Saturday, 28 April 2018


Well done Sonia Poulton for creating such an interesting and informative documentary sans wild imaginings and spin doctoring on behalf of the McCanns.  As we all know the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is so much more than the disappearance of one small child.  It is now such a huge subject, that it has broken down into individual chapters and sub-division, where on earth do you begin

Sonia has tackled this multi-faceted case skilfully and professionally, this will ruffle a lot of feathers, but there is nothing within it that could be considered libellous.  As for my own brief appearance, I already think I  am hideous and this doesn't help, but regardless I still expect photographs and the mirror to reflect the pretty young thing I once was.  In fact I recently remarked that I may not be quite as gorgeous as I think I am.  SAS (Smart Arsed Son) replied with an exasperated 'Finally....!'  Regardless, I am just happy I sound sane.

The whole Madeleine media circus began within hours of Madeleine's disappearance.  The whole world sympathetic towards the parents on an 'it could have been me' basis, the middle class world of the MSM identified themselves with Gerry and Kate, hard working professionals to whom something terrible had happened.  As the woman from Rothley confirmed the stance taken by the police and the MSM would have been entirely different had Gerry and Kate not been Doctors.  

By early morning on the 4th May, the McCanns friend Jill Renwick was telling the world an abductor broke into their apartment and stole Madeleine.  And she was also laying foundations to build a case against the police, by saying no-one was helping the McCanns and no-one other than themselves was searching.  That was a blatant lie, those of us who watched the story unfolding could see the huge amount of resources the Portuguese were putting into the search.  And it was a huge slap in the face to all those kind people who searched - the staff from Warners, the villagers, the ex-pats

Goncalo Amaral admitted there were mistakes made in the original investigation.  Failure to preserve the crime scene?  Several factors apply here.  Gerry was demanding to speak to police of a higher rank than those who showed up.  And already diplomatic pressure was being put on the Portuguese police to 'go easy' on the parents.  The failure of the police to  preserve the crime scene lies in the lap of the police, but in their defence they were up against 6 very assertive (though not very bright) individuals who spent several hours trampling all over the crime scene.  Six doctors who should have known just how precious forensic evidence was.  One fingerprint could have led to an abductor within hours.  Kate in her book was appalled that 'we' were being blamed by the PJ for not preserving the crime scene.  But this is just another instance of Kate blaming anyone but themselves.  How much of that failure is down to the diplomatic pressure? 

I'm not surprised Gordon Brown had nothing to say.  This tiny case may one day prove to be an enormous blight on his legacy.  What was discussed at his meeting with Leicester Police in September 2007?  At this point I am dying to know the actual date of his visit? Was  it before or after Kate and Gerry were made Arguidos?  And from Gonalo Amaral's book, it was then the British police who had been sharing their offices packed up and left.  That the Portuguese police went ahead and made Gerry and Kate Arguidos anyway suggests GB had no sway with the Portuguese.

The McCanns relationship with Leicester police is bizarre as Sonia demonstrates.  Leicester Police have shielded the McCanns very well, but they did fight to hang onto the details of their own investigation where they declared Gerry and Kate not cleared.  I suspect however, there was much division within the ranks.  Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe was selling balloons for the Madeleine Fund (I know!), DCI Redwood said with a straight face, neither the McCanns or their friends are suspects.  And that mantra remains unless anything changes.

Sonia is very professional as she doesn't show any bias,  she presents all the anomalies that the MSM have been avoiding for the past 11 years, with a clear and cohesive dialogue that resonates with the viewer.  The interview with former DCI Colin Sutton was intriguing.  I have no cause to doubt him, he is a thoughtful and reasonable man, but I am still struggling to believe that an entire task force (33+ homicide detectives) would tiptoe around the last people to see Madeleine alive.  To make it credible they would have to devise a plot that works with the existing evidence and a plot that would have to stand up to scrutiny not only on the world stage, but possibly in a Court room.  Does Mr. Sutton not ponder whether his colleagues assigned to Operation Grange may have had the same misgivings as himself? 

I think Sonia and I may have differing opinions on the involvement of politicians.  Though my theories were slightly shaken by the responses of Liam Fox and the other tory MP on the questions about Madeleine and Operation Grange.  Their 'don't know anything about it' replies were probably closest to the truth.  Followed swiftly by outrage at the question, and compassion for the parents.  The 'party line' I should imagine. 

As for the four PMs.  Blair and Brown I think are up to their necks in it, but Cameron and May I'm not so sure of.  The direct plea from the McCanns to DC via the front page of the Sun was directly beneficial to chums DC and Rebekah Brooks.  Madeleine stories still shifted tabloids and portrayed the Sun and David Cameron as compassionate.  I however, suspect DC and RB pulled a fast one on the McCanns.  Whether they were cleared or not cleared, would always be hot news.

Both DC and Theresa May have been careful not to get to close and personal with the McCanns, as their predecessors had done.  There are pictures of the current PM and Kate at the same event, but nothing to indicate Kate was getting special treatment or having private discussions. 

I can see how the argument of those who foresee a cover up, are stronger than my own at the moment (where are  you Blacksmith?), Colin Sutton is a compelling witness.  But my common sense, logic and reasoning can't figure out any way in which a cover up could be achieved.  .How can such a high profile investigation be closed with an unsatisfactory result?  Why does Colin Sutton take Mark Rowleys word verbatim?  Has he never been involved in a case that involves subterfuge?   Has he ever been involved in a case where the police have been told to ignore certain suspects? Thirty plus police officers dicing with their future careers is hard to swallow.

In my opinion, the truth behind Madeleine's disappearance cannot remain hidden forever.  There are too many people involved and too much potential for whistleblowers.  Sonia in her brilliant documentary has given an overview of all the elements involved  that makes this case so complex and asks the same questions as those who read beyond the headlines.  Why did the British establishment protect this couple and are they protecting them still?

Will Operation Grange ever reach a conclusion on the disappearance of Madeleine? Prior to this documentary, I would have yes, and that would have been a definite yes.  But my belief is shaken if not stirred.  There have been so many unbelievable moments in this long running saga that I have refused to rule anything out.    



  1. Hi Rosalinda, maybe that is what the family wanted to be completely "Exhonerated of involvement" in Madeleine's disappearance,part of the exoneration failed at the Supreme Court of Portugal, 2008- January 2017?
    eg New review by a UK Police Force,October 2010, running alongside Supreme Court as stated by the Family(Gerry)= Operation Grange, Remit,Abduction!

    As Colin Sutton implies, that if the Tapas Group and Kate,Gerry Not investigated and "Innocent declared"where does that leave Operation Grange,as he stated, he would be told,"What he could and Could Not investigate" which determines a flawed thesis of a Review?
    If your told look for A and you cannot find an A,does that determine that A never existed?
    Such as the nonsense from DCI Simon Foy,the McCann's and the Tapas group,"where,were,Where they where" on the evening of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,so on this thesis,Seven or Nine people make statements and what they say is Gospel,"Not to be questioned, aka A/C Mark Rowley,they are not suspected of involvement,End of,geddit, Portugal PJ that doesn't find them innocent!
    The Metropolitan Police very quickly lose Commander Sir Bernard Hogan Howe,then A/C Mark Rowley within Twelve months of the Portugal supreme Court decision, January 2017,"Last throw of the dice" bungling burglars,Woman in Purple,who had a Dead Husband declared as a Paedophile by MSM,the dead cannot prosecute for defamation?
    Dixon of Dock green must be spinning?

    1. Hi 17:53,and thank you for commenting.

      The libel claims by the McCanns are separate to the criminal investigation, though I suspect if the McCanns had won, they would have taken it as a court declaration of their innocence. One of the more bizarre aspects of this case was the McCanns fighting a libel case in Lisbon as Scotland Yard were just a few miles down the coast digging up PDL, and declaring there was no evidence Madeleine had come to any harm. Did they attend the dig? No, they didn't even mention it.

      Can an investigation begin with such a restricted agenda? Ie. Do not investigate the parents. Yes I know what DCI Redwood etc said, and that many believe the parents aren't being investigated, but logistically, I don't see how it is possible. I would like to ask Colin Sutton if he has ever known of a police investigation being ordered to cover up a crime? He was a long serving police detective, he knows how the system works, and he knows if cover ups on this scale are possible. Has he witnessed it before?

      A one track agenda, investigating route A and nothing else would quickly collapse. How is it possible to investigate the disappearance of a child without bothering the parents and first hand witnesses? What do they do when all the leads go straight back to those excluded from the investigation? In practicality, the one track agenda is unworkable and Operation Grange would have closed long ago had they stuck to it.

  2. "Does Mr. Sutton not ponder whether his colleagues assigned to Operation Grange may have had the same misgivings as himself?"

    The 'rank and file' donation of £1000 to GA's defence fund answers that one.

    "(where are you Blacksmith?)"

    John (the media dunnit) Blacksmith's probably busy looking up all the negative adjectives he can that begin with 'S' (alliteration would make his predictably acidic commentary appear poetic at least).

    "Thirty plus police officers dicing with their future careers is hard to swallow."

    It's more like three now, but the number is irrelevant in any case.

    As a hierarchically structured member of the executive the Met's operation is simple. Those at the top give the orders. Those beneath carry them out. They'd be more likely to 'dice with their careers' if they were to turn around and say 'Not on your nelly'.

    By way of analogy, if a government enacts a disastrous policy it's the Minister primarily responsible who eventually makes the long walk to the exit door. Anonymous Civil servant(s) who enable the faux pas are absolved of responsibility, being on the receiving end of directives.

    Sonia's 'chapter 1' documentary is bang on the money though. Although much remains unspoken the inferences are clearly there and I imagine a number of people will feel chapter 2, as and when it appears, could get too close for comfort. She has, at the very least, exposed the MSM for the spineless sycophants they are. (Did I hear Blacksmith cheer just then?)

    1. Thank you for your reply 19:27, there is much I agree with! Yes, the donation to GA's legal fund from the Met Police spoke volumes, as fellow police officers it must be impossible for them not to empathise with GA. The numbers do matter by the way, because they increase the risk of whistleblowing.

      Your theory that the police are brain washed, subservient, operatives of the State is a tad overboard, even Kate said most people are inherently good. Employers cannot order people to commit crimes and covering up the death of a child would be a crime.

      Whilst I agree police officers can be misused by politicians, this is a democracy, the police serve the people, politicians cannot set up their own secret task forces.

      I agree disastrous government policies usually end up in the lap of someone in the post room, most of the hierarchy in this case will probably find ways to wriggle out of any responsibility. But some have no-where to hide. Bernard Hogan-Howe cannot erase his participation in Balloon fundraising and Jim Gamble cannot erase his breakfast sofa appearances and his aggressive stance towards anyone who questions the abduction story.

    2. You don't believe that do you Ros? The Met officers donated money to a rookie cop while the investigation was ongoing.

      Have you proof there were these officers or was it just Haverns lot collecting and saying they were Met officers? No self respecting cop would do that. You are taken in very easily my friend.

    3. Yes I do believe it. It actually came from the Gofundme site for GA accompanied by a message from said Met Officers.

      In the case of Goncalo Amaral, I am sure those Officers in Operation Grange are fully aware of 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

      Suing the former detective probably equates to suing ALL detectives, simply for doing their jobs. Operation Grange are investigating a case where former suspects are simultaneously suing a former detective for his family home and all his assets. Not hard to guess which side they would lean towards.

    4. Not Goncalo Amaral's I should imagine.

      Think you've been duped along with many others into believing this GFM donation.

      Without the names of the officers it is just a comment written on GFM by somebody.

      We know the tricks by now but p'haps you don't? I find that hard to believe though.

      It was and is an ongoing investigation so cops would not donate to such a fund. Don't believe it for a moment.

    5. 23:28
      ("It was and is an ongoing investigation so cops would not donate to such a fund. Don't believe it for a moment.")

      Your "cops" didn't deny it.


      MPS -

      MPS from an anonymous but very large group of Brit. police officers, outraged at the way in which an SIO has been treated. This strikes at the very basis of the way investigations whould be conducted, “Without Fear or Favour, Malice or ill will”. The world can clearly see where the malice and ill-will are in this case.


    6. @ Anonymous30 April 2018 at 10:16

      I believe there were 2 donations of £1000 made by the alleged group of serving MPS made within a few minutes.

      It is false and as murky mcleod was involved heavily on the GoFundMe I don't believe it for a minute.

      It was a scam.

    7. Unknown at 16:15

      You are ill-informed.

      There was one donation of £1,000 made by MPS.

      There were two donations of £4,000 made by um grupo anónimo de funcionários de empresas e do meio legal.

      (2510 and 2511)

    8. For a scam, the money was real. That is £1000 was given to GA's legal fund.

      Why do you need to think it is a scam 16:15? Is it because it suggests the Met Police support Goncalo Amaral? Do you think someone hates them to the tune of £1,000? Maybe the McCanns donated it themselves to make it look as the police are biased against them?

  3. Hello Rosalinda
    "But my belief is shaken if not stirred. There have been so many unbelievable moments in this long running saga that I have refused to rule anything out"

    Neither have I, Rosalinda.
    As for Sonia poulton, I appeciate her approach, because she keeps things simple, imo. People who've never heard about the Madeleine case may,therefore, take interest in it.

    In her documentary, she questions the official version, but do so without accusing the McCanns of anything. Nor does she claim to know what has actually happened to Madeleine.

    She asks questions and expresses doubts and as long as the Met/SY, who’ve been responsible for the investigation do not provide intelligible answers or at least make an attempt to clarify what the Operation Grange has been doing since 2011/13, more and more people will suspect that the McCanns are somehow protected by society.

    As the British review and the subsequent reopening of the case in Portugal came about when David Cameron was PM and Theresa May was home secretary,it’s quite logical that the latter should now explain why this happened at all, what has been done and what has so far been achieved.

    Neither the two former suspects, nor the responsible politicians can in the long run escape justice and responsibility by hiding or refusing to answer questions by investigative journalists, especially as such questions are in the interest of so many, especially British and Portuguese citizens.

    1. Hi Bjorn, yes this has indeed been a roller coaster ride, the McCanns have on many occasions pulled off the seemingly impossible. They convinced many that leaving kids alone in hotel rooms is responsible parenting. They convinced the UK that Portugal had a third world police force, and they convinced the world to send them lots of money. Oh and they convinced large news agencies to compensate them too.

      Sonia did well to cover so much ground, and she did well in simplifying the plot, which will be especially useful to the new audience this case will attract when the story breaks. There are still millions out there who haven't yet looked beyond the tabloid front pages, so a new media storm is quite likely.

      Sonia is professional enough not to alienate any of her audience, not to show malice and not to reach firm conclusions. It's that professionalism that makes her more mmainstream than niche.

      As the leading force are the PJ, I suspect Operation Grange and anyone connected with it, are bound by judicial secrecy. The McCanns made a huge thing of it in the early days especially to avoid awkward questions. This time around, they appear to sticking to it, giving very few interviews since Operation Grange began.

      David Cameron and Theresa May will be held to account. Perhaps praise for their bravery and tenacity for bringing those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance to Justice. Huge criticism if OG ends with no result. They will be asked, 'if it wasn't going anywhere, why did you carry on chucking money at it?

      The idea that Operation Grange is some kind of secret task force, accountable only to the Home Secretary and PM, is more Putin than May, albeit she is getting there. Also it must be asked, how secret is a task force that opens at the behest of a tabloid front page?

      Everyone, even saints and philanthropists, considers what it is in it for them personally before embarking on any action. Politicians especially. What was in it for DC? Praise from Rebekah and the love of the people. How about TM? She had sat on the CEOP report produced by Jim Gamble for 6 months, and all she had were 'fluffy words' according to Kate. But at that time DC was the boss, so the Review was granted. She could have cancelled it when she became PM, but she has allowed it to continue. What I think is important to remember, is that in the autumn of 2010, she publically fell out with Jim Gamble, and he resigned, or was forced to resign as head of CEOP.

      I don't think the Review the McCanns were given was based on the Report by Jim Gamble. Not only because of the ill feeling between TM and JG, but also because it would have resulted in hundreds of PCs being seized and watchers of porn being arrested.

      Colin Sutton said OG should go back to the very beginning, start with the McCanns and the last people to see Madeleine alive. I seem to remember DCI Redwood saying more or less the same thing when OG began. Mr. Sutton takes as a given that the McCanns haven't been investigated. I think it more likely that the McCanns have hidden behind lawyers since May 2007 and simply aren't co-operating.

      Tis true Mark Rowley confirms the McCanns haven't been investigated but he goes further by saying they had no cause to go over the original investigation. That is, the original investigators did not nothing wrong, they didn't miss any leads.

      That presents a whole new set of anomalies. The original investigation made the McCanns arguidos and were trying to arrange a reconstruction in order to rule the parents and their friends out. It ended because the parents and their friends would not co-operate. Stating the parents are not persons of interest or suspects directly contradicts the findings of that original investigation.

      continues...... future prognosis, lol

    2. Too many people are in the plot for 'the lie' to be sustainable. Not only could any one of the many fragile links in the immediate chain break, but so too the more people involved the more chances of whistle blowing.

      Then there is the human factor. As a society it is not accept for a small child to disappear without explanation. As fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, they will be thinking of the child, as GA did. It would go against all their human instincts to protect those who are responsible for the child's fate.

      Having opened with a fanfare and a blank cheque, I don't see how this case can end unsolved and filed away as classified. If the objective of OG is to protect the parents and rid them of the cloud of suspicion, they have failed miserably.

      That long ago episode of Crimewatch saw the numbers in the forums and facebook pages increase dramatically. The picture of the Gerry lookalike did them no favours, nor did the extensive digging in PDL.

      Operation Grange are saying one thing, but doing another. Eg, they were saying Madeleine might be alive while digging for a body. You are right Bjorn their statements are unintelligible.

      If there is definitive proof that Madeleine's parents and their friends were not involved, it has been horribly cruel of Operation Grange not to make that crystal clear. Why have they left them in limbo for so long?

      I don't see any cordial relationship between the McCanns and Operation Grange. Even after all this time, they do not seem to be on first name terms, Gerry and Kate are not thanking individuals or clinging onto anything they say.

      Returning to my penchant for watching crime documentaries, families with missing loved ones tend to bond with the detectives working on their case because they phone them every day and there are hugs all around when justice is finally achieved. I didn't see that bonding on Crimewatch when Gerry and Kate sat alongside DCI Redwood. They seemed much closer and more relaxed with Jim Gamble.

      In order for a cover up to succeed, everyone, without exception, has to be in agreement. Especially the main parties. Operation Grange cannot produce some kind of abduction account without the co-operation of the last people to see Madeleine alive. They would have to get their stories straight. Not an easy task as we can see by the tapas statements.

      The words of Hogan-Howe and Mark Rowley may have been an emphatic no, they are not suspects, but their statements have offered little, if any, comfort to the parents. Where is the confidence they had when their initial arguido status was lifted? (Expresso interview). At that time they were celebrating being off the hook and the success of their 'no evidence chant'.

      Of course they should have quit while they were ahead, but they couldn't resist another bash at fundraising. Some might say the granting of a Review and Investigation was karma, and some might say it was the only way to shut the parents up, they were never going to stop.

    3. Rosalinda 28 April 2018 at 23:53
      "I think it more likely that the McCanns have hidden behind lawyers since May 2007 and simply aren't co-operating"

      Yes, quite right Rosalinda. If the Operation Grange really tries to investigate the McCanns by taking the case back to zero as Redwood wished, or at least said he'd do, the McCanns will make it difficult for them.

    4. Bjorn, 29 April 11.46

      Whether the McCanns are lawyered up or not it is still the police who are running the show, not the McCanns. Many criminals who have done horrendous crimes are still open to tedious questioning and going over and over the facts time and again whether they have lawyers or not.

      However, OG are not the leading investigators which many people seem to overlook, it's the Portuguese. OG is only a "follow up exercise" and is most probably investigating the Fund if they are actually doing anything.

    5. Actually 16:03, when a witness stops co-operating (gets lawyered up) there is nothing the police can do. That's why so many cases remain 'unsolved'. The police may know who the perpetrator is, but cannot prove it. It's the reason Madeleine's case was shelved in 2008, ditto Lisa Irwin, Isabel Celis, Sabrina Aisenberg. All claimed abductions but police not looking for abductors.

      You are right. Portugal holds the lead and will prosecute any case that is brought. Of course, extradition lawyers were among the first the McCanns hired, so I don't know how that will work.

      IMO, the British police are investigating the 'British side' with all that entails, maybe everything that happened after the event, including the Fund.

    6. Hello Anon 29 April 2018 at 16:03
      Yes, we should never forget that the case is in the hands of the Portuguese PJ, and that gives us at least a small hope of getting access to the files, if the case becomes closed before it's solved.

  4. It's the responsibility of the police to secure a crime scene, no one else's.

    1. Hello Anon 28 April 2018 at 20:28
      "It's the responsibility of the police to secure a crime scene, no one else's"

      Yes, so true, and why would the McCanns remind the Portuguese Police about that, when they had such a great chance to sabotage the forensic work, that they knew was going to be carried out by the PJ and their experts the following day.

    2. On the mark. Well done 20:28. You are 100% correct.

    3. It is the responsibility of the police to secure a crime scene, but it was in the interests of the parents and the child especially, to preserve whatever they could. They claimed immediately that Madeleine had been abducted and must have realised the importance of finger prints etc. Having been burgled myself in the past, I knew straight away not to touch the window that had been forced open, yet Professor Gerry immediately 'tested' the shutter! Incredible! One fingerprint could have led straight to the abductor!

      It is hard to believe that six doctors could be so incredibly stupid. Instead of begging the police to close the borders etc, they should have been begging them to gather forensic evidence. They were the ones saying a crime had been committed.

    4. "they should have been begging them to gather forensic evidence. "

      That's ridiculous. You're blaming the McCanns yet again when the responsibility lies entirely with the investigating forces.

    5. Yes 20.28 you are correct but the police thought Madeleine had just walked out of the apartment. Quite a reasonable assumption as there was no evidence of a break in. To this day there is no evidence of an abduction.

    6. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 April 2018 at 22:05

      You're so perfect Ros I am surprised you have not been made a Dame by now. Huh - bloody stupid doctors.

      Do they give crime scene tape with boarding cards?

    7. @ ruth bashford30 April 2018 at 06:41

      What evidence of abduction would satisfy you?

    8. I didn't suggest they should carry crime scene tape with them Unknown at 16:31. I suggested that as doctors claiming an abductor had come into the apartment and taken their child, they would WANT to preserve the crime scene. A fingerprint could have led directly to her. I am not a doctor, but even for a burglary I knew not to tamper with the evidence.

    9. Did they tamper with the evidence?

    10. Anonymous 1 May at 23:18

      "The deponent ran to the apartment accompanied by the rest of the group who, at the time, were seated at the table. When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open on one side, the external blinds almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE'S bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cribs. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scene that she found when she entered the apartment.

      Then he closed the external blinds, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside. They continued with searches outside around the various apartment blocks, the deponent having asked MATHEW who went to the secondary reception [where] the event was communicated to the local police, since he had no doubt that his daughter had been kidnapped [abducted]. He refutes, peremptorily, the notion [idea/hypothesis] that MADELEINE could have left the apartment by her own means."

  5. Hi Rosalinda,
    Brilliant video. The world should be thankful for the internet or we'd be none the wiser.

    As Sonia Poulton shows, and you mentioned in your article, the friend of the McCann's, Jill Renwick, kickstarted the cover up story by spreading a disinformation story to the media.
    The amazing coincidence was that this woman lived next door to Gordon Brown (or his brother was it) and Brown offered immediate assistance. He probably believed her story to begin with but got entangled in the web and stayed put.
    You can't get higher than a Prime Minister for political leverage. And so the British government and their top police spokesmen have continued to make fools of themselves for 11 years.
    Does this explain the Elephant in the room.
    Investigate the couple? - How dare you.

    Can't wait for part 2 of the video.

    1. Hi 03.02 (jc)

      You probably will be disappointed coz if Sonia cannot raise money she isn't going to be doing another.

      Making money off a child or anybody else in tragic circumstances is not really on. In fact it is a despicable thing to do.

      The police will solve it if anybody can, not armchair defectives.

      Best wishes and be nice!

    2. News agencies make money off other people's tragedies every day 18:24, that's what reporters do, they write about the news. It's also what documentary makers do, and what writers do. You may find that morally bankrupt, but you read and watch what those creatives produce. You want the product, but you don't want to pay the maker of that product.

      I don't know what you do 18:24, you might work for an arms manufacturer for all I know, but in your narrow view, would that be OK?

  6. "Today, Sunday 29th April 2018, is the eleventh anniversary of the last day in the short life of Madeleine Beth McCann

    Requiescat in Pace, little one.

    Sick sick sick.

    1. Unknown 29 April 09.57

      I'm not sure why there is so much faith in PeterMac's ebook chapter re the pool photo and comment by the MMRG (and their paperwork sent to the Portuguese authorities) that the photo was taken on 29th April and has not been tampered with because if it was taken on 29th April why wasn't it on one of the McCann's cameras or a camera belonging to one of the Tapas friends. It didn't appear until a week or more (I can't exactly remember when) after Madeleine supposedly died. It would have also been more relevant to put on posters instead of the photos that the McCanns circulated with Madeleine looking much younger and having chin length hair.

      I do believe she died later in the week, perhaps the Wednesday and the photo was photoshopped with head superimposed on the body of another child wearing the clothes that Kate McCann insisted she brought for the holiday in PDL. Seeing as Madeleine was always dressed as if her clothes were brought from a rag and bone man it's surprising that KM should splash out so much money for an outfit that looks like it would be only worn for special occasions, like a flower girl at a wedding.

    2. Disgusted of Northampton writes that as a viewer of the Havern forum group my hair stands on end at the stupidity of the lot of them. Call themselves a research group? My word! This latest chapter in the ebook bizarre and poorly researched. What does it take to stop this travesty of justice for Madeleine Beth McCann. Havern group get a life. The blind leading the blind!

    3. @ Anonymous29 April 2018 at 14:21
      "I do believe she died later in the week, perhaps the Wednesday and the photo was photoshopped with head superimposed on the body of another child wearing the clothes that Kate McCann insisted she brought for the holiday in PDL. Seeing as Madeleine was always dressed as if her clothes were brought from a rag and bone man it's surprising that KM should splash out so much money for an outfit that looks like it would be only worn for special occasions, like a flower girl at a wedding."

      Yes they found a convenient girl to add to the cover-up.

      Ros - you allow comments like that - wht is the point.

      Your blog is dying a death because you allow such things.

    4. I was actually going to pull 14:21 up on that myself Unknown.

      Not nice, 14:21, Madeleine looked like any lively 3/4 year old, and as any mum of a child that age knows, no matter how clean, smart and tidy they are going out the door, within an hour they will look as though they have dressed by the rag and bone man. It's funny and kind of cute.

      Madeleine was a normal, happy little girl, obviously much loved and doted on by her family and nothing has come forward in 11 years to suggest otherwise.

      Madeleine was, by all accounts, a chatterbox, friendly and outgoing and not afraid to stand her ground. Abused children are the opposite. Fearful, withdrawn, limited vocabulary, timid.

      The photograph nonsense on the cesspit is sick, and more than a little creepy, please don't let it influence you 14:21.

    5. What is the basis for this absurd claim that Madeleine died on Sunday - not Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday, mind you - but definitely on Sunday for some unfathomable and entirely arbitrary reason ?

      It strikes me that the 'research' forum that relentlessly pushes this convoluted nonsense is nothing more than a distraction facility for challenging ( and dismissing ) Goncalo Amaral's much simpler, and eminently more plausible explanation for the missing child's disappearance.

      Perhaps that's why the McCanns' ( and their lawyers ) seem to be perfectly content for that forum to continue without interference or objection.

    6. 15:49 What is the basis......

      Petermac's 'Sunday' claim is his USP (unique selling point'. It's unique because it is absolute nonsense. I'm not a former detective like Petermac, but even I know the first thing police do is establish the last sightings of the missing person.

      The police who were actually there on the ground, like Goncalo Amaral, know infinitely more than Petermac in his armchair with a very small portion of the 11 year old police investigation files.

      Petermac like Bennett clearly has no problem in making himself look like an almighty twat which is inevitable once the truth is revealed. Perhaps they are hoping that it will never be solved, and their batshit crazy theories will stand the test of time.

      Bennett wants (desperately) to bring in the perverted sex angle. It's his biggest worry in life that people might be doing the kind of stuff that is unique to his head alone. Petermac may not be charging for his e-book, but in the billion to one chance that he is right, fame and fortune would surely follow. Probably a medal too for his moral stance.

      There is of course, as you say, only one plausible explanation for the missing child's disappearance and that of Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation.

      The McCanns don't object to the cesspit, because they have become a caricature of all the nasties who attack them on social media. It enhances the parents' victim status, Bennett's Madeleine Foundation was even cited in their claim against Goncalo Amaral.

      They are not a threat to the Mcanns because they are not credible. This 'research' group, remains largely anonymous, which is always suspicious, and they still discuss this case in a way they would never dare in public. I can't imagine these hideous characters acting as they do in the real world, their friends and neighbours probably have no idea.

  7. bennett the blonk now posting as eye4truth in the cesspit.

    1. Why the forum owner allows such obvious sock accounts I don't know.

  8. Sonia fund raising
    "$51 of $1,000 per month
    Reaching a monthly amount of $1,000 (approx. £720) will allow us to properly invest in production tools, including a broadcast quality camera, recording equipment and better editing software.

    It will also contribute to hiring creatives to work on our films to a higher standard.
    1 of 2

    $51 of $5,000 per month
    Now we're cooking with gas!
    Reaching $5000 (approx. £3590) will allow us a level of sustainability and the ability to hire a per-project cinematographer, sound designer, composer, graphic designer and more.

    It will also enable us to access important archives and clear copyright.
    2 of 2"

    Apparently Part 2 and future episodes will depend on funds being raised.

    ‏ @aacg
    13h13 hours ago
    Are you interested in corrections for the next edition ? Sound is terrible, should be professionally mixed. Will part 2 explore deeper ?"

    "Sonia Poulton
    ‏Verified account @SoniaPoulton
    11h11 hours ago
    1. Always. Feel free to contact me at 2. Bit harsh. Am proud of what our small team achieved and yes we do but someone has to fund it. 3. Absolutely. This is the start, the opener."

    1. "Bloody hell - very harsh not just a bit. You can’t please some people. Compared with some of the docs on YouTube it was fantastic. Huge amount of praise due to you and your team Sonia. You should be very proud of yourself x"

  9. Part One: The McCanns and The Police
    26th April 2018
    In October 2014, an innocent woman was deemed to have committed suicide after she was hounded by mainstream media.
    Her crime? She questioned the official narrative of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

    So, having had my own experiences of what happens when you question Madeleine's disappearance, I went on a journey to make a documentary that looked at a different narrative about the missing child. Some of it is contained in a production diary on this site.
    The production diary only goes up to 2016 when we realised the strength of opposition to us making such a documentary.
    I intend, at some stage, to make a film about that. It's a story by itself.
    So, we set out to make a made-for-TV documentary and we still have that. It is an overview of the case including the various anomalies.
    However, there are a number of legal issues that have, so far, proved unsurpassable for TV broadcasters to commit to it.
    But what we have collected over the last four years is way beyond a 54-minute TV documentary.
    Anyone who knows about Madeleine McCann - and what has happened since she was reported missing in 2007 - will also know that this is a fascinating story that is about so much more than a missing child, as truly sad as that is.
    I would love to be able to explore Madeleine's story on Patreon (link: but that requires your support, too.
    I have been financially penalised for pursuing this story. Example? OK. Here’s a not-so fun fact.
    In the year leading up to the making of our film, I appeared on national media, TV and radio, fifty-odd times. That’s over once a week. Certainly enough to have something of a mainstream media profile. Not on par with a Kim Kardashian or a Holly Willoughby, I will grant you that, but enough to have something to lose.
    And I did.

    In the year that followed the beginning of our film, I appeared approximately NO TIMES on TV.
    I was soiled goods.
    I had dared to do what you weren’t supposed to do as a mainstream media journalist.
    I had said: I question the official version of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
    That was it.

    I asked questions. I made no accusations. No deliberations. I’m not a judge.
    I just said, and repeatedly, I feel that something is not quite right about this story and I have to question it.
    I was told not to.
    By TV producers, by radio researchers and by newspaper commissioning editors.

    They were quite explicit.
    In fact, to quote one industry stalwart ‘that is the one story that you don’t cover’.
    Which, for some bizarre reason, translated to me as ‘that’s the one story you must cover’.
    And so I did. Or have attempted to. And sometimes that has worked and other times I have been blocked. Either by internet thugs or Government protocol.
    Perhaps they are linked. Who knows? It’s a crazy story. One that requires much contemplation.

    And so, with the numerous obstacles attached to pursuing this story, I decided to approach it in a different way and that is by launching a Patreon which enables creators to cut to the chase and get straight to interested parties - without the censorious one in the middle.
    So, out of the myriad of topics I could choose to launch with regarding Madeleine's story, I've decided to start with a look at the McCanns relationship with police since the start of the investigation in 2007.
    Currently, we are approaching the 11th anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance and a £12million-plus police investigation has just been given even more funds. This story is as relevant as it ever was.

    This film is Part 1. Part 2 will follow on the conclusion of investigations in Portugal and London.
    There is material that simply cannot be used while live police investigations are in progress.
    So that's it. I hope you enjoy this first film, it's intended to set a foundation in which to build upon and is the start of an exciting, and nerve-wracking, journey. I'm excited by this and see great potential. It's time to get this wagon moving!

    1. How about naming names. WHO told you not to cover the story? WHO put obstacles in your way? We already know the facts. What are you going to offer that's new?

    2. @ Anonymous29 April 2018 at 18:22

      ask Sonia - they are her words not mine - the link was provided 3 hours before your comment.


    link for post at 10:44

  11. Rosalinda! I read 2 or 3 paragraphs and gave up. I can't believe you are saying these things but hey! you got a seconds worth of publicity on the video and can only say you did a teeny weeny bit better than Ann-Kristine who just sounded dumb with the childish retort she made.

    When will you people hindering Madeleine's chances just shut up? You are not the police nor are you important apart from in your own small anti McCann world.

  12. Cristobel, you say you have refused to rule anything out. Yes, you have. You point blank refuse to entertain any theory where paedophilia rears its ugly head. Whether this is solely because it's a predominately CMOMM theory favoured by Mr Bennett or not, I don't know. Emotional dislikes/ envy should never get in the way of truth.

    1. I haven't ruled anything out 18:19, but I do question the motives of those who are led by scenarios that are the product of their own imaginations.

      As for envy of Bennett? Good grief, my head is completely f*cked up and I am in a manic depression that is eating me alive, but I still wouldn't want to be Bennett.

    2. "I do question the motives of those who are led by scenarios that are the product of their own imaginations"

      Do you include the police in that group? They, after all, believe the McCanns to be innocent.

    3. Do they 22:43? Then why are they not more emphatic about it, it would save the McCanns an awful lot of grief.

    4. Erm, publicly stating that they are not suspects is about as emphatic as you're going to get!!

  13. Rosalinda, well done on your writing about SP(&team)’s interesting and informative video in spite of the fact that you and Sonia may have differing opinions on the involvement of politicians. We may agree to differ, but I think your own brief appearance looks good and professional.

    I just wonder why Chris Grayling believes that Madeleine was abducted if he doesn’t know the details of the investigation. NL


    30 Oct 2015

    “Freedom of Information Act: 103 stories that prove Chris Grayling wrong

    The Tory MP has claimed journalists ‘misuse’ FoI requests – here’s a selection of public interest stories that would never have emerged without the act

    17: British police take 67 return flights to Portugal as cost of Madeleine McCann search nears £9million"

  14. Anonymous29 April 2018 at 18:01
    Rosalinda! I read 2 or 3 paragraphs and gave up. I can't believe you are saying these things but hey! you got a seconds worth of publicity on the video and can only say you did a teeny weeny bit better than Ann-Kristine who just sounded dumb with the childish retort she made.

    When will you people hindering Madeleine's chances just shut up? You are not the police nor are you important apart from in your own small anti McCann world.

    So are you important ? your clearly arrogant if you come on someone else blog and try to tell them what to do . Hindering maddy's chances , please is she doing well at school , been out shopping visited a dentist , what and no one spotted her the most famous missing person of all time , you live in a fantasy world

  15. One name is missing in this circus of events. Gamble's report\scoping exercise was twice refused under Labour. (not him continue to read to the end)

    Mrs May aka fluffyspeak refused.

    Brooks plays her hand via the Sun Nag nag nag (some will know what that mean) best friend DC

    But the most important name missed here & document is McEvy. Again, now in cabinet. That is too close for comfort, IMHO.

    1. KM (madeleine)

      “On Monday 27 August I had a call from Esther McVey, a Liverpool friend from my late teens, by then a television presenter and Conservative parliamentary candidate. Esther was on the board of Madeleine’s Fund. She said she was scared by our current situation and uncomfortable with what she felt was a ‘political shift’. For our own safety, and ‘to protect Madeleine’s good name’ (I wasn’t quite sure what she meant by that), she thought we ought to come home. It seemed I was being pressurized from all quarters and I didn’t like it.”

    2. Hello Anon 30 April 2018 at 10:30
      "She said she was scared by our current situation and uncomfortable with what she felt was a ‘political shift"
      Esther McVey, whomever she might be, and Kate obviously reasoned as if Madeleine's tragedy was a matter of political opinions instead of a criminal case that needed to be solved.

    3. Yeh, I don't think Kate and Esther McVey were that close. Esther McVey saw a popular bandwagon and used an old connection to jump on it.

      Thank you for that extract which sums it up nicely 10:30. Kate has a way of sounding as if she is saying something nice, then adding a sting to the tail. She does it often in her book. EM was obviously among those putting pressure on them to come home, and she didn't like it!

      I think Esther's role on the board of directors was short lived, especially after announcing NONE of Madeleine's Fund would be used for legal costs. I seem to remember someone saying she had dropped the Madeleine case from her website too.

      How big a part she played could be important if questions are being asked of the Board and those who rushed to the McCanns' assistance. Now that she is a Government Minister, she could be on dodgy ground. She might be asked why she quit the Board so quickly, and if she had suspicions why didn't she voice them?

    4. Hi Bjorn, Esther McVey is the tory Minister for the DWP (department of work and pensions). In 2007 she may have been better known for TV presenting and appearing in magazines. I haven't checked her out, but that is about the gist of it.

      I wonder if by 'political shift', she meant the backing away from the case by New Labour hierarchy? With her nose in politics and being a friend of the McCanns, it is likely she was privy to whispers.

      I think it was around this time of the Vanity Fair interview when Clarence, thinking he was off the record, said they could not get a meeting with a Minister - only mid level consul were offered. That's a long way from the cosy telephone chats they had with Blair and Brown. Wasn't it September when Brown went to visit Leicester Police? The same month that Gerry and Kate were made arguidos.

      Returning to that snippet from Kate's book, I got the impression that she was planting seeds. That is, should there ever be a public falling with Esther McVey, she has already mentioned EM's odd use of 'Madeleine's good name' and that she didn't like being pressurised to return to the UK.

      Can't help but wonder though, if EM knew of Kate and Gerry's coming arguido status, in August, ie. before they did. Was she warning them? The thing about British politicians is that they maybe on the opposite benches in the House of Commons, they are all chummy when they get together in the bars, etc. Actually it is probably true the world over. Regardless, EM may have had her ear to the ground, which is why she feared for the family.

      EM iirc, was only the Board of Directors for a very short period of time. No doubt, she, like the rest of us, was not looking at the wider agenda and the long term future. She expected Madeleine to be found. I get the impression that she has not kept in touch.

    5. Björn30 April 2018 at 21:12

      Just a comment on my own recent comment.

      Sorry, I didn't know who this Esther McVey was, until I read Rosalinda's comment here. However, it doesn't change anything about what I think of her discussing the case with Kate as if the Madeleine case was a political issue, when, as Kate must have known,that it was and should always be a crime case with no political interference.

      Now having learnt who this Esther McVey is, I really hope that some journalist would ask her what she meant by a "political shift" and why she urged Kate and Gerry to leave Portugal. Why haven't she been asked about that?

      I sometimes wonder how many corrupt investigative journalists there are in the UK. So, I dare say, that Sonia Poulton's bold and inconvenient questions must be much appreciated by many.

    6. Hi Rosalinda (30 April 2018 at 23:00)

      Thanks for info. I've always had the impression that the McCanns are being informed and possibly also warned before the Met/SY get a real chance to "surprise" them.

      Asked about Stephen Birch's claims regarding Madeleine being buried in Murat's garden, Kate says; "The Met informed us before it hit (she actually said hitted) the newspaper".

      Was it really the Met that informed them, just a thought? Couldn't it have been someone else with inside information that warned the McCanns, whom Kate was about to reveal, through a kind of freudian slip.

      I've never understood why the Met would tell the McCanns what Birch had told them, before the papers would get the news about it. Why would the Met co-operate with the McCanns in trying to silence a witness, who claims to have new evidence, even if they find it ridiculous? I just don't get it.

      However, I don't believe in the Birch story,yet it shows that the McCanns may have been informed, through informal channels on regular basis, about what the Operation Grange secretely have been trying to do in terms of investigating them.

    7. Hi Bjorn, no I don't think the McCanns are being kept informed or updated. If they were, they would brag about it. It is understandable that OG would tip off Gerry and Kate about the Stephen Birch, merely out of courtesy. This case always has the potential to cause a media storm so warning the family was the right thing to do.

      I don't see Stephen Birch as a witness, he is more of an attention seeker in the same mould as Bennett and he has an invention to sell. He too has made up his own account of what happened to Madeleine and it is nonsense. Firstly he discards the evidence of the dogs. With all these theorists, when they do that, I stop reading/watching.

      I don't think the McCanns have been in the loop for a very long time Bjorn, perhaps even as far back as that Vanity Fair interview in the summer of 2007. On the surface their relationship with OG seems frosty. That bonding you see between families of the missing and the police working on their case, doesn't seem to be there. The thanks they give each time OG receives more funds, seem disingenuous, begrudged almost.

      On the political front, Gerry and Kate are more New Labour than tory elite, the PLU (People Like Us)parameters have shifted with this Conservative government. Although having said that, there are nouveau riche in the Cabinet, most notably Minster for the DWP, and Liverpudlian Esther McVey. However, Though EM seems to have distanced herself from the Madeleine case, and given how hyper-sensitive it is, she is probably leaving it that way.

  16. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. So why bring it here Unknown at 17:13?

      As you say Havern's is a cesspit, most of their 'research' is sickening, I don't want it on my blog.

    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 April 2018 at 17:50

      To expose the cesspit for what they are!

      So you just allow bollocks about the McCanns now?

      Tour blog is now useless and I will not be posting again.

    3. That's a shame 19:37, I look forward to my daily rebukes ;)

      I think most by now know what the cesspit is 19:37, ergo they come here to avoid it. Those who comment in the cesspit and to a lesser degree the other site, seem oblivious to the fact that what they say can affect lives. Graphic details especially, which I why I discourage them. No matter what Gerry and Kate have done, or not done, as decent human beings, we shouldn't be inflicting pain just for the sake of it.

      I know you will think otherwise, but I am careful in what I post, honesty and integrity, but my humanistic instincts should not be taken as weakness. I think it is appalling that the UK have been deprived of the 'other side' to this story. And appalled that in the 21st century people still want to burn books.

      Adieu my friend, (not, lol), I will miss you. :)

    4. "Graphic details especially, which I why I discourage them. No matter what Gerry and Kate have done, or not done, as decent human beings, we shouldn't be inflicting pain just for the sake of it."

      And yet you allow posts from favoured posters stating that the McCanns drove around Portugal with the body of their child in the boot of their hired car!!

      G from Jersey

    5. Hello G from Jersey 30 April 2018 at 23:37

      As I see things, there are essentially two aspects of the Madeleine case that are being discussed here on Rosalinda's blog. One is that of the McCanns’ possible involvement in Madeleine's disappearance and the other is that about an unknown perpetrator.

      The case as a whole would become impossible to discuss if all assumptions about the McCanns having hidden or got rid of Madeleine's dead body would be rejected just because it’s macabre. It’s indeed macabre whoever did it, and whatever means of transportation he/she/they used, yet it has to be discussed.

      Moreover, it would be foolish not to assume that Madeleine is now dead, and that she’s been so for many years. Gerry’s talk about Madeleine being taken to be kept and that there’s no evidence to suggest that she’s come to any harm is silly and dishonest, but it’s still his right to believe, or pretend to believe so.

      However, most people certainly understand, that it’s highly unlikely that Madeleine could still be alive and also the most unproductive way to discuss the case if you really wish to understand more of what happened to Madeleine.

      Even though I don’t believe in the Madeleine sunshine story, I listen to it and try to argue against it.

  17. Anonymous30 April 2018 at 23:37
    "Graphic details especially, which I why I discourage them. No matter what Gerry and Kate have done, or not done, as decent human beings, we shouldn't be inflicting pain just for the sake of it."

    And yet you allow posts from favoured posters stating that the McCanns drove around Portugal with the body of their child in the boot of their hired car

    Well those pesky dogs detected something . the car stunk to high heaven , as reportted to the extent the boot was left open for weeks , buns are collected everyday in pdl so i dont buy the trip to the tip or spilling nappies still the dogs can tell the diference whats more three blonde hairs were found aparently that have yet to be tested

  18. "The Truth of The Lie"
    Sorry, I'm a bit confused here.
    Was that the title of Kate McCann's book or Detective Amaral's?

    1. Hello jc 2 May 2018 at 02:08

      The title of Gonzalo Amaral's book in standard English translation is "The Truth of The Lie". Kate just labelled her book "Madeleine", but shouldn't the title have been "The Lie of the Truth" perhaps. Just my suggestion of course.

  19. As soon as the McCanns left Portugal Leicester police were out of there. It was always abduction according to them, no matter how illogical that was and still is.

  20. That's quite a mind-shatterer - the "Missing People Ambassadors" website.
    I am sure the nine directors of the fund pictured are the most worthy of people but why won't Kate give just a hint of a smile like her compatriots. Ditto her mugshot for the directors of the Madeleine Fund.
    Ah well that's no crime. Just because you're soo serious a person.

    (Can't think what the directors of the Find Madeleine Fund get to talk about at meetings as they all know exactly what happened).

    But the "Missing People Directors" are a different kettle of fish, they appear to be all genuine people.
    Probably duped, but at the time willing to take in a high profile spokesperson.

    However, their "ambassadors's" invitation to Kate McCann to join turned out to be a spanner in the works as far as their credibility went.
    The world was probably not impressed with a couple leaving their small children alone and going drinking. (Except they checked on them every half hour). Yes.

    But anyway their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said it was OK, this was a time-honoured custom. - In England that's what parents do.

    So unless they admit their little girl is dead, the Find Madeleine Fund will be producing a good source of income for the McCanns and the Missing People site - actually for ever.
    Machiavelli would have been proud.

    1. June 16, 2007 A done deal.

      'Now mom may use her time towards activism, stung by the loss of her girl. Kate McCann may give up her job as a doctor to campaign against child trafficking and raise awareness about missing children, reports the Times UK.

      Kate and Gerry McCann are said to be alarmed that child trafficking is not taken seriously enough. Kate, 38, is now considering leaving her job as a GP to campaign full-time. A family friend said: "They have come to realize that this is a major issue. If they can act as figureheads then that's all well and good." Her plans come after meeting child welfare groups and politicians on trips to European capitals.'

      Act as figureheads?

    2. I am still incensed by the terrible reputation attributed to the British by all those sycophantic journalists who rushed to say 'we all do it'. We can now add child neglecters to drunks and football hooligans.

      I'm of a similar mind to yourself JC, in that I think the other ambassadors are probably naïve. It is thought to be kinder to believe the parents' story, it's the PC thing to do.

    3. I once made a New Year's resolution to become an activist, but I am ashamed to say, I failed miserably.

      Kate's future career as an activist was, understandably, short lived, very few people remain activists all their lives, but those who do, are memorable. Eg. Ghandi, Che Guevera and Jeremy Corbyn.

      On the child trafficking front, other than saying it's a bigger problem than anyone knew, has she ever actually done or said anything? Figureheads do, at the very least, push their cause and take part in fundraising. Something neither Kate or Gerry seem to have done in a very long time.

      Gerry and Kate I think, had very grandiose ideas for their futures, and that loss they blame on Goncalo Amaral. Their Midas Touch however, had already began to wane towards the end of summer 2007 when they were made arguidos.

      There will be a huge sea of red faces when the truth is finally revealed, the most popular excuse being 'I can't be blamed for thinking kindly of them'. For those Chiefs of police waving the McCann flag, is bumbling and inept really a good look?

  21. Anon 3 May 02.40

    "The world was probably not impressed with a couple leaving their small children alone and going drinking. (Except they checked on them every half hour)."

    One thing I've never understood and still don't to this day is that the McCanns never checked on any of their friends' children yet the friends checked on the McCanns children - weird or what or a cover?

    1. That is puzzling 14:35. Gerry had been up to check at 9/9:10, took his time, used the loo, had his proud dad moment, then bumped into Jez on his way out. No mention of him checking on his friends' kids, no listening out for the other unattended kids.

      I have a recollection of a Portuguese journalist (?) making a short 'cartoon' of the checking system used by the Tapas group that night. It had the feel of those old silent movies speeded up and the comic feel of people bumping into each other.

      Neither the McCanns own documentary or the Crimewatch documentary made any attempt to recreate the tapas meal and absences accurately. The Crimewatch reconstruction wasn't even filmed in PDL, which has always puzzled me. It appeared as though the PJ played no part in it. Then again, the same could be said of the McCanns and their friends. It looked like an independent SY production.

      Why that change in routine that one night? And why stick to such a disruptive and unsociable routine for 6 nights in a row? The night crèche at least would have given them at least a few uninterrupted hours with their friends where they could relax and enjoy their meals. The stress of knowing those babies were so far away and alone would have choked me, and I suspect most other people, but there you go, we mustn't judge.

    2. Hello Rosalinda and Anon3 May 2018 at 14:35 and
      Anon 3 May 02.40

      As we're discussing the McCanns' way of looking after their children now,here’s a brief summary and my personal view of the McCanns' checks on the night when Madeleine disappearaed,

      Gerry went to check on Madeleine roughly abt.21H05 and abt. 21H15 he returns, he says. However, according to Russel O'Briens's timelines I & II, Jane Tanner sees Jez Wilkins, Gerry and the person, whom she believes is the abductor at 21H20, or even later.

      At 21H25 Matthew Oldfield leaves the table, he claims, to check his own children and volunteers to watch on Madeleine as well, which Kate agrees to.

      Unless Gerry did not on his return, which, according to ROs timelines and Jane Tanner’s witness statement, appears to have been much later than Gerry says (probably around 21H20 or later), tell Kate that he’d been to the toilet and also had been talking to Jez Wilkins, after having watched on Madeleine, Kate must have thought that he’d come directly from Madeleine’s bed. If she had wondered, she would’ve asked.

      So how come Kate wanted to watch on Madeleine already at 21H25, according to MOs witness statement, despite the fact that she’d just seen Gerry coming back to the tapas restaurant, just 5 minutes earlier, or even less than that.

      Moreover, there’s nothing in the p j files about Gerry, at that moment, explaining anything to Kate about the reason for his delay, let alone if he was delayed by something before or after having done his check. He just, according to his own witness statement, reminds Kate, that she has to do her check, which he tells her some minutes before 21H25, in other words, as soon as he returns to the table, or even before that, if MO is telling the truth about the time he left to watch on his and the McCanns’ children.

      So, what I’m questioning here is the reason as to why Kate feel that she so urgently needs to go and watch on Madeleine, when Gerry had just returned, especially as she at that point of time knows nothing about the Jez/toilet story.

      Why didn’t Kate just say to Gerry.
      ”You’ve just been to the apartment haven’t you, so why must I go right now?

      A reconstruction and the McCanns being asked more questions would perhaps clarify a lot of such oddities and ambiguities. So, I keep on saying; why hasn’t a real reconstruction come about.

    3. Hi Bjorn,

      The tapas group timeline only appears to work on paper, specifically the torn out page on Madeleine's colouring book. In a practical sense they would all have been bumping into each other as they were toing and froing from the apartments and their checking system would be exposed as farce.

      The group wouldn't return for the PJ's proposed reconstruction in May 2008 and it appears they didn't take part in the Crimewatch reconstruction either.

      I don't think they have co-operated with the police, Portuguese or British, since their first interviews Bjorn. Those first interviews are 'carved in stone', none of them can deviate in any way from what they said originally without affecting the others. Essentially, that timeline is their collective alibi.

      That they have never had anything to add to their original statements is bizarre in itself. We all think of things we should have said, and things we may have left out that we want to add because it might be helpful. Our instincts would be to pester the police with every tiny detail we could remember. Yet Kate made only one statement, and refused to answer questions from then on. Gerry made a second statement, but he had to. In his first statement, he had entered the apartment using a key, but when it was discovered there was no break in, he remembered he entered via the patio doors. Quite a major change, as he then had to add that the abductor may have been hiding in the apartment at the time, the abductor having closed the gate, the patio doors and curtains as he entered. GA in his documentary shows how ridiculous that theory is.

      Having almost been caught, the abductor then opens the window and shutters in the childrens' bedroom as a 'red herring' then carries the child out either by the patio doors and back gate, which he closes after him, or via the front door which he also closes behind him.

      Theoretically or practically, stranger abduction is impossible. Would someone in the middle of a heinous, or even petty crime, close gates, doors and curtains after them? Matt entered the apartment and noticed nothing, no open doors or windows or screaming children. Kate too found everything 'normal', apart from the bedroom door having moved 30cm. The patio doors and curtains being as they, she, Gerry and Matt, had left them. The back gate too was closed, as she made very clear in an interview for Irish television. She is sarcastically explaining a scenario of tiny Madeleine being unable to open and close the patio doors and gate behind her. In doing so, she confirms what she found - nothing awry, the gate was closed, as too were the patio doors. Did Matt close them behind him, or did the abductor? In a lesser way the same applies if the abductor had exited through the front door. He must have closed it behind him, but there was no sound of a door closing.

    4. And talking of screaming children, why didn't any of them wake up? The child seen by Jane Tanner and the Irish family was in a deep sleep, not even stirring at the nearby sound of her father's voice.

      The colouring book timeline is full of flaws, I think someone once worked out that the abductor had only 6 minutes in which to drug all the children and leave the apartment with a comatose child. Having of course created a red herring (the window) but leaving the rest of the apartment exactly as he found it. Apart from the bedroom door being slightly moved.

      The parents and the tapas group are trapped by those original statements, they have left themselves no room for manoeuvre should a 'real' reconstruction ever be made. Apparently in the documentary made on behalf of the McCanns, the scenes with an actress playing Kate were cut. Possibly because the whooshing curtains and slamming door scenario didn't come across as credible.

      Kate went up to the apartment to check on the kids (no offers to check on anyone else's kids), except she doesn't check on the kids, she just listens at the door. Even when babies are sleeping when we go check on them we look, touch, and pull the blankets back over them. Kate's intention it seems was just to 'listen', which I find odd.

      The Tapas timeline may as well have been carved in stone, because any police theory on the burglar/ abductor lines must strictly adhere to the tapas timeline. Of course, they craftily opened that timeline up by eliminating Jane Tanner's sighting without accusing her of lying. I thought at the time that JT had flipped (oh, I do love US news channels)but that was many years ago and limbo prevails.

      Time hasn't been kind to the abduction story and the tapas timeline, it sounds less believable with each passing year. No-one has ever put forward an abduction story that fits the facts available. And those facts are immoveable. That's why a cover up can't work.

    5. Hello Rosalinda
      "She is sarcastically explaining a scenario of tiny Madeleine being unable to open and close the patio doors and gate behind her. In doing so, she confirms what she found - nothing awry, the gate was closed, as too were the patio doors"

      Yes, I reacted in a similar way Rosalinda, when I heard Kate saying what Madeleine couldn't possibly have done, and I thought to myself; Yet, this is what an abductor, holding a child of 4 in his arms, must have done within just seconds and then having left unseen.Impossible. So what Kate actually says between the lines is how difficult it would be even for an abductor.

      As for RBs time line. Just some additional thoughts regarding what I've said.

      Matthew Oldfield, who entered the McCanns apartment after the alleged abductor had left didn’t see any sign of a crime. His witness statement contradicts the McCanns’ hypothesis about “tannerman” being the abductor. He saw nothing, while Kate at her watch saw a ghostly empty bed, the eerie pushed-aside curtains that went whoosh due to a spooky gust of wind coming through the “jemmied open” window, and of course the door that slammed shut.

      She, and Gerry, saw and experienced so much at that “crime scene” that they immediately invited all their friends and the Mark Warner staff to come and see for themselves, that a horrible crime had just been committed in their apartment and then they also decided to tell the world about it.

      Matthew Oldfield, however, had seen nothing, and that should’ve been enough to rule out “tannerman” in favour of “smithman, regardless of whether Jane Tanner’s testimony was reliable or not, which I believe that the PJ did, while it took the Met and the Leicestershire Police 6 years and a fake “tannerman” to do so, Il faut toujours pardonner.

  22. Anon 3 May 02.40 / jc

    "So unless they admit their little girl is dead".

    The McCanns can never admit their little girl is dead i.e. Madeleine as they will then be leaving themselves open to be torn to shreds in any court case that they know she is dead and how she died. That is most probably why they've spent most of the "Fund" on lawyers to help them keep out of a court/jail. They took on the best who would advise them to say and do whatever it takes.

    I doubt the Fund is producing a good source of income if any but they have to keep up the pretence that they're "looking" for Madeleine although they've never actually got off their backsides in the past 11 years to look for her.

    Until the PJ or/and SY can make a watertight case against them they will carry on with the pretence for however long they can.

  23. Buenas noches,hace 11 años vengo leyendo y viendo todas las publicaciones con respecto al caso Madeleine ,y nada a cambiado asta entonces,,dentr d de nueve días Madi estario cumpliendo sus qunqui años si estuviera viva,hoy cumple once años de desaparecida,si es que desapareció el tres,cosa que dudo, para mí todo ocurrió cuando la señora Fen la escucho llorar, ahí tendrían tiempo sufusufici para dejar olor en el armario,cosa que no estarioen los planes,no favorecio,si el tiempo suficiente para deshacerse de un cuerpo.,per en fin,lo unú que espero junto a otras personas,es que se aclare el motumo de su desaparición,cómo,quién y porque.y que al fin pueda descansar en paz.y tener un lugar donde llevar una rosa,a ese lindo angel,al que todos la sentimos como hija algún día,que se haga judjusti judta.Andi

    1. Translation (approximately):

      Good evening,
      11 years ago I have been reading and seeing all the publications with regard to the Madeleine case and nothing has changed from then, nine days before Maddie would celebrate her birthday, if she were alive. As she disappeared aged 3, she would be 14 years old now, which I doubt. For me everything happened when Mrs Fenn heard her crying. There would be enough time to leave an odour in the closet, which was not as planned, did not favour if enough time to get rid of a body. Finally, one thing that I hope along with other people, is to clarify the motive of her disappearance, how, who and why. And that she can finally rest in peace. I have a place to take a rose to that beautiful angel, to whom we all feel her as a daughter, and that one day she will get justice.

    2. Hi Rosalinda,does Sonia Poulton personally know,Dave Eden/Machin in regard to this documentary?
      If the"Cover Up" of what has happened to Madeleine McCann is or has connections to Jose Socrates,Gordon Brown and the Freeport-Lisbon Treaty signing in 2007,then this would account for any D Notices on National Security grounds,who was black Mailing who,Brown over Socrates,refusal to counter sign the Treaty?
      Release my friends from their turmoil,then dismiss the Portugal Detective,archive the case 2008,job done?

    3. Sorry 17:20, I don't know the answer to that.

      It is possible Gordon Brown asked the Portuguese to 'bury' this case, but can it be proved? I would imagine the interference of Prime Ministers has caused enormous problems for both the British and Portuguese police. Who, for example, asked for Goncalo Amaral to be taken off the investigation? Just as he was arranging for the Irish family to return to Portugal to give statements?

  24. A 'Foto com Maquilhagem' foi inicialmente divulgada num curto vídeo de 2 minutos, feito pelo padrinho de Amelie, Jon Corner. A foto mostra Madeleine com uma maquilhagem bastante carregada, nomeadamente:
     um colar
     um travessão no cabelo
     batom
     sombra nos olhos
     lápis para os olhos

    É também de referir que, nessa foto, Madeleine tem as pupilas dilatadas e não há, na sua expressão, qualquer sinal de alegria ou felicidade. Pelo contrário, parece profundamente infeliz. Muitos observadores têm, compreensivelmente, chamado a esta foto a foto da 'Lolita' (42).

    Quando esta foto foi divulgada, atraiu muitos comentários negativos, incluindo os de um jornal de referência, o "Independent". Um conhecido criminólogo, Mark Williams-Thomas, também criticou os McCann por terem divulgado esta foto (embora não seja claro se os McCann terão dado ou não permissão para que a foto fosse divulgada) (42).

    Os McCann afirmaram que a 'Foto com Maquilhagem' mostrava Madeleine 'a brincar com a caixa de maquilhagem da mamã' e disseram à Comunicação Social que a fotografia tinha sido tirada 'algumas semanas antes' das suas férias na Praia da Luz (42).

    Muitos dos investigadores do caso Madeleine que estudaram a foto cuidadosamente fizeram este conjunto de observações (14) (15):

    1) Madeleine não poderia ter aplicado o lápis para os olhos sozinha. Não poderia também ter aplicado o batom e a sombra azul nos olhos tão cuidadosamente. Certamente que ela não teria conseguido, sozinha, colocar o colar nem o travessão no cabelo. Um adulto poderia ter feito tudo isso, mas não foi revelado quem o fez. Por isso, os McCann não disseram a verdade quanto às circunstâncias em que esta foto foi tirada. Isto significa que nos é permitido colocar questões muito sérias sobre quem, onde e porque razão foi esta foto tirada.
    2) Na foto, vemos que Madeleine tem as pupilas dilatadas.
    3) Madeleine não mostra nenhum sinal de alegria ou felicidade nesta foto, como seria de esperar se estivesse a brincar com a caixa de maquilhagem da mãe. Pelo contrário, parece haver tristeza ou até receio, ou medo, no seu olhar.
    4) A foto é tirada com uma parede de estuque como fundo, de cor creme, amarela ou ocre. Este tipo de revestimento é pouco usado nas habitações inglesas. No entanto, é muito semelhante ao tipo de revestimento usado em muitas habitações na zona costeira algarvia, em Portugal.
    5) O aspecto de Madeleine, na 'Foto com Maquilhagem' é muito parecido ao da ´Última Foto', que nós já concluímos ter sido tirada no domingo. Em ambas as fotos:
    (a) o comprimento dos cabelos, o estilo e a cor são idênticos
    (b) em ambas, Madeleine usa um travessão no cabelo (embora em posições diferentes) e
    (c) em ambas, ela usa uma bata, um top ou vestido em tons de rosa

    Tenso em conta especialmente o que foi referido acima no ponto 5, temos o direito de questionar se esta foto poderia ter sido tirada durante as férias dos McCann na Praia da Luz, possivelmente no mesmo dia em que foi tirada a 'Última Foto' – domingo, dia 29 de Abril.

    1. Hello Andi 4 May 2018 at 01:17, and thanks for expressing feelings for Madeleine. Also thanks to translation Anon 4 May 2018 at 11:34

      "...a place to take a rose to that beautiful angel, to whom we all feel her as a daughter, and that one day she will get justice..."

      The only ones, who can take Madeleine to such a place are the McCanns.

      Her body has to be found, so that her short life will be remembered in it's own right, instead of the fairy tale about her "well being" and secret prosperous life, which the McCanns will keep on telling us as long as her remains are kept hidden by them or possibly by someone else.

      The McCanns haven't ever physically searched for Madeleine, let alone for her dead body, which is more likely to be found in the area around PDL, than elsewhere.

      It's about time now Andi, that they face facts in the case and tell us all where to plant a rose for the memory of Madeleine.

  25. Já dissemos que Madeleine foi vista viva no domingo, dia 29 de Abril, à hora do almoço. Apresentámos provas de que não podemos ter em conta os testemunhos de Catriona Baker e dos McCann, segundo os quais Madeleine estaria viva e teria participado de uma alegado 'high tea' ou 'lanche ajantarado', na tarde de quinta-feira. (Charlotte Pennington, mais tarde, fez um depoimento sobre este alegado 'high tea' ou 'lanche ajantarado', mas esse depoimento também foi contraditório em relação a outros três depoimentos).

    Todas as restantes alegações de testemunhas que dizem ter visto Madeleine depois de domingo foram examinadas em detalhe por uma britânica que agora vive no Canadá, Lizzy Taylor (13). Ela concluiu que, para além dos depoimentos dos McCann e dos seus 7 amigos – que, obviamente, não são testemunhas independentes – todos os outros testemunhos que alegam tê-la visto são muito duvidosos. Alguns são extremamente vagos, sem pormenores que permitam a sua confirmação. Outros são totalmente incorrectos – por exemplo, testemunhas que alegam ter visto Madeleine a tomar o pequeno-almoço com os McCann no restaurante Millennium quando os McCann, nos seus depoimentos, afirmaram repetidamente que tomaram o pequeno-almoço no apartamento, todos os dias, de segunda-feira em diante.

    A inexistência de outras testemunhas fiáveis que afirmem ter visto Madeleine depois de segunda-feira é algo preocupante e é um forte indício que confirma que Madeleine não estava viva, depois de domingo.

  26. Yes Bjorn at 15:37 that is a very well thought out analysis of what might have happened on the evening of May 3rd 2007.
    To add to your analysis I looked up Jez Wilkins' statement from Portuguese police files and it seems this man was absolutely in on the deception ruse and even described a fake 1:70 Meter man with long blond hair who looked suspicious in the Tapas restaurant.

    You have to ask if he was a liar too. Did he ever meet with Gerry McCann and have a 3-5 minute chat outside apartment 5A. We only have their word on this.

    To negate the Smith family sighting of Mr McCann hurrying down a street near the beach carrying a child; Everything, That is: absolutely everything, had to gel with Jane Tanner's story about seeing an abductor pass by with a child the moment the two men were talking.
    Surprisingly the two men denied seeing anyone.
    This little nugget could have added impetus to the fairy tale everyone else was concocting; a plot the Tapas 9 had written on a scrap of paper taken from the now dead girl's coloring book down at the Tapas bar. - Tediously written with an abundance of fake time frames that didn't fool the Portuguese police. The PJ knew they were dealing with English amateurs.

    But still the main stream media in the English speaking world hangs on to the Tapas story like grim death.
    Even multi millionaire newspapers can't risk another 500,000 pound payout. There's nothing like a letter from a law firm to make your blood run cold.

    And as far as hidden crime goes, American Criminal Profiler Pat Brown summed it up best:
    "Sometimes you can get away with it - all you need is a bit of luck".

    1. Hello jc May 2018 at 04:04
      Thanks for comment jc. As far as Jez Wilkins is concerned, I've always found it strange, that he wasn't interested in participating in a reconstruction. However, I've never suspected him, but in the context of a future reconstruction he should perhaps be investigated considering what he claims to have seen and why he wasn't interested in a reconstruction.

      I really hope that the Operation Grange as well as the Leicestershire Police are reading what we're discussing here, as they might learn something of importance about the Madeleine case, in case they would like to do what they should have done many years ago.


      Bridget O'Donnell:

      “The British police came round shortly after our return. Jes was pleased to give them a statement. The Portuguese police had never asked.”



      Fax from Gonçalo Amaral to Detective Chief Superintendent Robert Hall on questions to ask Jes Wilkins.

    3. For me the strangest incident with Jez, was his being told that his help with the search wasn't necessary. An employee of Warners and one of the Tapas men knocked on his door to tell him what happened, but when he offered to assist with the search, he was told not to bother.

      WTF? A little girl was missing! Why turn down the assist of the tall, athletic Jez? Meanwhile back in 5A, the McCanns were telling the world no-one was helping them.

      The very PLU Jez and Bridget had bought into the Portuguese being a third world police force hook, line and sinker. Bridget wrote an article giving examples of their ineptitude making her views on their handling of the investigation very clear. She was among those journalists helping the McCanns build a case against the PJ.

  27. Hi Rosalinda,
    Does anyone think this case could fade away.
    Think about the jonbenet Ramsey case which dragged on for years until the mother died and the father faded away uncharged with any crime; into obscurity.
    Many years later the missing Madeleine tragedy has all the elements of the jonbet Ramsey case except for a dead body. The Ramsey's were in a tougher position than the McCanns because they never had a back up team of liars known as the Tapas 7 able to conjure up an alibi on a page of the dead girl's colouring book.
    The Ramsey's were on there own with not a witness in sight except their 9 year old son who was later even suspected of the murder by the media because his mother and father could never have killed their own daughter because they were so upstanding and devoted parents.

    Read Patsy Ramsey's chilling ransom note she staged from the "kidnapper(s)" and put yourself in the McCann's shoes.

    Never for one moment would anybody accuse the McCanns of killing their daughter, mainly because the two parents were so loving and kind - all the world could see from the devotion of the Prime Minister and the Pope that this couple could never have staged anything as crude as a ransom note.
    Rather, she could be missing it's true, and the millions stashed away in the Find Madeleine Fund attest to the fact. All she is, is missing. Right!

    The American public are still curious about John Ramsey's role in his daughter's murder but like the British public they must be wondering if the case will ever go to trial.

    I see that 97 year old war criminals are still being brought to trial in Germany, so it could happen. We will wait and see.

    1. I don't think this case can fade away JC, there are two live police investigations. Although this 'feels' like a cold case that has been shelved, the public announcements of further funding would suggest otherwise.

      The Ramseys were much richer and more powerful than the McCanns JC. For example on the morning their daughter's body was discovered - they wanted to proceed with their planned vacation and their private plane was at the ready. They had the money and influence to promote the story that a stranger had broken in and murdered their daughter. Hiring top detectives and making documentaries etc to reinforce the myth.

      The Ramseys were never prosecuted because the Prosecutor feared double jeopardy. He did not feel the evidence was strong enough to get a conviction and under double jeopardy, they wouldn't get another chance.

      I don't think there can be any doubt there was political and monetary reasons behind not prosecuting the Ramseys. But, like Madeleine, Jonbenet had an Avenger in the form of Detective Steve Thomas. Steve Thomas wrote a book and the Ramseys sued him. The Ramseys won.

      Happily, in recent years, Steve Thomas has been vindicated. The release of the Grand Jury's decision to indict the Ramseys proved his case beyond doubt.

      Theoretically, John Ramsey could still be prosecuted, and there is now a suggestion that the brother, who was 9 at the time, was the actual killer. Whether anyone would pursue it now, remains to be seen.

      In the USA, there are 3 cases, I am aware of, where children have gone missing and the police, although not looking for abductors, have let them go cold. Sabrina Aisenberg, Isabel Celis, Lisa Irwin. All suspected staged abductions where the parents stopped co-operating with the police.

      The Madeleine case is unique, because it hasn't been allowed to go cold. Mostly through the efforts of the parents, which is bizarre. Asking for a Review probably wasn't such a good idea.

    2. Hi Rosalinda
      " Asking for a Review probably wasn't such a good idea" I agree.

      The McCanns may have expected the Met/SY to review the case, but not in co-operation with the Portuguese PJ, as it apparantly turned out to be and that's what has kept the investigation going for so long.

      If the Operation Grange would decide to close the British part of the case now, they must also admit that they're no better than their Portuguese partner, and the very reason as to why they got involved in the first place was of course to prove that they're so much better in terms of investigative work,so shelving or closing the case now would prove the right opposite.

      Before any closure the Operation Grange will have to imply something about a paedophile gang being responsible among which there was a main suspect, who has deceased some years ago, as they've got to come up with something, but whatever they'll invent the McCanns won't be implicated. It's sad and I'm deeply sorry Rosalinda, but I can't help being so disappointed with what the British Police have done so far.

    3. Hi Bjorn, I am not sure the British police can lay the blame on a deceased suspect or paedophile gang, because whatever theory they come up with will have to fit the existing facts, the tapas timeline etc. Then there is the danger that someone might confess. They are all living under a huge amount of stress and relationships change, there is always a danger that any invented story could be exposed.

      The British, that is the collective British Establishment will be hugely embarrassed if the abduction story was a hoax. The 'great and the good' believed them absolutely, including Chiefs of police and Prime Ministers. The British mocked the 'third world' Portuguese police and justice system, who solved the case within weeks, yet with 33 homicide detectives, £12million and 7 years, they haven't taken the case any further forward. The UK it would seem, is more third world than Portugal.

      Embarrassment I fear, prevents this case from being solved. The clumsy, arrogant approach of Blair, Brown and those British police agencies who interfered in the Portuguese investigation, got the perpetrators of this crime off the hook.

    4. Hi Rosalinda

      "Embarrassment I fear, prevents this case from being solved" Yes, so true.

      I'm sometimes inclined to believe that the British authorities try, as JC suggested, to make the whole case just "fade away", but, as you've implied earlier, it would be a mission impossible as so many people have access to the files.

      As it seems now, the only thing the Met/SY are able of is to delay a final report, which they can do as long as they get paid for it.

    5. Bjorn 7 May 22.40

      I'm not sure what the Met/SY report will be able to say regarding the McCanns' case seeing as the Portuguese have jurisdiction. Will they offend the PJ and say their investigation was full of holes and that the McCanns were poorly treated by the PJ and were incriminated even though Kate McCann refused to answer the 48 questions put to her.

      Even if the case is again shelved the PJ will have to open up their case files which is part and parcel of their judicial system. It will be very revealing if they criticise the SY investigation/review, there may be a lot of egg on many people's faces if that happens, time will tell.

    6. Hi
      Anon 9 May 2018 at 16:49
      Yes, I'm really looking forward to seeing how the PJ will formulate/explain the closure/shelving, which they must do sooner or later. When they do so, it's inevitable so that they must in some way refer to their British partner and comment on what has or hasn't been done by them. I'm really exicited about to see what has been achieved by those police forces.

  28. Ros 6 May 13.15

    I agree that something is happening with the SY asking for further funding, if they're going nowhere why bother and risk such a backlash from people saying the money is being wasted.

    Whilst on the point of missing children, Karen Matthews is having a terrible kicking on the DM website because she has taken up with an older "gentlemen" who is providing her with a new TV etc. Someone has left a comment saying that she is no different from the McCanns and was just copying them asking for the public's sympathy. Yet she's been ridiculed, not one voice sticking up for her, it's no different from the McCanns who did the same so why are they any different just because they're "doctors", just shows you that class means everything if a crime has been committed. People would prefer to believe doctors. What a shock they may all have if the McCanns are found guilty of Madeleine's disappearance in the future.

  29. I wonder if the Portuguese will have the guts to continue their investigation if Scotland yard backs down.

    By comparison, the pinnacle of the SY investigation was a pledge NOT to question the parents as suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. A method of police work which was beyond bizarre.

    If the UK police admit to handling their crime investigations this way then they are telling people this country is a perfect place to set up a life of crime.
    (Perhaps the British government knows this already)!

    The Portuguese judicial system must have been very insulted by the treatment they got from the British government, the press, and the McCanns.
    Maybe the "Bulldog" nature ascribed to the British character has been reversed this time, and the PJ will hang on and retaliate with an arrest.

    Going back to the summer of 2007 it did seem this case was over and all wrapped up. The couple were declared Arguidos and the British newspapers were not afraid to print the truth. In fact the best reporting ever is from those times, until the McCanns started to use their "Fund" money to sue them.

    Hopefully the battle is not over for justice and the Portuguese will press on.

  30. Anon 8 May 04.14 / jc

    It was the Portuguese Court, I believe, that stated the McCanns had not been proved innocent in the death of Madeleine, so it seems they are hanging on to their original stance and will not let go unless some major new evidence is found to clear them (the McCanns) once and for all.

    Although it seems that G Brown tried to find a way out for the McCanns I suspect with change of governments in both Portugal and the UK all that has been swept away and the original investigation on the PJ's side still stands. After all their reputation is at stake, and with the insults and flack they have had to endure from the British press and other ignoramuses they would be seen as wimps if they back down now. People also seem to forget that GA was a highly respected detective who worked to bring down drug gangs and other hardened criminals for many years so he wasn't a rookie doing the job and was most probably used to people coming up with all sorts of excuses to get themselves off the hook when a crime had been committed. He wasn't one to be trifled with as the McCanns came to realise and wanted him off the case.

    I very much agree with your last line that the Portuguese will press on regardless.

  31. "Gerry and Kate McCann, Christopher Jefferies and other victims of phone hacking and press intrusion have urged Theresa May to back fresh moves to tighten up media regulation."


    "David Newell, CEO of the News Media Association, rebuts Ed Miliband’s argument for Leveson 2"

    "As the Guardian said in its editorial on Leveson (2 March), it is now time to look forward, not behind. The criminal and civil wrongdoing in the press from the 1990s to 2011 has been thoroughly investigated. Most of those that alleged abuses by the press were called to give evidence at the inquiry and it made for difficult listening. Clearly things had gone wrong. But it is hard to see what further testimony can be given.

    In the meantime, civil claims were made and many have been settled with significant compensation payments to victims. The News of the World was closed down. One of the biggest police investigations in British history led to the arrests of many journalists, extensive trials and convictions."

  32. Hi Anon 8 May 2018 at 21:39

    I just couldn't believe that the McCanns are still demanding more and more. In the situation they now are, with the support by the British MSM, they should just, for they own sake, shut up.Why don't they?

    HUFFPOST 08/05/2018 18:26 BST

    ”Among the signatories are: the McCanns, who have complained about their treatment since their daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal in 2007;”

    ”Gerry and Kate McCann, Christopher Jefferies and other victims of phone hacking and press intrusion have urged Theresa May to back fresh moves to tighten up media regulation”

    Thus, more evidence of how much McCanns care about themselves and their own suffering and how little or nothing they care about Madeleine.
    We have learnt through the years, that McCanns neither regret anything nor feel any guilt, and now we also learn that they want to further restrict the British MSMs freedom of expression, despite being supported by journalist in British talk shows, by established politicians, by influential people in general and of course by British MSM ever since the first Portuguese investigation was shelved in 2008.
    Even before that time, British Media commented on what had leaked from the investigation and so did the Portuguese “T&Q” and also Correio da Manhã, which the McCanns sued or settled with. In its entirety, most of which was published in the early days by MSM in the UK and in Portugal had already been documented during the investigation, but was, for natural reasons, kept secret as it was an ongoing investigation. So it wasn’t really false, but just secret at the time.
    The only real criticism of the McCanns since that time has been, and still is, on social media, most of which is based on the released PJ files and on the McCanns’ own disputed version(s) of what they claim happened on their vacation in Portugal, but it’s essentially the Portuguese access to official files, that has made it possible to discuss the Madeleine case among “amateurs”. Unfortunately, the MSM, under constant threat of being sued by the McCanns, hasn’t, since the Portuguese PJ files were released, taken advantage of this excellent opportunity, but sceptics and others on the internet have, and that’s why we’re still here.

    I cannot see that the McCanns are getting anywhere in their attempt to silence their critics, unless they make Theresa May ban the distribution, the publication and the sharing of the PJ files in the UK, which she cannot possibly do, as they’ve been on the internet for a decade now for anyone to see. Most of what’s been in them have been generally known for years, which was the main reason as to why Gonzalo Amaral’s book was not considered to be an offense or libel by the Portuguese Supreme Court. So how will the McCanns stop Amaral’s book from being published in the UK, which they’ve promised to do. Will the “completion” of the “Stage two”of the Leveson inquiry into media misconduct make it possible for the McCanns to prevent Amaral from publishing anything about the case in the UK?

  33. The publishing of Amaral's book in England,(I hope that it can be done) would be a wonderful breakthrough for the British public. People could actually discuss his book without fear of retribution.
    The result for the McCanns would no doubt be damaging as it already is with the internet version.
    But finally the secret would be out.
    You can bet the daring duo are fighting this move - to the death.

    Looking back to an offbeat WW11 analogy:

    What secret can be held from the public for 30+ years, fool millions of your enemy, but be known by hundreds of people on your own side?
    How about "Ultra" and the Enigma decoding machine.
    Nobody had a clue until the mid 1970's why the Allies had been so successful, until the secret got out.

    Let's hope we don't have to wait so long for this one.



    Nick Robinson (BBC Radio 4 Today):
    “Gerry McCann, there is a new regulator called IPSO. It’s not the one approved by the government, but it exists and it’s got a low cost arbitration scheme that people like you can spend up to a maximum, they say, of £100 and get fair dealing and a settlement. What’s wrong with that?"

    Gerry McCann: “I think IPSO is just the PCC in new clothes, really. And the bottom line is there’s been no apologies, no fines, no front page apologies. IPSO, I wouldn’t even talk to them, because I have no faith in them.”

    1. Hello Anon10 May 2018 at 07:27, jc 10 May 2018 at 04:50, Rosalinda and others.,8599,1723762,00.htm
      "The Express Newspapers group — owner of tabloid papers the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, the Daily Star and the Sunday Star — agreed to pay $1.1 million to settle a claim that the papers had defamed them by alleging that the couple themselves were responsible for the death of their 4-year-old daughter. The daily outlets on Wednesday also published page-one apologies to the McCanns, as their Sunday stablemates are expected to do as well, admitting to the "utter falsity" of a series of articles published between late last summer and February.
      For a paper to now imply that the couple was somehow guilty of killing Madeleine "is now a door marked 'closed,'" says Adrian Monck, head of London's City University's Department of Journalism, "and if you're going to open it, you had better have substantial evidence."

      I don’t know what Gerry McCann is talking about saying "no front page apologies" anon 07.27, but apparently he wants the whole world to apologize for believing in the facts, documented in the PJ files, instead of believing in his and Kate’s unfounded and unlikely story about a stranger abduction.

      Have two former suspects in an unsolved crime case ever become so untouchable and holy? I sometimes wonder why they haven’t yet received knighthood? If they would, I wouldn’t be surprised at all.

    2. March 2, 2018

      'Her father, Gerry McCann said: “The second part of the Inquiry is vital to investigate the corruption between politicians, the press and the police.

      “Instead of proceeding with it as promised, this Government has abandoned its commitments to the victims of press abuse to satisfy the corporate interests of the large newspaper groups.

      “This Government has lost all integrity when it comes to policy affecting the press.”'


      November 29, 2007

      "Kate added: 'We know we are innocent, totally innocent. That is why we are calm. We know each other,’ she said. ‘There is no evidence DNA tests will show anything other than us being completely innocent...[but] it really is secondary. I will take anything that is thrown at me.’"


      "We’re sorry, the page you have looked for does not exist."

    3. Should there be a Leveson 2? I am astonished the victims are coming forward again, not only reliving their own pain and reminding the rest of us of what they didn't want us to read in the first place. It's kind of like the Streisand Effect with added extras.

  35. Hugh Grant
    None of the arguments against Leveson 2 were made in good faith. There was only one reason to abandon it. Obeying the press barons upon whom weak politicians believe their careers depend. A day of shame.

    Sonia Poulton
    Actually, Hugh, another day of shame was the death of Brenda Leyland and Hacked Off did nothing because of your involvement with Gerry #McCann.

  36. Do you know when part 2 of Sonia Poulton's documentary is out?