Page 129 of Kate McCann's book.

..................
....................
(Click on image to enlarge)


I have no words to express the shock and disgust I feel that Kate McCann should have written the book for her children and include something like that.

Kate McCann, I've got news for you: The Langoliers are not coming!

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

"The Langoliers," was a short story by Stephen King in which the eponymous "Langoliers," gobbled up the past. They were like huge, bouncing balloons that opened up and made holes in the landscape that had been the past.

I sometimes wonder if you think those Langoliers exist, Kate McCann, because you seem to forget that the past not only exists in people's memories, but it also nowadays exists on this wonderful internet. It was rather different in the days before such technology not only made instant communication from far-flung parts of the world possible, but kept a record of it too. YouTube, Kate, YouTube. Newspaper archives. Portuguese people to translate police files and upload them. These all hold records of what you have said in the past, in the four years since your daughter disappeared. And the Langoliers have not gobbled it all up.

Oh how dreadful when people throw one's words back in one's face! And oh how utterly awful when those words cannot be taken back or denied.

You want a "for instance"? Well, for instance, how about the following from an extract in The Sun from your about to be published book? It's that much-reported incident where Madeleine apparently asked you why you hadn't come when she was crying.

At breakfast time on the Thursday, Madeleine had a question for us. "Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried last night?"

Now, because of this wonderful internet, I can call up all sorts of things, which have not been gobbled up by those very unhelpful Langoliers (where are they when you need them?)

Well, would you have a look at this? From the police files. Here is what Kate and Gerry McCann said on May 4th, 2007, the day after Madeleine disappeared.

Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 4th of May 2007, at 11.15 a.m.

On the morning of May 3rd, MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into her bedroom when the twins were crying. The deponent had heard nothing and therefore had not gone into the room, yet he thought his daughter’s comment was strange, even because it was the first time that she made it.

Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, on the 4th of May 2007, at 2.20 p.m.

She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday the 3rd, Madeleine asked the witness why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The witness states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom, nevertheless she found her daughter’s comment strange because it was the first time she had made it.

(Note: No time specified!)

And here is what Gerry said on May 10th 2007. The details had changed!

Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 10th of May 2007, at 3.20 p.m.

On the day that MADELEINE disappeared, Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time, between 07H30 and 08H00. When they were having breakfast, MADELEINE addressed her mother and asked her "why didn't you come last night when SEAN and I were crying?" That he thought this comment very strange given that MADELEINE had never spoken like this and, the night before, they had maintained the same system of checking on the children, not having detected anything abnormal. When he questioned her about the comment, she left without any explanation.

(Note: There is now a specified time, but the bedroom isn't mentioned!)

Again from today's copy of The Sun:

"We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? we asked her. Or just after they'd gone to bed?
...Gerry and I were disconcerted. Could Madeleine and Sean have woken up while we were at dinner?"

Now, on May 4th 2007, both Gerry and Kate reported that Madeleine had asked why they hadn't come to her bedroom. Now, in this book, Kate is telling us that they asked Madeleine if the crying had been when she and Sean were having a bath. Not what was said on May 4th 2007!

I'll return to addressing you directly again, Mrs Kate. The Langoliers are not coming. All your statements are recorded and archived on this amazing World Wide Web and can be called up in an instant. I really think you should have done a bit more research for this book, particularly with regard to your own well-documented utterances. This is the kind of thing a friend should have told you and I believe your friend Fiona Payne helped jog your memory about events. Pity her memory is as bad as yours or maybe she would have pointed out the glaring errors of recall.

Some people are actually calling these errors lies, Mrs Kate, but I think you got a bit mixed up. I reckon you thought this book was going into the 'Fiction,' section and you totally forgot that the Langoliers were not coming.

In the words of a lovely older lady I know, who comes from 'oop north, "It's all me eye and Peggy Martin."

That book of yours, Mrs Kate, from what I read the other day to the lovely lady who is almost blind, "It's all me eye and Peggy Martin."

And for those who are not from 'oop north and don't know anyone from way up there, a quick translation.

It's pure fantasy!

Kate McCann: "Did they expect me to confess to a crime they had made up?"

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

Now, there's a great deal I could say about Kate McCann's book, which will be released on May 12th, extracts of which are being published in The Sun, but today's offering is as good a place to start as any.

Kate McCann describes in her book how the police, via their lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, had offered a deal.

If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I'd receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I'd be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.

So, that, according to Kate McCann, was the deal: confess and we'll go easy on you. And what was her response?

Pardon? I really wasn't sure I could possibly have heard him correctly. My incredulity turned to rage. How dare they suggest I lie? How dare they expect me to live with such a charge against my name?

And even more importantly, did they really expect me to confess to a crime they had made up, to falsely claim to the whole world that my daughter was dead, when the result would be that the whole world stopped looking for her?

Well, first of all the ignominy of having such a charge against her name. Not, "I would never have harmed my daughter and I'm not going to confess to having done so. I'm going to look for her with every last breath in my body." Her good name!

And what might the result be? That the whole world would stop looking for Madeleine. Note: not that Kate McCann would therefore not be able to look for her child, but everyone else might stop. Somebody else can do it! The world's press can keep Madeleine's name in the public's attention. Why keep a dog and bark yourself?

There's going to be a riot when news of all this reaches people back in the UK.

Why should there be a riot? They're not Posh and Becks! No, no rioting in the streets! Just pictures of Kate and Gerry hot-footing it out of Portugal with uncommon haste!

There's no way our government will stand for this. (Four months down the line and still so naive!)

Now, why should the UK government stand for or not stand for the work of the police of another sovereign nation? Why should the government intercede on behalf of the McCanns?

Then we come to dem doggies!

I knew exactly where this line of questioning was going and as much as it riled me, I refused to rise to it. Now Ricardo was giving me his spiel about the dogs. "These dogs have a 100 per cent success rate," he said, waving an A4 document in front of me.

"Two hundred cases and they've never failed. We have gone to the best laboratory in the world using low-copy DNA techniques."

His emphasis suggested this was the gold standard. I just stared at him, unable to hide my contempt. These dogs had never been used in Portugal before, and he knew little more about them than I did.

So, what did it matter that the dogs had never been used in Portugal? And at that point how did Kate McCann know that? He knew little more about them than she did? I very much doubt that, but we must read on to find out exactly how little Kate McCann knew about those dogs, exactly how little she managed to find out even given that there is so much information readily available on the internet.

The dogs in apartment 5A, according to Kate McCann:

Each dog ran around the apartment, jumping over beds, into the wardrobe, generally having a good sniff.

At one point, the handler directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this site.

The dogs ultimately "alerted". I felt myself relax a little. This was not what I'd call an exact science. In footage of the apartment next door to ours, one of the dogs began to root in the corner of a room near a piece of furniture.

And the vehicle which was hired some time after Madeleine disappeared?

The film show continued. Now we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic.

It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an "unblinded" study, one that is susceptible to bias.

One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle.

The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed; returning to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking.

Neither of those descriptions from Kate McCann is accurate, as can be seen from actual footage of the dogs with the vehicle and in the apartment.

In the underground car park.

As can be seen very clearly, Martin Grime drew Eddie's attention to each of the vehicles in turn, bringing him back to sniff. It wasn't just to the McCann's vehicle.

Eddie and Keela in apartment 5A. Video from Duarte Levy.*



Note that Martin Grime allows Eddie to run around the apartment and then directs him to specific areas, none of which Eddie pays particular attention to. When Eddie 'alerts,' in the wardrobe at 4.00, Martin Brime is actually standing back, not giving any direction.

After being directed very clearly to very specific areas, when Eddie jumps onto the sofa, he nearly disappears behind it: from 6.00. So, the sofa was not particularly chosen, not indicated for attention any more than all the other areas that Grime drew Eddie's attention to.

When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler. We would later learn that in his written report, PC Grime had emphasised that such alerts cannot be relied upon without corroborating evidence.

'The conscious or unconscious signals of the handler.' In over 200 successful cases? Well, either Martin Grime had information about those cases that meant there was no need for the dogs: just let Martin Grime have a good sniff! He's cheaper to hire than the dogs anyway! Or Grime is psychic!

Now this part of Kate McCann's writing about the dogs is very significant, as far as I am concerned.

As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the "odour of death", putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than 30 days. There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.

Now, I ask myself, why should any timescale be important? Kate McCann is wrong, by the way, as she would have found out by doing some very easy searching on Google. I'll post links at the end to good information about the length of time in which a cadaver dog can still detect the odour, but I'll leave that for now and just focus on this 30 days issue. (See Addendum)

Why is it important? Why would it matter at all if Kate McCann knew that while she and her husband had the vehicle no dead body, or anything that had come into contact with a dead body, had been transported in the vehicle?

Has Kate McCann inadvertently given something away here? Does it matter because it was more than 30 days since a dead body had been in the vehicle? Did it matter because after 30 days 'There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find.'? Because it was, in fact, more than 30 days since there had been 'decaying body parts,' in the vehicle, so therefore there were none and the dogs were wrong?

Imagine!

Kate: They've got us bang to rights, Gerry. Those dogs are spot on every time.
Gerry: No, we're in the clear. The odour only lasts for 30 days. Look at the calender!

Why the need to find out what the time period was in which a cadaver dog could still detect the odour? It was a fairly new vehicle and no one had died in it or been transported dead in it previously. So, why 30 days?

As I said, why does the timescale matter if Kate McCann knew, that as far as she and her husband were concerned, there had been no dead body in the vehicle while it was in their possession?

Can we assume a 'therefore,' between, 'As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the "odour of death", putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than 30 days.' and 'There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.'

Something to ponder? Aye!

* http://duartelevyinfo.blip.tv/file/1271542/

Addendum

Residual scent in buildings: http://www.csst.org/residual_scent.html

The case of Jean Zapata.

Jean disappeared in 1976. Friends never believed that she had abandoned her young daughter. In 2005, the case was re-opened and cadaver dogs were brought in.

Madison Police Officer Carren Corcoran has trained and handled cadaver dogs for the last ten years.

"It's hard to imagine that a dog can detect something from 30 years in a basement. How is that possible?" Schlesinger asks.

"I think that an entire body decomposing, possibly early on and in a space like the crawlspace, which was really [a] primo environment to contain scent. There's no wind. There's no rain. The temperature stays about the same all the time," Corcoran explains.

On Jan. 6, 2005, Statz, Corcoran and Cleo the cadaver dog went to work in the crawlspace. "Right away she started really working and working, and working the area of both outside the crawlspace, and into the crawlspace. And then she eventually provided a formal indication, which is a bark for Cleo," Corcoran remembers.

Then, a second dog reacted the same way. Police started excavating the crawlspace.

"We found some hairs. We collected bug carcasses and a Burger King cup. We found things. But we did not find anything that we could tie to Jeanette Zapata," Statz says.

Jean's husband, Eugene confessed to her killing.

CBS News

Madeleine McCann - The police files video - Updated

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

Madeleine McCann - The police report video

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

Madeleine McCann - without Jane Tanner's abductor the house of cards falls.

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

....................
The question has been asked many times: where is the proof that Madeleine McCann was abducted? Without Jane Tanner's alleged sighting of an alleged abductor, what is there?

The shutters were not 'jemmied,' there was no DNA left by a stranger and the only fingerprints on the window of Madeleine's bedroom belonged to Kate McCann.

Jane Tanner's first description of the person she had seen was of a man carrying a bundle that could have been a child. Her description went through various developments over the course of the next few months, but the first development was following what she referred to as 'a cognitive technique.'

Jane Tanner - Praia da Luz, 03 May 2007, 23.15pm

"Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas."

- Quoted in The Sun, 20 November 2007

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html

So, we then had the addition of the pyjamas, which Jane Tanner was able to identify as white or 'light pink,' a colour that would, in my opinion, not be recognisable under sodium street lights.

