by Ray_Sneek for MMRG on 25.05.17
The views of the Madeleine McCann Research Group, August 2016
The Madeleine McCann Research Group (MMRG) was set up in 2009, around the time that Jill Havern set up what was to become the most popular Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet: ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’ (CMOMM).
Seven years later, we are just two months away from the likely closure of Scotland Yard’s investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, known as Operation Grange.
Many were hopeful that this investigation, begun in May 2011, would lead to the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance being established, and to the arrest and conviction of the persons responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance.
These hopes have been dashed.
Over the past seven years, MMRG members have contributed to the vast amount of research that has been pursued on CMOMM, and our publications have been published there.
We have seen many fine researchers come and go on the forum. Some of those who have followed the Madeleine McCann for years have begun to despair of the truth ever being discovered, while other forum members have complained of ‘going over the same minutiae over and over again and getting nowhere’.
This is emphatically not how we see it. On the contrary, since the astonishing BBC Crimewatch programme in October 2013, which was yet one more recycling of the same old McCann Team’s account of how Madeleine was allegedly abducted, there has been renewed interest in the forum and some very productive research carried out, in which we have played our part.
We feel we are now able to set out some key findings about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. In doing so, we are supported to a greater or lesser degree by many of the finest researchers, both on the forum and elsewhere, into matters related to Madeleine’s disappearance.
In this short paper, we set out our key findings and the reasons for them. We also try to deal head-on with the main objections to our theory.
We adopt as an excellent summaries of the main lines of evidence: (1) the interim Portuguese police report of Tavares de Almeida dated 10 September 2007 and (2) the book ’The Truth of the Lie’ published in July 2008 by Dr Goncalo Amaral.
However, and with the very greatest respect, the force of evidence means that we must part company with them on the date of Madeleine’s death, which they say occurred within four hours of her being reported missing. We explain in this paper why it must have been earlier.
We believe that there are a considerable number of people who know what really happened to Madeleine but will not speak of what they know. Until they do speak, we will never know everything. But we believe we now have sufficient knowledge to be able to state with confidence what we say below. That knowledge is derived from multiple sources and is based on the voluntary efforts of many people, not least those who have set up websites of information and discussion about the case, voluntary Portuguese- English translators and so many ofhers who have given freely of their time and expertise
Our views are unlikely to change unless significant new evidence emerges.
The claim that Madeleine was killed - and killed days before the McCanns reported Madeleine was abducted - has been very starkly set out in the third of three films by film-maker Richard D Hall: ‘When Madeleine Died?’. We agree with the central claims of his films and now wish to add our conclusions on where the evidence leads. Here they are:
1. Madeleine was killed
The 17 alerts by two cadaver dogs, used by dog top handler Martin Grime, to the odour of a corpse and blood or body fluids, in locations associated with the McCanns or on their clothes, is prima facie evidence that Madeleine died or was killed in the McCanns’ holiday apartment. No-one else was reported to have died in that apartment. That conclusion is greatly enhanced by the McCanns’ first - and subsequent - reactions to these dramatic findings.
The initial DNA samples taken from the body fluids discovered in the McCanns’ apartment and in their car showed a 99.99% certainty that they belonged to Madeleine McCann. However, a subsequent review of the samples determined that they had been ‘contaminated’ by government Forensic Science Service staff. They then said that the samples could have been from Madeleine but also that this could not be stated with any certainty.
The conclusion that Madeleine was killed is also strongly supported by a wealth of circumstantial evidence in the form of a swathe of contradictory statements and changes of story by the McCanns, their friends, and others closely associated with them. She was therefore NOT abducted.
To even list, let alone explain, all the circumstantial evidence would take pages. It includes such things as
A Kate McCann’s refusal in an interview under caution to answer any one of 48 questions put to her by the police
B Spending vast sums of money - much of it from the public - on expensive lawyers and PR advisers, when none of this could have realistically helped to find Madeleine
C The McCanns’ body language, including their obvious lack of raw emotion after the loss of their first child
D Analysis of their statements, which inadvertently reveal many clues about what really happened to Madeleine
E The huge involvement of the government and security services in this case
F The appointment by Tony Blair of his most senior PR officer, Clarence Mitchell, the Director of the Media Monitoring Unit at the Central Office of Information, and responsible directly to the Cabinet Office, to head up the government’s PR iniative in support of the McCanns. He once boasted that his job was to ‘control what comes out in the media’.
G The McCanns refusing to give their holiday photos to the police. Instead, they used the Head of Risks at PR company Bell Pottinger, Alex Woolfall, and their cousin, Michael Wright, to edit, crop and delete photographs from the memory cards before they were given to the police. They refused to hand over their photographs without first selecting exactly what they wanted the police to see and what they didn’t want then to see
H Employing disreputable and dishonest private investigation agencies, such as Metodo 3 and Oakley International. Some of the men the McCanns employed were out-and-out crooks, like Kevin Halligen and Antonio Giminez Raso, both of whom spent four years in jail for crimes, respectively, of fraud and corruptly assisting a major drugs gang.
I Arranging two bogus week-long searches of a dam in Portugal, pretending that they knew nothing about this search, when in fact they had paid a lawyer, Marcos Aragao Correia and men form Metodo 3 to conduct the search.
J Deliberately creating stories about claimed ‘sightings’ of Madeleine which they knew to be false.
K Planning events to mark Madeleine’s disappearance far in advance …
2. How was Madeleine killed?
We cannot say. However, in our view it could not have been a simple accident, otherwise the McCanns would have taken her to the local hospital.
We suggest, given what we know, that there are two realistic possibilities:
[*] a deliberate violent act against her (not necessarily by one of the McCanns) , or
[*]death due harmful medicine or drugs.
There are indications which point in either of these directions, but not enough information to say which..
3. Madeleine could not have been killed after 6pm on Thursday 3 May
Tavares de Almeida and Goncalo Amaral suggested Madeleine might have had a fall and been killed as a result of that fall - after 6pm on Thursday 3 May. But those who claim that Madeleine died after 6pm have to explain how the McCanns were able to do all the following – and more - within the four hours between 6pm and 10pm (when the alarm was raised) on Thursday 3 May.
4. What indications do we have about when she was killed?
This issue was very fully addressed in Richard D. Hall’s third film about Madeleine McCann: ‘When Madeleine Died?’ Without necessarily agreeing with every specific point he makes in that documentary, we adopt his main conclusions, so far as they go. The following are some of the main factual issues we have taken into consideration in arriving at our conclusion that Madeleine McCann was killed on Sunday 29 April:
[*] The complete absence of any of Madeleine’s DNA in Praia da Luz
No DNA of Madeleine was found in the McCanns’ apartment, nor on her clothes nor on objects she had used or come into contact with on holiday, e.g. towel, pillow, bedding, hairbrush and toothbrush. This is consistent with her having been dead for some time before she was reported missing. It would also be consistent with the apartment having been forensically cleansed before the alarm was raised and Madeleine’s clothes and other items having been removed or disposed of.
[*]The absence of any genuine photographs of Madeleine taken after lunchtime on Sunday 29 April (see also below)
We know for certain that three photographs were taken of Madeleine playing happily in the Ocean Club playground in Praia da Luz in the late afternoon or early evening of the first day of the McCanns’ holiday - Saturday 28 April (this disposes of the views of some people who have claimed that Madeleine was never on that holiday). There is good evidence that the so-called ‘Last Photo’ of Madeleine was taken at lunchtime on Sunday 29 April and not at lunchtime on Thursday 3 May as claimed by the McCanns. Only one other photo of Madeleine was taken that week, the so-called ‘Tennis Balls Photo’. There is real doubt as to whether that is a genuine photo of Madeleine.
[*] Severe doubts about the evidence given by the McCanns and two Mark Warner creche nannies, Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington, regarding a ‘high tea’ at around 5pm-6pm, which Madeleine is said to have attended on Thursday 3 May
It was the strong conviction of Dr Goncalo Amaral and his team of investigators that, based largely on the evidence of Catriona Baker, Madeleine was alive and present at a high tea at the Tapas restaurant on 3 May 2007. Catriona Baker was in sole charge of the ‘Lobsters’ creche of seven children (including Madeleine) the week the McCanns were in Praia da Luz.
Amaral and his team (rightly) rejected all claims by the McCanns that Madeleine was alive after 6pm on 3 May because, obviously, they were made by someone who was not ‘independent’. He and his team also (rightly) rejected claims by Dr David Payne that he saw all three of the McCanns’ children alive on a visit he and Kate McCann said that he had made to the McCanns’ apartment at about 6.30pm on 3 May. Not only was Dr Payne not independent, being a very close friend of the McCanns, but there were 20 or more significant contradictions between the accounts of Dr Payne and Kate McCann about what took place at that meeting, how long it lasted etc.
We do not set out here all the multiple contradictions about the alleged ‘high tea’ on 3 May; these have been more than adequately analysed in many places on the internet. We are sure that this ’high tea’ did not take place; the contradictions about it are too many and too serious.
All other claimed sightings of Madeleine on 3 May are equally unproven and open to serious doubt.
[*] The absence of any undisputed confirmed sightings of Madeleine on or after Monday 30 April
Here we rely mainly on the analyses by long-time McCann researcher ‘HideHo’, who has examined all claimed sightings of Madeleine from Monday onwards, and found each one to be either vague, otherwise unsubstantiated or uncorroborated, or subject to contradictory evidence. We refer in particular to her article on CMOMM on the lack of credible evidence that Madeleine was seen alive after Sunday, link here:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11921-was-madeleine-seen-after-sunday-no-credible-evidence-that-she-was-watch-the-video?
[*]Multiple contradictions and inconsistencies in the accounts of the McCanns and their friends about the events of that week from Monday onwards
This was confirmed in Kate McCann’s own book on the events of that week, which did nothing to remove all the question marks about the many contradictions and inconsistencies about what really happened that week. These have been fully analysed on CMOMM over the past few years.
[*]The unconvincing and vague evidence given by creche nanny Catriona Baker about what Madeleine was actually doing in the crèche all week
Her accounts lack any real detail of what Madeleine actually did in the creche that week. Besides that, the times shown for Madeleine being in the creche do not even agree with what Kate McCann says in her own book about the events of that week.
[*]Clear evidence that the McCanns’ pattern of behaviour changed after Sunday in the following ways:
All of these, we say, are wholly consistent with something very serious having happened to Madeleine McCann on the Sunday.
[*]The problem with the ‘Tennis Balls Photo’
The ‘Tennis Balls Photo’ purports to be a photograph of Madeleine collecting tennis balls from a tennis court where adults have just been playing tennis. It is said to prove that she was alive and well on the Tuesday that week. There are however multiple problems with the authenticity of this photo. Not least is the fact that it is claimed not only that two different people took the photo, but also that it was taken on two different days. Other problems with the photo have been discussed in many places on the internet. We do not therefore accept it as evidence that Madeleine was alive on Tuesday.
[*]Evidence that the children of the McCanns and their friends were cared for in one room from Sunday night onwards
After Dr Amaral was removed as the investigation co-ordinator in October 2007, he was replaced by Paulo Rebelo. On he stated that there was evidence that the McCanns and their friends had not been checking on their children regularly each night as claimed, but that their eight children were all being cared for in one of their friends’ apartments each night. Support for this claim was found when it became clear that every night from Sunday to Thursday, one or other adult had not been at the Tapas restaurant for dinner each night (see below), either because one of the adults or one of the children was said to be ill.
