13 - Set/Déc - Dr MR 8b

 @mccannfiles.com

Not A Leg To Stand On
Those Who Can 
In Pursuit of Defame and Fortune 
On the Use of English 
The Wright Stuffed 
Wright's Folly 
The Cross Word Puzzle
You've Been Framed! 
Read it and Weep 
In the Company of Strangers 
A Bedtime Story 
I Say, I Say, I Say 
The 'Get Out' Clause 
The Illusionists 

Answer Page 
Open, Sesame! 
Brought to Book 
Curtains for the McCanns 

Not A Leg To Stand On – 10.09.2013

So what does a pair of girl's legs in pink pyjamas look like when draped over a supporting arm? Jane Tanner long ago, and after some hesitation, insisted on giving the McCanns, and everyone else thereafter, a fairly clear idea. With the advent of their 2014 catalogue the picture's made clearer by IKEA. We can see for ourselves, on the front cover, exactly what a pair of young girl's legs in pink pyjamas look like draped over the arm of a chair.
But these are the legs of a model, somewhat older than the four years Madeleine McCann was about to complete at the time she disappeared. Madeleine, we are told, stood just 90 cms.
Since one half of the adult human body consists of the head, neck and torso (measured down to the mid-buttocks), the legs in Madeleine's (reported) case would have accounted for no more than 45 cms. (The proportions of a young child's body will be different, the mid-point being more nearly at the midriff and the legs per se representing less than half the individual's overall height. For the sake of argument however, we shall adopt the adult scaling). Madeleine's thighs being out of sight from Tanner's point of view, approximately 23 cms of her pyjama clad leg(s) would therefore have remained potentially visible. Deduct a centimetre or two, to account for the fact that the pyjamas in question were not designed to cover the entire leg, and you have about 8 inches worth of white material, ruched at the hem and decorated with mauve and green spots, not pink (see official photographs).
This ensemble was supposedly glimpsed in transit from a distance of approximately 5 metres (according to Tanner's own police statement of 10 May, 2007) in the dark, and under the vaguely orange cast of a street light. The most conspicuous aspect of the attire, as witnessed by Tanner, would have been the Eeyore motif on the right leg – which Tanner did not report seeing! As she said in her rogatory interview of 8 April, 2008: "It was the bottom bit of them that gives me the most thought in my own head that it was Madeleine. So I don't know, I feel, I thought I saw pink pyjamas and I thought I could see colours but I don’t know, it was fairly orange so I don't know."
In addition, the Tanner induced artist's impression, when seen in its entirety, presents a slightly downward trajectory onto the subject, whereas Tanner herself was, if anything, walking uphill. The carrier's arms (and the supposed child's legs) would have been further from the floor than those of the chair in the IKEA photograph. Thus the 20 or so visible centimetres will have presented a slightly different perspective, given also the continuously changing angle between both parties, as the abductor crossed Tanner's path while she continued forward. Assuming they were each walking in a straight line, and at approximately the same speed, then Tanner would have been no nearer the subject than 5 metres (a conservative estimate to say the least) at any moment in time. Unless she deliberately tracked him visually all the way, her angle of view would have become progressively more acute.
At a constant distance, greater even than the width of floor space so recently pictured by IKEA, and on the basis of information provided separately by the McCanns and herself, Jane Tanner could not have seen the degree of detail that the artist's impression purports to represent; detail which, if it were as accurate as the McCanns et al. would have us believe, should have included one rather significant, yet missing, feature – a 'badge' on the right leg, and the only genuine suggestion of 'pink' to be found anywhere on the lower aspect of the garment.

Those Who Can – 12.09.2013

'Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.' So the saying goes. Well let's not kid ourselves. There are many self-opinionated 'professionals' (far too many in fact) who cloak their own incompetence in posture and bluster, and who couldn't teach their grandmother to suck eggs into the bargain.
But this piece is about learning, not teaching: Learning from one's professional mistakes. Learning that one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear, nor fill a silk's purse selling sour beer. And making sure that prosecuting counsel earn their fee is the job of the Crown Prosecution Service; the body which decides, fundamentally on our behalf, whether a criminal case should be brought at all, i.e., that the public's interest would be served by a suspect's being tried in a crown court, and with a better than reasonable chance of conviction, bearing in mind the very significant costs associated with legal proceedings of any complexion nowadays. (The Police, the 'Met' especially, have long been more interested in pursuing crimes associated with significant 'recoverables' than dealing with the more mundane acts of criminality). As the London CPS itself puts it:
"As the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales the CPS is responsible for criminal cases beyond the police investigatory stage. The CPS will advise the police on cases for possible prosecution, review cases submitted by the police, determine any charges in all but minor cases, prepare cases for court and present cases at court. Primarily, the CPS will review the evidence gathered by the police and provide guidance. During pre-charge procedures and throughout the investigative and prosecuting process the CPS may assist the police by explaining what additional work or evidence could raise the case to a viable charging standard thereby rectifying any evidential deficiencies. Once the evidence is gathered the CPS will then decide, on the basis of this evidence, whether a case should be pursued or dropped."
With their rather grand, nay, regal title, one might suppose the CPS to represent the pinnacle of legal expertise and savoir faire. But no. A glance beyond the window dressing and we quickly discover that what we thought was Harrods is actually Arding and Hobbs.
And on what, pray, do I base such criticism...?
Sweeping the decks clear of each and every previous 'mistake', one need only consider the very recent acquittal of actor Michael Le Vell from all child abuse charges previously laid against him. Nor is it the fact of Le Vell's acquittal that need concern us, but the manner of it.
Just over a year ago (July, 2012), Alison Levitt QC read a statement to the media, explaining in some detail the collaborative procedures which led her, on behalf of the CPS, to decide that there was sufficient evidence for them to proceed with charges against eight individuals identified during the police investigation of 'phone hacking, including, among others, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson. Furthermore, prosecution was deemed to be in the public interest. Levitt reached her conclusions after applying the 'two-stage test in the Code for Crown Prosecutors'.
This lady clearly plays by the book, in particular the 'Code for Crown Prosecutors' which, one imagines, offers clear guidelines in respect of case law and precedent and, in so doing, affords a set of working standards applicable across the service.
And so to the matter of Le Vell.
It was this same Alison Levitt who, in her capacity as principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions for England, and following a complaint to the CPS by the plaintiff's mother, decided to over-rule an earlier decision not to prosecute, that decision having previously been taken by her colleague, Nazir Afzal, himself Chief Crown Prosecutor in the North West. (These two 'decision makers', don't forget, are supposedly reading from the same page - literally).
It was therefore the CPS (in the shape of Alison Levitt) that felt there was sufficient evidence for the case against Michael Le Vell to proceed to court, where it took the defence Barrister to point out that, actually, there was no evidence against the man at all! On which basis his acquittal was virtually assured.
Mr Afzal had called it correctly in the first place and, with Jo Public once more footing the bill, we are left with the soundbite of a 'defiant CPS spokeswoman' (according to today's Sun - Sept. 11. Ms Levitt, perchance?) and a lingering suspicion that the legal system, our system, has just been taken for yet another ride. And lo! The spokesperson spaketh (parentheses mine):
"This case was reviewed in great detail and the evidence subject to careful scrutiny before a decision was taken to prosecute. (What evidence? There was none!)
"On the basis of the reviews the CPS concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. (Again, zero plus zero equals...?)
"As these were very serious allegations of child sexual abuse it therefore followed that it was in the public interest to place that evidence before a jury at court."
Now then, now then.....this flagrantly counter-productive behaviour on the part of the CPS speaks directly to the SY 'investigation' currently being undertaken in Portugal, following the royal seal of approval bestowed upon it by yet another 'Alison of the CPS'. It is not even necessary to read between the lines. Just read the lines.
A decision to prosecute (whomever for whatever) would follow a review of the case 'in great detail', when, on the basis of demonstrably no substantive evidence at all (as Le Vell's acquittal demonstrates) the CPS might well consider there to be a 'realistic prospect of conviction.' Furthermore, as the allegations would necessarily entail 'very serious allegations of child sexual abuse' it therefore follows that 'it would be in the public interest to place that (non-existent) evidence before a jury at court.'
What the Le Vell escapade suggests is that, goaded by considerations of 'public interest', as they would have to be, the CPS could well encourage the Met to bring a case in the UK against anyone whom they suspected of abducting Madeleine McCann. But how, in the eyes even of Sun readers, like myself, can a 'person of interest/suspect' ultimately be brought before a UK or any other court to face a charge of child abduction, when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that such a crime was ever committed in the first place? And it doesn't take a QC in receipt of a defence brief to illustrate that point. It has already been established by the Portuguese, together with Leicestershire Police.
So are we to expect a state-sponsored 'fit up', followed by an inevitable acquittal and an institutional shrug of the shoulders, or are Scotland Yard merely 'marking time' until a better idea presents itself? If the McCanns and their Tapas allies have genuinely been ruled out, then avoidance of the same spotlight that has just shone on the Le Vell trial would obviously suggest plan B. But then someone would be obliged to explain the not inconsiderable waste of yet more public money in pursuit of absolutely nothing, even though the Portuguese are once again being coerced into putting their hands in their pockets.

