The Madeleine McCann affair: a plan!

Continuing with the first impressions of a relatively open-minded newcomer to the case, two years after the event. Time to develop a plan!
20 May 2009
Article history:
20.05.09 23:49- Minor text changes and some typos corrected. Elaborations added to some sentences in the "two leading theories" section.
21.05.09 00:47- Additional paragraph added in the discussion of the abductor theory.
21.05.09 09:32- Additional sentence added in the discussion of the penalties attendant upon the charges entailed by the accident theory.

Sections

And two items with which to close this particular report...


A totally unnecessary prologue, probably best ignored

I wasn't expecting to write another piece so soon after putting "The Madeleine McCann affair: first impressions" (or "First Impressions" as I shall hereafter call it) onto the Web.
That work, though written in the style of addressing an audience, was in fact largely for my own benefit... to assist me in forming a "plan of action" or, more accurately, a tool to help clarify which particular avenues of research seemed most sensible and pertinent to pursue initially. As well, of course, as a reference point I can consult if I sense myself becoming rather less than objective.
That I posted it online at all was because that's what I tend to do nowadays... after all, you never know when something will be of interest to someone. Particularly if there are others who, like myself, are approaching this case for the first time.

That it was written in such style is simply a device of mine that I've found useful in the past. For if I imagine I'm writing to someone else then I tend to explain things much more fully and with greater care than if I'm just jotting down random notes to myself which, when I eventually refer back to them, are far too often cryptic and completely meaningless.
That this sometimes means there are a few more words than absolutely necessary may be one of the less positive consequences. But nevertheless I propose to continue in that style for the duration of this particular exercise.

I was surprised, amazed in fact, by how many responses that initial document provoked. Not many in an absolute sense but far more than I'm accustomed to, or expected. Guest book entries (some public, some private) and emails, most of which were quite complimentary and incredibly encouraging. How the hell though did all these people come across it? Its not as though my blog (which provides the principal link to it) receives all that many visits in the course of a day.
I'd privately notified one Madeleine-related website about the document but in all honesty I can't imagine that would have prompted such traffic. One more minor mystery to add to the many major ones that already exist!

Recovering from the gratifying experience of having had so many visitors within such a short period (must remember to check my bandwidth allocation!) it gradually began to dawn on me that there's a downside to all of this. For, from the feedback I've received, it seems there are a number of folk now eagerly awaiting the next "instalment".
Oops! That's not quite what I'd intended. For I sense that in a way it places some sort of responsibility upon my shoulders... a responsibility firstly to approach this matter in something other than my usual sloth-like fashion, and a responsibility also to try to maintain the open-mindedness to which I'd aspired with my first foray into the case.

I begin to wonder what it is I've let myself in for!

The real intro

The biggest hazard for me in writing on this matter so soon after "First Impressions" is the temptation to enter into rampant theorising... to churn out a load of words just to keep my new-found audience happy but without actually, myself, moving forward.
To avoid that, and yet at the same time update those folk that appear to be interested in my progress, the best I can offer is something along the lines of an occasional report... a periodic update of where my thinking currently is, how I've arrived here, what I'm doing, what my next intended step is, and what (if anything) I may have learned.
And, using the wonderful feature of hyperlinking, wherever possible I've linked each "item of concern" back to my original comments about it so that the development of my train of thought on any given item may be tracked.

Similarly I shall endeavour to update previous reports by inserting links at those "items of concern" pointing forward to more recent comments about them.
What will hopefully result from this method is a body of "parallel threads" that can be followed through individually if desired, plus eventually providing some sort of coherent and relatively comprehensive narrative.
Well, that's the general idea anyway!

This method of occasional reporting may well prove frustrating for some people, particularly for those that have made the journey already. I can just imagine them saying to themselves, "Oh do hurry up. We've been over that already!" So be it. I would rather move forward slowly laboriously and painstakingly than impatiently charge ahead and end up constructing something based on flawed foundations.

Open-mindedness and the official investigation

Now having said that I shall try to maintain a certain open-mindedness (by which I meant that its not my intention or desire to deliberately align with either the overtly pro- or anti-McCann positions) I find that, by virtue of where the case stands at the moment, that may be almost impossible to achieve... or the appearance of it at least.
For the "official version" (which may be said to represent the "pro-McCann" position insofar as it exonerates them by default) appears to have stalled, and now occupies a position where its conclusion rests entirely upon an abductor being apprehended... or new and significant evidence coming to light!

Not that the "official version" (or so I understand) specifically endorses the theory of an abductor having taken Madeleine (although the abductor theory and the "official version" may in some senses be regarded as synonymous insofar as they have tended to merge in the public mind). In fact at one point the Portuguese police had prepared a case against Kate McCann, accusing her of:

"...the homicide of Madeleine by failing to prevent her death. The charge is equivalent to manslaughter in British law. She would also face a charge of concealing a [sic] Madeleine’s body."

Unfortunately one outcome of the "official version" is that the case has been archived by the Portuguese authorities and there is concern that, as the Portuguese police are no longer "actively investigating Madeleine’s disappearance", this translates into meaning the search for Madeleine by those authorities has been virtually abandoned.
This would seem to leave the onus for that search (and the possible apprehending of an abductor) solely upon the McCanns. Which goes a long way toward explaining their elaborate and ongoing media campaign.

The grounds upon which the Portuguese authorities have archived the case have been given as "lack of evidence"... yet the position of those who contest the abductor theory would seem to be, by and large, that a number of different lines of enquiry were not pursued with sufficient rigour to yield the very evidence that the authorities claim is lacking.

This is further compounded by accusations by the British media of the incompetence of the original police investigators.

What we don't actually know is what other methods of investigation were used by the police; what enquiries were made out of the public eye and that may have resulted in blind alleys... hence the final pronouncement of a "lack of evidence".
Its conceivable that many of the issues presently engaging the attention of commentators were pursued by the police and found to lead nowhere.
If that were so then it would seem only sensible for the Portuguese authorities to make the existence of those enquiries public and thus lay to rest the very serious concerns that occupy the minds of interested parties.
Absent that it is surely not unreasonable to presume that there remain avenues for exploration, with the consequent implication that the official version or view may be mistaken.

Contrary to how it may appear, I do not necessarily join those who would criticise the Portuguese police for any seeming laxity or oversight in their investigation.
Right from the start they were clearly working under difficult circumstances and, as the spotlight of international media attention fell upon them those difficulties can only have been exacerbated. Which is to say nothing of the pressures from "on high" that may have been brought to bear upon them.
Moreover, suspicions have been aired that the ultimate archiving of the case was a politically-inspired rather than a judicially-inspired decision, coming about as a consequence of pressure from Britain.

But with the seemingly premature archiving of the case it ultimately falls upon us, the "common people" to try to go over all the ground that, for one reason or another, appears to not have been covered at the time.

So returning once more to the matter of my open-mindedness, given that my speculations by implication question the "official version" it could be argued that such open-mindedness is in fact already biased. And that particular bias is something of which I must necessarily plead guilty.

The "Official Version"... correcting a misconception

In "First Impressions", and based solely upon a week's preliminary skimming of the masses of material publicly available, I had formed the impression (and spoken of it in that manner) that the "official version" (i.e., the case as ultimately determined by the police investigation) and the abductor theory were synonymous.

Subsequent reading has caused me to learn that such is not correct. For the "official version", if one can in fact be said to exist, seems rather to be a position whereby no conclusion has been reached due simply to a lack of evidence pointing clearly to any of the various theories "on offer".

Thus it would appear (and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that the abductor theory which I'd presumed to be one and the same with the "official version" is nothing other than that initially favoured and promoted by "Team McCann", thereafter being adopted by those that would not admit the possibility of any wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns and, it has to be said, seemingly accepted as the "true" version by a large number of the British population as a consequence of the style of media coverage currently being afforded the matter in the UK.

The two leading theories

One of the things I hadn't done when writing "First Impressions" was to explore in any great detail the two leading theories regarding Madeleine's disappearance. Deliberately so of course for I had no familiarity with the many twists and turns of the case, although beginning to become aware that such existed.
Now though, marginally better acquainted with at least the main outlines I feel in a somewhat better position to consider those two theories, speculate upon them, and discuss their relative merits and credibility.

This is not the first attempt at the present section!

That first attempt was fundamentally flawed for I had been labouring under the misapprehension that, with regard to the "accident theory", the alleged attempt of the McCanns to dispose of Madeleine's body was driven by their desire to avoid the issue of their negligence coming to light.
Whilst that was correct as far as it went, it didn't actually go far enough for I was unaware of the other far more serious repercussions attendant thereon.

Fortunately before publishing the original version of this second report, in following up another aspect entirely I came across information that rectified my mistake... but also necessitated having to re-write this entire section!

Here we go then...

There appear to be two principal theories about what may have befallen Madeleine on that evening of 3rd May.

The "abductor theory" (which I'd previously, and wrongly, equated with the "official version") in which Madeleine was abducted by a person or persons unknown whilst her parents dined at the nearby Tapas bar.
Or the principal alternative version, the "accident theory", in which Madeleine had some sort of fatal accident (again whilst her parents dined at the nearby Tapas bar) that her parents then tried to "cover up"... entailing secretive disposal of Madeleine's body and their subsequent fabrication of a mythical abductor.

Its now my understanding that the motive given as driving the accident theory is that the parents were concerned about possible legal consequences of their having left Madeleine and her siblings on their own and so sought to obfuscate the issue by cultivating the tale of an abduction.

Originally I had then gone to some lengths to highlight the weakness of this reasoning given that their negligence would inevitably have been revealed (as it has been) even had there been no accident and the abductor theory as presented in its own right held water.
But I had not then taken account of the fact that, if Madeleine had suffered a fatal accident as a direct result of her parents' negligence then her parents (and principally Kate McCann so it would seem) would be open to a charge of "exposure to abandonment", in the terminology of the Portuguese judiciary.

This discovery shed a wholly different light for me on the accident theory. For, if Madeleine truly had suffered a fatal accident then, under Portuguese law apparently, her parents (or at least her mother seemingly) could have been accused of:

"homicide of Madeleine by failing to prevent her death. The charge is equivalent to manslaughter in British law"

And if, in order to try to avoid that, the McCanns had sought to secretly dispose of the body in some way and that were discovered there could have been an additional charge of "concealing the body".
Apparently those charges, if proven, could carry a sentence of up to ten years imprisonment!

That punishment could indeed be a quite compelling reason to seek to deny that such an accident had occurred and provide sufficient motive to promote the notion of an abductor, necessarily entailing the secret disposal of Madeleine's body (following the old adage of "in for a penny, in for a pound").

(I would be interested to learn though of what the penalty would have been if not compounded by the charge of "concealing the body".)

If such a death and concealment were indeed what happened, in what manner could such a scenario have played out?

If we argue that an accident befell Madeleine (be that falling down between the sofa and the wall and thereby fatally striking her head, or taking a tumble down the external steps and thereby fatally etc, or whatever) during her parents' absence; that her body was discovered upon one of the periodic checks by either or both of her parents; and, after having checked for signs of life etc the ramifications of that accident caused a momentary panic... is it then safe to assume that the parent(s) immediate instinct would have been to dispose of the body and conceal the accident for fear of some possible charge of negligence and consequent legal action against them?

I would have thought not.

Firstly because I would imagine it unlikely that they would have at that point been sufficiently familiar with Portuguese law to fully appreciate the legal consequences of an accident in such circumstances.
That aside I also would have thought it unlikely that any parent (unless they're of the most callous and cold-hearted sort... and there's no evidence I've seen so far to support that contention; careless and somewhat selfish maybe, narcissistic possibly, but not callous and cold-hearted) would immediately have thought of disposing of the body of their suddenly deceased child. That this "solution" may have finally presented itself (if it ever did) would, I suggest, have only occurred after some thought.
These are not unintelligent people. Given their professions, they're almost certainly accustomed to handling crisis situations and being able to think relatively clearly in such.

So, they would have thought the situation through.

Possibly they would have sought legal advice of some type, quite conceivably "off the record". In the manner of obtaining an opinion on a "hypothetical situation"... but with the rider that such an opinion was required somewhat urgently.
A quick 'phone call to a lawyer-type friend in England maybe?
I would not have thought it likely that any "common or garden" solicitor, or even barrister, would be sufficiently familiar with the intricacies of Portuguese law to have rendered an immediate opinion, so I would imagine a few further hurried 'phone calls this side of the Channel would have occurred to track down a knowledgeable authority. Resulting finally in some sort of advice being transmitted back to the McCanns.
Probably not advice per se. Likely more... "in the sort of hypothetical situation you've described, the possible penalty would be..." etc.

(Apropos of this I feel compelled to make the observation that quite a few politicians come from a background of legal practise, or have close connections therewith!)

And then, conceivably, a decision may have been made to dispose of Madeleine's body and construct the story of an abductor.
A plan would have had to have been formulated; a very simple plan for there would have been little time (given the time already spent in initial reaction, seeking an opinion, prevaricating and finally reaching a decision etc) to spend on sophisticated flourishes.
Simple plans are usually by far the best... but simple plans concocted in haste tend to have flaws and inconsistencies. Its just a matter of finding them.

So all of that would have taken time.

In the received account of that evening would there seem to be sufficient time for such a scenario to run its course? In the received account possibly not. But could the received account be somewhat less than accurate?

Possible? Yes. Probable? That, at the moment, I really cannot say.

Other than the accident and the abductor theories (of which the latter I shall look at more closely in a moment), are there any alternatives?

Well, indeed there are. But to outline other possibilities would require some intensive theorising on my part. Something I'm extremely reluctant to do at this stage (at least, not openly) for I still simply don't know enough of what's already available in the public domain.
Alas, human nature being what it is, inevitably my mind in the privacy of its own murky depths has started churning over various possibilities. Nor can I resist observing that any alternative to either of the two "leading" theories would appear to carry some very worrying implications. Implications that could well render either of the two leading theories quite attractive in comparison.

Those damn sniffer dogs

One of the things that's still really bugging me at the moment is the matter of those damn sniffer dogs!
Admittedly their findings represent only a probability of there having been a body in the McCanns' apartment. But the more I delve into it the stronger that probability seems to become.
And if there were a body in that apartment then the further probability is that it was Madeleine's.

Which, if so, would mean that the abductor theory is almost certainly out of the running.

If there were an intruder in that apartment intent on abducting Madeleine, and if something happened in that apartment during the course of the attempted abduction whereby Madeleine was seriously injured or worse, would the abductor have carried her away?

Likely not. Why would they?

Perhaps if the little girl were only slightly injured and therefore represented a risk of identifying the abductor, maybe. But then there wouldn't have been any odour in the apartment for the cadaver dog to find... would there?
And if that weren't the case; if Madeleine were not just injured but killed, why would an abductor risk carrying the body through the streets? Far simpler just to make a quick unburdened getaway... unless of course there were the possibility that they'd left DNA evidence on Madeleine's body. But I think that unlikely, for other reasons entirely.

If there were DNA traces left on Madeleine's body it would suggest that the abductor had... er... how to put this delicately?... molested her.
That, I think, is unlikely. Not there. Not then. For such presumably takes time... and would there not have been too great a risk of the abductor's "activities" being interrupted by one of the periodic checks being conducted by the McCanns and their companions?
Of which the abductor would almost certainly have been aware from their, equally almost certain, surveillance of the apartment for some time beforehand. And this conclusion's not based upon possibly dubious witness statements of having seen a "watcher", but on simple common sense.
It seems to me that, in the event of an abduction actually having occurred, then speed would have been of the essence.

An alternative possibility for the leaving of DNA traces would be had there been a struggle between Madeleine and her abductor during the course of which the abductor was scratched, bitten, or something.
A possibility yes, but I think it unlikely given the far superior strength of an abductor (presuming an adult) over a small child, and the likelihood that the most vulnerable parts of the abductor's body (hands and arms) would have been covered.

Having said this, apparently traces of a stranger's DNA were found in Madeleine's room although the police failed to reach an identification therefrom.
At time of writing I've encountered no further information regarding those traces (where in the room they were found or in what form... hair; skin cell tissue; bodily fluids etc) so cannot really speculate upon the possible significance thereof.
Moreover the discovery of such DNA does not necessarily establish the presence of an abductor for it is open to a number of possible alternative interpretations.

To summarise this then, its seems probable to me that either the abductor made off with a living Madeleine, in which case no odour left in the apartment for the cadaver dog to detect... or there was no abductor.

That said, is there any possible scenario that might account for an abduction and the presence of cadaver odour? Well, yes, but its the only one that I can think of at the moment... if the abductor had, deliberately or otherwise, killed Madeleine and then were interrupted before they'd had a chance to leave the apartment its conceivable that they may have concealed themselves somewhere for a period of time... shorter rather than longer I would have thought. But there are potential problems with this scenario regarding timing... a matter to which I shall return.

And again we're left with the question of why the abductor would take Madeleine's body with them?
Unless it was the body they were interested in and not Madeleine as a living little girl? Bizarre!

Equally bizarre... or something that strikes me as rather strange at least... are the two separate accounts of an individual having been seen that evening walking with a child in their arms. In neither of those accounts, so far as I have been able to determine at the moment, is there any mention of movement on the part of the child. Any indication that the child is awake, conscious, or even alive. This is a matter to which I shall probably return.

Basically though, I'd put about as much confidence in the credibility of those latter speculations as I would if I'd been told that little green men had come down from a spaceship and "beamed Madeleine up".

So to my mind, if the sniffer dogs were right and the detected odour was that of Madeleine, it just doesn't add up. Exit the abductor theory.

Which means we're left, for the moment, with the accident theory.

What are the alternatives then? Well, until I've got a bit more information under my belt about who's who, what's been said, who was where, and the backgrounds etc of those involved I think it would be premature to even try to formulate alternative scenarios.

So let's look a bit more closely at the contentious topic of the sniffer dogs and see what's caused me to think that the probability they represent has become stronger.

One of the major issues that concerned me about the sniffer dogs was how long it would take cadaver odour to develop from the time of death, and also how long a body (or something connected with that body) would need to be in a given location for such odour to "rub off" as it were onto the surroundings.
I've already addressed this in a limited manner in "First Impressions" but at that point I'd phrased it as:

"how soon after death it could be expected for cadaver odour to develop in sufficient intensity/volume to be detectable by a specialised sniffer dog"

whereas in fact of course there are two elements involved... (a) development of odour from time of death, and (b) how long in a given location before that odour is transmitted to the surroundings in sufficient concentration (would that be the right word?) to be detectable by a cadaver dog.
Although in all probability those two elements would be identical and concurrent if the body remained in the location in which death occurred.

Well, I tried to track down online some authoritative reference regarding at least the first part of this equation. Unsuccessfully... though I did end up reading a fair bit about bodily processes after death!
However, in pursuing another matter relating to the sniffer dogs I rather fortuitously came across the following, on the "Dogs Don't Lie" website:

"Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval.

Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (bodies are all less than 3 hours old). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).

The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100)."

attributed to "Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares" by Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, and Gehl A. (Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany.)

The post is well worth reading in its entirety for it includes much more data plus a useful explanation of the scientific terminology.

Whereas in my state of ignorance I had been thinking that cadaver odour would probably not develop in anything much under six hours or so it seems that is not actually the case for, according to the foregoing, its conceivable that such odour can develop in less than three hours. It would be really nice to be able to pinpoint it rather more accurately than this but at least its a ballpark figure to work with, which is much more than I had at the start.
Also seemingly the body would only need to be in a given location for a matter of minutes for a cadaver dog to detect that odour. Impressive!

(Returning for a moment to my earlier speculation about an abductor concealing themselves and Madeleine's body in the apartment for a time (say during one of the periodic "check-ups") clearly its now conceivable that would have been sufficient for cadaver odour to have impressed itself upon the surroundings. However, there's still the issue of whether there would have been sufficient time for that odour to develop in the first place. Absent some authoritative opinion on this my suspicion is probably not... unless the abductor were so concealed for up to three hours!)

However, something interesting has emerged from all of this although, given that it adds yet another uncertainty into the whole matter, I rather wish it hadn't.

Going back a step or two... before I'd come across this information about the timescale in which cadaver odour can develop I'd been assuming that, as I said, it couldn't be much less than six hours... and possibly more. Especially if the body from which it emanated were in a healthy state (that's a tidbit I'd picked up from my reluctant reading about decomposition, putrefaction and stuff!).

Which of course throws into question the accepted timescale of events on that evening of 3rd May. A timescale that in my mind had been fixed as commencing at 1730 when Madeleine was collected from the creche as confirmed by the creche's exit records. Which is something I'd taken as an established fact.

"Is it conceivable that one of these 'givens'... the time of Madeleine's collection from the creche... are wrong?" I found I was asking myself. And bizarrely, whilst right in the middle of speculating upon this what should drop into my mailbox but an email from someone suggesting that the creche's records were maybe not as reliable as I'd assumed, and that maybe something had happened to Madeleine much earlier than has been suggested.
And apparently considerable "digging" has already been done into this... digging that I must now necessarily investigate. Oh pooh!

Ok, let's move on to another aspect of the "sniffer dog dilemma".

As far as I've been able to establish at the moment the main thrust of the argument against the findings of the cadaver dog is that such creatures are unreliable... they can make mistakes.
I would fully accept that, which is of course why I regard the evidence of the cadaver dog as "probably right" rather than established fact.
However, what to my mind speaks against such a mistake in this particular instance is the finding by a second dog of traces of human blood in the same location that cadaver odour was detected by the first dog.
That, to my way of thinking, transforms what was a probability into a very strong probability... almost bordering on established fact.

Of course, its still conceivable, even if we accept that the dogs didn't make a mistake, that those traces are not of Madeleine.

But if not Madeleine's then they must necessarily be of someone else. And I think its fairly safe to assume that had someone else shed blood and died in that apartment the authorities would have had some knowledge of it. And if not, presumably it could be fairly easily checked.

