9news.com.au: Gerry and Kate McCann's reaction to sniffer dogs hitting on McCann holiday apartment and rental car 'didn't make sense'


9news.com.au - Finally the REAL story!

Gerry and Kate's reaction to sniffer dogs hitting on McCann holiday apartment and rental car 'didn't make sense'

By Mark Saunokonoko 2:18pm March 20, 2017

The footage of sniffer dogs searching the McCann's holiday apartment and rental car was one of the most jarring moments to emerge from the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine.

Gerry and Kate McCann, who resolutely claim Maddie was abducted, have always questioned the reliability and objectivity of British dogs Eddie and Keela, despite their impressive credentials.

During those searches, Eddie, a cadaver dog trained to detect the odour of a dead body, is seen alerting and barking in Kate and Gerry's bedroom of holiday apartment 5A.

Eddie also "hits" and barks loudly behind a blue couch in the living room of the Praia da Luz apartment where the McCann family stayed in 2007.

A second sniffer dog, Keela, trained only to detect human blood, also alerted behind the couch.

Six days later, on August 6, both dogs alerted on a Renault Scenic rental car the McCann's hired 25 days after Madeleine vanished.

Though the work of cadaver and blood dogs cannot be submitted as evidence, investigators hoped Eddie and Keela would provide crucial clues as to what might have happened to Maddie on May 3.

Just days after the dogs finished searching, the McCanns were sensationally named 'arguidos' by Portugal's Policia Judiciaria. Ten months later, Kate and Gerry were cleared of 'arguido' status.

US criminal profiler Pat Brown, who for almost a decade has studied the case and written extensively on Madeleine's disappearance, described Kate and Gerry's reaction to the sniffer dogs as "just not right".

"What dogs do is either help you find a body or they help you understand what happened to a body or that there has been a body there," Brown told Nine.com.au.

"[The McCann's] reaction to the dogs hitting on things, their reaction and behaviour was incorrect. It didn't make sense," Brown claimed.

Brown believed it strange that the McCann's did not appear "very concerned" that the work of the dogs indicated a dead body had been in their Algarve holiday apartment.

The crime expert, who analyses human behaviour, added the McCanns could just be "off the charts as an anomaly" when it comes to ways people might typically react to events.

During a 2009 television interview with Portuguese journalist Sandra Felgueira, Gerry McCann was asked about the cadaver dogs alerting to the scent of a dead body in apartment 5A and their rental car.

"I can tell you that we've obviously looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they're incredibly unreliable," McCann replied.

Kate McCann made similar assertions in the book she wrote about her family's ordeal, titled Madeleine.

Sniffer dogs Eddie and Keela had been brought to Praia da Luz in July 2007 at the request of Mark Harrison, a British investigator and national adviser to UK police who specialises in searching for people missing, abducted or murdered.

Harrison's remit from Portugal's Policia Judiciaria was to solely explore the possibility that Madeleine had been murdered and her body was concealed in surrounding areas, according to police files.

In one of his preliminary reports, Harrison said any alerts by the dogs may suggest that a body had been in the property and then removed. He added "no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence".

As Harrison delivered his report, Policia Judiciaria were submitting and awaiting results on forensic evidence taken from behind the sofa in apartment 5A and the boot of the Renault car.

A British scientist from the now defunct Forensic Science Service, John Lowe, came back to Portugal's detectives with forensic results that appeared inconclusive but open to interpretation.

In a September 3, 2007 email, Lowe stated the swab taken from behind the sofa produced an "incomplete DNA result".

However, Lowe continued: "All of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann".

Lowe said his testing of the swab from behind the sofa could not determine what kind of bodily fluid made up the DNA sample.

But, as would be later noted by the handler of sniffer dog Keela, his canine was only trained to alert to human blood, nothing else.

The forensics taken from the boot of the Renault Scenic was judged by Lowe to be "too complex for meaningful inclusion and interpretation".

However, Lowe also concluded that 15 of 19 components present in the sample could be linked to Madeleine.

Though "complex", the forensic results from the rental car mean it was possible that Madeleine may have been present in the Renault Scenic.
In his book, Goncalo Amaral, the Portuguese detective the McCanns tried to silence, said his team confirmed nobody had ever died in apartment 5A, prior to the arrival of Madeleine's family.

Martin Grime, the handler of cadaver dog Eddie, said the dog appeared immediately "very excited" when they arrived at the door of 5A.

"As soon [Eddie] has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises," Grimes said in a police interview in August 2007.

He detailed how the dog barked in two places in the apartment, in the bedroom close to a large wardrobe with shelves, and behind the sofa.

"What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times. He won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or anything like that," Grimes said in the interview.

Grimes also added in the police report that the work of his dogs Eddie and Keela should be backed up and confirmed with corroborating evidence, such as forensics.

Cadaver dogs are used widely by Australian police forces to locate dead and missing bodies, according to NSW Dog Unit Commander, Acting Superintendent Sheridan Waldau.

A/Supt Waldau told Nine.com.au he was unsure how cadaver dogs were used in the McCann case, but that his unit can "detect minute amounts of blood or remains across large designated area".

"Cadaver dogs … have proven vital to uncovering evidence in past investigations," he added.

Several studies have tried to pinpoint the minimum length of time it takes for a dead body to emit a cadaver odour.

A 2007 study from the University of Bern in Switzerland recorded highly trained dogs accurately alerting to cadaver scent within three hours of a person dying.

Other studies have shown human corpses with begin to emit cadaver that dogs can detect within 90 minutes of death.

NEXT UP: More explosive insight and analysis from criminal profiler Pat Brown; follow me on Twitter for next instalment

Official Find Madeleine Campaign - Kate McCann needs to take a break from trolls and false media stories



Oh very dear.

The death of her daughter, Madeleine, didn't take a toll on Kate's mental health.

Amaral's book did though.

And now Trolls and false media stories do (which their spokesman Clarence Mitchell gives to Tracey Kandohla)

Now then, who's next in line for a Carter-Rucking? Clarence or Tracey? Or maybe both?


This is the sort of toll Madeleine's death had on Kate and Gerry

Sympathy? Nah.

Doomed to fail again: Prime suspects Kate and Gerry McCann's Supreme Court annulment request 16th February, 2017 (because it was frivolous!)

February 16, 2017
 
 
Section 1
Case No. 1.454 / 09.5TVLSB.L1.S1
 
Your Excellency Doctor Judge Counselor Rapporteur,
 
KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN and GERALD PATRICK MCCANN, appellants identified in the case minutes, having been notified of the entire content of the STJ 1st Section's ruling, which redounded on the matter of the appeal for review, come, under the terms and for the purposes of the provisions of articles 615-1(b, c) and 4-1 and 666 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to argue for the assembly the
NULLITY OF THE RULING
What they do, on the following grounds:

The factual assumptions - which are supposed to be valid - of the logical argumentation set out in the ruling now object of complaint contradict and constitute a sense of reason opposite to that which is inferred from the factual ground of the decision,

 
 
Page 02
And this in particular as regards the conclusive epitome on the protection of the rights of the appelants to their good name and reputation, and their intimate relationship with the presumption of innocence or, if we wish to be more rigorous, the status of innocence that they enjoy.
Now,
It is established in the minutes, under point 15 of the factual matter, that, in particular :
(...)
" the non involvement of the parents, assisted witnesses, in any penally relevant action stems from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they displayed until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the reports from the (Birmingham) Forensic Science Service (FSS) and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
 
To this should be added that in fact none of the clues that led to their constitution as “arguidos" was later confirmed or consolidated.
 
 
Page 03
Let's judge it : the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the police was not confirmed, the residues that were marked by the dogs were not corroborated in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email (1) better examined afterwards, that ended up appearing to be inconclusive.
(...)
Tests and analyses were performed in two of the most prestigious and credentialed institutions - the National Institute for Legal Medicine and the British Forensic Science Service -, their final results having neither positively evaluated the collected residues nor corroborated the dogs' alerts.
(...) (2)
it was not possible to obtain any evidence that would allow for a average man, enlightened by criteria of logics, of norms and of the general rules of experience, 
 
Note 1: The email on the preliminary DNA analysis by the FSS of the samples collected in the car hired by the Mcs.
 
Note 2 : (...) is substituted to "In spite of all this" in the original document (the filing order)
 
 
Page 04
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 or opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively – and that's the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or, as it seems the more likely, she is dead.
(...)
Therefore, everything having been examined, analysed and duly pondered, considering what is left exposed, we determine
(...)
the archiving of the autos concerning the (by lawyer) assisted witnesses Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, due to the lack of clues of their practising any crime” (cf. Also, alinea AQ) of the established facts in the normalizing dispatch of the process).
 
The documentary proof that supported the determination of this fact as proved, even in the condensation phase of the proceedings, is, as a result, the order to file the aforementioned criminal investigation, together with the minutes on paper or in digital form.
 
 
Page 05
In the operative part of this order, one can read, immediately after the sentence "because there is no evidence that they have committed any crime", the express mention of article 277-1 of the CPP, through the concrete expression "in accordance with the provisions of Article 277-1 of the CPP".
 
In the light of this, it seems to the appellants that this STJ's Section can not lightly come to say in the ruling now matter of complaint, necessarily without falling (3) into a conspicuous contradiction of grounds, that the archival in question "was determined since it had not been possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appelants (cf. Quoted article 277-2)".
Just as (this STJ's Section) could not assert that it is not acceptable to assimilate the aforementioned filing order to a verified proof of innocence, precisely because the order to which that court refers,
 
Note 3 : this is a litteral translation, but the appropriate syntax for what is meant is "sem necessariamente cair...", i.e without falling necessarily...
 
 
Page 06
as a presupposition of the conclusion it reached, does not unexist (4) uttered under article 277-2 of the CPP.
As far as the appellants are aware of, the archiving at stake was carried out, in the course of the investigation, because sufficient proof had been gathered that the then arguidos did not commit any facts of a criminal relevance and in any way whatsoever, 
this conclusion substantiating an archiving for factual reasons,
A point that should have always meant inside the decision taken by this STJ
that, in this investigation, exists the necessary certainty that the persons then arguidos did not participate objectively, subjectively and individually in its (5) practice, whether as perpetrators or only as accomplices.
On the other hand,
 
 
Note 4 : read “exists”.  La Bruyère wrote that "Whatever we conceive well we express clearly, and words flow with ease”. It seems that here things aren’t as well conceived as they should to be understandable. Double negations are traps even for grammarians. As well read "could not assert that it is not acceptable” as “could not assert that it is unthinkable”
 
 
 
Page 07
Furthermore the appellants find that the conclusion reached in the ruling under complaint is lacking factual ground concerning the fact that the alluded filing decision is liable to be amended by various means, which is done with a view to removing from the minutes the application of the presumption of innocence principle.
 
However, the archiving decision, which is proven in the minutes, produces important preclusive legal effects, which are protected by the procedural law, having the force of res judicata, as, moreover, is foreseen in the schemes established by articles 279-1, 282-3 and 449-2 of the CPP.
 
That is to say, therefore, that the filing order uttered according to article 277-1 of the CPP, after the deadline of article 278 of the  same legal compendium, is res judicata (6) and is only subject to review according to the terms of articles 279 and 449-2 of the CPP.
 
That is to say, the invalidation of the grounds invoked by the Public Ministry's office in the filing order, made under the provisions of   article 277-1 of the CPP, can only be based on new facts or elements of evidence unknown by the Public Ministry at the investigation’s time and that, therefore,
 
Note 6 : I’m not a jurist, but I know that the Public Ministry’s job is not to judge, a function that is the privilege of the judges, nobody else’s.
 
Note : read “only new pertinent elements will be able to cast doubt upon the grounds…"
 
 
Page 08
could not be presented and produced in order to be assessed and pondered in the decision.

However, inside the factual matter established as proved in the minutes, there is no fact capable of constituting ground for the review or reopening of the investigation in question, there is thus no basis for the finding advanced by the court to the effect that the principle of innocence isn’t able to be alluded to in the minutes to restrict the right to  freedom of expression, because of the, erroneous, starting assumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation "was determined by the fact that the PM had not been able to obtain sufficient evidence of the commission of crimes by the appelants". (7)

Therefore,

we request that Your Excellencies deign : (8)

a) to hear the present nullity imputation,

b) to remedy the flaws of inconsistency between the factual basis and the conclusions reached in the ruling and the flaws of failure of ground, as stated above, 
 
Note 7 : The complexity of the filing order, erroneously called the “AG Report”, is likely related to the difficult task the Public Ministry was facing. And one has to admit that the dispatch is not written as the judges of the STJ remarkably write their rulings. Mr Murat’s arguido status, twice extended, required to put an end to the criminal investigation (the status of arguidos can’t be removed before the end of that investigation phase). Furthermore the acquaintances of the MCs rejected the request of the PM to go back to PDL and participate in a reconstitution of the 3rd of May events, though it was clearly the last chance for boosting the rather stagnant criminal investigation. The filing order is therefore full of bitterness, but one has to acknowledge an important point : the prosecutors foresaw very well what would be the situation of the MCs, stuck with a decision that wasn’t, couldn’t exonerate them and anticipated the unbearable doubt that would impair their life.
 
Note 8 : Note that the complaint starts addressing to Your Excellency (singular)
 
Page 09
All with legal consequences. 
Attached is a document proving that justice fees were paid.
Notification concerning this complaint was sent to the opposite parties by email on 16.02.2017 (9)
 
Note 9 : This document was published on PJGA on March 18, about one month after it had been sent to Gonçalo Amaral. Transparency is certainly not always the right attitude to adopt, but once announced it is fair to stick to it. MF has been rightly criticized for what has now become total opacity. Transparency is therefore, like unfortunately freedom of speech is often, just wishful thinking. But after all don’t promises only bind those who believe in them ?

Kate and Gerry McCann: Payback Time

Payback Time


Hello, Clarence. Remember all those years ago when we said you would pay for what you did?

___________________________________________________________

Clunk!

Clunk!

Clunk!


No, not the Wayback machine, the real one, the Payback Machine. One after another up they come before our eyes, the Verdict, the Final Judgement  and The Empty Cupboard. The main shelf of the cupboard is now labelled "Grange: facts in the McCanns' defence to emerge from the investigation." It is big, it is friendly and it is empty.

The Bureau always said that the McCann/Amaral case was a fight to the death. That was not rhetoric: one of the two sides was going to be destroyed - literally.  That was why we joined the struggle in our  own small way.

The Verdict resulted from the demolition of the McCann narrative  during the libel trial. It was the beginning of the end.

The Final Judgement provided, for the first time, a defence for the UK media in the libel courts after the McCanns' eight year attempt to muzzle it at source.  Eight years after the McCanns and their revolting Portuguese ally, Isabel "no friends" Duarte, ambushed Amaral in order to prevent the publication of his claim that "the child died in the apartment"  the couple are being relieved of 400 000 Euros and faced with claims in the tabloid press that - guess what? - the child died in the apartment.

Eight years older and four hundred thousand euros lighter, the McCanns are today faced with the publication in the Sun of claims that they are not body disposers but - guess what? - killers. The Sun  stuff  is far worse than the UK media ever produced in September 2007 while the couple cowered  in their hideous Rothley home waiting to find out if their lawyers would save them.

They did, the shelving and the Archiving Summary followed and the way was open to sue.

Clunk! Years later one of those lawyers sat in the Lisbon witness box listening to the McCanns'  claims and credibility being destroyed. Payback time. Two years later he has had the pleasure of hearing the lying "exoneration" claim  - that the McCanns and the slug-like opportunist Mitchell dishonestly presented to the media the day after the shelving - dismissed by Portugal's highest court.

Clunk! News International lawyers passed the Sun story last night. Clunk! Amaral's  draining of their resources leaves them without enough of their, ahem, own money to sue. That means Carter-Ruck taking on the Murdoch organization on no-win, no-fee basis. Good luck with that one.

The Empty Cupboard - the Reality Cupboard - has finally brought starvation. Nothing has emerged from the four year Grange investigation to strengthen their chances in any libel court, as News International knows. So far the McCann "team" has whined and snuffled at these claims but has made no threat to sue.

Amaral won. The McCanns are now being destroyed in front of our eyes. By Amaral and the public that they deceived. Grange is a footnote.
 

Kate and Gerry McCann blast ‘ignorant’ Marco Pierre White Jnr for sick Twitter rant about Maddie: “He comes across as a complete and utter idiot. His father must be appalled by his behaviour."





 The McCanns have attacked Marco Pierre White jnr in an exclusive Sun newspaper article after he attacked the McCanns on twitter.

QUOTE: A source close to ex-GP Kate, 49, and heart doctor Gerry, 48, form Rothley, Leics, said: “He comes across as a complete and utter idiot. His father must be appalled by his behaviour." UNQUOTE

If they think that's appalling behaviour then I wonder what they call their own behaviour for what they've done since Maddie died?

Bad language on a twitter feed hardly compares with concealing a corpse, faking an abduction, obtaining money by deception, and perverting the course of justice - which carries a maximum life sentence.

I'm not condoning 'sick twitter rants' but didn't Kate call the Portuguese Police "Fucking tossers" in her bewk for trying to find her daughter - the bewk she wrote for her children that also contained a graphic paragraph about Madeleine's torn genitals?

Anyway, here's the Exclusive Kandohla article:


MADDIE FURY
Kate and Gerry McCann blast ‘ignorant’ Marco Pierre White Jnr for sick Twitter rant about Maddie
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3119195/kate-gerry-mccann-marco-pierre-white-jnr-twitter-maddie/

The troubled reality star tweeted a shocking outburst against the couple

Exclusive
By Tracey Kandohla
17th March 2017, 11:20 pm

THE PARENTS of Madeleine McCann have today hit back at a foul-mouthed Twitter rant by Marco Pierre White Junior saying his cruel taunt is “entirely unjustified.”
Despairing Kate and Gerry hope “any right minded person will see his totally ignorant abuse for what it is,” their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said.
Kate and Gerry slammed Marco Pierre White Junior for his Twitter rant saying his cruel taunt is “entirely unjustified”
Marco Pierre White Junior launched a foul-mouthed Twitter rant at the McCann family
The troubled reality star, 22, tweeted a shocking outburst against the couple, who are now bracing themselves for the painful milestone 10th anniversary of their daughter’s disappearance in less than seven weeks.
In what could prove to be a legally “malicious and libellous” posting, he spouted a torrent of hate which he even stupidly mis-spelt.
Mr Mitchell told The Sun Online: “Kate and Gerry will not be dignifying his foul-mouthed abuse with any other comment.”
The heavily tattooed model, 22, son of celebrity chef Marco Pierre White, has a well documented problem with both drugs and his own mum.
He posted on Thursday for his 40,000 Twitter followers to see a vile rant with expletives.
He wrote: “Kate and Gerry MacCann are f*****g guilty sick mother f*****s defiantly killed there daughter. Look at money (dollar sign) they’ve made out of it in 10 years”
Big Brother favourite Marco not only mis-spelt the family’s surname documented millions of times but also said “there” daughter instead of “their” and used a dollar symbol, for allegedly bagging cash, instead of a pounds sign.
A source close to ex-GP Kate, 49, and heart doctor Gerry, 48, form Rothley, Leics, said: “He comes across as a complete and utter idiot. His father must be appalled by his behaviour.
“But even mentioning him and like-minded people might give them some sort of spurious credibility.”

Read more here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3119195/kate-gerry-mccann-marco-pierre-white-jnr-twitter-maddie/

Posted on CMOMM here: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13767-marco-pierre-white-jnr-attacks-the-mccanns-on-twitter

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown's radio discussion: "Quite a few experts" also agreed on theory that Madeleine McCann's parents might be involved in what happened to her


The criminal profiler whose Madeleine McCann theory has gone global steps Jade Robran through her reasoning on FIVEaa.
This week Pat Brown sensationally went public with her belief Maddie was never abducted, and instead died inside her parents’ Portugal apartment.

“I’ve been looking at this case for almost as long as the case has been around, which is now ten years,” she told Jade on Thursday. “I have found no evidence of abduction, there’s certainly nothing that supports that evidence physically, or behaviourally or circumstantially. Absolutely nothing.”

“But there’s a lot of evidence in another direction and that is what has really been suppressed a lot in recent years by the UK press and by the US press as well.”

Brown’s theory largely agrees with one put forward by the former lead investigator into Maddie’s supposed abduction, Goncalo Amaral, in a book called ‘The Truth of the Lie’.
Last month Amaral won a long legal challenge by the McCanns over the book…
“The McCanns sued him and had his book taken off the market and it went through the courts for many years and now has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Portugal, and they have ruled in his favour,” Brown said.
“[The judge] even came out and said the McCanns have never been cleared.
“When I came into the case and analysed all the evidence… I came to the same conclusion. I do support his conclusions.”

Brown said “quite a few experts” also agreed:
“It’s not only one person who believes this, that the evidence supports that the parents might be involved in what happened to Madeleine.
“It appears to me the evidence supports that something occurred, there was an accident while [the parents] were not there, and therefore Madeleine expired in the apartment.”
“You look for the totality of evidence, all of the pieces of evidence put together.”

To listen to Pat Brown's radio discussion click here: http://www.fiveaa.com.au/shows/jade-robran/inspector-explains-her-explosive-madeleine-mccann-theory



New article by Dr Vernon Coleman: The McCanns: Too Many Questions and Too Few Answers



The McCanns: Too Many Questions and Too Few Answers

Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA


There are few couples in Britain who are better known than the McCanns. And yet the paradox is that there are few public couples about whom less seems to be known. They are surrounded by mystery, confusion, controversy and contradictions. Has any couple ever sought publicity quite so determinedly and yet managed to remain quite so enigmatic? Has there been a crime in British history so well publicised and yet so full of unanswered questions? Has there ever been a crime where the truth has become quite so lost amidst rumour and what seems to me to be a lot of spin – some of it apparently organised by professionals rather than a pair of doctors on a holiday.

I know of no other couple in British history about whom so many questions have been asked and yet so few answers seem to be available.

Whatever the truth, we should not forget that the McCanns left their daughter unattended and so have to accept a good part of the responsibility for whatever crime occurred. And in February 2017, a judge in Portugal’s highest court pointed out that the McCanns have not been ruled innocent.

There still seem to be many unanswered questions and puzzles about this enormously high profile case. There are a host of contradictions. And yet millions of pounds of public money have been spent investigating Madeleine’s disappearance. Since we are now approaching the 10th anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance, it seems time for a summary of what we still don’t know.

The questions in this article are all genuine questions. I do not know the answers to any of them. (If I did I would write them as statements.) But I think it is in the public interest that the questions are asked. And I hope that one day they will all be answered.

Isn’t it about time a relatively small amount of money was spent taking the McCanns to court so that their story could be properly investigated? (I write as a doctor who has investigated many subjects and who has worked as a police surgeon.)

Surely a trial would help the couple by enabling them to answer many of the often asked questions? The suspicions will never go away. Indeed, I fear that the suspicions and doubts and rumours will grow stronger as the years go by. It is almost certain that whatever any of the Tapas Nine do with their lives, the first sentence of their obituaries has already been written.

I suspect that some parents might welcome an opportunity to put all the available evidence in the public domain and to have witnesses and critics properly and publicly questioned under oath.

Some might think that discussions about the case have in the past been limited by the McCanns’ alleged reluctance to answer some of the questions which have been asked, and by their willingness to take legal action against critics. It has been reported that the McCanns are threatening to sue Goncalo Amaral, if the Portugese policeman’s book The Truth of the Lie is published in the UK. This is odd because I believe that an English translation of Goncalo Amaral’s book has been freely available on the internet for some time.

It seems to me that the McCanns, the police and the politicians (how they became involved is a mystery in itself) have made things worse by what appears to be an endless publicity circus, which it seems to me was to some extent made worse by them or their associates. Precisely, what did Tony Blair and Oprah have to do with helping to find a small girl? What on earth made Prince Charles think he needed to get involved? It has, I understand, been claimed that in such cases, too much publicity can actually be harmful and can frighten abductors into doing something which they might not have planned. I suspect that is true.

Would not everyone – especially Madeleine – benefit if all the confusions and contradictions could be cleared away by a clear cut, forensic examination of all those involved and a proper analysis of the available facts? Would not questions asked, and answers given, under oath, help clear away the rumours and the fabrications – whatever their source?

Why I am constantly reminded of the confusion after the death of Dr David Kelly?

Over £12 million of taxpayers’ money has, it is said, been largely spent on looking for the alleged paedophile ring that the British police apparently believe is responsible for abducting Madeleine. To some, the police seem to be following the McCanns’ strong assertion, right from the start, that Madeleine had been abducted rather than following the possibility that she might have wandered or been killed in the locality.

The police will, of course, know that 70% of child murders are committed by people who know, or who are in some way close to, the child who is the victim.

(In reality, if Madeleine had wandered off then surely she would have been far more likely to have encountered someone who would have taken her home than that she would have happened to meet a wandering paedophile or paedophile gang?)

Is it true, as Kate McCann is reported to have claimed, that the shutters to the window of Madeleine’s room had been forced up? Or is it true, as others have suggested, that they might not have been forced? This is a simple and crucial question.

And here’s another mystery.

The loss of any human being is a tragedy.

But £12 million and more on an investigation into one missing child seems a good deal when other children go missing without any notable expenditure of public funds.

To put this in perspective, the current official ‘value of a prevented fatality’ in the UK is £1.83 million. In other words, that is how much the Government thinks it is reasonable to spend to prevent a single death. Every year, thousands of people die because the Government doesn’t think it is worth spending taxpayers’ money on drugs or surgery that would save their lives. This same figure must be used to justify road safety improvements. The NHS would not spend a fraction of the money spent on the search for a possibly imaginary paedophile gang even if it knew for certain that a life could be saved. This is of significance because the nation’s financial resources are inevitably finite. David Cameron, when Prime Minister, authorised the spending of this huge sum in this seemingly quixotic way.

Why was that?

Why are the McCanns apparently considered so very, very special and more worthy than thousands of other parents, grieving in similar circumstances? A growing number of people seem to feel that this is one of many mysteries that ought to be aired. It isn’t entirely absurd to say that anyone whose child goes missing abroad and who doesn’t have at least a bus load of Government employees fawning over them within a week should now feel cheated. And anyone who doesn’t have at least three cabinet ministers on the phone might also feel hard done by. Is it true that special branch officers escorted the McCanns back from Portugal? If so, is this now normal practice for all parents in such circumstances?

Surely, there could be no complaint if a little more public money were now spent on a proper investigation in a court of law. Indeed, would the McCanns themselves not benefit from an opportunity to put all the facts before a court?

Would not an independent analysis of all of the evidence help in finding a conclusion to this tragic case?

There are, it seems to me, a vast number of questions which could usefully be asked in a courtroom.

Here are just a few of the obvious questions which might usefully be asked and which would help remove for ever any undoubtedly unjust fears and suspicions some people might still have about Madeleine’s disappearance:

1. Is it true that the McCanns left their children at a crèche or play area in the mornings and the afternoons, and then left them unattended on at least some of the evenings while they were in Portugal? This seems odd to me because I would have thought that most people would, when taking their children on a family holiday, want to spend most of their time in their company. What was the relationship like between the McCanns and Madeleine before the trip to Portugal? Was Madeleine seen at the crèche or play area on the afternoon of the day she disappeared? And if so, by whom?

2. Is it really true that when the McCanns left their children unattended in the apartment, one of the doors was unlocked? I suspect that some people wouldn’t leave their camera or mobile telephone in an unlocked, rented apartment in a holiday area. Doesn’t it seem strange to leave three small children in such a situation? Have the McCanns ever taken public responsibility for their behaviour? Have they ever apologised for their behaviour? Is it true that Gerry McCann was playing tennis within days of Madeleine’s disappearance?

3. There is some confusion about how far away the McCanns were when they were dining. It has been said by Kate McCann that dining at the restaurant was akin to having a meal in the garden with the children upstairs in a nearby bedroom. (‘We were sitting outside and could just as easily have been eating on a fine spring evening in a friend’s garden, with the kids asleep upstairs in the house,’ she writes in her book.) But there seems to be evidence that the dining table was between 70 and 150 yards away from the apartment (different reports give differing figures) and it seems to me unlikely that anyone dining there could see or hear what was happening in the apartment. (I have seen it claimed that Gerry McCann has suggested that they were ‘essentially performing (their) own baby listening service’, though I find it difficult to understand this claim.) It has been claimed that the couple could see the apartment but this has been disputed. What is the truth? And even if they could see one outside wall of the apartment then, unless they are claiming to have X-ray vision, they wouldn’t be able to see what was happening inside.

4. The law in Britain is that if parents leave a child alone, and in such a way that the child might be at risk, then the parents can be prosecuted. Hundreds of parents are arrested every year for leaving their children (sometimes much older than the McCann children and sometimes for much shorter periods of time) without adult supervision. One father was arrested for leaving his child alone for just two minutes. Why was the behaviour of the McCanns considered acceptable? Since the McCanns claim that Madeleine was abducted (and this theory seems to be accepted by the British police) and that she must, therefore, have been left at risk, why have the McCanns not been charged by the British police? I believe the McCanns claim that their actions were ‘within the bounds of responsible parenting’ but is it not also the law in Portugal that it is an offence to leave children unattended? Why did social workers not take action over the fact that three small children had been left ‘at risk’? Would a single mother living in a council flat have been treated with such leniency if she had left three young children alone in an unlocked apartment? (In her book Kate McCann writes: ‘…we had a meeting with a social services manager and a local child protection officer. They went through various formalities with us and, while they took care to keep everything on a totally professional footing, I could tell they felt uncomfortable about having to subject us to this sort of scrutiny. But we’d resigned ourselves to it. We’d expected it, accepted it and we had nothing to hide.’) Whatever happened to Madeleine, there are doubtless many who find it difficult to avoid the feeling that her parents were at least partly responsible and that the authorities have behaved very strangely in taking no action. Am I alone in thinking that the McCanns should have been charged with child neglect? And should they have been allowed to remain in charge of their two remaining children? These are surely serious questions.

5. It has been alleged that Madeleine was a poor sleeper who occasionally walked in her sleep. Is this true? If so, was not it particularly risky for two doctors to leave her unattended in a strange, unlocked apartment in a foreign country? Did it not occur to either of them that a young child who was a poor sleeper and possibly a sleep walker might wander off through the unlocked door and then come to some harm? Is it not true that a babysitter could have been hired?

6. Prior to the holiday, was Madeleine ever given any form of medicine to help her sleep? Is it true that none of the McCann children was given anything at all by the McCanns to help them sleep during a holiday where their restlessness or failure to sleep might prove particularly inconvenient? Were any of the children given medication by anyone else?

7. How much alcohol did the McCanns consume while dining with their friends? Precisely how often did they check on their children? Are there no independent witnesses who can provide precise answers?

8. It is alleged that after Madeleine’s disappearance, the McCanns received telephone calls and/or support from Cherie Blair (the Prime Minister’s wife), Gordon Brown (the Chancellor of the Exchequer, due to become Prime Minister within weeks), Margaret Beckett (the foreign secretary) and the Pope. The local Ambassador is reported to have been involved. Is there any explanation for all this high profile support? The official figures in the UK show that a child goes missing every three minutes – well over 100,000 children a year. Do Cabinet Ministers telephone the parents of all these missing children? According to these figures, it is reasonable to estimate that several hundred children went missing on the same day that the McCanns lost their child. Did all those parents receive the same level of official support? If not, why not? Did Blair and Brown really provide the McCanns with a public relations representative? Who paid the bill? Can it conceivably be true (as has been alleged) that the British Government threatened to use the McCann investigation as a reason not to sign the Lisbon Treaty? Were SIS (MI5 and/or MI6) officers involved? Was it just a coincidence that alleged paedophile Sir Clement Freud had a holiday home close to the McCanns’ apartment? Is or was Gerry McCann a member of the Freemasons or any other private body? Has he signed the Scottish Bill of Rights?

9. Is it true that the McCanns continued to take their remaining children to the children’s play area after they had lost Madeleine?

10. What is the truth about the trained sniffer dogs which allegedly picked up the scent of a dead body in the McCanns’ apartment and in their hire car – as well as on Madeleine’s toy? Were these findings of any value? Were the dogs reliable? Was blood really found in the McCanns’ holiday apartment? If so, is it true that the blood was identified as Madeleine’s? If not, whose was it? There seems to be confusion about all these issues.

11. Is it true that Kate McCann refused to answer some of the questions posed by the Portuguese police? If so, why was this? Were any or all of the McCanns’ children conceived using IVF? Was Gerald McCann the father of them all?

12. Is it true that the McCanns have appointed a number of PR experts and high-powered lawyers (including extradition specialists and libel lawyers)?

13. Is it true that the McCanns’ friends had a ‘pact of silence’? If so, what was the reason for this?

14. Is it true that the McCanns refused to take a lie detector test? If so, what was the reason? Even if the test had not been admissible in court, it might have silenced some critics.

15. Is it true that the McCanns deleted some mobile phone records and that the Portuguese police were refused permission to examine medical, financial and credit card records? If so, why was this? Were the Portuguese police helped in every way possible by the British authorities?

16. Why did the McCanns form a fund raising company within less than a month of Madeleine’s disappearance? How did their limited company manage to spend £141,747 on administrative expenses in less than the first year? And was it really necessary to spend £26,113 on media monitoring? Precisely how has all the money donated to the Madeleine fund been spent? It has been claimed that the McCanns did not receive any remuneration from the fund but is it true that some of the money was used to help to pay the McCanns’ mortgage? If so, was that really what donors expected their money to be used for? Exactly how much of the money donated has been spent on legal fees on behalf of the McCanns? What was the McCanns’ financial situation before Madeleine’s disappearance? Why did directors of the fund resign? Why did last year’s accounts for Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited (as published on the ‘beta.companieshouse.gov.uk’ website) show that Madeleine’s Fund had £490,839 in ‘investments’? What were the ‘investments’?

17. As mentioned above, the British police are alleged to have spent £12 million of taxpayers’ money on investigating one particular possibility – the abduction by a gang. Have they spent any effort (and any of our money) on investigating other possible scenarios – such as, for example, the one which appears to be favoured by the Portuguese police chief who investigated Madeleine’s disappearance? If not, why not? Are not taxpayers entitled to know exactly how their money has been spent? What was the police reaction to the fact that a number of people thought that one of the photo fit suspects looked remarkably like Gerry McCann? (As an aside, the Portuguese police investigation seems to me to have been extremely thorough and professional.)

18. Why, within months of Madeleine’s disappearance, did Gerry McCann go to the United States of America to appear on television and visit the White House? Was there ever any suggestion that Americans might have been involved in the alleged abduction? Was there a theory that Madeleine might have been taken to the USA? Might it not seem odd to some that a parent should fly across the Atlantic when their daughter had gone missing in Portugal?

19. Have all the friends with whom the McCanns were dining been thoroughly investigated and cleared by the British police?

20. The chief of police who was initially responsible for the search for Madeleine has made some serious allegations. Have any or all of these allegations been investigated by the British police?

21. Is it true, as has been claimed by a former British Ambassador (though not to Portugal), that British diplomatic staff were under instructions to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities? Is it true, as has been alleged, that British authorities were ordered to be present at every contact between the McCanns and the Portugese police? If so, who initiated these orders? And why?

These are all simple and straightforward questions and to most of them there should, surely, be some simple and straightforward answers. There are, of course, many more questions. How many photographs of Madeleine did the McCanns take with them to Portugal? What happened to Gerry McCann’s sports bag? Were the contents also missing?

Given all the circumstances, the questions do not seem to me to be intrusive or unfair and they are not intended to be.

And surely the answers to them might, just might, help the police. It seems to me hardly believable that after ten years there is still so much mystery over some of the answers.

Might not the answers also help members of the public understand the background to Madeleine’s disappearance a little more clearly? And might not some of the answers help counteract some of the remarkable rumours, insinuations and assertions which now surround this case?

The McCanns seem to have been protected by some very powerful individuals. Inevitably, there are questions being asked. Why did three Prime Ministers, a Foreign Secretary, a Pope, much of the Foreign Service, a Prince, the police and most of the mainstream media put so much effort into protecting a fairly ordinary pair of middle class doctors from the sort of natural suspicion which would, in any normal circumstances, be considered perfectly proper and reasonable? Why was the abduction claim (made so immediately and without much if any serious evidential support) be regarded as the only real explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance?

Might not lessons be learned which could help other parents and help prevent something similar happening in the future? Every few minutes a British child disappears. The problem of missing children is a huge one.

