Lying in the Sun

McCann Manipulation

McCann Manipulation

On 28th of April 2007 Madeleine Beth McCann with her family headed to Portugal for a holiday.  On the 3rd May 2007 just six days later she was reported to police as having vanished from the apartment where they had been staying. 

Madeleine, Amelie and Sean her two year old twin siblings had been left alone for the FIFTH consecutive night in a holiday apartment while their parents Gerry and Kate McCann went out to dine with their friends.

The parents claimed that they left the patio door of the apartment unlocked. This would have allowed young Madeleine an easy exit, she simply would have had to slide the door open, to wander outside! 

It is obvious to all that at the tender ages of 2 and 3 years of age these youngsters were not able in any way manner or form, to look after themselves, particularly so in event of an accident, a fire, or one of the children taking ill.  The fact that the parents both medical professionals would choose to treat their children in this way, quite naturally raised questions.  How could it not?

It was the children’s mother, Kate McCann who is said to have discovered that Madeleine had disappeared.   It was she who alerted the others in the group with whom she had been dining, that the child was gone. 

She ran from the apartment to the restaurant to do so, once more leaving the two, two year old children alone in the apartment from where her 3 year old daughter had vanished, perhaps only minutes before.

Kate McCann had no way of knowing how long Madeleine had been gone or, if the alleged perpetrator was still in the vicinity, waiting to strike again, this time targeting her twin children.

Before, the police had been informed, before any searches of the surrounding area, by the police, the holidaying party, or those local to the area had taken place, Kate McCann declared that Madeleine had been abducted.

“I mean I knew straight away, that she’d erm, been taken you know.”

(Documentary – Madeleine Was Here)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw 

Madeleine Beth McCann remains on record as a missing child, NOT a child abducted!

The person(s) responsible for removing the child from the apartment be the crime, stranger abduction, the child wandering out through the unlocked door, being fatally injured later discovered and concealed/an accident within the apartment later concealed remains unknown.

Some say it is a complete mystery what became of the child.  

But perhaps not so much of a mystery to the police!  Police very often know who committed a crime which is under investigation.   In this case, as in others, it could be that they did not quite have enough information to be as sure as possible of securing a guilty verdict in a Court of Law, ensuring that those responsible for the crimes committed against this child would be punished.  

Fortunately, more often than not, this situation changes, and through time a more solid case is built, the perpetrators brought to justice.  

That is not to say that “mystery” does not surround the case in other form:

The countless inconsistencies within the stories and police witness statements given by the holidaying party have hardly gone unnoticed.  Not slight differences in the re-telling of a particular part of the initial tale told, but wrought with self-contradiction.

Complete U-turns quite possibly a better description.

Unfortunately and rather sadly for Madeleine, not only have her parents and their friends given conflicting accounts of the events of that night, the UK press have also failed the child by not reporting with honesty and integrity in this case, choosing rather than do so, to ‘make it up’ as they go along.

One might think this is another “mystery” but then:-

Leveson Inquiry proved quite revealing.  There is, it would seem, what could be described as a ‘close connection’ between the parents of Madeleine, and Rebekah Brooks, who, under questioning, stated at this Inquiry that she did not threaten the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, but used her brand of “persuasion” to force him to do her bidding on behalf of the McCanns.

Rebekah Brooks, former Chief Executive of News International has recently been charged with phone hacking.   She insists she is innocent.

We must not overlook Clarence Mitchell, their highly paid PR man.  He does exactly what he claims – works with newspaper editors to shape stories before press release.    Some may consider this ‘misleading the public’ others, quite simply referring to it as lying to them.

This is I gather what the man is paid big bucks to do – paint whoever can pay his price a whiter shade. 

It rather begs the question –

Why would any parent of a missing child feel the need to have this man in their employ to want to associate with him in any way whatsoever?

If the couple have been entirely honest, their friends too, what need do they have of this type of service from this individual?  He is after all, no bones about it, no more than a spin doctor.  He does what he does, spins for a high price – reportedly £70,000 per annum when he is working full time on behalf of the McCann couple.

To spin in the case of a missing child, it could not get more unsavoury!

The public who follow the case know that many of the stories are not true, but shaped.

The stories of sightings of Madeleine in all corners of the world – the majority, down to the vivid imagination of the writer, or rather the person instructing the writer!

