A TENSE SITUATION by Dr Martin Roberts

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
20 January 2012


A TENSE SITUATION


Time is of the essence. It is so important to each of us in our daily lives that, in the course of mankind's cultural history, every effort has been made to quantify it - pictorially, mechanically, electronically; even relatively.

What did the McCanns do with their precious time in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, first announced on Thursday night, 3 May 2007? Kate McCann has told us (parentheses mine).

Friday 4: Virtually the entire day was spent at PJ headquarters in Portimao. They travelled there with police at 10.00 a.m. (p.88) returning to Praia da Luz 'some time after 8.30 p.m.' (p.92).

Saturday 5: 'Alan Pike (trauma psychologist)... was at the door of our apartment by 6.00 a.m... we talked... for several hours... it turned out to be a bewilderingly busy day for Gerry and me...' (p.99-101). 'Three family liaison officers (FLOs) from Leicestershire force... came to introduce themselves.' (p.102). 'We had so many meetings that day...' (p.103). 'Neither Gerry nor I was functioning remotely properly... At lunchtime, over by the Tapas area, Gerry saw a crowd of departing guests... With a new batch of incoming holidaymakers, more of our relatives appeared.' (p.104) 'I remember slumping on one of the dining chairs in the apartment (4G)... I also felt a compulsion to run up to the top of the Rocha Negra... the sun set on another day and there was still no news.' (p.105).

Sunday 6: '...despite my fragility I was determined to go to Mass... We all, family and friends, went to mass at the local church.' (p.106). That first Sunday saw two further arrivals in Luz: my childhood friends Michelle and Nicky. Both wanted to be with me... Alan (Pike) planted in our minds the idea of reducing the size of our support group... Listening to Alan it all seemed so obvious... after giving the matter some thought' (p.109)... 'we ended up getting down to the nitty-gritty... that Sunday evening.' (p.110).

Monday 7: British expatriates living permanently in Praia da Luz organized a search of the area. The volunteers were joined by most of our family and friends... while Gerry and I were tied up with Andy Bowes and Alex Woolfall... When lunchtime came, Gerry and I were in the middle of another meeting... we had to go to the Toddler Club ourselves... Once we were left with our leaner support group, we allocated general roles... It had been suggested that I should record a televised appeal aimed at Madeleine's abductor, and this is what we had been discussing that morning with Andy and Alex... (p.111) Andy Bowes had proposed delivering part of my appeal in Portuguese, which I did. Gerry sat beside me...' (p.112). 'I was hugely relieved when it was over... Around teatime, Father Ze turned up...' (p.113). 'We were seeing the Leicestershire FLOs every day. That Monday evening... we lost it with the liaison officers.' (p.113-4).

Tuesday 8: '...we said an emotional goodbye to the family and friends who were leaving us... Later I went down to sit on the beach for a while with Fiona... We talked and cried and held on to each other... As we were walking up from the beach at about 5pm, I had a call from Cherie Blair...'

Well that about takes care of the McCann itinerary during the first five days immediately following Madeleine's reported disappearance.

I should apologize at this point for what next may seem to some like an overly complex version of an old trick, where, after being invited to count the passengers boarding and leaving a bus en route, the unsuspecting listener is suddenly invited to answer the question: 'How many bus-stops were there?' Because now I should like to ask when, in the course of all the activity Kate McCann has dutifully outlined for us, did she personally find the time for sight-seeing; in particular her visit to Lagos Marina, which she has previously described to D.C. 975 Markley of Leicestershire Constabulary? It was he who wrote, on a spare sheet of LC paper headed 'LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY Continuation WITNESS STATEMENT,' the following:
INFORMATION FROM THE FAMILY


I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07. She told me that a friend of her Aunt & Uncle from Leicester had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Lagos.

This person arrived in Portugal and has spoke to Kate. They have visited the Marina and identified the boat as "SHEARWATER". They saw a man on the boat but this was not the same man that she had in her vision.

This is very important to Kate. I spoke to Glen Pounder if he could make some enqs with regards to the boat.

He has done this and the boat is registered to a Canadian National called Bruce Cook. Glen has told me that George Reyes at the police stn is now dealing with the matter with regards to doing PNC checks etc.

I spoke with Kate today and she has given me photographs of the boat. She has also given me a photograph of a man who had been on the boat. This is not the man that the woman had in her vision.

This matter is very important to her and she is very pleased that we are making enqs into the matter.

Once the enqs have been completed can we please let her know the result.

Thanks
This correspondence, concerning information provided by Kate McCann don't forget, has to be read very carefully. Although the page is undated, 'I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07' is clearly a reference to a past action. Furthermore, the conversation to which it refers describes past activity itself, placing the vision, certainly, at a time prior to Tuesday 8 May (some time between May 4th and May 8th, no doubt). But what about that person's arrival in Portugal and their visit to the Marina?

DC Markley, writing whenever, does not say 'This person has since arrived in Portugal and spoken to Kate,' i.e. placing these actions at a time after his and Kate's 8 May conversation, although they may be misconstrued as having occurred later. Rather, these activities are referred to much as might be the subject matter in continuation of that very first conversation. DC Markley goes on to explain that he has 'spoke with Kate today' (i.e. the day of the memo) and that his colleague, Glen Pounder, had by that time already completed certain enquiries regarding a particular yacht. Completion (not commencement) at the time of writing necessarily implies that these enquiries must have been stimulated by an earlier Markley/McCann conversation.

Hence, by Tuesday 8 May, Kate McCann is in a position to inform DC Markley of a specific vessel moored at Lagos Marina. The visit which identified it must already have taken place, as DC Markley makes no reference whatsoever to any exchange of information in the interim, i.e. in-between the 'conversation' that occurred on Tuesday 8 May and the tete-a-tete meeting on the day he wrote his memo, when Kate 'gave him photographs of the boat.'

Ah yes, but it was Kate's anonymous informant who visited the Marina alone, took the photographs and passed them onto Kate ('This person arrived in Portugal and has spoke to Kate. They have visited the Marina'), 'They' in this instance being an impersonal reference to the individual in question.

Oh no it is not.

The subsequent sentence reads: 'They saw a man on the boat but this was not the same man that she had in her vision.'

The change of pronoun clearly distinguishes between the visionary (she) and her companion(s), 'They' being the third person plural.

Thus Kate McCann took advantage of a gap in her busy schedule to visit Lagos Marina, some time between 4 and 8 May; an event directly associated with a matter of considerable importance to her (DC Markley points this out twice); so important in fact that she fails to describe it in her book at all, whilst what she does mention specifically precludes its having happened, in that period of time at any rate. The nearest she comes to the subject is this: "There were a couple of 'visionary' experiences in particular I took very seriously. One of them had come through prayer which, at the time, gave it even greater credibility in my eyes. I begged the police to look into these." She does not elaborate further.

Kate McCann of course knows 'what happened.' She was there. Her book, 'Madeleine' is an account of the truth. How ironic then that the Leveson enquiry should vilify representatives of the UK press for implicitly trusting the presumed source of much of their information, in the form of the Portuguese police, when a serving UK Detective Constable has apparently made the very same mistake in trusting information provided to him by the missing child's own parent. If what Kate tells us in her book is true, then what she told DC Markley on 8 May, 2007, whether by telephone, e-mail or carrier pigeon, cannot be.

But we're not done yet.

On an indeterminate date, Kate McCann personally handed DC Markley a set of photographs taken during a visit to Lagos Marina; a visit that took place before 8 May. Kate's 'friend' may have had the vision, but did she take the photographs? In light of Kate McCann's self-confessed photophobia, she could well have done.

During an interview published on 27 May, 2007, Kate told Olga Craig (Sunday Telegraph): "I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her." ('her' being Madeleine). James Murray (Sunday Express, 9.8.09) interprets the situation a little differently however: "Kate went to Lagos Marina, a few miles along the coast from Praia da Luz where her daughter vanished on May 3, 2007, and photographed the boat and the man on board."

It's anybody's guess perhaps, but if Kate McCann is herself a reliable source of information, then identification of this photographer, an anonymous friend of an anonymous friend, is long overdue. Someone who has a 'vision' over the weekend (she couldn't have had a premonition before Madeleine was taken, surely?) flies out to Portugal immediately, then makes straight for Lagos Marina to photograph the vessels moored there, must have had an extraordinarily strong sense of purpose. Otherwise we are left with evidentially valid (if not exactly solid) statements by Kate McCann, which appear to suggest that this maritime photography was accomplished during her own free time, before 4 May even. Make no mistake, when it comes to anticipation Kate McCann has already demonstrated some 'previous form' in that regard:
"From the moment Madeleine had gone, I'd turned instinctively to God and to Mary, feeling a deep need to pray, and to get as many other people as possible to pray, too. I believed it would make a difference. Although in the early days I struggled to comprehend what had happened to Madeleine, and to us, I've never believed it was God's fault, or that He 'allowed' it to happen. I was just confused that He had apparently not heeded the prayer I'd offered every night for my family: 'Thank you God for bringing Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie into my life. Please keep them all safe, healthy and happy. Amen.' Please keep them all safe. It must be said that when I'd prayed for their safety I'd been thinking: please don't let them fall off something and bang their heads, or please don't let them be involved in a car accident. I'd never considered anything as horrific as my child being stolen. But I had kind of assumed my prayer would cover every eventuality." (p.106).
As an adjunct to the present discussion, it is interesting, albeit for unwelcome reasons, that Kate McCann should consider a child's being involved in a car accident and suffering trauma at least, serious, possibly fatal injury at worst, nothing like as horrific as she herself suffering the consequences of theft.

But back to the matter in hand - Kate's sense of timing.

The entire ritual quoted above is prefaced by the phrase, 'From the moment Madeleine had gone,' giving the impression that the tendency to enhanced spirituality, and the prayers that went with it, was consequent upon the events of 3 May, i.e. the 'abduction.' But Kate had clearly been genuflecting nightly long before. As she says, 'I was just confused that He had apparently not heeded the prayer I'd offered every night for my family.' (God had not been listening even before 3 May, never mind afterwards). Included in Kate's prayer was the exhortation to 'keep them all safe' which, as Kate goes on to explain, embraced various categories of danger, as she'd actually been thinking: 'please don't let them fall off something and bang their heads, or please don't let them be involved in a car accident,' although she'd never considered anything as horrific as her child being stolen.

God stands exonerated therefore. Since 'abduction' per se was not itemised among the supplications, He cannot be blamed for overlooking it. The omission was Kate's entirely. So if God did not heed her prayer it must have been another detail of Kate's appeal he ignored. And these were? Well nothing like as generally relevant to well protected pre-school infants as 'keep them from head-lice, chicken-pox, cuts, bruises, respiratory problems etc.' or, with their developing independence, the myriad other misfortunes that might attend them. No, none of that. Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie were religiously insured against car accidents and falling off things. Madeleine was not driving when she was taken. So what risk, exactly, did God's agency not cover?

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Ah...the beauty of Linguistic Forensics. Marvellous.
Isn't it great how quickly techniques evolve?
A new tool in the box. It could come in very handy.
Dr.Roberts isn't short of quotes. The mad medics have given him LOTS of ammo.

I make no apology for bumping this up - I'm determined to print out all Dr. Roberts' articles and donate a suitable sum to McCannfiles.com in compensation.

Bound in a folder, it will be a joy to read in winter evenings to come.

Oh my goodness!  What a perceptive writer!  I'm hooked and can't wait for more, but I can see that I'm going to need to carve out some time to thoroughly digest and mull over every one of Dr Roberts' engrossing articles. 

Many thanks for reviving this thread, tigger.

Does anyone know who this Dr Martin Roberts is?  Is this the guy:

http://www.newschool.edu/lang/faculty.aspx?id=1738

Varriott wrote:Does anyone know who this Dr Martin Roberts is?  Is this the guy:

http://www.newschool.edu/lang/faculty.aspx?id=1738

You can read Dr. Martin Roberts here:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id479.html

I've wondered why he hasn't written on McCannfiles since February.  Has Dr. Roberts been silenced?

Interesting that one of the 2 things KMcC did apparently pray for nightly for was protection for her family against one of them falling and banging their head.

Monty Heck wrote:Interesting that one of the 2 things KMcC did apparently pray for nightly for was protection for her family against one of them falling and banging their head.

The nightly prayer: maybe the prayer was offered up before they set out for the night, leaving the kids behind.

Incidentally, she sounds like a rather odd sort of doctor offering up such a prayer. She must have been confronted on almost a daily basis by the sight of people who offer up such prayers to no avail.

Ladyinred wrote:

Varriott wrote:Does anyone know who this Dr Martin Roberts is?  Is this the guy:

http://www.newschool.edu/lang/faculty.aspx?id=1738

You can read Dr. Martin Roberts here:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id479.html

I've wondered why he hasn't written on McCannfiles since February.  Has Dr. Roberts been silenced?

***
Has Dr. Roberts nothing new to offer at the moment?

Monty Heck wrote:Interesting that one of the 2 things KMcC did apparently pray for nightly for was protection for her family against one of them falling and banging their head.

Thank you!
- and doesn't this just demonstrate the great value of a forum, of re-reading old material, the many different points of view. Even Russiandoll who keeps an eye out for any mention of 'falling' May have missed this.

Didn't Rachel M also mention a bump on the head? In passing as it were?

Who?  Me, Tigger?  Surely not !   You could not possibly have been referring to my constant refrain relating to the book of truth....when Kate got angry over the lack of reaction from the plummy-voiced lady when told a child had been stolen from her bed?

 When we get a change of location, a change of subject and a change of verb in one fell swoop?

 The child becomes a thing

 The stolen [ passive] becomes FALLEN [ active]

 and the location becomes the kitchen not the bedroom 

 Mrs Fenn [ I presume the ref was to her] acted as if she had been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf.

 and Kate's prayer included that the children would not FALL OFF something and bag their heads, I see.

 only question...it could have been anything falling off a shelf. why a can of beans?

 dented after landing because of the weight? a slight leaking of red liquid maybe?

 Because I think Kate was thinking of good old British baked beans here for some reason.

 The kitchen was not the location of Maddie's fall, necessarily.

 But a fall from a height, clearly, somewhere she had climbed I would imagine.

 To see someone, as theorised by GA?

 To get something which was out of her reach?

 WAS THE REF TO CUDDLECAT BEING ON A SHELF A LIE RE THE CONTEXT, BUT THE TRUTH RE WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AT SOME STAGE?
 DID 2 CHILDREN WANT IT AT THE SAME TIME, WHERE THEY TOLD NEITHER OF YOU ARE GETTING CC BECAUSE YOU ARE FIGHTING?
 WAS IT PUT OUT OF REACH AND DID MADDIE TRY TO RETRIEVE IT AFTER PARENTS LEFT? WAS SHE PRETENDING TO BE ASLEEP ONE EVENING BEFORE SNEAKING OFF TO GET HER TOY BACK?

Great bumped up post! Yes, which of the two pleas did KM's god fail to heed? Car accident or falling off something? Hmmm. Knowing the twists of this story I'd be looking closely at BOTH :-)

Monty Heck wrote:Interesting that one of the 2 things KMcC did apparently pray for nightly for was protection for her family against one of them falling and banging their head.

As in: '"as, if she banged her head they would have known how to resuscitate her, being a group of doctors" (my words)?

As in: "as, if A CAN OF BEANS (as opposed to a child) had fallen off a shelf" (my words)?

So is KH here telling us in retrospect what really happened EVEN THOUGH she had prayed so hotly for it not to happen?

Or did she not pray for that at all -why would she, why would any parent single out that specific type of accident- but is she assuaging her feelings of guilt for what REALLY, really, happened to her little daughter?

russiandoll wrote:Who?  Me, Tigger?  Surely not !   You could not possibly have been referring to my constant refrain relating to the book of truth....when Kate got angry over the lack of reaction from the plummy-voiced lady when told a child had been stolen from her bed?

 When we get a change of location, a change of subject and a change of verb in one fell swoop?

 The child becomes a thing

 The stolen [ passive] becomes FALLEN [ active]

 and the location becomes the kitchen not the bedroom 

 Mrs Fenn [ I presume the ref was to her] acted as if she had been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf.

 and Kate's prayer included that the children would not FALL OFF something and bag their heads, I see.

 only question...it could have been anything falling off a shelf. why a can of beans?

 dented after landing because of the weight? a slight leaking of red liquid maybe?

 Because I think Kate was thinking of good old British baked beans here for some reason.

 The kitchen was not the location of Maddie's fall, necessarily.

 But a fall from a height, clearly, somewhere she had climbed I would imagine.

 To see someone, as theorised by GA?

 To get something which was out of her reach?

 WAS THE REF TO CUDDLECAT BEING ON A SHELF A LIE RE THE CONTEXT, BUT THE TRUTH RE WHERE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN AT SOME STAGE?
 DID 2 CHILDREN WANT IT AT THE SAME TIME, WHERE THEY TOLD NEITHER OF YOU ARE GETTING CC BECAUSE YOU ARE FIGHTING?
 WAS IT PUT OUT OF REACH AND DID MADDIE TRY TO RETRIEVE IT AFTER PARENTS LEFT? WAS SHE PRETENDING TO BE ASLEEP ONE EVENING BEFORE SNEAKING OFF TO GET HER TOY BACK?

Perhaps it was put on top of the curtain pellet?

curtain pellet?


 I was looking at the opening from the kitchen into the lounge.. there is a means to pass plates of food through and to chat to people in the lounge while you cook and plate up food. There is also a ledge to rest plates on, there are photos showing this ledge with items on it, iirc.

 How high is that relative to Maddie I wonder?  Accessible from a chair if a child climbed on one?

 

russiandoll wrote:curtain pellet?


 I was looking at the opening from the kitchen into the lounge.. there is a means to pass plates of food through and to chat to people in the lounge while you cook and plate up food. There is also a ledge to rest plates on, there are photos showing this ledge with items on it, iirc.

 How high is that relative to Maddie I wonder?  Accessible from a chair if a child climbed on one?

 

I think that's probably the only ledge in the entire apartment, isn't it?

I do remember Kate's early quote that Cuddlecat had been placed up high on a ledge, hence her first clue that Madeleine had been abducted... and I remember thinking, as I saw the photos of the apartment later, well, where's this ledge you were so adamant about? No ledge in the kids' bedroom... nor in the parents' bedroom... but, aha! There it is... the serving hatch.

I think you may be right, UT. Perhaps Kate did give us an early clue. Something about that ledge might very well figure into the explanation of what may have happened to Madeleine.

Regardless what ever maddie did to harm herself as in accident ,,the big question is ,why wasn't she taken to hospital ? THAT to me is the question most importantly?? joyce1938

Spot on RD but - there was no high shelf for In 5a and CC was imo brand new and meant to be a prop.
Cadaver scent  may have simply been transferred by Kate. I don't  go for the melodramatic placing of CC next to a recently dead Maddie.

But we have 'fallen' twice now and both in inappropriate places. Leaking into the narrative.

We also have a specific bump on the head - twice if I'm right about RM mentioning it - just before she mentioned resuscitation.

