Lying in the Sun

Who Removed Madeleine?

Who Removed Madeleine...from Apartment 5A?


The 64 million dollar question..!

And what does DCI Andy Redwood hope to find when he goes digging in Praia da Luz, Portugal?

IF it is Madeleine's remains he expects to find, then the location he is proposing to dig must surely point also to whomever is the perpetrator.  He must have a clear idea who this may be, and or, he has been tipped off by someone in the know as to where Madeleine was buried.

On the other hand, why would Portuguese authorities have taken so long to respond to a request by the Met to dig at a location/s where they, the Met believed/had evidence of/been tipped off, that Madeleine's remains would be found?

That makes little sense in the case of a missing child.

And if the Met have been keeping Gerry and Kate McCann informed as to such crucial developments, and bearing in mind this letter of request was sent to Portugal some considerable time ago - 
  • Why were the McCanns running in charity races, happy as larry?
  • Why were they doing sofa stints with Kelly?
  • Why was Kate McCann fronting campaigns for Missing People?
  • Why are they not prepared to set foot in Portugal?
Seven years since they last saw their daughter, they receive the devastating news from police that it is believed Madeleine is dead, and that they are preparing to dig at a location where they believe also the child was buried, and it's business as usual for the McCanns!

They do their annual interview with Kelly and others, go jogging around in races for Missing People Charity, and they don't want to be in Portugal, in PDL at such a time?  There seems to be no urgency for them re this dig.  

That is not a normal reaction from the parents of a missing child!

Some say, but she is dead, no rush!

If my child, recovering her remains would be no less urgent than recovering an alive child from wherever she was being held.

And would any police force drag their heels over this?  I don't think so.  And to have announced the digs to the world with such fanfare weeks if not months before they are to take place - something stinks!


I rather think for the McCanns business as usual is the order of the day because they know that Redwood is not going to find any remains where these digs will take place.

And I think there is a good chance also that is why there was no urgency with the Portuguese authorities to grant permission to go ahead - they know this too.

Further I suspect Redwood too knows he is not going to be finding Madeleine's remains at any of the reported dig sites.

That is not to say that the child's remains won't be found elsewhere at some time by whomever, but not where the planned digs by the Met are to take place.

If Madeleine was removed from the apartment by someone who had planned an abduction, had been watching the apartment all week, as claimed by Kate 'they've been watching us' McCann, then whoever 'they' are or is - the plan was not to abduct a child to then bury said child close by.   If abduction was planned it was to take this child somewhere further afield. 

And at what point did this alleged abductor kill the child, before or after leaving the apartment?

No trace in the apartment of any intruder or anything else for that matter which points to abduction.   Only what appears to have been a staged scene!

And if Madeleine was killed after she was removed - where was she killed?

An abductor does not plan to remove a dead body from an apartment.

An abductor does not make plans to kill a child in their 'home' then remove said child, to be buried, and neither does he make plans to walk through the streets with the dead child and not conceal her.

An abductor who planned to remove a child from an apartment comes prepared.

An opportunist would not have been prepared for anything, and certainly not to bury a body, perhaps if he found a child wandering, he would pick her up and take her off, but then the child would be awake, afraid, crying most likely.  An opportunist would not be walking with a sleeping child or dead child, most probably a screaming child!  And the McCann family all say that Madeleine would not go off with a stranger quietly!  She was a screamer!

So that makes no sense either.

If this 'they' had planned an abduction based on watching the apartment all week, then they knew the pattern of checking by the adults in the holiday party (that is the system of checking which the McCanns claimed to have had in place) the abductor/s knew they had little time between checks of the children, so to stop and bury a child..?


The abductor would know the alarm would be raised within minutes after he had left the apartment, so he wasn't stopping to dig a grave, and with what?


And again, no one wants to abduct a dead child.  And do abductors kill a child within minutes and bury them on the doorstep after all that planning?

Abductors may dump a body, not stop to bury it!

If an abductor took Madeleine to somewhere further afield, and later discovered the furore her disappearance had caused, with press from around the world descending on Praia da Luz, realising the hole he/she/they were in, would they then kill the child and return to PDL to bury her body?

