Le livre a été rédigé avec expertise du point de vue d'un inspecteur de police à la retraite, Peter McLeod, qui a travaillé pendant vingt-huit ans au sein de la police du Nottinghamshire, et plus tard en tant que commandant d'opérations d'une grande division supervisant des enquêtes et des investigations de tous types. Il n'a aucune connaissance "de l'intérieur" à propos de l'affaire MC et s'est contenté d'utiliser le matériel qui a été rendu public sur DVD en août 2008 par la Polícia Judiciária lorsque l'enquête a été classée.
Il est douteux que, dans le monde civilisé alphabétisé, on ignore qu'une fillette a été portée disparue, vers 22 heures le 3 mai 2007, d'un appartement à Praia de Luz, en Algarve au Portugal. Les parents, tous deux médecins, ont immédiatement affirmé que leur fille avait été enlevée de son lit dans l'appartement situé dans un immeuble à l'extérieur du complexe de vacances, alors que les parents dînaient dans un grill situé dans le complexe. Comme preuve de cet enlèvement un homme aurait été aperçu portant un enfant sur la route adjacente à l'appartement quelques minutes après une ronde du père de l'enfant. Les parents refusent d'envisager toute autre possibilité et ont poursuivi en justice pour diffamation les personnes qui ont avancé d'autres théories. Ils ont d'emblée insisté sur le fait que Madeleine avait été enlevée par un pédophile prédateur, puis ont avancé l'idée qu'elle était bien traitée, comme pour justifier leur curieuse et récurrente affirmation qu'il n'y avait aucune preuve qu'on lui eût fait du mal.
La police locale puis la police nationale se sont rendues sur place, des dépositions ont été recueillies et l'affaire a été examinée par une équipe spécialisée. La police s'est trouvée quelque peu gênée par des changements importants et des incohérences majeures dans les récits des parents et des principaux témoins, et l'officier supérieur chargé de l'enquête a commencé à soupçonner qu'on ne lui avait pas dit toute la vérité pour une raison particulière.
Des policiers britanniques ont apporté leur aide et, sur les conseils d'un coordinateur, deux chiens de recherche hautement spécialisés ont été emmenés du Royaume-Uni au Portugal. Ces chiens ont détecté du sang et de la cadavérine humaine dans l'appartement 5A et seulement là, ainsi que sur des vêtements et d'autres objets associés à Madeleine, rien ailleurs.
Les McCann ont demandé l'assistance juridique d'un cabinet d'avocats spécialisé dans la diffamation et d'un autre spécialisé dans l'extradition. Ces choix en eux-mêmes ont suscité des interrogations. Ils ont également créé très rapidement une SARL et les gens ont été invités à verser des contributions pour "aider à la recherche" de Madeleine. Dans le cadre de ces prétendues recherches, ils ont dépensé une grosse somme d'argent pour une société de détectives privés à Barcelone, qui a depuis fermé ses portes avec l'arrestation du directeur ; une autre grosse somme d'argent pour un homme qui a ensuite été extradé vers les États-Unis où il était recherché pour fraude ; et enfin pour deux officiers de police à la retraite qui ont créé une petite société dans un cottage au Pays de Galles, quelque temps après l'annonce de l'engagement de la société. Aucun d'entre eux n'a produit quoi que ce soit de valable.
Presque tous les faits ont fait l'objet de demandes et de demandes reconventionnelles, de conflits de preuves et, surtout, de l'écrasante puissance financière et juridique des meilleurs avocats du monde spécialisés dans la diffamation, qui s'abat sur tous ceux qui osent exprimer un point de vue différent de celui, officiel, des McCann et de leur porte-parole. Le montant imputable aux frais juridiques dépasse déjà largement le montant versé aux différentes sociétés de détectives privés.
Il est toutefois important de noter que rien de ce qui a été dit ou écrit n'a jamais été prouvé comme étant diffamatoire devant un tribunal, après un examen approfondi. Tout a été réglé à l'amiable ou par des engagements.
Les lecteurs peuvent décider par eux-mêmes si l'histoire officielle est physiquement possible ou si elle a un rapport correct avec les faits observables.
Un autre critère qui peut être appliqué lors de l'examen des preuves consiste à examiner toute incongruité entre ce qui a été dit et ce qui a été observé.
Par exemple, voici ce qui a été dit - le 8e jour de la "recherche", le 8e jour de l'enquête sur la disparition, le 12 mai 2007, jour du 4e anniversaire de Madeleine
"Nous avons mangé en silence, en nous concentrant sur les enfants. Je ne pouvais pas manger beaucoup et l'alcool n'était pas du tout à l'ordre du jour. Fiona se souvient que Gerry et moi étions complètement fermés ce jour-là, à peine capables de parler, et bien que nos amis aient essayé de rester joyeux et de se comporter normalement pour nous aider à tenir le coup, ils se sentaient tous gênés d'être dans cette belle villa, au soleil, dans ces circonstances. Il n'y a pas eu de gâteau. Gerry a bien tenté de porter un toast, mais il était visiblement bouleversé et n'a pu faire mieux que "Je ne peux même pas dire bon anniversaire à ma fille..." avant de s'étouffer. La perte physique était plus intense que jamais. J'avais mal pour Madeleine", extrait du livre "madeleine", de Kate McCann - p. 128
C'est ce qui a été observé à la sortie d'un service religieux solennel ce matin-là.
En préparant les différents chapitres, j'ai essayé de m'appuyer sur les déclarations des témoins et des parents eux-mêmes.
Ces déclarations n'ont pas été interprétées, mais les incohérences évidentes et les fréquents changements d'histoire ont été laissés de côté et mis en évidence pour que les lecteurs puissent se faire leur propre opinion.
La structure du livre électronique est la suivante : chaque chapitre se présente sous la forme d'une monographie autonome, avec sa propre liste de références. Pour faciliter les recherches, les sources originales sont également annexées dans leur intégralité lorsque cela est possible.
Bien que cela soit un peu lourd, cela donne au lecteur un accès instantané au matériel source, de sorte que toute erreur ou interprétation erronée peut être immédiatement identifiée.
S'il y a des erreurs, elles sont entièrement de mon fait. Si j'ai cité quelque chose sans en donner la référence ou la reconnaissance, je m'en excuse.
Il y aurait encore beaucoup à dire sur cette affaire, sur la société anonyme, sur les détectives privés et sur la manière dont les médias ont été manipulés, mais il ne s'agit ici que d'un bref aperçu des éléments de preuve pour les personnes qui pensaient connaître l'histoire.
Certains affirment que cette affaire devrait être enterrée ou que la ou les versions des McCann devraient être acceptées dans leur intégralité.
À ceux-là, je dirais qu'il faut toujours garder à l'esprit ce qui suit :
Madeleine Beth McCann a disparu On ne sait pas ce qui lui est arrivé On ne sait pas où elle se trouve. La recherche d'elle ou de sa dépouille mortelle, doit se poursuivre La recherche de la vérité sur ce qui s'est passé doit se poursuivre. Personne ne doit chercher à empêcher ou à entraver l'une ou l'autre de ces recherches.
Et à l'appui de ces objectifs, personne ayant une théorie ou une hypothèse valable ne doit être écarté avant que cette théorie ou cette hypothèse puisse être testée. Aucune personne ayant un point de vue différent ne doit être réduite au silence, sauf après un débat logique ou la production de preuves. L'intimidation, la victimisation, les injures, le "trolling" et autres techniques n'ont pas leur place dans la recherche de la vérité. Ni dans la recherche d'un enfant disparu.
On ne sait pas pourquoi les McCann ne se distancient pas publiquement du langage grossier et des insultes ignobles, des menaces et des injures proférées par plusieurs sites de blogs à l'encontre des personnes qui recherchent la vérité. On ne sait pas non plus pourquoi ils ont permis que des preuves obtenues par des activités criminelles soient présentées à l'appui de leur dossier.
Changing the initial version of events,
especially concerning a report of a missing child, is a classic ‘red
flag’ warning to police investigators to query both, or all,
versions of events in great detail. Indeed when presented with
changes the Police may begin to focus on that aspect, to the
exclusion of the original report.
First reports
In the 24 hours following the report of
Madeleine’s disappearance the following family members and close friends reported almost identical stories to the press. They are of course hearsay as to the
state of the shutters and window, but they are direct evidence of
what they were told by the McCanns. That is a crucial difference.
Trish Cameron, Gerry McCanns sister, said
she received a telephone call from her 39-year-old brother, a consultant cardiologist, who was "hysterical and crying his eyes out". She said: "They last checked at half past nine and they were all sound asleep, sleeping, windows shut, shutters shut. Kate went back at 10 o'clock to check. The front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open or whatever you call it and Madeleine was missing... [1]
Brian Healy - Madeleine's maternal grandfather, told
the Guardian
his son-in-law had phoned him shortly after returning "Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone," said Mr Healy. "She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open. [2]
Jon Corner - a close friend of Kate McCann and
godparent of the twins, said
she phoned him in the middle of the night distraught. He said: "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing It looks as though someone had gone straight past the twins to get to her. [3]
Jill (or Gill) Renwick - a family friend told GMTV
the McCanns were certain that Madeleine has been abducted. "They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine," she said. [4]
Observation
1 In all four cases it is reported that
the shutters were broken open, smashed, or jemmied.
2 Three of the reports include that the
door was open, or hanging open.
As one commentator, Antony Sharples
writing under the name John Blacksmith, percipiently noted:
What must be appreciated, at this point, is that these comments, from closest family and friends - the first to be contacted, are not Chinese whispers. It is not a case that the McCanns rang one person, who got the message wrong, and this got passed on to everyone else. These are four people who received independent telephone calls from Gerry or Kate, in the hours following the 'abduction', and made independent statements. Yet, the statements all recount the same story. The McCanns' apartment was locked, so the 'abductor' must have gained access via the jemmied shutters and left via the front door. [5]
First change of story
This change relates to the shutters’
being damaged
The first police statements were taken
during the morning of 4th May 2007, by which time the story had
already changed in regard to the shutters having been damaged. Now
they are merely “raised”.
