Re: The latest McCann suspect: Scotland Yard has revealed vital new information about a suspect wanted in connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

by **PeterMac** 06.06.20 12:38

Chloroform came from the Pigeon fanciers, Edgar and Cowley.
It is total nonsense, as I discussed in the Sedation Chapter.
Both Kate and Fiona were anaesthetists, and most of the others would have one O level chemistry and everyone in the world knows the smell, which lingers for many hours.
TOTAL GARBAGE

by **PeterMac** 06.06.20 12:45

But now on Sky we have a very somber Brunt explaining that the BKA have had this information since 2013, Grange since 2012, but he omits to mention that the PJ had it in 2007, and at least by 8th May because that is when they showed a PHOTO (not a photo-fit) of Bückner to at least one of the witnesses.

So it took Grange 5 years to get the information, and then to do nothing, and it took the BKA 6 years to get the information, and to do nothing.

Perhaps because there is nothing more that can be done.
If there is no evidence of
Entry
Presence
Exit
then you are rather stuffed if you try to prove that someone got in, did something and then left.
Bruntie did say, though I do not have the exact words – I'll watch it again in 15 minutes – that there is
a good chance this this will not be him / or that he will not be charged. I forget how he worded it.

So even the "100% DNA Match man" is having second or third thoughts.

by Guest 06.06.20 12:47

Stffl wrote:I’m struggling to come up with a reasonable scenario but can’t it be that this man is indeed involved in some way by helping the McCanns? That he lent his campervan to the McCanns for example, that he made that 8 o`clock call to say that everything was in position for the abduction show to start? That he let the McCanns use his farmhouse to hide Madeleine`s body?

Unlikely of course but just trying to keep a somewhat open mind

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

Keep an open mind by all means but base it on evidence, not a flight of fancy.

by **sandancer** 06.06.20 12:58

Seeing the media and everyone else appears to be connecting every other missing child to the " latest suspect " how long before someone brings up the sad case of little Joana Cipriano and uses it as another reason to attack the Portuguese Police and especially Goncalo Amaral and the alleged " beating " of her mother .

Ignoring the fact of course that mother and uncle were imprisoned for her murder !

Well they're ignoring every other fact , including the dogs of course Eddie and Keela never get a mention .

by LG 06.06.20 13:04

What a difference a J makes? (A la Dinah Washington)

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

by Guest 06.06.20 13:15

See? The power of the media still going strong, from strength to strength it would appear. I feel I've not only lost the past 3-4 months of my life but the last 13 years has left a gaping hole. It's like going back in time - remember those halcyon days of yore, when the cornflakes never tasted the same without the daily McCann reports?

And here we are again, back to scruffy dossers (Lurkioman) flogging car parts; death by santanic ritual; medical experimentation; empty dirty barns; dodgy burglars with a swag bag of chloroform; targeted British children molested in their beds at night. What next - a reinvention of the industrial high powered patented body detecting machine?

If you want to get seriously stuck-in to a real life crime, no use starting in the middle. You need to go right back to the beginning and then build outwards using facts, evidence and intelligence and keep focused. This cannot be achieved by reading press reports or listening to idle gossip on social media. Forget all this nonsense, go back to square one and see just how ridiculous these baseless speculative theories are. It's so easy to be distracted, allowing the mind to wander but don't let it stray from the evidence - unless of course for a little light relief.

There is no evidence to suggest Madeleine McCann was abducted - end of! Work from there thumbsup

!

It's taken 11 years for CMOMM to get where it is this day. Let's keep moving forward with our quest for justice in the name of Madeleine McCann - not go back in time by destroying all the hard work - voluntary work I hasten to add.

grouphug

by Liz Eagles 06.06.20 13:23

There is an article in the Daily Mail published yesterday, updated today and now unavailable on the site by Clarence Mitchell.

I can't post the link but the article is available on Google. It's worth reading if only to see someone crawling out of a tight spot.

There's a particularly interesting paragraph with Mitchell saying he was assured by the authorities the McCanns were innocent.

This is written by Mitchell himself.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.20 14:22

Eastree27 wrote:

We also know don't we that Murat called it a cockup and lots of things went wrong on the night - which feels like it is the most likely reason Murat was made into the prime suspect - if he was planned from before the PNJ was called to be a temporary fall guy things would make more sense.

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

Not quite sure if I understand everything you wrote just there, but...

Bear in mind that Goncalo Amaral in his book 'The Truth of the Lie', and on other occasions, has given evidence of a conspiracy by British security services and criminal profilers etc., including MI5 and Special Branch, of a deliberate attempt to 'frame' Robert Murat. For example, Goncalo noted in his book that these shadowy British security staff, who were crowding out the limited office space he had graciously allocated to them, were ramming down his throat that "Robert Murat fits the likely profile of the abductor 90%".

Now, given we all now know about the case, we may ask why they were coming up with this theory.

Here is a suggestion.

Something very bad had perhaps happened to Madeleine.

Maybe something so bad that, if known, it could seriously undermine the whole country and its government, because it was so shocking.

If that was the case, would it not be very useful to pin the case on Robert Murat, to put the heat on him so to speak, to create a credible suspect, and to keep the McCanns out of the spotlight?

Which is precisely what happened. Over the next couple of weeks there was a raft of true and untrue stories about him in the media.

Now also keep in mind that Robert Murat was in good stock with the British Embassy in Portugal, and indeed according to Portuguese journalist Paulo Reis actually recommended him to the police as an interpreter on the case. He interpreted for many of the creche nannies, some of whose accounts were riddled with inconsistencies.

by Eastree27 06.06.20 14:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
Eastree27 wrote:

We also know don't we that Murat called it a cockup and lots of things went wrong on the night - which feels like it is the most likely reason Murat was made into the prime suspect - if he was planned from before the PNJ was called to be a temporary fall guy things would make more sense.

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

Not quite sure if I understand everything you wrote just there, but...

Bear in mind that Goncalo Amaral in his book 'The Truth of the Lie', and on other occasions, has given evidence of a conspiracy by British security services and criminal profilers etc., including MI5 and Special Branch, of a deliberate attempt to 'frame' Robert Murat. For example, Goncalo noted in his book that these shadowy British security staff, who were crowding out the limited office space he had graciously allocated to them, were ramming down his throat that "Robert Murat fits the likely profile of the abductor 90%".

Now, given we all now know about the case, we may ask why they were coming up with this theory.

Here is a suggestion.

Something very bad had perhaps happened to Madeleine.

Maybe something so bad that, if known, it could seriously undermine the whole country and its government, because it was so shocking.

If that was the case, would it not be very useful to pin the case on Robert Murat, to put the heat on him so to speak, to create a credible suspect, and to keep the McCanns out of the spotlight?

Which is precisely what happened. Over the next couple of weeks there was a raft of true and untrue stories about him in the media.

Now also keep in mind that Robert Murat was in good stock with the British Embassy in Portugal, and indeed according to Portuguese journalist Paulo Reis actually recommended him to the police as an interpreter on the case. He interpreted for many of the creche nannies, some of whose accounts were riddled with inconsistencies.

I agree.

It also have to be so shocking that had her body been presented to the local hospital simply bribing a few people in Portugal while telling the world she fell and died would not have been feasible.

Through the statements seem a little too chaotic for lots of MI5/6 involvement pre 22.00 on the 3rd of May - surely professionals would not have allowed the mess of Tannerman and the vanishing pink blanket.

by splurgegun 06.06.20 14:32

@ Liz, the article is still there
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[size=47]Because I’d had assurances from the authorities that they were innocent parties in a rare case of stranger abduction – and I could see they were from everything they said and did, and how they reacted to everything – I thought there was also a moral case here to help a family in obvious crisis.[/size]

by Liz Eagles 06.06.20 14:39

splurgegun wrote:@ Liz, the article is still there
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[size=72]Because I’d had assurances from the authorities that they were innocent parties in a rare case of stranger abduction – and I could see they were from everything they said and did, and how they reacted to everything – I thought there was also a moral case here to help a family in obvious crisis.[/size]

Thank you.

by Rogue-a-Tory 06.06.20 14:46

Tony Bennett wrote:
Eastree27 wrote:

We also know don't we that Murat called it a cockup and lots of things went wrong on the night - which feels like it is the most likely reason Murat was made into the prime suspect - if he was planned from before the PNJ was called to be a temporary fall guy things would make more sense.

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

Not quite sure if I understand everything you wrote just there, but...

Bear in mind that Goncalo Amaral in his book 'The Truth of the Lie', and on other occasions, has given evidence of a conspiracy by British security services and criminal profilers etc., including MI5 and Special Branch, of a deliberate attempt to 'frame' Robert Murat. For example, Goncalo noted in his book that these shadowy British security staff, who were crowding out the limited office space he had graciously allocated to them, were ramming down his throat that "Robert Murat fits the likely profile of the abductor 90%".

Now, given we all now know about the case, we may ask why they were coming up with this theory.

Here is a suggestion.

Something very bad had perhaps happened to Madeleine.

Maybe something so bad that, if known, it could seriously undermine the whole country and its government, because it was so shocking.

If that was the case, would it not be very useful to pin the case on Robert Murat, to put the heat on him so to speak, to create a credible suspect, and to keep the McCanns out of the spotlight?

Which is precisely what happened. Over the next couple of weeks there was a raft of true and untrue stories about him in the media.

Now also keep in mind that Robert Murat was in good stock with the British Embassy in Portugal, and indeed according to Portuguese journalist Paulo Reis actually recommended him to the police as an interpreter on the case. He interpreted for many of the creche nannies, some of whose accounts were riddled with inconsistencies.

I'm of the opinion that the British authorities were prepared to throw Murat under the bus after the 'cock up' he referred to. There was then a change of heart as Murat knew too much and wasn't about to go quietly. This ultimately suited the confusion agenda, as you say, keeping the spotlight elsewhere form the McCanns. But it wasn't part of the planned set agenda, more thinking on the hoof.

by Guest 06.06.20 14:50

Clarence Mitchell wrote:Because I’d had assurances from the authorities that they were innocent parties in a rare case of stranger abduction

Which authorities?

Not the Portuguese ones that's for sure.

So.... who then?

by crispbee2000 06.06.20 14:51

Verdi wrote:See? The power of the media still going strong, from strength to strength it would appear. I feel I've not only lost the past 3-4 months of my life but the last 13 years has left a gaping hole. It's like going back in time - remember those halcyon days of yore, when the cornflakes never tasted the same without the daily McCann reports?

And here we are again, back to scruffy dossers (Lurkioman) flogging car parts; death by santanic ritual; medical experimentation; empty dirty barns; dodgy burglars with a swag bag of chloroform; targeted British children molested in their beds at night. What next - a reinvention of the industrial high powered patented body detecting machine?

If you want to get seriously stuck-in to a real life crime, no use starting in the middle. You need to go right back to the beginning and then build outwards using facts, evidence and intelligence and keep focused. This cannot be achieved by reading press reports or listening to idle gossip on social media. Forget all this nonsense, go back to square one and see just how ridiculous these baseless speculative theories are. It's so easy to be distracted, allowing the mind to wander but don't let it stray from the evidence - unless of course for a little light relief.

There is no evidence to suggest Madeleine McCann was abducted - end of! Work from there !

It's taken 11 years for CMOMM to get where it is this day. Let's keep moving forward with our quest for justice in the name of Madeleine McCann - not go back in time by destroying all the hard work - voluntary work I hasten to add.

I agree with all of that. However, all of the hard work to date has failed to come up with any credible motive. Negligence leading to an accident may be enough for the parents to wish to cover up the death, but why would close friends implicate themselves in the death of an innocent unless they were also implicated? If death occurred on the Sunday, or at any earlier date, then the web of collusion spreads even wider and there would have to be motive for those wider people to implicate themselves. The theorising on motive is where it all starts to go into dangerous and dubious territory, but it still needs to all be scrutinised and validated. Evidence would be more than nice. The authorities have a cast iron motive for their latest suspect (and apparently precious little else). CMOMM have loads of credible evidence of flaws in the official story line, but NO credible motive. I agree that motive needs to be established with verifiable evidence - flights of fancy may be a starting point but they should never be quoted as fact. I for one will continue seeking and questioning.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.20 15:04

Eastree27 wrote:

Through the statements seem a little too chaotic for lots of MI5/6 involvement pre 22.00 on the 3rd of May - surely professionals would not have allowed the mess of Tannerman and the vanishing pink blanket.

