Sunday, 15 May 2016


I don't know if Gerry and Kate McCann are still paying to keep themselves on the front pages of the UK tabloids, but if they are, this week has been a bonanza, though maybe not quite as they would have liked.  The newspapers have picked up on the one year old story, that young Birmingham student Leanne Baulch raised over £52,000 for Goncalo Amaral's legal costs.  Leanne was appalled at the injustice being dished out to the former lead detective of the Madeleine investigation in Portugal.  Goncalo was being forced to hand over all his worldly goods to the two former suspects prime suspects in that investigation.  And here is why she did it, and why the public responded so generously. 

In their spiteful six year legal pursuit of Goncalo Amaral, (and they are the pursuers, not the pursued), they have destroyed his long time police career, had his book banned, and protected their forthcoming booty, by freezing all his assets.  Not only did they prevent him from earning any money with which to support himself, they wanted to ensure that he did not have the funds to appeal to a higher Court. 

Such is the nature of litigation and libel actions in particular, those with the bottomless purses often win.  The McCanns were armed with a large (not a Charity) Fund to search for Madeleine and 'support the family'.  The ratio between searching and supporting is blurred, but after 9 years, I think 'support' has got the edge. 

For many years this has been a 'David v Goliath' battle.  For whatever reason, the British establishment were taken in by the comically bad acting of Gerry and Kate McCann to such an extent that they offered their undying support for the abduction fairy story.  As an aside, I think everyone attaining high office (especially within the police) should be forced to attend a 'Spot the Loon' course run by mentalists, savvy wideboys or just your average bog standard housewife. Your average bog standard housewife for example, would have said, 'you're having me on' within 5 minutes of this particular tall tale. 

Goncalo Amaral has been demonised by the British press, portrayed as an incompetent, barbaric cop, too lazy to search for Madeleine, and what hurt him most, 'a bad dresser'.  Not true, he is actually quite elegant. Those spinning the dirty cop ideology were gunning for him, he was to become the patsy.  Within reading 1 to 2 pages of Goncalo's book The Truth of the Lie, however, it is quickly apparent that Goncalo is the opposite of the villain that has been portrayed. 

One of life's gentlemen, he speaks his truth quietly and clearly.  There is no sensationalism, the truth doesn't  need it.  Nor is there any spite, somehow he has managed (I couldn't have) to keep his opinions professional and objective, he even shows sympathy towards the parents, despite everything they have done to him.  With all his years on the frontline, his wisdom and understanding shine through.  He is not about vengeance, he is about justice for the victim.  His agenda remains the same as it did, when he was first handed that poisoned chalice.  Find the child.  He is the stuff good cops are made of.  When he is given a job, he completes it. 

But let's get back to those 'trolls'.  Although this week's headlines are still calling disbelievers 'trolls', the accompanying pictures show attractive, bright and vibrant women who look nothing like the demons described by the McCanns, Jim Gamble and their unfortunate stooges, Martin Brunt and Summers and Swan.  The 'evil troll' and 'hater' stuff is finally being exposed as the 'McCann Myth' it is.  It is not unreasonable or hateful to disbelieve obvious lies. It is however, unreasonable to demand the public overlook the 5 nights of unbelievable child neglect by SIX DOCTORS and the sycophantic way in which the Establishment have looked after them ever since. 

For more years than I care to remember, we non believers of the McCanns have been almost criminalised by the UK MSM.  To such an extent that many people dared not reveal their names on social media.  What happened to Brenda Leyland was a long standing threat to all of us.  Especially to those of us who's named were contained in the notorious Death Dossier.  Being negative about the McCanns could seriously damage your career and indeed, life - friends, neighbours and family were also to be informed about your online activity. 

Obviously, the McCanns have never been able to find a real person to fit the image of their mythological troll, I'm thinking small plastic endomorph with a shock of neon hair, sinister thug, wielding nunchuckers or a tediously boring ex lawyer with binoculars.  For almost 9 years the only villain they have had, has been the self publicist, and off his trolley Tony Bennett.  And he has played his part admirably, creating news stories and photo opportunities at every opportunity.  Tony Bennett was the example the MSM used whenever they wanted to portray 'antis' in a bad light.

Gerry McCann wanted an example made of the 'trolls' (formerly haters and pitchforkers) who hounded him and his family online.  Gerry cannot be blamed entirely for thinking of himself as a Supreme Being, because it seems whatever Gerry wants, Gerry gets.  An ordinary person was chosen.  They wanted to convey the message 'it could be you', to anyone even thinking about questioning their abduction story.  Brenda was not only shamed, exposed and driven out of her home (surely what they were aiming for?), she took the tragic decision to end her own life.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, 'what a way to go Brenda!'.  Because in ending her life, she blew the McCann 'evil troll' myth wide apart, and she forced Sky News to hang its' head in shame. 

In 9 years, the McCanns have not been able to find anyone (other than Bennett) loathsome enough to support the claim that they are being victimised and hounded, or that there is an organised campaign working on behalf of their nemesis Goncalo Amaral.  Whilst those of us intrigued by this mystery continue to follow this ongoing saga, we have no desire to take over the investigation or dish out the punishments ourselves. The majority of the vigilantes have long since moved on, and the few that remain are getting the message that no-one wants their kind of justice.  

Meanwhile, well done Leanne, your initiative may well have changed the entire direction of this case!  (who do ya want to play ya in the movie? I'm thinking Scarlett J ? :) ) And well done Ann-Kristine and Karen - you look absolutely fab!


  1. Ros says: "In their spiteful six year legal pursuit of Goncalo Amaral, (and they are the pursuers, not the pursued), they have destroyed his long time police career"

    He had resigned and published his book a long time before the Mccanns started legal action.

    1. Seriously, I didn't do a word count, but is that the best ya got? Why did Goncalo Amaral resign from the Police? Their pursuit of Goncalo has not been restricted to the Civil Courts of Lisbon.

    2. "spiteful six year legal pursuit" is through the Civil Courts.

      He was taken off the Mccann case then he resigned so he could publish his book.

    3. Your pedantic attempts at wordplay are tedious 15:24, I'm all up for a lively debate, but give me something I work with, sheesh. Take out the word 'legal' and it might work for you.

      He was forced to resign 15:24, just as he was solving the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance and closing in on Gerry and Kate McCann. And he was removed from the investigation at the request of the British. And for anyone wondering why Madeleine's disappearance remains a mystery, therein lies the answer.

      An honourable man, he would not be browbeaten into covering up the death of a 3 year old child. That alone makes him a hero. He stood up to corruption and he told the world the truth, despite the fact that it has cost him everything, his career, his marriage and seen his character and reputation torn to shreds.

      Too right he wrote a book! Why should the public be restricted to one side of the story? Why should he not have the right to defend himself?

      As several Portuguese Courts have already ruled, nothing within Goncalo's book is libellous, and as the 3 latest Appeal Court Judges have just ruled, Goncalo is entitled to voice his opinion.

      Among many of Kate and Gerry's grandiose demands, is a direct attack on Civil liberties and Freedom of Speech. They have been tugging at the tail of a sleeping tiger that is guaranteed to make them universally despised if it turns on them. And it almost certainly will if they take this case to the ECHR.

      For them the case has dragged on far too long. No-one cares anymore (if they ever did)and everyone thinks they killed Maddie anyway. At the moment, the question is, will they be gracious in defeat? Not looking that way so far.

    4. "everyone thinks they killed Maddie anyway"

      everyone may include you but not me.

    5. Maddie will never be found but we found you then: the sole idiot who thinks the Mccanns are on the level...

  2. Thing is iv started to doubt the guilt of the mcanns. I mean I dont buy into a cover up anymore and I can't see how the mcanns did what there accused of.

    1. More The Ladykillers (no murder or abuse implied) meets the WI.

    2. So, for nine years you've believed they are guilty; and for an equal amount of time, you have believed 'higher powers' have been covering up for them, but now you are doubting all this?

      Is this because they still haven't been arrested and charged with an offence? Just to remind you, that could still happen tomorrow, next week, next month, or even in a year or two. The wheels of justice can turn slowly (very slowly - see Hillsborough).

      As someone once wrote on a blog - 'if doubts creep in, just revisit the evidence of the dogs.'

    3. It is trying to figure 'how they did it', that us kept so many of us intrigued this past 9 years Andrew!

      In cases such as these, statistics show time and time again, that the 'perp' is usually someone close to the missing child. There is also the question of Means, Motive and Opportunity. Putting aside the Motive for one moment, the parents and their friends had Means and Opportunity, far more than an opportunist intruder or even an organised gang.

      Their major defence for a long time, was the fact that they behaved 'so normally' on the Thursday evening, prior to the alarm being raised. However, we have since seem them 'acting normally' on camera so many times, that it is perfectly clear 'acting' is what they do. No matter what turmoil was going on behind the scenes, they continued to assure the world, 'there is no evidence Madeleine is dead' and that they would continue to 'search' for her. One of the most bizarre examples of this, was Gerry outside a Court in Lisbon telling the press 'there's noooooo evidence', while simultaneously, Scotland Yard were digging up PDL looking for a body. Megalomania in action.

      If the doubts still linger Andrew, I agree with 21:39 - revisit the evidence of the dogs!

    4. Yes, the dogs, but what if the evidence the dogs found was planted? I think whatever happened to poor Madeleine happened off-site, and that agents of the British Government laid cadaverine scent to keep the emphasis on Apt 5A, and to keep leverage over Gerry.

    5. "...everyone is acting, some in big ways." (G. McCann)

    6. Not just cadaverine, but traces of human blood. I think the idea that the evidence was planted is a bit too fantastical 09:26, and way too complex.

      I'm a firm believer in KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid)and planting evidence opens up all sorts of new ways for the MAIN lie to be discredited.

      By the time the British search expert Mark Harrison brought in the dogs, around July 2007, the British Government were squirming, unsure whether to continue protecting the McCanns or bury their heads in the sand. Presumably next to Clarrie and Gel's buckets, spades and champagne cocktails on an Algarve beach.

      In any event, the hospitality of Warners came to an end, the McCanns and their entourage were forced to hire a villa for the rest of their holiday. Tragically, they had to pay for their own wine and shopping too, but they had a Fund that was stacking up, which buoyed them and it was covering their mortgage in the UK as well. One can't help but wonder how all the family and friends who rushed out to sunny PDL managed to pay their mortgages and bills, some were out there for months and brother John, gave up his full time job.

      When you look at the number of possible Defendants facing very serious criminal charges, you can begin to see why Operation Grange is taking so long.

    7. That brother John gives me the boak.

    8. Hello Cristobell - the thing with KISS is that I don't think I am stupid. I do think this is a fantastically complicated case and I wonder just how much has been held back from the files, and how many potentially case-cracking pieces of information have been whooshed from the forums? Best wishes to you.

    9. You have caught me in a philosophical (navel gazing)mood 09:58, I am impressed if that poignant observation came from Gerry, he must have stolen it from somewhere, lol. It has a ring of Tennessee Williams or Harper Lee, but that can't be right!

      I guess we are all 'acting'. I am not ashamed to say that over the years, I have brazenly 'stolen' the habits, the characteristics, even the laughter and expressions of those I adore! We all long to be unique and individual, and the only way we can achieve that is by choosing the personality we want to be known for. How we want the world to perceive us. We take on the traits we admire in others.

      In the case of Gerry, his heroes will predominately come from the sporting arenas. People like Lance Armstrong, who are driven by world conquering ambition, and who are prepared to put in the hard work to achieve it.

      Gerry sees himself as cut from the same mould, ergo, that is the personality he 'displays', the one seeking praise and admiration for his achievements.

      With acting, if there is a distinction to be made, which of course there is, in this case. For ALL of us, without exception, there are times in our lives when all the barriers come down and we just don't care what anyone thinks of us. And losing a child is one of those occasions. If anyone came near us with lipstick and a hairbrush, we would attack them. It wasn't Goncalo who gave the game away Kate, it was the matching ear rings and the highlights.

    10. @09:26

      Laundry 'must haves' when holidaying abroad:

      Fabric softener, lime scale remover, essence of putrescence...

    11. I'm of the opposite opinion 10:58. I think what began as a 'small' contained lie, grew massively out of proportion, on a scale that no-one could have foreseen.

      As I said in an earlier post, if the British Government had not intervened, Goncalo Amaral would have solved this 'mystery' 9 years ago. The irony of course being, that by now, the perpetrators would have served their time and got back the freedom they crave.

      I think the basic crime was as simple as the explanation given by Goncalo Amaral in 'The Truth of the Lie'. It became complicated when the British 'cavalry' rode in.

    12. Amaral was out of his depth. He screwed up from the start. He was responsible for the initial search. If Madeleine was hidden in the apartment, which is the theory that the non-abduction theorists believe, then how on earth did Amaral or his crew not find her?

      As for being an honourable man - if a wife beating, drunk driver (with his young child in the car), perjurer, convicted for covering up torture, and responsible for totally messing up the Madeleine McCann is an Honourable man, then ...........?!?

      And as for the cadaver dogs - these were the same dogs who 'smelt' blood and cadavers at Haut de la Garenne in Jersey .....

  3. Have you ever read amarals book?

  4. What goes around... I wonder what will happen if all court appeals are exhausted and Amaral's book remains in print, published in English and widely available. Perhaps his planned follow-up titles will look at the bizarre behaviour of Aragão "Target Was Hit" Correia and the Cipriano case, which most UK taxpayers will be blissfully unaware of?
    And if, at the end of it all, this book – in English bookshops – is recognised by the courts as being a factual description of the police findings, what are the implications for Sky News, who hounded Brenda Leyland for believing this stuff and for feeling (rightly, it would appear) outraged by the injustice meted out to Mr Amaral? It's a funny old world.

    1. While the dreadful Cipriano story and the McCanns' underhand Machiavellian tactics using the "delicately balanced" Portuguese lawyer needs telling, most of the Great British Public will be too preoccupied with the "main course" to take an interest in that issue for quite some time, particularly when one has to wade through the smorgasbord of dishes interrupting the story by a retired solicitor and his almost comically entranced entourage, whose visage was missing from the newsworthy bevy of beauties above (can't think why). Sorry if that sounds below the belt, but his weasel worded quote in that story sought to belittle others and big himself up, IMO.

    2. I don't for one minute think the McCanns will go to the Supreme Court 22:16. They have never had a strong case, and in fact they tried to pull out of the damages trial before it began, but on terms Goncalo would not agree with.

      They already face millions in costs. Do they honestly have the finances, not only to pay the costs accrued so far, but the massive costs necessary to launch a new Appeal? If they allow their lawyers to talk them into it, they are not only reckless, they are beyond stupid.

      They have already jeopardized (if not lost), their home and all their assets and a 'Fund' reserved to search for their first born, will do nothing to assist their surviving children. And let's not forget, they have made their children parties to the legal actions.

      As for the implications for Sky News etc, it is unlikely there will be any. They are the 'reporters' of the news, not the 'makers' of it. It is unreasonable and workable to hold news channels responsible for the stories they report on, they are 'channels' in the full sense of the word. If we start to question their moral judgement, it would herald in unwanted censorship.

      Those in the appalling publicity that resulted in Brenda Leyland's death, must live with those nightmares forever more. I wouldn't wish that on anybody, and let's hope they have learned from the experience so it doesn't happen again.

      It is indeed a funny old world, but I think justice for Mr. Amaral is already underway. Good day to you, and thank you for posting :)

    3. I have a feeling the despicable way in which the McCanns used the tragedy of Joana Cipriona to frame Goncalo Amaral, can and will come out Tonyfan, of that I am sure.

      As for the missing visage - thank Gawd for that! It is enough to frighten most people away. And I agree, his comments were snidey and backhanded, and I note he has failed to applaud the successful way in which the article has come across. His glove puppet Verdi, meanwhile, reminds us that Tony has done all the work and is the one true leader, lol.

  5. Many thanks, Mr Blacksmith, for introducing me to W.G. Sebald - he's brilliant.

    1. Isn't he. And thank you Ros for your latest.

  6. It's odd that he disappeared from the forum on the same day that the article appeared.

    1. Any rumours that TB has been spotted on a podium in Ibiza covered in foam and shaking his booty, are just that - rumours.

    2. Prove it!

    3. This is conjuring up images I do not wish to have!

    4. Lascivious made-up stories are generally invented to consume time and confuse the minds of people like him.

      And boy did they work!

  7. Catch words for today:

    KISS (keep it short and simple)

    Means, motive & opportunity


    PACT of silence
    Although agreed timeline, changing witness statements
    Incongruous behaviour

    Interesting combination & food for thought.

  8. Hi! 16 May 2016 10:48
    Bjorn/Sweden here
    Yes, a lot has been kept secret from us. Neil Berry's and Ray Balu's witness statements from May 2007 are not to be found in the P J files. What's so secret about them. To me they are crucial for Gerry's alibi or lack of it. If the S Y and the P J cannot solve the case why not ask the general public to do so. I have always hated secret files. They often protect people in power.

  9. Cristobel, there was NO blood belonging to Madeleine found.

    1. Hi 16 May 2016 16:10
      There were fragments of biological residues of a human being found in the McCanns’ car in which 15 DNA markers out of 19 matched the Madeleine’s DNA profile. This could be by chance. It must be said that the found DNA profile was inclusive as it contained DNA from two or three other individuals. Nevertheless this profile, did not match Gerry’s, Kate’s or any other in their family. So it is either Madeleine’s DNA or somebody else’s DNA profile, who has not yet been tracked down. Since one of the dogs also alerted for scent of death in the car, it is very likely that the person, whose DNA profile resembles that of Madeleine, has been dead while being transported in the car. The McCanns have tried to make us believe that the DNA found in the car could belong to anyone in their family, but it can only belong to Madeleine or to a stranger, not yet identified, who must have been dead in the car. The McCanns have never ever been interested in finding out who that person might have been. What may their reason be?

    2. Task Portugal
      From: "Prior Stuart"
      To: "Task Portugal"
      Sent: 04 September 2007 10:14
      Subject: FW: Op Task - in Confidence

      From: Lowe, Mr J R [
      Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
      Subject: Op Task - In Confidence


      Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

      An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

      There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.

      A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

      Why - ...

      Well lets look at the question that is being asked

      "Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

      It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

      What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

      Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.

      The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

      What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling -

      When was the DNA deposited -
      How was the DNA deposited -
      What body fluid(s) does the DIVA originate from -
      Was a crime committed -

      These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

      Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

      kind regards

      John Lowe Forensic Scientist

      Get it right, of course Madeleine shared her DNA profile with her parents.

  10. It really is so simple for the McCann fans, just set up a "go gund me". Now there would be a conundrum for a finacial forensic auditor in the event of the fund being investigated.

  11. @ Bjorn 16 May 18.39

    Or as John Lowe reported:

    ""Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

    It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

    What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

    Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match."

    1. Hi 17 May 18.39
      Bjorn again here
      Yes, I remember having read that report two or three years ago and I understood that the components found in the profile were not unique to Madeleine. What I then was curious about, and I still am, is how many FSS scientists there are at this laboratory in Birmingham who could match the profile of these identified 15 components, and how many scientists there are all together. Since there is a chain of evidence or indications of the McCanns’ involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance, it ought to be established whether the probability for the DNA profile found in the McCanns’ hired car being Madeleine’s is 50%, 90% or 99%. There is not one single piece of evidence proving the McCanns’ guilt, but an endless chain consisting of small pieces of forensic- and circumstantial evidence. Even if the chances for the DNA being Madeleine’s is just 50% it would still be important in a wider context, because it would not exclude Madeleine from having been in the car.

    2. The question surely is, how on earth could the McCanns have hidden the body for, what was it, three or four weeks in the heat of southern Portugal, then returned under the eyes of the world's press and Amaral and his team, bought those things necessary to dispose of a body and then carried her from the hiding place to the car before driving off unseen to a remote spot in an area they had no knowledge of and somehow hidden the body so well that no-one has found it after all these years past. If you can answer that then maybe you can start looking at the 'circumstantial' evidence.

    3. Dear 17 May 2016 22:26
      Bjorn/Sweden again

      The McCanns having disposed of Madeleine’s body really seems to be unlikely. I agree on that! On the other hand, an abduction by a stranger appears to be almost impossible, considering all the facts documented in the P J files, besides, there was such a small window of opportunity for such a scenario. After all the tapas 9 (don’t forget they were n i n e people), and that they may have had more than 4,5 hours at their disposal (from 17H30 to 22H00) in order to stage an abduction and hide the body. If this is what they did, they did it of course very cleverly.

      If there had been just one little piece of evidence of a break-in, a sound of a crying child, a suspicious car driving away from the apartment or a witness statement of a stranger carrying a child away, it would be reasonable to pursue the abduction hypothesis, but there isn’t. So I don’t know what the S Y have been doing for almost 5 years now. I too, wish that the McCanns were innocent, but unfortunately for me and for everybody, who follow this case, there is not a shred of evidence for it being so.

    4. 22:36 - who says that they had to hide a body for weeks? A popular theory is that Madeleine died accidentally either 1 or 2 nights before, which gave them plenty of time to dispose of a body and then concoct the abduction and play this out on the night. There is after all no evidence that ANYONE saw Madeleine for a couple of days before the supposed abduction date.

    5. The theories of the armchair detectives are based on pure speculation 13:27, and accuse the nannies and other independent witnesses of lying. They are pure nonsense, and I'm astounded anyone still takes any of them seriously.

      The only theory that really counts is that of the Goncalo Amaral and the first (Portuguese)investigation. All the cover up and conspiracy began with all those urgent phone calls Gerry, Kate and the Tapas gang made on the night.

    6. Hi Bjorn, always nice to see you :)

      Yes indeed, don't we all wish the McCanns were innocent, for myself at least it would restore a smidgeon of faith in human nature.

      I don't think Scotland Yard have been investigating bogey men for 5 years to be honest. I think the fact that they are British cops, they are investigating British citizens. The 'pros' will argue Scotland Yard are involved because Maddie is a British citizen, but that makes no sense, because a team of British cops would not have a hope in hell of picking up a Portuguese suspect in Portugal. Imagine a group of Portuguese cops wandering into an East End pub and expecting the locals to assist them. Other than funding the digs in PDL, there is very little SY can do in the Algarve.

      The Portuguese hold primacy, the criminal act of making Maddie disappear was committed in Portugal, and that is where it is destined to be prosecuted.

      The only assistance SY can usefully give to the Portuguese, is to handle the 'British' side of the operation. And as they initially had 31 homicide detectives whilst the Portuguese had a 'small' team, it would appear they were carrying out the bulk of the work.

    7. 17.5.16 11.23

      Many thanks for your contribution. Isn't it possible, 9 years on and with advances in science and technology, that the DNA could now be more precise?

      I have always been puzzled as to why the McCanns seemed so reluctant to hand over Maddie's DNA. It could of course be that they were too zealous in their clean up (suspicious by itself), but the lack of tooth and hairbrushes is very suspicious. So too, the fact that traumatised mother Kate, managed to the laundry on Saturday the 5th! Maddie's dirty clothes from Thursday seem to have vanished or were swiftly washed and of course what happened to the little bead decoration she wore in her hair that day? They are impossible to remove without hair being attached.

      I don't (at this stage) think Gerry is not Maddie's biological father, and I certainly don't give any credence to the cloning theories (good grief!).

      I think the most logical reason for hiding the DNA, would be the chance that the use of sedatives may have been revealed. A hair follicle for example, gives a detailed history of every drug you have ever taken. I know this because I once worked for solicitors who dealt with Family Law and child contact issues. Many clients regularly had to give hair samples to prove they were clean.

  12. I haven't really followed this saga too much, but it seems there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that she was abducted. If she was calling out for her parents in the evenings from them originally arriving in the resort I cant understand why they still took it upon themselves to go out. Why not take a push chair with the three of them and leave earlier and take it in turns to stay out? Why not use the nanny facilities? Then to crown it all on the night of the "disappearance" the door is not locked or is faulty which you would report and which they would of known about. It just looks staged to me. A child walking to find her parents possible but calling out as well and with others in the complex listening I am not really sure she would have got far and would have been intercepted by other holiday makers.