Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Letter to the Social Services Sent LAST WEEK

Sent exactly ONE week ago:  Concern. Call for urgent action.

Sent to:

Dear Madam, /or, Dear Sir,


Re. Children Sean McCann & Amelie McCann, twins, both aged 6 1/2, Rothley, Leicestershire

15th June 2011, England

Regarding the MADELEINE MCCANN CASE, after reading the McCanns childrens' mother's book titled "madeleine" (yes, without any capital M...), I have grown very concerned about the safety of their children Sean and Amelie.

Mrs Healy (Kate "McCann") is often describing scenes of her imagination in a very vivid way. These scenes are of a paedophile nature. We find for example how the

paedophile was defiling Maddy's little body.

Or how she could "see" "him" abusing Maddy and "her litlle genitals torn apart".

The register of LANGUAGE she uses: is it OK for children to read? Some examples: " sod "[chapter 1] " fucking tosser "[chapter 16] "shit" "complete bullshit" !!!!!

... What is CONCERNING is that on the Express Online she (Mrs Healy) has recently said that she had INITIALLY WRITTEN THE BOOK FOR HER CHILDREN! (and note she

said "the twins" only)

Did you know by the way that they (the McCanns) lied to their family on the 3rd and 4th May 2007, claiming that there was a forced entry ("tampered window" and

"smashed shutter"). They also lied stating that the shutter could be easily lift up from the outside even if locked inside. The police and the resort staff both

checked these 2 allegations and none of them was true: a PURE lie about "the abduction". Since they can lie to family and police, what else can they lie about? Anything. Why do you blindly trust them?

At Chapter 18 something has caught my attention in an ALARMING way.

Kate Healy depicts - once again, and in great graphic details- how paedophiles take pleasure with little girls and it's like a "dream awake" about her own daughter

and one of these "paedophiles monsters". Kate seems completely obsessed with the thought, in a fixed obsession, but on the very next paragraph she mentions

how difficult their sleeping arrangements are, often waking up "sandwiched between the twins"... If a psychologist analyses this book, no doubt that ¬the present

association of THOUGHTS,,, is for the least ALARMING for the Twins.


"When she was first stolen, paedophiles were all we could think about, and it made us sick, ate away at us.

The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn’t make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine’s abduction (and, please God, it isn’t); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out of my mind. Tortured as I was by these nauseating images, it’s probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.

I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.

I worried about Gerry and me. I worried that if I couldn’t get our sex life back on track our whole relationship would break down. I know there is more to a relationship than sex, but it is still an important element. It was vital that we stayed together and stayed strong for our family. Gerry was incredibly understanding and supportive. He never made me feel guilty, he never pushed me and he never got sulky. In fact, sometimes he would apologize to me. Invariably, he would put a big, reassuring arm around me and tell me that he loved me and not to worry.

I was determined not to be beaten by this, not simply to capitulate and accept it as just one of the unfortunate side-effects of this tragedy. Gerry and I talked about it a little, but mostly I analysed the problem privately in my head. I also discussed it with Alan Pike, who assured me that, like my ability to relax or enjoy a meal, it would gradually return and that I shouldn’t fret about it too much. But I did. I even considered seeking specialist help. Deep down, though, I knew there were only two solutions: bringing Madeleine back or conquering my mental block. Since the first was not within my control, it was up to me to try to train my mind and my thought processes. So that is what I applied myself to doing.

In the small hours, any sleep we got was still often interrupted by the children. I welcomed their soothing presence. It didn’t always make for the most comfortable night, however. Sometimes, by the time dawn came, it took me a moment to figure out who was where.

Seany arrived in the early hours of the morning and positioned himself towards the middle of our bed, with me and Gerry then squeezed together on one side. Amelie appeared several hours later by which time Sean had gone back to his own bed, although he did return later. I knew we should have got a Superking!

Another morning I awoke to find myself sandwiched between Sean and Amelie with Gerry lying across the bottom of the bed. Cosy."


Soon after the event a witness, the neighbour above the 5a apartment, Mrs Fenn, now deceased, has stated to the police that on the Tuesday 1st May 2007 NIGHT, until 23:30!, a little girl was crying for ONE HOUR AND TWENTY MINUTES NON-STOP, HOME ALONE, calling or screaming :"Daddy! Daddy!". She thought that it MUST be Madeleine. Shall I remind you that the McCanns have admitted CHILD NEGLECT ! There is no place for cowardice in your services though, look at your logo! A female WOLF! Why do you condone THAT ??!! But PLEASE read on:

So once again these Children, the three of them, were LEFT ON THEIR OWN. Shall I remind you that the place was SO "SAFE" to leave kids on their own that eventually...

one of them went MISSING. Beside, have you ever ASKED Kate, or Gerry, WHY Madeleine was crying then? Why did Kate and Gerald NEVER counterstated Mrs Fenn's report? Why would they say to YOU? What do they reply if you ask them if they often left the kids alone before? And why do that in Praia?

"When she was first stolen, paedophiles were all we could think about "... Here is a file I prepared to your attention:

A file for the SOCIAL SERVICES to lean on- KATE'S BOOK PAGE 129

In the light of recent extracts of the book "madeleine" by Kate McCann - please note the absence of a capital M to Madeleine's name on the title- , in addition to

previously read reports, I come to a few very alarming, compelling thoughts:

Kate's SANITY is clearly to be questioned, regarding:

- her detailed description of her paedophile visions - her own children are now learning to read and can probably read quite well by now, how will they like reading

such descriptions?

