A mother's jealousy

By special guest author - Blaze.


For as long as she lives, ordinarily a mother will love and nurture and protect and prioritise her child fearlessly and uncompromisingly, with all her heart and every ounce of her strength. 


If something dreadful happens to her child, a normal mother will be virtually annihilated by grief and guilt.


These are just two of the (many) unspoken but universally understood 'rules' of motherhood. The 'rules' assume that every woman is innately equipped for motherhood. 


But some women are not. 

Some women do not, or cannot, feel love for their child. Some mothers abuse their child: this can be physical, verbal and/or sexual (active) and emotional, mental/psychological and/or religious/spiritual (passive) abuse. In particularly dysfunctional and damaging homes, it can even be all of them. Implicit within every type of abuse is the most prevalent form: neglect.


Most child abuse is hidden - domestic abuse is, by definition, "behind closed doors". The vast majority of child abuse is never reported, rarely even suspected by those outside the family. The vast majority of abusers do not look (or openly act) like abusers; they look (and openly act) like regular mums and dads.


Obviously the examples of ill-equipped or dysfunctional mothers that make news headlines tend to only be the most severe and extreme examples. For every inadequate, shockingly neglectful, abusive or even murderous mother who does make the news headlines, there are millions of others who don't, and never will - either because their mistreatment of their child/ren is more subtle and/or covert (e.g. emotional abuse rather than physical violence), or they have a 'higher-functioning' mental illness or disorder and are therefore well-versed at duping and deceiving.


Before I go on, I must make it clear that having a mental illness does not mean a woman cannot be an excellent mother. I am referring here to very specific mental, emotional and psychological issues, and I know from experience that women with depression, bipolar, addictions, schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder, for example, are often brilliant mums and with sufficient support, they can even overcome or at least significantly improve their mental illness.

With Kate McCann, I believe we are talking about a full suite of very grave but generally well-concealed maladies, imbalances and maladjustments, which combine to create a woman who is as perplexing as she is certifiable. Mental health issues that, occurring co-morbidly in one woman, are disastrously incompatible with motherhood. She is, I believe, insane in the purest and most absolute and literal sense of the word. The fact she is high-functioning (i.e. very capable of leading and maintaining an ostensibly 'normal' life) unfortunately means this insanity is secreted beneath a fragile but compelling veneer of respectability, credibility and superficial success.


I have read Kate McCann's book in great detail. Based on her numerous public appearances and statements, and the contents of this astoundingly egomaniacal and disingenuous book, many believe that she is afflicted with at least one of the following: childhood trauma (past abuse), mental illness, drug dependency/ addiction, (post natal) depression/psychosis, and personality disorder/s. We will likely never know for sure, and it is of course speculation, but I maintain that the truth of WHY this extraordinarily conflicted and cold woman is the way she is represents part of the answer to how this unprecedented mystery has happened. 

While I would never describe her as a 'victim', I do strongly believe she is totally and utterly controlled - by her own dire personal shortcomings at least as much as she is by the heartless heart specialist she's married to. (It would appear that they are in a torrid and mutually deleterious codependent relationship - far from being the "happy, harmonious, argument-free" (!!) marriage they are keen to portray.)



As a malignant narcissist - and I personally have no doubt whatsoever that the label is entirely applicable to Dr Healy; frankly the signs are flashing at us in sky-high technicolor neon - she is motivated solely by a seething, swirling cluster of negative emotions, which necessarily preclude the emotion we all associate with happiness and fulfilment: love. These emotions that plague her psyche are fear, fury and jealousy. Sometimes one of those is the more dominant, but typically they form an unholy trinity, resulting in behaviour that is erratic at best and evil at worst.


Kate McCann is - in my opinion - a deeply disturbed woman, a deluded fantasist who was both envious and resentful of her daughter, and fearful and angry about the fact that those emotions are obviously not what a 'good' mother is supposed to feel about her daughter.