Strangely, the one place the child has not been sighted, perhaps due to the remote location, and there being no search launched – is the area in Portugal, the area, where the McCann private detective, former British Police Officer, Dave Edgar, publicly claimed Madeleine was being held by her captor, the hellish lair, 10 miles from Praia Da Luz!

Edgar:

“Maddie is most likely being held captive, possibly in an underground cellar, just like Natascha or Elisabeth, and could emerge at any time.”

“This rural sprawling terrain makes it extremely difficult to search.  You could quite easily keep a child there for years and no one else would know” 

“The person who has Maddie, is most likely a paedophile, or a person so desperate for a family that they were prepared to kidnap for it.”

“I wouldn’t like to speculate on what is happening to her.”

But speculate nevertheless he did!

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/madeleine-mccann-is-in-a-secret-lair-14489787.html 


Difficult to comprehend that Edgar's "investigations" lead him to this conclusion but that he, his employers, the McCanns, and the Madeleine Fund (No Stone Unturned) appear not to have followed up on this.

Quite handy some might say that the place where the private detective feels the child is being held, he also feels is a place he is unable to reach, to search!

Edgar also bungled up pretty badly when he claimed in a televised press conference that the male person, reported as having been seen by one of the McCann party, carrying off a child on the night Madeleine vanished, could in fact have been a female.   The witness, she might have been mistaken he said.

The witness herself Jane Tanner insists she saw a male person, swarthy skinned, long haired.

Mitchell of course, did what he is paid to, attempted to cover up this faux pas! 

Dave Edgar didn’t stop there.

When making/directing the documentary, Madeleine Was Here with the McCann couple, a re-enactment of the night the child disappeared (not a police reconstruction, the holidaying group refused to participate when requested by police to take part in a criminal reconstruction) Dave Edgar announced that it did not matter where certain people, key players were positioned, it did not matter if they were not in the positions they were on that night?

Is not the point of a re-enactment, to do exactly that, to have those involved, those key players assume the positions the correct positions?

Jane Tanner a friend of the McCanns claimed she had seen a man carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared.  She had passed Gerry McCann who was standing on the same side of the street, on the narrow pavement which she walked.   He was speaking with an acquaintance.  The acquaintance, Jez Wilkins, had been out for a walk, when he met McCann.  Wilkins had his baby son with him, the baby asleep in the pushchair. 

Both McCann and Wilkins say they did not see Jane Tanner on the otherwise quiet, deserted narrow street!

Jez Wilkins stated he did not see Jane Tanner and that it would have been impossible for him not to, had she passed him at such close range.  He did however confirm and with absolute certainty that he was standing on the side of the street, on the pavement, speaking to Gerry McCann as Jane Tanner stated in her police witness statement.   He fully agrees with Jane Tanner on this point.

Only McCann has a different recollection!   He disputes the statements of his friend Jane Tanner and of his acquaintance Jez Wilkins.

This was ‘argued’ over in the documentary ‘Madeleine Was Here’ or rather, Jane Tanner, caved in to the pressure of McCann, Edgar and company. 

Clearly rehearsed, and for the purpose of the McCann agenda she went along with 
Gerry McCanns version of where he recalls he stood on the street the night Madeleine disappeared, this, despite contradicting, not only the police witness statement given by Jez Wilkins, but her OWN!

Jez Wilkins it must be noted played no part in this documentary!

But why would Tanner do this, sell her soul?

She either saw what she told police she had, or she did not!   It cannot be one version for the police, and another completely different version for the purpose of the McCann family documentary!


Dave Edgar:-

There are inconsistencies in every major investigation

Jane Tanner:

Okay, that is fine!

Dave Edgar:

Obviously the most important thing is what you saw Jane it’s not important where Gerry and Jez were actually stood, because they didn’t obstruct your view of the man you saw.



'Okay that is fine,' declared Jane with a hint of a wry smile. 

But it isn’t fine.  It is FAR from fine for Tanner to have allowed herself to be railroaded for the purpose of this little production by Gerry McCann, to change what she claimed in her statement to police, as being what she ACTUALLY witnessed on the night Madeleine disappeared.

How was the viewing public to assess whether it was possible for her to have passed Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins on the street, without either of the men noticing her go by, if the team, the McCann team, making this documentary chose not to do so accurately, and when it was not, in keeping, in this instance, with the police witness statements of both Jane Tanner and Jez Wilkins?

Why would they do this, not accurately portray her account of events, but choose to place key players on the opposite side of the street from where she had witnessed them to be on that night?

