Madeleine McCann: The Documentary Based on Amaral's Book

At present the McCanns are suing Gonçalo Amaral for defamation over what was written in his book about the disappearance of Madeleine. This is the documentary based on the book, which the McCanns tried to have banned.

Madeleine McCann: "What You Know Is Not The Truth"

Daily Star, Sunday October 13th

The small text window says:

Key details of the original Madeleine McCann investigation were wrong, police said last night.

They will reveal a new timeline of the crucial minutes when Maddie, three, was snatched in Portugal in 2007.

And they'll release several E-fits of suspects.

What we know is not the truth? So, what do we know? We have statements from the McCanns and the friends they went on holiday with and we have the police files. We also have the timelines drawn up by the McCanns and friends on the covers of a childrens' sticker book on the evening that Madeleine disappeared into thin air.

Version 1

Version 2

Slightly different, but not significantly.

So, if what we know is wrong and there is a new timeline, what does that mean in terms of what the McCanns and friends have stated as the timing of events?

I've spent the day today feeling quite confused about what the police are being reported as having said, such as the statement about the tennis balls photo in today's Sky News article. The voice-over on the video on this page describes a tennis match played by Kate and Gerry as being the "backdrop to her last photo." I don't recall reading about that tennis match and Maddie being ball girl in any of the statements by the McCanns or their friends. The tennis balls photo was originally stated to have been taken by someone, Kate McCann or Jane Tanner, on the day that Madeleine's creche group took part in "Mini Tennis." That was on Tuesday, May 1st 2007, according to Kate McCann in her book, "Madeleine."

Kate McCann states in her book that she ran back to the apartment to get her camera to record the occasion. So, she wasn't playing tennis and Madeleine wasn't being ball girl on the occasion that photo was taken! Rachael claims that Jane Tanner took the photo. There is also a question of who was actually there at the time because of discrepancies in describing which tennis court the Mini Tennis was held on and whether it was taken on that day or on another day. If the tennis balls photo was taken at Mini Tennis on May 1st, how can it be the "last photo," of Madeleine when Sky news prints the image below as having been taken on the day before Madeleine disappeared, which would be May 2nd?

And again, if the tennis balls photo is the "last photo," what about the one which has been purported to be that for over 6 years now? 

When was the tennis balls photo taken? When Kate and Gerry were playing tennis or, as Kate McCann states in her book, during the Mini Tennis session for Madeleine's creche group? And when did they have a tennis match? 

If what we know is not the truth and the police have drawn up a new timeline, focusing on the time period between 8.30pm, when the McCanns stated that they had gone to dinner at the Tapas Bar, and 10pm when Madeleine was reported missing by Kate McCann, what is the truth and what is that saying about the timelines drawn up by the McCanns and friends?

But wait folks! Dr Martin Roberts thinks the Mini Tennis session was on Monday April 30th! Here is just a little snippet from his "Anyone for tennis" article on The McCann Files about that tennis session, when it took place and who took that photo!

In short, Rachael describes how Jane took the photograph on Thursday, Jane describes the event taking place on Wednesday and Kate describes how she (Kate) took it on Tuesday. Imagine. 'Just hold that pose, dear!' 'How long for?' 'Er...tomorrow.'
And yet the photograph cannot have been taken during a mini-tennis session on the Tuesday either, because there wasn't one. Mini-tennis took place, according to the 'kids' club' schedule, on the Monday morning. If, this photograph is construed as representing Madeleine McCann's 'last hours' therefore (as a recent Sunday Telegraph report would suggest), then these will have been spent on the morning of Monday April 30th, not the early evening of May 3."

Notes From A Potting Shedder: "The McMobile Trawl"

Brilliant blog post by "A Potting Shedder."

"The McMobile Trawl"

October 2013 - London's Metropolitan Police say authorities are combing phone records of tourists and residents who were in a Portuguese resort at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood told reporters Thursday that authorities were trawling through phone traffic of people in Praia da Luz around May 3, 2007, when the then-3 year-old vanished.


Interesting, but I thought the British authorities had already participated in this? Or have I got deja vu again..

Read the whole blog post here

Well done Potting Shedder!

Police chief's book made Madeleine McCann's family's grief ‘one hundred times worse

THE distress of missing Madeleine McCann’s parents was “multiplied a hundred times” after a police chief accused them of being involved in her disappearance, a court heard yesterday. Daily Express Thursday October 3rd

Their grief was 100 times worse than this? 

Above: Kate and Gerry McCann on Madeleine's fourth birthday in 2007, just days after she disappeared.

Isabel Duarte's assistant issues threats with regard to photograph taken of her by Anne Guedes

Yes, our very own Anne Guedes, who has been reporting from the court in Lisbon as the McCanns' witnesses give evidence, has been told that she must take down a photo she took of Isabel Duarte. It seems the link to the photo is no longer available, but if it's the photo I'm thinking of, then it was taken in a public place, which is surely not illegal?



Ricardo Afonso @RicardoCAfonso
11:14 PM - 2 Oct 13
@aacg @xklamation Mrs. Anne Guedes I thank you to remove from the UK justice forum the photo which you know was not allowed. You have until 12pm tomorrow


Ricardo Afonso @RicardoCAfonso
11:15 PM - 2 Oct 13
@aacg @xklamation if it is not removed, she will react accordingly

Is Ms Duarte going to ask every newspaper that printed her photos to take them down? 

Seems to me this threat has rebounded on Isabel Duarte. There appear to be quite a few people on social media now looking for the photo. 

Happy Birthday Gonçalo De Sousa Amaral - Updated

Five years ago today, on his birthday, Gonçalo De Sousa Amaral was removed from the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Today, the libel case against him brought by Kate and Gerry McCann resumes in Lisbon. 

Forca Snr Amaral!

With thanks to Anne Guedes, this is the possible line up of witnesses for today:

MCCANN Versus GONCALO AMARAL - Trial will resume Wed 2nd Oct

WITNESSES who would have been heard on 27th Sep are as follows - (Henrique Machado (journalist of Correio da Manhã), Eduardo Dâmaso (political analyst) and Mrs Cameron). 

From this I deduce that 1) Mrs Healy will not be heard and 2) Mrs Cameron is the last witness for the accusation. Presumably, if the judge grants Gerry McCann's request to appear as a witness, then he will take the stand also.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2417.msg78649#msg78649

Thanks to Joana Morais for updates. Gerry McCann has once again been refused permission to give evidence. The judge will decide by October 10th. Mrs Healy, Kate McCann's mother, was unable to give evidence as the McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte had removed her from the witness list. Oh dear!

There is an ongoing translation of a Portuguese news video on Joana's web site. Link above. 

Fiona's Disappearance: when the parents are suspected

Sky News reports today that Fiona's mother, Cecile Bourgeon, has admitted that Fiona is dead following a number of blows delivered by Fiona's step-father, Berkane Maklouf. Fiona's mother had originally stated that Fiona had disappeared while she, her mother, had fallen asleep in a park in Clermont-Ferrand, in central France. Cecile Bourgeon has told police that Fiona's body is buried near Clermont-Ferrand. 

Europe1 carries a very interesting article on what the author considers to be good police procedure when parents are suspected of a crime. Published before Fiona's mother had confessed and updated today, September 26th.

Four months after the disappearance of a little girl called Fiona, aged 5, from a park in Clermont-Ferrand, investigators took her mother and her step-father in for questioning, in the course of which, they confessed. What strategies are used by investigators to get to the truth when the weight of suspicion falls on the parents in this type of case? 

Have a solid case: Criminologist Michel Roussel starts by saying, "The ideal is to be supported by a solid case and have a team of investigators who are experts in their subject. Then it's useful to have at your disposal a psychological profile of the suspects, notably by listening in, because that is a good way to understand and get a handle on the the people who are going to be questioned.  That's what the investigators did within the framework of the Fiona case. 

Don't humiliate the suspect: "The investigators work involves talking and listening, and not in judging or getting worked up," Roussel adds. To get at the truth, "you must never humiliate the suspects," the criminologist, Pierre Lamothe contributes. He stresses that, "In a case where the parents are responsible for the death of their child, their distress may be authentic." 

Don't go for a confession: when suspects are in police custody, the way in which the questions are formulated is very basic. "Don't go for a confession, but rather ask, "what do you think happened?" Michel Roussel explains. "To stop the suspect feeling guilty, it's preferable to suggest an accident or bad luck than to speak of a crime where infanticide is suspected," states this former gendarme. 

"You mustn't throw at the suspects: "tell me everything," but rather "did something happen that you did not intend?" Pierre Lamothe suggest. "In the same vein, never ask: "Did you do it?" but "Do you know how that happened?" which allows you to offer the suspect a way out. 

Carefully observe the responses: The attitude of the suspect faced with the questions is as informative as the language used. For Pierre Lamothe, "an innocent person accepts being confused and doesn't have an answer for everything. He is not hiding the truth and, in as a result, can have gaps in his memory, which is generally not the case with the guilty person, who leaps in with an explanation," he concludes. 

The above is very interesting when we look, once again, at the 48 questions that Kate McCann refused to answer after she was made an arguida in September 2007. 

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)

3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?

5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?

6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?

7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?

9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?

10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?

11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?

12. Who contacted the authorities?

13. Who took place in the searches?

14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?

15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?

16. What does 'we let her down' mean?

17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?

18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?

19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?

20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?

21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?

22. Did you call Sky News?


23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?

24. Did you ask for a priest?


25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?


26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?


27. What was your behaviour that night?


28. Did you manage to sleep?


29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?


30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?


31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?


32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?


33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?


34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?


35. What is your medical specialty?


36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?


37. Did you work every day?


38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?


39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?


40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?


41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?


42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?


43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

The Portuguese police had what they thought was a solid case: the two English sniffer dogs had detected human blood and cadaver odour in various places associated with the McCanns and in the car they hired weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. It is probably more difficult, though, to be subtle with questions when the people being interviewed have to have every question and their answers translated.

Perhaps the Portuguese police also had the notion that they might not get a second chance to question the two arguidos, which did turn out to be the case when just a couple of days later, Kate and Gerry hot-footed it home to the UK.

Fiona's mother and step-father attracted a great deal of sympathy for their plight: Fiona had been playing with her younger sibling in a public park and she just disappeared. So, maybe Kate and Gerry would have attracted a lot less suspicion if their daughter had been said to have disappeared from a crowded beach while her mother was snoozing! Much more credible than an abduction from an apartment with no evidence and only one witness whose memory of the event changed with stunning regularity!

Fiona is just another child who was harmed by those who should have protected her, and who faked an abduction to cover up their crime. Too many of these little ones being harmed by those who should protect them from harm.

Hoping for justice for that other child, Madeleine, who was gone before we knew her name, but somehow I'm not expecting anyone to confess.

Madeleine McCann: Stephen Birch Press Release

I don't have a source for this, as yet. Will investigate later. Stephen Birch is the South African who reported that he had investigated Robert Murat's driveway in Praia da Luz with ground-penetrating radar and found an anomaly that he thought could be Madeleine McCann's body. Read the details here. (McCann Files)



Press release follows:


As of 10.30am this morning I received a call from Portugal advising me that Robert Murat has consented to me digging up his driveway to ascertain whether the remains of MADELEINE MCCANN lie buried beneath it. A formal letter will be emailed to me today. Mr Murats attorney has advised that as part of the negotiations, Mr Murat will undertake to withdraw all charges against me for trespassing. Legal documentation would need to be formalized. A third party is currently acting as an intermiadiary in the negotiations and will own the media rights to the entire operation. They have advised me that they will put a helicopter in the air above Murats house to protect the airspace from rival newspaper groups. It is estimated that the excavation of the Murat driveway will be viewed by over 1 billion people over a week...

Press release ends




Image courtesy of McCann files. (Link above)

The Madeleine McCann Case: Gonçalo Amaral's "Outrageous Claims."

Image from the paper edition of The Sun of today's date, Friday September 13th.

Gonçalo Amaral's "outrageous claims."

Claim One

Amaral suggested Maddie died in the apartment - most likely near the sofa and maybe as the result of a tragic accident.

Pages 37 and 38 of the PJ's final report on the investigation describes the places where two sniffer dogs, which were trained by Martin Grime, at that time working with South Yorkshire Police, alerted to human blood and cadaver odour. Eddie, an Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog, was trained to alert to human cadaver odour and human blood; Keela was trained to alert to human blood. Both dogs alerted behind the sofa in the lounge of apartment 5A and only Eddie alerted to an area in the McCanns' bedroom inside a wardrobe. 

Until they were brought in to work on the McCann case, Eddie and Keela had a 100% record of accuracy. If they were right with their alerts in this case, then someone died in apartment 5A and since there are no recorded deaths there and Madeleine McCann disappeared into thin air from that place, a reasonable conclusion would be that Madeleine died in the apartment and that at some point her body was either in or near the wardrobe and perhaps behind the sofa. Eddie the cadaver dog also alerted to an area of flower bed outside the apartment.

If Madeleine is alive, who died in apartment 5A? The following video cannot be embedded for copyright reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkkabHP4xlc

Claim Two

The cop claimed that Kate and Gerry McCann staged a "fake abduction," concocted a story with the Tapas Seven and were involved in concealing the body. 

If Eddie and Keela were right about the odours of blood and cadaver in the apartment, then something happened to the body the odours came from. Either the "abductor" took away a dead body or the McCanns concealed it, with or without help from the Tapas Seven, but in my opinion, this would have been very difficult without the help or at least the knowledge of at least one or two of the McCanns' friends. The only evidence for an abduction is Jane Tanner's "sighting" of a man carrying a child and the fact that Madeleine was said to have been tucked up in her bed and she was found to have disappeared when Kate McCann went to check on the children at 10pm. 

Claim Three

Amaral accused the McCanns of negligence over their children. 

The McCanns have admitted to leaving three children, all under the age of four, in an unlocked apartment, in a foreign country, every night for 5 nights while they were dining at the Tapas Bar. They stated that they checked on the children every half hour. Not something I'd have done and the McCanns left the apartment unlocked even after being informed about a spate of burglaries in the area. Negligence? Do you reckon that if I left my 2 year-old grandson in bed, left the door unlocked and nipped over to the pub that would be alright if I checked every half hour? What about if something happened to him? It takes a couple of minutes for a small child to choke to death. If my grandson wandered out and met with an accident, would it be my fault? Would I have been negligent? I think my local police and social services would probably conclude negligence. 

Claim Four

He inferred a fund to finance a search for Maddie was a cynical plot to get rich

I don't recall that inference from the book, but the fund was used to make two payments on the McCanns' mortgage.

See: "Madeleine's Fund - Analysis of Accounts to 31/03/2012" By Enid O'Dowd FCA 

Claim Five

In his book, just days after the Portuguese cops declared the McCanns were not suspects, Amaral said there were no signs of a break-in at the flat.

Although Kate and Gerry McCann were reported by family and friends to have telephoned them in the early hours to say that the shutters of Madeleine's room had been "jemmied" and the window "forced open," John Hill, manager of the ocean Club, stated that "there was no sign that anyone had forced their way in while the McCanns ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yards away." (24 Dash.com)

And who else said there were no signs of a break-in? As reported in the Irish Independent of 25th October 2007, none other than Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCanns.

THE spokesman for the family of Madeleine McCann has reversed a statement made in the early days of the search for the missing child.
Speaking to RTE's 'Prime Time', Clarence Mitchell said she could "easily" have been kidnapped by an abductor who did not leave the trail of a break-in.

However, in the early part of the hunt, friends and family members told journalists that the shutter on the apartment where the McCanns were staying had been broken.

Mr Mitchell made his comments when questioned by a 'Prime Time' team in a report on the disappearance to be screened tomorrow. "There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell.

Straight from the official horse's mouth folks! Clarence Mitchell confirmed what Snr Amaral said, "No signs of a break-in."

Claim Six

He suggested Jane Tanner, who described seeing an abductor carrying a small child, colluded with the McCanns to describe what Maddie was wearing.

Jane Tanner's descriptions of what she saw have changed quite dramatically from her first statement, which was rather vague.

Joana Morais, 11th December 2007

Jane’s Tanner statements have changed until now, two times, first account was: The man, looking Caucasian, was wearing beige trousers, black shoes and was covered in a thick jacket. He was slim, his height was 5'7" and with dark short straight hair. According to her words, he was carrying "a child or an object that could have been taken as a child wrapped in a blanket" or “bundle of clothes”. He was going towards the church.

In her second report in BBC Panorama’s documentary she morphed the description of the abductor, from a white man to a 5'8'' tall swarthy Mediterranean looking man with “quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair”; the vagueness description of the bundle was changed to the certainty of a girl in pink pyjamas.

According to her statement, the child was wearing pink pyjamas, seemed to be asleep and was barefoot. This was the detail that she found the strangest “…and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up”.

So, what happened to the blanket?

The child or the object that could have been a child morphed into a child wearing pyjamas just like the ones Madeleine had been wearing? Well, kind of because there's something not quite fitting about those pyjamas.

Pyjamas said to be identical to the ones Madeleine was wearing when she disappeared.

Those pyjamas have wide, cropped legs. Would they have reached the ankles if a child had been carried as described by Jane Tanner or would they have ridden up over the knees? They would definitely not have been tight around the ankles.

Sketch produced from Jane Tanner's improved description. Definitely not a man carrying an object that could have been a child wrapped in a blanket and, in my opinion, not wearing those pyjamas as displayed by the McCanns. Jane Tanner did not initially describe an abductor carrying a small child, but a man carrying an object that could have been a child. This morphed into an abductor definitely carrying away Madeleine and the white man became the swarthy man! Something helped her memory!

Claim Seven

Kate and Gerry were adamant the kidnapper did not go into the apartment from the back entrance because they could see it from their table at the tapas bar - but Amaral says this was a lie.

