Monday, 8 February 2010

How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of no more than 3-4 minutes?

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

Portuguese police officers investigate climbing through Maddie's bedroom window.

The above is the title of an article by Barbara Nottage, which appeared on the
Madeleine Foundation web site
. It has attracted the attention of the McCanns' legal advisors, Carter Ruck, they of Trafigura fame.

In an email, Tony Bennett, secretary of the Madeleine Foundation states:


"In a letter dated 5 February 2010, Carter-Ruck have asked us to 'immediately' remove the article on our website, by Barbara Nottage, titled "How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of no more than 3-4 Minutes?"

Their letter claims that this article "implies that our clients have lied and that their daughter was not abducted" and is therefore "highly defamatory, casting (as it does), very serious doubt on the sugsestion that Madeleine could indeed have been abducted".


Tony further states that the Carter Ruck letter does not raise any issues of fact with the article. In other words, it does not dispute the chronological details, which are actually based on witness statements from Kate and Gerry McCann and the 7 friends they were on holiday with. I reproduce the article below.

One of the curious aspects of the alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann is the extraordinarily tight timetable in which the abduction is supposed to have taken place. Dr Gerald McCann says he went to check on the children at about 9.05pm on 3 May 2007. He also said elsewhere that he had been an unusually long time in the apartment toilet, and that he had been inside all four rooms of the apartment. In addition, he told the world that he had had time during his visit to gaze down on Madeleine, whom he was to describe as ‘lying in the recovery position’, and think how lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter. By this reckoning, He could not have left the apartment until around 9.10pm or several minutes later.

Meanwhile Jane Tanner, a close friend of the McCanns, has given statements saying that she saw what she thought was a male abductor carrying Madeleine away in his arms from the apartment at around 9.15pm - although we might note here that in August 2009 at a press conference, the McCanns’ chief private investigator, former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, said that Jane Tanner might have seen a woman, not a man.

The abduction scenario

So let’s examine this situation more closely.

The scenario put forward by the McCanns and their friends runs as follows:

· The abductor must have been watching the apartment for several days before snatching Madeleine on 3 May.

· The McCanns went down to the ‘Tapas bar’ at the Ocean Club at around 8.30pm that evening, with other members of the group arriving during the next half-an-hour or so.

· Dr Matthew Oldfield ‘checked the apartment from the outside’ at around 9.00pm to 9.03pm.

· Dr Gerry McCann returned to his apartment (5A) from the Tapas bar to check on his children at around 9.05pm. The walk to the apartment would have taken one to two minutes. So on his own timing, he would have arrived there around 9.07pm.

· Dr Gerry McCann was briefly in all four rooms of their holiday apartment, during which time he checked his children. He also says he spent an unusually long time in the toilet - maybe up to 5 minutes, though we have never been told why. He tells us that he paused briefly over Madeleine’s bed and thought to himself how very lucky he was to have such a beautiful child.

· Dr Gerry McCann says he noticed that the door to the children’s room was ‘wider open than before’. He says that at 8.30pm it had been open at an angle of about 45 degrees (half open). He remembers (he says) that when he went to check the children at 9.05pm, the door was now open at an angle of 60 degrees (two thirds open).

· The fact that the door - according to Dr Gerald McCann - was now (at 9.05pm) more open more than it was before (at 8.30pm), has been used by him to suggest the possibility that the abductor may have been already in the apartment when he checked on the children, although he says he only realised this possibility some months after the events of the day. Dr Gerry McCann has said that the abductor might have been hiding behind a door or in a wardrobe while he spent several minutes doing his ‘check’ on the children.

· Dr Gerry McCann must have left the room, on his own account, at between 9.10pm and 9.15pm. He then says he encountered a TV cameraman, Jeremy (‘Jes’) Wilkins, on the road back to the Tapas bar at the Ocean Club, and was talking to him for several minutes between 9.10pm and 9.25pm (Jeremy Wilkins confirms the meeting, but says it only lasted three minutes).

· Ms Jane Tanner (partner of Dr Russell O’Brien) says she left the Tapas bar at around 9.15pm and saw a man walking ‘purposefully’, with a child in his arms, along the top of the road running alongside the McCanns’ apartment. She has maintained throughout that she saw this man at almost exactly 9.15pm.

· The McCanns maintain that they left their apartment unlocked. This contrasts however with what they said during the might of 3 May/4 May. In telephone calls to relatives, Dr Gerald McCann told them that an abductor had forced entry into the apartment by jemmying open the shutters. They appear to have changed this story after both the Manager of Mark Warners, Mr john Hill, and the police, found no evidence whatsoever of the shutters having been forced open.

The McCanns now say, therefore, that the abductor must have entered their apartment through the unlocked patio door. But they maintain that the windows and shutters that they say they found open on Dr Kate McCann checking the children at 10.00pm were because the abductor must have made his escape via that route. They say the abductor must have opened the window and the shutters (which the McCanns say they had had left closed) from the inside, climbed through the window, and taken Madeleine through that window.

