Thursday, 17 April 2014

The Child Reported Missing in the Allier Region of France Did Not Exist

The woman who reported the disappearance, presenting herself as the child's aunt, has been remanded in custody. 

The suspicions of the investigators, in not excluding an "imaginary abduction," were well founded. Chayson, the two-year-old whom the police spent five days searching for, does not exist. The little boy was born from the imagination of the woman who reported his disappearance on Friday. She presented herself at the police station as the aunt of the child whom she claimed had disappeared into thin air near a supermarket car park. She was remanded in custody on Wednesday. Her daughter and a cousin, both minors suspected of having assisted her in setting up the hoax, have also been interviewed.

The story began on a fake Facebook page, which was almost certainly set up by the two teenagers, with photos stolen from other accounts on the social media web site. Three characters were created, one of whom, Rayane Basinio, was supposed to be Chayson's father and the nephew of the woman who invented the story. 

A bad joke or revenge? 

The investigators began to have their doubts when they noticed an increasing number of inconsistencies in the witness statements of the pretend aunt and her relatives. Chayson's parents happened to be separated, unable to be contacted and of unknown address. The police don't know how long the drama went on for on social media, but the reporting of the disappearance coincides with the time when the photo originally used on Rayane's account was withdrawn.

It is still not known if this story arose out of a bad taste joke or if it hides more malicious intent. "We're working on the motives, whether it's a psychological problem, or some hidden agenda, vengeance or something else." Anyone reporting an imaginary crime risks a six month prison sentence and a fine of €7,500. 

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

‘Please Help Luz’ plea as Madeleine “circus” descends on village again

As British television networks once again descend on Praia da Luz in the run-up to the seventh anniversary since Madeleine McCann went missing, a local resident has come out fighting.

“It’s time to turn things round,” she told us. “Every year it is the same … British journalists arrive and dredge up more nonsense about Luz. We are meant to be overrun with child molesters, burglars, homosexuals, Eastern European child-snatchers ... Whatever next? Will it be the Taliban?

“They are back again now and this time they have interviewed a homeless person and a ‘prophet’,” the long-term resident told us on Saturday. “They have paid for these interviews. Now, they are apparently looking for a well-known gay man.

“These are the stories the British newspapers are looking for! They are not interested in the views of the real people of Luz - all of whom are fed up to the back teeth with the village being shown in such a bad light.”

The "homeless person" - a "perfectly pleasant man, but never sober" - is not a representational figure of local residents, explained the woman, and the “prophet” is someone who wears a turban and “walks around with a pole with a light on the top of it”.

"Neither can be considered typical Luz residents, but nor are they in any way threats to the community," she added.

The expat woman, who asked not to be named as she has “no wish to be a hero”, said: "It is time Luz had a voice."

“Last year, when the news people were asking questions as they do every year, I went up to the interviewer and said I would like to say a word or two.
“I said I wanted to know why they weren’t interviewing the McCanns for gross negligence that had led to a fatal result. He just dropped me because they don’t want to hear anything like that. They only want to report about people they can label as "weirdos".

“Quite honestly, I feel it is time Luz turned round and sued the McCanns for slander.

“I would like to stand as a voice for Luz. Who will want to come here after all the negative publicity? The British newspapers paint the village as one full of terrible people. This is grotesquely unfair. It has got to stop!”

As is so often the case, concern over speaking out has left this voice of Luz for now unnamed. She told us “everyone feels the same” - and behind the scenes few would disagree.

A high-ranking staff member at Luz Ocean Club told the Resident earlier this year: “Luz has taken such a battering over the last seven years. It really is time to do something for this community - help it rally round.” But, like the anonymous "voice of Luz", the man asked not to be identified.

Meantime, the Ocean Club is one of the prime movers behind a community triathlon event planned later this month precisely to promote the picturesque village “before the holiday season gets underway”.

For more information see


Thursday, 23 January 2014

There's a Con Artist on the Loose in Leamington Spa

This man has a really good line in confidence tricksterism. He does it really well and he seems to have got it down to such a fine art that I'm fairly sure he's done this before and that he'll do it again.

So beware people of Leamington Spa and Warwickshire.

This is how a young man of around 25/30 managed to gain my confidence and leg it from my house with the purse my daughter gave me as a present and £240 in cash.