Or are we to postulate that yet another crime was committed in that exact same apartment, and successfully covered up, prior to the McCanns occupying it?
Sorry, but that seems to stretch credibility far too much.

Another argument put forward to explain the presence of cadaver odour (and interestingly, this one by implication accepts the findings of the dogs) claims that Kate McCann "who is a GP, had come into contact with six patients who died before she went on holiday", the proposition presumably being that she had somehow brought the cadaver odour with her.
When I first encountered this statement my immediate reaction, I have to confess, was one of entirely inappropriate facetiousness for I caught myself muttering "Bloody hell, another Dr Shipman!"

Putting such tasteless levity to one side though, are we then to assume that Kate McCann neither washed or changed her clothes between dealing with those six deceased patients and going on holiday? A nonsense of course.
So did she take her working clothes on holiday with her then? Unlikely, I would have thought.
And presumably she also took a phial of blood with her, the contents of which she then splattered about the apartment?

On balance I think we can discount her prior contact with dead patients... though it would be interesting to know if that claim has been verified?

A plan!

What "First Impressions" achieved for me was to provide an overall "feel" for the case and help to crystallise out a number of "action points", a term I've borrowed from another community with which I engage indicating "things to be done". But in this case not so much "things to be done" as "answers to be sought".
These action points are not the only matters that require attention of course, and without doubt in pursuing them they will spawn many others, but to my mind they deal with matters that strike me as needing to be pinned down first.

So, the things that I shall be focussing on during the course of the next few days (or weeks, or months even, given my customary tardiness, and given that there are other demands on my time) are:

  1. The timeline written by Russell O'Brien inside the torn-off covers of a child's book.

    How did that come to be written (why was it written)? When was it written? Who tore the covers off the book? Why? Was there any other material available for writing on when that act occurred?

    Almost certainly the answers to most of those questions (or the lack thereof... which would in itself be quite interesting) are to be found in the testimonies of one or more of the "Tapas 9". And that of course presents something of a difficulty for those testimonies may not be entirely safe. However, its a starting point.

    A further question that springs to mind concerns where that timeline was drafted. My presumption is that it was written in the McCanns' apartment. (If not then many of the following questions are superfluous.) This goes directly to what other materials may have been available to write on. Did the police compile an inventory of items in the apartment? Likely not... why would they? Did the management company for the apartments provide each apartment with stationery (as is customary in some hotels)? And if so, in what quantity? Were the possessions of the McCanns inventoried? Again, likely not. But if so, did they include stationery? Are there any photographs in existence of the apartment before the McCanns vacated it that show writing materials?

  2. The statements of Yvonne Martin, Katherine Gaspar and Arul Gaspar.

    How credible are these people? Did any of them bear some prior resentment toward David Payne? Was the statement of Ms Martin followed up? Has she since submitted any further information clarifying her initial statement? Are the statements of the Gaspars susceptible to any alternative (and less worrying) interpretation... or rather, are the words and actions of David Payne as reported by the Gaspars so susceptible? What is the nature of the relationship between the McCanns and David Payne? How long have they known each other?

  3. The open window in the children's bedroom.

    My understanding is that, upon "discovery", Kate McCann claims to have initially presumed that the window represented the means of ingress for the intruder. That was fairly conclusively established not to have been the case though, and the evidence suggests the window must have been opened from the inside. Who opened it? Why was it opened? When was it opened?
    My understanding is that the window is on the ground floor. What is its external situation in relation to other features? How far from the ground? Did the police examine the ground outside the window? What were the results of that examination?

  4. The movements of the "Tapas 9" in and out of the Tapas bar during the course of that fateful evening, paying particular attention to the movements of the McCanns themselves, David Payne, and Russell O'Brien.

    This should be fairly straightforward to establish by a careful scrutiny of the various statements given to the police. Naturally I'm fully aware that such timelines have already been drawn up by other enquirers and I don't doubt that they have been compiled with the greatest of rigour. Nevertheless I feel this is a task that I too have to undertake, partly for my own satisfaction but also because in the doing I will undoubtedly acquire a much better "feel" for the course of that evening.
    The real problem with this entire task though is that the resultant chronology will (I imagine) be based almost entirely upon the testimonies of the "Tapas 9" themselves... and hence must be treated cautiously.

  5. The political pressure said to have been exerted to archive the case.

    Most importantly, why? But failing that... What form did it take? Whence did it come? Who was its author?
    Coincidentally (fortuitously maybe), whilst in the middle of writing this present report an article was posted on the Joana Morais blog wherein, having read almost to the end, I came upon this provocative little snippet:
    "There were many people saying that Gerry McCann was to become a Secretary of State for Health in the English government. That might explain something, but one must also look at the close relationship with prime minister Gordon Brown’s brother."
    Wha...!!! Talk about being rendered speechless (unusual for me). Or knocked down with a feather. What have we here then? Is Gerry McCann an MP also? Is there any substance to this rumour? Does he truly have those sorts of connections? Clearly yet another avenue for exploration has just opened up.

  6. Looking at the "Tapas 9" as a whole, one little thing that's probably completely insignificant and meaningless strikes me. Who's the "odd one out"?

    Here we have a group of four couples... and one.

    Moreover, four couples within the same age range (35-41, with the average being 37.75)... and one of 63. (Children? I'm aware that some of the couples had children. Did all of the couples have children?)

    So what do we know of Dianne Webster? Who is she (yes, I know she's Fiona Payne's mother... I mean apart from that)? What's her background? Why is she actually there?

  7. Kidnapping vs abduction.

    Has there ever been any mention, in any media report, of the expectation of a ransom being demanded? Is there any reference on record to the McCanns ever having used the words "kidnap" or "kidnapper" rather than "abduct" or "abductor"?
    On a similar note, what is the first recorded instance of the McCanns' referring to Madeleine's disappearance specifically as an "abduction"?

  8. The accuracy of the exit records from the creche.

  9. The "stranger's" DNA traces found in Madeleine's room.

    In what form were they, and where in the room were they found?

Easily answered

Even before getting this present document online some of the action points I'd had in mind to set myself have been dealt with... the relatively straightforward ones of course, where sources clarifying these points were easily located:

Limitations

Many of the questions that I have posed as "action points" for myself are answerable from the material already in the public domain relating to Madeleine's disappearance. Its really just a question of my trawling through it all (probably many times) to find the specific answers.

Some other questions may be, if not wholly answered, at least moved forward somewhat by other internet-based research.

Moreover, I don't doubt that most of those answers are already known to many of the people that have been engaged with the matter for far longer than I. That will not deter me from seeking to answer those questions to my own satisfaction and by my own methods however.
Though I am very happy to extend an open invitation to anyone in possession of such answers to contact me. I would merely ask that such contactees provide references (in the form of links or whatever) to original source material.

Other questions may prove answerable by reference to particular sources of my own, independent of the case.

However, there are also a whole body of questions that cannot be answered by such means, and many of those would require my contacting individuals involved at the time.
Given the type of publicity that has been afforded the case in this country (particularly after the McCanns' and "Tapas 7's" successful damages claims) its highly probable that these people would be unlikely to entertain an approach from any media-type person that they may perceive as not totally "sympathetic".
Consequently, many very pertinent questions may well remain unanswered, and that may ultimately prove to be the determining factor in how far I can actually go with this.
That said, I welcome genuine and serious communications on this matter from anyone, and of course confidentiality will always be respected.

So what do I think now?

I shall try to make this particular little section a permanent feature of any and all of my subsequent reports on this matter, providing a place where I can offer a very brief summary of my "take" to date, assimilating everything I've learned so far and, of my speculations, which seems to me to offer the most probable explanation.

And I have to say, so far it seems as though the accident theory marginally has the edge.

And there's still those damn sniffer dogs!



And two items with which to close this particular report...

Some thoughts on the suing of Goncalo Amaral

I was interested to learn of the McCanns' recently-announced intention to sue Goncalo Amaral over his video ("Maddie: The Truth of the Lie"... the watching of which started me on this quest in the first place) and accompanying book.
I must also confess to some not entirely unselfish concern about how this will impact other "enquirers". For example, the seeming multitude of websites that appear to echo Mr Amaral's opinions. And indeed the likes of enquirers such as myself, for even asking publicly whether the abductor theory is the truthful one.
Is it the McCanns' intention to go after everyone and seek to erase from the public domain any hint, the merest suggestion, that Madeleine was not abducted; that Madeleine may not be alive?

Yet the grounds on which this particular action is being brought seem to me rather peculiar. Indeed, the entire strategy seems peculiar.
Such a strategy, in my opinion, only makes it more likely that speculation will abound, that interested parties will "dig", rather than less so. It adds more fuel to the fire of morbid curiosity; and, more significantly, to suspicions of an ongoing "cover-up".