About the child whom appeared to be sleeping, she only saw her legs. The child appeared to be older than a baby. She was barefoot and was wearing what appeared to be cotton pyjamas of a light colour (possibly white or light pink). She is not certain, but has the impression a design on the pyjamas, possibly a floral pattern, but she is not certain. (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html )

On October 25th, 2007, a sketch of the alleged abductor appeared in the press. This was the most detailed one to date, one which Jane Tanner agreed matched the person she had seen carrying the child, which by this date was definitely Madeleine. Now, I realise that I'm skipping a lot here, but the important detail I'd like to focus on is the actual pyjamas that Madeleine was said to have been wearing when she disappeared on the evening of May 3rd 2007 from the unlocked apartment in Praia da Luz.

So, on October 25th 2007, this was the image of the abductor which was presented. Note the legs of the pyjamas, reaching the ankles, tight around the legs and ankles.

Here is the campaign photo of Kate and Gerry McCann holding a pair of pyjamas, which were said to be identical to those worn by Madeleine when she disappeared.

Note the legs of those pyjamas, the ones that are identical to those reported to have been worn by Madeleine when she disappeared. Would those pyjamas have been tight around the legs and ankles of the child who was wearing them? They're baggy and cropped. It's my opinion that if a child wearing those pyjamas were to be carried in the manner illustrated, the legs of the pyjamas would ride up over the knees. The child's calves would be seen to be bare and if any of the pyjama bottoms was visible, it would be just the frilled parts, peeking over the knees.

What can we conclude from the above?

Jane Tanner's memory was not as good as she thought it had been perhaps. She did see a man carrying Madeleine away from the apartment, but she just didn't quite recall what the pyjamas were like, though she did state that she had seen bare feet and not bare legs.

Still, Jane could have just been a bit hazy in her recall. The person who would know what the pyjamas were like and what they'd look like on a child whom she probably helped into and out of them on quite a few occasions would be Kate McCann. Surely Kate McCann would look at the sketch and realise that it wasn't accurate? Wouldn't she? Wouldn't Kate McCann know and tell us that those pyjamas would not have been seen to be tight around the legs and ankles of a child being carried like that because they were baggy and cropped?

If Kate McCann did not contradict the details shown on the sketch, why not? If she presents an inaccurate image as true, knowing it to be inaccurate, then she is colluding with a lie. Whether that lie is just about the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing or is about anything more sinister, only she and Jane Tanner and a few others may know. We do know that Kate McCann is lying about the accuracy of the sketch, simply by her actions.

(* Still is from the video posted below)

It would seem that the sketch is not an accurate representation of the way Madeleine was said to have been clothed when she was abducted. So, why does Kate McCann have what appears to be the original of the sketch next to her computer? Why isn't Kate McCann pointing out the inaccuracies? Why isn't she saying that if Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child in pyjamas like that it wasn't Madeleine? By accepting that sketch and using it in her campaign, she is colluding with the inaccuracy of it and, in my opinion, lying by omission.

Why?

Perhaps because that sketch is all she's got to back up a story about an abductor having taken her daughter. And if that is false, then what is left? Nothing. The house of cards built on Jane Tanner's alleged sighting of an abductor falls.

* Image is shown at 4.49 on this video.

Spam called Maddie McCann

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

Spam: spam, spam or trash is an unsolicited communication via email. In general, it's sent in huge numbers for advertising reasons.

Four years after her strange disappearance, a photo of Madeleine McCann may very soon arrive in your email inbox. In any case, that's what an Australian daily newspaper tells us, quoting aunts of the little British girl.

According to Phil and Diane McCann, this will be the case for 80% of internet users world-wide. "I am asking everyone I know to forward this chain email, because the case is not covered outside the United Kingdom, Ireland and Portugal," says Phil McCann, stressing that the family do not believe that Maddie is still in Portugal.

The objective of this initiative, according to Diane, "is to highlight the distinction in Madeleine's eye," - information, however, which has already been broadcast world-wide. "The pupil runs into the blue-green iris."

Maddie's disappearance was reported on the night of May 3rd 2007 in Praia da Luz, a very peaceful tourist village in the south of Portugal.

As the fourth anniversary of the disappearance approaches, Maddie's parents, Kate and Gerry, are getting ready to publish a book which tells their version of the case.
Originally planned for release on April 29th, the book, "Madeleine," finally comes out on May 12th, "to avoid clashing with media coverage of the marriage of Prince William to Kate Middleton."

Further reading:

Kate McCann teme ser agredida (In Spanish)

Hunt for Madeleine McCann: the next chapter (In English)

Duarte Levy

SOS Madeleine McCann 10/04/11

Madeleine McCann: Kate and Gerry are 'negligible parents,' who were dining in the restaurant next door!

.....................
It's that perennial problem when there's been some kind of serious problem in the family. "What shall we tell the children?"

So, what have Kate and Gerry McCann told their twin children, Sean and Amelie and what will they tell them as the twins grow old enough to ask serious questions and perhaps find information for themselves on the internet?

Well, Aunty Phil, what have Sean and Amelie been told has happened?

Philomena McCann, in response to the question, "Sean and Amelie, what have they been told has happened?"

'No, they haven't been told. Eh, they ask about Madeleine, they ask quite regularly, but Gerry and Kate have not told them where she is...'

They have not told the twins where Madeleine is? What?!! Does that mean that Gerry and Kate know where she is?

Quick correction by Aunty Phil!

'Well, we don't know where she is, but they haven't actually said, eh, that she's missing. They think that maybe she's with...'

They? Which they? The twins or Kate and Gerry? Whoever they are, who is it that they think Madeleine is with? And why should they think Madeleine is with that person/persons?

Quick change of course here for Aunty Phil. Bet she wishes her niece had disappeared in the pre-internet days when interviews were paraphrased by reporters and it was easy to deny having said something! But woops! It was out of her mouth and recorded! Who thought Madeleine was with the unnamed person/people? Kate and Gerry? Who would they think Madeleine was with? The twins thought that? Maybe they assumed or were told that Madeleine was with her grandmother in Scotland or were just allowed to think that?

And so Philomena carries on, waffling away to try to cover up, in my opinion, that she's just said that and the rest of what she burbles on about is not an answer to the question and it's really apropos of nothing.

No, (No what? What was she saying 'no,' to?) because we have a large family and they appear regularly (They 'appear,' like Frankie Howard might say, 'Just like that!'? The members of this large family just 'appear,' and Madeleine just disappears into thin air! for their next trick!) out in Portugal or when they were down in Leicester. (Which they?) So, they're kinda used to the kids being taken away for a day or their..(Suspended sentence here? Their what? Or their who? Doing what?) And you know, kids at two don't realise how long a period of time is. You know, it's different. They know they're not seeing Madeleine (It would be pretty strange if they didn't know they weren't seeing her!) They'll ask and then they're away playing again.

Well, I think that was not very helpful for Kate and Gerry, Aunty Phil! You've given the impression that Kate and Gerry know where Madeleine is and that they or the twins think they know who she is with. Not helpful at all!

And oh dear! Here's one you made earlier!

'The childcare facilities, you're leaving people (the children?) with other folk that you don't know. (Well, actually, it was the nannies who ran the daytime creche who did the evening child care!) Gerry and Kate are in a clear line of sight of their kids (No, they could see the top of the balcony. So, unless the kids or an abductor walked out on very tall stilts, no hope of seeing anyone coming or going!) They regularly go across to check maybe if the kids have been disturbed, or crying or anything or if they'd come out the front they'd have seen them. (Right!)
It is obvious that someone with malicious intent went through that window (Skinny Malinky?) and took Madeleine from the safety and security of her family. (She was in an unlocked apartment and her 'family,' couldn't even see any of the doors. Safety and security? So, how were they keeping her safe and secure?)'

Here it comes folks!

'To suggest in any possible way that Kate and Gerry are negligible par...negligent pair....negligent parents...'

I'll stop there! The rest is just more damage limitation waffle!

So, what will Kate and Gerry tell the twins when Sean and Amelie start asking those very awkward questions, like, 'Where were you when our sister disappeared?'

Mr McCann said: ‘Sean talks all the time about finding Maddie and what he will do to the person who stole her.

‘They know they went to sleep and when they woke up she had disappeared. But they still don’t understand that somebody took her.

‘When they become aware of this I think they will want to know where we were. And we will have to explain to them that we were having dinner in the restaurant next door.’( Daily Mail May 2nd 2010)

Now look, Kate and Gerry, I wouldn't try telling the twins that because they'll find out for themselves when they can browse the internet that the 'restaurant next door,' was 120 yards away, down a public road, through a reception area into the secure (ha!) resort, and round the swimming pool. I guess your excuse could be that you just didn't say what it was next door to! 'Well, it was 'next door to' the swimming pool. Silly me,' says Gerry, 'shoulda said that!'

Sean and Amelie move into the junior section of their school this year. And they're going to be mixing with children up to the age of eleven, some of whom will have heard people discussing Madeleine's disappearance or found information for themselves on the internet and kids cannot always be relied on to keep their mouths shut! So, what will Kate and Gerry tell Sean and Amelie when they come home asking questions, perhaps in the not-too-distant future? Those school kids will come out with some not very helpful things. I imagine the response might be that it's just those 'internet nutters.' There's a lot of us nutters around, Kate and Gerry. So, I think you'd better start practising your script for when those questions get asked!

'Why did you hire all those dodgy detective agencies mummy and daddy?'

'What did you spend three million pounds on mummy and daddy?'

'Why didn't you go out looking for Madeleine on the night she disappeared?'

And many more I should think!

It's coming Kate and Gerry. And what will you tell them? What indeed!

Gonçalo Amaral interview April 4th on W9 with Sidonie Bonnec and Paul Lefèvre.

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

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

Sidonie Bonnec

The preview: (This programme was due to have been aired about 2 years ago, but was cancelled)

On Monday April 4th at 8.40pm on W9, through two unpublished documentaries, 'Enquêtes Criminelles' proposes to focus on the strange disappearance, on May 3rd 2007, of little Maddie McCann.

Maddie: the banned investigation.

Gonçalo Amaral, the Portuguese police office who directed the investigation before being thrown off it, is convinced of the parents involvement in the death of their daughter. According to the police officer, the little girl died accidentally in the apartment where the family were spending their holiday. Then the parents made it look like an abduction. For Gonçalo Amaral, the McCann couple lied to the investigators "because they were negligent with their children. They went to dinner leaving them alone. Such behaviour is reprehensible. They then set up the kidnapping story." Gonçalo Amaral returned to the scene of the drama. Before our cameras, he reconstructed, minute by minute, everything that happened on the day of the disappearance and put forward the contradictions from the various witnesses. You will see exclusive images recorded by the Portuguese police, which notably show the reaction of the police dogs as they went through Maddie's parents' apartment.

The parents' argument

In spite of Gonçalo Amaral's statements and the archiving of the investigation, Gerry and Kate McCann still believe that their daughter is alive. A few weeks ago, they published an age-advanced image of their daughter in the hope of finding her. Moreover, they have engaged two detectives who continue the investigation. The two men went back to the scene in Praia da Luz to produce a filmed reconstruction of the day of the drama. They found new witnesses who stated that they had seen a man hanging about near the McCanns' holiday apartment, several days before Maddie's disappearance. For them, that leaves no doubt: the man is the abductor. Following the detectives' investigation, you will see how, two years after the events, the McCanns are trying to live in their home near Leicester, in the English midlands, with their twin children.

What follows is a translation of a transcription of the programme which aired on the evening of Monday April 4th. Bonnec and Lefèvre present, 'Enquetes Criminelles' on French TV Channel W9.

The documentary produced with Gonçalo Amaral, based on his book, 'A verdade da Mentira,' (The Truth of the Lie) was shown first, followed by the interview with Gonçalo Amaral. Then came a video entitled, 'The parents' argument,' which is no longer available on the W9 web site, but from the transcript it seems to be part of the programme made for Channel 4, otherwise known as 'the mockumentary.'

