28.02.3018 - The Disappearance of
Madeleine McCann: New evidence of what happened to her
Introduction by forum
owner, Jill Havern.
On 28 February 2018,
members of the MMRG (Madeleine McCann Research Group) posted,
by Special Delivery, a letter to the Chief Prosecutor of Portugal,
Drª Joana Marques Vidal.
I’m now publishing the
letter, in both its English and Portuguese versions. We are grateful
to Portuguese journalist Paulo Reis for the translation of this
8,500-word letter, and to one of our long-time supporters who paid
the translation fee. I would just like to add that Paulo offered to
do the translation for free, but was persuaded by our generous friend
to accept a fee at standard translation rates.
The lines of enquiry
advanced by MMRG in the letter have emerged in large part from the
long-term efforts of members of CMOMM. There are a number of MMC
discussion forums. Ours has been a discussion-forum plus. By that, I
mean it is discussion + focussed research. Literally hundreds of
CMOMM members have, over the years, contributed to the hypothesis
laid out by MMRG in its letter. I thank every one of you so much for
your time, effort and input.
As is well known, the
Admin & Moderation team here are also of the opinion that many
lines of evidence point to Madeleine having died three or four days
before the McCanns raised the alarm on Thursday 3 May.
The Portuguese Police are
responsible for any further investigation into Madeleine’s reported
disappearance and that is why MMRG have sent the letter to the Chief
Portuguese Prosecutor, Drª Joana Marques Vidal. It is the view of
the overwhelming majority of CMOMM members that the Scotland Yard
investigation is a charade and a cover-up of what actually happened
to Madeleine, just as Gonçalo Amaral alleged. While MMRG do not
think Scotland Yard will act on the letter, MMRG will shortly send it
to them, if only to prove - hopefully one day soon – that the
Metropolitan Police has acted thoroughly dishonestly in pretending to
conduct a genuine investigation.
In signing off, I must on
behalf of myself and CMOMM say a huge ‘thank you’ to others who
have helped us here and MMRG to get where we are today. I must make
mention of those who have kept great libraries of information for us
to use, such as Pamalam, Nigel Moore’s mccannfiles, and Maddie Case
Files.
I want to pay tribute to
Gonçalo Amaral and his original team of detectives, who did so much
– against an impossible background of intolerable international
media pressure, gross interference in his investigation by the
British security services, and lies and outright fabrications by many
of their witnesses. Portugal can be justly proud of them.
Finally, I must -
regrettably - end with a note of disgust. Just before MMRG sent their
letter, I heard that the McCanns had not yet paid one penny of the
court costs that were awarded against them by the Portuguese Supreme
Court in January 2017. For nine years, the McCanns crusaded against
Gonçalo Amaral in the courts, pushing him to one hearing after
another, using money provided by the British public, supposed to be
for finding Madeleine, and no doubt money from certain ‘other’
sources. Kate McCann said she wanted him to ‘feel pain’. Well,
they succeeded in doing that all right.
But after nine years
fighting him, they LOST. And, fourteen months later, they have not
yet had the decency to pay him what the court ordered.
Utterly shameful.
To:
Exma Sra.
Procuradora-Geral da República,
Drª Joana Marques Vidal
Rua da Escola
Politécnica, 140
1269-269 LISBOA
Dear Drª Joana Marques
Vidal
We are a group of mainly
British researchers. Most of us have studied the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann in depth for the past 10 years. Our members and
researchers include many people with professional expertise, such as
ex-police officers, lawyers, photographers, computer experts and
statement analysts.
On 10 September 2007,
Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, on behalf of the Policia
Judiciara, produced an interim (‘intercalary’) report summarising
the police’s case against Madeleine’s parents, Dr Gerald and Dr
Kate McCann (6):
Conclusions in Tavares de Almeida’s report
This is an English translation of the conclusions reached by the PJ’s investigation up to and including 10 September 2007 :
From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:
A the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;
F from what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.
G Therefore, we suggest that the case files are sent to the Republic’s Prosecutor, in the Lagos legal district, for:
1 possible new questioning of the arguidos Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann, and
2 an evaluation of the measure of restraint to be applied in this case.
During the house search at the McCann couple’s residence, a diary style manuscript was found, already photocopied, possibly authored by Dr Kate McCann; admitting that it may contain information that may help to reach the material truth of facts.
We therefore propose that the photocopies of the said document are presented to the illustrious judge for the purpose of its apprehension (if legal), its translation and eventual collection of information to be included in the files, as necessary for the investigation.
At this date, I submit the case files for your appreciation, for you to determine whatever you may see as convenient.
10 September 2007
The research that we have
undertaken – and that of many others both here, in Portugal, and
elsewhere – leads us to support all of the above conclusions in
Tavares de Almeida’s report – except for one.
We noted that when the
report of the Policia Judiciara was archived in July 2007, it was
said that the case would be re-opened if ‘new and credible
evidence’ was received by the Portuguese authorities. The case was
re-opened in the PJ’s Oporto office in 2013. Our letter contains
evidence which we believe they should see and act on.
As a result of
painstaking research by many people, we believe that we are now in a
position to supply you with new and credible evidence on one matter
(the date of death) covered in the first point of Tavares de
Almeida’s report. We are satisfied that we can now provide
sufficient evidence to show that the minor Madeleine McCann died not
on the night of Thursday 3rd May, but instead died between Sunday
afternoon (29th April) and Monday afternoon (30th April).
The remainder of this
letter sets out in brief summary the evidence which we suggest points
clearly to Madeleine having died on the Sunday or Monday that week.
We will present the evidence under these seven headings:
A A large number of false statements were made at the outset, containing a huge amount of fabricated evidence. These added credibility to the McCanns’ claim that Madeleine had been abducted on Thursday 3 May. They diverted the PJ investigation into believing that Madeleine was still alive that day.
B The photograph of Madeleine McCann, Dr Gerry McCann and Amelie, taken by the Ocean Club pool.
C The absence of photographs of Madeleine taken after Sunday. (7)
D The fabricated statement of Nuno Lourenco, who tried to identify Wojchiech Krokowski as a potential child-kidnapper who had tried to abduct his daughter on Sagres beach. (3) (8) (9) (10) (11)
E The unreliable evidence of the children’s nanny (and McCann family friend), Catriona Baker, Dr Gerry McCann and Dr Kate McCann about an alleged ‘high tea’ at the Ocean Club Tapas restaurant, at about 5pm to 6pm on Thursday 3 May. (12)
F The lack of any credible, independent evidence by anybody that Madeleine McCann was seen alive after Sunday 29th April. (7) (13)
G The mystery of the strange ‘Make-Up Photo’ of Madeleine, which appears to have been taken on Sunday 29th April, (5) (14) (15) and
H Clear photographic evidence that the very same pyjamas Madeleine had with her on holiday in Praia da Luz were later held up by the McCanns at two press conferences, one in London on 5th June 2007, the other in Amsterdam, Holland, on 7th June 2007. (16) (17)
In presenting our
evidence, we wish to emphasise that we are in no way critical of the
PJ investigation. On the contrary, we believe it was diligently and
brilliantly pursued in almost impossible circumstances, namely the
determination of the British government and media to insist that
Madeleine had been abducted. It is our case that the abduction hoax
was skillfully crafted over a period of four days, and was so
designed as to deliberately mislead the PJ. Only after years of
patiently unravelling the evidence and exposing the deceit has it
been possible to arrive at our conclusion that Madeleine was probably
dead 3 to 4 days before Thursday 3 May.
Before detailing our
evidence on these points, we would like to make the following
observations on the conclusions of Tavares de Almeida and of Dr
Gonçalo Amaral in his book, A Verdada da Mentira, ‘The Truth of
the Lie’. (18)
The PJ’s evidence about
the alleged ‘high tea’ with Madeleine and her parents on the
afternoon of Thursday 3 May
In Tavares de Almeida’s
report (6), he states the following about the events of the evening
of Thursday 3 May: But there is another question about the timing
which is this: The last time that the child was seen outside of the
group, by someone who can prove they saw her, was at around 5.35pm,
when the parents went to pick her up at the crèche. This may widen
the time lapse between Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’ and the
alarm being raised into more than four hours.
This is paralleled by two
short passages in Gonçalo Amaral’s book ‘The Truth of the Lie’.
Here is an English translation (by Anna Silvestro) of the relevant
paragraphs (18):
(1st passage) On the fateful day of May 3rd, the attendance register at the play centre indicates that Madeleine arrived at 9.10, accompanied by her father. Her mother came to fetch her at 12.25 for lunch and took her back at 2 o'clock. After jogging on the beach and going to fetch the twins, she collected Maddie at 5.30pm. From that moment on, no other person saw the little girl, apart from her parents and their friends. What happened then in the apartment remains a mystery.
(2nd passage) We finally decide to question [Kate McCann[ as a witness, but not to pose questions on the events after 5.30pm, the time at which she returned to the apartment with her three children.
A disappearance, a window and a body
It is now important to present a summary of this case, based on our deductions: reject what is false, throw out what we can't show with sufficient certainty and validate that which can be proven. Point 5. The body, the existence of which has been confirmed by the EVRD and CSI dogs, but also by the results of the preliminary laboratory analyses, cannot be found. The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
1 The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
2 Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
3 The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident…
We will present evidence
that Madeleine was not present at that ‘high tea’, (4) (13) that
the ‘high tea’ never happened, and that there is no credible,
independent evidence that Madeleine was seen alive after lunchtime on
Sunday 29th April. (4) (13)
The two descriptions
of an abductor by Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco
We will also make
observations on another matter. That is the descriptions given of an
abductor to the PJ by the McCanns’ friend, Jane Tanner, during
Friday, 4th May, and a second description of a child kidnapper by
Nuno Lourenco, early the following day (Saturday 5th November).
This is what Tavares de
Almeida says about the claims of Jane Tanner (6):
Later, during the course of the morning of May 4th, the father gives the same brief description [as Jane Tanner did] and refers back to Jane for additional details. The latter [Jane tanner] appears at the offices of the Policia Judiciara in Portimão at 11.30am. This time, the description is very precise: the individual, aged between 35 and 40, was thin and 1.70m tall; his hair was dark brown, falling over his collar; he was wearing cream or beige trousers, probably linen, a sort of anorak - but not very thick – and black shoes, classic in style.
He was walking hurriedly, with a child in his arms. He was warmly dressed, the reason she thought he was not a tourist. The child appeared to be asleep - she only saw the legs - had bare feet and was dressed in pyjamas, which were obviously cotton, light-coloured, probably white or pale pink, with a pattern - flowers maybe, but she isn't certain. Concerning the man, she states that she would recognise him from the back by his particular way of walking. The importance of this statement will be seen later.
Now we come to a
description of a man given by Nuno Lourenco to the PJ on the morning
of Saturday 5th May (8) (9) (10). He said this man tried to kidnap
his daughter outside a café in the village of Sagres, on Sunday 30th
April (8). As we now know from the PJ’s investigations during that
Saturday, they identified the man as Wojchiech Krokowski, (9) (10)
(18) a Polish man who was on holiday in Praia da Luz in the very same
week that the McCanns were also staying there. This is what Gonçalo
Amaral says in his book about Nuno Lourenco’s claims (18):
From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual has been surprised on Mareta beach taking photos of several children and in particular of a little girl aged 4, blonde with blue eyes, who looks like Madeleine. It was the little girl's father who noticed him. This 40 year-old man, wearing glasses, tells the investigators that the photographer tried to kidnap his daughter in the afternoon of April 26th in Sagres.
“He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and jacket and shoes of a classic style. This report reminds us of the individual encountered by Jane Tanner in the streets of Vila da Luz on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance.
“Thanks to the father's composure, he managed to take a photograph of the vehicle. It's not very clear and does not allow us to make out the number plate, but we succeed, nonetheless, in finding the car. The car hire firm provides us with the identity of the driver. He is a forty-year-old Polish man, who is traveling with his wife. They arrived in Portugal on April 28th, from Berlin. At Faro airport, they hired a car and were put up in an apartment in Budens, near Praia da Luz. Unfortunately, on May 5th, at 7am, they had already left, taking with them their camera and all the photos from their holiday. We ask the German police, through Interpol, to monitor them as soon as they arrive in Berlin. All the passengers are questioned, but no one has seen a child looking like Madeleine. In Berlin, the couple take the train to return to Poland. Thus, the Polish trail comes to an end. We would like to have seen their photos...but that proved impossible.
As can be clearly seen,
Gonçalo Amaral and his team of PJ detectives clearly believed that
the man seen by Nuno Lourenco at Sagres on Sunday 30th April was the
same man that Jane Tanner had seen at around 9.15pm on Thursday 3rd
May (19) (20)near the McCanns’ apartment. All the following
descriptions were identical:
age of the man (35-40, or 40)
hair brown or dark brown
hair ‘down to’ or ‘falling over’ his collar
cream-coloured trousers
‘jacket’ or ‘anorak’
shoes of a classic style
“didn’t look like a tourist” (because of wearing ‘warm clothes’).
In this letter we will
present evidence that:
1 Nuno Lourenco’s
statement was a complete fabrication
2 Jane Tanner’s
statement was also a complete fabrication
3 The descriptions given
were so similar that they provide the strongest possible evidence
that they were planned well before Thursday, and
4 There was collusion
between Jane Tanner, Nuno Lourenco and others to fake the existence
of an abductor (3) (9) (10).
EVIDENCE OF DEATH ON
SUNDAY OR MONDAY I
A large number of false statements were made
at the outset, containing a huge amount of fabricated evidence. These
added credibility to the McCanns’ claim that Madeleine had been
abducted on Thursday 3 May. They diverted the PJ investigation into
believing that Madeleine was still alive that day. As the PJ
concluded, we agree that a hoax abduction was ‘staged’. We also
agree that the furniture in the McCanns’ apartment was pre-arranged
on Thursday 3 May to fake an abduction scenario. All this needed the
co-operation of the McCanns and all of their Tapas 7 friends. sqWe also
entirely agree with the PJ’s evidence (see Tavares de Almeida’s
report) that there were:
* multiple
contradictions between the evidence of the witnesses
* multiple changes of
story by the chief witnesses, and
* that the McCanns would
adapt their narrative as new embarrassing facts emerged.
In fact much more
evidence of these contradictions and changes of story has emerged
since Gonçalo Amaral was removed from the PJ investigation on 2
October 2007. To take one example from Gonçalo Amaral’s book; he
correctly identified that the accounts of Dr David Payne visiting
Kate McCann in Apartment 5A were contradictory. We have since
discovered a total of at least 20 contradictions as between their two
versions of what happened. (21) We hold that this is more than
sufficient to prove that the alleged ‘visit’ was fabricated.
Three individuals in
particular led the PJ investigation and Gonçalo Amaral to conclude
that Madeleine must have died after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May: Jane
Tanner, Nuno Lourenco and Catriona Baker, the children’s nanny.
We deal with the evidence
of Nuno Lourenco and Catriona Baker below. Here we summarise why the
evidence of Jane Tanner should be treated as wholly unreliable – as
the PJ team itself soon recognised:
1 She and her husband
Russell O’Brien were close friends of the McCanns. NON That means she
is not an independent witness
2 On Sunday 13 May she
was adamant NON that the man she claimed to have seen, carrying a bundle
or a child, at around 9.15pm on Thursday 3 May, was Robert Murat.
This identification of him by Jane Tanner was a major reason why
Murat was pulled in for questioning two days later (18)
3 It has since become
clear that in the hours before she was placed in a police van by the
PJ, in order to see if she could identify the man she claimed to have
seen, she was spoken to by a senior Leicestershire police officer,
Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Small, and two staff from the
British government-funded security agency, Control Risks Group (22).
It is reasonable to suspect that these three people influenced Jane
Tanner to make a false claim that she ‘recognised’ Robert Murat
4 In his book on the
case, Gonçalo Amaral refers to the sudden arrival in Portugal of
large numbers of British government, police and security personnel –
staff from the Foreign Office, the British Embassy, Leicestershire
Police, Scotland Yard, MI5, Special Branch, the National Police
Improvement Agency, CEOP and Control Risks Group. Amaral records in
his book the following (18):
For the profilers, Murat is the guilty party
Since Murat's first interview, which they attended, the specialists have continued to refine the profile of the suspect [Robert Murat]…according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party…
5 From all the above, we
say there is clear evidence of a plot to ‘frame’ Robert Murat and
persuade the PJ to question him and make him a formal suspect, an
‘arguido’. And this is exactly what happened on Tuesday 15 May
(18).
6 In October 2007, the
McCann Team released an artist’s sketch of the man said to have
been seen by Jane Tanner. It was drawn up by a ‘forensic artist’,
Melissa Little. She was employed by Cheshire businessman, Brian
Kennedy, who directed the McCann Team’s highly controversial
private investigation. The sketch did not look like Robert Murat.
7 Later, in January
2008, there was a major news story in the British press about a man
with ‘straggly hair’ and a moustache, said by both the McCann
Team and Leicestershire Police to be a new ‘chief suspect’. (20)
(21) (22) (23) The McCanns’ PR agent, Clarence Mitchell (who at the
time of Madeleine’s disappearance was the head of the British
government’s Media Monitoring Unit), held a special ‘police-style
press conference’ to promote this new suspect. Once again, Melissa
Little drew the artist’s sketch that was presented to the media. In
some respects, the sketch resembled the earlier sketch drawn up by
Jane Tanner. Jane Tanner was quoted in the British press as saying
she was ‘80% sure’ that the man she said she had seen on 3 May
was the same as the man with the straggly hair and the moustache.
This was despite the facts that (a) she frankly admitted that she had
never seen the face of the man on 3 May and (b) the man with the
straggly hair and the moustache looked nothing like Robert Murat.
8 Also in January 2008,
Jane Tanner admitted that she was ‘no longer sure’ that the man
she had seen on 3 May was Robert Murat (29) (30) (31).
9 This admission was
important because, in the two days after Robert Murat was made a
formal suspect, three friends of the McCanns (Fiona Payne, Russell
O’Brien and Rachael Oldfield) all made statements to the PJ
claiming that they had seen Robert Murat near the McCanns’
apartment on the night of 3 May. Yet eight months later (January
2008), they admitted that they might have been ‘mistaken’. (18) Le livre de GQ n'est pas une preuve.
10 One more indication
that Jane Tanner’s claims were false came in a press conference
held by the McCann Team in August 2009 (28). This conference was held
in order to promote the McCanns’ latest theory, that Madeleine had
been abducted by a woman, on a yacht bound from Barcelona to
Australia.
In order to promote this
theory, the McCanns’ latest chief private investigator, former
Detective Sergeant, Dave Edgar, said that Jane Tanner might have been
mistaken and that she saw a female carrying a child, not a male.
11 Finally, we add that
on 14 October 2013, around 7 million people in Britain watched a TV
programme about Madeleine’s disappearance, made by the BBC together
with the Metropolitan Police (27). They had together spent over £2
million making this film. In the film, the Metropolitan Police chief
investigator, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, said that the
man seen by Jane Tanner had ‘come forward’. He told us that the
man’s daughter had been in the ‘night creche’ on 3 May and that
he had carried his daughter, clad only in her pyjamas, back to
wherever he was staying that night.
12 There were many
reasons to doubt DCI Redwood’s claims (27), for example:
A why had this man kept silent for 6 years?
B if the man had been walking past the McCanns’ apartment that night from the crèche, maps showed that he was not taking the direct route from the crèche but must have gone a longer way around
C we were not given the identity of the man; only a blurred photograph, said to be of this man, was shown
D we were told that (i) he had been wearing exactly the same sort of clothes on holiday as those described by Jane Tanner (ii) his daughter had been wearing very similar pyjamas to those worn by Madeleine on that holiday and (iii) that he had for some unknown reason kept these very pyjamas for 6 years
E there is no explanation of (i) where the mother of this child was whilst the man was carrying her home in the dark on a cold evening (only 13 deg C) (ii) why he was not using a buggy and (iii) why his daughter was only in pyjamas, with no covering over her.
In short, none of the
dozens of serious Madeleine McCann researchers in Britain believes
that DCI Redwood was telling the truth. We believe it was yet another
lie by the British police to continue the claim that Madeleine was
abducted, when she was not.
EVIDENCE OF DEATH ON
SUNDAY OR MONDAY II
One of the most famous
photographs of Madeleine is one of her, her sister Amelie, and her
father Dr Gerry McCann, sitting by the Ocean Club pool. They said
that this photograph was taken by her mother, Dr Kate McCann, on the
last day of their holiday, Thursday 3rd May, at about 2.29pm.
We will present a summary
of evidence below which suggests that this was a deliberate lie by
the McCanns and by those supporting them (4) (32) (33) (34). We will
show that this photograph was almost certainly taken on Sunday, 29th
April at lunch-time. (4) (33) We will also show that this was the
last photograph of Madeleine ever taken, with the possible exception
of what we will call the ‘Make-Up Photo’ - see below (14) (15).
Further, we will show that there is no credible, truly independent
evidence that Madeleine was alive after the afternoon of Sunday 29th
April (13). From these conclusions we will also suggest that it is
unlikely that Madeleine’s death was ‘accidental’ (as suggested
in the PJ’s report) and we will also suggest that Madeleine’s
parents had professional help from the highest levels of the British
government in order to ‘stage’ an abduction (the PJ’s own
conclusion) and to help keep up the ‘myth’ of Madeleine being
abducted for over 10 years (2) (4) (5).
The specific evidence
relating to the ‘Last Photo’ is as follows:
1 The photograph is
said to have been taken by Kate McCann. Two acknowledged experts in
digital photography have examined this photograph in detail and both,
independently, agreed that it was a genuine photograph with no signs
of alteration or ‘photoshopping’ (33)
2 The experts also
pointed out, however, that it was a relatively simple matter to
change the date and time stamp, to try to prove that a photograph was
taken on a different date from the actual date (33). On 9 May, Dr
Gerry McCann and a close relative, Michael Wright, presented to the
PJ two computer disks which purported to show all the photos taken on
the holiday by the McCanns and their friends, the Paynes. These disks
included three photographs of Madeleine happily playing in the Ocean
Club playground on the first day of the holiday (Saturday 28th
April). But for reasons which have not been explained by the McCanns,
these two disks did not include the ‘Last Photo’. (4)
3 Furthermore, it is
clear from the PJ files that the two computer disks of photos were
compiled with the additional help of Alex Woolfall, the Head of Risk,
employed by the huge PR firm, Bell Pottinger. He has admitted this.
It is unclear why the ‘Head of Risk’ at a major public relations
firm should need to sort through the McCanns’ holiday photographs
(4) (33) [NOTE: We add here the following information:
- Sir Tim Bell, former Chairman of Bell Pottinger, admitted that the McCanns paid him over £600,000 to ‘keep their name on the newspaper front pages for a year’, and
- 2. This year, Bell Pottinger collapsed, and is now ‘in administration’, following revelations about a campaign of lies they conducted in South Africa to back up the discredited President, Jacob Zuma. The firm, and those who run it, have been totally discredited. Bell Pottinger also received huge payments from various corrupt regimes and individuals they worked for in different parts of the world]
4 The weather when the
photo was taken This is a crucial evidential point that the PJ had
no opportunity to consider. At lunch-time on Thursday 3 May, the
weather was cloudy and cool (17 deg C). This can be demonstrated from
assorted weather records and photographs. By contrast, the weather on
Sunday lunchtime (29th April) was sunny and very warm (21 deg C). By
Monday, a cold front had already brought cooler and cloudier weather
with some rain. This lasted until Friday (4) (33).
5 Now we need to look at
the evidence of the photo itself. This is what we observe:
* bright sunshine
* no evidence of any wind
* three people sitting by
the pool, dipping their feet in the pool
* Dr Gerry McCann wearing
T-shirt and shorts
* Madeleine and Amelia
wearing light clothing
* Madeleine and Amelie
both wearing sun-hats
* a sheen of perspiration
on Gerry McCann’s forehead
* Gerry McCann wearing
sunglasses (4) (33).
None of these features
match the claim that this photograph was taken on Thursday 3rd May.
They all match, however, with the only sunny and warm day of the
holiday: Sunday 29th April. The photograph was not produced by the
McCanns until Thursday 24 May. Why, when it was already in the
McCanns’ camera, was it not produced straightaway, when the police
and the press required the most up-to-date photo of Madeleine?
EVIDENCE OF DEATH ON
SUNDAY OR MONDAY III
The absence of
photographs of Madeleine taken after Sunday. Only five photographs of
Madeleine on that holiday are claimed to exist. We have mentioned
four of them:
1, 2, 3 There were three
photographs of Madeleine taken on the Saturday. Dr Gerry McCann
handed these to the PJ on 9 May 2007
4 There is the ‘Last
Photo’, which the McCanns say was taken on Thursday 3rd May.
However, we have shown that it must have been taken on Sunday 29th
April.
That leaves just one
other photo which the McCanns claim was taken on that holiday: the
so-called ‘Tennis Balls Photo’, which purports to show Madeleine
clutching some tennis balls. There are numerous problems with this
photo (35) (36 (37). The main four are:
1 Two different people
are said to have taken it (Kate McCann and Jane Tanner)
2 They claim they were
taken on two different days (Tuesday and Thursday), and
3 The improbability of
Kate McCann’s account (in her 2011 book, ‘madeleine’) of how
the photograph came to be taken (she writes of how she ran back to
her apartment to get her camera, while Madeleine was apparently
there, waiting for this photograph to be taken
4 The photograph appears
inconsistent with what is said by Kate McCann. There are no other
children in shot. There are no children’s nannies or tennis coaches
in shot, the balls that the girl in the photo is holding are adult
balls, not the soft balls that children would use when playing
mini-tennis.