He came to my door a few nights ago, just as I was about to go out. He reminded me that he had done a job for me a while back, clearing some wood from my garden. He said he had fallen on bad luck and he had been homeless for a while, but he had written to his grandmother up north and she had said he could go and stay at her house. Unfortunately, he was a few pounds short of what he needed for the train ticket and was there perhaps a little job he could do for the £5 something he needed. He wasn't looking for a handout! No, he was looking for somewhere to get his hands into and grab whatever he could get to and bloody leg it! 

It's a good story he's peddling. A really good one and I got drawn into it and ended up having to take the penny jar to Sainsbury's so that I'd have cash to put fuel in my car to get to work. 

But, I'm getting ahead of myself here. On that night, a few days ago, I was in a rush to go out and get to work (work, scumbag! That's where you honestly earn the money you need!) and I didn't have any little jobs he could do. However, I felt that I had the opportunity to help this poor (not so poor now, thieving barsteward!) man to get on a train and not spend one more night sleeping rough. So, I gave him £10 to make up the money for his train fare and get a sandwich on the train. And off he went, ever so grateful! Oh yea!

So, anyway, yesterday afternoon this poor man, who turned out to be a thieving scumbag con artist, turned up at my door again. He had bought an advance ticket for the train and couldn't go until Friday and now he'd like to repay me for my kindness by keeping himself busy by doing a little job for me. And the effin' scumbag did repay my small act of kindness in a devious and abusive way. Initially, I told him that it wasn't necessary, but he told me he'd rather be busy than hanging around on the streets and could he just clear the garden a bit. Well, since he was so keen to do something and thinking well, he needs to do something for me, I went out to the back garden to fetch the rake he asked for. I then went back out to fetch the spade he wanted, while leaving the front door ajar: it's rude to close the door in someone's face! 

I even offered this thieving, lying scumbag a hot drink, thinking he'd been sleeping rough, but when I came back with the coffee (Illy, because I thought he deserved a decent coffee after sleeping out on these cold nights!) he had disappeared. So, I sat here at my desk for a while, wondering where he had gone, leaving the rake and the spade propped up in the porch, actually worrying about the thieving low life's (you're guessing by now that I'm rather angry!) coffee getting cold. 

Slowly, it dawned on me that he wasn't coming back and I felt a sudden gripping of my stomach. My bag was hanging on a door handle within sight of the front door and there was rather a lot of cash in my purse, which I had taken out of the bank to pay for some work on my car. With a quickly growing nausea, I grabbed my bag and reached in. No purse! I searched the house, top to bottom, thinking don't immediately think the worst: maybe I'd put my purse down somewhere else. But I really knew I hadn't. My money was gone with the lovely pink purse my daughter gave me as a present. 

I phoned the police and two officers came quite quickly. I had felt like such an idiot for being taken in by someone with such a good line of patter, but the police assured me that it wasn't my fault. 

I have cancelled the bank cards that were in my purse and to get cash to buy fuel for my car so that I can get to work, I have had to take the "pennies jar" to the change machine at Sainsbury's. That was change I'd been collecting for some time for a treat for my two grandsons. So, that man, who claimed to be homeless and just wanted to help himself to a better life, helped himself to £240 of my hard earned cash and legged it! He not only stole from me, but from two little boys, aged 7 and 3. 

It's a good line he's peddling! I'm still of the belief that most people out there are honest and good, but unfortunately there are con artists, who will use any ruse to take what does not belong to them. 

Please be aware, people of Warwickshire, this man is still on the loose. He is white, around 25/30 years old, slim build. Yesterday he was wearing a short-sleeved white T shirt over a dark long-sleeved one. The white T shirt had solid black writing on it. He had a small rucksack on his back. If he turns up on your doorstep with a story about being homeless and wanting to do some small jobs for you,  phone the police. Try to keep him there, but close your door! Quote crime number S/14/658 for the police.

As I said, most people out there are honest and most of us, given the opportunity, would help a homeless person in a positive way, which was what that man was pretending to be asking for. It's a good line he has and he does it really well, which makes me think he'll keep doing it. Please phone the police immediately if he comes to your door. 

Thanks for reading this! 

Be careful folks! I believe this is known as a "distraction burglary" and it's just a new line on the old "I'm from the council/Water authority/British Gas" but it's a good one! 

Thursday, 9 January 2014

Please contribute to help Gonçalo Amaral's defense in the libel trial.

Message from Astro on TMCF forum 

A huge thank you to all of you who have already contributed, and to those who will contribute to help Mr Amaral. I would like to explain that this is a bank account that is formally held by two friends of Mr Amaral, in representation of a group of friends who decided to help him because it was obvious, back in 2009 already, that this was going to be a long, expensive process and that without financial support, Gonçalo Amaral was not going to be able to defend himself. This account has been used solely to pay for court expenses and legal costs, and that is all that it will ever be used for. It is an informal gathering of friends, and it has only been possible to continue due to the incredible generosity of many more friends.

I would also like to thank everyone who is not able to make a donation, but has been showing their support online. The times are not easy for anyone and so often, a kind word means a LOT. Thank you.

If you wish to help, please follow the link to Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral:

Use the bank account number in the right hand corner (scroll down to Doação | Donation) or click on the Paypal image there & it will link you to the project's account.

Once more, thank you very much."

Saturday, 28 December 2013

"Maddy Cops Prime Suspect Blunder" (Daily Mirror)

The innocent dad came forward in 2007 but mistakenly remained the main focus of the hunt until this year when Scotland Yard detectives tracked him down

The main focus of the hunt for whom? The Portuguese police appeared to have ruled him out as the "abductor" when they made Kate and Gerry McCann arguidos. Also, who reported having seen this man carrying a child in pyjamas identical to those that had been said to have been worn by Madeleine when she disappeared? Only Jane Tanner. She stated that she had walked up the road, slip-slapping in flip-flops, on the same side as Gerry and his friend Jez Wilkins, but neither of those men saw Jane Tanner or this "innocent dad." 

Bungling police had the details of the “main suspect” in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann for SIX YEARS without realising.

So, tell me, who were these "bungling police."? (Later folks!)

The innocent dad came forward in 2007 to say he was the person seen carrying a child in Portugal at the time the three-year-old vanished.

Who did he say this to? And if he is an "innocent dad," is there a guilty dad? Yes, I am as pedantic as that! 

But the information was overlooked and the British holidaymaker remained the main focus of the hunt until this year when Scotland Yard detectives finally tracked him down.

Overlooked by whom?

The revelation will be a blow to Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry, as they endure a seventh Christmas without their oldest daughter.

Not much of a blow since the McCanns still have the E-fit of this "innocent dad" up on their official Find Madeleine web site. (See "IMPORTANT: Who are these people?") 

The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.

Right! They completed a questionnaire for Leicester police! Is there any proof that Leicester police forwarded this to the Portuguese police? And if they did, was this done any more quickly than the statements from Katherine and Arul Gasper which were given to Leicester police on May 16th 2007 and forwarded to the Portuguese police approximately six months later? 

He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.

That'll be the night creche then, the one that parents can leave their children at while they have dinner, the one the McCanns didn't use, preferring to leave their three children alone in an unlocked apartment. 

But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.

Surely Leicester police looked at it in 2007? And where is this man? Why hasn't he gone to the Daily Mirror or one of the other tabloids that would surely have been delighted to put him on their front page? He could have remained anonymous! 

A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”

Around the time of the sighting doesn't mean that he was anywhere near the place where Jane Tanner alleges that she saw the man definitely carrying Madeleine. 

Following Madeleine’s disappearance, Leicestershire police were responsible for collating all UK-based inquiries at the request of the Portuguese authorities.

And what did Leicester police do with the information received? Did they forward all of it, some of it, all of it at six months intervals? 

It is not clear if the questionnaires were analysed by the British force or simply forwarded to Portugal.

Or forwarded to Portugal at all. The Leicester police don't seem to have exhibited any great alacrity in forwarding statements. 

Ms Tanner, a close friend of Kate and Gerry, previously told officers that she saw the dark-haired man carrying away a child wearing pink floral pyjamas at 9.15pm on May 3, 2007.

