....................................... .......................................... Above image from The McCann Gallery
Eddie, the English Springer Spaniel, is a trained Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog. He is trained to detect the odour that emanates from a human body and has been called in by the FBI and police forces all over the world. Details from Eddie's CV of successful work on previous cases can be found here (Chapter 16 of "The Truth of the Lie.")
In June last year, as detailed in the press this week, Eddie was called in to locate a missing Orkney man's body.
"A sniffer dog located the grave of a missing man Robert Rose, a murder jury was told this afternoon.
FBI consultant Martin Grime was giving evidence at the High Court in Glasgow in the trial of John Campbell, 59, and Stephen Crummack, 51, who deny murdering Robert Rose on Sanday on June 6 or 7, 2009 and burying his body in sand dunes.
Mr Grime told the High Court in Glasgow that he and his springer spaniel dogs Eddie, Keela and Morse, were called in by Northern Constabulary in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on June 6, last year.
Mr Grime told prosecutor Alex Prentice QC that one of the dogs, Eddie, who is trained to detect dead bodies, reacted when he was taken to sand dunes at Sty Wick, on June 24, last year.
He said: "I noticed a change in his behaviour. As soon as he got into the bottom of the scooped out sand dune he identified one spot.
"His normal reaction is to bark. On this occasion he started to dig, which I've never seen him do before. As soon as he started to dig I called him back."
The jury heard that a thin metal probe was then put into the spot Eddie indicated before a forensic anthropolist was called in to excavate the crime scene.
Eddie's alert signal, to having detected the odour he is trained to find, is barking. In this video, he can be seen working on the Madeleine McCann case, when he alerted in certain areas of the McCanns' holiday apartment, in the car they rented three weeks after Madeleine disappeared, and to some articles of clothing: two items belonging to Kate McCann and a child's red T shirt.
"Mr Grime told the court that Eddie's nose is so sensitive that if someone touched a dead body, then touched a piece of paper before hiding it, Eddie would be able to locate the paper using his sense of smell."
Kate McCann explains Eddie's reaction to her clothes by stating that before the holiday, she had come into contact with 6 dead bodies and that she had taken Maddie's soft toy Cuddle Cat to work with her. The McCanns also attempted to explain the odour in their hired vehicle as the smell left behind by rotting meat and soiled nappies they had transported to the tip.
Enhanced Victim Recovery Dogs like Eddie are trained to ignore rotting meat. In this Google video, Doberman dogs locate a body buried several feet beneath heaps of rotting meat. They were not deflected in their work by the meat.
In the recent hearing of the court case in Lisbon, concerning the banning of Gonçalo Amaral's book, "The Truth of the Lie," Isabel Duarte, lawyer for the McCann couple, commented that during the investigation Ricardo Paiva, a senior Portuguese police officer had stated that Eddie had failed at least once. She was probably referring to the Haut de la Garenne case in Jersey, where a piece of coconut shell was found where Eddie had alerted. If we are to take the words of Eddie's trainer Martin Grime as fact, this does not mean failure on Eddie's part, since Eddie can detect cadaver odour on something which has been in contact with a body. Eddie is trained to detect the odour of decomposition that is left behind when a body has rested, however temporarily in a given place. Eddie's training and his success rate would indicate that at one time there had been a body where indicated at Haut de la Garenne.
Dogs don't lie, Ms Duarte. People do and maybe you should be asking why your clients came up so readily with excuses for the dogs findings in Praia da Luz. Six dead bodies just before going on holiday and Kate McCann was a one and a half days a week locum GP? She took a soft toy to work with her and it came into contact with dead bodies? Two doctors transported rotting meat and soiled nappies in such a way that they leaked all over the boot of a hired vehicle? You know, in Scotland we have a well-known retort to that kind of rubbish. "And the band played believe it if you like, ting ting!"
........................................................................ "May you live in interesting times," is reputed to be the English translation of an ancient Chinese proverb or curse, though it may have originated with the English or the Americans.Wikipedia
It is said to be the first of three curses of increasing severity, the other two being:
May you come to the attention of those in authority.
May you find what you are looking for.
So, Kate and Gerry McCann, you already appear to be living out the first part of this three-fold ancient curse, which I hasten to add, you have brought entirely upon yourselves. Interesting times indeed have beset your lives since the beginning of this sad tale of your daughter's disappearance.
You could have gone out on the night your daughter disappeared and searched for her. Instead, you were otherwise engaged, phone pressed to your ears, calling all your friends and relations, telling them that Maddie's bedroom shutters had been "jemmied," the window broken open and Maddie taken. This lie was readily refuted because there was no evidence of a break-in, but this was the start of your interesting times, since we know you lied and Gonçalo Amaral knows you lied and you have been forced to revisit your lies and come up with new explanations. Although the only fingerprints on the bedroom window were Kate's, she is sticking to the part about the window having been opened by the abductor, as a "red herring," to fool people? Ha! More fool you, Kate McCann!
Yes, you have been living in interesting times. Jane Tanner's ever evolving description of the man she allegedly saw; hiring PR representatives, big-time lawyers, private detectives; setting up a tacky online shop with "best selling items," and "good quality wristbands"; feeling the need to silence anyone who does not accept your mantra about the invisible man who took your daughter, leaving no evidence behind of his presence.
"It's better to be a dog in a peaceful time than be a man in a chaotic period" (Chinese proverb) The question has been asked many times: why didn't you just slip quietly away and let it all die down? Because you knew that a particular Portuguese police officer would not allow that to happen?
May you come to the attention of those in authority.
Well, you certainly did that! Your lies thrown up by inconsistencies in your statements and those of your holiday friends, most certainly brought you to the attention of those in authority, who seriously began to investigate your possible involvement in your daughter's disappearance. You must have thought this attention would be abated when Dr Amaral was removed from the case and the investigation was archived, but your interesting times were not over: the "disgraced," police officer bounced back with a book about the investigation, and thus began your frantic search, via various private detectives, for new information, for new witnesses, for new sighings of your daughter.
And so, you have brought yourselves, once again, to the attention of the authorities, by proceeding with your attempts to silence Gonçalo Amaral, and once again, through what has come out in court during that process, you have created interesting times for yourselves. The world and his dog now know more of what is in those archived police files.
And the third part of the "Chinese curse."
May you find what you are looking for.
