Posts Tagged ‘Gerry and Kate McCann’

It’s the public’s business to scrutinise the McCann business

February 6, 2010

When I first heard that the McCanns intended setting up a “Fighting Fund”, I wondered why and who or what were they fighting against?

Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester’s Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine’s father works“.

There is money to be made out of this.

Madeleine’s Fund created,

Companies House ‘Current Appointments Report’ shows that Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited’ was created on this day:

Current Appointments Report for:

company was created 12th May 2007

It was initially set up, on behalf of the McCanns, in 48 hours, by the International Family Law Group (IFLG). This does appear to be something of a rush job. When jobs are rushed mistakes can be made.

Business, charity, or scam?

It is thought the original idea was to set the fund up as a charity but this was rejected, according to The Times, when it became clear that a charity cannot be operated for the sole benefit of one person. The Charity Commission later denied this.

One of the things that distinguishes a limited company from a charity is that it does not have all the rules and regulations which govern the conduct of the fundraising and which controls the proportion of the charities funds that are spent on overheads, expenses and wages etc.

It was also reported at the time that the Charity Commission was extremely disturbed at the way the Fund was being advertised as it gave people the impression that they were donating to a charity – not a private limited company.

The reality is, however unpalatable, that Madeleine’s Fund is a private limited company and can therefore spend the money donated in any way it so chooses. The memorandum of association is so wide that practically any expenditure could be approved by the board of directors“.

Not for the first time do we have a dispute with the McCann version of events and that given by someone else or by an organisation. I think it is possible, for example, to set up a charity in aid of a child dying from cancer. If this is the case, then there is no reason why the McCanns could not have registered their cause as a charity. The problem from their end would be the lack of control exercised by the McCanns. So, it was decided to set up a company instead. Nevertheless, some people still labour under the mistaken belief that the Madeleine Fund is a charity. Even allowing for the McCann statements that it is not a charity, I feel that the false impression remains in some people’s minds because of the way that the McCanns keep aligning themselves to charities, and misleading reporting in the media such as this from the recent McCanns fund raising event “The £90,000 raised will be split between the Maddie Fund and two other missing people’s charities“. It implies that the Madeleine Fund is a charity. I have yet to see any demand made by the McCanns to correct this false information. Given that the McCanns have a history for wanting corrections made in the media on stories concerning themselves, why is there silence on their part?

Having established that the Madeleine Fund is not a charity, the focus turns to the question of a business or scam. An indication that the McCanns are in the business to make money, is their distasteful application to brand their missing 3 year old child as a trademark.

Trademark application filed

The campaign to find Madeleine McCann has applied for British and European trademarks to protect its fundraising, internet and print promotions. The applications, which were filed on May 18, seek to protect the name “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned”. The European application also seeks protection for the provision of social services and advice for people affected by missing children.

It appears as though the McCanns are laying claim to be the only persons entitled to earn money out of Madeleine’s disappearance. This does not sit well with the English law principle that criminals should not profit from their crimes. It is accepted that the McCanns have so far not been convicted of any criminal offence in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine. So, they remain innocent until proven guilty.

Bringing the McCanns to account is a long drawn out process. It will help if the Madeliene Fund is attacked successfully in the courts. It is hoped by doing this that rich backers like Brian Kennedy and Richard Branson will have a rethink about keep funding the McCanns.

I noted that it was originally stated that the McCanns would not use the Madeleine Fund in their criminal defence. And yet, the Madeleine Fund has been used to pay for the McCanns legal fight against Mr Amaral. The published accounts do not refer to it being used for this purpose in relation to Madeleine, but the court injunction clearly refers to Madeleine as being one of the claimants in the case. Once again we have an inconsistency from the McCann Camp.

It’s a business we are dealing with. I question the not for profit aspect. Accepting it is a business does not rule out the possibility that it is also a scam. Those conducting scams are in the business of making money. A legitimate business is not a scam, and a scam is not a legitimate business. My suspicion is that what we are really dealing with here is a scam. I do not have enough evidence to support a criminal beyond all reasonable doubt standard of proof, however, the civil standard of balance of probabilities does not look good for the McCanns.

I’ve seen the light

January 26, 2010

I’ve seen the light

I’ve seen the light
I know why Gerry was so furtive that night
Busy setting the stage
For the disappearance of Madeleine, 3 years of age.
There was not a Tanner let alone an abductor in sight.

“They’ve taken her. Madeleine has gone” Kate cried
On 3 May 2007, the day that Madeleine died
The McCanns know what they both did
One killed Madeleine and the other her body hid
About the “break-in” they both lied.

The People’s new little Princess
The McCanns ask “How to get out of the mess?”
That’s simple, you both only have to confess!

Simon Armitage’s Madeleine McCann poem

Simon Armitage’s poem about Madeleine McCann, published in times2 and to be auctioned for the Find Madeleine campaign

The Beacon

Dusk, doubt, the growing depth of an evening sky,
dark setting in as it did that night,
the forever vastness of outer space
reflecting the emptiness here inside,
shadowing, colouring, clouding the mind.

But somewhere out there there has to be life,
the distance only a matter of time,
a world like our own, its markings and shades
as uniquely formed as a daughter’s eye,
distinctly flecked, undeniably hers,
looking back this way through the miles and years

to a lantern cupping a golden blaze,
its candle alive with a fierce blonde flame
for the thousandth time, for as long as it takes.

JHL’s poem first published here

“Dead End For Madeleine” Say The McCanns

January 18, 2010

Madeleine Beth McCann

John Corner – a close friend of the McCanns – says…

“Kate and Gerry are relying on the Portugese police. They’re really their only hope to find Madeleine. And there’s an uncomfortable feeling that the police are not necessarily looking outward for Madeleine. They’re turning their attention inward to the parents and they know that that’s a dead end”.

Unfortunate choice of words…to say the least…

To be fair, it is Jon Corner who says that the McCanns know. And, it may well be that the interpretation means a dead end to that line of police inquiry.

Madeleine Beth McCann alive or dead?

January 17, 2010

Liars claim Amaral a liar

Gerry and Kate McCann claim that Madeleine is alive, whereas Gonçalo Amaral claims that Madeleine died on 3 May 2007 in Apartment 5A. In my view, Mrs Justice Hogg erred in law by stating in her judgment below: “there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive”. This appears to be a rather convenient way to dispose of the case. Whilst I would not presume to claim that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case, I do contend that the McCanns were wrong to invoke The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, simply because there is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted.

If it is valid to presume Madeleine is alive, surely it is equally valid to presume that Madeleine is dead?


Judgment of Mrs Justice Hogg at the High Court, Family Division, RCJ, London,
7th July 2008, in open court

Madeleine went missing on 3 May 2007 just a few days before her 4th birthday, while she was holidaying with her family in the Algarve in Portugal.

On 17 May 2007 Madeleine’s parents invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, and The Child Abduction and Custody Act, and the Hague Convention. They sought various orders and directions aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts and recovery of Madeleine. I became involved with the proceedings shortly afterwards.

On 2 April 2008 Madeleine became a Ward of this Court, and since that date has remained a Ward.

At all times jurisdiction was assumed by the Court because, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed Madeleine is alive.

She is a British Citizen, and like her parents habitually resident here.

The current application was made on 2 April 2008 by the parents seeking disclosure of information and documents from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire to assist them and their own investigations in their search for Madeleine. Such are the complexities of the issues involved other interested parties were invited and joined to the application, and directions given for the hearing today.

The parties have reached an accommodation whereby the Chief Constable will provide to Madeleine’s parents contact details of members of the public who had themselves contacted the parents or their solicitors, and which on receipt were immediately passed to the Chief Constable, together with a brief resume of the information given.

The parents do not wish to pursue other aspects of the application, and save for the draft consent order being approved by this Court wish to withdraw their application and seek leave to do so.

I have no criticism of the parents in making this application. They have behaved responsibly and reasonably throughout.

I have considered the documents provided to this Court by the various parties, and have concluded that the agreement reached by the parties is entirely appropriate, and that the parents should be permitted to withdraw the balance of their application.

I will make the Order by Consent as sought. In particular paragraph 1 of the Order made on the 22 May 2007 shall be varied with the words:

“The terms of this paragraph shall not apply to the Chief Constable of Leicestershire or any other United Kingdom law enforcement agency. And for the avoidance of doubt all the evidence submitted to the Court and the Case Summaries and Skeleton Arguments remain confidential to the Court save that the Chief Constable may use his discretion to disclose his evidence, case summary and skeleton arguments filed in this Court and the Orders of 22 May 2007, 2 April 2008 and this Order. Any other documents and their contents are not to be disclosed to any person or published save in accordance with Orders already made by the Court or further Order of the Court”.

It may be noted that neither of the Parents is present today. I let it be known last week that providing their legal team was fully instructed neither parent need be present, and I would not criticise or bear any ill-feeling towards them if they chose to stay away. It was my decision as they have suffered enough, and I wished to ease their burden.

I know the police authorities and other official law enforcement agencies in this country, in Portugal and elsewhere have striven and will continue to strive to trace Madeleine.

I urge anyone who has any information however small or tenuous to come forward now so that further enquiries can be made.

There is, of course, as least one person who knows what has happened to Madeleine, and where she may be found.

I ponder about that person: whether that person has a heart and can understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been torn and secreted from her parents and siblings whom she loves and felt secure with, and whom no doubt misses and grieves for. Whether that person has a conscience or any feeling of guilt, remorse or even cares about the hurt which has been caused to an innocent little girl: whether that person has a faith and belief, and what explanation or justification that person will give to God.

I entreat that person whoever and wherever you may be to show mercy and compassion, and come forward now to tell us where Madeleine is to be found.

I hope and pray that Madeleine will be found very soon alive and well.

I confirm the Wardship and Madeleine will remain a Ward of Court until further Order of the Court. The case will be reserved to myself subject to my availability.

Death in absentia

“In law, death in absentia is the status of a person who has been declared presumed dead when the person disappears but no identifiable remains can be located or recovered”.

Facts, circumstances, and the “balance of probabilities”

“In most common law and civil code jurisdictions, it is usually necessary to obtain a court order directing the registrar to issue a death certificate in the absence of a physician’s certification that an identified individual has died. However, if there is circumstantial evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the individual is deceased on the balance of probabilities, jurisdictions may agree to issue death certificates without any such order. For example, passengers and crew of the Titanic who were not rescued by the RMS Carpathia were declared legally dead soon after the Carpathia’s arrival at New York City. More recently, death certificates for those who perished in the September 11, 2001 attacks were issued by the State of New York within days of the tragedy. The same is usually true of soldiers missing after a major battle, especially if the enemy keeps an accurate record of its prisoners of war.

If there is not sufficient evidence that death has taken place, it may take somewhat longer, as simple absence does not necessarily prove death. The requirements for declaring an individual legally dead may vary depending on numerous details, including:

* The jurisdiction the individual lived in before death
* The jurisdiction where they are presumed to have died
* How the individual is thought to have died (murder, suicide, accident, etc.)
* the balance of probabilities that make it more likely than not that the individual is dead

Most countries have a set period of time (seven years in many common law jurisdictions) after which an individual is presumed to be dead if there is no evidence to the contrary. However, if the missing individual is the owner of a significant estate, the court may delay ordering a death certificate to be issued if there has been no real effort to locate the missing person. If the death is thought to have taken place in international waters or in a location without a centralized and reliable police force and/or vital statistics registration system, other laws may be in effect”.

