Friday, 9 February 2018

McCann case - 21 of the most frequently asked questions.


There are a great number of myths surrounding this case; unsubstantiated rumours and of course, niggling questions people wish to know the answers to. Having been a part of the social media side of this case for some time now, I've observed certain topics cropping up more than others. I've seen those questions answered correctly, and I've seen them answered incorrectly, thus giving weight to the myths, and leading to wild goose chases.

With that in mind, I thought I would write a post addressing some of the more commonly asked questions on the case, and for the avoidance of doubt, added links to back up the answers:


Q1. What are the PJ Files?

A. The PJ Files were 'released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law' shortly after the first investigation was archived. The files contain witness statements, forensic records, photographs, CCTV analysis, tip offs, dialogue between the PJ and other investigating bodies. They can be read on the following link:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm










Q2. Why was Madeleine made a ward of court, and what does this mean?

On May 17th 2007, only 2 weeks after Madeleine was reported missing, Kate and Gerry McCann began proceedings to make Madeleine a ward of court. So what is a ward of court, what does it mean, and more importantly what did the McCanns stand to gain from it? To find out more, click the link below...

Q3. Why was none of Madeleine's DNA found in the apartment, and why did the kids share one toothbrush.
A. Both of the above are untrue. Firstly, DNA that matched Madeleine's was found in the apartment. It's location was revealed by Keela (CSI blood dog), and Eddie (blood and cadaver dog), more on those two later. The sample was recovered from behind the sofa in apartment 5a, whilst it wasn't complete, all the components that were present matched Madeleine's.
A possible, and highly plausible explanation as to why so many samples were either 'incomplete', or 'mixed' is given on the link below:

As for the toothbrush myth, the story that all the kids shared a toothbrush, came about after it was reported a sample of Madeleine's DNA couldn't be obtained from her toothbrush, or hairbrush.
The PJ wanted a control sample of Madeleine's DNA, one that could be used to compare against any other samples. A control sample couldn't be taken from her toothbrush, as their was a risk one of her siblings may have picked up the wrong toothbrush; the bristles of two brushes may have made contact; or DNA could have been transferred in other ways.

Q4. Why did Gerry McCann go back to Rothley to hand a pillowcase to police?
A. The pillowcase was agreed to be the best place to gain the control sample mentioned above. The sample was tested, and found to contain 'a series of bands, half of which a child inherits from their natural mother (maternal) and half of which it inherits from their natural father (paternal).'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Q5. Was Madeleine, Gerry McCann's real daughter?


A. Yes, without any doubt. The link above shows several reports, two of which are from FSS scientist - Lesley Ann Denton. The first letter shows that the pillowcase was tested, and contained a 50/50 split of bands belonging to Kate and Gerry. This information meant that it was 29 million times more likely that the sample was from a female child of the McCanns'. Lesley goes on to say:
"Please note: I understand that the McCANN - s have a second female child. It therefore remains a formal possibility that the DNA on the pillowcase could have originated from her as the genetics would be in keeping with those described above."
The quoted text has caused some confusion, due to the inclusion of the words 'formal possibility', opening the door for a lot of sensationalism regarding Gerry being the father. That letter was written/dictated, at a point when Lesley Denton had only compared the oral samples of Gerry and Kate against the pillowcase. That's why at the bottom of the letter she uses the words 'formal possibility', ie. a possibility dependent upon on future test results. Further down the webpage, in the section on the link below, is a second letter, the top of which shows that Denton now has the results of the twins to use:

The aforementioned 'former possibility' of the DNA sample from the pillowcase belonging to Amelie, is ruled out:

"A DNA profile has been obtained from the reference samples of Amelie Eve McCANN (SBM/2) and Sean Michael McCANN (SBM/3).
In this case, all of the bands present in the profiles of both Amelie McCANN and Sean McCANN are represented in the combined profiles of Kate HEALY and Gerald McCANN. This is what I would expect to find if Amelie McCANN and Sean Michael McCANN were their natural children.
Neither the DNA profile of Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN matches that from the pillowcase (SJM/1) and therefore in my opinion, neither Amelie McCANN nor Sean McCANN can be the source of this profile."


Q6. I've read that Gerry McCann was on the sex offenders register, is this true?
A. Gerry being on the sex offenders register, is one of those internet myths surrounding the case, and certainly causes confusion.
Sadly because some like to promote sensationalism, this topic keeps cropping up. The story originated from a blogger known as Kaossis, and as their name suggests, it caused just that. She claimed that in 2002 Gerry McCann was placed on the sex offenders register. Kaossis didn't provide a single piece of evidence to substantiate her claims, largely because there isn't any. We have been in touch with several agencies who have access to information that would reveal any record of this, and all of them have said the same thing, there is no record, and no such offence was ever attributed to Gerry McCann.
Here is where the confusion arises though. As part of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, both Kate and Gerry had what is known as a CATS file set up in their name. A CATS file can be for many purposes, domestic violence and crimes involving children being just two. Basically it is a file that all investigating bodies, police, social services etc., can go to and look up all relevant inquiries relating to the case in question.
From the PJ files (I will add the link below) we can see that this file existed, and as I say, was set up in both Kate and Gerry's names.
A lot of people confuse this file with the sex offenders register, and coupled with Kaossis' unfounded accusations, jump to the wrong conclusions.

What may or may not be of interest, is that Jim Gamble, former head of CEOP, stands accused of sanitising this file.

Jim Gamble is a very unsavory character, and a huge supporter of Kate and Gerry McCann. He follows many of the unpleasant pro McCann nasties on twitter, and has a history of dodging legitimate questions, and obfuscation of facts. The file in question is indeed empty, but given it's purpose, and existence, one has to ask why? A question that if put to Gamble, will result in you being ignored, and blocked.

Was the file never used?

Seems odd to set it up and not use it.

Or...

Was information from the file removed?

We may never know. More questions than answers there. The fact is though, that the setting up of a CATS file in both names, is perfectly plausible, and in keeping with procedure. The mystery surrounding it's contents, if indeed there were any, is murky to say the least.

Q6. What did the dogs alert to?
A. The full report on Eddie and Keela's findings can be read here:

Two videos (a short, and a long version), can be viewed on the following links:
Q7. How are the dogs used and what is involved in their training?
A. The following link explains how the dogs are deployed; it takes a look at their training methods; what they alert to; what they don't alert to, and debunks every excuse McCann apologists try to use to discredit the findings of two exceptional dogs:
Q8. Has Theresa May sealed Madeleine McCann's medical records for 100 years?

A. IF Madeleine's medical records have been sealed, then those who claim it as fact, are either guessing, believing myths, or lying.
In 2012, James Murray from The Express wrote an article that was covered by many others:
"THE Home Office is refusing to release secret files on the Madeleine McCann case to avoid diplomatic ructions with Portugal.
The documents are believed to record discussions with the Metropolitan Police about sensitive details of the baffling case.
Rejecting attempts by a newspaper to see the files, the Home Office said there would be “specific detriment to the UK’s relationship with Portugal” if they were released.
It also claimed disclosure of three of the documents would “stifle discussion” between officials.
A Met review of the case was ordered last year after pressure from the Home Office and David Cameron.
Sources said there were “serious concerns” within the Met that they were investigating a “foreign” case over which they had no jurisdiction.
Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry McCann, of Rothley, Leicestershire, are convinced she is still alive. She was taken in May 2007 from a holiday apartment on the Algarve."

This report has since been exaggerated by many. When the files were released to the public in 2008, many of them were held back from public view. This is explained below (translation by Albym):

"- Category A
relate to people identified during the inquiry whose possible link to the events is extremely unlikely (the most tenuous) and whose right to privacy would be infringed if their personal information were left on file (basically the 'pervy percy' list).
- Category B
relate to crimestopper data with respect to sightings, the TV program having guaranteed anonymity.
- Category C
relate to information from people - often criminals or having a criminal history - that was volunteered by them and they should not be put at risk for having come forward.
You will notice that in the DVD forum Volume-by-Volume Index there are occasional notes on missing pages. Those that I have checked relate to pages withdrawn in accordance with these instructions."


Files were also said to have been locked away for 100 years, relating to the Leveson Inquiry. These files aren't locked away, although at first glance they appear to have been. Joana Morais explained it on her blog:

Quote:
"If you see exhibits and evidence submitted by others, under that section : Subseries within LEV 2 Module 1 - are also closed for 100 years


If you search for "Gerald McCann" in "records" at the National Archives site, you'll find 'W/S of Gerald Patrick McCann'


that is the Written Submission by GM, which appears in the site with a reference "LEV 2/72D/Z", further description states the document is closed or retained for the period of 100 years, yet if you search google for that written submission, using the keywords "LEV 2/72D/Z - W/S of Gerald Patrick McCann" the first result will lead you to that same submission link, in PDF form, which you can still download"
In short, the files from the Leveson Inquiry haven't been "locked away", they're still accesible in PDF form.
Q9. Why weren't the McCanns charged with neglect?