Surely every step should be taken to safeguard all other children.

Isn’t that what everyone wants?

Copyright Vernon Coleman 2017


http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm

Maddie McCann case in The Sun: Tracey Kandohla's attack on Portuguese crime expert, Moita Flores



SICK MADDIE CLAIMS

Portuguese crime expert launches vile attack on Kate and Gerry McCann over their daughter’s disappearance

Moita Flores says he has 'no doubt' Maddie died inside the holiday flat

Updated: 15th March 2017,

MADELEINE McCann’s parents are facing fresh misery as a Portuguese crime expert spouts further outrageous claims over their daughter’s disappearance.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3093637/kate-gerry-mccann-fresh-misery-madeleine-death/

Discussed on CMOMM here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13756-portuguese-crime-expert-launches-vile-attack-on-kate-and-gerry-mccann-over-their-daughters-disappearance#360268

--------------------
No sooner did I leave just two very polite and useful comments (notifications below) on Kandohla's article than all the comments were whooshed, even though she leaves all other comments intact.

Looks like PeterMac's FREE e-book is a touchy subject for the Sun...?

Or maybe Kandohla only wants the 'vile troll' comments to further her and Clarence's agenda.


U.S. Investigative Criminal Profiler: "Scotland Yard bungled the investigation and slammed the crime fighting agency for “wasting time and money” on Madeleine McCann’s case"


By
Mark Saunokonoko

Scotland Yard has wasted almost $20 million investigating "ridiculous" theories that Madeleine McCann was abducted, according to a US criminal profiler.

Pat Brown, a profiler of cold cases in America and a regular guest on major US TV networks, said she was baffled by British police who failed to carry out a "proper investigation".
Operation Grange was launched by London Metropolitan Police in 2011, after Madeleine McCann vanished without trace from her family's Portuguese holiday apartment in May 2007.
The case, which continues to fascinate the world, remains unsolved.



   
US criminal profiler Pat Brown (right) appears on TV network CBS to discuss the Maddie McCann case in 2010. Source: CBS
"What Scotland Yard was doing was not a proper investigation," Brown told Nine.com.au.
"Scotland Yard went in saying the McCanns are not suspects, and that [the disappearance of Maddie] is an abduction. There is absolutely no way you should have entered an investigation saying that."
Scotland Yard is one of the world's most respected crime fighting agencies, making its approach doubly confusing, Brown said.
"Their focus has always been there was an abduction and we're going after a kidnapper."
   
Everyone, including parents Gerry and Kate, should have been suspects when Operation Grange was opened following a 2011 request by now British Prime Minister Theresa May, Brown said.
"They spent a tremendous amount of time following the most ridiculous leads ever. It was like watching a massive charade.
"To this day it's made no sense. They've spent an incredible sum of money going absolutely nowhere, coming up with absolutely nothing – not even a piece of evidence to add to the evidence we already know about."
This week Operation Grange was granted another $137,200 to cover operational costs through to September 17, a period that will include the 10th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance on May 3, 2007.
   
An unnamed source inside Operation Grange, which to date has been funded to the tune of $17.9m by the British government, claimed it was "a last throw of the dice".
Brown told Nine.com.au she believed Scotland Yard was handed a political football, where the results of the investigation did not matter.
The American profiler has spent countless hours poring over the entirety of official case files that were released by Portugal's Policia Judiciaria. She has also visited the town of Praia Da Luz.
Policia Judiciaria investigated the disappearance of Maddie, who would now be aged 13, between 4 May 2007 and 21 July 2008.
   
A picture of Madeleine McCann taken when she was three years-old (L) and a computer generated handout image released by the Metropolitan Police Service showing Madeleine might have looked in 2012, aged 9.
In September 2007 Gerry and Kate were sensationally named as 'arguidos' (a person being questioned under caution) by Portuguese police.
Goncalo Amaral, the detective who headed up the original investigation, claimed Gerry and Kate McCann covered up their daughter’s death in his book and a documentary.
The McCanns, who have always staunchly declared their innocence, last month lost their court battle to silence the former detective.
Brown met with Amaral while she was in Praia Da Luz, exploring key locations and surrounding areas relating to the case.
"There is evidence to lead one to believe the top theory should be Madeleine is dead," declared Brown.
   
Gerry (L) and Kate McCann, whose daughter Madeleine went missing from her family's holiday flat in the Algarve shortly before her fourth birthday in 2007, attend the recording of the "Beckmann" TV show where they presented their book 'Madeleine' on September 15, 2011 in Hamburg, Germany. Source: AFP
She said, having looked at all the evidence, there was "zero sign of abduction".

Operation Grange has investigated theories involving child sex traffickers and Maddie's abduction by burglars or pedophiles.
The child trafficking theory was initially raised by private investigators hired by the McCanns in 2007.
COMING NEXT: How Pat Brown's book on the Maddie McCann case was shut down on Amazon. Follow me to read the next instalment of Pat Brown's explosive interview with Nine.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/03/14/14/50/maddie-madeleine-mccann-abduction-theories-blasted-as-ridiculous-by-us-crime-expert-pat-brown#QaRObG4086i1wPP0.99

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/the-only-madeleine-mccann-theory-that-stacks-up/news-story/44291faa8d69db7e9d6b6a40fe4b5205

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

Followers

Follow by Email

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *