Gerry McCanns Credit Cards

PeterMac wrote:Losing or cancelling a credit card will not wipe the computer records of the transactions.
They will be there in the mainframe back up system for at the very least seven years in case the tax authorities want them.
It is likely that the records go back far further than that, to allow for investigations into crime, money laundering and so on.
Indeed I would bet that credit card companies have all the records right back to when they were first issued.
The data requirement is tiny, a few lines and columns on a spread sheet, so vast amounts could be stored for almost no cost.

I agree PM, but I am thinking in the mindset of the MCs. If they had no means of erasing such records, then what would have been their next best option? Once the cards have been cancelled, I imagine it would have been harder for anyone to obtain relevant records.

This is the first time I have read through this particular thread about the Credit Cards. These are my summary thoughts on the matter.

Gerry and Kate McCann were the owners of at least a couple of credit cards each (Mastercard?) in their names
They may or may not have used a credit card to pay for the holiday to Portugal in April-May 2007 or it may have been paid for by somebody else (eg David Payne who organized the holiday for the Group)
Gerry and Kate McCann may have used their credit card during the actual holiday upto and including what happened on the night of Thursday 3rd May
No credit cards belonging to Gerry or Kate McCann were found by the PJ on the initial search of Apartment 5A and the possessions etc of the MCann family
Both Gerry and Kate McCann were questioned about financial transactions and holding credit cards by the PJ but the extent of those enquiries remains unclear
Gerry McCann flies to Gatwick from Faro on 19th June (we presume in possession of a wallet containing the credit cards, photo driving licence id, photos)
Gerry McCann uses a debit/cash card to make a cash withdrawal of 100 Pounds Sterling
Gerry McCann travels from Gatwick Airport to Westminster for a meeting with Government officials to discuss his Daughters disappearance
Gerry McCann return to his Faro Portugal later that evening
The wallet and the credit cards are returned to Gerry McCann (by post) on 29th June

I have several observations to make in relation to my summary:

It is highly unlikely that Gerry and Kate McCann did not have either a credit card or debit card, given their professional status and family lifestyle. They owned a house on mortgage and two motor vehicles. One or both of the motor vehicles may have been on credit. They will have a status record for checking on any finance loans.

The McCanns are staying in self-catering Apartments. Please correct me where I am wrong, but I believe that they would pay for the breakfast and the supper which they ate at the Ocean Club as well as for the tennis lessons and any other recreational activity which was not part of the package.

The McCanns and their group of friends did not apparently hire a motor car during the holiday, nor seem to have a reason to do so because they were not adventurous enough to want to stray too far from the Apartment Complex. This is not a criticism, purely an observation.

There has been talk of Gerry McCann having bought a bottle of New Zealand wine from the local (Baptista?) supermarket. If that was so, it may be important to establish where and when and how that bottle of wine was bought.

If the PJ had the McCanns under suspicion from the outset, then we must assume that they were aware of Gerry McCanns flight to Gatwick and might have tailed him until his take off and perhaps with British assistance at the other end on his arrival to Gatwick.

If Gerry McCann was meeting important Government officials about Madeline's case, we would expect, given the serious nature of the case and the 'pull' of his civil servant friend Alastair Clark, transportation from Gatwick Airport to Westminster directly would have been arranged by the Government either as a pick up or by taxi.

His need for cash on the day of 19th June would be minimal and certainly not to buy a train ticket from Gatwick to either Waterloo or Victoria and then onward to Westminster.

The theft of his wallet and credit cards at Waterloo Station could not have happened because he never went anywhere near Waterloo Station.

That can, of course, be easily contradicted by actual evidence given by the Bank of his ATM transaction (if there was one) for the cash withdrawal of 100 pounds Sterling. Was it at Gatwick, Victoria, Waterloo Station or another location not yet mentioned?

The same about the likely use of his mobile phone. Just as in the Ian Huntley case, mobile phone calls or the switching off of phones can be easily tracked. It is therefore probable that Gerry McCann made telephone contact with the person or persons he had arranged to meet (Alastair Clark?) and his movements from leaving Gatwick Airport until arrival at Westminster can be easily tracked.

Also bear in mind that Gerry McCann is not familiar with London and finding exactly where he had to go to hold the meeting (somewhere in Westminster or Whitehall but where, which building?) would suggest that he was taken there rather than this new media celebrity be allowed to wonder the streets of London in search of the place. That sounds totally ridiculous to me, given the high profile level of the case.

What comes up, must come down. He had to return the same way he came, pretty much, so the same means of transportation was taken back from the meeting to Gatwick Airport for his evening flight

At some point during the day of 19th June, it was suggested that Gerry McCanns credit cards should become lost rather than an event which actually happened (which didn't) and thereby bring further sympathy and attention to the case. It may have been Gerry McCanns own idea or it may have come from the people he met during the course of the day.

About his old address, his mail may have been on redirect for upto two years from the house move, so that presents the possibility, if the wallets and cards were indeed posted back) that the delivery routed itself automatically to the new Rothley address. Alternatively, the people now living at the old address and who were doubtless aware of the case, received the letter and handed it over either to the McCanns directly (knowing their new address) or to the Police or an intermediary.

I can make no sense of these so called friends from Amsterdam and how they might have played their part in the return of the wallet and cards. What I suspect is that Gerry McCann handed the documents over willingly and they were conveniently handed back to him ten days later, by which time, the old cards had of course been cancelled and new ones issued.

We must assume that Gerry McCann had to explain to the Bank his change of address and have someone deliver the new credit cards to him in Portugal. Or did he stay longer in the Uk until the 29th June, sorting out stuff at Rothley? Sorry, I am unclear on that side of things without further reading.

I suspect that the man suffering an illness or condition on the plane on 19th June might have been genuine and the person may be too embarrassed to come forward. Another way to look at it is that it was a fabricated story to bring indirect attention to Gerry McCanns flight that morning from Faro to Gatwick, part of the 'spin', so to speak.

The Forces that be, whether in Portugal or UK, i believe have the means at their disposal to delve into these sources of evidence to establish the facts on this area of evidence which appears to have significance to the disappearance of Madeline McCann. Financial transactions and Phone call records will surely prove critical in solving this case or at the very least proving that certain persons could not have possibly been involved in what so many of us are speculating with open theories.

I suspect that the man suffering an illness or condition on the plane on
19th June might have been genuine and the person may be too embarrassed
to come forward. Another way to look at it is that it was a fabricated
story to bring indirect attention to Gerry McCanns flight that morning
from Faro to Gatwick, part of the 'spin', so to speak.

I am sure that if he existed the Press would have lost no time in tracing him. Recall the little girl in Morocco who was supposedly Madeleine. The press were out there and found out her identity within a couple of days.

"I inform you that, upon going to the Zavial Beach concession of Ernesto Joaquim Muchacho , telephone contact numbers, ******** and ******; the same stated that he recognised the parents of Madeleine McCann as clients of his restaurant and that he remembers seeing them for the last time in his establishment in the month of April (Easter holidays), accompanied by their three children. Since this date, as he exercises his function in the kitchen, he does not remember having seen them on that beach or in his restaurant."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Easter in 2007 was April 8th 2007. Maybe this transaction on the credit card is what gerry mccann needed to hide by cancelling them. Maybe Donegal was invented as a smokescreen to deflect away from this trip to Portugual

jd wrote:"I inform you that, upon going to the Zavial Beach concession of Ernesto Joaquim Muchacho , telephone contact numbers, ******** and ******; the same stated that he recognised the parents of Madeleine McCann as clients of his restaurant and that he remembers seeing them for the last time in his establishment in the month of April (Easter holidays), accompanied by their three children. Since this date, as he exercises his function in the kitchen, he does not remember having seen them on that beach or in his restaurant."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Easter in 2007 was April 8th 2007. Maybe this transaction on the credit card is what gerry mccann needed to hide by cancelling them. Maybe Donegal was invented as a smokescreen to deflect away from this trip to Portugual

Now that would make a lot of sense, it might also explain the photographs possibly taken on the balcony of that apartment in Burgau. The famous blue eyeshadow and the icecream one. That is, if they were taken there.

