Scotland Yard's Asst. Commissioner Mark Rowley should be ashamed of himself for bringing the Police Service into disrepute and perverting the course of justice by talking bollocks on national TV re: the betrayal of three-year-old Madeleine McCann

Scotland Yard's Asst. Commissioner Mark Rowley talking bollocks about the £11million Madeleine McCann cover-up which, don't forget, was only ever to "investigation the abduction as though it happened in the UK".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/madeleine-mccann-ten-years-police-still-pursuing-critical-leads/

Ruling by Portuguese Supreme Court - Parents NOT cleared of the involvement of the disappearance of Maddie: http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm
---------------

And this from retired Police Superintendent who doesn't have such a corrupt remit:

This is a precis for a new chapter of PeterMac's FREE e-book, currently being written:
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Recent hysterical Press reports are still concentrating on who could have done it, and are refusing to concentrate on whether it was done at all.

I could believe in an Abduction if I was presented with evidence of the MO - The Modus Operandi  - the evidential signs which detectives look for when investigating a report of crime, and which when placed in sequence can tell the story of what happened.

Many criminals stick to a particular MO which can be revealing for future detection

The list of points is long, but includes

Point of entry - window, door, front, back, side, locked or unlocked

Method of entry -  was it forced, using instrument or bodily pressure,  duplicate key, by fraud, by intimidation, silent,  . . .

Tools used - blunt instrument, sharp instrument, brick, concrete, wood, ladder, climbing . . .

Times between - 

Day of week -

Point of exit - as entry, or using door, climbing on furniture

Method of exit

Search - was this orderly professional, or amateur, 

Items taken - money, antiques, etc

Marks and items left at scene - fingerprints, foot prints, DNA, hair, clothing fibres, bodily fluids and solids, cigarette ends, artefacts from elsewhere

Victim - age, gender, characteristics

Trademark - eating food from fridge, drinking from bottles or glasses, using facilities, wanton damage to specific items, use of fire to hide evidence, cleaning, attempt removal of forensics

Witnesses

And so on.

Here we have - NOTHING.

No point of entry, 

No method of entry, (even Mitchell conceded both these)

No time window

No search

No items taken

No marks of any sort, inside or outside

No trademark

No witnesses

What then do we have ?

We have two people insisting that “For us, there is only the abduction theory possible", without providing or being able to point to a single piece of evidence.

And we have the top police and detectives of two Countries after a 10 year investigation unable to find a single piece of credible evidence

And by that we do not mean unable to find 'sufficient evidence to prosecute' - but unable to find a single piece of evidence.

Until we have that, there is no point in speculating about who might have done 'it'.

Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann forum for in-depth research and analysis: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/

The Betrayal of Madeleine McCann: Ex Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton jumps on Prime Suspects Kate and Gerry McCann's bandwagon to discredit the truth of Maddie's death

Detective Colin Sutton has drawn on his 30 years of policing to compile a list of the five most likely situations for his new book.

ByPaul Jollands

• 23:00, 21 APR 2017
• Updated23:03, 21 APR 2017

There are five possible scenarios that could explain Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
Colin Sutton has drawn on his 30 years of policing to compile the list.
He says: “Detectives like to put all the scenarios down in a flow chart system.
They then methodically go down each scenario and all the forks and branches that come off them.

“You go down the most likely scenario – the one likely to bring you success more quickly – and may come to a stage where you realise it’s the wrong scenario.

"Then you go back to the beginning and choose the next scenario.
“It’s like a game of snakes and ladders which carries on until you have exhausted all the options.”
The scenarios he came up with include one that she wandered out of apartment 5A by herself and had a fatal accident.
Another possibility is that a paedophile was watching the McCann family and deliberately targeted the youngster.
Here, Colin looks in detail at the five scenarios – and comes up with the most likely explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance.

1 The McCanns or the Tapas Seven

I can understand why the Portuguese police asked questions about the McCanns and the Tapas Seven.
As uncomfortable as it is, the first place I would have started looking is their group.

Without any other information to go on, the most likely scenario when a three-year-old girl disappears into thin air is that someone close to her knows what happened.
However, the police do appear to have decided quite quickly that was the only line of investigation they were going to take.
By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route.

2 Targeted kidnap by a trafficking gang

This is the most likely scenario once those closely linked to Madeleine have been ruled out.
This was not the first night that Madeleine and the twins had been left alone. Crucially there was a routine.
If you were watching you would know there were three children in that apartment and the parents were in the tapas restaurant. It would make it easier for abductors to pull it off.
Not only that, but if the Tapas group’s timings are accurate, it gave the abductor a 30-minute slot where they knew they would not be disturbed. Given all the facts we know, it’s the most likely and credible scenario.
A trafficking ring is more likely than a lone paedophile or paedophile ring. Yes there are paedophiles, yes she is a little blonde girl.
But I think six and seven-year-old girls are much more at risk from paedophiles or child abuse rings.
Looking at the trafficking angle, unless the order was specifically for a young blonde girl, why her and not one of the twins?
Babies have less memories than a three-year-old. If Madeleine is alive she will probably remember she had another mother and father and used to live in another house.
No risks of that if you take a baby. More importantly, babies have far less physical identity. They have not developed as a three or four-year-old has.
If you were stealing on spec you would have taken one of the twins. Not both, just one. So it goes back to a specific order for a young blonde girl.
Has a young blonde girl died and their parents want to replace her? Or is there another reason for stealing to order? When you pick it all apart it’s the most likely scenario.

3 She wandered off and had a fatal accident

Looking at it objectively, incidents of children wandering off are much more common than a targeted or non-targeted abduction.
This is also the scenario that police appear to have initially thought the most likely.
However Cuddle Cat is a compelling fly in the ointment with this theory.
If Maddie was as attached to Cuddle Cat as we are led to believe, she would surely have taken it with her if she had wandered on her own out of the apartment.

4 Opportunist abducted her

This is less likely than other scenarios.
The chances of a predatory paedophile just happening across Madeleine and being able to abduct her without being detected are just so remote.
Sarah Payne, right, who was eight (when she was killed by Roy Whiting in 2000), and five-year-old April Jones (who was killed by Mark Bridger in Wales in 2012) are probably the only cases that match something like that.
That shows how rare they are. Then there is the age.
It is uncomfortable to discuss, but most paedophiles are not interested in pre-school-age children. It does happen, but it’s the thin end of the tape. I don’t know of any other opportunistic abduction of a girl so young.

5 Killed as part of a burglary gone wrong

This is extremely unlikely. If you have got a burglar who has gone into the apartment for material theft, the chances are once they find there are kids in there they will run a mile.
Not only are there kids there, but they will assume an adult is also present. Going from stealing laptops, passports, etc, to taking a young child is too big a leap.
You are looking at two different types of criminals, two different types of crimes. It’s the least likely of all the scenarios.
Burglars are commonly drug addicts. They usually want something small, like cameras, tablets or jewellery, which they can easily sell for cash or even swap directly for drugs.
Junkies don’t take three-year-old girls.

• Anyone with information about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance should call the Find Madeleine investigation line on: 0845 8384699 or email: investigation@findmadeleine.com

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-stolen-order-just-10272346

Surprise Surprise - paving the way for closure, for the Operation Grange 'cop-out'.  Elementary my dear Watson!

Well, well, well...this is the same ex Detective Chief Inspector who started following me on twitter a couple of weeks ago and registered on CMOMM as a member.

I sent him a direct message on twitter giving him the link to Peter's e-book and asked him if he had an opinion on the Maddie case and that was the reply he sent me. He spent many hours on the forum and the blog.

I didn't realise he meant going to the media "to take part in the discussions" and then come up with that load of crap.

I had high hopes that he joined CMOMM to help Maddie, but obviously he's got a living to earn.How many more ex Top Cops are going to tarnish their reputations by jumping on the McCann bandwagon?

I guess the clue was in his twitter bio all along - he's a crime commentator. https://twitter.com/colinsutton

http://colinsutton.blogspot.co.uk/

http://www.colinsutton.com/csi/home.htm

http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/shows/evil-up-close/articles/interview-with-colin-sutton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CSm-gcl2hc - talking about Corrie McKeague "It's increasingly difficult to disappear without leaving a footprint...the sad truth is that the longer this goes on then the less chance there is of him being found alive"

What about the dogs and other forensic evidence, Colin?

Oh well Maddie, you win some, you lose some - despite all these top cops selling their souls to your parents and the newspapers, at least you've still got retired Police Superintendent PeterMac fighting your corner for FREE.
-----------
And a comment from CMOMM:

I'm very glad you posted that, @ Get'emGoncalo.

As a Mod, Admin informs us from time to time of things that we can't reveal on the forum.

So let me just add to what she has said by informing members and guests that Sutton joined here on 8 April and immediately logged on for a continuous period of 23 hours, 11 miutes and 53 seconds during which he spent the majority of the time reading PeterMc's e-book.

Thus this pathetic excuse for a 'detective' has absolutely no excuse for what he has written.

Clearly, the Daily Mirror editor commissioned him a few weeks ago to write a piece for him and no doubt the editor's instructions were something like: "Make sure it fully backs up the McCanns' story and Operation Grange - and make it as convincing as you can".

