Madeleine McCann

[WetFlannel]

i typed madeleine mccann on google earth but it didnt come up with anything

Seriously though, i havent heard anything for while... are most people resigned to loosing her now?

[MC Prussian]

They haven't found her yet...

... this story starts to annoy me.

Big time.

[Chandler]

Seasons Greetings 1444ry (note how I avoided the use of the pernicious 'C' word out of respect for your multicultural sensibilities). Sad to see though that you're still wandering around in that post modern mist of yours. Cultural/critical theory 101 has a lot to answer for. Never in the field of human learning have so many impressionable minds been addled by so much pseudo science.

McCann case excepted of course...

I'm glad you brought up the business of the McCanns' 'arguidas' status (and the sly way you made sure you put the so called Renault 'evidence' in quotes suggesting that you too doubt its validity - you can't have it both ways you know). To say the least, ingress to this most exhalted state of mumbo-jumbo-hood is shrouded in ambiguity. Have a butchers at The Times take on it:

What is an arguido?

Arguido translates from Portuguese as ‘named suspect’ or ‘formal suspect’. It is a person who is being treated by Portuguese police as more than a witness, but has not been arrested or charged. Either the person or the police can declare the person a suspect.

What does it mean?

Under Portuguese law, an arguido - or arguida in the case of Mrs McCann, because she is a woman - has legal protection which is not extended to a witness. This includes the right to remain silent during questioning and the right to legal representation.

Why are people declared arguido?

Often people who are involved in criminal investigations in Portugal declare themselves arguidos to receive this protection. They do it if they feel the line of questioning implies that they are a suspect.

Police must also declare a person arguido if they want to put certain lines of questions, which can imply they are a suspect. This gives the person more legal protection.

Normally it occurs at the end of an investigation, if a person is being accused of being the perpetrator of a crime.

Is it like being arrested in Britain where many people can be arrested but only one person charged?

There is no direct equivalent in British law despite the fact the person is declared a ‘suspect’.

Of course, we have all been led to believe that Kate McCann claimed arguida status for herself. But if we accept the report that the PJ showed her a video during her interrogation in Portimao of yelping dogs sensing death in the Renault they would have been obliged under the law (as described above) to declare her arguida.

But all of this is immaterial as this quote from The Star of 11.11.07. shows:

The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell called on detectives investigating Madeleine’s disappearance “to lift the couple’s ‘arguido’ official suspect status."

The former director of Media Monitoring Unit said: “We have heard nothing from the police. Kate and Gerry need to be eliminated now so the police can concentrate their efforts on finding Madeleine. We want their arguido status lifted now.â€

Now that statement was issued a full two weeks before the Portuguese police came to the UK. But that's not all:

1) The McCanns and the 'Tapas Seven' (whose status as witnesses or suspects has not been clarified) have reiterated ad nauseam that they are perfectly willing to be re-interviewed.

2) The PJ were widely reported in the Portuguese and British media in the weeks preceding their visit as wanting to speak to both of the above as a matter of urgency.

When the PJ eventually arrived at East Midlands Airport at 12.30pm on the 28.11.07 they gave barely 15 hours notice of their trip. You'd have thought it was a ruse designed to trip up their witnesses and suspects (to prevent them from conferring) But what did the PJ do when presented with this golden opportunity to flush out the culprits and their accessories after the fact?

THEY AVOIDED THEM

Which makes a nonsense of your theory, 1444ry, that the McCanns recently met the 'Tapas Seven' to 'get their story straight.' The PJ blew their chance to speak to them 'to catch them out' and they passed it up deliberately. Why?

BECAUSE THE TRUE SUSPECTS ARE SITTING ON THEIR DOORSTEP AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SPEAK TO THEM EITHER.

Now put your idiotic, cultural prejudices to one side 1444ry and start to reflect a little. If only the world's problems were down to our conditioning and all that was required to set it to rights was a little ideological tweaking. If only.

Be prepared for a shock kiddo - the world is a far darker place than your social science primers would have you believe....

[Ollie_09]

is she ever going to be found?

i think the papers are justusing the story to make more money

its unfair

God bless maddie

Seasons Greetings 1444ry (note how I avoided the use of the pernicious 'C' word out of respect for your multicultural sensibilities). Sad to see though that you're still wandering around in that post modern mist of yours. Cultural/critical theory 101 has a lot to answer for. Never in the field of human learning have so many impressionable minds been addled by so much pseudo science.

McCann case excepted of course...

I'm glad you brought up the business of the McCanns' 'arguidas' status (and the sly way you made sure you put the so called Renault 'evidence' in quotes suggesting that you too doubt its validity - you can't have it both ways you know). To say the least, ingress to this most exhalted state of mumbo-jumbo-hood is shrouded in ambiguity. Have a butchers at The Times take on it:

What is an arguido?

Arguido translates from Portuguese as ‘named suspect’ or ‘formal suspect’. It is a person who is being treated by Portuguese police as more than a witness, but has not been arrested or charged. Either the person or the police can declare the person a suspect.

What does it mean?

Under Portuguese law, an arguido - or arguida in the case of Mrs McCann, because she is a woman - has legal protection which is not extended to a witness. This includes the right to remain silent during questioning and the right to legal representation.

Why are people declared arguido?

Often people who are involved in criminal investigations in Portugal declare themselves arguidos to receive this protection. They do it if they feel the line of questioning implies that they are a suspect.

Police must also declare a person arguido if they want to put certain lines of questions, which can imply they are a suspect. This gives the person more legal protection.

Normally it occurs at the end of an investigation, if a person is being accused of being the perpetrator of a crime.

Is it like being arrested in Britain where many people can be arrested but only one person charged?

There is no direct equivalent in British law despite the fact the person is declared a ‘suspect’.

Of course, we have all been led to believe that Kate McCann claimed arguida status for herself. But if we accept the report that the PJ showed her a video during her interrogation in Portimao of yelping dogs sensing death in the Renault they would have been obliged under the law (as described above) to declare her arguida.

But all of this is immaterial as this quote from The Star of 11.11.07. shows:

The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell called on detectives investigating Madeleine’s disappearance “to lift the couple’s ‘arguido’ official suspect status."

The former director of Media Monitoring Unit said: “We have heard nothing from the police. Kate and Gerry need to be eliminated now so the police can concentrate their efforts on finding Madeleine. We want their arguido status lifted now.â€

Now that statement was issued a full two weeks before the Portuguese police came to the UK. But that's not all:

1) The McCanns and the 'Tapas Seven' (whose status as witnesses or suspects has not been clarified) have reiterated ad nauseam that they are perfectly willing to be re-interviewed.

2) The PJ were widely reported in the Portuguese and British media in the weeks preceding their visit as wanting to speak to both of the above as a matter of urgency.

When the PJ eventually arrived at East Midlands Airport at 12.30pm on the 28.11.07 they gave barely 15 hours notice of their trip. You'd have thought it was a ruse designed to trip up their witnesses and suspects (to prevent them from conferring) But what did the PJ do when presented with this golden opportunity to flush out the culprits and their accessories after the fact?

THEY AVOIDED THEM

Which makes a nonsense of your theory, 1444ry, that the McCanns recently met the 'Tapas Seven' to 'get their story straight.' The PJ blew their chance to speak to them 'to catch them out' and they passed it up deliberately. Why?

BECAUSE THE TRUE SUSPECTS ARE SITTING ON THEIR DOORSTEP AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SPEAK TO THEM EITHER.

Now put your idiotic, cultural prejudices to one side 1444ry and start to reflect a little. If only the world's problems were down to our conditioning and all that was required to set it to rights was a little ideological tweaking. If only.

Be prepared for a shock kiddo - the world is a far darker place than your social science primers would have you believe....

[Daggers]

It's a shame there was no "Best copy-pasting from newspaper and nutcase conspiracy websites Poster of 2007" section to vote in this year.

Hey - that's a point...what happened to the "Best copy-pasting from newspaper and nutcase conspiracy websites Poster of 2007" award?

I think it has been taken away.

I wonder if there is anyone with a fuitcake theory dreamed up to fill during the pointless hours in their life?

[stez]

It's a shame there was no "Best copy-pasting from newspaper and nutcase conspiracy websites Poster of 2007" section to vote in this year.

Hey - that's a point...what happened to the "Best copy-pasting from newspaper and nutcase conspiracy websites Poster of 2007" award?

I think it has been taken away.

I wonder if there is anyone with a fuitcake theory dreamed up to fill during the pointless hours in their life?

i have, but it's just to plausible to share. are you at hull today?

[Daggers]

i have, but it's just to plausible to share. are you at hull today?

Nope. The car has just been whisked away to the Welsh border leaving me to entertain the dog with no balls.

[Daggers]

the dog with no balls.

And, although I can see where the confusion may come from, I am not referring to Chandler

[Zingari]

i cannot pretend to have the deep understanding of the case or legal procedure ( so please forgive my simplicity) as either chandler or l444ry ,but their posts interest me greatly ,( thanks chaps)

sorry to bring up the Conspiracy angle , but even if you disagree on responsibility both of you now "seem to agree" that some sort of conspiracy is taking place and what i find confusing is that unless Madeline is not an ordinary (but unfortunate ) little girl that has been abducted , then i cannot see any possible reason for it .

If it is just a case of protecting a gang of child traffickers or paedophiles then surely there would be enough loose cannons involved, or at least in the know, that would been broken down by now

Surely if there is a conspiracy it must be something particular to Madeline herself ( medically, genetically or some other deeper reason why she had to disappear ???) that over-rides the importance of the abduction alone

sorry chaps if i have misunderstood the meaning of your posts

[Chandler]

i cannot pretend to have the deep understanding of the case or legal procedure ( so please forgive my simplicity) as either chandler or l444ry ,but their posts interest me greatly ,( thanks chaps)

sorry to bring up the Conspiracy angle , but even if you disagree on responsibility both of you now "seem to agree" that some sort of conspiracy is taking place and what i find confusing is that unless Madeline is not an ordinary (but unfortunate ) little girl that has been abducted , then i cannot see any possible reason for it .

If it is just a case of protecting a gang of child traffickers or paedophiles then surely there would be enough loose cannons involved, or at least in the know, that would been broken down by now

Surely if there is a conspiracy it must be something particular to Madeline herself ( medically, genetically or some other deeper reason why she had to disappear ???) that over-rides the importance of the abduction alone

sorry chaps if i have misunderstood the meaning of your posts

(a) 1444ry believes that the McCanns are guilty of Madeleine's death and are being protected by the xenophobic British tabloid press and a Prime Minister from the same celtic clan as Gerry McCann. This is naive and preposterous (wait till I debunk the PJ case). It is also paradoxical - Madeleine McCann is/was British.

(b) The circumstances surrounding Madeleine McCann's disappearance are most unusual: this is why the gullible and the unsophisticated have been suckered into believing her parents are somehow involved. There is compelling evidence that there was a hidden motive for this crime.

© When taken in isolation it is extremely difficult to make any sense out of Madeleine's disappearance. However when viewed in the context of recent events in Portugal (and how these have triggered off similar scandals) her particular abduction cames as no surprise at all.

When I'm done Mr Zingari I'll allow you to be the judge of my 'conspiracy' theory...

Edited 15 December 2007 by Chandler

[danny.]

i cannot pretend to have the deep understanding of the case or legal procedure ( so please forgive my simplicity) as either chandler or l444ry ,but their posts interest me greatly ,( thanks chaps)

sorry to bring up the Conspiracy angle , but even if you disagree on responsibility both of you now "seem to agree" that some sort of conspiracy is taking place and what i find confusing is that unless Madeline is not an ordinary (but unfortunate ) little girl that has been abducted , then i cannot see any possible reason for it .

If it is just a case of protecting a gang of child traffickers or paedophiles then surely there would be enough loose cannons involved, or at least in the know, that would been broken down by now

Surely if there is a conspiracy it must be

something particular to Madeline herself ( medically, genetically or some other deeper reason why she had to disappear ???) that over-rides the importance of the abduction alone

sorry chaps if i have misunderstood the meaning of your posts

She is one of the x-men, the weird eye thing is actaully a cyclops style laser.

[Zingari]

She is one of the x-men, the weird eye thing is actaully a cyclops style laser.

the weird eye thing is something called a Coloboma and could well be significant in the case ;it indicates a genetic disorder that madeline may have suffered from

but then again , maybe i'm reading too much into various conspiracy theories

Edited 16 December 2007 by I Zingari

[Chandler]

the weird eye thing is something called a Coloboma and could well be significant in the case ;it indicates a genetic disorder that madeline may have suffered from

but then again , maybe i'm reading too much into various conspiracy theories

Sorry, Mr Zingari, but MM's eye condition has nothing whatever to to with her disappearance. She and her family were just unfortunate to have been booked in that particular appartment in the Mark Warner resort.

It is possible though that an Ocean Club employee allocated the McCann family that appartment on the instruction of an external party.

(YOUR kind of conspiracies - faked moon landings, alien abductions and Ickean shape shifting lizard humanoids - are as ridiculous as they sound and are circulated deliberately to discredit those who expose the all too plausible dirty tricks of the rich and powerful)

[Zingari]

Sorry, Mr Zingari, but MM's eye condition has nothing whatever to to with her disappearance. She and her family were just unfortunate to have been booked in that particular appartment in the Mark Warner resort.

It is possible though that an Ocean Club employee allocated the McCann family that appartment on the instruction of an external party.

(YOUR kind of conspiracies - faked moon landings, alien abductions and Ickean shape shifting lizard humanoids - are as ridiculous as they sound and are circulated deliberately to discredit those who expose the all too plausible dirty tricks of the rich and powerful)

dunno if it was meant as an insult to me or a generalisation but i don't have any theories ( conspiritorial or otherwise ) regarding Madeline's diappearance

i readily admit to having only the scant knowledge of the case ( and all the legal vagaries) via tabloid newspaper guesswork and supposition, and have only joined in the thread mostly asking questions. And I only mentioned the "coloboma" as it was cited by others as a "possible" reason that her parents may have been remiss in her welfare ( that is not to say that i believe it)

if it means anything to you i fully agree that the more outlandish conspiracy theories do indeed tend to discredit the other more plausible theories (and maybe that in itself is another conspiracy theory)

still, good luck mate and hope your obvious hard work and dedication to this is rewarding ; i'll be interested

Edited 16 December 2007 by I Zingari

[l444ry]

(a) 1444ry believes that the McCanns are guilty of Madeleine's death and are being protected by the xenophobic British tabloid press and a Prime Minister from the same celtic clan as Gerry McCann. This is naive and preposterous (wait till I debunk the PJ case). It is also paradoxical - Madeleine McCann is/was British.

(b) The circumstances surrounding Madeleine McCann's disappearance are most unusual: this is why the gullible and the unsophisticated have been suckered into believing her parents are somehow involved. There is compelling evidence that there was a hidden motive for this crime.

© When taken in isolation it is extremely difficult to make any sense out of Madeleine's disappearance. However when viewed in the context of recent events in Portugal (and how these have triggered off similar scandals) her particular abduction cames as no surprise at all.

When I'm done Mr Zingari I'll allow you to be the judge of my 'conspiracy' theory...

Somethings beggar belief: like the claim that Maddie McCann was kidnapped on the 3 May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Portugal - she wasn’t! - there isn’t one iota of evidence that supports that theory.

But there is plenty of forensic and circumstantial evidence to support the police theory that Maddie was killed in the McCanns apartment, and that her little body was hidden, then later moved in the Renault Scenic that Gerry McCann hired 25 days after her death. Whether or not that forensic evidence is conclusive, the circumstantial evidence alone would be enough to secure a conviction in most countries. The McCann version of events just isn’t credible - it is downright irrational to believe Maddie was kidnapped when there is no evidence to support that story.

The McCanns claim that they went on holiday to Portugal, left their three little children unattended in an unlocked apartment to go to the pub with friends and when they came back their daughter was missing. That would be believable if she wondered off and was found dead nearby. But the McCann never entertained the idea that she wondered off, they always said she was kidnapped.

Even though they have no evidence - and none has turned up since - they maintain that some phantom crept into their apartment, took their daughter without being seen or heard, and then left without leaving a single trace of evidence.

Yes officer, she was there in her bed when we went out but when we came back out of our skulls, she was gone. She must have been kidnapped by Moroccan paedophiles.

How long do you think before they would have been arrested in the UK on suspicion of murder?

The only person who claims to have seen anything remotely suspicious is Jane Tanner, one of the Tapas nine, who says she saw a man (who she can’t identify) carrying a girl in pyjamas on the path away from the apartment - the police can prove that she didn’t. They have two witness statements one from Jeremy Wilkins, who it was talking to Gerry McCann, and another from an unnamed Irish teenage girl; both say that neither Tanner or the phantom were on the path when she claims. That would be enough to charge Tanner with peverting the course of justice in the UK.

In normal circumstances, the McCanns would have been charged with their daughter’s killing and remanded in custody awaiting trial, but this hasn’t been a normal case - the McCanns were allowed to flee (and yes they did flee) Portugal to avoid charge. The Portuguese prosecutor has admitted that his decision to let them leave the country was taken to avoid a diplomatic incident with the British government. The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, visited Portugal the day before. The Portuguese police were understandable furious since this was clearly a political decision and they intended to charge Kate McCann.

Since the Foreign Office managed to Shanghai the McCanns from Portugal, the Portuguese police have been impotent. They have no automatic powers to re-interview the McCanns or their friends, Dr Russel O’Brien, Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield and Dr David Payne (who are expected to be named as arguidos), and so far the British police (who do have the power) have refused to do so. The Portuguese police have been forced to wait on further forensic results from the Forensic Science Service laboratory in Birmingham, those results have been inexplicably delayed.

The British Government intervention is extraordinary, not only did the current Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary put pressure on the Portuguese government, the Foreign Office also lent the McCanns the despicable Clarence Mitchell, a top government spin doctor, and the McCanns have been able to hire the Government’s favoured mercenaries, ICG. Not something they would do for every Labour Party activist, but then Gerry McCann isn’t every Labour Party activist, he is a very well connected and eminent cardiologist, who happens to sit on the medical ethics panel of COMARE

Stephs Blog

[Hullfox]

Somethings beggar belief:

Indeed they do.

Now I'm no expert in law or in this case but the thing that I struggle to understand is how can anyone who has nothing to do with the case and has no access to confidential police records be so sure of their own theory?

If the McCanns really did manage to dispose of a body 25 days or so after killing her and the watching world's media and the Portugese Police missed it, that does beggar belief.

[Rincewind]

My therory's too simple to hold any credence by the conspiracy theory lobby. I just think that the McCanns were unlucky that some bastard saw an oppotunity to snatch little girl manage to get her out of the see pr resort under the cover of darkness. I do not have any evidence to prove my theory but there has been little evidence anyway for any theory.

We just have to accept that there are people out there that are like that. Just be glad they are in the minority.

[stez]

My therory's too simple to hold any credence by the conspiracy theory lobby. I just think that the McCanns were unlucky that some bastard saw an oppotunity to snatch little girl manage to get her out of the see pr resort under the cover of darkness. I do not have any evidence to prove my theory but there has been little evidence anyway for any theory.

We just have to accept that there are people out there that are like that. Just be glad they are in the minority.

steady on, that's too close to reasonable for it's own good!

[l444ry]

Indeed they do.

Now I'm no expert in law or in this case but the thing that I struggle to understand is how can anyone who has nothing to do with the case and has no access to confidential police records be so sure of their own theory?

If the McCanns really did manage to dispose of a body 25 days or so after killing her and the watching world's media and the Portugese Police missed it, that does beggar belief.

I would have thought that the Portuguese Police would be totally aware of this spurious point, and discounted it. They problem appears to be that the McCann's hire-car travelled 1700km between 27th May and 3rd July and they have not satisfactorally accounted for this. In fact, Kate McCann requested arguido status at the whiff of questions regarding the hired Renault.

It is incomprehensible to believe that the "worlds media" accompanied them for the entire 1700km. In the first week of hire, the car travelled 453 miles, which may sound reasonable until you consider that during this time the McCann's went to meet the Pope.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...7/wmaddy127.xml

Edited 16 December 2007 by l444ry

[Hullfox]

It is incomprehensible to believe that the "worlds media" accompanied them for the entire 1700km. In the first week of hire, the car travelled 453 miles, which may sound reasonable until you consider that during this time the McCann's went to meet the Pope.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...7/wmaddy127.xml

I'm not intending to get into a Chandleresque argument here, he has more knowledge on this matter.

However, Gerry McCann states that trips to the airport racked up a number of miles - 110 per round trip I calculated and I'm sure that other family members had use of the vehicle and it could have quite easily have been used on the day they were in Rome.

My point is that all of this seems to be a version of theory tennis with different individuals believing that they have the stronger shots.

[Chandler]

dunno if it was meant as an insult to me or a generalisation but i don't have any theories ( conspiritorial or otherwise ) regarding Madeline's diappearance :thumbup:

i readily admit to having only the scant knowledge of the case ( and all the legal vagaries) via tabloid newspaper guesswork and supposition, and have only joined in the thread mostly asking questions. And I only mentioned the "coloboma" as it was cited by others as a "possible" reason that her parents may have been remiss in her welfare ( that is not to say that i believe it)

if it means anything to you i fully agree that the more outlandish conspiracy theories do indeed tend to discredit the other more plausible theories (and maybe that in itself is another conspiracy theory)

still, good luck mate and hope your obvious hard work and dedication to this is rewarding ; i'll be interested

Certainly wasn't meant as a personal attack Mr Zingari - apologies if it caused you any offence. At the time of viewing, the reason for your reference to Madeleine's 'coloboma' wasn't at all clear to me and the Saturday night ale didn't help.

Nightguard - you are right to conclude that the McCanns were desperately unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Madeleine's case is undoubtedly one of child abduction and she could well have been taken by a paedophile or a gang that procures for paedophile rings.

But I suspect (with good reason) that there is something much bigger behind all this. And I am certain that one of the motives of this much bigger hidden presence is to generate all the wild media speculation surrounding the case that we see, hear and read virtually every day - the type of counter intuitive guff that challenges the rational mind but appeals to unreconstructed class bigots like 1444ry.

Rest assured folks, before the day is out good ship 'Chandler' will hole 1444ry's latest contributions below the water line and consign them to the bottom of Cultural Cringe swamp.

Edited 18 December 2007 by Chandler

[Chandler]

Must say it's a bit of a disappointment that no one has posted here since my effort in the wee hours of yesterday. Still, some (relatively) good news for those of you that are curious about my take on the MM affair - I'm going to have to get my skates on if I am to have my scoop (one or two hacks have started to cotton on to the fact that there maybe dark forces at work, though unlike yours truly, they haven't as yet got a handle on what their motives might be).

OK so it's onto our chief McCannophobe-in-residence 1444ry (I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you for the umpteenth time that I am no fan of the celtic bohemians medics either but I try not to let my prejudices get the better of my reasoning blah blah blah). My main concerns about 1444ry can be summarised as follows:

1) He is prone to making wild outlandish statements about things he knows next to nothing about;

2) He is very selective about the evidence he presents and conveniently forgets the (dubious) sources for almost all of it;

3) He frequently contradicts himself and has a habit of torpedoing his own case with careless remarks;

4) He isn't as avid a follower of the MM case as he would have us believe.

5) His most recent posts have been lifted almost verbatim from low grade disinformation sites like 'Steph's Blog.'

Before I dissect some of his remarks allow me to say (as the men in wigs often do) that 1001 other charges against 1444ry are being taken into consideration.

Somethings beggar belief: like the claim that Maddie McCann was kidnapped on the 3 May 2007 in Praia da Luz, Portugal - she wasn’t! - there isn’t one iota of evidence that supports that theory.

Looks like a case of 'if you're going to lie, better to lie big.' Even the PJ and the supine Portuguese press would shrink from making an observation as outrageous such as that (as you will see below). It shows that the author is really a black propaganda/disinformation merchant.

24 horas cares exactly one iota more for the McCanns than 1444ry.

But there is plenty of forensic and circumstantial evidence to support the police theory that Maddie was killed in the McCanns apartment,

This is a very strange statement for a number of reasons:

1) The McCanns hair analysis test (see below) severely dents the PJ's 'over-sedation' theory;

2) The PJ's 'back up' theory is that Madeleine died as a result of a fall down the stairs OUTSIDE the McCanns' apartment (Daily Mail et al 1.10.07.);

3) The results of DNA tests with the 'Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal' and the 'Forensic Science Services' (Birmingham)have yet to be publicly disclosed. The DNA tests conducted in Portugal are reputed to show that a non McCann family member entered their apartment. The DNA tests at FSS are now widely reported as 'inconclusive;'

4) Since the dismissal of leading PJ investigators Almeida, Amaral, de Sousa et al the main circumstantial plank of the police case against the McCanns (the so called 'missing six hours') has been quietly dropped.

But the McCann never entertained the idea that she wondered (sic) off, they always said she was kidnapped.

Madeleine could not possibly have opened her bedroom's shutters herself and climbed out. According to the police and forensics experts that participated in the Dispatches documentary 'Searching for Madeleine' (C4 18.10.07.) in the unlikely event that she had wandered off her only realistic exit was through the patio doors and then down the steps (if the child gate had been left open) onto the street. Almost certainly, she would then have descended the gradient to a place with which she was familiar: the resort's pool and restaurant complex.

1444ry, you're not exactly blessed in the ol' irony department to uncritically reproduce tosh like the above. The wandering off hypothesis was, of course, a passing figment of the PJ imagination that soon morphed into something more absurd.

they maintain that some phantom crept into their apartment, took their daughter without being seen or heard, and then left without leaving a single trace of evidence.

Despite the fact that the earliest time given for the arrival of the police (other than their own estimates) was 1.00am on the 4.5.07. (Sunday Times 16.12.07) that the crime scene was contaminated in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance (reported by Kate McCann at 10.15pm 3.5.07.) and that the crime scene was not sealed (apartment 5a was subsequently let out to two other families before August) there was evidence that an intruder had entered the room:

1) Gerry McCann reported that when he went into check on his children just after 9.00pm the bedroom door was open at an angle of 45 degrees instead of being slightly ajar;

2) Kate McCann reported that the bedroom shutters were open as she entered the children's bedroom at around 10.15 - her attention was drawn to this because the children's bedroom door slammed shut before she entered the room;

3) Madeleine's clear imprint on her bedclothes indicated that she had been lifted straight out of bed - if she had tried to get out herself the clothes would have been disturbed;

4) '24 Horas' on the 1.6.07. reported that DNA from a 'mysterious' sixth person had been recovered from Madeleine's room and had been sent to the 'Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal.' Their account included the following piece of PJ gibberish: "It is an important step in the investigation but the truth is that the DNA collected does not have a name. In other words we cannot make any connection between the material collected and the suspects which we already have;"

5) 'The Daily Telegraph' of the 20.8.07. reported that the niece of a resident in the flat above where the McCanns were staying, 'saw a suspicious-looking man hanging around the McCanns' apartment about the time Madeleine vanished. She has spoken to British police and told them that he matched the description of a suspect seen leaving the scene with a child wrapped up in a blanket on the night of Madeleine's disappearance.'

Mrs Fenn also said that in the weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance she scared off an intruder in her apartment. There was no apparent sign of a break-in and it is thought the man may have had a key to let himself into the flat. There was also another burglary in the complex a few weeks before in which police also suspected the intruder had a key;

Mrs Fenn's niece, aware that merely spotting 'Bundleman' would land her in front of the beak, wisely remains anonymous.

6) The Daily Mirror had this report on the infamous stairwell man:

"An employee at the Ocean Club resort spotted the stocky man in glasses (other newspaper reports say light sensitive sunglasses) just twelve metres from the flat. The worker told the Daily Mirror: "It was around 6pm on the day the little girl went missing.

"I saw this Englishman (other accounts described him as an English tourist) standing under the stairwell.

"He was round-faced and stocky, wearing light clothes and positioned so that he was monitoring the car park area, stairs and elevator. He was hiding and watching what was going on. I didn't see him at first. I was collecting some linen, bent down to pick it up and nearly bumped into him.

"We gave each other a big fright and both jumped back. We moved aside for each other. But he didn't move away."

This chap is half Portuguese apparently and therefore unlikely to have developed a stairwell lurking addiction.

All this is the absolute tip of a very big iceberg of evidence. I could fill pages with this kind of stuff but no one here would read it.

She must have been kidnapped by Moroccan paedophiles.

The McCanns are not on record as stating that Morrocan paedophiles abducted Madeleine. The McCanns holiday companions have few illusions though about who they think was involved. I would suggest that it is reasonable to assume that the McCanns share their friends' suspicions.

Telling, don't you think 1444ry, that your blogger (like most in the media) shrinks from fingering the most likely suspects? Why are they protecting them?

They have two witness statements one from Jeremy Wilkins, who it was talking to Gerry McCann, and another from an unnamed Irish teenage girl; both say that neither Tanner or the phantom were on the path when she claims.

'They?' Who are 'they?' If you mean the Portimao pig-plods you is WRONG sonny Jim. Jes Wilkins wasn't even asked for a statement by Portuguese police (read his wife's account of their stay at the Mark Warner resort in The Guardian 14.12.07). He was only asked for a statement by police in the UK.

Jes Wilkins' not very tasty wife Bridget O'Donnell would be enough to make most men flee with a buggy into the darkness.

As for the Irish teenager she was not only unnamed she was also unregistered at the Mark Warner resort - so it seems we have a 'phantom' eye witness too (neither Wilkins nor McCann reported seeing her). But even if she really exists and she really didn't see what she really didn't see it matters not - she sees or she doesn't see only with her own eyes, not with anyone else's.

Wilkin's - it is alleged - stated that the path upon which he and Gerry McCann were standing was too narrow for anyone to pass them unnoticed (ie Jane Tanner). But according to Panorama's reconstruction Tanner passed them ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE ROAD. Bearing in mind that it was dark (9.15pm) and that they were both engrossed in conversation their REPORTED claim they did not see her does not destroy her credibility (which would have been shot had she failed to spot THEM).

In a recent poll seven out of ten sad old men said Jane Tanner was fit enough to notice on the other side of the road.

Tanner claims to have spotted 'Bundleman' as she was approaching the entrance to the apartments (about 50 metres up from where McCann and Wilkins were talking). 'Bundleman' was crossing the same road (neither walking nor running) at the T junction at the top (c. 50 metres from her and 100 metres from McCann and Wilkins). He was probably in view for between 5-10 seconds so it's hardly surprising that M&W didn't spot him. Tanner's account is the nearest that we have to unmediated testimony.

One more oddity. Wilkins was, according to most accounts, out walking his baby son in a buggy at the time of his encounter with Gerry McCann. Tanner didn't mention this on Panorama. Many reports cite that Gerry McCann didn't mention it either. You would have thought that the PJ would have seized upon this to rubbish M&W's (and Tanner's) claim that they bumped into each other that evening. Seems like the PJ desperately need the M&W encounter though to discredit Tanner.

Like Stef and 1444ry, it seems that the PJ want to have their cake and eat it.

That would be enough to charge Tanner with peverting the course of justice in the UK.

Even if she were the only person in a crowd of 100 in Surbiton to have spotted 'Bundleman' she wouldn't be charged with wasting police time let alone the legislation cited.

In normal circumstances, the McCanns would have been charged with their daughter’s killing

In normal circumstances prevailing under a Nazi, Fascist, Communist or other unspecified totalitarian regime or corrupt liberal bourgeois democracy the McCanns would have been forced to confess to infanticide in one or more improbable, conflicting scenarios (over sedation and/or fall, refrigeration and/or temproary internment of remains, disposal at sea and/or transportation of corpse by car, with or without accessories after the fact etc etc) that were completely uncorroborated by any forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony because the circumstantial evidence (ie that the parents shared the same appartment as their children) would, of course, be overwhelming.

The Portuguese prosecutor has admitted that his decision to let them leave the country was taken to avoid a diplomatic incident with the British government.

Was this the same prosecutor who was widely reported as saying that the PJ didn't have a case against the McCanns? If Gordon Brown's recent treatment of his new found friend is anything to go by I don't think a diplomatic incident would have been one of the PM's priorities.

Unless all those funny people who live near the river (who have been manufacturing so much trouble for him of late) made it so.

Like most Prime Ministers, Gordon Brown doesn't find the 'funny people' funny.

The Portuguese police were understandable (sic) furious since this was clearly a political decision and they intended to charge Kate McCann.

No, let's be specific, the PJ wanted Kate McCann to confess to the 'accidental killing' of Madeleine. As they were not in a position to beat the crap out of her to accomplish this (as they were with Leonor Cipriano) they tried instead to get her to plea bargain (through her lawyer after her interrogation in Portimao). She refused to plead guilty to 'accidental killing' (something akin to manslaughter I guess) in exchange for a two year sentence.

PS Worth noting that it was the 'over sedation' angle that pig-plods Goncalo Amaral and co were coming from here. Just as well the hair analysis tests (done through Kingsley Napley solicitors and almost certainly carried out by 'Tricho Tech' - see Sunday Times 21.10.07) performed on Madeleine's twin siblings proved negative for sedatives, 1444ry, otherwise we 'd have a miscarriage of justice on our hands wouldn't we now eh?

They have no automatic powers to re-interview the McCanns or their friends

The PJ have no automatic powers to re interview in the UK. But it's the same for any foreign police force. What is interesting here is the way the PJ exaggerate the obstructiveness of international protocols and their own internal bureaucracy. Six months to acquire the necessary letters of permission - give me abreak!

In any case all this is immaterial as both the McCanns and other members of the 'Tapas Seven' have VOLUNTEERED to go back to Portimao to be re-interviewed (eg Jane Tanner, Panorama BBC1 19.11.07). But the PJ are not interested. Why? Because they have no control over the case.

So, who does?

The Portuguese police have been forced to wait on further forensic results from the Forensic Science Service laboratory in Birmingham, those results have been inexplicably delayed

Unless they had other compelling eye witness/circumstantial evidence or a confession any police force would have to wait for the results of forensic tests before charging a suspect. It is most unlikely that the FFS's RESULTS have been delayed if the report in the last edition of The Sunday Times (16.12.07) is to be believed. It is their full public disclosure that is being delayed, perhaps permanently (the rumour mill has it pretty well nem con that the results are inconclusive).

This is a subject I will return too...

the current Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary put pressure on the Portuguese government

To do what exactly? Under Portuguese law the McCanns could still return to the UK even as arguidos. I notice that Brown's and Miliband's representations have neither altered the McCann's status nor led to more concerted attempts by the PJ to pursue other more probable suspects. And if recent press accounts are anything to go by it seems that Gordon and Gerry are not as chummy as you make out. Apparently, direct contact between Downing Street and Rothley was severed when the McCanns were declared arguidos.

The government's response to this crisis has been remarkably low key - no summons to the Foreign Office of the Portuguee ambasador, no public criticism of the Portuguese criminal justice system. Dear old John Buck is the only senior official I kinow of to date who has made anything remotely approaching a diplomatic protest. And what happened? He was recalled and replaced as our ambassador in Lisbon by Alex Ellis.

Almost makes one pine for the halcyon days of economic sanctions...

Ol' Palmerston's favourite diplomatic gambit was to talk to the other side only after his gunboats blew them up.

the Foreign Office also lent the McCanns the despicable Clarence Mitchell,

Mitchell was director of the Governments' Media Monitoring Unit within the Central Office of Information (to all intents a SPecial ADvisor or SPAD). He was seconded to the Foreign Office who requested that he go to Portugal to liaise between the McCanns and the media (ie pass information on to Whitehall mandarins). In September he reisigned from the MMU and now works full time for the McCanns.

Bright eyed and bushy tailed Clarence Mitchell no longer snoozes through his 3.00am bulletin on BBC News 24.

the McCanns have been able to hire the Government's favoured mercenaries, ICG. Not something they would do for every Labour Party activist,

You really do have profund difficulties don't you, 1444ry? The organisation you/Stef refer/s to is properly addressed as 'Control Risks Group' (CRG). It is a limited company (founded in 1975 as a subsidiary of Hogg Robinson) that offers a wide range of (spooky) services to corporates as well as the general public. How much real help it is offering the McCanns is open to debate.

I suspect that it is offering more assistance to our dark actor friends.

the McCann's hire-car travelled 1700km between 27th May and 3rd July and they have not satisfactorally accounted for this.

That, according to 'Correio de Manha' should read 2750 Kilometres and the 3rd August when, (we are expected to suspend our disbelief) the McCanns either dug up Madeleine's remains buried in the churchyard at 'Nossa Senhora da Luz' or removed them from a freezer unit at the Mark Warner resort and then deposited them in the boot of the Scenic before (re) interment en route (or on the way back from) Huelva City in Southern Spain (where they were scheduled to make an appeal).

The versatile Scenic - Praia da Luz Borough Council have leased several to serve in their hearse fleet.

HERE ENDETH THE LESSON

What I find particularly irksome about all of the extracts above is that there is absolutely no sense whatever that virtually all of the charges described against the McCanns were fabricated by Goncalo Amaral and fed by him to the Portuguese press in violation of Portuguese judicial secrecy laws - a practice that was later cited as the principal reason for his dismisal from the investigation.

But worse, much worse than this, is the highly illiberal, almost fascistic tone of the accuser. Can't you see what a monster you have become 1444ry?

Edited 19 December 2007 by Chandler

[Asha]

This has gone on so long now it's unlikely she's still alive. Gave up hope months ago, I've lost interest in it now

[Zingari]

Very interesting reads again Chandler, l444ry et al ;

Chandler ; I can't pretend to have a full understanding of all your arguments, but was intrigued by the term "dark actors", it conjured up all sorts of meanings in my mind as to what you were saying , could you clarify what you meant by that ?

or was it just a bit of unusual wording .

all the best again chaps and still hoping that someone can bring closure on this, but if I am making the correct inferences it sounds as if it will only open up a whole new can of worms

[Chandler]

Very interesting reads again Chandler, l444ry et al ;

Chandler ; I can't pretend to have a full understanding of all your arguments, but was intrigued by the term "dark actors", it conjured up all sorts of meanings in my mind as to what you were saying , could you clarify what you meant by that ?

or was it just a bit of unusual wording .

all the best again chaps and still hoping that someone can bring closure on this, but if I am making the correct inferences it sounds as if it will only open up a whole new can of worms

Seems like you read ALL of my post Mr Zingari: you're a man after my own heart a true 'truther.'

Don't worry for now about the precise meaning of obscure terms - it will ruin it for later. All will be revealed I promise you.

When you speak of closure I take it that you are referring to this talkshop here? Yes, I can come up with a very satisfactory and more than plausible explanation about why Maddie vanished. But I would say that wouldn't I? As you are EXACTLY the sort of person I was seeking to address with my theory (intrigued, open minded but discerning) I will allow you, Mr Zingari, to be the principal judge of it on this thread.

However, if you are referring to closure of the actual case itself all I can say is that the form book for this kind of incident does not look good. I will assess the prospects for a happy outcome to this sad business later.