Lying in the Sun

Mail Fails Madeleine - 2

Daily Mail Fails Madeleine – 2

So what do we have?

The Mail claiming The Metropolitan police are claiming that they have NO NEW EVIDENCE but that they do have new leads which if further investigated might lead to NEW EVIDENCE.

The Mail states also that officials in Portugal will not re-open the Madeleine case unless there is new evidence and the new leads are not sufficient grounds to do so.

That seems fair enough and straightforward enough.  Nothing wrong thus far!

No new evidence, stands to reason, this case or any other would not be re-opened unless there was.

Mail states the Metropolitan Police insist that if their new leads are properly investigated that it COULD result in evidence, and PERHAPS  the case being solved.

That they feel there is a real POSSIBILITY they can unravel the mystery.

On surface doesn’t sound too convincing – ‘could’ ‘may’ ‘perhaps’ ‘possibly.’

Under the terms of this Review is there any reason the Met cannot 'properly investigate' these new leads which they have uncovered, or must they ask the Portuguese to do this?

It has been reported that they have been interviewing persons, is that not the Met therefore properly investigating?

If so, then what is preventing them from doing so now?   It is the only way it would seem to discover if the leads become evidence. Evidence which may re-open the case.

Bottom line – according to whomever wrote this piece, the Metropolitan Police after 2 years and £5m of taxpayers money have come up with nothing, that is, nothing which will allow the case to be re-opened - NO NEW EVIDENCE nothing concrete, despite their “one time leader” Hamish stating that the culprits are to be found within the police files.

How can that be when there is the McCanns and their companions for starters who have one hell of a lot of explaining to do as to why their police witness statements don't add up?   That's almost an investigation in itself!

And of course there is the Smith family sighting of huge relevance

Are there some files the Met have yet to have access to?

But we mustn't forget, this is, at this stage, but a story in the Daily Mail!

So much more information left out, than there is included. So far from being a clear picture of what is going on.

We must not get angry over it, but if we feel our blood begin to boil, there is always that famous chant, you know the one, the one that keeps one strong and in control?    Composed I believe by a female who goes by the name of Kate McCann.   Her claim to fame?

It is not as catchy or energetic as Gangnam Style but a wee toe-tapper nevertheless - does what it says on the tin - reduces the rage - or so we are told.   It is called the FT for short!  Be on Youtube soon I heard.  There's a little dance routine too, performed by the T9.  They got together and came on the scene in 2007 never been out of the spotlight since.  Quite the little movers. Got some real sharp manoeuvres too when they need them.

There is a downside though.   

If you happen to be a devout Roman Catholic like the composer of the piece, you will have to be prepared as she must be, to spend a lot of time in the confessional box as profanity is frowned upon. One 'Hail Mary' for every 'F' and every 'T' is the norm.

Luckily I am not an RC else what could be seen as my blasphemy here would be punishable with a couple Hail Mary's and a 'Lords Prayer' thrown in for good measure.  And I can't be doin' with that - when you have arthritis in the knee joints, the confessional box is last place you want to park yourself - No more skipping around to Gangnam Style for me either!  

But I digress.

After 6 years and £m’s publicly donated money the McCann Madeleine Fund, the McCanns and their private detectives have come up with nothing either.

The McCanns themselves not being able to recall which sightings of Madeleine were the ones they considered important.  They could not recall details of a single one.  Could not recall in which country the sightings?

Odd that – their child is missing and they had not a clue which country the high profile sightings were made.

Now that does not instil confidence in the public who have donated to this Fund to help find Madeleine, when her own parents cannot remember the details of sightings, details of their own private investigation, which quite frankly seems to have been in the words of the Mail, shambolic at best. How else can it be described when they gave almost half a million pounds to a fraudster who did not search for Madeleine, and who the McCanns and their spokesperson Clarence Mitchell, declared had done a good job, one which they were satisfied with.

I’ll say that again, gave almost £half a million of Madeleine Fund money to a fraudster who did nothing to search for the child and who the McCanns spoke person stated they were satisfied with the job he had done.

Gave another £half million to a team of private detectives who had no experience whatsoever in searching for missing persons and who promised them they would have the child home by Christmas 2007.

This is what I would call a ‘shambolic investigation’ and scandalous, when it is publicly donated money.  Scandalous that Mitchell claimed the fraudster did a good job!

It also raises the question – How were the McCanns able to find high profile lawyers for themselves for their own protection, but could not find a reputable private detective agency to search for Madeleine?

Something very wrong there!  They are expecting us to believe that neither they nor their team of legal eagles were able to check out these private detectives before hiring them, asking us to believe that their legal team had no way of tracking down a reputable firm?

SIX years, all of that cash and the McCann private investigation funded by the public has not come up with a single sausage!

Kate McCann and her team of private detectives claimed to have read those police files which they had in their possession and had translated, start to finish, and she found nothing?

Sandra Felgeuiras:

Have you read the files Kate?

Kate McCann:

Yes I have read the files.

Sandra Felgeuiras:

What did shock you most, any part of the…any detail that you weren’t aware of something that has really surprised you, or you didn’t find anything?

K McCann:

I’ve been through them and I’ve made notes and I’ve passed that onto our investigation team obviously…

Sandra Felgeuiras:

Have you found any evidence, of anything?


Well obviously the only evidence I wanna find is who has taken Madeleine, and where she is, and they are the key things and until we actually get that bit of information then you know we are always going to feel we are a long way away but basically what we are doing is trying to get as much information as we can and try and put the jigsaw together so finally have the complete picture.

So that is a NO then Kate!

The Met claimed last year having gone over the files AFTER the McCanns private investigators/Kate McCann had done so, that they had discovered 195 leads (this year this number has been greatly reduced from 195 they are now claiming to have but a few.  Presumably they checked out the 195 and discovered that the Portuguese Police had already gone over with a fine tooth comb and ruled out the 195 elements?)

Is it therefore the case that Kate and Gerry McCann, their team of private investigators MISSED the 195 leads when doing their private investigation or were they not privy to the same files as the Metropolitan police?  Perhaps not the same number of files being released to the McCanns?

Kate McCann must though have seen from studying them that there were NINE people who the Portuguese Police wished to question but who had refused to co-operate with this request, and that this played a part in the case being shelved?

Likewise the Metropolitan Police must have noted this also.

This would rather make these persons crucial to any Review of this case and to any future investigation if the case was to be re-opened.

The only ones to have come up with something IS the Portuguese Police, and did so in a relatively short space of time.  Their investigation, thorough, though that is not the impression the press in the UK are allowed to give, describing it as shambolic, stating also that it cannot be disputed that their investigation was poor.

It can be, and is disputed! 

The Mail go on to say that the Metropolitan Police have confirmed that the Portuguese Police did in fact identify EVERYONE who was staying at the Ocean Club at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance and that they were mostly British tourists.  Presumably none of them removed Madeleine from the apartment and they have all been eliminated?

That, neither sounds like a shambolic or poor investigation.

So what other Brits were in PDL around the McCann apartment on that night?  Was there any other Brits apart from holiday makers close enough to have taken this child?

The Mail report almost suggests that it is Brits who the Metropolitan police are referring to as the potential suspects, when mentioning their right to prosecute any British persons who they have sufficient evidence to suspect committed crimes against Madeleine.

If this is the case the non- British child murderers and paedophiles, those dead or alive also mentioned in this and other press reports therefore must have been eliminated – the now deceased Urs Hans von Aesch being one of them!

I may have missed it, but did either the McCanns or the Met ever come up with a live paedophile/child murderer or one who is able to breath without the aid of hospital breathing apparatus?  One whose face is not hidden at all times under an oxygen mask?

As for the 195 leads the Met claimed last year to have uncovered, we can assume that as they no longer appear to be relevant that these leads were in fact thoroughly investigated by the Portuguese Police just as Urs Hans von Aesch and others were also.

What is troubling, nagging, is, that the Met, according to the Mail has NO new evidence, that what they speak of is 'following up' information which the Portuguese have already looked at,(and that of course is the purpose of a review, fresh eyes etc) and they hope this might lead to solving the case.

It is my understanding that the Portuguese consider the case solved, just didn’t have sufficient evidence to prosecute those who they believe are responsible for whatever became of Madeleine.

When the Met use the word 'solved' what is their definition?  Solved, as in knowing who the culprits are but still gathering evidence in the hope it will lead to a prosecution - a case can be solved but not proved - or, 'solved' as in persons being prosecuted and found guilty?

One therefore wonders – The leads the Mail claim the Met to have, which they say may result in new evidence and furthermore the case possibly being solved, surely must then indicate that the Met are looking at a particular avenue, particular persons?

So are the Metropolitan police and Portuguese police seeing, eye-to- eye are they agreeing that the Portuguese 'solved' the case but it is evidence gathering that they are now working on so as to bring this to Court?  

One would like to hope so, but taking into account that they, the Met have requested of the Government,  more £m’s to continue investigating, might suggest otherwise, as I am sure to investigate the McCanns and their companions, to re-question them, would not require further £m’s nor would it be a lengthy process, running into £m’s.  They could quite easily one would imagine be re-questioned, be eliminated from inquiries or otherwise.

The Metropolitan Police from press reports, it seems have already been interviewing persons in Portugal, and as the Mail reports they flew also to Switzerland in connection with this Urs Hans von Aesch, so it cannot be a case of them being unable to interview the McCann party who are right there on UK soil.

So have they done so and ruled them out?

Also these new leads reported by the Mail one would have to assume that if the Portuguese authorities consider them not to be evidence enough, sufficient to re-open the case, that these leads and potential suspects, do not include the McCann party.  The McCanns and their companions’ co-operation one would think, more than sufficient to have the case re-opened?

Or have the Metropolitan Police and the Portuguese authorities come up with this idea of the Met having more power so that they are better able to ‘deal’ with the McCanns, covering all bases so to speak?

The article raised more questions than answers that is for sure.

And, it would be interesting to know also, if any of the potential suspects supposedly identified from the police files as described by the Mail ‘source’ match the description of the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen OR match the description of the man the Smith family saw.

The Metropolitan police must already know, if they have identified these persons from the files, what they look like.  We mustn’t forget either that these are not actually new leads/new potential suspects, but persons whom the Portuguese have already interviewed, people already in the files, so the Portuguese Police would have previously known if they matched the man described by Jane Tanner or the Smith family.

Urs Hans von Aesch using him for example as being the alleged abductor, the Portuguese Police must have known what he looked like, as now must the Metropolitan police, they must know whether he fitted Tanner’s description of ‘her’ man – must know whether this guy was known to work alone (thus eliminating the possibility that a side-kick, a partner in crime, took Madeleine from the apartment (and this being who Tanner saw, the sidekick) and then handed the child over to von Aesch.

If he was known to work alone, then it would have been von Aesch himself who took Madeleine.  So did he match Tanner’s description?

Jane Tanner must, at this point in time be asking herself this very same question – Will any of them, these potential suspects fit the description of her man?  Will she be able to identify him if they do? She must know, I would imagine that she may be called upon to identify for police if it comes to that stage, whomever they may have in the frame as being the culprit, the one who we are told carried Madeleine off into the night.

If none of them, the potential suspects fit the description given by Tanner, and I doubt that they do, as the Portuguese we must remember would have already established this during the original investigation -  Does this mean that those being questioned are therefore ruled out, eliminated as they don't match Tanner's man, or does it mean that Tanner’s man can be dispensed with?

If so, does that throw the net much wider or are things closing in on the culprits?

Does it mean also that the time Madeleine was removed from 5A may not have been at the time Tanner claims to have seen the man carrying a child, if the man she saw was not the alleged abductor not one of the potential Met suspects? 

If her claim is genuine and she did see a man carrying a child, then do we have two persons carrying a child around on that night, one who fits the description given by Tanner, but he not being the alleged abductor, a father perhaps carrying home his own child (though strange he would not have come forward) and one who does not, his description fitting perhaps the man seen by the Smith family, who resembled Gerry McCann?  And again, strange this chap too did not come forward to identify himself.

And if any of these potential suspects fit the description of the man the Smith family saw - likewise they too would be called upon to identify if possible this person?

We know the man the Smith family saw, resembled Gerry McCann.

The Metropolitan police absolutely must know by this time which scenario they believe to be most likely – abduction by persons as yet unknown, or that Madeleine had a fatal accident in her parents absence and the McCanns, and some or all, of their group being involved in concealing the child’s death, her body, perverting the course of justice.

And they must also know if any of these potential suspects fit Tanner’s description of the man she claims to have seen carrying a child.

They must also have considered how the crime, if abduction by a stranger was carried out and at what time - and not necessarily at the time the McCann party claim Tanner saw her man!   And the dogs.

They must also have questioned why it is the McCann party, police witness statements do not tally, and why it is that their story when told in interviews, televised and press, changes from what they originally told Portuguese police, why it differs from their self made documentary.

