12 - Avr/Oct - Dr MR 7b

 

@mccannfiles.com

A Norse! A Norse! My Kingdom for a Norse!

Same Beans, Different Grounds

A Matter of Trust

Threatening Gestures

The Lie of the Land

As Writ

'Out, damn'd spot'

Doctoring the Results

Give them an inch...

Why the tumult?

Defensive Wounds

Seventeen Come Sunday

It Never Rains...

Catriona And The Waves

A Norse! A Norse! My Kingdom for a Norse! - 09.04.201

Assuming of course that Madeleine McCann is in the hands of a not-so-swarthy Scandinavian, secluded in a land where, 'with her looks, she could blend in fairly easily.'

And so the McCanns went off to 'do media' in Sweden, where a journalist, who had no doubt been told she was to meet and interview Kate and Gerry McCann, was greeted by the pair with 'Hi, Gerry.' 'Hi, Kate.' As if she might for some reason have had difficulty deciding who was who. (Making allowance for Swedish sexual liberalism perhaps?). But don't get your hopes up. The dialogue was no more convincing once they were all sitting comfortably:

Gerry McCann [voice over]: I don't think you can give up, even when we've been exhausted to the point of saying 'I just want this to end', you go to bed, you get up the next day and you think, 'she's still missing and we still need to find her' and I think most parents understand that.

And what, exactly, would Gerry like to end? Not the search for his missing daughter, surely? That's what they travelled to Sweden to promote, as Kate will later confirm. But first we hear from her:

Kate McCann [voice over]: I mean, I... I feel she's out there. I feel that there's... there's more to come. I just need it to be soon.

Well of course she's 'out there.' Where else could she be? (No, don't answer rhetorical questions, on the grounds that, etc., etc.). Yet 'there's more to come' You betcha!

Annika Widebeck [voice over]: How convinced are you that she is still alive then?

Gerry McCann: Well, I try to look at it as logically as possible. What we do know is that there's no evidence, at all, to suggest that Madeleine's dead and that means there's a good chance that she's alive, and as a parent I couldn't accept that she was dead without irrefutable evidence that she is, so...

We'll do the logic bit in a moment. First the lie: 'there's no evidence, at all, to suggest that Madeleine's dead.'

No evidence at all to suggest, eh? Viva Zapata!

'...that means there's a good chance that she's alive.' No it does not. If I may quote from an entry in Wikipaedia (on a completely different topic - substitute 'that Madeleine is dead' for the phrase in parentheses):

'The argument that there is no evidence (of Shakespeare's authorship) is a form of fallacious logic known as argumentum ex silentio, or argument from silence, since it takes the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence.'

So, a bit more effort on the logic front required there I think, Gerry.

Kate McCann: And I think we do know of so many cases now of children who have been abducted and have, you know, been away for years and sometimes decades.

Was that two, or three rediscovered in the last five years? I forget.

Annika Widebeck: Like when you're walking in like a Swedish beautiful weather, do you think about now, at this very second, she can be some place and wonder about where?

Kate McCann: I do... It's funny you mention about the weather because it's days like this when I think 'oh, what a lovely day' and that's when I think 'but this would be a lovelier day, if Madeleine was here', errm... (big sigh) I do... I mean... I don't... I try not to speculate too much. I really don't know where she is, all I hope for is that whoever's with her is looking after her and that she's happy, and even that is... is, errm... is sad because, you know, the thought of her being happy with somebody else, when she should be with us, and being happy and, you know, there's no doubt that a child's best place is with their family.

The weather. A singularly British pre-occupation. And on days when the weather is good and it is therefore 'a lovely day,' Kate thinks about how much lovelier the day could be, i.e. how much better even, the weather could be, if Madeleine were there. Apart from the occasional Welshman who believes himself to be a native American Indian, I don't know of too many Europeans who would place any faith in a 'rain dance.' The weather locally (to me, to you, to Kate McCann) is wholly unaffected by Madeleine's exact whereabouts. So in what sense could Madeleine's 'being here' enhance the day's loveliness?

The question to Kate McCann is about Madeleine. All Kate 'hopes for,' primarily, concerns whoever is with her (Madeleine, that is). This strange turn of phrase made its first appearance during the McCanns' very first televised appeal, causing Gerry to cast an irritated glance of disapproval in his wife's direction. It describes guardianship, not captivity. Furthermore, if the subject of the observation is a missing child, then one might expect to hear the phrase, 'whoever she's with' used as an adjunct to any discussion. Here, once again, the child is replaced as the topic by her 'abductor.' Why should Kate prefer/find it easier to discuss anonymous individuals rather than her own daughter?

Gerry McCann: You know, there was a very clear strategy at work that was, errr... trying to convey to the world that, errr... there was strong evidence that Madeleine was dead and we were involved and, in fact, thankfully the prosecutor's final report makes it absolutely clear that, you know, there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's certainly no evidence to link us, errr... to implicate us is any way. So...

So... there's that same old misrepresentation again. Followed by a remark that swerves to avoid danger like a frightened charioteer in the film Ben-Hur: '...there's certainly no evidence to link us, errr... to implicate us is any way.'

Might that have been, 'no evidence to link us to her disappearance,' perhaps? (At which point, those who enjoy a good 'stand-up' routine might picture another notorious Glaswegian, standing all of six feet, one hand on his hip the other stroking his beard, replying, 'Oh, you b****y think so?').

Kate McCann: The damage, errm... that was done with all the media reporting with the lies and speculation and fabrication and being made arguido. I think the damage was ongoing. We've had this in other countries, outside the UK and Portugal. Unlike the UK and Portugal, where the story carried on, some... in other countries it stopped, so it stopped at the dramatic, 'oh, the parents are involved' and then, you know, they moved on to another story really, and all I can say to people is please, please read my book.

Not, '...please be vigilant and look out for my daughter.' 'Please read my book’ (available at the usual retail outlets), where you will find an ‘account of the truth,' comprising lies, speculation and fabrication to counter that of the media referred to earlier.

Gerry McCann: Madeleine could have easily been taken out of Portugal within the first two hours and that's the problem. We have no idea where she is, we don't know who's taken her and we don't know why, so unfortunately for us we want as much awareness as possible that Madeleine's missing and obviously with her looks she could (laughs) blend into Scandinavia fairly easily.

'Madeleine could have easily been taken out of Portugal within the first two hours and that's the problem.' A problem exacerbated by the McCanns having given the abductor a two hour head start (Madeleine 'taken' at 9.15 or thereabouts, local police first contacted at 10.50 p.m., arriving at the scene some 12 to 15 minutes later).

Note also the categorical statements of ignorance. The McCanns apparently have no knowledge of 'where,' 'who' or 'why.' Really?

Gerry McCann: I think certainly there's been remarkably few child abductions since Madeleine was taken.

Remarkably few genuine child abductions to be sure. Coupled with an equally remarkable upsurge in the number of faked ones. Trend analysis anyone?

Annika Widebeck: Tell me how far away was this restaurant?

Gerry McCann: I mean it was incredibly close. I think if you had to draw a straight line from the restaurant to the apartment it was 50 metres. It never entered our head for a second that somebody would steal your child, it was the furthest thing from your mind, so...

Two metres might be 'incredibly close.' Fifty metres is like the other side of the dual carriageway. Just think of 'cross the bridge for motorway services.' And by the way, Annika's child, if she has one, was never at risk, so there was little point in Gerry agonising on her behalf.

Annika Widebeck: And still you hear this all the time why did you leave them... right?

Kate McCann: I mean, there's only so many times we can answer the question and, you know, I've had to... you know, I've persecuted myself with that, you know, obviously... (sigh) I can't change it, I know how much we love Madeleine, you know, and at the end of the day the person who has taken Madeleine is the one who has committed the crime and, errr... and that's who we need to find.

Basically, 'there's only so many times we can answer the question,' ('Why did you leave them?') and Kate's not going to answer it now either as it turns out.

All in all another media moment that's as transparent as cellophane. Still, it did provide some pictures to remind us all of how 'destroyed' the McCanns have been by others opinions of them.

('As he walks along the Bois de Boulogne with an independent air, you can hear the girls declare, 'He must be a millionaire...!').

Same Beans, Different Grounds – 27.04.2012

A little over two years ago a deep and disturbing strategy was detected as underpinning the McCanns' half-hearted inclinations toward a Portuguese re-opening of the archived investigation into their daughter's disappearance (Wake Up and Smell the Coffee - McCannFiles, 18.2.2010).

Central to the plan was a collection of new 'leads,' which the McCanns' Portuguese advocate, Isabel Duarte, crowed about in Lisbon, before, during, and after the court hearing at which the McCanns sought the imposition of an injunction upon Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie. This was a civil case don't forget, the litigation involving no agencies other than those representing either the McCanns or Goncalo Amaral. Hence it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the stratagem concerned was, by whatever measure, a McCann initiative.

That strategem was to induce the Portuguese to re-open the Maddie case on the strength of these new 'leads;' leads that had already been dismissed as being without merit and which had accrued after the primary investigation had been set aside. Had it succeeded, the Portuguese police would have been saddled, indefinitely, with the obligation and interminable expense of an open-ended inquiry. The former arguidos, on the other hand, could bask in the knowledge that they were comfortably outside the new frame of reference, while continuing to seek sponsorship of their 'search.' The ruse was subtle and turned essentially upon the substitution of 'recommencement,' for 're-opening,' the new starting point being post-archival.

All the while the original investigation sits on the shelf, with the McCanns resident inside the box marked 'not exonerated,' it festers as a wound, against which all the PR in the world is ultimately no more effective than band-aid. Unless they are able to demonstrate their innocence to general effect through legal channels, other than initiating actions for defamation of course, then the only way forward for the couple is to amputate the offending limb. That was, and remains, the objective.

After one or two false starts, the current 'review' sprang from the traps like a desperate greyhound, following a very public appeal to Prime Minister David Cameron by The Sun newspaper. Now if there is one thing to be learned from the evolution of the McCann case, it is that it could be a mistake to take things at face value - whatever their point of origin. Despite, therefore, others' very reasonable belief in the impartiality of the on-going Met. Police review, the air of deja-vu, like the odour of decomposition, is more than faintly detectable. Even those whose ears are closest to the ground may have been fooled, by the more obvious tremors, into overlooking the deeper, long-wave seismic activity.

Much as expected, DCI Andy Redwood personally, and one suspects deliberately, delivered an empty envelope during the recent BBC 'Panorama' broadcast (Madeleine: The Last Hope?) But to whose advantage? Why mount the soap-box if you've nothing to say? Madeleine might be alive. There again she might be dead. Oh, and we believe she was taken from the apartment illegally. Splendid. Now please refund the Police allocation from my Council Tax bill! If that's what £2m. buys I'd as soon shop elsewhere.

But this is no laughing matter. Besides assiduously (or so we are led to believe) addressing themselves to 40,000 pieces of information gathered by the PJ and other agencies, the Met. have apparently identified 195 avenues ripe for further exploration, on which basis Redwood and colleagues are hopeful that the Portuguese might, at some future date, re-open the Maddie case. And that's with three-quarters of the work remaining, as far as the review is concerned. On a conservative estimate therefore, the Met. could find themselves nursing some five hundred pointers for the PJ to go on and explore. That's rather more than the number of 'leads' which Isabel Duarte considered, and considers still, to be pivotal to her own argument, which she personally re-presented for the benefit of 'Panorama' viewers.

There is an anecdote concerning the CEO of Coca-Cola who, when requiring a new initiative from the incumbent ad agency, was told: 'We'll put ten writers on it immediately.' To which he laconically replied: 'Why not one good one?' Goncalo Amaral has voiced the same pragmatism very recently with regard to the '195' suggestions for further investigation. Five should be enough. If they're genuinely worth pursuing, that is.

The right thinking view that the Met. must stand aloof in all this is sadly compromised by their acknowledgement of collaboration with the McCanns, in producing yet another instrument in support, not of their own official review duties but the parents' 'appeal' activities. Pleas for information, accompanied by photographs varying in their currency, have been heard loud and long for the past five years. It does not now require another evolved image to be purchased at the taxpayer's expense. As cynical a question as it may appear, how important is Madeleine McCann anyway? For £2m. (or more), the BBC could recruit an established personality to present a weekly five-minute appeal on behalf of all the UK's missing children - perhaps Kate McCann even. That would give her something to do and spare her the agony of running round the equivalent of Hyde Park every so often.

I digress. We should, I believe, be concerned that the Met. have been in liaison with McCanns at all. Although the Portuguese have seen fit to rescind the status of 'Arguido,' Leicestershire Police, when it counted, were absolutely clear that there were no demonstrable grounds for ruling them out of the inquiry as it stood, even after it had been 'archived' abroad. What consultation, beyond 'What do you think of this one?' might we not have been appraised of by DCI Redwood?

This point of view will no doubt be considered melodramatic by many, but 'a source close to the McCanns' has already provided a useful hint as to its accuracy. According to The Mirror online (April 27th, 2012):

'Last night a source close to the McCanns said: "Kate and Gerry agree with what Scotland Yard said on Wednesday. They will speak publicly next week."'

And in The Sun:

'Kate and Gerry McCann had been given fresh hope by a Met review of the investigation.

'Yesterday a source close to them said: "They were hoping the Portuguese would see sense and agree. But it seems not.

'"There is a little girl missing — that is all that should matter. They feel the best hope of finding Madeleine lies in the case being reopened."'

Which, in a nutshell, tells us that Scotland Yard and the McCanns are 'singing from the same hymn sheet,' their common purpose being to convince the Portuguese to re-open the investigation - on their terms. But now, instead of the eight/eighty/eighty-eight leads tendered by Isabel Duarte two years ago, we have one hundred and ninety-five (and counting) clues, coming from no less an authority than Scotland Yard. And why should the McCanns, after years of 're-opening' avoidance, be particularly disappointed at the immediate and negative reaction from Portugal? Because the Portuguese are simply not prepared to buy what the they and the Met. are proposing to sell them! And why should they.

The peoples of the Iberian peninsular are generally cheerful and abundantly open-hearted; characteristics which, unfortunately, tend to invite deception. They are not, however, anyone's fools. Like the last number played aboard the sinking Titanic, the melody in this instance may differ according to which side of the Pond you're from, but the lyrics remain the same regardless. Under the terms of reference proposed originally by Isabel Duarte and latterly by the Metropolitan Police, the McCann case would become the police equivalent of a Mandelbrot set. The investigating authority (i.e. the Portuguese) could amuse themselves indefinitely exploring the same function in ever decreasing degrees of magnitude (or clairvoyant sightings of infinitely varying clarity if you'd rather), whilst the McCanns alone would have the luxury of admiring the full picture.

The current situation is either the result of an unholy alliance, or else the consequence of 'political correctness' deriving from what might be termed the 'balloon effect;' something the McCanns recognised and exploited very early on. The more a balloon is inflated, the louder the 'bang' should it burst. Hence fewer people are inclined to rupture it. The McCanns, through their new mouthpiece the Met., are trying to blow yet more air into the Maddie balloon, but the Portuguese, having already thrown a net over it, see no reason for it to expand further. And who would blame them? For all the mutual stroking going on in the UK, Portugal has no vested interest in anything other than rigorous police work in this instance. Their politicians have to be mindful of their voters after all. Alan Johnson’s talk of a 'charm offensive' is a day late and a dollar short. Five years has passed and too many people now know too much for any more wool to be pulled over their eyes.

So we arrive at a peculiar stalemate, with no-one in authority on either side of the water prepared to cut the Gordian knot. It simply is not in their interest to do so. Anyone in the UK who occupies any kind of public or 'visible' corporate office (in the media, say), were they to denounce the McCanns, would become, overnight, as popular as the Plague (Isabel Duarte would vouch for that). From the Portuguese standpoint, simply re-opening the case would plunge them straight back into the quicksand from which they have only recently emerged, since the investigation has but one direction it can take.

The breakthrough, if there is to be one, is more likely to arise out of left-field, instigated by someone with nothing to lose. It is not beyond the realms of feasibility. But, as Robert Redford discovered toward the close of the film Three Days of the Condor, damning revelations can only be effective if others are allowed to read them. The victim of this crime herself having set an unwarranted precedent, it is therefore entirely possible that Madeleine McCann will not be unique in having disappeared without trace. 'Evidence' can do that also.

A Matter of Trust – 15.07.2012

The title of this piece is borrowed from Billy Joel, arguably one of the greatest songwriters of the last century, and a line from this very song will be used in conclusion. But first a quote from Kate McCann: "As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, 'One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they're still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.'" According to this reasoning, three or more coincidences within a given context are unlikely all to be chance occurrences. With this in mind, certain historical aspects of the McCann affair may perhaps be viewed with more than a hint of scepticism. To begin at the very beginning...

At 10.00 a.m. on the morning of May 4, 2007, the British Consul arrived in Praia da Luz from Portimao, less than twelve hours after Portuguese police had been alerted to the unexplained absence of Madeleine McCann from her holiday accommodation. Who, one wonders, made the suggestion (or issued the instruction), either late on Thursday night or early the following morning, that the Consul's presence at the scene would be a good idea? Perhaps the same source coincidentally prompted the arrival, also that morning, of Ambassador John Buck from Lisbon, considerably further away. Ambassador Buck himself announced to the assembled media on 8 May:

"Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. As you know I spent quite a lot of time with the McCann family on Friday and over the weekend..."

The Daily Mail once carried a report (the on-line version since deleted) of how an unnamed British diplomat expressed personal doubts about the McCann case directly to the Foreign Office, 'over four months before Gerry and Kate were named arguidos (suspects) on September 7.' Indeed, as the Mail recounted, 'The diplomat was sent to the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in the days following the four-year-old's disappearance and soon became concerned over "inconsistencies" in the testimonies by her parents and their friends.'

'Over four months' has to have been a date between May 4 and May 7.

'After visiting the McCanns, the unnamed diplomat sent a report to the Foreign Office in London, admitting his worries about "confused declarations" of the McCanns' movements on the night of May 3.'

It matters not at all whether the misgivings alluded to were expressed by Ambassador John Buck or Bill Henderson, then British Consul in the Algarve. Rather more interesting is that the diplomat responsible 'expressed his fears after receiving instruction from the Foreign Office to provide "all possible assistance to the McCann couple."' From which it becomes apparent that the Foreign office were extraordinarily quick off the mark in seizing the diplomatic initiative in this case, since the representative in question was sent to Praia da Luz and did not simply exercise personal initiative.

Far from the diplomat's being instructed 'in the days following the four-year-old's disappearance,' it appears that the wheels of officialdom turned within hours, before the news had even broken. Sky News carried the story in their 7.38 a.m. report, but Lisbon is a three-hour drive from the Algarve. Is it reasonable to suppose that the Foreign Office, having only just become aware of the situation, would immediately have instructed 'their men in Iberia' to get themselves to Praia da Luz with even greater immediacy? That certainly wasn't Kerry Needham's experience. Although Greece is a touch more distant than Portugal the telephones still work.

The Portuguese at the time requested answers from the British authorities to specific and highly pertinent questions in order to expedite their investigation. Certain information was required as a matter of urgency. It never materialised. Instead Praia da Luz was overrun with diplomats. The frustration underlying Gonacalo Amaral's published remark ('Who are these people?') is easy to see and to understand in such circumstances.

In the same period when Ambassador Buck was conveying the state position to the media, i.e. five days after the 'disappearance,' Cherie Blair, wife of the then Prime Minister, was in personal communication with Kate McCann. The latter has told us so (Madeleine, p.118). Question one: How did CB come to be in possession of Kate McCann's mobile phone number? Was it through: [a] 118 Directory Enquiries [b] A McCann family member who had the temerity to contact No.10 (that's certainly Auntie Philomena's style) [c] Kate McCann previously leaving a message on the Downing Street answerphone or [d] one or other diplomatic channel? Or did she just 'phone a friend?'

Public announcements of awareness and sympathy on the part of government representatives are all well and good, and largely expected nowadays, but a personal 'phone call from one of the Prime Minister's family...? Anyway, Kate was told at that time of a person who would become 'another valuable source of information;' a Blair contact by the name of Lady Catherine Meyer, 1999 founder of the charity PACT. Said charity's 'homepage' reads:

"PACT has been building and strengthening families across the Thames Valley since 1911."

Meanwhile Lady Meyer's earliest known portrait, housed in the loft somewhere, remains undiscovered. As does the nature of whatever advice she might have given Kate McCann concerning how to operate a charity to best advantage.

Amid all this counselling and consular effort there emerges another 'operative' - Special Agent Clarence Mitchell. Like the origin of life on earth, Mitchell's introduction into the process of barricading the McCanns is something of a mystery in its own right.

According to Kate McCann (Madeleine, p.148), Gerry first came into contact with Clarence Mitchell late on Monday 21 May:

"On Sunday 20 May, Gerry left for the UK...At Monday's meeting with the British police, Gerry was told about plans to launch an appeal in the UK aimed at holidaymakers who had been in the Algarve in the weeks leading up to Madeleine's abduction...It was later the same day that Gerry met Clarence Mitchell for the first time."

Gerry McCann's schedule, according to BBC News (21 May) was as follows:

"Mr McCann arrived at East Midlands Airport in the early hours of Monday morning...Mr McCann will return to Portugal on Tuesday morning."

Kate places Mitchell's introduction in-between these events. However, Hannah Marriott, writing for P.R. Week (28.11.07) gives a somewhat different account:

"Mitchell was first sent to meet Gerry McCann at East Midlands airport two weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. The pair flew back together to Portugal."

Notice that "Mitchell was sent" to meet Gerry at the airport, which can only have been to greet him from the plane very early on the Monday or join him for the Portugal bound flight on the Tuesday. Neither possibility is accommodated by Kate McCann's version. Kate continues:

"Clarence, a former BBC news correspondent working for the Civil Service was the director of the Media Monitoring Unit attached to 10 Downing Street...he was seconded to the Foreign Office to come out to Portugal to handle our media liaison as part of their consular support for us."

A bit heavy on the 'consular support' don't you think, given that Tony Blair had previously and personally dispatched Sheree Dodd to Portugal for the very same purpose. And just how instantaneous are such 'secondments' anyway? Who oversees the cuttings office while the editor-in-chief is en vacance? Decisions with respect to Mitchell's enforced shift in allegiance, the identity of his understudy, to say nothing of his own personal concerns as to how big a bag he should pack, had to be taken in advance of his meeting Gerry McCann and boarding the plane. The Portuguese investigation had been on-going barely a fortnight, if that. Nevertheless, Mitchell, who at a given point in time is attached to No.10, is seconded to the Foreign Office (not by them) at the instigation, one presumes, of the 'club' that still held his registration, i.e. No.10. So Cherie Blair and Kate McCann have a convivial tete-a-tete on the 8/9 May and Mitchell is filtered into the mix at Downing Street's behest shortly thereafter.

Marriott further informs us that, once in Portugal, Mitchell "spent an intense month of fifteen-hour days with the family."

What! To explain that your daughter's been seized by a person or persons unknown and that you're 'sorry you weren't there at that minute' would not take fifteen minutes, let alone a month of fifteen-hour days. Forgive me. I'm trivialising the fact that Madeleine McCann was, for some reason yet to be discovered, the most important child on planet earth, who happened to be a British citizen requiring state back-up that stopped just short of mobilising the armed forces, as Mitchell himself goes on to reveal (within Marriott's account):

"He had to return to his government role, and others handled the McCann PR. But even then, he says, the family still called him for advice in his own time...'But I couldn't help them beyond the odd 'phone call, because officially the government couldn't be seen to be involved.'"

And unofficially?

If this isn't Mitchell simply 'bigging up' his early role in the affair, then further scrutiny of this remark is definitely called for. The catalogue of Mitchell's manoeuvers since on behalf of his clients the McCanns is sufficiently extensive to warrant examination of its own.

No sooner had the McCanns become associated with Mitchell (May 21/22), through the intervention of No.10, than they were in telephone contact with the man-next-door, Gordon Brown (May 23). And then someone turned the kaleidoscope. The pieces remained the same but shifted into different places. On June 27, a month after the introduction of the pink catalyst, the Blairs were suddenly obliged to leave Downing Street so that Gordon Brown could have their apartment, having just been given Tony's old job.

At the spearhead of 'New Labour' throughout their ultimately successful election campaign, Gordon Brown was a true 'conviction politician,' long on strength of belief and short on prudence. In his first speech to The Labour Party as Leader, on 24 September 2007, he declared, "I stand for a Britain that defends its citizens and both punishes crime and prevents it by dealing with the root cause." It's not at all difficult to see how the new Prime Minister's position would be somewhat compromised were he to be faced with a situation in which these very principles were found to be in conflict.

There is an arresting (pun intended) video on YouTube which poses a number of very germane questions regarding the McCanns' behaviour throughout the investigation into their daughter's disappearance. It concludes with the question of why, when a convincing sighting of Madeleine was reported from Belgium, the McCanns' reaction was to visit Huelva, in Spain. Strangely, this type of counter-intuitive behaviour is not unique to the McCanns.

Later in his party address as PM, Gordon Brown stated: "Two thirds of deaths from gun crime occur in just four cities. In the last few weeks Jacqui Smith and I have focussed on the specific areas in these cities..."

In the year 2006 - 2007 just over half of all firearm offences occurred in areas covered by just three major forces - the Metropolitan Police in London, Greater Manchester and West Midlands. The situation remained unchanged two years later, as noted by The Independent of 8 January, 2009 which reported, "Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands Manchester or Merseyside. There were six deaths in the West Midlands, four each in Manchester and Merseyside and two each in Kent, Shropshire and West Yorkshire. Other deaths were recorded in Cornwall, Derbyshire, Glasgow, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Northumberland and South Yorkshire."

This was 2008 don't forget. But 2007, the year in which the Brown possee visited areas in each of the four most fatal cities, must have seen the statistical ice-berg topple over, for on 12 September 2007, no doubt as a feature on their crime-prevention itinerary, Brown and Smith visited a police station in - Beaumont Leys, a suburb of Leicester.

This is the same Gordon Brown, who the following month was dutifully advised that Goncalo Amaral had been removed from his role as co-ordinator of the 'Maddie' investigation in Portugal, before even Amaral himself was notified. There has to be some explanation as to why the then Prime Minister should have maintained a personal level of involvement in the McCann case once the parents had returned home as suspects in their own daughter's disappearance. After all, the government had apparently ordained that Civil Servant Clarence Mitchell could no longer speak for them for that very reason, according to Kate McCann (Madeleine, p.255). Defence of the citizenry overseas is scarcely appropriate when the subjects are safely on British soil. And he needn't have entertained thoughts of pre-empting extradition. The McCanns took care of that aspect themselves with their 'appointment' of Michael Caplan Q.C. Or did they?

Joshua Rozenberg, the Daily Telegraph's legal editor, commented for BBC News Magazine on 14 September, 2007, "When he (Michael Caplan) went to see the McCanns last Sunday, he went in through the front door." Whilst he might not have been waiting at the foot of the aircraft steps like Clarence Mitchell, Caplan clearly did not have to wait for an invitation from the McCanns. According to BBC News Magazine, he was waiting for them on arrival. 'As Kate and Gerry McCann headed back to their Leicestershire home for the first time since their daughter Madeleine disappeared, they were visited by a man few recognised.' On this account he as good as followed them home from the airport!

It is undeniably tempting to speculate as to whether the Brown-Smith excursion to Beaumont-Leys three days later afforded the opportunity for someone to ask, en route and personally, "How did you get on with Michael?" Of course Kate McCann has an alternative explanation for the sudden introduction of Michael Caplan Q.C.

"Saturday 8 September. We were on tenterhooks all day, waiting to hear whether we would be allowed to go home. Rachael had found a couple of criminal lawyers in London she was sure could help us...Gerry gave them a call. They discussed Madeleine's case in detail, what had happened so far and how Kingsley Napley might be able to assist us." (Madeleine, p. 254).

Things need to be put into some kind of perspective at this point. On Saturday, September 8, Gerry decides, on the spur of the moment almost, to 'phone a pair of London based lawyers from Portugal and, after discussing Madeleine's case in detail, what had happened so far etc., etc., by phone, a deal is struck. So Messrs. Caplan and McBride were able to assimilate over the 'phone the detail of five months in a matter of minutes, whereas it had taken Clarence Mitchell face-to-face interaction for a month of fifteen-hour days to get to grips with the history of a fortnight?

Rachael - former corporate tax lawyer now working as a recruitment consultant - Oldfield, was not of course in evidence at the time of the McCanns' panic 'phone call. (Make no mistake, the pair who were made arguidos on September 7 and who 'resisted the temptation to flee' across the Spanish border on the Friday night, only to catch an early flight back to the UK on the Sunday, were in a hurry).

This is Chapter 17 and Rachael who had found the two lawyers (quite fortuitously it would seem) had previously gone home (Chapter 9) briefly to return to Portugal on Thursday 11 July (Chapter 13) in order to meet the PJ's request for further questioning. She did not stay on until September 8, meaning that if she had been responsible for identifying the suitability of Kingsley Napley, incorporating extradition supremo Michael Caplan, she discovered them through diligence, not by chance, and weeks (if not months) earlier. And yet Gerry McCann waits for the car to crash before he tests the brakes?

They escape nevertheless.

"On the advice of the lawyers, we decided to get out as soon as possible. We would go the next day rather than leaving it until Monday." (Madeleine, p.254).

We are clearly expected to believe that this was a minor adjustment to new circumstances. ("Finally, and very reluctantly, I agreed to set a date for our departure. Monday 10 September it would have to be." Kate decides - two chapters earlier). But - "Then it was all hands on deck to pack everything up and clear the villa. Michael volunteered to stay on for a couple of days to organize the cleaning, hand back the keys and arrange for our remaining belongings to be shipped home by a removal company." (p.254-5). Isn't that leaving things a tad late if the departure date has been decided for weeks already?

Back to reality (following touchdown at East Midlands Airport).

"For us, it was straight down to business. Michael Caplan and Angus McBride arrived that afternoon for a thorough discussion of our situation." Clearly Gerry's anxious call the day before had not quite covered all the details. Then - "On Tuesday 11 September we had an 8.00 a.m. conference call with Michael Caplan, Angus McBride and Justine."

Let’s summarise at this point.

Early May, 2007: A channel with No.10 is opened, and maintained thereafter.

September 7: The McCanns are officially made 'persons of interest' in connection with the disappearance of their own daughter by Portuguese authorities.

September 8: Gerry McCann, 'phoning from Portugal apparently, discusses their situation with Angus McBride and Michael Caplan Q.C., without knowing whether Portuguese authorities will even allow the McCanns to leave the country. They are cleared to depart later that afternoon and, on the advice of the (same) lawyers, elect to leave the following day.

September 9: The McCanns return to their home in Rothley, Leicestershire, where they meet with Michael Caplan Q.C., having spoken with him by 'phone little more than 24 hours earlier. (Fortunately for them he works Saturdays and is happy to give up his Sundays for the cause also).

September 11: An 8.00 a.m. 'conference,' again involving Michael Caplan Q.C.

September 12: Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith visit Leicester - definitely not one of the more dangerous cities in the UK if assessed in terms of gun-related deaths.

October: Prime Minister Brown is given the news of Amaral's removal.

Five years and the 'stonewalling' of many an FOI request later, the crime balance sheet for the McCann account is not at all encouraging. Millions of pounds sterling have been spent by the exchequer, directly or indirectly (on top of the Portuguese millions in euros), with nothing whatsoever to show for it. No child recovered, alive or dead, no culprit prosecuted, or even apprehended. And while UK limited has seen the loss of significant assets in the form of important forensic expertise (specialist dog-handler Martin Grime and his expert canines are now in the USA working for the FBI and the Forensic Science Service is closed for business), the only books to show a healthy inward cash flow are those belonging to the McCanns, until some rather extraordinary expenses outweighed the donations that is. Of course the case review, since placed in the lap of Scotland Yard, remains incomplete. But with an interim dividend amounting to a heap of dead-end reasons why the Portuguese should waste yet more of their time and money pursuing illusory abductors, the long-term projection seems equally un-profitable. The Labour government's inaugural commitment to being 'tough on crime and the causes of crime' has not since, unfortunately, included 'getting to the bottom of crime,' certainly as far as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is concerned.

As Billy Joel insightfully put it:

"When you've heard lie upon lie, there can hardly be a question of 'why.'"

Threatening Gestures – 16.07.2012

Having followed the 'Maddie' case from the outset, and commented publicly upon it for a number of years, recent events have caused me to view the affair from an altogether different perspective. No, I have not been 'got at.' Of course I have been incensed by the blatant injustices on many fronts. I would not have devoted so much time to analyses of the case otherwise. But there is only so much to be learned, so much to be accomplished by continually patrolling the base of a pyramid. To really appreciate the significance of its dimensionality it is essential to adopt a different point of view. And I am not talking about succumbing to the idea of a swarthy abductor or cabal of unidentified child molesters.

I do not shrink from admitting that I too was initially astonished by the 'safeguarding of international relations' argument brought forth to justify the withholding of intelligence in the face of several FOI requests. There have been numerous astonishing developments over the years. However, those of us who throw up our hands in disbelief at officialdom's use of the phrase 'international security' or the like are perhaps guilty of a singular and significant oversight; namely, that the very disappearance of Madeleine McCann was itself an international incident, with potential consequences on several levels.

Self-preservation as a principle is a given among homo sapiens. But in any hierarchically organized society, 'looking after number one' is sometimes best accomplished by acting (or at the very least appearing to act) in the interests of others besides. The successful conduct of International Relations demands that players on the international stage see the bigger picture.

So what picture should we be looking at in the McCann case? I would suggest that the government then (and the government now) have acted in the ways they have, not despite 'early warning signs' that the parents of Madeleine McCann may have been involved themselves in a misdemeanour, but because of them.

Only the other evening I listened to a rather smart comedian who pointed up the absurdity of the concept 'War on Terror.' "What results from a declaration of war?" he asks of a hypothetical advocate for the Bush/Blair position. "Terror," they reply. "So you're waging war on the consequences of your own actions then?" Such humour immunises us against depressing acknowledgement that world leaders as often as not depend on the gullibility of the masses for their own survival. And if the masses cannot be misled they can be subdued. This is, I accept, a cynical point of view, but one has only to flip through the pages of history to see how deception via propaganda has a long track record. A tried-and-tested method for keeping one's place on the throne, as it were, is that of convincing those outside the palace that the other man is the enemy.

As society has evolved, so too has this 'threat,' becoming increasingly abstruse in the process. Hence post-war generations in the west have been warned against (among other things) 'communism,' 'alien invasion,' 'nuclear attack' and, of course, 'terror,' the last being a real 'doozy.' A-specific to a fault, it can be blamed on any disaffected minority whatsoever, and at any time. Thus it can never be neutralized.

Largely as a direct result of 'war debt' to our erstwhile transatlantic colony, the British Isles have long since become USS UK, an aircraft and cruise missile carrier permanently stationed in the North Atlantic. It doesn't matter much who gets to captain the ship, since they are never going to command the 'battle group' of which it is a member. In similarly subordinate fashion the Westminster government has been honour-bound to adopt the same cautionary attitudes toward the same perceived enemy as that determined by the White House. This state of affairs is reliably reflected in manifestations of the public consciousness (think Quatermass, The War Game, and the long-running Blair case for WMD).

But what has this to do with Madeleine McCann?

An explanation as to why those 'major threats' conceived across the pond have had a relatively short shelf-life on this side of the water until now would be a little tedious, as the reasons are pretty obvious (a visiting Martian would surely aim for a larger tract of land, for instance). So, if we may simply accept it to be the case, we can open up the need for others to come quickly off the substitute's bench. There's nothing like the threat of an epidemic, for instance, to get healthcare professionals excited. The pharmaceutical industry is wholly indifferent to whether it originates in birds, pigs or cattle, as long as the claim is made that the disorder can, and therefore will, cross the species divide. Mass vaccination is a real money-spinner.

Then there's the threat of global warming, and related environmental considerations. Nowadays the cost of a UK road fund licence is determined by the level of carbon di-oxide emissions from the vehicle in question (the lower, the cheaper). Is this really to encourage drivers to become environmentally conscious through their operation of smaller cars boasting lower levels of fuel consumption and associated emissions? Or is it to provide yet another boost to the automotive trade, by encouraging the widespread purchase of newer vehicles through financial coercion? Well, it seems to have worked, as the current government is now in not-quite-secret talks with motor manufacturers, in an attempt to establish how best to recoup the revenue loss consequent upon the widespread switching of owners to cars in lower tax categories.

I have deliberately saved the most relevant, Maddie-related threat for last.

Followers of the case will not need to be reminded of the frequency with which the spectre of paedophilia has been introduced into the media commentary. As threats go this one is by no means new (this particular deviance is chronicled as accompanying imperial decadence in ancient Rome), but the threat has grown in perceived importance down the years. In the more recent past, cases of fatal child abuse, such as those involving Myra Hindley and the Wests, have occasionally erupted into the public spotlight. But the eruptions have since become more frequent, including false-positives to help sustain levels of public attention.

Film makers profit from being alive to 'topicality.' Note therefore a remake of the film 'The Wicker Man' after a thirty-three year interval (the original was released in 1973). In-between we had the infamous 1991 Orkney child abuse scandal, characterized by its actually being a case of widespread non-abuse, i.e. normality (the scandalous element was the behaviour of the so-called welfare authorities). Needless to say, mere suspicion of the demon provoked a witch-hunt, just as it did in the case of Operation Ore, a turn-of-the-millennium persecution of suspected child pornographers, modelled on an American precedent (Operation Avalanche), and being both principal product and funding sponge of CEOP (you know, the Jim Gamble vehicle that justified his appearance in Praia da Luz alongside genuine investigators).

Yes, folks. In the absence of an imminent national catastrophe occasioned by a nuclear strike (the 2003 invasion of Iraq took care of that), or a widespread disease epidemic, child abuse is a serious threat to society; a threat which the British government not only acknowledged but demonstrated a willingness to deal with decades ago. Such moral guardianship is 'politically correct' in a big way; especially if you are New Labour, the resurgent broom promising to sweep society clean by being 'tough,' not just on crime but 'on the causes of crime.'

Fast-forward now to Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3, 2007. A little girl is reported missing from her holiday apartment. Within hours the report is an international one of a little British girl abducted from an apartment in Portugal. In a demonstration of due diligence, ambassadorial staff are dispatched to the scene of the incident, in order to offer support to our distressed citizens overseas. UK police also arrive to assist. A good thing. Within just a few days however, reports come back of doubts attending the veracity of the parents' story. A bad thing. And suddenly there is a serious and altogether unexpected problem.

There will always be unfortunate individuals who fall victim to crime, whether at home or abroad. By and large, unless they invite the transgression, they are afforded sympathy. On learning of a child abduction, and with no grounds for other suspicion, it is entirely reasonable that people in general should be sympathetic toward the parents. They were in this case. So too was the government. For the vast majority of observers nothing will have changed for quite a period. Even we sceptics, long since allowed access to the Portuguese police files, can have had no idea at the time of the precise details of the investigation outside of the sometime contradictory accounts coursing through the various media channels. Damaged shutters or no, no one was privy to anything like the hard data sufficient to confirm any growing suspicions, even remotely, never mind absolutely. No one, that is, save for the investigating team, which included British police, and British government representatives.

All the while the culprit could be identified as an anonymous stranger, the stigma of his (or her) motive could be brandished in support of sympathy for the parents. But what if they themselves were involved in some way? That would make them accomplices at least to an act of aggression against a minor, child abuse if you will. And if there were no third-parties involved? Then, in the light of there being no abduction, the parents would have to be viewed as guilty of something altogether more serious. And early 'intel' pointed to exactly that. So what was at stake here?

The exposure of a homicidal doctor capable of doing away with their patients (or their wife!), while not conducive to good image-building, is something from which the NHS could always recover. Society has not lost its faith in general medicine on account of Harold Shipman, any more than it did in the wake of earlier cases (e.g. Palmer, Crippen, Buck Ruxton). But a doctor (or doctors) culpable in the demise of their own child? That one hadn't previously been tested. Furthermore this was not a 'domestic' incident, in the sense that neither it nor its ramifications were confined to the UK. It happened (and was developing) overseas, in the full glare of international publicity (the McCanns themselves had seen to that). In addition, those at the very centre of the investigation, the case being one of child abuse whether abduction was a feature or not, were esteemed professionals, not the sort of council estate refugees with whom one might more instinctively associate such a crime. Worse yet, a clutch of others just like them were quite possibly involved in some way. The equation: A handful of UK doctors = one dead child, if valid, could have an impact worldwide on the perception of the medical profession, British society and, by extrapolation, the government, analogous to e=mc2.

A morally upright government, ostensibly; one seriously concerned with combating the child abuse they had already identified as a threat to society, sponsoring the activities of CEOP and taking yet another lead from the USA, was looking at the enemy, the very threat the executive (police) were dealing with on our behalf, made manifest within the ranks of its very own professional classes (remember the declaration of 'war' on the consequences of one's own actions?). So when the un-named member of our ambassadorial staff questioned the wisdom of further government involvement in the case, he inadvertently placed the following options on the table:

1. Cut the parents adrift, let them take their chances and hope the investigation runs aground.

2. Support the parents to the hilt and ensure the investigation runs aground.

Now which of these alternatives, do we suppose, offers a guaranteed outcome?

The McCanns and their media allies have kept the case in public view for a long time. Had the Portuguese pursued their investigation to the point of prosecution, the McCanns, unlike the international media, would probably not have been quite so keen to advertise the 'situation' they would have 'found themselves in.' As we have seen since, Portuguese justice is slow moving. A criminal case brought against the McCanns, with the prospect of exposing an evil canker deeply embedded in British society, the very threat against which the British public were being warned and 'protected,' and at considerable cost, would itself go on for an uncomfortably long time. Such exposure would be blatant, widespread, and international.

Shortly after the McCanns' return from Portugal, the world learnt that they held certain legal insurance, in the form of the available services of extradition lawyer Michael Caplan Q.C. Caplan had previously gained an international reputation through his successful contribution to the legal arguments that forestalled extradition, from the UK, of General Augusto Pinochet, erstwhile dictator of Chile. Ironically, it is this very case to which one may turn for a paradigmatic explanation of the British government's treatment of the McCanns.

Under the auspices of a Labour government, Pinochet was arrested and held, pending extradition, in accordance with an international arrest warrant issued in Spain. As things turned out, upholding the letter of international law did the government no favours politically (Pinochet had been a US 'transplant' originally and latterly a confidante of Margaret Thatcher. Despite its declared neutrality, Chile played a positive, albeit subtle role in the Falklands conflict, on Britain's behalf). Following extensive legal wrangling in the House of Lords (the prisoner was under 'house arrest' but not on trial as such), Pinochet was not extradited to Spain after all. Instead, in March 2000, he was allowed by Home Secretary Jack Straw to return to Chile, having been diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a condition from which he appeared to recover appreciably once his plane had touched down.

Less than a decade later the young democracy of Portugal found itself upholding the letter of the law within its own land, investigating and proceeding toward the prosecution of two members from a coven of British doctors. The Labour government, having previously learned an important lesson about law, even international law, versus international relations, could not fail to see this as 'not a good development.' There followed protracted negotiations (cf. 'legal arguments'). The Portuguese, no doubt reminded of the Pinochet case, as it was ignited by their immediate neighbours, Spain, took the hint. Eventually the suspect status of the McCanns was rescinded, the case shelved and the oh-so-nearly-accused doctors allowed to return to the UK, with little or no prospect of their emerging subsequently from the bunker.

So now where are we?

Unless or until a clear case is made in a criminal court somewhere, the McCanns are legally not guilty of involvement in their daughter's disappearance (it's been said often enough). There is no case for them to answer, and certainly not outside of a court of law. Whatever they might say to the media, or however they choose to appear before them, there is no risk of a conspicuous slur against the medical profession, NHS appointments criteria, the more affluent echelons of society or the government itself.

The only snag for a government sponsoring the McCanns' liberty is that, like victims of their own blackmail, they would now have to maintain the new status quo. In short, the McCanns would have to be kept out of court, at least for the duration of the administration, if not for the duration - period. The Serious Fraud Office won't be knocking on their door any time soon therefore.

So, as 'the Fund' slowly atrophies to the point where it is finally acknowledged that Madeleine is dead and the 'search' need not continue, Kate McCann is found a 'role,' at a level appropriate to the replacement of her GP status, while Gerry can devote time - a lot of time - to writing up the results of his many publicly funded studies. And the Portuguese? Well, if they really must bow to internal pressure and re-open their investigation, then there are hundreds of 'investigative opportunities' they can occupy themselves with for the foreseeable future.

Such is the legacy of a Labour government. But that party is now on the other side of the House. Does this mean the new administration will 'do the right thing' by all those who believe Madeleine McCann was not abducted, not to mention the Portuguese, scoring party political brownie points in the process? Unfortunately no. Any accommodation previously arrived at between the two governments will have been by negotiation and agreement, and since the Portuguese will have been equally party to it (even if the terms were unequal) they would not appreciate this being brought out into the open, as undoubtedly it would be. Also, international relations transcend party politics. The 'special relationship,' so-called, between Britain and the USA, for example, is maintained, and generally workable, whatever combination of Democrat-Republican-Conservative-Labour forearms engages in the diplomatic hand-shaking. And that gives rise to a testable hypothesis:

If the Metropolitan Police should exercise the investigative option contained within their Operation Grange remit (as clearly they ought to), then we may be sure that the current government in Westminster is genuinely (and properly) distanced from the McCanns. If, on the other hand, they conclude their review with nothing more to show for it than a 'to do' list intended for the Portuguese, then we can be just as certain that the Coalition Government is continuing a policy toward the McCanns that was inaugurated by their predecessors, as whatever deals may have been struck with the Portuguese were struck before the Coalition took office.

Personally, I won't be holding my breath.

The Lie of the Land – 18.07.2012

Kate McCann tells us (in 'Madeleine,' chapter 17):

"Saturday 8 September. We were on tenterhooks all day, waiting to hear whether we would be allowed to go home. Rachael had found a couple of criminal lawyers in London she was sure could help us. Michael Caplan and Angus McBride of Kingsley Napley had worked on several high-profile cases, including the Pinochet extradition proceedings and the Stevens inquiry. Gerry gave them a call. They discussed Madeleine's case in detail, what had happened so far and how Kingsley Napley might be able to assist us.

"Late that afternoon, we were notified by Liz Dow, the British consul in Lisbon, that Luís Neves and Guilhermino Encarnação had declared us 'free' to leave the country whenever we wished. Thank you, God.