This is Part 1 of the Amaral documentary, the rest of which I shall post at the end of this transcript.

Start of the broadcast. Sylvie Bonnec recalls the circumstances of May 3rd and how G Amaral was thrown off the investigation but remains convinced that sooner or later the truth will see the light of day (images from the documentary) She introduces Paul Lefèvre, a legal journalist. She recalls that 4 years later, the parents were exonerated after having been suspected. She presents surprising images recorded by the police. Kate’s appeal to the abductors is shown from start to finish and then a voiceover says that the official conclusion of the investigation states that the little girl had been abducted while she slept. SB then says that according to Amaral, the little girl died on May 3rd (and that the parents were involved in her disappearance), a version that many would like to see quashed.

She leads into the two documentaries, stating that they are unpublished in France: Amaral’s and the McCanns’ (with no further clarification as to their provenance) If I heard the phrase “4 years after,” correctly, it may be that the programme has been partly remade and the old footage added. It’s quite confusing.

Amaral footage: female voice commentating in French, apparently faithful in translation and intonation.
Return to the set with Amaral. Interview. (rough transcription from what I can remember, but there are certainly gaps) Transcription by frencheuropean.

L: You were taken off the investigation. Why does it bother you?

A: Before replying, I’d like to clarify one point. The parents were not innocent. That’s wrong. The case was closed, the parents could have opposed it but they preferred to use private detectives. It’s wrong to say that they were innocent.
It bothers me because I am telling the truth. The book represents 5 months of the investigation: the theory from the investigation. It’s the conclusion of the process in September 2007. Afterward, only one theory was retained, that of kidnapping. Other people were asked to keep quiet (myself and others)


L: I have experience of police investigations and sometimes the police have convictions and want to fit everything into that conviction. That’s the feeling I have here. No other theory seems to interest you.


A: That’s wrong. There is a beginning, a middle and an end to an investigation. The book ends in the middle of the investigation. At one time it was leaning towards kidnapping. But an investigation needs to run its course. Well, the investigation was prevented from concluding. The book is police work that some would like to be kept hidden.

B: I don’t understand why you attach so much importance to the fact that Kate did not shout from the balcony, took the long way round rather than the shorter route to warn the tapas, bearing in mind the dark night and the cold.

L: It’s a minor point but specialists say that the first reaction is to protect the remaining children. Kate left them alone (in these circumstances)

B: Why not have taken the little girl to the hospital (in the case of an accident)?

A: The investigation was half-way through. We were just beginning to see things. It should have run its course. There were perhaps other theories: a burglar who could have killed the child and taken her body elsewhere, for example….other tracks. (Note: the reply does no really relate to the question. There is a cut in the interview?)

L: OK, you say that the police officer who followed you gave up, lay down and that there was political pressure.

A: Your interpretation is correct.

L: (Explains the different roles of the two dogs) What were the English dogs looking for, a living or a dead person?

A: They were looking for a body.

L: You say the child was killed falling from the sofa. Can a child really be killed falling 60 centimetres?

A: It’s possible.

B: What more could you have done?

A: Look for the freezer, who had one. At that time I was dismissed and nobody looked in that direction.

L: How could the parents have got rid of a body? They were under constant surveillance that evening.

A: We should bear in mind that the police were informed well after the alert was raised. The alert doesn’t coincide with the “kidnapping,” any more than the witness statement from Tanner who says she saw the kidnapper at 9.30pm and didn’t alert the police. Why? In reality, when the parents gave the alert, all worries about transport (of the body) were taken care of.

McCanns’s documentary. Return to the set.


L: 3 witnesses (those who saw a man watching the apartment) were heard by their detectives: did you rule out these witness statements or did you miss this?

A: Everybody near that busy road was interrogated. The police interrogated all the witnesses, even a musician who was sleeping in his car.

L: Did you find that man?

A: It was D Payne, the McCanns’ friend who was often with them and the witness statement of the young girl was not reckoned to be of any value. (Note: the one who saw the horrible spotty man, I assume)
Concerning the man carrying the child seen by Tanner: there is a huge problem. J Tanner produced a lot of discrepancies, going from great uncertainty at the beginning through certainty with the progression of successive statements.
The Smiths were 80% sure that it was Gerry McCann…The film (the McCanns’) speaks of two witnesses (with similar statements) but Smith talks about the child carried with her head on the shoulder and Tanner across the arms.

L: You are a well-known man in Portugal, a man of experience. Do you really think that this nice, middle-class English couple, are calculating and Machiavellian enough to have done this?

A: It’s not the problem posed by an individual who believes something. It’s a police investigation, within the context of police work
Someone goes on holiday in a foreign country and thinks the laws are the same. Concerning the law, in England abandoning children is severely punished…

L: (cutting Amaral off by bursting out laughing) Everybody does it!

A: (Raising his voice, sounding angry) Yes, it’s abandonment to leave children on their own like that….it’s non-punishable negligence in Portugal. In England it’s punishable and the tapas know it.

L: Is that why they concealed the body?

A. There could be other reasons: so that the state of the body would not be known. But there wasn’t time to explore the theories. Perhaps if the investigation had been completed they’d all have been done?

End of the interviews. S. Bonnec concludes by saying:

“Maddie’s parents did not wish to come and have their say.”

On Monday this week, Kate McCann was having an 'emotional battle' finishing her book about Madeleine.

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



And today, we read in the very same newspaper, the Daily Express:

Kate’s 384-page memoir, Madeleine, is being published on the missing girl’s birthday on May 12 and has been translated into several languages, including Portuguese and Spanish.

So, on Monday March 28th the book wasn't finished and by Friday April 1st, the book has been translated into several languages? Bear in mind that the Express article was featured on the Sky News web site before midnight on March 31st and available to read online after midnight. So, the book had been translated by Thursday, just three days after Kate McCann was struggling with her 'emotional battle' to finish it. Now, I may be just one of those internet nutters, who are still not convinced that Madeleine McCann was abducted from her bedroom in apartment 5A in Praia da Luz, but I really don't believe the publishing industry works like that or as fast as that.