A. There were a few reasons the McCanns weren't charged with abandonment, a crime that carries a 10 year jail sentence. Contrary to the word of some, the reason the McCanns weren't charged with that crime, wasn't because they couldn't then be charged with manslaughter, or murder. 

The former minister of Portuguese internal affairs Rui Pereira had this to say:

"The error was not constituting the
parents as arguidos for the crime of abandonment."

“At the beginning there was an extraordinary and ridiculous theory that said the English have very peculiar cultural customs."

“And therefore it was natural for them to leave the two-year-old twin siblings and the other three-year-old child alone in a bedroom for the parents to go out a few hundred metres away to socialise with their friends.’’

Former police chief Moita Flores added:

“I have no doubts. If this had involved a Portuguese child our public ministry would have immediately set
off measures which are in place to protect children.

“In our culture this kind of behaviour would have not been tolerated as reasonable. I am not even sure it is tolerated under Anglo-Saxon cultural values.’’

Goncalo Amaral wasn't wasting his time with a charge of neglect, as his attentions were focused on solving what actually happened to Madeleine. As we know, his time on the case was cut short due to political pressure from the UK, something Goncalo Amaral describes in this extract from chapter 18, in his book "The Truth of The Lie":

"BAD RESPONSE TO A JOURNALIST

In the evening, while driving, I receive an unidentified phone call, the last straw...A journalist asks me if I want to comment on the subject of the email. Whether due to the difficult day, the raging storm or the fact of driving through rain...I lose my cool. I reply, irritably, without thinking, that the message is of no interest and that it would be better for the English police to occupy themselves with the Portuguese investigation. Even as I am hanging up, I realise that I have not only made a blunder, but I have been unfair towards the majority of the British police who have helped us throughout these difficult months. I drive on, certain that I have triggered a diplomatic incident with predictable consequences: as soon as these simple words are made public, I risk not being able to continue to direct the Portimão Department of Criminal Investigation..." 

"...According to a British correspondent, the Prime Minister personally called Stuart Prior to ask for confirmation of my dismissal. Why would the head of the British government be interested in a lowly Portuguese official? We refuse to believe the rumours going around, according to which the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon was dependent on my dismissal. Rumours, of course, nothing more. I cannot help but think that for the first time in its history, the judiciary police has dismissed a simple official from his post because of external pressure."


As for the claims that the Algarve is well known for child abductions; during Goncalo Amaral's time with the PJ, there were no cases of child abduction in the Algarve - apart from what could be described as the 'normal' parental abduction cases, which thankfully are very rare and usually solved swiftly, or at least correctly identified as parental abductions, there just haven't been any missing children at the hands of a stranger.

All this talk of Portugal being a hive for child abductions; that the neglect of children isn't illegal, is nonsense, and just another in a long list of smears against a fabulous country.

Q 10. Have the McCanns ever taken a lie detector test?

A. In 2007 the McCanns announced, through a family source, that they would be willing to take a lie detector test to prove their innocence. Of course that source, as is often the case, was unattributable. These sources have proved to be the McCanns' greatest weapon, "tell em anything, and if it goes down like a lead balloon, or we change our minds, we'll deny it" 
Well it didn't go down like a lead balloon, all the papers rolled with the story, and the public was fooled once more, after all who in their right mind would offer to take a lie detector test if they were guilty? Thing is they weren't offering to take one, and what's more had no intention whatsoever of taking one. What they actually said through their spokesman, Clarence Mitchell was:

"If a request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo a lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely reliability of the equipment being used."

What a load of tripe! As per usual Mitchell, the master manipulator, opens his mouth, and blows nothing but hot air. The Portuguese police were never going to ask the McCanns to take a lie detector test, the results aren't admissible in court, not here in the UK, and not in Portugal, as Clarence knew full well.

It wasn't until Don Cargill (chairman of the British And European Polygraph Association), approached the McCanns, did we find out just how worried they were about taking the test. Cargill was quoted in several newspapers as saying:

"I spoke to the McCanns' people and they came back with a list of conditions that would have been impossible to satisfy.They wanted me to prove the test would be 100 per cent accurate, that I was the world's best examiner and that it would be admissible in a Portuguese court – but I could not guarantee any of those things. Although polygraph testing is very accurate, it is not infallible."

So yet again the McCanns wriggled and squirmed out of a tricky situation.

Clarence even confirmed the refusal by stating:

"Gerry and Kate don't need to do one as they are telling the truth."

So there you have it, the gospel according to a paid liar. Kate and Gerry are telling the truth, go about your lives!

I wonder what Clarence would have to say if the McCanns are ever charged?
"Kate and Gerry will NOT be attending The Old Bailey, as they don't accept the charges as being reasonable"
Top and bottom of it is, no matter how much we would all love them to, or how loud we shout for one, the McCanns will never be made to take the test, nor would they ever risk it.

Q 11. Did Gerry McCann change the fridge in the apartment?

A. Again another question that keeps cropping up. Shortly after Madeleine was reported missing, Gerry started writing a blog. One entry that many I trust claim to have seen, was said to reveal how Gerry replaced the fridge. By all accounts the entry was deleted quickly, so there is no record of it. Not long after this Pamalam started to save all of Gerry's blogs, which can be read on the following link:

The above site also contains a myriad of information, photographs, transcripts, news reports, and much more.
Back to the question though. There is no mention of a fridge being replaced in the PJ files. David Payne mentions problems with the fridge in 5a in his rogatory statement:
"1485 "Yeah. Was there anybody around the resort or you know your, the Ocean Club in general that you weren't happy with''
Reply "Err we, you know we did obviously retrospectively question you know who'd been in, in to the resort to actually work there. They, on one of the days they had some err gardening people which we hadn't you know seen before and we you know we just wondered, you know, after Madeleine had gone err you know who they were and what their you know validity was if you like. Err the, I know that again, you know Kate and Gerry had had problems err with I think it was the blinds in their flat and the fridge and they'd had people in err you know into the flat, you know which obviously retrospectively was a concern as well. Err yeah that, you know who were those people, had they been checked out.'

However, at the time of Gerry's reported blog entry, the McCanns had left 5a, and were renting a villa at 27 Rua Das Flores. Both Kate and Gerry are well known for dropping red herrings, and creating confusion, I suspect this was just that.

Q12. Who is Stephen Birch, and why does he claim Madeleine is buried under a driveway in Praia da Luz?
A. Stephen Birch is an opportunistic con artist; he is only out to make money off a stolen theory, and a multitude of lies The background of him, and his lies can be read on the link below:

Q13. Why didn't the McCanns and their friends agree to taking part in a police reconstruction?
Crime reconstructions are a vital part of police forces investigations Worldwide, they give a clearer picture of what actually happened. It's all very well having all the pieces of a jigsaw, but without the picture on the lid of the box it can be difficult to put the pieces together, especially as was the case with the McCann's and their friends statements, those pieces don't fit.

In 2008 Ricardo Paiva, an Inspector with the PJ, sent an email to Mick Graham, Detective Inspector of the Major Crime Unit. In this email Ricardo requested that the tapas 7 be contacted with a view to attending a reconstruction. The following is a list of questions the 7 wanted answering (in red) followed by the answers (black italics):
1 - Why do the PJ want them to take part in the re-enactment?
The PJ wants them to take part in the re-enactment because they were the ones who experienced the situation. Therefore, they are in the best conditions to reproduce it.

2 - What is the aim, what are the PJ trying to achieve with the re-enactment?

The PJ is trying to find out, with accuracy, the circumstances of the events occurred, using for that purpose the exact place of events and the same persons who took part in it.

3 - Why so close to the anniversary?

Only now has the PJ conditions to carry out these proceedings, and also because it is desirable that the weather conditions are as similar as possible to those at the time of the events.

4 - Why don't the PJ use actors?

The reason is because only the persons involved can clarify, with accuracy and at the same place, their position and movements.

5 - Will the footage of the re-enactment be released to the press/TV etc?

The PJ won't release any pictures/footage to the press.

6 - What protection is there for the friends in relation to the media coverage/like frenzy?

The place will be isolated and press interference will be avoided to its maximum.
The re-enactment will be carried out in one single day, at the exact time the events occurred.
However, the witnesses are requested to stay in Portugal for a couple of days more, in order to allow the production of all the material which shall be analysed, checked and signed by the persons involved."

So having asked 7 questions of the PJ and duly been given the answers you'd expect the tapas 7 to be more than willing to help, you'd be wrong. Their next move was to start haggling with the PJ, putting forward demands that needed satisfying before they would co-operate:
Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner demanded the PJ;
• publicly dispels the damaging and disturbing lies churned out by the Portuguese press regarding alleged changes to statements, re-interviews or alleged lack of co-operation.
• publicly states there are "no suspicions over [us] regarding the commission of any criminal acts." This in no way compromises Judicial Secrecy.

Rachael Oldfied wrote:

"Either they believe our version of the events of May 3rd 2007, or they don't. If they do, why the need for a reconstruction? If they don't believe us, do they want a reconstruction so we can convince them otherwise?
If the purpose of a reconstruction is to convince the Prosecutor to lift Kate and Gerry's arguido status then we would consider taking part in it. If it is to properly focus the investigation on the person seen carrying a child away from the apartment, again, we would consider taking part because that would help to find Madeleine."

That would be the sighting Jane Tanner stands accused of lying about, changed several times, and has now been ruled out of the investigation by Scotland Yard. Are you starting to get an idea of how impossible the PJ's job was? This arrogant group of lying lowlifes had the audacity to make demands of a police force fighting against a tide of Government pressure, a slimy PR man in the shape of Clarence "let me bend over and talk to you" Mitchell, and Leicestershire police force whom are so far up the McCann's rear quarters only their shiny shoes are on display (CS). Is it any wonder Kate and Gerry McCann have never been brought to justice?
After several more emails (all of which can be read on the link at the bottom of this post) that probably had Snr Paiva banging his head against a brick wall, ALL of the tapas 7 and Jeremy Wilkins refused to attend the reconstruction.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id279.htm
Q14. Is it true Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions, whilst being interviewed by the police?
A. Yes, she refused to answer all questions (bar one), during her arguida interview. To this day there is no public record of Kate answering any questions to police, regarding the events which took place after she raised the alarm. The questions she refused to answer can be read on the link below:

Kate's response to the only question she did answer, is very odd:
PJ: "Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?"
Kate McCann: "Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks."

Q15. The Supreme Court in Lisbon recently said the McCanns were never cleared of involvement. Yet for years, the McCanns and their small group of supporters say they were. Were they ever cleared?
A. The McCanns were never cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance, in fact, as the link below explains, the final archiving report clearly states that there were many questions left to be answered, and that they and their friends had lied:
Q16. Have there been any supposed sightings of Madeleine since she disappeared?

A. Yes, there have been many sightings, the vast majority of which have been ruled out, or discovered to be made up. Last year, we exclusively revealed how Kate McCann's mother - Susan Healy, is a friend of one of a man responsible for at least 3 fabricated sightings, the link to that article is below:
http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/man-responsible-for-hoax-sightings-of.html

Q17. Why have the McCanns been allowed to use money from the fund for legal fees, five star hotels, two mortgage payments, witness expenses, and pay the likes of Clarence Mitchell who is responsible for deliberately lying to the press about the case, when people who donated, thought the money was to help find Madeleine?
A. In the small print of the terms and conditions of the Ltd company 'Leaving no stone unturned', lies this little gem:
"To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family."

That one line means the McCanns can do anything they wish with the money, and they have. The vast majority of the cash has been spent on keeping the truth hidden.

Q18. Who is Clarence Mitchell, and what is his role?
A. Clarence Mitchell became the official spokesman for the McCanns, and was paid a reported £75,000 a year for his services. Prior to his resignation to take up his position with the McCanns full time, Mitchell was a former media monitor for the Labour Government cabinet office, and is responsible for hundreds, if not thousands of proven bare faced lies that were printed in the media, and discussed on news channels worldwide. The following video captures him discussing the case, and highlights his lies as they perpetually drip from his treacherous tongue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzikQRswVpw

Mitchell also worked for Matthew Freud, Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law, from September 2008 – February 2010. No coincidence then, that the odious man has the MSM in his back pocket.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/clarence-mitchell-58746b42

Q19. Has any money from the fund been spent on the search for Madeleine?
A. The accounts for the McCanns company, can be read on the following link:

The McCanns did hire private detectives, and claimed they were looking for Madeleine. The truth however, tells a much different tale:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheMadeleineMcCannControversy/permalink/1856079531083387/

Q20. The McCanns claimed an 'abductor' broke into the apartment, and smashed the shutters to gain entry, was there any evidence of a break in?

A. No, not a scrap of evidence. The McCanns announced this lie through family, and friends. However, once it was established by authorities, that no break in ahd taken place, the McCanns backtracked, and said they'd left the door unlocked:
http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/more-mccann-lies-crock-of-locked-v.html

Q21. Why were the McCanns protected by our government, and other powerful figures?
A. One possible theory for this is detailed on the link below:


3 comments:

  1. Great job, so many myths demolished and so much spin revealed. You're doing a sterling job.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Lydia, great to see you here. Thank you, all with a little help from everyone (the good folk) involved.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post! Clear, concise - glad you mentioned the fraud Birch. So many like him unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete