Gerry McCann Liar

Posted by Himself on the McCann Gallery: http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/2010/01/gerry-mccann-liar.html

Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.

Gerry: So, I actually came in and Madeleine was just at the top of the bed here, where I'd left her lying and the covers were folded down and she had her cuddle cat and blanket, were just by her head It’s terrible because, I , erm, had one of those really proud father moments, where I just thought, you know....(I will spare you the rest)

PJ report on Gerry McCann's statement: 3.20pm, 10 May 2007

Also relevant to the bed where his daughter slept is how it was found on the night of the disappearance. States that his daughter slept without the covers, as was normal, due to the heat, with the bed sheets folded towards the foot of the bed.

You might agree with me that I could end the article here and now without the need for another word to be writ, 'twixt photo and statements it's all there, the lies, the deceit and the whodunit, Mummy and Daddy.

But I shall.


Must have been the abductor then, that made the bed I mean, he is some geezer I do have to say. Let us take a look at what he managed to achieve in the ten minutes between McCann leaving the apartment at 9:05 and Tanner's sighting at 9:15.

He has entered the apartment via the only route available, the chimney, because he didn't come through the locked front door and he didn't come through the patio door because McCann and Wilson were conspiring, sorry talking, immediately outside, and he wasn't already in the apartment as Goncalo Amaral has proved in his documentary.

Single handedly, and we must presume in the dark, he has sedated all three children, what other explanation could there possibly be for Madeleine not to cry and the twins to remain comatose for hours on end, and despite all the uproar that was gong on around them at the time?

So once having removed Madeleine from her bed our thoughtful abductor, in the dark, sets to and makes the bed, and a pretty damn good job he made of it if you ask me. I mean with that kind of natural domesticity he wouldn't have a problem getting a position anywhere as a maid or a cleaner.

Having made the bed our geezer has noiselessly opened the shutters, don't forget in the still of the night our good doctor was talking with Jez Wilson, program maker and good mucker of Donal MacIntyre, not but a few meters away, what they were discussing I know not, perhaps our good doctor was relaying his recent proud father moments, or perhaps his recent conversion to Islam as only a little later that evening he would demonstrate.

So having noiselessly raised said shutters, our abductor geezer negotiates, in the darkened room the various obstacles, whilst carrying a silent Madeleine, and then proceeds to climb out of a small window, the ledge of which being some three feet of the ground.

He achievement in all this is quite remarkable, if not surely unique, for our abductor has completed all this without leaving at the crime scene, not one skin cell, not one fibre, not one fingerprint, not one shoe-print, not one scuff mark, nothing, nothing at all, zilch, zero, it's just as though he was never there at all.


~ ~ ~


This is a re-up, I thought it got a little lost previously, amongst my digressions that is, and that would be a bit of a shame.

ETA: This isn't a response to the fairy story in the world's greatest newspaper, the Daily Express, I wrote this prior to them printing their drivel.

It's almost as if their article was in response to mine, if they had perhaps printed the story next week instead of this I might have even believed it.

So who his HImself......step forward Stevo.

rockyrobin wrote:So who his HImself......step forward Stevo.

I don't believe Himself is Stevo.

Have you not seen the McCann Gallery before?

Yes, and it is the same as his other blogs he used, before he went and set up dedicated websites. I guess the McCanns lawyers forgot about this blog.

rockyrobin wrote:Yes, and it is the same as his other blogs he used, before he went and set up dedicated websites. I guess the McCanns lawyers forgot about this blog.

Stevo is in the US isn't he? Himself isn't in the US.

And if Himself wasn't himself he would have set up on online shop by now.

Himself isn't Stevo.

But I can see how forum myths start. Far better to try to discredit someone than discuss their post, eh?

Much prefer the green to the washed out lilac

Whoever the author is it still doesn't IMO sway me from the fact that Madeleine McCann got up that evening and simply wandered off to find her parents.

IMO timelines of checks that evening were altered drastically, I am a parent, my child is missing I want to distance myself completely from it being my fault, I need to cover up the fact my children were left without supervision what do I do ? I panic.

This led to a series of mismatched statements that in the light of day didn't add up.

Am I a Mcann believer no I don't think I am, the only thing that leaves me hanging on a thread is not the timelines (see above) it is not the fact that they seemed IMO to not actively search for her in the preceeding days, it is the fact that Mrs.McCann washed her child's toy!
Why would she do this ? was it simply that she wanted it fresh and clean for when her Daughter came back ,was it her normal reaction to wash the childrens toys, or was it because she couldn't bare the fact whoever took her Daughter had touched it,or was it because she was concealing something ?

I like everyone here does not know the answers I will admit.

This piece really does outline how farsical their stranger abductor theory is. We mustn't forget that Donal's view was that there were TWO abductors grappling to take Madeleine out of the apartment in that tiny time frame. Jane Tanner said she saw one; where was the other?

I'd like to know if the cuddle cat was reeking so badly of cadaver, and the dog alerted to it, then WHY OH WHY did the Portuguese not take it for evidence?

Raffle wrote:I'd like to know if the cuddle cat was reeking so badly of cadaver, and the dog alerted to it, then WHY OH WHY did the Portuguese not take it for evidence?

Why would they want it as evidence, when you know that cadaver scent alone cannot be used as evidence in court. They have videos of the dogs alerting to cuddlecat, so why keep it. Now if it had been stated that cuddlecat was gone along with Madeleine, and it was found, then that would be evidence, or if there were bloodstains on it.

candyfloss wrote:

Raffle wrote:I'd like to know if the cuddle cat was reeking so badly of cadaver, and the dog alerted to it, then WHY OH WHY did the Portuguese not take it for evidence?

Why would they want it as evidence, when you know that cadaver scent alone cannot be used as evidence in court. They have videos of the dogs alerting to cuddlecat, so why keep it. Now if it had been stated that cuddlecat was gone along with Madeleine, and it was found, then that would be evidence, or if there were bloodstains on it.

You've just made my point for me, cadaver scent can't be used as evidence in court, something PHYSICAL has to be presented.

But this toy animal, supposedly reeking of cadaver scent, was given back to the parents as if the dogs had never even looked at it.

Bit like the car the McCanns were allowed to keep when the dog had barked at it.

The Prosecutors were right when they said it wasn't a crime novel, Sherlock Holmes would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't a work of fiction, at some of the stunts the police have pulled.

Raffle wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Raffle wrote:I'd like to know if the cuddle cat was reeking so badly of cadaver, and the dog alerted to it, then WHY OH WHY did the Portuguese not take it for evidence?

Why would they want it as evidence, when you know that cadaver scent alone cannot be used as evidence in court. They have videos of the dogs alerting to cuddlecat, so why keep it. Now if it had been stated that cuddlecat was gone along with Madeleine, and it was found, then that would be evidence, or if there were bloodstains on it.

You've just made my point for me, cadaver scent can't be used as evidence in court, something PHYSICAL has to be presented.

But this toy animal, supposedly reeking of cadaver scent, was given back to the parents as if the dogs had never even looked at it.

Bit like the car the McCanns were allowed to keep when the dog had barked at it.

The Prosecutors were right when they said it wasn't a crime novel, Sherlock Holmes would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't a work of fiction, at some of the stunts the police have pulled.

No, you've made my point for me. No point in keeping a smell is there. How do you keep a smell? There is video evidence of the dogs alerting to the car et., and if anymore evidence turns up, this will go alongside the videos, and then will be made into a case.

candyfloss wrote:

Raffle wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Raffle wrote:I'd like to know if the cuddle cat was reeking so badly of cadaver, and the dog alerted to it, then WHY OH WHY did the Portuguese not take it for evidence?

Why would they want it as evidence, when you know that cadaver scent alone cannot be used as evidence in court. They have videos of the dogs alerting to cuddlecat, so why keep it. Now if it had been stated that cuddlecat was gone along with Madeleine, and it was found, then that would be evidence, or if there were bloodstains on it.

You've just made my point for me, cadaver scent can't be used as evidence in court, something PHYSICAL has to be presented.

But this toy animal, supposedly reeking of cadaver scent, was given back to the parents as if the dogs had never even looked at it.

Bit like the car the McCanns were allowed to keep when the dog had barked at it.

The Prosecutors were right when they said it wasn't a crime novel, Sherlock Holmes would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't a work of fiction, at some of the stunts the police have pulled.

No, you've made my point for me. No point in keeping a smell is there. How do you keep a smell? There is video evidence of the dogs alerting to the car et., and if anymore evidence turns up, this will go alongside the videos, and then will be made into a case.

No point in keeping a smell? Honestly? Are the resources so bad in Portugal that they couldn't have bagged the cuddle cat up in an evidence bag? After all, if the dog is supposedly alerting to it, then it has got evidence ON IT hasn't it?

You have missed the point entirely. Candyfloss is an apt username ...

Chinagirl wrote:You have missed the point entirely. Candyfloss is an apt username ...

Well, I don't think there was any need for that was there. Shame you have to resort to namecalling.

Stephanie wrote:
Am I a Mcann believer no I don't think I am, the only thing that leaves me hanging on a thread is not the timelines (see above) it is not the fact that they seemed IMO to not actively search for her in the preceeding days, it is the fact that Mrs.McCann washed her child's toy!
Why would she do this ? was it simply that she wanted it fresh and clean for when her Daughter came back ,was it her normal reaction to wash the childrens toys, or was it because she couldn't bare the fact whoever took her Daughter had touched it,or was it because she was concealing something ?

I like everyone here does not know the answers I will admit.

She Washed It After Two Months.

aliberte2 wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
Am I a Mcann believer no I don't think I am, the only thing that leaves me hanging on a thread is not the timelines (see above) it is not the fact that they seemed IMO to not actively search for her in the preceeding days, it is the fact that Mrs.McCann washed her child's toy!
Why would she do this ? was it simply that she wanted it fresh and clean for when her Daughter came back ,was it her normal reaction to wash the childrens toys, or was it because she couldn't bare the fact whoever took her Daughter had touched it,or was it because she was concealing something ?

I like everyone here does not know the answers I will admit.

She Washed It After Two Months.

What loving mother would do that?

in fairness, it was probably covered in suntan lotion, grime, sweat and nothing of Madeleine at all.

marigold wrote:

aliberte2 wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
Am I a Mcann believer no I don't think I am, the only thing that leaves me hanging on a thread is not the timelines (see above) it is not the fact that they seemed IMO to not actively search for her in the preceeding days, it is the fact that Mrs.McCann washed her child's toy!
Why would she do this ? was it simply that she wanted it fresh and clean for when her Daughter came back ,was it her normal reaction to wash the childrens toys, or was it because she couldn't bare the fact whoever took her Daughter had touched it,or was it because she was concealing something ?

I like everyone here does not know the answers I will admit.

She Washed It After Two Months.

What loving mother would do that?

Who Cares? It Isn't Evidence and It has Nothing to Do with the Facts. The Facts are that She Washed it After Two Months. Your Little Obsession With Kate McCann Has Done Nothing But Obscure and Possibly Prevent Permanently Her Prosecution.