In Pursuit of Defame and Fortune – 18.09.2013

In the heady days of celebrity alliances, what the McCanns may once have considered a case of 'last man standing' appears now to be rather more one of 'Last to leave please turn out the lights'; a tragedy on the verge of descending into farce. (We have been here before, and in no uncertain terms. See: Cloud Cuckoo Land, McCannfiles 20.1.2010). Whilst we, the audience, can see the absurdities for what they are, the protagonists, at least those largely responsible for the choreography, seem oblivious to their situation, like a pantomime principal inexplicably dependent on calls off-stage of 'Look behind you!'
It would be surprising indeed if Goncalo Amaral's legal team did not have a full quiver of arrows, so to speak, hence nothing said here is likely to be novel in any way. Nonetheless, even familiar facts can be of renewed interest given a different interpretive context. Facts such as were put before us by a McCann supporter three years ago:
''The Truth of the Lie' by Amaral, has sold several million copies to date, netting him somewhere in the region of 1.2 million euros in royalties.'
And why ought we to acknowledge that statement as fact? Because the McCanns are seeking damages of 1.2 million euros, that's why. Or are we to suppose that they settled on that figure simply because they liked the sound of the number? Eureka! The extent of the McCanns' suffering is exactly equal to Goncalo Amaral's financial ruin – malevolent design or extraordinary coincidence? Well, like Andrew Wiles' assault on Fermat's Last Theorem, the answer to that one is arrived at by a surprisingly circuitous route.
On her way into the Lisbon court, Isabel Duarte was asked by a journalist exactly what compensation the McCanns were seeking. 'Money' came the obvious answer. And when the inevitable supplementary question followed, she duly elaborated with a simple Maths problem: '250 thousand euros for each of the persons involved, they are five.' (Hands up those who wouldn't want either Carol Vorderman or Rachel Riley to report from Lisbon, instead of Martin Brunt!).
Anyway, we have 5 x 250 (thousand) equals 1,250,000 (euros), which appears to tally with the 'fact' fed us all that time ago. Except that Goncalo Amaral is not the only defendant facing the charges. There are four parties being held to account, each of whom is destined to finance a quarter of the bill for damages should the decision go against them.
Part B of the Maths problem set by Isabel Duarte therefore is to divide 1,250,000 by 4. The result is 312,500. 'Good for Goncalo. He gets to keep a lot of change even if he loses then!' Oh no he doesn't. Underneath 'stone two' there lurks a statement published in The Sun:
'But by the time Amaral's 2008 book came out they had been cleared. It was never published in the UK but sold 140,000 copies and is estimated to have netted the former detective £320,000.'
Well, well, well. So Gonçalo Amaral did not become a euro-millionaire from his book sales after all. Never mind. The McCanns still calculated to take him for virtually every penny he did earn from the exercise. If we 'do the math' according to Duarte's initial equation, it quickly becomes apparent that a per capita claim of 250k is almost exactly the ratio required for Amaral's obligation to fall within his estimated earnings (and therefore offer some guarantee of being met). Cynical or what?
1.2 million euros worth of libel, in total, it is then, by the time the various 'injuries' are accounted for. Reason enough to travel to Portugal and no mistake. As Kate McCann was reported to have explained (in the Express and elsewhere):
"I'm here to stop the damage that has been caused and is still being caused directly and indirectly to the search for our daughter and stop the suffering that has been caused to our family by the theories in Gonçalo Amaral's book and the documentary."
Except her objective, as actually declared, was rather different – not exactly putting a stop to the suffering caused by an author's theories by refuting them, but merely challenging them:
"I'm here today for Madeleine and obviously I strongly hope for justice. I'm here to stop the damage that has been caused, and is still being caused, both directly and indirectly to the search for our daughter, and to stop the... the d... the suffering that's been caused to our family, and will carry on being caused to our family, if the theories of Goncalo Amaral and his book and documentary go unchallenged."
Whereas a challenge can be mounted by anyone, on any grounds and however spurious, refutation necessarily requires that the contestant demonstrate a solid proof. Leaving certain presumptions aside, in order to establish, once and for all, that they were not party to a concealment of any kind, the McCanns would have to prove their daughter Madeleine was abducted; something they have been unable to do in the six years since she disappeared, the Tanner sighting notwithstanding (see: Not A Leg To Stand On, McCannfiles 10.9.13). The current legal dispute is taking place on Portuguese soil don't forget, where the onus is upon the plaintiff to prove their point, rather than the accused to defend theirs.
Challenging theories is not what libel trials are about in any case.
Shouldn't the McCanns therefore be concerning themselves with more fundamental issues, pertaining to what, specifically, was said about them by Goncalo Amaral in his book 'A Verdade Da Mentira'? In accusing their adversarial author of libel, the litigants in this case should be intent on establishing, beyond question, that their personal and/or professional reputations have been damaged by him, not some vague 'search', conducted in Portugal or elsewhere by employees of the McCanns; operatives who work to contract, not according to the theoretical whims of outsiders. But again, they have to prove it. All the defendant has to do is convince the court of his own belief in the veracity of any contested claim. There is a precedent for that also. And If Goncalo Amaral's published statements were, or are, libellous, then they became so at the point of publication, not a year later once the sales had been racked up. But then they might not have been worth quite so much and concomitantly not worth pursuing.
The McCanns would have known all this before ever Kate boarded the plane to Portugal. That is why they tried to finesse Amaral with the offer of a 'settlement' (it worked with the Express after all) and why, with the Portuguese version of 'See you in court!' ringing in their ears, they have had to recruit a motley crew of mercenaries to testify on their behalf, the witnesses so far having previously been employed by the McCanns in some capacity. That makes their testimonies not only hearsay but prejudiced hearsay at that. Nevertheless, opening themselves up to cross-examination inside a court of law is definitely not on the McCann agenda (their discomfort during the Leveson Inquiry was plain enough, and it wasn't even their gig!).
Libel is absolute, not relative, whichever side of the ocean one is on. The Oscar Wilde case affords us a neat precedent in that regard. Unjustified derogatory remarks are not rendered more or less libellous depending upon the number of persons who might read them. It has nothing whatever to do with whether or not a theory, if uncontested, might adversely influence the future behaviour of people toward third parties, however closely related. We do not, as a rule, 'visit the sins of the father upon the son' (or daughter), and unquestionably the best way to challenge the theories of Goncalo Amaral, should they require it, is to discover Madeleine McCann alive.
Surely Kate would not take the view that the McCanns alone are able to mount such a challenge, thereby denying others the opportunity of doing so? At issue of course is whether others genuinely do have such an opportunity. Perhaps, should Goncalo Amaral be vindicated, we might then proceed to find out. Unless of course the overseas arm of 'Operation Grange' comes up with a challenge of its own in the meantime.

On the Use of English – 19.09.2013

To the ear of a non-speaker the romance languages can appear almost song-like. That mongrel tongue known as English on the other hand exhibits an altogether different peculiarity. Having discarded the demands of gender, adjectival agreement, and the rest of that latinate bag of tricks which virtually guarantee an accurate understanding of the written word, English strips down to the bare essentials, risking all on the logical determinacy of its semantics and associated capacity to overcome ambiguity. In simple terms, 'what you say is what you get'.

So what do we gather from what the McCanns have said?

Madeleine McCann is dead

Kate McCann has said so (to Sara Antunes de Oliveira, SIC, 9 March, 2010):

"We're not going to sit here and lie and be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive."

Less than 100% alive equals dead. A lie is a deliberate contradiction of a known truth, not a speculation.

On the strength of the available evidence Gerry McCann also believes this to be the case (to Nicky Campbell, Radio Five Live Breakfast, 1 May, 2008):

"We have contact with the Foreign Office, errm... from predominantly a consular basis. We do put requests in, that we do want to get as much information as possible and, I think, what we've asked, and will ask repeatedly, is: 'What evidence does anyone have to suggest that Madeleine is dead?' Because we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise and we would like a public acknowledgement of that."

It wasn't an accident

During a 'Seven on Sunday' broadcast in Australia, two years ago now, Gerry McCann was asked: "Did you kill your daughter?" To which he replied: "No. That's an emphatic 'no.'"

English offers a speaker various ways to emphasise a statement: Tone of voice, qualifiers, repetition – they each have their place, depending upon the context in which they are deployed. This answer of Gerry McCann's, so simple on the face of it, is disproportionately subtle in significance.

If the answer to a question is genuinely 'no' then, if the speaker considers it appropriate to reinforce the negation, all they have to do is to say 'no' emphatically. Describing the word subsequently, as being emphatic or anything else, does not accomplish that objective (assuming of course that was the objective).

Hence Gerry McCann's 'emphatic denial' that he killed his daughter (the question having been put to him rather than his wife) is, in actuality, not emphatic at all, just a monosyllabic rebuff.

Later, in concluding his over-elaborate answer he makes the following remark:

"An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

If we invert this observation and view it as a statement, rather than a question, Gerry McCann is implying that they would not have covered up either an injury to their daughter or Madeleine's death in their presence. There is no contingency expressed which would cover her death in their absence. Should it transpire that Madeleine McCann was not abducted however, covering up a death is exactly what the McCanns will have done. And if covering up a death due to accidental injury is deemed to have been unnecessary, then the fact of a cover up would signify that the death was not accidental.

Another of Gerry McCann's sound bites, from elsewhere in the broadcast media universe, speaks more pointedly to the same issue:

"There's been an evil crime committed here, a heinous crime...it's just so important to concentrate on that. We've got to live with ourselves for that misjudgement, but really the focus should be on that person who is out there."

Several contiguous statements refer to 'an evil crime', 'a heinous crime', 'misjudgement' and 'that person out there.' In order to focus more clearly on the real meaning of this utterance we can profitably jettison the closing remark, which results in the following:

"There's been an evil crime committed here, a heinous crime...it's just so important to concentrate on that. We've got to live with ourselves for that misjudgement."

Suddenly we begin to see the true nature of the confession. Taking concentration on 'that', i.e., the evil, heinous crime as a given, we may reduce the statement further, making it clearer still:

"There's been an evil crime committed here, a heinous crime. We've got to live with ourselves for that misjudgement."

Readers of Ripley's 'Believe It Or Not' may already have discovered for themselves how it is possible to construct a sentence which includes seven consecutive instances of the word 'that'. Here we began with three (that crime, that misjudgement, that person) and have since reduced the number to one (a demonstrative adjective), the referent for which is the same as for the intervening pronoun. In simple terms what 'that misjudgement' and 'that' as an object upon which to concentrate each have in common is their relationship to the aforementioned 'evil, heinous crime'. In a nutshell the McCanns have to live with themselves for a misjudgement, which happens to have been a crime, and not just any old crime either, but an evil, heinous one.

Would one normally view leaving a child indoors unattended as an evil or heinous act?

The Wright Stuffed – 23.09.201

Is it just me, or is the behaviour of persons connected with the on-going libel contest in Lisbon truly as childish as it appears?

Thanks to Anne Guedes, who has single-handedly succeeded in bringing transcripts of proceedings to the world's attention, while the press fuss about the amount of ink on their rollers, we learn, courtesy of these unofficial records of an official process, that evidence offered by Michael Wright was preceded by an 'overture', involving one António Marinho Pinto; a peculiar on, off, on again, off again episode, in which he first expressed a wish to present his evidence in writing, rather than give oral testimony. That was in January, 2012. A year later and he changes his mind (supposing perhaps that GA's silence could be bought in the meantime). Hence he is required to appear in court after all and – changes his mind once again. He really does prefer to exercise a professional privilege and submit in writing, consequently denying any opportunity for cross-examination. Sensibly the judge was having none of it, saying that this witness (AMP) should have revealed his intention during a specific 10-day legal period. Having failed to do so, he had therefore forfeited his right of privilege and would be required to appear in court.

What makes this vacillation beyond the 11th hour so totally bizarre is the status of the culprit - President of the Bar Association (bastonário da ordem dos advogados)!

After this somewhat out-of-tune rendition of a chorus from Fleetwood Mac, it was curtain up on Michael Wright.

A preliminary on the part of the judge concerned whether the witness's family relationships would influence his testimony. "Yes" came the reply. But would it prevent him from telling the truth? "No".

Of course not. Influence extends only so far after all. Well, I for one do not believe him. This from the original transcript:
ID - In which circumstances did the McCanns learn about the book and the documentary?
MW - says they knew before the shelving of the case, that a book would be published. About the documentary, they were told it had been broadcast on TV in April 2009.
ID - When did they read the book and watch the documentary?
MW - They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.
(Later) MW objects that the book was published immediately after the release of the files and was written by a PJ Inspector. Moreover he says GA's book can be read in a day.
Oh dear, Michael. What it is to be easily led.
On 6 September 2008, Expresso published an interview with the McCanns, both of them. Whilst more than one exchange therein is of relevance to the current proceedings, the following single example is oh so pertinent:
Q – Former inspector Gonçalo Amaral remains convinced of your involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Did you read 'The Truth of the Lie', the book that he wrote?
Kate and Gerry – No.
Kate – Why would I?
Gerry – I won't learn anything from reading it.
We have a couple with anticipatory knowledge of a potentially 'harmful' book, albeit written in Portuguese, who, in August 2008, receive a translation via the internet that can be read in a day, and who, according to court witness Michael Wright (who is under oath to tell the truth don't forget), read it at that time, presumably in the one day required to do so. And yet, when asked about it publicly in September, both denied having read the book at all.
Someone else has clearly been listening to that FM song. Either Michael Wright was wrong about his friends' August 2008 access and reaction to Goncalo Amaral's ostensibly contentious book or the McCanns were lying to Expresso; par for the course in the latter case.
There are instances during Wright's testimony when he refers to his 'understanding' which has obviously to derive from third-party input given his own lack of first-hand knowledge:
ID - asks whether the investigation was hampered because of GA's book and an article in the Correio da Manhã (Portuguese Morning Post newspaper).
MW - says it's what he understood.
TVI - They were collaborating in the realisation of another documentary, theirs. This documentary wasn't broadcast by TVI, in spite of the agreement between TVI and Channel 4.
MW - says they decided it wasn't appropriate to broadcast their documentary on the same channel that would broadcast GA's documentary (they being 'Kate and Gerry').
Thus are we afforded a subtle glimpse or two into the 'influence' the McCanns have had upon this witness in particular. There is only one thing to add. If, Michael, someone tells you a lie in the street, they are not committing a crime – merely telling lies. Represent that information in court as the truth however and the crime is yours.