This suggestion has been made many times before, i.e. that this was not a very well-planned hoax, and somehow must have been done in a great hurry after Madeleine (allegedly) died after 6pm on the Thursday.

But suppose something serious did happen to Maddie on the Sunday, as some say.

What would they need to do?

1. Find someone who saw an abductor. They did that. Jane Tanner

2. Find a second person who would not only say that he saw an abductor, but also would give a near-identical description. Nuno Lourenco did that. He got the police to fixate for 48 hours on Wojchiech Krokowksi. (They even got a third to say he had seen an identical abductor. Martin Smith).

3. Get Maddie's creche nanny to lie about Madeleine not being in the creche. Look at Cat Baker's contradictory statements.

4. Get someone over to hide Maddie's body somewhere. Robert Murat?

5. Get someone over to get inside the PJ investigation and find out what he could about their lines of enquiry. They did that. Robert Murat.

6. Clean up the apartment and make sure there was none of Maddie's DNA there. Well, the police never found any of Maddie's DNA.

7. Get the media teed up to run a major international story the following (Friday) morning. Which is what happened. Ex-pat Jon Clarke from the Olive Press was outside the McCanns' apartment early that morning, having been woken in the middle of the night (or earlier) and been sent there by the Mail and the Sun. Who briefed them that this was going to be a major story?

8. Get various people to say they saw Maddie earlier that Thursday. David Payne. Philip Edmonds. Cat Baker.

9. Amend a photo that was taken Sunday to make it look as though it were taken Thursday. The Last Photo.

10. Get their friends ready with credible but false account of that week's events.

11. Make out that Maddie was abducted in her pyjamas.

12. Get CEOP ready to run this as an 'abducted by paedophile story. Jim Gamble set up dummy Madeleine page on 30 April 2007 (evidenced on Wayback Machine).

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.20 15:21

REPLYING TO @crispbee

However, all of the hard work to date has failed to come up with any credible motive.

REPLY: The absolutely extraordinary level of help given from Day One by the government, its security services, top media spinners, ambassadors, lawyers and police officers etc, does suggest that something may have happened to Madeleine which it was in the interests of the political establishment to cover up at all costs.

Why would close friends implicate themselves in the death of an innocent unless they were also implicated?

REPLY: Were they perhaps connected in some way to whatever happened to Madeleine?

If death occurred on the Sunday, or at any earlier date, then the web of collusion spreads even wider and there would have to be motive for those wider people to implicate themselves.

REPLY: As has been said many times, the 'net' would not have to be that wide. It could be restricted to the McCanns, the Tapas 7, a very small number of creche nannies, and the most senior staff of Mark Warner. That would be enough to 'float' any abduction hoax.

CMOMM have loads of credible evidence of flaws in the official story line, but NO credible motive.

REPLY: It must be admitted that those who say she may have died in the McCanns' apartment, whether on Sunday, Thursday, or any other day, have put forward several theories about the possible cause of death. They include: violence by one of the parents; violence by someone else; chemical sedation; accident; evidence of previous abuse. We have the evidence of Martin Grime. Apart from that, we only have possibilities, and nothing remotely near certainties, about the cause of death, if indeed she did die in that apartment.

by **PeterMac** 06.06.20 15:22

OK
Here's a possible motive, without any evidence of course, and therefore of no significance.

Sunday evening. 29/4/7
Parents put the children to bed after an exciting day doing all the usual things for the first full day of a holiday, new clothes, photos by the pool and all the rest.
The children are tired by and Madeleine is 'hyper' with excitement and adrenaline, so they slip her a little something.
They go out around 8:15
M gets out of bed, climbs the sofa, falls and whacks her head. A sub arachnoid haemorrhage starts.
Parents return in the early hours of the morning, creep in, and sneak off to bed.
They do not check the children, but just 'listen' in the Tapas Child-care approved fashion.
They wake at 8;30.
M is found behind the sofa.
She is now dead, but rigor mortis has NOT set in. She is still limp, floppy and warm.
They realise the implications of this.
Death occurred AFTER they got back from the bar. Possibly as late as 3 or 4am

Now they face
Abandonment of children – because at that stage they did not know the exact wording of the Portuguese Law, any more than we did.
Neglecting to check on the children when they got back after 5 or 6 hours at the Bar.

Hospital will
confirm death,
confirm body temp, and therefore time of death.

Can they risk it? And risk losing the twins?
Kate wants to do the right thing. G has other ideas about his professional status and grips her VERY tightly around the upper arms as he 'gently persuades' her to go along with his cunning plan
(Tennis bag, temporary storage, and subsequent disposal as discussed ad naus. on this forum)
Kate looks like a rabbit in the headlights at interviews, and is gripped tightly by G, even, on her own admission, during her statement at Police HQ. [Which is unforgivable, incidentally]
G almost immediately is seen smirking, grinning, eating lollipops, smiling and boasting "Find the body and prove we did it" or words to that effect.

Big mistake putting the tennis bag back on the shelf, and then having to get Mendax Mitchell to say there never was one, but apart from that they now have a few days to work it out.
Timed for the last full day, to give the PJ enough time to take a few scrappy statements before letting everyone go home.

All nonsense of course

by **Jill Havern** 06.06.20 15:22

Roidininki wrote:That suggestion was eliminated iirc because when Kate McCann was asked if she smelled anything unusual as she entered the room she answered no . In her profession she would have been familiar with the smell of chloroform ?
Jill Havern wrote:
Wasn't it said the abductor used chloroform?

Well, we know it's not true because there wasn't an abductor. I only posted it there because Blue Bag said the window had been left open for some strange reason.

But it was Batman and Robin who said it, you know the ones who said Maddie was being held in a secret lair in the lawless hills.

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

by Guest 06.06.20 15:39

BlueBag wrote:
Clarence Mitchell wrote:Because I’d had assurances from the authorities that they were innocent parties in a rare case of stranger abduction
Which authorities?

Not the Portuguese ones that's for sure.

So.... who then?

The bloke in the panama hat, bow tie and braces and called 'Harry' .... was it? spin

by Guest 06.06.20 15:43

crispbee2000 wrote:I agree with all of that. However, all of the hard work to date has failed to come up with any credible motive.

Motive? MOTIVE?

There doesn't have to be a motive.

If you wish to discredit CMOMM and 9 years+ hard slog then kindly leave the stage.

Thank you!

by Guest 06.06.20 15:51

Eastree27 wrote:I agree.

It also have to be so shocking that had her body been presented to the local hospital simply bribing a few people in Portugal while telling the world she fell and died would not have been feasible.

Through the statements seem a little too chaotic for lots of MI5/6 involvement pre 22.00 on the 3rd of May - surely professionals would not have allowed the mess of Tannerman and the vanishing pink blanket.

So, you're agreeing to disagree?

Have you had time to read through the wealth of information presented here on CMOMM - a well respected professional forum that stands out above all others for due dilligence?

by crispbee2000 06.06.20 15:59

Sorry, I do seek to discredit CMOMM, far from it. I applaud the 9 years hard slog and gave credit to it in my post by stating that CMOMM have "have loads of credible evidence of flaws in the official story line". Perhaps I should stated that the evidence submitted to the Portuguese investigators was gained by a lot of tireless hard working volunteers, stroke, stroke. I really wasn't looking to denigrate the work of CMOMM.
But I'm intrigued to understand your logic whereby a large number of people collude on a serious crime without any motive. Personal advancement, acceptance of bribes, fear of repercussions are all forms of motive. Surely there HAS to be motive behind it?

by **Tony Bennett** 06.06.20 16:02

PeterMac wrote:OK
Here's a possible motive, without any evidence of course, and therefore of no significance.

Sunday evening. 29/4/7
Parents put the children to bed after an exciting day doing all the usual things for the first full day of a holiday, new clothes, photos by the pool and all the rest.
The children are tired by and Madeleine is 'hyper' with excitement and adrenaline, so they slip her a little something.
They go out around 8:15
M gets out of bed, climbs the sofa, falls and whacks her head. A sub arachnoid haemorrhage starts.
Parents return in the early hours of the morning, creep in, and sneak off to bed.
They do not check the children, but just 'listen' in the Tapas Child-care approved fashion.
They wake at 8;30.
M is found behind the sofa.
She is now dead, but rigor mortis has NOT set in. She is still limp, floppy and warm.
They realise the implications of this.
Death occurred AFTER they got back from the bar. Possibly as late as 3 or 4am

Now they face
Abandonment of children – because at that stage they did not know the exact wording of the Portuguese Law, any more than we did.
Neglecting to check on the children when they got back after 5 or 6 hours at the Bar.

Hospital will
confirm death,
confirm body temp, and therefore time of death.

Can they risk it? And risk losing the twins?
Kate wants to do the right thing. G has other ideas about his professional status and grips her VERY tightly around the upper arms as he 'gently persuades' her to go along with his cunning plan
(Tennis bag, temporary storage, and subsequent disposal as discussed ad naus. on this forum)
Kate looks like a rabbit in the headlights at interviews, and is gripped tightly by G, even, on her own admission, during her statement at Police HQ. [Which is unforgivable, incidentally]
G almost immediately is seen smirking, grinning, eating lollipops, smiling and boasting "Find the body and prove we did it" or words to that effect.

Big mistake putting the tennis bag back on the shelf, and then having to get Mendax Mitchell to say there never was one, but apart from that they now have a few days to work it out.
Timed for the last full day, to give the PJ enough time to take a few scrappy statements before letting everyone go home.

All nonsense of course

This is an attractive theory in that it's quite simple and believable.

However, it has one major defect.

It doesn't in any way explain why it was necessary for the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to send out, from Day One, his top media adviser, and instruct MI5, other secret services and his Ambassadors to be involved, nor his convening a top secret, inter-disciplinary Gold Group under Leicestershire Police Chief Matt Baggott (first meeting 8 May), to help manage the case. Nor does it really explain why for example Jim Gamble, boss of CEOP, became so intimately and personally committed to the case, constantly insisting it was a paedophile abduction, and to the McCanns. Nor does it explain why known pervert and paedophile Ray Wyre was commissioned to write a piece in the Daily Telegraph as early as 10 May 2007 explaining that this was certainly a clear case of paedophile abduction.

One other thing it doesn't explain and that is why there appears to have been a very sudden change, on Sunday night, to the Tapas 7 demanding that they 'must' be able to book the Tapas restaurant for the rest of the week. The receptionist seemed taken aback with the request and had to seek advice from management before authorising the booking. The rest of the week the McCanns breakfasted and lunched in their apartment. No good reason has ever been advanced for this sudden change of plan from eating all week in the Millennium.

by Silverspeed 06.06.20 16:02

PeterMac wrote:Just suppose that he confesses
Just suppose he gives details – as he will have to for his confessions to be accepted at all.
Just suppose he relates how he watched the parents leaving each evening and NOT locking the door
Just suppose he relates that immediately after they left he simply wandered up the stairs, through the patio door, took M, and wandered out again.

Then, will the sky fall in on the McCanns for neglect, negligence, and all the rest.

Involve = Have or include (something) as a necessary or integral part or result.
Leaving the patio door open is a necessary part of the result. It facilitates the Means
Leaving the children alone every night provides the Opportunity.

IF, and only IF it was him, of course.
For which there is no evidence.

Suppose he confesses to taking her on another night, earlier in the week. How would the McCanns explain that?

I don't think this is anything other than another load of rubbish, purely to distract people from something else. I wouldn't be surprised if this story was supposed to break around a month ago, on the anniversary of her disappearance, but had to be delayed due to covid-19.

by Guest 06.06.20 16:02

splurgegun wrote:@ Liz, the article is still there
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[size=47]Because I’d had assurances from the authorities that they were innocent parties in a rare case of stranger abduction – and I could see they were from everything they said and did, and how they reacted to everything – I thought there was also a moral case here to help a family in obvious crisis.[/size]

Leave no stone unturned! This must be shown in all it's glory just in case it .... whooooosh!!!

