Unsolved Madeleine McCann

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sanders said:
Mark warner resorts self contained and full of tourists & ex pat staff
Click to expand...

I did a bit of reading about it today. Yes, I can certainly see there is significant opportunity and questions over a variety of people. Plus multiple opportunities.

Lots of holes. Not quite as a simplistic position as my memory as relegated the case to.

The links that BlackCatRosie posted are very interesting.
 
Seems to me if you rule out the parents, the next best alternative is some sicko who wants to harm a child is actively on the lookout for a target of opportunity, like an unattended child sleeping in bed while the parents are away having dinner or drinks. Picked out this town because it has lots of tourists, probably just observed the parents going out and went and checked out the house. I would reckon already had an escape route planned out, and knew where to dispose of the body. I reckon by the time she was noticed missing she was already miles away.

Other theories about criminal gangs and the like I think are a bit fanciful. It could be done by one sicko acting alone and just staking the place out looking for an opportunity.
 
BlackCatRosie said:
Paedophilia might be at the root of the case...but not from outsiders, strangers...
I suggest you search for the "Gaspars statements" (Dr. Arul Gaspar and Dr. Katherina Gaspar), their statements are in the official portuguese police files. You might be surprised...

Here:
www.mccannfiles.com
www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk
textusa.blogspot.com (the most interesting and intelligent blog on the case ever!)
Click to expand...
The blaring scrolling text put me off.

Perhaps summarise?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Processos Vol XIII
Pages 3911 to 3915

Judiciary Police
National Directorate


TRANSLATION

Surname: GASPAR
First Names: KATHERINA ZACHARIAS
Age: +18
Date of Statement: 16/05/2007

"I make this statement in relation to the MCCANN family who are currently in Portugal.
...
To explain the way in which we met the MCCANN family, I would like to state that my husband knows Kate, as they both attended Dundee University between 1987 and 199
...
In September of 2005, Savio, I and E., who at the time was about 1 and a half years old, went to spend our holidays abroad, in Majorca. We went (page 2) on holiday with Kate, Gerry, and Madeleine, who would have been around 2 and a half years old and with the twins, Sean and Amelie, who were just months old. I remember that I was pregnant with I.
...
There was a couple, whose names were Dave and Fiona, and whose surname was PAYNE, I believe. I think that they were married and had one daughter aged about 1, named L. I remember that during those holidays that Fiona was pregnant.
...
Two or three days had gone by, we were all staying in Majorca where, in general terms, we had fun (Page 3) with our children. Possibly, around the fourth or perhaps the fifth day abroad, I remember an incident that stayed recorded in my head. I say this in this way, because I have thought numerous times about the incident that I am about to describe since that date.
...
One night, when we were on holiday, the adults, in other words, the couples that I mentioned were on a patio outside the house where we were staying. We had been eating and drinking.

I was sitting between Dave and Gerry whom I believe were both talking about Madeleine. I don’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like “she”, referring to Madeleine, “would do this”.

When he mentioned “this”, Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, whilst with the other hand he circled his nipple, with a circulating movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner there being an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. I looked around (page 4) to see “did anyone else hear this, or was it just me”. There was a nervous silence noted in the conversations of all the others and immediately afterwards everyone began talking again.

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was something very strange and that it wasn’t something that should be done or said.

Apart from this, I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to mention again that it was during a conversation, in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say precisely what it was about. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, L., though I’m not certain. He slid one of his fingers in and out of his mouth, while the other hand drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual manner. I believe that he was referring to the way that L., would behave or would do it.

I believe that he did this later on, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The only time, besides this one, that I was with Dave and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I met up with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona at a restaurant in Leicester.


I am absolutely certain that he said what he said and that he made the gestures I referred to, but that could have occurred in the restaurant in Leicester, even though (page five) I believe that it was later on, in Majorca. When I heard Dave saying and doing this a second time, I took it more seriously.

I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a different way from me or from the others. I imagined that maybe he had visited Internet sites related to small children. In short, I thought that he might be interested in child pornography on the internet.

During our holidays, I was more attentive at the bath times after hearing Dave saying that.

During our holidays in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to took care to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, my daughter E. I was very clear about this, as having heard him say that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E. alone.
...
The first time I heard of the terrible news about Madeleine’s disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal but he did not know.

I watched the TV thoroughly, and seeing the news coverage, I noticed that Dave was there, because I saw him, in the background, on the television images during the first days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Based upon that, I believed that he was on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal."