Rarely were the words used by 'Get'emGoncalo' "sold his soul" more appropriate. He will no doubt enjoy his ill-gotten gains, and dine out a few times on his 30 pieces of silver.

But his conscience will get to him. In his heart of hearts, he must know the strength and force of what PeterMac has written, and I predict that what he has written will become a continuing curse for him. His own soul and conscience will keep telling him that he has done wrong - and all for his tacky 30 pieces of silver.

Sutton's last visit to the forum was on Thursday. He has made no posts. He made a pretence of being geninely interested in the case. One more ex-detective willing to sell his soul.

Discussion on CMOMM: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13934p125-daily-mirror-18-apr-2017-what-really-happened-the-night-madeleine-disappeared#364233

--------

Does Tracey Kandohla want to be sued by Prime Suspects Kate and Gerry McCann by referring to "the anniversary of Madeleine's DEATH"

Screenshots taken from this article:  http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-parents-angered-upset-10270247?ICID=FB_mirror_main

Just goes to show that Tracey is monitoring us though, as she's now changed it.

Richard D. Hall: 'Madeleine McCann: Why the cover-up?'

First part of this new film has now been uploaded to Youtube.

UPDATE: This film has been removed from youtube, but can still be seen here:

Clear evidence that Prime Suspects Kate and Gerry McCann know that Maddie is not coming back

"We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing (...) I think it would be later this year (...) It wouldn’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that."

in "LET'S HOLD A MADELEINE DAY FOR THE WHOLE WORLD"
Sunday June 3, 2007
By Jason Groves
Daily Express

 

 If Kate and Gerry truly believe Madeleine is still findable then why are they planning so far in advance for events, media stories and bids for exclusives?

Rate My Teachers: 'Dossier of Death' author Philomena McCann, Ullapool - not many of the McCann clan left with a decent reputation, having disposed of Madeleine Beth McCann's corpse somewhere

http://uk.ratemyteachers.com/philomena-mccann/202514-t

Philomena McCann and the Dossier of Death

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/the-mccann-family-and-dossier-of-death.html

Philomena McCann before she realises she's on camera

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id250.htm

Philomena's husband, Tony Rickwood, and his depraved images of women:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8773-gerry-mccann-s-brother-in-law-tony-rickwood-removes-his-depraved-images-of-women-drowning-from-an-internet-site#210980 

Prime Suspects Kate and Gerry McCann: This was not true

From PeterMac's FREE e-book: 'What really happened to Madeleine McCann?' : This was not true

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I have tried to draw up everything that follows into an “Executive Summary”, hoping to encapsulate in as few words as possible the essence of what has emerged during this long analysis of the available evidence.

Interested and discerning readers are urged to follow to the fuller articles here, and to access the references, and then to research further for themselves.

Now that the total and repeated falsehood of the claim the McCanns were “not suspects”, and that they had been ‘cleared’ has been specifically rejected first at the Appeal Court, and then by the Supreme Court in Portugal, might it perhaps now be time to consider other things they said.

They said to relatives the shutters had been forced and broken	This was not true
They said the curtains were wide open	This was not true
They said the closed curtains had blown in the wind and the door had slammed	This was not true
They said the group had been checking every 30 minutes	This was not true
They said Gerry had entered through the front door using his key	This was not true
They said they could see the apartment from the Tapas bar	This was not true
They said they had been watched during the week	This was not true
They said they did not know Robert Murat	This was not true
They said there was no blue tennis bag	This was not true
They said the blood and cadaver dogs were ‘incredibly unreliable’	This was not true
They said they believed Madeleine could be in Morocco	This was not true
They said they had an experienced private detective company searching	This was not true
They said they had a second, more experienced detective company searching	This was not true
They said they had a third, yet more experienced detective company searching	This was not true
They said that a detective agency had not said they would find Madeleine by Christmas	This was not true
They said they had no more photos in their possession	This was not true
They said the Last Photo was taken on Thursday 3rd May	This was not true
They said the Tennis balls photo was taken on Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday	This was not true
They said they had cooperated fully with the Portuguese police	This was not true
They said they had answered all questions truthfully	This was not true
They said they had not deleted phone messages and records	This was not true
They said they would not leave Portugal until Madeleine was found	This was not true
They said they would take a Lie detector test	This was not true
They said they had never lied to anyone, police, media, or anyone else	This was not true
They said they had not discussed the case with the Tapas 7	This was not true
They said they had been offered a “Plea Bargain”.	This was not true
They said their reputations had been damaged by Dr Amaral’s book	This was not true
They said they were not suspects	This was not true
They said the shelving of the enquiry had ‘cleared’ them of suspicion	This was not true
They said the “Fund” would not be used for legal expenses	This was not true
They said the “Fund” accounts would be transparent and open	This was not true
They said the “Fund” was for searching for Madeleine	This was not true
They said they never called Madeleine - “Maddie”	This was not true
They said they had not placed much emphasis on the coloboma	This was not true
They said they believed in and supported Free Speech and “purporting theories”	This was not true
Is it now time for us all at least to be allowed to contemplate the following . . .?
They said Madeleine Beth McCann, aged 3 years, was taken from her bed
in the front room of Apartment 5a of the Mark Warner Ocean Club in
Praia da Luz on the Algarve in Portugal, during the evening of
Thursday 3rd May 2007, and was abducted by an unknown person	This was not true