Wright's Folly – 27.09.2013
That the McCanns are perfectly happy to let others do their lying for them has been evident ever since they separately and severally fed their kith and kin the line about their holiday apartment having been broken into. They did their own line in perjury though. Kate McCann herself proclaimed before Lord Justice Leveson: 'There were no body fluids' (found in their hire car), despite having long ago attempted to explain away that very discovery as possibly arising from the transportation of soiled nappies, previously worn by bodies no doubt.
That was until quite recently. Michael Wright's testimony in Lisbon on their behalf has since 'pushed the envelope' significantly.
Maybe Wright forgot where he was. Maybe he did not properly understand what he was being called upon to do. The script was so new to him after all, that he had to jot it down on a hotel napkin. Whatever the reason, he is now in the very precarious position of possibly becoming a defendant himself, should Goncalo Amaral, win lose or draw, exercise his right to sue Mr Michael Wright for giving false testimony against him (we shall come to the specifics in due course).
First a word or two about correlations; those slippery statistical things that, even when significant, prove nothing (see: www. correlated.org). They are often appealed to as indices though, just like the behaviour of sniffer dogs in fact. And what might the principle of correlation have to do with the McCanns vs. Amaral? Gerry McCann, newly arrived on the scene, gives us a clue:
GM - "The law has changed, and I think that Kate and I know better than anyone else what we have experienced, and what we have gone through, the facts of the file and the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine."
Notice that his conclusion is not 'the damage that has been caused to the search for Madeleine by Goncalo Amaral’s book'. That might just have been untrue, the more especially if the court should eventually find otherwise. Furthermore, 'damage' is left clinging to the lifeboat of 'the facts of the files', which Kate and Gerry 'know better than anyone else' just as they do 'what they have experienced'. Which raises the obvious question as to why those with such superior knowledge did not elect to speak for themselves in the first place? (Could it have had something to do with point one above, perhaps?).
It rather appears that Gerry McCann, having watched proceedings from a safe distance, has been parachuted in to provide additional data; data that will strengthen the correlation earlier witnesses, including Michael Wright, have laboured in vain to establish - the three-way correlation (as yet unspoken by Gerry McCann, who is obviously saving himself for the witness stand) between Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth of the Lie', the McCanns' interminable suffering, and the damage done to the 'search' for Madeleine (whether defined as a brand or an activity is unclear).
The story so far is that, according to the McCanns' writ, an unquantifiable degree of damage and suffering (unquantifiable except in terms of financial compensation demanded) can be attributed, directly or indirectly, to the publication of the Amaral book. Several witnesses for the McCanns having now been heard, this putatively indisputable association appears somewhat less convincing, especially given the earlier, widespread announcement of the McCanns' arguido status and immediate release to the public of the process files upon relaxation of this status in 2008, the year in which A Verdade Da Mentira, to give it its Portuguese title, was published.
A major difficulty for the McCann case therefore is the impossibility of disentangling these, shall we say, causal elements, in order to apportion 'effect' with any degree of accuracy. And that's just as regards Portugal, both productions being in Portuguese in the first instance. Hence we have heard attempts to convince the court that the Goncalo's book is the more credible/influential on account of its being easier to read and digest, say, in a day. The significance of the all-important correlation is therefore weakened. From being 'entirely responsible' the book is inevitably down-graded to 'largely responsible' - at worst, if at all, given that quantitative attestation has so far been conspicuously absent from any witness testimony to date (no doubt that is what Gerry McCann intends to bring to the table). The issue does not rest there however.
The 'search' for Madeleine McCann has been considered a worldwide activity since her parents first stepped aboard that hired Learjet on their tour of Europe, and then 'did America'. If that nasty paperback edition of the Algarve Police Gazette (or the film of the book) had any meaningful effect upon its readers' searching intentions, that effect would have been restricted to Portugal, Brazil and one or two African communities. To maximize the return on their investment in proceedings, the McCanns need to be rewarded (compensated seems altogether inappropriate a term) for damage to their search elsewhere on planet earth. All English speaking zones should cover it, i.e., virtually everywhere else. Except everywhere else doesn't speak or read Portuguese necessarily.
And so we begin to close in on Michael Wright's folly.
It is difficult to apportion individual effectiveness, should two or more publications on a single subject emerge at around the same time (e.g., Newton - Leibniz, Darwin - Wallace). Better, in principle, if there is a lapse of time in-between, following which one can assess any influential change(s) occasioned by subsequent accounts. The histrionic Ms Stilwell, who might care to reflect upon what happened to her namesake Frank after he shot Morgan Earp in the back (they almost lost count of the bullet holes Morgan's brother Wyatt put in his body), would have it that there was a rebellious upsurge of anti-McCann feeling following introduction of Amaral's material to the world. She is, however, wholly unable to offer evidence in support of such a claim. Just like those witnesses who have preceded her.
One of those witnesses was Michael Wright, whom we know, thanks to the astuteness of the lady judge, was 'coached' before giving evidence. His approach to the complete absence of reliable data on search and suffering effects (those phenomena obviously more familiar to the McCanns) was to broaden the contiguous alignment of 'The Truth of the Lie' and the official files (the Portuguese scenario), so as to embrace translations available via the internet, English in particular, and endeavour to push home the claim that the book took precedence in the public mind. Of course for that situation to pertain, the relevant materials had to be publicly available at the same time.
As we have seen, Michael Wright, clearly influenced as much by his understanding as his knowledge, has made two very specific claims on the McCanns' behalf, viz:
'They knew before the shelving of the case, that a book would be published.'
'They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.'
Whereas attention was previously drawn to the possible unreliability of this 'evidence' in the light of the McCanns' own admissions, come September 2008, that neither of them had bothered to read the book in question, one may now be altogether more specific. It wasn't the McCanns who lied on this occasion, but Wright, who lied to the court.
The English translation that appears on the Internet is taken from the French version of Goncalo Amaral's book, L'Enquête Interdite - 'The Forbidden Investigation'. The French edition of the book was not published until 03 May 2009. There has never been an English translation made of the Portuguese. And in case anyone should protest that Wright had the English narration of the broadcast documentary in mind, that programme did not materialise until April 2009 either.
Exactly what translation of A Verdade Da Mentira does Michael Wright believe he discovered on the Internet in August 2008 therefore; a translation communicated to the McCanns that very month and which, for their part, they did not read?
Not only should Wright's testimony be stricken from the record, but it should be regarded as prejudicial to that of any other of the McCanns' witnesses who appeal to the same 'translated' source in support of whatever claim they might make (or have made) regarding supposed adverse effects upon the plaintiffs.
As for Michael Wright, the best advice one might offer is 'Lawyer-up mate!' That's what funds (sorry, friends) are for, is it not?

The Cross Word Puzzle – 02.10.2013

'McCanns devastated by shameful lies of disgraced ex-cop', or words to that effect (word order hardly matters), is the kind of rabid headline that has continuously attended the McCanns' attempts to suppress Goncalo Amaral's 'Truth of The Lie'. Well, 'those who live in glass houses...' and all that. When all's said and done, lies are no less shameful when told in English under the title 'Madeleine'. But let's not get into a puerile 'tit-for-tat' argument. Let's instead envisage a brief exchange which, for all the world, might just have occurred in the summer of 2008:

'Hi Gerry. Michael here. Do you want me to e-mail you a translation of what Goncalo Amaral has to say in print?'

'Nah. Don't bother mate. We've read it.'

'Oh' (scratches head in bewilderment).

'Michael', as we know, is convinced that his friends the McCanns were historically 'enabled' through his linguistic intervention some time during August that year. He has said as much in a Lisbon court recently:

'They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.'

For their part the McCanns each claimed in September, i.e., the following month, that they had, in fact, not read the book, whereas reports carried in the UK press on July 25, well before Michael Wright thought to take the initiative, cited both the McCanns and their poodle (sorry, spokesperson) as claiming that their 'legal team' had already begun scrutinising Goncalo Amaral's book, that extracts from the book published online had already been translated (without specifying by whom exactly) and that the legal team had also begun translating the work (which rather suggests that the 'extracts' referred to had not been translated by them in the first instance). Furthermore, the legal team would 'take their time' going through the text.

Peering through this fog it can be said without fear of contradiction that lawyers are not also linguists by profession. So, unless a Portuguese ally was on hand, 'The Truth of the Lie' would have to have been scrupulously translated in its entirety for the tame UK 'silks', first to scrutinize it, and then to form any reliable opinion as to its legal character. What can be read in a day can surely be translated in a month. Thus Michael Wright's diligence on the McCanns' behalf would have been a day late and a dollar short. By the end of August they should already have been armed with their legal team's 'first impressions', hence the imaginary exchange portrayed earlier. But we have just begun to sharpen the pencil.

Whereas Michael Wright's unambiguous claim before the Lisbon court might appear to offer scope for re-interpretation, that is, I'm afraid, a false hope. To recap:

'They read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008.'

In its fullest sense the statement equates to:

'They read the book when I sent them the translation (of it) that was on the internet in August 2008.'

Predictably, however, there are those of a perverse persuasion who wish to read into it:

'They read the book when I sent them the translation (of an excerpt, a summary, or of something else entirely) that was on the internet in August 2008.'

Implying that the McCanns were goaded into action by their unexpected acquaintance with whatever it was Wright believes he sent them. But we already know that the McCanns may either have anticipated Wright's communique, courtesy of their own legal team, or else did not follow his lead, according to their published statements; all of which relegates Wright's claim to the logical status of 'piggy in the middle'. For one reason or another, what he says happened, did not. In any event there is no way the McCanns could have read a book written in Portuguese on account of a piecemeal introduction to it, in whatever form. They do not speak or read Portuguese, period.

This 'alternative' view of Wright's explanation does not work therefore. Which leaves us with the intuitive interpretation, and that in itself tells us about more than a mere coincidence in timing.

The statement, 'they read the book when I sent them the translation that was on the internet in August 2008' associates the book with the translation. In order to read one from the other both must be complete. There is no suggestion that the McCanns read the book 'in part'. Furthermore, there is only one translation – the translation. And that does not mean one English translation among several, being the one available on the internet versus however many others might have been to hand, whether in English or some other language. It means exactly what we should take it to mean, because, in reality, in August 2008 there were no complete translations of Amaral's book available to the public at all, on the internet or otherwise.

Michael Wright's apparent 'discovery', barely a month after initial publication, would seem to confirm, or to suggest at the very least, that an understanding of the book's legal ramifications would have been arrived at reasonably quickly, even allowing that the McCanns' legal team were deliberately, and quite sensibly, taking their time over it. Notwithstanding the differences of interpretation and adjudication of libel between the UK and Portugal currently, one would have thought the implications of 'The Truth of The Lie', from that particular legal perspective at any rate, would have been assessed and demarcated by the end of 2008. A 15 November statement of Clarence Mitchell's confirms this:

"Lawyers for Kate and Gerry have been aware of what Mr Amaral has been alleging for some time. What he has said and written before now is grossly defamatory of them." (The Independent, 16.11.2008).

From the McCanns' point of view therefore, defamation was determined within three months of publication. Mitchell went on to say:

"If he chooses to publish them in Britain those words will be studied intensely carefully and they will not hesitate to act if they are defamatory."

Before any rush to judgement however, it should be borne in mind that Mitchell was speaking in the context of a future publication predicated upon a translation already in the possession of Dr Amaral's publishers; one that was most definitely not on the internet, but open to discussion, in the sense that the publishers (Guerra & Paz) themselves acknowledged the possibility that the Portuguese and planned English editions might not say exactly the same things. However, the situation as regards the original was cut and dried, and Portugal would be where the McCanns would take action. Except they did not – for a further seven months! Of course libel can be damaging, and its effects immediate, which is why litigants typically lose no time in bringing charges (not even Oscar Wilde, and he was the only one to read the remark that offended him in the first place). Why did the McCanns wait seven months therefore?

There is a school of thought that, with an authorised English version on the cards, a pre-emptive strike was to be preferred. Better to muddy Amaral's waters before the home market got wind of potentially damaging information, than mount a challenge afterwards. Needless to say an English edition could not be challenged before it was even printed – but the Portuguese could. As we have seen, Mitchell's cautionary remarks, made in November 2008, were made in respect of that very possibility – an English edition. And yet nothing happened. In fact Mitchell confirmed that the McCanns' legal team were prepared to sit back and wait, nursing a brief to study Amaral's words 'intensely and carefully' should he choose to publish in Britain. So why the delay?

On November 18, Mário Sena Lopes, representing Guerra & Paz, intimated that The Truth of The Lie would be appearing in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Germany by the end of the year. In reality it was released in Germany and Holland during April, 2009 and France the following Month, May 3rd. The McCanns' decision to sue the author for defamation was announced within a fortnight, and their formal writ issued on 24 June.

The Sunday Mirror (12.7.2009) ran a major feature on this development which included a synopsis of the injury the McCanns felt had been done to them by Goncalo Amaral's book, expressed in phrases such as 'total destruction', 'irreparable damage'. The McCanns themselves, when prefacing this announcement with one of their own back in May, chose to use the terms 'huge' and 'immense'. So just how long is a piece of string?

It is clear from the evidence presented in court so far by their witnesses against Dr Amaral, that with the sole exception of Trisha Cameron, none of them is able to quantify the alleged damage done to their sponsors, the McCanns, nor the pain they are alleged to have suffered. Trish Cameron spoke today (Wednesday) of her family members' distress having been 'multiplied 100 times' by the publication of Goncalo Amaral's book. (Shouldn't that be 180,000 times, i.e., the number of Portuguese copies sold? Perhaps not). So what was the level of distress beforehand? Maybe that doesn't matter, but, with distress under the microscope, how does Trish Cameron know better than anyone else, better than even Kate and Gerry McCann so far, exactly which level of magnification to adopt? It's all vaguely reminiscent of Michael Caine's closing line in the film, Too Late the Hero (1970):

'Out there? He was a hero. Killed fifteen single-handed. Thirty, if you like.'

The McCanns themselves were no less coy in 2009, but they seemed to have discovered one metric at least for conversion of their hardship – money. Not only did they feel themselves capable of assessing their various emotional ailments according to very precise and extravagant figures, they even had the temerity to suggest where their adversary might look for the cash in order to meet their miserable demands:

£500,000 from the book sales in Portugal (180,000 copies).

£430,000 (from the extra 150,000 books sold in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Holland).

Only the foolhardy would appeal to a correlation as conclusive evidence of a causal relationship, but one cannot help question the true nature of the McCanns' case against Goncalo Amaral. The effect(s) of a genuine libel on a person's good name is immediate, not cumulative (one cannot base a case on hypothetical future developments in any case) and demands an equally immediate response. It cannot be that deep a wound if it takes almost a year for the injured party to seek a cure. If they simply stand back and watch whilst donations continue to drop into the bucket, then the motive for legal action becomes something other than a concern for their personal reputation(s).

Some years ago the McCanns eschewed an opportunity to quell the UK press, via the customary route of the PCC, in favour of taking legal action against various titles. They succeeded in finessing Express Group Newspapers out of half a million. The present confrontation in Lisbon was clearly not triggered by any defamation of which the McCanns' legal team were already convinced prior to November 2008 (according to Clarence Mitchell). Guerra & Paz published in Portugal and nothing happened. Instead it took a spate of releases throughout Europe for the McCanns to feel sufficiently wronged as to do something about it. For a moment it looked as if history would repeat itself. But then Goncalo Amaral and those acting for him proved better bridge players than the McCanns imagined.

You've Been Framed! - 11.10.2013

We have heard a lot already about the forthcoming edition of the BBC's Crimewatch special on behalf of the McCanns and their missing daughter Madeleine, much of it very appealing (according to a source from Scotland Yard):

"We are not prepared to discuss, comment or speculate on the content of the upcoming appeal in relation to the Metropolitan Police investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

"This has been weeks in the planning and each element of the investigation must be set into the overall context of the appeal. "We will be asking for help from the public in a number of countries, delivered through a series of public appeals. "We will do nothing to jeopardise the effectiveness of these appeals.

Jerry Lawton, Chief Crime Correspondent for the Daily Star (10 Oct.), offers us a little more, on the subject of suspects:

'On a Crimewatch special due to be broadcast on Monday, Det Chief Insp Andy Redwood, leading the inquiry, is expected to reveal details of the suspect's movements around the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz around the time Madeleine, then three, disappeared.

'He is understood to be one of 41 "persons of interest", including 15 Brits, the Met's 37-strong Operation Grange team want to trace after spending two years reviewing the original shelved investigation.

'Mystery

'Police will urge witnesses to come forward if they recall seeing him near the apartment or recognise him from the detailed image, according to Sky News.'

So far, so good. But then...

'Crimewatch will feature a reconstruction of events leading up to Madeleine's disappearance and a new public appeal by the McCanns, who will be in the studio with presenter Kirsty Young, 44.'

Hence we have, as a purpose, jogging the memory of passers-by in Praia da Luz that notorious Thursday night in May 2007, who might just have seen the as yet unidentified person of possibly greatest interest slinking around in the vicinity of 5A, The Ocean Club. (Redwood of the Yard does not need to be told of said person's other movements around Praia da Luz in general. He already knows them apparently, and is expected to reveal them to us himself).

Bravo! Except that this enterprise seems doomed to fall on its own sword, on account of the 'excluded middle', as the much vaunted reconstruction will be of events 'leading up to Madeleine's disappearance'.

Presumably the casual passer-by (aka 'witness') will not be expected to recall, or even relate to, the interior of the McCanns' holiday apartment, their exits and their entrances, or the state of any of their beds, including Madeleine's. Relevance to an appeal for witnesses therefore – nil. Yet they might just have noticed an individual loitering with intent between, say 8.30 and 8.55; someone who hadn't already been spotted as a 'wrong 'un' by any of the Tapas diners walking to and fro, in the course of keeping an eye on their offspring that night.

Interior reconstructions aside, there is perhaps an outside chance of the miscreant having been spotted – outside. Well we already have one witness to that very occurrence do we not? Jane Tanner, who saw what has long since been depicted, literally, as Madeleine being carried off in the arms of a stranger.

Whoa there kemosabe! We've seen the 'rushes'. The reconstruction, based on Scotland Yard's latest findings, places Madeleine's (rather large) feet to the left. Jane Tanner must therefore have seen just the crown of a child's head, if she saw anything at all. And yet she has already offered a detailed description of pyjama trousers - dangling down on the opposite side, virtually out of view?

That must be the 'revelation moment' Redwood is talking about. The moment when he realised that, although genetically unrelated, both Jane Tanner and Matthew Oldfield have the most extraordinary visual capabilities.

Anyone For Tennis? - 13.10.2013

Is it really any wonder that the Tapas 7 showed no enthusiasm for a reconstruction of events on the night of May 3, 2007, or that the McCanns just shrugged their shoulders, rather than encouraging their friends to assist in the 'search' for Madeleine? Hardly, when one considers that the written record since includes three significantly different accounts of a single event, given by three people all claiming to have been there at the time!

In the days when photography was a game of intuition played with wonderfully engineered machines and light-sensitive film, professionals would 'bracket' their exposures of an important subject (in a - 0 + fashion), so as to improve the chance of a perfect outcome. That's three exposures of the same subject at a given time. But trust an amateur to misconstrue the principle. For Kate McCann, Rachael Oldfield and Jane Tanner, the route to success is clearly for two different 'sharpshooters' to capture the same subject, on three separate occasions! The result is a photograph, taken on a tennis court, that's a load of balls.

Rachael Oldfield (Rogatory interview):

1578 "The third of May, are you able to summarise the days activities"?

Reply "Yeah, ...I think Diane might have been there as well, remember chatting to Kate cos we were talking about schools and that sort of thing, erm and holidays, erm and then I think it must have been at about ten thirty, Madeleine and Ella and their sort of group came to have a tennis lesson as part of their crèche activities, erm and Kate didn't have her camera and Jane was there then as well and Jane took some photos of both Madeleine and Ella, that's one, that poster of Madeleine with the tennis balls, that sort of pictures".

1578 "That was taken on the"?

Reply "Yeah that was that morning."

1578 "Thursday"?

Reply "Yeah, erm so we sort of watched them have their tennis lesson, erm and there were a few other parents there, sort of taking photos and that sort of thing."

Jane Tanner (Rogatory interview):

4078 "Okay. And can you remember what happened then for the rest of the day from your point of view?"

Reply "No. Err the Wednesday, err again I think it would have just been a, Evie would have had a sleep and just round the pool or in the, each other apartments, until, until high tea but I think Ella, and Ella would have, Ella went to err, Ella went to the err the kids club. Actually that morning was the morning Ella and Madeleine had the tennis lesson I think on the Wednesday. You've got the picture of..."

4078 "Yeah."

Reply "Err so after the, would it be the Wednesday, after our tennis lesson they all came down so we did stay and watch them for a bit, so that makes me wonder if it was actually the sailing that day. No, yeah because the sailing started, sorry, the sailing started at half eleven so between half ten and half eleven that day we would have stood and, we stood and watched, I stood with Kate and probably Rachael we watched them having their, the kids having their tennis lesson."

And later:

"On the Wednesday me, Rachael and Kate watched Ella and Madeleine having their tennis lesson."

4078 "Yeah."

Reply "But then on the Thursday another group of children came down for their tennis lesson and that's when Russell and this other person was there with the video camera. Because just going backwards, I'm thinking Russell dropped Ella off and then came to watch us finishing our tennis lesson with Evie, because Evie didn't go to the Kids Club. And after our tennis lesson that day another group of children came down for their tennis lesson, so."

4078 "Not Madeleine?"

Reply "Not Madeleine and Ella, no, another group. And we sort of just watched them starting and that's when the conversation with this other person with the video camera, because he was taking pictures of his daughter."

Kate McCann (in 'Madeleine'):

'Our apartment was cleaned on the Monday and Wednesday (another perk) by a middle-aged Portuguese lady. On Tuesday 1 May, after my tennis lesson, two maintenance workers came to have a look at our washing machine, which I couldn't get to operate. Gerry had also managed to break the window shutter mechanism in our bedroom shortly after we'd arrived, in spite of the sign asking guests to be gentle with it. What can I say? It's the Gerry touch . . . The two men looked at the washing machine first. Once they'd established that the problem was something simple – not quite as simple as me not having pressed the 'on' button, but not much more complicated than that – I went to meet Gerry, whose lesson had started at ten-fifteen, leaving them to fix the shutter.

'During Gerry's tennis lesson, Madeleine and Ella came to the adjoining court with their Mini Club for a mini-tennis session. Jane and I stayed to watch them. It chokes me remembering how my heart soared with pride in Madeleine that morning. She was so happy and obviously enjoying herself. Standing there listening intently to Cat's instructions, she looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals that I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls.'

In short, Rachael describes how Jane took the photograph on Thursday, Jane describes the event taking place on Wednesday and Kate describes how she (Kate) took it on Tuesday. Imagine. 'Just hold that pose, dear!' 'How long for?' 'Er...tomorrow.'

And yet the photograph cannot have been taken during a mini-tennis session on the Tuesday either, because there wasn't one. Mini-tennis took place, according to the 'kids' club' schedule, on the Monday morning. If, this photograph is construed as representing Madeleine McCann's 'last hours' therefore (as a recent Sunday Telegraph report would suggest), then these will have been spent on the morning of Monday April 30th, not the early evening of May 3.

Read it and Weep – 15.10.2013

The Book of Revelations (by Kate and Gerry McCann - author unknown).

Jane Tanner, friend and confidante of the McCanns, gave birth to a revelation in Praia da Luz, soon after being 'cognitively induced'. Gerry McCann had another when he 'saw the light'. Now, six years on, but adhering to the rule of three, we are invited to believe that DCI Redwood of the Metropolitan Police has experienced one also, his 'revelation moment' being the realization that Tanner's was in fact coincidental, and about as reliable as a Ouija board.

The BBC's very recent 'Crimewatch' appeal in respect of Madeleine McCann has, almost inevitably (it could have been avoided) provoked a gossip-fest of opinion and counter-opinion as to the motives behind the various inclusions, exclusions, conclusions and delusions expressed during the broadcast. The internet, having given voice to all those of us who choose to exploit it, is suddenly now teeming with Madeleine-related communications, whilst 'phone lines are buzzing with callers eager to shed light on the identities of persons unknown. The media have their hands firmly on the whisk, as Maddie fever is stirred up once more. But we older dogs in the kennel are less excitable. We've seen prospective rescue come and go on many previous occasions, only to note a by now predictable reticence to adopt that which is unattractive.

As far as the Madeleine McCann saga is concerned, prime candidates for extermination since 2009/2010 are Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie, and the prior findings of the Portuguese investigation upon which it is based. The McCanns' own libel action against the author was thought to take care of the first, Scotland Yard's 'Investigative Review' the second. And, like a slow acting weed-killer, the process was working. Until a court injunction on the sale and distribution of the Amaral book was overturned, an appeal decision that definitely rained on the parade, and another heavy downpour in Portugal earlier this year, when Dr Amaral's representatives told the McCann contingent to 'go forth and multiply'. O.k., so you might not be able to 'up the dose' immediately beneath the trees, but what about the rest of the lawn? The territories of the Iberian peninsula might be lost, but there's a heck of a lot of sympathy still to be mined in northern Europe and beyond, provided those earliest conclusions can be either cast into doubt or dismissed as irrelevant.

Is this straying too far from Crimewatch? I don't think so. Syphilitic blindness is not caused by a poke in the eye any more than DCI Redwood's flagrant oversights during his BBC show were a consequence of editing to time. In the very same programme which went on to request information from the public concerning the identities of individuals whose faces could not be seen, but whose clothing was visible, DCI Redwood stressed the importance of identifying a face (or two), but made no mention whatsoever of the clothing which one person in particular is known to have worn.

Too clever by half

It is a fair supposition that the McCanns, having been party to 'the biggest f*ck up on the planet' (Robert Murat's take on something or other, presumably the investigation but one cannot be absolutely sure) could not themselves have dreamt up what happened in that TV studio. They would have done so well before now otherwise. And, since Gerry cannot contain himself, we would have known all about it long since. I refer, of course, to Redwood's revelation.

