been very meticulous with his research, sourcing everything, filtering out the chaff so to speak. He has spoken to several prominent researchers to get a wide view of the case and will be analysing several angles with an objective view. Unlike Horan he isn't hawking ebooks or trolling around (that was a cringey read when Horan was posting).

PeterMac told me a couple of years ago that Mark had asked him for an interview for the podcast and he'd agreed.

But it didn't happen. Is that what you meant by 'he isn't hawking ebooks'?

He hasn't approached Tony and Richard either. They are three of the most prominent researchers after all.

Obviously you know who the 'several prominent researchers' are or you wouldn't know he'd spoken to several.

Let me guess:

Lizzy
Sonia
Ben Thompson
Isabelle McFadden
Yourself

Anyway, I'm looking forward to listening to the podcast. I've always thought Mark Saunokonowotsit was very brave with his articles.

I'm not aware what happened with Peter and it wouldn't be proper for me to divulge Mark's sources before the podcast has even landed, but be assured he has looked in all directions, not just what you perceive as 'my circle'.

It is very much HIS baby and he is extremely thorough in his interviewing/questioning. He accepts nothing that cannot be sourced (as an example, we had a long back and forth on the issue of the Whitaker/Pathologist misconception to his satisfaction of its falsehood).

ETA - Sorry missed the ebooks bit. No, PeterMac doesn't hawk anything. I was referring to Horan's Zodiac series of ebooks which you will happily find him advertising if you google him.

How can he be 'extremely thorough' if he hasn't interviewed/questioned three of the most prominent researchers?

Surely that's not what you meant by 'filtering out the chaff' then?

Thank you for clarifying your comment about hawking ebooks.

As I say I don't know what happened with Peter. Personally yes I disagree with aspects of Peter's work but I think he does a fantastic job and I have great respect for his efforts over the years. I certainly wouldnt refer to him as 'chaff'.

I don't think it's necessary to blanket agree with any one person, which I'm sure you'd agree with. I would never have known the pool photo was not taken on the 3rd without Peter's work, for example.

What I mean is the myriad of chinese whispers, lies, misconceptions that we see people using all the time. I had my fill of it when I was modding a facebook group, I'm sure you (and the other admin here) feel like you're repeating yourselves at times when people bring up certain things. It's important to be thorough and not make assumptions (and again that is not leveled at Peter or the other 2 you mentioned).

I have no idea as to Mark's conclusions by the way. But I trust wherever he lands he will do so with facts and sources behind him, as it should be. And people will be free to agree or not. Or find use here and there. Or hear things that mae them think stronger about their own theories. It really isn't black and white.

It's fine that you disagree with aspects of a 30-years-service Police Superintendent's work. Just as he disagrees with aspects of yours.

All I'm saying is that by Mark leaving out a few of the most prominent researchers will say as much as for those he did choose to interview.

If Mark concludes that Madeleine died in apartment G5A and that the McCanns and their helpers in MI5 and the security services covered up her death, I shall stand amazed.

I accept your point, only Mark can explain why he didn't end up talking to Peter. I could only hypothesise. But I am sure Lizzy would have mentioned Peter's work with him.

And agreed again - it's fine to disagree with aspects. There is a huge difference between that and blanket casting people's work aside because it has a different conclusion. There are answers in all that grey area.

Mainline wrote:But I am sure Lizzy would have mentioned Peter's work with him.

I see.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Are you a ''prominent researcher" into Madeleine 's disappearance?  

If so, what do you think happened?

Jill Havern wrote:

Mainline wrote:Mark has been very meticulous with his research, sourcing everything, filtering out the chaff so to speak. He has spoken to several prominent researchers to get a wide view of the case and will be analysing several angles with an objective view. Unlike Horan he isn't hawking ebooks or trolling around (that was a cringey read when Horan was posting).

PeterMac told me a couple of years ago that Mark had asked him for an interview for the podcast and he'd agreed.

But it didn't happen. Is that what you meant by 'he isn't hawking ebooks'?

He hasn't approached Tony and Richard either. They are three of the most prominent researchers after all.

Obviously you know who the 'several prominent researchers' are or you wouldn't know he'd spoken to several.

