Lying in the Sun

The Abductor Always...

The Abductor Always Calls Twice

We've heard the tales Kate McCann has told, the ever changing story, the fantastic tale of how her daughter Madeleine was, according to her - abducted!

Police authorities in both Portugal and UK have been unable to come up with evidence of an intruder.  There was no break in at this apartment.  No shutter/window jemmied open.  No doors jemmied open.

The story has changed several times.  Little things added as time has gone by.

The whooshing curtain but one of Kate's fantastic tales that we are all familiar with.

Madeleine was reported missing May 2007. I was informed by a reader (thank you) that Kate's 'whooshing tale' made its grand entrance 2009!

Dr Kate McCann has changed her original tale more than once, always planting little seeds, adding to the tale, always she tells us 'with hindsight!'

The changes are never anything of a factual nature or anything that police can prove (they can only disprove her theories through investigation, by solving this case) Kate McCanns, little 'add ons' are after all simply what she wants us to hear, always created in an attempt to counteract that which is damaging to her, when she realises that she has been caught out by a previous tale she has told, that it has been discovered by the public that her tale cannot be either the truth or even a possibility.  

When police proved that the window shutter had not been jemmied open, as Kate McCann told the world, but was in fact opened from the inside, she then (with hindsight of course) said that the intruder must have opened it then from the inside to create a red herring!  What utter nonsense!  Police must have been having a good old laugh at that one!  More importantly they must have looked on this remark with suspicion.

She introduced the stained pyjama tale.  The crying incident.  Then combined them!

It was with hindsight she thought the stained pyjamas tale would be of interest to the police.

It was with hindsight that she thought the crying incident would have been of interest to police.

She said she felt she had to TELL POLICE EVERYTHING, to help her daughter.  But then didn't!

She said of her book Madeleine - "I felt I had to share everything"  

(Haven't read it, only bits here or there online, but, I can assure her, she didn't have to share everything, the world weren't ready and never will be to read of Kate and Gerry McCanns antics between the sheets, or lack off!   Moving on quickly as I don't have a sick bucket to hand.  Only people she should have been telling EVERYTHING RELATED TO THIS CASE, was the police.  The book was nothing more than a platform for her venom towards others, sensationalism in a bid to sell it.  Her opportunity to write what she thought at the time was her get out of jail card for when her twin children would reach an age of greater understanding when they would question their parents story, as she said she wanted them to have AN account of the truth, trouble with that is that as we have so often come to find, and these poor kids will discover too - Kate McCanns truths more often than not are lies.  She was banking on, not only that her twins children would read this book, but that believe it also.

Trouble is, so much has happened since its publication.   Whole lot of stuff that the duo absolutely would not want their kids to know of.  All of their dirty tricks, Mitchell's involvement, not to mention of how they left their three kids, and the stories they have told to cover their tracks.  The people they have hurt and harmed.  The death of Brenda Leyland.  Do they really believe that the young McCanns when they get to read this book and all else will not question why they were left alone.  I doubt even they would buy that their parents thought it was SAFE, that they did not even consider that it would not be.

That statement alone by the McCanns is astounding, that they did not consider the possibility of harm of any kind coming to their children. But it is a statement that was necessary to fit in with their tale, they could hardly say, oh yes we considered every danger but still thought the risk was worth it for a beer with their buddies.  Of course they could not say anything other than they felt it safe.

But that too, to say they 'felt it safe' demonstrates that they DID IN FACT CONSIDER the possibilities of danger - you cannot render the environment to be safe without having given consideration as to what made it feel safe.

So what made them feel it more safe to walk out and leave their kids in an unlocked property in Portugal, than it would have been to do so back home in the UK.

For their young children, the very same dangers of being left alone at home in the UK were present in Portugal.

They're talking a lot of guff.

This grieving mother Kate McCann unashamedly plugged that book the muck that it is.  Groomed within an inch of her life, she grinned widely, like the cat who got the cream for the cameras. She bought new frocks, dyed her locks, polished her jewellery, and draped herself over Gerry McCanns shoulders as she posed for pics. Anyone not knowing of the McCanns seeing the pictures would have thought they were, no, not movie stars, that's stretching it, but doing a photo shoot for a downmarket catalogue, bargain basement stuff!  Certainly to imagine they were the grieving parents of a missing child would be furthest from anyone's mind.  

When promoting this book around that time they also appealed for monies for their Fund which they said was not in a healthy state (due to being mismanaged) Gerry McCann promised the public they would do better, if they could be given a second chance so to speak.
When promoting this book they were always sure to spread the sad story of how NO ONE was looking for Madeleine (the case was in fact shelved as it could not be furthered without the co-operation of the McCanns. They never requested it remain an active case which was their right also.  They preferred for whatever reason to allow it to be shelved )   The book was the stuff that makes folk shudder, cringe, it is tacky, demonstrates a lack of class, lack of thought for Madeleine, and most certainly absolutely NO thought or consideration as to how the content would harm the young twin children.

Perhaps the only good that may come from Kate McCanns book, the book about Kate McCann, is if as Dr Amaral said - it may one day be used in evidence!

It is interesting that Kate McCann said she would want to 'share' everything, this coming from the lady who refused (her legal right of course but outrageous from the mother of a missing toddler to hinder a police investigation in this way) to answer 40 + questions put to her by police?

From the moment the first police officers arrived at the scene at Apt 5A, Kate McCann began her nonsense.  The police officers to her, were Tweedledee and Tweedledum.  The officers who took her to the police station hours after Madeleine was reported as missing, she criticised also, they drove the car too fast, said she.  Smoked cigarettes.  Did not offer her refreshments.

Astonishing that any mother of a child 'stolen from her bed in a foreign land' as Kate McCann describes her daughter's mysterious and suspicious disappearance, would be thinking of herself, looking for refreshments, that she would have cared if a police officer had a cigarette, or drove too fast.  Personally the quicker they got me to the police station the better, and I would not have cared however many cigarettes the police officers had hanging from their lips.  As for refreshments, last thing on my mind!

This unco-operative mother also decided the police were 'Fucking Tossers.'  And later as we all know she went on to say that she hopes that one officer in particular, suffer fear, pain be miserable.  And not forgetting she also stated at one point that she would like to kill Robert Murat, a now crucial witness in this case!

Kate McCanns best friend Fiona Payne stated that Kate told her and the others at the dinner table on the night Madeleine vanished that she had left the patio door open that night for Madeleine, should she wake and find her mummy and daddy gone again, she could leave the apartment in search of them.

Kate McCann said on a TV interview (Tubridy Show) that Madeleine would not be able to slide open the patio door,  In fact she said that Madeleine would not have been able to draw back the curtain which framed the patio door!  A 4 year old child who could not slip behind a curtain, not necessary that she draw the curtains open, simply slide behind it.  Sure everyone at one time has had a child when playing games at home, 'hide and go seek' for instance who has hidden behind the drapes!

So Kate McCann and Fiona Payne, NOT agreeing on this.

Did Team Met every check any of this out, one has to wonder?

Which of them has LIED, Kate McCann, her best buddie Fiona Payne, one or both?

The above is just a little insight into the thinking of this woman, her character.  Dishonest might spring to mind.  Selfish might spring to mind.  A nut job might spring to mind - wanting to kill someone? Hoping that others feel misery, fear, pain? Cunning and calculating might spring to mind also?  All those little 'add ons' to her tales!

But it also raises another question.   In the early days of this case, one of the reasons given for the patio door being left unlocked was in case of fire.  Had a fire broken out, and according to the interview Kate McCann gave Tubridy - Madeleine would not have been able to OPEN THE PATIO DOOR TO ESCAPE!  The child did not have the use of a phone either, and even if she had access to a phone, how would she know who to phone she would not know the emergency services number in this country foreign to her/language barrier etc.  Oh we could say but, her parents might have told her the number, given her a mobile phone to contact them - BUT WHAT WOULD THAT TELL US OF THE McCANNS that they would leave kids alone, in the unlocked apartment with instructions as to the procedure to follow in case of FIRE - a 4 year old and two, two year olds?

And what were the chances of a fire breaking out?  Had it done so the alert to fire services would not have come from this child but from someone else who discovered it, and perhaps too late, and fire services, don't require a door to be unlocked to gain access to a premise, THEY BREAK THE DOORS DOWN, SMASH IN THE WINDOWS IF THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED!

So the unlocked patio door story, really is a shed load of shit!
Someone is lying here!  

Still we wait for the Metropolitan Police to come up with the reason why this group of people have lied. As therein lies the answer to what happened to Madeleine.  It won't be found anywhere else.  The group their police witness statement hold the answer.

Doesn't mean they harmed the child, struck whatever the blow which killed this little girl, but it DOES mean that they ALL for whatever reason, decided that they could NOT be honest with police authorities, be it Portuguese or British officers.   And to decide not to be honest, and that is what they did, means that whatever happened to Madeleine, they most probably know exactly what that is!

Why else would they be untruthful?  To be untruthful, they had something to hide.  No getting away from that!  No getting away from the fact that they are up to their necks in this, that they played, not 'a' part, but THEIR part in the case of this missing child.   No question they have played their part.

The stained pyjama tale, and the crying incident, with these came another of Kate's 'add ons.'   With hindsight, what else (hindsight such a wonderful thing as Kate McCann tells us) and as always, she now wondered, she told the world, if perhaps the alleged intruder had tried to abduct Madeleine on the night previous to her disappearance.

Had this intruder made her daughter, and her toddler brother cry on that night?  Had the alleged intruder some substance with him that had gotten on Madeleine's pyjamas, left that stain?

See what Kate McCann did there folks?

Kate McCann:

"...but as soon as I discovered that Madeleine had been taken, you know, that was the FIRST thing that came into my head, and I thought 'oh my god had somebody tried the night before, you know"

(watch Kate McCann (and Gerry McCann) in action 'workin' it' at:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg

Now up until this interview with Tubridy, we had not heard of this little
'add-on' we had not ever heard that the first thing she thought of on discovering that Madeleine 'had been taken' (her words) was that somebody had tried to take Madeleine the night prior to her being reported as missing.

Amazing really, Kate McCann instantly knew Madeleine had been taken, without any search of the area, before having contacted police or for that matter before even reporting to her husband and their buddies, Kate McCann decided her daughter had been
abducted, not that she had perhaps wandered out through the alleged unlocked patio door (which is what most people would have thought) but that she had been abducted.  This she decided due to the window and shutter being open and Madeleine could not have opened it.  Only Kate McCanns prints were discovered there.  Later she added the above.  She also in that moment, thought '

"oh my god had somebody tried the night before"

And anyone with an ounce of sense immediately on hearing her tall tail thought - Why is this woman lying?

If you think about it, she really needed that window to be open in her tale.  Not simply as it could be used well for the story to be told - an intruder breaking in the apartment gaining access through open window.  But it also allowed, beefed up this story of an abductor due to the fact that Madeleine probably could not have opened the window or shutter.  The open window served more than one purpose for the McCanns.

The intruder having been in the apartment the night prior to the McCanns reporting their daughter missing WOW another of Kate's add-ons, and quite a tale to tell to suggest.

Not even the Metropolitan Police have come up with that one!  But this is McCannland and in McCannland ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE according to Kate and Gerry McCann that is!

But it is the alleged intruder CALLING TWICE that is of interest.

IF the intruder was a burglar, a burglar who had not realised there were kids inside, and then was disturbed by kids, and made a hasty retreat, then not a chance in hell that burglar was going to return a second night.  He would not CALL ROUND TWICE!

McCanns were not monied people, had to pay their mortgage from the Madeleine Fund, not two dimes to rub together on that holiday. So unless a burglar knew that it was worth his while, that he knew for sure the McCanns had packed the crown jewels in their luggage, he would NOT try to burgle them once let alone twice, and certainly not when he knew there were three kids in there who could wake and raise the alarm.  Way too risky.

DCI Redwood.  Does he believe a burglar went in to 5A on either the 2nd or the 3rd of May 2007, or both nights?  You bet he doesn't!

An intruder, a paedophile intruder, would he CALL TWICE?

Well let's see now.

This intruder we are told by the McCanns MUST have been watching them for days on end monitoring their every move.  DCI Redwood on Crimewatch said Madeleine's disappearance on first reading had all the hallmarks of a planned abduction.

Redwood does not touch the suggestion by Kate McCann that the alleged abductor called TWICE, he doesn't speak at all of this alleged abductor having called in at 5A on the night of the 2nd May 2007.

I guess if an abduction was planned a kid waking and crying was not going to have the culprit running for the hills.  Let's face it.  Anyone who intends kidnapping a sleeping child must know that the child may wake, so surely would have come prepared for that instance. Would have brought something with which to sedate her.  Clearly in the case of Madeleine something to sedate her an the twin children.  Most certainly he would not think that Madeleine or any child for that matter would remain asleep while he took her from her bed, climbed out through windows, (in the McCann version) and then walked down the street on this cold night with the child only in pyjamas.  The cold air would wake the child.  Kate McCann said herself required 5 layers of clothing it was so cold at night in PDL, especially on the Wednesday night said she when speaking of Gerry going off and leaving her and her getting annoyed at his actions.

And just as an aside why would any person who planned to abduct a child want to walk openly through the streets with her dressed only in her jimjams, and walk with her in his arms, such a far distance through town, from where he first snatched her?

Didn't happen!

If someone is abducting a child, they want it done quickly without being seen.  They don't walk through a town, village with the child, drawing attention to themselves.

And no transport?   Strangest abduction ever by the sound of it!  An abductor who wasn't bothered if he was seen by anyone and has no nearby transport waiting.

For someone who supposedly watched the McCanns all week, monitored their every move, the abductors plan was pretty poorly put together.

Some say but he still managed to abduct her.  HE DOESN'T EXIST FOLKS!   If someone carried Madeleine McCann through the streets of PDL it was not a stranger abductor!

Whoever removed Madeleine McCann from Apt 5A concealed this child when he or she did so.  That person did not walk through town with Madeleine in his arms for ALL who may be on the streets that night, to see and witness. 

Jane Tanner did not see anyone carrying a child.

The Smith family?  Perhaps they saw something, but it sure wasn't Madeleine McCann being carried off.

There is not a thing about this case that I can see, that could have had Andy Redwood stating it had all the hallmarks of a well planned job.

So whether anyone believes in the alleged intruder that he was a burglar or a paedophile - WOULD THEY HAVE CALLED TWICE?  Not a chance in hell!

McCanns, the Metropolitan Police also have failed to come with any theory as how this alleged intruder gained access to the apartment nor have they given any theory as to how he exited the apartment.

Apart from Kate McCann coming up with the story of a jemmied window which was her original tale, her original point of access for this alleged intruder - that was until police said - NO NO NO Madame, the shutter and window were not jemmied.  NO ONE came in or out of that window, there has been no other theory as to how this abduction could have happened.

What puzzles me is - IF the intruder called on the 2nd May, why was the shutter and window not found open on this night?

At what point then did the intruder disturb the children?  How did he disturb them?  Did he try the shutter and the noise from this woke the kids?

We know too that if someone tries to open these shutters from outside they buckle.  There was no damage to the shutter on the Wednesday.  In fact no damage to the shutter on any night!

Would an intruder come back a second night, and again attempt to open a shutter if the sound of it might wake the kids again or he had left it damaged?  Hell no!

And why would the intruder try to break in when if he had been monitoring this apartment, he would know the patio door was lying unlocked?  (and of course one of the little 'add-ons' is that BY THE WEDNESDAY EVENING they the McCanns had started leaving the patio door unlocked.  Oh they try to cover everything I'll give them that)  

Narrows it down then as to which night they changed their routine from using front door to side/back/patio door entrance.  Yet funnily enough they still cannot tell us which night that was, and why!

So, did he gain entry on the 2nd through patio door, and disturbed Madeleine and Sean, made them cry, and what point?  Was it as he sneaked in through the patio door?  When he walked across the floor of the living area?  As he opened the bedroom door to where the kids slept?  As he stood over Madeleine in her bed and spilled what - his cup of tea on her jim jams?

At what point might he have disturbed these kids?

If this intruder is to be held responsible for the stain on the pyjamas he would have to have been in the bedroom with Madeleine, unless of course she was awake and standing in the front room area, and if she had been, then she was awake, she would have seen this guy, and when she told her parents in the morning about her crying, she would most certainly have told them about the strange man who came in for a visit and left a stain on her jimjams.   And apart from anything else, had she seen this guy, I doubt very much she would have stopped crying at such a terrifying occurrence, not until someone whom she knew came to comfort her.  That she would have gone back to bed, tucked herself back in and fell fast asleep before maw and paw came back, and not forgetting maw slept in the kids room that night, is just too daft for words!  

Did this alleged intruder call on the night of the 2nd May 2007?  Of course he didn't!   

No sign of him on that night and NO SIGN of him on the night Madeleine was reported as missing!  

NO SIGN OF THE JIMJAMS!

The intruder does not exist!
An abductor planning to take a child comes PREPARED FOR A CRYING CHILD.
Had the McCann kids cried it would not have ruffled an abductor not in the least, he could silence them instantly by sedation.

A burglar - now crying kids would have a burglar run for the hills, as burglars don't carry something with which to silence a crying child. 

There is NO evidence of anyone, not a burglar, not a paedophile having been in apartment 5A not on the night of the 2nd May 2007 nor on the night of the 3rd May 2007.

The evidence of whatever crimes committed against this child were removed when Madeleine her body was removed from that apartment.

Kate McCann has been spinning right from the start, done more revolutions than Mitchell she has.

I cannot imagine that anyone else having told the tales the McCanns have the obvious lies, would still be free to walk the streets!

They know their part in the disappearance of this child, ALL of them do, every last one in that holiday party.

As to DCI Andy Redwood saying that he would investigate the 'abduction' as though it had happened in the UK?

Well in the years where he was part of this investigation up until his recent retirement, he has failed to investigate as though the crimes against this child were committed in the UK or anywhere else.   Had he done so there are a number of people who most definitely would have faced charges.

Kate McCann famously said of the person who removed Madeleine from the apartment "He's still out there."

He is indeed, he is indeed, and no one knows that more than Kate 'bruised wrists' Healy McCann!

Hopefully Nicola Wall (DCI?) will investigate this case as it should be, not as though the crimes happened in Portugal, or happened in the UK, investigate as one should when a little girl vanishes without trace and the 9 adults whose care and protection she was under (they were all so keen to say how they checked and listened at Mccann apartment/windows, so yes she was under the care of ALL of this group, according to them) all failed to fully co-operate with police authorities of two countries, and have led them a merry dance!

I am sure the Met Officer of Operation Grange are as sick of the tales by Mitchell and the McCanns as everyone else is.

Did this abductor call twice? 

Not even once, and never has he called at any other home since Madeleine McCann vanished without trace!   Like Redwood, after being involved with McCanns, the alleged abductor opted for early retirement?



l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
7th January 2015
Website Builder