It is also notable that all reference
to the door being open, or hanging open has been quietly dropped.
Gerald McCann, statement, 4 May 2007:
11:15 a.m.
. . . Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition. . .
. . . 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. [6]
Kate McCann, statement, 4 May 2007 2:15
p.m.
. . . 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. [7]
Observation
1 The door is now ignored
2 The McCanns and two of their friends
were taken from Praia da Luz at around 10 am for the statements to be
taken. [8]
Gerry was first. He was interviewed
alone. When his statement was completed Kate followed.
Unusually Gerry was permitted to remain
in the interview room, whilst Kate was interviewed and her statement
was taken. [9]
He was permitted to sit behind her and
she states that from time to time he “would place a hand on my
shoulder or give me a reassuring squeeze”. [10]
Further observation
3 Physical contact of this sort may be
reassuring. It can also be a very effective method of communication.
During the same morning, whilst those
two statements were being taken the PJ started the forensic
examination of the apartment, including of the shutters, and took
photos.
It is clear that the shutters had not
been broken, smashed, or jemmied open. [11]
Meanwhile other people with a knowledge
of the resort were giving evidence.
John Hill said that despite the
report by a family friend that the shutters to the couple's apartment
were broken, there was no sign that anyone had forced their way in
while the McCanns ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yards away. [12]
"It's still questionable as to
whether it's abduction," [13]
Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa,
spokesman for the investigation, later confided in British former
Chief Inspector Albert Kirby that neither the windows nor their
shutters had been tampered with.
Mr Kirby told The Mail on Sunday: "
I had a very interesting chat with the
officer in charge. The window shutters are not an issue. Their
mechanism makes them almost impossible to open. The door was left
unlocked. They did that every night.” [14]
Photos exist of the forensic scientist
from the PJ examining the shutters. It is clear that the shutters are
in perfect condition. [15]
A short video clip of an attempt to
open the shutters from outside may also be seen on YouTube. In this
it is clear that the shutters jam into the housing above the window,
and do not remain in the raised position once released. [16]
Second change of story
This concerns the point of entry of
Gerry and Kate into the apartment
In the second statement, made on 10
May, Dr Gerald McCann changed his story for a second time, this time
in relation to his point of entry.
He is certain that, before leaving home, the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the shutters closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he mentions that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, therefore, without a light being lit in the living room or in the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside. Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door. [17]
Observation
This brings his version into line with
that of Kate’s statement of 4th May, and incidentally makes it more
compatible with the first version given by Dr Matthew Oldfield.
“ 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.”
[18]
It also brings it in line with the
statement by John Hill [supra, 14]
Third Change of story
This concerns the first acceptance that
the window was not the point of entry.
On 18 October 2007 the Dispatches
programme aired “Searching for Madeleine”. In that programme it
was effectively proved that there was no way anybody could break into
the apartment and leave no forensic trace or damage to the
lightweight aluminium shutters, which are covered with a fine coating
of polyurethane paint which marks extremely easily.
David Barclay (Former Head of Physical
Evidence UK National Crime and Operations Faculty)
“We must be very careful that we're
not saying this is actually staging, but it is difficult to see how
anybody could have interfered with those shutters from the outside
without leaving some trace. In fact, having looked at them, I think
it's almost impossible.” [19]
Important Note: The statements detailed
above were not made available for examination and comparison until
the case was shelved in July 2008. What follows is therefore a
significant announcement, as it was placed into the public domain
BEFORE the public at large were made aware of the previous
contradictions and changes in stance.
During the week following the
Dispatches programme the McCanns’ official spokesman, Clarence
Mitchell, announced that the McCanns now reversed their previous
stance on the break-in story. The spokesman for the family of
Madeleine McCann has reversed a statement made in the early days of
the search for the missing child. . . However, in the early part of
the hunt, friends and family members told journalists that the
shutter on the apartment where the McCanns were staying had been
broken. . .
There was no evidence of a break-in. I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily. [20]
David Barclay repeated this view on
“Madeleine McCann - The Mystery,” by Sky News 24.12.07 when he
said,
I think it is impossible for someone to get in and out of that window without leaving a forensic trace . . . [21]
The McCanns’ change of view was
reinforced 18 months later by the McCanns themselves, on their “Find
Madeleine” web site, where they admit the force of some arguments.
Lisbon 14th January 2010
There are few points which have been raised in the last few days which I would like to address specifically:Abduction theory: For us, there is only the abduction theory possible because we were not involved in Madeleine's disappearance and we know Madeleine did not wander off by herself. It is obvious and right that the police should consider other theories initially.The window: I described to the police officers exactly what I found that night, as it was and is highly relevant and I knew that every little detail could be helpful in finding my daughter which is our only aim. The window which is a ground floor window was completely open and is large enough for a person to easily climb through it. Whether it had been opened for this purpose remains unknown. It could of course have been opened by the perpetrator when inside the apartment as a potential escape route or left open as a 'red herring'. [22]
Observation
1 Kate refers to the “abduction” as
a theory. Not as a proven fact.
2 Kate described in her statement an
open window and wide open curtains. She described in interviews and
in the ‘truthful’ book an open window and completely closed
curtains.
Kate McCann - statement
4th May 2007 [1]
The group immediately
headed to the club, and set about searching in all the buildings,
swimming pool, tennis courts etc. as well as in the apartment with
the help of employees.
Gerry McCann - statement
4th May 2007 [2]
Immediately, the group
headed for the club and searched across all the facilities, swimming
pool, tennis etc., as well as in the apartment, with the help of
Ocean Club employees, while at the same time they contacted the
authorities, that would later appear.
Gerry McCann - statement
10th May 2007 [3]
They continued with
searches outside, around the various apartment blocks, the deponent
having asked MATTHEW to go to the secondary reception in order to
communicate the fact to the local police, since he had no doubt that
his daughter had been abducted.
Gerry McCann statement as
Arguido 7th September 2007. [4]
When asked why instead of
scouring the land next to the complex they remained inside the
apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way. While the
guests and resort workers were searching, he went to the main
reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate
to wait inside the apartment. After returning from the reception he
went back into the apartment where he stayed in the living room and
in their bedroom.
Observations
1 It is evident from the
context in the first two statements that “the group” means the
rest of the group, and does not include the McCanns themselves.
2 There is a clear
contradiction between the 10 May statement where it is stated that
Gerry sent Matthew to the reception, and the 7th September statement,
where he states that he himself went, before returning to the
apartment.
3 Matthew Oldfield’s
statements of 4th and 10th May, are silent on this point. Neither
statement goes into details of any search.
4 Matthew Oldfield’s
rogatory interview a year later states that both he and Gerry went to
Reception, apparently independently. [5]
A fortnight after Gerry’s
second statement, on 25th May 2007, the McCanns were interviewed by
Jane Hill of the BBC.[6]
Jane Hill: I met people who didn't go to work for more than a week because everyday they were down on the beach, searching the streets. Did you, as a mother Kate, just sometimes think 'I've got to go and be out there with them. I want to go and just physically look as well.
Kate: (Pause) I mean, I did. Errm... (Long Pause) Errm, we'd been working really hard really. Apart... I mean, the first 48 hours, as Gerry said, are incredibly difficult and we were almost non-functioning, I'd say, errm, but after that you get strength from somewhere. We've certainly had loads of support and that's given us strength and its been able to make us focus really so we have actually, in our own way, it might not be physically searching but we've been working really hard and doing absolutely everything we can, really, to get Madeleine back.
Gerry made no reply.
Observations
1 The parents are being
given every opportunity to say publicly what searches they had done.
They have the opportunity to emphasise, for example, that Kate had
remained to look after the twins and that Gerry had searched
extensively. They have the opportunity to explain in great detail
what they had done.
2 They remain silent
3 They do not mention
anything which appears in the following extract from the book, “madeleine”,
by Kate McCann, published in 2011.
p. 73 Gerry, David,
Russell and Matt split into pairs and dashed around the adjacent
apartment blocks, meeting back at our flat within a couple of
minutes.
p. 80 On my insistence,
Gerry and Dave went out again to look for some sign of Madeleine.
They went up and down the beach in the dark, running, shouting,
desperate to find something;
p. 81 I walked briskly up
and down Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, sometimes breaking into a jog,
clinging to the hope that I’d spot something in the dark.
p. 81 Back in the
apartment the cold, black night enveloped us all for what seemed like
an eternity. Dianne and I sat there just staring at each other, still
as statues. ‘It’s so dark,’ she said again and again. ‘I want
the light to come.’ I felt exactly the same way. Gerry was
stretched out on a camp bed with Amelie asleep on his chest. He kept
saying, ‘Kate, we need to rest.’ He managed to drift off but only
briefly, certainly for less than an hour. I didn’t even try. I
couldn’t have allowed myself to entertain sleep. I felt Madeleine’s
terror, and I had to keep vigil with her. I needed to be doing
something, but I didn’t know where to put myself. I wandered
restlessly in and out of the room and on to the balcony.
At long last, dawn broke.
p. 83 Friday 4 May. Our
first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I
resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen
before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped
over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and
holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which
added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big
dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her
be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was
that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out
looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents.
We must have been out for
at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona’s apartment .
.
Observations
1 This is the first
occasion on which we are told that the parents searched.
2 None of these details
were included in any statement, nor in any interview prior to
publication.
3 If we add the total
time spent by the parents in searching, we find “a couple of
minutes,” plus a “run up and down the beach”, plus “a brisk
walk up and down the road”, plus “at least an hour”.
Total search time, it
seems, no longer than 1 hour 45 min.
4 It is entirely unclear
why Kate would need to insist that Gerry went out to search.
5 Matthew Oldfield’s
rogatory interview does not say that he and Gerry were searching
together. In the rogatory interview there is an ambiguous passage
which may indicate that he and Gerry were together on the beach. [7]
6 It is also made clear
that both parents spent the latter part of the night either sleeping
(Gerry), or “keeping vigil” (Kate)
7 The use of the word
“resumed” on p.83 is therefore questionable.
We examine Kate's claim
that the door slammed, and when she went in the curtains “Whooshed”
open.
In 2008 Kate McCann gave
an interview in which she described graphically what happened when
she entered the apartment for her check, and discovered Madeleine to
be missing.
I did my check about ten o’clock and went in through the sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually, and I thought, uh, all quiet. And to be honest, I might have been tempted to turn round then, but I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we’d left it.
I went to close it to about here, and then as I got to here, it suddenly . . . slammed, and as I opened it, it was then, that I just thought I’ll just look at the children.
I see Sean and Amelie in the cot . . . .
I was looking at Madeleine’s bed which is here, and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking is that, is that Madeleine or is that the bedding and I couldn't quite make her out, and it sounds really stupid now, but at the time I was just thinking I didn’t want to put the light on because I didn't want to wake them, and literally as I went back in, the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn, [demonstrates with both forearms together] that were closed, “wheesh’ like a gust of wind kind of blew them open.
And cuddle cat was still there, and the pink blanket was still there. I knew straight away that, err, she’d been . . . taken, yer know.[1]
We notice a number of
significant points in this interview
• We are told that the
door was open “further than we had left it”, but on the video it
is clear and demonstrated that this did not mean fully open.
• We are told that the
curtains were fully closed, and this is demonstrated on the video by
the forearms being held vertically in front of the body and together
• We are told that the
curtains blew into the room.
There are problems with
this version of events.
If the curtains had blown
up in the manner described they would have fallen back onto the bed,
and have been lying across the bedclothes and across the chair
The photos taken by the
PJ show clearly that the curtains are hanging down, and held firmly,
one trapped down the side of the bed against the wall, and the other
behind the wicker chair. The folds in each curtain are clearly
flattened against the wall by the furniture.
The bed is unmade. It is
alleged that Kate had slept in this bed the night before.
The photos show the
windows closed. They are of the type that lock together automatically
when closed, and require a finger inserted into the black mechanism
in the centre to release the catch. They also show the shutters in
the almost closed position [2]
And the photos also show
the curtains half closed, the left curtain slightly more closed than
the right one. [3]
However,
From Kate’s police
statement, dated 4th May we learn,
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.[4]
Gerry’s statement of
4th May does contain hearsay evidence, but as husband and wife they
have obviously spoken between themselves, and the statement can be
taken at face value.
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. [5]
In Gerry’s 10th May
statement we find
The deponent ran into the apartment accompanied by the rest of the group who, at the time, were seated at the table. When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side, the shutters almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE’s bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cots. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scenario that she found when she entered the apartment.
Then he closed the shutters, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside. [6]
Kate made the first half
of a statement on 6th September, but it was adjourned late at night,
to be resumed the following day. It was at this point that the events
of late evening of 3rd May were about to to be discussed.
The following day Kate
immediately exercised her right to remain silent as arguida and said
nothing more of evidential interest. The more detailed analysis of
her story was therefore never undertaken.
So
• in the original
statements the curtains were drawn back, or fully open.
• in the police photos
they are half drawn.
• In the subsequent
explanation they are fully closed
In addition the windows
are sliding, so only one half can be open, that pane moving in front
of the other. A gust of wind would therefore disturb only one
curtain.
But now let us examine
the story around the children’s bedroom door.
In her police statement
of 4th May, which was then confirmed, albeit in hearsay form in both
of Gerry’s statements, she says, explicitly,
. . .the children’s bedroom door was completely open.
The same form of words is used
by Gerry.
The door was completely open.
and he clarifies that
this is what he was told by Kate.
But months later the
story of the slamming door, and the door left open a bit more than we
had left it, is told to journalists as in the video [q.v.], and it is
this version which appears in the book.
p. 71 Then I noticed that the door to the children’s bedroom was open quite wide, not how we had left it. At first I assumed that Matt must have moved it. I walked over and gently began to pull it to. Suddenly it slammed shut, as if caught by a draught. [7]
Leaving aside for a
moment the clear indication in that passage, and in the video, [see
transcript] that Kate had no intention of looking in at the children,
this is clearly at odds with all the police statements so far given,
which emphasise and repeat that the door was “completely open”
What are the possible
ways of understanding this paradox ?
The first option is that
Kate immediately started rearranging the room, but in this case did
not make the bed, which was still unmade from the previous night.
It is of interest to note
that she had not even pulled the bed straight when she got up, or
when she made Madeleine's bed, which is neat and tidy in the photos,
with the corner neatly turned down, giving at least the appearance
that no one had slept in it. [8]
But she must have tucked
the curtains back down the crack between the bed and the wall,
certainly having to move the bed out to do so, and made sure they
were hanging properly, before pushing it back against the wall before
the police arrived.
She must also have done
this before returning to the Tapas bar to give the alert, as none of
the friends mention any such activity.
Again she must also have
partially closed the curtains, since both statements insist that the
curtains were “open”, “drawn open” or “drawn back”. and
in the photos they are not.
And if the curtains did
not "Whoosh" then the door did not slam.
It is important to
remember that it was not reported in either of Gerry’s statements,
nor in Kate’s statement that the curtains blew open or that the
door slammed. This detail was only reported by Kate to journalists
several months later.
The weather that night
was mild, with a light breeze,. In Faro it was recorded as reaching
only Force 3. At 10pm only 14.4kph. This is the bottom end of Force
3. [9]
Beaufort Force 3 Gentle
breeze 12–19 km/h (3–5 m/s)
Leaves and small twigs
constantly moving, light flags extended. [10]
Might that be enough to
slam a door ? Or to whoosh a curtain trapped behind a bed ?
Neither Kate nor Gerry
mentions closing the window.
In her statement Kate
does not mention Gerry’s closing and opening the shutters.
In view of the evidence
of the above, one is surely entitled to question the “official
account” or indeed any of them, in that they seem unsupported by
evidence.
for the Abduction of
Madeleine Beth McCann
In this study we shall
assume that what the McCanns
and other witnesses said
was correct.
From time to time it is
of course necessary to ‘interpret”, as when one witness gives
more than one version of an event, or when two or more witnesses give
inconsistent testimony. Such points will be identified.
In the early stages of
the publicity around the mystery of the disappearance of Madeleine
Beth McCann it was widely suggested and reported in the Press that
the abductor might have had nearly an hour between Gerry McCann’s
last visit and Kate’s discovery of Madeleine’s disappearance to
prepare for and then to commit the crime. Alternatively that he may
have had half that time, after Gerry’s visit but before Matthew
Oldfield’s visit, or possibly after Oldfield’s visit and before
Kate’s.
On subsequent analysis of
the main statements, and taking into account the McCann’s very
early insistence that Jane Tanner’s sighting was of the abductor
with Madeleine, that could no longer be sustained. This fact had been
recognised by Gerry McCann as early as 1:00am on 4th May. [1]
The McCanns themselves
clearly both accept that the “Window of Opportunity” for an
abduction was small. During one interview Kate McCann said - in a
high pitched and emotional voice - “Yyyeeah, yeah you’re right.
It was a very small window of opportunity but they saw it and then
*click*!!!!!! Here Kate makes a clicking sound with her tongue and a
simultaneous downward chopping motion with her right hand. [2]
On 10th May 2007 Gerry
McCann made a statement in which he confirmed this, although at that
time he seemed equivocal about the Jane Tanner sighting.
The passage bears
repeating in full, for the avoidance of doubt.
The deponent had had the wrong idea that MATTHEW had seen the bedroom shutters closed when he was there at 21H30, and therefore he thought the disappearance would have taken place between 21h30 and 22h00, but presently he is fully convinced that the abduction took place during the period of time between his check at 21h05 and MATTHEW's visit at 21H30. It was not until about 01h00 on 4 May 2007 that he learned through RUSSELL that his partner, JANE, at around 21h10, saw a man crossing the top of the road with a child in his arms, that may or may not have been his daughter MADELEINE. [3]
Quite how small was that
window and the consequences that follow are examined here.
From their Police
statements we learn the following :-
• The McCanns left the
apartment to go for dinner around 8:30pm [4]
• Gerry McCann left the
Tapas restaurant at 9:04 pm, walked back and re-entered the
apartment. He did a physical check on the children. He saw all three.
[5]
Observations
From the
absence of any further comment in any of his statements it must be
assumed that the front door, the patio door, the garden gate and the
security gate, and the windows and shutters and curtains in the
children’s bedroom, were all in order.
It takes
one minute to walk at a normal speed from the Tapas bar to the small
gate at the bottom of the outside stairs. It would take around a
further 20 seconds to open the gate, climb the stairs, open the patio
doors quietly, enter the apartment and reach the children’s
bedroom. [6 ]
• He remained in the
apartment for a little time, two or three minutes [7] recording that
he stood in the children’s room “and thought to himself, She’s
so beautiful.” and took the opportunity to use the bathroom. He
then left the apartment through the patio doors, and went down the
outside stairs, through the gate and out onto the street. There he
met Jeremy (referred to throughout as Jez ) Wilkins. The two men
spoke for a short time, estimated at between 3 and 4, or 3 to 5
minutes. [8] [9 ] or “only a few minutes” [10]
• Jane Tanner left the
Tapas bar at between 9:05 and 9:10 pm. Significantly she times her
own departure at five minutes after Gerry’s [11] She walked past
the men whilst they were talking. She reports seeing the two men [12]
although the men state they did not see her. [13]
• Immediately after
passing the two men Jane Tanner states that she saw a man carrying a
child along the road across the top of the street, from left to
right. The child was being carried flat, across the forearms, and
Jane Tanner saw its feet, which were towards her. She then continued
to her own apartment. [14]
• Gerry McCann then
returned to the dining table in the Tapas bar. This time is given as
between 9:10 and 9:15 pm [15]
Working purely from the
statements of Gerry McCann, Jeremy Wilkins, and Jane Tanner, and
adding the time as we proceed we can estimate the following -
Gerry McCann left the
Tapas bar 9:05 pm
Arrived at gate at bottom
of stairs 9:06
Climbed stairs, entered
apartment and went to bedroom 9:06.30s
Looked at children and
had “proud father” moment 9:07
Used toilet 9:08
Left apartment, closing
doors, went down stairs, met Jez Wilkins 9:09
Talked to Jez Wilkins
9:09 - 9:13 pm
Jane Tanner left Tapas
bar 9:10 pm
JT arrived bottom of
stairs, saw and passed the two men 9:11
JT saw abductor carrying
child across top of road 9:11.05s
There is therefore, on
their own timings, just two minutes and five seconds for the intruder
to get in, seize Madeleine, get out again, and make his way round to
the top of the road. To walk from the front door or window of the
apartment to the left behind the low wall, then across the car park,
then right to the corner of the street takes around 45 seconds, and a
further 5 seconds to cross the street. [16]
He has therefore around
one minute and twenty seconds to enter, commit the crime, and exit.
This is an important
point for the understanding of what happened.
Let it be stated once
again.
If the man seen by Jane
Tanner was the “abductor’ and was carrying Madeleine, as the
McCanns insist, he had available to him the time from Gerry McCann’s
leaving the apartment to the sighting by Jane Tanner. And no more.
In this time the intruder
has to
• Enter the apartment
• Sedate all three
children - in the dark
• Select Madeleine as
the victim - in the dark
• Open the shutters and
window - if he used the front door to enter
• Pick Madeleine out of
her bed - in the dark
• Turn her round so
that her head is now to his left, rather than to his right, which is
the way he would have approached her in the bed.
• Exit the apartment,
either through the opened window and shutters, or through the front
door, which he must then close silently behind him.
• Walk to the left
along the path in front of the apartment, walk straight ahead across
the car park, and then walk to the right along the road, and cross
the street in front of Jane Tanner, the father of the very child he
had just abducted, and another man who has his own child in a buggy.
Taking into account the
travelling time, he has around one minute and twenty seconds in which
to achieve the first seven items on the list.
Clearly he could not
enter through the patio door within this time frame, since Gerry was
standing either at the bottom of the steps, or on the other side of
the road, depending whether we follow the statement of Gerry McCann,
Jez Wilson, [17] [18] or Jane Tanner. (During the televised
“documentary reconstruction” Gerry McCann’s version took
precedence, and viewers were treated to the sight of Jane Tanner
being reduced to tears as her detailed recollection was publicly
destroyed.) [19]
For our purposes this
important contradiction is, for the moment, irrelevant.
As Kate has observed,
“What may be important is that all three of them were there.”
[20]
It is indeed a very
important point, as it fixes forever Jane Tanner’s sighting
relative to Gerry McCann’s leaving the apartment, in a way which
cannot be altered by debate or legal argument.
It could only be altered
by admission of error, but Jane Tanner has several times then and
since publicly insisted that she was telling the truth. [21] [22]
Possible scenarios.
One scenario is therefore
that immediately on Gerry McCann’s leaving the apartment, the
intruder entered though the front door by means unknown, or, having
forced up the shutters, propped or jammed them in a high position,
forced open the window, and climbed in. This is not supported by
examination of the operation of the shutters, or the locking
mechanism of the windows. No implement to support the shutters was
found, and no forensic traces were seen on the window sill, or on the
windows.
A second scenario has
more recently been put forward to the effect that the intruder may
have already been in the apartment as Gerry McCann entered. This
would allow him a few more seconds or fractions of a minute in which
to complete his crime. And in fact we find that this was raised as a
possibility by Dr Gerry McCann himself some time later. [23] But the apartment is
largely open-plan, and this theory leads to some vague stories being
suggested about where the intruder might have been secreted. None are
persuasive. “Behind the door”, or “in the cupboard,” have
been offered. Examination of the photos of the bedroom, and indeed of
the entire apartment may lead a researcher to question this. [24]
Gerry McCann recounts
seeing all the children, and having the “proud father” moment,
and of looking down at Madeleine. In none of his three statements
does he report the smell of anaesthetic gas or the presence of any
other anaesthetic paraphernalia, and we conclude that this procedure
must therefore have been performed after he left.
Kate was initially sure
that the children had been sedated. [25]
As the almost infinitely
small window of opportunity contracts till further, other
possibilities have been put forward.
• The intruder had been
watching the apartment [26]
• The intruder had been
watching the family and taking notes. This was mentioned two years
later in the Vanity Fair interview [27]
It is notable that the
more details are provided for this scenario, the more difficult it
becomes. Adding the sedation, for example, or the opened window and
shutters purely as a “red herring”, as Kate did nearly two years
later, [28] cuts down still further the time available to perform the
actus reus.
Another even more strange
possibility put forward by Kate was not only that the intruder had
been ‘making notes’, but later still there was even a suggestion
that he might have done a preliminary reconnoitre, a “dummy run”,
during one of the previous nights.
This is a consequence of
the ‘curious incident of the children crying in the night time’,
reported at some length and on a number of occasions by Kate. [ 29]
[30]
Whether it is remotely
credible to think that an intruder would not complete the crime, but
would instead choose to repeat the actions on a subsequent evening,
when the crying alert given by the children might have been heeded by
the parents, is something the critical reader may wish to consider.
I started this piece by
attempting to build up a picture of what might have happened during
the admitted small window of opportunity.
Gradually, and at each
step, the story becomes ever more difficult to follow, and the time
available for any action by anyone becomes ever smaller, to the point
where one must be permitted to ask if there is anything left which is
even remotely possible.
It must surely also be
permitted to ask the people who steadfastly proselytise the theory of
sedation followed by abduction within the tiny window of opportunity,
to give at least some details of how they imagine it might have been
carried out.
“Once you eliminate the
impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the
truth.” Sherlock Holmes. a.k.a. Sir A Conan Doyle
IMPORTANT OBJECTIONS
There are at least three
important objections to what has been written above.
The first objection is
that the times given by the various people in their statements were
not necessarily accurate. A combination of stress and confusion on
the night, and trying to fit the story together within a few hours
after the event would have made the times approximate at best. (In fact one of Clarence
Mitchell’s more notorious outright falsehoods was to the effect
that none of the group had watches or mobile phones with them, and
that therefore the exact times were not to be taken as wholly
accurate. [31]
Unfortunately for him he
said this nearly a year after the Tapas7 group had drawn up two
separate and detailed timelines on the night, and a third mutually
agreed amalgamation of both, [32] but also the statements of the
Tapas 7, of Gerry McCann “When asked at what time he went to check
on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this
was around 21:04 according to his watch”, [33], and subsequently
Kate McCann in her book “by his watch”. [34] , all contradict his
assertion. He backtracked six weeks
later. [35] Quite why Mitchell invented, or was asked to tell this
particular lie is difficult to understand.)
But the first objection
is a valid one, and it is accepted.
It is however entirely
irrelevant whether the events described took place exactly between
9:05 pm and 9:15 pm, or five minutes later, or five minutes earlier.
The time is not
important. It is the timing, and the statements of the three main
people involved which define the “very small window of
opportunity”, and that remains unchanged regardless of the exact
start or finish time of that window. To recap, in case this is
not understood or fully appreciated
Any abduction, and all
ancillary matters necessary for an abduction, must have been carried out between the time Gerry
McCann left the apartment having seen the children and the time Jane Tanner
passed him and saw the abductor carrying Madeleine whilst he was talking to
Jez Wilkins in the street outside. And that time is measured
in only a very few minutes and seconds.
The second objection is
that the timings for climbing the stairs and opening the patio doors,
for example, or the 45 seconds allowed for walking from the apartment
across the car park and then to the right and across the street might
be inaccurate, as they would depend on the individual person’s
walking speed. This is again fully
accepted. This objection however is dealing in seconds, or small
fractions of a minute. It does not go the heart of the issue, and
could not for example get near to doubling the time available for the
preparation and execution of the crime.
The third objection is
that of considering median times. In other words if it is supposed
that Gerry McCann’s talk with Jeremy Wilkins was 5 minutes, and
that Jane Tanner passed them at the very end of their conversation,
so that Gerry returned to the Tapas bar immediately she had passed,
then the total apartment time for the abductor might be extended to
nearly four minutes. This is of course
accepted, but it still remains to be explained how the first six
items on the list of necessary procedures could be carried out, even
in this time, undetected and unremarked by two fathers, speaking
quietly together in an almost silent street just yards from the locum
delicti.
And we must remember that
Jeremy Wilkins had his own child in a buggy, and that it was a cold
night. This is attested to by Jane Tanner “it was quite a cold
night” “It was actually quite cold”: [36] and by Kate McCann
“It was so cold and windy”. [37] The actual length of the
conversation between the two men, who profess to be only passing
acquaintances and one of whom was returning to his interrupted
dinner, must be judged against those facts.
Summary and Comments
All the above is based on
the assumption that the witnesses have told the truth.
It is difficult to
understand how Madeleine Beth McCann could conceivably have been
abducted from the apartment in the time available.
The PJ wished the McCanns
and their friends to return and to take part in a reconstruction. All
refused.
Gerry McCann and Jane
Tanner did return to take part in a documentary, in which a partial
reconstruction was to take place. The reality was that this was
effectively “directed” by Gerry McCann himself, one of only three
persons officially named as a suspect, and no important points were
explored or challenged. The issue of the “window of opportunity”
seems to have been totally ignored. [38]
The bald statement in the
book, “I knew”, then repeated in italic, thus - “I knew”, -
falls, with respect, somewhat short of the burden required in a court
of law for proof that a most serious crime has been committed [39]
[40]
Madeleine Beth Mccann
remains missing. Her whereabouts and her
fate are still unknown.
La suite ici
