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

Video by HiDeHo4 


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

Kate's DREAM led to them becoming SUSPECTS?

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

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

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

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

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

A magazine and soiled tissues.

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

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

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

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

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

Le Parisien 25/07/2013

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

Madeleine McCann: the rather unusual suspects!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now for number four! 

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

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

I feel for you Mr Spotty!

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

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

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

Here are just a few!

Lettuce Man

The Bolivian

The Victoria Beckham look-alike

The odd couple who allegedly worked at the Ocean Club

Stubble Man

The George Harrison look-alike 

The dead paedo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related reading

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

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

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

Breast cancer screening fails to cut deaths

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

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

Daily Telegraph 11th June 2013

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

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

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

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

1) Is the test cost effective?

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

2) Is it easy to administer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we can say no to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One study suggests a link: Cancer Research UK

No evidence:

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


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

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

What about the radiation, then? Safe levels?

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

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

From the same source:

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

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

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

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

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


From the source cited above:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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

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

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

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

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

McCanns DID NOT SEARCH! Tapas Cook breaks SILENCE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Video by HiDeHo

Translation by Joana Morais

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

Thanks HiDeHo!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Murat adds:

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

And:

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

Gonçalo Amaral on the need for a reconstruction:

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

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

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

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

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

Related blog posts:

All posts labelled "Reconstruction" here.

"Where was Maddie when the lights went out"

Aluminum in Vaccines Linked to Alzheimer's Disease

Kate McCann and those Death Threats!

"DEATH THREAT FEAR FOR TWINS"

That's the newspaper headline we see as the video opens. So, where is this unspecified threat? I've never seen any online or otherwise threats to the McCann twins.

"We both feel very strongly that more should be done about internet abuse."

I feel like that too, Mrs McCann. I've never been abusive towards anyone on the internet, but a couple of years ago I had to place comments on this blog on pre-moderation because I was receiving vile abuse and death threats from people purporting to be supporting you. Someone actually went to the trouble of setting up a blog about me, giving my full address. Not only that, but they included my son's name too. That's what I call abuse and I do think more should be done about it. I contacted Google, who informed me that their procedure was to take down pages hosted by them only when there was a legal order to do so. Now, you may be able to afford the services of Carter-Ruck at around £600/hour to take down web pages, but this ordinary person can't.

"People wouldn't get away with behaving like that on the street and yet they can hide behind a computer at home."

Mrs McCann, the name on the heading of this blog is my real name. I may be sitting at home on my computer, but you have been sitting behind a PR spokesperson for nearly six years now and have used very expensive legal representatives to sue those whom you have seen as speaking out against you in ways that you don't like. Most of us sitting at home behind computers don't have those options. Do you agree with people who post personal details, like mine, online? Do you agree with the posting of lies on such a blog? How about a well-known forum where people who claim to be supporting you have posted vile abuse about Jimmy Savile's victims, saying those victims were just out for money? Do you think that's OK? How about the person on Twitter, who goes by the name "Muratfan," who doesn't discuss information presented, but simply posts abusive comments? Is that OK with you? I am left to assume that all of the above is OK with you, that those who are posting vile abuse online, stating that they are supporting you and your hubby, Mrs McCann, do so with your approval because I have not seen anything from you that disagrees with their behaviour. That kind of abuse is OK then?

And how about Pamela Gurney, aka "The Balloon Dancer," who seems to spend 24 hours a day online, hurling abuse on YouTube, Twitter etc at anyone who disagrees with her unconditional support of you? If I'm ever in trouble, I hope that I have the unconditional support of my family and my good friends, but Lord save me from the kind of support you get, Mrs McCann. Not the kind of support I would find helpful. Me? I'd make sure everyone knew I'd disowned that type of person.

THE mother of Madeleine McCann is terrified for her other two children after receiving sick online death threats.
Kate, whose eldest daughter disappeared aged three in 2007, told how internet trolls have vowed to kill her this weekend. (Daily Star April 19th)

Online "death threats."? Plural? Where? The video mentions one comment on a Facebook page, which was investigated by the police and found not to be a serious threat against Kate McCann's life.

And why should Kate McCann be terrified for her "other two children"? Has anyone threatened those children? If so, where? When? Who would threaten the McCann twins, now aged eight? In my opinion, no one who has followed this case since Madeleine disappeared into thin air and the shutter were found not to have been "jemmied." No one who is concerned because one child has been harmed (if Maddie was abducted, abduction is not harmless for children) would wish to harm or threaten to harm two more.

If there are online death threats other than the cleared Facebook one, then someone show them to me, please, because I haven't seen them.

And finally!

But she told ITV Daybreak host Lorraine Kelly: “Even sometimes when I do think they’re cowards and I’m not even going to go there, I think about my children and I think it’s not right that they should come across stuff like that as well.

Stuff like what? Mrs McCann, you claim to have written your book "Madeleine," for your twins and for Madeleine. Do you think it's OK to write a book for small children in which you refer to a police family liaison officer as a f*cking t*sser and on page 129 of that book to describe what you imagine a paedophile doing to your daughter? Is that the kind of "stuff" that's OK for Sean and Amelie to read? That may be the stuff of your nightmares, but your children don't need to read about it.

Disown "Muratfan," Mrs Trolley and the rest of those vile people who hide behind their computers, accusing victims of sexual abuse to be just after money and I might think that all this publicity recently wasn't just because the anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance was coming up and there was the annual opportunity to fill the coffers of your private limited company, otherwise known as "The Madeleine Fund."

A breakthrough in the case of Grégory Villemin 29 years after his murder

Background to the case

Gregory Villemin, a four-year-old boy, was found dead in October 1984 with his feet and hands bound in the Vologne river, near his home in a village in eastern France.

The gruesome discovery set off a dramatic chain of events that became known simply as 'the Gregory Affair' and gripped the French public, spilling more ink than any other crime in the country's 20th century history.

France looked on in horror as the prime suspect was later gunned down by Gregory's heartbroken father. The public reeled as Gregory's mother was herself arrested for her son's murder year's later - and then released again.

The child's uncle, Bernard Laroche, was initially charged before being freed after several key pieces of evidence against him were thrown out because of procedural errors by prosecutors.

Convinced that Laroche was the murderer, Gregory's father Jean-Marie Villemin shot him dead and served four years in jail for the killing.

(Extracted from an article which appeared in The Daily Mail 23rd October 2009) 

A significant advance in DNA technology has led to a breakthrough in this case. 

From Le Parisien April 16th 2013, we have details of recent developments.

Ten DNA profiles were isolated on the cords that were used to bind the child who was discovered dead in the Vologne (Vosges) These are still to be identified 29 years later. 

Grégory Villemin was found dead in the Vologne on October 16th 1984. In a case where genetic analysis has been inconclusive, there is a breakthrough which could prove conclusive in identifying Grégory's killer. 

Ordered by Dijon's Investigative Division at the request of the child's parents, the new analysis has been carried out at the Bordeaux laboratory of Professor Christian Doutremepuich, who has access to the most recent technology in DNA analysis: chemical extraction of DNA and laser micro-dissection. Anorak, trousers, hat, socks, shoes...everything sealed up within the legal files has been gone over again with a fine-tooth comb. The cords are considered to be the most important items. They have also been examined. As the Villemin couple were hoping, new DNA profiles have been brought to light. 

Still to be identified, while comparing them with some 300 genetic samples taken from people close to Grégory and from significant others, in the course of the investigation, as well as with those on the national register, which was set up in 1998, "We must be careful," a legal source suggests. "During all these years, those boxes of evidence have been handled a lot. The DNA traces could belong to a magistrate or an investigator."

Thierry Moser, lawyer for the Villemin couple, remains hopeful, "We are waiting for the results with impatience and hope," he says. And to be more precise: "If Bernard Laroche's DNA is found or that of Muriel Bolle (Laroche's sister-in-law who accused him of the crime and then retracted) that would be formidable." 

(With thanks to Frencheuropean who sent me details about this breakthrough in the case)

McCanns DID NOT SEARCH! Tapas Cook breaks SILENCE!

Video posted by HiDeHo4 on YouTube

Email: hideho1@hotmail.com

Twitter: @HiDeHo3

Translation by Joana Morais

Crocodile Tears - Nicholas Kay

Part 1 in the documentary series, "Real Crime: Crocodile Tears," features the case of  the disappearance of Rhonda Kay. Although no body was found and there was no forensic evidence, her husband Nicholas was charged with her murder based on evidence gleaned from recordings of conversations between Nicholas and his new wife. The jury returned the "surprise," verdict of guilty of manslaughter and Mr Kay was sentenced to six years in prison. 

This is an example of a case where the police have had reason to suspect someone of involvement in an alleged disappearance and the appeal for information is studied carefully to analyse the reactions; words,  congruity of emotional expression and body language. 

Leonor Cipriano sentenced for lying about torture by Portuguese (PJ) police officers

Eight-year-old Joana Cipriano disappeared from the village of Figueira, near Portimão, Portugal, on 12 September 2004 and was later assumed to have been murdered, though her body has never been found. A lengthy investigation ended with the conviction of Joana's mother, Leonor Cipriano and  Leonor's brother, João Cipriano, for murder. Leonor subsequently accused a number of PJ (Polícia Judiciária) officers of having beaten a confession out of her even though a prior confession is not admissible in Portuguese courts.

Today, Leonor Cipriano, who is serving 16 years in prison for the murder of her daughter, was given an additional 7 months sentence for lying about the torture. 

Read the background to the Joana case here (McCann Files) and here (Gazeta Digital)

The Public Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation and ordered a police line-up, with the CID officers named and accused by Leonor Cipriano of beating her;
The line-up took place with Leonor Cipriano behind a two-way mirror and she couldn’t recognize any of the aggressors;
The Public Prosecutor’s Office magistrate that was in charge of the criminal investigation decided to accuse the five CID officers, but didn’t mentioned, in the accusation sent to the Court, that Leonor Cipriano couldn’t identify any of the aggressors, in the police line-up; (Gazeta Digital)

Leonor Cipriano's original lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, has recently taken himself to Brazil and Leonor was appointed a public defence lawyer. Marcos Aragão Correia was allegedly paid my Metodo 3, a group of Spanish private investigators hired by Kate and Gerry McCann to search for their daughter Madeleine, to dig the dirt on Gonçalo Amaral, the PJ inspector who worked on both the Joana case and the Madeleine McCann case.

The trial of the PJ inspectors revealed many attempts by Leonor Cipriano's lawyer to discredit Gonçalo Amaral, both professionally and personally. The lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia - who previously hit the headlines when he organised an underwater seach for Madeleine's body at the Arade Dam, in Portugal - has admitted that Metodo3 ordered him to do "an investigation" into the accusation of torture but he denies he is being paid just to frame Gonçalo Amaral. (McCann Files)

On 22 May 2009 Gonçalo Amaral received an 18-month custodial sentence, suspended for the same length of time, for misrepresentation of evidence. He was acquitted of the charge of failing to report a crime.

Following the delivery of the verdict, Leonor Cipriano's lawyer, Marcos Aragão Correia, said: "Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted".

In December 2011, Scotland Yard detectives who are currently working on a review of the Maddie case, removed 30 boxes of files concerning the case, from the Metodo 3 offices in Barcelona. Those boxes of files may reveal what the detective agency, whose previous investigations centred around cases of money laundering, actually did in their alleged search for Madeleine McCann. The agency had no previous experience of searching for missing children. In February this year several detectives employed by Metodo 3 were arrested on charges of spying. 

The McCanns, as we know, have not been too lucky in their choice of detectives in the search for their daughter. Apart from Metodo 3, there was Kevin Halligen, recently extradited to the USA to face charges of fraud.

We now await the start of the delayed libel case being brought by Kate and Gerry McCann against Gonçalo Amaral for alleged defamation in his book "A Verdade da Mentira", in which he detailed the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance and the conclusion of the joint working teams of English and Portuguese police that Madeleine had probably died in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz. Personally, I don't see how Kate and Gerry McCann can win this case when the highest court in Portugal, the Supreme Court, upheld the decision of the Appeals Court in October 2010 to overturn the ban on Amaral's book. At the time of the successful appeal by Amaral..

The court said the decision to block sales of the book had broken "a constitutional and universal right: that of opinion and freedom of expression."

"The contents of the book do not breach the basic rights of the plaintiffs," the court said, according to the Jornal de Noticías newspaper's website.
"The book is an exercise in freedom of speech," Amaral told Portugal's Lusa news agency. "Portuguese democracy has won, as banning the book was unconstitutional." (The Guardian)

So, let's see where we have arrived at: Leonor Cipriano, her lawyer who has scarpered to Brazil, a bunch of dodgy detectives and a libel trial based on a book which has already been judged by both the Appeals Court and Portugal's Supreme Court not to have breached the McCanns' basic rights. 

Good luck Dr Amaral! This truly is a tangled web! 

The Search for Madeleine McCann: No Stone Unturned?

Kate and Gerry McCann 12th May 2007, on what would have been Madeleine's fourth birthday.

If you don't know that Madeleine McCann disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on the evening of May 3rd 2007, you have probably just wakened from a coma.

This blog post is about the search for Madeleine and the money that has flowed into the fund that was set up soon after Madeleine disappeared and where that money has gone.

According to The McCann Files, lawyers for the McCanns arrived in Portugal on May 11th 2007, just 8 days after Madeleine vanished into thin air, to discuss the setting up of the "fighting fund," (fighting what?) which was incorporated on May 15th, after lawyers had approached the Charities Commission on May 14th and been told that the fund could not be registered as a charity because it's intended purpose was to help one individual. Madeleine's fund "Leaving No Stone Unturned," had received over a million pounds within a few short months.

The fund was incorporated as a Company Limited by Guarantee with the following 

Savile, Armstrong and the McCanns: if you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one!

Excellent video by Reggie Dunlop, who spotted that the sighting of Madeleine McCann in Brazil was actually a photo of the evacuation of Ibiza airport, following a bomb scare!  

"Time and Tide" by Dr Martin Roberts on McCann Files

The latest article from Dr Martin Roberts appears on The McCann Files web site today, February 25th 2013. Reproduced below is the introduction to this excellent piece of 'purporting.' !!!

Gerry McCann announced before the recent Leveson enquiry, "I strongly believe in Freedom of Speech...I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory..."

 Perhaps then it is time, at last, to do a little, perfectly admissible 'purporting.'

 Time, the 'grim reaper,' takes its inevitable toll in many ways, not the least of which being of one's memory. And, in that particular context, it does not take weeks, months, or years over doing so.

 The McCanns have, not infrequently, been cavalier with time itself, their various accounts of seemingly unimportant incidents during their week in Praia da Luz dragging events, in a largely forward direction, away from their actual point of occurrence. To give but one example, Kate McCann, in her only book to date, makes wholly unequivocal reference to her own photography of daughter Madeleine during a mini-tennis session on the Tuesday morning, when it is perfectly clear from the Ocean Club's printed schedule that said mini-tennis took place on the Monday morning. Were it an isolated case one might be prepared to accept this as a one-off error in recall. Unfortunately it is neither.

The whole article is available on Nigel's excellent site The McCann Files

Georges Moréas: Typhaine Taton, Antoine Brugerolle and Madeleine McCann

Anne-Sophie Faucheur, mother of Typhaine Taton



The mother of little Typhaine and her partner have both just been sentenced to 30 years in prison. In the course of the trial, terrible things came out: the child was not getting to sleep; her mother, Anne-Sophie Faucheur, then delivered a barrage of blows. She then slipped on a pair of trainers before hitting her again, this time in the stomach. During this time, Nicolas Willot, her partner, held Typhaine up. Yet, in June 2012, before the cameras, this couple invoked sympathy by pleading for their child to be returned. Before the Court of Assizes, while an expert psychiatrist stated that in the mother there was no "clear, definite, conscious desire," to kill her daughter, it's
understandable why the jury remained skeptical.

In Seine-et-Marne a few days ago, the parents of a two-year-old girl who disappeared in 2011 were placed under investigation for murder. She was buried 500 metres from their home. The body has not yet been formally identified.

These cases, and many others, draw attention to the difficulties faced by police officers when confronted with the disappearance of a child. It's not easy to remain unmoved when dealing with desperate parents. And yet, there is no question of giving way to empathy or even feeling for them which could cloud their judgement. What is the difference between the tears of guilty parents and those parents who are overcome with pain? Within the same group of investigators, opinion is often divided.