· Dr Kate McCann says she returned to the apartment to check on the children at 10.00pm. She says she ‘knew instantly’ that Madeleine had been abducted - and then so did Dr Gerald McCann, minutes later, when he says he arrived at the apartment. Dr Kate McCann later told a TV interviewer that because of the requirement for secrecy about the police investigation, she could not explain why she ‘knew instantly’ that Madeleine had been abducted. She has never explained this, even 2½ years later.

The photographs of the apartment taken by the Portuguese police on the day after Madeleine was reported missing do not show anything which would clearly point to an abduction, certainly not damaged shutters. No forensic evidence whatsoever of the alleged abductor has been found. There were no forensic traces in the room, and no fingerprints on the window, window frame or shutters except for one of Dr Kate McCann’s fingerprints. The lichen on the windowsill was undisturbed.

Going by the above scenario, which the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends have maintained, the abductor (if there was one) must have either entered the apartment before Dr Matthew Oldfield’s check at around 9.03pm and Dr Gerry McCann’s check which began at 9.05pm/9.07pm – a version put forward by the McCanns months after Madeleine was reported missing - McCanns now want us to believe - or after Dr Gerry McCann left at 9.10pm to 9.15pm and before he was (allegedly) seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm.

The problems with this abduction scenario

There are many problems associated with this specific abduction scenario above that the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends have generated.

As we have seen just now, there is no forensic evidence that the alleged abductor was even in the McCanns’ apartment, still less that an abductor climbed in or out of the window.

Further, the window is high enough in the children’s room to make it physically very difficult for an abductor to climb through it. It was reported to be 91cm. above the floor - exactly three feet. The window itself is only around 60cm x 60cm (2ft x 2ft). The abductor would therefore have had to climb some three feet, with Madeleine with him, in his arms or over his shoulder. In addition, he would have to have managed this feat without leaving any forensic traces on the window-sill.

Madeleine must have weighed at least two stone (12kg). A task such as this would have meant balancing against the window frame itself, in which case traces of clothing fibres would surely have been found. Even then, it would have been almost impossible to climb through this window even if Madeleine had been asleep. It is surely even more unlikely that the abductor could have laid Madeleine down on the floor or a bed in the children’s bedroom, then climbed out of the window, and then reached back inside the bedroom to pick Madeleine out of the room - all of this without Madeleine or either of the twins waking up.

This whole abduction operation would clearly have been still more difficult either if Madeleine had woken up whilst being abducted, or one or both twins had done so. To maintain the abduction scenario, therefore, it is necessary to believe that Madeleine slept through the entire abduction operation. The description given by Jane Tanner of an alleged abductor carrying a child also describes the child as quiet and presumably asleep.

Moreover, to escape via the window, as the McCanns claim, the abductor would have had to open the shutters. Mark Warners, however, explained that it was only possible to open the shutters from the inside. They are operated by pulling a cord, or strap, on the inside. It is a highly relevant fact (again confirmed by Mark Warners) that when these heavy metal shutters were opened, the whole process is extremely noisy.

But no-one heard the shutters being opened. Moreover, the children’s room was directly overlooked by a tall block of apartments on the other side of the street. Had the abductor really climbed out of that window, he would have been in the view of dozens of windows overlooking Apartment 5A. We now know that the shutters to Apartment 5A were actually closed when the police and Mark Warners’ staff arrived to check them. The McCanns’ initial explanation for this fact were that the shutters ‘must have been closed by the abductor as well as opened by him’. We have seen that the shutters could not be opened from the outside. This claim by the McCanns that the abductor ‘must have tried to close the shutters behind him’ prompts two related and very obvious questions:

1) having gained entry through an open patio door, what would possess an abductor to leave via a three-foot high, two-foot square closed window, with the shutters also closed? The McCanns’ abduction scenario would require him to have opened the windows and shutters, then tried to close the shutters behind him, when he could have simply walked through the already-open patio doors.

2) why and how, having allegedly scooped up Madeleine in his arms and opened the window and the shutters, would he have had the time and the physical ability to then close the shutters, all without making any sound or leaving any trace, without being seen by anyone, and without waking either Madeleine or the twins?

Moreover, all this would have had to have been accomplished in the dark - unless the alleged abductor switched the lights on when he entered the apartment and then remembered to switch them off again as he was making his exit. No-one saw any lights on in the apartment. The McCanns have admitted that they left the children in the darkness, with the shutters and curtains closed, when they went out for their evening’s entertainment.

Therefore, to sum up - according to the McCanns’ scenario, the abductor would have to have:

* First - either picked an opportunity to enter the apartment after the McCanns had left for the Tapas bar at between 8.30pm and 9.00pm - or entered the apartment immediately after he had seen first Dr Matthew Oldfield and then Gerry McCann enter and leave the apartment at around 9.05pm to 9.15pm;

[NOTE: if the former of these two alternatives, then the abductor must have been in the apartment with Dr Gerry McCann during the five to ten minutes or so he was checking on the children - as Dr McCann indeed claimed last year]

* Second - walked through the open patio door without being seen;

* Third - found Madeleine in the dark;

* Fourth - picked her up, without waking her or the twins, and without leaving any forensic trace on the bed;

* Fifth - opened the window - without leaving any fingerprints;

* Sixth - opened the shutters from the inside (with nobody hearing him doing so, and once again without leaving any fingerprints);

* Seventh - climbed through the window, somehow carrying Madeleine with him - again without being seen by anyone, and again without leaving any fingerprints;

* Eighth - he would then have had to close the very noisy shutters, using controls operated from the inside - while still having Madeleine in his arms, or having laid her down on the patio, and

* Ninth - he made his escape without being seen by anyone except for afew fleeting seconds by Jane Tanner at around 9.15pm.