Yes... assuming the McCanns' innocence of involvement in any sort of cover-up the speculations that have been circulating must cause them some discomfort. And if the McCanns truly do believe that Madeleine is still alive then suggestions that she may not be must almost certainly cause them some considerable anguish.
But the truth is that such speculations, such suggestions, absent any concrete supporting evidence, absent any new development or satisfactory resolution to the affair, would eventually become consigned to that body of material that can best be summed up by the term "conspiracy theories". They would join the likes of far more sensational events (the Kennedy assassination, the death of Princess Diana, the Twin Towers) and, like them, become the subject of little more than myth and rumour.
But in the mind of mainstream public opinion the abductor theory would ultimately prevail. For public memory is very short, public interest very fickle.

Perhaps that's the answer. The McCanns desire public interest to remain engaged so that the widespread search for Madeleine may continue; but seek to suppress all the other questions that inevitably accompany such public interest.
Do they not realise that they can't have one without the other?

This particular issue introduces another aspect that I find quite interesting... the type of media campaign that they've conducted. Unless I'm much mistaken its virtually unprecedented in scale, scope, and duration. Unprecedented for a child disappearance, that is.
One would have thought, if the abductor theory is not correct, that they would have desired less publicity rather than more. That they would have sought the shadows rather than the spotlight, desperate for the time when the case had finally departed public awareness.
So should we interpret their media campaign as a testament to their innocence?

Or is it a case of the good old double bluff? Which would imply that there is so much certainty of Madeleine, or her remains, never being found that such a campaign can be pursued with confidence.

Or is it that maybe secretly, or subconsciously even, they actually want people to dig into the matter and finally discover what the full truth may be?

There are of course larger issues at stake here as well... issues of censorship, freedom of expression etc. But regardless, I shall be fascinated to see the case fought out in court. If it ever gets that far.

Who knows.

That Oprah Winfrey interview

There seems to be a tremendous animosity in some of the forums where Madeleine's disappearance has been discussed, a polarisation with the McCann supporters regarding the sceptics as heartless and the sceptics regarding the supporters as sentimentalists, although all too frequently in much stronger terms than those.
The sheer venom in some of the comments I've encountered (from both sides) astounds me, and I find such heated animosity disturbing.

Surely there is a common cause... which is to conclusively establish what happened to Madeleine, to find Madeleine, and to ensure that those responsible for her disappearance are held to account? And surely that common cause is best served, on both sides, by a dispassionate appraisal of the known facts and an unremitting quest for the answers to those questions and concerns that may remain so far unresolved?

To simply ignore unresolved issues or brush them under the carpet is not acceptable. To uncritically accept any given theory that is not based upon, and satisfactorily supported by, all the known facts is equally not acceptable.
Yet from what I have been able to learn so far, the known facts do not conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt point to the existence of an abductor. Neither do they establish beyond reasonable doubt any wrongdoing (other than negligence) on the part of the McCanns.

In which context I was much moved to read Paulo Sargento's analysis of the McCanns' (and principally Kate's) behaviour appearance and attitudes during the recent Oprah Winfrey interview as posted on Joana Morais' blog.
His analysis of Kate McCann's present state seems to me to be right on the nose, and it speaks to me of profound grief (probably), deep remorse (also probably, for all sorts of reasons), and maybe even guilt (possibly). It is a state about which one should be rightly concerned.

Although this person is unknown to me I could not avoid feeling tremendous sympathy for her, and compassion for her evident mental and emotional turmoil.
It is right and proper that the quest to determine what happened to Madeleine should be relentlessly pursued.
But I have still to be persuaded that the McCanns were complicit in that disappearance.

Yet, even if that should ultimately prove to be the case, unless such complicity were the climax of prolonged malevolence or malicious intent we should bear in mind that true justice very often demands tempering with mercy.
To become part of a baying mob screaming for nothing other than revenge achieves nothing for Madeleine and undermines the principles of understanding and compassion that should be the hallmark of our humanity.
Or equally, to be part of a community that willfully chooses to ignore perfectly valid questions and unquestioningly accepts the not-yet-established innocence of the McCanns denies the intelligence and ability for rational thought with which we, as a species, are supposed to be endowed.

And if that view alienates me from others who seek to understand what really happened on that fateful evening, or indeed from those that choose to ignore the unresolved issues, then so be it.
I would say to the impassioned proponents of either side who are utterly and unquestioningly convinced of the rightness of their view... "prove it to me with hard facts!"
Not suppositions; not "gut instinct"; not some mystical "knowledge"; but cold hard facts backed up by evidence that permits of only one interpretation. Absent that, whence cometh such vehement condemnation of alternative views?

return to index

Creative Commons License
Creative Commons License

© 2009 Mike Langridge
Published by fotdpublishing.org.uk