Madeleine McCann case: OPEN LETTER TO Bates Wells Braithwaite AND TO HaysMacIntyre re Francisco Marco ex Private Investigator hired by Kate and Gerry McCann

Tuesday, 15 March 2016

OPEN LETTER TO Bates Wells Braithwaite  AND TO HaysmacIntyre
Respectively Solicitors and Accountants for the Madeleine Fund

Individual Copies sent to redacted  and  redacted
who it is reported were jointly concerned with setting up the Fund

Dear Sir and Madam,

Several years ago I wrote to you about claims by Francisco Marco - proprietor of the detective agency, Metodo3, that they would be able to return Madeleine McCann to her parents 'by Christmas'.

You were kind enough to reply. You denied that such a claim had been made.

I am not sure whether you were fully aware that the McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell had already said that the family were satisfied, saying '....but we are pleased the agency is confident that they will find Madeleine in due course.'

You will also be aware that Marco's words are on a 'video' clip, available on YouTube, where he re-states his position, - helpfully in English. (full reference in Appendix - 1)

But given that you and HaysM were concerned with the creation and running of the Fund are we to believe that both your firms were simultaneously neglecting their duties.

As you know, in her autobiography, 'madeleine', Kate McCann herself admitted that these words had  been used, which gave rise to a number of questions about your and HaysM's level of interest,  professional competence, and/or veracity.

You will be aware that a recently published book -  La Cortina de Humo - by a sometime employee of Metodo3 details several large scale frauds committed against the Madeleine Fund, and shows how the techniques employed should have been apparent to anyone with responsibility for 'due diligence' and certainly to a trained and conscientious accountant.  (full reference in Appendix - 2)

Again this may raise important questions about professional competence.

I am confident that you will have read the book, and will have studied in depth the chapter devoted to the fraud, but so that anyone else reading this shall know, he details very crude and simple methods, which should have been obvious to anyone. He says that evidence is available to investigators, and may already be in their hands.

They include simply obtaining receipts for travel from an El Corte Ingles travel branch, and then forging them by overwriting the relevant details, before including these in the monthly invoices to the Fund, overseen by you.

He states that the 20 operatives - or 40 as sometimes quoted - who were being routinely charged for consisted of at most three (3), and for most of the time, only two. He names them.

He goes on to expose the mendacious claim that Metodo3 had successfully recovered more than 300 missing persons in a single year. He worked for this company for several years and was aware of only two (2) such examples. Perhaps these issues could and should have been explored in detail before the contract was signed. Data Protection and the laws relating to the protection of minors would not prevent outline details of many of the cases being supplied for investigation, and Company accounts detailing a total of only twelve (12) employees are public documents.

He publishes the e-mails he sent to the people who had been financing the operation, in which he gives details of the fraud. He also sent these to two of the six Directors of the Fund, whom he names.

He received no reply and no acknowledgement. He interprets this, perhaps with justification, as a 'wall of silence'.

It is inconceivable that you and HaysM were not made aware of this, and again it raises further questions about your involvement, and your professional competence. The possibility of higher level collusion is of course unthinkable.

In your internet advertising you both make great play of your devotion to, and the importance of conducting and maintaining Due Diligence - you use the term 42 time, and HaysM 35 times. You both mention Transparency ((58 and 44 times respectively), and Justice (86 and 16). You go further to discuss Investigation (78) and you use the word Fraud 35 times. HaysM use it 25 times.

It is clear therefore that both firms, at least in publicity and advertising, say they understand the importance of vigilance against Fraud at all levels and at all times.

It may be however that on this on occasion both firms simultaneously made the identical mistake or simultaneously failed to notice the glaring irregularities.
This would be in line with what is alleged to have happened many times during this perplexing case.

   The blood and cadaver detection dogs were said to have made a series of mistakes but only in this  case, when they alerted to 14 items and places linked with the McCanns - but to no other places. The dogs' previous and subsequent performance has never been successfully challenged in the criminal courts
   Some of the best detectives and Police advisors from several police forces from different countries made identical and false deductions

   Top lawyers and public prosecutors in Portugal concurrently and independently made identical gross errors

...and so on. The case is full of remarkable coincidences. Many hundreds have been recorded so far. The revelation that  £ 500,000 of publicly donated money was squandered on a fraudulent enterprise, but worse - that no attempt was then made to recover the money, nor to take action against the alleged fraudsters, might damage public confidence in both your firms.

You are also surely aware of the book, El Método, by the proprietor of Metodo3, Fransicso Marco, in which at p. 452, he says 'Someday I'll explain if we believe that Maddie is alive or dead, and, if she was killed, who we think did it.' (full reference in Appendix - 3)

I draw this to your attention, as, of course, if it is eventually shown that Madeleine was in fact dead and that the parents knew or suspected this, as now seems increasingly likely, then the entire Fund would itself have been fraudulent ab initio, and the issue of due diligence and professional supervision will assume even greater importance, with the persons concerned being liable to account either to Civil or Criminal Courts.

The apparent failure or neglect of due diligence in the contracting of Kevin Halligen, of Oakley International, the Company referred to by Clarence Mitchell as 'the big boys, the best there is in international investigation.', - Halligen a proven and convicted fraudster and the Fund's subsequent failure to claim back the £ 0.5 m handed over to him under your joint supervision, is now a matter of historical note, and is documented and has been discussed elsewhere at considerable length.

Similarly the strange case of the contract awarded to two retired junior police officers, Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley - according to Clarence Mitchell, a team of crack detectives - and of a company falsely named in many press reports as the impressive  'Alpha Group Investigations', - a respectable company in the USA. The company, was only incorporated as ALPHAIG, with an address of a cottage in the hills of Wales, some considerable time after this had been said. This strange case has already been picked over and the timeline confirmed.

Again the level of due diligence performed here seems - to a lay outsider - to be questionable. It is not clear, for example, how even the most basic Company Check could possibly have been conducted. According to the filed Company accounts it was operating on resources of £ 650 cash and fixed assets of £ 853. This case and the alleged involvement of your two firms has been discussed at length.

But we are left wondering whether two firms of your stature could have made three consecutive and identical errors of professional judgement and competence, not learning from the preceding ones, in the handling of a huge amount of donated money paid into just one Fund, benefitting just one couple.

Yours sincerely,   redacted

I fully appreciate that you are under no legal or moral obligation to reply to this letter, nor to answer any of the concerns raised.
In view of that, and the huge public interest generated by this case over the past eight years, it is intended, after a reasonable time, that this letter will be published on a web forum as an Open Letter, with some personal details redacted.
I am confident that given your commitment to Transparency, Justice and Investigation that this is acceptable.

1 YouTube
The interview with Francisco Marco, in which he says - in English -
“I know the kidnapper and we know where he is.
We know who he is and we know how he has done it . . .”
may be viewed at 1:23 on

2 La Cortina de Humo - 'The Smokescreen' - by Julian Peribañez and Antonio
(August 2014, ISBN 978-84-941649-8-9)

3 El Método - ‘The Method’ - by Francisco Marco Fernández
(October 2013, ISBN 978-84-9970-943-7)

Both books are available from, Casa del Libro, and

Quotes from La Cortina de Humo. Translated by a qualified and attested translator

p. 177 - I began to realise to what extent the company was swindling the fund which had been set
up and which was supported by hundreds of unsuspecting people whose sole objective was to
find Madeleine. Nothing special, just inflated expenses, invented items and false invoices, etc.

p.178 - Francisco Marco, whenever asked, always replied that Método 3 had deployed ‘twenty
men’ to investigate Madeleine’s disappearance! That was yet another lie.
This was the tactic used by Francisco Marco to inflate Método 3’s invoices to the client

p. 182 - He omitted to tell the journalist that his specialists were his mother and his cousin; he
must have thought there was no need to mention this. Alternatively, he may have thought
that the journalist had realised that his cousin was the chief financial officer (meaning the
accountant) of Método 3 and that his mother was just a woman who didn’t even hold a driving
licence and had been a secretary at a detective agency and who was involved in sales for the
agency and not investigative work.

p. 185 - He presented them with false invoices for travel and accommodation expenses for the 20
people who were supposed to be working in Portugal. The procedure for accomplishing this task
was simple and straightforward and no scientific methodology was required: all they had to do
was obtain some El Co

Dr Martin Roberts: A Nightwear Job - the truth about Madeleine McCann's pyjamas? "If Madeleine's pyjamas were not in fact abducted, then nor was Madeleine McCann."

A Nightwear Job

By Dr Martin Roberts
March 9, 2016

As published in the Telegraph

Author unknown

In the very nearly nine years since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and the eight since the parents had their arguido status formally withdrawn, one simple question has passed publicly unanswered, probably because the answer appears obvious and the question therefore not worth the asking. I shall ask it nevertheless:

Who took the McCanns' 'official photograph' of Madeleine's pyjamas?

The image in question was 'released' to the world's media in the late afternoon of 10 May, 2007, following a press conference that day. It was no doubt assumed by many that, since the PJ released the photographs (there is more than one), the PJ themselves must have taken them. Yet a film distributor who arranges the release of a 'blockbuster' is hardly likely to have spent the previous months/years actually doing the filming.

With this seed of doubt in mind, one might consider what the PJ did with their photograph(s), adhering all the while to the worldwide practice, among law enforcement agencies, of 'continuity', whereby the progress of evidence through the system, in whichever direction, is recorded at each step along the way. Whereabouts, then, did they file this particular 'diligence' of theirs?

Within the relevant Forensic report (23 November 2007) are references to the following images, together with cognate views of a pair of pyjama trousers:

A far cry from earlier publicised representations you will admit.

Why on earth should the PJ have seemingly undertaken the same photographic work twice, involving two quite different sets of pyjamas?

The forensic record (of garments correctly pictured alongside a scaling reference, i.e. a ruler) is that of a pair of pyjamas supplied on request by M&S (UK), afterwards forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory in Lisbon by Goncalo Amaral, together with a covering letter dated 7 June. It has nothing whatever to do with the official photograph released in early May. In fact the clothing pictured has more in common with that featured in the retailer's own contemporary stock photograph, a copy of which was sent to the Algarve Resident, again on request, and which the 'Resident' published on 8 May - two days before the official release.

As published by the Algarve Resident

During a press call at the Amsterdam Hilton, on 7 June, Kate McCann took pains to explain that the pyjamas being exhibited at that time were in fact Amelie's, and that Madeleine's were not only bigger but did not feature a button-fastening t-shirt. Only a couple of days earlier the same pyjamas, again described as 'Amelies' and 'a little bit smaller', were presented on 'Crimewatch', but without reference to the button discrepancy.

It stands to reason of course, that, Madeleine McCann's pyjamas having been abducted, a surrogate pair would have been required for photographic purposes, in the event of there being no extant photographic record of the clothing in question. But appropriate photographs were to hand. They already existed. One version, as we have seen, was published by the Algarve Resident, another by the BBC. The McCanns' 'official' version was consistent with neither of these. With the PJ yet to physically access a representative set of pyjamas, why should they have been called upon to photograph anything else for immediate release?

There is no record of their having done so. Ergo they did not. So who did? And where did the pyjamas come from that enabled them to do it?

Addressing the second of these questions first, the garments featured in the PJ release cannot have come from M&S locally, since all their Portuguese branches had been closed years before. Had they come from M&S in the UK they would obviously have resembled the pair sent to (and genuinely photographed by) the PJ. A pointer to their origin is, however, to be found within the case files.

Alongside a suite of photographs taken at Lagos Marina by Kate McCann is an introductory memo, written by DC Markley of Leicester Police on or about the 8 May and headed up, 'Information from the Family'. Here also one finds the only copy (in black and white) of the McCanns' official photograph of Madeleine's pyjamas (Outros Apensos Vol. II - Apenso VIII, p.342). Rather than its being a PJ production, afterwards passed to the McCanns, it seems the photograph was actually a McCann production fed to the PJ, an observation wholly concordant with the fact that it was actually the McCanns who first revealed this photograph to the press, on Monday 7 May, three days before the PJ released it (as reported by Ian Herbert, the Independent, 11.5.07).

Any illusion that the image in question was the result of a McCann representative's commissioning their own studio photograph of 'off-the-shelf' UK merchandise may soon be dispelled. It is an amateur snapshot. Taken in ambient (day) light, against a coloured (as opposed to neutral) background, it is slightly out of focus and displays detectable signs of parallax. It is not something even a journeyman professional would admit to.

And yet, bold as brass, it represents 'information from the family'.

Perhaps it was produced by a member of the McCann entourage that descended on Praia da Luz over the long weekend 4-6 May? Then again, perhaps not. As Kate McCann explains in her book, 'madeleine' (p.109):

“Everyone had felt helpless at home and had rushed out to Portugal to take care of us and to do what they could to find Madeleine. When they arrived, to their dismay they felt just as helpless – perhaps more so, having made the trip in the hope of achieving something only to discover it was not within their power in Luz any more than it had been in the UK.”

On Kate McCann's own admission, to a House of Commons committee no less, neither she nor husband Gerry were any more capable of keeping cool under fire during this time. Having earlier (August 2007) told her Pal, Jon Corner, "the first few days.…you have total physical shutdown", she went on to advise the House that, despite being medically trained, she and her husband "couldn't function" (John Bingham, the Telegraph, 13.6.2011).

Well someone on the McCann side of the fence managed to function in time for the parents to appear before the media on 7 May with a photograph that, so far, no-one seems to have taken, and of clothing which, other things being equal, ought not even to have existed anywhere inside Portugal, except, perhaps, in the clutches of a fugitive abductor. But, of course, other things are anything but equal.

Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis

A month after the world's media were first shown a picture of something resembling Madeleine McCann's 'Eeyore pyjamas', a real set was being touted around Europe. Described by Kate McCann as 'Amelie's' and being 'a little bit smaller', they were held aloft for the assembled press brigade, without any one of them questioning the pyjamas' origins either. Being 'Amelie's' was quite enough, apparently, to justify their also being in the McCanns' possession at the time. Since when though? Gerry McCann did not return home to Leicester from Praia da Luz until 21 May, time enough for him to have raided his daughter's wardrobe for something he might need on his European travels, but way too late to have met any 7/10 May deadlines.

It seems, then, as if the two ingredients required to achieve an earlier photograph of 'Madeleine's' pyjamas (the photographer and the subject) were both missing. So how was it done?

What at first appears to be a riddle is soon solved when one realises that the pair of pyjamas which accompanied the McCanns around Europe was the very same pair that starred in their 'official photograph' taken earlier. Kate McCann took public ownership of them before the television cameras the moment she referred to them as 'Amelie's'. On close inspection these pyjamas (Amelie's) are revealed as identical to the pair previously pictured in both the Daily Mail (10.5.07) and the Telegraph (see top of page here), down to the stray threads dangling from both upper and lower garments. This means that 'Amelie's pyjamas', for want of a better description, were also present with the McCanns since the start of their Algarve holiday.

As published by the Daily Mail

Suddenly the question ceases to be 'Who photographed a representative pair of Eeyore pyjamas?' and becomes, instead, 'Who photographed Amelie's pyjamas?' Furthermore, if everyone was feeling so shell-shocked as to render them incapable from the Friday, when did they have the presence of mind to take the requisite pictures?

We begin to edge toward a sinister conclusion once we take particular account of the literal background against which these particular pyjamas were photographed.

A coarse woven tale

Unlike the various studio renditions of Eeyore pyjamas to which we have been introduced, the McCann's official photograph(s), versions of which were published by both the PJ and the UK media, present the subject laid out against a blue textile, rather than the more customary piece of artist's board. This blue upholstery, for that is unquestionably what it is, helps define who, among the Tapas 9, might have been the photographer.

The Paynes, the Oldfields and the O'Briens can be ruled out. Only the Payne's apartment incorporated any soft furnishings in blue, but of a different quality to the plain open-weave material on display here. During the early morning of Friday 4 May, 2007, the McCanns were re-located to alternative accommodation in apartment 4G - another in which blue soft furnishings were conspicuous by their absence (it was appointed in beige throughout).* Added to which the concern, lest we forget, is with photography involving a pair of pyjamas known to have been in the McCanns' possession from the outset.

In his statement to Police of 10 May, Gerry McCann as good as exonerated himself of all blame concerning picture taking:

‘Asked, he clarifies that:
apart from the personal photos already delivered by him to the police authorities after the disappearance of his daughter MADELEINE, he has no others in his possession. 

He adds that it is:
his wife KATE who usually takes pictures, he does not recall taking any pictures during this holiday, at night.’

Notwithstanding accounts of how, from the Friday onwards, the McCanns, their nearest and dearest, all fell mentally and physically incapable (of anything save visiting the pool, the beach bar, and the church on Sunday morning), Kate McCann early on made a very telling remark, concerning photography, to journalist Olga Craig:

"I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her" (The Telegraph, May 27, 2007).

That statement alone carries with it a very serious connotation. However, we still have a distance to travel.

The more contrastive of the two images reproduced here displays what appear to be areas of shadow, when in fact there are no local perturbations at the surface of the fabric to cause them. Similarly, the dark bands traversing the t-shirt appear more representative of what is actually beneath it. These visible oddities suggest the material is in fact damp and 'clinging' to the underlying upholstery.

There is, as we know, an anecdote of Kate McCann's, which sees her washing Madeleine's pyjama top on the Thursday morning. As re-told in her book, she does so while alone in the family's apartment:

"I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine’s pyjama top on the veranda."

Size matters

As previously stated, Kate McCann was careful to bring the attention of her Amsterdam Hilton audience, to Madeleine's pyjama top being both larger and simpler than the version she was holding in her hands at the time. She was inviting them instinctively to associate garment size with complexity - the larger the simpler in this instance. It would mean of course that Madeleine's 'Eeyore' pyjamas, purchased in 2006, would not have been absolutely identical with those of her sister Amelie, purchased whenever (but obviously before the family's 2007 holiday on the Portuguese Algarve).

On 7 May, the Sun reported that:
"The McCann family also disclosed that on the night of her disappearance Madeleine was wearing white pyjama bottoms with a small floral design and a short-sleeved pink top with a picture of Eeyore with the word Eeyore written in capital letters.
"The clothes were bought at Marks and Spencer last year."
In his 7 June covering letter to the Forensic Laboratory in Lisbon, Goncalo Amaral conveys the following specification in relation to the pyjamas he was intent on sending for examination:

"The Pyjamas are from Marks and Spencers, size 2 to 3 years -97 cm.
"The pyjamas are composed of two pieces: camisole type without buttons"

Since these items could only have been supplied to the PJ in mid-07, they must have represented that year's style, as it were, for 2-3 year olds. Madeleine would have been four years old by this time. However, Kate McCann would have people believe that 'Amelie's' pyjamas, sporting a button, were designed to fit an even younger child. Had Kate purchased the appropriate pyjamas for Amelie in 2007 of course, they would not have had a button at all.

They must therefore have been purchased in the same epoch as Madeleine’s own, i.e. during 2006, when Amelie would have been a year younger and somewhat smaller even than when the family eventually travelled to Portugal the following year.

The significance of all this becomes apparent once we consider those photographs which show how the pyjamas held aloft by the McCanns at their various European venues encompassed half Gerry McCann's body length at least. Photographs of the McCanns out walking with their twins in Praia da Luz, on the other hand, illustrate, just as clearly, that Amelie McCann did not stand that tall from head to toe. Even In 2007 she would have been swamped by her own pyjamas, never mind the year before when they were purchased.

In conclusion, the McCanns' 'official photograph', first exhibited on 7 May, appears to be that of a damp pair of pyjamas, too big to have been sensibly purchased for Madeleine's younger sister that Spring, and most certainly not the year before. The subject is set against dark blue upholstery of a type not present in any of the apartments occupied by the McCanns or their Tapas associates immediately after 3 May. Kate McCann has explained, over time, how she was alone in apartment 5A that morning, in the company of a damp pyjama top (having just washed it) and how, from that afternoon by all accounts, she 'couldn't bear to use the camera', an automatic device (Canon PowerShot A620) belonging to a product lineage with an unfortunate reputation for random focussing errors.

Madeleine was not reported missing until close to 10.00 p.m. that night. If Madeleine McCann's pyjamas were not in fact abducted, then nor was Madeleine McCann.

Martin Roberts

*See the extended search videos here:

Grateful thanks are due to Nigel Moore for collating a number of highly relevant photographs and media reports in connection with this topic.

Click on image to view

If a fellow thought that the Metropolitan Police Service was a functioning entity, he might call for the arrest of the McCanns based on what is written and depicted here. Ed.

Comments about this article here:

Update posted here:
Wednesday, 20 November 2019


Pat Brown versus Richard Hall on Madeleine McCann: Which One is Ignoring the Evidence?

Pat Brown versus Richard Hall on Madeleine McCann: Which One is Ignoring the Evidence?

by Philip Gunton, 1 March 2016

On 22 February this year,U.S. criminal profiler, Pat Brown, published an article on her ‘PatBrownProfiling’ website, titled: “From Theory to Profile: How Agenda Creates Nonevidence-based Conclusions”.

It was about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann. It was a response to a documentary film by Richard D. Hall titled: “When Madeleine Died?” In that film, Hall - who earlier, in August 2014, nailed his colours to the mast by suggesting that Madeleine’s abduction was a hoax, and that Madeleine had died in her parents’ holiday apartment - put forward the apparently bizarre notion that Madeleine was probably dead by the Monday of that week.

Brown’s article is an attack both on Hall’s conclusion, and on his method.

Both Brown and Hall share the unusual and potentially libelous belief that the McCanns (and others) did not tell the truth about what really happened to Madeleine. Both say she died in the McCanns’ apartment. Both do so for similar reasons. Both believe that two cadaver dogs from Britain, trained by a leading professional dog handler, Martin Grime, alerted to the odours left by Madeleine’s corpse, and her blood, at various locations in the McCanns’ apartment, on their clothes and in their hired car.

Both adduce as additional evidence a plethora of contradictions and changes of story by the McCanns and their friends. Both point to the appalling choice by the McCanns and their advisers of disreputable private detectives to search for Madeleine. Both draw attention to Kate McCann’s point-blank refusal to answer 48 questions by the Portuguese police. Both note how the McCanns were immediately surrounded by a protective shield of lawyers, public relations advisers, and members of U.K. government security service personnel.

The original Portuguese investigation co-ordinator, Dr Goncalo Amaral, also came to the conclusion that Madeleine had died in her parents’ apartment. Moreover, he was fairly specific about the time of Madeleine’s death. He looked at evidence that Madeleine attended a so-called ‘high tea’ at the Tapas restaurant, which is said to have taken place between 4.45pm and about 6.00pm on Thursday 3 May, hours before Madeleine was reported missing.

Brown follows that conclusion, and for a similar reason; she, like Dr Amaral, believes that Madeleine’s crèche nanny, Catriona Baker, was telling the truth about that ‘high tea’.

But Hall does not agree. He has put forward a series of reasons which, to him, suggest that Madeleine may already have been dead by Monday or even of the Sunday evening of that week.

In a crucial passage of her article, Brown writes this:

“The evidence points to the evening of May 3, 2007. A number of people stated they saw Madeleine up until that Thursday evening, she was placed in the creche daily for babysitting while the parents enjoyed their freedom on holiday, there are photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz by herself and with family”.

She adds: “The next time you see a documentary purporting to prove a particular theory, make sure the filmmaker actually provides evidence supporting his theory…Pay attention to whether the filmmaker ignores evidence, manipulates evidence, or creates evidence…”

She continues: “[Hall’s] film is a profile based on theory, not on the evidence. I am not happy with the content…it is intended to convince the audience that the theory being presented is the only one that makes sense, that it is logical, and that there is evidence to support the theory..."Evidence" is either misconstrued, ignored, or created…One must suspend a good deal of logic altogether. The evidence does not support Hall's theory of When Madeleine died?; his agenda has created a theory and the theory then created a profile and the evidence [has been] manipulated or ignored in order to create a belief that this theory has merit. Evidence should make the theory; the theory should not make 'the evidence'."

These are serious charges…‘manipulating evidence’. Brown’s attack on Hall is clear. She suggests that his film is an improbable theory based on no evidence at all.

This article examines whether she is right.


It should also be noted that Brown in her article rounds on those who claim that Madeleine’s death might be connected in some way to a child abuse ‘ring’ needing a top-level government-organised cover-up. So far as I am aware, Hall has not said in any of his three Madeleine films, or his lecture tours, that he thinks Madeleine’s death is connected to such a ‘ring’.

Therefore, so far as Hall’s films are concerned, her criticism cannot be directed at Hall, but must be directed at others.

Similarly, she refers to some who say that Madeleine was sexually abused before she died. Again, so far as I am aware, Hall has never said this in any of his films. It is therefore incorrect of her to bring these particular allegations – which others, but not Hall, have made, into her critique of Hall’s films. Hall has been entirely silent so far about how she might have died.

She also implies – twice - that Hall says both that Madeleine (a) died at some other time and (b) ‘under far more horrific circumstances’. In fact, Hall says (a), but he does not say (b). Once again, Brown is wrong and has misled her readers. Hall says nothing whatsoever about ‘more horrific circumstances’.

I will deal essentially, then, with the claim that Pat’s theory - Madeleine dying sometime after 6pm the night she was reported missing – has more evidence to support it than Hall’s theory that she died on Sunday or Monday.


A little bit must first be said about the respective track records of Brown and Hall.

Brown is a nationally-known figure in the U.S. She styles herself as a criminal profiler and has trained in criminology. She has written books on the subject. She writes a prolific blog. She has appeared on U.S TV numerous times, giving her opinion on serious crimes. She has a high profile and a respected track record.

Moreover, when she heard about the Madeleine McCann case, she called it a hoax very early on, even within weeks of the initial reports. Her experience told her that something was deeply wrong about the parents’ story and their reactions to her disappearance. She later released an e-book about the case on Amazon, only for the McCanns’ lawyers to threaten Amazon with libel proceedings unless she withdrew it, forcing Brown to sell it on less popular sites.

Not only that, but she actually visited Portugal, admittedly only after she had planned to attend a court hearing in the marathon McCanns –v- Amaral libel trial, which was subsequently adjourned before she was due to travel. She met Goncalo Amaral, and she also did some original research in Praia da Luz together with an ex-pat former British police officer in the region who had taken a great deal of interest in the case.

Against that track record, Hall can offer a degree in Electrical Engineering, and a track record in what can conveniently be summarised as ‘conspiracy theories’. He has a longstanding interest in the subject of UFO’s. He has made controversial films about events such as the 9/11 atrocity in the U.S., the 7/7 bombings in London, and the recent killing of the British soldier, Lee Rigby. Comments made in the last of these films led to action being taken against him by the broadcasting authorities.

It is not a promising background for one who wants to pronounce on a high profile, complex and controversial case of alleged child abduction. He did, however, pay a week-long visit to Praia da Luz as part of his research on the case. And quite plainly, he has researched the case in detail.

It is possible for an experienced criminal profiler to get something wrong once in a while. It is possible for someone whose trade is perceived as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to get some things right. Let us not forget that even the much-maligned conspiracy theorist David Icke was making clear allegations that Jimmy Savile was a serial paedophile 20 years or more before Savile was eventually exposed, after his death.

Yet, despite their very different histories and backgrounds, Brown and Hall share a common belief that Madeleine died in her parents’ holiday apartment and that there has indeed been a deliberate, sustained attempt to cover up that fact.

It must also be said that Hall did not begin to make any comment about the Madeleine McCann case until sometime in 2011. When he did venture to suggest that the McCanns’ story may not be true, some of his audience reacted adversely. It wasn’t until 2013 that he began to research the subject seriously. And then, as he puts it, he realised how the mainstream media had simply not told the public a whole host of facts which suggested that Madeleine had died in her parents’ care and he began to claim that there had been an organised cover-up of the truth about Madeleine’s reported disappearance.


So, with those points in mind, let’s start by reviewing the reasons Brown gives in her article for preferring the time of Madeleine’s death at after 6pm on Thursday 3 May. These may be summarised as follows, using her own words:

1) A number of people say they saw Madeleine up until and including the Thursday she was reported missing…Hall has ignored all reports and evidence of Maddie being alive until May 3rd

2) Madeleine was placed in the creche daily for babysitting

3) There are photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz by herself and with family

4) It appears that all was well until the evening of May 3, 2007 and then all hell broke loose

5) The evidence from the dogs’ alerts is that Madeleine fell behind the sofa and died there

6) [Hall suggests that there was] a cover-up and body disposal team [which] rushed into town to help the McCanns deal with this and stage an abduction – but surely they would hardly decide to wait until Thursday to stage an abduction and then stage it so badly that it doesn't even look like an abduction and prepare everyone so badly that the Tapas group couldn't even keep their stories straight...this is believing that a skilled ‘clean-up’ crew chose the most amateur plan of action possible. Couldn't this top level team even open a window, add a few tool marks, make a footprint or two, and muff up the room a bit? How about planting some fake hair or phony fingerprints?

7) They would have had to have the McCanns parade around Praia da Luz for four days minus one child, pretending a dead child is alive or parading around a fake Madeleine, and dismally staging an abduction scene

8) Nannies would have to be coerced into lying

9) Creche paperwork would have to be forged

10) In discussing the Last Photo, he produces expert evidence that it was not photoshopped, but Hall oddly alludes to the possibility that the ‘Tennis Balls’ photo was photoshopped...couldn't he get the experts to analyse that photo as well?

11) One of the rules of getting away with murder is the less people know about the crime, the better. The theory of an
earlier death date and a bigger organisation behind the cover-up requires so many people to know the truth and lie to the police and media that it would be impossible for the truth not to have come out.

12) Ignoring the behaviours of the Tapas members on May 3rd.

It is worth noting, however, that despite her evident disdain for improbable ‘conspiracy theories’, she does concede - as indeed she must - that: “There is evidence that there is some quite unusual level of political support for the McCanns and a huge amount of media, money and resources used in this case of a missing child that far surpasses any in probably the entire history of mankind.

Hall tackled that subject in a major way in Part 4 of his first Madeleine film, ‘The True Story of Madeleine McCann’, and he did indeed hint at something possibly illegal or immoral that was being hidden by a high-level government cover-up, with which the McCanns must somehow be connected.

At least he tried to explain what Brown herself admits was (and very much still is, nine years on) a “quite unusual level of political support”, but I have never seen her try to explain this anywhere in her writings.

But let’s now get down to examining Brown’s catalogue of ‘faults’ with Hall’s film and his theory of an early death.



Brown’s Point 1 was that Hall had ‘ignored’ the evidence that many people had seen Madeleine alive up to and including 3 May. That is a manifestly false charge. Whether you agree with Hall’s eventual conclusions or not, one simply cannot claim that he ‘ignored’ this evidence.

Very much the reverse. On the contrary, he first painstakingly took us back from the moment the alarm was raised – about 10pm on May 3 - through every claimed sighting that day. Matthew Oldfield’s’ check at 9.35pm, Gerry McCann’s check at 9.05pm, David Payne seeing the children the McCanns’ flat at 6.30pm, the sighting at the Paraiso beach restaurant, the high tea at 5pm to 6pm, Madeleine in the background of a photo taken by Stemcor Director Philip Edmonds – all these were examined in a great amount of detail. Not ignored. He then spent about 45 minute undermining events earlier in the week: the claim that Mrs Fenn heard Madeleine crying, the magazine article claiming that the Boyds’ boy Louie had been playing football with Madeleine for an hour, and so on.

If he didn’t demolish these ‘sightings’, he most certainly raised major doubts about them. And finally he dealt with around a dozen very vague statements, mostly by Ocean Club staff, who claimed to have seen Maddie sometime that week. Making use of a major piece of research by Lizzy Taylor (‘HideHo’), published in late 2015, in which she analysed every such ‘sighting’ and found that none of them provided clear-cut evidence of Madeleine being alive, Hall reached the same conclusion. He shared with Lizzy Taylor her suggestion that a statement by a cleaning lady, who saw all five members of the McCanns walking from their apartment to a friend’s apartment, was the last time there was reliable independent evidence that Madeleine was seen alive.


So Brown’s Point 1 is invalid. What about her Point 2 – that Madeleine was placed in the crèche (in the daytime)? Again, Hall has not ignored that apparent evidence. How, then, did he explain the crèche records, and the evidence of the creche nanny, Catriona Baker, that Madeleine was in her group all week? He did so by revealing in his film several very important contradictions in Catriona Baker’s evidence. Now, some may believe that Catriona Baker was a wholly honest witness and that somehow all the various contradictions in her evidence can be explained without too much difficulty.

But, once again, Hall has made his claim based on a considerable amount of evidence in his film. It cannot be said that he has ‘ignored’ it.


So, on to Brown’s Point 3 – namely, her claim that “There are photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz by herself and with family”. This is a very glib comment by Brown and suggests that she may not have studied the nature of the photographic evidence of Madeleine’s presence in Praia da Luz that week.

There are only five photographs of Madeleine that week. Three, as Hall explains, were clearly taken on the first day of the holiday - Saturday. Hall has explained in the film, his evidence that the ‘Last Photo’ may have been taken on the Sunday, not the Thursday. It is a serious allegation to make. His justification appears to be twofold: (1) that the weather conditions on the two days (warm and sunny on Sunday, cloudy and cooler the rest of the week), coupled with how Gerry, Madeleine and Amelie are dressed in the photo, and (2) the unaccountable 3-week delay in publishing the photo.

That leaves only one other photo, the ‘Tennis Balls’ photo. There are claims that two different people took this photograph. It is said to have been taken on two separate days. Hall makes the tentative suggestion that it could be photoshopped, and gives his reasons, though he does not produce any expert evidence to back up his claim.

So, in summary, only four photos definitely taken on the holiday, three on the Saturday and one quite possibly on the Sunday, and one ‘maybe’ – the ‘Tennis balls’ photo.

Where are all the others that week? This does not seem to bother Brown in the slightest. It would be good to hear if she has a clear and convincing explanation as to why we don’t have them.


Brown’s Point 4 – that it “appears that all was well until the evening of May 3, 2007 and then all hell broke loose”, seems to amount to saying this: that this holiday was entirely normal for McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends, until sometime after 6pm on Thursday 3 May, when Madeleine had a terrible, fatal accident in her parents’ flat, and that by about 8.30pm to 8.45pm, the whole group could sit down calmly for dinner in the Tapas bar, chatting to others like the Carpenters, and the waiters, having between them arranged (before then) to get rid of Madeleine’s body.

Brown adds that the abduction hoax was so botched that it must have been done in a terrific hurry. She bases her theory, along with Goncalo Amaral, on the assumption that all concerned told the truth about Madeleine and the twins having ‘high tea’ with some crèche nannies between 4.45pm and 6.00pm that afternoon.

It is hard, from all of Brown’s writings, to determine whether she has thought this scenario through. According to her theory, sometime after 6pm Madeleine had an ‘accident’ so severe that she died. She says, like Amaral, that she probably ‘fell off the sofa’. I am not sure how likely it is that a fall from a sofa could kill a child. I suggest it is very unlikely.

But if this did happen after 6pm, what happened to her body? It wasn’t there when the police called at just after 11pm. It is doubtful, under this scenario, if it could still have been in the apartment after the McCanns and their friends went down to dinner at about 8.30pm. So, in the space of little more than two hours, did the McCanns:

(a) tend to Madeleine
(b) tend to the Twins and make sure that they got peaceably to sleep
(c) get over the shock and compose themselves
(d) share the news with their friends
(e) swiftly get rid of their daughter’s body in a hiding place where nobody could find it
(f) arrange a ‘cover story’ of checking the children at regular intervals
(g) clean the apartment and remove any traces of any accident befalling Madeleine
(h) arrange the abduction scene in the childrens' bedroom
(i) open the shutters and window
(j) get themselves cleaned up and dressed for an evening out and after all of that,
(k) calmly sit down with their friends for dinner as if nothing had happened?

This appears to be Brown’s theory, except that she has in the past given credence to the claims of the Smith family, from Ireland, that they saw someone – at about 10.00pm that evening - who looked very much like Gerry McCann carrying his dead daughter through the streets of Praia da Luz.

Now the time the alarm was raised by the McCanns and their friends was also around 10.00pm. We must ask: how credible is it that Gerry McCann would take the huge risk of carrying his dead daughter for about half a mile through the streets of Praia da Luz at the very same time as the alarm was being raised? Moreover, where at that time of night could he possibly have found a place to hide the body, and then return calmly to the Ocean Club and his apartment as if nothing had happened?

Moreover, how was it that only the Smiths saw him – but no-one else reported seeing him, either on the way to hide his daughter’s body, or on the way back?

If, however, on Brown’s scenario of a death after 6pm, Madeleine’s body had already been moved from the apartment before they all went down for dinner, that then raises a further problem in relation to the evidence of the two cadaver dogs.

Normally, a body has to lie in a place for at least two hours before dogs can, months later, detect the past presence of a corpse in that place. If Madeleine’s death took place after 6pm, and her body was removed before the McCanns went down to dinner at 8.30pm, that barely leaves two hours before cadaver scent contaminant would have enough time to linger for a cadaver dog to detect its presence three months later.


Brown’s fifth point against Hall’s film is that: “The evidence from the dogs’ alerts is that Madeleine fell behind the sofa and died there”. As far as I am aware, Hall does not contradict that possibility, so Brown’s point is irrelevant. However, Brown should have been more precise in her statement.

She can certainly say: “The evidence is that Madeleine’s dead body had lain below the window for at least two hours or so”. But no-one knows where the sofa was when Madeleine was lying dead there. Moreover, no-one can be as dogmatic, as Brown is, and state: “The evidence is that Madeleine fell behind the sofa”. That, as Brown must recognise, is only one of many other possibilities.


Brown’s Point 6 is a point of some substance. In terms, she suggests that the abduction hoax was so badly carried out that it cannot possibly have been planned three or four days in advance. She also suggests that a crack-team of cover-up experts would have thought of things like ‘adding a few tool marks…fake footprints, fake hair and phony fingerprints’. It is a reasonable point to make.

I have already explained above the improbability of a group of nine being faced with a death of one of their children after 6pm, and then sitting down calmly two hours later with arrangements already having been made to dispose of Madeleine’s body. If, as both Brown and Hall accept, Madeleine died in the McCanns’ apartment, then surely we must look at the arguments that her death happened earlier than that.

It is not as if Hall hasn’t given his reasons. He has. The absence of undisputed confirmed sightings of Madeleine by independent witnesses. The sudden change of the McCanns taking breakfast and lunch in their own apartment after Sunday. Evidence that the ‘Last Photo’ was taken on Sunday, not Thursday. The absence of photos of Madeleine that week. Stories, evidently false, trying to ‘prove’ that Madeleine was alive until Thursday, like the untrue article by the Boyds in First magazine. The absence of Madeleine’s DNA in the apartment. Hall covers these and other issues. Perhaps Brown could return with another article, carefully considering, point by point, the evidence that Hall has presented in his film for an earlier death?


Brown’s Point 7 is to ridicule any idea that the McCanns could either ‘parade around Praia da Luz for four days minus one child, pretending a dead child is alive’, or ‘parading around a fake Madeleine’.

Once again, this is a point that Hall does address in his film. Indeed, he specifically mentions that the McCanns may have arranged things so that they never appeared in public together with the twins. Hall mentioned:
a) taking breakfast in the apartment
b) taking lunch in their own apartment, whilst the rest of the group ate together at the Paynes’ and
c) using different doors when exiting or arriving back at the apartment.
d) Making excuses for Madeleine being absent from a group trip to the beach.

He also explained how, as the sole crèche nanny for Madeleine, Catriona Baker would have been in a very good position to pretend that Madeleine had been attending the crèche, when she wasn’t. He gave instances of contradictions in Catriona Baker’s evidence.

He did not suggest in his film that the McCanns ‘paraded around a fake Madeleine’, so that is another false charge levelled against Hall by Brown.


We can conveniently take Brown’s Points 8 and 9 together. She says that Hall is wrong because “Nannies would have to be coerced into lying [and] creche paperwork would have to be forged”. Hall’s answer is that it needed only the co-operation of Catriona Baker, as the sole nanny of Madeleine’s ‘Lobsters’ group, to agree to allow Madeleine to appear in the daily crèche register. No other nanny needed to be involved. No other crèche records had to be falsified.

It is admittedly a serious accusation to suggest that Catriona Baker could have done that. In support of his accusation, Hall produced indications, but not amounting to strict proof, that Catriona Baker and the McCanns may have known each other before that holiday.


I addressed Brown’s Point 10 above. Yes, ideally Hall could have got an expert opinion on the ‘Tennis Balls’ photo to back up his tentative claim that it may have been photoshopped.


I will deal with Brown’s Point 12 before examining her Point 11. Point 12 is: “Hall ignored the behaviours of the Tapas members on May 3rd”. It is by no means clear what she means by this. Hall has said quite a lot in his films about the conduct of the Tapas 7 that day. Until she makes it clear what alleged behaviours Hall has ignored on that day, it is impossible to answer her charge.


So, finally, to Brown’s Point 11, which is this: “The fewer people who know about a crime, the better…an earlier death requires ‘a big organisation’ behind any cover-up, requiring so many people to know the truth, and lie to the police and media. “That it would be impossible for the truth not to have come out”. This point is often made, and it is a very valid point. Hall does not explicitly address this on any of his films.

If one follows the logic of Brown’s theory of a death after 6pm on 3rd May, which is identical to that of Goncalo Amaral, then probably the only people who would know about her death would be the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends.

If for a moment we look at Hall’s theory, which is shared by an increasing number of McCann researchers, who might have been involved in any cover-up?

Here are some considerations.

First, Hall mentions in his film the striking information that a subsidiary, Resonate, of the massive PR firm Bell Pottinger, was for some reason sent to Praia da Luz in the days before top people from Bell Pottinger descended on Praia da Luz the very day after Madeleine was reported missing. This fact was mentioned in a leading PR magazine, which also reported that the Managing Director and a colleague stayed on when the top men from Bell Pottinger arrived. These two personnel from Resonate, so the magazine reported, actively helped with liaison with the British ambassador and the British and Portuguese police. It was very helpful for them to be actually there on the ground the moment the alarm was raised about Madeleine.

