Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry McCann do not want the case to be reopened.

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

At the beginning of November this year Kate and Gerry McCann launched a petition calling for a review of all the evidence in the case of their daughter's disappearance. They went for a walk in the park and settled down to tell the massed media how delighted they were with the response.
(Daily Mirror 7/11/2010)

Later in the month, the McCanns were in Portugal to speak to their solicitor, Isabelle Duarte and were interviewed for a Portuguese TV channel. (Watch the video on The McCann Files, with full transcript by Nigel Moore)

Extract:

Kate McCann: If you review all the information - literally all the information, not just what each authority has - you riew... review it all and tie it all together, you'll have a much clearer picture of, 'here we are; this needs to be done; that needs to be done', so it just seems like a really sensible and vital step really before reopening.

In this statement, Kate McCann sounds as though she would like the case to be reopened.

Reporter (v.o.): Kate and Gerry McCann say that the process in Portugal was shelved under pressure because it had reached the end of the time to investigate and that, since that time, new data has appeared which has not being analysed.

Does Gerry want the case to be reopened?

Gerry McCann: As far as we know, since then, no-ones looking at the... the data fresh and that's really important. We realise that it's not a usual process in Portugal - we realise that - but it doesn't mean to say that it... it... it cannot be done or shouldn't be done.

He's certain that no-one is "looking at the data fresh," but does he want the case reopened? If not, why does he want the case to be reviewed?

Reporter (v.o.): Although they admit that there is not any new evidence that allows the process to be reopened.

Gerry McCann: We don't have key evidence to say 'You must investigate this because it will open... you know, it reopens the file' and that's why we're asking for a review. We want to identify areas that merit further investigation, that may lead to new evidence that could help us solve the crime.

Now, if I can translate that into English, Gerry McCann seems to be saying that they don't have any new evidence that would lead to the reopening of the case, but the review might lead to new evidence that could, "help us solve the crime." Us? Who's that? Not the Portuguese police and the McCanns because, as Gerry says, "no-one is looking at the data fresh." So, 'us,' is likely to be the McCanns and their private investigators, Edgar and Cowley. Personally, I think they just want to get their hands on the information that's in the Portuguese police files that are still covered by the secrecy of justice rules. They've got that libel case coming up against Gonçalo Amaral and that info could be really handy!

Anyway, so there they were, taking a walk in the park, accompanied by the massed media, telling the world (but probably not his dog!) that they wanted a review of the case, which, according to Kate McCann was a "vital step really before reopening."

Then, totally out of left-field comes Wikileaks and the story that the Madeleine McCann case is mentioned in cables between US ambassador to Portugal, Al Hoffman, and his British counterpart, ambassador Alexander Wykeham Ellis.

On Monday December 13th, The Guardian reported that:

British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.

The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."

The comments attributed to the ambassador appear to contradict the widespread perception at the time that Portuguese investigators were the driving force behind the treatment of the McCanns as suspects in the case

.
Well, of course the McCanns' PR rep had something to say about it!

Responding to the contents of the cable, a spokesman for the McCanns told the Guardian: "This is an entirely historic note that is more than three years old. Subsequently, Kate and Gerry had their arguido status lifted, with the Portuguese authorities making it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever.

"To this day, they continue to work tirelessly on the search for their daughter, co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."

So, it's an "historic note that is more than three years old."? I guess Jane Tanner's original statements about the abductor could be said to be 'historic,' too, because not only are they nearly four years old, they have subsequently been changed so much by Jane that there is now no evidence whatsoever to implicate that man she described!

As for there being no evidence to implicate the McCanns in Madeleine's disappearance, I believe the accurate report would be that there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone, which is somewhat different.

The McCanns' PR frontman also tells us that up to this very day the McCanns have been "co-operating when appropriate with both the Portuguese and British authorities."

So, they decide when it's appropriate to co-operate? If they decide it's not appropriate they don't? Like maybe Kate McCann's refusal to answer those 48 questions and in spite of promises to return to assist when they took flight from Portugal, a disinclination to return and take part in a reconstruction of the events surrounding their daughter's disappearance?

And now, in a formal statement the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer, Rogério Alves, "opposes the reopening of the process." (Joana Morais)

Rogério Alves, the McCann couple’s lawyer, has told TSF that there is no new data in the documents that were revealed by Wikileaks that would justify the reopening of the process.

The McCann couple’s lawyer in Portugal, Rogério Alves, has said in a statement to TSF that he opposes the reopening of the inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine in Lagos, in the Algarve, in 2007.

I don't know that anyone has asked for the process to be reopened based on the information in the leaked cables, so this appears to be a preemptive just-in-case! Just in case, you're thinking about it, don't! You'd think that parents of a missing child would clutch at any opportunity for the investigation into their daughter's disappearance to be reopened, but not them and not now! But the McCanns consider that a review of the evidence would be a step towards reopening the case? Well, no, I don't think so, since Gerry thinks it would help "us to solve the crime." Some bunch of "us," will solve the crime without reopening the case? Very odd!