The operation of climbing through the window would have been physically very difficult, if not impossible, to do without (a) even brushing away even a tiny piece of the years-old lichen growing on the window-sill or (b) leaving any clothing fibres or other forensic evidence.

He must in addition have accomplished this whole operation in near total darkness and without being seen or heard by anyone except Jane Tanner. At the very moment that Jane Tanner says she saw the alleged abductor, Dr Gerald McCann was chatting away to holiday friend Jeremy (‘Jez’) Wilkins. Neither man saw or heard the alleged abductor despite being so close.

If the abductor had Madeleine in his arms as he climbed out of the window, and bearing in mind he was in near darkness, he would have been unable to see anything below her or much to either side as he fumbled through the window and shutters and tried to escape from the apartment precincts. Why he would do this when there was an open patio door to walk back through is incomprehensible. The McCanns only came up with the scenario of the abductor entering the unlocked patio door and then escaping via the window after learning that there was no evidence that the shutters had been tampered with, as they had told their relatives the night Madeleine disappeared.

Finally let us look for a moment at another aspect of the McCanns’ scenario. They have claimed on many occasions that an abductor must have been ‘casing the joint’ for several days beforehand - and then pounced and abducted Madeleine when he had the chance. The McCanns claim that he would have been closely watching them, including observing what the McCanns claim as their routine of half-hourly checking.

The McCanns have gone further and have suggested - in a lengthy TV interview for the BBC’s Panorama programme - that the abductor must have been making notes on their movements, allegedly carefully observing the times of their departures from the apartment. But this does not seem plausible given that neither the McCanns, nor their ‘Tapas 9’ friends, have given any details of how often (if at all) they were checking on their children whilst out wining and dining – apart from on the night Madeleine was reported missing.

Another problem about the McCanns’ abduction scenario is that there is nowhere that the abductor could have been observing the McCanns’ apartment without being seen - unless, that is, he was living or operating from one of the flats opposite the McCanns’ apartment, some of which overlooked it. It is understood that the occupants of these flats have all been investigated and their statements corroborated. None of them had anyone in their flat who was watching the McCanns’ apartment, nor was anyone seen acting suspiciously or hanging around in that area during the week the McCanns and their friends were there, except for one man who has been identified and eliminated from police enquiries.

The other obvious problem about the claim of an abductor ‘casing the joint’ is this:- Suppose an abductor had been watching the McCanns’ apartment day in and day out. On the McCanns’ own timeline, he would have seen the McCanns leave for the Tapas bar at 8.30pm. If, therefore, as claimed, an abductor had been watching the premises, he would presumably have chosen a moment as soon as possible after 8.30pm to abduct Madeleine - i.e., immediately after Drs Gerry and Kate McCann had left for the Tapas bar (on their own account) at around 8.30pm.

Yet, if he had entered the flat just after the McCanns left at 8.30pm, how come he was not long gone 35-40 minutes later when Dr Gerald McCann did his check? After all, Dr McCann now believes that the abductor may have even been present for the entire five to ten minutes or so that he was doing his check i.e. between 9.05pm and 9.10pm/9.15pm.

Yet a further difficulty for this improbable scenario is that Dr Matthew Oldfield claims that he did two checks - one at around 9.00pm, (various times have been given for this alleged check) and the other around 9.30pm. Dr Oldfield claims that during his 9.00pm visit he ‘checked’ from the outside but saw and heard nothing. He also said that the shutters were ‘tight shut’. If indeed the abductor really had entered before both Dr Matthew Oldfield’s alleged check (around 9.00pm) and Dr McCann’s check (around 9.05pm), then he was exceptionally lucky, to put it mildly, not to have been detected by either man.

There are equal if not even greater problems with the suggestion that the abductor entered the apartment and removed Madeleine only after Drs Oldfield and McCann had done their checks. Would any abductor really have dashed into the apartment after first seeing Dr Oldfield checking the outside of the apartment at around 9.00pm - and then seen Gerry spending five to ten minutes checking between 9.05pm and 9.15pm? It would surely have been far too risky.

And if he entered the apartment after Dr Gerry McCann left at say 9.10pm at the earliest, he would scarcely have had time to enter the flat, remove Madeleine, open the window and shutters, close them behind him etc. and then be seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm.

Sadly, no British newspaper or magazine has offered an analysis, like the one above, of the unlikelihood of the abduction having occurred in the way the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends claim it ‘must have’ happened.

I conclude by saying that I am not saying the abduction of Madeleine never happened. But I confess I do find it very difficult to understand, given all that has been said about it, how it could have happened."

Monday, 1 February 2010

Madeleine McCann: twins Sean and Amelie receive birthday presents from Maddie.

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

Above: Sean and Amelie, then aged 2, in Portugal in 2007

Sean and Amelie McCann, twin siblings of Maddie, who were just two years and three months when Maddie disappeared, will be five years old tomorrow, February 2nd. They celebrated their birthday with a party at the weekend and according to The Sun:

"MADDIE McCann's sister and brother celebrated their fifth birthday with a party yesterday and a present from their missing sibling.

Parents Kate and Gerry held the special bash for twins Sean and Amelie.

They always buy the pair a gift from their missing sister for Christmas and birthdays."

Do the twins think these presents actually come from Maddie? If so, I wonder what they imagine is the method by which these presents reach them.

In January 2008, according to a report in The Metro, Sean and Amelie were playing a game in which they endeavoured to find "the monster who took Maddie."

"The brother and sister of missing Madeleine McCann cope with their loss by playing a game called 'Find the monster that took Maddie', it was claimed on Sunday.

The game was described by leading world sex crimes expert Ray Wyre after he met parents Kate and Gerry McCann.

Twins Sean and Amelie, two, were helping to give their parents the strength to carry on, he added.

The parents told him they were together recently when the twins rushed into the room shouting.

He added: 'They said they were going to go and find the monster that took Maddie. Then they dashed off to play the game. It's a sad story, but it is healthy that Madeleine remains a real presence in their lives.'"

Do the twins still believe that a "monster," took Maddie? If so, they must also believe that this monster has some very kind and compassionate qualities if he allows Maddie to choose and send them presents. Maybe when they're older, they'll suggest that Kate and Gerry take note of the postmarks on the packages and alert the police.

In November 2009, the twins were ready to fight the man who abducted their sister. "We will fight the man who took our sister Maddie." The Sun

"Gerry told Sky News the twins - just 18 months old when Madeleine went missing in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007 - want to find who took her and punish them.

He said: "They talk about her more than Kate and I do - it's incredible. Now they are saying, 'She's been taken, when we find who took her, we'll fight them'"

Monday, 25 January 2010

Madeleine McCann may be alive and living in a lawless village in the Algarve.....

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

(The McCanns on the sad occasion of Maddie's birthday, soon after she disappeared in 2007.)

................and on the one thousandth day after her disappearance, her parents are busy planning for a star-studded bash to, ummm...errrr...raise more money for the search.

Now, I'm not going to go back through all that, "what search," stuff. We all know that Kate McCann did not physically search for her daughter, while local residents of Praia da Luz took a week off work to search the area.

At least a couple of million quid has gone through the Find Madeleine Fund, but what do the McCanns have to show for it?

They hired Metodo 3, the Spanish detective agency, who claimed to know where Madeleine was, who was holding her and that she'd be home by Christmas, 2008.

Then there was Oakley International, the big boss man of which, Halligen, is to appear in court on the same day as the McCanns, sadly, we are told by Clarence Mitchell, put themselves through an event at the Kensington Roof Garden restaurant, to which a number of wealthy celebs have been invited. Oh how those poor parents are suffering!

And now, we have the intrepid duo of ex-police officers, Edgar and Cowley, the twosome, who from their office in Knutsford, Cheshire, released the breaking news that two years previously a man on holiday in Barcelona had spoken to a very suspicious Victoria Beckham looky-likey, who asked if he had come to deliver her daughter. (Psssst Mr Edgar! Daughter=quarter! Quarter of an ounce!)

On Sunday September 13th 2009, The Belfast Telegraph reported Dave Edgar's latest breakthrough: "Maddie is imprisoned in a hellish lair – just like kidnapped sex slave Jaycee Lee Dugard."
"He insisted the “back from the dead” reappearance of Jaycee – and the cases of Austrian cellar girls Elisabeth Fritzl and Natascha Kampusch – confirmed his suspicion."

Tuesday, 19 January 2010

The McCanns' presence in Lisbon was a mistake.

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

SOS Madeleine McCann 19/01/2010

Clarence Mitchell, the communications expert who has acted as spokesperson for Kate and Gerry McCann since Maddie's disappearance, informed the couple of the risk, in terms of image, which could be presented by their presence in the courtroom at Lisbon's Civil Court, where the process relating to the injunction banning the sale of Gonçalo Amaral's book took place.

According to a source close to Clarence Mitchell, the communications specialist warned Kate and Gerry McCann that their presence in court would encourage the British media to descend en masse on Lisbon, which could lead to the disclosure in England of arguments presented by the defence for the former PJ coordinator, which was the case.

Live updates from television companies (British, Spanish and Portuguses) during the first day of the hearing, and front pages of British newspapers the following day, ended up confirming Clarence Mitchell's fears that the couple's presence would only cause more problems. (Shown above: the front page of the Daily Express on Wednesday morning with the headline, "MADDIE 'DIED' IN APARTMENT.")

Clarence Mitchell: spokesman looks to become an MP.

According to the same source, Clarence Mitchell maintains an amicable relationship with Madeleine McCann's parents, but he is no longer as available to participate in the McCanns' actions. He was conspicuously absent from the media machine covering Kate and Gerry McCann's presence in Lisbon, forcing Claudia Nogueira, Public Relations officer for Lift Consulting - the Portuguese company supporting the couple's campaign - to increase contact and information-sharing with the journalists attending the court (patiently available, she took care to speak to all the journalists one by one). She incidentally denied that her British counterpart was opposed to Madeleine's parents' journey.

