Follow by Email

Total Pageviews

Wednesday, 17 November 2010

Madeleine McCann ------- The Scriptures According to the McCanns

After having successfully BANNED the sale and further publication of Goncalo Amaral’s book about the investigation into their missing daughter, (although that ban was subsequently overturned by the Lisbon Appeals Court, Kate & Gerry are STILL badgering away at the Portuguese judicial system to enforce the original ruling); The McCanns have announced that they are writing a book of their OWN, highlighting what is described as the “charting of Kate and Gerry McCann's desperate search for their daughter who disappeared”.

Kate McCann is quoted as saying "My reason for writing is simple -- to give an account of the truth."

However, given that the book was the subject of a “fierce bidding war”, (trade-speak for ridiculous sums of money offered, together with a big advance), I would suggest the REAL reason for the book is rather self-evident.


It was written with a “very heavy heart”, says Kate, but adds that "Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl."


On a PERSONAL level, I welcome the publication of this book most avidly.


One of the reasons why the McCanns have escaped so much criticism from some quarters of the Press and Media, (barring the direct interference from high placed ‘friends’ who have thus far managed to dictate the Editorial policy of MANY publications, programmes, and documentaries), is because they have been so RETICENT in explaining much of their own actions, observations and involvement in the judicial procedures surrounding the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance.




Indeed, what little they HAVE stated, on camera, (and by way of Gerry’s infamous, now defunct ‘blog’), has been rather obscure and ambiguous at best; bizarre, contrived and lacking credibility at worst. Perhaps their account of the investigation into their missing daughter will cast new light on what is a rather inexplicable case?

However, I fear that they have been rather ill-advised to state that the book will “Chart Kate and Gerry McCann's desperate search for their daughter”.

For, as I have stated on MORE than one occasion, it is a complete LACK of any evidence supporting their search for their daughter which has created much unease in my personal assimilation of the whole affair.

They created a MULTI-Million pound business/fund/website/engine/charity/, entitled “Looking for Madeleine”, yet LOOKING is the very thing I have never known them do.

Never. Ever.


Not even on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, do any documents, statements or witnesses refer to any ‘searching’ or ‘looking’.


Lots of contradictory statements exist amongst the McCanns and their Tapas friends, regarding their movements, actions and observations leading up to, during and AFTER Madeleine’s disappearance, but nothing that seems to suggest any actual LOOKING. At ANY time.


With the inexorable complicity of Clarence Mitchell, (not to mention Government Ministers, including Gordon Brown), the McCanns were afforded audiences with the POPE, together with Political leaders from around the world.

They even were instrumental in being consulted in the formulation of possible new LAWS, designed to improve the processes of finding missing children. But of any actual LOOKING for Madeleine, there was none.

Whistle-stop tours took in Europe and the US, including the WHITE HOUSE, no less, for publicity and fund-raising stunts. But no actual searching.

The Internet is awash with a whole plethora of conspiracy theories surrounding the case of Madeleine McCann. From the ridiculous to the preposterous, they are all there. Some, perhaps, more than others having an element or modicum of truth.


I have often been asked, what the most important factor is in my unease over the case of Madeleine McCann.

What is it, I am pressed, that makes me so uncomfortable about their demeanour, their behaviour and their actions? Why, in the absence of any conclusive or irrefutable evidence, should I so be critical of them?



It is this one, single solitary factor..........


In early August, 2007, a Child Therapist saw a young girl of whom she stated that she was “100% sure”, was Madeleine McCann, in a restaurant in the town of Tongerin near the Dutch border.

Of course, there had been many “sightings” of Madeleine since her disappearance. It is not unusual to receive such witness sightings in a missing person case, and it would be ridiculous, counter-productive and, indeed, inadvisable to pursue every apparent sighting.

But this was different.

This was a RELIABLE, sound, lucid witness of a high professional standing, giving a detailed, credible and accurate witness testimony.

It was considered important enough by the authorities to seal off the entire area, create several APB's and road-blocks for Madeleine and her apparent 'captors', and to dispatch a specialist Forensics team to the location. There, they procured a GLASS, believed to have been used and drunk out of by ‘Madeleine’, in order to undertake in-depth DNA and fingerprint analysis.

I have spoken to many people, mainly parents, about their opinions on this particular instance.

ALL were unanimous in their conclusions.

That had THEY received such credible, likely and STRONG evidence that their missing daughter had been seen, then nothing, but NOTHING would have stopped them from IMMEDIATELY going to that location, no matter HOW remote.

In actual fact, it was a mere couple of hours flight away from Praia de Luz.

The McCanns, instead, chose to drive to HUELVA, in Spain, to “hand out leaflets”, even though it was a BANK Holiday and barely no-one was around..............................

For me, the only possible explanation as to why they DIDN’T rush to that little Belgium town, where the eyes of the whole WORLD were concentrated, awaiting some news that the little girl might be safe and sound................................was because they KNEW it couldn’t be Madeleine.

So I shall be READING the McCann book with great interest, as I am sure, will a LOT of other people. I have a LOT of questions that I need answering. A lot of obfuscation that perhaps their book can make clear.

Of course, the McCanns and their supporters might argue that given the enormous amount of heartbreak, pressure and pain that they have suffered, not to mention the length of time that has elapsed since Madeleine’s disappearance; it won’t be easy recalling everything that has passed.

For me, I prefer to concur with an old adage once penned by Mark Twain:-

That if you tell the TRUTH, you don’t have to remember...............

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

The McCanns Chief SUSPECT: Now let's FIND him!

Kate and Gerry McCann are said to be “delighted” at the huge support for their petition calling for a review of the case into their “missing” daughter.


Additionally, the Portuguese Authorities are said to be considering re-opening their investigations.