What's more, the Home Office refused the last six months records of the credit cards on the grounds it would be too intrusive. They told the PJ to come back with a shorter period of time. Somehow a four week period is what I remember reading was suggested. Can't back it up. But four weeks could just leave out Zaival Beach.

tigger wrote:

jd wrote:"I inform you that, upon going to the Zavial Beach concession of Ernesto Joaquim Muchacho , telephone contact numbers, ******** and ******; the same stated that he recognised the parents of Madeleine McCann as clients of his restaurant and that he remembers seeing them for the last time in his establishment in the month of April (Easter holidays), accompanied by their three children. Since this date, as he exercises his function in the kitchen, he does not remember having seen them on that beach or in his restaurant."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Easter in 2007 was April 8th 2007. Maybe this transaction on the credit card is what gerry mccann needed to hide by cancelling them. Maybe Donegal was invented as a smokescreen to deflect away from this trip to Portugual

Now that would make a lot of sense, it might also explain the photographs possibly taken on the balcony of that apartment in Burgau. The famous blue eyeshadow and the icecream one. That is, if they were taken there.

I am convinced the blue eyeshadow one is.

A request sent by PJ to British authorities, asking for details about Gerry McCann credit cards transactions for a period of six months, starting on April 1, six weeks before Madeleine's disappearance, was considered disproportionate by Frances Kennah, the Head of UK Central Authority, a Home Office department.
Unquote (from page 2 here)

So from the 1st of April back. It's really a strange request, nothing after 1/4/07. So did Amaral already know something else? After all, they did search the Burgau apartment I believe, there was a Peugeot connected with Murat and the mtDNA of Murat and JT's maternal lines. There's a lot more going on under the surface. Certainly the trip for Easter to Portugal would have shown up.

I'm sure it means Donegal is off the agenda. I've always thought it highly suspicious that those photographs were a) ready on the 8th of May for the Belfast Telegraph (so they had them the 7th or 8th) and that the face is Maddie but not the body. Plus the jolly reunion story which is highly unlikely. The Donegal story was very much a trick of misdirection.

The PJ wanted transactions from April 1st so a week before Easter. Its highly likely the mccanns travelled sometime between the 1st and 8th of April. No wonder the Home Office refused to provide the information

The Donegal pictures of Maddie are very strange with Maddies high neck, totally photoshopped. Its very strange also that there were 27 or 46 people (depending on who is telling their story) meeting up and there are only a few pictures of the kids and Maddie eating an ice-cream and in the same location outside the shop. Plus one more on the rocks. Are these the only photos from between 27 and 46 people all meeting up for the first time in years. Are there none of anybody else there with Maddie? Maybe a single one perhaps! As you say Tigger, the ones that were released were ready on the 8th of May for the Belfast Telegraph

tigger wrote:A request sent by PJ to British authorities, asking for details about Gerry McCann credit cards transactions for a period of six months, starting on April 1, six weeks before Madeleine's disappearance, was considered disproportionate by Frances Kennah, the Head of UK Central Authority, a Home Office department.
Unquote (from page 2 here)

So from the 1st of April back. It's really a strange request, nothing after 1/4/07. So did Amaral already know something else? After all, they did search the Burgau apartment I believe, there was a Peugeot connected with Murat and the mtDNA of Murat and JT's maternal lines. There's a lot more going on under the surface. Certainly the trip for Easter to Portugal would have shown up.

I'm sure it means Donegal is off the agenda. I've always thought it highly suspicious that those photographs were a) ready on the 8th of May for the Belfast Telegraph (so they had them the 7th or 8th) and that the face is Maddie but not the body. Plus the jolly reunion story which is highly unlikely. The Donegal story was very much a trick of misdirection.

Begging the question who did the pre-planning.

Portia wrote:[...]

Begging the question who did the pre-planning.

***
If any, WHY?

I haven't followed this case with the same degree of forensic attention as many here have, so may I please ask a question?

Do we have any definitive, fully corroborated and unequivocal evidence that Madeleine flew to the Algarve with her parents in late April? There has been plenty of evidence to suggest this was the case, airport bus footage for example, but the stated date and place of that could be fake. The group all say she was, as do other related witnesses, but to my mind their subsequent actions leave their credibility compromised and therefore their testimony suspect. For more peripheral witnesses, just to be told that this four year old blond haired English girl was Madeleine (or Maddie, a name Healey initially insisted she would not respond to) would be enough, they wouldn't know any better.

No photos, no DNA, no toothbrush, no creche artefacts etc. Was she even there at that time? If the witness quoted above saying they were in the Algarve a month earlier is correct, a whole new vista opens up.

Ross wrote:I haven't followed this case with the same degree of forensic attention as many here have, so may I please ask a question?

Do we have any definitive, fully corroborated and unequivocal evidence that Madeleine flew to the Algarve with her parents in late April? There has been plenty of evidence to suggest this was the case, airport bus footage for example, but the stated date and place of that could be fake. The group all say she was, as do other related witnesses, but to my mind their subsequent actions leave their credibility compromised and therefore their testimony suspect. For more peripheral witnesses, just to be told that this four year old blond haired English girl was Madeleine (or Maddie, a name Healey initially insisted she would not respond to) would be enough, they wouldn't know any better.

No photos, no DNA, no toothbrush, no creche artefacts etc. Was she even there at that time? If the witness quoted above saying they were in the Algarve a month earlier is correct, a whole new vista opens up.

The short answer is no but the PJ would have got the proof and evidence required which I assume has not been released to the public in the PJ files.

jd wrote:The short answer is no but the PJ would have got the proof and evidence required which I assume has not been released to the public in the PJ files.

Okay, so there is nothing in the public domain, we have to assume that the PJ has something undisclosed. Would they even look to confirm this? It would not be a regular part of such a investigation, it would be reasonable for them to take it as read that Madeleine was there at the time claimed. Thinking aloud, how could they actually prove it? Airline records? They can be altered by spooks. Passport control at Faro? Even if Madeleine's passport was scanned, a substitute child, (asleep on a shoulder maybe?) probably wouldn't be noticed. Even so, bearing in mind the direct intervention of the ambassador with the director of the PJ this line of investigation could be blocked internally.

So can we even place Madeleine in 5a that week? It seems we can't. Fascinating.

Ross wrote:

jd wrote:The short answer is no but the PJ would have got the proof and evidence required which I assume has not been released to the public in the PJ files.

Okay, so there is nothing in the public domain, we have to assume that the PJ has something undisclosed. Would they even look to confirm this? It would not be a regular part of such a investigation, it would be reasonable for them to take it as read that Madeleine was there at the time claimed. Thinking aloud, how could they actually prove it? Airline records? They can be altered by spooks. Passport control at Faro? Even if Madeleine's passport was scanned, a substitute child, (asleep on a shoulder maybe?) probably wouldn't be noticed. Even so, bearing in mind the direct intervention of the ambassador with the director of the PJ this line of investigation could be blocked internally.

So can we even place Madeleine in 5a that week? It seems we can't. Fascinating.

I believe Maddie was there, but because something happened early in the holiday it seems like she wasn't

jd wrote:I believe Maddie was there, but because something happened early in the holiday it seems like she wasn't

But, or so it seems, we can't prove she was for that week, and evidence which could have done so, and should have been there, was not (photos, DNA etc). And cadaverine scent lingers for more than a month doesn't it?

jd wrote:

Ross wrote:

jd wrote:The short answer is no but the PJ would have got the proof and evidence required which I assume has not been released to the public in the PJ files.

Okay, so there is nothing in the public domain, we have to assume that the PJ has something undisclosed. Would they even look to confirm this? It would not be a regular part of such a investigation, it would be reasonable for them to take it as read that Madeleine was there at the time claimed. Thinking aloud, how could they actually prove it? Airline records? They can be altered by spooks. Passport control at Faro? Even if Madeleine's passport was scanned, a substitute child, (asleep on a shoulder maybe?) probably wouldn't be noticed. Even so, bearing in mind the direct intervention of the ambassador with the director of the PJ this line of investigation could be blocked internally.

So can we even place Madeleine in 5a that week? It seems we can't. Fascinating.

I believe Maddie was there, but because something happened early in the holiday it seems like she wasn't

I agree with you on this one. I believe the airport and the playground photos are genuine and prove that Madeleine was there. But after that no more pictures

Ribisl wrote:I agree with you on this one. I believe the airport and the playground photos are genuine and prove that Madeleine was there. But after that no more pictures [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But there's no date on the airport footage or those pictures is there? They could have been taken a month earlier. It only just occurred to me that we do not have definitive proof of her presence at the times we have been told she was there, so the possibility that she wasn't does exist. So I am interested if anyone can actually prove Madeleine was there on he week in question. If she wasn't, it would explain the absence of her DNA (hair on the pillow for example) and the dozens if not hundreds of photos definitively placing her there, because those would have been there if she was surely?

One question:

If she wasn't how did she end up under Murat's tarmac drive (If Birch is to be believed)?

Surely if they've had a prior visit there staying at same resort, staff would have mentioned it.

Ross, you mention that Madeleine's passport might have been scanned but we know that the photo of her in it was taken when she was a baby and so it would have been totally useless in confirming that the child being presented as her actually was.

As for the staff not mentioning that the family had been there before, maybe their previous visit was so uneventful that nobody remembered them. There was an interesting early quote in a paper that Kate felt safe in leaving the children because she'd been there before.

It could have been an error of course but it would explain the poolside photo if it was true. I've always thought both children look too young for it to have been taken in May 2007.

Apologies for wandering off the credit cards topic.

Ross wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I agree with you on this one. I believe the airport and the playground photos are genuine and prove that Madeleine was there. But after that no more pictures [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But there's no date on the airport footage or those pictures is there? They could have been taken a month earlier. It only just occurred to me that we do not have definitive proof of her presence at the times we have been told she was there, so the possibility that she wasn't does exist. So I am interested if anyone can actually prove Madeleine was there on he week in question. If she wasn't, it would explain the absence of her DNA (hair on the pillow for example) and the dozens if not hundreds of photos definitively placing her there, because those would have been there if she was surely?

But there was no DNA of the twins and we know they were there too.

What about the DNA Eddie and Keela alerted to?

Eddie & Keela reacted respectively to cadaver scent and blood. They couldn't react to DNA specifically ,because that's up to the laboratories when they get some substance to test. The dogs just alert to : a dead body & blood over here ...

ETA they react to "what" and not to "who"

but with only one person missing, who might have been the "who" ... ?

Luca90 wrote:But there was no DNA of the twins and we know they were there too.

There would have been hairs on the pillow, the clothes they were wearing and so on, so they could have got some if they wanted, but why would they need DNA from the twins? They would want some from the missing girl in case it was needed for identification purposes.

Mike wrote:What about the DNA Eddie and Keela alerted to?

Châtelaine is right about the dogs, but if I remember correctly that when tested the blood samples found behind the sofa could have come from Madeleine, but it was not conclusive. Even if it was hers, it would not place her there the week in question. The question here is exploring the possibility that the McCanns were in PdL the month before, and the blood could have been shed then.

So we still don't have definite proof Madeleine was in that apartment that week.

The dna thing is odd. It would be on towels, glasses, hairbrush, toothbrush, clothes,pillows,playtoy, shoes,underwear,nightdipers(?),chewinggum,bedlinnen,blankets she slept with,toiletpaper(often thrown in a bin in many countries). To get just one hairstraw ore pure dba should be realy simple.

aniandr wrote:The dna thing is odd. It would be on towels, glasses, hairbrush, toothbrush, clothes,pillows,playtoy, shoes,underwear,nightdipers(?),chewinggum,bedlinnen,blankets she slept with,toiletpaper(often thrown in a bin in many countries). To get just one hairstraw ore pure dba should be realy simple.