Geneticist explains why there is no evidence AT ALL that substantiates the abduction of Madeleine McCann

Explanation of the DNA Analysis as detailed in the forensic report by John Lowe


Background

We all have 2 copies of every gene/stretch of DNA – 1 inherited maternally, the other paternally.

At some genetic sites, there are short, repetitive motifs called markers. Each marker will contain a variable number of repeated motifs. In diagrammatic form, a marker pair at any one site, could be represented like this, where the letters, ACGT, are the 4 bases which make up DNA (AAGTC is an arbitrary motif);

Maternally inherited marker AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC| 8
Paternally inherited marker AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC| 4

So, at this marker site, the repeat pair values would be read as 8,4
This would be shown as 2 peaks on a readout, at that site with relative heights on a compter-generated graph as 8 and 4.

A second site could be represented as follows (where CCGTCTA is an arbitrary motif);

Maternally inherited marker CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| 9

Paternally inherited marker CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| 5

So, at this second site, the computer readout would be 9,5

As you can see, the exact sequence of the DNA is irrelevant. It is just the number of motif repeats that is of significance. Therefore, any reference to a small chance of errors occurring during amplification of the DNA ie bulking up Low Copy Number (LCN) by copying a small amount of starting material, is irrelevant. The actual DNA code (ACGT) is of no interest, as long as the repeats of varying lengths, are present. Even if say a C is erroneously copied as an A, G or T (which is how errors can occur with individual letters) it does not affect the validity of this technique. It is akin to spelling the word “THERE” of 5 letters long and erroneously transcribing it as “THEIR”. The second spelling has a different meaning but all we are looking at here, is, how long is the word and how many times is it repeated? We don’t care about the meaning for this kind of analysis.


Creating profiles using the technique


Because the number of repeats each of us has at each of these sites is random, we can produce a unique profile, in terms of pairs of repeat values, over several sites.

If we were to look at 10 sites, with 2 values at each site, we will have 20 values, in pairs and that is an important thing to bear in mind. The power of the technique in terms of producing UNIQUE profiles is that we are not looking at 20 random sites giving 20 random values, but 10 pairs of values at 10 sites.
As touched on earlier, the computers that produce the data, do so by giving “peak heights” according to the length of the repeat. So a repeat length of 2, has a peak height of 2 units, a repeat value of 3, a peak height of 3 units etc., etc. These are the peaks referred to by Lowe.

The table below shows the way a unique profile of a child would be inherited from a given set of parental markers. The full set of 20 markers, in terms of 10 pairs of 2 values can be called the inherited genotype or genetic profile.
In the table below, the values I’ve listed at line “possible inherited marker sets at each site (child)”, are derived by combining each maternal value and with each paternal value in turn, resulting in 4 possible combinations. I have used arbitrary numbers for illustrative purposes.

NB at marker site no.8, I’ve shown how, if both parents possess the same number of repeats at a given site, there will be a 1 in 4 chance that a child could inherit the same number twice. A child inheriting the same number of repeats from both parents, in this case 9, will produce a profile that appears with only one peak at that site and in this example, it will have a height of 9 units. Cf the Lowe report where he explains that the DNA from the Rothley pillowcase (Madeleine’s control sample) yielded an apparent complete profile of 19 markers, not 20, because at one site, there was an inheritance of the same number of repeats from both Kate and Gerry. In fact, there would have been 2 peaks, superimposed on each other so appear as 1. Therefore, when Lowe says there were 19 markers this should strictly be described as 20 but 19 in terms of peaks.

Looking at the above, to produce a unique genetic profile for an offspring during reproduction, we randomly take 1 set of marker values (of the 4 we have to choose from) at each site. I’ve randomly taken one marker set at each site to produce an example of a profile shown below. It can then be seen that if we were to analyse these marker sets, we would get 2 peaks at each site on a readout, except site no. 8 in my example below, because of the inheritance pattern explained earlier. The probability of inheriting any one marker pair from a possibility of 4 options shown in the table above, is 1 in 4 or 0.25

What is the probability that the crime scene DNA described as having a 15/19 marker match did or did not come from Madeleine?

The probability of inheritance of any single full genotype at all 10 sites, from one set of parents = 0.25 multiplied by 0.25, 10 times, so (0.25)¹⁰ = 0.00000095 which is just over 1 million to 1.

Therefore, there are just over 1 million permutations of inheritance of 10 pairs of markers from any 2 parents. It’s a very powerful technique because we look at marker PAIR values. Lowe says that we all share these repeats and if you were to look at any one person’s DNA, you would find a selection of these numbers. That is true, but the chances of any value represented along with its paired value at any single site is not at all likely. As you can see, even inheriting the same pair values at one site among siblings is a 1 in 4 chance. Looking at the population as a whole, variation in repeat values at each site is much larger.

According to Lowe, the profile of the crime scene DNA yielded 15 markers that were identical to that of Madeleine’s pillowcase DNA. He says 15/19 because 4 markers were missing due to the DNA being degraded. Because the analysis is done as pair values at each site and you can’t have half a site nor half a pair value, it should be 16/20. The pillowcase DNA did have 20 markers which looked like only 19 as described above. If you look along the profile in the table above, reading from site 1 to 8, you will see that in fact, by column 8, you have 16 markers even though 2 are identical.

In this case, the probability of inheriting those same 8 pairs of markers at those sites from the same parents is (0.25)⁸= 0.000015 or 66.66 thousand to 1 chance.

What is the probability that a random stranger, not related to Madeleine, deposited DNA with those exact same 16 marker pairs over the 8 sites with a complete match to Madeleine? Many million to 1.

Discussion on the CMOMM forum: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12172-john-lowe-tells-us-there-was-a-match-to-maddie-in-the-car-more-about-dna-forensics

But there IS evidence of the death of Madeleine McCann in the McCann's holiday apartment.

The dogs were surely the final straw. Britain's top earning dogs, Eddie (cadaver dog) and Keela (blood dog), were taken by handler Martin Grime to an underground car park with a selection of cars and clothing. They alerted to places and items concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other places or items, and that fact does need to be repeated as often as we have time to do so. The alerts allow a short and tragic story to be told. Behind the sofa, on Kate's trousers (strong odour), on cuddlecat, to a shelf in the parents' bedroom, where a blue tennis bag had been photographed, then in the boot of the car, and on the key fob. The sequence is not difficult to follow! - PeterMac, retired Police Superintendent.

Prime suspects in the death of their child, Kate and Prof Gerry McCann: Their poor neighbours can't sell their homes

Prime suspects Kate and Gerry McCann's facebook webmaster, Pamela Gurney, is friends with woman setting up another fraudulent GoFundMe to scam £5k out of the public on behalf of Maddie McCann

Posted by jeanmonroe on CMOMM

What have you 'done'??

Or 'are doing'?

Surely NOT 'friends' with a 'possible' 5K scammer?

Oh, hang on, you are!!!

Taking 'advantage' of Madeleine's 'plight' is a big 'no, no'!

Ask the McCan'ts, paid over £244,000 FROM Madeleine's 'search' Fund, to date, 'spokesperson' CM.

Do the Prime Suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, Kate and Gerry McCann, feel miserable and feel fear as they wished Gonçalo Amaral would, and as their lawyers ensured he did?

http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/

Do the Prime Suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, Kate and Gerry McCann, feel miserable and feel fear as they wished Gonçalo Amaral would, and as their lawyers ensured he did?

Do Kate and Gerry McCann and Clarence Mitchell and the UK media now wonder what Dr Amaral's next move will be?

REJECTED (and still NOT Innocent of involvement in Maddie's death): Prime suspects Kate and Gerry McCann's request for annulment to Portuguese Supreme Court rejected

http://www.stj.pt/ficheiros/tabelas/Decididas/Civeis/1s-2017-03-21.pdf

Copied from the pdf

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice]
Descritivo: [description]
Tabela da Sessão de 21-03-2017 10:00 [ table/chart of the sitting/session on 21 March 2017 at 10.00am]
(1ª SECÇÃO) [[section 1]

Recorrente [applicant] : Kate Marie Healy Mccann
Recorrente: Gerald Patrick Mccann
Recorrido: [applied against] Gonçalo Sousa Amaral
Recorrido: Editora Guerra e Paz-Lda

decisão = [decision]
Indeferida = [rejected]