HOWEVER, given the predilection of the McCann’s, their PR ‘persona-non-grata’ Clarence Mitchell, together with their friends, lackeys and supporters for INSISTING that any investigation is to concentrate SOLELY on the factors that THEY want concentrating on; PLUS of course, the PJ’s inability to be anything other than the “bungling Porto plod”; I thought it important that the investigators should be reminded and refreshed regarding the CHIEF SUSPECT whom they should be seeking.


By way of guidance to this suspect, I feel it only fair and appropriate to “concentrate”, solely on the ONLY witness whom Team McCann and the British Media elect to believe and trust.

Jane Tanner.

So then, attention all bulletins:-

We are seeking a
MALE
Height:5' 10" (25 May 2007)/5' 8" or 5' 9" (05 June 2007)/5' 7" to 5' 11" (09 June 2007)/5' 8" to 5' 10" (26 October 2007)/5' 9" (28 October 2007)/5' 6" (16 November 2007)/“Probably 5ft 8in tall, he was taller than me but not 6ft and so between those two” (19 November 2007)

Age:
35-40

Hair:
Hair that was short on top (25 May 2007)/Dark hair, parted to one side, slightly longer at the back (05 June 2007)/Dark hair (26 October 2007)/Black hair (28 October 2007)/
“ the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair. He did seem to have quite a lot of dark, reasonably-long-to-the-neck hair' (19 November 2007)

Skin:
White (25 May 2007)/Caucasian (09 June 2007)/Caucasian with southernEuropean/Mediterranean appearance (26 October 2007)/
“More local or Mediterranean looking'/'swarthy skin” (19 November 2007)

Top clothes:
Dark jacket (25 May 2007)/Dark jacket, slightly longer than a suit jacket (05 June 2007)/Wearing a maroon shirt (28 October 2007)/Heavy dark coat (19 November 2007)

Trousers:
Beige or golden long trousers (25 May 2007)/Light coloured trousers which may have been beige or mustard coloured (05 June 2007)/Camel-coloured trousers (28 October 2007)/
“He was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that's one thing in hindsight again I think was quite odd because tourists when they're abroad, Brits abroad would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something, and he had a sort of a big heavy jacket and trousers on” (19 November 2007)/
He was dressed in that sort of smart casual way European people dress” (19 November 2007)

Build:
Medium (25 May 2007)/Slim (26 October 2007)

Shoes:
Dark shoes (25 May 2007)/Black or brown shoes (28 October 2007)

Original Description:
“The man was carrying a bundle, possibly blankets or clothes”

Child's description:
“I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and the bottom of the pyjamas, and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet.”
(19 November 2007)

Child's clothes:
“the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl.”




Got that? All Clear?

Now let's FIND him.

And leave no stone unturned......................

Saturday, 6 November 2010

EXPRESS Newspapers Versus the McCanns. Richard Desmond's Halloween Prank

Can it be that Richard, "Dirty" Desmond, (Proprietor of the Express Newspapers), is playing a bit of a late Halloween prank on Kate and Gerry McCann?

How else to explain this morning's Sunday Express story, "Madeleine McCann: Did the Camera Hold Vital Clue?"

(http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/210032/Madeleine-McCann-Did-the-camera-hold-vital-clue- )

Of course, ostensibly, to the uninitiated, it rather reads like the "Disgraced Porto Plod", (Goncalo Amaral), is apologising for his department apparently having WIPED a CCTV tape which may have shown Madeleine's "abductor".

Of course, this would be quite normal fayre for the British Media, given their predilections when reporting on this case; to sympathise with the poor parents and to remind everyone just how useless the Portuguese are.

Except.

A name.

Martin Smith.

For Martin Smith, apparently, witnessed someone carrying a child on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. The most interesting aspect of his STATEMENT, made to the Portuguese Authorities however, came some time after the sighting.

"Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children"

Now, Mr. Amaral made direct reference to this in his Book, " Maddie - A Verdade da Mentira" - 'The Truth of the Lie" a book which the McCanns were originally successful in BANNING, until recently where the Lisbon Appeal Court overturned that ruling.

What we have to consider is whether or not Goncalo would have omitted to share Mr. Smith's assertions with the JOURNALIST, James Murray, in the EXPRESS story.

EXTREMELY unlikely, unless Mr. Amaral now wishes to detract that part from his book.

More SALIENTLY, I am sure that the Journo is MORE than conversant with Goncalo's book, and almost CERTAINLY aware of who Martin Smith is and what he purports to have seen.

So what is going on???

I have already BLOGGED about how Richard Desmond, perhaps the most vociferous and aggressive man in the Media world, meekly apologised and ended up forking out well over a MILLION to the McCanns and their Tapas friends in an "out of Court" Libel settlement, for doing no more than what every other periodical and newspaper had done already, which was to reprint the stories appearing in the Portuguese Media.

I have also alluded to the fact that I considered such payments to be made by way of "favours", due to certain Government friends of Richard's.

HOWEVER, this new twist is CATEGORICALLY guaranteed to set the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons!! Sure to replicate the excrement hitting the fan and open up that infamous can or worms!!

FORGET that a few seconds checking with the name Martin Smith/Madeleine McCann on GOOGLE will result in stories certain to turn Clarence Mitchell several shades of grey, but I can not possibly SEE how ANY of the mainstream media can allude to this story, and the name of Martin Smith, without reference to his apparent belief:

That the man he saw carrying Madeleine McCann was ...........

GERALD McCann.

As the EXPRESS points out, Mr Amaral concludes that any new investigation should fully consider the statement of Mr Smith.:

“I hope this is seriously examined because it is an important aspect of the case,” he said.


Richard. You naughty boy.


Trick or Treat, anyone?