The family’s spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Kate is writing the book to raise awareness of her daughter’s disappearance and to pay private investigators to continue the search to find her.

If there is anyone in the developed world who has never heard of Madeleine McCann and needs to have their awareness raised after nearly 4 years of the McCanns seeking every possible opportunity to keep themselves and Madeleine's name in the media, then that person has been in a coma or lost somewhere in one of the few places in the world where the internet has not spread its web.

And those private investigators, where have any of them looked? There was Metodo 3, who had no previous experience of finding missing people, Kevin Halligen, now fighting extradition to the USA on charges of fraud and money laundering, and Edgar and Cowley, working from their office in Knutsford. Have they checked out those 'hellish lairs,' just a few kilometres from Praia da Luz? Have they interviewed that ex nightclub bouncer, who claims to know for certain that Madeleine was abducted by an international paedophile ring and taken to the USA?

Kate, and her husband Gerry hope the book will be read by Madeleine’s abductors and even by their daughter, who will turn eight next month.

So, are they trying to tell us that they think the international paedophile ring that abducted Madeleine will have taught her to read? And if Madeleine had been abducted by a bunch of paedos, who for some reason have not responded so far to all the media hoop-la, those abductors will buy a copy of the book, have a good cry, and take Madeleine back home? 'Oh we have been such naughty paedos. Here she is and we have made sure she has not missed out on education or been harmed in any way.' Remind me of the date today, someone. It is April 1st, isn't it?

A friend said: “Kate is hoping the book will keep the search going for another year.”

So, not expecting Madeleine to be found in the near future then? The McCanns think it may take more than a year for the abductors to feel really bad or for that 'someone who knows something,' to have an attack of conscience? Who's the fool today? The Express for printing this carp or anyone who believes it? Both probably!

'Family warns kidnappers.'? Warns them about what?

A friend said last night: “The book is another warning from the family that they will never stop searching for their beloved daughter. Whoever snatched Madeleine should be warned that the book will only bolster the search efforts.”

They will never stop searching? I didn't know they'd started. Paedos and residents of 'lawless villages,' beware! A horde of people armed with copies of Kate McCann's book will be descending on you, to beat you about the head with the 384 page hardback. I'm sure they're all quivering!

They also hope “whoever may be with her is treating her with the love and respect she so deserves”.

Right! So, the McCanns will be hoping that those kindly abductors are not leaving her on her own to go down the pub, then?

Kate has recently accused the Government of giving up the hunt for her daughter, saying a series of ministers had shrugged off her pleas for help.

She said: “We need action, not fluffy, worthless words.”

Action? Kate McCann wants action? Well, she could take action herself. She could go back to Portugal and answer the 48 questions she refused to answer, knowing that her refusal could hinder the investigation into her daughter's disappearance. She could also insist that a reconstruction of the events of the evening of May 3rd 2007 is carried out. If she is expecting us to believe that after nearly 4 years, her book could jog someone's memory about Madeleine's disappearance, then a visual re-enactment of the events, as outlined in the witness statements given at the time, would surely be a very helpful compliment to the book.

'Not fluffy words,' words, Kate, but I have my doubts that your 'account of the truth,' will be anything more than that, unless you will be explaining all the contradictions and discrepancies in witness statements from you, your husband and your seven holiday friends, and how your daughter managed to disappear into thin air with absolutely no trace of any stranger having entered the apartment and no credible sighting since then.

But hey ho! You hadn't finished the book on Monday and by Thursday it had been translated into several languages. Who am I to question this? I'm just an internet nutter of a blogger!

If I may be so bold, Mrs Kate, about that book of yours....

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


..at the moment I don't think I'll be buying it, but if I thought I'd find at least some of the answers to lots of questions that have been buzzing round the internet and my head since your daughter Madeleine disappeared, I might reconsider.

For a start, those shutters. Were they, in fact jemmied, shattered, smashed or otherwise interfered with? And if they weren't why did you tell all your friends and relations that they were?

In the hours after Madeleine disappeared into thin air, several people received phone calls. Gerry phoned his sister Trish Cameron at 23.40 on May 3rd.

Daily Mirror May 5th 2007

Trish said: "When Kate checked, she came out screaming. Maddy had gone. The door was open and the window in the bedroom and shutters were jemmied open. Nothing had been touched and no valuables taken."

One of the people you phoned, Mrs Kate, was your good friend, Jill Renwick, though why you'd be on the phone to a friend in the UK at 7am on May 4th, rather than out scouring the bushes is beyond me, but there you go, I'm just one of those internet nutters asking questions.

Close family friend Gill Renwick, of Liverpool, who also spoke to GP Kate yesterday, said: "Poor Kate and Gerry don't know where to turn.

"Madeleine has obviously been taken. She couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters were forced." (Daily Mirror 5/05/2007)

Then there was Jon Corner, Godfather to the twins. Contacted at 3am, May 4th, by Mrs Kate.

"Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing It looks as though someone had gone straight past the twins to get to her. Kate was incredibly upset. I've spoken to her since, and she's still completely devastated."

I think there were a few others Mrs Kate, like your childhood friend Linda McQueen, whom you phoned at 2am, who also received calls about those shutters, but that'll do for now. The shutters were 'forced,' (Jill Renwick) 'jemmied,' (Trish Cameron) 'smashed.' (Jon Corner)

However, when Gonçalo Amaral's team arrives on May 4th, what do they find?

- apartment has no signs of a break in, as opposed to what the parents say and what "Sky News" reports (McCann Files)

Another statement from the police.

In early September, The Sunday Times spoke to a detective from the Guarda Nacional Republicana (GNR), the local police, who was called to the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. "What we found did not seem to be the scene of a kidnapping," he said. "There were no signs of forced entry, the shutters had not been forced from outside and the apartment had clearly not been broken into." (McCann Files)

So, how come all those folks reported that the shutters had been interfered with? All those people reported in media interviews, soon after Madeleine disappeared, that they had been told about those shutters being jemmied, smashed or forced. So, why?

Then there is the question, Mrs Kate, about how you know immediately that Madeleine had been taken?

"She searched the flat three times and realised she was gone." Cuddle Cat was abandoned in the bedroom. Kate was frantic. She searched the apartment but knew immediately Madeleine had been abducted. "I never thought for one second that she'd walked out," she said. "I knew someone had been in the apartment because of the way it had been left. There wasn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind she'd been taken.(The Sun 28/04/2008)

You couldn't tell us at the time, Mrs Kate, when you were bound by the secrecy of justice and especially when you were made an arguida, but you could have told us when your status was lifted or when the case was archived and the files were released. Are you going to finally tell us in your book how you knew immediately and what it was about how the apartment had been left that told you immediately that Madeleine had been abducted? That would be very helpful in understanding how you were so sure that Madeleine couldn't have wandered off. I hope you don't think this is a ludicrous suggestion on my part because I don't think I'm the only internet nutter who'd like to know!

On November 25th, 2008, your dear sister-in-law, Philomena McCann was quoted in the Press and Journal thus:

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.

Things relating to the Portuguese police? Well, seems that there were quite scathing reports immediately about things relating to the Portuguese police.

Speaking to the BBC later, Ms Renwick said the McCanns, who had been holidaying with three other British families, had felt let down by police in Portugal. "I spoke to them this morning and they said the police had done nothing overnight and they felt as if they'd been left on their own. They just don't know where to turn."

However, the manager at the Mark Warner resort, John Hill said the police had been doing all they could. He said around 60 staff and guests at the complex had searched until 4.30am while police notified border police, Spanish police and airports. (McCann Files)

I guess maybe you didn't notice all those people out searching while you were busy making phone calls!

On June 14th 2007, Mrs Kate, you and Gerry were contacted by an anonymous person who claimed to have knowledge of Madeleine's whereabouts. A demand was made for 2 million Euros and working with police in The Netherlands, contact was set up and Gerry was to take a phone call about organising the handing over of the money. Now, what I'd like to know is why Gerry was so nonchalant while he was waiting.

From Chapter 5 of "The Truth of the Lie."

The atmosphere got heavier as the waiting drew out, but McCann, relaxed, was reading trivia on the internet and discussing rugby and football with the English police, while licking a lollipop. On the telephone, he laughed with friends who called him. Perhaps this was nervousness; sometimes it's totally displaced, given what is at stake at the time. His attitude shocked. When, two days later the dutch police informed us that the individual had been arrested, that he was not holding any information and had lied from start to finish with the sole objective of extorting money from the couple, we were not surprised.

So, there they were, the police and Gerry waiting for a phone call from someone who claimed to know where Madeleine was, and Gerry was browsing the internet, talking about sport and sucking a lollipop. Will you mention this in your book and maybe explain why Gerry just didn't seem too bothered? Potentially, he was about to learn how he could get his daughter back and you'd think he'd be on the edge of his seat, but Gerry didn't seem in the least nervous. Very odd if you ask me.

To be continued:

• The 48 questions.
• The pink blanket.
• Gerry and the lollipop.
• "I know. I was there."

And anything else I recall in the meantime!

McCanns' appeal against lifting of ban on Gonçalo Amaral's book turned down by Portugal's Supreme Court of Justice

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

According to today's online edition of Sol.pt the Supreme Court of Justice has turned down the McCanns' appeal against the lifting of the ban on Gonçalo Amaral's book 'A Verdade da Mentira,' by the lower court.

The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, must now return all copies of Amaral's book, which were seized following the original order to ban the book.

Contacted by Sol, Isabel Duarte refused to comment on the ruling.

Gonçalo Amaral interview April 4th on W9 with Sidonie Bonnec and Paul Lefèvre.

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

Sidonie Bonnec

On April 4th, Enquêtes Criminelles, a magazine programme for French TV Network W9, will feature an interview with Gonçalo Amaral on set with Sidonie Bonnec and Paul Lefèvre.

According to Le figaro TV Mag Enquêtes Criminelles will feature 2 unpublished items on the Madeleine McCann case.

We'll have a hoedown an' a hootenanny cos Maddie's in the USA!

......................................
.....................................
No, folks, she's not in Dubai with this man....


.......and she's not in a 'hellish lair' within 10 miles of Praia da Luz, where Dave Edgar, super-sleuth employed by Kate and Gerry McCann told the Belfast Telegraph:

“Maddie is most likely being held captive, possibly in an underground cellar, just like Natascha or Elisabeth, and could emerge at any time,” he told us.

And on 14th December 2007, when Metodo3 gave themselves just 11 days to have Maddie home for Christmas, it was lucky we didn't organise a welcoming committee, even though Mr Head Super Sleuth was so sure:

The director general of Metodo 3, the private detective firm hired by the McCanns, confidently predicted Madeleine would be rescued from her kidnappers in North Africa or the Iberian Peninsula.

Despite not knowing exactly where Madeleine is being held, Mr Marco proclaimed to a Spanish newspaper that he was certain which group of paedophiles had taken her and he was gathering proof so police could arrest them.

Madeleine McCann was handed over to a millionaire Australian in Barcelona, she was kidnapped to order by a Belgian paedo ring, she was seen in a Belgian city, accompanied by a woman wearing a Muslim robe, she was seen by a great many witnesses in Morocco, she was alive and well and attending a school in the USA.....hold on! She is in the USA. How do we know? Well, it's in The Sun, so it's got to be true. An 'amateur sleuth,' knows who took her! Here you go!

Woops! Wrong one! He's dead! And I don't think he was ever in the USA!

So, this is it, folks! Sure, Madeleine has been seen on all five continents, sometimes on the same day, but this is it now. This man definitely knows who took Madeleine and at the risk of his own life, he has finally been 'brave,' enough to tell the cops! Only took him nearly four years and he may even be in time to get the details squeezed into that book Kate's writing.

AN INVESTIGATOR has told cops Madeleine McCann was taken to the US - and he has named two key suspects.
Marcelino Italiano, 36, said she had been snatched by an Algarve-based paedophile ring. The amateur sleuth added: "They can get away with anything."

Would The Sun tell us fibs? Do you reckon they think they can get away with anything at The Sun, as long as it has 'Madeleine McCann,' in the super-sized headline? Well, I the Queen of Sheba, believe every word.

Claims ... what Italiano says
Italiano, 36, said the ring was based in Faro and Albufeira, but had high-level contacts in Portugal's judiciary and links to a legal practice in London.

The judiciary? I bet it's that judge who unbanned Amaral's book. Cunning, eh? Bet he eats sardines during his two hour boozy lunches! (The Mirror told us about those sardine-munching cops!)

Links to a legal practice in London? Come on down Carter-Ruck! You've been rumbled!

So, let's have a hoedown an' a hootenanny, folks, cos Maddie is definitely in the USA! (Unless those cunning Portuguese paedos are fooling us and she's really unharmed in that 'hellish lair.')

Sorry folks, I just can't be @rsed to post any more of that shoite published by The Sun. You'll just have to read it for yourself. I'm going to do something much more useful with my time. Think I'll go poke a mad dog with a long stick! I'll probably get a lot more sense out of it!

Retired police officer brings out hard-hitting book on a double homicide

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

Jean-Pierre Treiber

Le Point France Feb 11th 2011

The police officer who led the investigation into the double murder of Géraldine Giraud and Katia Lherbier is bringing out a hard-hitting book. In it, he accuses Géraldine's aunt of being the gamekeeper's accomplice. Le Point has looked at a few extracts. Informative.

The preface is by comedian Roland Giraud. The book, entitled The Treiber Case, comes out on February 17th, published by Rocher. Its author is none other than Commander Cunault, who directed the investigation into the double murder of Géraldine Giraud and Katia Lherbier.

While the Treiber case is legally over following the suicide, nearly a year ago, of Jean-Pierre Treiber, the alleged murderer, this retired police officer delivers his own scenario of the case. A first in the annals of legal proceedings.

In the last chapter, entitled "By way of a conclusion: my scenario," Commander Cunault accuses Marie-Christine Van Kempen of being the accomplice of the former gamekeeper. "Marie-Christine Van Kempen could be behind it.: she sends Jean-Pierre Treiber to do the dirty work, promising to pay him," the police officer writes. Motive? Unrequitted love. "We know that the relationship between Marie-Christine Van Kempen and Katia Lherbier is difficult. She is obviously in love with Katia", the Commander continues.

As for the rest, nothing new. This version has always been defended by the police officer, notably in his final report. A version which was soundly rejected by the court. In fact, after 4 years of investigation, all charges were dropped against Géraldine's aunt due to lack of evidence. A decision that was not received very well by Commander Cunault and Géraldine Giraud's father, himself convinced of the guilt of his sister-in-law, with whom, well before the start of the case, his relationship was stormy and conflicting.

Caution

Today, the anger seems to have changed sides. Van Kempen's family do not support this implication, especially as the former director of the investigation does not appear to present any new details in his book. "We should remain cautious, but if this is right, it's down to the perseverance of the police officer," comments Madame Frénot, Géraldine's aunt's lawyer. "I am going to read the book carefully; if certain passages are defamatory and are not in keeping with the legal decisions, I shall consult a judge and demand the withdrawal of the work or of certain passages. Moreover, I shall serve a direct injunction on the former police officer for defamation."

Géraldine's aunt is not the only one to bear the brunt of Commander Cunault's lack of qualms. Patricia Darbaud, Jean-Pierre Treiber's friend, once suspected of complicity after being decisively cleared, is accused in the book of setting up the pact between Treiber and the aunt.

"In October, possibly the 19th, Marie-Christine Van Kempen, Jean-Pierre Treiber and Patricia Darbaud met up at the Esperance cafe, even if there is no telephone trace of the meeting," states the police officer. There again, the official's insistence does not rest on any new elements but purely on personal conviction. Only the witness statement of the cafe manager, which is not considered credible by the court, is being put forward.

"I believe the witness statement from Madame Nabias, manager of Esperance. I know the circumstances in which she gave me this information. She thought very carefully about it because she knew that it was very serious. She found the murders of the two girls truly horrible. Her witness statement has caused her considerable harm. And the precise description that she gave me of a fur coat, which exists and was worn by Marie-Christine Van Kempen confirms what she says."

Scratches

Some of the extracts make Patricia Darbaud's lawyer, Madame Marie-Thérèse Walter-Crastre, hit the roof. "It is inadmissible and intolerable that this former director of the investigation, now retired, allows himself to call into question a decision by the court. My client has been cleared for total lack of evidence. This is an attack on her reputation and defamation of character which we are going to pursue."

In his final chapter, Commander Cunault lands his hardest punches on Jean-Pierre Treiber, whom he accuses of having killed before. "At the moment of the attack, carried out for Marie-Christine Van Kempen, something awoke in him which for him was a sensual pleasure. He has killed already, I have my suspicions about that, notably during the time when he was gamekeeper at Malhouse," confides Commander Cunault. The police officer is now a psychologist. "So, something which had perhaps been buried, forgotten...rises up, and he goes into another dimension, which is about pleasure. Since he doesn't like homosexuals, it can be imagined that he felt even more joyful in killing them. He decides to eliminate them. He goes to find the chloropicrin and kills them. He gases them like pests."

Personal Conviction

For Commander Cunault, Treiber is "a pervert, a barbaric scumbag." As for Marie-Christine Van Kempen, he thinks she refuses to accept the gravity of what she has done. And to conclude: "She will never suffer the consequences: she is free, even if that liberty has a bad taste."

Contacted by Le Point, Patrick Mahé, managing director of Rocher, considers that "It's the personal conviction of a police officer. It's not the questioning of a decision by the court. We have given our word to this investigator which still stands." Not sure if that "personal conviction," is shared by everyone.


By Jean-Michel Décugis