At 1.20 on the following video, "view from the tapas bar. Only the very top of the balcony of the McCanns' ground floor apartment is visible. A large whitewashed wall and thick bushes obscure the view from the poolside tables."

The video shows the view from the tapas bar in daylight. These photos show the view at night. The McCanns' table (1) was behind the high screen, further obstructing their view of the apartment.(2) It would have been impossible to see anyone entering or leaving the apartment, who was under 8' tall and not carrying portable floodlights!



Thanks to Pamalam for images.

Claim Eight

The book says there were contradictions among the McCanns and the Tapas Seven over whether the apartment window was open.

All of the statements can be read on Nigel Moore's web site here. Too many contradictions for me to list! Read and judge for yourself.

Claim Nine

Amaral said the McCanns were preoccupied with dealing with the press rather than police.

What can I say? Just go to Google images and you'll find so many images from the first few days after Madeleine disappeared. The McCanns held regular press conferences and when they hot-footed it from Portugal soon after being made arguidos, Gerry contacted Sky News, told them what flight they'd be on and said "Be on it."

After three-year-old Madeleine McCann disappeared on a family vacation in Portugal, her parents pursued a high-stakes strategy: media saturation...

...It is Gerry who is behind what he tells me is “the marketing … a high public awareness” of Madeleine. At his side while we talk is Clarence Mitchell, a voluble former government media analyst and BBC reporter, handpicked by Gerry to be the latest in a line of spokesmen. On October 17, Mitchell spoke at Coventry University. His topic: “Missing Madeleine McCann: The Perfect PR Campaign.” Except that it has been anything but perfect.

It has in fact been so counterproductive that, as winter approached, Portuguese attorney general Fernando Pinto Monteiro suggested that one way or another the McCanns were responsible for their child’s death. Specifically he said that if indeed Madeleine had been kidnapped, it was the carefully contrived publicity engineered by her parents that likely sealed her fate. “With the whole world having Madeleine’s photo,” he observed, any abductor would have been pushed to such a degree that “there’s a greater probability of the little girl being dead than alive.”

Vanity Fair January 10th 2008

Claim Ten

He claimed the McCann children were given drugs to help them sleep - which might explain why the twins did not wake and how Maddie accidentally died.

When the Portuguese police arrived at the McCanns' holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared, there were around 20 people already there, searching the rooms and calling Maddie's name. Throughout the noise and commotion, twins Sean and Amelie slept in their cots and did not wake up. Even when they were lifted and carried to another apartment, they remained sound asleep. This was commented on by various people at the time and one observer stated that Kate McCann kept putting her fingers under the twins' noses to make sure they were breathing. At the time, it seems, that Kate McCann did not explain why she was doing this and she did not express any suspicions about the "abductor" having drugged the children.

However, during an interview for the launch of her book, "Madeleine," Kate McCann described how the twins slept through everything that was going on and how she suspected that the "abductor" had drugged the twins.

Mrs McCann said she had to check that twins Sean and Amelie were still breathing because they did not wake as they began a frantic search for the missing three-year-old...

...Asked if the twins had been drugged, she said on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour today: 'On the night I just remember the twins lying in the cot and not moving - with lights going on and people moving around.

'There was a lot of noise and they just didn't move and I remember several times checking for chest movements. I did feel it was a bit strange that they were not moving let alone waking up.

'I did consider with Madeleine perhaps she had been given something too.'

Daily Mail May 13th 2011

In the very small window of opportunity the intruder would have had to enter apartment 5A and make off with Madeleine, he/she had time to drug all three children?

Most of us who have children know that little ones do not usually sleep as well as the McCann twins slept that night. So, it would appear that there was a reason other than tiredness or that Sean and Amelie were incredibly sound sleepers. It seems reasonable to ask who drugged the twins and also to consider that Madeleine was drugged too, but by whom. Gonçalo simply puts forward the theory that Madeleine may have died accidentally of a drugs overdose. This was not just Amaral's person idea, but one of those put forward by the joint English and Portuguese teams of investigators. They are the police. They are allowed to develop theories as to what has happened when a child disappears. It's their job!

I think The Sun has done a brilliant job there in publishing some of the basic narrative contained in Gonçalo Amaral's book. With the libel trial now underway in Lisbon, The Sun has given readers a glimpse of what the case is about. "Outrageous claims"? I think not!

Madeleine McCann: Full documentary based on Gonçalo Amaral's book

Video by HiDeHo4 


View full transcript in English here (Joana Morais blog.)

Kate's DREAM led to them becoming SUSPECTS?

Killer of two young girls unmasked after twenty-two years?

Ten-year-old Saïda Berch, who was strangled, was found in an irrigation ditch on 26th November 1996 in Voreppe, two days after she disappeared.

Betrayed by his DNA and arrested on Tuesday, (23/07/2013) a 37 year-old man is suspected of having killed Sarah and Saida in 1991 and 1996 in Voreppe (Isère). Aged 15 at the time, he was close to the families of both young girls. 

So many years of doubt and distress have gone by. And on Tuesday, more than twenty years later, the development that nobody expected: the man who is thought to have killed the children, Sarah Syad aged 6 and Saïda Berch aged 10, who were both abducted in Voreppe, has been arrested. The suspect, first name Georges, now aged 37, was still living in Voreppe, a stone's throw from the families of the two girls. This man remained close to the brothers of the two young victims whom he would see every day. 

Now in his thirties and just under 16 at the time, he was interviewed as a witness, but there was nothing to implicate him. He was finally unmasked my new developments in DNA analysis and samples which had miraculously been preserved intact. His sperm and traces of DNA allowed him to be formally identified.   

A magazine and soiled tissues.

Since March 2008, a group of Grenoble police officers have been investigating ten cases of missing and murdered children in Isère. The investigation was close to being archived on many occasions, but the police officers continued to methodically retrieve lost or mislaid evidence. And their perseverance paid off. 

