Wednesday, 31 March 2010

The Making Of...

In the MissingMadeleine Forum:
amethyst
Re: the smith sighting..credits to testusa at 21:03
(…) so gerry has got rid of madeleine and the obriens have agreed to him taking their child to parade around? please – sorry tanner's child wasn't even blonde as the smiths said

****
amethyst
 Re: the smith sighting..credits to testusa at 21:13
(…) right so gerry took obriens sleeping child - with his permission - who wasnt even blonde and paraded her down the roads WAITING to be seen - like he knew the smith family would spot him - to show that another person/persons would spot an abductor sorry im seriously losing every single plot now

**** amethyst
Re: the smith sighting..credits to testusa at 10:28 pm
(…) that gerry found his daughter dead and convinced his mate ruseell to allow him to carry his child around pdl as some kind of decoy is exactly as mad as any volcano theory
 









In the New3A Forum:

kingfisher
Post subject: Re: The Smith Sighting - Textusa
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:51 pm
IMHO, this is what happens when you spend too much time sitting at a computer. It is a great soufflé of detailed speculation based on the haziest idea of what Mr Smith actually said he saw. It's like doing a physical calculation to three decimals when your measurements are to the nearest half inch. Sorry to be negative.

****

Please don’t apologise. I fully understand your negativity.

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

The Smith Sighting

You see what you get... but do check if you get what you see.
When I looked at the roads of PDL with some attention, doing my research for the post about the geographical absurdity of the abduction, there was a detail that immediately seemed odd before my eyes.

It seemed to be totally out of logic, however, I checked again with Amaral’s book, and there it was.

I’m referring to the location where the Smith sighting took place.

As it was not the crucial for the intended purposes of that particular post, I basically stated it, showed where it was and explained how it could fit into a possible scenario of body-concealment, the route between the Ocean Club and the waterfront, be it the Church, be it the beach.

There, was a piece of the puzzles that seemed to fit, but, in my mind, not as perfectly as it should. A man, carrying a child, crosses path with a family in the exact spot as shown in the following picture:

 
That man, at that point in time and location, could only be doing one of three things: abduct a sleeping child, carry a lifeless body or simply innocently going home with, presumably, his daughter.

The Smiths, for the most natural of reasons, thought of the latter.

I think it’s agreed by all that the main difference between the first two scenarios and the third one, is basically the willingness to be seen.

In the first two, abduction and concealment, for obvious reasons, one certainly DOES NOT want to be seen.

If, and ONLY IF one CANNOT ABSOLUTELY AVOID “contact” will one do one’s utmost effort to look as natural as possible to seem to be part of scenario three.

The first natural reaction is to avoid.

However, on the third scenario, as expected, one couldn’t care less if one was seen or not. All is explainable, so one just goes on walking down the street and on with one’s.

Well, I don’t think that ANYBODY that was in PDL on the night of the May 3rd, 2007, that doesn’t remember where he/she was, what he/she was doing, and exactly what he/she did for that whole night.

The majority just slept, but all those that did sleep remember to this day and shall not forget it, that what they did during THAT night was just to sleep. Local and tourist alike.

So, after so much fuss having been raised with about a man seen carrying a child in that street at that time, that person, even if only to facilitate the investigations would have, by now, stepped forward and explained where he had been and where and why is was heading and, most importantly, who he was carrying.

He who has nothing to fear, fears nothing.

So, I think, at this point in time, we’re all in agreement that particular crossing of paths could only have happened for one of the first two reasons: abduction or concealment.

Where this piece of the puzzle doesn’t fit is the concealment. Or absence of it.

In Amaral’s book, the picture that identifies the exact location of where this happened seems to support that the crossing was unavoidable.

The man that was carrying the child, lifeless or abducted, had had a fortitious encounter, the worst of lucks of having that family coming up that street at exactly that time and see him:
 
But let’s remember when these events happened.

Late evening, in early May, in a quaint and quiet little town, called Praia da Luz, in the Algarve, Portugal.

Far, far from being the tourist season.

And that town, even in the hot July/August nights, they are normally quiet. If you want action, you head for Lagos.

But we’re in May, all is quiet, a silent night. Now let’s look, at the street where this happened, and the distances involved. Side by side, same scale, the street and the Ocean Club:
 
As you can see, all happened in the exact distance between the entrance of the Ocean Club and the back gate of Apartment 5A, or that between Jane Tanner and the abductor.

Or, better yet, the perfectly acceptable "good parenting distance" between the Apartment 5A and the Tapas Bar:
 
The Smith family, returning from "KELLY's BAR" headed north, all spread out along the street, approached that particular street.

Believe me, (and if you don’t it’s ONLY just because you don’t want to), a party of NINE (FOUR adults and FIVE children: the father (retired, 58) his wife, his son (23 yr old) and daughter-in-law and their two children (ie, Mr Smith's grandchildren), his daughter (12), two additional grandchildren, 10 and 4, of another daughter back in Ireland) walking NORMALLY, and talking NORMALLY in that silent street, on that silent night, would have been heard WITH ENOUGH anticipation for the man to hide, or, at least, take an alternative route:
 
And if you ever have seen a British family on holiday, with children, leaving a bar, in the Algarve, silence is not the best adjective to be applied.

And that man, surely had ALL his senses heightened to maximum capability.

Oh, he heard them alright...

To sum up, THAT man, THAT night on THAT street WANTED to be seen.

Instead of turning and hiding WITHOUT BEING SEEN, he walks straight on.

Knowing that the child carried was wearing pyjama bottoms and was barefooted, all similar to a child just abducted not even half a mile away, one can only deduce that what happened at that moment was a provoked “sighting”.

If you add to this, that Smith identifies Gerry McCann as the man he saw, this piece of the puzzle takes a whole new shape, and is of a different game altogether.

So why was Gerry McCann walking around Praia da Luz, looking to be seen holding a child, dressed like his daughter, in his arms, on the night she was supposedly kidnapped, around about the same time Kate McCann sounds off the alarm?

I have a pretty good idea.

Monday, 29 March 2010

Why Kate could never fool CUDDLE CAT

Reporter Andrew Price..Telegraph Sept 8th 2007 wrote...Was I alone in wondering whether that was for comfort or because it was what the PR advisers suggested? Jon Corner A godfather of one of the Mccanns children said 'The Cuddle Cat reeking with Madeleines DNA . That easily explains why DNA has been found in the hire care and ON CLOTHING that Kate bought AFTER Madeleine disappeared'. 

Report: Sunday Mirror Sept 13th 2007 

Kate washed CC 5 days after Madeleines disappearance. Gerrys sister said it was cleaned again two months ago because it was filthy after being carried around. 

A former Scotland Yard detective said. 'It's the last thing I'd expect a mother who is devastated at losing her child to do'. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/KM_GM%20(3).jpg 

The pants Kates wearing, are the ones the dogs picked up on. Kate here IS devastated, there can be no doubt. Kate was seen in these pants many times and comments have been made 'Did she never wash them?'...Of course she did ,just like she washed Cuddle Cat. 

Once again this is only a theory. I do not state anything as fact. I make one exception,Kate loved Madeleine very, very much and that is a fact. Kate loved Madeleine so much she could not stay away. 

After Madeleines death ,where ever she was hidden. Kate would visit and sit with Madeleine. I believe she was placed in cold storage and I was unaware that cadaver still emits a terrible odour even when a body is frozen. 

I discussed this with Textusa and she assured me this is the case. I was so surprised to learn this and wanted to see for myself. Sure enough cadaver dogs are trained to search for cadaver frozen in glass jars. 

Andrew Price was correct CC was simply for PR. Therefore, where ever Kate went so did CC. Kate on visiting Madeleine would place CC on a table or chair and stroke Madeleine. She would cry and tell her how sorry she was and how much she loved her. Kate would then say goodbye and promise to return again soon.

Kate would then pick up CC, from Kates hands she had passed Cadaver on to the toy. 

At this point no one knew the dogs would be brought in. Kate simply washed the toy because the odour left from her hands onto the toy smelt bad. 

This explains also how cadaver came to be on the small red T Shirt, transference. If you look at the photograph with link provided you can see Kate holding CC and what appears to be her rubbing the toy onto her leg transferring the cadaver scent from the toy. 

I now believe more than ever the Mccanns took Rag Doll, Madeleines birthday present to her on the eve of her birthday. 

I also believe if Madeleines remains are ever found, so will the remains of Rag Doll.

Sunday, 28 March 2010

What 'LIES' behind the Gaspar Statement ?

Processos Volume XIII, Pages 3909-3915 3909-3915 
To: Ricard Paiva
From: DC 1756 Mike MARSHALL
Ref: David Payne
Date: October 24, 2007 
Leicester Police Constabulary

Ricardo, 

As requested, appended are the statements of Arul and Katherina Gaspar. I read with curiosity the written statements given by David Payne but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. 

He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. 

Also present there were Kate and Gerry. 

He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. 

He also cannot indicate how long he stayed. 

When asked with whom he was on the afternoon of May 3rd, he declares that this information was already offered to the police and cannot remember if anyone else was there. 

He does not remember what he was wearing that afternoon. 

He took part in the searches, having carried out most of them alone. 

He was at times accompanied by Matthew Oldfield. 

He did not partake in the searches carried out on the 4th of May, because, on this day, he spent to majority of time in the police headquarters. 

For many questions, he does not give a complete response, affirming simply that he has already given this information to the Portuguese police in his declarations. 

I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her statements, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. 

She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to.

Her responses to the questions are vague. She continued to respond to questions with "they conform with my earlier statement" or some similar statement.

 -------------------------- 

D.C. Mike Marshalls comments to Ricard Pavo..attached to the Gaspar statements.. 

I have to confess I missed this important piece of information. I was too eager in believeing the words of Katherine Gaspar. 

A Leicestershire Police Officer and his doubts written for the attention of Ricard Pavo. 

Ricard who Gerry Mccann has called a liar. 

I once again decided to look through the Gaspar statements as though seeing them for the first time. Arul Gaspar, along with his wife wished to give a statement to Police. They had concerns and possible information that could help in the case of Madeleine Mccann. 

Arul Gaspar in his statement talks of his friendship with the Mccanns. They would chat on the phone exchange e.mails and meet up four times a year to spend week-ends together. 

Between 2001-2005 they were in contact and went to each others homes. In the year 2005, a holiday was planned. 

This was to include three other couples including the Mccanns. Arul is clear ,he had not met the other couples before. 

Madeleine was almost two years and the twins six months. 

He goes on, the other couples were Fiona and David Payne and Stuart and Tara, Arul cannot remember their surname. One large Villa was rented in Majorca arranged by David Payne ,they would all spend their holidays together. 

The Gaspars only managing one week. 

Arul Gaspar says in his statement he remembers the gesture, but adds we did not comment on this and I thought no more about it. 

Arul states he has not spoken with David or Fiona since 2005. 

Katherine Gaspar has a better memory than her husband. However, she too speaks of the great friendship with the Mccanns. The weekends spent together. In between the year 2002-2003 Katherine mentions a week-end together spent with the Mccanns in Devon. 

September 2005 the Gaspars went to Majorca with their wonderful friends the Mccanns and two other couples ,who she had yet to meet. 

Katherine mentions David and Fiona Payne who she believes were married. (Same name ,good assumption) also mentioning Tara and Stuart again like her husband cannot remember their surname. 

Katherine then reminds me why she was at the Police Station because I had quite forgotten all this talk of holidays and friendship , Madeleine had also slipped my mind. 

Katherine was sitting in between David and Gerry, they were having a conversation. Katherine , what was Katherine doing?was she being ignored, sat there in the middle while Gerry and Dave talked around her? No need to go into details, we know what Katherine claimed she witnessed. 

Katherine, for her to have seen these actions would have had to turn and watch David...likewise, to see the response of Gerry she would have to turn and face him. 

Dr.K.Gaspar claims to have witnessed these same actions at a later date, this made her more anxious, so anxious ,she mentioned to her husband Arul to watch the children at bath time. 

It seems David was one of the chaps who used to bathe the children. Why Katherine, with so much concern about David Payne still let him bathe her child is a mystery. 

After this holiday, Katherine claims to have only seen the Mccanns at a childs birthday party. There were no more week-ends away and no more holidays. 

Dr.Arul Gaspar has not mentioned in his statement the concerns of his wife about Payne and bathing their child. I would hardly think it something to have slipped ones mind. 

Katherine in her statement also mentions she thought David may have been interested in looking at children on the Internet. 

May 2007 another holiday was planned with a group of Doctors ,the Gaspars were not among this group. 

Dr.Arul Gaspar said they had not seen the Paynes again because they were friends of the Mccanns and NO OTHER reason.

The Gaspars ,although having spent time with the Paynes under the same roof , David ,who had bathed their child were not considered friends . 

The Gaspar statements, when you read them speak of a friendship a friendship that has died. Someone else had taken their place. 

The Paynes. Arul said, David was great with the children he was fun, he saw nothing to make him suspicious.

Katherine when she walked into the police station that day....did she walk in as a truly concerned parent who had doubts about David Payne?..Or were her motives out of spite?..

When giving her statement ,the Detective would have noticed her demeanor. 

Most of this statement has little to do with Madeleine but a lot to do with her dislike of David Payne. 

I would imagine this was noticed by the police and a very good reason for not forwarding on to PJ...

A woman scorned and using the most wicked way to get back at the couple who had taken her place. Makes sense, however ,I have to cover all angles...could be the Gaspars do not even exist. 

Fiona in her witness statement mentioned how she found Kates actions 'ODD' when placing her hands in front of the twins faces. 

She also found it 'ODD' they did not wake. 

Could be this whole story has been made up to threaten the Paynes and keep them in line...because they later suspected the Mccanns had sedated the twins. 

I think they would have been against it had they known. 

Anyway I have said my piece .I will leave it for you to decide. And as for the report attached, what does it have to do with the Gaspar statement? 

Nothing absolutely nothing at all.

Test Your “Maddie Culture” – Twinkle Star

Picture 1: Picture 2:

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, 

How I wonder who you are. 

Up above the world so high, 

Like a diamond in the sky. 

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, 

How I wonder who you are! 

When the blazing sun is gone, 

When there's nothing he shines upon, 

Then you show your little light, 

Twinkle, twinkle, through the night. 

Twinkle, twinkle, little star, 

How I wonder who you are! 

In the dark blue sky so deep 

Through my curtains often peep 

For you never close your eyes 

Til the morning sun does rise 

Twinkle, twinkle, little star 

How I wonder who you are! 

Twinkle, twinkle, little star  

How I wonder who you are! 


a) Picture 1

b) Picture 2

c) Both false

d) Both true

Thursday, 25 March 2010

The Truth Of The Liars



Let me clarify at once that the title of this post has nothing to do with Amaral’s book, with the exception that it involves the infamous couple and friends, nor is it even a wordplay with its title.

This picture, published in the “Lux” magazine in Portugal, really, really fascinated me.

Not wanting, at this point, to talk about reasons, courage, arrogance and stupidity of doing it, I would like just to point out the fact that these two, in this particular picture are gazing at each other.

Once I saw it, my mind couldn’t help but wonder what on earth were those two minds thinking at that particular point in time.

There they were, both knowing the truth, both knowing that the other knows, and both knowing exactly what role-playing they’re expected of.

Did they mentally insult the other? Probably.

Did they think that one day this photo will be used as the pinnacle of the whole hypocrisy? Probably, too.

Did they think about what the other did that night? Like “I know what you did last summer”? Likely.

Independent of whatever the thought, it must be painful to look directly into the eyes of the truth, irrelevant if they are implanted in the skull of a liar.

They all have a pact. But they all are aware that one day things will go sour. And are now ALL collecting "ammo" for THAT day when they’ll have to fight for their lives. Make the last stand.

How do they do that? Self-defense. Sticking to the truth as much as the path of truth allows. Let me exemplify, the words of Gerry when coming out of the plane: “Me and Kate have done no harm to Madeleine”.

They haven’t, but doesn’t mean somebody hasn’t.

And I’m not talking about the Tapa lot.

Also the media. Quickly Maddie has gone from “abducted” to the vague “missing”. As if they know they ARE writing lies, but leaving space to respond when that accusation ill come.

You see, part of their nightmare is not only looking behind their shoulder every single minute of their lives, but also watching every single word uttered for they know that can and will be used against them one day. And only a guilty person thinks like that.

Like those who interrupt being questioned to say “I’ll only speak any further in the presence of my lawyer”.

Or simply not answering questions. 48 of them, if my memory doesn't fail me once again.

You see, they have been telling us the truth. No, I’m not talking about the abducting fantasy, but about everything else. We’ve just been unable to hear it.

They’ve led us to believe that they were negligent, but when they said that they had been responsible parents, I now believe that they were being truthful.

You don’t? Re-read Ironside’s postings. A liar knows why he is lying, but most of all knows exactly when and why he tells the truth.

Listen carefully. Read likewise.

And you might find that not all out there written and said, apparently benefitting them, is a bed of roses for the Tapas.

Futurology V - Gallery of the Hated and the Loathsome (cont.)

Sunday, 21 March 2010

TWOS COMPANY:::::THREES A CROWD

Although I now believe neglect was simulated. My theory, because it can never be more, left a large hole. The independent witness statement of Mrs.Pamela Fenn, who heard a child Tues.May 1st crying for much longer than one hour, screaming daddy,daddy. 

For a time,I worked with Animal Rescue and we had many,many dogs. We laughed in the mornings as one dog would start to bark and within moments they were all barking. We called it 'The Dawn Chorus' 

I have also sat in the warm sunshine after a mornings shopping, in a local bar, eating tapas. I have watched mothers with their young children struggle to try and feed them all at the same time. One will become a little impatient and start to cry, soon, they would all be crying. 

Madeleine: Spent one christmas with her Grandmother ,Gerrys mum ,Mrs McCann said of her grandaughter 'That girl could pull a tantrum. If anyone had tried to take her she would have screamed her head off. She would have had to be drugged' 

Dr.K.Gaspar said: Madeleine went off with the Paynes so that Kate and Gerry may spend time with the twins

Madeleine : A star chart in Rothley. Madeleine would receive a star for everynight she stayed in bed and did not disturb her parents. 

Gerry: However said Madeleine would come to our room because the twins would wake her ? Madeleine it seems had a sleep problem . 

Maddie had her own room in Rothley but now she was sleeping with the twins and would have disturbed them, not only them but ALL the children if they were together. 

 Madeleine sedated and while she slept the twins were taken to be with the rest of the children. Madeleine it seems was not sedated enough on Tues May 1st, she woke and found herself truly alone. 

There was no mum and dad, no brother or sister , she was terrified and she screamed and screamed. 

This for me explains why Mrs.Fenn only heard one child, the twins were safe elsewhere. For a very long time I had thought the McCanns came up with the story 'Why did you not come when we were crying' to cover for Mrs Fenn and what she had heard. I then realised they possibly did not know at the time of their statements. Mrs Fenn herself said I did not tell the Mccanns so as not to upset them

Kate in her witness statement said she covered the twins with open weave blankets before leaving the apartment. I now realise the purpose of the statement . 

Kate had far more important things on her mind than a childs cries. When you think of twins , you think of both. Mention Amelie, you think of Sean. Mention Sean ,you think of Amelie. 

Kates words 'Why did you not come when me and SEAN were crying'. Kate, once more pushing the NEGLECT. 

When what Kate Healy was really saying, by her very words, she had placed the twins BACK in the apartment. 

Kate forgot one thing the 'BLANKETS'..GNR noticed there was no bedding in the cots.

Futurology II, With a Pinch of Recent Past



It’s that time of the year when the whole world holds its breath awaiting to know who will be the winner’s of the CIPR EXCELENCE awards this year.

Oscars, Golden Globes, Grammies, Brits, Razzies, and whichever prizes you may know of or dream about, are all hardly a match in the face and prestige of the CIPR EXCELENCE.  

Hanover was able to snatch one for the McCanns back in 2008.

Remember the proud words on their website:

"We helped the McCann family deal with the media storm which surrounded them on their return from Portugal in September 2007. 

From scratch, we created a comprehensive media handling package within six hours which enabled us to handle 850 media calls in the first week. 

By giving journalists positive stories to report, coverage turned from hostility to the McCanns to sympathy about their ordeal. 

This campaign won the crisis communication category at the 2008 CIPR awards." 

They won ONE category. Just a single one.

That certainly is not THE McCann style.

This year I propose that they should be nominated for 7 (SEVEN) out of 18 possible categories. As follows:

#6. Corporate Responsibility A campaign designed to support corporate values on community, social, ethical and reputation issues.

#7. Public Affairs A campaign designed to inform the public policy agenda or influence the legislative process.  

#13. Broadcast A campaign that effectively uses broadcast media to reach target audiences and achieve its objectives.  

#14. Global Public Relations A campaign covering more than one country, either based in the UK or originating overseas.

#15. Crisis Communications A campaign demonstrating how a crisis was successfully managed from a communications perspective.  

#18. Best Campaign over £10k A campaign that demonstrates the best use of a budget of over £10,000 to achieve its objectives.

Always willing to help the Holy Couple, I even propose the following wording for hanover to place on their site:  

"Once again we helped the McCann family deal with the media storm which surrounded them on their disastrous court appearance in Portugal in December 2009 to February 2010. 

Overburdened by a completely crippled in terms of reputation and image of the couple, we had to overcome the further aggravation of the situation due to the stupidity and f*ck-all knowledge of anything added with their f*cking know-it-all arrogance and of their acolytes. 

From this starting-point, we created an unimaginable comprehensive media handling package which enabled us to hand out bullsh*t like crazy and handle sh*tloads of media calls all this time. 

By “giving” journalists “positive” stories to print (or else…), coverage turned from something unbelievable to something totally surreal, for example, the Portuguese Police being the ONLY responsible for not reopening the case, thus winning to sympathy for the McCanns from those who really matter (this time, even for us, it was impossible to even try to reach the common public, but f*ck them, they matter little). 

This ordeal won us all the awards for which we were nominated for at the 2010 CIPR awards. F*ck, we f*cking deserved them!"
 



What? You counted only six categories? Sorry, saved the best for last:  

#8. Not-for-Profit A campaign based in the charitable and non-commercial sectors.

Friday, 19 March 2010

Welcome TTW4

An honourable White Hat has accepted my invitation to cooperate with this blog.

To other all that visit us, please be reminded that although each agrees on most of what the other two write, that is far from meaning a subscription one another’s opinions, versions or thesis.

This is a blog of free-thinkers. Where it’s agreed to disagree whenever there is a disagreement.

The only things we three agree and subscribe to is to find the path to the truth, and it’s subsequent justice.

Welcome on-board TTW4.

May you here find a house that compliments your own.

The LIGHT of REASON


On the subject of the McCanns I do not have all the answers. That's not for lack of trying. Most days I am like everyone else anxious and interested to find the truth about Madeleine, to be found hunched over my keyboard with mouse at the ready and fumbling, fumbling in the dark. Here it is I hope and I pray I will at some point in time bump into the light switch and not fall down the cellar stairs.

If this all sounds a bit too much like 'Dragons and Dungeons' then that is because it is. Make no mistake about it the McCann case is fraught with intrigue, duplicity, and devilsh devious ways. Anyone even remotely familiar with the case, as most of the blog community now appears to be, knows that it is these features that shine out like a lightouse, warning off all those lest they approach too near.

There are others who for reasons best known only to them alone can no more avoid the call of the light than a moth can avoid the enchantment of the flame. These others seek fullfillment too, that is undeniable, but for them that fullfillment is destined only to arrive at terrible cost.

If you spy the light then you can be said to be at least halfway there. How you then choose to act will determine many outcomes one of which will be the inevitable consequence that your decision has resolved must be.

The moth must eventually perish, the more cautious will survive for a while at least, such is the way of the world. The light offers us all a glimmer of hope and a way forward, but we should all remain vigilant that the light remains constant lest one day we espy it has become a flame.

Thursday, 18 March 2010

Futurology I - Gallery of the Hated and the Loathsome

THE CHARGE WILL BE :::::SIMULATED NEGLECT TO PROVE ABDUCTION

All of the Tapas are involved by the simple fact they have ALL lied. 

I am however, only interested in two. The witness statement of Dianne Webster and Russel O' Brian. 

PJ statements and not the ones in Leicester.The Leicester statements have no value. 

O'Brian claims his daughter was sick and Jane went alone to dinner around 20H35/20H40..

O'Brian also claims to have left 5 minutes later. When he arrived ALL the adults were there, without the children. 

David and Fiona were missing and Dianne Webster. CLEARLY THEN not ALL the adults were there.

Remember the time ALMOST 9 p.m.. Dianne Webster, in her statement said she arrived with the Paynes approx. 21.00H. 

She does not recall, but thinks perhaps Gerry and Matt had not been in the Restaurant. I have no interest in Matt only Gerry. Gerry would be by now on his way to or in the apartment..We know this because he met with Jez Wilkins.  

In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not. 

Questioned about the members who, during the dinner, had absented themselves from the restaurant, the witness says that, as she recalls, there were some people who left, failing to identify which, except for RUSSEL who had left the restaurant and taken a little more time than usual due to, from what she knows, his daughter had been sick. 

Asked, she states that it would be normal for one member of each of the couples to get up regularly in order to check in their apartments if the children were well. She clarifies that the practice was for each couple to check their own children, it not being usual for anyone to check the children of other couples. 

The question asked, she thinks that up to the date of the disappearance it had never happened that anyone had entered the apartment of another couple in order to check their offspring. 

Nevertheless, it seems that the couple PAYNE and the witness, did not make any trips to apartments, because they had an intercom called the "baby monitor", through which sounds or noises of the children could be heard. 

Prompted to state for the record the movements that occurred that night, during the above dinner, the witness reiterated that she could not say specifically who had left nor when they had done so. Therefore, she can only say with precision that, at around 22.00 Kate McCann returned to the restaurant, seemingly in panic, communicating to others the fact of Madeleine's disappearance. 

Asked about the reaction of other members of the group when they heard the above from KATE, the witness says that everyone, except the witness, left the restaurant and went to the apartment of the couple McCANN in order to find out what was going on. 

In turn, as relates to her, the witness says she stayed at the restaurant for about five minutes, then, noting that the remaining members of the group had not returned, she followed in the direction of the McCANNS' apartment. 

In that apartment she found that KATE was completely in panic, in "state of shock ". Because she was asked, she states that she entered the apartment by the sliding glass door of the patio at the back, which gives access to the lounge. 

Then she went to the children's bedroom, noting that there she found KATE and the twin siblings of MADELEINE . She added that she did not remember too much detail about the scenario that she found in that bedroom, other that what she said above. However, she states that KATE had repeatedly commented that, on arriving at the bedroom, she had found the window of the room, with its shutter, both open. 

Yet, she [DW] did not notice, upon entering the room, if the window was or was not open. However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her.

Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed already. Because she was asked, she says she does not know if the window, and the shutter, of the couple's bedroom were open or not, in that she did not enter that room. 

Prompted about the conditions of light inside the apartment at the time, the witness believes that they were good, judging that the lights were lit as she recalls no darkness. Regarding the bedroom previously occupied by Madeleine, she does not remember if the lights were lit, but knows that when she entered the twins were still sleeping in their beds, which makes her think that maybe those lights were switched off. 

She added that, for her to see the twins and their cradles, and the bed of MADELEINE, the darkness would not be complete, but that the room had some light she thinks must have been from the light of the lounge. 

She adds that that night, and after the occurrence of the facts under investigation, she was in the apartment on two separate occasions. At the time described above she remained about 10 minutes in the apartment.

After this time she returned to the restaurant to get her handbag as well as the MCCANN couple's camera and "baby monitor" of her daughter, and was soon back again in the apartment. 

The question being asked about the people that were inside the apartment of McCANN at that time, the witness said that the McCANN couple were present (although on the first occasion she had no recollection of having seen GERRY), and FIONA, not remembering any other people that were there. 

However, she admits the possibility of there being [others] inside the apartment, including David, in that, as mentioned above, all of them had gone to the apartment following the news that KATE had given. The question asked, she states to know that male members of the group undertook a search around [outside of] the apartment to try to locate Madeleine, which was absolutely fruitless. 

The deponent states that FIONA had asked her to move to their daughters to make sure that everything would be well with them, hence the deponent will have returned to her apartment from which she did not leave anymore.  

THE BABY MONITOR....Dianne Webster was listening to the baby monitor... If we change the scenario and the plan was ALL children would be together, one baby monitor would be all that was needed. 

I believe Dianne Webster knew what had happened and she wanted no part...Dianne through the baby monitor would be able to hear muffled sounds of someone collecting the heavily sedated twins, sedated so they would not wake or remember their journey ...

Then and only then did she rise and slowly walk to Apartment 5A. 

Her witness statement correct 'I saw Kate, and the twins in their cots' What is it ? holding a group of Doctors who have let themselves be villified for neglect when in fact neglect did not take place. 

What is the very dark secret that holds them together and why are the Mccanns taking all the heat? Jane Tanner: Vilified as a pathological liar Russel O'Brian: Too ashamed to show his face on the Court room steps.

Madeleine Beth McCann knows the secret, but dead children, cannot speak.

Monday, 15 March 2010

Reasons and Monsters



“I am not a pro Mccann. 

I have my doubts like the majority. 

But, the way things have been described here it sounds like and Gerry and Kate are two monsters. 

If their daughter died, how did she die??? 

And what parents would be so cold hearted to NOT to depair with their daughter's death, being them guilty of leaving them alone or not. 

For sure they did not kill their daughter. Accidents happen, 

Why would they create such a circus in amidst so much pain they must have felt if their little daughter really died? 

I cannot beliveve that she died and they were so cold to plan it all. I am sorry. 

The thought is too horrendous.”



Dear Anon,

Thank you for your comment. Although I do disagree with its content, and will try to rebate it, one can see it’s heartfelt and so worth all of my respect.

You base your opinion solely on your judgment of human nature, as, according to you, no human being can be as inhuman as we here portray the McCanns.

But, what IF all the questions you raise all have the answers you fear to hear?

That they could be so cold hearted to NOT despair with their daughter's death; that they created such a circus in amidst so much pain they SHOULD, not must, have felt if their little daughter really died and that they were so cold to plan it all.

Then, you do agree with me, they would be exactly the monsters we here portray them to be, and, yes, you’re absolutely right, the thought IS too horrendous.

Now, imagine how horrendous it is for us who believe them to be the monsters you don’t imagine them to be…

But, yes, I did write “if”, so to be coherent I must also argue in favor of the contrary, that the McCanns are what you think them to be: innocent.

That would then make me one of the cruelest, inhumane creatures on this planet, to vilify two people who must be experiencing the worst possible pain a human being could be subjected to: lose a child to a molester and suffer the pain of being dubbed monsters by people like myself.

So, as far as I can see we are before one of two scenarios: either they are horrible indescribable monsters or I am. No other option.

The judgment of who is who, I leave it up to you.

I ask you to read, for there is much to be read, and make the call yourself. You’ll see that one side is based on “it cannot be”, “it’s impossible”, “nobody would be able to”, “it’s a monstrous campaign”, or such. All nothing but emotional judgments and opinions. Stereotyping human nature upon a couple who happen to be fairly handsome and supposedly educated.

The other, mine, is based on information. Known to be truthful. And on disinformation, contradiction and blatant and obvious lies.

Just read Ironside's posts and all are assumptions, but all based on reason and logic of what is known and written.

Not one word of persecution, but many of criticism against those that merit them: the McCanns, in the broadest sense of the surname.

I ask you straightforward one simple question. Imagine YOUR child went on vacation with the Tapas lot. It was your child that disappeared that evening. What would be your attitude and opinion if forensic dogs had barked at the car, clothes and places where and with whom your child was last seen with?

I could ask you many others questions.

Many others have already been asked and you’ve read them, and still, at least you say so, you have doubts. I have certainties.

However, your doubts are the doubts of “the majority”, per your own words. If you pinpoint your own doubts you’ll easily come to the conclusion that the only reason that this “majority” won’t see the McCanns as the monsters they really are, is just because they refuse to see them as monsters.

Nothing else.

 Before 2007, I didn’t know the McCanns existed.

Before 2008 I have no memory of a banned book in democratic UK.

No, it hasn’t hampered any investigation, because none was being undertaken. Private investigators don’t count when matters are as serious as yourself state them to be.

And albeit the “damned” book, the “sightings” just kept on rolling in… to the point of making Madeleine a ridiculous cartoon character, with no protest from the parents.

You are the first person to have honestly, candidly, politely and in an educated manner questioned my opinion.

You have my respect, and I do hope I’ve answered you adequately and appropriately.

Do have a good day.

HIGH WIRE ACTS....NEED SAFETY NETS

A balancing hire wire act will tell you timing is everything. One false move, could cost you your life, or very serious injury without a safety net. 

Thanks to Charlotte, we now know the twins were not in the Apartment on May 3rd. No one checked the apartment because there was no need , the twins were sleeping somewhere else. 

