Posts Tagged ‘Praia Da Luz’

J’accuse I accuse the McCanns

September 4, 2008

Were the Portuguese police right to “believe that Kate McCann killed Madeleine while putting her to bed at their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz between 7pm and 8.30pm on May 3” 2007?

Clarence Mitchell claimed that the allegation is nonsensical. The McCann camp lied to the public and the media when “A source close to the McCanns said: “… Kate was not in the apartment alone with Maddie”…”.

Even in this untruthful account given by Kate McCann she states she was alone in the apartment whilst Gerry McCann went out to play tennis: “Kate said that she and Gerry went back to apartment, with the children, around 5:40 pm and gave them bath, together (statement to PJ, September 6, 2007). They thought about taking the children to the playground area, after bath, but decided not to do it, that day, because the children were really very tired. Just before 6:00 pm, Gerry left the apartment and went to the tennis court“.

Kate McCann lied to cover up the fact that she was alone with the three children in the apartment and when the children were being bathed: “According to his statement, on September 7, 2007Gerry was playing tennis. At around 6:30 pm, David Payne came from Paraíso bar, and asked him if he was going to keep playing. Gerry said he didn’t know, because Kate could need some help to take care of the three children, as they intended to take them to the playground, after the bath“.

I did float the theory on my Jailhouselawyer’s blog that perhaps Madeleine drowned? In any event, I would strongly suggest that Madeleine died around bath time. Why did the McCanns go to so much trouble to try and convince the public and the media that the adults bathed the children together? The McCanns got the basics of their story together, however, it started to fall apart with the glaring inconsistencies. Not only did the PJ detect the inconsistencies, bloggers, forumers and those in chatrooms also ripped the McCanns story apart.

The hastily arranged get together in the Tapas bar was solely for the purpose of discussing what Gerry McCann stated was a disaster to their life-style. The agenda being a cover up. Their careers and reputations were at stake, Madeleine was dead and none of their medical expertise could alter that fact, so they embarked upon a salvage operation to save what was left. It was decided that the Vanishing Act would be blamed on an abductor who broke into the apartment, and the McCanns would use the media to further their aims. When their version of events raises the eyebrows of the PJ because what they are hearing does not correlate with the scene as set up by the McCanns, Jane Tanner suddenly becomes a witness to seeing the abductor. However, this hastily arranged shoring up the version of events had flaws. Neither Jeremy Wilkins nor Gerry McCann state they saw Jane Tanner at the same time and place she claimed to be when seeing the abductor. Jeremy Wilkins had inadvertantly stumbled upon Gerry McCann tampering with the shutters to make it look like a break in had occured, or as he later claimed a break out by the abductor as he went out of the window. Both Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins would not only have seen the abductor, they would have also heard him.

Bath time, Jane Tanner’s sighting and Gerry McCann and Jeremy Wilkins meeting are 3 key weaknesses in the McCanns version of events.

Clarence Mitchell states: “We just hope that everyone can see these ridiculous rumours for what they are. It is very hard on the couple because they are not allowed to talk about the investigation and cannot defend themselves”.

There is nothing stopping the McCanns from speaking out now to defend themselves.

J’accuse I accuse the McCanns.

Advertisements

A very plausible case against the McCanns

August 3, 2008

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.

McCanns and the death of investigative journalism

July 17, 2008

You would be forgiven for thinking investigative journalism in Britain is dead after reading Kate and Gerry McCann: Beyond the smears by David James Smith in the Sunday Times Magazine. Especially following reading, the sub-heading, in effect, like the blurb on the dust jacket of a book:

For six months David James Smith has examined the evidence surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann for The Sunday Times Magazine. In this, the most comprehensive — and authoritative — investigation yet, he addresses the key issues facing Gerry and Kate as they prepare for Christmas without their daughter“.

The article begins:

“That week in Praia da Luz, the week the McCanns were made suspects in their own daughter’s “death”, I was out there talking to them and to family and friends”. That was a fatal mistake, because it becomes clear,  that the more one reads the article, that David James Smith came under the spell of the McCann spin machine and allowed himself to become hypnotised. So deeply into a trance David James Smith goes that he comes out with the following nonsense statement.

“It seems important to make it clear right away that I do not suspect the McCanns harmed Madeleine, nor do I think they disposed of their daughter’s body if, as the PJ believe, she died in an accident that night in their apartment”.

“It was the sixth day of their week’s holiday in the Algarve and they [the McCanns] were reflecting on the enjoyable time they’d had, how surprisingly easy it had been with the children”. Personally, I am not surprised given how little holiday time they actually spent with the children. All day the kids were dumped in the creche, and then left all night Home Alone whilst the McCanns indulged in binge drinking sessions with their friends!

Gerry McCann is a typical tightfisted Scots bastard who managed to get a reduction on the price of the holiday when the McCanns discovered that the Ocean Club did not provide a baby listening service. So, why did they not use this extra money to pay for a babysitter to be on the safe side? Or, there was the free dining out service, a child minding service which allows parents to enjoy a meal while their children are being looked after by qualified personnel.

“As Jane Tanner walked up the hill, she saw Gerry talking to Jes and, as she passed them, she saw ahead of her a man walking quickly across the top of the road in front of her, going away from the apartment block, heading to the outer road of the resort complex. The man was carrying a little girl who was hanging limply from his open arms. The sighting was odd, but hardly exceptional in a holiday resort”.

One of the things odd about Jane Tanner’s version of events, upon seeing Gerry McCann in the street at such close distance is why didn’t she call out “Hello!”? David James Smith fails to point out that neither Gerry McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins notices Jane Tanner. This has to call into question Jane Tanner’s credibility as a witness.

“It perhaps needs to be stated openly that all these timings and details, the way in which they weave and dovetail together, are based on witness accounts – corroborated not just by the McCann group but by others, such as Jes Wilkins – and that, despite suggestions to the contrary, there are no obvious contradictions or differences between them”. One thing about this case is the obvious contradictions. In no way can it be claimed that the accounts dovetail together. The journalist is clearly mistaking a flat pack of misfitting furniture from Ikea for a genuine Thomas Chippindale chest of drawers!

“In the McCanns’ minds now, there is no doubt Jane Tanner saw their daughter being taken, but there was so little time to talk in the first few days that it was not until Jane saw the description of Madeleine’s pyjamas in the media, around Monday or Tuesday of the following week, that she told them the little girl she had seen was wearing the same design: pink top and white bottoms with a floral design”. Wrapped up in a blanket, it was dark and there was distance, but still she saw the white and pink combination pyjamas? Yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing especially when the report in the media jogs her memory!

I must say I was rather tickled by the thought that the sniffer dogs only picked out the McCanns Renault Scenic from a line-up of cars because it had ‘Find Madeleine’ stickers plastered over its windows!

It would be Black Monday for sure if we were to learn that no criminal proceedings are to be brought against the McCanns.

Biased judge failed to protect Madeleine’s interests

July 9, 2008

I had every reason to be concerned when I heard that the ambulance chasing International Family Law Group had contacted the McCanns in  Praia da Luz  to offer their services.

At the recent High Court hearing, Tim Scott, QC, instructed by the International Family Law Group, who represented the McCanns, played the retreat on his bugle eloquently as the McCann team got routed in the face of a pincer movement by Leicestershire Police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

The hearing can be read here.

Had the McCanns not capitulated, the McCanns, the court, the public, and the world’s media would have been told why the police do not give such information to suspects in an ongoing investigation. Leicestershire Police are involved in relation to a possible child’s death, child neglect and/or child abandonment, and fraud. SOCA is only interested in the fraud aspect. Neither the Leicestershire Police nor SOCA are interested in the McCanns abduction story.

I would have laughed Tim Scott, QC, out of court as soon as he mentioned “As the world knows, Madeleine was abducted from an apartment at a resort in Praia Da Luz in Portugal on 03 May 2007”. Had Mrs Justice Hogg not been biased, I would have stood up and asked “What child abduction?”. And asked, “Do you intend providing any proof of this?”. Had Mrs Justice Hogg not been biased, she would have stopped him in his tracks and told him to stick to the facts. There is no evidence of any child abduction in this case. And this is precisely why the McCanns were on a sticky wicket. The law enforcement agencies do have evidence that the McCanns lied about a fake break-in. Perhaps, Mrs Justice Hogg would have changed her opinion of the McCanns and what they claimed happened if the law enforcement agencies had provided the files for her scrutiny?

Of course there should be an appeal. You see, all the other parties there had representation. The one person who did not have any representation was Madeleine Beth McCann. Her interests were supposed to be looked after by Mrs Justice Hogg. She failed in that duty towards Madeleine. She leaned in favour of the McCanns, to the extent that she broke the law herself. The very people who are responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance, Mrs Justice Hogg heaped praise upon them. Sadly, Madeleine was let down again. First by her parents, and then by the person entrusted to care for her interests when she was made a ward of court, Mrs Justice Hogg.

Neither the McCanns nor Clarence Mitchell speak for Madeleine. The McCanns are only interested in saving their own skins. Clarence Mitchell only represents the McCanns because they are paying him to do so. He is grateful for the job because he was forced to resign from the government Media Monitoring Unit, when he was caught out by the PJ tipping the McCanns off about the electronic surveillance. In spite of Clarence Mitchell’s spin, claiming the court hearing as a victory over the 81 pieces of information supplied by the police, it was the other 11,000 pieces which would have proved the downfall of the McCanns had just some of them been produced in court. This is what frightened the McCanns off.

What needs to happen now is for Madeleine to get proper representation in court. Before an unbiased judge.

First published here.

IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN

July 8, 2008
Court 20 Before MRS JUSTICE HOGG Monday, 7 July, 2008 At 10:30 AM IN OPEN COURT FD07P01121 McCann Applications/Summonses in Court as in Chambers IN THE MATTER OF MADELEINE BETH MCCANN

Mr Tim Scott, Q.C., International Family Law Group, acting for Gerry and Kate McCann: Madeleine McCann is a ward of Court. She had her 5th birthday on 12 May 2008. Gerry and Kate are not here as they are on holiday with their twins, Sean and Amelie. Who could deserve a holiday more after a period more traumatic than any family should have to cope with.

Mrs Justice Hogg: I did not expect to see them.

Mr Tim Scott continues: As the world knows, Madeleine was abducted from an apartment at a resort in Praia Da Luz in Portugal on 03 May 2007. No one has ever been arrested or charged in connection with her abduction. Her whereabouts are completely unknown. There is no proof that she is alive, but there is not a scrap of evidence that she is not. After the abduction Gerry and Kate McCann set in motion their own search with professional assistance. A Fund was set up to finance the search and many people, often those who could barely afford it, have given generously to that fund. Simultaneously a massive international police search was launched. Since the McCann family lives in Leicestershire, the Leicestershire Constabulary has been the lead force among UK law enforcement agencies. Gerry and Kate would like, through me, to acknowledge the enormous effort which has been devoted both by the Leicestershire Constabulary and by other law enforcement agencies to the search for Madeleine. They would also like to thank many individual officers for the kindness and concern which they have shown to the family throughout this terrible time. Proceedings were started in this Court by a summons dated 17 May 2007. The sole purpose of the proceedings has been to call upon the extensive powers of the High Court to require assistance to be given in the search for a missing child. It is of course quite routine in the Family Division for such Orders to be made. For example in an appropriate case (though not this one) an Order can be made against a mobile phone company to produce the call record of a phone. It was never the parents’ wish that the proceedings should become adversarial. On 22 May 2007 an Order was made by you in very wide terms requiring any person on whom the Order was served to disclose to the parents’ solicitors any information which might assist in identifying Madeleine’s whereabouts. The Order contained a clause entitling any person served with it to apply to discharge or vary it. Among the bodies on whom the Order was served was the Leicestershire Constabulary, who immediately expressed doubts as to whether the Order was intended to or could properly extend to them. In due course the parents’ solicitors issued a further application seeking clarification of this. On 02 April 2008 you gave directions which were intended to lead to a hearing at which this question would be resolved. This is that hearing. As the preparations for this hearing advanced, it became clear that the Leicestershire Constabulary and other law enforcement agencies, while personally sympathetic to the position of the McCann’s objected on principle to the disclosure of at least the great bulk of the information in their possession. They raised a number of legal arguments relating among other matters to the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of police investigations. Both the Serious Organised Crimes Agency and the Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings in order to advance their own arguments on issues of public policy. It became clear that if today’s hearing proceeded on a fully contested basis a number of areas of law of great interest to lawyers would have had to be considered. However Gerry and Kate McCann are not lawyers and so far as they were concerned the legal proceedings were moving further and further from the only matter which concerns them: the search for Madeleine. The proceedings were in danger of becoming a distraction from rather than an aid to that single goal. Also there have been two recent developments which have greatly affected Gerry and Kate’s views on these proceedings. The first is that the Leicestershire Constabulary has now agreed to release an important, though limited, part of the information which they have been seeking; I shall come back to that. The second is that, as has been widely publicised, it is expected that Gerry and Kate’s status in Portugal as arguidos or suspects will be lifted soon. When that happens it is hoped and expected that a substantial further amount of information will be released. Since Gerry and Kate have always wanted to work with all law enforcement agencies on a cooperative basis, they decided to withdraw the application against the Leicestershire Constabulary. We therefore come to Court today to ask you to approve an Order which all parties consent to. The first part of the Order recites that the Chief Constable of Leicestershire has agreed to provide by today a document in accordance with Paragraph 50 of the Skeleton Argument which has been presented to the Court on his behalf. That Paragraph is at 34. It says that the Chief Constable is currently preparing a document which will provide the parents with the contact details of persons that have been forwarded to the investigation by the parents or those acting for them. This document will also contain a brief resume of the information that it is believed the person informed the parents or those acting for them that they wished to pass on to the investigation. I said earlier that this is an important but limited amount of the information which Gerry and Kate had hoped to obtain. I would like to explain why it is important. Although the Leicestershire Constabulary were quick to set up a major incident room and to provide a telephone number which anyone with information could call, there was a period of time before this became widely known. During that time Gerry and Kate’s solicitor, Ms Ann Thomas of The International Family Law Group, who sits in front of me, had already been retained. Her firm’s number was publicised and a large number of people called in. All of these callers were given the number which the Leicestershire Constabulary had set up for the purpose. The solicitors thought it right that the police should be receiving it. In fact with few exceptions the solicitors did not even retain any notes on what the callers were saying or even their contact details. So what the Chief Constable is now voluntarily providing is the contact details and a summary of the information provided by a substantial number of people who were among the first to try to help the investigation. It is because these were on the whole people who came forward to volunteer information in the period immediately after the abduction that it is likely that the information which they provided will be most helpful. So on that basis Gerry and Kate McCann are content to withdraw their application for any wider disclosure. Paragraph 4 of the Order provides that the documents in the case shall remain confidential to the Court. This of course is completely normal in wardship. An exception is made to enable the Chief Constable at his discretion to reveal the contents of his evidence and the legal arguments advanced on his behalf. The parents understand that the points of principle which have arisen are of wider interest to law enforcement agencies, and they would not want to restrict proper discussion of those matters which might have a beneficial purpose in future investigations. They are confident that the Chief Constable will exercise his discretion in a responsible way. The search for Madeleine continues. The fund which was established in May 2007 known as “Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned” remains closely involved in the search. It always has been and remains Gerry and Kate’s purpose to leave no stone unturned. This was why they asked for the assistance of this Court in the first place, and this is why, in the light of developing circumstances, they now withdraw their application. We hope that you will accept, and will feel able to say that they have behaved completely properly and responsibly at every stage.

Mr James Lewis QC, for the Chief Constable of Leicestershire: We would like you to approve the Order. As the Court heard, any person served with the Order should disclose any information that would help to find Madeleine . We wish to make it clear that the primary aim is to ensure that no stone is left unturned. There must be a balance between the rights of Plaintiffs to have as much information as possible and the risk of compromising the continuing criminal investigation, damaging future international co-operation, and a potential breach of Portuguese law. The parents get information that emanates from them and there is no breach of Portuguese law. The Chief Constable asks the Court to make clear that previous Orders don’t apply. The case is not closed. The Chief Constable wishes to reiterate anyone with information should come forward to the police. The amount of information is 81 pieces of information out of 11,000 pieces of information on the computer system.

Representative of the Attorney General: The Attorney General intervened as Guardian of the public interest and has no further comment to make.

Mrs Justice Hogg: 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.

– Transcript ends –

Notes (i) Colour Coding for Sources: International Family Law Group (re Tim Scott address)

http://www.iflg.uk.com/documents/7_july_08_address.pdf

International Family Law Group (re Justice Hogg judgement)

http://www.iflg.uk.com/documents/Judgement0708.pdf

Hat-Tip to the 3As forum

Is Gerry McCann a member of the Scottish Knights Templar?

June 30, 2008

I have been searching for a McCann case and Freemason’s link for a couple of days now. Then just a few minutes ago I came across this.  Scroll down a bit and you find this:

“This is a fraternal Order but is not Masonic“.

Scroll down a bit further and you find this:

“Missing for one year now: Madeleine McCann, 4 years old,
abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3rd May 2007
Our thoughts and prayers remain with the wee girl and her family
“.

Scottish Knights Templar

UPDATE: This story is number 1 on Google. CNN where are you?

Vanishing Point

May 30, 2008

This report from 4 May 2007 states: “Three-year-old Madeleine McCann vanished from her parents’ rented apartment in the Algarve last night as they dined nearby“.

However, whilst it is accepted that Madeleine was 3 when she disappeared, it is not accepted that she vanished whilst her parents dined out, nor is it accepted that the Tapas Bar is nearby. At first glance the report appears to be stating facts. As Kate McCann has said, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It is quite possible that Madeleine vanished earlier on in the evening, before Gerry and Kate McCann went out to meet their friends for drinks and a meal at the Tapas Bar. There again, Madeleine could have vanished when Gerry went to do his check so only Kate was still at the Tapas Bar. Some commenters have even suggested that Madeleine could have disappeared on 2 May 2007. But, for now, I am sticking with 3 May 2007 as the Vanishing Point.

Gerry McCann has stated that drinking and dining out in the Tapas Bar was just like being in the back garden. It is not as nearby as that. I think it was approximately 200 yards away, and the apartment was not properly visible from either the Tapas Bar nor from where the Tapas 9 were sitting within the Tapas Bar.

It may have been the case, as a neighbour stated, that the McCanns were protective of Madeleine in Rothley. But, they were certainly not protective of her in Praia Da Luz on 3 May 2007. Besides, the McCanns had only been in Rothley 6 months. And with the McCanns appearances can be deceptive.

I think this next quote is telling: “Mr Hill said that despite the report by a family friend that the shutters to the couple’s apartment were broken, there was no sign that anyone had forced their way in while the McCanns ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yards away”.

“But family friend Jill Renwick told GMTV the McCanns were certain that Madeleine has been abducted”.

“They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine,” she said.

“They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone”.

Very early on the McCanns version of events, in relation to the so-called break-in, was being challenged by John Hill the Ocean Club manager. The police and PJ also found no evidence of any break-in. However, this was the McCanns version of events and they were sticking to it. Roll out family friend Jill Renwick to reinforce the McCanns version of events.

Interesting that she should say that the McCanns were checking every half-hour, and yet going out at 8 and checking at 9 and then again at 10 is every hour not half hour! Also interesting that she said “they had taken Madeleine”. At least one version of events claims that Kate had said “They have taken Madeleine”. Perhaps, it is a reference to the version of events that a gang of paedophiles had been at work?

In any event, it’s “the McCanns were certain that Madeleine has been abducted”, which is interesting.

I would say that the McCanns were not certain of any such thing. They have to stick to that like super glue. It’s their explanation why their daughter has vanished apparently into thin air. But this is not a disappearing stage act. The McCanns are acting though. When it came to the questions, ‘what are we going to do?’ and ‘what are we going to say?’. Hey Presto! Play the paedo card and rely upon the paedophobia to make it believable.

The McCanns were disappointed when the police did not immediately go looking for this single paedophile or paedophile gang. They were searching for a missing girl who may have wandered off by herself. And, the McCanns claimed that the police were not doing anything at all. The police had to look at other possibilities.

The McCanns were certain that Madeleine had not simply just wandered off. But, they were not certain of an abduction. They knew exactly what had happened to Madeleine.