Lying in the Sun

Mets Forensic Analysis

Mets (Careful) Forensic Analysis

Andy Redwood speaking in 2012 Daybreak stated that the Metropolitan Police had done a forensic analysis of the timeline of events of the night Madeleine McCann was reported as missing.   His conclusion on completion of said forensic analysis is that Madeleine was:

   Removed from the apartment alive.

   There was opportunity for this to have happened.

  That the McCanns and their companions are not suspects.

   Madeleine was removed from the apartment by a stranger.


What Redwood does not explain is

   How she was removed from apartment, and how the alleged abductor gained access/egress.

   At what time (s) in the evening there was the opportunity for an abduction to have taken place.  And at what time he believes Madeleine to have been removed.

   What evidence rules out the McCanns and their companions of any involvement?

    Whether this stranger who removed Madeleine from the apartment was a stranger to Madeleine/a stranger to her parents/a stranger to the companions, or a stranger to all?  This person could have been a stranger to Madeleine, but not to her parents, and or their companions. 

    How he established that she was alive when removed from the apartment.  

6. And rather importantly is he saying that whoever removed her, removed her at the time stated by Jane Tanner and does this person resemble the description of the man Jane Tanner claims to have seen?   A swarthy foreigner she said, so that may just rule out any ideas Redwood has of a British person being the culprit?  A British person who can be tried in UK Court of Law.

7. More importantly did he obtain from the McCanns and their companions their reasons for the untruths they told Portuguese Police?  

That must surely be 
top priority as the witness statements they gave have such bearing on this case, they are 'key'  (as McCann would say) to what happened to this child on that night, and the days leading up to her disappearance.   The 'missing piece of the puzzle' they speak of, they themselves would appear to hold.

Someone has to ask this bunch directly - why they have said and done what they have.   Why they misled police, hindered the investigation seeking to discover what became of their missing daughter.   And whoever dares asks them, must not accept a 'nonsense' answer as so often is the case with the McCanns when asked a direct question - the reply nothing more than stuff and nonsense, and nought to do with the question asked of them.

wood’s forensic analysis of the timeline would of course have allowed him to determine whether there was ample ‘opportunity.’    Of that there is no question.

it is, at what time he believes the opportunity arose is the question. Well that and how a forensic analysis of the timeline - allowed him to reach the other conclusions which he said he has reached - namely that Madeleine was alive when removed from the apartment?   And of course the other little matter of the tapas bunch and people they knew before heading out on holiday to Portugal - not being suspects!

If we are to say the child was removed from the apartment during a period where there was the longest time she was on her own, when no adults were bobbing back and forth, not standing on the street outside chatting to acquaintances, then the most obvious time for the alleged abductor to strike, when it was most quiet – would have to have been
AFTER Matt Oldfield did his alleged check of the McCann children.  

Even then we still had Russell O'Brien away from the dinner table at this time in his own apartment.  And the abductor if watching would be wondering as to why Oldfield was going into McCann apartment, something outwith the usual checking routine.  He would be wondering also why so many checks by O'Brien and Tanner, as nothing on this night, according to the McCann party was as it was on other nights.  Much more movement activity said Rachael Oldfield in her police witness statement.

Definitely much more movement and activity - a child was moved from an apartment - by whom and to where?

And who knows, perhaps Russell O'Brien too, after Oldfield left the McCann apartment had a look in on the McCann children.  Who is to say he didn't?   We cannot accept their word for pretty much anything as they have shown in their witness statements that they were less than truthful in the accounts they gave to police.   Maybe even Jane Tanner, she was back and forth in and out of her own apartment like a peep in the gas that night.

Did she enter the McCann apartment?  

When the sliding door of an apartment is left unlocked allowing anyone at all to access it by simply sliding open said door.  "Anyone" will do just that, that is, if that "anyone" knows that the door is unlocked.

So who knew the door was unlocked? -  Oh yes, The tapas bunch!  

Kate announced it at the dinner table that night that she and Gerry McCann had left the door unlocked.  She was anxious about having done so according to the police witness statement her friend Fiona gave.

The abductor must have wondered what on earth was going on so busy was it that night.  He must have wondered what Oldfield was up to, creeping around at shuttered windows.  Later going in to McCann apartment.   He must have wondered what was wrong at the O'Brien/Tanner apartment so much activity there that night.

He must have been wondering too if there was to be food delivered to their apartment as this had happened on another evening.  He must have been wondering -
'who else is going to appear and scupper my plans?'

And Jez and Gerry earlier on also standing outside chatting.   And Oldfield doing impromptu checks at shutters too.    And in recent news reports did we not have the couple who owned an apartment above the McCanns a couple of levels up passing through also?