...
 
Dr. Arul Gaspar, Katherina's husband, also made a statement:

Volume XIII TOC, pgs. 3892 to 3601

3916 to 3920

Witness statement of Arul Savio Gaspar



Name: Arul Savio Gaspar

Date of statement: 16-05-2007

...
"During the period we stayed at the villa I remember a gesture made by David Payne.

I do not remember the context of the conversation between David and Gerry, but I do remember seeing David use his left index finger to rub his nipple, using circular movements, whilst he put his right index finger into his mouth, touching his tongue. This happened during a meal, at the end of the day in the villa, I do not remember the time or the date, but we would usually dine between 19.30 and 21.00 every day. I think this happened in the middle of the holiday.

I remember that when I saw this gesture I immediately thought it to be in very bad taste, independently of the context of the conversation they were having. We were sitting around a white plastic table in the villa. I don’t know if anyone else saw the gesture, apart from my wife Katherina. After this gesture, we did not notice any others and as far as i know, the gesture was not repeated.

We never commented on this gesture during the rest of the holiday and I thought no more about it.
...
It was during the days following the news of the abduction that we discovered that Fiona and David Payne were also with them in Portugal.

It was at this moment that Katherina showed concern at the gesture made by Dave in Majorca in 2005. Katherina remembered that when Dave made the gesture he was referring to Madeleine.

I only remember that Katherina saw the gesture at the time, I had forgotten the episode, it was never the subject of conversation.

At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.

It is my wish that the police are aware of my preoccupation with the gesture made by David Payne."

------------------


In a nut shell, Dr. Katherina Gaspar had strong suspicions about David Payne's behaviour towards litlle girls...
(and also about Gerry McCann, if you come to think of it...after all, he did not react to Payne's disgusting words and gestures, did he...? If it was my daughter Payne would be in need of some extensive dental and facial job...)
-----------------

Also, check the statement of a british social worker who was holidaying in Luz at the time of the disappearance, a Mrs. Yvonne Martin.

Processos Volume XIII Pages 3425 - 3428
Witness Statement

Date: 2007.06.13

Time: 12H00

Name: YVONE WARREN MARTIN


Profession: Social Services and Child Protection
...
"During the past month of May or more precisely on the 04th of May 2007, the witness was in Portugal, enjoying holidays, when at about 07H00 she turned on the television and watched an English news channel (BBC or SKY NEWS) where she saw an appeal to British citizens on holiday in the Algarve to offer all possible support to a British couple who were on holiday in Praia da Luz and whose daughter, a child, had disappeared on May 03, 2007.

As she works directly with situations of children at risk, and as she was very close to Praia da Luz, she went there with the intention of offering her help and support to the couple, she arrived there at about 09H30.

She clarifies that she did not leave immediately for Praia da Luz as she still had some things to do at home but left at around 09H00.
...

At the scene, she found a group of three people, two males and one female.

She went over to the group and identified herself.
Two members of that group, a male and a female, identified themselves as the parents of the missing child - the McCann couple.

The couple was visibly upset, and the mother was crying intensely.

The third person never identified himself, upon the witness's insistence the couple replied that he was a close friend of the family.

She adds that this third person appeared familiar to her.

Taking advantage of the information that she had heard on the news, she began questioning the couple about how often they had checked on the children, obtaining the reply that people would go to see them every hour.

As is normal and routine in her service, she asked whether Gerry was the biological father of the missing child, to which he replied yes.

She clarifies that she asked this question because during the course of her 25 years of service working with children at risk, it is very normal that when a couple has child and where the father or the mother is not a biological parent, the biological parent may have a tendency to come and "get" his child.
After having obtained the verbal response from Gerry, the mother, Kate, questioned what she was doing asking these questions which should be asked by the police, who were already on the scene in large numbers searching for her daughter, who had been taken by a couple.

At this moment, the witness notices that the couple began to have doubts about her capacity and she immediately showed them her official documents and credentials issued by the British government to calm them down.

Gerry took her documents and showed them to the third person and told him that they were authentic and were certified by the police.

...
Because she found it strange that Kate told her that her daughter had been taken by a couple, she tried to separate her from the other two individuals so that she could speak to her with more privacy, suggesting to Kate that they (Y and K) should enter the apartment, Kate aggressively rejected this idea and told her that they could speak on the street.

...
The witness then asked whether anyone from the Medical Centre had been with Kate as she was very agitated and needed some support, she was told they hadn't.
At this point, Kate told her that her daughter had disappeared 13 hours ago. It was about 10 in the morning.

Meanwhile a fourth individual came towards the group and identified himself as a journalist. The witness alerted the couple to the type of statements they should give and that it would be better for them to keep silent.

At this moment, the third person, who was always near to the couple and the witness, moved the couple away from her and the three of them talked in whispers for some time.

After this, and leaving the couple behind him, he approached the witness and told her that the couple did not want to speak any more with her, nor with anyone else.

The witness replied to him that if the McCann couple felt the need to talk to her later, she would be at their total disposal.

As she said earlier, this third person of the group is familiar to her, and thinks
that she may have come across him in the course of her work, as a suspect or witness.

She describes him as tall man, height about 1,80 m, about 35 years old, of normal physical complexion, with short, dark hair, with a round face and with a scar on the left side of his face running from the eyebrow to the check. He uses graduated glasses of small dimension with rectangular lenses. He spoke with a southern English accent and was wearing cream coloured trousers and a dark polo shirt
.
When asked whether that it would be possible to identify him from a photograph, the witness replied yes.

She adds that, after having spoken to the McCann couple, she spoke to the resort manager, and after identifying herself, asked him whether there had been a break-in in the apartment where the child was, to which he replied no but that the door was open as were the window blinds, which, according to Kate, should have been closed but were found open.

No more was said. Reads, ratifies, signs."

Processos Vol XIII Page 3429

Photographic Recognition File


"On 13th June, 2007 at the Portimao DIC, Yvone Warren Martin appeared before me, José Monteiro, Inspector, in order to proceed with photographic recognition.

When asked, she described the suspect and she was shown photographs of various individuals who made up the McCann couple holiday group.

Upon visualising the photographs, she recognised David Anthony Payne, an individual who appeared in several photographs, as being the person she referred to in her statements and who she supposedly had known on another occasion.

The present document was drawn up and after being translated by the interpreter, will be signed."

Three signatures

Processos Vol XIII Pages 3430 - 3433 or pages 141-143

YVONNE WARREN MARTIN

Places Worked:
1. Gateshead, Tyne & Wear
2. Southshields, Tyne & Wear
3. Newcastle, Tyne & Wear
4. York, North Yorkshire
5. Hull, Kingston Upon Hull
6. North Tyneside, Tyne & Wear
7. Plymouth, Devon


Witness Statement

Date: 2007/11/14
Time: 10H30
Place: DIC Portimao

Name: YVONNE WARREN MARTIN


Profession: Social Services and Child Protection Services

The witness has given a previous statement to this police force regarding the facts in question. This took place on 13-06-2007 and led to the inquiry of the statement that was taken. The witness confirms the complete integrity of that statement, everything was fully reproduced for this file. The witness was also shown attached page showing the places of work where she carried out her professional activities as Social Services Manager for Child Protection, having also confirmed that these were the cities where she carried out her professional activities.

She states that in the course of her contact with Madeleine's parents, described in detail in her previous statements, Kate told her that the child had been taken by a couple. During the meeting they had, the details of which are contained in her previous statement, she did not have the opportunity to ask in depth about this question nor about any other.

With regards to the individual who was close to Madeleine's parents when she met them, and who was later identified as David Payne, she reaffirms that the same individual seems familiar, possibly as this same individual intervened in a situation related to a professional activity of the witness. She clarifies that neither on that occasion, nor now that time has passed, can she remember concretely the place or the situation in which she may have come to know David Payne, but that she continues to think that the same individual is familiar to her but cannot state the particular situation.

She adds that her hypothesis is that she may have come to know him professionally through work, potentially having been colleagues at work or have worked at the same place but she cannot be certain where she met him as she does not remember

She says that about two weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, when the police made an appeal for information about a man, carrying a child, who had been seen in the Luz zone, and whose clothing was described, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police, telling them the following: : regarding the various details she observed during her contact with the McCanns it is her opinion that they could be in some way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.

She first found them aggressive and their reaction after she showed Madeleine's parents her credentials, also seemed strange to her. Afterwards she was informed that there were no signs of a break-in in the apartment. Knowing that they are doctors she found it absolutely abnormal that they left their children alone at home. Associating all of this with her professional experience, which tells her that in 99.99 % of missing children cases, the parents or other family members are involved, she felt it was her duty to inform the police of this.