And why WAS she so accepting of this?  Why didn’t she dig her heels in and refuse to go along with McCann, with something which altered absolutely what she had told police had taken place?

A child is missing, her friends child, and Jane Tanner is happy to smile for the McCann cameras, and allow her police witness statement, her account of events to be changed manipulated by Gerry McCann? 

Were they afraid that had the reconstruction been played out as per Tanner’s police witness statement that it would then have 
highlighted that it was IMPOSSIBLE (as Jez Wilkins stated) for it to have happened as she had claimed?  Possibly, Probably!

It is absolutely crucial for this part of Jane Tanner’s story to be demonstrated, re-enacted as in her police witness statement.  

On a quiet night, a sleepy town, a quiet street where one could hear a pin drop, a narrow pavement, the sound of her steps on approaching must surely have been heard by Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins?   The 
closer she got to them, and at the point she passed them (presumably having to step off from the pavement to do so, it being so narrow, or Jez and Gerry stepping aside in order for her to pass) the louder her steps, the more noticeable she would have become.

Is it not usual to make comment as you 'meet' a friend in the street, if only a passing one? 

Jane Tanner and McCann are part of a group out dining, during a break away from the dinner table, she crosses paths with McCann, also on a break and who is standing speaking with Wilkins on the narrow pavement, and there is no interaction? 

No one heard her, no one saw her! 

No one but Jane Tanner saw the alleged abductor, the sound of his footsteps too, lost it seems, in the quiet of the night, Gerry and Jez failing to see or hear him, as he too passed by very close to where they stood chatting.  How incredulous!

So WHY would Edgar, a retired British Police Officer, claim that it did not matter where on the street he placed Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins for the purpose of this documentary, when he and the rest of the world know this not to be true.

A reconstruction of events, quite clearly MUST be portrayed accurately, honestly, for reasons obvious to one and all.  Not least to demonstrate, Jane Tanner at the point where she passed unseen by Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins.

How is it possible that neither saw her?

Edgar stated that the most important thing is what 'Jane saw.'

It isn’t!

For this re-enactment to have helped Madeleine in any way, to have helped discover what may have become of her, the most important thing was for what ‘Jane saw' to be re-enacted, recorded, portrayed, demonstrated, accurately and honestly.  It wasn’t!

The absolute truth and nothing less is acceptable in the case of a missing child.  For Madeleine this did not happen!

Jane Tanner SAW she claims, Gerry McCann and Jez Wilkins standing on the street, the SAME SIDE of the street as she was walking.   They were standing on the narrow pavement, she passed them close up.

We didn’t see this in the documentary!  Gerry McCann SAW to that!

To have attempted to pass off ‘Madeleine Was Here’ as an honest account of events is quite shameful.

It failed Madeleine in every possible way.

‘Madeleine Was Here’ clearly doesn’t come close to being an accurate account of events of the night Madeleine McCann was reported as missing.

How can it be, when an important element of the police witness statement given by one of the  witnesses’ in the McCann holiday party, in fact the KEY witness, Jane Tanner was not permitted to be included in this so called reconstruction?

Those who produced and presented this piece for public viewing know this, as do those who watched in disbelief at the blatant attempt to mislead.

The Barcelona Bungle though, is by far Edgar’s biggest to-date, his claim that Madeleine was likely smuggled into Barcelona (so not in the lair in Praia Da Luz?) on a yacht, thereafter to leave from the sea port there, bound for Australia.  D.I.Y. Dave the McCann P.I. unfortunately forgot to question anyone at the sea port, or contact sea port authorities.

Edgar, I believe remains on the McCann payrol.   Astounding!

Paying him for incompetency?

Or,

Is it the case, that Edgar is being paid to mess up, or put another way, to deliberately, further muddy the waters, and Mitchell tasked to clean up, paint his employers in a good light, appear squeaky clean?  That is, is it not the purpose of having someone of Mitchell’s ilk on board?

Whatever is their remit, it would appear that neither has done anything thus far that has aided this missing person case, or helped the missing child in any way.

One might say that they have hindered and obstructed.

But then he who pays the piper calls the tune!

These press stories, and they are simply stories, created intentionally to target those who do not closely follow this case.

Those who do follow know also, that the press here in the UK is always eager to report when the McCann couple have instigated a legal action against others, in particular when it involves the former Portuguese police detective, Goncalo Amaral.  

They will fall over themselves to get prime position outside the Court.

The silence from their camp deafening though, when it comes to reporting on the outcome of such action when the McCann couple lose and at enormous expense one would imagine to the Madeleine Fund set up to search for this missing child.  (The Madeleine Fund we are told by the McCann couple relies on donations from the public to -ensure that what they refer to as their on-going search for the child continues.)

It must be said however that it is extremely difficult to establish what this ‘search’ involves.  Evidently not the lairs in Praia Da Luz!

The Fund does not have Charity status!

To be noted too that the UK press further failed to report, make it known, that the McCann couple, LOST a case against the former police detective Goncalo Amaral, and then proceeded to ignore for a lengthy period of time, the Ruling of the Court which ordered that they return the copies of the book The Truth of Lie, written by him and owned by the publishers which they or their legal team had in their possession!   Advised by their expensive lawyers perhaps to go against the Court Judgement?

It has to be questioned –

The “shaped stories”

The bias against those who do not believe in the abduction theory as presented to the world by the McCanns and their friends

The failure also of our press to report honestly and fairly, ignoring completely/not reporting at all when the McCann couple lose these very costly legal actions.

It is GUARANTEED that just ahead of any legal action a sighting of Madeleine will appear in the press.   Done one can only imagine to bolster their case against Goncalo Amaral one of the Portuguese officers who investigated this case and who believes the child is most likely dead.  The police investigation most certainly points in this direction.

It is no mystery who is behind the stories, and perhaps to most of us, no mystery either as to why the need for this and for deceit.

Inconsistencies in the statements made by Gerry McCann and his wife Kate Healy McCann and their friends don’t necessarily prove innocence or guilt.   They do however muddy the waters, creating difficulties for any police authority investigating -intentionally so?

On a positive, it is the many inconsistencies which have caused the public to sit up and take notice to take a closer look at Madeleine's case, to question the versions given by the group of adults, the parents of ALL of the little children left alone night after night during that holiday.  To question how it was at all possible for Madeleine to have vanished without trace.

A missing child case naturally results in suspicion of the parents, perhaps more so in this case:

Where, it is the parents who have declared their child abducted and not the police authority who investigated. 

Where the parents have not fully co-operated with police authorities!

Where there is no evidence of abduction.

Where there are such vast variances in the statements.

Where their stories in televised interview/documentary and police witness statement vary to such degree!

Where 
there is mammoth PR in place - costing £hundreds thousands - to protect the parents?

Where 
there is a £multi million Fund to which the public donate to search for the missing child.  A Fund from which on a couple of occasions the McCanns mortgage was paid!  The Fund lost almost £1/2 to a criminal who they employed to search for their daughter.  A Fund which is used to finance the legal actions they raise and lose.

Where the mother of the child, Kate McCann who in HER book Madeleine has condemned all, referring to the police officers first on the scene as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and to another as a ‘Fucking Tosser!’

This same mother too making derogatory remarks in respect of an elderly lady who lived above the apartment from where Madeleine vanished, a lady who kindly offered Kate McCann assistance in her 'time of need'

Not normal behaviour I'm sure all would agree from the mother of a missing child! 

All to be found in Kate's book ‘Madeleine.’

A book which should though have been titled ‘KATE’ as very little of what Kate McCann has penned is about the victim, her daughter Madeleine, the little girl who was so easily it would seem, pushed to the back of her mother's mind when she and her husband Gerry left her alone on all of those nights. The child played second fiddle to her mother's needs then, and does so again in 'Madeleine.' 

The book however provides for those interested an insight into the workings of this mum’s mind.  Demonstrates how with the greatest of ease one tale told can become another quite different one. Rather disturbing, but a useful tool I would imagine for any future police investigation such are the inconsistencies between her written word here and statements elsewhere!

Quite rightly, taking on board all of the above, the tip of the iceberg, we begin to view the case from another angle, look at matters in a different light.   We question the inconsistencies.

Without knowing of the existence of such contradictions one cannot reach an informed opinion as to what may have become of young Madeleine Beth McCann.

We cannot rely on the press here in the UK they do not report on the victim, Madeleine, or any progress in HER case, they simply churn out stories about her parents giving them celebrity status? 

How tragically sad for this child, our press by their conduct fail her hideously.

One has to ask, does protecting the parents in this or any other case, take precedence over a missing child?  

It is certainly looking that way...




Lying in the Sun
L-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com

Website Builder