- She had always said that she was hiding her emotion in public, TO PREVENT THE "ABDUCTOR" FROM REACTING ON MADELEINE, yet is trying to give a vivid,

bursting impression of all emotional and PSYCHOLOGICAL aspect in her now published book, including the way she imagined "him" touching her child 's little

body!!! Will now the "abductor" react differently or will "he" apply to poor Maddy what is described in the book - word by word?

-Other instances follow:



the SWORD extract in press articles (the father describes how his son would kill the abductor...);

Cards and Gifts "from Madeleine", that the parents faked for the twins, see related previous blogpost;

The Monster game ('find the raptor' game... in the house... which isn't precisely a healthy mental exercise for 2 little children to have in such situation. Yet to the

parents' pride, this story was sold to the press to form 'appealing' articles...)

More detailed examples are the bottom of this blogpost.

.... Conditioning and brainwashing Children's Minds towards anger and violence is simply called : MENTAL ABUSE. For two doctors isn't such a behaviour baffling?

Don't they KNOW that by implanting these ideas into their children's heads, a certain feeling of anger and disgust, and VIOLENCE, is going to result from this

talking-out-loud in front of their children?!

Also, the father swearing in front of his children and his friends' Children. We can all slip-up and happen to do so but we'd immediately feel

ashamed and utter something like 'Oooops, sorry!" - but not Dr McCann, he is allowed -he visibly thinks, all mightily- to give bad example to children. See


THE GASPARS' Statement -brief sum-up:

These two doctors, friends of the McCanns at the time, had spotted Gerry in the middle of a conversation with their other friend Dr David Payne, while being on

another holiday. Illustrated with sexual gestures, the dialogue was of a paedophile nature as it involved pointing at Madeleine. Mrs Gaspar worried immediately at

the news that something had happened to Madeleine in early May 2007 and decided to report the incident to the police. Her husband confirmed hearing the same

conversation and seeing the gesture.

The Paynes and the McCanns NEVER took action to clear their names in regards to these heavy accusations, which coming from them is pretty strange - normally they sue anything and anyone that can be sued.

Another point of greatly alarming concern is THE MAKE-UP that Madeleine was wearing on many photos and video public material. Make-up that was self-evidently

applied by an adult - in any case, it's dangerous to let a child apply make-up on her own, this was not child- make up, brushes are needed, take a look , please, at the numerous photos... I can send you some saved ones from the press if you still can't see what I mean...

(And did THAT really help to "find Madeleine"?)

All this added to the lies that 'Kate McCann' (HEALY) dares publishing in her book as asserting that the 5a apartment shutter could be pushed from the outside once

locked on the inside, for example, makes me want to alert to the BRITISH and PORTUGUESE SOCIAL SERVICES.... and urge them to lean on this book, comparing it to

the existing files. Again since they lie to police they would undoubtedly lie to YOU as well, even in a much easier way.

In more details:

"Sean and Amelie:

GERRY: Sean, in particular, talks about having an aeroplane and flying all over the world looking for ‘that man who’s taken Madeleine’ and when he gets him he’s

going to rescue her and take his sword out.

KATE: At the moment they don’t show any signs of anger. A month or so ago, I went for a run and I suddenly started thinking about Sean and Amelie getting much

older, they will understand more. "

Read more:


From The Daily Star

"KATE and Gerry McCann have revealed how their twins have vowed to rescue missing ­sister Madeleine from her abduction hell.

Speaking ahead of the third anniversary of her disappearance, the couple said Sean and Amelie, five, talk about “getting swords to get the man who has got her”.

The McCanns also released a video on their hunt for Madeleine, which includes a new “grown-up” picture of the youngster.

The snap – taken weeks before Madeleine vanished – shows her wearing blue eyeshadow accompanied with a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace.


And they revealed how Sean and Amelie are determined to help the hunt for Madeleine, who will turn seven next week.

Kate, 42, said: “Sean said to me once, just as I was putting him to bed – it was out of the blue. He said, ‘Never give up, mummy’. [A child of the FIVE, saying THAT?!]

“I just said, ‘Don’t worry, Seany, I won’t do that. None of us will’.”

And Gerry, 41, added: “They talk about rescuing her and getting swords to get the man who’s got her.

“Sean talks all the time about finding Maddie and what he will do to the person who stole her.”

Is little Sean's parent's "speculative" conditioning really working though?

A new boy in school recently said to Sean that Maddy was dead as she had been shot. Little Sean then asked his mum: "But how would they know?"

Gerry interfered in the interview: "He was very matter of fact. He said no one knows where Madeleine is. The logic is undeniable."

and Kate added: "Children do say things. But I think Sean and Amelie have handled it brilliantly."

The Sun Paper Edition 7 -5-11

page 4, interview by Antonella Lazzeri & Oliver Harvey.

More concerns:

"Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand."

"An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended."

"Faced with such a situation we believe any human soul will ultimately suffer torment and feelings of guilt and fear."

-Gerry in his blog-

Kate in her book:

talking about how much she hated "HIM" and wanted to inflict maximal suffering onto HIM.

She wanted her old life back...

But how did she KNOW it was a "HE"? Did she really mean someone else??? Would she have done something very bad to have got back at that person?

Someone who knows the father well told me that she was jealous of the love between the dad and the daughter.

Apparently she wanted many 'hotel-breaks' even when the children were so young and it unsettles them. There would have been a room where the curtains are never, ever open ' to preserve the furniture'...


She admits the existence that such IMAGES DO CONFIRM in a way that there was a REAL possibility... of what? FACTS? WHAT FACTS? THOSE SHE WAS JUST

IMAGINING? YET, her two "remaining kids" WILL read these "IMAGES"! She obviously hasn't pictured that, though? Or does she fabricate scenarios that become real?!

When she was first "taken ", Kate and Gerry, she writes, could ONLY think about paedophiles!

I wonder why... I would have personally thought ANYTHING but that, first that she had

somehow managed to escape by herself... Why didn't the MOTHER search? Even if abducted ("taken"...) couldn't any kidnapper be surprised or feel endangered then drop the child, alive, anywhere like on the BEACH? Alright, so then Kate would have thought this too, wouldn't she? Then why did she stay INDOORS, NOT SEARCHING FOR HER CHILD???!!!

and.... last but NOT least: Kate Healy - "McCann" describes in mult details how she could vividly imagine, bit by bit, this monster being TOUCHING her daughter,

caressing her... and even with many, precise descriptions of how her little daughter's body would get manipulated and precisely sexually abused by "him"... That is

explicit isn't it? a little bit too much detailed for MY liking, anyway.

She adds that it killed her and killed her... what "kills" me is her mental balance level...

Is this person mentally fit to be a mother? Shouldn't the social services organise a few checks and put her though psychological tests, just to make sure? I don't feel

comfortable, at all, knowing that Sean and Amelie are with her. I have my alarm bells ringing very loud.

Can you please conduct a Review too? As you know Kate has ASKED to see a GP (despite both being doctors...) on their return to Rothley in September 2007, with the

ONLY PURPOSE to "PRE-EMPT" the SOCIAL SERVICES' REACTION! Chapter 18: "One of the first things we did was to ring our GP. We wanted to make contact with the

social services to pre-empt any interest they might be obliged to take in us. In the light of the headlines and our arguido status, we realized there would be

pressure on the authorities to assess the welfare of the twins. It all seemed so crazy and unfair, but we had to confront it head on. "

Please read the book and tell me if you share my concerns for the McCann Twins. Thank you for taking this request seriously and URGENTLY.


Friday, 10 June 2011


So what is the FUND for exactly? Kate's uncle Brian Kennedy (not the big businessman benefactor) said it's "probably, mainly for legal expenditure." Had many people heard this and read this before??? Scroll down for the video and a link.

Here we have, the simple answers: Start Quote:

Fund Objectives
The full objects of the Fund are:
  • To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
  • To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
  • To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.

Full details that are on the official Find Madeleine website, linked hereabove:

Madeleine's Fund

About the Fund
Madeleine's Fund - 'Leaving No Stone Unturned' is a not-for-profit company which has been established to find Madeleine McCann, support her family and bring her abductors to justice. The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector. The directors of the company are Brian Kennedy, Michael Linnett, Edward Smethurst, Jon Corner, Kate McCann & Gerry McCann. They have appropriate legal, business and charitable experience. An experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability. This should enable the Directors to maintain an appropriate governance distance in the day-to-day operations of the Fund.
Fund Objectives
The full objects of the Fund are:
  • To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
  • To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
  • To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
Fund Raising
We thank you for your interest in fund raising to support Madeleine's fund. Many donations have resulted from a variety of fund raising events. These have included Car Boot sales, jumble sales, school cake sales, race nights, sponsored runs & cycle events, ‘dress down' days, auctions & ‘cheese & wine' nights.
These events have further highlighted Madeleine's plight as well as bringing many people together to have fun whilst working towards one common goal.
We would be grateful if you are considering fund raising that you do not refer to Madeleine's fund as a registered charity as it is not. If you are embarking on a type fund raising which may carry an element of risk you may wish to consider your position regarding insurance cover. If you require further information please refer to:
(1) Who are the main contributors to the fund?
Many members of the general public from across the world have kindly donated to Madeleine's Fund, either by personal donation or fund raising events. In addition to this, over £1 million pounds in libel damages and compensation awarded to Kate and Gerry McCann and their friends has been paid into Madeleine's Fund.
(2) What are the registered details of Madeleine's Fund?
Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales, CRN 6248215. Registered office: 2-6 Cannon Street, London EC4M 6YH.
(3) Why is Madeleine's Fund not registered as a charity?
Because Madeleine's Fund is currently focussed on searching for one child only, Madeleine McCann it cannot register as a charity. However in the future, if the objects of the fund are fulfilled and subsequently changed to concentrate on multiple similar cases, it may then be possible to acquire charitable status.
(4) Can gift aid or tax relief be claimed on my donation to Madeleine's Fund?
No it cannot because these are only available to registered charities.
(5) If Madeleine's Fund isn't a charity who is regulating it?
The directors regulate Madeleine's Fund and they aspire to follow best practice policies and processes used by charities. The directors have reviewed its operation against “Good Governance: A Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector”. This sets out best practice requirements for charities.

The Fund also has:
  • a Financial Procedures Manual
  • job descriptions for directors, chair and treasurer
  • clearly laid out policies and processes for:
  • payments
  • expense claims
  • risk management
  • whistle blowing
  • registering conflicts of interest
(6) Who are the directors of Madeleine's Fund?
There are six directors of the Fund. They are:
  • Brian Kennedy, a retired head teacher;
  • Edward Smethurst – A Commercial lawyer;
  • Jon Corner – Director of a media company;
  • Michael Linett- retired accountant
  • Kate McCann General Practitioner
  • Gerry McCann Consultant Cardiologist
(7) What is the money being spent on ?
The majority of the fund money has been and continues to be spent on investigative work to help find Madeleine. Additionally money continues to be spent on the wider 'Awareness Campaign' – reminding people that Madeleine is still missing and to remain vigilant. None of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.
Anyone who wishes further information with regards to the financial details of Madeleine's Fund and its professional advisors, please refer to the accounts filed at Companies House. Crown Way Maindy Cardiff CF14 3UZ

I will bring further elements from someone's search later. Clearly this above means that it is for

ANY purpose, as "support, including financial assistance, to

Madeleine's family"

can mean anything and everything, including paying for 2 months mortgage like has been the case in 2007,  and what else????????? 

"registering conflicts of interest" means that anytime the McCanns need money to either SUE someone or defend themselves, they can use the fund = PUBLIC donations.

Listen and WATCH (for body language and laughs, face expressions and words from 1:30 in the video):

Wednesday, 8 June 2011

Fantasy Land

The  chapter 16  of  Kate "McCann" 's book, "madeleine" without an initial capital M, is titled, to my great amusement, Fantasy Land.

To me the whole case could be called this way too. Alas for one exception: what became of the Child Madeleine Beth McCann. I doubt that this little girl had often been in fantasy land before that fateful holiday, and certainly isn't now, unless angels / or as her mother claims, the abductor, "treat her like a princess, with fairness and respect, blah...

In this short extract we come to find out, among a few interesting other points, how a witness claims to have seen the McCanns carrying a big black bag. It's curious as I never read any statement of the sort in the files, but then again I never got the leisure, unlike Kate, to spend a solid 6 months of my life to scrutinise these police documents - although I can do my bit of research. I would appreciate if she, since she calls herself an Author, didn't content herself with providing snippets of the sort, that don't specify either the date, or the time, the place, etc. I have searched for long and found only one witnessing which is published a bit further below.
Kate obviously hasn't got a good literacy background otherwise she would know about referencing. If you quote someone, even without naming them, then you need to provide in your annexe of references the details about it. The lack of documentation regarding all she states about the case and the PJ is deplorable, it's supposed to be a book about the case, yet, there is no solid reference or reproduced scan! Kate surely didn't care to look at Harward Referencing, even to write a book, but is that surprising?!

Here is the extract in question:

"A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously. This was absolute nonsense, but ‘evidence’ of this kind came down to one person’s word against another. And it appeared that, as far as the PJ were concerned, our word counted for little.
‘If you were Portuguese,’ Carlos said with an air of resignation, ‘this would be enough to put you in prison.’
The only conclusion I could draw was that we’d been framed, though this seemed completely implausible. Faced with something like this, way beyond the sphere of your experience, it is natural to dismiss it as impossible, but that doesn’t mean it is. When I thought about all that had happened so far, maybe anything was possible. In any event, it seemed we’d underestimated the magnitude of the fight we had on our hands. Even our own lawyer appeared to think, based on what he’d been told, that the police had a good case against us. I could see by this time that Gerry was starting to crack.
Then came the best bit. Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.
Pardon? I really wasn’t sure if I could possibly have heard him correctly. My incredulity turned to rage. How dare they suggest I lie? How dare they expect me to live with such a charge against my name?
And even more importantly, did they really expect me to confess to a crime they had made up, to falsely claim to the whole world that my daughter was dead, when the result would be that the whole world stopped looking for her? This police tactic might have worked successfully in the past but it certainly wasn’t going to work with me. Over my dead body. ‘You need to think about it,’ Carlos insisted. ‘It would only be one of you. Gerry could go back to work.’
I was speechless.
The incentive to accept this ‘offer’ seemed to be that if we didn’t agree to it, the authorities could or would go after us for murder, and if we were found guilty, we might both receive life sentences.
Was this what it came down to? Confess to this lesser charge or risk something much worse?
Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again. The realization that we were at the mercy of an incomprehensible criminal justice system had hit him hard. It was excruciating to see him like this. I love him so much and he is usually so strong. I was very conscious that my response was different. Maybe I should have been on my knees, too. Why wasn’t I crying? Was my behaviour making me look cold or guilty? Again, my only explanation is that it was beyond comprehension. I might as well have been a character in a soap opera. Any time now the director would call ‘Cut!’ and this scene would be over. Even today, I struggle to believe it actually took place.
There was a phrase Carlos must have used about twenty times: ‘This is the point of no return.’ I could feel myself shaking."


Excerpt that precedes the one above:

"Carlos still looked very concerned. There was a great deal we needed to discuss, he told us. He reiterated that the situation was not good. The PJ had a lot of ‘evidence’ against us, and I was certain to be made an arguida in the morning.
First he cited video footage the police had shot of the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs in apartment 5A and also around our hire car. I would be shown this on my return to the police station, he said. Presumably repeating what he had been told by the PJ, he explained how samples from both these sites had revealed Madeleine’s blood and one of them indicated a 15 out of 19 match with her DNA.
I was totally perplexed. Although this news, if true, seemed to add weight to the possibility that Madeleine had at the very least been physically harmed, unusually I didn’t dwell too much on the frightening implications. I can only assume this was because what we were being told didn’t make sense. If, as the PJ alleged, Madeleine’s blood was in the boot of our car, which we had not rented until 27 May, how on earth had it got there? Did this mean someone had planted it?
I could see no other explanation. The police theory, it seemed, was that we had hidden Madeleine’s body, then moved it later, in the car, and buried it elsewhere.
Next came the matter of a crumpled page the police said they had discovered in my borrowed Bible. It seemed this was felt to be highly significant because the passage on that page, in II Samuel 12, dealt with the death of a child. I knew nothing about any pages being crumpled, let alone in which part of the Bible. The fact that I had asked to see a priest on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance was also seen as evidence of guilt. What? I was beginning to find my credulity stretched to breaking point. ‘Don’t people in Portugal talk to priests in times of need?’ I asked Carlos. Apparently not. They only called for a priest when they wanted their sins to be forgiven. Good grief. This was definitely not the faith with which I was familiar."

Apart from this potentially intriguing witnessing, which if juxtaposed to Kate's own two massive slip-ups that point down to the 9pm time on the 3rd May 2007 night (see link) becomes mightily interesting, we can also note an outstanding choice of words. So the PJ would have said "BURIED"? Wow, somehow I doubt it. Why would highly trained detectives in a police force say this word in particular? Out of the hundreds of possibilities to conceal or dispose of a body - especially if temporarily - why would the "BURIED" option pop out?
So perhaps this is yet again another slip-up, or a clue. Perhaps in the end, Maddy's body was buried somewhere, after all.

Here is all I can find regarding a witnessing of two people carrying something like a bag. Note, the alledged event has TWO very different versions, one witness correcting the other (both friends). The first version is in black font, highlighted.

The man, according to the first lady's reporting of the other's, was of some undescribed sort of nationality, but the lady with him, 'for sure', was, at first, Portuguese... The COLOUR of the 'bundle' isn't specified, so if Kate has based herself on this, not only she would be very bad at disguising as a Portuguese woman, since, ah ah, she STILL got recognised, and secondly, how did she know that the 'bag' was "BLACK"?

But hang on...
Worse, if she really means this apparently ONLY witnessing that is available in the files, (or please comment to provide a link), she clearly NAMES then, herself as the lady, and Gerry as the man!

-Unless I'm proven otherwise, because my search has been extensive, it well seems that once again, Kate has landed herself in it. ;) FULL REPORT:

"2967 to 2968 or 25 to 26- Service information re suspicious sighting in Praia da Luz
2969 to 2970 or 27 to 28 Email re sighting in Praia da Luz [English] 05 14 pensos V Vol XIV 2967-2970.





Service Information

Date: 2008-05-02

To: The Head of the Criminal Investigation

From: Inspector Joao Carlos

Subject: Supposed sighting

According to the results of the previous information, received by email we can infer that this was a third party intervention, in other words, the person who reported the sighting was not the person who saw it. Patricia Grainger alleged that her friend Rosemary Walley who lives in Portugal, concretely in Praia da Luz at about 8 -10 minutes from the apartment Madeleine disappeared from. According to Grainger, her friend Walley, on the night of the disappearance or on the following morning, she does not make this clear, when she was in her garden, supposedly facing the room, she saw a man wearing a sports jacket carrying a rucksack/bag. He was accompanied by a Portuguese woman (it is not clear how she deduced the nationality). The couple got into a mini van and left the scene.

The information is laconical, imprecise and quite vague, there is no reference to the British child or to any other child. Once we got hold of Rosemary Walley's telephone number and when we spoke to her and told her the reason for our phone call she was speechless. She said that she did not know anything about the disappearance nor about the sighting, saying that the information provided by her friend was fictitious or a misunderstanding. She added that she had told her friend that on the night of the disappearance she saw a man and a woman, the former was carrying a golf bag on his shoulder and that she said this bag, in jocular terms and out of pure derision be linked to the missing girl. That it was a joke made in bad taste as she did not see anything that could conclude or infer this sense, it was a normal couple, nothing more.
With no more to report

Inspector Joao Carlos

Pages 2969 - 2970 are in English:

Fax from Inspector Paiva

To: Joao Silva Pereira

Date 2nd May 2008

Importance: High.

From: DIC Portimao

To: Inspector Paiva

Date: 2nd May 2008

Importance: High


From DC John Hughes

To: DIC Portimao

Date: 2nd May 2008

CC. Graham Michael

Importance : High

A new possible sighting on the night of 3rd May 2007. Please advise if further enquiries needed here.

DC John Hughes

From: Southan, Daniel

Sent: 2nd May 2008

To: Task

Subject: Madeleine McCann

We have received information from Patricia Grainger regarding a possible sighting of Madeleine on the night she disappeared.

Grainger states she has a friend who lives in Portugal named Rosemary Walley. Walley lives about 8 - 10 minutes walk from the apartments Madeleine disappeared from.

Walley told Grainger that on the night in question she was sitting in her garden in the early hours of the morning (Grainger can be no more specific about the time), when she saw a male in a sport coat and flannels carrying a bundle, he was with a Portuguese female. Grainger can offer no further description as she did not witness these events.

The male and female got into a people carrier and drove away.
Grainger was told this information some time ago but Walley did not wish to report this to the police either here or in Portugal. Grainger states that her conscience got the better of her and she decided to call the police herself and give this information. It is recorded as West Mercia incident log 208 - s - 010508. Both Walley and Grainger are elderly aged in their 70s.

Grainger lives at **** Worcs.

Walley has two addresses, her address in England is *** Worcs.

Her address in Portugal is:

Casa Clung, Caixa 401z, Praia da Luz

Walley is currently at her address in Portugal and is unaware that Grainger has called in with this information. Grainger thinks Walley will fall out with her if or when the police make contact with her over this.

Grainger is more than willing to speak with you if you wish to contact her.


Dan Southan "

Strangio, no? But after all, we are in Fantasy Land...

Addition from The Daily Mail, UK:

The police also had a witness who claimed to have seen Mr and Mrs McCann carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously.Mrs McCann says their lawyer warned them: ‘If you were Portuguese, this would be enough to put you in prison.’
The McCanns said they were treated appallingly even before they were made ‘arguidos’ – suspects – in September 2007.
In light that they did not get charged for neglect they got off lightly

Sunday, 5 June 2011


30 May 2011 - Credit: Justice For Maddie Blog
"I wonder why the McCanns did not threaten to sue these experts for "libel" or the Daily Mirror for publishing it? It is hard to attack the truth, their story never has added up and tells both British and Portuguese Police loud and clear, they are not looking for anyone else, no matter how many weirdos the McCanns use public monies to come up with. At the time, even the FSS commented the inquiry is focussing in the right direction.

I applaud David Cameron for taking a step for children and for justice. Who knows I may even change the habit of a lifetime and vote for him!

Tick tock, Kate and Gerry

McCanns evidence 'doesn't add up'
Stewart Maclean In Praia Da Luz Stewart.Maclean@Mirror.Co.Uk 18/10/2007

EXCLUSIVE THE HUNT FOR MADELEINE Brit team questions Kate's reaction
A team of British crime specialists who have scrutinised the Madeleine McCann case claim there are inconsistencies in her parents' version of events.

The retired experts believe there is a question mark over Kate's response when she discovered the four-year-old was missing.
Forensic scientist Professor David Barclay, part of the four-man team who reviewed the case for Channel Four's Dispatches show, said: "We examined all of the available evidence and the conclusion we came to was that there appeared to be some significant inconsistencies.
"One thing we looked for was any sign of 'staging', the term we use for the actions of someone who has committed a crime and wants to 'stage it' to appear someone else has done it.

"The first words apparently spoken by Kate McCann when she discovered Madeleine had vanished were significant. She is supposed to have said 'They've taken her, they've taken her' - which seems a strange choice of phrase.

"I don't think that would have been my first reaction if my child had gone missing."

Prof Barclay also questioned the McCanns' claims that an abductor got into their Praia da Luz holiday flat through the back shutters.

He said: "We checked the scene of the crime and it struck us immediately how unlikely it would be for anyone to try and access the apartment through the back windows. The shutters there were firmly shut and couldn't be opened and the car park behind the flat was overlooked. "We're not saying it was impossible to have gained entry that way, but with all of our collected years of experience to us it seemed highly unlikely and a very implausible scenario.

"It could be that claim is consistent with staging, but without full knowledge of all of the facts in the case it would be impossible to say for sure."

Prof Barclay visited the crime scene along with ex-Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Stevenson, the man who caught Soham killer Ian Huntley and psychological profiler David Canter.

The will seen on tonight's show visiting key sites and seeing footage of the police in action.

Prof Barclay, 62, added: "There has been a tendency to criticise the Portuguese police but on the whole they did a pretty good job.
"However, they made two big mistakes. Firstly, they did not seal of the crime scene anywhere nearly quick enough. Secondly, in my opinion they were not aggressive enough with the McCanns in the first stage of the investigation.

"It is actually for the parents' benefit in cases like this that the police tackle them robustly and demand a comprehensive account of their movements during the relevant timeframe."

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

The PAYNE theories

This is only the start of a longer post. It will get edited after some searching and writing time.

There must be quite a few "Payne theories", one I can recall is not for the faint-hearted. The name David Payne (Dr) in the case is always associated in internet discussions with Dr Gaspars' statement, which implies paedophily talks and gestures having been expressed, according to the statement, by Dr Payne.[click] -More links and info on their way soon.

Howevever for now here is how I could put one "Payne theory" ;) as pre-written by myself as comment to our Friend Sasha's great blogpost Kate McCann book: David Payne pops up again, linked above, at the Little Morsals:

The thing is, even if it was Payne, say he was well placed cause he knew the MCS and Maddy well, and knew at any time where the MCs were, with the kids alone, and he was dressed like the abductor (as the social worker Yvonne Martin noticed on the 4th May morning) ...then Jane TANNER wouldn't have recognised him? Even "from the back", you KNOW when it's a friend you see.
 Winking smile
So bingo, LOL, Tanner's in it, for some reason Payne has killed Maddy, in silence ;), transported her (Tanner handling her to him over the window sill), virtually under the nose of Gerald who was distracted by
Wilkins: another suspect, new!! NewsFlash! ;) - what for, who knows? Body parts selling? mmmh...

Fiona stayed with Kate, who never budged, no she didn't search like mad like she pretends in her book [TRUTH] , by the way, while, erm, Fiona's husband pretending he's searching makes sure the 'deal' or 'burrying' or whatever is done... Gerry still not smelling a rat...
Meanwhile Gerry and Kate phone their family, having both given enough extra-time to the culprits by
waiting a long time (relatively, but every second counts as Kate says!) before the police is called, LOL!

They BOTH lie to their family that there was a forced entry [TRUTH] - once again satisfying the culprits, their mates, heee heeee, eeee...
They CARRY ON LYING saying Gerry even tried the effing shutter FROM THE OUTSIDE, yes, COULD push it right up easily, heeeee heeeee heeeee.... [I'm laughing for real as it's another TRUE FACT] and so on, and so forth.

What a funny little story! I've had a good laugh making it up. I hope you Readers too! Red rose


<><> <><> <><> <><> <><>
Volume I, pages 66 - 68

David Payne

"That the interviewee made this statement voluntarily. That he has been on holiday in Portugal since April 28th 2007, staying at the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz. That he plans to return to England on May 5th 2007 (Saturday). That he has known Madeleine's parents for around 5 years. That he was on holiday with Madeleine and her parents. That he came with a group. That the group is composed of nine adults and eight children. The adults are: Diane, the interviewee and his wife (children: ***** and ***), Russell and Jane (children: **** and ****), Matthew and Rachael (child: ******), Gerry and Kate (children: Amelie, Sean and Madeleine).
That they decided to come to Portugal on a suggestion from the tour operator. That it was the interviewee who booked the trip.

Concerning the days spent in Portugal, the interviewee describes them as being all very much the same. He states that his family, composed of his mother-in-law Diane, his wife Fiona and their two children, spent their days more independently than other members of the group. They were most often with the couple Russell and Jane.

Concerning the remaining members of the group, normally they met them in the morning and went for breakfast together at the "Millennium" restaurant, after which they left their children at the Kids Club and the adults went to do sports inside the tourist complex or they went to the beach. The couple Gerry and Kate usually had breakfast in the apartment.

It was also usual to have dinner together every night.

With the exception of Saturday, when they all dined at the "Millennium" restaurant, every evening the group met at the "Tapas" restaurant at around 8.45 for dinner.

While the adults were dining, the children were sleeping in their respective apartments.

In answer to our question, the interviewee states that during all the meals, he never went to his apartment or to any of the group's apartments, because he has an "intercom" and the signal carries from the apartment to the restaurant. The other members of the group went, randomly, every 20 minutes, to their apartments to make sure their respective children were asleep.

Concerning yesterday evening, he states that he, his wife and his mother-in-law arrived at the restaurant at around 8.55pm. According to what he remembers, when they arrived, all the members of the group were present, apart from the children, who were in bed in their respective rooms.

During the evening, Gerry, Jane and Matthew went, alternately, to their children's bedrooms to check if they were sleeping. He thinks they physically went into the apartments. He no longer remembers in what order they went see their children.

Towards 10pm, Kate went to her apartment, and less than 5 minutes later, she came back to the restaurant, breaking down, reporting that Madeleine was not in the bedroom.

Then everybody went to the apartment occupied by Madeleine's family. He remembers comments concerning the fact that the window and the shutters to Madeleine's bedroom were open, while they had remained closed throughout the week.

That the apartment occupied by Madeleine's family comprises two bedrooms, a small kitchen, a lounge and a bathroom. That the lounge has a door which gives outside access in the direction of the restaurant. He does not recall any more details of the apartment but he remembers that the bedroom occupied by the children has a window that looks onto the car park that accesses the main road. That he never went into the said bedroom but he could see that there were two beds and two cots. The cots were placed in the middle of the bedroom. One of the beds was placed against the window and the other, the one occupied by Madeleine, was against the wall facing the one which has a window.

In answer to our question, the interviewee doesn't know how many times Madeleine left the tourist complex, but he knows she went, at least once, to the beach.

That during the holiday, he saw nothing abnormal concerning the couple Gerry and Kate, neither with their children nor, notably, with Madeleine.

In the context of the group, nothing out of the ordinary happened, either.

That during the whole holiday, and particularly during the day and the night yesterday, nothing unusual happened in the tourist complex, which attracted his attention, or which could be correlated with Madeleine's disappearance.

He describes Madeleine as being a communicative girl, happy, obedient and very well behaved.

Madeleine's parents are very sociable people, known by lots of people, kind and affectionate.

Madeleine is the daughter of both elements of the couple.

She was very wanted and is the result of "In Vitro" fertilisation. There was no difference in treatment between Madeleine and the twins.

He doesn't know if Madeleine suffers from any illness, nor if she is on medication. He has nothing more to say that could help the progress of the investigation."

A possibility I've been thinking of :
-PAYNE STATEMENT PJ 4th May: he claims he NEVER went to HIS flat due to the Baby Monitoring device...

- he claims he was ALWAYS therefore at that Tapas' bar.

-apparently he claims he never went even to the 5a "for a slash" ;) - yet Gerry not Kate claims he was the one visiting Maddy on the Wednesday night... which is contradictory as only Gerry says this adding "I think"...

...why didn't he mention this if was true... or did Gerry want to give some false impression, like Kate does all along her book?

NOW: Since Payne had the Baby Monitor , and they all "SAW" that it was SO easy for him and Fi, don't you think they would have arranged for all the kids to stay at the PAYNES'  flat, perhaps making turns to sleep there as couples, to allow the others a good night out?

(NOTE: if the case, none of them said it... so why hide it... to facilitate an abduction story easily from the very open and reachable 5a flat?)

It would explain other things:

-USING THE 5A as a toilet-station (as Kate mentions in her book)

-the DIFFICULTY -even impossibility- to provide anything with Maddy's DNA (were the kids given clothes and shoes, towels, toothbrushes and all regardless of appartenance?) - only a towel was provided to PJ... why not sweaty sandals etc...?

All the kids would be at the Paynes'. The NOTE to the receptionist would be just an excuse to be at the Tapas everynight instead of elewhere, using the late creche.

The CHAPLINS.... Kate and G would be there when it's not their turn to be at the Paynes' with all the kids.

All would pretend that the McCanns' children were at the 5a, precisely also to hide them better, knowing that the 5a is to exposed. And that's why they never bothered locking the door.

Now all the tapas lied with them because, simple, they were already in the lie. Maddy died at 5a because it was BEFORE her sleeping time. As said for the twins, who were getting to bed later and later each day during the following summer (book) Maddy's sleeping time must have been more between 8:30 - as usual for kids that age- and 9 pm...

She died at that time, 8:30 to 9 pm, that's why no forensics results were found in Payne's flat.

"the night we found her." (see You Tube, Gerry's slip-up, Antenna3 tv)

if Gerry said this on purpose it's to hint at an accident. Both to me they don't sound like killers, liars, bad actors yeah, greedy and fashionable, snobs yes, but somehow not killers... I can be wrong, perhaps it WAS pre-planned, orchestrated, then .... etc etc, was the dna planted? quite risky... was the kid hidden for a future sequence of the plan? Maddy found... £££££

-this can include the "other embryo"... 2 stones unturned at once!

if they found her dead, say on the floor, where were they returning from , say at 8:30, 9 pm?

Imo, they didn't. They were THERE. They were IN when she died! Therefore the accident theory is NUL! cause then, why lie? They only had to call an ambulance! they could be just next room and kid falling from top of settee, what's then the need to lie? by the way what were the chances? nothing was unsafe in the flat, while the kids were supervised...

Note: I get the 9 pm bit from

now I must look for the BLACK BAG WITNESS (click)

Please feel free to post your own theories or/and any other comment or link in the provided space below. Red roseRed roseRed rose

My Maddy Rose - to YOU Madeleine - & FIRST EVER ARTICLE 4thMay 00:01!

First Ever Madeleine Rose
From a Rose Tree Called Maddy
Planted by myself in our home garden in June 2007 in England
With Great Hope
May This Rose Tree Bring Children In The Whole World Happiness.

An Orchestration from pre-written SCRIPT?

Here is the FIRST EVER ARTICLE... just a bit EARLY! At ONE MINUTE past Midnight on the 4th May 07!

The current URL of the story in question is:

Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal
By staff and agencies
12:01AM BST 04 May 2007
"A three-year-old British girl has gone missing while on a family holiday in Portugal, the Foreign Office said today.
Portuguese police are investigating the disappearance from a holiday complex in Praia da Luz in the western Algarve.
A Foreign Office spokesman said that he understood the girl's parents had gone to have dinner once their children were asleep last night, but returned to check on them only to find the girl had gone missing.
"They reported it straight away," he said, adding that consular assistance was being offered. "

The dateline of this story is 12:01AM BST 04 May 2007. In Portugal the time would have been the same 12:01 AM, because that country is in the same timezone as the UK.

There is some dispute as to the exact time that Madeleine's disappearance was discovered and reported by Kate McCann. For the sake of discussion, let's say that the disappearance was reported at 10:00 PM on May 3, 07. A British child goes missing in Portugal and exactly 121 minutes later a press story appears on the website of the Telegraph newspaper announcing that there is a child missing in Portugal and this announcement is made by the British Foreign Office.
121 minutes!!!

Let's try to construct a timeline of events working backward from the precise moment at 12:01 AM when someone pressed the key on their computer to upload the story to the web.

12:01 AM 04 May 07: Story is uploaded.

11:58 PM 03 May 07: Story is typed up and proofread.

11:45 PM 03 May 07: Data entry staff receives email from editor containing story after having been phoned and alerted to situation.

11:35 PM 03 May 07: Night editor of Telegraph receives phone call from publisher or editor in chief informing him of the details of the story which he takes down over the phone. There is minimal discussion. He relays story and instructions to publish immediately to his staff.

11:15 PM 03 May 07: Foreign Office press officer phones Telegraph publisher and relates the substance of the story and requests immediate publication of it. He agrees to accept attribution of the story to the Foreign Office. There is some minimal discussion. The publisher agrees to print the story in accordance with long established protocols between the press and the FO.

11:13 PM 03 May 07: Mr. X, a functionary of the British Foreign Office at a level somewhere in support of the Minister of State for Europe, Geoffrey Hoon (in 2007), gives instructions to the FO press officer, above.

11:00 PM 03 May 07: Mr. X is instructed by a superior in the Foreign Office to relay the substance of the story of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to the Telegraph through established channels.

This is irregular and it is difficult to understand the purpose of it. Mr. X would have remarked this undoubtedly. Usually such stories would be "broken" independantly by the press itself or through official statements from Interpol or other police agencies.

The "Foreign Office" attribution for the story is the sticking point.

Keep in mind that only a little over an hour has passed since the disappearance of the child! What if the child were to be found? Twenty minutes later the British Foreign Office might have to issue another press release with the happy news.

If the British ambassador in Portugal were the first member of the British Civil Service to hear of this story and wished to expedite press coverage of it, he would normally use backchannels of his own to alert the press and ask for an "unnamed sources" attribution of the story.

Keep in mind that even a quickly solved child disappearance is a winner in press circles. The ambassador would not have to twist arms to get the story published, or would he?

Does the press normally publish stories about children who have been missing only for a little over an hour?

10:XX - 11:00PM: Information and a request for assistance in the matter of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann moved from Portugal to a ministerial level in the UK where discussions took place and a decision was made to issue an alert to the press, with Foreign Office attribution, for a child who had been reported missing less than an hour before.

10:00 - 10:XX Madeleine was discovered to be missing and after searching for less than an hour, political help in the situation was sought in the UK and received.
This is truly impressive. Rule Britannia! Congratulations to the FO.

Over here in the boondocks of Canada our "External Affairs Department" doesn't have the balls to issue a press release when a child goes missing for an hour. Shame shame you "two bit" ex-colony of woodchoppers and fur traders. Take a leaf from the FO's book. Not a sparrow falls from a foreign limb without being observed and aided by the FO. And on such short notice too. Less than an hour and they are on the case. Truly incredible.

Strange though, that one doesn't hear the constant praise of the FO being sung by British travellers around the globe. I'm inclined, myself to believe that they are much like any other government department. Wily, but slow and deliberate.

But according to a secret U.S. diplomatic cable, Britain refused to speak to Mr Dyer or his captors in the weeks before his execution - and were aware that the Briton was facing a death sentence unless the terrorist's demands were met.

The cable, published in The Daily Telegraph, reads: 'In January ould Mataly offered to put British officials in telephone contact with the British hostage - an offer the British apparently never accepted out of fear that speaking to the hostage could put them into a position of having to negotiate with terrorists.'

If the British Foreign Office and its masters are wily, but slow and deliberate, isn't it more likely that the timetable for their deliberations and actions, actually started a day earlier than advertised, and that they only seem to be alert, quick and decisive, not to say impetuous, gallant and slightly hysterical?

But that is precisely the claim being made by the blog Unterdenteppichgekehrt, that Madeleine died on the 2nd. of May, 07, a day before the public became aware that something was wrong in Praia da Luz. "