A very plausible case against the McCanns

At approximately 10pm on 3 May 2007, at Praia da Luz on the Algarve in Portugal, Kate and Gerry McCann presented the world with a mystery, the disappearance of their 3 year old daughter Madeleine.

Today, Ned Tenko writing in the Observer and reviewing Gonçalo Amaral’s book Maddie: A Verdade da Mentira (The Truth About the Lies) states, after briefly putting Amaral’s main points, “This reviewer – as well as any objective person – would surely by now have ruled out any of these possibilities. The book does nothing to change one’s view that there is no plausible case against the McCanns”.

Whilst Ned Tenko’s review of Gonçalo Amaral’s book is quite good, his view that the McCanns are innocent of guilt in the disappearance of Madeleine is mistaken.

Kate and Gerry McCann claimed that between 8-8.30pm they had left their three children under 4 years of age unsupervised in their locked apartment, only to return at 10pm to discover Madeleine was missing. They claimed that an abductor must have broken into the apartment, whilst they were away, and kidnapped Madeleine.

Rather than state “that there is no plausible case against the McCanns”, the abductor theory is not plausible, which means that the last people to see Madeleine alive, after 6pm,  were Kate and Gerry McCann. Ned Tenko describes the McCanns as “an ordinary, middle-class family”. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The McCanns in my book are best described as an odd couple. There is quite a bit about them which is strange to say the least.

According to Kate and Gerry McCann, there was no mystery surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine, because it was obvious to them that she had been abducted. They were certain of this. The McCanns have yet to explain why it is that they were so certain as to the fate that had befallen Madeleine. Whilst other holiday makers, locals, and the police and Mark Warner staff were out searching for Madeleine, the McCanns stayed in the apartment. This was odd. Because, if the McCanns were innocent, and returned from a night out to find their daughter missing, they would not have a clue what had happened to her. However, the McCanns claimed to know just what had happened to Madeleine. All they needed to do was to convince the rest of the world to accept their version of events.

Initially, the McCanns claimed that their apartment was locked and that an abductor had broken into the apartment and damaged the shutters when they were jemmied open. The McCanns had phoned their family and friends to give their version of events and told them to spread the word. Newspapers, radio and television picked up these reports and broadcast them as though they were factual reports. However, there were no visible signs of a break in according to John Hill, the Mark Warner complex manager. There was no evidence, according to the police and PJ, of any break in. Much later, even Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns media spokesman, confirmed that there was no evidence of a break in. However, the McCanns personally have not yet made any public statement why they lied about a break in. It has to be said, it is plausible that the McCanns lied to cover up their own involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.

It is plausible that at 10pm, before she raised the alarm, Kate McCann opened the apartment window. It had been cleaned the day before. Kate McCann was asked whether she had touched the window, and she claimed that she had not. However, only Kate McCann’s fingerprints showed up on the window during the PJ fingerprint testing. Once again, the McCanns have yet to provide an explanation to refute this evidence against them. Not only is there no evidence of a break in, there is evidence against the McCanns that they have lied twice in relation to the break in and setting the scene to look like someone broke in. It must be plausible that the McCanns are involved in the disappearance of Madeleine, and their attempts to blame someone else must be suspicious to say the least.

One of the most disturbing things about this whole case is the way that the McCanns keep changing their story of events. When the break in version starts to crumble, the McCanns then claim that they left the apartment unlocked. So, instead of an abductor breaking into the apartment, he simply walked in through the unlocked patio doors and supposedly climbed out of the window. Surely, it would have made more sense to walk out the same way? But, there needs to be an explanation for the opened window. It is plausible that the McCanns were desparate to keep hold of the abductor theory and adapting it later to fit the police findings. In my view, once the break in story was rejected the abductor story should also have been rejected. Then this leaves the McCanns with no explanation for the disappearance of Madeleine.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “A very plausible case against the McCanns”

  1. Ralph Fisher Says:

    I am 72 years of age & I must have been one of the first people in the U.K
    to study Industrial pyschology, this does not qualify me to pass on
    professional insights into the McCanns, but it does give me what I consider to be a good judge of human behaviour,& if you were to ask me I would
    say without fear of contradiction that the McCans are definately implicated
    to the point, that they tell so many lies, I just find the whole matter so
    incredible that nobody really takes up serious issue with Clarence Mitchell,
    & it would appear that everybody is fearful of the McCans, I would say
    that 100% the McCans are implicated, how I am not sure, their body talk
    says it all, (even down to Kate McCann clutching the little teddy bear).
    Do you know, I think that the truth will never out, these people are it seems far too clever & it makes me so sad for this poor little girl,
    Ralph Fisher

  2. Isabel Says:

    I for one think that the Portugal police have done everything that they could have, i also believe that the brittish police could have helped more! Why bring in the dogs to help, if they were not going to believe anything that the dogs found.
    I also believe in freedom of speach, but it is getting to the stage were everyone is being sued if the MacCans dont like what there saying!
    What i DONT believe is, that the MacCans did not have anything to do with Maddie going missing, i hope they are haunted for the rest of there lifes!

  3. Nick Says:

    Usually rubbish from the misinformed regarding the McCanns. Not a shred of evidence has been produced against them. Linking the McCanns to the murder of Jill Dando and other cases is just pointless. You need a better argument than this twaddle chaps!

  4. nick notts Says:

    I believe that maddie never made it too bed that night as she was already gone.
    Id like to see the proof that she was there in the apartment at 6pm as I don’t think there is any.
    Between 1pm and the time the McCann’s went to dinner I don’t think anybody had seen her alive and well at all.
    I would love to believe that they would not lie but 98% of cases like this turn out to be done by family or friends.
    God will judge them every time they look in the mirror at themselves

  5. Glenn Says:

    There’s something that niggles and bugs the life out of me. It’s the bloodstains found behind the sofa by two separate sniffer dogs. In his video, the Portuguese detective says there was evidence the area behind the sofa had been washed (where the dogs found miniscule blood stains). Yes, I fully understand the counter argument that this cleaning could have been done at an earlier date by a previous resident at the apartment, however implausible it sounds.

    However, but, and … the niggle and doubts persist. The evidence does seem to suggest that Madeleine McCann died in that apartment on the very night she was allegedly abducted. So why the bloodstains? Does that not suggest a violent death; a child thrown hard against something or hit hard enough to cause her death? Does accidental drowning in a bath tub or an overdose cause bleeding? I don’t know the answer to that one.

    The Portuguese police themselves came up with a possible theory that Madeleine may have fallen from the sofa, and died as a result of her injuries. Or was that just an opening in the hope that the McCann’s would come forward and speak?

    The strange thing is, if Madeleine McCann had indeed fallen, injured herself and died alone while her parents were out being middle-class socialites, why was it necessary for them to invent such an elaborate fairy tale? They could have said their daughter fell off the sofa and died as a result of her injuries. Nobody would have known they were at the Tapas bar; nobody would have disbelieved their story. Nobody would have known any different. Heck, they could have even waited until the next morning when they were sober.

    Unless of course, Madeleine died as a result of an extreme act of violence, and being medical professionals, the parents knew that any subsequent medical examination of Madeleine’s body would paint a very different picture indeed.

    On a personal level I am disinclined to believe that Madeleine McCann died accidentally. I believe that she may have been flung against the floor or wall, or struck hard enough to kill her. I don’t see any evidence that the so called Tapas Seven were in anyway involved in the disposal of her body. I believe their involvement stopped with the tissue of lies and deceit they spun to protect their McCann friends during the police investigation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: