Wednesday, 23 August 2017

The McCanns' fraudulent fund, and a note of thanks to Tracey Kandohla

So we have another whopper to add to the ever growing list of lies from Kate and Gerry McCann. In what can only be described as a highly illegal con, the couple are now claiming, on their own facebook page, that they're a charity organisation. As we know, the fund isn't a charity, it's a Ltd company:

The page has seen a massive tumble in followers of late, hardly surprising when we look beneath the saintly exterior, and discover that the page is not as it seems. They are actively lying to people, in a desperate attempt to gather money from unsuspecting members of the public. Not only that, but they are also hiding facts of the case from their followers. 

Now why would they do that? Surely innocent parents would want people to see as much information as possible?

Cover-up, I hear you say. Without doubt. 

Earlier today, I decided to read the latest tosh from Tracey Kandohla. For those of you who haven't heard of Tracey, she is a firm friend of Kate McCann, an unscrupulous liar, and (shock), a journalist. Tracey has written a great number of articles on the case, all totally biased, most containing lies, and all on behalf of her friends - the McCanns. So you can better understand what I'm about to write, here is the link to Kandohla's latest article:

To quote the headline:

"Maddie's parents urge vile trolls to stop 'awful and upsetting abuse' on their own website as they back new rules BANNING criticism of decision to leave her alone in apartment"

Serial liar Kandohla just can't help herself. This isn't a new thing at all, in fact the condescending rule has been in place for many years, as the screenshot below proves:

"We don't care what you think about leaving children alone. It's been eight years, let it go already! Posting your perfect parent advice will be deleted and you will be banned."

So, not a new rule at all. In fact that rule goes back even further than the two years I have provided the screenshot for. 

However, it's not just the above that the McCanns, and the people behind the OFM page will ban members of the public for, and here's where things get deeper. 

The McCanns spent £100,000 of monies donated to the fraudulent fund, on getting the PJ files translated from Portuguese, into English. Those files contain statements taken by police, potential sightings, forensic evidence, photographs, and much, much more. Yet, the McCanns have never released their version, or promoted them, despite the fact that Operation Grange used them for their initial review of the case, despite the fact the McCanns didn't use their own money, but that of members of the public, and most importantly - you would think, that those files almost certainly hold the key to who is responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. 

To test the water, I asked a friend of mine, to post a perfectly reasonable comment, with a link to the PJ files, that have been released by a separate set of translators. She didn't troll, she didn't abuse anybody, she didn't mention neglect - she simply posted the following comment:

" I think every follower here should read these police files. They're free to view, and undoubtedly hold vital facts as to who is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance:

Within two minutes, her comment was marked as spam by the OFM page, and hidden from view.

When she posted it again, the same thing happened (as can be seen below), and she was banned from the page:

Slipping seamlessly back to the fraudulent "charity" claim, here's where we thank the hapless Tracey Kandohla. In her article, Kandohla states:

"The web page, which is endorsed by Kate and Gerry from Rothley, Leicestershire, states: 'We ultimately have the say on content and tone."

So, it's there in black and white, Kate and Gerry McCann are endorsing the suppression of the PJ files. They also endorse the fraudulent claim that the Ltd company "Leaving no stone unturned", is a charity.

I have today, lodged a complaint with trading standards. They checked the status of the fund, and told me no application for charity status has been received. They also confirmed that the OFM page was, and I quote, " a potential scam". I'm not wet enough behind the ears, as to hope this sees the end of the fund, and the McCanns' page - they seem to have a knack of evading justice.

To summarize:

The McCanns are endorsing a page that fraudulently promotes the fund as a charity, when it isn't.

The McCanns are actively endorsing the covering up of vital evidence, that could lead to the case being solved.

Only a very small percentage of the money from the fund has actually been spent on searching for Madeleine.

A huge sum of money from the fund has been spent on the salaries of paid liars, attempts to silence the truth, as well as bogus, and corrupt private investigators.

If you've donated to this fake charity, I would suggest that you contact consumer rights, you've been conned, and you deserve a full refund.

Perhaps, the McCanns' claims of bogus charity collectors being responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine, weren't so far of the mark after all.


Since yesterday's exposure of OFM's dishonesty, their self titled "Webmaster", has dug themselves a deeper hole. The following screenshots were sent to me by someone who contacted OFM via email. I have blanked out the source's name:

As expected, everything "Webmaster" said above, was just a pack of lies. The page could quite easily have been set up as a company. The choices when creating a page are bold, plain, and couldn't be simpler, as shown below:

OFM could have chosen from a multitude of options. They could have chosen, "Community organisation", "Community group", or even "Internet company". Hell, they could have been totally honest, and called themselves an "Insurance company", after all, hasn't a vast amount of the fund been gambled, and lost, in an attempt to insure themselves against the truth?

Instead, however, OFM chose one of the options they most certainly are not - a charity. They've never been a charity, yet they chose that status. That choice, was a deliberate attempt to con the many unsuspecting members of the public who visit their site, into parting with their wages, their pocket money, or indeed their pensions.

Thanks to pressure form honest people, OFM have now, miraculously discovered a way to alter their status. This was done moments after our source emailed them, and called them out on their lies. Now, the decent, and correct thing to do. would be for them to admit, openly, on their page, that with the McCanns' endorsement (thanks again Tracey), they misled hundreds of thousands of people.

Will these bogus charity collectors do the right thing?

Will they do so without casting aspersions, or shifting the blame elsewhere?

Will we get a Gerry McCann type response, verbose, over egged, and as honest as a cut 'n' shut car salesman?


Will we get a Kate McCann type response?

"No comment"

Or, to quote the "devout Catholic Kate"...

"Fucking tossers, fucking tossers", whispered through gritted teeth.

Tuesday, 8 August 2017

Trollspotting - Directed by Kate and Gerry McCann

The internet, home to some of the lowest forms of humanity. The media has long portrayed those who take to the net to question Kate and Gerry McCann's abduction tale as "vile trolls", but if they want to see the real scum of the earth, they should take a good hard look at those claiming to be on the web to find Madeleine, and support her family. Sounds crazy doesn't it. Surely someone who is there to help find Madeleine can't be a troll? I didn't say that though, I said these people claim to be here to help find Madeleine. The truth is however, that helping find Madeleine, is the furthest thing from their minds. Each day these people wake up, they pick up their devices, and they attack. They attack anybody who questions the many lies from the McCanns, or their PR media whore, Clarence Mitchell. Indeed Clarence Mitchell himself has admitted to using the services of a "team of supporters". He didn't say they campaigned to find Madeleine, he said "supporters". 