"On the advice of the lawyers, we decided to get out as soon as possible. We would go the next day rather than leaving it until Monday."

Rachael Oldfield had found a couple of criminal lawyers, obviously while she herself was back home in England, and before Kate and Gerry McCann were re-interviewed prior to being declared 'arguidos.' "Rachael, a lawyer by profession, was working in recruitment." (Kate McCann)

One might reasonably wonder why Rachael had earlier thought a couple of UK criminal lawyers might be useful in connection with a child abduction inside Portugal. But that's the least of it. Just how and where did she find this 'nap hand?' (Messrs. Caplan and McBride both worked for Solicitors Kingsley Napley). Her own legal experience, several years distant, had been in Corporate Taxation.

Following Euclid, 'the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.' Might there perhaps be a more direct 'straight line' connection between the McCanns and Michael Caplan QC than one involving the speculative research of Rachael Oldfield?

"Michael Caplan and Angus McBride of Kingsley Napley had worked on several high-profile cases, including the Pinochet extradition proceedings." (Kate McCann).

Indeed they had. So too had the barrister instructed to argue Senator Pinochet's case before the House of Lords: Clare Montgomery QC. Miss Montgomery is an associate with Matrix Chambers of Gray's Inn, London, a founding member of which is Cherie Booth QC, otherwise known as Cherie Blair QC, who we are told was in telephone contact with Kate McCann personally. ("As we were walking up from the beach at about 5pm, I had a call from Cherie Blair, in her final days as wife of the prime minister." - 'Madeleine,' chapter 8).

Once again, "Saturday 8 September...Gerry gave them a call" and "On the advice of the lawyers, we decided to get out as soon as possible. We would go the next day rather than leaving it until Monday."

The following information comes courtesy of 'Yahoo! Answers:'

Q: Do solicitors open on Saturday?

Does anyone know of a solicitors either in the Portsmouth or Chichester (England) area that would be open on a Saturday?

'I need to sign some documentation relating to a divorce in their presence but can't seem to find anyone open on a Saturday.'

[5 years ago (i.e. 2007)]

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

'Solicitors do NOT open on Saturday. They are ONLY open Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.'

Source(s):

I used to work for a solicitor, one friend is a secretary in a solicitor's office and another IS a solicitor.'

[5 years ago (2007)]

So, five years ago (8 September, 2007), Gerry McCann took advantage of a contact previously established by ex-Corporate Tax Lawyer Rachael Oldfield, supposedly, and made a spur-of-the-moment telephone call to the offices of UK Solicitors Kingsley Napley, managing to speak at some length to criminal lawyers Michael Caplan QC and Angus McBride, both of whom (unlike their colleagues) just happened to be at work all day that Saturday. The lawyers first discussed how they could be of assistance. Then, later that same afternoon, they advised the now 'free-to-travel' McCanns to leave Portugal at the earliest opportunity.

I too believe in Santa Claus.

As Writ – 16.08.2012

Readers are indebted to the Sunday Mirror (12 July 2009) for the following information relevant to the McCanns' forthcoming court action against Goncalo Amaral in Portugal:

"The lawsuit...accuses Amaral of being a self-obsessed, manipulative money-grabber with no morals"

Altogether unlike author Kate McCann, whose own best-selling (money-making) book 'Madeleine' reveals her to be... a self-obsessed, manipulative money-grabber with no morals.

Self-obsessed?

'Madeleine' is a work comprising 23 chapters. The subject is 'written out' of the story after chapter 5, the remainder of the book being concerned with events after her disappearance. The book includes:

921 instances of the word 'Madeleine' (the 'subject' of the book)

2063 instances of the word 'I'

1781 instances of the word 'we'

562 instances of 'us'

Manipulative?

'Madeleine' includes both an admission of earlier lying and further examples. The author has since committed perjury (before Lord Justice Leveson).

Money-grabber?

The McCanns claim Mr Amaral's repeated insistence that their daughter is dead has discouraged people from looking for her, whereas what it actually discourages is contribution to the corporate fund of which the McCanns are both directors, Kate with particular responsibility for 'income generation.'

No Morals?

What kind of mother answers the door to their apartment wearing nothing more than a bath-towel and describes her three-year-old daughter's genitalia in a book targetting a general readership?

"In a 36-page writ handed to the Sunday Mirror, they lay bare in painful detail how Gonçalo Amaral's accusations left them "totally destroyed" and caused them "irreparable" damage."

For examples of the McCanns' 'total destruction' see photos of the 1000 day anniversary dinner at the Rooftop Garden Hotel, London, and a clearly enjoyable holiday in Holland subsequently.

'Out, damn'd spot' – 23.08. 2012

"Out, damn'd spot" is a prime example of "Instant Bard," tailor-made for ironic jokes and marketing schemes. But the "spot" isn't a coffee stain, it's blood. One motif of Macbeth is how tough it is to wash, scrub, or soak out nasty bloodstains."

On 3 May, during breakfast, Kate McCann 'noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it out to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; nevertheless the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.' (KM witness statement, 6.9.07).

Whether one favours Kate McCann's 6 September (2007) account, as above, or her more recent version, adapted for 'Madeleine' (they differ in respect of the timing of events), what is puzzling about her decision to wash her daughter's pyjama top is not so much the nature of the stain, as why she bothered to wash the clothing when she did. As Kate herself explains, the 'tea stain,' or whatever it was, was a day or so old. Additionally the soiled top had already been slept in at least once, with no ill effects.

Why, with Madeleine's having three pairs of pyjamas (apparently), and with less than 48 hours of the holiday remaining, should Kate have been so determined to wash the middle pair - the pair that got abducted - but not the first that was later 'thrown' into the back of the scenic, and with a clean pair as yet unused? (see article: 'Dormant Issues,' McCannfiles 29.4.11 ). Stain removal was obviously paramount. Furthermore, how did she know the pyjama top was dry by the afternoon, when she did not return to the apartment until 5.40 that evening, having spent twenty minutes (12.40 - 13.00) in the apartment for lunch not long after she'd actually done the washing? (See article: 'Washed Up?' McCannfiles, 5.1.12).

Kate gets around this last difficulty by changing her story. Instead of :

'When her lesson ended at 10:15, she went to the recreation area next to the swimming pool to talk to Russell until Gerry's lesson was over. Afterwards... they went back together to the apartment'

In Madeleine we read:

"I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine's pyjama top on the veranda." ('Madeleine,' p.64)

Thus giving the pyjamas double the drying time. In any event it seems they were dry enough for Madeleine to have worn them again that night.

But that still brings us no nearer to understanding why, with no history of 'wash and wear' that holiday, Kate felt it necessary to wash that pair of pyjamas specifically, coincidentally on the day of Madeleine's disappearance.

Those of a more macabre persuasion would no doubt wish to argue that Kate, like Lady Macbeth, was concerned to eradicate any vestige of biological fluid, e.g., blood, which might be considered incriminating in itself. Hypothetically, if the McCanns, despite their reassurances, were a party to Madeleine's disappearance that Thursday night, then there really ought to have been no need to wash her pyjamas at all, however suspicious the brown stain may have been, since anything untoward as regards stray items of clothing discovered after Madeleine had left the apartment could simply be ascribed to her 'abductor.'

The issue then is why Kate should have elected to wash the visibly soiled half of a pair of pyjamas when she did? Why not simply consign 'Eeyore' to the same metaphorical laundry basket as the first pair (later to be unceremoniously jettisoned in the boot of the car), wash them both on return to the UK, but break out the clean spare pair in the meantime? Unless, of course, there was no clean spare pare. Could she really not bear the thought of Madeleine's wearing a stained pyjama top for just two further nights (she'd slept in it once at least don't forget)? It all seems rather unnecessary; as if the Eeyore pyjamas were actually the only pair available to Madeleine that week. And then, irony of ironies, with Kate having made a special point of washing out a seemingly innocuous stain, the pyjamas are abducted, never to be seen again.

Kate's transient preoccupation with those Eeyore pyjamas may have been indicative of nothing more than a concern for 'keeping up appearances,' although few, if any, outside of Madeleine's immediate family, would have expected to see the garments, clean or dirty. And, if David Payne's testimony is anything to go by, they probably wouldn't have noticed the difference anyway. Kate clearly did not see the day old stain herself when she dressed Madeleine for bed on the Wednesday night. And, if her own suppositions are eventually borne out ('maybe it happened another day'), she may even have had yet further opportunities to record the blemish, without in fact doing so.

The pyjama washing episode was therefore of no real importance (on May 4). Yet it acquired a significance in the meantime, prompting its inclusion in the narrative come September. As we have already seen however, the remaining elements of the story left no time for it to be accomplished, so that, with the publication of 'Madeleine,' Kate has had to create a space in her busy holiday schedule actually to get the job done, contradicting her earlier statement to police in the process.

Some time that Summer therefore it became necessary for Kate McCann to explain why she had washed Madeleine's pyjama top. And with that essential established, it became just as necessary to place herself in the family apartment for the purpose, rather than be out and about, as she had earlier intimated. Kate was doing something in the apartment 'later that morning.' Washing pyjamas as it happens. She was still in the apartment (or back again, before 5.40 p.m.) doing something else, when she realised that the pyjamas were dry.

Kate clearly felt obliged to inject this episode of domestic trivia into both her later police statement and her subsequent, rather different, account of the truth. In what possible way could Madeleine's disappearance have been contingent upon clean pyjamas?

Give them an inch... - 26.08.2012

"There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is." (Bernard Hogan-Howe - Metropolitan Police Commissioner).

So what exactly is the 'likely outcome,' and why the need for a 'Government' decision?

The following is reported verbatim at www.keepyourchildsafe.org:

Child Abduction & Murder Facts & Statistics

1. Yearly around 750,000 children are reported missing in the United States, around 2,000 every day.

2. Most of these are runaways or kids taken by a family member.

3. Around 100 children are abducted and murdered in the U.S. each year. Around 60% of all child-murder abductions are at the hands of someone the child knows, not a stranger.

4. In around 75% of all murder-abductions, the child is believed to be dead within 3-6 hours of the abduction.

5. Nearly all murdered children are killed by a family member, most often a parent.

6. Most murdered children are not killed by pedophiles (sic) or sex-offenders, but by physical abusers, drug addicts, drug dealers, alcoholics, sadists (those who kill for thrill), and lain old otherwise ordinary people.

7. For every successful stranger abduction, there are many more failed attempts. It's hard to know the exact number, as many cases are disregarded by parents and never reported, and record keeping is spotty at best. But based on our own monitoring of news reports, we would estimate around 20 failed attempts for every successful abduction. So while only around 100 children are kidnapped and murdered each year (most by friends and family), countless others are tested! Make sure your child is prepared.

8. Women are the culprits in 68% of all child abduction cases worldwide.

9. Seven in ten children will walk away with a stranger despite being warned, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. This is because merely telling kids "don't talk to strangers" isn't enough. They need more substantial training in stranger danger.

References:

1. U.S. Department of Justice Statistics, 2007

2. Ibid

3. Ibid

4. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

5. Collins, K.A., Nichols, C.A. (1999) "A decade of pediatric homicide: a retrospective study at the Medical University of South Carolina." American Journal of Forensic Medical Pathology, 20, 169-172

6. Global Children’s Fund (2009) Child Risk, Castle Rock, Co: GCF Publishing

7. GCF

8. The Economist, "Money in Misery," 2-7-09, p. 21

9. NCMEC

Doctoring the Results – 27.08.2012

Talk about a good deed coming back to bite you. Our David's got a dilemma on his hands and no mistake. The family friendly PM who scored on everyone's card with his instant decision to support the Metropolitan Police review of the McCann case is faced, almost eighteen months later, with the need for another politically significant decision regarding this very same process, now that Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe has given the game away.

So what's it to be: Appear a skinflint by terminating the review, or ignite protest in these times of recession by giving the Met. the 'green light' to go over-budget, leave no stone unturned, and identify enough 'investigative opportunities' to keep Portugal's police in work for the foreseeable future?

Well it's not quite as simple as that, is it? It never is.

Immersed in the Commissioner's recent comment is the clue that the Met. already know where the train is going, and that the branch lines are closed. If his political masters would rather the police did not announce any such conclusion at this point in time, then they will have to fund the drudgery at Scotland Yard into an as yet unspecifiable future. 'Just paint the sides of the ship a different colour until we work out whether we should actually float it,' sort of thing. The stark alternative is simply to 'tell it like it is.' But that carries a major down side. What's worse, the slope of this escarpment could actually get steeper with time, so the cost of doing nothing would become incremental.

That's enough euphemism. The issue now bouncing around like a ping-pong ball in a squash court is the NHS.

UK limited is in dire financial straits. We may have spawned the Industrial Revolution, but we're no longer a manufacturing hub by any stretch of the imagination. Our financial services sector has propped up the balance-of-trade account for decades. Like selling off the family silver, we have survived by exporting 'unseens,' and must continue to do so if we are to survive at all. Even at a parochial level, that of the street-corner shop, say, no business transaction is an overnight affair. Major proposals therefore will take a long time to prepare, a long time to consider, and a long time to enact. So the idea of internationalising the NHS brand is not something that popped into a Civil Servant's head in a dream one night last week. It took four years to prepare for the London Olympics and there, centre stage, before the athletes had even entered the arena, we saw the message written in CAPITAL LETTERS: A proud industrial heritage, the solid foundation of reliability and progress; qualities manifest in post-war Britain and, in particular, the NHS.

For the McCanns to be exposed now would be like letting an amateur artist loose on a renaissance fresco. The problem is that she's prepared to camp out with brushes in hand until the barriers are removed.

How is the government's own PR machine, while extolling the virtues of an internationally recognisable UK brand, to camouflage the likely involvement of NHS doctors in the disappearance of a young child overseas? If that's the degree of trust on offer, then future clients, who are likely to see things a lot clearer than the average mis-spelling resident of these shores, might think the NHS capable of issuing hospital care bills for a patient who died on the operating table months beforehand, like Monty Python's parrot.

And let us not overlook significant others present at the negotiating table; a certain entrepreneur whose investment interest in healthcare will not have been affected by the recent derailment of his train, but who would, one suspects, rather not see the McCanns in the news for reasons other than promotional ones.

So, David. What's it to be? Do we launch the brand on a choppy sea now, or push the boat out into calmer water, whilst ignoring the storm force warning of conditions ahead?

Why the tumult? - 11.09.2012

There is a Spanish proverb which says, "If you're in a hurry, dress slowly." The gist of the advice is similar to that of film director Michael Winner's advertising catchphrase of "Calm down dear, it’s only a commercial." There are many benefits to keeping a cool head in a crisis, not the least of which being that careful, considered thought is more likely to yield an appropriate solution than reactionary behaviour - under almost any circumstances. Wyatt Earp did not survive the brutal experience of the O.K. corral by being 'the fastest gun in the West.' He was deliberate instead - and deadly. The inquiry into the Challenger shuttle disaster was given its critical direction, not by NASA and other corporate apologists passing the buck between them, but by the cool thinking, literally, of Physics professor Richard Feynman, who convincingly demonstrated the now infamous 'O-ring problem' using the beaker of iced water on the desk in front of him!

And in the context of missing children?

When I was about 10 or 11 and unusually absent from home one day, my mother voiced her concerns to a local neighbourhood 'bobby' (of the sort that existed in those days). A middle-aged family man, he understood people, children especially. Rather than scurry back to the station just a short walk away, to raise a hue and cry, he simply asked my mother whether I had been anywhere particularly interesting in the last week or so, in adult company or otherwise. When she told him that I had, and where, he calmly replied, 'Then don't worry. That's where he'll have gone.' And he was right.

The McCanns' behaviour in the immediate aftermath of their daughter Madeleine's disappearance was, one might suppose, just as predictable and naïvely spontaneous. Or was it?

It is entirely reasonable to assume that any parent faced with the inexplicable disappearance of their child would instinctively hope for the best, yet fear the worst. Once Gerry had told Kate he'd 'already started remembering cases of other missing children...acknowledging the horrific possibility that Madeleine might not be found' (Madeleine, p.80), 'the fear of Madeleine being dumped somewhere and dying of hypothermia started to hijack (her) thoughts.' (p.81).

Naive and spontaneous, it would appear; especially as the McCanns themselves have, after due consideration, come to an altogether different conclusion about abductees (Kate McCann: "And I think we do know of so many cases now of children who have been abducted and have, you know, been away for years and sometimes decades."). In fairness they cannot be blamed for not realising at the time that innocent pre-school infants are not typically snatched for the sexual gratification of paedophiles. And we have been reminded on any number of occasions that Madeleine was 'innocent' have we not?

So the McCanns' reactions were genuinely instinctive, like Gerry's burying his head in his hands, while those at the table with him formulated a written justification or two of their own recent actions (What on earth did they have to worry about?), or Kate's desperation for the intercession of God (as she tells us on p.78) or home (p.77). A child was missing, 'out there' somewhere, so Kate duly insisted that Gerry should go looking for her, while Gerry, for his part, delegated Matthew Oldfield as a 'runner,' charged first with asking Ocean Club staff to 'phone the police, then later, to check on progress. One minute they're in pieces, the next they're exercising their 'crisis management' skills. Instinctive or what?

Who wore the trousers?

If we accept the story of Madeleine's abduction to be true, then by the time her mother raised the alarm the child would have been missing for three-quarters of an hour, or more. Within half an hour, "All the screaming and shouting...alerted other guests and staff that something was amiss." (p.73). This will no doubt have included Kate McCann's own screaming at resort manager John Hill to "do something!" Meanwhile her personal contribution was to hit out at things and bang her fists on the metal railings of the veranda (p.74). And yet...

"Despite the horror of the situation, some sense of the necessity to approach the crisis calmly and methodically appeared to kick in among our friends as they tried to exert a modicum of control over the chaos." (p.74).

There you are, you see. Even Kate McCann recognises the importance of keeping calm under fire. So why didn't she? Why didn't they? 'Well how would you behave if it was your child that was missing?' Like Kate, 'at about 11.00 p.m.' I should probably have told the inquisitive Mrs Fenn that 'my little girl had been stolen from her bed.' (p.75) if I told her anything at all. I'm not sure however that I would have reacted quite as Gerry did, half an hour earlier.

(From the statement to Police of Mrs Pamela Fenn): "...almost 22H30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out "we have let her down" which she repeated several times, quite upset. She then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, she asked the father, GERRY, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to GERRY from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that when GERRY said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered GERRY help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22H30.

"She said that after the mothers shouts, she had seen many people in the streets looking for the girl.”

The mother was not among them you'll notice. Half an hour after discovering that her daughter had disappeared and the mother had not moved, 'urged' by husband Gerry to remain in their apartment, while he was 'running from pillar to post.' Eventually Kate and Diane Webster 'just sat staring at each other.' And with a non-relative given responsibility for the all-important communication with local police authorities, Gerry makes a number of 'phone calls home to the UK, including, at 11.52 p.m. precisely, one to Kate's 'Uncle Brian and Auntie Janet.' Following which the call Kate had been putting off (p.77) 'now had to be made' - to her parents.

Susan Healy: "I think it would be about half eleven - and I'm guessing now, I might be wrong - there was a phone call and it was Gerry on the phone."

Yes, Susan, you were wrong.

And all the while chaos reigns

(From Jez Wilkins' statement to Leicestershire police, 7 May, 2007) "The doorbell woke us up at about 1 am. It was the resort manager who I knew to be John and one of Jerry's friends. I think his name was Matt. He is white, slim, tall with greying hair. From previous conversations I knew him to be a diabetic specialist. We met him on the plane on the way to the destination. Matt said words to the effect that Jerry's daughter had been abducted, and that Jerry said he had seen me and wanted to know if I had seen anything. I said 'You're joking'. I offered help but they said there was nothing that could be done at that stage. We remained in the apartment but could see people around the pool and at the front with torches."

Since 'nothing could be done' Jez Wilkins was well advised to go back to bed. What a pity no-one thought to explain the situation more fully to the torchlight search party. While even later on the morning of May 4, "Gerry and Dave went out again to look for some sign of Madeleine. They went up and down the beach in the dark, running, shouting, desperate to find something; please God, to find Madeleine herself." And all on Kate's insistence. (p.80). We know Gerry was desperate to find something alright. There is a later photograph of him looking for it at the seashore in daylight. And, as the former co-ordinator himself has remarked, he probably wasn't looking for crabs.

We have a certain media craftsman to thank for drawing together the indices of Kate McCann's true nature that have been distributed over time, and for revealing how so much of what the pair have said and done over a five year interval has been anything but spontaneous. 'Calculated' would in fact be the appropriate descriptor. Furthermore, the sequence of cynical conduct towards the Portuguese extends, like a long-chain DNA molecule, back to the very first day, which implies that if there was a stratagem it was not an evolved one. It did not metamorphose into a winged insect overnight, but arrived into the world on May 3, 2007 like a foetus, fully formed.

During a telephone call to her 'best mate' Michelle (at about 3.00 a.m. on May 4) , answered by her partner Jon Corner, Kate quotes herself (p.79) as having said, "No one's listening! Nothing's happening!"

"The next thing I knew the PJ officers were heading for the front door."

Public denigration had begun with the first salvo of the couple's 'phone calls to the UK therefore.

And all that earlier hullabaloo? Well, why were POW escapees so keen to arrange community singing and other noisy pursuits? To mask the sound of digging. The cacophony surrounding apartment 5A on the night of May 3, 2007 simply made it all the more difficult for anyone to detect where the real melody was coming from.

Defensive Wounds – 12.09.2012

On p.74 of her book, 'Madeleine,' Kate McCann describes how she was...'hitting out at things, banging (her) fists on the metal railing of the veranda, trying to expel the intolerable pain inside.' This is no doubt the same railing atop the same veranda at which Kate was afterwards pictured coyly holding Madeleine's 'cuddle-cat' where the media photographers stationed below could see it. It's about two inches wide and appears more wooden than metallic, but that's beside the point, which is that Kate unswervingly describes herself as hitting the limited target area with her fists. Twenty pages (less than 24 hours) later and, for the first time, Kate 'noticed the ugly purple, blue and black bruises on the sides of (her) hands, wrists and forearms...Gerry reminded her of how she'd been 'banging her clenched fists on the veranda railing and the apartment walls the night before.' She could 'only vaguely remember it.' Well you wouldn't, would you? After all, twenty pages is history.

'Madeleine' by Kate McCann is nothing if not a littany of explanations, many of which deal with seemingly trivial details - seemingly. When it comes to describing her other 'bruising' encounter, with the PJ on September 7, she has this to say, among other things, regarding the video of Martin Grime and his dogs at work (p.249): 'The dogs ultimately alerted. I felt myself starting to relax a little.'

You did what?!

It makes absolutely no difference whether the child in question is three or thirty-three. If a mother whose child is missing, and who 'believes they were alive' when they left home (or were taken), is suddenly and unexpectedly told by someone in a position to know that indications are the child is dead, what is she most likely to do? Faint is what. Like the innumerable mothers of young servicemen lost during the two world wars, when they received their 'special telegrams.' Only on recovering their composure would they want or even be able to deal with, a more detailed explanation, like 'You're telling me my daughter possibly died in the apartment before they took her away?'

It would take more than an aspirin to help a compassionate mother cope with that.

And how did the other half of this scientifically sophisticated partnership react when he heard the news?

'When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler.' (p.250).

This statement is replete with significance. As is the one that follows it:

'From what I saw of the dogs' responses this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here. We would later learn that in his written report, PC Grime had emphasized that such alerts cannot be relied upon without corroborating evidence.'

So, 'When researching the validity of sniffer-dog evidence later that month...'

Valid under what circumstances, might one ask? A court of law perhaps? And why on earth should anyone desperate to find their missing child be pre-occupied with the legal weight of evidence, indicators, suggestions or arguments? The status of Madeleine McCann was, and is, wholly unaffected by such considerations. The only people genuinely concerned with 'validity' in this context were the parents, because the dogs did not confine their intelligence to one place and corpses are not noted for moving around unassisted.

Gerry went on to answer reporter Sandra Felguieras with: "I can tell you that we've obviously looked at evidence about cadaver dogs, and they're incredibly unreliable."

SF: "Unreliable?"

GM: "Cadaver dogs, yes. That's what the evidence shows, if they're tested scientifically."

As Kate was saying, Gerry's pre-occupation 'later that month' was with sniffer-dog evidence. Obviously. Well I for one fail to see the obvious necessity for questioning such things outside of one specific context, and that is not the endeavour to locate a missing Madeleine McCann.

Nevertheless, 'Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler.'

Hardly reassuring background knowledge, given that it had already been explained to Kate that the dog(s) involved in elucidating the circumstances of her daughter Madeleine's disappearance had yet to make a false alert. Unless of course medical practitioners are accustomed to dismissal on account of their colleagues' mis-diagnoses.

We must replay this little excerpt from Kate's book in its entirety now, in order to highlight her cunning juxtaposition of tense.

The author, don't forget, is in the throes of recounting her experience of being interviewed under caution and faced with video footage of a sniffer-dog at work. She proceeds with 'When researching...later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler.'

So, at the time of Kate's interview as 'arguida,' Gerry hadn't discovered anything. And yet, 'from what I saw of the dogs' responses this certainly seemed to me to be what was happening here.'

Most certainly.

Not for the first time are we treated to an example of Kate McCann's clairvoyance. She obviously felt able to 'relax a little,' not solely on account of what she perceived to be an inexact science, but because she was able to discern a class of behaviour in Martin Grime's animals that Gerry, in his future research, hadn't identified yet.

Other mothers in such circumstances would be climbing the walls in desperation. Not Kate. Her account of the truth portrays her as having been cool, calm, collected and pre-cogniscent. Or maybe she was in a state of panic. Perhaps she'd looked into the future and seen both herself and her husband going to the dogs; before they'd considered the matter scientifically of course.

Seventeen Come Sunday - 01.10.2012

"There could be two key bits of information that individually don't seem key but put together could give you some valuable information that could take you one step closer to finding Madeleine." (Kate McCann, 2010).

Seventeen Come Sunday is the title of an old English folk song and regular 'Proms' favourite. It's a simple statement. Looking forward toward a birthday event, it is as good an example as any of thinking ahead. Birthday celebrations are customarily planned in advance and, certainly when children are young, usually recorded for posterity. Madeleine McCann's disappearance was not such a happy eventuality, but Kate McCann has nevertheless seen to it that a record of the immediately preceding period exists. Hence we may read in her book ('Madeleine,' p.57):

"In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they'd have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us."

And, two pages later:

"We dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea," (p.59).

The 'afternoon' in question was that of Tuesday, May 1st 2007.

So much for what was done, and why possibly no one else saw Madeleine early that afternoon, because she was in her parents' company outside the Ocean Club perimeter at the time.

Coincidentally, on the same page in her book, Kate McCann reinforces the importance of record keeping. As she tells us:

"Gerry and I would soon be painstakingly trying to extract from our brains every tiny incident, no matter how small, that might have been significant. Armed with notebook, pen and dated photographs, I would be challenging myself to piece together as comprehensive an outline of the sequence of events as I could."

During that fateful first week in May, the McCanns were on holiday. They had not signed up for a conference or sponsored training, hence their presence, and that of their children, at any venue, and at any particular time, was entirely optional. They were under no obligation to attend anywhere at all and could have spent the entire week in their apartment had they so wished. Kate's description of the spontaneous beach trip makes the situation perfectly clear. As for the Ocean Club 'nannies,' they could not have cared less if Madeleine McCann never appeared at the Kids' club at any stage. Their responsibility was guardianship of those actually present, not preoccupation with absentees. And it is in this context that we should consider the function of 'registers.'

In any school or kindergarten the register serves a two-fold purpose. Like an accounting 'day book' and journal combined, it shows who is present on the day and, by implication, who might need to be contacted in the event of emergency. It also serves as a vehicle for future analysis, when the benefit of good record keeping becomes abundantly clear, albeit in retrospect. While the Ocean Club junior staff needed to observe the first function, they would have had no interest at all in the second - a casual register kept in respect of an optional facility therefore.

Besides telling readers of 'Madeleine' what the family did that Tuesday afternoon, Kate's explanation of the beach trip tells of something that was not done. Madeleine did not join her young 'lobster' group friends at the Kids' club immediately after lunch. Whatever her innate charms or talents, she was physically incapable of being in two places at the same time. The same anecdote, embellished as it is with angst over the ice creams, tells us, inadvertently perhaps, of something else the McCanns did that afternoon - They deliberately falsified, personally or vicariously, entries in the Kids' club registers for the second period of the day.

There can be no doubt that is what happened, since Kate's 'account of the truth' explains with impeccable clarity how the whole family went to the beach that afternoon to do 'something slightly different;' in Madeleine's case different from – going to the beach, which is what 'lobster' group attendees at the Kids' club that afternoon were scheduled to do. Equally unmistakeable is the signature of one G McCann in the Kids' club register, alongside the name Madeleine, for 2.30 p.m. when, according to Kate she only made it for the last hour and a half (i.e., from 4.00 p.m.). The parents, by the way, are recorded as being at Tennis or the Pool. Meanwhile Kate was busy elsewhere signing in the twins at exactly the same time.

And yet the timing of Madeleine's afternoon arrival at, and later departure from, the kids' club that Tuesday afternoon (14.30 and 17.30 p.m. respectively) appears to receive confirmation from information archived in the case files and which derives in some measure from Ocean Club 'nanny' Catriona Baker's (aka 'Cat nanny') statement to Police (Catriona Baker, p.88 re: 01.05.07 in 12 Outros Apensos Vol. XII Annex 59), although itself not entirely consistent with the original crèche registers.

Such a small thing perhaps. Then again, so is nuclear fission.

No doubt the likes of that renowned 'source close to the McCanns' would bluster and 'pooh pooh' these observations. 'Nothing to them. The creche records are perfectly accurate. Kate merely got her days mixed up when re-telling the story. It's been several years don't forget.'

Perhaps it is the carefully constructed book which is in error and not the Ocean Club records after all. A serious problem for anyone engaged in maintaining a lie however is the obvious requirement to reproduce it faithfully. The deceiver has to be sure to tell the same lie - repeatedly. A sure-fire way of exposing oneself to an inevitable truth on the other hand is to tell a similar, additional lie, since this does not lessen the risk of detection but increases it. That is exactly what Kate McCann has done in 'Madeleine.'

Talking about May 3rd this time, she writes (p.66):

"Together we took Sean and Amelie back to the Toddler Club at around 2.40 p.m. and dropped Madeleine off with the Minis ten minutes later. Ella was already there...Having arranged for Gerry to meet the children, I opted to go for a run along the beach...I wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ or Jane had collected Ella.

"I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry."

There is no ambiguity here. For Kate to meet up with the rest of her family at 5.30 p.m. at the Tapas Bar, husband Gerry (or someone else at the very least) must have collected all the children previously, Kate 'having arranged for Gerry to meet the children.' The minis register for May 3rd does indeed record Madeleine's arrival at 2.50 p.m., ten minutes after the twins were deposited and with Ella already there. But who signed Madeleine out again afterwards? Why, none other than Kate McCann - at 5.30 p.m. Exactly the moment when she tells readers of her chronicle that she encountered Madeleine elsewhere, already in the company of Gerry and the twins. And if anyone 'close to the McCanns' wishes to insist that Kate merely failed to clarify her own collection of Madeleine from the kids' club nearby, then perhaps they can also explain how she managed to pick the twins up five minutes before that, as her signature on the 'jellyfish' crèche register for May 3rd indicates.

The significance of these duplicitous accounts resides, as ever, in the question 'why?'

Attendance at venues/events was voluntary don't forget. So if a child would not be present at one or other crèche facility, for whatever reason, then no one would care over much (one less to worry about really). After all, any child could succumb to a mild illness and be back in a day or two. It certainly would not have been necessary to 'sign in' just so as to secure immediate leave of absence. In a nutshell, there would have been absolutely no point whatsoever, at the time, in recording the presence of a child who was in fact absent. As an entry in the 'day book' it was meaningless. In the journal however...

Since it is Kate McCann herself who appears intent on calling both parents' registration activities into question, one is obliged to face up to the contradictions and consider exactly what set of circumstances might have led either or both of them to lay a deliberately false trail. Given that spurious register entries will have served no present purpose, they could only make sense if they served a future one (see also: The Cerberus Problem, McCannfiles, 13 August 2011).

Kate has, on more than one occasion, coined the neologism 'findable' in respect of her missing daughter. Deliberate falsification of the Ocean club's crèche registers, not by any abductor but by the McCanns themselves, would suggest that prior to the evening of Thursday May 3rd 2007, the parents already knew Madeleine would not be seventeen come Sunday, but 'findable' by Friday.

It Never Rains... - 19.10.2012

...But it pours. And if the heavens should open and God decides to 'pay a visit,' it's helpful to have an umbrella...ella...ella.

When it comes to 'treasure maps,' the challenge of puzzle solving, for the characters in the adventure story and the reader alike, is often to be found in the attribution of significance to otherwise inconspicuous details – the index finger of the long-dead mariner's beached skeleton pointing in a given direction, the abandoned noose left swaying gently on the makeshift gibbet of an overhanging shore-line palm, the unusual granite rock with embedded iron ring that behaves like an impromptu sun-dial – you know the sort of thing.

And so to accounts of the truth; one in particular, that reads less like a biography and more like a stenographer's record of a witness under cross-examination, with its insistent inclusion of the seemingly pointless (p.66).

"Together we took Sean and Amelie back to the Toddler Club at around 2.40 p.m. and dropped Madeleine off with the Minis ten minutes later. Ella was already there. Gerry and I had booked an hour-long couples' tennis lesson with the professional coach at three-thirty, and as the courts were unoccupied, we decided to have a knock-up for half an hour first. Near the end of our lesson, as I strove desperately to improve my substandard backhand, another guest appeared, and he and Gerry decided to have a game together.

"Having arranged for Gerry to meet the children, I opted to go for a run along the beach, where I spotted the rest of our holiday group. They saw me and shouted some words of encouragement. At least, I think that's what they were shouting! I remember feeling fleetingly disappointed that we hadn't known they were all heading for the beach, as it might have been nice to have joined them, especially for the kids. I wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ or Jane had collected Ella. I wasn't to know at that stage that in fact they had only just arrived when I ran by. It's hard work being a mum sometimes, fretting about the possible effects of the smallest of incidents on your children. I'm sure a lot of these worries are unfounded but it doesn't stop us having them, and we'll probably go on having them for the rest of our lives."

'Together we took Sean and Amelie back to the Toddler Club at around 2.40 p.m. and dropped Madeleine off with the Minis ten minutes later. Ella was already there.'

Who cares whether Ella was there or not? Ella, who is not mentioned in the previous paragraph but at the close of three beforehand, when she is spotted on the beach without Madeleine, was 'already there.' So what? And shortly thereafter the author 'wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ or Jane had collected Ella.' Why the accent on Ella? Could it be perhaps to reinforce the notion that Ella and Madeleine entered and left the Kids club at different times that day, i.e. that they did not do so together, and that there is nothing but friendship to link them?

Well, let's borrow another of this author's observations:

'One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they're still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.'

And in that context, does it not seem just a touch odd that during the three days of 1 – 3 May, on two-thirds of those occasions (4 from 6) when the two children are both recorded as being at the Kids club for the same session, one or other parent (O'Brien or McCann) apparently fails to sign their child out again? Appearances can of course be deceptive, but the signature of 'Cat nanny' does not qualify as that of a parent (what else is a girl supposed to do if she wants to close the shop for lunch and she's run out of bodies to eject?). And Kate Healy, that 'different person' who, on the Wednesday afternoon, collected Madeleine on behalf of Kate McCann?

The oddities do not end there. On the morning of May 1 Russell O'Brien resides in room '5B' and thinks his daughter's name is Emma (visibly corrected to Ella in the register). 24 hours later and he is somewhat uncertainly resident in 'G5D' (a.m.) or is it '5D'? (p.m.). By May 3 he is sure it's the former. Perplexing isn't it?

Commentators elsewhere have opined on the difficulty of 'adjusting' registers after the event. The visible amendments, crossings out, selective 'rubbings' etc. would be fairly noticeable. Also, furtive attempts at 'shadowing' and absent person infiltration in the company of others is an endeavour likely to raise an eyebrow or two at the very least. Dispensing therefore with the unlikely, let's consider the entirely feasible.

Imagine four mutual friends (John, Paul, George and Ringo, say). John goes to the local nightclub one Saturday night and George, for whatever reason, wishes Ringo to believe that Paul is there too. So he approaches the bouncer toward the end of the evening and asks, 'Can I come in and speak to my mate Paul?' (registering the supposition that Paul is inside). Upon being given a response along the lines of 'Go forth and multiply!' George waits around until John finally emerges at the door. 'Hi John,' says George. 'Did you see Paul inside?' (not 'Was Paul inside?'). 'Nah!' grunts John. 'Oh well. I can't hang around for him all night. I'm off home.' So, as far as the bouncer and the eavesdropping Ringo are concerned, Paul was supposedly inside the club.

Now let's move to the carefree atmosphere of an easy-going day care centre at a holiday resort. Two parents accompanying the same child can only register the one without causing some obvious bewilderment. But any parent who arrives with a child in tow is likely to think nothing of another parent signing the register ahead of them, or after them come to that, on the supposition that their child is already inside. They are all on holiday after all, not busy playing I-spy. The register itself, given its format and style of completion, is more akin to a visitor's book than a register per se. Front-of-house staff at a Hotel or Conference reception have, already at their disposal, a list of paid for delegates/bookings. Their role at 'registration' is to put a face to the name, so to speak. Unless one were deliberately playing the role of impostor, there should be no one in attendance who, according to the register, ought not to be. A visitor's book on the other hand is a rather different matter; less rigorous and taken on trust.

And what might the perspective view be of those working on the inside? Obviously on the alert for any unauthorised removals, would they be just as aware of phantoms attempting to get in? Would they even notice at the end of day one if someone were signed in as Smith and out as Jones? Or day two? And if by some chance they spotted that something wasn't quite right on day three, would they link the anomaly to the sudden and unexpected outbreak of fire in hut 17 and the inexplicable disappearance of one of their former charges, with the accommodation's being burnt to the ground, yet no sign of any charred remains? It is a simple fact of life that our spontaneous view of things is very largely governed by their immediate, rather than broader, context (like the goldfish blissfully unaware that he is the one in a bowl of water).

But how is it possible to posit such a notion with regard to the still serious matter of events in Praia da Luz fully five years ago? The supervising nanny at the facility attended by Madeleine McCann was quite clear about the child's attendance that week. Indeed she was. But once we discover that, in common with the McCanns and their Tapas associates, she too appears to have been incapable, as early as 6 May (i.e., barely three days after Madeleine's 'disappearance') of giving a fully and verifiably accurate account of events. It would seem unwise to place too much faith in such statements therefore.

Whether or not an explanation as to why Cat Nanny was suddenly relocated and her destination kept secret at the request of the McCanns should ever be forthcoming, there is one thing at least that Cat Nanny Baker seems to have done for Madeleine. According to her rogatory statement of 18 April, 2008 she 'got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on 29 April 2007, in the minis club...' Previously she had 'written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information.'

So where was Madeleine's bracelet? Strangely, for someone who is said to have spent the majority of her daytimes under third-party supervision, she did not wear it on her right wrist for tennis on the Tuesday (or perhaps the Wednesday, depending on who genuinely took the photograph and when) nor her left when sitting around the pool after lunch (on the Thursday, for the sake of argument), both of which occasions were well after April 30, by which time the bracelets would have been issued. It's not the sort of thing one would remove just for a lunch-break, although she might have had it taken off for comfort overnight, in which case it will not have been 'abducted.' Perhaps those helpful child-minders routinely removed the bracelets at the end of the day. Even from those children who did not return for the afternoon session! As Cat Nanny again has pointed out, there were six other children present in the room with Madeleine at the Kids' club on the Thursday morning, but only four (including Madeleine) in the afternoon. Except the crèche register indicates that there were not six other children in the room besides Madeleine. Only five. Was someone unexpectedly missing perchance? Or were they simply hiding under an umbrella somewhere?

Catriona And The Waves – 21.10.2012

The cooler waters of the Atlantic coastline with Iberia are beautifully clear in Summer, when, at low tide, shoals of small fish can be seen just beneath the surface. At the Portuguese corner othe peninsular however the ambience is murkier. Things are altogether less clear there. Clarity of understanding is fundamental to attainment of the 'helicopter view;' that ability, beloved of management scientists, to envision the 'broader picture,' and something which is not, for good or ill, in everyone's gift. It is an accomplishment requiring a cultivated imagination, as the eventual construct is, when all's said and done, the perceiver's entirely. So what is one to make of a children's nanny who, when questioned about her recent experience in the role, exhibits such remarkable recall and awareness as to suggest that she is (or at least was) grossly under-employed?

As an initial 'for instance' we may take the psychological phenomena of 'recency' in memory and failures in recall over time, both tested scientifically (Sandra) and manifest in common experience. When our subject nanny was asked about diurnal events three days previously she had very little to say about them. When asked for those same recollections a year later she was able to provide considerably more detail. Odd that.

It appears at first blush that this was no ordinary nanny. But like the magical chess-playing mannequin of yore there was, in all likelihood, a measure of, shall we say, informative intervention, for in-between her first and second attempts at recall she paid a visit to a soothsayer, who had rather more details of the fateful day at their disposal. 'Never mind that. Can she think 'outside the box?' What's her 'summative overview?''

Basically this:

'On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis.'

We'll come to the 'helicopter' in a while. First let's check out the launch pad.

'On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning.'

The tense is wrong. The statement is literally describing the recollection of an activity prior to 3 May, as though what she recalls now is what she recalled then, and on that date precisely.

'I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane.'

The order of events is inverted. Despite serial ordered recall being the more demanding task, most people have no difficulty in dissociating morning from afternoon, together with associated events. Although you might not think so to read this, the afternoon 'dive/swim' (which took place at the pool) was preceded by the sailing and greeting at the beach, which occurred in the morning.

'Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming.'

To be clear, Madeleine returned to the Minis Club from the beach and, if she were among the 'we,' went swimming in the pool in the afternoon.

Boarding the helicopter

'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis.'

In isolation this statement appears perfectly straightforward, apart perhaps from the extraordinarily imprecise interval of time. But there is another perspective viewpoint, on these details specifically, which obliges us to examine the statement more closely. That perspective is Kate McCann's ('Madeleine,' p.66):

"Together we took Sean and Amelie back to the Toddler Club at around 2.40 p.m. and dropped Madeleine off with the Minis ten minutes later. Ella was already there. Gerry and I had booked an hour-long couples' tennis lesson with the professional coach at three-thirty, and as the courts were unoccupied, we decided to have a knock-up for half an hour first. Near the end of our lesson, as I strove to improve my substandard backhand, another guest appeared, and he and Gerry decided to have a game together.

"Having arranged for Gerry to meet the children, I opted to go for a run along the beach, where I spotted the rest of our holiday group...I wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ or Jane had collected Ella.

"I had finished my run by five-thirty at the Tapas area, where I found Madeleine and the twins already having their tea with Gerry."

Now then, at some time between 3.30 and 6.00 p.m., according to super-nanny, 'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area.' So where, exactly, was our observant witness positioned when she saw Kate, who was 'wearing sporting clothes,' make her way toward the Tapas Bar area? The question is not quite as simple as it appears, and the reason is this: 'Cat Nanny' signed Ella O'Brien out of the Kids' club at 4.30 p.m., the very time when the McCanns would conclude their tennis lesson. Kate left the court 'near the end' of the lesson, not to 'get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area' but to 'go for a run along the beach.' It is highly unlikely therefore that 'Cat Nanny' Baker was in the vicinity of the tennis courts to witness Kate's departure therefrom. Had she been she would not have had to make any assumptions as to the purpose of Kate's 'athletic clothes' and would have been in no doubt as to whether or not Gerry was playing tennis.

Kate, wearing sporting clothes, must have been seen going to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area ('Kate went to get Madeleine') from somewhere other than the tennis courts therefore. Perhaps the reference is to what Kate did on leaving the beach at around 5.30. It is Kate's signature on the crèche register after all (although Kate claims in her book that all the McCann children were already with Gerry by the time she arrived at the Tapas Bar area).

OK, what was 'Cat Nanny' doing on the beach at 5.30? After lunch that afternoon she would have been with the children at the pool. At 4.30 p.m. she was present at the club to sign them out. And since Ella O'Brien's was an unusually early departure, she will have remained to supervise those three children who had yet to leave – Madeleine McCann among them. They must have been at the club by then, as Kate had 'wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ or Jane had collected Ella.' And 'Cat Nanny' must have been there to 'hand them over' at 5.30, in which case she will have been rather more aware of Kate McCann's coming than going.

If Cat Nanny was not at the tennis courts to observe Kate's movements, she was not at the beach an hour later to see Kate leave for the Tapas Bar area either. So how can she describe Kate as 'going' to get Madeleine? 'Getting Madeleine' must be regarded as an assumption in any case, unless Kate had announced her intentions to her personally. And yet 'Cat Nanny' is perfectly at ease giving a first-person account of what she herself apparently witnessed.

We have take off

The witnesses 'positivity,' despite not being present at either end of Kate McCann's trajectory in the late afternoon of May 3rd suggests that she has an overarching 'helicopter' view of the situation. However, without being an extraordinary visionary, the only way she can have acquired such a perspective is from someone else. And having been given that perspective it will not have been formed in her mind as a product of perception but of imagination. There is a world of difference between 'according to what I remember' and 'according to what I remember being told.' Does anyone even say, 'according to what I remember?' 'As I recall' is the stock phrase. Accordances are at one remove.

In sum therefore we have an important witness to events preceding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, whose initial recollection of significant details appears defective. Madeleine's schedule of attendance at the crèche, as represented verbally by her to police, is not that described by corresponding entries in the register. Within three days of the child's disappearance she fails to advance any detail with respect to the Thursday itself, supporting the instinctive interpretation of possibly the most significant thing she did say about that day - that until Thursday May 3rd, the little girl came every day. Almost a year later and with a domestic visit to the McCanns in the interim, her memory of the relevant Thursday improves to the point where she can describe Kate McCann's actions, motivations and dress code without being in a position personally to observe or appreciate any of these things (unless she 'copped a peek' at Kate's running shorts when handing Madeleine over to Gerry, who left it up to Kate to sign the register without collecting anyone at all).

In the final analysis the only 'helicopter' Catriona Baker will have known anything about would have been one that air-lifted her out of Portugal and transported her across the waves to a secret destination known only to her employers – and the McCanns.