You claim to be searching for your daughter. You claim that Dr Amaral's book is hindering that search, yet you yourselves do not appear to have done a great deal of searching. Although you do not appear to be genuinely looking for Maddie, I do believe that you are probably the only ones who can find her, not your private detectives. Maddie needs to be found, if, as you say, she is "findable," and laid to rest. We all know that that "spare place," at your dining table will never be occupied by Maddie. So, may you find what you say you are looking for. ................................................. ................................................
So, going back to how this all started, what reasons did the McCanns give for taking this legal action against Gonçalo Amaral to have his book, "The Truth of the Lie," banned?
"In a statement, the parents of the missing girl said: "We - together with our three children Madeleine, Sean and Amelie - are taking this legal action against Goncalo Amaral over his entirely unfounded and grossly defamatory claims. "[They were] made in all types of media, both within Portugal and beyond - that Madeleine is not only dead, but that we, her parents, were somehow involved in concealing her body."
"We can no longer stand back and watch as Mr Amaral tries to convince the entire world that Madeleine is dead. "Nor can we allow this blatant injustice to Madeleine, with its obvious risk of hindering our attempts to find her, to continue." BBC 17/05/09
So, the McCanns were seeing the book as Mr Amaral's personal opinion, his trying to convince the world that Madeleine was dead and that this would stop people searching for their daughter. Yet, the McCanns were amongst the first people to lay their hands on the police files of the investigation when the case was archived, in which they could read, as any one else could, that the theory of Madeleine's being more likely to be dead was not Gonçalo Amaral's personal opinion, but the conclusion of the joint English and Portuguese police teams who investigated Madeleine's disappearance.
Gerry McCann has stated that the thesis of death was investigated to the exclusion of other theses, because the PJ were convinced that Madeleine was dead and so were blind to other ideas. Not true.
"On reading this report, which was given to me on the morning of May 4th, I understand that there is no evidence sufficiently convincing to tip the investigation in one direction rather than another. There are many possible leads: voluntary disappearance - the child could have wakened and not seeing her parents, gone off to look for them; accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated; an act of vengeance; taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar."Chapter 3; The Truth of the Lie
"The idea of a robbery gone wrong is not to be ruled out either. During the holidays, burglaries are not rare, and the police are not always informed, because hotels avoid spreading this kind of information. Even if the examination of apartment 5A reveals no trace of a break-in - contrary to what the parents insist and that Sky announced - we have to take stock of the petty crimes committed in the seaside resort and at the tourist complex. We are counting on the management of the hotel so that no incident of this nature remains hidden. Even if we don't have much belief in the scenario of a burglar who enters the apartment for a burglary and leaves it with the child, dead or alive, this hypothesis, as ridiculous as it may be, must not be neglected" (Chapter 3: link above.)
In July 2007, the hypothesis of death was being considered by the joint investigating teams of English and Portuguese police. The English police suggested bringing in specialist a dog team, trained by South Yorkshire police. Mark Harrison arrived to assist with the investigation.
".........we welcome Mark Harrison, a specialist in murder, and the search for missing persons and victims of natural disasters. National advisor to the British police, he is well known for his exceptional professional experience. He has already participated in dozens of international criminal investigations.
His work consists of defining new strategies for research. He gets to work immediately, supported by the Portuguese PJ and the investigators from Leicester and Scotland Yard. On his arrival, we place at his disposal details of the case, as well as all our material and human resources. Harrison reads up on the statements and interviews from the principal witnesses - including, of course, those of the parents and friends -, all the analyses, simulations, hypotheses and cross-checking already carried out. He carries out a reconnaissance on the ground, by helicopter and then on foot. He paces the streets and the access roads to Vila da Luz and compares them to the diagrams created in the course of the investigation. Nothing is left to chance: measurement and timing of possible routes between buildings, apartments and restaurants; analyses, with the help of the best specialists, of weather, geological and maritime factors in relation to the investigation; consultation with the best forensic anthropologist in the country, who indicates for us what would be the actual state of the body in the hypothesis of death occurring on May 3rd; study of the region's natural carrion predators. All the research already conducted by hundreds of people - GNR, civil defence, firemen and other volunteers - is re-examined in detail and re-analysed.
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.Chapter 16: The Truth of the Lie
Mark Harrison showed the PJ a video of the work done by Eddie and Keela, the two specialist sniffer dogs trained by Martin Grime of South Yorkshire police. The dogs were brought in on Mark Harrison's recommendation. The results are widely recorded.
Mark Harrison's conclusion, which is recorded in the police files, was that there was no doubt that Madeleine was dead and that her body was hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. This, therefore, was not Mr Amaral's personal opinion, but the conclusion reached by the English specialist, based on painstaking work on the ground, before the dogs were brought in. The dogs were brought in as a result of conclusions drawn by Mark Harrison.
Gerry McCann's repeated mantra is that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead. Even if we rule out the work done by the specialist dogs, Eddie and Keela, there is no evidence to support the idea that Madeleine is not dead: there is no evidence of a break-in at apartment 5A; a witness for Gonçalo Amaral, during the process in Lisbon in January, stated that it would have been impossible for an abductor to have got through the narrow bedroom window, carrying a child; there was no forensic evidence left by an alleged abductor; the only witness is Jane Tanner, whose evidence has changed several times. Added to this, we have the many reported sightings all over the world, all of which have been ruled out. All of this would logically point to the fact that Madeleine has not been found because she is not alive to be found and her body has been disposed of in such a way that it will probably never be found.
There is actually no evidence of an abduction and there have been no credible sightings of Madeleine, in spite of the huge reward that was offered. Two dogs with a 100% success record separately alerted in the same areas of the McCanns' holiday apartment and in the car they rented three weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. And this is all in the police files of the investigation and described in Gonçalo Amaral's book as his personal story of that investigation.
Should police officers be liable to being prosecuted for leads they follow as part of an investigation? Should they be sued for investigating certain people as suspects? If so, there would be very few cases being properly investigated and brought to trial.
In my opinion, the McCanns' decision to sue Gonçalo Amaral was very ill-advised. The information which has come out in the course of the four days of the process in Lisbon cannot have helped the reputation they claim has been damaged by Amaral's book or their repeated mantra that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead. The most damning piece of information to the cause of pinning the thesis of Madeleine's death squarely on Dr Amaral's shoulders came in the reading of a hitherto confidential report by Criminal Profiler, Lee Rainbow, of the National Policing Improvement Agency, which was sent to Portugal in June 2007, just one month after Madeleine's disappearance.