On April 15th 1991, little Sarah Syad was playing at the bottom of town in Bourg-Vieux in Voreppe. She was last seen in the early evening of that day. The child's strangled body was found the next day in woods a few hundred metres from her home. In the area surrounding the scene of the crime, investigators found a pack of tissues bearing a fingerprint and traces of sperm on the paper tissues. The post-mortem revealed that the child had been sexually abused. Another case was then on everyone's mind, that of little Rachid Bouzian, aged 8, who had been abducted from outside her apartment building in Echirolles near Grenoble. Her killer, Karim Katefi, has since been sentenced to life in prison. 

On November 24th 1996, once again in Voreppe, Saïda Berch aged 10, disappeared in the Béraugodière quarter. This very clever schoolgirl had just left her parents' home to go to the gym. Her body was found in an irrigation ditch forty-eight hours later. She had also been strangled but had not been sexually abused. At the scene of the crime, investigators found a soiled pornographic magazine. 

Nearly twenty years later, analysis of the DNA traces has implicated a neighbour and friend of the victims' brothers. New molecular analysis of traces recovered at the time has confirmed that Sarah and Saïda were definitely abducted and killed by the same man. A suspicion became a certainty for the police and the presiding judge Catherine Léger. The genetic profile was entered into the police files and Georges' name came out.  

Georges had been implicated in a case of car theft and put on file and he was already among the small group of witnesses in the case of Saïda Berch: he had been seen with his mountain bike not far from the location of the child's disappearance. 

Le Parisien 25/07/2013

With thanks to "Frencheuropean" for the link to this article.

Madeleine McCann: the rather unusual suspects!

According to the Daily Star dated July 6th 2013, there are five suspects in the frame for the Madeleine McCann abduction. Scotland Yard detectives want to trace five mysterious strangers who were spotted in Praia da Luz around the time that Madeleine disappeared.

One is “Bundle Man” who was seen by the McCanns’ pal Jane Tanner carrying a sleeping girl away from their apartment at around 9.15pm on the night Madeleine disappeared.

Jane Tanner's first statement about this sighting was that she had seen a man carrying a, "bundle that could have been a child." Over time, Ms Tanner's memory improved to the extent that the bundle was not just definitely a child, but a child wearing pyjamas just like the ones Madeleine had been wearing on the night she disappeared. 

The above is based on Jane Tanner's description of "Bundleman" She described the pyjamas as having frills around the ankles and they looked "pinky."

Here we have Kate and Gerry showing a set of pyjamas identical to those Madeleine had been wearing, the bottom part of which has cropped legs, which would surely have ridden up over the knees of a child who had been carried in the manner described by Jane Tanner. They would definitely not have been tight around the ankles. 

"Bundleman," also known as, "Eggman," began his media career as an egg with hair! The McCanns put pressure on the PJ to publish the e-fit based on Tanner's description and since she didn't see the man's face, this was the image the PJ touted around Praia da Luz!

Then, according to the Daily Star, there was "Rude man."

He could also be “Rude Man” who ignored an Irish family’s attempts to chat as he passed them carrying a pyjama-clad girl towards the beach around 10pm that night.

"Rude Man" was spotted by the Smith family from Ireland, who encountered a man carrying a child as they left a bar in Praia da Luz at around 10pm on the evening of May 3rd 2007. One of the family asked "Rude man" if the child was asleep and received no response. According to The Irish Independent the Smith family could hold the key to the Madeleine McCann mystery and their evidence is viewed by Scotland Yard as "credible." When Mr Smith saw the news report of the McCanns returning to the UK, he told the police that he was fairly certain that the man he had seen on that night was Gerry McCann.

Another is “Creepy Man” who days earlier scared British holidaymaker Gail Cooper when he demanded charity cash for an orphanage that did not exist.

She later saw the Mexican-moustached stranger watching children on the beach.

This was when Jane Tanner's "Bundle Man," developed a face and she became absolutely sure that "Bundle Man," and "Creepy Man," were in fact one and the same person! 

And now for number four! 

A fourth was dubbed “Spotty Man” after he was seen five times in the four days before Madeleine disappeared apparently watching their apartment.

If that man exists, is he likely to come forward and declare, "I'm Spotty Man. Look here's the plukes to prove it!"? If he had any sense and was in fact acting suspiciously, he may have visited a dermatologist since then. Even if he exists, who would want to be known internationally as "Spotty Man"?

I feel for you Mr Spotty!

A fifth, “Photo Man”, was spotted taking pictures of children near the beach in nearby Sagres.

Well, that man must be found and interrogated! Taking photos on a beach? Definitely highly suspicious! 

I think Scotland Yard and the Daily Star have missed out a few (well, quite a few) suspects. 

Here are just a few!

Lettuce Man

The Bolivian

The Victoria Beckham look-alike

The odd couple who allegedly worked at the Ocean Club

Stubble Man

The George Harrison look-alike 

The dead paedo

There is growing concern in some quarters that Madeleine's disappearance will be pinned on the dead paedo. Case closed. Pick a paedo, any paedo, as long as he's dead!

We now add, "the childless couple." Seriously folks, the police are now looking at a childless couple who apparently told friends they'd be willing to kidnap a child, having become frustrated with adoption red tape. These two people are among the 38 the Scotland Yard police have listed as "persons of interest."

The pair, who had told friends they would kidnap a child after becoming frustrated with adoption red tape, are among the list of 38 new suspects drawn up by British cops.

A review by London’s Metropolitan police led them to the couple and detectives are now investigating the theory that they smuggled the missing toddler out of Portugal aboard a boat. (Sunday World July 10th 2013)

There may be a childless couple who have Madeleine McCann, the world's best known missing child, who now know that the police are on their tail! And where would Maddie have been for the past 6 years? On a private island somewhere? Let's face it, she would not have been out in public when Maddie look-alikes have been spotted on all 5 continents, sometimes on the same day. Also, wouldn't a childless couple, who are said to have been possibly watching the McCanns coming and going for several days, not have spotted that there was a younger female child? Surely it would be easier for a younger child to adapt to a new family and a new environment?

Ah well, I think the last word here goes to DCI Andy Redwood, who led the review into Madeleine's disappearance.

“From the outset we have approached this review with a completely open mind, placing Madeleine McCann at the heart of everything we do. We are working on the basis of two possibilities here. One is that Madeleine is still alive; and the second that she is sadly dead”, DCI Andy Redwood said last year. Portugal News 24th Jan 2013

Yes, DCI Redwood has spoken! Madeleine McCann is either alive or she is dead! Well, Sherlock, that doesn't fill me with confidence for the success of the investigation that Scotland Yard is about to undertake, especially as the Portuguese Attorney General's Office has not yet received a formal request from SY for assistance with the case, which remains under Portuguese jurisdiction. (Joana Morais July 5th 2013)

I hear they're still having the formal request translated!

Related reading

Scotland Yard statements on Madeleine McCann fail to erase the question marks (Nigel Moore)

If Maddie McCann is alive, who died in parent's rental apartment? (Chelsea Hoffman)

No Way Out and No Way Out (at all) (Dr Martin Roberts on McCann Files)

Breast cancer screening fails to cut deaths

Twenty five years of breast cancer screening has failed to significantly reduce deaths from the disease, according to a landmark study.

Although the number of women who die from breast cancer is steadily decreasing, there is “no evidence” to suggest this is because of screening programmes first introduced in 1988, researchers from Oxford University said.

Daily Telegraph 11th June 2013

The significant decrease in deaths from breast cancer is among younger women who are not among those called in for regular screening. I would hazard a guess that this is because of the emphasis over the past few decades on self-examination.

It comes as no surprise to me that screening using mammography has not significantly reduced deaths from the disease and I can almost hear a certain Dr Martin Albright saying "I could have told you this in 1991."  I suppose having invested huge amounts of money in this programme, the NHS was obliged to run it for a number of years since the effectiveness may only have been measurable with time and a significant number of women being screened.

However, in 1991, during a lecture on "Screening" Martin outlined the criteria for an effective and safe screening programme and the ways in which mammography did not meet any of them. In 1991 folks! If I could find those lecture notes, the reasons outlined by Martin in 1991 why mammography did not meet any of the criteria for a safe, effective and reliable test would be shown, I think, to have been borne out in the intervening years of the programme.

How does mammography meet, or not meet, those criteria?

1) Is the test cost effective?

In 1991, Martin Albright said no and this seems to have been borne out in practice, since the average cost to the NHS is over £120 million a year and there has been no significant decrease in deaths from breast cancer. http://westhousemedical.com/documents/press-cuttings/Med_Tech_1.pdf

2) Is it easy to administer?

The answer to this one has to be no, since it involves flattening the breast between two plates and passing a dose of radiation through the tissue. Flattening those mammaries is not an easy task.

3) Does it produce an acceptable number of false positives?

The chances of a false positive are increased with every mammogram a woman has.

False-positive screening mammograms are "very common," Dr. Brodersen toldMedscape Medical News. The cumulative risk in Europe and the United States of false positives in 10 screening rounds ranges from 20% to 60%. It is clear from this study that "psychosocial harms of the false results are substantial and last for years," Dr. Brodersen noted

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/781032

A false positive result will lead to more tests, including biopsy and obvious stress and anxiety for the woman involved.

4) Does it produce an acceptable number of false negatives?

I think we can say no to this.

False-negative results. False-negative results occur when mammograms appear normal even though breast cancer is present. Overall, screening mammograms miss about 20 percent of breast cancers that are present at the time of screening...

...False-negative results can lead to delays in treatment and a false sense of security for affected women.

(Note: false negatives are more common in younger women because of the density of the breast tissue. As women age, there is less fatty tissue and therefore the breast tissue is less dense)

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/mammograms

5) Are levels of discomfort reasonably acceptable to most women?

No! I don't think I need to say much about how incredibly painful, not just uncomfortable, it is when sensitive breast tissue is squashed to a thickness of  a few inches between two rigid plates.

6) Does the procedure, of itself, create problems?

Judging by the numbers of internet searches on the question of "Does trauma/injury to the breast cause breast cancer?" it would appear to be a commonly held belief/worry, but research on this question seems to conclude that there is little or no evidence to support the theory.

One study suggests a link: Cancer Research UK

No evidence:

http://breastcancer.about.com/od/risk/tp/bc_causes_gradishar.htm


Q: Can an injury to my breast develop into breast cancer?

A: Injury to the breast does not cause breast cancer. In some cases, the breast may become bruised after an injury and, in rare cases, develop a non-cancerous lump called fat necrosis. Fat necrosis is not dangerous, and the symptoms usually subside within a month. If you have a lump in your breast and are concerned that it may be breast cancer, consult with your doctor immediately.

What about the radiation, then? Safe levels?

Mammography was introduced in the USA in the 1970s and at that time radiation levels were significantly higher than when the procedure was introduced in the UK. However...

Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.

From the same source:

Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography. (2005)

http://www.naturalnews.com/010886.html

Compression of breast tissue can cause cancerous cells to travel to distant sites.

Cancer Risks from Breast Compression
As early as 1928, physicians were warned to handle "cancerous breasts with care— for fear of accidentally disseminating cells" and spreading cancer (7). Nevertheless, mammography entails tight and often painful compression of the breast, particularly in premenopausal women. This may lead to distant and lethal spread of malignant cells by rupturing small blood vessels in or around small, as yet undetected breast cancers.

http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/dangers.htm


From the source cited above:

Radiation Risks
Radiation from routine mammography poses significant cumulative risks of initiating and promoting breast cancer.

So, does the process of mammography cause problems of itself?

It would appear that the answer to this is yes. Cumulative doses of radiation are thought to be a risk factor for the development of cancer of the breast, particularly in women who carry a particular genetic anomaly, who are therefore more at risk. 

And for me, it seems to be a no-brainer that compression to the breasts can cause cells to break off and travel to distant sites, presenting a high risk of the development of metastases. (secondary tumours) 

For me, the development and continued use of mammography as a screening test for breast cancer is left brain thinking. Mostly we are told that the left brain is logical, rational, literal and the right brain is creative and imaginative.   Robert Ornstein suggests text/context. When I view and object, my left brain tells me descriptive things about it: this thing I'm looking at is living, it's hairy, it's brown. My right brain places this thing in the context of similar things I have encountered and tells me "It's a dog!" Similarly, my left brain says there are things in the water and they're moving and my right brain, comparing them to similar things I've seen before, to place them in a context, says "They're gill-bearing aquatic craniates." (Do I go into the chippie and ask for gill-bearing aquatic craniate and chips? Of course I don't! I'm vegetarian!) 

So, the left-brainer develops machines. And oh what magnificant machines they are! These machines can flatten breasts and when we pass a nice dose of radiation through, we can possibly detect cancer. That's the straight line thinking of the left brain. When right brain and left brain work in harmony, some context is added here - uh, hang on a wee minute, Jimmy, I've seen this kind of thing before: radiation can cause cancer and what kind of head banger can't work out that if you squash breasts as flat as possible, significant harm could result? 

So, on the six criteria for a safe and effective screening test, mammography scores a big FAIL! 

There is also, to be added here, the problem of over-diagnosis. Some breast cancers are so slow-growing that they will never become symptomatic within the natural life expectancy of the individual, but these tumours may be picked up by mammography and unnecessary treatment started, which of course can be traumatic and lead to further treatment being necessary. 

The most informative analysis in Zackrisson et al's study is the comparison of the cumulative incidence of breast cancer in the screened and the non-screened groups of women born between 1908 and 1922 and randomised between 1976 and 1978.1 This is a mature cohort with follow-up to 2001 when about 60% of the women had died. The main finding is a 10% increase in the lifetime occurrence of breast cancer (including cancer in situ) in the screened group.

In a population where the lifetime risk of breast cancer is 8% and the lifetime risk of dying from breast cancer from age 50 onwards is 2.5%, screening 250 women may prevent about one death from breast cancer. Screening would, however, also lead to the over-diagnosis of two cases. The woman whose death from breast cancer is prevented receives all the important benefit, whereas the two over-diagnosed women pay part of the price by becoming breast cancer patients and undergoing treatment. We cannot predict, however, which three women these will be.

http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7543/691 (23/03/206)

For every woman whose life is saved, two women will be over-diagnosed, gaining the status of breast cancer patients and undergoing treatment? I don't think I like the odds on that, however slim they may be, of being one of those two. 

And finally, if mammography is so unsafe and unreliable, why is so much effort being put into bringing more women onto the programme? And if the significant decrease in deaths from breast cancer is among those women too young for regular screening, why was the "expert" on Radio 4's Today programme suggesting that the programme be extended to include those women? They're doing alright without it! Seems like a no-brainer to me! 

There are potentially safer screening tests being tried out. More on those another time! 

Further reading:

Screening for breast cancer. Mammography unsafe and unreliable (BMJ March 1993)

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/106/6/234.full.pdf+html (original research quoted by the Daily Telegraph above)

Women undergoing screening mammography experience a higher incidence of invasive breast cancer, without a corresponding reduction in symptomatic breast cancer. (BMJ July 2009)

The Breast Screening Programme and misinforming the public (Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine September 2011)

Dementia Reversal with Coconut oil - in an 85yr old at 35 days.

OK folks, while I'm working on a blog post about the Newtonian, mechanistic, left-brain thinking that led to 25 years of mammography, here is an interesting video on one man's experience of treating his 85 year-old father's dementia with coconut oil.

McCanns DID NOT SEARCH! Tapas Cook breaks SILENCE!

One year after Madeleine McCann disappeared from the holiday apartment her parents Kate and Gerry had rented in Praia da Luz, the cook who had worked at the Tapas Bar where the McCanns dined every evening of their holiday, broke her silence.

From 1.06 on the video, the subject is the employees who worked at the Tapas Bar on the evening Madeleine McCann disappeared. Translation is by Joana Morais and I have transcribed as faithfully as possible to Joana's original text.

Presenter: These 8 employees didn't see their contracts renewed this year. They were obliged in the last 12 months to be silent, forbidden to talk with journalists. Since they contracts were not renewed they decided to talk.

SIC has spoken to the cook. She doesn't "show" her face, but a year later and without working in the Ocean Club, Manuela decided that she wasn't obliged to the silence any more. The cook who prepared a "Robalo" fish with cuscus and the pepper steak meal the McCanns had to dinner in the night Maddie disappeared was in the griller area, 3 meters away from the table of the couple. The former employee from th Tapas tells us that immediately various colleagues left their work post to help the searches.

Manuela: Meanwhile, in the hours that followed, during most of the time, the McCanns stayed inside the apartment. My colleagues were indignated [angered/offended] because they went. One of them even had his feet all red, tired, and he was offended because he went to search though he wasn't anything related to the girl and the parents didn't. They stayed indoors in the apartment.

A year ago, suddenly everything changed in the Ocean Club. The quiet resort, ideal for family holidays, was invaded by police and journalists. The Ocean Club and Tapas turned into a pandemonium. No one could get out and no one could get in. Even if we were married, our husbands couldn't get in, neither our friends. Everything was surrounded. The security officers didn't know the employees. They thought the employees were journalists.

In the beginning, everything was really complicated. The Judiciary was in a full scale operation to Praia da Luz. For more than a month the investigators created a kind of head quarters in one of the apartments of the Ocean Club. All the employees from the resort were heard. They all went in two..in two hours by two hours, two [referring to the number of people in pairs] during some time. Close to a month. We were almost 200 employees.

Presenter: Manuela remembers seeing Madeleine some times. When the parents would put her at the crèche, in the babysitters, the kitchen was next to it.

How was Madeleine's routine during those holidays? When she entered there in the Ocean Club?

Manuela: She got in, was delivered to the babysitters. The babysitters would do a class: they would do a group course with the girls. Between 4pm and 4:30pm they had something to eat. In the morning they had a fruit lunch. [breakfast?] And the parents would come to pick them up at 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

Presenter: In the middle of those children, do you remember Maddie?

Manuela: Because she entered there, she would wave goodbye or say hello..She was really nice [lovely/polite] She was always smiling.