Surprised the abductor found a "window" surprised he didn't pack up and come back another night.   But no doubt he'd checked the McCann holiday booking, someone would probably have printed it off, framed it and hung it at the reception area, the paedophile news corner of course...just in case any of them didn't know which day the McCann party would be returning home.

 9.30 pm (approx.) the time of his (Oldfield’s)alleged check, until Kate McCann went to the apartment at 10.00 pm (approx.) to carry out her check was the longest period of time - according to the group of buddies -that the McCann children were left alone, that of course and the time between Kate and Gerry McCann leaving the apartment at approx. 8.30 p.m. and Gerry McCann returning for his check at just after 9.00pm (approx.)

during this earlier period just before Gerry went to check there was great activity.  Members of the group were still in process of heading out to the tapas bar, and Matt Oldfield claims he was creeping about outside the bedroom window of the McCann apartment, so not likely the alleged abductor would strike at this time.  What possessed the man (Oldfield) to do so..? I guess we will never know unless he 'comes clean' as to his true actions of that as his statement more than a nonsense...hence his and their fear of returning to Portugal

the alleged abductor (s) Kate McCann claimed - ‘they’ve been watching us’ for days on end she said.

 this was so, the alleged abductor would have been very familiar with the McCann routine, and the routine of the others in the group as anyone watching the McCanns, HAD to be watching also the pattern of checking of the others in their holiday party.  How could they not, when we are told that all week this group were bobbing back and forth, all using the same route, all heading to the same apartment block to check on the various children of each family.

was not an abductor targeting lone parents holidaying with their family.   This was an abductor who had chosen we are to believe to kidnap Madeleine a child who was part of a large group of people which therefore entailed the abductor not only having to monitor the movements of Madeleine’s parents but those also of three other families - that is to monitor the comings and goings of four families no less.    And of course to keep a keen eye out for anyone who may just happen along on the night of the planned abduction.  This abductor had to look sharpish.

Some say he had an accomplice - but I doubt that - as if he had - then we had two dopes on the job that night...two dopes who monitored this group all week then one (presumably the look out) allowing the 'main man' the abductor to wander into the path of Gerry and Jez and Jane ...Why would he do that if he was not a dope?




For an 'act' that Kate McCann said was planned - it was pretty poor planning.

And why would the abductor take instruction direction from the dope, if he himself was not a dope?   Carrying the child Tanner said 'across his arms' - now who does that? Certainly not someone who had just kidnapped a child and needed to move swiftly...but then we are dealing dopes here.  Either that or we the public are being treated like dopes...

This abductor  could not simply monitor the McCanns he/she/they had no choice but to monitor the others also, else he would not know the best time to attempt to remove a child from the apartment. Especially so if we are to believe that this group were all checking each other’s kids, listening at shuttered windows. 

what was so special about Madeleine, not that she was not special all children are, but what made her so special to an abductor that he would watch her all week (and from where?) that he was prepared to take such risks, risk being caught by any number of people in the McCann holiday party, and or other persons in Praia da Luz?

see the McCanns would have us believe that they as a couple checked on their children every half hour.  So let us say this is what did happen.  

 others in the group were also checking on their own children throughout that week we are told and at different intervals, not all going at the same half hourly intervals as McCanns.   So there would never be very much time at any time on any night when one or other of the group was not on the street, either going to or coming from the apartment block.

the McCanns and their companions were not the only holidaymakers in Praia da Luz.  Although it was quiet, there would be other people on the streets also at times, be it holidaymakers, locals, staff arriving, leaving.

are always given the impression there was no one in Praia da Luz but the McCanns their companions, that it was a bubble, just them, and of course a bunch of paedophiles who had rifled through the receptionists drawers, and come up lucky...well, that is, if news of the McCanns, their dinner arrangements were of interest - they were dining each night at the tapas bar and they and a bunch of doctor companions would be abandoning their kids every night while they did so...

Now that note would be quite some piece of evidence if the McCanns were ever to be charged with neglect...
a note detailing their intent to abandon their children each and every night of their holiday...ouch! 

Oh dear doctor - well goodness gracious me - the medics landed themselves in the alleged abductor they had made plans!  

Each of them making plans which involved Madeleine, neither of them "nice" plans!  

If  the group had abandoned their kids in the UK - like to see their lawyers arguing their way out of that one... a statement like the one Kate McCann said was included in the bookings register -  
clearly showing their intention that week was to abandon those children every night while they dined out.  

A statement which is recorded and evidenced, according to Kate McCann in the Portuguese Police Files.

A statement that leaves no room to argue in law that 'they made a mistake.' Leaves any lawyer with little room for manoeuvre!

A statement which demonstrates also that the McCanns had NO intention whatsoever of taking their children out to dinner on the night Madeleine vanished as they claimed was the case in an interview given to Sandra Felgueiras.  

Naughty, naughty Kate and Gerry McCann.

And Kate has included this "evidence"  this statement in 'Madeleine' the dreadful piece she wrote and offered up as the TRUTH of events, I believe!

abductor knowing:

        That either one of the McCanns would return to the apartment a half hour after leaving for the tapas bar, to carry out the first check of the evening of their children.

       That the others in the group would all be bobbing back and forth in between those times checking on their children.

       That the Payne’s always arrived late at the tapas so would be on the street, at some time after the dinner reservation time (a block booking for the duration of their holiday at 8.30 pm) so any time up until around 9.00 pm they could arrive which would leave the abductor with a bit of uncertainty never knowing for sure when the Payne party would make an appearance on the street.

        That the group would be listening at the shuttered windows (so they tell us.)

        That on some nights certain members of the group did not go out to eat at the tapas (this occurred three out of the five nights) making any abduction more risky – members of the group being close at hand in the next door apartments so would be sure to hear any break-in, children crying. How could they not?

       That the McCann patio door was not always left unlocked so he could not count’ on this being a route he could use on whichever night he was planning to make his move to carry out the abduction.  

Remember Gerry McCann in the documentary - Madeleine Was Here (I think that is the one) stated during the scene in apartment 5A where he is talking to Matthew Oldfield, that he and Kate McCann changed routine at some point during the week, that is -THEY CHANGED FROM ENTERING THE APARTMENT BY THE  

This they did, McCann stated, so as not to disturb the children by the noise!   What noise?  The noise of a front door opening?

Therefore this alleged abductor had no way of knowing if the McCanns would or would not leave the door unlocked on the night he had planned to abduct Madeleine - not until that night, after 'sizing up' the situation would he know if it was unlocked.  And only then, if he did in fact witness any of the McCann holiday bunch entering the apartment by this route would the alleged abductor know if the patio door was unlocked.

Or, if he himself climbed those steps to check this out.   But why would someone who had watched the McCanns all week long (as Kate McCann suggested) risk going up those steps to see if that patio door was the best option to gain entry?

That would not only be time consuming, and when an abductor wants to steal a child, they don't generally plan on hanging around too long, he would have increased his risk of being caught if he had to go check out that patio door first.

Why would he then when planning this alleged abduction 'factor in' a patio door which may or may not be unlocked?  

He wouldn't!

Again something the McCanns would like the world to believe - that an abductor used the patio door, and the window too of course.   But that all fell through for them when it became obvious to police this did not happen.

It was back to the drawing board for McCanns...or front door...


The opening of a shutter and a window also would not be in his (the abductors) plan.   

If he had been monitoring the McCanns and their companions, their routines, he would have noted that they ‘listened’ at shuttered windows  – therefore opening a shutter would be the last thing he would have wanted to do.  It would have attracted unwanted attention.  There is no way he would have unless he was so dense that he decided the shuttered window of the McCann apartment where the children slept, which for the most part of an evening had the ears of the tapas bunch glued to it, according to them of course, was not going to be problematic.

And this window shutter was not jemmied.  If the guy was a local or not he would know that the shutters did not open from outside, that they could only be lifted a little before they buckled (remember this is a crack team of abductors professionals we are told, paedophiles who have done this before, who watched for days, planned carefully this abduction) - he would know that this was of no use to him, if he intended to enter the apartment by this route or exit it this way.  

But if he was hell bent on being daft, hell bent on using this route just because he was a dope - he would have brought a jemmy at his own risk - risking also the noise not only of jemmying the shutter and then attempting to force it upwards, the mechanism just doesn't allow for this to happen, the shutter from the outside cannot be raised to a fully up and open position - as Kate and Gerry McCann have both described!

This alleged abductor would have drawn attention to himself battering about bashing shutters, shutters that once he was through beating, he could not force fully upwards to allow him access.

The 'fully open shutter' was an 'inside job' -   Police Forensics tells us this.

Begs question -  Was anything else?

Jane Tanner tells us she did ‘listening checks’ at the McCann bedroom window and shutter throughout that week – but didn’t do so on the night Madeleine vanished – she states she didn’t even glance in that direction on that night.   How odd!  How convenient!  How could she not have, as, as she entered that car park which led to the apartments, right in front of her was the McCann bedroom window!


Clearly she said this and it is not true – the checking at the windows etc. 

Her tale of listening at windows, told quite obviously to make the checking seem more regular,more robust, but then she had to do a U turn on this, as for the night the child vanished she could not commit to having seen an open shutter, that would put each and every one of them between a rock and a hard place.  She would be tied, to having to state a specific time, at which she saw the window open, and that is something she could not do.  Not without landing them all in a whole lot more trouble than they were already.  Not without the question being asked - Why had she not, if she had seen an open window and shutter,not reported it immediately to the McCann couple?  Not investigated it at that moment in time?

No, Tanner had to do a U-turn and say that on this night, the night Madeleine vanished she didn't bother gluing her ear to the shutter!

She gave no explanation that I know of for her 'change of routine' on that night!

But then we already know that this lady wasn't ever, on any night, listening at shuttered was simply another lie!

Based on what the bunch have stated to police, seems no one really knew who was checking the McCann children, either from inside or outside the apartment.  It was pot luck as to whether they were checked at all.

Those who were supposed to be checking - her parents, were not!  

Those who were not supposed to be checking - were popping in and out of the McCann apartment and creeping around the shuttered windows?

Likewise Oldfield and O'Brien - they too when entering the car park to check on their own children, if the shutter and window of McCann apartment was open they would have seen it, the window being directly in front of them, the entrance to the car park.  But they too could not commit to having seen an open window or shutter as this would throw the whole story wide open - why had they not reported it immediately if it was open, would have been the question asked of them also.

So all of the group members who left the table that night could not state they had seen an open window and shutter - and for obvious reasons.


But let us take it that Tanner did listen at shuttered windows on other nights. The shuttered windows of the McCann apartment, that is the apartment of Gerry and Kate McCann who Tanner doesn't really know and who doesn't care for Gerry McCann one jot, doesn't care for the arrogant guy, the guy who doesn't check on anyone else's children... but Jane, she must be a real nice lady as she puts all of her feelings re McCann to one side and checks at the windows of his apartment - except of course on the night Madeleine vanished...

Isn't it funny how Oldfield didn't care for McCann, Tanner didn't care for McCann, O'Brien didn't know him too well, yet all three were falling over themselves to check at the McCann window and apartment - yet McCann never did so for anyone else.

Funnier still, the McCanns didn't know these people were doing it!

What a lovely surprise for them, the McCanns, to know they the group of buddies, cared so much about the McCann children.   No one checking on anyone else's kids but everyone checking on the McCann children...ain't that peculiar!

You see, the abductor if he had watched her and others ‘listen’ at shuttered windows as part of their routine, which is what we are being asked to believe - that they listened at windows and the abductor monitored their movements, then he would not expect anything different to happen on the night Madeleine vanished. He would expect more of the same.


He was not to know that on this night Jane Tanner would decide not to bother checking at shuttered windows, that she would not bother even to glance in the direction of the McCann window/shutter,  that  she'd had enough of that - checking on old grumpy's kids.   And on that basis, his plan would be, to  NOT open a shutter which would draw unwanted attention.   He would not touch that window or shutter with a barge pole, not even from the inside, such would be the risk.


A well planned abduction as we are led to believe this was – would most definitely not have included the patio door or the bedroom window/ shutter as entry or exit points.


This guy having watched all week could not be sure that patio door would be unlocked and he could not be sure if Jane Tanner and or others would be creeping about outside listening at the shutters – his 'week- long' surveillance of them, if nothing else, would tell him to give both the window and patio door a miss!


It rather left him only with the front door as a means of entry.


A door which Gerry McCann claims was locked requiring a key to open it.   But again, this is another one of those instances when McCann, yes you have guessed it – changed his story!

His locked door became a door which he later claimed ‘probably wasn’t locked.’

Nevertheless, the locking mechanism on this particular door still required a key for the door to be opened.

All in the group, had young children, young female children.   Like the McCanns, some had two young female children. 

All in the group left their children alone. 

Three of the apartments occupied by them were on ground floor, next to each other.  

So again we have to ask – Why Madeleine?

We can see that an abductor did not choose a McCann child simply because the patio door was unlocked – as quite obviously that was not the route he entered or exited by and it was not the case, according to the McCanns, on every night for the door to be unlocked..  And the shuttered window was a complete ‘no, no’ no matter which child or which apartment he chose - the shutter would be problematic.

And is it not rather astonishing that the McCanns never checked the bedroom window where their children slept, not ever during that week to see if it was locked?  A ground floor apartment, three young children alone inside and they never bothered at any time to check the window and shutter?


The alleged abductor did not go through this window either in or out, of that we know for sure.


So what are the chances that an abductor had a key to the McCann apartment?


Pretty much the same chance of him having a key to the:  

Payne’s apartment,

Oldfield’s apartment

O’Brien/Tanner apartment

My apartment

In fact about the same chance that he had a key to every home in Praia da Luz.

Not forgetting also, this alleged abductor, to get to the front door, had to pass the shuttered windows, the shuttered windows where the McCanns buddies were all either listening at or were close to on their checks of their own children, Tanner, O'Brien, Oldfield, all round at those shuttered windows!


Kate McCann has invented so many tales surrounding her daughter’s disappearance – trying to get information into the investigation – as Gerry McCann has repeatedly said is their aim -


“We had very clear objectives of what we wanted, and any parents would take the opportunity of trying to get information into the investigation that might help find their daughter. And that's what our clear objectives were.”


Most of what they wanted ‘in’ unfortunately was red herrings created by them, or ‘suggestions’ which might help their fabricated story, attempts at making it somehow more believable, which on most occasions they failed miserably it has to be said.   So obvious is it!


I have to agree with McCann though - any parent would as McCann said take the opportunity to get information into the investigation that might help find their child, that is truthful information - which makes it even more astonishing that neither of the McCanns put into practice what they were preaching.

Kate McCann refused to answer 40 + questions put to her by the Portuguese Police which undoubtedly would have helped find their child.

Both of them, and their companions refused to assist police with a reconstruction of events which would also have helped find their child.


One such ‘suggestion’ which Kate McCann did want ‘in the investigation’ is the little tale told by her re the dinner reservation arranged for each evening.  Of how the abductor may have read a note she claims the receptionist left in the book stating that she and her companions were all leaving their children alone each night.


So which came first, the chicken or the egg?


Did the alleged abductor:

Just happen along at the holiday resort
Just happen to be at the OC reception area
Just happen to read a note in a book and
Just happen to then decide he would like to kidnap one of the children in this group?  Madeleine drawing the short straw!


Was he already monitoring them and then came across the note in the book also (how lucky for him) which confirmed his findings – Four British families, doctors, had been abandoning their kids every night?  In which case the note becomes null and void as if he was already monitoring he knew they were leaving their kids on their own.  No need for a note to point him in the right direction to kidnap a child!


But for Kate McCann it was a ‘good line’ to throw when being interviewed.  Just like Gerry threw into the mix on Tubridy Show how he could easily open the window shutter– both statements of course met with gasps from the audience the reaction they wanted.

The look on Gerry McCanns face though as he tells this tale, sheer comedy gold, as he pulls his best Stan Laurel impression, in his desperate bid to mislead the public that that shutter was jemmied open/that that shutter was a route used by the alleged abductor, despite both he and his wife Kate McCann knowing that he was talking a load of nonsense.  That the police forensics had disproved the story the McCanns had 'put out' there.

Bare faced this couple are able to sit in any circumstance and tell these tales.


Both McCanns knew what they were doing, misleading the audience.  This was 4 years after Madeleine vanished and they both knew that the shutter had not been jemmied.  Both knew that the police said no one had tampered with the shutter or gone in, or out of that window, yet chose to still tell this tale.


As for Kate McCann and the note – a figment of her as we have now come to know – wild imagination? or rather, of a scheming mind!


But how did the alleged abductor decide which child he would take?

He had such a lot of choice, and not only within the McCann family – there were eight children in total in this group, all alone we are told - ALL little sitting ducks?

The note did not only highlight that the McCann children were alone, but that
all children in their party were alone!

And if he only decided, based on the note in the reservations book, to kidnap a child –
where did he get the door key?  In fact, in any scenario - where did he get the front door key?


The OC would surely have a record of who held the keys to any apartment and the number available.  Would hold a record also if any  key had gone astray at any time, before the arrival of the McCanns and their companions - be it to the McCann apartment or to any other.

If one had gone missing they would know.  

And one cannot help but wonder - On the nights the McCann children cried there were members of the McCann party in the various apartments.

The elderly Mrs Fenn who lived above the McCann apartment heard Madeleine cry  - why would her parent’s holiday companions not have heard her and the other McCann children cry?  One would think their 'hearing' would be much more acute than that of the elderly Mrs Fenn!

And would this alleged abductor not possibly if hanging around outside this apartment have heard Madeleine and the other McCann children cry?   Why would he want to risk entering an apartment where a child most likely would be awake and crying, and not just one child, two or three of them awake and crying?

Absolute madness!  

 at what point did this alleged abductor enter apartment 5A? 

  • Did he pop in, in between the group members’ to-ing and fro-ing as they headed to tapas bar and back?

  • Immediately after McCanns left the apartment (then hung around for over a half hour until Gerry arrived? (Hardly likely!)  And why would he be in that apartment a half hour after the McCanns left for the evening, as he would know (if he had been monitoring them all week) that either Kate or Gerry McCann would be returning at that time.  Makes no sense

  • After the Oldfield’s arrived at the tapas – then he hung around in 5A?

  • After O’Brien and Tanner arrived at the tapas – then he hung around in 5A?

  • After the Payne’s and Dianne Webster arrived at the tapas- then hung around in 5A?

  • After Oldfield did his ‘listening’ stint at the McCann bedroom window then hung around in 5A?

  • After Gerry McCann did his check shortly after 9pm ?

Then just walked out into the street carrying Madeleine straight after McCann left, crossing Gerry McCanns path, right under his nose and that of Jez Wilkins, neither seeing him!   Only, being seen by Jane Tanner?

 exactly is this alleged abductor supposed to have gained access to apartment 5A and how?

was his opportunity?

 in mind this is a person we are told who has monitored them all week knows their routines.  Why would anyone take such risks to take Madeleine McCann?  Indeed why would the take such risks for any child in this group?

A high risk strategy 
said Gerry McCann of the alleged abductor’s supposed actions.  He was nearly caught by Jane Tanner’ said Gerry McCann.

So the abductor was simply a lover of
'high risk strategies?'

 we do not know if the person Jane Tanner alleges to have seen was someone carrying off Madeleine.  We don’t even know if this person was carrying a child.  Her story has changed so much, that it is not credible. This person she claims to have seen may not exist.

 even if she did see someone carrying a child – that does not make it Madeleine.

Let us not forget - the Smith family saw a man carrying a child.  The man fitting the description of Gerry McCann, the child fitting he description of Madeleine.  

But we have absolutely not to consider that this person was the alleged abductor carrying Madeleine.   Why?

Why has the man seen by Jane Tanner to be accepted as a man carrying off Madeleine when Tanner could not identify whether she saw a 'bundle' or a child, or  if a child, whether it was male or female?

And why has the man seen by the Smith family carrying a child who fits Madeleine's description -
not to be accepted as bearing any significance or relevance to the case?

Yet Gerry McCann states categorically that the person Jane claims to have seen was the abductor carrying Madeleine off.  That Jane Tanner almost caught him! 

How could McCann possibly know or state this as a fact?

Seems if the McCanns make a statement it has to be accepted as the truth of matters, it has to go unchecked and unchallenged.  Yet other witnesses have to be doubted/disbelieved!  

 as to high risk strategies - not what well prepared criminals who have done their homework tend to deal in, that is the purpose of doing their “homework” to avoid/reduce the element of risk, making the risk less 'high.'

 this particular abductor got things a bit back to front!

– Why Madeleine?

we are to say that this alleged abductor chose a McCann child because they were alone in the apartment– so were all of the children in the group.

If we are to say he wanted a little girl - there were plenty of little girls in this group, one being Madeleine's younger sister!

 we are to say he chose a McCann child because he noticed the patio door was unlocked – we have to consider if indeed this was the case.

 McCanns stated they did not leave the patio door unlocked until midway through the holiday.   Though thus far they have not stated which night they changed routine.    I wonder why?  And we have also Gerry McCann on the night the child vanished stating to police that the patio door was locked that both he and his wife Kate McCann had entered by the front door using their key to enter on their checks.

We know McCann entered that apartment on the night of the 3rd May 2007 by the front locked door using his key.   This is what he said in his first witness statement and this is what he re-enacts in his documentary.

This alleged abductor would know this too, would see him do this.

Therefore the alleged abductor could only conclude when watching McCann that the patio door was locked.  Why else would McCann use the front door?

McCann did however, in true McCann style –
change his story in this regard, seven days later after giving police his first witness statement, giving a new account of his movements to police in a second witness statement.

In other words, Gerry McCann shifted the goalposts, just as they have done in most of their interviews, just as Kate McCann did in her book ‘Madeleine’ and in her now infamous diary.

A '
shift' he had to make when he realised their original story made no sense, did not allow for any abduction to have taken place?

When he realised his wife Kate McCann was telling a
different story?

Why Madeleine, why not one of the other children in group? 

The McCann apartment was not more easily accessible than any of the others.

 only difference between Madeleine and the other children is that she was prone to wake and wander.  Was often woken by her younger siblings, their crying, often having to go and alert her parents to the crying, often her parents not being ‘at home.’

an abduction of a child had to be fabricated – that tells us - ‘Why Madeleine?- as she was the child out of all of the children who would get out of bed.  Seemingly not afraid of the dark if she as her parents have stated went to their room in the night to alert them, and who would, even in their absence go to their room to sleep away from her crying siblings.

e is the child most likely to have had an accident when not supervised by an adult in the absence of an adult - because she was the one who had a tendency to wake and wander.

Leaving the three McCann children alone when the two youngest tended to wake and cry - waking Madeleine a child who already was prone to waking and wandering - was I would say a pretty
'high risk strategy' on the part of the McCanns - leaving three such young children alone, night after night, gambling with their lives.

No greater
'high risk strategy' I can think of than gambling with the lives of ones own children!   And more than once!  

Madeleine is the child,
 if the parents and their companions did not want to face the music as to what truly happened on that night, had to be "abducted."

Oldfield who the McCanns claim looked in on their children on the night the child mysteriously vanished, a man who had never before done this, his reason he said for not having done sohe did not know the McCann children.   

Oldfield was therefore a stranger to Madeleine, Sean and Amelie. – a stranger who claims to have checked on these children in the dark, in the night.

 most obvious time if Madeleine was abducted was after Oldfield’s check (the one which should have been Kate McCanns)

 abductor, surely noted through his week-long surveillance that there was less traffic at this time, not the same traffic as between 8.30 and 9.00pm of an evening when the group were all both heading to the tapas for their meal during that half hour period and also those who had arrived early at the restaurant had commenced their checks, as Oldfield had on the night Madeleine vanished. 


Despite not being the first to arrive at the tapas he was the first to go and check.  Though oddly he didn’t check as he would normally have on his daughter by entering his apartment he said he listened for the first time at shuttered windows.

Lots odd about Oldfield – Doing checks on his own daughter differently than he had on all other nights.   Doing checks on the McCann children he had never done before, and two off no less, one at the shuttered window and one inside the McCann apartment.


Unfortunately he didn’t bother to do a ‘head count’ of the McCann children.


There was nothing in the apartment though to make him suspect anything was wrong.  The window shutter was not open for one thing, which rather confirms, that Madeleine was not removed from the apartment at the time Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man carrying a ‘bundle’ which later morphed into a barefooted child wearing pink pyjamas, that is of course if it is the alleged abductor who opened the shutter and window and not Kate McCann whose fingerprints were discovered there.


The fact that Oldfield claims not to have seen Madeleine does not mean she was not there.


If he didn’t look he cannot say she was not there


Just as the McCanns claim that one cannot say for sure Madeleine is not alive without her body being found, and just as Andy Redwood said there is a possibility he believes she is alive as he has found no definitive evidence to support that she is not – there is therefore using that same logic more than a possibility that Madeleine, was in fact in 5A when Matthew Oldfield checked as there is no definitive proof otherwise.


There is always also the possibility that she had already been removed by someone in the McCann party much earlier that night/and or another.

A distinct possibility she was removed after Oldfield left and before Kate McCann arrived.


An even greater possibility is that Oldfield was NEVER in 5A at all on that night! 

That the patio door was never unlocked.

That Gerry McCann did not stand and think - Oh what a lucky man I am, and gaily toddled off back to the bar without checking out why his kids bedroom door was lying open.


Redwood has said that Madeleine may be alive.  He has no definitive proof otherwise.   Equally then she may be dead.

He has not said that he has no evidence at all which points in the direction that the child was murdered, died in an accident…he just does not have definitive proof he said that she is dead.


Just as he has no definitive proof Madeleine is dead/alive he has no definitive evidence that the McCanns and their companions are not involved either directly or indirectly, and he has no definitive proof of anyone else being the guilty party, else they would have been arrested.


But what for Redwood would be definitive?


We know from other cases that finding the body is not always necessary to bring charges against someone?


He said the McCanns and their buddies are not suspects.   This status can and may change.


Once he interviews those 38 – maybe he will have, and maybe he won’t!


What he does have and it is definitive absolutely is a timeline and witness statements given by Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Oldfield, Russell O’Brien, Jane Tanner, David Payne and Fiona Payne to police in Portugal which are false.


  • Statements which do not stand up to scrutiny. 
  • Statements which did not stand up to scrutiny by the Portuguese Police. 
  • Statements which did not stand up to scrutiny by the Leicestershire Police, in the UK.

No matter how we look at this, no matter whether Madeleine had an accident, was abducted by a stranger, a person within the family group, a person known to the family group -  the fact remains the above named persons gave statements to the Portuguese Police which were not truthful, which hindered the investigation to find this missing child, to discover what became of her – they did so for a reason, and that reason has to be discovered and made known.

Parents of missing children do NOT hinder police investigations and invent stories UNLESS they have something to hide.

It was not simply to protect them from charges of neglect.

By stating they left their kids alone in an unlocked apartment, and by further stating their child Madeleine told them of the upset she and her siblings suffered informing them of their crying hardly removed any criticism of them being neglectful.


So the reason they mucked the Portuguese Police around with their tall tales is something other than the neglect of their children.


They know very much more about what happened on that night than they told the Portuguese Police that is obvious to all, even those who support them unconditionally.

It must be obvious too to Andy Redwood and his team. 


Andy Redwood said his forensic analysis showed ‘opportunity.’  


Clearly it would, as there was opportunity for Madeleine to be removed from the apartment.

She's missing so there has to have been - unless of course the parents removed her some time before going out that evening?

The story by the group appears to not have been thought through, hence the many changes in the stories, the inconsistencies - perhaps after discovering Madeleine was injured, fatally - time was against them, the stories hurriedly put together?


Just as the forensic analysis of the McCann party witness statements showed period/s of opportunity when Madeleine could have been removed from the apartment – analysis of their witness statements show also that they have not been truthful.

An analysis by Redwood and his team of these statements would have told them this.   Any copper worth their salt would seen this and striven to get to the bottom of it.


A group of parents in the main medical professionals – don’t go making up the tales this lot did, and which they had the absolute nerve to tell police, when a child is missing, a child of one of the group, unless there is something “big” which was going to affect not only their lives but perhaps the lives of others or a particular individual, someone else – someone who was perhaps not  prepared to allow that to happen.