'This time it feels very different': Kate and Gerry McCann have had their hopes raised so many times but their close adviser CLARENCE MITCHELL believes the latest development in Germany could be significant

By Clarence Mitchell For The Daily Mail

Published: 22:00, 5 June 2020 | Updated: 11:59, 6 June 2020

For Kate and Gerry McCann there have been many heart-stopping moments since their three-year-old daughter Madeleine went missing from their holiday apartment in Portugal 13 years ago.

Countless times their hopes have been raised over the years, but nothing has brought them any closer to solving the mystery of their daughter’s disappearance – or ending their pain.

Ever since that terrible night of May 3, 2007, it’s been a rollercoaster of alleged sightings around the world and tip-offs, most of which, while well-meaning, have not been accurate.

We’ve had a plane with engines running, ready to recover a child who turned out not to be Madeleine and hundreds, if not thousands, of psychics telling us where she is. None of it has come to anything.

The situation goes quiet for a long time, then comes back with the force of a train.

With the manic events of the past 36 hours, you could say we have been here before – but this time something feels very different.

This is the first time I can recall the police, not just in one country but three, targeting a specific, identifiable individual: a 43-year-old German itinerant who was living in Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished.

For the first time detectives are asking very specific, detailed questions about one person’s activities, his vehicles and his phones.

Let’s bear in mind he may still be ruled out, but we have never had that degree of focus before which makes it feel more significant.

Kate and Gerry have known for some time about this new lead. They knew it would cause something of a storm, which it has. They were told by the police not to tell anyone. They didn’t, not even their wider family, so the appeal would have maximum impact.

The Germans are treating this as a murder investigation, but have made it quite clear they don’t have any evidence to prove the worst has happened.

The British police are keeping an open mind and are still treating it a missing person investigation, as are the Portuguese.

Kate and Gerry have never given up hope, even with the latest developments, that Madeleine might still be found alive.

Only when they are presented with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary will they accept that the worst has happened.

Sometimes Kate asks me ‘am I wrong to keep hoping?’, and I tell her: ‘No, you are not.’ There was a child recovered in China last month after being missing for 33 years. It happens.

I still believe it’s possible, but with this suspect’s criminal convictions, including sex offences, there is always that terrible thought in the back of your mind.

Unfortunately, Kate and Gerry have known the risk of Madeleine being the victim of this type of crime from day one, but they are resilient enough to understand that without going to pieces.

That gives them strength, so whenever a gruesome headline appears they are expecting it.

Like everyone they have good and bad days, Kate particularly, but they are fully aware and realistic about the awful possibility of what might have happened.

They just want to know the truth and whoever was responsible to be held to account and face justice.

They need to know what happened to their daughter because they need peace.

I first met the McCanns two weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance. I was working as a civil servant for the Cabinet Office; having been a BBC journalist for 20 years, I was seconded by the Foreign Office to help them deal with the media.

I first met Gerry when he came back to Britain to get some of Madeleine’s belongings to help with DNA profiling. I was introduced to him at a police station in Leicestershire and we went back to Portugal together. I met Kate the next day.

It was a surreal time. It was so long ago now but in many ways still feels like yesterday.

Of course there was a professional detachment, but as a father to three young children I could feel a certain degree of sympathy and understanding for them.

Sending out videos and pictures, I felt I almost knew Madeleine as well, and yet she was a girl I had never met.

Because I’d had assurances from the authorities that they were innocent parties in a rare case of stranger abduction – and I could see they were from everything they said and did, and how they reacted to everything – I thought there was also a moral case here to help a family in obvious crisis.

Such was the scale of the story, it was a cycle of madness that snowballed along and negative stories gained traction very quickly. In 2007 social media was only just kicking off.

Public opinion hardened the moment it was reported Gerry and Kate had been dining with friends in a tapas restaurant when Madeleine was abducted from her bed a few metres away, while her twin siblings Sean and Amelie slept.

Instantly, there was judgment that they were somehow neglectful and had let their daughter down, but the reality of the situation is that their checking system – with adults going to see the sleeping children every 20 or 30 minutes – was better than anything that could have been offered by the holiday centre.

I could see they had done their best under the circumstances, made a judgment. They fully accept that due to a billion-to-one chance they’d got it wrong. That’s something they are going to have to live with for the rest of their lives. They have always said that.

The fact is they did not think it any more dangerous than having dinner in the garden while their children slept in the house. The restaurant was far closer to the apartment than aerial photos in the media suggested, and they had a clear line of sight to the French windows.

But I could see in private moments the real pain, upset, anger, hurt and distress which people weren’t seeing outside.

All they were seeing of Kate and Gerry was when they made an occasional statement – and then they were accused of being cold and aloof.

That was because they were told not to show, if possible, any overt emotions, because (I am sad to say) some offenders who commit these sorts of crimes can get a perverse kind of kick out of seeing the distress they have caused the parents of the children they have taken. Because they both Kate and Gerry were doctors, they took that very seriously.

I got to know them as friends and knew they were innocent of any involvement. I could see the way they had been traduced and the pain that caused them, quite apart from the loss of Madeleine. I felt very sorry for them.

So it was a calculated risk when I quit my civil service job to work for the McCanns. Madeleine could have been found the very next day and I would have been out of work – but I also wanted to do it on a personal level, to act as a fire shield for them.

I could see they needed help and I was proud to be able to give it. I have continued to work for them ever since, lately pro bono.

Despite all they’ve been through they are two very strong characters. It’s often said that something like this can tear a couple apart, but in this case it has brought Kate and Gerry together more strongly, partly for Madeleine’s sake but also to focus on their twins Sean and Amelie, who were very young at the time.

Kate threw herself into looking after the twins and eventually stopped her medical work to look after them full-time, though she does do a little bit of voluntary work with people with dementia. She is also an ambassador for the charity Missing People.

Gerry is very practical. He threw himself into his job as a cardiologist and he is the breadwinner.

When I first started working with them I never imagined that Madeleine’s disappearance would remain unsolved after 13 years. Obviously you hope it will be solved in one day, and we always said ‘all it takes is one phone call’.

They very much welcome this new appeal for information around this individual. It would be fantastic news and a right and happy result if Madeleine were still found alive, but, whatever the outcome of this latest development, essentially Kate and Gerry just want to know the truth about what happened to their daughter.

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

spin

by MaddieMay13YEARS 06.06.20 16:44

Something might feel different - but nothing sounds different!

Same old. Same old.

'the reality of the situation is that their checking system – with adults going to see the sleeping children every 20 or 30 minutes – was better than anything that COULD have been offered by the holiday centre.'

No, the reality of the situation is that their so called child care system FAILED and a little girl paid the price with her life. And her parents refuse to own it!

by **sandancer** 06.06.20 17:11

Good old Clarence , he uses all the right clichés , spins the story like a true professional

still using all the now debunked stories , dining in your garden , could see the French windows , their checking system was better , they were told not to show emotions , blah blah blah !

13 years of spin in one article , just to remind everyone that this was " stranger abduction " .

" Because I'd had assurance from the authorities that they were innocent parties in a case of stranger abduction " What !?!?

Now which " authorities " would that be ?

Not the PJ that's for sure !

by kaz 06.06.20 17:17

Peter Mac's hypothesis as stated above sounds the most feasible scenario to me.
Having said that, the big mystery is WHY the Establishment is falling over itself to place the blame elsewhere? Why is it complicit in the deceit? What is this power that the McCanns have ? Are they just simply a well connected family ?

by **Jill Havern** 06.06.20 17:25

by Eastree27 06.06.20 17:41

The hotel offered a creche service so that is a lie.
And anyway most people even in 2007 would use a baby monitor if eating in the garden.

It's interesting enough that they feel the need to even have to print such an article.

The latest McCann suspect: Scotland Yard has revealed vital new information about a suspect wanted in connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.