Netflix probes Madeleine McCann disappearance in new documentary

A reminder of an article written by Natasha Donn after Dr Amaral's libel win - she posted this comment on my CMOMM Facebook group just now:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Amaral’s libel win opens Pandora’s Box on national television

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

A new ‘mood’ has emerged following the successful appeal by former PJ inspector Gonçalo Amaral against €500,000 libel damages awarded to the parents of missing Madeleine McCann.

For the first time “serious figures” formerly connected to the government and PJ are questioning the political pressures that effectively shut-down the original Portuguese investigation – allowing nothing to move forwards other than the abduction theory.

Without naming names or pointing fingers, it is clear that Amaral’s victorious return from the cold of litigation has paved the way for less-than-habitually-guarded discussion.

While here CMTV screened a four-way interview late on Saturday night which threw up the issue of ‘plausible leads’ nipped in the bud in the early days – as they simply did not fit with the abduction profile – in Edinburgh former ambassador and human rights activist Craig Murray has weighed onto the scene, outlining the sort of pressure with which Portugal had to contend.

“I am going to come straight out with this”, he wrote in a post following news of Amaral’s appeal court win. “British diplomatic staff were under direct instruction to support the McCanns far beyond the usual and to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities over the case.

“I have direct information that more than one of those diplomatic staff found the McCanns less than convincing and their stories inconsistent. Embassy staff were perturbed to be ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police.

“This again is absolutely not the norm. On a daily basis more British citizens have contact with foreign authorities than the total staff of the FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office). It would be simply impossible to give that level of support to everybody”.

John Buck, Murray’s direct boss in the FCO when he was head of Cyprus Section, was the British ambassador in Portugal when three-year-old Madeleine went missing in May, 2007.

“He and his staff were concerned by contradictions in the McCann’s story”, Murray continues. “The Embassy warned, in writing, that being perceived as too close to the McCanns might not prove wise. They demanded the instruction from London be reconfirmed. It was.”

Murray’s post does not dwell on the reasons for this “far beyond usual” support, but he concedes “that it might have put some psychological pressure on the Portuguese investigators and prosecuting officers in their determinations”.

Talking on CMTV in the early hours of Sunday morning, former PJ director Manuel Rodrigues left little doubt that it had.

In a one-hour “special” which went out between 11.30 and 12.40, Rodrigues and former Minister for Internal Administration Rui Pereira both lamented British interference which, Rodrigues concedes, may ensure that “blame” in this apparently unsolvable nine-year-old mystery “dies a spinster”.

Why a faithful reconstruction of the night of Madeleine’s disappearance was never achieved he still does not know, he explained.

“Someone stopped it. Don’t ask me to name names. We have already talked about all the assistance the (McCann) couple received from people directly connected with the British government. We have talked about the British government and the British police. I can’t interpret it any other way”.

Rodrigues referred to the “pure ingenuousness” of Portuguese authorities, allowing forensic tests on evidence recovered to be allowed to take place in a British laboratory so that there was no whiff of uncertainty.

In the first report, 15 alleles out of 19 that made up Madeleine’s DNA appeared, he said.

Then, in a second report, all the alleles had “disappeared completely”.

Amaral too had his moment to outline some the ‘plausible hypotheses’ that emerged in the early days as his team shifted its focus from the likelihood of an abduction.

A late-night sighting of three figures entering Luz church with a large bag coincided with the existence of a coffin inside the church, he said, into which Madeleine’s body could have been placed.

The coffin – holding the remains of an elderly British resident – was taken the following day for cremation in the Alentejo.

Amaral stressed nonetheless that the book ‘Maddie: The Truth of the Lie’ that the McCanns have sought to ban is not ‘his truth’ – nor indeed factual truth – but the opinion of the PJ in September of 2007 when it became clear their efforts were about to be archived.

Since that time – and even when Scotland Yard became involved in 2011 and vowed to ‘peel back the layers’ of the mystery as if peeling an onion – none of those original lines of investigation have ever been revisited, resulting in the situation in which millions of pounds have been spent getting nowhere, or as Amaral put it: “going down a one-way street”.

That the four-way interview went out at such a late hour suggests CMTV is still being careful about how it presents this case, but Amaral’s ‘victory’ for freedom of expression would appear to have lifted the lid on a Pandora’s Box shut tight from mainstream media for almost nine years.

In UK, the Sun leaked a lurid colour page promising an exposé on “Maddie Cop’s Sick Secret” on Sunday morning.

It turned out to be nothing more than the rehash of an ‘Amaral-bashing’ story by the Express a year before in which British people donating to his legal expenses were tarnished as ‘online trolls’.

But it served to highlight that ‘pressure’ in Britain to stick to the abduction theory and demonise everything else could still be at work.

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

Madeleine McCann 'could have been snatched by sex beast wearing surgical mask'

Jerry Lawton

• 09:37, 18 MAR 2019
  
• Updated10:44, 18 MAR 2019
  

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

A few questions about this sickening article.

Doesn't the media keep referring to Gerry McCann as a heart surgeon?

Don't heart surgeons wear surgical masks?

Wasn't there a conversation between Gerry and David Payne re 'Maddie would do this' as witnessed by the Gaspars which would make both men 'sex beasts'?

Just saying...

It is a sickening article.  This masked man allegedly carried out 28 attacks but it doesn't say he ever snatched anyone.    Why would he have SNATCHED Maddie?

So, the "binman" with the red shirt is back?
But this time with a surgical mask?
Madness.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Well Mr and Mrs McCann you've played a blinder haven't you .

You introduced us to the Netflix documentary through your pet MSM making sure to inform us you were not involved despite being asked and would not be commenting but your lawyers would be watching !

That immediately created interest , what would it tell us , is there anything new is this about to be an expose ? The articles continued in MSM , the documentary was on , it was off , it was only one not eight , Amaral had spoken to them ! Then so had Gamble , Summers and Swan , Kennedy , Murat etc . So covering both sides ? 

After much posturing it aired on Friday , now  haven't watched it myself thank goodness but reading all the comments and reviews tells  enough . 
I don't believe for one minute you and your team had nothing to do with it it was a propaganda exercise from start to finish 
Maddy was taken by traffickers , she could still be alive , Portugal is full of paedophiles and traffickers , the Police are definitely bungling sardine munchers who were only out to protect tourism in their country so wanted the case closed quickly so picked on the poor devastated Innocent parents !

Goncalo Amaral is a money grabbing liar , beat up an innocent mother , accused Kate and Gerry of killing their daughter , wrote his book to make money out of a missing child ! 

The dogs and the Forensic results are meaningless and irrelevant , the PJ lied about them anyway .

In short , the McCanns are totally innocent and not suspects and Madeleine is still alive !

End of story , if you don't believe all this you are a troll ! 

Then the blessed MSM continue to pump out daily reports each more and more ridiculous . The folk who were sitting on the fence , or only followed MSM fell for it hook line and sinker .

You must be laughing your heads off and rubbing your hands together , surely this will fill the coffers of the Fund , and you can get Carter Ruck on the job again suing , the thing you do best ! 
Operation Grange will continue to " search " Tracey and friends will continue to promote the lies ! 

Be careful though Mr and Mrs McCann , forums like CMOMM , Facebook pages are gaining members and readers hourly , finding the PJ Files , The Truth of the Lie , Richard D Hall films Peter Macs book , Mark Saunokonoko podcasts , they are asking more and more questions to try and make sense of it . 
It ain't over till the fat lady sings my dears , and believe me there's some singing going on. 
Don't rest easy , don't open the champagne just yet , we are fighting for Madeleine something you failed to do .

Just to add , this is imho of course X

I wondered why the media were heavily over promoting the "McCanns had nothing to do with this line", now I think I know.

The documentary is nothing more than an Amaral bashing exercise, and of course, the McCanns don't want Amaral to know that they played a part in that.  They could have pulled the plug on this if they wanted to, but obviously its in their interests to let it go ahead.   

I am not buying this line, the McCanns must have given their permission for a documentary about their missing child.    

I just wonder how much they may have profited from it this time.

How much it's going to cost Dr Amaral more like.

Goodness knows why he participated.

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

But did he?

As I understand it, all he said was that the McCanns weren't helping by promoting the coloboma.

Did he say anything libellous?