Lift Consulting is a strategic consulting company, working in the areas of communication, reputation management, public relations and management of relations with the press.

Clarence Mitchell's lack of availability, according to the same source, is explained by his professional and political obligations - the spokesman for Madeleine's parents is planning for his entry into the British parliament at the next elections as a Conservative MP.

A former journalist, he left the ranks of the BBC to direct the Media Monitoring Unit in Tony Blair's government (first Prime Minister to help the McCanns) Clarence Mitchell was the driving force of the McCanns' campaign and link between the couple and the two Labour Prime Ministers. (Labour Party)

Sent to Portugal at the request of Tony Blair, Mitchell directed the international campaign for Maddie's parents, using his official contacts in the British government to gain access for Kate and Gerry to, amongst other places, the Vatican and the European Parliament.

By Duarte Levy

Originally published in the
Portuguese blog on 17/01/2010.


Saturday, 16 January 2010

Kate and Gerry McCann: two child neglecters in search of a reputation.

........................................
........................................
"Oh no!" exclaims Gerry, "I forgot to wake her up!"


Following three days of hearings in Lisbon, in which witnesses appeared on behalf of Dr Gonçalo Amaral, in his court action to have the temporary injunction on his book "A Verdade da Mentira," overturned, Kate McCann has published some interesting bla bla on the Official Find Madeleine web site. Long gone are the heady days of jogging up the hill, serving up puddings with 'child-friendly toppings,' and picking up friends and relies from the airport. Since Kate in her incarnation as Scraggy Aggy and Gerry as Thundering Bull didn't get many chances to stand on the court steps and address the crowds, they have obviously been doing some thinking since they got back home.


It's quite hard to believe that the person who produced this latest epistle from the halls of Rothley Manor, is one of the dedicated duo of child-marketers who wrote in the early days with such distortions of the English language and even their own daughter's name. However, unusually for a Find Madeleine blog entry, their is a name appended to the entry: Kate McCann. So, let's just push ahead and accept that Kate McCann has suddenly developed some skills in communicating in the English language.

"Court Case( Injunction) in Lisbon 14th January 2010"


"We are currently in Lisbon for the trial to determine whether the injunction against Mr Amaral's book and DVD should remain in place. This trial is about whether the book is a true reflection of the official judicial process in to Madeleine's disappearance and whether its contents damage the ongoing search for Madeleine, her siblings and our reputations."


"This trial is about whether the book is a true reflection of the official judicial process in to Madeleine's disappearance.."

I shall return to this later.

"...... whether its contents damage the ongoing search for Madeleine, her siblings and our reputations."

I thought the search was only for Madeleine, but no, Kate now tells us that the ongoing search is also for Madeleine's siblings and for her and Gerry's reputations. If Madeleine's siblings are now missing, shouldn't someone have informed the police? Or perhaps Kate and Gerry are just carrying out a private search of what must be a huge garden there at Rothley Towers if eating at the Tapas Bar was like dining in their own back garden. Has anyone seen the twins since they set off for school at the beginning of September? I thought not!

The ongoing search for their reputations? Well, since Madeleine disappeared, they may have made very good efforts to portray themselves as the Catholic saints of Leicestershire, but they seem to have lost that one now: lost, stolen or strayed somewhere in the vicinity of Lisbon, Portugal. Before Madeleine's disappearance, they don't appear to have had any reputations to speak of: the Portuguese police asked for background checks and got one side of A4 and we don't appear to have much detail apart from Hot Lips Healy and one patient of Gerry's who claimed to be very happy with his treatment. So, I'm assuming this search is for new reputations and so far it's not looking good on that front, following the testimonies of police officers and media people in the court in Lisbon this week.

"Mr Amaral's book and DVD contains some information from the PJ files but there is a lot in the files which is not in Mr Amaral's book. Hence it is highly selective and therefore biased."


Gonçalo Amaral's book is based on his work during the months in which he was in charge of the investigation. So, there will be more in the PJ's files. I would add that any autobiographical account is by definition biased, in terms of the writer's experience.

"Mr Amaral's book contains his opinions rather than fact."


Dr Amaral's book contains the opinions and deductions of the Portuguese and English teams who worked on the investigation.

"...there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead."


Nor is there any evidence that Madeleine is alive, apart from "sightings," all over the world, none of which has proved to have any validity, of course.

Kate McCann opened her bla bla by stating that, '
This trial is about whether the book is a true reflection of the official judicial process in to Madeleine's disappearance," and as such there is no need to produce evidence. If there were evidence to definitely prove that Madeleine was dead, Kate would not have been in court facing Dr Amaral and the chances are that someone or some people would be languishing in jail. According to the police witnesses, who gave testimony in court this week, Amaral's book is about the investigation. During the process of that investigation, the first person to suggest that Madeleine was probably dead was Mark Harrison, an English specialist brought in to assist with the investigation.

In Chapter 16 of The Truth of the Lie, Gonçalo Amaral writes about the progress of the investigation in July 2007.

".......we welcome Mark Harrison, a specialist in murder, and the search for missing persons and victims of natural disasters. National advisor to the British police, he is well known for his exceptional professional experience. He has already participated in dozens of international criminal investigations."


Mark Harrison conducted extensive research in Praia da Luz and the surrounding area: he walked the paths, looked at all the access roads, timed the routes from the Tapas bar, did reconnaissance on the ground and by helicopter, and reviewed all the documents relating to the investigation so far.

"After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area."

Kate McCann's bla bla again:


"If the general public (and the Portuguese people in particular) are bombarded day in and day out with such theories, this will eventually 'colour' their understanding and judgement -lies and inaccuracies become fact."


Was the general public 'bombarded.'? I don't think they actually were until this week when the details from Dr Amaral's book suddenly hit the international headlines.

And what about, 'lies and inaccuracies.'? Who was it who phoned the friends and relies and told them that the shutters to Madeleine's bedroom had been 'jemmied,' and the window forced open? Then, unfortunately, the police found no evidence of a break-in. No evidence! And the reason the Portuguese police were eager to carry out a reconstruction of the events of May 3rd 2007 was not so that Kate and her friends could be on the telly, soliciting donations to the fund, but because there were so many inaccuracies and contradictions in their statements.


"Abduction theory:For us, there is only the abduction theory possible because we were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance and we know Madeleine did not wander off by herself."


So, if Kate and Gerry were not involved, that rules out the involvement of everyone else in their entourage and thus upholds that abduction theory? Hardly. And since the apartment was not clearly visible from the Tapas Bar, where the McCanns were eating, how could they know, with absolute certainty that Madeleine did not wander off from the unlocked apartment? Was she tied to her bed? Was she sedated? Unless the McCanns had had an uninterrupted view of the apartment and had been watching it constantly, I cannot understand why they could be so sure that she did not wander off. No evidence!

"The window: I described to the police officers exactly what I found that night, as it was and is highly relevant and I knew that every little detail could be helpful in finding my daughter which is our only aim. The window which is a ground floor window was completely open and is large enough for a person to easily climb through it."
Not what others involved in the investigation seem to think:

"Moita Flores: The only thing that was proven was there was no abduction."

"Moita Flores: For someone to escape by that window with a child he would have to have either 4 arms or 4 legs."

(Court tweets from fduartecarvalho.)

"Whether it had been opened for this purpose remains unknown. It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring'"


We have to consider timing here. If Jane Tanner had seen the abductor, walking across the top of the road, as Gerry and Jez Wilkins were chatting outside the apartment, then the window could have been open when Gerry was in the apartment. But he didn't notice it? Or perhaps, in the few minutes between Gerry's exiting the apartment and Jane Tanner coming along, the abductor had gained access, run around seeking potential escape routes, opened the window for some unknown reason and exited somehow, but not by the window, carrying a sleeping child?

We also have to consider what the abductor left behind. Nothing! No evidence of his presence. The only fingerprints on the window were those of Kate McCann.

"The dogs: We realise that the behaviour of the dogs was the turning point in the investigation for the PJ. The use of dogs has proved to be problematic and unreliable in previous cases."


What cases? Would Kate McCann care to mention a few?

"(please refer to the Jersey ‘Haut de La Garenne' case and other research published about their use and reliability)"


Haut de la Garenne then: cadaver dogs are trained to detect the odour that emanates from a decomposing body and they can detect this odour a few years after a body has been in situ. The fact that no body was found at Haut de la Garenne does not mean that there wasn't a body there at one time.

See chapter 16 of The Truth of the Lie for details of previous cases Eddie, the EVRD has worked on, where there was no body in situ: Attracta Harron, Amanda Edwards, Charlotte Pinkley.

Other research? Would Madame Kate care to quote this, 'other research.'? The only other previous case to which the McCanns have referred in the past was that of an American man, who ultimately confessed that the dogs were right and he had killed his wife!


The reconstruction the McCanns did not attend:

"In particular, as the reconstruction was not to be shown to the media (and hence the general public), they did not feel it would help to find Madeleine. Had the intention been to show it to the general public, it may have 'jogged' memories and encouraged people to come forward with information. It should be added that other key witnesses were not invited to attend."


The reconstruction proposed by the Portuguese police was for the purpose of showing up where the inconsistencies were in the statements from the McCanns and their friends. Thus, there would have been no reason for it to be shown to the general public. Also, if the McCanns had participated, other key people could have been played by actors. Perhaps the reason for 'other key witnesses,' not being invited was that their statements did not conflict with those of others.

"Our team is confident that the injunction will remain in place because none of thewitnesses thus far have been able to prove in court that Mr. Amaral's right to express his opinion is superior to the rights of our family.."


The witnesses didn't have to prove that. As Kate McCann has stated, the purpose of the hearing was
'about whether the book is a true reflection of the official judicial process in to Madeleine's disappearance and whether its contents damage the ongoing search for Madeleine, her siblings and our reputations.' Dr Amaral's right to express himself is granted by the constitution of his country.

"....to peace, respect and protection of reputation, and above all, the right to continue the searchfor our daughter Madeleine effectively and without hindrance."

Peace? How can Dr Amaral's book affect the quality of peace in the McCanns' lives? Everything he has described is in the police files and in the public domain and the McCanns could have ignored that book, especially as sales had peaked before they started their action to ban it.

Respect? Do parents who leave three very small children alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country deserve respect or have a right to demand it?

Madame Kate, you have every right to continue the search for your daughter and I don't see how Dr Amaral's book could hinder the search that you have so far undertaken with Metodo 3, Oakley International and now Edgar and Cowley, who failed to make even the most basic of inquiries before launching the international search for the Victoria Beckham looky-likey.

And here's that reputation again, the thing that the McCanns are searching for, although I do believe they may have gained one in Portugal, thus motivating Kate to come out with her bla bla, even if she does state that the search is ongoing.

Wednesday, 13 January 2010

Gerry and Kate McCann in Lisbon: Day 2 of the proceedings.(pm session)

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

Above: Kate and Gerry McCann at Lisbon airport, December 2009.

Afternoon session of the proceedings, Wednesday January 13th 2010

2.30: Waiting outside the courtroom for the afternoon's proceedings to begin. Mr Amaral is here too, chatting on a mobile phone.

2.41: We're back in the courtroom, as are the legal teams, Mr Amaral and the McCanns. No sign of the judge yet though.

2.42: We're expecting to hear from three witnesses involved in the publishing of the book this afternoon.

2.57: Judge Maria Gabriela Cunha Rodrigues has arrived, so the afternoon's proceedings can begin.

3.00: JondiPaolo Jose Manuel Enes, a former forensic laboratory chief in the Portuguese police, is the next witness.

3.00: Mr Enes is giving evidence in person, rather than via video link as Mr Flores did this morning.

3.00: Mr Enes has an associateship in chemistry and a doctorate in anthropology, but has now retired from the police force.

3.04: Mr Enes was interviewed by a Portuguese journalist for a book about Madeleine's disappearance.

3.12: JondiPaolo Mr Enes says that the immense media interest in the Madeleine case was unhelpful for the investigators trying to solve it.

3.13: JondiPaolo Mr Enes compared the Madeleine McCann case to that of OJ Simpson, saying that allegations of contamination of evidence had compromised it.

3.15: JondiPaolo Mr Enes' phone has just gone off, drawing laughter from the court. The judge is smiling too as the clerk has to turn it off for him.

3.17: Mr Enes tells the court he has been called to give evidence in several other cases as an expert witness.

3.17: Mr Enes says his conclusions are often relied upon completely by the courts in which he gives evidence.

3.22: Mr Enes: I strongly respect the convictions and work of Mr Amaral.

3.22: Mr Amaral has suddenly got up and walked out of the courtroom, causing a murmur among the onlookers on the public benches.

3.37: JondiPaolo Mr Amaral has left the court building, stopping to give a few comments in Portuguese before climbing into a waiting car.

3.39: JondiPaolo Mr Amaral said he was pleased with Mr Flores' testimony earlier, adding that for the first time it had been explained why he wrote the book.

3.39: Mr Amaral added that he wrote the book to protect his honour and set the record straight.

3.40: The former policeman said what he described as a campaign against him in the British press is continuing.

3.40: JondiPaolo He added that he had only this morning been described as 'incompetent' in one British newspaper.

3.43: jondipaolo: Right. Back to the courtroom. Mr Enes is still giving evidence.

3.45: jondipaolo: Mr Enes says the Madeleine investigation was the victim of 'friendly fire' from the media that hampered its course.

Comment: Yes, one wonders whether the media had an interest in helping to solve the case, or just in denigrating the Portuguese police for some reason.

3.47: jondipaolo: Mr Enes says that just because people put forward their own theories, it does not prevent other lines of inquiry being investigated.

3.49: JondiPaolo Mr Enes: Some parts of the book were put too strongly - it's not the way I would have done it, but that's because I'm from another era...

3.49: JondiPaolo ...the course of justice should not be diverted by books or films, it should be deaf and blind to them.

3.52: Jondipaolo: Mr Enes has left the witness stand, and has been replaced by Mario Sena Lopes, former chief editor at the book's publisher, Guerra e Paz.

4.01: jondipaolo: Mr Lopes tells the court that Mr Amaral's book had been ready to publish in the last week of July 2008.

4.01: jondipaolo: The book was published very quickly to take most advantage of marketing opportunities, the court hears.

Comment: I am assuming a response from the McCann legal team about this just being a marketing exercise to make money, in which case the reply would refer to Gerry's having been asked in an interview for Vanity Fair if he thought publishing details of Madeleine's eye defect could have placed her at risk. Gerry's response was yes, but it was a 'good marketing ploy.'

"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.”

4.05: Jondipaolo: The marketing plan for the book was much smaller than normal, because we are a small publisher, Mr Lopes tells the court.

4.46: jondipaolo: Sorry about the pause - we had a brief intermission during which Gerry McCann left the court.

4.50: jondipaolo: He explained that he was leaving the court case as he had unavoidable work commitments in the UK, but that Kate would stay on until the end.