“That information is completely useless. It only contains a reference to a piece of evidence that the Public Ministry and the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) considered to be totally useless, which consisted of a couple of dogs that having barked, but being naturally unable to depose in a court room, would constitute some sort of indication against the child’s parents”, he said.

“To open the process, yes, when that contributes to finding out where the child is and what happened to her, [but] to open the process, no, when it is to review what was already seen by the PJ and by the Public Ministry, that correctly considered those indications to be absurd and inconsistent”, Rogério Alves added, justifying that “nobody in a democratic state can be taken to court based on dogs’ barking. That is absurd.”

So, do they or don't they want a review of the case? Their lawyer states that they don't want a review of what has already been seen by the PJ and the Public Ministry, so what do they want a review of? The above appears to contradict their declared objective for launching their petition...to obtain a review of all the evidence in the case.

The McCanns may have gone for a walk in the park, but trying to figure out what they do or don't want to happen is definitely not a walk in the park for the rest of us! Still, I tend to think there must be a reason why, apropos of nothing that I know of, the McCanns' Portuguese lawyer is opposing the reopening of the process.

Now you see it - Now you don't.

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

By guest author CountySet.

Now you see it - Now you don't.

A nice turn of phrase and one that down the ages has come to signify the work of those who would deceive. There can be many reasons to deceive and not all of them are with criminal intent. A magician at a children's party with the words "Abracadabra" elicits many genuine oohs and ahhhs of wonderment from his excited young audience with the most simple of visual gags. No one child has ever been harmed and the sole purpose of the trick is to amuse and delight. To adult sensibilities childish tricks like making a rabbit disappear and reappear from a top hat is only one of the more annoying aberrations which magicians are able to conjure from their special larder store of physical laws.

At the McCann's villa, the Vista Do Mar, their final abode in Praia Da Luz on the 8th of September 2007 at around mid-morning Michael Wright drew open the villa's large green painted metal gates. The moment the gates were open to their fullest extent the McCann's Renault hire car was seen reversing at some speed across the gravel driveway and towards the posse of photographers and journalists gathered outside. They beat a hurried retreat to the sides of the adjoining lane to allow the car access to the lane and the asphalted road.

The press were all keyed up that day to see who would be lucky enough, the lucky one, to snap the first pictures of Gerry McCann on this the first full day Gerry McCann was set to spend as arguido or suspect in his daughter's disappearance. The previous night Gerry McCann had returned to the villa in the early hours of the morning. As he got out of the car to open the gates to the villa driveway he was asked by a reporter if he had anything to say. Gerry McCann paused for a moment and no doubt remembering one of his newly acquired rights was the right to silence, replied with almost detectable glee, "I've been told I can't say anything". Smirking at his eloquent use of the phrase Gerry McCann then returned to his car and drove up the driveway to the villa, the precise position from which the car reversed today.

The Renault hire car having started in reverse had to continue on reversing down the short lane and even though the car was moving at some speed it could not help but pass close by the multitude of cameras and videos of the assembled pressmen, photographers and broadcasters. The cameras peered in at the windows as the car passed each one in turn hoping to catch a glimpse of the occupants inside. The car was no more than a couple of feet from the camera's peering lens and yet despite being so close for some reason it was almost impossible to make out who the occupants of the car were or even who was the driving the Renault hire car.

Image 2: That yellowish smudge in the rear child's seat is Sean. Apparently.

Image 3: That blank car window seen in the top two frames - is Gerry McCann sitting in the rear passenger seat. As the car came to a rest and executed the first part of a three point turn the face of Sandy Cameron can just be made out, along with the shape of a light haired woman sitting alongside Sandy in the other front passenger seat.

Image 4: As the car '3 pointed' it stopped. It was at that moment these shots were taken from across the bonnet. Sandy Cameron is just a shade more visible, as is the mystery woman at his side. She now appears to be large with light coloured off the shoulder hair and to be wearing a white cardigan with a badge on her right lapel.

Image 5: The car must now complete its manoeuvre and in doing so it must yet again drive within a few feet past the waiting cameraman. The camera only a few feet away - the car accelerated - some loose stones from the tarmac spun up - and these four shots are all we are left with as the car shot by and spun off down the road. From these pictures it is possible to identify the mystery woman who was in the McCann's Renault hire car on Gerry's first day as suspect and that woman was Eileen McCann, Gerry McCann's mother.

Image 6: The press were dumbfounded. Who was that in the car - did you get a picture of Gerry McCann - was he there - he drove straight past - you couldn't see. They were all incredulous at their misfortune in not getting a useable shot. They were puzzled as to who was in the car and as to where it was going. One member of the press was invited to share in the McCann's privileged information. That solitary pressman can be seen running up to the McCann's car to talk to Gerry as the car stopped a small distance off from the rest of the press.

This series of pictures suggest Gerry McCann was photographed taking his mother along with Sean and Sandy to Faro to see Eileen McCann onto a flight back to the UK as these were the last shots taken of Eileen McCann in Praia Da Luz.

Sandy Cameron was the chauffeur that day for the McCanns. This was a job Sandy was well used to undertaking. As usual the McCann's Renault hire car had been turned out a treat. The bumpers glistened and shone. The bodywork groaned under the layers of wax emulsion, each lovingly layered, and the glass surfaces shone so much they appeared not as windows but more like mirrors reflecting all casual gazes and all but the most persistent of glances even those from a telephoto lens.

Kate and Gerry McCann: action replay of some of their best moments!

.............................
...............................
I wonder if Kate and Gerry McCann have ever wished they lived before the internet age, immediate world-wide communication, and videoed interviews, rather than paraphrased quotes reaching the newspapers from Europe a day or so after the event.

Well, here are a few of their best moments, some of them from the friends and relations.



Mother's Day in Portugal, three days after Madeleine disappeared into thin air. In similar situations where a child has gone missing, I usually really feel the emotion coming from the parents, and I feel choked up. However, when I saw this video, I was amazed that I felt no empathetic response. For me, Kate McCann made a letter box of her mouth, and just seemed to be trying out the expressions she thought that a mother in that situation would be feeling.



Dear Auntie Phil, telling us about Gerry and Kate not wanting to leave the children with the strangers who looked after them in the creche all day, every day, and about that 'clear line of sight to their kids.' May 5th 2007. Did she ever bother to find out the truth? Hard to miss it really, unless she has spent the last three years like those German people Kate and Gerry appealed to, who might have information - somewhere in La-La Land, where there is no telly, newspapers, radio, internet, or other human beings with eyes and ears and a way of communicating with the rest of the world, or even just their neighbour!



Brian Kennedy, Madeleine's great uncle, with his wife, Janet, talking about children going missing and the shock of it, 'especially in what you think is a safe complex.' Obviously, no one had told them, at that point, on May 5th 2007, that the McCanns' apartment was not within a 'safe complex,' but outside the Ocean Club, overlooking a car park and a public road.



John McCann, Gerry's brother, May 9th 2007. Just a load of twaddle!




Eileen McCann, Gerry's mother, describing how much brighter Gerry sounds on the phone, because of all the support. Brian Kennedy, talking about the fund and its intended purpose.

Presenter: Tell me, Brian, about all the people that have been coming up to you today, literally stuffing money in your hand.

Brian Kennedy: ....touching. Very touching.......the money can be used for all sorts of reasons, but probably mainly for legal expenditure.

Legal expenditure? On May 17th 2007 Brian Kennedy stated that the money being donated would be 'probably mainly for legal expenditure.' What legal expenditure was being foreseen at that time?



Jane Tanner: listen carefully to her description of the way the child was being carried. She says, 'I was carrying....'



Kate McCann: that 'whoosh cluck,' moment, when she looks like she's having trouble getting her mouth under control.




And finally, a brilliant video from Claudia7929, The McCanns - Their Best Moments. (20/09/08)

Philomena McCann: "..one greedy, unscrupulous character.."

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

"It needs only one greedy, unscrupulous character to come forward," said Philomena McCann.(Daily Mail 28/07/07)

The above was in relation to the reward on offer at the time: £3.2 million, according to the 28th July 2007 article featured in the Daily Mail. After more than three years, I am still utterly gobsmacked by Phil McCann's choice of words to describe someone who might come forward to help find her niece.

'Greedy': did she think this was someone who had already received payment of some kind? Greedy for more? Someone who is greedy is a person who takes more than their fair share. So, she thought that someone who could help find Madeleine would be getting more than they deserved? So, what would such a person deserve?

'Unscrupulous': having no scruples, ethics or principles. What? This makes even less sense than 'greedy'. For someone to have no scruples, ethics or principles in claiming a reward for helping to find a missing child, they would, by definition, be behaving in an underhand and devious manner. Towards whom and about what? Towards the McCanns, who only wanted to find their daughter? Wouldn't the parents of a missing child be delighted for the information, wherever it came from if they could get their daughter back unharmed? And 'one greedy, unscrupulous character'. Does that mean that Auntie Phil thought there was more than one person who could possibly have come forward? Someone who would unscrupulously grass up the abductor? Wouldn't any close relative of a missing child be eternally grateful to such a person? But, no, Phil McCann would view that person as being a 'greedy, unscrupulous character.'

The Daily Mail article was written just after Gerry McCann's trip to the US, where he got licked by Laura Bush's dog at the Whitehouse, he met up with some folks from the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children and met the US Attorney General:

He lobbied senior statesmen on Capitol Hill, including U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who pledged to do all he could. He even met close aides to First Lady Laura Bush.

How wonderful! The US Attorney General? Well, there's a thing! Not much of a promise though, because really there wasn't much he could do about an investigation led by the Portuguese police. Maybe he looked out for Madeleine, searched the halls of the courts and peered through the tinted windows of his limo, looking for little blonde girls. If he had claimed the reward, would he have been greedy and unscrupulous?

And what about all those people, like Gail Cooper, who spotted suspicious-looking characters hanging about in Praia da Luz? Were they being greedy and unscrupulous when they sold their stories to the tabloids?

I guess since no one has come forward to claim that reward, that all those people out there who know where Madeleine is and who have that last piece of the puzzle, must be people of ethics and principles. Just like a couple of upstanding doctors, maybe, who, through no fault of their own, managed to mislay one of their children and got through nearly 3 million quid of other people's money not finding their daughter.

Missing Madeleine book is 'truthful and scathing.' (Who let this woman out?)

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

Image source: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id250.html

The book written by Kate and Gerry McCann about the search for their missing daughter, Madeleine, is 'truthful and scathing,' according to Gerry's sister Philomena McCann.

“Kate is mainly doing it and I know she has written some very truthful and scathing things relating to the Portuguese police."

Oh dear! That may not be very helpful, Phil. The Portuguese police may not be very happy about that, and, well, your contributions to the case have not been very helpful in the past.

May 5th 2007, 2 days after Madeleine disappeared.

"The childcare facilities: you're leaving people with other folk that you don't know."

Not a good start there Phil, since the people who were running the childcare services in the evening were the same folk who worked in the creches in the day, where Kate and your dear brother were more than happy to leave their 3 children all day, every day.

"Gerry and Kate are in a clear line of sight of their kids."

Now, who told you that little porky, then, Phil? They weren't even in a clear line of sight of the apartment and their kids were allegedly sleeping in a bedroom on the far side of the building.

"Someone with malicious intent went through that window and took Madeleine.."

Ah yes! This was when you (and the rest of the friends and relations) had been told that the window was open, the shutters had been jemmied and the door was locked, but that was before the revelation from the police that there was no sign of tampering in which case, Gerry and Kate disclosed that the patio door had been unlocked in case of fire! Will the 'truthful,' part of the book tell us, at last, why all the friends and relies reported being informed about those (un)jemmied shutters?

"...to suggest in any way that Kate and Gerry are negligible parents...(woops)....negligent parents"

Perhaps you were actually thinking of their parenting skills there, Phil. Negligible might be a good adjective to describe the parenting skills of people who left three children, all under the age of 4, alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign country, night after night.

Interviewer: ....is there a temptation for them to get out and try and search themselves?"

Philomena: Yea, well, I mean, Gerry and Kate want to get out there. They want to search everything. They want to leave nothing unturned, but that's for everyone we've spoken to. This crisis has hit so many people..

Phil, so why didn't they get out there? Will the book tell us that?

Gerry and Kate have not told them (the twins) where she is.....Ooooops!



I'm not surprised, Phil, that you had disappeared rather from the media, especially not after that comment of yours about the highly trained sniffer dogs on BBC Five Live Breakfast.

PM: Yes, I do think she's still alive. We have had no evidence contrary to that and as for cadaver dogs sniffing death on Kate; I mean, what is she? Lassie? Is she gonna speak to them and ask what they're smelling? Kate's a doctor - what does this mean? You know, they've been given a team that send her to go and sniff Kate's clothes and the dogs are told what to do. If they start barking, how are we supposed to interpret that? Except, perhaps, they're 'barking'.

There's another good adjective, Phil, 'barking.' Some might say that you were slightly 'barking.'!!

But, anyway, Phil, they've let you out again, but once again, you're not being very helpful, I'd say.

“Kate and Gerry feel a real responsibility that they don’t want to continue asking the public to support them, and that support has allowed them to go on."(Press and Journal 25/11/10)

But hey! Wasn't there a Paypal button on that petition web site? (No link provided. I just can't bear to revisit all those Phil MacCanns and Ben Dovers) So, they didn't get much then? That petition was launched on Wednesday November 3rd, according to the Daily Mail where it was reported that:

The couple have written an open letter begging for political and financial help and launched an online petition to lobby the British and Portuguese governments for a formal review of the case.

But, less than two weeks later in a blog entry, Kate McCann informs that they have decided to 'publish a book.' Not write a book, but publish a book. So, at this point the book already existed, the one that Kate and Gerry have decided to publish 'with a very heavy heart.' So, what were they going to do with the book if not publish it? Two weeks after writing an open letter asking for financial help, Kate and Gerry now do not wish to ask the public for support and they just happen to have a book handy to publish to raise money for the dwindling fund. Yeh right!

Mr McCann’s older sister Philomena McCann, 46, who lives at Ullapool in Wester Ross and is head of social subjects at the local high school, said Kate had finished writing and the book was being edited.(Press and Journal)

So, Kate and Gerry decided, with a 'heavy heart,' to publish this book, rather than ask the public for more donations, but it's already finished and being edited? Was it finished and handed over for editing before or after that open letter asking for donations?