She did this anonymously because she did not want to be bothered by the media. But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine's parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.

She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list.

No more was said. Reads, ratifies, signs."

(sorry for the looong post)
 
BlackCat, appreciate you posting extracts, if you could be so kind as to supply hyperlinks that would be great.
 
Ok, I read the blog site BlackCat suggested and it was very interesting.

Basically contends there is much evidence that isn't being represented/reported/given creedence outside of Portugal. Indeed, it suggests that the cover-up is coming from the McCann side.

here's a direct link to a page with a huge amount of resources and information

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com.au/
 
Whatever the validity of this information is or not, it does show another side to this. Plus it exposes prejudices, or at least mine, where I'm quick to call 'corruption' or 'cover-up' and fall into stereotypes of cultures without knowing much about it. Tis interesting.
 
Make your own mind about all this...I don't know why ithis line of investigation was not pursued, but, come to think of it, many, many lines of investigation were not followed through, in fact, the investigation was "killed" prematurely, God knows why (and the politicians of both countries too...)
Isn't it strange that Dr. Payne has such a serious suspicion raised about him and does absolutely nothing about it?! He chose to lie down and play dead about it...no libel suit against the Gaspars or Mrs. Martin...?!

And, it seems there are registries for the McCanns with the Main Crime Unit,

From: DC443 J.N. HUGHES
To: SIO, Operation Task
Department: Main Crime Unit
Date: 16th May 2008
Refª
Subject: Background Information- Gerald McCANN

"A search of the local section of the child abuse shows a registration number 19309 in the CATS system. A consultation with the DC Soand from the department in question confirms that this is just a file reference, but as a complement to Operation Task system for the purpose of reference."

...just for reference?! Why child abuse?! And why in the name of the father of the child?!
 
I can't & won't comment on the above, but one thing I recall is when there was the furore over the dna being tested:

The mccanns spokesman said words to the effect of: its a witch hunt by the portugese police, the british police know there is nothing to it blah blah

And someone from scotland yard was doorstepped by sky news:

We cannot comment on the specifics of a case that we are not investigating but we would think the focus is about where it should be

Or words to that effect.

Which has always stuck with me - the spokesman giving soundbites to the press, whilst the scotland yard guy implying clearly the investigation was proper and looking at the things it should be (without prejudicing any findings)
 
The more I look, - and yes, hello to our UK friends observing us now... for the record it's Australian Rules footy and it's our religion - the more questions I see.

Just goes to show unless you take the time to really dig around, just accepting the dominant media view, coupled with the compression that memory affords - how simplistic and narrow one's view can become. Well, mine. It's a very interesting case. Not just for the crime and the whole mystery itself, but the cultural aspects, least of all the conclusions/prejudices that can cloud stuff. Will be reading more on this.

And UK people, you are more than welcome to join up and partake in this thread - would be good to have you onboard.
 
Culturally the big theme was that the Portuguese couldn't be trusted, they were corrupt, incompetent, you name it... And they don't speak english or look like us

These messages came loud & clear from one camp, which may or may not have been under investigation themselves ;)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sanders said:
Culturally the big theme was that the Portuguese couldn't be trusted, they were corrupt, incompetent, you name it... And they don't speak english or look like us

These messages came loud & clear from one camp, which may or may not have been under investigation themselves ;)
Click to expand...

And I fell into that cultural stereotype when going off my memory too.
 
Sanders said:
Mark warner resorts self contained and full of tourists & ex pat staff
Click to expand...

Yes it is but apartment 5A is the exception. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id21.html

Their Apartment actually was outside the complex and actually located on a street corner. That's not to put me in the camp of her wandering off but I think it needs to be clarified that if there was a snatch or a wander off they did not need to enter the resort itself as this apartment was not in it.
 
grizzlym said:
The more I look, - and yes, hello to our UK friends observing us now... for the record it's Australian Rules footy and it's our religion - the more questions I see.

Just goes to show unless you take the time to really dig around, just accepting the dominant media view, coupled with the compression that memory affords - how simplistic and narrow one's view can become. Well, mine. It's a very interesting case. Not just for the crime and the whole mystery itself, but the cultural aspects, least of all the conclusions/prejudices that can cloud stuff. Will be reading more on this.

And UK people, you are more than welcome to join up and partake in this thread - would be good to have you onboard.
Click to expand...