Maybe once in a while, when a woman yearns for motherhood so much, desires it so badly, that when she finally becomes a mother, and it (perhaps unsurprisingly) fails to meet her expectations for some reason... or rather she fails to meet her own impossibly high standards, an 'ideal' of motherhood... it creates an unbearable internal conflict. The reality bears no resemblance to the dream. She assumes she will love her child unconditionally with all her heart, and glows blissfully throughout her long-awaited pregnancy, but when she finally gives birth, after years of excitedly planning and preparing for parenthood, what if that love doesn't come? 


What if it doesn't feel as natural and dazzlingly positive and life-affirming as she expected? What if she looks at her new baby, knowing she should feel overwhelmed with adoration and yet feels... nothing? Or worse: nothing good. 


From Goncalo Amaral’s book “The Truth of the Lie”:

"A child psychiatrist explains that there is a huge difference between wanting a child and later raising the child. Having been wanted doesn’t necessarily mean being loved and happy. It is quite possible that a baby, eagerly awaited by the parents, later becomes a responsibility that the latter do not manage to assume. Consequently, the child becomes unwanted."



What if she watches her husband - a man whose full attention she had enjoyed for many years - doting on the baby and feels potent pangs of an emotion normally associated with green-eyed monsters rather than misty-eyed mothers? 


What if that baby disrupts her life to such an extent that she finds herself wishing she'd never bothered with motherhood at all? 


What if the costs and disadvantages far outweigh the rewards and benefits? What if she feels so exhausted, exploited and disillusioned by the experience of sharing her previously self-indulgent, carefree life with a relentlessly demanding newborn, and so profoundly ashamed of those (natural and relatively common) feelings, that she refuses to seek help and instead the feelings deepen and worsen?


What if there happens to be something about *that specific child* that is so far away from the mother's preconceived notions of the 'perfect child' (or maybe more accurately something about HER that is so far away from her preconceived notions of the 'perfect mother'), that the seeds of resentment fester and grow into something insidious, sinister and all-consuming? 


What if this mother, an only child herself of two baby-boomer parents who perhaps spoiled, engulfed and coddled her, is told by her father, a man she has misguidedly hero-worshipped for her entire life: "I think I might love your baby more than I love you"...?



After a full year of feeling sick and tired and stressed-out and helpless and emotionally decimated, and yet still so very, very desperate to prove to herself that she definitely can be a 'good' mother, actually a perfect mother, what if this mother conceives again - and this time hits the jackpot with a 'perfect' boy/girl twinset? 


What then becomes of the first baby, the lost little child who is so difficult to love; the loud, needy, wilful, photogenic girl with the hypnotically wide, strange, soulful eyes who pleased her daddy and his friends in so many ways and yet failed to make her mummy happy at all? Such an innocent, spirited, effervescent little girl, so pretty and sassy and endearing that she takes the spotlight off her vain and insecure mother... The long-awaited firstborn who shattered her mummy's dreams by not being remotely like the demure and placid and manageable child her mummy imagined and wished for.


.... The hyperactive, challenging, gorgeous little girl who can't help feeling ever more sidelined and neglected when her siblings arrive, to great fanfare, three months before her second birthday.


There can be no doubt that motherhood deepened or worsened an existing mental frailty in Kate McCann. Possibly there was postnatal depression to the point of psychosis. She tried, desperately, to bond with her first baby, but she couldn't. Kate McCann's book tells us virtually nothing about the crucial period of Madeleine's life between her birth and the arrival of her siblings. Why does Kate omit such vital information about her daughter, about the supposed 'star' of the book? The first 12-18 months (at least) of first-time parenthood is a golden, beatific haze of skin-to-skin snuggles, milky burps, soft babygros and tiny socks, a thousand photographs, inhaling the scent of your baby's downy little head as if it's the best drug on earth, feeling disproportionately delighted with their every sound, facial expression, quirk, giggle and bowel movement. Feeling so deliriously in love that you can just watch them sleep for hours on end. Committing to memory every milestone: first smile, first word, first tooth, first steps.


There is none of that in Kate's book. None. It is the book's most telling feature.


This failure to bond (which isn't actually uncommon at all, and can ultimately be remedied if the mother is sane and willing to accept help) represented a turning point. When the twins were born, and the bonding with them was instant and natural (perhaps their very purpose was to temporarily fill an unfillable void), the failure to bond with her firstborn was no longer Kate's failure, it became *Madeleine's failure*. It was a guilty burden that Kate was only too glad to pass to the headstrong outcast daughter who had the nerve to effortlessly outshine and deplete her mother and steal away too much of her father's attention. Madeleine was the faulty one. And now she'd been replaced with two easy-to-love, easy-to-manage children who were not faulty, indeed they just about met their mother's arbitrary ideals of 'perfection'. 


Kate McCann's dream of 'perfect' motherhood was therefore finally realised on 1st February 2005, and although Madeleine was still just a baby herself then, more in need than ever of a 'perfect mother' (or even a 'just about adequate' mother would have sufficed), tragically I believe her fate was sealed from that date. Even more tragically, nobody in her wider family recognised her vulnerable situation or loved her enough to protect her from the fatal chain of events leading up to 3rd May 2007, and the relentless, shameless commodification of her memory that followed.


The part of KM's book that clarified for me that she is a woman consumed with envy and raging resentment is towards the end of chapter 2. (There are abundant indications, but this is a standout, in my opinion.)

She quotes something her father said to her shortly after Madeleine was born. It might seem inconsequential to a casual reader, but as she rarely quotes anyone verbatim (and certainly not Madeleine), I think it is significant. 



"[my dad once told me] that if he were able to design his own granddaughter and have her knitted for him, Madeleine would be it. ‘I think I might love her even more than I love you,’ he added. I wasn’t too sure whether that was intended as a compliment but, knowing how much he loved me, I gave him the benefit of the doubt."



What a strange and insensitive thing for a father to say to his daughter! And if there were no vestiges of envy before such a statement was uttered, those words would instantly provoke a fearsome shitstorm of uncontrollable anger and jealousy in an already cripplingly insecure, unstable, hormonal, entitled and disordered woman who clearly already feels like an abject failure and a woefully inadequate mother.


I believe Gerry was obsessed enough with his capricious wife and more specifically with his hard-won lifestyle that he was prepared to do *whatever it took* to keep his family 'together' and create an illusion not just of normalcy but of perfection. Like his wife, he is a person who acts not out of love but out of fear. 


Poor, poor Madeleine Beth McCann.


I reiterate that the above is my opinion, it is only speculation based on my own experiences and an intimate knowledge and understanding of toxic familial relationships and the various destructive ways in which these can be manifested. 


I am not necessarily suggesting that either parent is a murderer, or even that they are directly responsible for Madeleine's death, but those potential scenarios certainly cannot be ruled out. 


If a child is unfortunate enough to have two disordered and morally insane parents, frankly all bets are off.

A mother's (and father's) grief

By special guest author - Blaze

"They are a very normal couple thrown into something extraordinary." 
(Richard Edwards writing for The Telegraph, 2nd June 2007)


We all deal with shock, loss and grief differently. 

Some people use humour to cope with trauma and bereavement. Some people live in numbed denial. Some people weep constantly; others barely shed a tear. Some people get angry; others get depressed or despondent. Some genuinely bereaved people just don't and won't grieve openly or demonstratively at all, for a whole host of reasons. Whether we bottle it up or let it all out, it's fair to say that there are broad parameters within which to assess the 'normal range' of a grief response.

The grieving process is unique for everyone, but we all feel sorrow, every single one of us; we all mourn death. Even psychopaths grieve, and in fact they are excellent at exaggerating or misappropriating grief and sorrow in order to squeeze as much attention and sympathy from others as they can. They tend to be accomplished and terrifyingly credible actors - nevertheless they DO still get genuinely affected by the same traumatic events and human emotions that affect us all - just in fundamentally different ways.

I have witnessed a (diagnosed) sociopath grieve, and they do cry, they cry just like the rest of us. The tears might flow from a less pure source of suffering, but they can and do weep inconsolably, uncontrollably, sometimes over even relatively trivial losses and setbacks. They are still human beings.Grief (of a loss) is universal. It is communicated in a universally-understood non-verbal language. We only have to look into the eyes of a bereaved or stricken person to begin to acknowledge the depth of their pain and affliction. And there is no greater loss than the loss of one's child. No bereavement is more cataclysmic.

The sustained impassivity and lack of expressed grief from not just one but both parents therefore remains one aspect of this case I find completely unfathomable and incomprehensible. 

Along with just about everything else that has come out of his lying mouth since May 2007, I don't buy Clarence Mitchell's spurious "tears are shed backstage" remark, either... If you are a parent experiencing what the McCanns claim to be experiencing, you cannot just turn your devastation 'on and off' when it suits you. You will be a chaotic mess of excruciating emotions 24/7. That is a fact that cannot be batted away by the weak pro-McCann protest: "you just don't know what you'd do, because it hasn't happened to you.

And let's be clear: 'straightforward' grief (the natural but variable mourning period that follows the loss of a loved one) is actually entirely different to what the McCanns tell us they are going through. They tell us they *don't know* whether their daughter is alive or dead, whether or not she is suffering horribly, what kind of monster/s might be holding her captive, and what he (she? they?) might be doing to her. It is the sudden and brutal loss of one's child without explanation or closure; an agonising state of limbo that is without doubt the most traumatising and torturous experience imaginable. There can be no worse pain in the world. You CANNOT, as a parent, face a camera day after day in that hellish scenario without the abject horror and unendurable terror of it showing clearly on your face, in your eyes, in the tremor of your sob-choked voice. 

But it's not just about the conspicuous absence of any of the typical signs of grief, of numb devastation, frantic red-eyed panic and/or stunned disbelief in almost every single one of their interviews and photographs, from May 2007 to the present day; it's the stark absence of remorse, of desperate parental instinct, of wretched regret, of yearning, of pleading, of *prioritising their missing child before and above everything else*. 

Grief and trauma naturally instils a palpable vulnerability and emotional volatility even in the most ordinarily composed and controlled individual. Yet both parents - BOTH of them - have epitomised an almost bionic level of focus, frosty indomitability and unwavering self-control. They were in the driver's seat from the start (especially Gerry), and they knew exactly where they were going and how they were going to get there. How is such remarkable composure and steely determination possible when, as Gerry said, their whole world had been "shattered"?

The answer is: it's not. It would be highly unusual to see any degree of hard-heartedness or level-headedness in just one parent in such extreme circumstances, but in *both* of them? Nope. They are expecting us to believe in an impossible event, and have reacted to that impossible event in impossible ways. As former US prosecutor Wendy Murphy might say, "I'm not buying it".

"But they're doctors, they are accustomed to dealing efficiently with stressful situations!"

... I call bullshit on that, too! While it's true that individuals on the psychopath spectrum are over-represented in the medical professions, most doctors are decent, caring and compassionate people. Besides which, remaining stoical and professional in an emergency, for example in the event of the sudden cardiac arrest of a patient, is one thing; behaving in a similarly disconnected way in the event of losing one's own child is quite another. You cannot apply the same coping mechanisms to all circumstances - life simply isn't that clean-cut and clinical... UNLESS, that is, you *ARE* a psychopath. *. . 

. 

So the very people defending the McCanns in this blindsided way are in fact inadvertently suggesting that the McCanns must be innocent *because* they are displaying psychopathic tendencies. Applying the bare minimum of the most basic common sense logic, my suggestion is that they're probably *not* innocent for the very same reason.

But it's actually more than that, even. I am deeply perturbed by the unwillingness (or inability?) of both parents to consistently reference their daughter as someone vital, vibrant and real, as a multi-dimensional, characterful and adored member of their family. Even in her book, Kate fails to bring her daughter to life for the reader, bestowing her with only the most rudimentary, generic and clichéd descriptions and recalling only insipid, non-specific and contrived memories. 

When talking publicly, they regularly use the 'right' (i.e. expected) words and phrases, such as "shock", "grief", "despair", "devastated", "pain" and "anguish", while nothing in their eyes, their body language, their demeanours or their coldly calculated actions has revealed the pertinence of those words. 

We are all familiar with the numerous 'post-abduction' photos of the McCanns beaming with unimpeded joy - smiling not just with their mouths but with their eyes, the whole face appearing illuminated with unmoderated merriment. Their body language also radiated a relaxed self-assurance so at odds with "child abduction" that it often felt like those of us prepared to draw attention to it were doing nothing more ground-breaking than observing that the emperor is naked. 

A photo is, of course, nothing more than a literal split-second snapshot of a fleeting moment in time, and in isolation it cannot realistically be considered an accurate and reliable representation of the person photographed. 

It could be (and has been) argued by their supporters that the McCanns are just remarkably self-controlled and stolid people; that they both possess the heroic 'strength' and restraint required to ensure that none of the hundreds of camera crews focused intrusively on their every move ever managed to capture them looking as utterly desolate, desperate and beside themselves with sorrow as they truly were. It could be (and has been) argued by their supporters that nobody has the right to question the McCanns' outward appearances anyway, or to make judgements and assumptions about their internal emotions based solely on such superficial observations. 

And so this is the upshot: for every photograph/ video still of the McCanns 'appearing' to look appropriately subdued, distraught, fearful or tearful, there are dozens of images of them looking carefree, self-satisfied, radiant with happiness, defiant or even relieved. 

I am aware of just one brief clip of the McCanns apparently "unified in their shared grief", i.e. both of them making noises and facial expressions not dissimilar to crying, yet with no tears. This was filmed three days after the 'abduction'. Even at that early stage, the McCanns had been made aware of public scepticism, those 'unkind' and 'insensitive' accusations that they were "not behaving like the parents of an abducted child are expected to behave". And so this is how they tried to silence those doubters; this is how the McCanns do a one-off blink-and-you'll-miss-it "devastated" double-act:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XdodhZJ4GR0

It's painful to watch, and it's equally painful to listen to. But not painful in the way they clearly hoped and assumed it would be.

The McCann MSM campaign, which was necessarily both defensive and offensive, was - and incredibly, still is - a relentless gaslighting operation on an unprecedented scale. We were, in effect, being ordered to believe in the opposite of what we could see and hear and 'feel'.

This jarring and unsettling incongruence represents a deeply troubling aspect to the McCanns' personalities and the very crux of the pernicious media onslaught that gave shameless credence to their lies. The stark dichotomy is particularly clear, for example (and has been extensively remarked upon) when you observe the photos of Kate and Gerry walking out of the church, all smiles, on what would have been Madeleine's fourth birthday (12th May 2007, nine days after the disappearance) and then read what Kate wrote in her book about that day - see 'Fact 16' at http://laidbareblog.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/20-facts-about-disappearance-of.html?m=1

Their stoical, sangfroid acceptance of their daughter's death - consistently referred to, mantra-like, as 'abduction' - their acceptance that she was never coming home, that they did not even WANT her to come home (despite their numerous dispassionate proclamations to the contrary) - was a 'fait accompli'. And that in itself is truly harrowing, because in my opinion it means that neither an abduction nor a sudden and unexpected death are feasible explanations for Madeleine's disappearance. Which frankly only leaves the bleakest of possibilities.

So while I fully understand and respect that everyone grieves differently, and adopts different coping mechanisms to get them through the grieving process, my repulsed and incredulous reaction to the McCanns wasn't just about the strangeness and seeming inappropriateness of their behaviour. It wasn't just the clear lack of what could realistically be described as a normal (or even an abnormal) grief response; it was the *clear and undisguised existence of the opposite*: a blasé, disengaged acquiescence; a distastefully expedient acceptance and cynical exploitation of something so horrific and final and ruinous that any ordinary parent would take years - an entire lifetime - to process it. Most couples would separate under the pressure, and go demented with guilt, torment and agony. Not the McCanns. They built a multi-million pound self-promoting empire from it, without so much as a blush or a pause. 

So we can safely and emphatically conclude that the McCanns aren't "most couples". They are not "a very normal couple thrown into something extraordinary". There is nothing 'normal' about either of them. And everything 'extraordinary' about this case directly correlates with and corresponds to their myriad abnormalities.

During their interview with Ian Woods on 25th May 2007, three weeks after their daughter had disappeared/died, Gerry states they have to stay strong for the twins and then goes on to say (hesitantly, because he realises how bloody awful it sounds even before the words come out of his mouth): "you can't... y'know... grieve... one..." (meaning, you can't grieve for the one child you have lost when you have two others to 'stay strong' for). He then hurriedly says "we did grieve, of course we grieved..."

He reiterates this flabbergasting disclosure in another interview on the same day, this time for the BBC: "We are determined", he says,  with sanguine bravado, "having gone through the grieving phase..."

Three weeks after the abduction (or ACCIDENTAL death?) of their firstborn child, and they're already through with their grieving? Amazing. It should be the point at which a parent is only just *starting* to, reluctantly, through an unbearable fog of self-recriminations and sedatives, come to terms with the full horror of what's happened.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wDq7Dh-GYkA

During pre-arranged interviews, even these first ones, mere weeks after losing their firstborn child, they are polished and composed. Just look at them. Listen to their words, and ask yourself: are these parents of a little girl who has been suddenly and unexpectedly taken from them? Parents who don't have a clue where their precious child is, who is with her, and what is happening to her - or what has already happened to her?

Gerry says: "We'd worked tirelessly behind the scenes to put support mechanisms in place, including a legal team..."

Three weeks, and they've established a campaign, a fund, a website, and a comprehensive support network including a legal team. Trademark. Online store. PayPal donations. Ward of Court application. Press conferences. Travel itineraries. Countless television, press and radio interviews. And through it all, barely a tear shed.

It's. Just. Not. Possible.

Watch from around 5:20 - a genuine smile from Kate when the interviewer mentions the twins. The stark contrast between her feelings for her firstborn and for her twins is so startlingly obvious that it chills me to the bone: she glows animatedly when she talks about the twins... Yet she is robotic, stilted and awkward when she is asked to describe Madeleine. Where there should be a natural, rapturous flow of words there is noticeable hesitancy and paucity in her speech.

Later during the Ian Woods interview, Gerry waffles on about how it could have been "worse than your worst nightmare" if *all three children had been taken* and not just Madeleine. (It reminds me of a comedy scene from Blackadder Goes Forth in which Blackadder sardonically says; "A fate WORSE than a fate worse than death? Hmm, pretty bad.")

GM: "Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you'd got to your overdraft limit and you'd gone beyond it and there was just nothing left in the tank."

I have no words to sufficiently convey my disgust and disdain for the crass vulgarity of this statement. The man is truly depraved.

In her book, Kate talks about feeling 'grief' as early as the night of the 'abduction' - a time when formidable torrents of pure adrenaline would be pumping like wildfire through any normal parent, sending them into an uncontrollable tailspin of breathless panic and an invigorated, superhuman determination to find their child no matter what. (Not to stay indoors because it was 'too dark' outside.)

Succumbing to grief/ despair - in effect, allowing hope to fade - would not come until much, much later, but for the McCanns this natural order of things was oddly reversed: they had 'physical shutdown' for the first few days, and then they apparently felt "buoyed" and "uplifted" and "found strength from somewhere":

"At some point, Emma Knights, the Mark Warner customer-care manager, came in and sat on the bed near me. She was very nice and tried her best to comfort me, but my grief was so agonizing and so personal that I wasn’t sure whether I wanted her there or not. I didn’t really want anyone around me but people I knew well."

A few pages on, still within a week of the abduction, Kate complains about the fact she's judged as emotionless, again using the word 'grief' long before the word should be considered entirely applicable:

"... in the following weeks and months I would be subjected to cruel comments describing me as ‘cold’ and ‘poker-faced’. Had these critics not seen the television pictures? Or is it that people have short and selective memories? It is true that as I grew a little stronger I was better able to control my grief in public. I was also terrified to show my emotions after the warnings I’d been given that this might influence Madeleine’s abductor. So if I seemed ‘poker-faced’, is it any wonder? But that was beside the point, really. Who were these people to dictate how the mother of a missing child should appear?"

Kate takes umbrage to the fact that the very people she is appealing to for support (i.e. cash, sympathy) are not all quite as gullible as she requires them to be. How dare they question her lack of maternal warmth, what accursed sacrilege! She's as pissed off as a puff adder in a piñata that anybody should dare doubt her veracity and her status/starring role of 'victim'. "Who were these people?" She demands, with her typical unbecoming petulance. I'll answer that one, Kate: they are all of us, and we have every right to question the most questionable story ever told, especially when it's being so woodenly acted out by two of the most audacious liars in world history.

And I'll say it again: the absence of discernible, 'obvious' grief is not even the issue here. Nobody is entitled to 'dictate' how a *genuinely grieving* parent should process the horrendous, tumultuous tsunami of their emotions. It's an intensely personal experience. An unwillingness to break down in tears in public is understandable, and it is just as 'normal' and 'acceptable' as uninhibitedly sobbing all day every day. But Kate has the unmitigated gall to tell the public that the *reason* for her lack of tears is because she believes that an outpouring of emotion "might influence Madeleine's abductor"... 

This is such an unbelievably crass statement to make that it is in fact beneath contempt and not worthy of further comment.
By chapter 11, Kate is giving herself pep talks to snap out of her 'grief' - after all, feeling sorry for oneself helps nobody, right?

"After a troubled night, we got up, dressed and went down to breakfast. I couldn’t focus on the day ahead, on what we were trying to accomplish. Every now and then, by taking a few deep breaths and giving myself a firm talking-to, I gained a little control, only to collapse minutes later into a blubbering wreck. I was so angry with myself. Stop crying. Just stop it. You have to help your daughter. You will achieve nothing if you spend the whole day crying and wallowing in your grief. But trying to ‘snap out of it’ when every thought, every action, every breath is polluted by anguish is easier said than done. As I continued to sniffle over my untouched cup of tea, Gerry said, ‘Kate, you don’t have to do this. We don’t have to do any of this. These meetings can be cancelled quite easily.’ I knew he meant it but I also knew that I’d persecute myself later if I pulled out."

She literally could not have martyred herself more in that passage. But then she outdoes herself further on in the book:

"No relationship, however strong, can emerge unscathed from what is probably the most painful and terrifying ordeal any parent could suffer. Inevitably, we sometimes reach certain stages, or go through phases, at different times and find different ways of coping with our anguish. Gerry was functioning much sooner than I was. I felt a tinge of resentment that he was managing to operate and I wasn’t; sometimes I found it almost offensive, as if somehow he wasn’t grieving enough. On other days I would feel I was a failure for not being capable of doing as much for Madeleine as he was. It was equally difficult for Gerry. He needed my help and support and I was so consumed by my own grief that I simply couldn’t give anything."

I will end with two more quotes from the McCanns that in my opinion quite succinctly sum up their priorities, their leviathan self-obsession and their pitiless emotional destitution:

Gerry: We are not characters in a book or a soap opera, we are real people, with real feelings, we have got a real family and we've got other children to protect while we're searching for our other daughter.

Kate: Since our series of campaign trips, it had become apparent that, with coverage having reached saturation point, the press were exploring different angles. Their appetite for the ‘human-interest’ aspect seemed insatiable. No longer was it about our lovely missing daughter: it was becoming the Kate and Gerry show. 

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...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JusticeForMadeleine/permalink/1034806646615409/

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:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JusticeForMadeleine/permalink/1103896703039736/?match=bnVtYmVy

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:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm#2287

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.

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

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:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm

Two videos (a short, and a long version), can be viewed on the following links:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lrrMoUr3OA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8

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:

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

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."

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

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

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/b213300e4c46466eb9b16acdb4af9ca9

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

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/382546ba5b1f4919a304ac3f4095bd91

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."

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Amaral%20The%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie%20Chapter%2021

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:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/

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.'

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

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:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JusticeForMadeleine/permalink/676809472415130/

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:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_07-09-07.htm

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:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/so-you-think-kate-and-gerry-mccann-were.html

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."

http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html

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:

https://companycheck.co.uk/…/MADELEINE…/companies-house-data

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:

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/its-not-what-you-know-its-who-or-could.html