Legal aspects of death in absentia

England and Wales

“In England and Wales, if it is believed that there should be an inquest the local coroner will file a report; this may be done to help a family receive a death certificate that will bring some closure. This will bring any suspicious circumstances into light. The coroner will then apply to the Secretary of State for Justice under the Coroners Act 1988 section 15, for an inquest with no body. The seven years rule will only apply in the High Court of Justice on the settlement of an estate. According to a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, the number of requests received each year is fewer than 10 but very few of these are refused. Without a body an inquest relies mostly on evidence provided by the police, and whether the senior officers believe the missing person is legally dead”.

Perhaps Gonçalo Amaral should consider seeking a court order declaring Madeleine is dead in absentia in Portugal? Or, someone maybe attempting this in England?

Photo: Hat-Tip

A crime mystery?

October 23, 2008

On the 3rd of May 2007, at approximately 10pm, at Praia da Luz in Portugal, the parents of 3 year old Madeleine Beth McCann declared her to be missing.

How was it possible for Madeleine to simply go missing? The simple answer provided by Madeleine’s parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, was that they had left Madeleine and their 2 year old twins, in the apartment alone, without supervision, whilst they went out for a meal and drinks with their friends. At the time stated, Kate McCann claimed that she left the tapas bar to check upon the children and discovered that Madeleine was absent.

Was it safe to leave 3 children under 4 years of age all alone without supervision? The simple answer is, no it is not.

Is there any evidence that Madeleine was asleep in the apartment along with the twins? The simple answer is, no. There is no evidence whatsoever, just the parents word that she was.

Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the parents are in some way responsible in the disappearance of Madeleine.


McCanns made their bed they should lie in it

September 4, 2008

Perhaps the McCanns should sell their house and and buy this as a punishment for leaving Portugal without Madeleine alive?

61 percent of the British and the Portuguese point their finger at the McCanns:

McCanns lie over no evidence

August 15, 2008

It is untruthful for Gerry McCann to claim “that Portuguese police documents show there is “absolutely no evidence” that his daughter Madeleine has been harmed, and that his family still believe she could be found alive“.

Gerry McCann’s arrogant boast is based upon his belief that he is confident that their concealment of Madeleine’s body will mean that it will never be discovered. True, the PJ have so far been unable to find Madeleine’s body. However, there are examples of successful prosecutions in the absence of a body.

Where the McCanns fall down is if there was an innocent explanation for Madeleine’s death, why didn’t they summon help, and why instead did they dispose of her body? Truth and innocence do not require a cover up such as a fake abduction story. And there was the fake break in story. And the fake sighting of the so-called abductor by Jane Tanner. The McCanns could not agree how they last saw Madeleine before going out to the Tapas bar, they gave different accounts. The truth only needs one account.

In this case, Chris McCann of the Crown Prosecution Service successfully prosecuted without a body.

McCanns: Internet not scared to ask the questions the Mainstream Media fails to ask

July 27, 2008

The Irish Independent today has a piece on the McCann case, Only McCanns know full pain of never-ending story. In a previous piece I accepted that the McCanns suffered pain. However, I concluded that it was self inflicted and that the McCanns could end it by confessing their sins. This would put an end to the never-ending story. The writer Eilis O’Hanlon wants us to imagine the trauma the McCanns have to endure. Why? What about the trauma suffered by Madeleine? Why does the Mainstream Media insist on making the McCanns out to be victims? There are only two victims in this case, Madeleine and justice.

Eilis O’Hanlon writes: “It’s difficult to know where the story can go from here”. This is fair enough. However, there is a big question mark over the journalist’s next observation.

“The internet obsessives will keep the flame burning a little longer, having determined long ago not to let a little thing like the facts stop them witch-hunting Kate and Gerry; but even they will give up eventually”.

This is a bit rich coming from the Mainstream Media which did not let the facts that there was no abduction stop them printing this inaccuracy. And, what about those on the internet pursuing the fact that the McCanns lied about the fake break in? Why didn’t the Mainstream Media pick up on this element of the story? And, when the McCanns stated that they answered all the police questions, and the internet pointed out that they had not answered 40 questions put to them by the PJ, why was the Mainstream Media silent on this issue?

You would think that the Mainstream Media would be saying to itself, why are the McCanns so intent on silencing criticism? That is the story they should be following. Because, behind the McCanns controlling of the Mainstream Media is their secret they wish to hide.

McCanns to get away with homicide

July 21, 2008

It is a huge disappointment to learn that Gerry and Kate McCann have had their arguido status lifted. This is not the same as clearing them of killing Madeleine and then disposing of her body. All it means is that the PJ were unable to pin down the McCanns with sufficient evidence to satisfy a court in Portugal of their guilt.

The BBC is reporting that their were failings in the case, for example, the “local police were criticised for failing immediately to seal off the apartment from which the three-year-old disappeared on the night of 3 May“. However, it should not be forgotten that before the police arrived about 50 people had traipsed in and out of the flat, which the McCanns did in order to contaminate the crime scene.

The BBC also states they should be criticised for not alerting the border force to a possible abduction. However, the BBC conveniently forgets that this case was never about a child abduction. It is about two doctors who killed and then disposed of Madeleine. The abduction story was a McCann invention to try and cover up their crimes. It should be remembered that the McCanns staged a fake break in which the police were quick to establish was an inside job and had nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged abductor.

The BBC also criticises the PJ for making the McCanns arguidos last September. However, I too would criticise the PJ. Not for declaring them arguidos at all, but for not doing so at the very start of the investigation. They allowed the McCanns too much liberty to get the media and politicians and big money interests to support them, thereby denying Madeleine the justice she so richly deserves.

UPDATE: Attorney-General’s statement:



By the dispatch of today’s date (21.07.2008 ) issued by the two magistrates of the Public Ministry competent in the case, it was decided that the inquiry relating to the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann will be archived due to insufficient proof of any crime having been perpetrated by the arguidos.


The status of arguido of Robert James Queriol Evelegh Murat, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy hereby ceases, along with all associated restrictions applicable thereto.


Persons having a legitimate cause may lodge an appeal, request that an instruction be opened or request the re-opening of the inquiry.


The inquiry may be re-opened on the initiative of the Public Ministry or at the request of an interested party if new elements of proof emerge that will give rise to serious, pertinent and consequential investigatory activities.


After the legally prescribed time period, the case file may be consulted by any person who can show a legitimate interest in it, provided the prescribed legal formalities are observed.

Lisboa, 21 de Julho de 2008

The Press Office

Ana Lima

English translation by


They have enough evidence of child neglect.

They have enough evidence that there was no break in.

They have enough evidence that the McCanns lied about the break in.

They have enough evidence of a cover up.

They have enough evidence that Jane Tanner lied about seeing an abductor.

They have enough evidence that Gerry’s claim that the abductor was in the apartment at the same time as Gerry is false.

They have enough evidence that an innocent couple would not have gone to these lengths.

The case should have been taken to court. It must be remembered that the McCanns refused to answer 40 questions put by the PJ.

McCanns: A web of deceit

July 17, 2008

“A lie told often enough becomes truth” – Vladimir Lenin.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State” – Joseph Goebbels.

The Guardian is supposed to have a good reputation for intelligent and factual reporting. We have this headline from 5 May 2007:

Tapas for two … then parents’ nightmare began

It creates the impression that the story starts with a meal, and then the tragedy happens. What if the story began a little while earlier? Let’s say, for argument’s sake, between 6 and 8pm?

The article has a subheading:

Police hunt three-year-old believed abducted from holiday apartment

Who believed Madeleine was abducted?

But by the time Mr McCann picked up the phone to his sister in Dumbarton the thread of hope that Maddy had simply climbed out of the window and wandered off had been eclipsed by the growing certainty that she had been snatched while he and his wife ate tapas just 100 yards away within the holiday complex“.

A search of the immediate area had failed to find Madeleine had simply just wandered off. Therefore, it is said, because nobody wanted to voice the supposedly unthinkable, that is, that the parents might have been in some way responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance, the planted seed becomes a growing certainty in some minds.

“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes” – Mark Twain.

“The telephone rang at around 11pm at Trish Cameron’s home near Glasgow. She picked it up to hear the voice of her younger brother. “He was distraught, breaking his heart,” Mrs Cameron said. “He said: ‘Madeleine’s been abducted, she’s been abducted.'”

The article continues: “On Thursday night the McCanns went out after 8pm, having put their three children into their pyjamas and seen them fall asleep in their bedroom in the apartment“. Where is the supporting evidence that all 3 of their children were in their pyjamas and asleep in their bedroom? What if only 2 of the children were actually asleep?

The article continues: “They weren’t out for long, and they could see the apartment from the restaurant” said Brian Healy, Madeleine’s maternal grandfather. This comes across as being defensive and protective. What constitutes a long time? Leaving 2 year old twins, Home Alone, even for a few minutes could be construed as being too long a period. Child safety experts state that children of this age should never be left unsupervised for any period of time, certainly not between 30 minutes and 2 hours. The apartment block can be seen from the Tapas bar, but Apartment 5A from where the Tapas 9 were seated visibilty was very poor.

The article continues: “Mrs Cameron said the couple checked on the children every half hour; the last check was made after 9pm by Mr McCann. Some time between then and around 10pm when his wife walked into the room to find Madeleine missing, the family believes an intruder broke in and snatched the girl”.

There is quite a bit of inconsistency between the versions of whether anybody checked at all, and who checked and at what times. There is no sighting of Madeleine by anyone outside of the McCann camp since 6pm, and there is no evidence to support Gerry McCann’s claimed sighting of Madeleine at 9pm and Matthew Oldfield did not see Madeleine when he went to check at approximately 9.30pm. From just after 6pm until 10pm, when Kate McCann claims Madeleine had just vanished into thin air, only the McCanns claimed all was well in Apartment 5A. They also claimed that there had been a break in at their apartment, but this version of events was not supported by any evidence, on the contrary, there was evidence proving it not to be the case.

“A lie told often enough becomes truth” – Vladimir Lenin.

Grandfather: evidence that three-year old was snatched (Guardian 5 May 2007)

The grandfather of a three-year-old snatched from her parents’ holiday apartment in the Algarve said yesterday that there was clear evidence she had been abducted“.

And what was the substance of this so-called clear evidence?

“Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone,” said Mr Healy. “She’d been taken from the chalet. The door was open”.

So, what Gerry McCann claims to be the truth, is the truth. Personally, I would not call that clear evidence at all. What if there was a hidden agenda for Gerry McCann to make such a claim?

The article states: “Mark Warner, the holiday firm which runs the luxury resort, claimed last night there was no sign of a break in at the ground floor apartment overlooking the sea”.

I think it is only fair to question Gerry McCann’s version of events, given that he has been caught out telling a lie about a so-called break in. Why did he feel he needed to lie?

The article continues: “It is not right to say that they just left them,” said Mr Healy.

Doesn’t Mr Healy know the difference between right and wrong? If they didn’t just leave the twins what did they do then? We know they did precisely that, leave the twins. They went out for drinks with their friends. We don’t know what state Madeleine was left in. We don’t know whether she was still in the apartment between 6 and 9pm.

It does not matter how often the McCann camp tell the same lie that Madeleine was abducted, I for one will not accept it as the truth. They are complete opposites. The McCanns may see their lie as their friend. However, their greatest enemy is the truth. And, there are far more truth seekers out there against the McCanns.