[*]Photographs taken of Madeleine’s pyjamas – before 3 May - in Praia da Luz, and the mystery of the ‘brown tea stain’
We refer here to a masterly study of issues concerning Madeleine’s pyjamas by Dr Martin Roberts. In his analysis, Dr Roberts publishes disturbing evidence that Madeleine’s pyjamas may have been photographed on a blue hessian background, similar to that of the settee in the McCanns’ apartment, earlier during the day (3w May) when the alarm about Madeleine was raised. He notes, as Kate McCann herself admits, that she washed Madeleine’s pyjamas on the morning of 3 May. He queries, as many others have done, why anyone would need to wash a minor ‘tea stain’ off a pair of pyjamas just two days before the McCanns were due to return home. Most people going on a week’s holiday don’t plan on washing clothes. Dr Roberts’ article carefully analyses a series of photos of Madeleine’s pyjamas published after she was reported missing in which he demonstrates that these photos of Madeleine’s pyjamas were taken inside the McCanns’ own apartment and while the pyjamas were drying. Rightly, Dr Roberts queries what was the point of the McCanns taking these photographs. We agree with his explanation, which can be viewed here:
‘Washed Up’ article: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id400.html
‘A Nightwear Job’: http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html
5. Specific indications that Madeleine was killed on Sunday 29 April
We have set out why we believe that Madeleine was killed, and why she could not have been killed after 6pm on Thursday 3 May as claimed by Portuguese detectives. We have given, above, some general considerations as to when Madeleine may have been killed. It is time for us now to be still more specific about why we think she was killed on the Sunday that week. Here are our main reasons:
The ‘Last Photo’ shows Gerry McCann, Madeleine and her sister Amelie by the Ocean Club swimming pool. The McCanns say the photo was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May. However, we are persuaded, largely by evidence on the two ‘Last Photo’ threads on CMOMM, that the Last Photo was taken at lunchtime on Sunday 29 April. A raft of evidence, but especially comparative weather records for the week, point in that direction. There is no other photo of Madeleine which with certainty can be said to have been taken after then, which we regard as hugely significant.
This points us in the direction of Madeleine having to serious harm shortly after that photo was taken.
[*]The involvement of Robert Murat
In our view the involvement of Robert Murat in this case is another significant pointer to Madeleine having been killed on the Sunday. Here are the relevant considerations we have in mind regarding Murat’s involvement
[*]There is evidence that he and Gerry McCann may have known each other before the McCanns’ holiday in Praia da Luz in 2007
[*]Robert Murat was a well-known long-term resident of Praia da Luz, his mother having lived there for much of her life
[*]He was living in England (Devon) when the McCanns went on holiday to Praia da Luz in 2007
[*]On Monday 30 April, he was hastily summoned to Portugal, allegedly by his girlfriend, but possibly by others - Murat’s account of the ‘phone call or calls that led him to take a hasty flight to Portugal is not convincing
[*]He took the early morning flight to Faro, Portugal from Exeter at 7am the very next day, Tuesday 1 May
[*]When he was asked at an interview under caution in Portugal on 15 May 2007 what he had been doing in Portugal during his first four days there (1-4 May), he lied about his actions in at least 17 material respects. Later, when re-interviewed by the Portuguese police on 10 and 11 July, after police had interrogated his mobile ’phone, he completely changed his story, claiming he had been ‘too tired’ on 15 May to tell the truth. What possible good excuse could there be for lying so many times about the fate of a missing child?
[*]There is evidence that the British Embassy in Portugal arranged for Murat to become the main translator for the Portuguese police in the days following Madeleine being reported missing. Quite why the British Embassy would promote Murat to do this job is uncertain, unless he had a significant prior connection with the Embassy
[*]His conduct whilst a translator in those early days after Madeleine was reported missing was bizarre and suspicious. He was observed trying to sneak a look at confidential documents. He kept pestering the police with plausible suggestions about lines of enquiry that they should be following. His conduct during his translations was so outrageous that an inspector sent an urgent report to Dr Amaral, following which Murat was swiftly removed as a translator.
These and a number of other considerations about Robert Murat lead us to think that he was summoned to Portugal during Monday 30 April because something serious had happened to Madeleine the previous day, and that his help was needed to cover this up
[*]The ‘Make-Up Photo
A very strange photo of Madeleine was published two years after Madeleine was reported missing. It appeared in a short film made by Madeleine’s godfather, film-maker Jon Corner. It showed Madeleine in make-up. She had had blue eye shadow put on her. She had a gold-coloured necklace put around her neck. She had a hair bead on her. The McCanns claimed she had been ‘playing with Mummy’s make-up box’, but that story didn’t stand up to scrutiny. There was evidence that the photo was not taken in England as claimed, but in Portugal. A comparison was made between the Last Photo and the Make-Up Photo. On both, Madeleine was wearing a hair bead. On both, her hair length was the same. In the Last Photo, which appears to have been taken on Sunday, she was happy and obviously smiling at something that amused her. But in the Make-Up Photo, she was looking sad, even miserable. We think there are good grounds for suspecting that the two photos may have been taken on the same day, and that Madeleine’s sad, miserable appearance could be connected in some way to her having been killed later that same day.
6. Evidence that an abduction hoax was planned over a period of four days
It follows from all that we have said above that, if Madeleine was indeed killed on Sunday 29 April, those who knew she had been killed must have carefully planned an audacious hoax, so cunning and clever that most people still believe that she was abducted. Here, quite apart from the matters dealt with above, are several other specific indications that an abduction hoax was indeed planned over a four-day period:
[*] The presence of the Director (and his deputy) of a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company - the PR company, Resonate - in Praia da Luz during the days before the alarm was raised
The relevant facts are these. Immediately following the reported disappearance of Madeleine, the holiday company who arranged the holiday, Mark Warner, brought their PR company, Bell Pottinger, to Praia da Luz. Its Head of Risk, Alex Woolfall flew there the very next day (4 May) and was later joined by another top Director of the company. But it later emerged that the Director and his deputy from a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company, Resonate, had flown to help Mark Warner just days before, possibly on Monday 30 April. No satisfactory explanation for this has ever been provided. Were they sent ahead of Bell Pottinger as a kind of advance party because something serious had already happened to Madeleine? (The McCanns paid the amazing sum of £500,000 to keep Madeleine’s name on the front pages of Britain’s newspapers. That money appears to have come from donations made by the general public.
[*]The conduct of Nuno Lourenco
On Friday 4 May, the McCanns’ friend Jane Tanner gave a description of a man she said she had seen carrying as child at 9.15pm on the night Madeleine was reported missing. She described a man of medium height, with long black hair, wearing cloth clothes and classic shoes, who ‘didn’t look like a tourist’. The very next day, early in the morning, a man called Nuno Lourenco rang the Portuguese police and said that, six days previoulsy, a man had tried to kidnap his child at a tiny village called Sagres. He described the man as ‘of medium height, with long black hair, wearing cloth clothes and classic shoes, who ‘didn’t look like a tourist’.’ The Portuguese police became convinced that this must be the man whom Jane Tannner’s evidence suggested had abducted Madeleine. Lourenco supplied the police with a photograph he said he had taken of the man’s car. From this, the police were able to trace the man who was driving the car. It was Wojchiech Krokowski, a man from Poland on holiday with his wife for the week. When examined in detail, Lourenco’s claim that his daughter was nearly kidnapped by Krokowski falls apart. Quite apart from anything else, why did he delay for six days reporting a man taking photos of children on a beach and who later that day tried to kidnap his daughter? Lourenco had evidently planned to call the police and already knew of the description that Jane Tanner had given to the police. This suggests that Lourenco was part of a group of people who planned to deliberately sabotage the Portuguese police’s investigation and send them off in entirely the wrong direction. He had carefully ’fitted up’ Krokowski.
[*]Hairs of the same haplotype as Robert Murat and Jane Tanner found in Krokowski’s apartment
Further to the above point, hairs of the same haplotype as Robert Murat and Jane Tanner were found at Krokowski’s apartment when it was searched by the police. Whilst this doesn’t prove that Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were in Krokowski’s apartment that week, it certainly raises at least the possibility that they were. Was there a meeting of some kind there that week? Is that when Jane Tanner was briefed to give a description of Krokowski when she was questioned by the Portuguese police?
[*]The strange booking on Sunday night of the Tapas restaurant for the evening meal of Tapas 7 all week
This booking appears to have been made on the Sunday night. There are two different versions of who made the booking, which in itself is strange. The reason given by the McCanns an d their friends for making this booking is even stranger; they claimed that they were leaving their children on their own and checking on them but wanted to be able to see their apartment from the restaurant. This was meaningless. The children were sleeping at the back of their apartment, so there was nothing for them to see from the Tapas restaurant. All kinds of dangers could have befallen the children while the parents were absent It is our view that the booking of the Tapas restaurant may well have been connected in some way with Madeleine already being dead or having suffered a fatal injury. This seems to be where the story of the McCanns checking the children every half-hour seems to have originated. The claim that the McCanns and their friends were checking their children regularly that week has not been corroborated; indeed the evidence points to their children all being cared for by one of the group each night.
[*]The damage done to the shutters by Gerry McCann on the Sunday or Monday morning
Repairs to the shutters of the McCanns’ apartment were needed on the Monday; Ocean Club staff came to mend them that day. We find this a curious incident. Is it possible that the McCanns and advisers were already planning to claim that the shutters had been jemmied open and smashed by the abductor? (as indeed they did claim, on Thursday). If so, they would need to demonstrate that the shutters were previously in good working order.
[*]Evidence that a group planned in advance how to create a major news story on the morning of Friday 4 May
It is a fact that from about 8am on Friday 4 May, the news of Madeleine’s reported disappearance rapidly became the top story in both Portugal and Britain for weeks – and has continued to make international headlines ever since. Was this an accident? We do not think it was. On the very night when the McCanns and their friends should have been distraught , following Madeleine’s sudden disappearance, some of them were busy contacting the TV and print media and claiming, even in the very first hours after they had raised the alarm, that the Portuguese police were incompetent and not organising a proper search for her. The McCanns seemed to know influential people in the TV media and were successful in getting news about Madeleine’s disappearance on to the early Friday morning bulletins. It was very early on, but that on that very Friday, many of the media immediately despatched reporters to Praia da Luz – even though, of course, Madeleine could well have been found alive, safe and well later that very day. What was it that galvanised them all into sending reporters there so soon? One example illustrates our point. An ex-pat living in Spain. Jon Clarke had created a successful newspaper for ex-pats, the Olive Press. He was contacted by one of Britain’s mainstream press in the early hours of the morning, before the media storm broke at about 8am on the Friday morning. Although it was a five-hour journey from his cottage in the countryside around Ronda, he managed to reach Praia da Luz before mid-day, boasting that he was ‘one of the first journalists on the spot. How did his editor in Britain know so early that this was going to be a major international story?
7. The main objections to our theory
[*]Nobody could keep up the pretence that their daughter had been abducted - knowing that she was dead - for so long
ANSWER: It has happened many times before in many other similar cases.
[*] Too many people would know that Madeleine had died on Sunday and by now, someone would have broken ranks and revealed the truth
ANWSER: Again there are many instances in history where large groups of people who know about a serious crime work together to keep the crime a secret. To give but one recent example, dozens of people including police and celebrities knew that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. But they kept silent. No-ne knew until this year that Clement Freud – who twice invited the McCanns to his Praia da Luz home for eats and drinks in the weeks that followed Madeleine’s disappearance - had been a serial paedophile for decades.
[*] There are too many sightings of Madeleine all week; they can’t all be mistaken
ANSWER: Look at the analysis of these sightings by HideHo that we referred to above.
[*] Mrs Fenn heard Madeleine crying between 10.30pm and 11.45pm on Tuesday night
We reject her evidence for several reasons. She did not make her statement until 20 August - over three-and-a-half months after the event. No-one else heard a child crying loudly for 75 minutes that night. She said she spoke to a friend of hers while the crying was going on, but neither of them did anything about it. Her statement was trailed in advance in the British press in articles which showed every sign of being planted by the McCann Team’s PR agent, Clarence Mitchell. She claimed in her statement that the crying she heard was that of a child ‘more than two’ - but no-one can distinguish between the cry of a two-year-old (the McCanns’ twins) and three-year-old (Madeleine). In short, there is evidence that her statement was fabricated
Madeleine McCann Research Group, August 2016
------------
For discussion, please visit this thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14249-what-really-happened-to-madeleine-mccann-was-she-killed-on-sunday-29-april
The views of the Madeleine McCann Research Group, August 2016
The Madeleine McCann Research Group (MMRG) was set up in 2009, around the time that Jill Havern set up what was to become the most popular Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet: ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’ (CMOMM).
Seven years later, we are just two months away from the likely closure of Scotland Yard’s investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, known as Operation Grange.
Many were hopeful that this investigation, begun in May 2011, would lead to the truth about Madeleine’s disappearance being established, and to the arrest and conviction of the persons responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance.
These hopes have been dashed.
Over the past seven years, MMRG members have contributed to the vast amount of research that has been pursued on CMOMM, and our publications have been published there.
We have seen many fine researchers come and go on the forum. Some of those who have followed the Madeleine McCann for years have begun to despair of the truth ever being discovered, while other forum members have complained of ‘going over the same minutiae over and over again and getting nowhere’.
This is emphatically not how we see it. On the contrary, since the astonishing BBC Crimewatch programme in October 2013, which was yet one more recycling of the same old McCann Team’s account of how Madeleine was allegedly abducted, there has been renewed interest in the forum and some very productive research carried out, in which we have played our part.
We feel we are now able to set out some key findings about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. In doing so, we are supported to a greater or lesser degree by many of the finest researchers, both on the forum and elsewhere, into matters related to Madeleine’s disappearance.
In this short paper, we set out our key findings and the reasons for them. We also try to deal head-on with the main objections to our theory.
We adopt as an excellent summaries of the main lines of evidence: (1) the interim Portuguese police report of Tavares de Almeida dated 10 September 2007 and (2) the book ’The Truth of the Lie’ published in July 2008 by Dr Goncalo Amaral.
However, and with the very greatest respect, the force of evidence means that we must part company with them on the date of Madeleine’s death, which they say occurred within four hours of her being reported missing. We explain in this paper why it must have been earlier.
We believe that there are a considerable number of people who know what really happened to Madeleine but will not speak of what they know. Until they do speak, we will never know everything. But we believe we now have sufficient knowledge to be able to state with confidence what we say below. That knowledge is derived from multiple sources and is based on the voluntary efforts of many people, not least those who have set up websites of information and discussion about the case, voluntary Portuguese- English translators and so many ofhers who have given freely of their time and expertise
Our views are unlikely to change unless significant new evidence emerges.
The claim that Madeleine was killed - and killed days before the McCanns reported Madeleine was abducted - has been very starkly set out in the third of three films by film-maker Richard D Hall: ‘When Madeleine Died?’. We agree with the central claims of his films and now wish to add our conclusions on where the evidence leads. Here they are:
1. Madeleine was killed
The 17 alerts by two cadaver dogs, used by dog top handler Martin Grime, to the odour of a corpse and blood or body fluids, in locations associated with the McCanns or on their clothes, is prima facie evidence that Madeleine died or was killed in the McCanns’ holiday apartment. No-one else was reported to have died in that apartment. That conclusion is greatly enhanced by the McCanns’ first - and subsequent - reactions to these dramatic findings.
The initial DNA samples taken from the body fluids discovered in the McCanns’ apartment and in their car showed a 99.99% certainty that they belonged to Madeleine McCann. However, a subsequent review of the samples determined that they had been ‘contaminated’ by government Forensic Science Service staff. They then said that the samples could have been from Madeleine but also that this could not be stated with any certainty.
The conclusion that Madeleine was killed is also strongly supported by a wealth of circumstantial evidence in the form of a swathe of contradictory statements and changes of story by the McCanns, their friends, and others closely associated with them. She was therefore NOT abducted.
To even list, let alone explain, all the circumstantial evidence would take pages. It includes such things as
A Kate McCann’s refusal in an interview under caution to answer any one of 48 questions put to her by the police
B Spending vast sums of money - much of it from the public - on expensive lawyers and PR advisers, when none of this could have realistically helped to find Madeleine
C The McCanns’ body language, including their obvious lack of raw emotion after the loss of their first child
D Analysis of their statements, which inadvertently reveal many clues about what really happened to Madeleine
E The huge involvement of the government and security services in this case
F The appointment by Tony Blair of his most senior PR officer, Clarence Mitchell, the Director of the Media Monitoring Unit at the Central Office of Information, and responsible directly to the Cabinet Office, to head up the government’s PR iniative in support of the McCanns. He once boasted that his job was to ‘control what comes out in the media’.
G The McCanns refusing to give their holiday photos to the police. Instead, they used the Head of Risks at PR company Bell Pottinger, Alex Woolfall, and their cousin, Michael Wright, to edit, crop and delete photographs from the memory cards before they were given to the police. They refused to hand over their photographs without first selecting exactly what they wanted the police to see and what they didn’t want then to see
H Employing disreputable and dishonest private investigation agencies, such as Metodo 3 and Oakley International. Some of the men the McCanns employed were out-and-out crooks, like Kevin Halligen and Antonio Giminez Raso, both of whom spent four years in jail for crimes, respectively, of fraud and corruptly assisting a major drugs gang.
I Arranging two bogus week-long searches of a dam in Portugal, pretending that they knew nothing about this search, when in fact they had paid a lawyer, Marcos Aragao Correia and men form Metodo 3 to conduct the search.
J Deliberately creating stories about claimed ‘sightings’ of Madeleine which they knew to be false.
K Planning events to mark Madeleine’s disappearance far in advance …
2. How was Madeleine killed?
We cannot say. However, in our view it could not have been a simple accident, otherwise the McCanns would have taken her to the local hospital.
We suggest, given what we know, that there are two realistic possibilities:
[*] a deliberate violent act against her (not necessarily by one of the McCanns) , or
[*]death due harmful medicine or drugs.
There are indications which point in either of these directions, but not enough information to say which..
3. Madeleine could not have been killed after 6pm on Thursday 3 May
Tavares de Almeida and Goncalo Amaral suggested Madeleine might have had a fall and been killed as a result of that fall - after 6pm on Thursday 3 May. But those who claim that Madeleine died after 6pm have to explain how the McCanns were able to do all the following – and more - within the four hours between 6pm and 10pm (when the alarm was raised) on Thursday 3 May.
- decided not to inform the authorities of her death
- planned to remove her body from the apartment
- got Madeleine’s twin brother and sister out of the way when all of this was going on (Note: those who say Madeleine died after 6pm never seem to discuss whether the twins knew she had died and how the McCanns kept them out of the way)
- told their Tapas 7 friends what had happened
- somehow carried Madeleine’s body out of their apartment
- found, within a miraculously short space of time, a place to hide her body
- successfully hid her body in a place where no-one has ever found it
- sat down calmly for dinner at about 8.30pm to 8.45pm as if nothing had happened.
In addition, for Martin Grime’s cadaver dogs to have alerted to the scent of a corpse, no longer present, some three months after the McCanns had vacated their holiday apartment, Madeleine’s body must have been lying in the McCanns’ apartment for at least 90 minutes, probably two hours or longer .
4. What indications do we have about when she was killed?
This issue was very fully addressed in Richard D. Hall’s third film about Madeleine McCann: ‘When Madeleine Died?’ Without necessarily agreeing with every specific point he makes in that documentary, we adopt his main conclusions, so far as they go. The following are some of the main factual issues we have taken into consideration in arriving at our conclusion that Madeleine McCann was killed on Sunday 29 April:
[*] The complete absence of any of Madeleine’s DNA in Praia da Luz
No DNA of Madeleine was found in the McCanns’ apartment, nor on her clothes nor on objects she had used or come into contact with on holiday, e.g. towel, pillow, bedding, hairbrush and toothbrush. This is consistent with her having been dead for some time before she was reported missing. It would also be consistent with the apartment having been forensically cleansed before the alarm was raised and Madeleine’s clothes and other items having been removed or disposed of.
[*]The absence of any genuine photographs of Madeleine taken after lunchtime on Sunday 29 April (see also below)
We know for certain that three photographs were taken of Madeleine playing happily in the Ocean Club playground in Praia da Luz in the late afternoon or early evening of the first day of the McCanns’ holiday - Saturday 28 April (this disposes of the views of some people who have claimed that Madeleine was never on that holiday). There is good evidence that the so-called ‘Last Photo’ of Madeleine was taken at lunchtime on Sunday 29 April and not at lunchtime on Thursday 3 May as claimed by the McCanns. Only one other photo of Madeleine was taken that week, the so-called ‘Tennis Balls Photo’. There is real doubt as to whether that is a genuine photo of Madeleine.
[*] Severe doubts about the evidence given by the McCanns and two Mark Warner creche nannies, Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington, regarding a ‘high tea’ at around 5pm-6pm, which Madeleine is said to have attended on Thursday 3 May
It was the strong conviction of Dr Goncalo Amaral and his team of investigators that, based largely on the evidence of Catriona Baker, Madeleine was alive and present at a high tea at the Tapas restaurant on 3 May 2007. Catriona Baker was in sole charge of the ‘Lobsters’ creche of seven children (including Madeleine) the week the McCanns were in Praia da Luz.
Amaral and his team (rightly) rejected all claims by the McCanns that Madeleine was alive after 6pm on 3 May because, obviously, they were made by someone who was not ‘independent’. He and his team also (rightly) rejected claims by Dr David Payne that he saw all three of the McCanns’ children alive on a visit he and Kate McCann said that he had made to the McCanns’ apartment at about 6.30pm on 3 May. Not only was Dr Payne not independent, being a very close friend of the McCanns, but there were 20 or more significant contradictions between the accounts of Dr Payne and Kate McCann about what took place at that meeting, how long it lasted etc.
We do not set out here all the multiple contradictions about the alleged ‘high tea’ on 3 May; these have been more than adequately analysed in many places on the internet. We are sure that this ’high tea’ did not take place; the contradictions about it are too many and too serious.
All other claimed sightings of Madeleine on 3 May are equally unproven and open to serious doubt.
[*] The absence of any undisputed confirmed sightings of Madeleine on or after Monday 30 April
Here we rely mainly on the analyses by long-time McCann researcher ‘HideHo’, who has examined all claimed sightings of Madeleine from Monday onwards, and found each one to be either vague, otherwise unsubstantiated or uncorroborated, or subject to contradictory evidence. We refer in particular to her article on CMOMM on the lack of credible evidence that Madeleine was seen alive after Sunday, link here:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11921-was-madeleine-seen-after-sunday-no-credible-evidence-that-she-was-watch-the-video?
[*]Multiple contradictions and inconsistencies in the accounts of the McCanns and their friends about the events of that week from Monday onwards
This was confirmed in Kate McCann’s own book on the events of that week, which did nothing to remove all the question marks about the many contradictions and inconsistencies about what really happened that week. These have been fully analysed on CMOMM over the past few years.
[*]The unconvincing and vague evidence given by creche nanny Catriona Baker about what Madeleine was actually doing in the crèche all week
Her accounts lack any real detail of what Madeleine actually did in the creche that week. Besides that, the times shown for Madeleine being in the creche do not even agree with what Kate McCann says in her own book about the events of that week.
[*]Clear evidence that the McCanns’ pattern of behaviour changed after Sunday in the following ways:
- Taking breakfast every day in their own apartment and not with their friends in the restaurant
- Similarly, taking lunch every day in their own apartment and not with their friends in the restaurant
- Never being seen out together with the twins from Monday onwards
- The McCanns using different doors when entering and leaving their apartment.
All of these, we say, are wholly consistent with something very serious having happened to Madeleine McCann on the Sunday.
[*]The problem with the ‘Tennis Balls Photo’
The ‘Tennis Balls Photo’ purports to be a photograph of Madeleine collecting tennis balls from a tennis court where adults have just been playing tennis. It is said to prove that she was alive and well on the Tuesday that week. There are however multiple problems with the authenticity of this photo. Not least is the fact that it is claimed not only that two different people took the photo, but also that it was taken on two different days. Other problems with the photo have been discussed in many places on the internet. We do not therefore accept it as evidence that Madeleine was alive on Tuesday.
[*]Evidence that the children of the McCanns and their friends were cared for in one room from Sunday night onwards
After Dr Amaral was removed as the investigation co-ordinator in October 2007, he was replaced by Paulo Rebelo. On he stated that there was evidence that the McCanns and their friends had not been checking on their children regularly each night as claimed, but that their eight children were all being cared for in one of their friends’ apartments each night. Support for this claim was found when it became clear that every night from Sunday to Thursday, one or other adult had not been at the Tapas restaurant for dinner each night (see below), either because one of the adults or one of the children was said to be ill.