If Madeleine was abducted by a stranger there would have been no need for any of this bunch to lie.

Decent honest people would have had the child’s interest at heart and would have come clean immediately about all that had transpired that night - neglect, the lot!  Being charged with child neglect in these circumstances would have been irrelevant furthest from their mind.  Any parent would just want their child found


To lie as they have – they had something bigger to hide than the neglect of their children.


Perhaps Madeleine did die of an accident.   Would that be reason to lie? – Most definitely.


Of the two, the child having died in the apartment, and the child having been abducted – both still would cause them to be condemned for child neglect – but if the child had died ‘on their watch’ that would involve them losing, in their minds, perhaps so much more.  An abduction would at least allow them the sympathy of the public– remove them from the direct line of fire as someone else, someone unknown, would be held responsible.  A child dying of an accident in their absence – quite a different matter - no one to blame but them!


And of course there is the possibility the McCanns do know who did remove Madeleine from the apartment (that is apart from someone in their group.)  

Redwood was careful to make sure that he included in his statement regarding them not being suspects – that no one who they know and knew before going to Portugal was a suspect either.


An odd thing to say?


Redwood might not have anything definitive now be that as to whether Madeleine is alive or dead, as to whether the McCanns suspect status will change in the near future – but he knows, like everyone else – the whole shebang stinks.  How can he not?

Difficult to see, how his investigation, his careful analysis, could be so off course from that of the Portuguese Police?

Difficult to see how two doctors, parents to three young children under the age of 4 years old having been told by their daughter that she and her siblings were crying and upset when on their own – would walk out on the kids again that very night and leave the sliding door of the apartment unlocked for anyone to get in and the children to get out.


Difficult to see how Redwood can ignore the dodgy statements given by the holidaying group after his 'careful analysis' of said statements!

It is one thing to state that persons are not suspects, but without demonstrating how this can be when those very same persons have told the tallest tales regarding this missing child, when those persons were the last people to see this child alive the last known people to be in the apartment, they will quite naturally in the minds of most - remain 'suspects.'

Be interesting to hear what the Leicestershire Police Officer who was not convinced by the McCanns and their companions, their tall tales, feels about them not being treated as suspects.

Why Redwood chose to make any kind of announcement regarding the case and in particular the suspect status of both the McCanns, their buddies, persons known to them, who they knew before heading out to Portugal, and the '38' others, before completion of his initial investigative review which the Met is he said, only two thirds of the way through, and ahead also of his forthcoming new investigation - is a bit of a mystery.

What Redwood is really doing about the dodgy stuff remains to be seen.  But for sure it cannot be ignored.

Whether the McCann children really were left in an unlocked apartment and unattended also remains to be seen…

No better news we could hear about this case than that Madeleine is found alive and well, though less than doubtful based on the facts of the case, that that is at all possible.

Next to that is that the culprits have been caught and found, that is that Redwood is able to produce proof positive and not a patsy...

For now I'd settle for Redwood giving full explanation of his
careful analysis (which I am sure he has carried out) of the content of the statements  given by the McCanns and their companions as they do not add up.

To hear him explain why they gave such untruthful statements to the Portuguese Police, statements which without question hindered their investigation seeking to discover what became of young Madeleine Beth McCann.  Information which would have had any investigating team looking in one direction when they should have been looking elsewhere.

Why would they do that?

Statements given one can only conclude, to mislead, to hide, to conceal some event which took place that evening or leading up to that evening which at all costs they did not want the world to know of!

Yes, I'd love to hear his thoughts on his
careful forensic analysis of what this group of people told the Portuguese Police.  His thoughts as to why they were dishonest with the Portuguese Police?

I am sure Redwood and his team frown upon key witnesses to such a serious crime, being dishonest with the police investigating.

I am sure they have broken the law by doing so.

He now is the one now with
'opportunity' and has been for over two years now.

The opportunity to get to the root of the McCanns and their buddies untruthful statements which unquestionably hindered a police investigation to discover what became of a missing child.

But will he?

Redwood said he is privileged to be working on this case.   A quite extraordinary thing to say re the case of a missing child, he seemed delighted as though an honour bestowed upon him.  

What has been bestowed upon him is the opportunity, power, finances and position to do what is right by Madeleine McCann.    And that includes as a priority discovering the reason why the statements given by the adults who made up the holiday party have not been truthful. 

Without dealing with the lies therein, without recognising the need to test the statements in a reconstruction of events I cannot see how Redwood could possibly have reached the conclusions which he has..?

We know what the Portuguese Police thought of them.   We know what the Leicestershire Police thought of them.  

Both I might add in agreement...inconsistencies, proof of an proof of their innocence...
11th August 2013

Website Builder