Ms McCann said: “Kate is mainly doing it and I know she has written some very truthful and scathing things relating to the Portuguese police. (Press and Journal - link above)

Well, I hope Kate and Gerry know you've said that Phil. I'm guessing they either asked you to say that as some kind of notice to the Portuguese police or they will now be rushing to make sure their lawyers put a red line through anything in that 'truthful and scathing,' book that could be seen as being libelous.

Oh dear! You may be relegated again to that closet away from the media!

And finally! I'm intrigued by this quote from Kate McCann on the Find Madeleine web site:

“We are hopeful that this book may help the investigation to find Madeleine in other ways too. Our hope is that it may prompt those who have relevant information, knowingly or not, to come forward and share it with our team.”

How will I know if I unknowingly have relevant information? How will anyone know? Will the McCanns' team help people to know that they don't know and/or help those who unknowingly have information to remember that they know it? How will people self-select to contact the team? Should I, because I don't think I know anything, but I may not know whether I know or not? I may unknowingly be sitting here not knowing that I know something...or not! I think I'll lie down for a while!

Father Jose Pacheco gave the McCanns keys to his church and later removed all traces of Maddie. Why?

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

The following was posted as a 'twitpic,' on Twitter by @santi_girl.

This is one of the articles which were deleted from the Daily Express. A friend of Father Pacheco said, "He's hiding secrets that are destroying him." What secrets of the confessional might this priest be obliged to take with him to the grave?

Where was Maddie when the lights went out? Updated with an interesting puzzle!

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

Image from PJ files vol 1a page 15

The above is an image from the official police files, taken by Assistant Specialist Joao Barreiras on May 4th, 2007, the day after Madeleine disappeared into thin air from Apartment 5A. Apart from some ruffling near the pillow, the covers are perfectly smooth and flat, almost as though the bed had not been slept in. This is what Kate McCann supposedly had a view of in the darkened bedroom when she did her check at 10pm. Notice any bulge that could possibly be mistaken for a child? Notice any bulge that would give rise to doubts, even in semi-darkness as to whether it was the bedclothes or a child? Only FlatStanley could have slept in that bed and left if perfectly flat!

Right enough, though, a Maddie that shape would have been much easier to have got through the very narrow opening of her bedroom window. Hang about, though, the abductor would have to have been subject to flatiosis too! Mmmm! Did Jane Tanner fail to mention something? She didn't see very much of him because in profile he was half an inch thick?



But Kate McCann was obviously expecting a Flat Stanley type child in that bed.

00.13 - 01.31

Kate McCann starts by telling us that the first thing she noticed was:

"..the door was open much further than we'd left it."

But Matthew Oldfield apparently looked into the room at 9.30pm. Had he been given instructions to return the door to the exact degree he was told it had been left at by the McCanns? Maybe he didn't, the wee scunner!

Then Kate describes what she saw:

"..I could see Sean and Amelie in their cot." Singular cot?

And Madeleine?

"...and I was looking at Madeleine's bed, which is here and it was dark (but she saw the twins?) and I was looking and I was thinking, 'is that Madeleine or is that the bedding? I couldn't make her out."

Well, you wouldn't 'make her out,' if the bed was as flat as that, would you? Something wrong with your depth vision, Kate McCann? Should've gone to specsavers!

With the above statements, Kate McCann establishes that the twins and Madeleine had, at one time, all been in the bedroom and in her Woman's Hour Interview Kate tells us how she had left Madeleine:

Jenny: 'Was she sleeping when you left her?'

Kate: (Long pause) 'Errm, yes, she was, yeah'.

Why should Kate need a significant pause to be able to answer that question?

The immediate impression from both the pause, her answer and the way she says it, is that she momentarily didn't know what to say. But how could that be? Comment by Nigel Moore. (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id59.html)

OK, so Kate McCann tells us that all three children were in that bedroom when she left for the Tapas restaurant, that Madeleine was asleep, and that when she checked at 10pm, she saw the twins.

Who else can verify that all three children were in that bedroom and were asleep when they were left?

Gerry McCann's statement May 4th 2007

Yesterday, after the daily routines, MADELEINE and the twins were put to bed in their respective beds at 7.30pm. The parents remained in the apartment to relax and drink a glass of wine until 8.30pm. After checking that the children were asleep, the parents, accompanied by other adults, went to the, "Tapas," restaurant

And:

9.05pm

Thus, at 9.05pm, the interviewee entered the apartment using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's room and noted that the twins and Madeleine were OK. He then took several minutes going to the toilet. He left the apartment and bumped into someone with whom he had played tennis and had a brief conversation. He then returned to the Tapas.

Gerry doesn't actually say where the children's 'respective beds,' were, but it is to be assumed that he meant in the apartment somewhere.

This is all repeated almost word for word in Kate McCann's statement May 4th 2007

Yesterday, after the daily routine, Madeleine and the twins went to bed at around 7.30. They were in their respective beds. The interviewee and her husband stayed in their apartment to relax until 8.30pm.

Anyone else? On May 4th Matthew Oldfield stated that he visited the apartment at 9.25pm. He saw the twins in their cots, but didn't see Madeleine.

At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the fourth room, that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping.

Matthew insists that he had looked into the children's bedroom, as detailed above. However, he also describes the children's bedroom like this:

He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex.

Two windows? What room was he looking into?

Kate McCann saw something that could have been Madeleine or bedding on a perfectly flat bed and Matthew Oldfield saw two windows where, as you can see, there was one! Too much vino? Matthew also states that he listened at the window at 9.05pm: I'll return to that later.

According to the Times Online December 16th 2007:

When he entered the apartment, Gerry immediately saw that the children’s bedroom door, which they always left just ajar, was now open to 45 degrees. He thought that was odd, and glanced in his own bedroom to see if Madeleine had gone into her parents’ bed. But no, she and the twins were all still fast asleep.

But he obviously didn't tell Kate about the door being open more widely than they had left it. The door was a bit more open, but Madeleine and the twins were asleep. He confirms having seen Madeleine and that he left the door just ajar at five degrees.

Gerry paused over Madeleine, who – a typical doctor’s observation, this – was lying almost in “the recovery position” with Cuddle Cat, the toy her godfather, John Corner, had bought her, and her comfort blanket up near her head, and Gerry thought how gorgeous, how lovely-looking she was and how lucky he was. Putting the door back to five degrees, he went to the loo and left to return to the restaurant. That, of course, was the last time he would see his daughter.

Right! So, the children were all asleep in their 'respective beds,' Gerry McCann saw all three at around 9.05pm and Matthew Oldfield saw the twins at around 9.30pm, in their cots, in a room that, strangely, had two windows. Right!
So, where is all this leading? I'll tell you! I don't think the twins were in cots in that room and I don't think Madeleine slept in that bed behind the door. If Madeleine had been in that room at all, I think the twins had been elsewhere and Madeleine's bed was the one by the window. The bed behind the door was perfectly tidy, but the one by the window looks slept in. (See photo above.) OK, that proves nothing, and this, of course, is just my speculative opinion, but I think a good case can be made for that opinion.

In Chapter 11 , "Analysis of a crime scene: apartment 5A," of Gonçalo Amaral's book "The Truth of the Lie," Dr Amaral joins the teams of investigators for a meeting at which photos of the crime scene, taken on May 4th, are discussed.

We carry on looking at the photos of the bedroom: the two cots are in the middle of the room and are in the way of an adult moving around.

- Why is there nothing more than mattresses? All the bed linen has been removed. I really wonder why...

- Perhaps a child vomited or soiled the sheets, and they didn't want to leave them in that state...

The cots were in the middle of the room, which, as seen from the photos, makes the room very cluttered and very difficult for someone to move through to the window, carrying a child. Leaving that aside, the cots had no sheets on and the police wonder why. They hadn't been slept in?

From the police files, the statement given by Maria Serafim da Silva on May 7th 2007, concerning the last time she had cleaned the McCanns' apartment: the morning of Wednesday May 2nd.

She remembers that when she entered Apartment A on the Wednesday, the parents were inside. After being duly authorized, she entered and carried out her work, because they were already on their way out. While she was in the apartment, there were no children there, and she supposed that they were in the creche. While performing her work, she remembers having noticed that the couple was sleeping in the room located opposite the entrance, where she confirmed the presence of a child's bed (crib). The room gives onto an outdoor garden by means of a terrace, as it is on the ground floor,. In the room next to the entrance to the apartment there was a bed placed next to the wall (where she supposed the missing child slept), and also the second child's bed (crib). All these beds were untidy at the time, meaning that they had been used. She also declares that in the room next to the entrance was another bed that had not been used.

In the parents' room there was a cot and in the other room, the room that Madeleine was said to have disappeared from, there was one cot and two beds, one of which had not been slept in.

In an interview with Vanity Fair magazine, published on January 10th 2008, this is how Gerry McCann describes the scene in the children's bedroom when it was discovered that Madeleine was missing.

It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without.

On one bed the twins lay sleeping? Together and on one bed? And in the next...? That sounds like there were two beds very close together. Otherwise, with one bed by the door and one by the window, wouldn't it have been more logical to have said, "In the other."?

For both Gerry McCann's and Matthew Oldfield's statements to be true, and for them, therefore, to have seen Madeleine's bed, she had to have been sleeping in the bed behind the door. (If she had been sleeping in that room.) With two cots in the way, they would not have seen her if she had been sleeping in the bed by the window. So, she had to be behind the door for their observations and their statements.

The messy bed by the window could be explained by Kate McCann's statement, reported in the Daily Mail on August 7th 2008.

Kate and Gerry McCann slept in separate beds after an argument during their family holiday, the police files revealed.

Mrs McCann stayed in her children's room the night before Madeleine's disappearance because she was upset that her husband had 'ignored' her at dinner.

We can see from looking at the photos of Madeleine's bedroom, taken on May 4th, the day after she disappeared, that the bed Kate supposedly slept in on the Wednesday night was unmade, but the bed that Madeleine supposedly was put to sleep in on the night of Thursday May 3rd, was so tidy it looked like it had not been slept in. If she had been in that bed on Wednesday night, someone must have tidied that bed on Thursday morning, but not the one that Kate McCann had slept in. Why not?

