Madeleine McCann is not in India!

...
...

Above: age-advanced images of what Madeleine McCann may have looked like at age 6. The image on the right is said to represent her should she have been taken to a hot country, but surely fair hair would go fairer in a hot country, though I guess this may be a suggestion that Madeleine's hair could be dyed.

For the past few days, certain UK journalists have been going a bundle on the latest reported sighting of Madeleine McCann, in Leh, a town in the Kashmir region of India. The first newspaper to break the news was the Chandighar Tribune on July 23rd.

Leh, July 23
High drama prevailed in the busy Fort Road market of the city last night when three persons identified a six-year-old girl as Madeleine McCann, a British girl who went missing while on a holiday in Portugal in 2007.....

....Last night, a British woman saw a French woman with her Belgian husband roaming in the market with a girl who looked like Madeleine. She immediately informed the British police and the Leh police. The local police has taken the passports of the suspects for verification.

For some reason, it took the UK press a few days to catch up, but on July 28th, the Daily Mail reported that DNA tests were being carried out on the child who was spotted in the Indian market. That article seems to have disappeared now, but some of it was saved:

Kate and Gerry McCann's team of private investigators say they are working with police in the northern city of Leh.

The link to the article ( here) will now take you to a story where Kate and Gerry McCann say the child is definitely not Madeleine. (More on that later)

Today, The Sun reports that Kate and Gerry's 'hopes are dashed,' but it's still reporting that DNA tests are being carried out on the child...

Indian detectives arrived and confiscated passports belonging to the mother and father, a Belgian man and French woman. DNA tests are being carried out to establish the girl's identity.

....which is really quite strange since yesterday, in the Indian newspaper, News One, local police in Leh denied all knowledge.

Srinagar, July 28 (IANS) The Jammu and Kashmir Police Thursday denied media reports that a British girl who had reportedly gone missing in Portugal four years ago was found in Leh.

Talking to some media persons here Thursday evening, Abdul Gani Mir, deputy inspector general of police (DIG), said: ‘We have not recovered any missing foreign girl from Leh.’

‘There is no question of carrying out a DNA test since we don’t have the girl. Our field staff in Leh have confirmed that no such girl has been recovered by them.’

‘A British media report said that a girl missing for the last four years from Portugal had been sighted in Leh district of the state. We have no such confirmation from either the police or the district administration,’ the DIG said.

Earlier, a British newspaper report had said a four-year-old British girl, who was allegedly kidnapped while on a holiday in Portugal in 2007, has reportedly been tracked down to Leh city in India’s Jammu and Kashmir state.

The report in the Daily Mail also said the parents of Madeleine McCann are, however, awaiting the results of a DNA test on the girl.

Kate and Gerry McCann’s team of private investigators said they were working with Leh police who were alerted after a British woman spotted a girl she thought to be Madeleine. The abducted girl would now be eight years old.

So, how come the McCanns' private investigators were, according to Clarence Mitchell, as reported in the Daily Mirror, on July 28th, liaising with Indian authorities? Which authorities? The police know nothing about the child or any DNA tests being conducted!

Kate and Gerry McCann's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said: "Our private investigators are aware of the reports from India over the weekend about a possible sighting of Madeleine.

"We are liaising with the Indian authorities over the incident and await the results of the DNA test."

And just in case, Clarrie should at some point allege that he never mentioned anything about the police. here he is being interviewed on ITV news, on July 28th.

Transcript from 0.25.

Clarence Mitchell: It was reported to local police, which was absolutely the right thing for people to do under the circumstances and the police say that they..emmm...they checked the parents' identities. The parents denied that they were anything but the natural parents...ummm..and the police have been looking into it..."

Which police, Clarence? The Chief of Police for the region states that they know nothing about this: no child, no DNA tests. So, they haven't checked out any parents and they're not looking into it. Where did you get this from, Clarrie, and who were your PIs liaising with, because it doesn't appear to have been the local police in Leh.

So, back to The Daily Mail and that story about Kate and Gerry's 'dashed hopes.'

But after studying a photo of the child, the McCanns announced this afternoon that the girl was not their daughter.
Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the couple were 'certain' the girl was not Madeleine, who would now be eight-years-old.
He said: 'Kate and Gerry do not believe the child seen in India was Madeleine. They have seen photographic evidence and concluded that it was not her.

So, let's get this story straight, according to Clarence Mitchell and the UK press. A bunch of tourists spotted a child in a market in Leh, India. One of the tourists grabbed the child, whom they were all convinced was Madeleine McCann. The local police accosted the parents, took their passports and took swabs for DNA testing from the child.

No! It didn't happen! And if the McCanns have this 'photographic evidence,' I wonder who it was who took photographs of a young child, possibly without the permission of her parents. Or, was the whole thing just a hoax? Someone is telling porkies here, Clarrie or the Indian police and I know who I'd believe!

Interesting articles:

David Bret: "THE INDIA SIGHTING WAS A HOAX."

Steel Magnolia: "Maddie is dead and the McCanns are in the business of fraud."

Pat Brown's book pulled by Amazon.

......
.......

Madeleine McCann - New videos - absolutely no evidence of abduction

................
................

Videos produced by HiDeHo.

email: hideho1@hotmail.com

Twitter: @HiDeHo3

YouTube: HiDeHo4

LulzSec say they will release Murdoch email archive.

..............
.............

Rebekah Brooks apparently not a password genius.

By John Leyden

19th July 2011

The hacktivists behind a hack on The Sun's website claim to have extracted an email archive which they plan to release later on Tuesday.

News International's systems were hacked on Monday night. As a result, visitors to The Sun's website were redirected towards a fake story on the supposed death of Rupert Murdoch by infamous hacktivist collective LulzSec. The group also redirected visitors to the main News International website to the LulzSec Twitter feed. In addition, the hack may have allowed LulzSec to gain access to News International's email database.

Sabu, a prominent member of LulzSec, said via Twitter that the group was sitting on emails of News International staffers that it planned to release on Tuesday.

In the meantime, Sabu released email login details for former News International chief exec Rebekah Brooks, a central figure in the News of the World voicemail-hacking scandal.

Brooks (then called Wade), edited The Sun between 2003 and 2009, and – at least according to LulzSec – had been using the password 63000 to access her email account at the paper. As IT blogger John Graham-Cumming points out, 63000 is the same number as the text tip-off line used by the Sun.

LulzSec also posted the supposed password hash – but not the password – of Bill Akass, former managing editor of the News of the World.

The hackers also posted the mobile phone numbers of three News International execs. This information seems to have come from, at best, an old database. The Telegraph reportsthat one of the phone numbers belongs to Pete Picton, a former online editor with The Sun who left to work on News Corp's iPad-only publication, The Daily, last year. Another phone number belongs to Chris Hampartsoumian, an IT worker. Hampartsoumian recently announced, via Twitter, that he does not work for any News Corp firm.

LulzSec certainly obtained deep enough access to News International systems during the Monday break-in to pull off a redirection hack on The Sun, but whether it obtained the depth of access it claims to have done remains unclear. A News International spokeswoman declined to comment when we asked if the organisation was taking the email hack claims seriously or whether it was taking any remedial action.

She said the firm was "aware" of the website redirection hack on The Sun, adding that all News International websites were now up and running as normal.

However The Guardian reports that News International took its webmail systems and remote access systems offline as a precaution following The Sun website redirection hack. Passwords were reset before remote access and other systems were restored on Tuesday morning, the paper adds.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/19/sun_hack_more_lulz/

Sean Hoare on Panorma

...........
..............

Rebekah Brooks admits to paying police (2003)

...............
................

References:

The Telegraph Monday July 11th 2011

Mrs Brooks has previously appeared to confirm that she was aware of police officers being paid for information.

She told a Commons committee in 2003: “We have paid the police for information in the past.”

It is believed that officers are attempting to speak to Greg Miskiw, a former assistant editor at the News of the World, whose signature appears on a contract for Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator jailed alongside Goodman in 2007.

The Guardian Monday April 11th 2011

The former Sun editor, Rebekah Brooks, told a powerful group of MPs on Monday she has no knowledge of any actual payments the paper might have made to police officers in exchange for information.

In a letter to the chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, Brooks, who is now chief executive of the paper's parent company News International, said she had no "knowledge of any specific cases" in which payments to police might have been made.

Brooks was responding to a request from the committee made last month to detail how many police officers received money from the Sun, which she edited from 2003 to 2009, and when the practice ceased.

Brooks, who edited the Sun's sister title the News of the World before moving to the daily in early 2003, told MPs on the culture, media and sport select committee eight years ago:"We have paid the police for information in the past."

In her letter to the home affairs select committee chairman, Labour MP Keith Vaz, Brooks said she was grateful for the opportunity to clarify the evidence she gave in March 2003.

The Milly Dowler Story

....
.........

Dr David Manning: "Murdoch's Criminal Media Empire Will Fall."

.............
...

Ex News of the World writer tells all

..............
.............

Paul McMullan worked at News of the World for more than a decade.

Casey Anthony - Judgment Day

...............
............

"Madeleine McCann parents' rare moment of joy."

.
.
According to the Mirror 24th June 2011 A "rare moment of joy," eh?

And according to The Express, "At last, sad Kate can smile again." Again? And here she is! Is that a smile or is she showing off the work of her orthodontist?

I note, in passing, that Gerry has changed his hairstyle. Is this because he is trying to conceal the fact that he is rather follically challenged, or could it be so that he looks less like suspect number two thousand and twenty-four, "Spotty Man."?



Returning to the Mirror and that "rare moment of joy":

KATE McCann flashed a rare smile as she and husband Gerry promotes their book Madeleine in Holland.

Perhaps Wendy Fuller, who wrote the brief article for the Mirror, would change her mind about Kate's "rare smile" if she were to view this video from September 2007?

Wendy goes on:

She has struggled to hide her grief since her daughter vanished from Portugal four years ago

Since when, Wendy?

Kate and Gerry leaving the church in Praia da Luz, just a few days after Madeleine disappeared. Well well! Just a few days after her daughter disappeared into thin air, Kate McCann appeared to have been winning that struggle to hide her grief!

And doing just as well on a trip to the zoo with the twins in Portugal just a short time later!

I shall leave you with this video from May 2008, "The Rare Smiles of Kate & Gerry McCann."

Pat Brown, criminal profiler talks about the Madeleine McCann case

..
..

Towards the end of the video, another case is mentioned, which is said to have some similarities. That was the case of Sabrina Aisenberg, who disappeared in 1997, at the age of 5 months. Her mother stated that she put Sabrina to bed in her cot and some time later, Sabrina had disappeared. Because of inconsistencies in their statements, the Aisenberg parents had their home 'wire tapped,' and over 60 conversations were recorded, which were thrown out of court because they were inaudible. In 2008, a 'jail snitch,' came forward and stated that he believed another inmate, Scott Overbeck, was somehow involved.

We have a child who disappeared without trace, parents whose statements hold inconsistencies, alleged odour of decomposition, although it doesn't sound like dogs were brought in.

Note at 0.24 of the video, Marlene Aisenberg, Sabrina's mother, appears to be using the script later used by Kate McCann, "Sabrina needs her mother and her father.." She also talks about Sabrina's siblings. Nothing suspicious, I suppose, in the similarities here: it's just worth mentioning, in my opinion, that the McCanns appear to have had a previously used script to follow. Also worth noting is that the Aisenbergs sued the police!

Pat Brown has written a review of Kate McCann's recently published book about Madeleine's disappearance.

"Madeleine: Wherein lies the Truth."

Women in Crime blog

by Pat Brown

It is said there is often a lot of nonfiction in fiction and a lot of fiction in in nonfiction. Kate McCann's new autobiography, Madeleine, is a prime example of this axiom. I say 'autobiography' because Kate's book is not so much about what happened to her missing daughter, Madeleine Beth, but about Kate McCann nee Healy - her life, her loves and her losses, her trials and her tribulations. In reality, very little of the book is about the missing little girl who vanished in Praia da Luz, the lovely vacation destination in the Algarve of south Portugal; it is a carefully crafted revisionist history of one of the most puzzling missing children's cases in recent years and a strident defense of the characters and behaviors of Kate and Gerry McCann.

Read the full review on the "Women in Crime," blog (Link above)

Pat Brown has also written a book about the Madeleine McCann case, which is available, though only on Kindle, from Amazon, "

"Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (Updated)"

42 reviews of Pat's book on Amazon are all 5 star.