Agreed. If she was there. Surely the only credible explanation for none being there is that she wasn't?

Ross wrote:

aniandr wrote:The dna thing is odd. It would be on towels, glasses, hairbrush, toothbrush, clothes,pillows,playtoy, shoes,underwear,nightdipers(?),chewinggum,bedlinnen,blankets she slept with,toiletpaper(often thrown in a bin in many countries). To get just one hairstraw ore pure dba should be realy simple.

Agreed. If she was there. Surely the only credible explanation for none being there is that she wasn't?

It's one of my early theories.
Supporting this theory are:
Zaival beach at Easter.
The Burgau apartment.
The immediate pointer (on the 8th May photographs in the Belfast Telegraph 'proving' Maddie was in Donegal at Easter) to Donegal. Pointing in the opposite direction - proof of a large extended Irish/Scottish family.
The lack of any photograph that can be said to definitely be of Maddie at OC that week. If those were taken at the same time as the pool photo, it might be 2006 as well, the playground and people in the distance are dressed for really warm weather, Maddie wasn't in her tracksuit and (disappeared) trainers.
The fact that Gerry had been to Portugal several times, that he knew Murat (the PJ have said this too) .
That Kate allegedly once said they went to PdL because they'd been there before.

Additionally:
5a belongs to absolutely not someone of the 'family', it is a coincidence - but it is never taken further, the owner is never interviewed by the news-hungry papers and I don't believe it is mentioned in the book. Ruth McCann is not a relative and she is never asked personally if this is so.
So I'm still ignorant as to how OC lets out 5a if it belongs to someone else?
5a would have had to be used on a previous occasion when the 'accident' happened. But I believe that other people were staying there over Easter. So that is a problem.
Someone else even had the idea that this happened months earlier and that the accident took place around the time the pool photo with Gerry and Madeleine was taken. Amelie being pasted in later to prove a date of May07 instead of say August 06.

It's more likely that they never used 5a except as a 'stage' after Maddie died imo and that Maddie died very early in the holiday, 29th/30th April.
That the Belfast Telegraph article was used both for early fund raising and proving they were all in Donegal instead of Zaival.
That snippets such as the washing machine being 'broken', the inside shutter being broken were to establish occupancy.
Mrs. Fenn saying that she didn't even know 'those people' were there and also that she'd never noticed them (except for the crying incident) supports this.
I think the PJ also tried to find out if cleaning materials had been purchased from the supermarket and elsewhere I've read that the cupboard in OC club containing cleaning materials had been broken into. - Long time ago and no ref for the last I'm afraid.