Summing up: there were said to be two cots in the room with the twins very sound asleep when the apartment was entered by the friends of the McCanns soon after Madeleine disappeared.

That he never went into the said bedroom occupied by the children but he could see that there were two beds and two cots. The cots were placed in the middle of the bedroom. One of the beds was placed against the window and the other, the one occupied by Madeleine, was against the wall facing the one which has a window. (David Payne May 4th)

Not the arrangement the cleaner saw on Wednesday May 2nd, and not how Gerry McCann described the scene in the Vanity Fair interview.

So, what do I think was the arrangement? I think it's most likely that if Madeleine had been occupying that room, she was probably sleeping in the bed by the window and that the two cots were not in the room. I think Madeleine would have been in that bed so that she was next to the window and anyone checking could just listen at the window, rather than enter the apartment. Matthew Oldfield stated that he had listened at the window at around 9.05pm on May 3rd and I think that was probably the usual method of checking. My opinion, of course. If she had been sleeping in that room at all. And where were the twins? If Madeleine had been in that room, and there had been one cot, or two cots, then where were they on the night of May 3rd, if not there?

As you would expect (well I certainly would!) with all the inconsistencies and contradictions, there might be a totally different scenario, or scenarios!

The cleaner stated that the couple had been sleeping in the room opposite the entrance.

Plan of apartment 5A and the room described as being that of Kate and Gerry

Let's consider an alternative scenario. Whose bed was not slept in on the Wednesday night? We are told it was Kate McCann's. Which room has a bed that does not appear to have been slept in? That described as being the children's. Now, was the cleaner told that the bedroom pictured above was Kate and Gerry's or did she see their things or the clothes/items belonging to one parent in that room? Did Kate join the children in that bedroom on the Tuesday night as well as the Wednesday, and the cleaner saw her things there? Tuesday, I believe, was the quiz night, when Gerry may have been paying rather too much attention to the quiz mistress.

The room pictured above has two beds that appear to have been slept in and Kate and Gerry did not sleep in apartment 5A on Thursday night. So, can we conclude that both beds had been slept in on Wednesday night? And had both had occupants on Thursday night?

What I'm suggesting is Gerry's statement to the Vanity Fair journalist makes more sense if the children had actually been sleeping in the other bedroom, that pictured above. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without."

I am quite sure that the scene in 5A was staged in some way and why not switch the bedrooms around to make it appear that all three children had slept in the other room? Why the switch-round? Something to hide, perhaps, in the room the children had been sleeping in? And not enough time to sort it out?

The above is a reconstruction from the documentary based on Gonçalo Amaral's book, although it has been said that Kate and Gerry were actually on the floor, leaning over the bed. It has also been suggested on various fora that this bizarre behaviour was designed to keep the police out of the bedroom. And why? What was in the room that the McCanns may not have wanted the police to see? Something in the wardrobe perhaps? We know that on one occasion during that week, Madeleine was said to have hidden at bedtime. Did she hide in the wardrobe and was found there by an angry parent, who wanted to get ready to go out for dinner?

Eddie definitely showed a keen interest in the wardrobe.

And the two cots? Perhaps there had been one in each room, as the cleaner said, but not being used, hence no sheets. The twins may have been in one bed. Gerry told us that the twins had been due to go into proper beds when they went home, but suppose they had already gone into proper beds and they were definitely not going to go back into cots, especially not those travel cots, which are really too small for two-year-olds. Gerry does tend to come up with explanations for everything, where it's not always necessary and maybe he slipped up in the Vanity Fair interview. Perhaps in explaining that the two-year-olds, who were really too big for those cots, would be going into proper beds at home, he was giving a little too much information? Reinforcing the idea that they had been sleeping in the travel cots when this hadn't been the case? Also responding to the question of the twins being too big for cots, any kind of cot.

So, where was Maddie when the lights went out? In the bed behind the door? Not in any bed, because she had already met with an accident? In a bed in the room described as being the one the parents slept in? That might explain why none of Maddie's DNA was found in the room she was said to have been sleeping in.

If we really knew the answer to that question, we might be closer to knowing what happened to Maddie on the night of May 3rd 2007. Where was she when the lights went out?

Update:

Two views of the bedroom that Madeleine McCann was said to have slept in. Number 1 is from the police files and number 2, I would imagine is from publicity photos about the apartment for tourists. The puzzle is: in photo number 1, why is the headboard of the bed Madeleine was said to have slept in behind the chest of drawers?

Photo 1

Photo 2

Image number 2 is from an article which appeared in the News of the World in May 2008, in which the newspaper claimed to have been given exclusive access to the apartment.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

It seems unlikely to me that the McCanns would have been allocated an apartment where a headboard was propped behind a chest of drawers. Surely if it had been damaged, it would have been repaired or replaced before the apartment was rented out? Why prop it behind the chest of drawers rather than just remove it, if it had been damaged before the McCanns moved in?

Why did the headboard have to be propped there? Why not in what appears to be its original place? The bed appears to be in the same place in both photos, so why has the headboard been moved?

Inside Out, Back to Front and Upside Down!

........................................
.....................................
I have not come across the BBC East Midlands Programme, "Inside Out," before, which is not surprising since the only time my telly is on these days is when my grandson is here and we watch a little bit of CBeebies, when he has run me ragged.

On Monday 22nd, part of the programme, which airs at 7.30pm, will be concerned with, "Who are the Madeleine Foundation."? Well, who are they?

The Madeleine Foundation was set up in January 2008 with the following aims:

a) to change the law in whatever way is needed in order to send out a clear message to all parents that leaving young children on their own is never acceptable, and to strive for the adoption of a new law with its key provisions ensuring that parents “Never leave young children on their own”

b) to pursue - in conjunction with others - the truth about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance on 3 May 2007

c) to investigate the facts behind the extent of British government involvement in this case and the reasons for it

d) to ensure that the media, in particular the British media, report this case accurately and give due weight to all viewpoints on Madeleine’s disappearance

e) to generally promote the welfare of children, in particular by ensuring that parents are aware of the psychological needs of their children and ensuring that the relevant authorities take appropriate action to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

The Foundation has produced several publications, including, "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 reasons which suggest she was not abducted." (Pictured below)


The members of the Madeleine Foundation have worked tirelessly over these nearly three years, sometimes attracting controversy - for example when they did a leaflet drop in the McCanns' home town of Rothley in Leicestershire - sometimes dealing with threats of legal action by the McCanns' legal team at Carter-Ruck (Yes, the company that represented General Pinochet and Trafigura, the oil company alleged to be responsible for wide-spread pollution in Africa) - but always managing to keep going with their main aim in mind: finding the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann.

I support the Madeleine Foundation in its efforts to change the laws concerning the minimum age at which children should be left alone, and in its seeking to find the truth about what happened to Madeleine. So, I was initially quite pleased to see that the BBC was giving time to the Madeleine Foundation. However, call me cynical, but having read the synopsis on the Inside Out web page, I seriously doubt that the good people of the East Midlands are going to be presented with a very balanced view of the Madeleine Foundation and its work.

What happened to Madeleine McCann remains a mystery. Her parents were cleared of playing any role in her disappearance, but controversial group continues to campaign in support of a discredited detective who claims Kate and Gerry McCann covered up the truth. Inside Out investigates the members and motives of the Madeleine Foundation.

Yes, it remains a mystery. I have to say, though, that the Madeleine Foundation received a letter from Carter-Ruck (letters can be read on the MF web site) stating that the case must not be referred to as a 'mystery,' so, look out BBC!

Her parents were cleared? Well, no they weren't. The case was archived and the McCanns' arguido status lifted, but no one was 'cleared.' There was simply insufficient evidence to charge anyone, which is rather different.

And why describe Gonçalo Amaral, the senior police officer who coordinated the investigation, as 'discredited.'? That's hardly an unbiased description and not one held by the three judges who sat on the bench of the Appeal Court in Lisbon and overturned the ban on Amaral's book, "The Truth of the Lie." The judges decided that the book did not infringe any of the McCanns' rights, that it represented the facts as contained in the police files, and that Amaral with 26 years as a police officer, was qualified to give an interpretation of those facts (Read the full decision in English here)

Well, this group that 'continues to support,' the discredited detective - what kind of impression does that statement give? Does that make the Madeleine Foundation sound like a group of professional people, seeking justice for a small child? Or does it make them sound like they might be rather misguided? The latter, I would suggest. And we're probably getting a flavour of the slant of this programme before it's aired.

"Inside Out investigates the members and motives of the Madeleine Foundation." Now, if they said they were giving the members the opportunity to talk about their work, that would be quite positive. Viewers could make up their own minds as to whether the Foundation and its members were to be taken seriously or not. However, the programme investigates the members? That makes the object of the exercise sound more like "Watchdog." - we investigate crooked car dealers!

I hope I'm wrong, but reading the synopsis, I see - who are this bunch of people who support a discredited detective? What are their motives for pursuing this crazy objective? Well, I guess no publicity is bad publicity and at least more people will find out that the Foundation exists and some may be motivated to visit the web site and find out for themselves what the Madeleine Foundation is all about. I do hope so.

The following is a video, which was removed from YouTube for breaching terms and conditions, although it is simply a reading of the 48 questions which Kate McCann refused to answer in September 2007. These questions are in the public domain as part of the official police files and can be read on literally thousands of web sites.

The 48 questions Kate McCann refused to answer, by Tony Bennett. The questions can also be read on the video.

If you watch this programme, I would ask you to keep an open mind, if it's as biased as I think it may be. Kate and Gerry McCann were invited to take part, but I believe they turned down the opportunity.

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/