[*]Photographs taken of Madeleine’s pyjamas – before 3 May - in Praia da Luz, and the mystery of the ‘brown tea stain’
We refer here to a masterly study of issues concerning Madeleine’s pyjamas by Dr Martin Roberts. In his analysis, Dr Roberts publishes disturbing evidence that Madeleine’s pyjamas may have been photographed on a blue hessian background, similar to that of the settee in the McCanns’ apartment, earlier during the day (3w May) when the alarm about Madeleine was raised. He notes, as Kate McCann herself admits, that she washed Madeleine’s pyjamas on the morning of 3 May. He queries, as many others have done, why anyone would need to wash a minor ‘tea stain’ off a pair of pyjamas just two days before the McCanns were due to return home. Most people going on a week’s holiday don’t plan on washing clothes. Dr Roberts’ article carefully analyses a series of photos of Madeleine’s pyjamas published after she was reported missing in which he demonstrates that these photos of Madeleine’s pyjamas were taken inside the McCanns’ own apartment and while the pyjamas were drying. Rightly, Dr Roberts queries what was the point of the McCanns taking these photographs. We agree with his explanation, which can be viewed here:
‘Washed Up’ article: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id400.html
‘A Nightwear Job’: http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-nightwear-job-by-dr-martin-roberts.html
5. Specific indications that Madeleine was killed on Sunday 29 April
We have set out why we believe that Madeleine was killed, and why she could not have been killed after 6pm on Thursday 3 May as claimed by Portuguese detectives. We have given, above, some general considerations as to when Madeleine may have been killed. It is time for us now to be still more specific about why we think she was killed on the Sunday that week. Here are our main reasons:
- The change of routines from Sunday night onwards and the absence of independent and corroborated ‘sightings’ of Madeleine from then onwards (see above)
- The probable forgery of the ‘Last Photo’
The ‘Last Photo’ shows Gerry McCann, Madeleine and her sister Amelie by the Ocean Club swimming pool. The McCanns say the photo was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May. However, we are persuaded, largely by evidence on the two ‘Last Photo’ threads on CMOMM, that the Last Photo was taken at lunchtime on Sunday 29 April. A raft of evidence, but especially comparative weather records for the week, point in that direction. There is no other photo of Madeleine which with certainty can be said to have been taken after then, which we regard as hugely significant.
- The absence of confirmed photos of Madeleine on the holiday from the ‘Last Photo’ onwards
This points us in the direction of Madeleine having to serious harm shortly after that photo was taken.
[*]The involvement of Robert Murat
In our view the involvement of Robert Murat in this case is another significant pointer to Madeleine having been killed on the Sunday. Here are the relevant considerations we have in mind regarding Murat’s involvement
[*]There is evidence that he and Gerry McCann may have known each other before the McCanns’ holiday in Praia da Luz in 2007
[*]Robert Murat was a well-known long-term resident of Praia da Luz, his mother having lived there for much of her life
[*]He was living in England (Devon) when the McCanns went on holiday to Praia da Luz in 2007
[*]On Monday 30 April, he was hastily summoned to Portugal, allegedly by his girlfriend, but possibly by others - Murat’s account of the ‘phone call or calls that led him to take a hasty flight to Portugal is not convincing
[*]He took the early morning flight to Faro, Portugal from Exeter at 7am the very next day, Tuesday 1 May
[*]When he was asked at an interview under caution in Portugal on 15 May 2007 what he had been doing in Portugal during his first four days there (1-4 May), he lied about his actions in at least 17 material respects. Later, when re-interviewed by the Portuguese police on 10 and 11 July, after police had interrogated his mobile ’phone, he completely changed his story, claiming he had been ‘too tired’ on 15 May to tell the truth. What possible good excuse could there be for lying so many times about the fate of a missing child?
[*]There is evidence that the British Embassy in Portugal arranged for Murat to become the main translator for the Portuguese police in the days following Madeleine being reported missing. Quite why the British Embassy would promote Murat to do this job is uncertain, unless he had a significant prior connection with the Embassy
[*]His conduct whilst a translator in those early days after Madeleine was reported missing was bizarre and suspicious. He was observed trying to sneak a look at confidential documents. He kept pestering the police with plausible suggestions about lines of enquiry that they should be following. His conduct during his translations was so outrageous that an inspector sent an urgent report to Dr Amaral, following which Murat was swiftly removed as a translator.
These and a number of other considerations about Robert Murat lead us to think that he was summoned to Portugal during Monday 30 April because something serious had happened to Madeleine the previous day, and that his help was needed to cover this up
[*]The ‘Make-Up Photo
A very strange photo of Madeleine was published two years after Madeleine was reported missing. It appeared in a short film made by Madeleine’s godfather, film-maker Jon Corner. It showed Madeleine in make-up. She had had blue eye shadow put on her. She had a gold-coloured necklace put around her neck. She had a hair bead on her. The McCanns claimed she had been ‘playing with Mummy’s make-up box’, but that story didn’t stand up to scrutiny. There was evidence that the photo was not taken in England as claimed, but in Portugal. A comparison was made between the Last Photo and the Make-Up Photo. On both, Madeleine was wearing a hair bead. On both, her hair length was the same. In the Last Photo, which appears to have been taken on Sunday, she was happy and obviously smiling at something that amused her. But in the Make-Up Photo, she was looking sad, even miserable. We think there are good grounds for suspecting that the two photos may have been taken on the same day, and that Madeleine’s sad, miserable appearance could be connected in some way to her having been killed later that same day.
6. Evidence that an abduction hoax was planned over a period of four days
It follows from all that we have said above that, if Madeleine was indeed killed on Sunday 29 April, those who knew she had been killed must have carefully planned an audacious hoax, so cunning and clever that most people still believe that she was abducted. Here, quite apart from the matters dealt with above, are several other specific indications that an abduction hoax was indeed planned over a four-day period:
[*] The presence of the Director (and his deputy) of a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company - the PR company, Resonate - in Praia da Luz during the days before the alarm was raised
The relevant facts are these. Immediately following the reported disappearance of Madeleine, the holiday company who arranged the holiday, Mark Warner, brought their PR company, Bell Pottinger, to Praia da Luz. Its Head of Risk, Alex Woolfall flew there the very next day (4 May) and was later joined by another top Director of the company. But it later emerged that the Director and his deputy from a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company, Resonate, had flown to help Mark Warner just days before, possibly on Monday 30 April. No satisfactory explanation for this has ever been provided. Were they sent ahead of Bell Pottinger as a kind of advance party because something serious had already happened to Madeleine? (The McCanns paid the amazing sum of £500,000 to keep Madeleine’s name on the front pages of Britain’s newspapers. That money appears to have come from donations made by the general public.
[*]The conduct of Nuno Lourenco
On Friday 4 May, the McCanns’ friend Jane Tanner gave a description of a man she said she had seen carrying as child at 9.15pm on the night Madeleine was reported missing. She described a man of medium height, with long black hair, wearing cloth clothes and classic shoes, who ‘didn’t look like a tourist’. The very next day, early in the morning, a man called Nuno Lourenco rang the Portuguese police and said that, six days previoulsy, a man had tried to kidnap his child at a tiny village called Sagres. He described the man as ‘of medium height, with long black hair, wearing cloth clothes and classic shoes, who ‘didn’t look like a tourist’.’ The Portuguese police became convinced that this must be the man whom Jane Tannner’s evidence suggested had abducted Madeleine. Lourenco supplied the police with a photograph he said he had taken of the man’s car. From this, the police were able to trace the man who was driving the car. It was Wojchiech Krokowski, a man from Poland on holiday with his wife for the week. When examined in detail, Lourenco’s claim that his daughter was nearly kidnapped by Krokowski falls apart. Quite apart from anything else, why did he delay for six days reporting a man taking photos of children on a beach and who later that day tried to kidnap his daughter? Lourenco had evidently planned to call the police and already knew of the description that Jane Tanner had given to the police. This suggests that Lourenco was part of a group of people who planned to deliberately sabotage the Portuguese police’s investigation and send them off in entirely the wrong direction. He had carefully ’fitted up’ Krokowski.
[*]Hairs of the same haplotype as Robert Murat and Jane Tanner found in Krokowski’s apartment
Further to the above point, hairs of the same haplotype as Robert Murat and Jane Tanner were found at Krokowski’s apartment when it was searched by the police. Whilst this doesn’t prove that Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were in Krokowski’s apartment that week, it certainly raises at least the possibility that they were. Was there a meeting of some kind there that week? Is that when Jane Tanner was briefed to give a description of Krokowski when she was questioned by the Portuguese police?
[*]The strange booking on Sunday night of the Tapas restaurant for the evening meal of Tapas 7 all week
This booking appears to have been made on the Sunday night. There are two different versions of who made the booking, which in itself is strange. The reason given by the McCanns an d their friends for making this booking is even stranger; they claimed that they were leaving their children on their own and checking on them but wanted to be able to see their apartment from the restaurant. This was meaningless. The children were sleeping at the back of their apartment, so there was nothing for them to see from the Tapas restaurant. All kinds of dangers could have befallen the children while the parents were absent It is our view that the booking of the Tapas restaurant may well have been connected in some way with Madeleine already being dead or having suffered a fatal injury. This seems to be where the story of the McCanns checking the children every half-hour seems to have originated. The claim that the McCanns and their friends were checking their children regularly that week has not been corroborated; indeed the evidence points to their children all being cared for by one of the group each night.
[*]The damage done to the shutters by Gerry McCann on the Sunday or Monday morning
Repairs to the shutters of the McCanns’ apartment were needed on the Monday; Ocean Club staff came to mend them that day. We find this a curious incident. Is it possible that the McCanns and advisers were already planning to claim that the shutters had been jemmied open and smashed by the abductor? (as indeed they did claim, on Thursday). If so, they would need to demonstrate that the shutters were previously in good working order.
[*]Evidence that a group planned in advance how to create a major news story on the morning of Friday 4 May
It is a fact that from about 8am on Friday 4 May, the news of Madeleine’s reported disappearance rapidly became the top story in both Portugal and Britain for weeks – and has continued to make international headlines ever since. Was this an accident? We do not think it was. On the very night when the McCanns and their friends should have been distraught , following Madeleine’s sudden disappearance, some of them were busy contacting the TV and print media and claiming, even in the very first hours after they had raised the alarm, that the Portuguese police were incompetent and not organising a proper search for her. The McCanns seemed to know influential people in the TV media and were successful in getting news about Madeleine’s disappearance on to the early Friday morning bulletins. It was very early on, but that on that very Friday, many of the media immediately despatched reporters to Praia da Luz – even though, of course, Madeleine could well have been found alive, safe and well later that very day. What was it that galvanised them all into sending reporters there so soon? One example illustrates our point. An ex-pat living in Spain. Jon Clarke had created a successful newspaper for ex-pats, the Olive Press. He was contacted by one of Britain’s mainstream press in the early hours of the morning, before the media storm broke at about 8am on the Friday morning. Although it was a five-hour journey from his cottage in the countryside around Ronda, he managed to reach Praia da Luz before mid-day, boasting that he was ‘one of the first journalists on the spot. How did his editor in Britain know so early that this was going to be a major international story?
7. The main objections to our theory
[*]Nobody could keep up the pretence that their daughter had been abducted - knowing that she was dead - for so long
ANSWER: It has happened many times before in many other similar cases.
[*] Too many people would know that Madeleine had died on Sunday and by now, someone would have broken ranks and revealed the truth
ANWSER: Again there are many instances in history where large groups of people who know about a serious crime work together to keep the crime a secret. To give but one recent example, dozens of people including police and celebrities knew that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile. But they kept silent. No-ne knew until this year that Clement Freud – who twice invited the McCanns to his Praia da Luz home for eats and drinks in the weeks that followed Madeleine’s disappearance - had been a serial paedophile for decades.
[*] There are too many sightings of Madeleine all week; they can’t all be mistaken
ANSWER: Look at the analysis of these sightings by HideHo that we referred to above.
[*] Mrs Fenn heard Madeleine crying between 10.30pm and 11.45pm on Tuesday night
We reject her evidence for several reasons. She did not make her statement until 20 August - over three-and-a-half months after the event. No-one else heard a child crying loudly for 75 minutes that night. She said she spoke to a friend of hers while the crying was going on, but neither of them did anything about it. Her statement was trailed in advance in the British press in articles which showed every sign of being planted by the McCann Team’s PR agent, Clarence Mitchell. She claimed in her statement that the crying she heard was that of a child ‘more than two’ - but no-one can distinguish between the cry of a two-year-old (the McCanns’ twins) and three-year-old (Madeleine). In short, there is evidence that her statement was fabricated
Madeleine McCann Research Group, August 2016
------------
For discussion, please visit this thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14249-what-really-happened-to-madeleine-mccann-was-she-killed-on-sunday-29-april