What interests me about this case is more the question of why it is that, five years later, t ihere is still so much internet activity about it. I honestly cannot understand the motivation of people who devote their lives to it. The number of websites and blogs and uploads on YouTube make it clear that a great number of people spend an inordinate amount of time focussing on the Mccanns. Whatever the truth of the case is, why does it continue to attract this amount of activity? It is clear that no one is being paid to keep the negative theories alive. This is not about the merits or otherwise of the theories themselves. But it is difficult to accept that anyone is truly doing this for Madeleine Mccann. People who genuinely care about the welfare of children don't focus on one child that they never knew. Nor do they devote endless hours of unpaid time to a cause that is really not achieving anything in terms of outcome. This is not the same as people carrying out genuine volunteer or charity work on behalf of a child. If that was the motivation, there are many ways to volunteer for such causes in the real world, where one could truly make a difference in a child's life. Many people who continue to focus on this case, state that they object to the unprecidented amount of attention that Kate and Gerry have generated, when so many missing children receive very little, if any 'coverage'. And yet ,these poeple spend their lives focussing more and more attention on this one child, which contradicts their stated concerns. For if one were truly concerned about the equality of all missing children, one would go out and focus on the other millions of children who do not have Kate and Gerry as parents. Nor does the ongoing vitriol over the Mccann's child care arrangements help Madeleine, or any other missing child. By now, even Goncalo Amaral has admitted that he was wrong about most things, but the objections about the Mccanns still appear to use his theories as real possibilities. Another common cry is that "In 99 percent of child 'disappearances' the parents are involved'. That may be the case, but that statistic comes from parents who are either fighting custody battles, or who wish to hurt the other parent for some reason. The Mccanns do not Whether you loathe or love Kate and Gerry, or feel indifferent towards them, neither of them is stupid. Even 'if' they had accidentally caused Madeleine's death, I believe that both of them would know that whatever the accident was, would pale into insignificance when compared with the possiblity of being caught for covering the actual death of their child. Also, the other adults in the tapas nine, were not all close friends of the Mccanns and it's most unlikely that they would all agree to cover for the couple, when the possibility of being caught would land them in jail. Those that were doctors, would also forever lose their medical licenses. "If" they were covering the sedation of their children, they would have realised that inventing a story about the reasons for this ,would be far less dangerous than doing what they have been accused of. Also, it is actually very difficult for an adult to deliberately kill themselves with sedatives. Deaths come via the mix of sedatives with other drugs, and/or a large amount of alcohol, where it is the lethal COMBINATION that causes death. Kate Mccann is a qualified anaethetist. Of all medical specialists, these are the ones that understand MOST about lethal combinations, and consultant cardiologists would also be very high on the chart of that kind of knowledge. It is therefore almost impossible for them to have 'accidentally' killed Madeleine. It would have to have been deliberate, and that theory is ludicruos. Most of all, it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming, so called 'evidence' for the Mccanns involvement came from leaks within the Portuguese Police, and then media to the British media, most of whom have since admitted that they had no reliable 'source'. It is a fact that the Portuguese police already knew that the DNA evidence from the lab in Britain did not prove a thing. They lied to Gerry Mccann by telling him that there was solid DNA evidence to implicate him and his wife. They did that because they believed he was guilty, and I don't question their motive. They knew that if Gerry Mccann was guilty he would very likely confess once he heard about the DNA. And that is TRUE. If Gerry Mccann was guilty he no doubt WOULD have confessed if conclusive DNA evidence had been found. Even hardened murderes with serious criminal records confess as soon as the police mention that DNA has convicted them. It is one scientific form of proof that is almost impossible to deny. Yet Gerry Mccann's response was that he could not explain it. Because, he genuinely could not explain it. If he were guilty, he would know that 'explaining' it would no doubt halve whatever sentence he was about to get! Okay, so there is no solid evidence that an abductor took Madeleine, but regardless of what anyone thinks, there is no more evidence to implicate the Mccanns. If there were, they would have been charged and gone to court. One thing we ALL know, is that little girls do not simply disappear into thin air. But, if the theory of an abductor seems impossible, it is far less impossibler than the theory that, in a very short space of time, the Mccanns disposed of their daughter's body and some time later, drove it to Spain and dumped it in the sea. The theories against the Mccanns are far less logical than those against them. It seems that people will go to any length of fantasy to implicate them, including the notion that they have influence over parliament, forensic scientists and who knows what else? This is ridiculous. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Mccanns past to indicate this. They were doctors working for the National Health. They were not even in private practice where they would make infinitely more money. Okay, so they are more comfortably off than most people, but they are not serioulsy wealthy at all, They do not have the kind of money, connections, or backgrounds that would make them 'influential'. Something their critics seem to forget is that both Kate and Gerry are from working class families. They did not grow up 'connected' to the elite at all. Nor is there anything to suggest that they longed to be celebrities. There is just nothing logical about the suspicion of the Mccanns at all. It seems far more logical that the internet has brought a LOT of lonely and lost poeple together into some kind of cyber community where they can focus on the Mccanns, instead of facing their empty lives. People- THIS is just another ADDICTION of yours. You really do NOT care about truth and justice, because, if you did there would be a lot more productive ways to fight for it. And NO- I am not a Mccann 'supporter'. I barely focussed on this case at all, but I was baffled when I realised what was going on in cyberspace. I don't have a great deal of attachment to the Mccanns innocence or guilt. I don't believe they are guilty, but even if I did, I could NEVER waste my life obsessing about them like this! AND - I would know that I "could" be wrong. And even if I was 99 percent sure I was right, that one percent knowledge that I could be wrong, would prevent me from doing what you people do. No one - other than the person or people who were there- can say with one hundred percent accuracy, what really happened. Andd therefore, you must accept that you could be wrong. And IF you are wrong, that makes you guilty of a very serious kind of abuse against your fellow human beings. It means that you just ADD to the intense suffering of two parents. It means that you add to the future suffering of their twins, who will one day read some of this vitriol. You risk them being bullied at school over it when they are teenagers. You risk adding to the possibilty that 'if' Madeleine is still alive, your actions might contribute to her not being found. I think you all really need to question your motives. Also, how are you going to feel about your OWN lives, in ten, twenty, thirty years, when you are STILL trying to escape whatever emptiness is inside you, by living vocariously through the lives of Kate and Gerry Mccann?

And NO- I am not a Mccann 'supporter'. I barely focussed on this case at all, but I was baffled when I realised what was going on in cyberspace



Hmmm, for someone who has barely focused on this case you seem to know an awful lot about it. Even down to knowing so much about their background.........



They were doctors working for the National Health. They were not even in private practice where they would make infinitely more money. Okay, so they are more comfortably off than most people, but they are not serioulsy wealthy at all, They do not have the kind of money, connections, or backgrounds that would make them 'influential'. Something their critics seem to forget is that both Kate and Gerry are from working class families. They did not grow up 'connected' to the elite at all. Nor is there anything to suggest that they longed to be celebrities.



You state as fact that they do not have the kind of money, connections or backgrounds - I wonder how you know this?



So, I will tell you why there is so much interest. People want to know what happened to Madeleine. For the first time ever, people here have been able to read the case files, witness statements, Forensic Reports etc. This has never happened before. It has made people stop and question and have opinions.

If you think members here and the thousands that read here are all sad lonely people spouting vitriol then I suggest you don't bother reading here.

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

The answer to your first question is largely because it is repeatedly being pushed into a wider consciousness by the media. Our reality (outside of our own direct personal experience) is shaped by the media, they set the agenda and steer opinion in whatever direction they choose, and when required they act in unison, think of any war and the shaping of opinion required to support it. What sets this case apart is the almost unprecedented degree to which a global audience is being poked and prodded to focus on it, and the longevity of the meme.

Compare this to the Hollie Grieg case, where there is a universal media blackout on an extraordinarily egregious affair of child rape and corruption in high places, something that should be a true cause célèbre but is instead a non-thing, unmentioned and concertedly 'disappeared' from public consciousness. The most effective form of propaganda is omission, out of sight, out of mind and here's the next celebrity sex scandal to take your mind on another meandering lane to nothingness.

So interest in the McCanns is maintained because interest is repeatedly being piqued, and at the core is a missing child, a very emotive issue which naturally hooks people in.

What is more peculiar is the nature of the case as it has been presented to us. The actions and words of the parents and their group have been full of improbabilities, inconsistencies and on occasion downright lies. None of this would have been presented to us either incidentally or accidentally. People often refer to a cover-up, but what we have been given is the opposite of that, a glaringly full and explicit exposition of a fabricated canard complete with a succession of risible 'sightings'. A proportion of the audience will buy the surface story, because a proportion of the audience will buy anything they are told, regardless.

Another proportion will dip below the surface and in this instance they will find red herrings, blind alleys and any number of non-sequiturs to keep the pot bubbling. Trying to work out what actually occurred in this case is like trying to do a jigsaw when all you have is random pieces of different puzzles all jumbled up together.

No-one, despite all the interest, has yet to produce a single coherent theory that takes every piece of evidence into account, which logically suggests some of the evidence presented is false.

So the interest in this case continues because interest is constantly being provoked. Why this is being done is another matter entirely.