In many ways, these "supporters" emulate the actions of Kate and Gerry McCann themselves. They lie, they accuse, they threaten, they deflect, they damage the lives of others for their own selfish gain, and most notably, they rarely mention Madeleine. Take twitter, and the hashtag McCann for example, a hive for multiple accounts belonging to a very small (getting smaller), number of desperate people. A quick twitter search of the name "Madeleine" reveals some startling results. In the past 24 hours, those people that claim to be there for Madeleine, only mentioned her name 6 times. Of those 6 times, only 4 were direct appeals to the public, and by one account only. In stark contrast, one individual who claims he wants Madeleine brought home, spent his day, not doing a thing to further the search, but instead creating clone accounts of myself, and tweeting from them 39 times in a puerile attempt to troll me, adding #McCann to each of his tweets. Madeleine McCann was the furthest thought from his tiny mind, pathetic cowardice at the forefront. That very same man, runs several accounts, uses them on #McCann, and never, never, appeals for the safe return of Madeleine. Why? Because he's a sick troll, who uses the case of a missing 3 year old girl to get his kicks. Such is the extent of this man's trolling, and illegal activity, that he is too afraid to use his own name, as such a reward of £1,000 was recently offered, for information leading to his arrest. The face of that man is pictured below:
He isn't alone though. The McCanns have an uncanny knack of attracting the support of some of the sickest creatures on the face of the earth. In the days after Madeleine was reported missing, the couple, on more than one occasion, dined with, and introduced their two remaining children to a child rapist. Hardly surprising then, that their "support" consists of people who are apologists for child abuse, advocates for the age of consent to be lowered, and even people who excuse convicted child killers. Sick in the extreme. Again, a visit to twitter, will reveal the cataclysmic chasm between what the McCanns' "support team" actually claim to be on the internet for, and what they actually do.

In 2014, members of the McCanns' support team created a dossier. The sole intention of which was to cause as much damage to ordinary people who dared to question the McCanns' lies. The result of that dossier, was that twitter user, Brenda Leyland - aka Sweepyface, tragically took her own life. One pro McCann who has continually shown herself to be gleeful at the death of Brenda, is the particularly perverse parasite - Rebecca Sherlock.

Aside from Sherlock's massively misplaced vanity, this grotesque woman is also another charlatan who has an agenda quite the opposite from the one she professes. When Sherlock isn't tweeting selfies with more filters than a sleeve of Dot Cotton's fags, she can be seen goading and gloating over the suicide of Brenda Leyland. 

Days before the death of Brenda, Sherlock tweeted the following, all in the name of Madeleine McCann of course:
Now Sherlock will claim the tweet was taken out of context, but given that Brenda was indeed doorstepped by Sky News' Martin Brunt, only 4 days later, and was found dead only 2 days after that, there can be no escaping the context of the next sickening tweet the haggard hobgoblin chose to send. Only 20 days after Brenda's death (left). 

Sherlock even had the audacity to attend the inquest into Brenda's death, stating many times that she "fancied a day out". Enough of the miniature mongrel though, she cares for her talons more than she does for Madeleine - I want to move onto another anonymous account, one that goes by the name of "Michael Walker". 

The "Michael Walker" account, is yet another McCann fan, one who has amassed some 27,200 tweets in less than 2 years - and that's just from one of the accounts they use. The tweets are a mixture of repeated, and provable lies about the case, as well as smears on Portugal, Goncalo Amaral, the PJ, Martin Grime, the Portuguese courts, and of course threats, and vile accusations toward anybody who challenges the account. "Walker", is another who trolls on behalf of the McCanns, and can regularly be seen to accuse people of "kiddie fiddling", despite having no knowledge of who that person is, or their circumstances. He describes Portugal as "Pedville", because, well, because these sick minded protectors of Kate and Gerry, will attack not only the people that can see the McCanns lied, but will also seek to damage an entire country. 

Those lovely McCanns eh, due solely to their actions, their lies, and their warped followers, lies a trail of devastation 10 years long, and all the while barely a mention of Madeleine. If she were alive today, I'm sure she'd be utterly repulsed to see what her parents have caused, what they still cause, what they do nothing to stop, and how it is all done in her name.

And it is a trail that traces back 10 years. As early as the 4th May 2007, people who, through no fault of their own, but due to the McCanns lies, joined a group they thought would help find Madeleine. The stark reality however, was that the aim of the group had anything but Madeleine's interests at heart. The group had a very organised chain of command. People such as Janet Leeson, Maxine Harris, Karen McCalman, Leah Bothe, and of course, at the top, pulling the strings, and never far from the action - Michael Wright, orchestrated a campaign to bring down youtube videos - no matter if they were factual or not - that painted the McCanns in a bad light. The way they did this, was to use people who were genuinely concerned for Madeleine, and who, at the time, believed the McCanns to be innocent. 

Decent, honest people would be sent lists of youtube links, and asked to pass the details onto their friends via a mailing list. The videos would then be mass reported, and as a result, damning articles of evidence would be lost forever. 

As is the case with the Portuguese police files, translated at a cost of £100,000 from the fund, the McCanns were desperate that the public would have facts hidden from them. Again, these moves didn't have Madeleine at heart, the aim was to protect the parents. It's always been the aim from day one. 

Of course, the problem with hiding things, is that it arouses suspicion, as was the case with Wright's little group of puppeteers. Genuine members of the group began digging, and researching for themselves, much to the annoyance of the "leaders". So much for the title of the group, "Help To Find Madeleine". 

There have been many projects to keep a lid on the truth since, and to this day. The dossier was just one of many attempts to silence people - and how that backfired. Gerry was quick to demand an example be made, sadly, Brenda Leyland was that example. Yet do we see Gerry condemn the actions of their little band of trolls? Of course not, they act with the McCanns full knowledge, and blessing. If they didn't, you could be sure the McCanns could stop their supporters actions in a heartbeat. 

As I have mentioned several times, Madeleine couldn't be further from these trolls minds. If they had even the slightest care for her, if they believed she could be found, then where are the appeals, where is the organised fundraising, where are the trips to Morocco to find her, to Amsterdam? All we hear is a lot of noise about where the trolls are convinced she is, blurred images bandied about, and promises that that's where Madeleine is. 

If these people who sit at their keyboards, whilst drying their scabby nails, in between marathon troll-a-thons, truly believe Madeleine is alive, and is just waiting to be found, I wonder what they think she would make of them doing sweet FA to bring her home. 

Still, whilst they do nothing, at least Kate can reassure herself with the thought Madeleine will be "giving them her tuppenceworth", she can also reassure herself that their band of evil trolls will continue to leave a legacy of hatred, of suffering, and of spite.

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Kate & Gerry McCann finally admit defeat in long running court battle.

According to reports an hour ago from The Sun newspaper's in house McCann loving journo, Tracey Kandohla - Kate and Gerry McCann have called time on their malicious hounding of ex PJ inspector - Goncalo Amaral.

The McCanns had promised that they would fight the decision by the Supreme Court in Lisbon, who after a series of lengthy court cases, ruled in favour of Snr, Amaral's right to sell his book, and documentary, that described the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The McCanns had claimed that they planned to take up the case with the European Court of Human Rights. Something we discussed earlier this year:

As predicted by Laid Bare, the McCanns have now finally decided admit defeat, in what many described as a desperate bid to silence the truth. 

According to quotes in The Sun: 

"Pals of Kate and Gerry have said Goncalo Amaral 'has won once and for all' because they don’t have the 'time, energy or funding” to take him to the highest court in the land."

The report then quotes the family friend as finally admitting that:

“Realistically a European Court appeal was never going to succeed plus it would be too expensive to launch. It seems Mr Amaral, regrettably, has won once and for all. The fight is finally over."

It would seem all that remains to be settled now, is for the McCanns to pay Goncalo Amaral's legal expenses, as per the order from the Supreme Court. 

What this means, if correct (The Sun, and Kandohla not being the being the most reliable of sources), is that now the McCanns have ceased with their obsessive gambling of cash - from the fund many thought would be used to find Madeleine, Goncalo Amaral is free to sell his book wherever he chooses, and in any language he feels he wishes to. 

We sincerely hope to see English versions adorning the bookshelves of our homes here in the UK very soon, as well as a more polished, and UK friendly documentary. 


Tuesday, 9 May 2017

The wayback machine - as reliable as Gerry McCann.

16th June 2015; Steve Marsden, former admin of a group called Abduction and Scam, and Frances Gallagher, the former lead figure of the group, begin a campaign of misrepresentation of facts. I'm being very kind when I use the word "misrepresentation", if I wasn't being polite, I could say that the pair had blatantly lied in order to gain numbers and popularity, in a group that under their control, was seemingly dedicated to fooling people with sensationalism and myth. However, this post will be lengthy enough, without me getting personal, and dragging up the many, many lies of a woman many people lovingly refer to as "Fanny" Gallagher, and her sidekick "Stevo" Marsden.

So make yourselves a brew, find a comfortable seat, reach for your Hobnobs, and we'll digest this beast together.

Firstly let's start with Marsden's original post.

Marsden clearly stated, and backed up the Wayback machine findings, that CEOP (Child Exploitation Online Protection) created a web page on the 30th April 2007, (3 days prior to police being informed), that Madeleine McCann was missing.

Now let's look at this realistically:

If indeed there was a pre planned, fake abduction, and that Jim Gamble (the head of CEOP at the time) was involved in the scam, then would CEOP have really announced this before news "officially" broke?

Given that CEOP use an outside agency to update their website, would Gamble really have given the order to produce an internet page without first confirming with Kate and Gerry that Madeleine had been reported missing?

The very idea is ludicrous.

What Marsden did by using this info to suit his own theory, was to claim that this would explain CEOP's involvement early in May 2007.

Yet again "Stevo" was completely wrong. It was Goncalo Amaral who requested CEOP be involved, as detailed below in an email (dated 7th May 2007) sent to Detective Chief Superintendent Robert Hall:

"2. In the spirit of Police to Police Cooperation we request the presence of a British Criminal Analyst who may be able to assist the enquiry.
Also the collaboration of the UK's "Child Exploitation Online Protection" may be useful if they wish to send one of their officers to provide assistance to the investigation,"

So does "Stevo's" theory now extend to Goncalo Amaral being involved in the cover up as well?

Moving on. Both Marsden and Gallagher claim the Wayback machine is never wrong.

Yet again, they're lying.

Take a look at this link written by Dr. Fred Cohen

– CEO – Management Analytics, the piece; "focuses on two examples of legal matters involving archived data, one a digital archive of born-analog data, and the other a digital archive of born-digital data. Their resolution is explained, and along the way, several of the challenges and issues related to digital archives, the transition from classical diplomatics to modern diplomatics, digital forensics in the light of current record-keeping systems, and related facts and supporting data points are explored"

"Case 2 involved a dispute between ex-partners in a financial business. The business failed and each went their own way seeking to start a new financial business, with ownership of a domain name remaining with one of the
partners. Several years later, in viewing what was believed to be an image of the prior Web site using the Wayback machine at, the party not retaining control of the Web site was unhappy to find that, according to the
displayed content, the subsequent company advertised the new company prior to the termination of the partnership..."

The piece is very lengthy, but some key quotes that mention, and highlight Wayback's flaws are:

"The WayBack Machine is a form of automatic storage, while archives 'preserve'. Preservation is a process in which the archivists identify, authenticate, protect, describe, build retrieval systems, provide access to, and otherwise act to protect the material being archived. The term “Internet Archives” in the context of the WayBack machine is a misuse of the term of art 'archive'. Of course people have trusted anything called archives for centuries, and those at demonstrated excellent marketing skills in using that term."

"The 'Internet archive' is a bit more nebulous in that it is a web site operated by a non-profit (i.e., public interest) corporation, seemingly like a museum or other archive. However, this is what the WayBack machine is NOT. It is not like a museum or an archive because there is no curation or assurance of protection and permanent authenticity from the moment of acquisition."

"Examination can detect inconsistency in and between records and fonds and this supports trusting (or challenging) the trustworthiness of the records.
But this is not the case for depictions presented by the Wayback machine. Collections are made on a seemingly arbitrary time frame from subsets of automatically selected Web sites. Different components that form a visualized Web page are collected at different times, stored with only a single reference to a collection date, and are not attributed or tracked in all of the other ways archives are managed. They are not systems of records as much as amateur collections, but they are sometimes treated as if they were traditional

"In the digital world, alteration can happen unintentionally or intentionally, the state of the art in protection of the WayBack Machine is not transparent, and its adequacy has not been established by a scientific or rigorous process. It does not apparently follow the rigors of archival science or records management, and thus it should be inherently obvious to an expert in the field that it does not have the same status as public records or archives maintaining and operating within those standards of care"

"The situation is further complicated by the fact that the mechanisms of the Wayback machine change over time, are not externally well documented or transparent, and do not follow widely accepted archival principles. In fact, once the findings discussed here were made public, the Wayback machine was changed with only minimal notice and little apparent transparency. Thus there isn't external repeatability across those changes, a basic foundation for scientific fields, and doing an accurate reconstruction becomes problematic"

"The Wayback tool is NOT a reliable tool for digital forensics"

Did you read that last quote "Stevo"? Kind of puts an ironic slant on your comments where you try to discredit anybody who discredited the wayback machine huh...

"If the Wayback machine didn't use date and time stamps as pathnames and store them with reasonable accuracy in some portion of the instances involved, this approach would not work. Indeed, there is no real assurance that the time
mechanism of the Wayback machine is generally reliable or reliable in any given case."

I've only taken snippets, but if you are interested, please take the time to read the full article.

For those who are still awake...

Taken from

"In a recent case involving allegations of financial fraud we were able to show that the basis for the allegations was an inaccurate depiction of a situation in time that never actually existed. This was caused by the incorrect interpretation of information provided by "The WayBack Machine", a commonly used source of evidence that, if improperly applied, tends to give wildly wrong impressions of historical facts."

...and more:

...and yet more:

We don't just have the expertise of Fred Cohen to call upon though. One of the most respected researchers on the case - JillyCL - has also stated that she found many time and date stamps to be inaccurate,

Given the fact that Jilly was part of a team that archived somewhere in the region of 25,000 articles on the McCann case, in fact every article between 2007 - 2015, I would say that makes her as good a source as you will find on the subject.

All of the articles archived (many of which we wouldn't be able to view if it wasn't for their hard work and commitment), can be read on the link below:

For some of course, the use of sensationalism to attract numbers, will always be more important than logic, common sense, and indeed facts.

Oh, one more thing. For those still not convinced, how do you explain the Wayback machine attaching the year 2005 to CEOP pages, and the disappearance of Madeleine? CEOP wasn't even created until 2006! I believe the misinformation peddlers owe people a retraction, and a huge apology for two years worth of lies. 

Monday, 24 April 2017

Sunday Night's Madeleine McCann documentary 'GONE' parts 1 & 2 - EXPOSED.


23rd April 2017, and with the 10 year anniversary since the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann looming, Australia's Channel 7 aired a show on their Sunday Night programme titled 'Gone'. The show promised to give a balanced report into the case of Madeleine - what they delivered was something far from balanced, and even further from the truth. Split into 5 parts, the show was presented by Rahni Sadler, and seemingly sellotaped together snippets of interviews in the most unethical manner. Over the next two days we will be dissecting the documentary, and exposing it for the blatant McCann PR piece it was. 


7m 34s: Presenter - Rahni Sadler "The front door was locked, but the sliding patio doors at the back were left unlocked to allow easy access to check on their children"

Rahni conveniently makes no mention of the McCanns' original claims that the apartment was locked. We covered this in the following blog:

In the above link are several quotes from the McCanns' friends and family, who all stated the apartment was locked. There is also a diagram (duplicated below) that shows the routes the McCanns claim to have taken to check on the children. In the programme Rahni states that the patio door - it being the closest by some distance - was left unlocked to allow easy access to check on their children. As you will see from the above blog - which contains links to the McCanns' statements - the McCanns claim that they entered the apartment using their key, and that they didn't use the sliding door. Why would the McCanns walk twice the distance to use a locked door, if they had left another, closer door unlocked? Rahni of course, fails to mention any of these anomalies, and more.

Tellingly, Rahni also neglects to tell the viewers, that in the McCanns' original version of events, they told friends and family that someone had 'smashed', 'jemmied', and 'broken the shutters to the apartment to gain access. This was a complete lie; it was proven that their was no sign of forced entry.

9m 56s: Kate describes, how 'the curtains, which had been closed, swung open', an amazing feat given that it was a still evening, and one of the curtains - as can be seen on the photograph below - was tucked down between the wall and the bed.

Kate then tells a tale of how the shutters 'were all the way up, and the window had been pushed right across'. This is a version of events that - had this been an honest interview - should have been challenged. The shutters were designed in such a fashion, that the only way they would have stayed up, is if they had been locked in that position from the inside of the apartment. Given that there was no forced entry, it is hard - if not impossible - to believe, that had an intruder entered through an unlocked door, that they would then leave through a small window (which as can be seen by the diagram below, was adjacent to the front door), having clambered over furniture carrying Madeleine, raised a set of shutters - that made a lot of noise -, and done so without waking the twins who were sleeping in the same room. 


1m 09s: Rahni claims police didn't join the search for some 2 hours; this is a blatant lie. They weren't even contacted until 41 minutes after the alarm was raised. The first call was received at 22H41 and the GNR arrived at 23H00 a mere 18 to 19 minutes, the journey time to arrive from Odiaxere to PDL. The Statements from GNR officers Nelson Da Costa and Jose Roque are there for all to read, yet are seemingly ignored by the production team:

1m 16s: Reporter Paul Luckman - editor of The Portugal News - is next up with more misinformation; he states that police were looking for a child who had wandered away, and that 'the whole focus was on a little girl that had got lost'. If that were true (it isn't), then the police must have thought Madeleine could 'wander' at speeds equivalent to that of a motor vehicle, given that before midnight a control post had been set up on the Guadiana bridge, connecting Portugal and Spain, all police in Portugal had been informed as well as Interpol.

CCTV was requested from the two main motorways in the area. Spanish customs at two ports with links to Morocco, Tarifa and Algeciras were also alerted. Contact was made with all marinas, and video recordings, as well as registers of all boats leaving and entering within the last few days were requested.

2m 24s: Rahni Sadler claims that 'from the start, the police investigation had significant failings. Instead of closing off the apartment as a crime scene, dozens of people came and went, trampling through the rooms, and the yard, searching for any sign of Madeleine. In the process recoverable evidence was destroyed, vital clues lost forever'. Rahni then asks Paul Luckman; 'So it was not at the beginning, considered a crime?'

Luckman: 'No'.

Sadler: 'Or a crime scene?'

Luckman: 'No, no, it really wasn' the first few days...nobody even considered this could be something else'

Firstly it has to be said that the crime scene had already been compromised by the McCanns, their friends, and staff from the Ocean Club, as described by Goncalo Amaral:

"The search and examination of the scene were carried out in difficult conditions: when they arrived, the police were met with a large number of people coming and going - family, friends, resort employees, including dogs and members of the National Guard. The contamination of the premises risks bringing serious prejudice, as a consequence, to the investigation. We must ask ourselves if that contamination was deliberate or not - it can make the search for clues particularly complicated. The Lisbon scenes of crime technicians come as reinforcements to start the examination of the residence, which is from now on empty."