There is a reason for everything and they most definitely had a reason for concocting the story which they did.

The Met must get to the bottom of this.   The group refused to return to Portugal to assist the police in this.   Will they refuse the Met if asked?

I guess until we hear from a Met spokesperson and not the Daily Mail speculating, printing mis-information then we don’t really know what the angle is on this latest.

From the Mail report It is not clear absolutely (and why should it be they are hardly a reliable source of information) if the Metropolitan Police will be taking OVER the case entirely or what are the legalities involved in this becoming a reality, or indeed if this is possible?

The report states:

‘Under the plan, Yard detectives will seek the assistance of the Portuguese to carry out some inquiries on their behalf. British police do not have jurisdiction in Portugal but they have the right to investigate and prosecute any British suspects who might be linked to Madeleine’s disappearance.

Sources said that should Scotland Yard gather sufficient evidence to prosecute a foreign national who lives overseas, they will ask the Portuguese authorities to put the suspect on trial.

Now that doesn’t sound much like the Metropolitan Police taking control of the Madeleine case from the Portuguese?

But what do I know?

They are not saying the case will be re-opened and controlled by the Metropolitan Police, how can it be, it is not their jurisdiction.  Appreciate the point they have right to prosecute any British suspect.   But that is still far removed from them taking control!

So what does this ‘taking control’ actually mean?

What we do know is:

1. The McCann party refused to co-operate with the original police investigation in Portugal resulting in the case being shelved.

2. That their police witness statements are full of holes.

That Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying off a child.

4. That the Smith family too saw a man carrying a child, a man who fitted Gerry McCanns description, a child fitting Madeleine’s.

5. That the Metropolitan have NO NEW EVIDENCE.

6. That the Metropolitan Police have stated the
 persons responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance are to be found in the police files.

7. That the Metropolitan Police have a few new lead
s, but not evidence.

8. That the Metropolitan Police have a few potential suspects.

That the Metropolitan Police must have the descriptions of those potential suspects, therefore must know if they fit Tanner’s description of the man she claims to have seen.

10. The Metropolitan Police have requested further funding from the Government, so we would have to presume they had good reason for doing so, that they are optimistic shall we say.

From the above – Who do you think the Metropolitan Police should, if they have not already done so, be interviewing?

Their list of potential suspects it is claimed has not been considered by the Portuguese authorities as sufficient to re-open the case?

Would the Portuguese re-open if those suspects were the McCanns and/or their companions, or is evidence still lacking?

What would it take for the McCanns and their companions to 
now go to Portugal to assist say a joint investigation by the Portuguese and Metropolitan Police?

Could they really refuse?  Would they refuse?

I think there is every chance they would!  They didn’t want to go when requested to do so by Portuguese Police, and nothing has changed for them, or has it?

Perhaps this Met Review is more reason for them to dig their heels in, and with the dogs now snapping at them?

Do both police forces realise that the McCanns would instruct theri legal team to fight tooth and nail for this not to happen should they become suspects in this case, and is this why there is the move from the Metropolitan Police to have greater powers announcing too that they have the right to prosecute any British person they find sufficient evidence on which warrants them being charged in connection with Madeleine’s disappearance?

A bit of a minefield!

We can but hope that, not the solving of this case is soon to come about, as I believe that is already known, that it is solved, but that the persons responsible for the crimes against Madeleine may soon find they are to face the consequences of their actions.

For the McCanns and their holiday companions this must be the best news ever!

And knowing too that the Smith family sighting just before 10pm on the night Madeleine vanished of a man who the family are able to describe with great accuracy carrying a child of Madeleine's description, a little blonde haired female child of around three'four years of age, must be of great importance, great relevance to this Metropolitan Review.  All those independent witnesses with no agenda whatsoever, having observed this man, having come face to face with him, having spoken to him as they crossed paths, though the man did not respond, must surely only add to the McCanns hope of the perpetrator being found.

It is a crucial lead, perhaps the most crucial in this case, and one that no doubt the McCanns were desperate for their private investigators to follow up.   I don't think though that they ever did?

Perhaps the man the Smith family saw is a British citizen one who either lives or holidayed in Portugal at that time.

Whatever is the case, it would be impossible for the Metropolitan Police not to be investigating this lead which unfortunately due to Goncalo Amaral ceasing to be in charge of the case was not further investigated, that we know of.

Had he continued as lead investigator it most surely would have been!
21st June 2013

Website Builder