Yes, kill her, but not return to PDL to bury her!

Or are the Met thinking she never left PDL?

Nothing that we know of points to:

  • Stranger abduction
  • A break in at the apartment, there is no evidence of that.
  • And the persons of interest not a one fits the bill as being a child abductor or child killer.
  • And if we are to believe this was some sort of professional gang of paedophiles who had stalked and planned this, taken Madeleine to order - they mucked up big time - that just would not happen - they would not have the'main man''wandering around the town carrying the child for all to see. 
Can't see any member of a gang volunteering to be the one who has to walk through the town carrying a child, and not conceal her. That's nonsense!  Both the walking such a distance, and the not concealing her!

It really brings this whole case right back to the McCanns and their buddies.

  • The people who were responsible for this child. 
  • The people who were last to be with her. 
  • The people last to have seen her.  
  • The people who lied to the Portuguese Police.
  • The people who refused to fully co-operate with Portuguese Police. 
  • The people who for whatever reason hindered the investigation.
  • The people who refused to take part in a police criminal style reconstruction of events (but chose on two occasions to take part in their own reconstructions, which were not honest, and were not in keeping with the statements they gave the Portuguese Police.  The people, who have, since the time this child was reported as missing, continued to be less than honest about the events of that night.
  • The people who said the bedroom shutter was broken open/jemmied, and it wasn't - it was opened from the inside not forced at all - a staged scene as one forensic scientist hinted at.
  • The people who lied about who checked the children and when.
  • The people, Gerry McCann, to be precise, who told the Portuguese Police he had entered the apartment by the front locked door using his key, then seven days later completely changed his story.
  • The people, Kate 'whoosh' McCann to be precise, who invented the most unbelievable story about the curtains blowing open.
  • The people Gerry and Kate McCann who brought us the story of the 'more open bedroom door' (which Gerry forgot to mention in his documentary Madeleine Was Here)
  • The people Matt Oldfield to be precise who lied about listening at shutters and thereafter checking inside the McCann apartment
  • The people, Jane Tanner to be precise who claimed to have seen a man carrying a child, who made a fuss when the Portuguese Police together with the rest of the world, said her story was not credible, offended that she was made out to be a liar - yet when the Metropolitan Police announce to the world that she didn't see Madeleine being carried off as she had claimed, she has nothing to say. NOT a word!  Why would that be?
  • The people, the parents who continue to display on their website the image of Tannerman despite Andy Redwood saying this was not someone carrying off Madeleine.
  • The people, the parents of Madeleine to be precise who have led the world a merry dance for seven years, in all sorts of ways!
The disappearance of their daughter, and that Fund, the Missing Madeleine search Fund!

The Fund that they claim is transparent - but yet they publish the least information possible.

Now why would that be?

Why not, be completely open, when the monies in this Fund are donated by the public?

Had they been, the public would have seen very quickly, where, why and to whom, vast sums were being spent.

Even when McCanns knew of Halligen being a fraudster, they continued to deliberately mislead the public as we saw in Pinky telling Porkies - they posted a notice on their website informing the public all was well, when this was not the case.

And their reason for doing so, for deceiving the public, was fear that donations would dry up if the truth of matters was known.   They were desperate for cash and they would go to any lengths to get it. If that meant not being entirely honest with those who had given so much, who had supported them, the ever sympathetic and generous public...so be it!

And the recent pink spin too with regards Halligan, ahead of this upcoming documentary, the Crooked McCanns or McCanns and the Crook, the Con, whatever title they decide to go with  --- it seems Halligan was paid with the monies donated by the public not the monies in the pot which came from the libel actions won by McCanns!

Funny that, as I recall there was a time when Clarence Mitchell insisted that the donations by the public had been spent and the money left in pot was the monies awarded to McCanns from libel actions.

How he could separate the two is a mystery, once it is in the pot, the Madeleine Fund, it becomes one!  Income source recorded, but the monies become one.

Not in Clarence's mind - he spins this one to suit whatever situation they find themselves, one minute the money in the pot is
public donations, the next it it the libel monies.  How very convenient.


And as to these 'persons of interest' who have popped up in the press, these are not people who have a history of abducting children, killing children, then dumping them or burying them on the doorstep.

Praia da Luz so close to the sea, if someone wanted to be rid of Madeleine's dead body was this not the perfect place?


Dave Edgar said: 

"Even if Maddie had been dumped in the sea nearby the resort, the ocean often gives up its victims"  

It really doesn't Dave - and not if a body is weighted down! But what does dodgy Dave know - he believed Madeleine was in a lair in the lawless scrub lands of PDL, in a hellish lair that would take ten years to find!   Seven years down, three to go Dave - well it would have been if he had ever begun to search in the first instance!
And not forgetting that Dave Edgar referred to Jane Tanner as a
very reliable witness...this from the man who also claimed that Jane might have seen a woman carrying a child and not a man!

I guess Edgar would say anything to keep his job!

The sea may at times give up its victims, sometimes not!

And what do the Met think of David Edgar, his private investigation, the documentary where he was the overseer the one who deliberately in this production misled the viewing public?

And what happened to the other little man, his sidekick, Arthur Crowley, Cowley, was it?  So many people in this case disappear - Brother John McCann, Esther McVey and others, I guess only so much of Kate and Gerry McCann, the lies, one can stomach!

So what is Redwood looking for?

A dead body?  I don't think so!

Oh Redwood knows Madeleine is dead, he has from day one, but I don't think this dig at the reported locations is to find her remains! It could just as easily be to allow him to say - we tried, we didn't find anything - he did say it may prove inconclusive - that statement by Met sticks out like a sore thumb tells us he is not so confident!

Madeleine's pyjamas?
A blue (dark coloured) tennis bag?  
A pink blanket?

If Smithman is the now suspect, and a
stranger to this family - he wasn't carrying a blue tennis bag, and he wasn't carrying a pink blanket, these two items vanished some time after the Portuguese Police searched the apartment, these two items are in the crime scene pictures.   So if these two items vanished, the McCanns are the one's who whooshed them away!

Would they be buried/hidden somewhere, and for what reason?

If they are then it was not an abductor (stranger) who disposed of them, buried them, that had to have happened at a later time - which would put the McCanns in the frame - but why would they have need to bury such items if the police had already seen them?

If these items could be used in any way in evidence, if the McCanns removed Madeleine from apartment 5A - surely they would have disposed of these before they raised the alarm?

Did the police open the tennis bag when they saw it in the wardrobe?  Or any of the McCann family suitcases?

I guess the simplest way to be rid of these items if the McCanns felt this necessary was to give them to some member of the holiday group who left PDL in those first couple of weeks, to put in their suitcases, back to the UK but that still would not explain why! 

Odd though that the pink comfort blanket was not given the same attention by the McCanns as the pink soft cuddle cat toy - they were both special to Madeleine we are told!  The blanket perhaps more special as this she had for the longer time.  Yet it does not appear to have been treasured by her parents in the same way as the prop - the soft toy cat!  I guess a soft toy was easier for Kate McCann to carry around for photo-shoots than a blanket!

Smithman was not carrying a bag or a blanket, he was however carrying a child, who was wearing what is thought to have been pyjamas according to the eye witnesses, the Smith family!

Unfortunately, the pyjamas this child was wearing did not match the description of the pyjamas Kate McCann said Madeleine was wearing!  

Smith's saw a child with a 
long sleeved top.  Kate McCann said Madeleine's pyjamas were short sleeved!

Yes Kate did tell us that she worried about Madeleine being cold as she was wearing
short sleeved pyjamas just like the one's she held up for the press, the one's which belonged to Amelie.  Possible the kids had same pyjamas siblings often do,  but this becomes a little less believable when we know the story comes from Kate 'tea stain' McCann! 

Kate McCann has told some far fetched tales re the disappearance of Madeleine:
  • the pyjama tales, the tea stain.
  • the whooshing curtains
  • the more open bedroom door
  • the jemmied shutter
  • the unlocked patio door
  • just knowing immediately Madeleine had been 'taken'
  • Madeleine crying the night previous to disappearing
  • Madeleine asking them why they didn't come to her and her siblings on that night
  • Kate McCann arguing for the first time ever with Gerry McCann on that night (and never again arguing since, according to her interview on Tubridy Show)
  • Kate McCann sleeping in the children's bedroom that night (with her three beautiful children funny how the McCanns focus after the fact, and for the purpose of their tale, became the three beautiful children - he wanting to stand and stare at them thinking how beautiful they were, and she wanting to sleep in the room with them) 
When Kate McCann volunteers information its a sure-fire sign she's spinning a tale, that it is not credible, that it is to cover for something else, that much we have learned about her.

Her diary and her book written to mislead the public...and of course to make a few bucks along the way...evidence of this. 

Her sleeping in the children's room just one such story.  If Kate McCann slept in that room that night it was not due to any argument or being pissed off at Gerry leaving the bar before her to go back to the apartment.  She was used to this she said, Gerry's abruptness, he did what suited him always had.  So why that night did it bother her?  Their entire courtship, married life, having babies, the stress this brings, and not a single argument or tiff between them, not a single huffy moment, silent treatment on her part, yet on this night, and for one night only, she takes offence at her other half.  It is not spoken about next day and they live happily ever after from that day to this without an angry word between them.

Yip, and three blue moons were in the sky on the night of 3rd May 2007!

Even McCann himself looks at her in astonishment when being interviewed when she comes away with these tales!

And why when young Madeleine asked them both at the breakfast table that morning - 'Why did you not come when me and Sean were crying last night?' (as they have claimed)  Why was there no mention then that she had in fact slept in that room alongside them?  She tells us that she and the kids got up together in the morning, so Madeleine must have known mummy slept there - Why did Kate McCann not say - ' but mummy did come you had fallen asleep again so I slept right beside you?

The two stories don't tally!

Redwood knows alright the truth of this case, but whether that is what he is acting on - the truth, the jury is still out, he does not instill a confidence in me.  Saying Madeleine may have died before being removed from the apartment, or that she may be buried close by, does not necessarily mean he is looking at the McCanns and their buddies as being those responsible.

And Kate and Gerry McCann, don't look too troubled.  Not troubled that they could be in the frame, and not troubled that their daughter may be dead her remains about to be dug up!

DCI Redwood may be about to play a blinder and the McCanns might be pissing their pants in fear but these recent pics tell me differently: 

May 2014

Kate McCann and Coral Jones at the launch of the new Child Rescue Alert system


The McCanns were among 500 people who took part in the 10km charity run
May 2014

Who could look this happy knowing a dig to discover their daughter's remains was about to take place?

Then again Gerry and Kate McCann looked this happy (below) a few days after Madeleine vanished, on her 4th birthday in May 2007.   Why they would be celebrating her birthday at all when they said paedophiles had abducted her..?




More of Mr Happy at:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4TH_BIRTHDAY.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask&feature=kp


I don't care which side of the fence what opinions one has on this case, no one, but no one, who felt in the smallest of ways for this missing child, in the hands of paedophiles according to her parents, at that time, could have laughed their heads off as Gerry McCann did, at what should have been a very solemn occasion.  Most amongst the locals are looking at him in disbelief!  There is not a thing in the world that could have had me laugh so heartily knowing my child was with a paedophile, and not a few days after she was so cruelly taken from me her family, and not on her birthday,

In my estimation McCann is one cold bastard!  Capable of this, capable of what else...carrying his dead daughter through the streets?

The bottom line in all of this is that the holiday party have not been truthful, and there has to be a reason for that.

If they were completely innocent in all aspects of this this case, then they would have been completely honest.   They were not, and that is a fact!

And the reason for their dishonesty has yet to be explained!

I hope more than I can say that I am wrong about Redwood...


l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com  
1st June 2014

Website Builder