4.50: jondipaolo: Despite the avalanche of testimony favouring Mr Amaral over the past two days, Mr McCann seemed to be quite upbeat.

Comment: The man's a nutter! Just my opinion, of course! His theory about the window as an escape route has been trashed and Amaral's witnesses agree that the book is based on the investigation, but Gerry is "quite upbeat."

4.50: jondipaolo: "I think it's important that things have been debated in a court of law," he told reporters.

Comment: Well, they haven't really been debated yet, since only one side has been put forward so far.

4.50: jondipaolo: "From our point of view, what happened here in the past few days is to be expected."

4.58: jondipaolo: "I think it's particularly disappointing that the police officers who considered us responsible for Madeleine's disappearance...

4.59: jondipaolo: "...are the same officers that we are depending on to carry on the search for Madeleine."

Comment: Well, slap my thigh, knock me down and call me Jeffrey! Didn't Gerry say, just this morning, in his rant on Sky News, that no one else was looking for Madeleine?

And if he wants those officers to be searching, why not ask for the investigation to be re-opened?

4.59: jondipaolo: "The search for Madeleine is ongoing. We don't have any leads and we need to keep searching."

Comment: All that money spent, other people's money from donations, and they've got no leads? Have they ruled out the very ill paedophile, Raymond Hewlett and the VictoriaBeckham Looky-Likey?

5.01: jondipaolo: Mr McCann added that mistakes were made during the investigation that now cannot be righted - but that was not the point of the court case.

Comment: What mistakes and how can they be righted? You can go back and finally take part in a reconstruction? Kate can answer the 48 questions she refused to answer?

5.04: jondipaolo: "We made a mistake by leaving Madeleine alone in the apartment, and we have to live with that. We can't change it," Mr McCann said.

Comment: Finally, an admission that this was a mistake. However, the real victim here is Madeleine, not Kate and Gerry McCann.

5.04: jondipaolo: He also rejected the testimony yesterday that Kate had had a dream about Madeleine lying buried somewhere, saying "that never happened"..

Comment: So, Snr Paiva was lying?

5.07: jondipaolo: "I hope that everyone remembers that there is a little girl missing that still has to be found," Mr McCann continued.

Comment: Play to the emotions of the audience, Gerry!

5.07: jondipaolo: "That's why we carry on. We have other children who miss Madeleine dearly."

Comment: Now, early on in this case, just after Madeleine vanished into thin air, Kate was asked how the twins were coping. She said they were OK because they had never spent much time with Madeleine. So, how come, after nearly three years, those same twins, who hardly spent any time with Madeleine, are missing her dearly?

5.09: jondipaolo: He added that although the testimony had favoured Mr Amaral's version of events, it still had not produced any evidence Madeleine was dead.

Comment: The present court process is about whether Snr Amaral's book is libelous and that hinges on whether it is based on the police investigation. If there were evidence that Madeleine was dead, then: a) you wouldn't be facingSnr Amaral in court, and b) the chances are that someone would be languishing in prison. This is not about producing evidence, but about proving that the theory put forward byGonçalo Amaral is not simply his personal belief, but a record of an investigation.

5.10: jondipaolo: Mr McCann also rejected the charge that the trial was a bid to restrict freedom of speech, as has been claimed by Mr Amaral's supporters.

Comment: I really don't know what to say about someone who hires Carter Ruck, libel lawyers, threatens bloggers and others, and claims the above!

5.41:
jondipaolo: That's the last update from court for today. Back tomorrow morning.



Gerry McCann returning to Britain this afternoon.

............................................
............................................
(The above image produced by 'Himself,' is from either The McCann Gallery or Good Quality Wristbands I can't find it now to provide the proper artistic credit and reference, but if 'Himself,' should happen along, perhaps he'll forgive me for filching one of his images and direct me to the page so that I can give proper credit!)


The Scottish Herald reports that Gerry McCann will return to Britain this afternoon because of work commitments.

"Mr McCann will return to Britain this afternoon because of work commitments, a spokeswoman for the couple said."

"Fiona Payne, one of the friends who was on holiday with the McCanns when Madeleine disappeared on May 3 2007, is flying out to support Mrs McCann"


This is all a bit sudden and was not indicated yesterday at the start of proceedings in the Civil Court in Lisbon. I am sure the McCann couple stated that they were going to be in Lisbon for the week, but today Gerry has to leave because of work commitments? Gerry's a cardiologist, not a surgeon and surely the NHS can arrange cover for him? Work commitments didn't seem to get in the way when Kate and Gerry went to Strasbourg to push the American-style Amber Alert system or when they went to the US to appear on the Oprah Show.

"Mr McCann was asked by a Portuguese reporter whether it was worth the emotional cost for the couple to attend the court case.

He replied: “Do you have children? Anyone who has children would go through the same process.”


And yet, suddenly, with no prior notice, Gerry has work commitments?

I am wondering, and this is just my opinion, pure speculation, that Gerry may have been advised by his legal team that he was getting himself rather worked up, that this was not conducive to his being called to the witness stand tomorrow, and that perhaps he should take leave of absence from the proceedings.