Let me guess:

Lizzy
Sonia
Ben Thompson
Isabelle McFadden
Yourself

Anyway, I'm looking forward to listening to the podcast. I've always thought Mark Saunokonowotsit was very brave with his articles.

I responded to Mark when he initially approached us looking for information and since then I have offered links and reference material etc

I don't ask questions about anyone else he is in contact with, thats not my business  I'm just a reference person because of the quantity of saved and accessible information that I have amassed.  Only there to help if ever needed.

From what I understand, he doesn't spend his time on theories and I acknowlege that he doesn't necessarily agree with my conclusions which is what I would expect.  My conclusions are based on many hours of study and comparisons which I don't think anyone else can fully understand or have the time and inclination to pursue.

Facts and easily available material and source links are likely what he will base the topics of the podcasts on.

Thats my guess anyway, but I really don't know until they become available.

I trust him to produce well researched and factual topics and I'm sure he wont let us down on that.

Ladyinred wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Are you a ''prominent researcher" into Madeleine 's disappearance?  

If so, what do you think happened?

Yes I helped Mark with aspects. No, I don't consider myself a prominent anything. My view isn't in line with the prominent CMOMM view so I will abstain that question to avoid derailing the thread.

HiDeHo wrote:My conclusions are based on many hours of study and comparisons which I don't think anyone else can fully understand or have the time and inclination to pursue.

Well, I did set up the Virtual Classroom for you where Copodenieve and Philo Beddoe and others offered their services as you may recall...but which went down like the proverbial lead balloon when nothing happened in there because you didn't answer them.

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

I'm always interested in other posters' opinions and perspectives.

Mainline wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Are you a ''prominent researcher" into Madeleine 's disappearance?  

If so, what do you think happened?

Yes I helped Mark with aspects. No, I don't consider myself a prominent anything. My view isn't in line with the prominent CMOMM view so I will abstain that question to avoid derailing the thread.

That may explain why he hasn't approached prominent researchers from CMOMM then. Maybe because our view isn't in line with yours and the other prominent researchers he approached.

Anyway, like I said, I look forward to Mark's podcasts.

Jill Havern wrote:

Mainline wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  Are you a ''prominent researcher" into Madeleine 's disappearance?  

If so, what do you think happened?

Yes I helped Mark with aspects. No, I don't consider myself a prominent anything. My view isn't in line with the prominent CMOMM view so I will abstain that question to avoid derailing the thread.

That may explain why he hasn't approached prominent researchers from CMOMM then. Maybe because our view isn't in line with yours and the other prominent researchers he approached.

Anyway, like I said, I look forward to Mark's podcasts.

I can see why you'd think that but no. As Lizzy said he isn't working from conclusions/theories. I barely discussed my thoughts as that goes. It was the phone data (you're aware of my work) that we discussed mostly. Anyway, I'm derailing the thread in spite of myself. I'll shush now.

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

But if Mark is interested in your phone data, then surely he should be interested in Peter's Pool Photo data which shows that it wasn't taken on Thursday 3rd as has been officially claimed by the McCanns which shows a devious plot to convince people that Madeleine was still alive that day?

But apparently not...

You're not derailing the thread.

Why not tell us who you are - it's pretty obvious anyway now that you've mentioned your phone data research...

Jill Havern wrote:But apparently not...

I can't guarantee that I discussed it with him, but as I said upthread, that's something Peter uncovered and which I believe myself (minus the 'life alibi' aspect). Being fair I think it's assumption to say 'apparently not'. As I said I don't know what Lizzy provided specifically but Lizzy's and Peter's work dovetail in many areas. I don't see any reason he wouldn't have been shown Peter's ebook at some point.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Can you confirm either way?

It's a bit rude to be aware of Peter's work and then not follow through with the agreed interview. Why talk to Lizzy about it and not Peter himself when Peter had already agreed to talk to him?

It's a bit weird, that's all.

Well, as I say, I can't speak for him and I didn't see their exchange. Only Mark can answer that question, and I understand why you'd ask.

Yes, I understand that you can't speak for Mark.

Although you seem to be suggesting that Lizzy has spoken for Peter, or Lizzy is speaking for Mark, and you are speaking for Lizzy, but Mark hasn't spoken to the sources (Peter, Richard, Tony)...if you get me drift.

I feel dizzy!