Scotland Yard and the BBC between them having already poured petrol on the barbecue, the salivating press were quick to publicise an alteration to the abduction timeline in advance of the programme's airing, both here in the UK and abroad. 'WHAT YOU KNOW IS NOT THE TRUTH', proclaimed The Star (13 October). There are solid epistemic grounds for correcting this headline so as to read 'WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD IS NOT THE TRUTH', since one cannot genuinely 'know' something that was not true to begin with. Hence people instinctively took the view that the McCanns et al had lied and we would all be shown why by the good men from the Yard.

Not so. The timeline - that confection first fed to the PJ by the McCanns on the cover of a sticker book - remained completely unaltered, but for the most modest of corrections to a single entry therein.

Jane Tanner lied? She didn't see an abductor after all? Goodness me that leaves the McCanns without...too much to worry about as it happens.

The Tanner sighting has been a double-edged sword from the very beginning (see: A Tanner in the Works, McCannfiles, 19.1.2010). Having been obliged to admit it into evidence, so to speak, the McCanns were thereafter reluctant to weave the Smith sighting into the story as well, since it contradicted Tanner's tale at every turn (1-1=0). What Scotland Yard have pulled off therefore is a stroke of insightful genius. Far from discrediting Jane Tanner's 'evidence' they have simultaneously extricated Tanner, exonerated Oldfield, and rendered 'abduction' feasible at last.

Contrary to popular belief in certain quarters, Jane Tanner is by no means a discredited witness, merely a mistaken one. Matthew Oldfield can sleep more easily at night knowing that Madeleine McCann was still in apartment 5A when he thought to intuit her presence from outside her bedroom, and the abductor has enough time to carry out his mission before Kate McCann’s auspicious return at 10.00 p.m. So now the Met can pursue their remit of investigation 'as if the abduction happened in the UK'. After all, it would be pretty difficult to justify the expense of the enterprise if it could too easily be shown that 'abduction' could not have happened under any circumstances.

Jane Tanner's sighting was simply getting in the way, but with only two options open (removal or replacement) the 'pros and cons' will have needed careful consideration, as there is still no physical evidence of abduction (there never was). Hence a sighting of sorts was always good grist to the mill, but the alternative might come at a price. The decision, as we now know, was taken in favour of replacement, but not by the McCanns. And if the purpose had been to discredit Tanner, just so as to bring the Smith sighting centre stage by way of accusation, that could have been accomplished easily enough without resorting to the latent recollections of yet another holiday making parent, a 'Brit' I might add, who must have been living in exile somewhere for the past six years.

Get the message?

With the exception of Portugal (given up as a lost cause) the remainder of the Western World is being advised that Madeleine McCann was most definitely abducted. Even if Goncalo Amaral should be vindicated come November, there will already be enough steam in the sauna to cloud that decision, as well as the earlier investigative conclusions of the Portuguese that accompany it. After several years now of (re) investigation by the Met's finest, we know (because we have been told) that neither of the parents, nor any of their erstwhile holiday making friends, are suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. And there is a message for the McCanns also.

If the Met Police can produce a rabbit from the hat once, giving human form to human fiction, they can do so twice. Virtually any (blonde haired?) adult male on planet earth, who does not have an alibi for the night of Thursday May 3, 2007, is a candidate for identification as the nocturnal beach-comber of Praia da Luz. And the CPS will be after you (see: Those Who Can, McCannfiles, 12.9.2013). The chances of anyone coming into the frame are, however, enhanced if they speak German.

One among several curiosities to arise from media interpretation of the Yard's handouts, the known details of the Smith sighting (known to those of us who have read them that is, including Met Police detectives obviously) include an observation that the adult male seen carrying a female child at night walked past the carousing family in silence. He did not answer when one of them asked, 'Is she asleep?' Paradoxically therefore, the UK investigators are giving the impression that silence is a sign of nationality. Or perhaps they are keen to associate this individual with someone seen leaving their towel on an Ocean Club sun-lounger before breakfast. Something from nothing then, to accompany the photo e-fits of the man's face(s), as opposed to their making absolutely nothing of the something he was seen wearing at the time.

And you think Redwood of The Yard not capable of discovering someone 'uncannily' like the faceless wonder of Praia da Luz?

Sad to say there is also a conclusive message in these very shenanigans for all those who have taken a vocal interest in the McCann case from the beginning.

The internet can be overly democratizing, in as much as while sharing in debate is all well and good, the forum is not off limits to the uninvited. Anyone can walk in. And they have done - repeatedly. One need look no further than 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann for confirmation of a concern to address (and attempt to dismiss) all those troublesome questions which the public at large (or for that matter a court of inquiry) had yet to ask. So how did those questions arise in the authors mind? The answer is simple. They did not. They arose in the minds of others, but were 'harvested' for consideration. As McCann-in-law Michael Wright explained in Lisbon not long ago:

ID - What does "negative e-mail" mean?

MW - says it refers to all sorts of conspiracy theories that appeared on various forums.

ID - asks if the witness can name some of these forums.

MW - The 3 Arguidos and Madeleine Foundation. He says Tony Bennett invited Gonçalo Amaral to do conferences in the UK. These forums were full of speculation focused on GA's conclusions. People said those conclusions must be true because GA had been in charge of the initial investigation.

ID - When?

MW - Activity was increased and heavy in March/April 2009.

ID - Did the McCanns learn about these forums? How?

MW - They learned through me, the family members who monitored the activity and their support group. I wondered whether it was worse to let them know or not to. I didn't want to add up to their pain, but a significant change happened. There were several instances of threats to kidnap the twins on the 3 Arguidos site. Then I couldn't but speak. There was a chat where a poster suggested someone should kidnap a twin to get to the truth.

ID - Is this dialogue on the forum? Can you get a copy?

MW - says he has a copy and can deliver it.

And if the McCann 'support group' should now extend to Metropolitan Police 'family liaison'? Or are we to suppose that a fully-fledged police operation would not include the monitoring of internet activities?

Redwood's team may have another 10,000 pages to turn, but if they know about the Smith sighting at least, and clearly they do, then they know all about it, not just the fact of its occurrence. Professional stand-offishness is all very well, but it in no way compensates for errors of fact, omission and commission during a formal broadcast in which the Metropolitan Police have collaborated fully and completely.

Meanwhile members of the public are urged to come forward with any information they might have concerning Madeleine McCann's disappearance. There is even talk of a £20,000 reward 'for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007.' A safe bet if ever there were. Failing a wad of cash you might just be offered a blunt pen-knife, a bottle of tranquilisers and an escorted walk through a forest glade somewhere.

In the Company of Strangers – 26.10.2013
The McCanns may appear to be leading a charmed life when it comes to abduction cases emerging, as if to order, in support of their long held contention that ‘there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm.' The most recent incident, featuring a similarly young blonde haired girl, four years of age supposedly but assessed as being nearer five or six, must be arguably the best illustration yet that misplaced children in alien domestic circumstances can indeed come to no harm. Little Maria's adoptive parents, Mr/Ms Silas and Dinopoulou (I use the word adoptive loosely since other accusations against them are as yet unproven) have been quite specific on this very point: 'We did her no harm.'
Let us then suppose that the McCann brand of optimism sees their own missing daughter Madeleine safely in the clutches of an unrelated family somewhere, perhaps exploited in a fashion similar to young 'Maria' who, we are told, was expected to dance at the roadside for 'tips' from passers-by (well they can't all sell basketfuls of lilies, can they?). A grim life, but not a physically injurious one at least. And, quite possibly after six years (the child is thought to have been displaced as early as two weeks after birth) the little girl was discovered healthy. Dishevelled and unkempt, yes. Ailing and malnourished, no.
There's a saying in Spanish: 'You can call me a dog so long as you feed me.' Now what would someone in Madeleine's assumed position think if they were to weigh up their past and present circumstances, I wonder? Never mind being 'happy and you know it' in the comfort of an executive home in Rothley, Leicestershire, how might her more recent experiences of that last family holiday to Portugal measure up against, say, living among strangers, arguably exploited but physically un-abused, for the last six years? Viewed objectively she would be well within the bounds of normal parenting assessment to conclude that she is actually better off for being in safer hands.
No, really. When questioned on the subject, Madeleine's natural parents could only advance the opinion that they 'believed Madeleine was alive when she was taken'. For all we know therefore she might already have been less than 100% alive at that moment (following Kate McCann, who has ever since considered life to be a game of percentages). In that case I'm pretty sure I'd know which side my bread was best buttered. And that's without taking into account the unmistakable fact that my parents were prepared to abandon me to my fate in the event of a fire!
'That's why we ended up coming through the back', said Gerry McCann, once upon a time, while in the company of co-star Matthew Oldfield, 'so as not to wake the children', who will perforce have been asleep and blissfully unaware of any danger in the event of a fire suddenly taking hold of the apartment in which they were lodged that Thursday night, May 3, 2007. Picture the scene: Two-year old twins completely somnolent, virtually trapped in their respective cots, sleeping alongside their three-year old sister, who, at barely 90 cm. tall, could not have reached the only window in the bedroom to have opened it successfully, much less climb through it; a locked front door at one end of the apartment, a large sliding patio door shielded by heavy drapes at the other.
Maybe, just maybe, Madeleine might have been able to negotiate her way out – after previously lifting her brother and sister from their cots?
Unfortunately, twins Sean and Amelie McCann would not have been the only sacrifices in the face of a flammable catastrophe. Their parents, both of them, have been forthright in proclaiming that there is 'no way' Madeleine could have exited the apartment unaided that Thursday night, for any reason.
If the Ocean Club crèche registers are to be believed, Madeleine McCann and her twin siblings were left in the company of strangers on every day of their holiday. The only difference then, as far as Madeleine was concerned, is that any new adult acquaintances with whom she might have been placed after May 3 possibly spoke a language other than English. On the benefit side however they will have fed her, whereas the crèche nannies did not.
Taking everything into consideration, is it not reasonable to suppose, from a notional health and safety perspective at least, that Madeleine McCann, wherever she may be, is somewhere where the grass is greener?

A Bedtime Story – 22.11.2013
Olga Craig (Sunday Telegraph, 27.5.2007), wrote that when the McCanns moved to an apartment near to the one from which Madeleine was taken they "unpacked their missing daughter's clothes...laying out her pyjamas on what would have been her bed."
The Daily Mirror (19.9.2007): 'It is believed the entire Portuguese case rests on DNA evidence from body fluids which allegedly suggests that Madeleine's corpse was carried in the boot of the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic.
'But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'
[Kate McCann (under oath, to Lord Justice Leveson): "These were desperate times. You know, we were, having to try and find our daughter ourselves and needed all the help we could get and we were facing (we'll come onto the headlines) 'Corpse in the car.' How many times I read 'body fluids in the car,' and it gets repeated so often that it becomes fact. There were no body fluids."]
Kate McCann (Statement to police, 6 September, 2007):
'She 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.'
Inventory of pyjamas owned and/or worn by Madeleine McCann between April 29 and May 3, 2007 therefore:
Three pairs - one unpacked (presumed clean), one soiled, one abducted after washing.
Three pairs of pyjamas for a week’s holiday? It won’t wash. Nor could Kate get the machine in 5A to do so.
"On Tuesday 1 May, after my tennis lesson, two maintenance workers came to have a look at our washing machine, which I couldn't get to operate."
Gerry appears to have been on crèche duty that morning. He signed in both Madeleine (9.30) and Amelie (9.20), although Sean's whereabouts are unconfirmed. Kate's tennis lesson was scheduled for 9.15 a.m. The maintenance workers arrived at 10.00. So either Kate McCann had attempted to operate the washing machine before, during or immediately after breakfast that Tuesday morning or she did so the day/evening before. In any event she had some washing in hand and knew better how to deal with it by the time she left to join Gerry at the tennis courts. Having attempted to deploy the washing machine on or before Tuesday morning, is she likely then to have deferred doing so for a week or more?
Returning now to Kate's statement regarding the tea stain, 'the stain did not appear during breakfast (Thursday), maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.'
The stain on these pyjamas was unlikely to have arisen the previous night, as Madeleine did not drink tea that night. Nevertheless, she must have been wearing these pyjamas on the Wednesday night, and Tuesday night as well if 'maybe it happened another day', even Monday night if Tuesday morning/evening are considered to have presented opportunities for tea drinking and/or pyjama staining. We may gloss over the question of how Kate managed to not see the stain before Thursday morning in that case, in favour of one the McCanns clearly did not anticipate when they put their September 2007 proposal to the Daily Mirror, that 'Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas ... were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'
What unwashed pyjamas?
The only pyjamas that can have been worn by Madeleine between the Tuesday and Thursday nights were the pink 'Eeyore' set that was washed, for the purpose of stain removal, before disappearing along with the child. It would of course be entirely reasonable to suggest that she wore a different pair for the first three nights of her stay in Praia da Luz, i.e., Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and that these may well have been soiled by then. But we know, because she has already told us, albeit indirectly, that Kate was keen to do some washing as early as Tuesday morning.
Are we therefore to suppose that, after so short a period, and with concomitantly so little soiled clothing as a result, Kate would not have washed whatever other pair(s) of pyjamas Madeleine might have been wearing during those first three days? And since Madeleine was not present to wear pyjamas of any description after May 3, there can have been no soiled, i.e., unwashed pyjamas of hers in evidence from that date onwards, whether in the Ocean Club apartment or the boot of the Renault Scenic.
Hence the notorious 'body fluids', perjured into nothingness during the 2011 Leveson Inquiry, were probably not introduced by Madeleine's soiled pyjamas after all, as her various pyjamas (assuming she had more than one set), should either have been washed earlier or else unused. However, we must not overlook the fact that Kate was able to suggest at least one other potential source for those absent body fluids.
'But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'
These sandals, perchance?
"...she looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals that I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls." (Kate McCann, in 'Madeleine')
Sandals worn with socks covering the feet?
Silly me. That photograph was taken on Tuesday, before the afternoon beach trip, when Madeleine may have taken her shoes and socks off, although she didn't enjoy the wet sand. Maybe mum and dad didn't bother to put the socks back on her feet before returning her to that already empty crèche for the last hour and a half.
At least we know how Madeleine dressed for tennis that Tuesday morning. We have Kate's photograph to prove it. We do not of course have Jane Tanner's photograph from either the Wednesday or the Thursday, since Kate had already taken it. But we do have both her own and Rachael Oldfield's description of Madeleine's involvement in tennis after Tuesday. And how was Madeleine typically dressed for tennis? In 'ankle socks and new holiday sandals' was how.
And from this combination of clothing we are invited to infer that 'body fluids' were deposited, first onto the inner sole of a pair of sandals, then transferred, via the under sole no doubt, onto a solid surface in the back of a car.
It would appear, on reflection, that Kate McCann was correct when she declared, while under oath, 'There were no body fluids', at least none that might have originated with recently washed pyjamas, or sandals worn over ankle socks. However, the behaviour of a blood detecting sniffer dog suggests, and the FSS examination of cellular material confirms, that there was body fluid in the wheel space of the McCann rental vehicle, albeit in miniscule amounts. So where did it come from?
Secondary options were also put to the Daily Mirror all those years ago (19.9.2007), in the form of 'dirty nappies belonging to twins Sean and Amelie, who have similar DNA to their four-year-old sister' while 'at least 30 people connected to the family, including close relatives, used the Renault before police searched it.'
What manner of desultory people would toss unwrapped, or worse yet unfolded nappies, lining downwards, into the rear of a rented vehicle, alongside the spare wheel? The stench alone would have put any one of the car's thirty plus (!) users off of changing the tyre!
On a less flippant note, the Portuguese police were minded to 'lift' biological debris from the Renault Scenic at the suggestion, so to speak, of a sniffer dog, whose forte was the detection of blood residues – human blood residues, which in itself puts paid to the fall back positions of either 'weepy nappies' or careless passengers. Unless the McCann twins suffered from internal bleeding or haemorrhoids, and/or an overly inquisitive passenger or two cut themselves whilst trifling unnecessarily with the car jack, there seems to be no reasonable explanation for the presence in the vehicle of the body fluids examined by the FSS, especially that detected by the dog.
No soiled pyjamas. No skin cells on sandals. No bloody stools. No bleeding passengers. Hence 'no body fluids', according to Kate McCann. The same Kate McCann who knew immediately her daughter had been, er, 'taken'. Perhaps Gerry McCann, when loading the car with leaflets for the highly publicised journey to Huelva, accidentally cut himself on Occam's razor.

I Say, I Say, I Say – 30.11.2013

Kate McCann (re-enacting her frightening discovery for the benefit of Crimewatch viewers):

"...the curtains - that I say, were closed - just kind of 'whoooosh!'"

Funny. That's not what either of you told police on May 4, 2007.

"At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key and saw right away that the children's bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains drawn open. The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed." (Gerry McCann).

"At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did." (Kate McCann).

"And then I could see that the window had been pushed right over and the shutters were up."

Barely half-an-hour earlier and fellow diner Matthew Oldfield witnessed a similar scene, or so he claims; one which he also reported to police, on May 10, 2007.

'That he did not enter the bedroom where Madeleine and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains – green in colour – were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open...'

Oldfield could not have seen the bedroom window at all from where he repeatedly claims to have been standing, given that the door was only 'half-open'. That is why he saw green curtains instead of the blue gingham that were actually in place, and why he would not have known if the window was open or closed. (He claimed in an earlier statement that there were in fact two windows). Nor would he have been able to see the status of the shutters or, for that matter, the infant occupying the nearer of two cots. He would have to have been in the room in order to do so. In which case he would have had sight of Madeleine's bed also.

So what else are you all lying about? Oh don't bother. We know.

The 'Get Out' Clause – 04.12.2013

Excerpt from Fiona Payne's Rogatory Interview (10.4.08)

1485 - "What were the circumstances regarding her telling you that?"

Reply - "She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh".

1485 - "So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?"

Reply - "Yeah".

1485 - "Did she say whether she had locked or?"

Reply - "No, that was the point, I think they said they'd left it, well she'd said she'd left it unlocked".

The key question paraphrased

What was better for Madeleine if she woke up: That she could get out or, finding the door locked, she could not?

The decision

They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked. (KM witness statement 6.9.2007)

'...a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked'. (GM witness statement 4.5.2007)

The resultant status

Balcony door left unlocked, therefore Madeleine could get out if she woke up.

Question 1.

If the sliding glass door was 'always unlocked', then why should the question as to what was best for Madeleine have arisen that Thursday evening? Supposing 'always' to have applied from the outset of the holiday, the decision had long since been made. Wasn't day six leaving it rather late to openly ponder the option of locking the patio door?

Question 2.

Given the resultant status of the apartment (unlocked patio door so that Madeleine could get out if she wanted), why have you since insisted that there was 'no way' Madeleine could get out of the apartment unaided?

Question 3.

Exactly why could Madeleine McCann not have walked from her bed to the patio door, left unlocked for her benefit?

[See: Just Listen (5.2.11) and Still Listening? (7.2.11) for suggestions.]

The Illusionists – 11.12.2013
Illusions take many forms. They can be aural or visual, even tactile, but the one thing they cannot be is veridical. And since appearances can deceive in any modality it can sometimes be worth putting one's perceptions to the test; either that or suspend disbelief. In Christopher Nolan's 'magical' film The Prestige (2006), after the 'Pledge' and the 'Turn', the 'Prestige' associated with a stage magician's making songbirds disappear before the eyes of a bewildered Victorian audience depends very largely upon the unnoticed, and unsuspected, squashing to death of a canary or two, the magician's assistants in this case sacrificing their all for his art. Dying for the cause is by no means without precedent therefore.
Six years ago in Praia da Luz, Portugal, a pair of contemporary illusionists were hard at work pledging that they would turn every stone so as to overcome a certain personal hardship, whilst basking in the prestige occasioned by their own daughter's unexplained absence. Not being particularly practised in their craft however, they needed a warm-up trick or two. A card trick for starters, performed with a couple of 'signing-in' cards:
"We dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea." (Kate McCann in Madeleine, p.59).
Meanwhile Gerry had already signed Madeleine into her 'lobster' group at the Mark Warner creche (at 2.30 p.m. that afternoon, Tuesday 1 May), and not for the last hour and a half either.
No less amazing is Kate's having been elsewhere at the very same time signing both Sean and Amelie into their 'jellyfish' group, where they stayed for fully two hours and fifty minutes, before Kate signed them out again (at 5.20 p.m.).
How did they do that?
Then, before moving onto the grand illusion, the duo offered up a variation on 'cups and balls'. Not one where the ball appears unexpectedly under a different receptacle, but where the receptacle itself, a young child, cups some tennis balls in her arms and moves back and forth in time, posing for the camera on Monday, yet absent when photographed on Tuesday and when mysteriously seen adopting the very same pose on Wednesday.
Already we are into the realm of illusion. When the camera 'snaps' the subject is not there. Like the body an audience believes has just been impaled inside the magic box. Although our illusionist visitors to the Portuguese Algarve had yet to attain such dizzying proficiency as to make either a Lear Jet or Tower Bridge disappear, they were nevertheless working toward the grand illusion, utilising an entire apartment as their magic box.
Magic box
The Magic Circle
"...we played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine". (Gerry McCann, September 2007)
It is a rule of membership that practitioners do not reveal their secrets. We are left to guess at their methods. So should one expect the presenter of a vanishing act to 'vanish' his subject completely, i.e., without a subsequent return to the stage followed by thunderous applause, or, in a more down-to-earth context, comprehensively abduct his own daughter, never to be seen again? What would be the point? (Unless of course there was a prior expectation that the show would go on interminably.)
What we can expect is that any illusion we witness is deceptive, just like illusionists themselves. Convincing the Victorian audience, as portrayed in the Nolan film, that 'the bird had flown', required the death of a canary; something the magician could never publicly admit. Technological innovation may since have saved the life of many a captive bird, but what secret door might Madeleine McCann have disappeared through? We were all made to think it was a window at first but, in a typical magician's 'double bluff', this was afterwards revealed to have been transparent misdirection.
The box containing Madeleine McCann was shown to the audience at 9.00 p.m. She was there. And again at 9.30. She appeared to be there still. But after one more rotation, at 10.00 p.m., she was gone. The illusionist's partner checked the box inside and out. There was 'no little body' in the form of Madeleine McCann.
Was the little bird alive or dead? Was it being carried away as the audience looked on? Not alive if so, but with sufficient strength to adapt its cradle, not dead either. Perhaps it was hidden within a secret compartment inside the magic box? Had Madeleine fallen unnoticed behind the sofa? Then it would only be a matter of time before she was discovered and the trick spoilt. She was not discovered. There was no trace of her left that night.
So how was it done? How was the illusion created? Well, despite advances in technology and presentation, the fundamental elements of any good illusion remain the same. The magician's assistant is obviously not in the box when the lid slams shut. Unless of course she's a canary, and expendable, in which case someone has to clean the mechanism afterwards, and before the (next) show.
The Prestige
A Trick Missed
"At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children...She verified that the twins were in their beds, unlike Madeleine, who had disappeared...After searching the whole apartment thoroughly...she returned to the restaurant, and alerted her husband and the rest of the group to the disappearance". (KM witness statement 4.5.07)
The Smiths' sighting occurred at just before 10.00 p.m. If the child they witnessed being carried was Madeleine McCann then she must have been removed from the apartment before 10.00. Supposing the adult carrier to have been Gerry McCann, why on earth would he wish to abduct his own daughter? And if she were dead?
If it were Madeleine's body the unidentified porter had in his arms that Thursday night, then when did she have her fatal accident, and when was her body discovered? Not at 9.00 p.m., when Gerry found 'no little body' in the parents' bedroom but gazed down upon three sleeping children in their own. Nor at 9.30, when Matthew Oldfield entered the apartment. Although he claims not to have entered the children's room, and therefore could only assume (but not confirm) Madeleine's presence, it scarcely matters, since a child lying fatally injured between the living room sofa and adjacent wall could not have returned to her bed anyway. Even so she would still not have been noticed, in the dark, by Oldfield. It was for the very purpose of exposing hidden objects that Gerry McCann himself claims to have moved the sofa:
"Regarding this sofa, he remembers it was drawn against the window. He is not sure, but thinks that this sofa was probably a bit further away from the window, and he vaguely remembers pushing it back a bit, because his children threw objects behind it, namely playing cards". (GM witness statement 7.9.07)
So, if a child's body was encountered inside apartment 5A between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. that Thursday night, then when exactly, and by whom? If in fact it was discovered earlier then 'abduction' becomes a prepared scenario, not an outcome of spontaneous panic, and the plan seriously contrived.
The McCanns have a 'last photo' to prove that an accident could not have happened before 2.29 p.m. that same day and a crèche register signed 'K McCann' at 5.30. So Madeleine was safe until next seen (as one of the three children) by David Payne at around 6.30. Within the hour she's asleep in bed:
"It was around 7:15 p.m. when they put the children to bed and checked they were sleeping, she is sure of this". (KM witness statement, 6.9.07)
The bottom line, as they say, is that either Madeleine McCann was seen by the Smiths, being carried off alive in the arms of a stranger, or she was dead. And if Madeleine's corpse could not have been discovered on the Thursday night, then both it and the unfortunate accident she suffered must have been contingent upon earlier events. How much earlier would govern, in turn, the extent of the subsequent misdirection. The fact that the child seen by the Smiths was wearing long-sleeved pyjamas would seem to rule out the 'Madeleine McCann alive in the arms of a stranger' option, so maybe Kate McCann was right. Maybe Madeleine would have been better off had she been wearing her long-sleeved 'Barbie' ones.

Answer Page – 13.12.2013

Question 2.

'Given the resultant status of the apartment (unlocked patio door so that Madeleine could get out if she wanted), why have you since insisted that there was 'no way' Madeleine could get out of the apartment unaided?'

Answer

It would have been physically impossible for a 3-4 year old child to exit via a dead-locked front door, a sliding patio door with drapes in front and closed shutters beyond, or a window they simply could not reach.

Gerry McCann statement to police (extract), 4.5.07):

'Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked.

'At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key'.

(Through the front door. The patio door locking mechanism was not key operated).

Rachael Oldfield (nee Mampilly) statement to police (extract), 15.5.2007:

'The window shutters of the McCann's apartment were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.'

The winding mechanism for the shutters was inside the apartment. In order for anyone to enter via the patio once the shutters were down they would normally have to be admitted by someone already inside, even if the door itself was unlocked.

Question 3.

'Exactly why could Madeleine McCann not have walked from her bed to the patio door, left unlocked for her benefit?'

Answer

Because she was not there.

The true configuration of apartment 5a was exactly as described by key witnesses at the time. Neither of Madeleine's parents had any problem getting in, since they were in possession of the key. Matthew Oldfield was not. But that was unimportant, as his customary gesture toward the invigilation of children other than his own was simply to listen at the window. The tale of his halting exploration of the interior on the night of 3 May, 2007 is as fictional as his description of the fixtures and fittings.

The story of how the abductor 'came in through the window' was concocted, reasonably enough, on the basis of the security measures in place. He did not have a front door key and could not have passed stealthily through the shutters at the rear. He might just have managed to 'jemmy' his way in unnoticed at the front of the apartment however. That was until it was established that he had clearly not done so.

Thus a 'fall back' position was called for, which was the unlocked patio door. True enough, it wasn't locked. But with a sturdy steel shutter closed in front of it there was scarcely any need to lock it. For this alternative story to have a semblance of credibility all that was necessary was to omit any reference to the shutter!

Unfortunately Rachael Oldfield forgot her lines. A pity really, since husband Matt had managed, under some duress, to stick reasonably slavishly to his, which included the absurdity of his not going all the way into the children's bedroom. What was that all about?

It's quite simple really. If the McCanns alone had gone down the unlocked patio door route, further questions would quickly have followed. Third-party confirmation of their claim was required to bolster the account. Step forward Matthew Oldfield. How about, Matthew, you actually go into the apartment the same way? But you must not see anything because there's nothing to see. So you enter via the unlocked patio door, o.k., and stop before you reach the bedroom. There. You've done your 'check', the status of the patio door is confirmed, and no-one else is compromised.

Credit where credit's due, he did his best to make it sound convincing. But why didn't the parents accede to the check for real and simply lend the trusted Matt their front door key? One reason of course is that no-one assumed any responsibility for the others' children at all. Another reason is that the last thing the McCanns wanted that Thursday night was for anyone else to have entered their apartment. The incorporation of 'I didn't go all the way in' into Oldfield's storyline is itself confirmation of the importance of Oldfield's seeing nothing of significance - at 9.30 p.m.

Bear in mind that it is not Oldfield who has chosen to place himself inside the apartment at all but the McCanns, for reasons of their own. So why is he kept on a hypothetical leash? Who knew before 9.30 p.m. that it would have been counter-productive for him to have genuinely inspected Madeleine's dormitory? Gerry McCann's latent awareness of someone else having been inside 5A earlier was yet another development in hindsight. He did not carry the suspicion of Madeleine's abduction back to the Tapas Bar with him, so the Oldfield confection cannot have been constructed on that basis. And Kate McCann did not discover that her daughter had been, 'errr, taken' until after Oldfield himself had returned from 'checking'.

For reasons one can only guess at, the McCanns did not wish Oldfield to discover, or even fictionally acknowledge, that Madeleine was missing – at 9.30 p.m., although there had been no indication before then, at least as far as they could have been aware, that Madeleine was indeed 'gone'. And yet they knew.

Open, Sesame! - 15.12.2013

There invariably comes a point beyond which our imagination will not reasonably extend, whereupon a joke ceases to be funny. Hence a good comedian will realize the limitations of a given situation and look for a new angle.

The classic sun-dial illustrates a good angle; an angle which serves the desirable purpose of informing the watcher the time of day. For the McCanns, whose lives, we're told, were turned upside-down overnight, it is a door which points to both events and time. The chorus has become so familiar it could almost serve as a Christmas number one: 'The door was open much further than we'd left it'.

What this invites us all to appreciate is that the position of the bedroom door in question should be taken as an indication of intrusion. 'Where we'd left it' - fine. 'Open further than we'd left it' - interfered with by someone else. The relationship expressed is a very simple one. So simple that, like 1 + 1, if anyone tried to convince us the result was anything other than '2' we'd immediately question their motive for doing so.

Anyway, together with the angle of swing, as it were, climatic constraints must be taken into account. Just as a sun-dial cannot function under cloud cover, a door will not blow open, or close spontaneously, against the wind, which, unlike a 'rip-tide', does not immediately pull in the opposite direction, unless of course it's a tornado (not typically experienced in Portugal I believe).

Armed with these basic postulates we may now proceed to review arguably the most bizarre equations ever to be advanced in the history of human discourse!

Gerry McCann (statement to police, 4 May 2007 at 11.15 [extract])

'Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked...At around 9.30 pm, his friend MATT...went into the deponent's apartment, going in through a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked. He went into the room, saw the twins and didn't even notice if Madeleine was there, as everything was quiet, the shutters closed and the bedroom door half-open as usual.

'At 10pm, his wife Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment through the door using her key.'

So, while the stand-in child inspector takes the short cut, both parents choose the long route? That is odd in itself. But the position of the bedroom door is unequivocal: 'half-open, as usual'.

Oldfield confirms the McCann account minutes later:

Matthew Oldfield (statement to police, 4 May 2007 at 11.30 [extract])

'At around 21h25, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment...He states that the door of the bedroom...occupied by Madeleine...was half-open and that...he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine.'

'Half-open' (as usual) witnessed by Matthew Oldfield implies 'as usual' left by Gerry McCann earlier, who, by the way, makes no observation himself at this time regarding the door's position before he entered the room. Oldfield, however, 'couldn't see the bed' (from inside the room according to Gerry McCann). Still it's 'all quiet on the Western Front'. The door is definitely not seen to have been disturbed earlier than Gerry McCann's own visit to the apartment at 9.05, nor afterwards at 9.30. Alien hands cannot therefore have touched it until well after Jane Tanner's mistaken identification of a fellow holiday-maker as a child snatcher.

What does Kate McCann have to say about all this later in the day?

Kate McCann (statement to police, 4 May 2007 at 14.20 [extract])

'At around 9.30pm...her friend Matt...went to the witness's apartment. He entered the apartment through a glass sliding door at the side that was always unlocked and once inside, he had not gone into the children's bedroom. He remained at the bedroom door, listening for noise and observing the beds. He went back to the restaurant and said that everything was fine.

'At around 10pm, the witness...went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked...the door to her children's bedroom was completely open.'

It's perfectly clear. Matt uses the tradesman's entrance, does not enter the bedroom (although Gerry McCann has already told police that he did) and yet deliberately observes the beds (beds plural, not cots), one of which Oldfield has already claimed he 'could not see'. And the door is 'completely open' by the time Kate McCann sees it; opened 'much further than they'd left it' and by a third-party no doubt, as Kate's later, more florid assessment for her TV audience described how the breeze blew the bedroom door shut. It cannot therefore have blown it open at all, from which we may only conclude that 'the abductor' struck at some time between 9.30 and 10.00, unless of course Matthew Oldfield interfered with the door, which he did not, as he only remained 'at' it according to Kate McCann.

Already we have a situation in which 1+1+1 equals 3 when, from a logical standpoint, it should really equal 1. These three accounts of the same experience differ in certain fundamental respects, whereas they should concur. There is nevertheless a degree of unanimity regarding the all-important angle of the door, which, when one takes into consideration that we are harking back to a time before Jane Tanner's 'sighting' was so ruthlessly invalidated, becomes an issue all on its own. How can Jane have witnessed a fleeing abductor before he had left, or even entered, the apartment?

In an effort to make that problem go away Gerry McCann had one of his insightful moments, when he was sure, in retrospect, that someone had entered the apartment before him and was hiding somewhere (maybe it was Spiderman clinging unnoticed to the ceiling). The door however, like the sundial, would have to tell the correct time. Its angle simply had to change, which it did during that very week.

Gerry McCann (statement to police, 10 May 2007 at 15.20 [extract])

‘He walked the normal route up to the back door, which being open he only had to slide, and while he was entering the living room, he noticed that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought was strange.'

Now we see Gerry too using the back door. He goes on to add:

'MATHEW returned, saying only "all is quiet" (SIC), he having entered through the back door, given that he did not have the key and it was usual for them to enter in that way.'

Well it wasn't that usual for the McCanns to enter their apartment 'that way' when Gerry gave his statement a week earlier. Not only that, the 'half-way open' bedroom door is no longer 'usual', but 'strange', implying that it had been interfered with prior to 9.05 p.m., allowing time, of course, for 'the abductor' to escape before the watchful gaze of Jane Tanner. Job done then? Not quite. Having digested the matter Gerry goes on to drop the banana skin:

'He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described.'

Ever observant, ever diligent, Gerry spots the door, now at a 'strange' angle, and exits the apartment leaving it in its original position – ajar.

Then along comes Matthew Oldfield.

Matthew Oldfield (statement to police, 10 May 2007 at 16.00 [extract])

'...the deponent went alone to the McCann apartment...he took the quickest route...to the rear patio of the McCann residence, to which he gained access through the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge. The door was closed but not locked as Kate had said it would be.

'...he did not enter the bedroom where Madeleine and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees.'

50 degrees. That's 'ajar' plus 'half-open' (the breeze can only blow the door shut, remember). Well I guess we can forgive Oldfield a five degree error. But what does our 'door dial' now tell us?

The abductor must have followed Gerry out, once more leaving the door 'half-open as usual' (Gerry McCann's first statement) and not the more recent 'ajar' (Gerry McCann's second statement). But did the abductor also forget something, paying 5A a second visit that night once Oldfield had returned to his seat at the Tapas Bar, this time leaving the bedroom door for Kate McCann to discover 'completely open' (that's another 40 degrees folks, against the prevailing wind)?

Were it not for the fact that these observations reflect statements to police that were 'read, ratified and signed' at the time of their deposition, the opening and closing of doors here presents almost as comical a scene as one from Labiche and Michel's 'Italian Straw Hat', and a pointer to anything but the truth.

Brought to Book – 17.12.2013

As regards the question of whether the McCanns did or did not see fit to promote the Smith sighting to a wider public all those years ago, it has recently been claimed that Kate McCann has since devoted half a dozen pages (of her book madeleine) to the 'Smith sighting'.

Did she by Jove?

Instances of the name 'Smith' contained within the book sum to zero. It does not even feature in the Index.

There is however an entry which reads: Irish family, see man carrying child on Rua da Escola Primária 98, 328–9, 365.

That appears to be four pages where the topic is mentioned (not 'devoted to'), not six, and the last reference is an error in any case (the Smith sighting per se is not referred to). The total coverage amounts to little more than a page.

Well what else should one expect from the semi-literate? Mind you, some of what is said on those very pages is, without question, extraordinary.

"Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other, remember – Jane's description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts." (p. 328)

Which parts might they be – Adult male carrying young girl? What about the man's short versus long hair, travelling West versus East, or holding a seemingly dormant child wearing a long-sleeved top vertically, as opposed to cradling one in short-sleeves horizontally? Do such details not matter then?

Heaven protect all NHS surgical patients from the anaesthetist capable of confusing Oxygen with Nitrous Oxide, both gases being administered from canisters almost identical in parts (size, shape, valves and metal – colour and labelling don't count).

"Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don't think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in four years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normally or logically?" (p. 328-9)

How right you are. Assumptions really are the most dangerous of things. Had you but waited a further two years this very question could have been avoided altogether, as we now know that a father has come forward to identify himself and his daughter – We have been told so by none other than DCI Redwood of the Metropolitan Police.

No less extraordinary than these confused observations are equally confused observations occurring elsewhere within the same tome.

"The most critical question relating to the use of the dog alerts as evidence is how likely is the dog's alert to be correct. In this regard, the only testing of these handler and dog teams recorded an abysmal performance. Here 'the basis' for the possible past presence of human remains is that there is a 20 or 40 per cent chance that a dog's 'alert' was correct. In other words, with respect to residual odour, the dog-handler teams performed significantly worse than if the handlers had simply flipped a coin to speculate as to the presence of residual odour at each location.

State of Wisconsin v. Zapata, 2006 CF 1996 – defendant supplemental memorandum

These tests, it should be noted, were performed within twelve hours of body parts being removed from the testing area. Just imagine much how worse (sic) the results would be after three months.

"Almost all erroneous alerts originate not from the dog but from the handler's misinterpretation of the dog's signals. A false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals given by them to lead a dog where the handler suspects evidence to be located. We are mindful that less than scrupulously neutral procedures which create at least the possibility of unconscious 'cueing' may well jeopardize the reliability of dog sniffs."

United States v. Trayer, 898 F. 2d 805.809 (CADC 1990)

Sounds impressive, but let's take a closer look.

"The most critical question relating to the use of the dog alerts as evidence is how likely is the dog's alert to be correct".

Agreed, but….

"In this regard, the only testing of these handler and dog teams recorded an abysmal performance".

I'm sorry, which handler and dog teams were these?

"...with respect to residual odour, the dog-handler teams performed significantly worse than if the handlers had simply flipped a coin to speculate as to the presence of residual odour at each location".

Oh, I see. The dog-handler teams trained, managed and tested in the U.S.A. Not the British dogs employed by Martin Grime then.

Isn't that rather like saying the fuel consumption figures announced for your small diesel engine car cannot be considered valid, on account of the neighbours' 2-litre Mercedes (another car) not meeting them?

"These tests, it should be noted, were performed within twelve hours of body parts being removed from the testing area. Just imagine much how worse the results would be after three months".

Why should we imagine that results for odour detection, in relation to residues proven to be detectable after weeks if not months, even in the USA, be worse in this instance? This is unjustified special pleading. Never mind. Another quote from American case law should straighten things out.

"Almost all erroneous alerts originate not from the dog but from the handler's misinterpretation of the dog's signals. A false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals given by them to lead a dog where the handler suspects evidence to be located. We are mindful that less than scrupulously neutral procedures which create at least the possibility of unconscious 'cueing' may well jeopardize the reliability of dog sniffs."

Almost all erroneous alerts originate not from the dog but from the handler's misinterpretation of the dog's signals. Errare humanum est then. Dogs rule, o.k9.

"A false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals".

In exceptional circumstances 'a false alert can result from the handler's conscious or unconscious signals'. It can only be in exceptional circumstances, since it has just been determined that almost all errors are attributable to misinterpretation by the handler(s). That something can occur is no guarantee that it will, making the incidence of misdirection in this context even more unlikely. But this explanatory context still cannot be taken to subsume Mr Grime's Spaniels, as they were not among the subjects tested, nor even referred to.

One very basic piece of advice, given to exam candidates since the dawn of the GCE 'O' level, is to 'answer the question on the page, not the one that springs to mind'. How on earth Kate McCann ever qualified as a doctor is, on this basis, rather hard to imagine.

Curtains for the McCanns – 26.12.2013

Kate McCann (interviewed)

"Well the shutter was up and the window was open, I'm not lying about that, and even if they want to say theoretically, 'oh she wandered out the back of the apartment', then they're basically saying a three-year old has opened the long curtains, closed them behind her, opened the patio doors, closed them behind her, opened the gate at the top of the stairs, closed that behind her (GM interjecting: 'with the child lock') and done the same at the bottom... you know it's just not... it's not possible."

So let's get this straight. The repertoire of manoeuvres described here by Kate McCann is what daughter Madeleine must have done had she departed 5A on her own initiative that Thursday night, May 3, 2007. That being so then the same observations must apply to the last person to have exited 5A via the patio before Kate McCann revisited the apartment at 10.00 p.m., necessarily navigating her way past all the re-positioned obstructions she personally describes in her interview. But there's a hitch.

If the McCanns had ever had their house ransacked they would know full well that burglars never tidy up after them, whether escaping with valuables (e.g., jewellery) or, in the McCann scheme of the world, incidentals, like a child in arms. Hence anyone fleeing the scene of the crime prior to Matthew Oldfield's 9.30 p.m. inspection would not have bothered to draw the drapes behind them, re-set the child-proof lock on the gate, etc., etc. And, if we examine Matthew Oldfield's various (redacted) accounts of his utterly pointless, and eventually fruitless, entry into the McCanns' apartment, we discover that he makes no reference whatsoever to unlocking gates or drawing back heavy curtains; only going through the door and 'seeing the light':

MO first statement

"That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked in so far as that door is visible from the restaurant."

MO second statement

"...he took the quickest route between Russell's apartment and the side garden gate entrance to the rear patio of the McCann residence, to which he gained access through the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge. The door was closed but not locked as Kate had said it would be."

MO rogatory interview

"So I thought I might as well and I can report back and they can be, you know, be reassured that everything was okay. And we talked a lot in the previous interviews about what state the shutters were in, whether they were, and they were all definitely down, there's three shutters, you know, there's, you know, two, and they're all at the same level, there was no, I would have noticed if they were, if one was up and the rest were down, it would have looked odd.

"I went in to check on G**** and actually went in through the door, unlocked the door, looked in, into her room, all fine.

"So I went back and did the check on five 'A', on Madeleine and the kids, erm, and went back through the patio entrance, so through the gate, through the patio doors, erm, there was, it was light enough to see through the apartment and there sort of a little table light on the right at the end of the sofa and when you walk into the room, you could see straight into it, because the door was open.

"And I just sort of came back out really through the same way and shutting the patio doors.

4078 "Okay. Did you leave by the patio door?"

Reply "Yeah, back the same way, because this door would have been locked and that's the shortest way anyway of coming through there, so I would have gone back out the same door."

Clearly the only effort expended by Matthew Oldfield was in sliding back the patio door – hypothetically. He does not even conclude here with his exit as a statement of fact, merely one of likelihood ('I would have gone back out the same door'). There's really no call for the subjunctive mood in a situation as cut-and-dried as this one is attempting to be.

But back to the curtains.

It seems as though the abductor has already struck, and that Oldfield, in his naivety, has failed to notice the unlocked gate(s), the withdrawn drapes or the victim's absence. So he 'just sort of came back out really through the same way and shutting the patio doors', redressing absolutely nothing. How then did Kate McCann encounter all those closures, if neither the child snatcher nor Matthew Oldfield was responsible for them, to say nothing of Madeleine herself?

Oh, I know. The abductor wove in and out of the passers by to snatch his victim in-between Oldfield's visit at 9.30 (when all the shutters were down) and Kate McCann's return at 10.00 (when the bedroom shutter was open).

But he would still have left the patio curtains drawn back, the doors open and the gates unlocked.

Since we may reasonably infer, from Kate McCann's own description of the status quo at the time, that no sign of interference was evident (apart, that is, from the open bedroom window and raised shutter, something which Kate McCann would not lie about at least), it is therefore highly likely that no-one left 5A in a desperate hurry via the patio during this second half-hour either.

The non-discerning might, I suppose, subscribe to the poodle's prediction that, 'he got out of the window fairly easily', like a stale odour perhaps, or that he simply walked out through the front door, which Matthew Oldfield has already told us 'would have been locked'. There's 'no way' of course that Madeleine herself could have done either of those things, is there?

The End-Game – 30.12.2013

Just days away from closing arguments in McCann vs Amaral, when the former Portuguese Police co-ordinator might, with reasonable justification, expect to point out that the McCanns themselves 'harmed the search for Madeleine' by withholding information, and their PR machine coerces something of a retraction from the Thunderer on Sunday. One can almost imagine Kate McCann repeating her performance of the night of May 3, 2007. 'Do something!' So the men in black, quite unable to subscribe to the IPA code of practice (Legal, decent, honest and truthful) much less the courtroom oath (The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth), brandishing their solicitor's letter (ready typed and no doubt requiring just a signature or two), exhort the authors to qualify their earlier comments.

Oh boy! Pity the poor parents now the journal accepts that 'the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities.'

If only the McCann Fund source who allowed him or herself to be quoted at the time of the original article had been more explicit. Having explained that all the information contained within the contentious report had been passed on to the McCanns' new team of private investigators, why could he/she not simply have added that it had long been in the hands of Portuguese and Leicester police also? It would not have cost significantly more breath to have done that. Instead they went to considerable lengths to explain why the evidence under consideration, in particular a set of e-fits, was not publicised at all by the McCanns' own media machine, via the press or the Fund's own web-site; a significant oversight when taken in the context of all those earlier platitudes preaching the need for widespread 'public awareness'.

It seems the McCanns' were long on delegation and short on personal involvement. They must have pinned their hopes on the investigating authorities announcing the importance of this 'evidence', publication of which they themselves considered counter-productive. Wouldn't that have been inviting the public bodies in question to promote a hindrance? Not really. You see 'the Fund' has already issued a statement to the effect that "all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary" and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

Fully acted upon 'where necessary' means fully acted upon 'selectively'. This could be taken to imply that the information had indeed been passed on, but minus the e-fits, or that the e-fits themselves, although in the possession of certain investigative 'professionals', were not then acted upon subsequently. Hardly surprising when one considers that these morsels were, as we now know, 'provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009'; on September 30th perhaps. Still, only fifteen months after the Portuguese had already archived the case.

Shame on the Portuguese then for not recognising the significance of this new 'evidence' and re-opening the case forthwith. Really? Let's look at that statement again:

'provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009'

The material was not provided to 'both the Portuguese and Leicestershire police', nor are the Portuguese and Leicester police a homogeneous organisation. So are we to imagine that the McCanns' 'admin' team in Cheshire, or the visiting Rothley book-keeper, sent the sensitive e-fits by special delivery to Portimão, whilst one or other of the parents drove down the road for a quiet chat with 'Stu' before handing him separate copies?

Well let's just ask ourselves how the McCanns were accustomed to 'getting information into the investigation' in the past. Via Leicestershire police family liaison is how. So, 'provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police' could quite easily be a rather liberal interpretation of 'handed to Leicester for 'selective action' and onward transmission 'where necessary'. Entrusting such liaison to the same organisation that had deliberately withheld the Gaspar statements would have been akin to tossing a coin into the fountain at St Peter's and considering it a donation to the church.

A constituent part of all the information however, the e-fits were in the hands of Scotland Yard. Well of course they were – handed over by the authors on request; a request accompanied by a letter of absolution from the same fund that had previously restricted these very authors by means of a legal straight-jacket of confidentiality. Scotland Yard had essentially to seek the Fund's permission to secure the information in question. It wasn't proffered up-front and therefore would not have been otherwise.

Still, full marks to the Sunday Times for clarifying any misunderstanding. The McCanns, it must be accepted (at least by the publication), placed their evidence in the hands of the authorities, somewhere, once the Portuguese had lost interest. But that is hardly the point. Even at a parochial level, if one's purpose is to instigate a neighbourhood search then that involves rather more than simply asking the couple next door to look out of their window.

The contentious e-fits, first brought to the attention of the general public by Scotland Yard, fully five years after their production, yet never, and quite deliberately, by the fund which sponsored them, finally made a reluctant appearance on the world stage, only to be overshadowed, rather prematurely, by a snow-capped Christmas tree! Oh, and a message from St Katherine, which singularly neglects to say, 'Merry Christmas Madeleine, wherever you may be'.

Christmas is clearly colder in Rothley than elsewhere.