I don't believe Jane Tanner saw anyone carrying a child. Her initial statement about the "sighting" was that she had seen a man carrying a bundle that could have been a child. This metamorphosed into a man carrying a child in pyjamas identical to those worn by Madeleine. That "bundle" became more and more clear with time! Gonçalo Amaral did not believe that Jane Tanner saw "Bundleman." 

One of the so-called “Tapas Seven”, she had been dining with the McCanns in a nearby restaurant when their daughter went missing.

A nearby restaurant? Nearby to what? It was over 120 yards from the McCanns' apartment, down a public road, through a reception area and round a swimming pool.

Her sighting meant that from 2007 onwards, Portuguese and British police presumed any abduction most probably took place between 8.30pm, when the McCanns went to dinner, and 9.15pm.

The Portuguese police ruled out abduction when they made the McCanns arguidos and that is obvious in the details of the legal case currently before the court in Portugal, where the McCanns are suing Gonçalo Amaral for his account of the investigation which concluded that Madeleine had probably died in apartment 5A. 

The realisation that it was a false lead has shifted detectives’ focus on to a later sighting at 10pm when an Irish family reported seeing a man walking towards the beach carrying a blonde girl in pyjamas.

This would be the man drawn in the E-fit which the McCanns' private detectives obtained five years ago and which the McCanns did not pass onto the Portuguese police. Perhaps the fact that Mr Martin Smith stated that he was fairly sure that the man he had seen was Gerry McCann had something to do with the decision not to share the information until Scotland Yard retrieved it from the detectives this year. But why do the McCanns still have "Bundleman" on their official web site? 

The revelation was described by DCI Andy Redwood, the Met officer leading the new investigation called Operation Grange, as a “revelation moment” when it was finally made by his team.

Well, it wasn't much of a "revelation" to those of us who have been following this case for six and a half years and have had doubts about Jane Tanner's "sighting." 

DCI Redwood said in October: “Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine’s abductor.

Hallelujah! Give that man a lollipop! 

“It takes us through to a position at 10pm when we see another man who is walking towards the ocean, close by to the apartment, with a young child in his arms.”

Look at a few maps, Mr Redwood. The Smith sighting was not close to the apartment! 

The innocent dad agreed to be pictured in the clothes he wore in Praia da Luz at the time to prove he was the man in the police sketch previously seen as key to cracking the case.

A very frugal "innocent dad" then. He had those clothes six and a half years later? 

His two-year-old’s pink pyjamas, which were described by Ms Tanner, were also brought to Scotland Yard to help prove his innocence.

And he still had the pyjamas? That stretched credulity just a bit for me! But then, Jane Tanner only "saw" the bottoms of Madeleine's pyjamas, which were not pink.

The new prime suspect was spotted by Martin Smith from Drogheda, Co Louth, as he returned to his apartment in Praia da Luz about 9.50pm.

And reported at the time and described to the McCanns' private detectives over 5 years ago! 

He saw a British-looking man carrying a motionless, barefoot girl in pyjamas. Madeleine was noted to be missing by Kate at 10pm.

So, there we have it! Must have been the abductor! 

The Smith family provided two efit images of the man more than five years ago. However, the sighting was viewed as too late to be significant because of Ms Tanner’s sighting– which is why the efits were only released publicly in a Crimewatch appeal broadcast in October.

The E-fits were only released publicly this year because they had been withheld by the McCanns! 

Detectives from Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange said they received an “overwhelming response” from viewers.

I wonder how many of them thought the E-fits looked like Gerry McCann? 

The programme featured a new reconstruction of the hours leading up to the three-year-old’s abduction.

Now that Scotland Yard has the E-fits from the McCanns' detectives and finally the Smith sighting is being taken seriously! Anyone pointing a finger at a "guilty dad."? Ask Mr Martin Smith! 

In a statement, Kate and Gerry said at the time: “We are absolutely delighted with the overwhelming public response to Crimewatch. We know that the public desperately want to help the search for Madeleine. We are genuinely hopeful that one or more of these responses will lead to a major breakthrough in the investigation.”

How very gracious of the McCanns. The public have been very helpful over these six and a half years, with so many "sightings," weird characters hanging around in Praia da Luz and so many new suspects! Pity the McCanns themselves were too busy on the night Madeleine disappeared to do any searching themselves! 