Furthermore, there is no
independent witness (such as a crèche nanny or tennis coach) of how
and when this photograph is supposed to have been taken. In addition,
some observers have noted that whilst the head of the girl in the
photograph is clearly that of Madeleine, the body of the girl looks
different from Madeleine in a number of ways. Notably the girls’
legs look sturdier, as if they are of an older girl, and her arms and
legs have a number of marks, possibly bruises and scratches, and look
red and sunburnt when compared with the pale skin of Madeleine, as
seen on the three photographs of Madeleine on Saturday, and the ‘Last
Photo’ which we are sure was taken on the Sunday. (4) (35) (36)
(37)
Therefore we have no
proof of any photograph of Madeleine being taken on the Monday,
Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday that week. That is wholly consistent
with our case that Madeleine died on the Sunday. We should add that a
Mr Philip Edmonds, a Director of Stemcor, the international steel
company, was on holiday that week with his three sons, and claimed to
have taken a photograph of his three sons playing in the Ocean Club
playground, on Thursday 3rd May, showing Madeleine McCann in the
background. He further claimed publicly that he had sent this
photograph to the PJ. However, no such photograph appears in the PJ
files, nor has it been published elsewhere. There is every reason to
doubt whether – even if he has supplied such a photograph – that
it could prove that Madeleine was alive that day (38).
EVIDENCE OF DEATH ON
SUNDAY OR MONDAY IV
The fabricated statement
of Nuno Lourenco, who tried to identify Wojchiech Krokowski as a
potential child-kidnapper who had tried to abduct his daughter on
Sagres beach. Nuno Lourenco claimed he was living in Germany but had
been over to Sagres for a short holiday to see his mother, who still
lives in the area. (8) Early on Saturday 5th May, he contacted the PJ
to say that a man had been photographing children (including his own)
on Sagres beach during the afternoon of Sunday 29th April (although
Goncalo Amaral gives a different date for this in his book). (8) (18)
Nuno Lourenco provided a photograph in support of his claims. He said
that he had managed to take a photograph of the man on his mobile
’phone before he drove away. He also gave the police the last four
digits of the car registration number of the vehicle. (8)
With this information,
the Portuguese police were able to establish that the owner of the
car was a car rental agency based in Burgau, and that the car had
been rented for the week by a Mr Wojchiech Krokowski. Krokowski and
his wife had been holidaying at an apartment in the Sol e Mar
building in Burgau. The police later established further details
about Krokowski and his wife from the owner or manager of the Burgau
Beach Bar (believed to be Mr Ralph Eveleigh or his manager), a CCTV
in a shop in Lisbon, and the Polish Police. (8) (18) It is clear from
what we said in our introduction that Gonçalo Amaral and his PJ team
believed that Nuno Lourenco had identified the same man as seen by
Jane Tanner. (18)
If we now compare the
descriptions by Jane Tanner (of the man she said she saw) and by Nuno
Lourenco (of the man we now know to have been Wojchiech Krokowski),
the similarities are astonishing, as we now set out in this table:
Jane Tanner description
of the man Lourenco description of Krokowski
aged between 35 and 40
aged 40
dark brown hair, falling
over his collar brown hair down to his collar
wearing cream or beige
trousers wearing cream-coloured trousers
wearing black shoes in
the classic style shoes of a classic style
warmly dressed, the
reason she did not look like a tourist
thought he was not a
tourist
We make these
observations on Nuno Lourenco’s statement (3):
1 The account he gives of
the attempted kidnap lacks credibility in several respects:
A why would a
holidaymaker, with his car apparently parked some way away outside
the village, attempt (in broad daylight) to kidnap a child?
B why are there no other
witnesses to this incident?
C his account of how he
tried to take a photo of Krokowski, but failed because his finger was
blocking the viewfinder, also lacks credibility
D his account of what
actually happened inside and outside the café also does not have the
‘ring of truth’ about it
- he did not report what
(if true) must have been a frightening incident to the police until
six days later
- he laid great emphasis
on how the date and time stamp on his mobile ’phone ‘proved’
that the photograph of Krokowski’s car was taken around 6pm on
Sunday 29th April. This reminds us of another photograph, the ‘Last
Photo’, was said to have been taken on Thursday 3 May, according to
the date stamp, yet evidence suggests that it was taken four days
earlier. We suggest that it is likely in all the circumstances that
Lourenco took this photograph later in the week, but date-stamped it
to fool the PJ team into thinking it was taken on the Sunday
- he did not ’phone the
police until six days later, and waited until after Jane Tanner had
given her statement to the police
- moreover, he waited
until around the time that the plane taking Krokowski and his wife
back to Poland was taking off from faro Airport. This seems to us
like more than a coincidence (9) (10).
Taking all these matters
into account, and having regard also to the astonishing coincidences
between the descriptions given by Jane Tanner (of the man) and Nuno
Lourenco (of Wojchiech Krokowski), we arrive at these very disturbing
conclusions:
Jane Tanner and Nuno
Lourenco were describing the same man – Wojchiech Krokowski
The description must
therefore have been based on Wojchiech Krokowski and what he was
wearing that week
Either Jane Tanner and
Nuno Lourenco must have colluded in order to give police identical
descriptions, OR at least one third party must have planned this
collusion, and given them instructions on what to say to the police
(3).
This means that Jane
Tanner, Nuno Lourenco, and any or all people who colluded in
deceiving the police in this way have committed the offence (in
English law) of perverting the course of justice. In English law this
offence attracts the maximum penalty of 14 years.
[note : We add here the
strange matter of the evidence of three members of the Smith family,
who claimed to have seen a man carrying a girl dressed only in
pyjamas at about 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May. What is astonishing is
that when they travelled to Portugal to give their statements on 26
May, they also gave an almost identical description of the man they
claimed they saw to those given by Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco.
The Smiths also described
a man ‘about 35-40’, ‘wearing cloth clothes’, ‘wearing
classic shoes’, and who ‘didn’t look like a tourist’. The
girl he was carrying was also dressed only in white/pink pyjamas. If
we are correct in asserting that Madeleine was probably dead on
Sunday, then what possible explanation can there be for him reporting
seeing someone, at about 10.00pm on Thursday 3rd May, identical to
the descriptions of a man given by Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco? It
raises a realistic possibility that this was also a fabrication, and
that Martin Smith and his family were also using the same description
of Wojchiech Krokowski.
We may add that on 20th
September 2007, eleven days after seeing TV footage of Gerry McCann
carrying his son Sean down the steps of an aeroplane, Martin Smith
claimed (with 60% to 80% certainty] that the man he said he had seen
on 3rd May was Gerry McCann. Yet despite that, he admits to having
been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy, head of the McCanns’ private
investigation, in December 2007, and since then has clearly been
working with the McCanns, making public statements sympathising with
the McCanns and urging the public to ‘look for the abductor’ ].
(3)
EVIDENCE OF DEATH ON
SUNDAY OR MONDAY V
The unreliable evidence
of the children’s nanny, Catriona Baker, Dr Gerry McCann and Dr
Kate McCann about an alleged ‘high tea’ at the Ocean Club Tapas
restaurant, at about 5pm to 6pm on Thursday 3 May. The crucial
evidence that Madeleine was still alive at 5.30pm on Thursday 3rd May
came from one of the nannies, Catriona Baker (39) (40) (41). She was
also the crèche nanny for Madeleine’s daytime group, the
‘Lobsters’. Both Tavares de Almeida and Gonçalo Amaral in his
book were certain that she was telling the truth, and that, because
she was thought to be an ‘independent’ witness, they could rely
on her word (18).
Detailed investigation,
however, has uncovered a mass of contradictions LESQUELLES ? as between the four
main witnesses who gave evidence about this alleged ‘high tea’ on
the Thursday afternoon: Dr Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, and crèche
nannies Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington (12). These
contradictions have been analysed by many Madeleine researchers. All
have come to the conclusion that the contradictions are so many and
so serious that it is highly doubtful that this ‘high tea’
happened at all. It is simply not possible to accept Catriona Baker
as a witness of truth.
Furthermore, research has
uncovered the fact that Catriona Baker probably knew the McCanns
before this holiday (4). Records on the social media group Facebook
show that Catriona Baker was, in 2006 and possible before then, a
Facebook friend of Chloe Corner. Chloe Corner is the daughter of
Madeleine’s godfather, Jon Corner. Jon Corner was highly involved
in events after Madeleine was reported missing. Within hours, he was
seemingly able to send unlimited photos of Madeleine to the media,
from his home in Liverpool. In addition, Jon Corner said he had been
to Praia da Luz several times previously, suggesting a connection
with the village. Jon Corner also lived with the McCanns for around a
week in August 2007, during which time he took them to Huelva to
distribute leaflets about Madeleine. He made a film about Madeleine
which was later used by Panorama for their programme about Madeleine
shown on 19 November 2017 (4).
In November 2007, six
months after Madeleine was reported missing, Catriona Baker visited
the McCanns in Rothley, staying with them for a number of days. There
are also indications from Kate McCann’s account of Catriona Baker
in her book, ‘madeleine’, that she may have known her already,
although she does not admit to this (4). These connections of
Catriona Baker to Jon Corner and the McCanns were not known to the PJ
team nor to Gonçalo Amaral. If they had been, they would certainly
not have been so ready to regard her as an ‘independent’ witness.
EVIDENCE OF DEATH ON
SUNDAY OR MONDAY VI
The lack of any credible,
independent evidence by anybody that Madeleine McCann was seen alive
after Sunday 29th April. We have said that Madeleine was seen alive
on Sunday 29th April at lunch-time. We have given evidence that we
cannot rely on the claims by Catriona Baker and the McCanns that
Madeleine was alive at an alleged ‘high tea’ on Thursday
afternoon. (Charlotte Pennington later gave a statement about this
alleged ‘high tea’ but that also contradicted the other three
statements).
All other claims by
witnesses who claim to have seen Madeleine after Sunday have been
examined in detail by a British ex-pat now living in Canada, Lizzy
Taylor (13). She concluded that apart from the evidence given by the
McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends - which of course is not
independent – all other statements claiming to have seen her were
open to serious doubt. Many were extremely vague, with no checkable
details given. Others were plainly wrong, for example, witnesses
claiming to have seen Madeleine eating breakfast with the McCanns in
the Millennium when the McCanns in their statements have consistently
said they ate breakfast in their apartment every day from Monday
onwards. The absence of any other reliable witness to seeing
Madeleine from Monday onwards is disturbing, and strongly tends to
confirm that Madeleine was not alive after Sunday.
EVIDENCE OF DEATH ON
SUNDAY OR MONDAY VII
The mystery of the
strange ‘Make-Up Photo’ of Madeleine, which appears to have been
taken on Sunday 29th April. The ‘Make-Up Photo’ was first
published in a short, 2-minute video made by Madeleine’s godfather,
Jon Corner. It shows Madeleine with a great deal of make-up, namely:
a necklace
a hair bead
lipstick
eye shadow, and
eye liner.
It must also be said that
Madeleine has very dilated (large) pupils in the photo, and there is
no sign whatsoever of any happiness or joy. Rather, she looks deeply
sad. Many observers have understandably called it a ‘Lolita’
photograph (42).
When this photo was
published, it attracted much negative comment, including in one
British broadsheet newspaper, the Independent. A prominent
criminologist, Mark Williams-Thomas, also criticized the McCanns for
releasing this photograph (although it is by no means certain that
the McCanns gave permission for this photograph to be published)
(42). The McCanns claimed that the Make-Up Photo showed Madeleine
‘playing with Mummy’s make-up box’ and told the media that the
picture was taken ‘a few weeks before’ their Praia da Luz holiday
(42). Many Madeleine researchers who have studied this photograph
carefully have made these observations about it (14) (15):
- Madeleine could not
have applied the eyeliner herself. She could not have applied either
the lipstick or the blue eye-shadow neatly. She certainly could not
have put on her necklace herself, nor her hair bead. An adult must
have done all this, but we have not been told who did it. Therefore
the McCanns have not been truthful about the circumstances in which
this photograph was taken. That means we are entitled to ask serious
questions about when, where and why it was taken.
- In the photo, we see
Madeleine’s pupils dilated (enlarged)
- Madeleine displays no
signs of fun, joy or happiness in this photo, as you would expect if
she was having fun playing with Mummy’s make-up box. On the
contrary, there seems to be a look of sadness, or even fear or dread
in her eyes.
- The photo is taken
against a stucco background, either cream, yellow or ochre in colour.
This is most unlike houses built in England. However, it strongly
resembles the outdoor cladding of many buildings along the Algarve
coast in Portugal.
- Madeleine’s
appearance in the Make Up Photo is strikingly similar to how she
looks in the ‘Last Photo’, which we assert was taken on the
Sunday. In both photos
Madeleine’s hair
length, style and colour is identical
she is wearing a hair
bead (although in different positions), and
she can be seen wearing a
pink-coloured smock, top or dress.
- Especially given what
we have said in point (5) above, we are entitled to ask whether this
photo could have been taken on the McCanns’ holiday in Praia da
Luz, possibly even on the very same day as the Last Photo – Sunday,
29th April.
Clear photographic
evidence that the very same pyjamas Madeleine had with her on holiday
in Praia da Luz were later held up by the McCanns at two press
conferences, one in London on 5th June 2007, the other in Amsterdam,
Holland, on 7th June 2007. Here we rely, first, on evidence that can
be viewed on the film: ‘Madeleine: Why the Cover-Up?’ by Richard
D Hall, link here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWWjkL-joS4&t=1321s (4) Second,
we rely on the longer, written analysis by Dr Martin Roberts in an
article titled ‘A Nightwear Job’, which can be viewed here:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12555-dr-martin-roberts-a-nightwear-job
(16). In summary, the film by Hall and the article by Dr Roberts
reveal the following:
* Madeleine’s pyjamas
were photographed by the McCanns before they raised the alarm about
Madeleine being missing at about 10.00pm on 3 May
* Very clear photographic
evidence (and other accompanying evidence) proves that the identical
pair of pyjamas were personally displayed by the McCanns at two press
conferences, one in London on 5th June 2007, the other in Amsterdam,
Holland, on 7th June 2007.
It follows from these
two facts that the entire claim by the McCanns that Madeleine was
abducted - in her pyjamas, between 9.15pm and 10.00pm - is false.
Madeleine must therefore have disappeared under entirely different
circumstances. As Dr Roberts out it in his article: “If Madeleine’s
pyjamas were not abducted, then neither was Madeleine”.
OBJECTIONS TO OUR THEORY
A number of objections
have been raised to our hypothesis. We list them here and give brief
answers:
1 ‘It would be
impossible for so many people to lie about the death of a missing
girl and take part in a cover-up’
2 ‘No-one would dare to
stage a hoax abduction after their child had been dead 3-4 days’
3 ‘The McCanns and
their friends could not have all agreed to cover up a child’s
death’
4 ‘It is impossible to
believe that Catriona Baker, Madeleine’s crèche nanny, could help
to forge the crèche records and lie about Madeleine not being in the
crèche from Monday onwards’
5 ‘Mrs Fenn heard
Madeleine crying for her Daddy between 10.30pm and 11.45pm on Tuesday
1 May’.
In reply, we make the
following points:
So far as Mrs Fenn’s
evidence is concerned, there are several major problems about it:
* she did not make
statements about having heard Madeleine crying until 20th August,
over 3½ months after Tuesday 1st May (4) (43)
* neither did she make
statements about an alleged break-in at her flat until 20th August
(4) (44)
* a review of all the
statements she made about the alleged burglary reveals major
contradictions e.g. about when the burglary was supposed to have
happened, what actually happened inside her flat, how the intruder
escaped, and who else was there at the time (44)
* the evidence she gave
was leaked in advance and was published in the British press on 18 &
19 August i.e. before she gave her statement, suggesting that she
colluded with others in giving her evidence (4) (43) (44)
* she claims to have
heard Madeleine crying ever more loudly for 75 minutes – but no-one
else in the apartment bloc heard this
* she contrived her
statement to say that the crying was that of a child ‘more than two
years old’ – but it is not possible to make such a clear
distinction between the crying of a three-year-old and a two-year old
* she did not seek any
help in alerting anyone else to the crying she said she heard, except
an alleged telephone call to a Mrs Edna Glyn, which as far as we know
from the PJ files the Portuguese police were unable to verify, and
* she herself told the
media to ignore all that had been said in the newspapers about her
evidence.
There are further details
about the multiple problems with her evidence at these references:
(43) (44)
In response to the other
points above, we simply do not know how Madeleine died, especially
now that it seems certain that she died on the Sunday or possibly
Monday. It is possible, in fact we say probable, that she may have
died under circumstances where the McCanns and their friends felt
there was serious risk for them if Madeleine’s body was to be
produced for an autopsy. At this point we mention the sexually
suggestive remarks made by Dr David Payne about Madeleine, as
reported on 19th May 2007 by Dr Arul and Dr Katarina Gaspar. We also
think it is relevant to point out that the Gaspars’ two statements
were not forwarded to the PJ until three weeks after Gonçalo Amaral
had been removed from the case.
It has been suggested
that Madeleine’s death could not have been covered up because far
too many people must have been involved. In reply, we suggest that
only a handful of people would be needed to keep Madeleine’s death
a secret. By Sunday night, Madeleine would not be known by many
people except the McCanns, their ‘Tapas 7’ friends and Catriona
Baker, Madeleine’s crèche nanny (who, as we have evidenced, seems
to have been a friend of the McCann family already). Possibly the
Ocean Club Manager and someone from Mark Warner may have been
informed and a collective decision made to keep Madeleine’s death a
secret and plan a hoax abduction (45) (46) (47).
If Madeleine’s death
was the result of any criminality, that would be a powerful reason
for those involved to cover up what had happened. A cover-up and hoax
abduction could then have been carried out in total secrecy. The
facts point to death on Sunday, or Monday at the latest. This, we
suggest, opens up a vital new line of enquiry. This, we suggest, must
be the starting-point for a fresh Portuguese police investigation. We
conclude by suggesting what we think must be obvious by now to the
Portuguese authorities: namely that the Metropolitan Police
investigation into Madeleine’s death, Operation Grange, has clearly
never been a genuine attempt by the British police to get to the
truth of what really happened to Madeleine.
We add many references
below and would be willing to assist the Portuguese judicial and
police authorities in any further way that we can.
Yours sincerely
For the Madeleine McCann
Research Group
LIST OF REFERENCES
1 What Really Happened to
Madeleine McCann, by ‘PeterMac’ (retired British Police
Superintendent)
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/ and at
http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/retired-police-superintendent-peter.html
2 “The True Story of
Madeleine McCann”, 1st Madeleine documentary film by Richard D Hall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIjPcvmVzUo
3 “The Phantoms: Four
fake abductors”, 2nd Madeleine documentary film by Richard D Hall,
2nd Madeleine documentary film by Richard D Hall (examines the fake
abduction accounts of Jane Tanner, Nino Lourenco, Martin Smith and
the Metropolitan Police) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL0-ePd3FCU
4 “When Madeleine
Died?”, 3rd Madeleine documentary film by Richard D Hall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70oo2-Sj7to949
(comprehensive evidence that Madeleine died on Sunday 29 April)
5 “Madeleine – Why
the Cover-Up?” 4th Madeleine documentary film by Richard D Hall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQgmtrOeDLM
(Part 1 of 6 parts)
6 Intercalary (interim)
report of Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, 10 September 2007,
Portuguese Policia Judiciara files,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
7 The SIX photos that
provide the biggest clue to when Madeleine died, CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14797-the-six-photos-that-provide-the-biggest-clue-to-when-madeleine-died
8 NUNO LOURENCO STATEMENT
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NUNO_LOURENCO.htm
9 “Was Wojcek
Krokowski, Sagres man with a camera, the template for both Tannerman
and Smithman?”, CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10602-was-wojcek-krokowski-sagres-man-with-a-camera-the-template-for-both-tannerman-and-smithman?
10 “Krokowski 2: Nuno
Lourenco’s account of how Wojchiech Krokowski nearly kidnapped his
child”, CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12096-krokowski-2-nuno-lourenco-s-account-of-how-wojchiech-krokowski-nearly-kidnapped-his-child
11 “Textusa article 30
October 2015 on ‘Sagresman’ (Wojchiech Krokowski)…”, CMOMM
forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12123-textusas-article-30-oct-2015-on-sagresman-wojchiech-krokowski-a-good-article-excellent-original-research-some-great-conclusions-but-some-wrong-ones?highlight=krokowski
12 “Catriona Baker and
the Creche”, Hideho/Lizzy Taylor,
http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy/HiDeHo-RESEARCH-POSTS/Catriona-Baker-the-Creche-Post-1-2276097.html
13 “Was Madeleine Seen
After Sunday? – Is there any credible evidence that she was? (28
September 2015), Hideho/Lizzy Taylor,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11921-was-madeleine-seen-after-sunday
14 “The Mystery of the
Make-Up Photo: Was it taken on the same day as the ‘Last Photo?”,
CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12958-the-mystery-of-the-make-up-photo-was-it-taken-on-the-same-day-as-the-last-photo?
15 “Richard Hall’s
Appeal for new Information re Madeleine’s Make-Up Photo”, CMOMM
forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14749-richard-d-hall-s-appeal-for-new-information-re-madeleine-s-make-up-photo-and-the-thermometer-on-the-wall
16 “A Nightwear Job”,
by Dr Martin Roberts, posted on the CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12555-dr-martin-roberts-a-nightwear-job
17 “Out, Damn’d
Spot”, by Dr Martin Roberts, posted on the CMOMM forum (Madeleine’s
pyjamas) https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5489-out-damned-spot
18 “A Verdade da
Mentira” (English translation by AnnEsse: ‘The Truth of the
Lie’), by Goncalo Amaral (2008) [NOTE: Some words of this
translation have been amended by Paulo Reis who has translated this
letter]
19 JANE TANNER 1st
STATEMENT, 4 May 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER.htm
20 JANE TANNER 2nd
STATEMENT, 10 May 2007
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
21 “YES or NO? Did Dr
David Payne visit Dr Kate McCann on the evening Madeleine was
reported missing? - 20 CONTRADICTIONS which suggest that this visit
never took place”
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10076-yes-or-no-did-dr-david-payne-visit-dr-kate-mccann-on-the-evening-madeleine-was-reported-missing-20-contradictions-which-suggest-that-this-visit-never-took-place
22 “The ‘Niggle’
and the Strange Tale of Robert Murat: Was it a Conspiracy to Pervert
the Course of Justice? ”, Paulo Reis,
https://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/niggle-and-strange-tale-of-robert-murat.html
23 “Is this the man who
abducted Madeleine? Two witnesses give similar descriptions”,
Guardian, 20 January 2008,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/21/world.ukcrime
24 “Hunt for new
Madeleine McCann Suspect, Daily Telegraph, 20 January 2008,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576048/Hunt-for-new-Madeleine-McCann-suspect.html
25 “New Sketch Of
'Creepy Madeleine Suspect”, by Joana Morais,
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/new-sketch-of-creepy-madeleine-suspect.html
26 “A Joint
Investigation”, Duarte Levy,
https://duartelevyen.wordpress.com/2008/08/23/a-joint-investigation/
27 “BBC Crimewatch
McCann Special, 14 October, 2013”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y
28 “Why did Madeleine
McCann Detectives ask so few Questions, after a Major Breakthrough?”,
Daily Mail, August 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206842/Why-did-Madeleine-McCann-detectives-ask-questions.html
29 “The Mystery of
Robert Murat: From Arguido to Applause”, Sections F et seq
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/30775111/the-mystery-of-robert-murat-from-arguido-to-applause-part-two
30 “Clarence Mitchell
Spinning for the McCanns – and for Jane Tanner”, by Joana Morais,
https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/video-clarence-mitchell-spinning-for.html
31 “Clarence Mitchell
Interview for Channel 4” (Mitchell evades questions about why Jane
Tanner identified Robert Murat as the abductor)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZy2f2yQJA
32 “Another Look at
the Last Photo”, CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10497-another-look-at-the-last-photo
33 “CHAPER 14: The Last
Photo/The Pool Photo by ‘PeterMac’”
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13435-chapter-14-the-last-photo-the-pool-photo
34 “Alex Woolfall
Knows: The Last Photo and other photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz”,
on CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7718-alex-woolfall-knows-the-last-photo-and-other-photos-of-madeleine-in-praia-da-luz
35 “CHAPTER 22: The
Tennis Balls by ‘PeterMac’”
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/chapter-22-tennis-balls-photo.html
36 “When was the Tennis
Balls Photo taken?”, CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12585-when-was-the-tennis-balls-pic-taken
37 “Recap on the Tennis
Balls Photo”,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8010-recap-on-the-tennis-balls-photo
38 “Philip Edmonds,
Deputy Chairman of Stemcor and Nephew of Lady Margaret Hodge”,
CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9811-philip-edmonds-deputy-chairman-of-stemcor-and-nephew-of-lady-margaret-hodge-pictures-of-madeleine-and-the-letters-between-tony-bennett-philip-edmonds-in-2011
39 “STATEMENT OF
CATRIONA BAKER (Madeleine’s trip to the beach)”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CATRIONA-TREASA-B.htm
40 “1ST STATEMENT OF
CATRIONA BAKER, 6 May 2007”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CATRIONA-TREASA.htm
41 “ROGATORY STAYEMENT
– CATRIONA BAKER, 18 April 2018”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm
42 “60 Reasons why the
McCanns should never have published THAT photo: The Make-Up ‘Lolita’
Photo”
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1912-60-reasons-why-the-mccanns-should-never-have-published-that-photo-the-make-up-lolita-photo
43 “10 Reasons which
suggest that Pamela Fenn did not hear any child crying on Tuesday 1
May 2007*, CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11939-10-reasons-which-suggest-that-pamela-fenn-did-not-hear-any-child-crying-on-tuesday-1-may-2007
44 “Was there an
attempted burglary of Mrs Pameal Fenn’s flat in the week before
Madeleine was reported missing?”
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11905-was-there-an-attempted-burglary-of-mrs-pamela-fenns-flat-in-the-weeks-before-madeleine-was-reported-missing?highlight=fenn
45 “Planning the
abduction hoax: Was it done over four days or four hours?”, by
MMRG, on the CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14704-planning-the-abduction-hoax-was-it-done-over-four-days-or-four-hours
46 “What really
happened to Madeleine McCann: Was she killed on Sunday 29thh April?”,
CMOMM forum,
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14249-what-really-happened-to-madeleine-mccann-was-she-killed-on-sunday-29-april
47 “Madeleine McCann
could not have died from an accident, nor from anything else, after
5.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007”
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13044-madeleine-mccann-could-not-have-died-from-an-accident-nor-from-anything-else-after-5-30pm-on-thursday-3-may-2007