There is no miracle formula. No magic profiler, as in the TV series. In this, even forensic scientists mark time and accept there is a place for the old methods: intuition or the well-worn technique of good cop/bad cop. Thus, after Typhaine's disappearance, the Lille police had the couple in custody for a few hours and then released them because experience told them it wasn't the right time for obtaining confessions. In these cases where we are dealing with infanticide, the denial is important. An investigation that starts with certainty often finishes with failure. 

And we have to get our priorities right: first of all, find the child. But, the initial sense of urgency gone, traditional investigators take up their tasks: verifications, witness statements, cross-checking, reconstruction, stake-outs, shadowing, surveillance techniques, etc. That's what happened with Typhaine. And the surveillance reports are damning. "Making salacious jokes about the presiding judge, masturbating in the evening on porn sites, accessing dating sites, dancing at a baptism, at a wedding, partying, having dinner parties, making wedding plans... Everything that was seen from the surveillance van was a long way, a very long way from the image of the devastated couple they had wanted to put forward at the press conference," a police officer stated in the witness box.

The police know, but they don't intervene. In the absence of proof, they record all the details. And, without doubt, in order to win the trust of Anne-Sophie Faucheur and Nicolas Willot, the presiding judge calls them for interview with the status of concerned parties. "That means their status as victims is recognised," their lawyer said. 

The net closes in. With a young police officer, a new face, the mother lets slip that she saw her daughter die. She speaks of an accident. A first confession, or more of a confidence. All that remains is to gently pull in the line. A fine art. 

This type of case is like walking on eggshells. The fear is of going wrong and missing the slightest chance to save the child. Because experience doesn't help very much where every situation is different. Thus, with little Antoine's disappearance, on September 11th 2008, the investigators initially thought he was a runaway. Three days later, the prosecutor declared: "The more time passes, the more the theory of running away loses credibility.."

Two weeks after the events, the child's mother, Alexandrine Brugerolle de Fraissinette, and several other people of her acquaintance, were placed under arrest. The young woman's apartment was taken over by scene of crime police officers. The walls were sounded, strips of parquet were lifted, fluorescent light was passed over certain areas. Two small drops, minute, around a millimetre in circumference, were finally detected near the light switch in Antoine's bedroom. And that's all. In other words, nothing! "We've got to go back to zero," stated one of the leading investigating officers. The case is not closed. Meanwhile, recently, the mother has again been arrested. But we still don't know what happened to little Antoine. He was six and a half years old.

In the case of Madeleine McCann, who disappeared on May 3rd 2007, in Portugal we reach the limits of the absurd. A cop left his job: Commissioner Gonçalo Amaral. From the start of the investigation, he picked up on contradictions in statements from the parents, the McCanns, British holidaymakers who immediately sought to protect themselves by making contact with the authorities from their own country. The police officer considered accidental death of the child, covered up by the parents by faking an abduction. But he was not supported by his superiors. Sacked from the police (1) for having shared his doubts with journalists, he wrote a book to explain his theory. Today, ruined, he has a fight on with the McCanns' lawyers who are  suing him for 1.2 million pounds (2) in civil damages. Of note is that the trial which was due to start soon has been adjourned. Are there new elements in this case which has been the leader in newspapers all over the world?

In France, the police and the Gendarmerie hold all the legal authority to investigate the disappearance of a child (or a vulnerable adult). With one basic principle: every report must be considered as a cause for concern and an investigation must be opened. If there is disagreement between the police and those registering the disappearance, it is up to the prosecutor to decide. As soon as there is the slightest indication of an offence, the latter actions the "flagrante delicto," (3) procedure, with all the powers that go with it.

With the disappearance of a child, more than all other cases, the prosecutor is the key figure. He makes emergency decisions. It's also he who determines if an "alerte enlèvement," (4) should be triggered. Often the result of an investigation depends on the soundness of his decisions and of the harmony between him and the police or the gendarmerie and also..his ability to resist pressure from the media.


Georges Moréas 28/01/2013

Police Et Cetera blog

Notes:

1) Gonçalo Amaral was not sacked. He was removed from the investigation and subsequently took early retirement so that he could speak freely about the case.

2) The figure is €1.2 million or £1 million

3) Basically "caught in the act." 

4) The "Abduction Alert," system which was rolled out across most EU countries following its development and success in France.