Presenter: After the disappearance of the girl, several family members of Kate and Gerry came to the Algarve.

Manuela: I remember the family members. Instead of being worried with the family, would go to the pool, rented the tennis court, played tennis....Instead of being worried with the child that was disappeared.

Presenter: The majority of the employees who was in the Tapas in the night of Maddie's disappearance, as all left the resort.

Manuela: The contract ended and they sent us to unemployment.

Presenter: All the team that was in the Tapas that night?

Manuela: All the team that was there in that night.

Presenter: After the disappearance of Maddie, the McCanns stayed in the Ocean Club for more 65 days. In July they moved to a house in the outskirts, away from the journalists eyes. It was there that they stayed until 9 of September, the day that they went back to England.




Video by HiDeHo

Translation by Joana Morais

RECONSTRUCTION: Why McCanns and Tapas 7 won't participate.

Thanks HiDeHo!

Today, Sunday May 5th 2013, the Sunday Express carries an interview by Robert Murat, the first suspect in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in May 2007. Robert Murat is calling for a reconstruction of the events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance. I'll go into that interview later, but in the meantime, a quick look at what happened to a proposed reconstruction in March 2008.

When asked about participating in a reconstruction of the events surrounding his daughter Madeleine's disappearance, in HiDeHo's video, posted above, Gerry McCann expresses concern that the proposed date has been made public. "How can you do a reconstruction with what will undoubtedly be a media event?" As if Gerry and Kate had never staged a few media events! On June 3rd, 2007, Gerry was planning a few.

We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing.
“We would look at high-profile people who have already pledged support. It will be some sort of focus around an anniversary, to tell people that Madeleine ’s still missing. I think it would be later this year, once media attention has dropped, to bring it back up, hopefully, for a short period.
“It wouldn’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that. (Paulo Reis)

So, one calender month after Madeleine disappeared, Gerry was obviously not expecting her to turn up any time soon with his planning of "some sort of focus around an anniversary.." Not a one year anniversary, though it appears that Gerry thought there would be one.  

Gerry McCann also refers in the video to the fact that the planned reconstruction was dependent on other people. Read here the correspondence between Stuart Prior (call me Stu!) of Leicester Police, the group of friends the McCanns went on holiday with, as well as other witnesses and significant officers of the Portuguese police. The reconstruction was eventually cancelled as the group known as "The Tapas Seven" placed so many obstacles in the way, it became impossible to stage.

On the subject of participating in a reconstruction, Kate McCann states that if there were anything that would help find Madeleine, "..of course we'd agree to it." OK, then, what about the 48 questions Kate McCann refused to answer when interviewed by the PJ? Surely the parent of a missing child who wanted to do anything that would help the police find their child would want to give as much information as possible? Surely such a parent would be trying to provide every little detail they could remember surrounding the circumstances of the child's disappearance? Maybe not! Why not?

OK, so now Robert Murat wants the Portuguese police to "Bring them all back to Portugal" for a reconstruction. The article doesn't appear to be online and I had intended to buy a copy of the newspaper this morning, but I forgot! However, thanks to the very helpful Duarte Levy I have the article as a pdf! Thanks Duarte!

Mr Murat, 39, spoke to the Sunday Express while sipping tea in Casa Liliana, his elderly mother Jenny's villa 150 yards from apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, where Madeleine vanished.
He said "They need to speak to everybody, including myself, and they need to get the Portuguese involved in a much more constructive way.
"To get somewhere now they need to have a joint team working here together in Praia da Luz. This is where it happened. It didn't happen in England." 

I agree with Robert. If the Scotland Yard team is serious about reviewing all the evidence in this case, then all the main characters involved in the drama need to be interviewed. Robert Murat is willing to be interviewed. So, how about the rest of them? Surely they'd all want to assist with anything that might help solve the disappearance of Madeleine McCann seemingly into thin air?

Robert Murat adds:

The reconstruction should cover the critical period just before and after the abduction

And:

A reconstruction is a real necessity. I am sure it would fill in some of the missing pieces of the jigsaw. Even now after all this time, the timeline is still confused. 

Gonçalo Amaral on the need for a reconstruction:

The reconstruction will have to involve all the parties: the McCanns and their friends. You see, there are so many inconsistencies in these people’s statements that a reconstruction will very quickly highlight where they have not told the truth”. http://www.algarve123.com/en/Articles/2-1403/

In my opinion, highlighting those inconsistencies, the confusion in the timeline, would be the real benefit of staging a reconstruction of the events surrounding Madeleine McCann's disappearance. Any witnesses will surely have come forward by now, given the world-wide media attention that has accompanied this case. Madeleine has been "sighted" on all five continents, sometimes on the same day, but nothing of any value has come of any of it. The world's most well-known child has not been seen since she disappeared on May 3rd 2007 and I'm pretty sure she's not in a "hellish lair," in one of those "lawless villages" referred to by the McCanns' PI Dave Edgar.

A few questions that come immediately to mind: how did Jane Tanner manage to slip-slap past Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, on the same side of the road, in flip-flops, and neither of them saw her? How did Matthew Oldfield manage to see the twins Sean and Amelie breathing in their cots in the dark, through solid cot sides? When Jane Tanner's abductor was heading across the top of the road, when she was slip-slapping along, why didn't Gerry McCann see him? How did Jane Tanner's original "man carrying a bundle that could have been a child" transform over time into swarthy man carrying a child in pyjamas identical to those worn by Madeleine?

It may be too late to jog the memory of any tourist who was in Praia da Luz at the same time as the McCanns, but that's not the main purpose of staging a reconstruction. The main purpose is to highlight the many inconsistencies in witness statements from the Tapas Nine, which eventually may lead to the answer as to what happened to Madeleine.

If Kate McCann is serious about wanting to do anything that would help find her daughter, then she should be expressing her willingness to go back and help the Portuguese police by participating in a reconstruction. But let's see what, if any, response comes from that quarter. I can't see the plane tickets being booked any time soon.

Related blog posts:

All posts labelled "Reconstruction" here.

"Where was Maddie when the lights went out"