They added: “If anyone was in Praia da Luz around the time of Madeleine’s abduction and has not spoken to the Metropolitan Police, or if they know who any of the Efits might be, please have the courage to come forward and speak to the police in confidence.”

Excuse me, but Mr Martin Smith spoke to your private detectives and you kept his descriptive E-fits to yourselves! 

More than 1,000 people have come forward with fresh information and several named the same man as the prime suspect.

The "guilty dad."? Has he been arrested yet? Who is he? We should be told! 

Leicestershire Police yesterday refused to comment on the latest revelations.

Well, there's a novelty! Not!

A spokeswoman said: “The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police and it would be inappropriate for us to comment.”

Not the abduction then? 

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “We are not giving a running commentary.”

So, let's just leave the tabloids to make up stories about "bungling police." The only "bungling police" ever mentioned previously by British tabloids were the Portuguese and I am sure that the way this Mirror journalist has worded this story, many readers will read this as the Portuguese police again! So, who are being called "bungling" by the Daily Mirror? The Leicester police? The Portuguese police? All of them? Nothing new there! 

A spokesman for the McCann’s last night declined to comment saying it is “a matter for Operation Grange.”

So, they're not going to comment on the fact that Jane Tanner's sighting was ruled out six years ago or that they had the E-fits of the man described by the Smith family for five years or why they still have the E-fit of this "innocent dad," on their official web site? Not even through a "source close to the family"? Well, one wonders why they have gone very quiet! 

Saturday, 21 December 2013

Madeleine McCann: WHY do the McCanns allow everyone to accuse them of NEGLECT?

Video by HiDeHo4 on her YouTube channel

"McCann McMinute: No Neglect = No Abduction!"

Friday, 1 November 2013

"It's a disaster," said Gerry McCann

Gerry and Kate McCann speaking at the Ocean Club Resort in Portugal the night after Madeleine disappeared: McCanns' friends angry as Portuguese police close Madeleine case

Kate and Gerry McCann speaking at the Ocean Club the night after Madeleine disappeared. 

This blog post has almost the same title as a very interesting one of today's date by the American profiler Pat Brown 

When Gerry McCann phoned his family on the night in which Madeleine disappeared, he told them, "It's a disaster," an expression which, to Pat Brown seems incongruous in describing the event of a child's disappearance. If Madeleine McCann died in an accident and her parents covered this up, as Pat Brown and many other people think, then it surely can't be described as "a disaster." A tsunami or other traumatic event on a grand scale, some out of control event, is a disaster, where there is a mess to clean up: an accident is not. 

I'm wondering too about Gerry McCann's use of the expression, "It's a disaster." When we describe some catastrophic event as a disaster, the "it," is the event. The tsunami, it's a disaster. So, what was the "it," that Gerry McCann was referring to? I agree with Pat Brown: whatever happened to Madeleine was not a disaster. An abduction, though I don't think Madeleine was abducted, is not a disaster. Devastating for the parents, but not a disaster. A child's death in an accident, tragic, heartbreaking for parents, but not a disaster. An accident, Pat Brown says, requires mourning: a disaster leaves a mess to clean up. 

But returning to Gerry McCann's words: "It's a disaster," I'd ask, "What's a disaster?" A plan where everything goes wrong can turn into a disaster, even if the plan is not for something on a grand scale. The performance of a play, where the actors fluff their lines, the props are in the wrong places and the music is badly played could be described as a disaster. And we often use the word in a more mundane way for something that's not a major event to anyone else, but just feels like it: my attempt at baking 100% rye bread ended in two brick-like objects hitting the bottom of the bin with a loud thud! What a disaster! The "what," here is my attempt to bake rye bread. 

But what was the "it," that Gerry McCann described as "a disaster."? Madeleine's disappearance? Everything was going swimmingly and then disaster struck? That doesn't make sense to me. We had all these plans and then, oh disaster! Madeleine's gone missing! This was not like my bread turning out like bricks: a child had vanished into thin air. Nor was it a disaster on a grand scale with a mess to clean up. 