"Gerry McCann was made a suspect in his daughter Madeleine's disappearance after a British expert said he should be investigated for 'homicide', a Portuguese court heard yesterday.
Criminal profiler Lee Rainbow recommended that police on the Algarve investigate the doctor and his wife Kate because of 'contradictions' in his statement.
The report by Mr Rainbow, of the National Policing Improvement Agency, was sent to Portugal in June 2007, a month after the three-year-old disappeared.
His (Gonçalo Amaral's) lawyer Antonio Cabrita, reading from a Portuguese translation of the previously- confidential report, said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
The lawyer added: 'Portuguese police had only considered the abduction theory. It was British police who said they must consider homicide as well.' Daily Mail 11/02/10
Gerry McCann is, of course, right in a way. There is no evidence that Madeleine is dead in that there is no body. The behaviour of two otherwise very successful dogs, who have helped police forces all over the world is not evidence that can be presented in a court of law without forensic results to back it up.
Gerry McCann may be right in another way too in insisting that someone out there knows what happened to Madeleine. Apart from Gerry and Kate McCann, whom I am sure know what happened to their daughter, I cannot believe that there isn't at least one other person who knows. That person is the one who, in Gerry's own words, "needs to do the right thing," because that may be the only way that we will ever find out what did happen to Maddie on the night she disappeared in May 2007.
"Find the body and prove we killed her," was reported to have been said by Gerry McCann, which leads many people to think that the body will probably never be found.
There is no evidence that Madeleine is dead if we accept Gerry McCann's logic of there being no body to prove it. What has become clear, in my opinion, is that Gonçalo Amaral has not defamed Gerry or his wife, that the book "The Truth of the Lie," is a straight forward narrative of the investigation into their daughter's disappearance and that Madeleine McCann is most likely dead. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is also most likely, in my opinion, that her parents not only know this, but are fully aware of how she met her death.
One day, hopefully in the not too distant future, we will be able to distinguish the truth from the lie.
................................... .................................. Outside the court in Lisbon on Wednesday February 10th, at the end of the last day of the proceedings concerning the temorary injunction on Gonçalo Amaral's book, "The Truth Of The Lie," Gerry McCann said they, he and his wife, would be delighted if the case were to be reopened. Well, the case was shelved in September 2008, after a suitable period in which the McCanns had the opportunity to ask for the case to remain open. They did not take advantage of that opportunity.
Since then, the McCanns could have asked for the case to be reopened. In court their lawyer, Isabel Duarte said that information about suspects had not been put in the case files and also that information had come in from all over Europe and yet Ricardo Paiva, Chief Investigator, had allowed the case to remain shelved. Who did this supposed information from "all over Europe," go to? The McCanns' private detectives? And was it all passed to the Portuguese police? If so, why didn't the McCanns ask for the case to be reopened based on this new information? They didn't. Also, at the end of day 3 of the case in January, Gerry McCann said there were no leads.
Now, the McCanns are making a renewed appeal to the people of Portugal to come forward with any information they may have.( Sky News) What on earth is the point of that? How many appeals have they made to the people of Portugal over the past nearly three years? And what about the theory being put forward by their private detective, Dave Edgar that Madeleine is being held in a "hellish lair," in one of the "lawless villages," near Praia da Luz? Hang on! Don't they call that a lead? Why not follow it up? Why not do some actual searching instead of putting out yet another generalised plea to the people of Portugal? The people who actually searched for Madeleine soon after her disappearance, were the Portuguese people of Praia da Luz. If there were information to be had, it would probably have been had by now.
Several people were tweeting from the court and the updates came to my mobile phone thick and fast most of the day. There were two witnesses being heard. First up was Luis Froes, General Manager of VC Films, the company that made the documentary based on Amaral's book. Sr Froes spoke about the DVD of the film having been given away with a copy of a national newspaper. He was asked by the McCanns' lawyer why thousands of copies had been destroyed. (Note: because of the injunction?)
Second witness was Eduardo Damaso, editor in chief of Portuguese daily newspaper Correio da Manha. It was his newspaper which gave away the DVD. Damaso commented that other former investigators have written about criminal cases.
The afternoon session was scheduled to begin at 2pm, but started very late, the McCanns not arriving in court until after 2.40pm. While most people were out having lunch, the McCanns were out issuing another writ, this time against TV company TVI for allegedly talking about the film after it was banned by the temporary injunction.
Dr Amaral's lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, in his summing up made quite a few very good points. He mentioned that several journalists had written books about Madeleine and had not been sued and what was it about Amaral's book? Was it too close to the truth?
Sr Cabrita read from documents detailing the police decision to shelve the case. I don't know what was read out by Sr Cabrita, but this is an extract from the PJ's final report on the archiving of the case.
Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – the most dramatic – to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.
(Translation by Astro and copied from The McCann Files ) Antonio Cabrita commented during his summing up:
"The McCanns should not feel offended by the book, but by the prosecutors."
As can be seen above, this comment would appear to be rather appropriate as the Public Prosecutor, in the final report, stated that Madeleine was more likely to be dead than alive. Perhaps the McCanns should be considering suing the Public Prosecutor's office for suggesting that Maddie is dead.
Cabrita:"I ask now, where is the offence? In the book or in the process?"
If police officers could be sued for every theory they followed up and every conclusion they reached as a result of their investigation and every person they felt they had reason to suspect of involvement, there would be mighty few cases being resolved and reaching the courts and probably very few people wishing to apply to become police officers.
Cabrita emphasised that the book contained the same facts as the police and prosecution files. The final report for the archiving of the case can be read on The McCann Files web site. (Link above)
The lawyer for the publishers of Amaral's book gave a statement in the summing-up process:
"This company has published another book called "McCann's Guilt" (translation), but that was not banned."
Why not? It didn't sell very well and therefore the author wasn't worth suing? It wasn't widely publicised? Seems like the title alone might attract at least a letter from the McCanns' lawyers, but that doesn't seem to have been the case. Odd!
Isabel Duarte, lawyer for the McCanns did not appear to base her summing-up on the facts of the case, i.e., was the book Gonçalo Amaral's own opinion or an accurate representation of the investigation? Instead, she made an "impassioned speech," in which she launched into an emotional diatribe about Gonçalo Amaral and others who supported him.
"Duarte: Goncalo Amaral is using the book to take revenge on the McCanns."
Revenge for what? Dr Amaral's stated objective in writing his book was to express himself and restore his reputation. To suggest that he would write an accurate narrative of the investigation simply to take revenge seems to be projection rather on the part of her clients, who seem to be the ones seeking revenge....and money!
"Duarte: The book has been organised and written in order to prove the McCanns are guilty."
And the book, "The McCanns' Guilt."?
Duarte read out a report on the book by a Portuguese language expert. So, never mind the factual details, let's take a critical look at the language? Is this the best the McCanns' legal representative can come up with?
Isabel Duarte then went on to suggest that one of the witnesses for Dr Amaral, Ricardo Paiva, a senior police officer, had lied during the hearing. She said he had been "inconsistent," regarding the findings of the dogs and had said during the investigation that the dogs had failed at least once. Why focus on the dogs? I guess this is one part of the investigation which the McCanns do need to focus on undermining. However, Isabel Duarte was acting outside of her remit by seeking to question the actual investigation: her remit was to put forward evidence for Amaral's book being his own opinion, and which therefore could be classed as defamation, and not just a personal and autobiographical account of the police investigation. The investigation itself was not on trial.
(Note: the above direct quotes are taken from tweets sent from inside the courtroom by @hannahtp)
Joana Morais reports that during her final speech, Isabel Duarte referred to all those who believed in her clients' involvement in their daughter's disappearance as 'vultures' and 'vampires.'
Joana also quotes Gerry McCann's confidence in the Portuguese police. Holding up images of his daughter, Gerry said, "that he trusts in the Portuguese judicial system." Well well! What was it Gerry said outside the court in January?
"I think it's particularly disappointing that the police officers who considered us responsible for Madeleine's disappearance are the same officers we are depending on to carry on the search for Madeleine,"Sky News
So, now Gerry trusts the Portuguese judicial system and he welcomes the case being reopened? Could this be anything to do with Dr Amaral's calling for the case to be reopened? What could Gerry say to that? No? I guess that might throw some serious suspicions on Gerry's motives.
Finally, Joana Morais quotes one of the defence lawyers, acting on behalf of Dr Amaral's appeal to have the temporary injunction on his book overturned:
"At desperate times shoot in all directions' was an expression said by a defense lawyer heard yesterday at court to express the lack of proof to affirm that Amaral thesis impeded the search for a live or dead Madeleine. The same lawyer answering to an article that based the request to ban the book and the documentary, said 'It is the parents who are responsible for the the physical and moral integrity of their children' not 'Gonçalo Amaral, Guerra and Paz, TVI nor Valentim de Carvalho"
The above is the title of an article by Barbara Nottage, which appeared on theMadeleine Foundation web site. It has attracted the attention of the McCanns' legal advisors, Carter Ruck,they of Trafigura fame. In an email, Tony Bennett, secretary of the Madeleine Foundation states:
"In a letter dated 5 February 2010, Carter-Ruck have asked us to 'immediately' remove the article on our website, by Barbara Nottage, titled "How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of no more than 3-4 Minutes?"
Their letter claims that this article "implies that our clients have lied and that their daughter was not abducted" and is therefore "highly defamatory, casting (as it does), very serious doubt on the sugsestion that Madeleine could indeed have been abducted".
Tony further states that the Carter Ruck letter does not raise any issues of fact with the article. In other words, it does not dispute the chronological details, which are actually based on witness statements from Kate and Gerry McCann and the 7 friends they were on holiday with. I reproduce the article below.
One of the curious aspects of the alleged abduction of Madeleine McCann is the extraordinarily tight timetable in which the abduction is supposed to have taken place. Dr Gerald McCann says he went to check on the children at about 9.05pm on 3 May 2007. He also said elsewhere that he had been an unusually long time in the apartment toilet, and that he had been inside all four rooms of the apartment. In addition, he told the world that he had had time during his visit to gaze down on Madeleine, whom he was to describe as ‘lying in the recovery position’, and think how lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter. By this reckoning, He could not have left the apartment until around 9.10pm or several minutes later.
Meanwhile Jane Tanner, a close friend of the McCanns, has given statements saying that she saw what she thought was a male abductor carrying Madeleine away in his arms from the apartment at around 9.15pm - although we might note here that in August 2009 at a press conference, the McCanns’ chief private investigator, former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, said that Jane Tanner might have seen a woman, not a man.
The abduction scenario
So let’s examine this situation more closely.
The scenario put forward by the McCanns and their friends runs as follows:
· The abductor must have been watching the apartment for several days before snatching Madeleine on 3 May.
· The McCanns went down to the ‘Tapas bar’ at the Ocean Club at around 8.30pm that evening, with other members of the group arriving during the next half-an-hour or so.
· Dr Matthew Oldfield ‘checked the apartment from the outside’ at around 9.00pm to 9.03pm.
· Dr Gerry McCann returned to his apartment (5A) from the Tapas bar to check on his children at around 9.05pm. The walk to the apartment would have taken one to two minutes. So on his own timing, he would have arrived there around 9.07pm.
· Dr Gerry McCann was briefly in all four rooms of their holiday apartment, during which time he checked his children. He also says he spent an unusually long time in the toilet - maybe up to 5 minutes, though we have never been told why. He tells us that he paused briefly over Madeleine’s bed and thought to himself how very lucky he was to have such a beautiful child.
· Dr Gerry McCann says he noticed that the door to the children’s room was ‘wider open than before’. He says that at 8.30pm it had been open at an angle of about 45 degrees (half open). He remembers (he says) that when he went to check the children at 9.05pm, the door was now open at an angle of 60 degrees (two thirds open).
· The fact that the door - according to Dr Gerald McCann - was now (at 9.05pm) more open more than it was before (at 8.30pm), has been used by him to suggest the possibility that the abductor may have been already in the apartment when he checked on the children, although he says he only realised this possibility some months after the events of the day. Dr Gerry McCann has said that the abductor might have been hiding behind a door or in a wardrobe while he spent several minutes doing his ‘check’ on the children.
· Dr Gerry McCann must have left the room, on his own account, at between 9.10pm and 9.15pm. He then says he encountered a TV cameraman, Jeremy (‘Jes’) Wilkins, on the road back to the Tapas bar at the Ocean Club, and was talking to him for several minutes between 9.10pm and 9.25pm (Jeremy Wilkins confirms the meeting, but says it only lasted three minutes).
· Ms Jane Tanner (partner of Dr Russell O’Brien) says she left the Tapas bar at around 9.15pm and saw a man walking ‘purposefully’, with a child in his arms, along the top of the road running alongside the McCanns’ apartment. She has maintained throughout that she saw this man at almost exactly 9.15pm.
· The McCanns maintain that they left their apartment unlocked. This contrasts however with what they said during the might of 3 May/4 May. In telephone calls to relatives, Dr Gerald McCann told them that an abductor had forced entry into the apartment by jemmying open the shutters. They appear to have changed this story after both the Manager of Mark Warners, Mr john Hill, and the police, found no evidence whatsoever of the shutters having been forced open.
The McCanns now say, therefore, that the abductor must have entered their apartment through the unlocked patio door. But they maintain that the windows and shutters that they say they found open on Dr Kate McCann checking the children at 10.00pm were because the abductor must have made his escape via that route. They say the abductor must have opened the window and the shutters (which the McCanns say they had had left closed) from the inside, climbed through the window, and taken Madeleine through that window.
· Dr Kate McCann says she returned to the apartment to check on the children at 10.00pm. She says she ‘knew instantly’ that Madeleine had been abducted - and then so did Dr Gerald McCann, minutes later, when he says he arrived at the apartment. Dr Kate McCann later told a TV interviewer that because of the requirement for secrecy about the police investigation, she could not explain why she ‘knew instantly’ that Madeleine had been abducted. She has never explained this, even 2½ years later.
The photographs of the apartment taken by the Portuguese police on the day after Madeleine was reported missing do not show anything which would clearly point to an abduction, certainly not damaged shutters. No forensic evidence whatsoever of the alleged abductor has been found. There were no forensic traces in the room, and no fingerprints on the window, window frame or shutters except for one of Dr Kate McCann’s fingerprints. The lichen on the windowsill was undisturbed.
Going by the above scenario, which the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends have maintained, the abductor (if there was one) must have either entered the apartment before Dr Matthew Oldfield’s check at around 9.03pm and Dr Gerry McCann’s check which began at 9.05pm/9.07pm – a version put forward by the McCanns months after Madeleine was reported missing - McCanns now want us to believe - or after Dr Gerry McCann left at 9.10pm to 9.15pm and before he was (allegedly) seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm.
The problems with this abduction scenario
There are many problems associated with this specific abduction scenario above that the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends have generated.
As we have seen just now, there is no forensic evidence that the alleged abductor was even in the McCanns’ apartment, still less that an abductor climbed in or out of the window.
Further, the window is high enough in the children’s room to make it physically very difficult for an abductor to climb through it. It was reported to be 91cm. above the floor - exactly three feet. The window itself is only around 60cm x 60cm (2ft x 2ft). The abductor would therefore have had to climb some three feet, with Madeleine with him, in his arms or over his shoulder. In addition, he would have to have managed this feat without leaving any forensic traces on the window-sill.
Madeleine must have weighed at least two stone (12kg). A task such as this would have meant balancing against the window frame itself, in which case traces of clothing fibres would surely have been found. Even then, it would have been almost impossible to climb through this window even if Madeleine had been asleep. It is surely even more unlikely that the abductor could have laid Madeleine down on the floor or a bed in the children’s bedroom, then climbed out of the window, and then reached back inside the bedroom to pick Madeleine out of the room - all of this without Madeleine or either of the twins waking up.
This whole abduction operation would clearly have been still more difficult either if Madeleine had woken up whilst being abducted, or one or both twins had done so. To maintain the abduction scenario, therefore, it is necessary to believe that Madeleine slept through the entire abduction operation. The description given by Jane Tanner of an alleged abductor carrying a child also describes the child as quiet and presumably asleep.
Moreover, to escape via the window, as the McCanns claim, the abductor would have had to open the shutters. Mark Warners, however, explained that it was only possible to open the shutters from the inside. They are operated by pulling a cord, or strap, on the inside. It is a highly relevant fact (again confirmed by Mark Warners) that when these heavy metal shutters were opened, the whole process is extremely noisy.
But no-one heard the shutters being opened. Moreover, the children’s room was directly overlooked by a tall block of apartments on the other side of the street. Had the abductor really climbed out of that window, he would have been in the view of dozens of windows overlooking Apartment 5A. We now know that the shutters to Apartment 5A were actually closed when the police and Mark Warners’ staff arrived to check them. The McCanns’ initial explanation for this fact were that the shutters ‘must have been closed by the abductor as well as opened by him’. We have seen that the shutters could not be opened from the outside. This claim by the McCanns that the abductor ‘must have tried to close the shutters behind him’ prompts two related and very obvious questions:
1) having gained entry through an open patio door, what would possess an abductor to leave via a three-foot high, two-foot square closed window, with the shutters also closed? The McCanns’ abduction scenario would require him to have opened the windows and shutters, then tried to close the shutters behind him, when he could have simply walked through the already-open patio doors.
2) why and how, having allegedly scooped up Madeleine in his arms and opened the window and the shutters, would he have had the time and the physical ability to then close the shutters, all without making any sound or leaving any trace, without being seen by anyone, and without waking either Madeleine or the twins?
Moreover, all this would have had to have been accomplished in the dark - unless the alleged abductor switched the lights on when he entered the apartment and then remembered to switch them off again as he was making his exit. No-one saw any lights on in the apartment. The McCanns have admitted that they left the children in the darkness, with the shutters and curtains closed, when they went out for their evening’s entertainment.
Therefore, to sum up - according to the McCanns’ scenario, the abductor would have to have:
* First - either picked an opportunity to enter the apartment after the McCanns had left for the Tapas bar at between 8.30pm and 9.00pm - or entered the apartment immediately after he had seen first Dr Matthew Oldfield and then Gerry McCann enter and leave the apartment at around 9.05pm to 9.15pm;
[NOTE: if the former of these two alternatives, then the abductor must have been in the apartment with Dr Gerry McCann during the five to ten minutes or so he was checking on the children - as Dr McCann indeed claimed last year]
* Second - walked through the open patio door without being seen;
* Third - found Madeleine in the dark;
* Fourth - picked her up, without waking her or the twins, and without leaving any forensic trace on the bed;
* Fifth - opened the window - without leaving any fingerprints;
* Sixth - opened the shutters from the inside (with nobody hearing him doing so, and once again without leaving any fingerprints);
* Seventh - climbed through the window, somehow carrying Madeleine with him - again without being seen by anyone, and again without leaving any fingerprints;
* Eighth - he would then have had to close the very noisy shutters, using controls operated from the inside - while still having Madeleine in his arms, or having laid her down on the patio, and
* Ninth - he made his escape without being seen by anyone except for afew fleeting seconds by Jane Tanner at around 9.15pm.
The operation of climbing through the window would have been physically very difficult, if not impossible, to do without (a) even brushing away even a tiny piece of the years-old lichen growing on the window-sill or (b) leaving any clothing fibres or other forensic evidence.
He must in addition have accomplished this whole operation in near total darkness and without being seen or heard by anyone except Jane Tanner. At the very moment that Jane Tanner says she saw the alleged abductor, Dr Gerald McCann was chatting away to holiday friend Jeremy (‘Jez’) Wilkins. Neither man saw or heard the alleged abductor despite being so close.
If the abductor had Madeleine in his arms as he climbed out of the window, and bearing in mind he was in near darkness, he would have been unable to see anything below her or much to either side as he fumbled through the window and shutters and tried to escape from the apartment precincts. Why he would do this when there was an open patio door to walk back through is incomprehensible. The McCanns only came up with the scenario of the abductor entering the unlocked patio door and then escaping via the window after learning that there was no evidence that the shutters had been tampered with, as they had told their relatives the night Madeleine disappeared.
Finally let us look for a moment at another aspect of the McCanns’ scenario. They have claimed on many occasions that an abductor must have been ‘casing the joint’ for several days beforehand - and then pounced and abducted Madeleine when he had the chance. The McCanns claim that he would have been closely watching them, including observing what the McCanns claim as their routine of half-hourly checking.
The McCanns have gone further and have suggested - in a lengthy TV interview for the BBC’s Panorama programme - that the abductor must have been making notes on their movements, allegedly carefully observing the times of their departures from the apartment. But this does not seem plausible given that neither the McCanns, nor their ‘Tapas 9’ friends, have given any details of how often (if at all) they were checking on their children whilst out wining and dining – apart from on the night Madeleine was reported missing.
Another problem about the McCanns’ abduction scenario is that there is nowhere that the abductor could have been observing the McCanns’ apartment without being seen - unless, that is, he was living or operating from one of the flats opposite the McCanns’ apartment, some of which overlooked it. It is understood that the occupants of these flats have all been investigated and their statements corroborated. None of them had anyone in their flat who was watching the McCanns’ apartment, nor was anyone seen acting suspiciously or hanging around in that area during the week the McCanns and their friends were there, except for one man who has been identified and eliminated from police enquiries.
The other obvious problem about the claim of an abductor ‘casing the joint’ is this:- Suppose an abductor had been watching the McCanns’ apartment day in and day out. On the McCanns’ own timeline, he would have seen the McCanns leave for the Tapas bar at 8.30pm. If, therefore, as claimed, an abductor had been watching the premises, he would presumably have chosen a moment as soon as possible after 8.30pm to abduct Madeleine - i.e., immediately after Drs Gerry and Kate McCann had left for the Tapas bar (on their own account) at around 8.30pm.
Yet, if he had entered the flat just after the McCanns left at 8.30pm, how come he was not long gone 35-40 minutes later when Dr Gerald McCann did his check? After all, Dr McCann now believes that the abductor may have even been present for the entire five to ten minutes or so that he was doing his check i.e. between 9.05pm and 9.10pm/9.15pm.
Yet a further difficulty for this improbable scenario is that Dr Matthew Oldfield claims that he did two checks - one at around 9.00pm, (various times have been given for this alleged check) and the other around 9.30pm. Dr Oldfield claims that during his 9.00pm visit he ‘checked’ from the outside but saw and heard nothing. He also said that the shutters were ‘tight shut’. If indeed the abductor really had entered before both Dr Matthew Oldfield’s alleged check (around 9.00pm) and Dr McCann’s check (around 9.05pm), then he was exceptionally lucky, to put it mildly, not to have been detected by either man.
There are equal if not even greater problems with the suggestion that the abductor entered the apartment and removed Madeleine only after Drs Oldfield and McCann had done their checks. Would any abductor really have dashed into the apartment after first seeing Dr Oldfield checking the outside of the apartment at around 9.00pm - and then seen Gerry spending five to ten minutes checking between 9.05pm and 9.15pm? It would surely have been far too risky.
And if he entered the apartment after Dr Gerry McCann left at say 9.10pm at the earliest, he would scarcely have had time to enter the flat, remove Madeleine, open the window and shutters, close them behind him etc. and then be seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm.
Sadly, no British newspaper or magazine has offered an analysis, like the one above, of the unlikelihood of the abduction having occurred in the way the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 9’ friends claim it ‘must have’ happened.
I conclude by saying that I am not saying the abduction of Madeleine never happened. But I confess I do find it very difficult to understand, given all that has been said about it, how it could have happened."
.................................... ................................... Above: Sean and Amelie, then aged 2, in Portugal in 2007
Sean and Amelie McCann, twin siblings of Maddie, who were just two years and three months when Maddie disappeared, will be five years old tomorrow, February 2nd. They celebrated their birthday with a party at the weekend and according to The Sun:
"MADDIE McCann's sister and brother celebrated their fifth birthday with a party yesterday and a present from their missing sibling.
Parents Kate and Gerry held the special bash for twins Sean and Amelie.
They always buy the pair a gift from their missing sister for Christmas and birthdays."
Do the twins think these presents actually come from Maddie? If so, I wonder what they imagine is the method by which these presents reach them.
In January 2008, according to a report in The Metro, Sean and Amelie were playing a game in which they endeavoured to find "the monster who took Maddie."
"The brother and sister of missing Madeleine McCann cope with their loss by playing a game called 'Find the monster that took Maddie', it was claimed on Sunday.
The game was described by leading world sex crimes expert Ray Wyre after he met parents Kate and Gerry McCann.
Twins Sean and Amelie, two, were helping to give their parents the strength to carry on, he added.
The parents told him they were together recently when the twins rushed into the room shouting.
He added: 'They said they were going to go and find the monster that took Maddie. Then they dashed off to play the game. It's a sad story, but it is healthy that Madeleine remains a real presence in their lives.'"
Do the twins still believe that a "monster," took Maddie? If so, they must also believe that this monster has some very kind and compassionate qualities if he allows Maddie to choose and send them presents. Maybe when they're older, they'll suggest that Kate and Gerry take note of the postmarks on the packages and alert the police.
In November 2009, the twins were ready to fight the man who abducted their sister. "We will fight the man who took our sister Maddie." The Sun
"Gerry told Sky News the twins - just 18 months old when Madeleine went missing in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May 2007 - want to find who took her and punish them.
He said: "They talk about her more than Kate and I do - it's incredible. Now they are saying, 'She's been taken, when we find who took her, we'll fight them'"
The twins must have some crazy mixed-up ideas about this "monster," of a man who took their sister. I have never seen any details of explanation offered to the twins as to why this person took their sister, though if he is a "monster," and they're going to fight him, then he must be an evil man in their eyes, but on the other hand, Maddie gets to send them presents?
Very early on in this sad case, Kate McCann said the twins were coping well because they had never spent much time with Madeleine. Over these past nearly three years, though, they have been encouraged to develop a myth about someone they must hardly have known and will surely not remember. The myth being enhanced regularly by Kate and Gerry seems to be of a sister who is being held by an evil man, but that she is able to communicate in a way by sending gifts and that one day she will be rescued and just take her place, happily, at the dinner table and share Amelie's toys. It's the myth of the golden girl who will return and they will all live happily ever after. We know that Kate and Gerry have consulted a psychologist about how to tell the twins about Maddie, but I cannot imagine a professional psychologist advising parents to maintain this kind of myth.
Maddie was just 21 months old when Sean and Amelie were born in February 2005 and she did not seem to take too readily to having two younger children in the family, demanding of her mother's attention.
"The worst thing is that she started to demand lots of attention, especially when I was breast-feeding them.""She would run up and down screaming in the background, shouting for my attention."
"Kate McCann has revealed that she struggled to control Madeleine McCann after the birth of her and Gerry's twins, it was revealed today.Missing Madeleine would run around 'screaming...shouting for my attention', the mother-of-three said.
In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic.
Speaking about Madeleine's upbringing, Kate, a 39-year-old GP, told Portugal's Flash! magazine: "She cried practically for 18 hours a day. I had to permanently carry her around."
Perhaps the above was the reason for Maddie's being shipped off to her grandmother's house in Glasgow when she was two years old, to spend the twins' first Christmas away from the family in Rothley. Gerry McCann's mother, Eileen McCann, interviewed by the Scottish Daily Record in April 2008:
"She said: "When she was two, Madeleine spent Christmas at my house and it was lovely.
"The next year, the family came up for New Year but on Christmas Day Madeleine called and said she'd got a kitchen from Santa. She was very excited and said 'I'm going to make some tea'."
This Christmas was spent without the blonde-haired, green-eyed girl who fills Eileen's life with such joy."
We are told repeatedly by Kate and Gerry McCann that milestones are important. Surely the twins' first Christmas, when they were a complete family, with their daughter Madeleine and the twins, represented a significant milestone? Surely a time for the whole family to be together to celebrate the occasion? But no, Maddie spent that Christmas with her grandmother. Perhaps the milestones that are important to the McCanns are those on which they can remind us of their continuing need for money to fund their search: first Christmas without Madeleine (which wasn't, of course!) first birthday without Madeleine etc etc.
So, Maddie got shipped off that Christmas and there is a further hint about Maddie's status in the family in a statement by Katherina Gasper, a doctor who went on holiday with the McCanns and their friends in 2005.
"During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by this daughter Lily, took Madeleine (page 6) with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins."Missing Madeleine forum
This was September 2005, when the twins would have been 7 months old and if Kate and Gerry needed a bit if rest, rest from what? Maddie's need for attention? Maddie gets taken out for the day by people she could hardly have known, to give her parents time to be with the twins and then, come Christmas, she gets sent to her grandmother's house while her parents spend time with the twins. Did this develop into some kind of pattern with the relatives who visited to support Kate while Gerry was on duty at weekends taking care of Maddie while Kate was with the twins? Was that the relatives role, helping to keep Maddie and the twins apart so that there was no conflict? Not the best way to help siblings to care for each other or to get along and accept one another.
Was Maddie seen to be jealous of her little brother and sister and this was judged to be such a problem that instead of making sure the whole family enjoyed quality time together in order to develop healthy, loving, relationships, Maddie and the twins were seldom together? Kate said it herself: the twins never spent much time with Madeleine.
And then, there amongst the questions that Kate McCann refused to answer when she was made an arguida, is one which raises more questions about Maddie's place in the family:
"When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative, she did not reply."
I would assume that this question had some basis in information obtained by the PJ. It seems to be too specific to have been simply a random idea thrown into the mix of questions.
The McCann twins are in danger of growing up with some kind of euphoric recall about a sister who was never a significant part of their lives. They will no doubt be seeing images all over their home of a smiling blonde girl, their sister who was taken by a "monster," a child they hardly knew and they would not recognise if she were alive and turned up on their doorstep. Maddie exists for Sean and Amelie in those images, in the stories their parents tell them, in the games they are encouraged to play, in the conversations they hear around them and repeat, and in the totally incongruous presents she is supposedly sending to them. They obviously know that their parents are deeply immersed in this matter and of course, like small children who want to please their parents, they ask about this far-away child, who is long gone from their world and their memories. Maddie is a myth like the monster who took her.
.................................... .................................... (The McCanns on the sad occasion of Maddie's birthday, soon after she disappeared in 2007.)
................and on the one thousandth day after her disappearance, her parents are busy planning for a star-studded bash to, ummm...errrr...raise more money for the search.
Now, I'm not going to go back through all that, "what search," stuff. We all know that Kate McCann did not physically search for her daughter, while local residents of Praia da Luz took a week off work to search the area.
At least a couple of million quid has gone through the Find Madeleine Fund, but what do the McCanns have to show for it?
They hired Metodo 3, the Spanish detective agency, who claimed to know where Madeleine was, who was holding her and that she'd be home by Christmas, 2008.
Then there was Oakley International, the big boss man of which, Halligen, is to appear in court on the same day as the McCanns, sadly, we are told by Clarence Mitchell, put themselves through an event at the Kensington Roof Garden restaurant, to which a number of wealthy celebs have been invited. Oh how those poor parents are suffering!
And now, we have the intrepid duo of ex-police officers, Edgar and Cowley, the twosome, who from their office in Knutsford, Cheshire, released the breaking news that two years previously a man on holiday in Barcelona had spoken to a very suspicious Victoria Beckham looky-likey, who asked if he had come to deliver her daughter. (Psssst Mr Edgar! Daughter=quarter! Quarter of an ounce!)
On Sunday September 13th 2009, The Belfast Telegraph reported Dave Edgar's latest breakthrough: "Maddie is imprisoned in a hellish lair – just like kidnapped sex slave Jaycee Lee Dugard."
"He insisted the “back from the dead” reappearance of Jaycee – and the cases of Austrian cellar girls Elisabeth Fritzl and Natascha Kampusch – confirmed his suspicion."
Now, I must admit to the above having given me something in the way of false hope. You see, working with Dave Edgar's logic, the fact that every week somebody won the lottery, confirmed my suspicions that I was going to be next. Only I haven't been. Strange logic though. The fact that out of the thousands and thousands of children who go missing around the world, a few turn up, confirms Mr Edgar's suspicions that Maddie is alive and living in a "hellish lair."? No, I don't think I can suspend rational deductive thought quite that much.
"And despite fresh leads taking his probe to Australia and Barcelona, the east Belfast man insists the golden-haired youngster is being held just 10 miles from where she was snatched in Praia da Luz two years ago."
"But he warned that the sprawling wilderness where he believes Maddie is languishing is almost impossible to search completely."
Dave, a word of advice, you have to actually leave your office in Knutsford to prove the above. I'd say those places were totally impossible to search from your office in Cheshire!
"We spent the day at the Cheshire office he uses to conduct the world’s biggest missing person case."
“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."
"Days later, news broke that tormented Jaycee had been freed from the foul compound where she was abused for 18 years by monster Phillip Garrido. Dave simply said: “This just supports my theory that Maddie is alive and imprisoned.”
How Dave? How does one young person turning up after 18 years prove your theory? You were an RUC cop? Desk job was it?
And who is keeping Madeleine captive? It's the Lone Prowler!
"He feels this is the lone prowler who has Maddie stashed in a cellar or dungeon in the lawless villages around Praia da Luz."
"Former detective inspector Dave Edgar, who is leading the hunt, made a secret visit to Praia da Luz at the beginning of last week."
Well, that was in September 2008 and what has Dave Edgar been doing about his conviction that Maddie is being held by the Lone Prowler, who in all likelihood is a paedophile, in a "lawless village." ? Well, not very much, it seems, because it took him until the beginning of last week to make....shhhhh.....a secret trip to Praia da Luz!
MISSING Madeleine McCann could be still alive and just a few miles from the Portuguese resort where she vanished in 2007, investigators believe.
"On his return, he said it was a “very distinct possibility” that Maddie could be living in a poor country district inland from the holiday area."
Did you actually investigate those areas, Dave? Tell me, what exactly is it that makes you think that Maddie could be living in one of those areas?
"A source told the Daily Star Sunday: “The areas that Dave’s team have focused on are very rural. There are no tourists around there at all. He believes Madeleine could be held in such an area.”
Dave's team? What team? Dave and his sidekick Cowley? Or have they enlisted a few more people? Ah, right! So, there are no tourists around there, so that confirms the suspicions? Well, there are no tourists around where I live either. So, maybe on his way back to leafy Knutsford, Dave should have come here and searched my jungle of a garden. I've got some pretty lawless squirrels out there!I've gotno dogs, though, so Kate and Gerry could come and help! No need to worry about my cats. Like Kate and Gerry, my cats always try very hard to cover up their own shoite!
"Mr Edgar is convinced she was kidnapped and his team are still receiving a “substantial number” of calls and e-mails containing new information."
Why is Mr Edgar convinced that Maddie was kidnapped? It has been fairly well established that there was no evidence to suggest that an abductor had been in the McCanns' holiday apartment, but Mr Edgar is convinced? Why? Because he wouldn't have such a cushy number, sitting in his office in Knutsford if he weren't?
A "substantial number," of calls? Hang about! Didn't Gerry McCann say, outside the court in Lisbon, that there were no new leads. Now, Knutsford may be rather further from Rothley than eating in Gerry's back garden, but there's always that new-fangled device the telephone or even email. So, give the dog a phone, Dave. Woops! Did I mention "dog."? Silly me!
What else does the dastardly and dogged (Woops! Don't mention dogs!) Dave have to say?
"And we can reveal that some British holidaymakers who were also staying at the Mark Warner Ocean Club have not co-operated with the investigation."
True! Fiona Payne, David Payne, Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Oldfield and Diane Webster. And let's not forget those 48 questions that Kate McCann refused to answer.
And here comes Clarrie!
"Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for Kate and Gerry, said the probe would continue until Madeleine is found. The family hope that a star-studded fund-raising dinner on Wednesday will help boost diminishing funds."
So, while Maddie is thought to be prisoner in a "hellish lair," a few miles from Praia da Luz, her parents are putting on what to many of us would look like a celebration. No quiet night at home to sadly contemplate 1,000 days without their elder daughter, no silent candle-lit vigil, no, the McCanns are throwing a party!
"And 1,000 lanterns will be released into the sky from 20 venues across Britain and Portugal."
Not sure how that will help find Maddie, but it might just pose a danger to air traffic.
"Mr Mitchell said: “It’s a painful date for Kate and Gerry. But they remain as determined as ever.”
So, they will spend this "painful date," getting themselves dolled up to wine and dine with a bunch of celebs? I'm sure they'll manage to put their brave faces on!
And the McCanns "remain as determined as ever."? To do what? Throw money at dodgy detectives who have no previous experience of finding missing children? Persuade the world and his dog (Oh dear, there's that dog again!) that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, Maddie was abducted from the unlocked apartment where she was left, which was checked so regularly that only a tiny window of opportunity existed for abduction? And speaking of windows, only Kate McCann's fingerprints were found on the important window that a leading police officer said would be impossible to climb through, carrying a child? (Yes, I know! Kate McCann has now changed her mind about that window! The kidnapper may have opened it to throw them off the scent! I don't mean the dogs, off the scent, I mean, you know, the McCanns, off the scent!)
Good timing, though, resurrecting this story about Maddie's being held in a "hellish lair," a few miles from Praia da Luz, what with the second part of the court case coming up in Lisbon very soon, and the McCanns holding their £150 a ticket bash for the celebs at the Roof Garden restaurant. The menu looks good at that place and should be! At those prices, it's what my dad used to say, "They're no feart the coos git it, then!" Still, at those prices, I'd be taking the leftovers home. No fear! I'd want a doggie bag! Woof! Woof!
Above image from The McCann Gallery