The tricky part is the deeper you dig, especially on the Internet, the more conspiracy crap you also find. It can be hard to sift through.

I think the stuff about Gerry McCann and even this other bloke is an example. Started by these two people and fuelled by nothing other than salacious speculation. There is simply nothing to back it up. It's been investigated (officially and unofficially) and there is absolutely zero evidence that either of these men has ever been involved in untoward behavior toward children. There's no evidence other than it was a terrible joke by a bloke who may well simply be a dickhead. As for Gerrys reaction, we dont really know much about him. I know people who'd react to that with violence as above, people who'd storm off or go silent, others who would feel terribly awkward and try to laugh it off, maybe regretting that later. All are generally normal people.

As I said early on, I do think a lot of the criticism toward the Portuguese police was driven by the UK tabloid media and amounted to little more than dog whistling racism. The bloody dagoes who obviously dont know what they're doing.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
The tricky part is the deeper you dig, especially on the Internet, the more conspiracy crap you also find. It can be hard to sift through.

I think the stuff about Gerry McCann and even this other bloke is an example. Started by these two people and fuelled by nothing other than salacious speculation. There is simply nothing to back it up. It's been investigated (officially and unofficially) and there is absolutely zero evidence that either of these men has ever been involved in untoward behavior toward children. There's no evidence other than it was a terrible joke by a bloke who may well simply be a dickhead. As for Gerrys reaction, we dont really know much about him. I know people who'd react to that with violence as above, people who'd storm off or go silent, others who would feel terribly awkward and try to laugh it off, maybe regretting that later. All are generally normal people.

As I said early on, I do think a lot of the criticism toward the Portuguese plods was driven by the UK tabloid media and amounted to little more than dog whistling racism. The bloody dagoes who obviously dont know what they're doing.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree completely. It also shows me what a narrow focus of reporting we got on this case. I don't know what to think; I just know there's a lot more out there than I thought a few days ago. I also know the media has played a huge part in shaping this case too.
 
Thanks to our new UK friends who kindly let me post this.

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
28 July 2011

SO NOW WE KNOW

They haven't got a clue down under - literally. The reporter fronting the recent Seven on Sunday programme announces an exclusive interview with Kate and Gerry McCann thus:

"Kate and Gerry McCann have lived a never-ending ordeal and they still don't know when, or if, it will ever end. It began on a family holiday in Portugal when Madeleine, their four-year-old daughter, simply vanished. She hasn't been seen since. Tonight the mystery deepens. You are about to see home video never shown before and learn the vital clue Madeleine left behind."

Unfortunately for the expectant viewers, they never get to learn what that vital clue is. Personally, I don't think it's Natasha Kampusch's psychological recovery from trauma. There are however other clues which, thankfully, did not drift onto the cutting room floor.

(Voice over): "On Thursday night, Kate put her daughter to bed for the last time."

KM: "My memory of that evening is really vivid. I mean she was really tired, but she was just cuddled up on my knee. We read a story, mmm...had some treats, some milk and biscuits, errm... and then after they'd done the usual 'toilet-teeth', errm... we went through to the bedroom and read another story 'If You're Happy And You Know It', errm... (long pause)...yep..." (silence).

And there it ends. No description whatsoever of actually putting the children to bed, despite Kate's 'vivid recall' of that evening. The account simply stops dead without a conclusion. This is a classic example of an unbalanced story, and one that's easily viewed with suspicion. Put very simply, if a story does not have a conclusion then there isn't one.

Kate next tells us that when the curtains blew up, they revealed that the shutter was 'all the way up' and the window had been 'pushed right across.' One of several highlights from the Channel 4 documentary (Madeleine Was Here) to be spliced into the proceedings, viewers are treated anew to the episode of the door being 'open much further than we'd left it.' Strange how Matthew Oldfield didn't notice the cold air inside apartment 5A, the various doors and windows having been open for twenty minutes by the time he is said to have peered into the children's bedroom from the lounge. Even stranger that Kate didn't notice the drop in temperature a further half-hour after that. (It was cold enough for Jane Tanner to have borrowed a fleece before setting off up the magic path of invisibility).

But the best is yet to come.

"Did you kill your daughter?" asks the lady journalist. Gerry answers:

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous."

Let's take this a step at a time.

"Did you kill your daughter?"

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.'"

This is Gerry speaking don't forget. For any other innocent mortal 'Absolutely not' would have been a sufficient response. Not for Gerry though. Despite his subsequent claim, he gives a decidedly unemphatic answer - 'No.' What follows is meta-language, where he is describing his earlier articulation of a word and does not address the underlying semantics in any way. Incoherent and unnecessary expansion then takes us away from the original question, referencing what has been 'purported' in Portugal, namely that 'Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.'

Next comes a cunning locking of the incident to a specific time frame, with the suggestion that Madeleine could only have had an accident when unattended. But Gerry slips up in questioning how it would have been possible for them to have disposed of Madeleine's body. In immediately substituting the phrase hidden her body he has already told us what in fact happened. Excitedly he goes on to ask why the parents should have covered up an accident. Why indeed.

It hardly comes as a surprise that Kate leaps in at this point, before Gerry's mouth can write any more bad cheques. She loses no time in elaborating upon the 'hide-and-seek' scenario played out that Thursday night, and the 'ludicrous' idea of their hire car being involved afterwards. But the damage has already been done.

The script, charitably outlined by Goncalo Amaral and fleshed out here by the McCanns, so as to exonerate themselves, depends entirely for its effect upon the premise that little Madeleine disappeared inexplicably that Thursday night; a premise that becomes less clear the closer it is examined. And Gerry is right. It wouldn't make sense to conceal an accident. unquote
 
Nice to see you folks down under taking an interest in this case, I'm a member of the Jillhavern forum, please feel free to join us or just browse, (http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/forum).
Of course none of us know what happened to Maddy, however, there is much information and inaccuracies surrounding the case which deserves serious scrutiny.
If any of you need any questions answered, I will do my best to reply as factually as I can, or post a direct link to the information you require. All the best, Thomas.
 
I am replying to an invitation from 'grizzlym' here to contribute to this discussion. I have signed up and registered in my own name, as has been my habit ever since I joined an internet forum.

This is my interest in the case. I have researched it for 5 years. I wrote a 64-page booklet on the case (published Dec 2008) which sold steadily in the UK until the McCanns succeeded in banning it by a restraining order. I have since published a 108-page second book on the case which consists entirely of relevant material from the official police files. Titled: 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files, Volume 1', the McCanns want to ban that book as well, but at present I am still allowed to sell it.

Currently I face prison for continuing to publish detailed research on the case and articulating my doubts, as a result of 'Contempt of Court' proceedings brought against me in the High Court by the McCanns. In the UK, these are classed as civil, not criminal, proceedings.

I will just say three things about the case.

First, an entire team of (Portuguese) detectives decided there were grounds for making the McCanns official suspects in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. Their reasons for doing so were summarised in an interim report dated 10 September 2007; that report is included in my latest book on the case.

Second, the senior officer in the case, Dr Goncalo Amaral, wrote a book on the case, titled: 'The Truth About A Lie'. The McCanns have brought libel proceedings against him; the final hearing of this long-running action will be heard in Portugal in January. From September 2009 to October 2010, the lower Portuguese courts banned his book as 'libellous'. But the Portuguese Appeal and Supreme Courts overturned this ban, awarding costs against the McCanns. His book is freely on sale throughout Europe, having been translated into 9 European languages already. It has sold >500,000 copies.

Third, two British cadaver dogs (springer spaniels), one trained to alert to blood and one trained to alert to the past presence of a human corpse, detected cadaver odour at 11 places associated with the McCanns: 4 places in their apartment, on 3 items of clothing belonging to them, at 3 places in their hired car and on a soft toy belonging to Madeleine. The dogs alerted to nowhere else in the village (Praia da Luz) where the family was staying. The McCanns have struggled to explain these findings. The dog handler, Martin Grime, is a recognised world expert on the handling of sniffer dogs and now works full-time for the FBI in the US.

Given my current legal situation, I had better not say any more right now, but I shall be pleased, if I can, to answer factual questions about the case.

Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine.
 
The McCanns have been very litigious - few of the UK dailies can have been spared their court actions. Bear in mind that UK law is heavily weighted in favour of plaintiff. So much so there is a trade in libel tourism

Hard to know where they find the time ;)

Tony,

Can you talk about exactly what your first book was banned for/under? What was the ruling
 
A welcome to our new UK posters. Great to have you on board. Given the paucity of information down 'ere, coupled with the rather narrow reporting, it almost feels like a new case.
 
Here is a the documentary film about Dr Goncalo Amara's opinion re the McCann's case. It's freely available on Youtube.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top