Therefore, only one possible reason Gerry Mccann returned to the flat just after 9 p.m. and that reason was to move Madeleines body. 

Gerry Mccann, for once, did not lie, he did look down on his daughter and maybe thoughts did go through his mind about how lovely she was. Gerry ,gently picked up a cold ,lifeless Madeleine ,placing her head on his shoulder, her arms straight down by her sides and left the apartment. 

The scent of cadaver picked up in the flower bed below the window, has always been puzzling and hard to fit any scenario. Except, maybe this one, Gerry at the top of the stairs spots Jeremy Wilkins. 

Gerry, a quick thinker and devious by nature,quickly rushed down the stairs and placed Madeleine in the flower bed. 

Jeremy in his statement has said his son was fussy and restless he would not sleep. He also said he was busy with his son and would not have noticed if anyone had been at the end of the road. Wilkins saw Gerry on the other side of the road between 8.45/9.15 pm...

Wilkins did not know if Gerry was coming or going from the apartment he only knows what Gerry has told him. They chat for a few minutes.Gerrys behaviour perfectly normal. The two men both go their seperate ways. 

Gerry checks to make sure Wilkins is out of sight and returns to get Madeleine. Time has been lost, if the plan was to smash the shutter from outside it was now too late, the alarm was to be raised at 10p.m. Gerry needed to hurry. 

Gerry fastened his pace and saw a family walking along the street. The Martin Smith family. Mr.Smith noticed the man was Caucasian 175-180m in height. 35-34 years of age. Short basic cut brown hair.The man was wearing beige trousers. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position. 

He also noticed her skin was 'Very White'. and her arms straight down by her sides. No one knows when Madeleine died or how, but we do know that she is dead. 

Rigor Mortis is latin for 'stiffness of death' this appears usually within the first four hours. The one thing that stands out for me in the Smith statement is they mention the childs arms, 'Straight' and by her sides. Mr.Smith has mentioned the child looked awkward in the mans arms, I believe because Rigor Mortis was already taking place.

Mr.Smith would not have been aware he was looking at a dead child. Nysten's Law In 1812, a French pediatrician named Pierre Nysten recorded his observation that rigor mortis follows a downward progression that begins in the upper region of the body, around the face and head, and travels in a set pattern down to the rest of body and the extremities. 

Known as Nysten's law, this principle likely reflects the fact that rigor mortis -- while affecting all muscles in the same way at the same time -- becomes noticeable first in small muscle groups, such as those around the eyes, mouth and jaws, and becomes pronounced somewhat later in the larger muscles of the lower limbs.

What happened next and where Gerry took Madeleine we will never know. Everything had gone wrong. Gerry had been seen. The chaos that followed, ripping a childs book to write an alibi ..... having nothing whatsoever to do with checking children. 

Jane Tanner, claiming to have seen someone with a child. Egg head, became dark and swarthy . Had the abduction truly taken place and Mr. Smith had seen the abductor with Madeleine... instead of Gerry, the Mccanns would have been cleared of all suspicion. 

The one true sighting the Mccanns have chosen to ignore. A red herring? possibly, but unlikely. When Gerry returned to PDL for his 'Documentary' he had no choice but to also include the Smith sighting. Gerry the 'Director' decided to change a few things. Jane Tanner in floods of tears refuting where Gerry now said he stood outside of the apartment . Gerry also changed Martin Smiths witness statement. 

Mr.Smith was very specific when describing the position of the childs head,resting on the mans shoulder.

Gerry re-positioned the child to match Tanners story . Why? Maybe because.... Mr. Martin Smith ....Reported that he passed a male carrying a child in Praia da Luz the night Maddie went missing. 

Went and made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th of May and returned to the U.K. Is saying that after seeing McCANNS on the news on 9th of September when they returned to the U.K. He has not slept and is worried sick. 

He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. 

He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. 

He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children. Is asking a member of the OP Task Force to ring him back. He was with a group of 9 family and friends the night he saw the male in Portugal. He sounded quite shaken and worried whilst speaking to me. 

Gerry McCann loves to play games with a very stunning Portuguese reporter,the lovely Sandra. Gerry likes a wire act without the safety net, it excites him. 

During this interview Gerry tells Sandra the 'abductor' was almost caught...Sandra jumps in, by whom?...

It is only a moment but it is there, Gerry is thinking of when he was almost caught not once, but twice... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV4Ck61Favg&feature=relatedBy Jane he replies....by Jane

How lucky for Robert Murat that he was known to Martin Smith. Just how LUCKY we may never know....

Sunday, 14 March 2010

A Special Day, For a Special Woman



As per Anonymous, who we thank, left on the comments:

Transcript of Aled Jones interview with Kate McCann:

Aled - Does Mothering Sunday, itself bring mixed emotions?  

Kate - It does and it doesn’t. I mean, every day to be honest is quite difficult. I guess Mothers Day is another reminder really that Madeleine is not here. I think motherhood is a real gift and obviously I’ve got three children, and it’s a reminder that one of my babies isn’t with me but you know I’m still Madeleine’s mum, and I always will be. 

Aled - How do you cope with a day like Mothering Sunday?  

Kate - I guess it’s a little bit different now I think because we are working so hard perhaps days where we would have maybe done something really special we don’t necessarily, certainly Mothers Day, I think birthdays are different, children’ s birthdays and things but I think we just get through it like any other day really. 

Aled - Do you get lots of support from family?  

Kate - Oh we’ve had amazing support I mean our family has been great and that’s an important point really because everyone in our family has suffered and is going through a lot of pain and anxiety and we are all missing Madeleine, but we’ve all got to try and support each other 

Aled - And what about your other children how aware are they of what is happening?  

Kate - Very aware they talk about Madeleine every day they know she is missing they know she has been taken by somebody. They understand it a little bit like burglary, in that even if you really want something it doesn’t mean that we can take it because Madeleine belongs to us you know and it’s not right that they’ve got Madeleine and we need to find her but they talk about finding her, about you know finding Madeleine, and running away with her and coming back home. And even things like when we go on holiday they say ‘oh what will happen if the police find Madeleine and we are not there?’ And we say ‘oh don’t worry our next door neighbours will let us know.’ And they are very aware but they are very positive, they will always talk about, ‘ when Madeleine comes home’ Sean said to me the other week, well Amelie said to me “ Why do you work mummy?” and I said well “I’ve got to find Madeleine” and Sean said “ Yes mummy but when that’s OVER, when Madeleine is home what will you do?” (Kate sighs) and you think bring it on. 

Aled - Does that help?  

Kate - It does. They always say out of the mouths of babes. You know they are really positive and it really does keep us going. I think in years to come I’ll be able to tell Sean and Amelie just how important they have been in our life keeping us going and getting us through it all. 

Aled - What effect has time had on you, has time healed at all? 

Kate - It’s always funny that line isn’t it ‘time is a healer’ I think the wounds are less raw, the pain doesn’t go away, and the anxiety is always there. I’ m definitely a lot stronger than I was a year ago which is positive. It’s funny as sometimes you beat yourself up about it because I think how come I am doing okay and I’m coping better than I was that’s not right, because nothing has changed for Madeleine but yeh it’s important that I am because I’ve got three children, one to look for and two to look after, and it’s important that I can cope. 

Aled - Do you feel guilty at being happy in a way then?  

Kate - Yeah there is that element. I mean I know it’s okay to be happy and it’s important for Sean and Amelie that we do have happy times but there is a little bit of guilt really and a little bit discomfort in being able to adapt I guess. 

Aled - How important a word is ‘hope’ for you? 

Kate. - Oh very important we’ve obviously got hope, we’ve got a lot of hope really a lot of hope, hope that Madeleine is still alive. Obviously the difficult task is trying to find her but whilst there is hope we’ll keep going and certainly we’ll never give up.. 

Aled... - So what is Madeleine like?  

Kate - Erm someone you just want everyone to meet her cos, erm she’s just an amazing little character full of personality loads of energy, quite knowing, erm , really funny and loving and you know her relationship with Sean and Amelie, it’s incredible really and that ‘s something which still gets to me at times. When I see them playing and they start talking about Madeleine, again, you know,when we were away Sean was digging in the sandpit and I said “What are you doing?” he said “ I’m digging up buried treasure mummy and I’m going to give it to Madeleine.” And you just kind of think really, what would it be like for the three of them to be together?  

Aled - What are some your most treasured memories? 

Kate. - Oh my God there’s lots. I used to take Madeleine swimming on a Saturday morning and she used to have this really tight swimming cap on and I’d be watching through the glass and she was the youngest there, she was only three and she would just walk along on her own really confident and get in and these huge eyes would be looking at me through the glass and shed just be waving you know, hi mummy and I’d be texting Gerry saying she has got me crying again, and just lying with her you know and conversations, it had got to the stage where me and Madeleine would go to lunch together you know and it felt like a real girls day out.

Aled - I know you are a person of faith which I would like to talk about after we have had some music I don’t know if you listen to music at all? 

Kate - No, we do, we listen to a lot of music it’s been a little bit strange to be honest because since Madeleine was taken from us I actually struggled quite a lot to listen to music and I actually put classical music on rather than anything remotely, I guess, happy, with lyrics or stuff dance type music anything like that but gradually I am able to listen to it again now.  

Aled - And what would you like to listen to today? 

Kate - Chasing Cars by Snow Patrol. 

Aled - Why Snow Patrol?  

Kate - This is a song that both, myself and Gerry really liked and in fact after Madeleine had gone it was a song that was quite difficult to listen to, actually it kind of it made us both quite upset because it reminded us of happy times of Madeleine but at the same time it reminded us of Madeleine. So, from that point of view it is quite a special song and I think the lyrics if I just lay here will you lie with me and Madeleine would often used to say at bedtime lie with me mummy lie with me daddy and they were really special vivid moments. 

MUSIC

Aled - Is every day bad?  

Kate – No, not every day is bad but it is strange I can have three or four days where the days just go, basically I am working I am looking after Sean and Amelie, I get through a day get up same for the next day, and then something can suddenly out of the blue just really upset me and it can be something quite innocuous it can just trigger something, makes you aware that you don’t have to scratch too far below the surface for that emotion to come bubbling out. You get through it, I mean luckily two of us together are quite a ‘unit’ really, usually one of us can pull the other one up when needs be. 

Aled - What does it feel like having worlds glare on you? 

Kate - I think you take it for granted really what being anonymous was like it’s been very hard I mean I’m not the most confident person on the planet and I’d never be a someone who would get up and give a presentation at work or anything I’d try avoid it like the plague but we’ve obviously been forced into this situation. 

Aled - You’ve changed a lot as well haven’t you because in the beginning you were very much in the background whereas now you are not?  

Kate - Absolutely, I think I was just, obviously I was going through a lot of pain and distress but also I was just really uncomfortable being in the spotlight and then I had to kind of say to myself’ well why are we doing it, we’re doing it to try and find Madeleine and it’s not about me and it doesn’t matter how uncomfortable I feel you know it’s Madeleine we are trying to help. Forget about me move on get over it.’ 

Aled - Are there times when you don’t feel strong?  

Kate - Oh Yeh yeh, there are have been a lot of things in the last almost three years, erm not even just Madeleine being taken from us, which was obviously the worst, but there has been many things that have happened subsequently and they can also be really low times dark times when you do doubt your faith I have to be honest, but at the same time it’s strange, because we’ve been through that, I do believe there is a greater good and in some ways it kind of strengthens my faith really. 

Aled - Because in a way because what you are experiencing for many people would be hell on earth?  

Kate - No, it is. I think it the worst thing that could happen to a parent certainly one of the worst things I mean the pain is just, just incredible and it’s the pain of worry for her really I mean we live with the sadness of not having Madeleine in our lives but you know I’m her mum and I can’t help but worry about her and I just want to be with her, if she has a sore tummy I want to be there, when she is upset I want to be there. I just want to bring her back into the warmth and love of our family. 

Aled - Are there ever times when you blame God?  

Kate - I’ve never blamed God for what happened, at all. I don’t think that was anything to do with God. There are times when I’ve got angry with God and certainly the, the additional things that I have mentioned that have happened where I just think why can we have extra suffering put on us at such an awful time and I just haven’t understood it and I wondered why God hasn’t interceded and tried to counter that. These are the times when I go off to the church to be honest, I mean I’ve got a key to the church they’ve kindly given me one sometimes I go in and oh it’s a bit of a sanctuary a bit of a refuge I’ll go and I can speak out – because obviously there’s no one there – just get it all off my chest really. I mean I do wonder you know why should God help my prayers when there are millions of people with prayers which are equally as important around the world, I don’t know I mean I just hope he does but, my faith has really sustained me I think a lot through all of this and it is a definite comfort there. 

Aled - Has your faith changed at all?  

Kate - I think it has probably got stronger definitely I think before all this happened that I’d never really had to question my faith you know it was there I believed in God I’d had little conversations with God in my head but I never really had to challenge it I was just comfortable with my relationship with my faith and with God but it’s definitely got stronger now it’s probably more intense. Em the day I was made arguido was quite an interesting day with regards to my faith I’d had a period of about 4 to 6 weeks prior to that where there had obviously been a shift in the investigation and suddenly none of the police were talking to us, we couldn’t have a meeting people didn’t want to have phone conversations with us, I mean we were left in this awful void of information really, so we were trying to cope with the pain of not having Madeleine but also not having any information and not knowing at all what was going on and then that led on to the period when suddenly there were these awful stories coming out in the media about supposed blood in the apartment, basically pointing the finger at us then obviously that subsequently finished with us being arguido and the day I was going in for my arguido interview was quite a strange day because I had been really low and feeling quite weak and fragile and then suddenly I just felt really strong, I mean I was angry, I was angry that people hadn’t been looking for Madeleine but also I just thought to myself ‘ I know the truth and God knows the truth and nothing else matters’ and I just felt really strong from then I felt a real inner strength.  

Aled - Do you think God is looking after Madeleine?  

Kate - I do, I mean to me Madeleine was a gift, most our life is pretty public anyway, but you know obviously we had quite a difficult time trying to have Madeleine and when she was born I really did believe she was a gift and I never took her for granted you know every day when I’d wake up and I’d see these huge eyes looking at me and I’d say thank God for Madeleine. I don’t believe he would stop loving her now or abandon her and I don’t believe that at all, and I do get a comfort in thinking that that wherever she is whoever she is with that he is with her and protecting her, protecting her spirit and she’s got a lot of spirit. (Kate laughs)  

Aled - Do you find that your prayers have changed over the years? .

Kate - I guess a little bit more directed now. The prayer that I used to say all the time was to, to keep the family, thank God for my family to keep Gerry Madeleine Sean and Amelie safe healthy and happy I always said that, which when it happened, to be honest was a little bit of a struggle as that was the one prayer that I said all of the time. I pray for lots of things now really, obviously I always pray for the family obviously most of the prayers are centred on Madeleine really but I pray for the people who’ve taken Madeleine the people who know what has happened to Madeleine, and the people around/ related to the person who has taken Madeleine. And I pray for the police and the investigators, people who are looking for her and I pray for all the other children who are missing or have been exploited in some way, because in some ways, funny to say lucky, but we have been lucky we’ve had a lot of support from the general public in particular people we don’t know we’ve had incredible support and there are many families out there whose children have gone missing and you don’t hear about it. 

Aled - Gerry said his faith has been strengthened by the goodness generated by this ordeal so there are positives that have come out of it?  

Kate - Ah very much so. We still get a bundle of mail every day from people, you know willing us on sending their best wishes. Children send pictures for Madeleine and stuff, and you know we have books of prayers sent for Madeleine that children have written. It’s been amazing. It’s been a real eye opener, you know I’d have never thought of sitting down and writing a letter to someone I didn’t know who’d suffered tragic event and yet the strength it has given us is amazing. 

Aled - It would be understandable for you to be filled with hate and anger and rage and yet you’re not at all?

Kate - I’ve had my moments if I went back to 2008 I think I did probably have a lot of anger on board and it’s such a horrible negative emotion . I’m pleased to say that, that anger has gone now and I feel so much better than I did in 2008. 

Aled - Do you think you’d ever be able to forgive the people who took Madeleine? 

Kate - That’s a difficult one isn’t it? I guess I don’t know why they’ve taken her and I think until I know that it would be hard, hard to say. I’d like to hope that I could but it’s difficult. 

Aled - On Mothering Sunday do you have a message for other mothers who may be experiencing similar emotions to what you are going through?  

Kate - Yeah I think erm – long pause- , dig deep really, just keep hoping and be around your family and friends, really gather their love, surround yourself with positive people but dont’give up. Aled - Thank you for talking to me

The INNOCENCE of Charlotte Anne Pennington.

Witness Statement of Miss Pennington on May 7th 2007. Translator Robert Murat. 

Nothing unusual in Charlottes statement , a couple of things of interest Madeleine was known as Maddy , which we know and she mentions at no time did she enter the Apartment..... 

Daily Mail 25th Sept. 2007. It is time for Charlottes 15 minutes of fame. 

Charlotte tells the Mail the McCanns are innocent and the distress she witnessed when Kate Mccann screamed 'They've taken her', later denied by friends as the first words Kate used, friends say Kate said 'Madeleines gone' 

The article goes on to say Miss Pennington,however ONE OF THE FIRST people to set foot in the couples apartment said she heard Kate use both phrases. 

Charlotte confirms McCanns friends are correct Robert Murat WAS in the Ocean Club 'He was standing outside just looking'. 

The Daily Mail and their love affair with the McCanns will stop at nothing to give them a helping hand. Charlotte's interview three days after newspaper headlines scream 'The Missing 7 Hours'. 

Charlotte, ever helpful also wanted to help the Mccanns and explained 'late tea' was indeed a little late on the 3rd,not over until 6p.m.when she saw the Mccanns who collectedMadeleine. 

With many thanks to Charlotte the missing hours were now filled in. When one lies, for whatever reason, a good memory is essential. 

'Dispatches' aired on Channel 4 Oct. 18th 2007. Charlotte confessed the last time she had seen the Mccanns as a family was lunchtime, May 3rd and not in the evening when interviewed for the Mail. 

Damage control needed here and needed fast. The very same day as this programme aired the 'Daily Mail' had an EXCLUSIVE. David Payne saw Madeleine at 6.30 p.m. the 7 missing hours once again explained.

Back to the Daily Mail 25th interview...Charlotte, although young and naive has a great quality, she is a very observant young woman who stood and observed Kate while everyone else was rushing around.' I could'nt believe what I was seeing, she was so distraught' 

Charlotte also observed on entering the apartment 'THERE WERE NO CHILDREN IN THE ROOM' 'The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCann friends' she happily explained. WHAT, this is impossible, as GNR had yet to be called and we know the twins were in their cots when they arrived.

How to explain this . I can only think the McCanns, one or both gently explained to Charlotte the police were annoyed so many people had been in the apartment, they did not want her to get into trouble so best not mention it. 

Charlotte only wanting to help, agreed this would be best and thanked the Mccanns I would imagine for their kindness at such a terrible time. 

How amazing they must have semed to such an impressionable young girl wanting to protect her in such a selfless way. Charlotte went as far to mention in her statement, although not asked,the fact she did not enter Ap.5A. 

Charlotte Pennington had she been older and wiser would have questioned why the Mccanns did not want her to mention such an innocent act. If only Charlotte had told PJ the truth she may have been questioned more on her observations, but she placed herself outside and to Police was of little interest. 

Silly young foolish Charlotte. 

Charlotte who in her innocence thought the Mccanns were being kind. The Mccanns, who had yet to return two heavily sedated children back to their cots. 

The Mccanns, masters at manipulation. 

Cots GNR noticed contained babies that did not stir, without bedding on such a cool,cool night. 

Note: Many thanks to McCannfiles, who without, this kind of research would not be possible.