Monday, 24 April 2017

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

INTRODUCTION

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. 

PART ONE

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:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/more-mccann-lies-crock-of-locked-v.html

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. 




PART 2


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't...in 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:

"VESTIGES COLLECTED

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.

PART 3

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."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

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"

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A-J-CAMERON.htm

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:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html

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:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/59-DA-27.htm

"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:

http://www.spexforensics.com/applications/category/forensic-light-sources

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

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-07-22/news/mn-18567_1_murder-case

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

http://www.bluestar-forensic.com/pdf/en/STR_validation_study.pdf

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.

Why?...

Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

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

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."

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Amaral%20The%20Truth%20of%20The%20Lie%20Chapter%2003

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:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

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 https://www.facebook.com/7sundaynight/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf

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?