The window and the shutters, that the McCanns had claimed were the point of entry, had been interfered with by Gerry McCann, and others, as can be seen from Dianne Webster's rogatory statement:

“Yeah I mean I can remember going out there and in fact there was me and somebody else, I don’t know who else there was, to see if it could be raised from, from outside, I didn’t spend too long err trying it.” 

As for Luckman's totally untrue claims, that in the first few days 5a wasn't treated like a crime scene, I wonder if he could explain why during the night and into the next day, forensic testing took place:

"The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time, the location was sealed and preserved so that light conditions would permit the inspection of the residence to be finalised."

Interestingly, the only prints found on the inside of the window, belonged to Kate McCann, no wonder Rahni lied about forensics not being taken:


5….. Fingerprints….Inside interior window of the children’s bedroom…..DBT…..Suf
1. Methodology and means of operation:
2. Established number of supposed authors:
3. Abandoned objects:
4. Objects or values that were the target of the crime:
5. Importance of the damage incurred:
Observations: The fingerprint traces collected are identified as being the middle finger of the left hand (3x) and forefinger of the left hand (2x), of the missing girl’s mother.
The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time, the location was sealed and preserved so that light conditions would permit the inspection of the residence to be finalised."

"On 4 May 2007, at 15:30, a Crime Scene team from the Police Science Laboratory, comprising the undersigned, went, at the request of DIC PJ Portimao, to a dwelling situated at Apartment 5A, of Block A of the tourist accommodation building, "Ocean Club" - Praia da Luz, Lagos, in order to perform a specialist examination of the location."

On the subject of forensics:

"After 00.00 a team from this police force arrived at the scene and immediately began diligencies, namely fingerprint inspection which only revealed the collection of prints from people who had legitimate access to the apartment. The bedroom was also examined by Scientific Police Laboratory, which collected numerous vestiges for continuous examinations, which up until now have not contributed to a full clarification of the facts."

Goncalo Amaral discussed the forensic testing in his book the McCanns tried, and failed to ban 'The Truth of The Lie'

"Inside the apartment, police forensic specialists proceed to lift finger and palm prints, a job that is preferably carried out during daylight hours. Others look for traces of blood, samples of fibres and hair."

Yet, the documentary fail to mention any of this, instead preferring to lie, and portray the police as bungling amateurs. 

Sunday night's Madeleine McCann documentary 'Gone', Part 3 - EXPOSED

Continuing from where we left off this morning, in this evenings blog we tackle the idiocy of what was said in part 3 of Sunday Night's 'Gone', a documentary that promised so much, and delivered nothing more than lies, smears, and misinformation.


2m 32s: Rahni boldly, and incorrectly states that 'the substance behind the sofa couldn't even be determined to be human blood, let alone Madeleine's blood, and the evidence of the cadaver dogs, was questionable'

Oh Rahni, you pseudological scam artist, you make it too easy. Both Eddie and Keela alerted behind the sofa, and guess what - human cellular material was found. Swabs were taken and sent for forensic testing. Of the identifiable markers on sample 3a, all matched those of Madeleine McCann, now unless Madeleine shared the same DNA as a non human species, then perhaps you could explain how you came to the conclusion that what was found wasn't human?

John Lowe - the scientist who tested the samples taken from behind the sofa after Keela and Eddie's alerts - had this to say of a swab 3a, which was taken directly from the spot both dogs alerted to:

"However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid."

Yes he states that the cellular material couldn't be attributed to a particular bodily fluid, but given that Keela only alerted to human blood, and not other bodily fluids, and that DNA was present, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that it was human blood.

Next up on the documentary we were treated to some truly inspired words from Professor Dave Barclay, here's what Dave had to say (try not to laugh).

"I don't put much faith in cadaver dogs, they will react to any decomposing material, be it human, animal, or badger (see how Dave places badgers into a whole new category - perhaps a mineral or vegetable, I don't know. Dave is a law unto himself) or even meat that you've spilt some blood from in the boot of your car and it's then gone off"

Anybody who has studied this case, could be forgiven for thinking that Dave is clearly part of the cover up - why? Because one of the McCanns' family members - Sandy Cameron mentioned the very same thing in his statement:

"On one occasion, I believe it was on July of 2007, I took Patricia to the supermarket. We carried bags in the boot (trunk) of the Renault Scenic; bought various items including fresh fish, shrimp and beef. When we unloaded the shopping bags, we noticed that blood has run out of the bottom of the plastic bag"

The coincidence is quite uncanny, is it not.

Unfortunately for Dave, and Rahni, Eddie didn't alert to roadkill, dead animals, or indeed badgers. In fact the only things he did alert to, were the very things he was trained to alert to. Sick of the apologist's excuses, we covered, and thoroughly debunked them  in a blog some time ago:

However, seeing as Dave brought up the subject of car boots, and Rahni failed to mention what Eddie and Keela alerted to in the boot, allow me:

Both Eddie and Keela alerted to the Renault Scenic; the car the McCanns hired 24 days after Madeleine was reported missing. Following an alert to the side of the boot, Martin Grime (the dogs' handler), instructed the forensic team to inspect further.

Using the following link from the PJ files as source:

"From the observations made inside the vehicle several areas were detected containing stains that appeared to be of haematic origin, they were subjected to tests looking for peroxide existing in blood using the Kastle-Mayer test, all of them reacted negatively."

"After the examination of the vehicle was complete the human blood specialist sniffer dog was introduced along with Martin Grime of the British police who coordinated the dog?s movements. After a few moments Mr Grime informed the team that they should collect the key and other materials from zone M or from the interior of the luggage compartment given the fact that the dog in reference had identified these materials as places where eventual blood vestiges existed. The undersigned gathered these materials placing them in paper envelopes with the following references:

10. Parts of the vehicle luggage area.

12. Vehicle ignition key."


Given that Keela alerted to the boot (ref 10 on the photo below), and that Fernando Viegas Um Henriques, of the Forensic specialist team in Portugal, confirmed that areas of the vehicle contained stains that appeared to be blood, it was fair to assume that these stains/areas could have had the presence of blood. We can see from the link above, that a forensic light kit was used. This kit would have lit up bodily fluids such as saliva, semen, and vaginal fluids, as they contain natural fluorescents. This isn't the case with blood. Blood will actually show up as approximately  four times darker.

The link below has more information on forensic light kits:

Also below, using the Huber murder case as a source:

The Kastle-Mayer test, which was used in this case, whilst, not confirming the presence of blood, cannot rule it out.

As can be seen from the above link, the Kastle-Mayer test, has known to give a negative, even when blood is present. A possible reasons for this, is that the test simply isn't sensitive enough.

Here is what Goncalo said regarding the DNA samples found in the boot of the car:

"In the first case, the laboratory considers that the result of the analysis is inconclusive because the samples gathered provide very little information when the DNA comes from more than one person. But all the confirmed DNA components match with the corresponding components in Madeleine’s DNA profile!."

...and here is what John Lowe of the FSS said:

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


Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

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

No misinterpretation there whatsoever. In fact, when we look at Goncalo Amaral's summary of the DNA, he confirms, exactly what John Lowe has told him:

"The preliminary results from FSS were enlightening in a way, and confirmed the information given by the EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and the CSI dog.

- The CSI dog, Keela, signaled the presence of human blood where Eddie, the EVRD dog, marked the presence of cadaver odour - on the floor tiles behind the sofa in the lounge, on the key and in the boot of the Renault Scenic that was used by the McCanns from May 27th onwards.

- the bodily fluids, according to the FSS, contain markers from Madeleine's DNA profile.

These elements do not constitute concrete proof but simply clues to be added to those we already possess. In itself, the definition of a DNA profile from LCN is not considered as evidence in a criminal investigation. In his report, the English scientist says that he cannot give answers to the following questions: when was the DNA deposited? In what way? What bodily fluid does the DNA come from? Has a crime been committed?

The scientific evidence is not enough and it has to be accompanied by other types of material, documented and testimonial evidence. It is only in this way that the entire puzzle can be reconstructed and certainties can be achieved, for the material truth to be established."

As for Snr. Amaral referring to the sample from the boot as blood, consider this:

Keela (blood only dog), alerted to the boot; specifically the area marked 10.

It was also visually thought to be blood.

DNA confirmed by John Lowe of FSS.

DNA can only come from tissues such as blood, sweat, skin, semen, saliva etc.

As all other fluids from the body would have glowed under inspection, anything other than blood can be ruled out.

The assumption that the sample was in fact blood, is a perfectly reasonable one to make.

Oh one more thing...

Stuart Prior of Leicestershire police force, who was with Goncalo Amaral, at the time they were discussing the DNA results, stated that in England, the results would have been enough to arrest the McCanns.

3m 30s: Back to Paul Luckman now, who when discussing Goncalo Amaral, had this to say 'I think he was fixated on one single solution when, clearly you have to look wider'

Oh dear oh dear, Luckman is again wrong. Goncalo Amaral did consider all possibilities, and discussed them in his book:

"At this stage of the investigation, the hypotheses are numerous, and each one must be considered. It is necessary to locate and identify all the paedophiles who live in or who have passed through the Algarve, in order to check that they were not in the proximity of Vila da Luz on the days preceding the disappearance.

The idea of a robbery gone wrong is not to be ruled out either. During the holidays, burglaries are not rare, and the police are not always informed, because hotels avoid spreading this kind of information. Even if the examination of apartment 5A reveals no trace of a break-in - contrary to what the parents insist and that Sky announced - we have to take stock of the petty crimes committed in the seaside resort and at the tourist complex. We are counting on the management of the hotel so that no incident of this nature remains hidden. Even if we don't have much belief in the scenario of a burglar who enters the apartment for a burglary and leaves it with the child, dead or alive, this hypothesis, as ridiculous as it may be, must not be neglected."

4m 47s: Rahni discusses a sighting from an Irish family, of a man carrying a small child toward the beach. What Rahni fails to say, is that the father of the family, Martin Smith, was between 60% and 80% certain that the man he saw was in fact Gerry McCann, and said so in his statement below:

5m 14s: Dave Barclay is back, this time with a theory that Madeleine could have 'gone into the street, and just been knocked down by somebody who was drunk driving, that's an incentive for him to pick the body up and conceal it somewhere'

So Dave doesn't trust cadaver dogs, but is happy to throw a theory out there that has no evidential basis whatsoever. Nobody reported a noise, there was no report of blood out in the road, no reports of anyone driving erratically, nothing. Yet here we are, with Dave throwing it out there.

5m 45s: Here we have the introduction of criminal profiler Pat Brown. What is blatantly obvious to me, and many others, is that Pat's words were cut, swapped around, and she was misrepresented. The degree of which is utterly disgusting. I won't say any more on that matter as Pat Brown has announced that she intends to sue the production company, in a statement I will copy below:

"Pat Brown’s legal counsel, Attorney Brian Close, has identified multiple claims against Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media – including intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation - based on the portrayals that took place in the Sunday Night promotional video and in the piece itself. He states: “The misleading edits portray Pat Brown in a false light by contorting her statements and changing their substance, and the broadcasts and publications have done and continue to do damage to Ms. Brown’s professional reputation wherever they are viewed around the world."All I will say on that matter is that whilst I don't know Pat personally, I wish her the best of luck, and hope she succeeds with her law suit. This entire documentary was an absolute disgrace, and those who made it should be held accountable.

Unfortunately (for the blog, and not for anybody outside of Australia), the production company have now pulled parts 3, 4, and 5. I will try to get a transcript of part 4 though, as it too has some whoppers included. For now though, I will leave you with the above. Please feel free to tweet the blog to @RahniSadler, and post it on the production team's facebook page

Enjoy your evenings, and remember - beware of badgers.

Updated to include: Whilst writing this blog, I considered that Professor Dave Barclay may have also been misrepresented in the same manner that Pat Brown, Colin Sutton, and others were. In fact I'm sure the quotes used were presented in a way that suited the agenda of the production team. I sincerely hope if that is the case, Professor Barclay speaks up - as Pat and Colin have - and gives a full, frank explanation of the context of his comments. The media have twisted the words of the truth to such an extent, that this case has become a tangled web of deceit and lies.


Sunday, 23 April 2017

Former Senior Investigating Officer speaks out about McCann case

As you will all be aware the mainstream media are desperately trying to convince the nation of any theory - other than parental involvement - as to the circumstances under which Madeleine McCann disappeared in May 2007. In an article published on the 21st April 2017, The Daily Mirror were doing just that. The Mirror ran a story that included quotes from Colin Sutton, a former Senior Investigating Officer, who worked on the murder squad for the Metropolitan Police.

Using Colin's words, the article indicated that the former officer's most likely theory was that Madeleine was snatched by a trafficking gang; crucially however the paper misrepresented Colin. Writing on the CMoMM forum yesterday (22nd April 2017) Colin clarified what he actually said:

"This (the theory that Madeleine was kidnapped by a child trafficking gang) is the most likely scenario once those closely linked to Madeleine have been ruled out.

That is an important part of the quoted piece to keep in mind.

My view, as I gave to The Mirror, is that they have not been ruled out, either by the PJ or Op. Grange.  However the editorial slant given to what I said to the reporter has pushed this to the very back of the piece.

I have taken part in three pieces for the 10-year anniversary - the Mirror, the Australian TV film and the Sky TV film.  

The Australians never told me they had 'new evidence', I don't know what this is but I was asked about police procedures in these cases and not asked to give an opinion as to what actually happened.  

The Sky film will be, I hope, a much more balanced piece than anything else in the mainstream media.  I am sure you will have a view once you see it -as will I, as once again it has to go through an editing process, but in what I have recorded I have tried to deal with some of the inconsistencies, to point out that the Portuguese investigation was nowhere near as bad as it is painted, that the McCanns have never been eliminated and that Grange was too restricted either to do this or to have a meaningful impact on the case.

I am sceptical about abduction being the only valid scenario and will continue to be so. In taking that view in the mainstream media, one is subject to legal and editorial restrictions which of course do not exist on a forum. My choice therefore is either to give up and not take part or to do so and try to push the boundaries each time so that the concept of alternative theories can gradually be published more widely. I chose the latter.  

I am cross that The Mirror piece has been adjusted so much that it gives precedence to a hypothesis which I don't feel is the most likely. It is the first time I have done this sort of work for that paper and this is an outcome which has not happened when working for others. No newspaper or TV company has ever told me what conclusion I should come to and if they did I would run a mile. Once I have told them what I think, though, I am at their mercy as to what they use and do not use."

When asked on the forum about Eddie and Keela, the dogs that alerted to various areas in apartment 5a, Kate's clothing, the boot of the hire car, as well as Madeleine's soft toy, cuddlecat:

"I have great faith in the abilities of these dogs in general.  On the handful of occasions I used (different) dogs operationally they were reliable in that they directed us to areas where forensic material was found.  I accept that dog findings alone are not evidential.  

One of the areas of this case where my understanding is lacking is what happened after Eddie and Keela indicated - how the material was then analysed and how it came to be discounted."

Colin then returned to the subject of how the article was misleading:

"I can tell you how the Mirror piece was put together - I spent 2 days in PdL with Martin Fricker and a photographer.  I didn't, on this occasion, actually write anything - Martin interviewed me and we discussed the case and the possibilities of what had happened.  He had a list of these possibilities and I gave my view on them one by one - generically as well as how they might apply to this individual case.  I had nothing to do with the piece on Mr. Amaral; my personal opinion of it was that it was pretty unpleasant.

Most of what I said forms the 5 numbered paragraphs on the bottom half of page 4. I didn't have any control over the relative prominence given to them, had I done so then point 1 (parental involvement) would have had the greatest or at least equal prominence.

My views on the Portuguese investigation form much of what was printed on the bottom halves of pages 6 and 7.  Emphasis here on the criticisms is not mine - but we must I think accept that there are some valid criticisms to be made.  Equally I believe that we should not apply the standards we expect of British officers operating within the British culture and criminal justice system to those operating in a quite different context.

On the final page I did say that I believe that Madeleine is dead but that I understand that it is difficult for many to give up hope.  I said - as I believe - that there is/are a person/persons who know what happened to Madeleine and that I fear that now only information from one of them will solve the case.  This was written as "... if the culrprit makes a confession." Which is very similar but also can be read in a quite different sense.

Just to be absolutely clear, currently my overall position is this:

I do not know what happened to Madeleine.  I do not think the official investigations by the PJ or Scotland Yard have disclosed this either.  I have read a lot of hypothesising and logical thought by many different people - both pro- and anti-abduction -  with varying levels of experience and expertise. Much of what they say, much of the evidence which is available, can point to logical conclusions either for or against the abduction hypothesis. 

But the important point for me is that the accepted best practice in these cases is to ensure that the parents and those close to the missing child are eliminated at an early stage.  The good reason for this is that, statistically and experientially, they are most likely to be involved.  If the PJ tried to do this but could not and Operation Grange didn't actually try to as it was never a part of their remit, then I don't think it can sustainably be said that Madeleine's disappearance was investigated to the depth it ought to have been.  

Of course there are, sadly, some cases where the evidence is not to be found, where the best possible investigation will not yield the answer.  I am not convinced this case is one of those because I am not sure it has been investigated as thoroughly as it could have been.

I am certain, for a number of reasons, that Operation Grange was not a full re-investigation - and I believe it should have been.

I do not ignore the other points you mention.  They all have some credibility, in my judgement at least sufficient to warrant investigation by the appropriate authorities.  As such, they are the sort of things I would have expected a proper re-investigation to look at."

Unlike the Mirror, I haven't edited any of Colin's words regarding the interview; I haven't rearranged what he had to say; I have given no prominence to any part, or parts.

I have to say that I admire the honesty, balance, and structure of what Colin said above; what he has revealed though, raises some serious questions;

Why are our press so determined to avoid printing facts?

Just how many other people has The Mirror - and other publications - misrepresented, in an attempt to portray Kate and Gerry McCann as victims?

When - if ever - are they going to realise that the victim here was Madeleine McCann, and that by printing biased, one sided, and often totally untrue articles, they are complicit in covering up the truth, as to what happened to a 3 year old little girl who went on holiday with her family, and was never seen again?

Tuesday, 21 March 2017

Katie Hopkins - Toeing the McCann line.

Two things we know for sure about Kate and Gerry McCann:

1. They enjoy nothing more than people banging on about neglect, it is after all their alibi, and, whilst people stick on the topic of neglect, they're not discussing the more condemnatory evidence.

2. They love to play the victim. If ever we needed proof of that, we only have to look at the lies they told about Goncalo Amaral, or the dossier in 2014, that ultimately led to an innocent woman's death; a woman who, through no fault of her own was labelled a 'vile troll', and far, far worse.

So imagine the McCanns' glee when they get two for the price of one. A minor celebrity - she was in Big Brother, and is known for being a bigot; sometimes racist; sometimes crude; sometimes xenophobic; always loud-mouthed; always offensive; often vacuous, and widely regarded as someone who likes to stir up hate for the sake of a few quid, and one who believes Madeleine was neglected, and abducted.

I am of course, talking about Katie Hopkins. The 'I say it as it is' champion of the people.

One of Hopkins' early offerings regarding the McCann case, was shortly after the tragic death of Brenda Leyland. Up stepped our heroin with the following tweet:

Keyword: "Negligence"

February 2016; Hopkins writes an article in The Daily Mail about the McCanns, and her outrage at them leaving Madeleine alone. She even signed the article off with the line,

"Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found."

Click to read article

The rest of the MSM jumped on this story, labelling the article as an 'astonishing attack on Madeleine McCann's parents'.

This was perfect for Kate and Gerry. For almost 9 years, the McCanns had openly admitted to leaving their kids alone, they had also complained about abuse from 'perfect parents', and here was Hopkins giving them both these things. Confirming the McCanns' version of events, whilst whipping up a hate storm on twitter; many who were unaware of the more damning aspects of the case, were leaping to Hopkins' side, accusing the McCanns of neglect, and firing vicious verbal volleys into the ether.

Those who did have a better understanding of the case, questioned Hopkins, asking her if she was going to follow up her article with links to the PJ files, or discuss the many inconsistencies to the McCanns' version of events.

Hopkins, full of bravado, promised there would be more to come - and she was right.

June 9th 2016; Katie tells anybody who could be bothered to listen, via her podcast, that her previous article (the one about neglect), was one she had been previously stopped from writing by The Sun. Suddenly, people thought 'she's being silenced, she must be onto something, why would The Sun stop Katie writing about the case?'.

People waited with baited breath...and they waited...and they waited...

Then, in February this year, as she did with Brenda Leyland, Hopkins arrived back on the scene, riding the wave left by Goncalo Amaral's victory over Kate and Gerry in the Supreme Court.

Would we finally see her dig deeper or reveal more?

That would be an emphatic 'NO'.

We were given the leftovers from her last offering; the same food, only cold, and a little past it's best. She even quoted the same line:

"You know it strikes me that in this instance, Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. I believe Maddie was lost because she was left to be found."

Click here for LBC show.

Yet again, avoiding the main issues, whilst reinforcing the theory of an abductor taking Madeleine because she was left in the apartment to be found.

It was of course great timing...if you're Kate and Gerry. Goncalo Amaral's book had been ruled factual, and his theory of Madeleine's parents covering up her death, based upon his time on the investigation was allowed to be published.

What better time to discuss the more detailed areas of the case?

Not for Hopkins though, it was neglect leading to abduction all the way. Exactly what the McCanns said, but from someone posing as the enemy.

Next up, came a video with Jodie Marsh, and guess what, it came off the back of yet another big announcement regarding the case - quelle surprise!

It had just been announced, that Operation Grange was to be given an extra £85k to carry on the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. The metaphorical ambulance, panting on the driveway of Jodie Marsh, the soles of rent-a-gob's running shoes still hot from the chase, and their owner in yet another position to fulfil her promise of speaking out. This was a private video, no restrictions from her editor. What did Hopkins deliver?

More of the exact same nothingness. Neglect, leading to abduction.  Actually that's not strictly true, Hopkins did add something else this time, and I think it's the first time I've heard her be honest:

"I don't really mind what happened"

Finally the truth. Katie Hopkins doesn't give a what about that fateful night, as long as it serves her. She's a fake, someone out to make a name for herself by acting controversial, whilst at the same time, picking the splinters out of her backside.

I gave three examples of some of the biggest talking points regarding the case. Events that would, ordinarily have people discussing the hard facts, all of which Hopkins leapt on in a flash, and brought back around to the same tale of neglect, and abduction. She promised to give us more, she gave nothing, and now, she's at it again:

Only this time, she's using the name of a dead woman - Brenda Leyland, to get more attention. What's really sickening, is that  Brenda did discuss the real facts, both in her own name, and through her twitter account. She did it in a perfectly legal manner, as was ruled at the inquest into her tragic, and untimely death.

Coincidentally, an avid supporter of Kate and Gerry, who hounded and threatened Brenda days before her death; mocked her passing afterwards; and even had the brass neck to attend the inquest, seems rather pleased with Hopkins' input on the case...

...and well she might. Hopkins is towing the McCann line, she's feeding the public exactly what the McCanns want them to be fed.

"...Maddie was lost because she was left to be found."

There are many, many other aspects to this case:

The evidence of the EVRD dog, and CSI dog, Eddie and Keela:

The lies about a break in. Possibly one of the most fundamental points of the case. It was after all, because of this lie; passed onto the media, from Kate and Gerry, via their friends and family back in the UK, that a vast number of the population were conned into parting with their money:

That money, many believed they were donating to help find Madeleine, was spent on legal fees, and gambled on failed and obsessive law suits. It paid the annual salary of Clarence Mitchell - a cabinet office media monitor, who left his role with the Labour party, to lie to the press on behalf of the McCanns, thus creating a paradoxical circle of events. 'Give us money, and we'll feed you more lies'.

These, and many more things happened. They're documented in the files, they're facts, so when Hopkins tell us she's going to reveal more, and she won't be silenced, why does she stick to the same mantra, neglect - abduction? The McCanns' version.

The ironic factor in all of this is of course, is that there is a valid argument, believed by many who have read the PJ files, that the children weren't left alone, as one adult was missing from the tapas bar each evening. In fact it was a theory that was explored by Paulo Rebelo, the man who took over the investigation from Goncalo Amaral.

Rebelo's theory, was that apart from the night Madeleine was reported missing, the adults took turns babysitting each night:

Sunday April 29th: Matt Oldfield may not have been at dinner as he was alleged to be too ill, and did nothing on the Sunday.

"Reply 'So Sunday was pretty much a write-off and I was thinking, oh, the start of my holiday and I'm not doing anything that day'.

4078 'Yeah. So Monday was really your first proper holiday day''

Monday 30th, or Tuesday 1st: Russell O'Brien was not at dinner

Wednesday 2nd: Jane Tanner was late to dinner, as her daughter was ill.

Rachael O'Brien (Mampilly) was not at dinner as she was unwell.

Quiz mistress confirms one of the group was missing at dinner,

Due to the inconsistencies within the group's statements, the PJ requested that they take part in a reconstruction, the group of friends all refused, as detailed below in the final report:

"The aforementioned persons were interviewed carefully and in great detail, on various occasions (see index), with the intention to collect all the relevant elements that could help the investigation to uncover the truth regarding the facts.

The analysis of the grouping of these inquiries emphasized the existence of important details which were not entirely understood and integrated, which needed to be, from our viewpoint, tested and compared together [concatenated] in the actual location.

As such, a concrete understanding of the lack of synergy of some aspects of elevated relevance should be attempted through a processed diligence via the reconstitution of the facts, which, due to a lack of collaboration of several relevant witnesses, was not able to be accomplished, in spite of all the force brought by the authorities."

It is only a theory, but one that Kate, Gerry, and their friends didn't take the opportunity to rule out. Whatever the truth behind whether the children were left alone or not, the fact remains, that by getting bogged down with talk of neglect, the bigger picture is being missed completely.

There is so much more to this case than the issue of neglect.