Have any of your ever heard the term conformation bias? If not it basically means you don't watch/listen/read something with an open mind, instead you look/listen for what backs up your beliefs. This document was extremely unbiased it covered both sides equally, but yet from what I've read on this thread you all went into is with an open mind, you all said I bet it wont have GA in it, it did, he got to tell his side along with everyone else that was actually involved, not conspiricy theorist. This was an excellent documentary that has changed alot of people's minds especially considering GA's theory of what the McCanns did is actually so ridiculous similar to the joana cipriano case, that he was convicted of falsifying evidence for yet he was still allowed to continue being the lead investigator in maddies case, any other non corrupt country he who have been stood down pending the investigation and would have been fired immediately when convicted, plus the whole case would have been reopened and convictions on the mother and uncle over turned pending said ingestion. How can two cases 3 years apart, investigated by the same man have the exact same outcome ( they put the body in a fridge/freezer then did something with it) with absolutely no evidence in either case. The only evidence in the mccanns case (the dogs) which I believe now was planted by GA to hopefully get them a conviction and him off the hook for his impending charges. Or are you going to tell me it's just a massive coincidence that 2 girls went missing (presumed kidnapped) 3 years apart had the same lead investigator who has exactly the same theory on both cases and is charged with falsifying documents in one but was completely honest and did everything by the book in the other. Just imagine for a second you are wrong and maddie is found dead or alive and they find evidence it was a kidnapping are you going to then be like sandra F and issue an apology to the McCanns for absolutely running their name through mud? I don't know where you are all from but here in Australia there was a case where a 13 year old boy got kidnapped ( Daniel morcombe ) his parents acted exactly like the McCanns are, as in they have never stopped getting the message bought up in the media, never letting people forget the face and name of there child, it took 13 years and finally finally we got closure after a colonial inquest, which surprise surprise the McCanns are begging for, why would they want that if they are guilty?

Just started watching this morning, so not yet in a position to comment either way.
However, have heard from a number of people who had previously believed K&G that they now think otherwise.
One question so far - Neil Berry early on shows a photograph of the back of MBM, who is playing with his daughter and other children. Do we know when this was taken and has it been validated ? (Apologies if already dealt with up-thread).

Kkcmp88 wrote:Have any of your ever heard the term conformation bias? 

Yes, as well as cognitive dissonance. Try talking to someone who suffers both these problems!!


This document was extremely unbiased it covered both sides equally

Not sure about that, there seems to many questions still unanswered.

I agree it is worrying when people say they are not going to watch it, then go on to say its all propaganda - which it may be but you cannot make a defined decision based on something you've not judged for yourself. 

Fact is, there are many members in this forum that are simply interested individuals - then we have our experts! 

The case I was involved in a few years back, (no, I wasn't an armchair detective, I worked with the police, supplied them with evidence and people went to jail) I had to trawl through hours and hours of utter garbage YouTube videos, blogs and websites.

You have to watch it if you're going to have any legitimate opinion about it.....don't you? 

I'll leave it to our experts to dissect the rest of Kkcmp88's post.

I watched it with my wife (who isn't quite as obsessed with the case I am) over the weekend. 

My main observation is how craftily it was conceived. For the first few episodes I wasn't sure which side it was going to favour - we had the Hubbards and the singularly unconvincing Summers and Swan on one side but on the other we had Amaral and others talking quite freely and critically. However, as we got past episode 4 it became increasingly obvious that it was going with the abduction hypothesis. 

I lived in rural Spain for 10 years. I crossed over the border to little villages in Portugal that were very similar to the towns around me in Spain. Kids play freely in the streets and squares. If a pedo gang wanted kids they could, in one evening, zoom around in a van and grab half a dozen kids from these villages. It'd be far easier than what is proposed happened to Maddie. It is, to my mind, a ridiculous hypothesis even pushing aside the dog findings.

It might be worth considering what WASN'T mentioned in this documentary. Why wasn't the Huelva trip mentioned at all? We have Sandra saying how these parents were under intense scrutiny so when did they hide the body, yet not a single mention (that I recall) about the Huelva trip. Those things glossed over might be exactly what the McCanns don't want probing.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Just started watching this morning, so not yet in a position to comment either way.
However, have heard from a number of people who had previously believed K&G that they now think otherwise.
One question so far - Neil Berry early on shows a photograph of the back of MBM, who is playing with his daughter and other children. Do we know when this was taken and has it been validated ? (Apologies if already dealt with up-thread).

Berry claims this photo was taken after they had been sailing.
But take a look at SUNDAY what they were doing between 10:00-11:00.
"Parachute grass time"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I wouldn't say focusing two episodes on Brian Kennedy and his son playing private detective was "unbiased". I had hoped that what the makers were after was giving everyone involved enough rope that they'd hang themselves - and in some ways I think the sheer egotism of the Kennedy duo comes through but I don't think the casual viewer would see that.

 by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 7:43

"The only evidence in the mccanns case (the dogs) which I believe now was planted by GA to hopefully get them a conviction and him off the hook for his impending charges."

Oh dear! So you've read through all the PJ files then, and it's led you to the conclusion that DNA? was "planted by GA to hopefully get them a conviction...."?

I did point out in my previous post that it was IMHO 

I spent a long time looking at posts from others who had watched the documentary 
not only on here but many other places . I read comments from those who thought it was good , balanced and had changed their minds   regarding the McCanns involvement , from those who now questioned their previous thoughts and are now " on the fence " from those who thought it was aimed at attacking Portugal , the PJ and Amaral and created with the McCanns approval if not assistance . I tried to remain open minded , however like everyone else I am entitled to have an opinion . If you disagree with me fair enough I have no problems with that .

I would like to respectfully ask Kkcmp88 how she/he came to the conclusion that G.A planted the cadaver odour that Eddie alerted to ? How did he do it, what did he use and why select behind the sofa in the lounge and the area by the wardrobe in the parents bedroom ? 
I am aware of the availability of " pseudo scents " but Grime says in his statement his dogs never reacted to these. So did G.A visit the morgue and wipe swabs over a body then transfer said swabs to 5a , wouldn't it have been better to contaminate the bed Madeleine slept on for example ? 
I do hope Kkcmp88 has read Martin Grimes statements and the rest of the Files .

Thank you .Peace .

A perfect example of the bias in this Netflix offering is the airbrushing of Mrs. Fenn's testimony (though they did go to the bother of getting her niece to comment because they like what she had to say).
Now , the McCanns claimed they were checking their kids regularly, at least every half hour. Mrs. Fenn, who lived directly above the McCann apartment claimed that on Tuesday night she heard a child crying with increasing volume and distress and yelling for "Daddy" for one and a quarter hours without ceasing. These claims are irreconcilable. If the McCanns were checking their children regularly, they would have noticed the crying and done something about it.
Rather than admit the existence of such contradictory statements given to the police the Netflix offering ignores the sworn evidence given by Mrs. Fenn.
I wonder how uninformed viewers might regard the dogs' findings had they been made aware that a witness living directly above the flat gave sworn evidence that on Tuesday night a child - in her opinion older than a baby - was obviously awake, completely unsupervised and highly distressed for 90 mins. in the flat beneath her.
But alas! This "unbiased" programme neglected to mention that!

sandancer wrote: I would like to respectfully ask Kkcmp88 how she/he came to the conclusion that G.A planted the cadaver odour that Eddie alerted to ?

I think this might give some indication ..

I was totally perplexed. Although this news, if true, seemed to add weight to the possibility that Madeleine had at the very least been physically harmed, unusually I didn’t dwell too much on the frightening implications. I can only assume this was because what we were being told didn’t make sense. If, as the PJ alleged, Madeleine’s blood was in the boot of our car, which we had not rented until 27 May, how on earth had it got there? Did this mean someone had planted it? I could see no other explanation. The police theory, it seemed, was that we had hidden Madeleine’s body, then moved it later, in the car, and buried it elsewhere.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Having said that, it would be mighty interesting to learn how they managed to plant evidence on Kate McCann's harlequin pantaloons !!!

As a matter of interest, who and where are all these people who have apparently changed their minds after watching the Netflix propaganda?

Press report comments? Social media?

Face it - it could be any-one writing comments in support of the production.

Someone picked up on this and posted on the Textusa blog, from @15.38 in Episode 1:
 
‘Did you notice that Jez Wilkins got threw under the bus right from the very start. The Jenson sister was at pains to let us know she spoke to him outside the apartment immediately after the alarm was raised even though he says he was asleep in bed and was woken by a visit from one of the Tapas 7 informed and went back to sleep’
 
After all of this time they still can’t get their stories straight!
 
‘After leaving each other, Gerry walked downward in the direction of the Tapas Bar and I began to walk in the other direction, up the pathway. I turned left at the crossing and passed the apartment. I did not meet anyone else during my walk and once in my apartment, I did not venture out again.………….’
 
 ‘………After having gone to sleep on the 3rd of May, we were woken around 01H30 by the manager of the resort, John Hill and by a friend of Gerry's. It was them who told me what had happened. I did not see or hear anything else than what has been stated in this statement. I did not take part in any searches. I offered my help but it was not necessary.’ 
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

@ HKP. Hi there  .  The mini sail allegedly happened on the morning of Thurs May 3rd between 10 -11 a.m. and Berry's daughter is indeed registered as having present that morning (signed out at 12.15 p.m) but not in attendance  in the afternoon. That being said, his story of Madeleine "launching herself" from a boat into the sea does not tally with Cat Baker's account who claims Madeleine was scared and fearful in the boat and sat on her lap crying and saying "I'm scared".

Snipped from Cat's rogatory statement -


"I never noted anything strange in Madeleine's comportment during the time I stayed with her. There was one occasion, on Thursday, 3rd of May 2007, around 10H30 in the morning, where she cried at the launch of the yellow safety boat in the ocean where all the children were sailing. She was scared and fearful and cried on my lap "I am scared, I am scared."

HKP wrote:Hi [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The all important comma was missing from my post, the highly unlikely was Maddie jumping in the water (to retrieve the hat). The point I was trying to make was Berry says they became good friends after this, the boat trip was Thursday morning so no time to establish this friendship and it is in my opinion, a made up story.


Keep fighting the good fight 

Gotcha. Yes, the absent comma threw me. You raise a very interesting point - I hadn't taken in that Berry claimed the friendship bloomed as a result of Madeleine's aquatic heroics!! They were thick as thieves after that, according to Berry. As you point out - WHEN!!! His daughter didn't go back to creche that afternoon, Madeleine didn't go to the playground that evening and she was missing by the following day.  Therefore, any blossoming friendship was nipped in the bud before it began.

If Madeleine had " launched herself " into the water to retrieve Jessicas hat , as Neil Berry states , surely Cat or someone would have had to inform Kate or Gerry as she would need to be taken back to the apartment to be dried off and her clothes changed ? 

The alleged last photo was supposed to be taken after lunch before she returned to the crèche , Kate goes into much detail about her new outfit then so an explanation about her being wet and having to change clothes is hardly likely to be forgotten ? 

Much like " whizzing down the water slide and playing football for an hour " 

Fantasy land ! They take us all for gullible fools who haven't read their statements .

The adults wore wetsuits when sailing. If the children did the same they wouldn't be wearing their clothes.

Netflix has had it's day - it's five minutes of fame.  Team McCann have again achieved their objective, to detract from important matters and spiral public opinion, more to the point dangerous revelations, into oblivion.

Time to get back to important matters like the Complete Mystery Of Madeleine McCann

Onwards and upwards ....

It's interesting to take a close look at the new photo which Neil Berry claims shows Madeleine. It is obviously taken on a sunny day and this might accord with the only time allocated in the creche records for "Parachute Grass Time" that week - Sunday 10-11 a.m.
 "Madeleine" is wearing a cerise pink dress featuring a dropped waist with a pleated skirt below the drop. This might accord with the cleaner's description of her wearing a "skirt" since the skirt below the dropped waist is an obvious feature.
  It is, however, clearly NOT the same smock top she is wearing in the last photo. One is plain, deep cerise pink (like her pedal pusher trousers in the airplane bus video) with dropped waist and pleated "kick out skirt" below the drop (Berry's photo).
 The other is of a  shorter, pale pink smock with a typical smock-gather  just below the bust and free flow from there down. This smock also features a flower-sprig pattern.
 If both of these photos were taken on Sunday, then Madeleine must have had a change of clothing during her lunch break that day. Grass stains, maybe....