If Madeleine had died in an accident and Kate and Gerry did indeed cover it up, then the "it," could refer to the plan put into action to cover up the tragic event and provide an alternative reason for Madeleine's being missing. But if Gerry had been communicating that the plan had gone awry and was a disaster, surely that might imply that the person he was speaking to knew that the "it," was the plan to cover up an accident? If indeed "it," was the plan, then as a Portuguese police officer said, it was "a badly told story," one that didn't ring true from the beginning: no jemmied shutter; no trace of an abductor in the apartment; no witness other than Jane Tanner's sighting of "Bundleman." 

We could actually decide that this was just another example of Gerry McCann's not being good with words! In an interview outside the court in Lisbon, Gerry McCann stated in an answer to a question, "We're not denying the existence of the dogs..." Well, that's good Gerry, because I may not have encountered these dogs in the flesh, as it were, but I have seen videos of them and they did look real to me! Then, there was Gerry's statement to the Leveson enquiry. "”I strongly believe in Freedom of Speech…I don’t have a problem with somebody purporting a theory…”

To purport: 1. To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending; profess: selfish behavior that purports to be altruistic.
2. To have the intention of doing; purpose.

So, no Gerry, somebody cannot purport to be a theory, or present the false appearance of a theory. They could purport to be somebody with a theory, or purport to have a theory, but not purport a theory. I think you meant... 

pro·pound (pr-pound)
tr.v. pro·pound·ed, pro·pound·ing, pro·pounds
To put forward for consideration; set forth..

So, Gerry may just have done another hatchet job on the English language, but maybe not. Could the "it," that was a disaster, have been the holiday itself? Whatever the holiday was planned for, if there had been a purpose other than an enjoyable family holiday, it was a disaster? Surely no one would describe the disappearance of a child being a disaster that ruined a holiday? But consider the holiday from the start until the events of Thursday May 3rd. In the video recorded on the airport bus on the way to Praia da Luz, Kate McCann is sitting with a little row of children, seemingly as far away as she could be from Gerry, who is sitting in a corner by himself, like a little boy on the naughty step. Gerry is reported as having said, "I'm not here to enjoy myself." Had sports loving Gerry just been told that he wasn't going to spend the whole week playing tennis and like the little boy who was told he had work to do first, he sarcastically stated that he wasn't there to enjoy himself? Disaster on day one for Gerry's plans!

And then what about the report from Mrs Fenn that she had heard a child crying one evening for almost two hours? Holiday not going too well! 

There have been suggestions that the McCanns' marriage had not been going too well before the holiday, and that the week away in Praia da Luz was time for them to be together in a relaxed environment, doing things together. So, when Gerry told his family, "It's a disaster," did the family member he spoke to understand that "it" was the plan for time together and that it had turned into a disaster because something had happened to Madeleine? Not a very happy start to the week away, time spent out there enjoying themselves had led to complaints about children crying and on one night Kate had slept apart from Gerry because of a row? And then something happened to Madeleine? The planned week of "us" time together had been a disaster from its start to the finish on the evening of May 3rd? We planned that, mum, and this is what happened? "It's a disaster."

"Bundleman," has been cleared of being involved in Madeleine McCann's disappearance, the McCanns withheld those e-fits of the man the Smith family reported seeing carrying a child, and now we have the finger pointing at a conveniently, it might be said, dead ex-employee of the Ocean Club. Well, I guess the finger is thus pointing away from the fact that the e-fits seem to look like Gerry McCann. 

What happened to Madeleine McCann? She wandered out looking for her parents and met with an accident? She was abducted by an opportunistic passing paedophile or a paedo who had been watching the family? She got out of bed and because she had been sedated (there was a star chart on the fridge freezer in the Rothley house, awarding Madeleine stars for staying in her own bed) she fell behind the sofa while trying to look out of the window? Tensions were running so high because one or both of the McCann parents had such high expectations of the holiday, that one of them lashed out at Madeleine and she fell behind the sofa, banging her head so badly that she died of her injuries? 

Just purporting a few theories! Either Gerry was erroneously purporting to be someone with a good command of the English language or "it" as in "it's a disaster," was the unforeseen circumstances of a chain of events during that holiday and, in my opinion, not simply a result of three small children being left alone. Not the result of someone entering the apartment and taking Madeleine. It happened, as Kate McCann stated, "under other circumstances."

With thanks to Pat Brown for a very thought-provoking blog!