Who called them in for that week, and why?

Second, for those who suspect that Robert Murat might have been actively involved in any cover-up of Madeleine’s death, how do we explain him apparently getting out of bed at nearly 2.00am on Monday 30 April to book a flight to Portugal the following morning at 7.00am? Did someone from Praia da Luz summon him from England to provide urgent assistance? The reason for his dash to Portugal has never been explained. When he was interviewed by the Portuguese police and made a suspect, he gave a demonstrably false account of his movements in the three days he was there before Madeleine was reported missing. Why? And, for that matter, why - when Gerry McCann was asked, very early on, ‘Do you already know Robert Murat?’ – did he reply: “I am not going to comment on that”, instead of simply answering ‘No’?

A third indication comes from the statement of Nuno Lourenco, which Hall covered in his second major Madeleine film. He showed how a Polish visitor, Wojcheich Krokowski, was deliberately ‘fitted up’ by Lourenco as a possible suspect for Madeleine’s abduction. This must have been planned in conjunction with others. Moreover, coming back to Murat again, Krokowski was a holidaymaker that same week in the Sol e Mar apartments, run by a company connected to Murat, and hairs of the same haplotype as Murat were also found in Krokowski’s Sol e Mar apartment. Krokowski and his wife also ate many meals at the Burgau beach bar, owned and managed by Murat’s aunt and uncle, Sally and Ralph Eveleigh.

A fourth indication is the rapid deployment of the Head of Risk for PT firm Bell Pottinger, Alex Woolfall, who was dispatched to Praia da Luz on the very day after Madeleine was reported missing. Why was he there in Praia da Luz on Friday 4 May? What was so urgent? – Madeleine could have been discovered alive even as he was on the plane to Portugal.

Woolfall’s and Bell Pottinger‘s clients were Mark Warner, who organised this holiday at the Ocean Club. Why did Bell Pottinger need to send over their top man to Praia da Luz. Was the disappearance of Madeleine McCann connected in some way with goings-on during that holiday? The question must be asked.

And what did Alex Woolfall do when he got there? As we saw carefully explained in Hall’s film, he spent time sorting through the SD cards of Gerry McCann’s camera, and may be others, deleting them here, cropping them there, and so on.

And a fifth indication of those who might have been involved in any cover-up actually comes from Brown’s words herself.

Earlier, as I noted above, she wrote:

“There is evidence that there is some quite unusual level of political support for the McCanns and a huge amount of media, money and resources used in this case of a missing child that far surpasses any in probably the entire history of mankind”.

Hall, by looking in detail at the evidence, has addressed this point and provided explanations for it in his three films. Brown has not.

One hopes that Brown will return soon to the subject of this very deep mystery, and try to answer, in detail, the mass of evidence that Hall has taken the trouble to set out in his films.

Richard D. Hall: Buried by Mainstream Media - The Madeleine McCann Government-led Cover-up

The Madeleine McCann disappearance has become one of the most enduring mysteries of our time. It has generated thousands of front page headlines in the UK press. Despite the unprecedented coverage, few people have any detailed understanding of the circumstantial and physical evidence of the case. The mainstream media has been used to create diversion and confusion over what really happened, rather than inform their readers about the facts.

The first film in this series, entitled “The Initial Storm” examines in a level of detail never described before in any TV documentary, the evidence of the first night when Madeleine is alleged to have disappeared. The second film, “Dogs Don’t Lie”, reports on the compelling findings of one of the worlds top sniffer dog handlers, Martin Grime, whose two dogs searched for scent at key locations in Praia Da Luz. The third film exposes the so called private investigations instigated by the McCanns, details of which have never been aired on TV before. We reveal evidence and detailed testimony about the government agencies who were claiming to be searching for Madeleine or helping the McCanns, but was this really their agenda? Our four documentaries represent the most detailed film based analysis of the Madeleine McCann story, leaving the viewer with an understanding of the comprehensive establishment led cover up, and offer suggestions as to what all the evidence really points to.

Following on from his earlier series of films about the Madeleine McCann mystery, Richard D. Hall examines in a level of detail never covered before in any TV documentary, the claims that Madeleine was abducted.

Numerous sightings of a man were reported to the police on different dates following the disappearance. This film examines the credibility of these sightings by looking at police witness statements, media reports and other evidence. After a thorough and extensive examination of all this evidence, the most likely conclusion is laid bare for all to see.

Once you have watched the documentary, your perception of mainstream media and establishment groups such as The BBC, The Cabinet Office, Scotland Yard and British Intelligence may well need a dramatic adjustment.

Richard D. Hall's third installment in the "Buried by Mainstream Media, The True Story of Madeleine McCann" series. This one looks at the lack of, and problems with, evidence showing Madeleine was alive after the first full day of the family holiday. What little evidence that she was alive from Sunday the 29th April to her reported disappearance on the night of the 3rd May is highly questionable and does not stand up to scrutiny.

Overview: "The past presence of a human corpse was detected in the McCanns’ apartment and in many other places associated with the McCanns by highly trained police sniffer dogs. This clue suggests that Madeleine may have died and her body lain in the apartment for a period of time. Assuming this is correct, what date and time did Madeleine die? The most logical way to address this question is to go back in time to determine what was the last piece of credible evidence, which proves Madeleine was alive. This film attempts to do this by forensically examining witness statements, photographs, physical evidence, police reports and media reports. In doing so the film exposes the agenda of the mainstream media which has, on the whole, helped to cover up the truth about the Madeleine McCann case"

This video was produced by Richard D. Hall with the express permission that it be freely circulated, copied and shared.

 To read all the discussions about Richard's films please see this section of the CMOMM forum:

PeterMac's Free e-book: What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

Gonçalo Amaral's 'Maddie: Truth of the Lie

Richard D. Hall: 'When Madeleine Died?'

Richard D. Hall: 'When Madeleine Died?'
Please click on image to view all three Madeleine films

Prime Minister introduces Prime Suspect to Royalty

Prime Minister introduces Prime Suspect to Royalty

Popular Posts


Follow by Email

Contact Form


Email *

Message *