Kate McCann's close bond with Everton chairman Bill Kenwright

I believe she was in the wardrobe for a short while(keela,s handler
said a corpse had been deposited there)then taken somewhere and 
put in a fridge or freezer then taken away in the hire car to south coast where she was deposited never to be seen again.The hire car had a 
few hundred kilometres more on the clock than when they hired it.
Or should I say she was kidnapped and leave it at that.End of,fini no more.

I think Madeleine died in or around 5a around 6pm on Thursday 3rd May and was removed by Gerry between 9-30 and 10pm.
I believe he was seen by the Smith family around that time.

Jimtheblue wrote:I believe she was in the wardrobe for a short while(keela,s handler
said a corpse had been deposited there)then taken somewhere and 
put in a fridge or freezer then taken away in the hire car to south coast where she was deposited never to be seen again.The hire car had a 
few hundred kilometres more on the clock than when they hired it.
Or should I say she was kidnapped and leave it at that.End of,fini no more.

You're not making any sense at all, it is clear to me now your source of information comes from twitter/facebook or some other obscure source of misinformation.

Where is the evidence to support your opinion?

The specialist dog's master said no such thing.

The Algarve is situated south of the country.

Taken somewhere and put in a fridge or freezer - not worth the effort of a reply.

The Renault Scenic hire car was delivered to the McCanns on 27th May 2007, some 24 days after Madeleine's reported disappearance.

Your last sentence is just nonsense.

You previously said you have been watching the case since the beginning yet the best you can offer is misinformation that's been doing the rounds of social media for years. Try logical thinking for yourself, it's preferable to passing on what you've read for however long you have really been following the case.

I do wish people would read before opining on any aspect of the case.

I have never been on twitter or facebook I get my information from 
reliable sources.If you disagree with people you try to belittle them and 
put your authoritarian hat on and do your ridiculing

Duplicate post deleted.

Forum Manager

Jimtheblue wrote:I have never been on twitter or facebook I get my information from 
reliable sources.If you disagree with people you try to belittle them and 
put your authoritarian hat on and do your ridiculing

It's not a matter of disagreeing, I'm pointing out fact to oppose fiction.

I am not belittling you nor ridiculing, you do that all by yourself - it's not a matter of my disagreeing with you or anybody else, it's all about presentation of fact and evidence v. absolute nonsense.  I know which horse I will back any day.

Reliable sources do not promote unreliable information.

I wish you goodnight.

the basic picture is truly from the files, but not in the forensic index part, but it is part of the interview of kate mccann in september, when she was made arguido.

this is the official link;

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

it is next to question 10.

and you can single it out by this link;

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

so the bag in the closet and the empty closet are both there.

In my opinion, I think too much time has been spent on the so called "blue bag".
In one photo, attributed to Joao Barreiras between 1am and 4am 3rd May, a soft bodied bag or suitcase is seen in the wardrobe along with what has been described by Gerry McCann as dirty clothes.
In another photo by the crime scene team at
3-30pm on the 4th May, the bag and dirty clothes are missing.
It appears logical to (me anyway,)that the bag and clothes were removed by the McCann's when they were moved into another apartment.

crusader wrote:There is far more evidence Madeleine died on Thursday 3rd May than there is for her demise on the 29th April.
I'm intrigued as to why so many people are convinced Madeleine died on the Sunday.
A whole stadium of Everton supporters can't be wrong , can they?

What evidence pointing to her death on Thursday are you referring to?

Some of that evidence may just point to her death but without a date and time.
Some evidence just comes from the McCanns and their friends and may therefore not be credible.
Please could you tell us what credible evidence points to Madeleines' death on Thursday?

Jimtheblue wrote:Practically all think she was given too much of a sleep inducing drug,
her “parents” found her dead and then started ,with the people who
Were with them,dreaming up a story to save their a#&*,and their 
jobs.

Hi Jimtheblue

Are you aware of the research by the MMRG, Petermac and Richard Hall that points to Madeleines' death on April 29th?

Verdi wrote:There isn't any evidence to suggest Madeleine McCann died on 29th April 2007 - full stop!

I wasn't going to respond to this, but need to counter your confident assertion.

There may be no single piece of irrefutable evidence to PROVE CONCLUSIVELY and beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a properly instructed Jury 
and in the absence of any other evidence of surrounding facts - - - that Madeleine died on 29th April
but there is plenty of evidence, both positive and negative to SUGGEST very strongly a death on 29th/30th

With respect, the addition of the words "full stop!" add nothing except to suggest strongly that your mind is closed to consideration of evidence, 
or any further discussion.
It is similar to those who sign off their un-evidenced and often highly opinionated statements with "FACT", or worse with the ungrammatical "End OF", 
which I can only assume must be an abbreviation of 'End of Story', or 'End of Argument'


The "FACT" is that it is never the "End Of" the argument, any more than writing "Full Stop" ends the discussion.

Is Victory awarded to the person who says it first ?

Some little time ago I prepared a Buzan style 'mind map' in graphic form, which I shall try to find and will post, or replicate if I can't find it.

It may be of interest to those for whom the current position is not "Full stop" nor "Fact' nor yet "End Of . . "


I'll be back

Is a mind map the same as linear writing? I was taught some of Buzan's theories, but it was a long time ago, and memory is vague now.

I have had to re-do it.    So it is a draft, and can be added to.

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



It shows as a small image so I'm sorry you'll have to click to read it.
ALL CRITICISM =and suggestions for improvement  and additions WELCOMED - AS ALWAYS, 
P


MIND MAPPING
CaKeLoveRIs a mind map the same as linear writing? I was taught some of Buzan's theories, but it was a long time ago, and memory is vague now.

The point of a mind map is to get away from linear thinking, where you start by making a list and that may cause you inadvertently to focus 
purely on the subject on the paper

This encourages recording of totally disparate issues
If you start in the middle and work outwards for planning it works as well as starting at the perimeter and focussing inwards. 
(Which is the ways the Security Services used to use it to see how many red arrows point to a particular person/ spy/ leak/ mole)

Village Fete
catering, wet weather, programme, parking, loos, bar, licensing, local police, traffic control, events, Personality to open, hospitality, advertising publicity, . . . . 
and so on.   Do this as a mind map from the centre and each of the items then generates its own mini cloud of ideas, which in turn can be delegated  to teams to do their own.

Yes, I remember the 'hooks' now.

It should be remembered that Bill Kenwright was a very close friend of Michael Barrymore, at whose mansion Stuart Lubbock was raped and murdered in the early hours of 1 April 2001, before being placed by the side of Barrymore's swimming pool to fake a 'drowning'.  

In August 2006 I submitted a dossier on the death of Stuart Lubbock to Essex Police, in effect proving he was murdered.

On 1 December 2006 Essex Police re-opened a full murder investigation into Stuarts's death. 

In June 2007, Michael Barrymore, Justin Merritt and 'drag queen' Jonathan Merritt were arrested on suspicion of murder. Barrymore was staying with Bill Kenwright at his north London home at the time. 

On 7 July 2007, I published my book on the case: 'NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away With Murder'. 

On 31 July 2007, Eddie and Keela were brought to Praia da Luz.

Disregarding my brusque terminology, this is after all an internet forum not a court of law, looking carefully at the 'evidence' presented to lead to the conclusion of a specific time stamp for Madeleine McCann's alleged death, I don't see very much that can be considered to make the existence of fact appear plausible or probable.

Having followed this case for many years I notice a lot of the information presented as evidence emanates from social media, the public super sleuths who do not have access to full evidence and information harvested during the official Portuguese investigation.  In addition, whilst I understand the principle of thinking outside the box, the resultant conclusions drawn on anything but physical conclusive evidence are questionable to say the least.

Everything detailed has been discussed extensively over the years here on CMOMM and other fora/blogs, there can be no constructive conclusion built on links to unsubstantiated information which is the case I see presented before me.

Again I say, we all see and interpret things differently confirmed by the thousands of comments about the case over the years.

The one and only thing known for sure, Madeleine McCann disappeared whilst holidaying with her family at Praia da Luz between 28th April 2007 and 3rd May 2007..... that is a fact.

If only the public had access to the investigation in it's entirety.

never knew it had a name, my white boards are always full with them. others always used the pedigree style, what works more lineair too.

still the problems that are there in all starting points for zero hour is , there is just too much missing to truly being able to call it absent or indeed has taken place. a lot hangs also on having no idea if there is information known to the pj. or not. 

also because of more recent work done with dogs, i can no longer agree on the old theory it all must be a earlier death than we always thought, or that a body had indeed needed a certain amount of being there. 
it did made me stand even more firm to the work of the dogs. they are still not something to exclude at all. the newer studies made it actually even stronger for me. i cannot see their work as leading to a minimum time of being in situ.

and my experience is, that as soon as you choose a zero hour, that alone will give meaning to things, that as stand alone it not need to have. it only becomes importance because of the chosen zero hour itself. 

and a large part of it is also because , you can not know how much rest simply on back tracking and back filling, because most there is, is only there from the spoken words. 

i know my bias, because i do like simple stories, what is the result is of experiences in the field, with hindsight you always expect to much of criminals, and they always disappoint. 

but i do see a lot that i would call promising stuff in all possible zero hour  write-ups, but all still need still to much speculation to bring then together. and the earlier the zero hour is placed, the more speculation have to taken in it. and the problem with that speculation will be there always are other reasons that will be as valid for it. the same for assistance to the mccanns, in my experience that often was not grounded in the do well to that family area, but more in keep our own doormat clean first and for all. 

so yeah, i usually would like to see more that is so unique , that it can only have meaning in the follow up of this specific case. none of the possible zero hour stories have had that enough. and none of these other zero hour possible stories can exclude others enough. and even 100 if it is part of this case, does not mean they, or even some are. 

and none is been strong enough to be tested in a court. 

take the creche sheets, they are a mess, that is easy to state as a fact, because they are. the defense will take that down to first time and even first week for the nanny. no products of all the projects. that is still a question mark, we have no idea if they did give the works of art with the children daily, or let that a decision to the parents, or had the policy that they would be kept that week in the creche room, and the choice to take them home would be made on that friday afternoon, when all children would show of their dances to all parents. 

there never got a story out how that worked with other children who took part, so no control to what was the habit with it. 

and there can be even a very simple reason why there is nothing in the files about it, what could be that a police officer had taken a look at that creche room and could see with its own eyes, all still have been there. what would mean they are no longer something to look into, it was explained fully.

we do not know it. 

there is simply not one possible meaning to give for both. you cannot use the best fitting and call it a fact. and that is not said because i am against the possible meaning at all, there is a lot of these possible points around that could be fishy or even are just that, or just to be nasty. but you know very well , you have to play your own devil's advocate in all you think can be of meaning. or others will do it for you. 

for me it means there stil is no definitive answer to the mystery of madeleine mccann, it still is a puzzle.

If we look at what is in the PJ files, apart from some genuine witnesses we have:

The McCanns statements
The Tapas 9 statements
The McCanns private investigators statements
Statements from other dodgy witnesses involved in this coverup.

How can anyone know what is true and what is not?

As Gerry says, "no stone unturned" and for us that means going back to basics and looking at all the evidence, discarding what is irrelevant or proven unreliable and working with what is left. Isn't that what we have been doing?

A while back, MMRG wrote to the Portuguese AG with their research and it was accepted and passed onto the relevant authorities.

Do we accept the McCanns claim that Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd? Or do we keep an open mind and look deeper into this?

There is a lot of evidence on the forum pointing to an earlier death. If anyone is interested in reading about this please PM me

I don't believe we can accept much of what the McCann's say, or of what their spokesman Clarence Mitchell  said on their behalf.

^^41- yes, if  only the public did have this access. Better still, if they looked a bit deeper into what they have been told.

In reply to Sharon [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]^^
Sorry I've only just seen this.

What evidence pointing to her death on Thursday are you referring to?




There is evidence Madeleine was seen at high tea on Thursday 3rd may.
G Amaral has never doubted there was a high tea and that Madeleine was there and he would have 100% have checked.
On 3rd May, there were only 4 children in the afternoon creche, 2 boy's and 2 girls, Madeleine and Ella OBrien.
Ella was picked up at 4-30 by Russell O'Brien and talen to the Paraiso restaurant.
So only 3 children left in creche, Madeleine, William Totman and Alexander Mann.
So I believe Madeleine was in creche on Thursday, in my opinion.
Can someone explain why this opinion is wrong.

i am never been easy to only spoke words. and trust always must be earned and the same with respect. the mccanns never even started out to gain one of both, and telling obvious lies in thew first statements to the people who are do all to look for your own child would have a large problem to ever get me that willing to listen. and because there never have been excuses to anyone they lied to, and lying to the police is lying to the complete society, because that is what the police is standing for. 

but spoken words can mean anything, or even nothing. so you always have a need to check what they bring to the table. and that is very hard in this case. most of the other witnesses have also their own lives and things they not want to made known to all and certainly not the police. 

and the only reason to accept even that a child called madeleine disappeared is still, that based on paperwork and other things like pictures, there is indeed a child known by that name. it took a while but there is even proof of existence by a traceable bloodcard with dna, that was connected to the name and with dna that it is a child of both named parents.

but the first hard fact in this case, is actually the timestamped phone call to the gnr. that has no need to be the correct time, but that is easy to check to the official time, but even without that it is more a case of a few minutes out of true time. 

and yes there are some porkies told, some most likely with a sound reason for the teller of it, others just helpful people who talked themselves into it all. and with spoken witnesses it is hard enough to accept them as only be true at all. human memory has quite a lot of flaws. we back fill our minds easily with crap and misunderstandings. that is always something to bother about in all investigations. 

so even with strait out lying, you always put margins on all spoken words. in my country spoken words are not even usable as evidence officially. it is just information. there is also no democratic vote as in more witnesses tells about the same so it must be true. 

what i do not like is to single one line out and work that as the only possible one, because with what is to know there are many more possible scenario's possible. and all have still very wide holes in them. and i do not see it as a game. i still dare to think all on this forum has one goal in common, and that is seek justice for a little girl called madeleine. it is not about who brings on something, or what comes to the table. 

and yes much in this case does smell very bad, and a lot can have a meaning, but it can even be one outside, or just next to the case itself.  i mean think like 9 adults with a way beyond average education, who speak out and behave as if they are people who are send to a potato field after kindergarten to reap the spills says enough of course. worse even that they like to think all others are also of the very stupid kind. 

the difference to keep looking into different zero hours means you can look also different to all the noise there is around, noise is usually around to distract you, not to help solving a case. 

also i would like to not walk over the investigation, that was not done by stupid people. it is their work we all still use. and they have not walk away from it. i think because of that , it is only fair to keep looking in other possible zero hours too. 

so if that is still possible i will keep around.

If we restrict ourselves to the Portuguese PJ files - however much of those we actually have - we would ignore or miss the Pool Photo, which appears nowhere in them.
DCI Amaral became aware of it, but made no further investigation of it. 
I know that because I asked him and he told me.
Having been presented with my analysis he has himself moved to advert to the possibility of an earlier death.
For an SIO to do that is hard.   He has had to accept that he may have overlooked a crucial piece of evidence which was in front of him.  That requires great humility and professional detachment or disinterest, in the correct meaning of that much misused word.

And yet the McCanns RELY on that photo in their 'defence' to prove that Madeleine was Alive and Well at lunchtime on Thursday 3/5/7, as Clarence Mitchell was keen to ram down everyone's throats.  The MSM and many of the pros have accepted the photo and the statement at face value
The FACT that it proves no such thing is surely crucial to any fuller understanding of the, or their, case
It opens up the proof that they are capable telling great untruths.
And yet it is not in the PJ files. 

Also missing so far so I am aware is a full weather report from the whole week of the holiday, for comparison with what witnesses say about the weather, temperature and rainfall in their initial statements, or in their Rogatories.
It is not in the PJ files but is available to every one with access to the www, even now

Also missing is any evidence of any detectives' having pulled or pushed up the shutters, as Pat and I did. They may of course have assumed the everyone knew it was impossible and therefore did not realise the need to demonstrate it, but the point is I do not believe there is a statement to that effect in the PJ files.
We have to look wider, as we have done
We have to look further, as we have done.
We have to look longer, as we very much have done.   
The Portuguese 'shelved' the case 17 days, 2 months and one year after the first report.
We have had a further decade and a half, and a bit more to pick at things until they bled.

I am surprised to find that  there is no evidence of  the shutters having been pulled or pushed by detectives. I would have thought that the person who dusted for  fingerprints, would have moved the shutters , and dusted the entire  things?

the pj has done their own 'reenactment' with the window and shutters, to see if it was feasible to get entree and exit by that manner. also they already had found no sign of disturbance on the thin layer of lichen/algae on the windowsill on the outside. there are been pictures about that been out there, that showed them doing that. 

for fingerprinting they had to be down, and much easier to use the strap for it, they have been tried for fingerprinting on the inside too, you can se the dragonblood powder on the pictures in the files on the inside. 

it is not that usual to film all that happens, or at least it was not in that time. and it has not become a report even, because it is pretty standard, that it is told by one of the officers that has taken part in such investigation to be giving a statement in a court. 

i am not used to police work that not keeps margins on everything, all our national f.ck ups in police work are examples what happens if you choose to keep only one line open. the last communication to the world done by amaral in his latest book was not very agreeable into accepting an earlier demise was feasible. 

i never had such feelings in such a way about any case, i like the advocate of the devil walking into cases, because for me it helps to keep looking at every possible angle. there is always a risk we missed out on something, and i like it very much i found that out before i have to defend myself as an expert witness for the prosecution in the court, because i know the defense team would use any good story to paint my findings very different. 


but the picture of the pool, indeed there is much wrong with the date of it, i agree on that fully. but is it indeed used to impede on an earlier demise, or is it just used to paint that happy family on the last day together saga. 
changing a date was at that time so easy to do. i did it myself in a court in a copyright case and at that time i only had tried that because of that case for the first time in my life. so even an amateur could do that. 

and it would also fit nicely in being used in the pr to paint that little happy family, they promoted at that time. 

so again there is not just one reason to think have to be the one and only explanation for what is done or not done. 

could it be of use to paint a picture of a child still alive long after she left the world, yes, it can be used in that manner too. 

the problem is, proving wich of the two, is the true meaning in this case. even the use of that picture is not unique enough to prove one or the other.

that is the same with all stuff said in statements, it would not prove at all what they wanted to hide from the world outside, it does not put any time or meaning to what they wanted to hide. 
i think they all had behaved as parents that could be concluded as to be negligent could be enough to place guilt in these heads. feeding a reason to hide that. but it could also be a sign they had to hide much more.
people do need very little to feel a need to talk themselves out of what they think could be a problem or interference in their own lives. the same with loyalty often so strange to see how that works out, but in cases you can look with hindsight, loyalty is often coloured by covering their own personal life. loyalty is not the same as protecting others. 

and there is a part of course easily the result of having human brains, because humans are often not that good in getting things as times, order things happened, and all is also very easily to interfere by others who also have their own stuff to protect. put over that the sauce of a need to hide things, even when it are things that are not even of influence of the case, it is always the hardest stuff to work from. 

also do not forget there are normally already 9 unique timelines for each of the tapas 9 and they also together have made 2 communal ones on the sticker books, one with the help of control risk, and amaral tells of a number 4 in kate her musings, and even the book of kate has one too. 

besides that we have available statements of all people who have been around and came forward on that evening. something these amateur bunch did forget. 

and still it can not exclude or include enough in any kind of scenario. but there are also technical problems that can exclude bits from some thinking lines.
many times i find the conclusions about what are statements of truth or not, much to easy made. i can not follow through the explanation. it does not reach enough above giving it a fitting meaning. too much opinion beyond enough prove. 

there is simply no way to really know if a statement is true, partly true or just a complete fantasy. it is the most costly part of every investigation, because you will have far too much of the last two, and you have still to pay attention and check most of them. 

and i have made many possible scenario's starting from different zero hours and that with the same material is still possible. the only thing that will change is the meaning we give about things that are said and done.
all rest still far too much on opinions that colour meaning, full speculation and far too little facts. 

what is missing is the golden egg. you need one or two hard facts to break possibilities, and they are not there at the moment. some could be hidden in the informal stuff of this case. because that usually have the extra information to check details. 

this case is also a masterclass about the use of pr. how sowing confusion can work. and it was not just the mccanns who used it, many other commercial parties had their own stands to defend. 
it all together is mostly a heavy burden of noise. 

to cakelover, there is a misunderstanding in the public that forensic investigations will do complete buildings, that is never true, the crime scene is usually much smaller, and if you are looking for signs and traces  you have to make a selection, taking material is the cheaper part of it all, but working out all you send in is certainly not. so you have to learn to look for the most promising places where signs or traces could be left. 

with fingerprinting a lot depends on the type of surface too, often you can learn how to look at the material to even see already where signs of touching it are. so you only have to work on these places, the rest would just tell nothing at all. places where people live, stay longer or work all have a load of old traces, that have nothing to do with your case. so first is to find out and look out for places where disturbance could have been. the highest chance to find traces is point of entry, the travel route through a building that is most logic, or shows usage and the exit points. 

there is a long list of places people could touch, knowingly, or unknowingly. dust even from a day, lichen and algae are friends because they make all disturbance much easier to see. high gloss paint and varnish are a friend too. 
fingerprints are only one kind of traces, there could be much more fibers, hairs, skin, blood or just smudged from the use of covered fingers.  

the same misunderstanding is that you actively would look for dna and other traces of people who have a legal stay in a building. the problem with most traces is still that we can not put a date and time on when they are left. 
you will find them usually by accident enough, because it is their place to stay, and they also would be able to leave traces of that behind, but they do tell nothing in most cases. 

even if the body was found in this case, because of the age of the child, traces from the parents would prove little, or they must have been found in places even these do not belong. dna is most times only useful if it is from a stranger that has no other explainable access to the child. parents do assist young children, they handle also the clothes, and touch all and everything because of normal care to a child. 
so in cases you suspect the parents, dna and other common traces would not prove foul play easily. 

most fingerprints that you will find are often not of very good quality, that still has a large be lucky effect. 
it is different per country how many points you must identify for being equal. not reaching the limit does not make them completely useless, but it means it need other information to make us of them. 
still even smudges could be used to tell a story of entry, touching and exit. when they are not there at all is telling too.

it is all in the meaning together that will be the explanation of the case as it must have happened, and together it must only fit one possible story. and for me none of the possible scenario's has reached that.