Re the location of the sofa -  there is no reason to suppose it was anywhere near the window, could have been moved to e.g. watch TV. In that case the location Eddie and Keela alerted to could have been a logical place to lay a body, try emergency treatment. Which may well have happened as - although  imo there was planning, it wasn't for the early demise of the starring player. All their actions during that week point to an unforeseen event imo.

Another possibility is that the fall and the bumped head are what the T 7 were told and may not be true at all.

re the ledge and the photo I posted of the lounge/kitchen area, can anyone advise on how to enlarge it? Some interesting items on it.

   agree Tigger about CC being a prop, afterwards, but it might have been the favourite toy of one of the trio.

  and that ledge is high relative to a child, am just considering a scenario at this point, it is all speculation and as joyce said, why not take a child to hospital?

 because of the blood tests imo sedation, sedation, sedation.

Portia wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:Interesting that one of the 2 things KMcC did apparently pray for nightly for was protection for her family against one of them falling and banging their head.

As in: '"as, if she banged her head they would have known how to resuscitate her, being a group of doctors" (my words)?

As in: "as, if A CAN OF BEANS (as opposed to a child) had fallen off a shelf" (my words)?

So is KH here telling us in retrospect what really happened EVEN THOUGH she had prayed so hotly for it not to happen?

Or did she not pray for that at all -why would she, why would any parent single out that specific type of accident- but is she assuaging her feelings of guilt for what REALLY, really, happened to her little daughter?

Head injury seems a very specific thing to mention, why not just "keep my family safe" or even the wider "safe from injury"?  Alongside informing that she made this specific daily request to God, KMcC also expects it to be accepted that she was somewhat easily talked into leaving her small children alone in just the sort of situation where this could easily come to pass.  She is either the type of person able to forsee the potential danger of leaving the children alone or the kind who never gives a thought to such things.  She cannot be both and yet has claimed that she can and is. 

The fact that T9 members have separately and publicly mentioned the type of accident purported by the PJ investigation indicates that there is sensitivity around this subject.  It has been abduction, abduction, abduction all the way so why take the trouble to even mention it?  One says "I thought daily about that happening and prayed to God to mitigate against it, but when it came to it I left my children exposed to that particular danger anyway" and also made the rude can of beans retort to Mrs Fenn.  A strange thing to enter the mind when a neighbour quite justifiably queried the hullaballoo below.  The other says, if a head injury occurred they would have been able to resuscitate (really, just because someone is medically qualified they can resuscitate everyone, regardless of the extent of injury?)  And SY are NOT looking at these indications and contradictions, too busy with nonsensical CW updates, obfuscatory press leaks and weekly flights to Faro.

russiandoll wrote:curtain pellet?


 I was looking at the opening from the kitchen into the lounge.. there is a means to pass plates of food through and to chat to people in the lounge while you cook and plate up food. There is also a ledge to rest plates on, there are photos showing this ledge with items on it, iirc.

 How high is that relative to Maddie I wonder?  Accessible from a chair if a child climbed on one?

Sorry, pelmet, predictive text changed it without me noticing.

Yes I realised you were meaning the kitchen area in particular and possibly CC being placed on top of the units or inside one, i could then see your theory following through. Ive done that before, removed a toy from squabbling children and placed it somewhere out of reach. But my mind flitted back to the window area and where would be of a height to put it, thought maybe on top of the pelmet and MM trying to reach up to it. just a possible theory but I struggle with the idea of a child falling from the height of a sofa and it being fatal in general but the PJ's evidence points to something happening in that area.

Clocker wrote:

russiandoll wrote:curtain pellet?


 I was looking at the opening from the kitchen into the lounge.. there is a means to pass plates of food through and to chat to people in the lounge while you cook and plate up food. There is also a ledge to rest plates on, there are photos showing this ledge with items on it, iirc.

 How high is that relative to Maddie I wonder?  Accessible from a chair if a child climbed on one?

Sorry, pelmet, predictive text changed it without me noticing.

Yes I realised you were meaning the kitchen area in particular and possibly CC being placed on top of the units or inside one, i could then see your theory following through. Ive done that before, removed a toy from squabbling children and placed it somewhere out of reach. But my mind flitted back to the window area and where would be of a height to put it, thought maybe on top of the pelmet and MM trying to reach up to it. just a possible theory but I struggle with the idea of a child falling from the height of a sofa and it being fatal in general but the PJ's evidence points to something happening in that area.

CC deliberately positioned out of reach on the pelmet at sometime in the evening for some sort of punishment.

MBM and twins given their 'routine sedation' before bedtime so parents can go out on the lash undisturbed. 

(MBM won't need CC with her under a 'heavily induced sedated deep sleep)

Sedation not strong enough for MBM - she wakes, disorientated, crying and remembers from earlier on where CC was positioned.

She's in deep distress and crying loudly for an hour or so trying her hardest to get CC from the pelmet. The same crying episode that Mrs F heard and stated.

MBM falls off the sofa which causes the fateful blow to the head. (Mrs F said the crying stopped immediately).

Mcparents come back intoxicated and go straight to bed, passing out and not checking on the kids.

The next morning (the 2nd) they wake and discover MBM behind the sofa. 

After the shock, grief, sadness, regret etc then the planning, cover up, lies, cleaning up etc starts to begin. Selected other tapas members are confided in to seek assistance.

MBM placed in holdall in Wardrobe out of sight until the final plan of disposal is executed.

Everything in place and set for the night of May the 3rd for the 'FAKE ABDUCTION'.

All imo and my own theory

I'm reminded again of the French novel "Belle Famille" by Dreyfuss. It's clearly referring to the Madeleine McCann case. In this book young Madec falls to his death, when trying to reach his favourite toy on a high kitchen cabinet ... It's marvelously written and was awarded for being best fiction in 2012. I cannot remember having seen an English translation, but will have a look around for that.

It seems the book was never translated and published in English, but I just found this dated 22.02.2014:

http://www.lemonde.fr/style/portfolio/2014/02/21/le-lyon-d-arthur-dreyfus_4370645_1575563.html

Le précédent Belle famille (également aux éditions Gallimard), inspiré de l'affaire de la disparition de Madeleine McCann, est en cours d'adaptation pour le cinéma.

The previous [book] Belle Famille [also at Editions Gallimard], inspired by the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, is presently being adapted for the cinema.

There's also a good interview with Arthur Dreyfus on Spudgun's blog.

I´m interested in linguistics and in order to learn more about how our words "leak" information I read a blog called Statement Analysis by Peter Hyatt. (I found his blog by chance one year ago  when I googled "how do you know a person is lying?" and I was not thinking about the McCanns but rather my teenage son).

Here is a link to all the posts about the McCanns. http://statement-analysis.blogspot.se/search?q=mccann

The posts are quite lengthy and very instructive to read if you are interested in how our words give us away.

In one of the interviews Kate McCann describes Madeleine as a baby in these words:
 
"We sound like the most biased parents on the planet now but she was just really compact and was just really
the really nice, round, perfect head...and...you know...and then she, she opened her mouth...the whole world knew
she was with us..." (from the "Looking for Madeleine McCann - Sunday Night with reporter Rahni Sadler, aired 24/07/2011)

The analyzer Peter Hyatt comments that Kate´s mention of the nature of the head is in the language of a doctor. I think it´s very odd by Kate McCann to bring this up in the interview, but I do remember that my husband (being a doctor) was thrilled about the shape of our children´s heads when they were born. 

However, in reference to GA´s theory of what happened to Madeleine in the apartment 5a and Kate McCann´s prayer: "please don´t let them fall off something and bang their heads", I think it´s remarkable that this is how Kate described Madeleine as a baby. I also remember that when I read the book "Madeleine" (which I did not buy but was given btw) I thought that and the "bean can reference" stood out as a very clear description of what happened to Madeleine; she fell off something and banged her head.

OT: English is not my native language.