Lying in the Sun

McCanns Hiding Something

McCanns Hiding Something


Retired British detective John Stalker famously said of Kate and Gerrry McCann and their seven holiday buddies, David Payne, Fiona Payne, Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Oldfield, Russell O'Brien, Jane Tanner, Dianne Webster, that they have not been truthful with police, police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, one of the children in their care (as in the care of this group of people, who claim to have been keeping check on the McCann kids.)  Indeed John Stalker said that the aforementioned persons are HIDING SOMETHING!

A bold statement from a former police detective, but one that most agree absolutely!

The statements given by these people to police clearly show that they have not been truthful, have been evasive, have been deliberately misleading.  So full of inconsistencies are they regarding the events of not only the night they reported this child as missing, but the day leading up to this and before.   Statements which would lead police to consider, that what this group of people alleged - that Madeleine was taken from her bed, abducted as they told the world - would seem not to be true, but in fact a story fabricated by the group to cover the truth of matters regarding the child's mysterious disappearance.

As Stalker said - they were not being truthful as they are hiding something.

Of course lying to hide 'something'  doesn't necessarily mean that that 'something'  was involvement in the removal of Madeleine from the apartment, and it doesn't necessarily mean:


  •  that they, one or other of them struck a blow which caused the child injury/death
  • and it doesn't necessarily mean that one or other of them returned to that apartment and discovered the child had gotten out of bed which she was prone to doing in the night (mostly on this vacation, and according to her parents police witness statements - due to her siblings crying - or as Gerry McCann refers to this - 'the noise of her brother and sister (twins, 2 years old at that time) and had fallen, a fatal injury, fallen perhaps from the sofa
  • doesn't mean that she had slid open that unlocked patio door, climbed on the patio furniture to look over the wall of the balcony area in search of her parents, and fallen from same to the garden area below.    ( Kate McCann describes this high balcony area in her book as ground floor!   Indeed the apartment was considered a ground floor apartment.  But it was built on a hill, split level. The front door being on ground level. The back patio entrance, not so.  A steep flight of stairs led to a patio area/balcony, where the side/back sliding patio door was located.  An area dangerous to any young child who could easily climb on the patio furniture chairs/table to see over this walled area, a steep drop to the gardens below.  Absolutely responsible parents of young children would NEVER leave young children alone in such an environment, not for a second as that is all it would take for a child to climb and topple over the wall, and to even consider leaving three tots alone in that apartment and leave the door to this area open, frankly beggars belief, and they be medics no less.  Medics, who must have in their careers dealt with injuries in children caused in similar situations.     And let's face it also, a child, days from her 4th birthday would easily be able to slide open that patio door.  A patio door which had no handle on the outside, so presumably had been left ever so slightly open by the parents so that they would have a grip when sliding it open further to gain access when on their alleged checks by this route.   And a 4 year old child would be able to open that patio door whether the door was locked or not on the inside (though McCanns claim they left it unlocked) as the type of locking mechanisms on these doors is not beyond undoing by a 4 year old.     Added to which, Kate McCanns best buddy, Fiona Payne told police the McCanns had left the patio door unlocked for this very purpose -SO THAT MADELEINE WOULD BE ABLE TO EXIT THE APARTMENT TO GO LOOK FOR THEM WHEN THEY WERE OUT AT THE BAR.
  • and doesn't necessarily mean she had fallen down that steep stairway.      Yes, Kate McCann, eagerly backed up by Gerry McCann on the Tubridy Show, declared that the child safety gate at the top of the stairs was locked.  (a video clip well worth a watch, as it is, oddly enough in the circumstances, a rather amusing piece,  viewing Gerry McCann, his expression like that of a school boy believing he has duped the class teacher, gleeful that he managed to get in his tuppenceworth, thinking he has fooled the viewing audience - 'oh that gate was locked, so that proves we never dunnit, and Madeleine couldn't open it so it must have been the abductor'   Wrong!  Four year old kids can open safety gates with the greatest of ease (and some adults can lie with the greatest of ease).  Oh us adults would be amazed at what little kids, left to their own devices and unchecked, unsupervised can accomplish when they set their minds to it. One day they are unable to climb from their cots, next to our surprise they have mastered this.   Mastered dragging a kitchen step stool to the cupboard of their choice and emptying the content. Emptying the contents of mummy's make-up bag, but not before first painting their face, or scribbled on mummy's copy of 'Madeleine' as there wasn't a colouring book to hand, and using daddy's best Parker pen - some adult having destroyed the colouring book, perhaps when they couldn't find piece of paper to scribble say a grocery list!
  • and it doesn't necessarily mean Madeleine got a hold of the bag of medicines Kate McCann had in her bedroom, and swallowed some of.
  • and it doesn't mean that they gave the kids something to hopefully keep them asleep when they were out, but Madeleine still woke, drowsy and had an accident in the apartment.
  • and it doesn't necessarily mean this child became unwell when alone, choked maybe on vomit (hence a nice clean bed that looked as though Madeleine had not slept there, a bed with clean bedding replacing that which was soiled?) a child who Kate McCann claimed was unwell around teatime that evening, a child tired, pale, exhausted she described Madeleine, a child they thought it was okay to leave alone with her baby brother and sister, and in such a condition.   A child who had become more ill after her parents left her that evening, the consequences of choking fatal?    Rachael Oldfield famously said that had Madeleine had a head injury and needed resuscitating there were plenty of doctors within the group to perform this.  - Like Gerry McCann telling us the top gate was locked, exonerating them, Rachael Oldfield made her statement in the same vein - 'but if Madeleine needed resuscitating, we were all there to perform this, so no she couldn't have become hurt in any way.'  BUT, WHAT IF resuscitating was exactly what Madeleine required, urgent medical attention, and they discovered the child lying injured, way too late to save her?   Too late for her to be resuscitated.  Did one or more of this group TRY TO RESUSCITATE an injured Madeleine?

So of course, lying to police, misleading police, sending them off on a wild goose chase looking for an alleged abductor (not that the Portuguese Police were fooled by their stories, not for a split second) may NOT mean that any of the above happened to this child, and it does not mean that they the group, or members of, removed the child from apartment 5A, or that they arranged for someone else, to do this.  

Of course it doesn't mean that!

It means exactly what it says on the tin.

It means they lied to police.
It means they misled the police.
It means they collaborated.
It means they fabricated their stories.

It means that there is every possibility that any of the above scenarios are more likely than an alleged intruder.

It means as John Stalker said THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE!

And the big question is WHAT COULD THAT BE, if not any of the above?

If these people PLAYED NO PART IN MADELEINE'S DISAPPEARANCE, -as claimed by Gerry McCann in his statement which he read for the watching world as he stepped from the plane on their return to the UK from Portugal - then WHY IN HELL HAVE THEY LIED REPEATEDLY REGARDING THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCE OF THIS CHILD?

Some say they lied, misled police as the group feared for their careers, feared they might lose their other kids, that the kids would be taken into care.

For it to be discovered they had "only" neglected the kids night after night didn't matter to them then, they would invent a story of a checking routine, that would cover their backs to some degree, would show, in their minds at least, that they weren't total irresponsible assholes, who went drinking of an evening neglecting the kids, it would show they LISTENED AT DOORS FOR CRYING - YOU KNOW THAT NOISE KIDS MAKES WHEN ALONE, AFRAID DISTRESSED, SICK, NEED COMFORTING - YEAH they hoped - on this count!

But their story of the checking system proved to be a nonsense.   So many times they chopped and changed their versions, not a single story by any of these people in this respect, tying in with another.

It was proved a DISASTER, as good old boy Gerry McCann might say!

And in any case, if anything happened to Madeleine in their absence why would that be their fault  is what Gerry McCann said.

If they really believed that anything that happened in their absence was not their fault - then why LIE?

They decided they would however, go with their story, their tale of checking of the kids, a disaster though it was.

In reality, what could have been so bad, what could have happened to Madeleine, that was so bad, or rather, what could have happened to the child, something so bad, that would have them believe that it was necessary for them to save their own skins, and MISLEAD, or attempt to mislead a police investigation?

Being accused of child neglect, doesn't cut it!  Finding their daughter injured doesn't either.  Finding their daughter missing doesn't cause people to fabricate their story.

Finding her dead, in certain circumstances, wouldn't cause parents to lie...but finding her dead in particular circumstances, could mean a whole other ball game!

Saying they checked on the kids every half hour as opposed to say, not checking on them at all, really doesn't make a hoot of difference.

Not checking on kids for say around two hours while the boozing buddies all met up of an evening, leaving kids in a secured apartment

     Versus 

checking on them every half hour but leaving the patio door open (slightly?) or unlocked?

Either way, not much in it - in both scenarios, NEGLECT, ABUSE, LEAVING VERY YOUNG AND VULNERABLE KIDS IN DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT, six and two threes!

And would they lie, mislead police if they thought for an instant that Madeleine was an 'alive and findable little girl?'

I tend to think not!   I would hope not!

But they did, lie, that is.   In the crucial time immediately after this child was reported by them as missing, when every second counts in the case of a missing child, an alive child - they misled the police!

To mislead a police authority, investigating the disappearance of your child, is a BIGGIE!   And the reason for having done so - a bigger BIGGIE!

To REFUSE to fully co-operate with police authorities - WOW!

And each and every one of this group, in their various ways, did exactly that!

Now what are the chances that a group of people, all parents, mostly doctors, holidaying together, and one of their children vanishes seemingly off the face of the earth,  that they would ALL refuse to assist police with their investigations?

How can that be?   That NINE adults would ALL refuse to help this missing child, refuse to assist police in their investigation to trace her and return her to her family?

Think about that.   As a couple, you holiday with, and dine out with SEVEN buddies.  Your child vanished during this time.   And each and every one of these SEVEN refuse to help police with their investigation?

That's mind blowing stuff!

Would they do that because they left the kids alone each night while they went for a drinking session?

Would they leave this child with the paedophiles her parents claimed had 'stolen her from her bed' because they were ashamed of their actions/child neglect, actions which they could not possibly hide anyway once the world was alerted to Madeleine's disappearance?

(Do please read blogs above - Just Checking - and the The Refusal blogs) 

It simply doesn't add up that child neglect would be their reason for lying and misleading a police investigation.

I know not of any caring loving parent, who would for a second, think of themselves at such a time, who would be thinking - 'I don't want to be accused of child neglect let's mislead the police, doesn't matter if our child is with paedophiles, let's not assist them with their investigation.  We will refuse to take part in a reconstruction of events, we will refuse to answer when being questioned, and we will invent whatever story re the checking of the kids and all else that we feel is necessary to keep the heat off'

And for a GROUP of parents to have acted this way, each backing the other, each telling a tale more incredulous in part than the other, but who all clearly collaborated.  Put quite simply it STINKS!

So yes indeed, the McCanns and their buddies are HIDING SOMETHING.  Doesn't necessarily mean that they were responsible for removing Madeleine from the apartment.  

But when ALL of the information, evidence is taken into consideration, it leaves little doubt, if any, that these people are not only HIDING SOMETHING, but hiding what they know became of this child - and the true story ain't that of the bogey man breaking in, to an apartment through a window which they claimed was jemmied, the shutter also, and which the police proved was not the case at all, the window/shutter having been opened from the inside,  and when there was an open/unlocked patio door?  No need for anyone to 'break in'

Why in hell would an intruder who they claim watched them all week, break in through a shuttered window -which we know now was not the case at all - when he must have known the patio door was lying unlocked/open?

And how we know he must have known this, as the McCanns and their buddies said this alleged intruder was watching them.  For him/her to have been watching them, s/he had to see them enter/exit that patio door, s/he would know it was OPEN TO ALL!

But that too, we know didn't happen.

No intruder takes the difficult route, and the unlocked/slightly open, patio door believe it or not, WAS the difficult route.   

Even if it was open in this tale of the McCanns.    There was a little gate at the bottom of the stairs which the guy would have to have opened.  Climbed the steep and narrow patio stairs.   Opened the child safety gate at the top.   Then slid open the patio door.   Had he left by this route, carrying Madeleine he would need to have have done likewise, fiddled around with the patio door, curtains, top and bottom gates, open them to exit and closing them behind him again whilst carrying the child?

Not what professional child snatchers do I wouldn't imagine, and not to step out onto the street below where the group were all to-ing and fro-ing according to their police witness statements.

And for an intruder to have left by this route, where did he head then, AFTER stepping out into the main street, carrying a child dressed only we are told in pyjamas for ALL to see?   Which way did this guy go?

Nope, the now retired DCI Redwood has not a clue.  

He could find crechedad, a man who had kept the clothes he himself wore seven years earlier ( as in worn on the night Madeleine McCann vanished - McCanns and their buddies couldn't remember exactly, only hours after the fact, what they had been wearing at the time) yet Redwood found a dad who still had in his possession not only his own old clothes, but would you believe the pyjamas his child wore on that night also.  Who in hell keeps pyjamas belonging to a 2 year old for six/seven years, and what dad on the planet would even know what jim jams his kids were wearing the nights previous to DCI Redwood speaking with him, let alone what his kids were wearing as night attire on a specific night seven years previous?


And according to Kate McCann on her visit the patio door was closed. The bottom gate was closed.  The top child safety gate was closed.   So a neat intruder.   Or a neat Matthew Oldfield.  But of course Matthew cannot quite remember.  (this poor memory malarky, is a theme that runs through every story these people ever told regarding this missing child.  Memory loss a safety net for them) Pity they picked the guy with the poorest memory for this part of their story, but then I suspect that whomever stepped up to play Matt's part in the tale, would have had an equally shaky recollection of the doors, and gates and windows, and Madeleine!

Kate McCanns claim that the gates were closed when she arrived, and Matthew Oldfield not being able to confirm whether they were open/closed on his arrival or his departure, rather leaves Kate's story somewhat adrift though!

If he didn't close both gates on his departure - then who did close them before Kate McCanns arrival?

Could be Kate McCann lied on this count, as she has on others. Chances of this pretty high!

But what IF we believe that Matthew Oldfield did in fact go check on the McCann kids, but did NOT CLOSE the patio door, the top and bottom gates behind him when he left the apartment, and Madeleine did indeed exit that apartment, fall and become injured?

What if what Kate McCann discovered was an injured Madeleine?

What if Gerry McCann did not look inside that bedroom at all, and Madeleine was already lying injured and the guy didn't notice the little one lying behind a sofa for instance?

Of course these are all 'what ifs' and we must never forget the 'evidence' of the cadaver dog!  

The truth of matters in this case, is, that their stories and their timeline, cannot be trusted, and neither can the McCanns and their buddies.

(And neither can be trusted the NEW ACCOUNT/TIMELINE, THE NEW STORY by the now retired Metropolitan Police detective DCI Redwood!)

And this is why A RE-ENACTMENT of events was, and still remains crucial in this case.

A re-enactment which the group refused to participate!

And the reason for that, is more than obvious!

But back to the alleged intruder.  Why would an intruder, choose to enter by this route, and then neatly close all of the gates and doors behind him whilst balancing a child in his arms, choose to enter by the ROUTE the parents and their buddies took on THEIR checks (as is their claim) to enter by the side/back patio entrance which was accessed from the main street for ALL around to see?

Didn't happen!

And when inside, why would this intruder not simply have left by the front door, why would he open a window and shutter which was noisy and could wake the kids in that room and just about every other person in those apartment blocks, added to which, a window shutter raised high and an open window, a clear signal, alerting one and all passing, that something was wrong.

If this guy took such care at the patio entrance side to ensure he locked everything behind him after entering, gates, doors, curtains, so as not to alert anyone, WHY would he open the darn bedroom window at the other side of the apartment for all to see?

And why didn't he do this, open this window and shutter, on the Wednesday night, the previous night, the night Kate McCann suggested the alleged intruder did a dummy run?

On the night Madeleine vanished, he would need only and simply have had to open the front door to exit, it led out to the self same path as the bedroom window, and he could have walked off, walking off in a direction which he knew there was absolutely NO chance that he would bump into any of the McCanns and their buddies!

WHY would any intruder who planned to take Madeleine, whether leaving by the patio door or the front door, choose TO DO take a route which he knew there was every chance of being caught/seen by the McCanns and their buddies on the many checks the group claimed to have performed.

Would not anyone 'stealing a child' from this apartment, either have a car waiting, or walk off in a direction opposite to that where Tanner claimed to have seen a guy walking, and perhaps then into a waiting car there?

I don't get it! Why any intruder would snatch a child from apartment 5A and then choose to step out into the very street where he would know one or more of this group would most likely, if they were checking as they claimed, be out there heading to the apartments?

And as for that window.   Leaving a window and shutter wide open, lessened his escape time if noticed, and increased his chances of being caught.

Whatever these people are hiding it is is a big something!

A 'something'  that if Madeleine was alive and findable  must be so huge for her parents and their buddies that it would allow them to mislead/not fully co-operate with a police investigation, and in so doing, prevent and/or delay that findable little girl, being found.

It must be something that would affect - in their estimation - their lives, more than losing their child.   And for a parent, losing a child, nothing more grave, more sad.  Nothing in life more important than the safety and well being of their kids.   So what could it be?

I cannot see that any parent if they truly believed their missing child was findable, that they would deliberately, and together with others, mislead a police investigation, an investigation to trace the child.

I cannot see that being accused of neglect, be that leaving their kids for half hour periods then checking as opposed to leaving them for however many hours dinner/drinks may take, before checking on them, would make any difference to a situation where a child vanished.

That would all be thrown out the window.  Nothing but nothing, except assisting police to find the child would matter, if that child disappeared in circumstances in which they had played no part.

Your career, your reputation would not matter, not a jot.  Recovering your missing child is ALL that would concern you.  To hell with everyone and everything else.  Even the thought of your other children being taken into care WOULD NOT PREVENT you doing all in your power, WOULD NOT PREVENT you from being honest with police authorities, WOULD NOT PREVENT you from assisting them in recovering your child who you believed was snatched by a paedophile.

The other kids would be safe.  Be that safe with family back home or child protection, they would be safe.   The missing child was not!

She was suffering, suffering in a way that no child should ever suffer.

So, no I don't buy it that they were concerned about losing the other two kids!

If McCanns truly thought that Madeleine was alive and findable and played no part in her disappearance, there is NO REASON in the world for them to have fabricated the stories which this group did.  And no reason in the world for them all to have refused to help the police. Refused to help this missing child.

I can see very easily,
why a story of a checking system would be necessary, why a story of a visit to the apartment by a member of the group was necessary, a story wherein, Madeleine was seen, alive and healthy (which is at odds with Kate McCanns story of a pale, tired and unwell Madeleine) can see why a story of a member of the group having checked on the kids, not once but twice on the night she vanished being necessary to their tale.  I can see why a story by a group member of seeing a child being carried, a child wearing pyjamas just like Madeleine's (now debunked by Met Police, a story already debunked by Portuguese Police at the time, difference being Met invented another one by way of excusing this Tanner female, the member of the group whose part it was to tell this tale.) becoming necessary to their story.

I can see very easily
why the group would invent the tales they did, attempt to mislead the police, the investigation, if they knew the child was not alive and did not want her to be findable!

Facing possible child neglect charges is not enough for parents, to fabricate stories which would have the police authorities heading off in the wrong direction looking for their child who they said was in the hands of paedophiles, snatched from her bed. Leaving her to be tortured.

A dead child, and parents knowing that the child was not alive, and knowing too how this came about, knowing that they could be implicated, is a reason for tales, untruths, inconsistencies in stories, and in misleading police.

Oh yes, John Stalker, nail on the head - McCANNS ARE HIDING SOMETHING!



l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
24th September 2015

Website Builder