Pat Brown again, speaking about the case when Madeleine had been missing for three years.

Madeleine McCann: new defamation action launched in Portugal by her parents

...............
.............

Paulo Sergeanto

The action launched by Kate and Gerry McCann seeks an, as yet, undetermined amount in damages.

According to the summons - which I have managed to get hold of -, Madeleine McCann's parents have decided to pursue action for defamation against the psychologist Paulo Sergeanto, the well known presenter Manuel Luis Goucha and the journalist Hernâni Carvalho.

The three personalities of the small screen in Portugal began to be interviewed yesterday, Wednesday, and were constituted "arguidos" - the equivalent in French law of being cautioned.
The criminal complaint, which was instituted by the couple's lawyer in Portugal, also cites the private television channel TVI and its administration.

The complaint cites the contribution of the three "arguidos" during the broadcast of a talk-show where details of the Portuguese police investigation were discussed.

Sergeanto, who also appears as a legal expert in Portuguese courts, confirmed the information, stressing that he did not respond to the Prosecutor's questions yesterday, but "that he did not speak yesterday but that he intends to do so during the proceedings because he has knowledge of elements which may lead to the reopening of the inquiry related to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.”

An unusual detail, in contrast to other trials, is that the secrecy of justice has not been requested in this case.

According to a source close to the McCanns, who confirms the action in progress, "other actions aimed at other people and media are still under consideration."

Duarte Levy in The Tribune 16/06/2011

http://sosmaddie.blogs.dhnet.be/

Kate McCann: "Metodo 3 made significant strides."

....................
.....................

Francisco Marco; director of Metodo 3

This is what Kate McCann states on page 283 of her recently published book, "Madeleine."

We have no doubt that Metodo 3 made significant strides, but unfortunately, in mid-December, one of their senior investigators gave an overly optimistic interview to the media. He implied the team were close to finding Madeleine and declared that he hoped she would be home by Christmas Gerry and I did not pay much heed to these bullish assertions”.

"Significant strides."? In what way? How did they do this? Kate McCann doesn't actually say what these "significant strides," were, though she goes on to tell us that one of the "senior investigators," hoped that Madeleine would be home by Christmas. Of course, we all know that she wasn't, but I wonder why we never read in the newspapers that reported this hope that Kate and Gerry thought Metodo 3 was making "bullish assertions."

So, Kate McCann waffles on without giving details of the "significant strides."

“That glitch apart, Metodo 3 worked very hard for us and, just for the record, their fees were very low: most of the money they were paid was for verified expenses…we maintain good relations with Metodo 3 today. We had the sense that they genuinely cared about Madeleine’s fate…”

Wow! A "glitch."!! A child is missing, allegedly abducted from her bed by a paedophile, and a company's overly optimistic suggestion that she would be home by Christmas was just a "glitch." Nothing to get worked up about. We've now got a spare place at the Christmas dinner table, let's invite one of the relies! I guess I might have seen it as a bit more than a "glitch," a trivial set back, but hey ho! I've never mislaid a child.

Who introduced this company to the McCanns? They were in search of a group of private detectives to carry on the search for their daughter. So, who introduced Metodo 3? Why not a company that had experience of searching for missing people/children? Surely some research would have found such a company? Metodo 3 had no previous experience in that field of investigation.

Duarte Levy and Paulo Reis presented a run-down on the previous work undertaken by this agency. They had no previous experience of dealing with cases of missing children, their work having been focused on clients from the commercial and industrial sectors, dealing with such issues as money-laundering and security. Based in Barcelona, Metodo 3 was responsible for the new phone line set up after an appeal for information from the McCanns. The Portuguese police had not been consulted about this phone line.

So, what did Metodo 3 do for the McCanns? This information from Duarte Levy

November 10th 2007: An Irish citizen on holiday in Bosnia contacted Metodo 3 to report that he had seen Madeleine in a Bosnian city. Clarence Mitchell said this sighting was being taken very seriously.

November 18th 2007: Francisco Marco states that he knows who kidnapped Madeleine.

November 20th 2007: A woman gives a witness statement to Metodo 3, stating that she had seen Michaela Walczuch, Robert Murat's friend, in Morocco, close to where Madeleine had been sighted.

Ah yes! If nothing else crops up, point the finger at Robert Murat!

December 22nd 2007: Metodo 3 admits never having known where Madeleine was, although they had assured that they would have Madeleine home by Christmas.

December 28th 2007: Metodo 3 comes up with two witnesses who say they had seen Robert Murat in the vicinity of the McCanns' apartment on the night she disappeared.

Names of these witnesses? Payne and Tanner by any chance? None of the local people saw Robert Murat that night.

February 23rd 2008: Metodo 3 detective who had been involved in their hunt for Madeleine, is arrested for theft of cocaine from a police warehouse in Barcelona.

March 13th 2008: A detective working for Metodo 3 in Morocco is alleged to have paid witnesses to say they had seen Madeleine, according to a senior Moroccan police officer.

February 2nd 2009: Metodo 3 under investigation for money-laundering.

In spite of all of the above, Kate McCann states: "..we maintain good relations with Metodo 3 today." Why? Suspected of theft of cocaine? Money-laundering? Paying witnesses? Suggesting that they would have Madeleine home by Christmas and then owning up to the fact that they never had any idea where she was? Perhaps, Kate and Gerry need to maintain good relations with that cheap (that's what Kate said!) bunch of detectives because of what they might have to tell about their so-called "investigation," into Madeleine's disappearance?

I'd love to know what those "significant strides," were that Kate McCann mentions, but does not describe. She is quite descriptive in her details of what a paedo might be doing with her daughter and at times the minutiae of her daily life in Portugal, but not about the work done by Metodo 3 in the search for Madeleine. We know that on the day she disappeared, Madeleine had been wearing clothes from Gap and Monsoon, but we don't know what Kate McCann considers to be significant in Metodo 3's search for her. Apart from the many false sightings reported by Metodo 3, too many to mention, what did they do?

What were those "significant strides."? None that I have seen being reported. Perhaps it's all very sensitive information that will now be handed over to the joint teams of Portuguese police and Scotland Yard who will be reviewing the files? Somehow I don't think the file they might hand over would be very thick!

I wonder if Kevin Halligen also made "significant strides," for his money! He disappeared with £300,000? Well, he definitely wasn't cheap!

So, come on Kate McCann, what exactly did Metodo 3 do that was so significant because in your place, I'd be downright embarrassed to admit any connection with that bunch of cowboys!

Complaint against the BBC upheld: Gonçalo Amaral did not use offensive language about the McCanns

.........................
.......................

The BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit has published its ruling on complaints that one of their reporters had misquoted Gonçalo Amaral outside the court in Lisbon.

BBC East Midlands 30/05/2011

ECU Ruling: East Midlands Today, BBC1 (East Midlands), 12 January 2011

Publication date: 30 May 2011

Complaint

The programme included a brief exchange between a reporter and Gonçalo Amaral (a former policeman who had worked on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and had since written a book on the case). One word in the exchange was bleeped, and the report gave the impression that this was because Sr Amaral had used offensive language about the MrCanns. A viewer complained that this was inaccurate and unfair to Sr Amaral.

Outcome
The reporter's belief, reinforced by others on the programme team who viewed the recording, was that Sr Amaral had indeed used an English phrase which included an offensive term applied to the McCanns. On further examination, however, it became clear that Sr Amaral had been speaking Portuguese, and that an inoffensive phrase had been misconstrued. Upheld

Further action
The Editor of the programme has discussed the outcome with the producer and reporter involved. In future, the team plans to use interpreters if clips from interviews are unclear.

Kate McCann: I always wanted to write down the truth, really, for my three children.

.............
.................

Kate McCann: I always wanted to write down the truth, really, for my three children.

So, you thought it was important that your three children knew that you "couldn't make love to Gerry"? And that they would appreciate being able to read about your very vivid imaginings about what a paedophile might be doing to Madeleine? If Madeleine were to turn up at some time in the future, I'm not sure that she would appreciate being reminded, if she had been abducted by a paedophile and somehow had managed to live and escape.

Do your children really need to read what you have written on page 129 of your book?

"I asked Gerry apprehensively if he'd had any really horrible thoughts or visions of Madeleine. He nodded. Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her perfect little genitals torn apart"

That sounds almost twee. And it reads like you're talking about a child's expensive material possession being damaged. I can imagine adoring relatives, leaning over a crib and making gushing remarks about a baby's "perfect little fingers and toes," but who would talk about the baby's "perfect little genitals."? If an examining physician were to lean over and coo about the child's "perfect little genitals," wouldn't alarm bells be raised? Is this how you imagine, Kate McCann, that the readers will be persuaded that you are a loving mother? You have visions of "perfect little genitals."? Well, I may be just an internet nutter, but I'm appalled beyond words to describe my disgust.

Kate McCann: I guess the reason, well the trigger reason, why I actually...why it became a book and why it was published, was because we have to fund the search for Madeleine and the fund was running low. So, we had to raise money.

You also need to raise a bob or two for the costs awarded against you for the legal action in trying to get Gonçalo Amaral's book banned, costs to Carter-Ruck and costs for the upcoming libel action against Gonçalo Amaral.

Kate McCann: If I'm honest (And why wouldn't you be? And what would you be saying if you weren't being honest?) I suppose I was hoping that we'd have more public support, really, but because we were at such a low ebb, and things couldn't have got any worse than they were in September 2007, I suppose I'd hoped that someone would come forward and publicly show support or basically , you know, say what they felt about certain bits of information that were appearing in the media.

I really can't make very much of that vague waffle. The question to which Kate McCann may have been responding may have been edited, but if she is still talking about why she wrote and published the book, which I assume she is, then this is just a load of waffle.

"More public support."? In terms of money? As soon as the fund was set up, the money rolled in: pensioners sent donations from their meager income and schoolchildren made and sold cakes. Or is Kate McCann referring to more recent times when the fund was running low and Gerry sent out begging letters to people who had previously given very generous support, people like JK Rowling? Did the rich sponsors not come up with the goods, then?

What does how things were in 2007 have to do with the fund running low, publishing the book and being at a low ebb at an unspecified time? Kate just knew she had to get in a mention of how bad they felt when they were made arguidos by those nasty sardine-munching Portuguese cops?

And when was it she had hoped this person would have come forward and "publicly shown support." September 2007? Around the time she decided to write and publish the book, and it didn't happen? As a response to Gerry's begging letters to rich supporters who would publicly have thrown a great wad of cash their way and no one did, so she had to get the book written?

Kate McCann sounds like she desperately needs to cover a few important details, but they're all kind of thrown into a cognitive blender and have come out as information mousse. She thinks that no one came out and said what they felt about "certain bits of information that were appearing in the media."? What bits of information? When? When they were made arguidos? Who would she have wanted to make this public display of support? A politician? A journalist? Does Kate McCann have a specific "someone," in mind here and she's telling that "someone," how let down she felt?

I just don't know what Kate McCann is waffling on about there.

Gerry McCann: We have proceedings underway against Gonçalo Amaral. That's all we really want to say about it.

Oh dear! Does that mean they're going ahead with the libel action? I wonder what their legal representative, Isabel Duarte, is advising them on this. Since three judges, sitting at the Lisbon Court of Appeal decided that "The contents of the book do not breach the basic rights of the plaintiffs," (Guardian 19/10/2010) I would have thought the McCanns would have reconsidered pursuing this action. Do they seriously think that a lower court will ignore the deliberations of the Court of Appeal and decide that Amaral's book does breach their rights?

Ah well! I guess the McCanns will just keep on doing what they've been doing: think that if they repeat something often enough, shout as loudly as they can, like small, spoilt childen, they'll get their own way. One of these days, somebody's gonna shut them up. And please God make it soon! I still think a reconstruction would put paid to their fairy stories! Maybe the Scotland Yard team and the Portuguese police will jointly request it. They really should. And like lots of other internet nutters, I am eternally optimistic that justice will be done one of these days for Madeleine.

Somebody do something to shut up that pair of lying eejits!

The McCann case - What I'd like to see in a reconstruction - Part 1

...............
..................

Well, what would I like to see in a reconstruction of the events of May 3rd 2007, when Madeleine McCann was reported missing, having mysteriously disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz?

First of all, the child that Jane Tanner reported that she saw being carried by the alleged abductor. The child chosen to take the part would have to be the same height as Madeleine was said to have been at the time: 90cms. I can't quite believe that she was that small, but that's the height that was given out in a description by her parents. So, that's the height the child should be.

Then there's those pyjamas! I doubt that Marks and Spencer has the identical pyjamas still on sale, but the basic style is popular and so should be easy to come across. Kate can let the police know the size, I am sure, although the size Madeleine was wearing is probably a matter of record.

So, the child should be the same height and wearing pyjamas just like these ones.

And she should be carried just as described by Jane Tanner, as seen in the image below, which Jane Tanner verified as a good likeness of the alleged abductor and correct for the way the child was being carried.

But, can someone tell me, just a simple explanation will do, how the pyjamas being held up by Kate and Gerry McCann could end up looking like those in the image verified as accurate by Jane Tanner?

How could baggy, cropped leg pyjamas end up tightly around the ankles? Those pyjamas would ride up to the knees on a child being carried like that.

This is one of the very first inconsistencies that could be shown up in a reconstruction of the events. If Jane Tanner did see a man carrying a child in that manner, wearing pyjamas as shown in the image she accepts as an accurate representation, then it wasn't Madeleine McCann whom she saw.

There could be several explanations for the inconsistency:

1) Jane Tanner didn't see a man carrying a child.

2) She did see a child being carried, but it wasn't Madeleine and under the sodium street lights, she was confused about colour and the pyjamas weren't pink.

3) It was Madeleine and Kate and Gerry lied about what she had been wearing that night.

However, as Jane Tanner slip-slapped her way up the alleyway, in her flip-flops, and apparently passed very close to Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins, neither of the two men saw her.

So, were any of those three lying? Rather seems like it. Who and why? They can't all be telling the truth? And Marks and Spencer's pyjamas are like dogs in a way: they don't lie!

I think there has to be a reconstruction of the events so that this and other inconsistencies can be addressed. This would be the best possible start, in my opinion, to finding out what happened to Madeleine.

Kate and Gerry McCann: "Absolutely no evidence.."?

.............................
............................

Video #2 in the "Discrepancies," series by HiDeHo

For more information:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.com

http://www.madeleinemccann.aimoo.com

Kate McCann - further re-writing of history!

...................................

Kate McCann: "The curtains went whoosh!"

Re-writing the story of "How I knew that Madeleine had been taken."




Kate McCann:

I did my check about 10.00 'clock and went in through the sliding patio doors and I just stood, actually and I thought, oh, all quiet, and to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it.

I went to close it to about here and then as I got to here, it suddenly slammed and then as I opened it, it was then that I just thought, I’ll just look at the children and I could see Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine’s bed which was here and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking, is that Madeleine or is that the bedding.(See image below) and I couldn’t quite make her out. It sounds really stupid now, but at the time, I was thinking I didn’t want to put the light on cos I didn’t wanna wake them and literally, as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn,… were closed, … whoosh … It was like a gust of wind, kinda, just blew them open and Cuddle Cat was still there and her pink blanket was still there and then I knew straight away that she had, er, been taken, you know.

Above: photo of Madeleine's bed from the police files. It was perfectly flat, as though it hadn't been slept in. What was there that Kate McCann could have mistaken for the bedding or Madeleine? Perhaps if the bedding had been bunched up, she could have wondered what the bulge was, but there's no bulge.

Referring to her relating of the story, Kate McCann opened the door and as she went to close it, it slammed. She opened it again to have a look at the children, (She went back in? She hadn't mentioned actually going in!) something like a gust of wind blew the curtains open. Something like a gust of wind? What could be like a gust of wind, apart from a gust of wind?

Anyway, no mention of going anywhere else before the curtains went whoosh! She opened the door immediately for the second time and the curtains went whoosh.

And here we have Kate McCann talking to Piers Morgan with a greatly embellished account of how she knew!

PM: What was the exact moment...I'll ask you Kate...when you realised that Madeleine was gone?

KMcC: Well, I went back to do a check at ten o'clock, emm...and I went through the patio doors at the back..emm...and I listened for a minute in the living room and it was all quiet. And I just noticed that the...the door to the children's bedroom was quite far open and we always leave it so that it's slightly ajar, just to let a little bit of light in. And..emm...I thought to myself, did Matt leave the door open at half nine...errr... because Matt checked on them at half nine...emm..and I thought that must be what happened.

Emm...so I went to close over the children's door and just as I was about to close it, there was a..it kind of slammed, like a gust of wind had shut it. And then I thought, did I leave the patio doors open? (So, she didn't think I'll just take a look at the children at this point?) So I just checked (Didn't mention that before) and they were closed. And then I went back just to open the door a little bit (Not to look at the children?) and just as I was doing that, (So, incidental to closing the door?) I just...emm...I just glanced at Madeleine's bed (Not..oh there's the twins in their cot? And you didn't hallucinate a flat bed into bunched up bedding or a child?) which was by the wall. and it was really dark and I couldn't make her out. And I just kept looking for what felt like minutes, thinking, you know, where is she?

At this point in the original telling, when the door was opened for a second time, the curtains went whoosh!

And it seems daft now because normally you'd think I'd put the light on. It's that inbuilt thing of don't wake the kids up...emm...and then I looked and realised she wasn't there and I thought, so has she gone through into our bedroom?

No, this was where Kate McCann told us previously that she knew Madeleine had been taken because the curtains went whoosh and Madeleine's bed was empty, apart from her pink blanket and Cuddle Cat.

Emm...you know...that would explain why the door was open as well. So, I just quickly looked in our room and she wasn't there and that's probably the first time I..that panic started to build. So, obviously (Obviously? Not from the previous telling!) I ran back into her room and...emm..just as I did that, the curtains, which were closed, just kind of blew open and as they did that, I noticed that the shutter was up and the window was open.

PM: And what did you think in that moment?

KMcC: I thought someone's taken her.

PM: You went down to tell Gerry straight away?

KMcC: Yeh, I...I basically whizzed round the apartment. About 15 seconds. I don't know why. In my head I was just thinking if someone's been in and she's cowering somewhere, I guess, which is why I did it. And then I just flew out through the back, down the stairs to the restaurant.

I don't know how Kate McCann can do this. Does she think she's addressing an audience who are two sandwiches short of a picnic? Does she think none of us remember what she said before and can compare? Surely someone could have/should have suggested that she just take a glance at her old interviews and make sure she remembered the story as she had told it in the past? Kate McCann seems to think it's OK to re-write history. The question is why? Why would she think it's OK? Because there isn't a journalist out there who will call attention to the glaring contradictions? Yes, that's exactly what I think. Not one of them has the cojones to say, "Hang on a minute.."

What happened to investigative journalism? Is there no one at all who will ask the obvious questions? Shame on the lot of them and especially those who have filled their pages over the past few days with the utter garbage that Kate McCann has written.

Kate McCann: "We haven't put too much emphasis on her eye."

.......................
......................

Madeleine's very distinctive eye pattern is discussed on this video where Kate and Gerry McCann are interviewed by Piers Morgan.

Watch from 0.35 - 1.30

Transcript:

PM: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

KMcC: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye because I think you have to be very close to her to see it, but her eyes are slightly different colours and one of them has a brown fleck in it...emm...but you do notice particularly on photographs, but...

OK then, who produced these posters?

Why is Kate McCann wearing a badge that says, "Look into my eyes."?

And what does the text on the poster Gerry is holding say? Can it be, "Look into my eyes."?

But they haven't put too much emphasis on her eye!

Oh dear, Kate McCann seems to have forgotten something. Again! She doesn't appear to remember not just all of the above, but what Gerry said in an interview for Vanity Fair magazine, that was published in January 2008. I guess that is rather a long time ago! Kate McCann says she never reads what bloggers and other people on the internet have to say, but she might at least read the official interviews!

Vanity Fair January 10th 2008 (See page 5)

Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

It was a what, Gerry? A good marketing ploy! But you haven't put too much emphasis on her eye!

Another piece of the history of this case being re-written after the all those posters, the Bryan Adams song, "Everything I do," as the theme to videos and Gerry admitting that it was a good marketing ploy!

How does that cliché go? Ah yes! You couldn't make it up! Well, it appears that Kate and Gerry McCann can!