Freitag, 30. April 2010

Theory (english)


An attempt at a reconstruction of a  theoretically possible course of events, based on the evidence from the files and the rogatory interviews trying to incorporate all oddities such as the supply of an old photo for search purposes, the supply of a wrong height of the almost 4 year old, the confusion about when Maddie had played tennis, the change of routine of the Thursday at breakfast, lunch, dinner and after-dinner activities, the apparently unused bed, the moved cot, and many more :


A holiday in spring after a bleak winter will surely be loaded with lots of happy expectations. Sunbathing, beach excursions, balmy nights with friends and finally time with your partner.

What happens when reality is so far from your expectations and your urgent needs? When the weather is cold and cloudy and instead of getting better, deteriorates with rain on the 5th day? When the daily chores with 3 kids under 4 years of age are not equally distributed but are left to one partner as always, especially the bathing and the difficulty of bringing them all to bed while the husband takes part in the tennis events every evening? And when he then asks the good-looking young employee to sit at the table ignoring the wife which leads to a flurry of furious messages to her best friend? When the child that is the most difficult and that alerts the neighbours with nightly crying for the father throws a tantrum on Wednesday on the playground forcing the mother to take her back to the apartment of course alone again? When this child then cannot be convinced to go to sleep and is asking for its Daddy who is already heading again towards the Restaurant with a friend after a quick shower leaving his wife alone in this stressful situation? When the child jumps onto the sofa to catch a look at the father who just passes by the window with his friend, joking as always while being responsible for the misery of the wife?


I believe that Madeleine died some time after 20:00 on May 2nd. It had been a disastrous week with bad weather and without support from Gerry for Kate with the difficult task of bringing the children to bed. Gerry, who preferred to play tennis in the evening, had ignored Kate at dinner and flirted with the aerobics teacher on Tuesday. When he left the apartment again, after only being there for a quick shower after his "Beating the Pro" tennis event until 19:30, heading off again to the Tapas and leaving Kate behind with screaming kids, the situation escalated on Wednesday. IMO Madeleine threw an extraordinary tantrum on the playground that carried on in the apartment, an incident Jane Tanner attributed to her own daughter and which was mentioned for the first time in her rogatory interview. According to her statement the crying stopped abruptly. IMO Madeleine died at this moment as a result of a blow while standing on the sofa trying to see her father who passed the window via the road below with his friend Russell. Presumably she hit her head on the windowsill or when hitting the floor behind the sofa. The crying stopped abruptly.

This special crying incident had never been mentioned before because it was just too dangerous. But they knew that a Mrs. Fenn had contacted the Police regarding the crying at Tuesday night. When the rogatories were conducted, the files had not yet been released and so they did not know that Mrs. Fenn had not been at home on the Wednesday. They suspected that she had heard the crying of the Wednesday as well and with Jane's statement wanted to pre-empt the Police should this question arise.

During the night of May 2nd it was decided to cover-up the death. The children needed their mother,who would possibly be charged with manslaughter, their careers would be ruined, the insufficient child monitoring, the nightly crying, everything would become apparent. That would make the whole group accomplices, since they all had the same relaxed attitude towards the monitoring of their children some much younger than Madeleine. Their futures would be ruined as well. With this reasoning the other parents could have been pressurised to support the cover-up. Dianne Webster though, was not trusted, she would be kept out of the know. With the initial plan there was no need for lies or deception by the friends. They would just have to act as staffage in a staged show the next evening. All they needed to do was pretend to not know. No lies would be necessary for the friends according to the initial plan. An easy way out for them. This imo applies at least for the couples Tanner/O'Brien and Oldfield who did not have a baby monitor with them. Unlike the Payne's who still complied with the cover-up although they were the proud owners of such a device. As to their reasons I can guess but won't elaborate.

Possibly, Kate had not turned up for dinner that night. To cover for her absence Rachael later claimed she had been sick that night and had stayed in the apartment. In case a waiter had remembered the number of people or men and women at the table. That Rachael was not missing at dinner is evident from the statement by Jane who claimed to have listened at the Oldfield's window that night for their daughter. Had Rachael been in the apartment this would have been an absurd act. To avoid that somebody had seen Gerry coming back alone to the apartment, Kate stated that she arrived 5 minutes after him. A more sinister scenario would be that Kate did take part in the dinner but left it to Gerry to detect the body behind the sofa by giving him a 5 minute headstart. This would explain Gerry's "cryptic" statement in a spanish interview saying nothing had been as hard as the "night we found her".


It was decided to stage an abduction the following evening. The body was therefore stored in the wardrobe in the parent's bedroom. The one cot, which had been standing in the parent's bedroom all week according to the statement of the cleaner and which probably had been used by one of the twins to avoid too many children in one room waking each other up, was placed in the children's bedroom. Kate could not fathom to sleep in the same room as her dead daughter and stayed in the bed unter the window in the children's bedroom, which had been unused on Wednesday morning but used on Thursday.

On the following morning the McCanns were not able to attend the usual breakfast. Six employees of the Millenium restaurant stated that they had attended regularly. Dianne Webster also said that she saw them on the Wednesday, the only day she attended since tennis was postponed due to the weather. The McCanns however claimed in their interviews that they had only attended the breakfast once on the Sunday, never again. The fairytale about the missing buggy that hindered them from walking the distance to the Millenium was spread via the media to enforce it. Free breakfast for 5 people not taken advantage of? Knowing Gerry it is hardly believable. And statements of seven people contradicting them. Had it emerged that they had been in the restaurant every day except the Thursday the police would have probed this evidence much more thorough. Buggies – in plural – were readily available for the excursion to the beach on Monday or Tuesday according to their own statements.

To fake an entry in the crèche records without actually leaving a child there cannot be that difficult.

There were kids from three groups, including the Junior Group, in the one room above the main reception and quite a number of nannies with changing shifts. Jane was talking about 4 or 5 nannies responsible in this room. It was not the 1 nanny with 6 children scenario Mark Warner wanted to portray. And certainly not the 1 nanny for 3 kids ratio the McCanns claimed in order to give more credit to the nanny's statement.

IMO Gerry entered the kids club together with at least one other father who happened to drop his daughter off at 9:10, signed when nobody looked and possibly chatted with one of the nannies that were present. Maybe he asked one of those that were not responsible for Maddie if she could attend the tennis again instead of the sailing, because sailing seemed a bit dangerous. Such was born the myth that Madeleine attended the Thursday tennis although she was there already on the Tuesday. In the beginning most of the friends stated that Madeleine had attended the Thursday morning tennis, Rachael even still stated this in her rogatories. The photo with Maddie on the tennis court was launched in the press as the first „last“ picture, although there had been concerns about showing the bruise on her lower right arm. Kate claimed it was a sunburn.

Kate had to attend the tennis lesson in the morning because Dianne Webster would have noticed her missing. Afterwards she went together with Fiona Payne, who collected her youngest daughter from the same building where Maddie's crèche was, to sign Maddie out of the crèche again. Possibly Russell also collected his daughter at the same time and both created enough diversion for her to do this unnoticed.

Lunchtime was used to organise the course of events for the evening. I am sure that at least Gerry took part. To avoid the only person not in the know – Dianne Webster – the usual lunch at the Payne's balcony was cancelled. For once they met at Jane and Russel's place. Most probably the only deviation from the lunch routine this week.

It was important to keep Dianne Webster away from the children's dinner at 17:00 therefore a group outing was organised without the McCanns to the beach restaurant Paraiso. Russell O'Brien first claimed to had seen his daughter in the Tapas restaurant at dinner then got his statement changed to read that he had collected her at 16:45 from the Kid's Club to take her to the beach restaurant. But he also claimed that he sailed until 16:30 and then went for a swim. He only appeared on the restaurant's CCTV at 17:52 together with his eldest daughter. Plenty of time to collect her from the children's dinner at 17:30 where she might have eaten in the presence of Gerry, the twins and possibly Kate. Then signed out as Madeleine. It would certainly have fooled the restaurant worker especially if shown an old photo of Madeleine the next day.

How can it be explained that Maddie's main nanny Catriona Baker was fooled? First of all, contrary to the statements she was not solely responsible for a little group of six children but was together with at least 2 other nannies responsible for a much larger group. They went together to the beach outings and her colleague was not sure if Madeleine had been with them on one day. So it was possible to get the days confused and the children. Secondly, Mark Warner only supplied 2 nannies for the first interviews with the police citing ONLY from the possibly faked crèche records. All other details were added much later, culminating in Cat's very vivid narration about the boat trip in her rogatories.

Her story gave me a feeling of a well-rehearsed narrative, full of unnecessary detail and with some strange words, like the colors of the boats and the expression "return to the port." This may be because we only have the condensed version available, which was also translated twice. Still, this feeling never quite left me, maybe because she was invited to the McCann's house before the rogatory interviews, so I had another close look at her report especially in light of her description of the sailing trip she gave to officer Manuel Pinho in an on-site inspection on 10th May 2007.From this latter description, the following course of events can be concluded:

Catriona Baker accompanied
5-6 children - she does not give an exact number - holding onto “Sammy snake” from the OC to the beach. Alice Stanley, a sailing instructor, occupied a little yellow sailing boat and waited for Chris Unsworth, another sailing instructor, to ferry the first 3 children with the red safety boat from the beach towards her. The remaining children stayed with Catriona on the beach. Alice did a few sailing turns before the three children returned back to the beach with Chris who then took the remaining children to Alice and the sailing boat. Meanwhile, the first group was of course with Catriona on the beach waiting for the last group to return. The trip was scheduled for roughly half an hour from 10:30 bis 11:00 clock and would have allowed for only one sailing trip for each group of three.

How can this described process now be reconciled with the statements from Catriona's rogatory interview?

In it she describes in detail that Madeleine had
cried anxiously during the crossing to the sailing boat while sitting on her lap. Did Catriona leave the other kids alone back on the beach? Certainly not. She also states that Madeleine had a second round on the sailing boat. Was one child left out on this trip? If there had been 6 children it would only permit one trip for each child. Had there been only 5 children, without Madeleine, a second round would have been possible for one child.

Unfortunately, the two sailing instructors Alice and Chris were interviewed only informally. Surely they could only confirm the trip and perhaps the fact that one child was allowed to make
a second trip. They would not have been able though to identify Madeleine also because the children wore life jackets and possibly helmets.

So either the crying on Catriona's lap in the boat never happened like this, or perhaps there was a second nanny present who remained with the remaining children on the beach. But why then was she never mentioned? Could she perhaps have defined the number of children more accurately and could not remember Madeleine? The picture of a nanny who went alone with 6 children to the beach seems either implausible or extremely negligent.

In both cases, this raises serious doubts about the rogatory statement concerning the course of events at the sailing trip, and therefore also about the participation of Madeleine.


I pointed out this discrepancy in the nanny's statement as early as January 2011 and it might have been seen by the McCanns and their team. To my huge surprise I have to read now in Kate's book that she herself suddenly throws suspicion on the sailing trip and the nanny's statement. With a daring back-pedalling action she now claims that Fiona had NOT seen Madeleine at the sailing trip, totally discrediting poor Jane who explicitly stated the opposite.

After the crèche records had been set in stone, no nanny would have dared to voice doubt afterwards in the face of grieving parents and the world's press. And should they have given some odd statements to the police (or Dianne Webster), their initial statements could have been ripped apart in a court by their lawyers when shown that it was an ARGUIDO who had translated them. Was this the reason for the framing of Murat?

What about the other witnesses that had allegedly seen Madeleine that day? There was Charlotte Pennington, who was visited by Metodo 3 and then helped to frame Murat months after the disappearance - telling a story about telling a story to Maddie that day. But storystelling was a day earlier on the agenda according to the activity sheet. There was the cook who claimed to have seen Madeleine but at the same time placed her in the creche for the much younger children after having been shown the at least 6 month old photo. There was the barman who completely retracted his initial statement of having seen her that day. And we should not forget, that the nannies were all shipped to Greece less than a fortnight after the disappearance by Mark Warner making them unavailable for additional statements.

In the afternoon of the 3rd the usual get-together as on the previous evenings had to be cancelled for Kate and the twins because Dianne would have noticed the missing child. David had to act as the witness that ALL the children were too tired but alive and well. He and Kate made a right mess out of this story that was supposed to support the fact that Madeleine was still alive at that time. How long did he really stay? Did he go in and see the kids or was he just standing at the door with Kate obscuring his view? Why could he not remember what Kate was wearing, even though she was clad in a towel according to her? Why did he talk about “ALL the children“?

The evening at the Tapas restaurant was planned as the time where the abduction should take place, giving them all an alibi via the waiters and Dianne Webster. It was because of her that the rush from the table had to be staged before the actual disposal of the body took place because she would have noticed an earlier absence of Gerry. A risky plan. As early as 21:30 - 21:45 it was instigated by Kate who came running to the Tapas area entrance shouting at the group. Gerry immediately sprinted off for his meeting with the Smith family. The others followed not before Fiona had instructed Dianne to stay at the table “in case Madeleine would come to look for them“.

Dianne talked to the waiter a fact which later produced the statements about an early alarm way before 22:00. After about 5 minutes Dianne went into the McCann's apartment where she did not encounter Gerry who was still on his way towards the rocks. She spent about 10 minutes in the apartment, before being sent off again by Fiona to collect their belongings at the Tapas again. By now Gerry was back and possibly did a quick „search“ around the pool area to account for his previous whereabouts. When Dianne came back to the apartment the second time he was also there and never went on a search again. At around 22:30 (almost an hour after the first rush from the table) Mrs. Fenn heard Kate screaming from the balcony - a cry which had followed the second alarm – the official one – that led to the phone call to the police. The early rush from the table and the late second alarm explain why different person's statements varied almost about an hour in the time they had heard of the disappearance.

The encounter with the Smith family had been a disaster. Suddenly Gerry needed an alibi because he had been away from the table at the time of the meeting. The time of the actual alarm had to be confused so much that they could boldly place it at 22:00, the time of the Smith sighting. Therefore Kate's screaming from the balcony. But this was not enough. A completely independent witness had to give Gerry an alibi at the exact time of the abduction. The only independent witness that night had been Jeremy Wilkins and the time Gerry had met him was nowhere near the time of the Smith encounter. But it had to do... Poor Jane Tanner had to tell the police of her sighting of the abductor at the exact same time she had also seen Gerry and Jez talking together. In order to make her "vision" less obvious Gerry placed his meeting with Jez at the other side of the road further down. This made way for Jane's sighting, would explain why Jez did not see her and would also purport the theory that 3 witnesses never completely agree in their statements. The fact that the poor abductor had to wander the streets of Praia da Luz in search for the sea for 45 minutes was a fact the police should rack their brains about. Matthew's badly concocted statement about his visit in 5A served as additional “evidence“ that she was taken away between Gerry's and Matthew's check, thus by Jane's egg-man.

To explain this check by Matt in the light of Dianne's strict statement that all parents checked on their own children alone, additional checks had to be invented for the previous days. Russell had to state in his rogatory interview that he had checked on the McCann's and Oldfield's children on the Sunday with a key to the front door, which he later changed to a check in 5A via the patio door and in 5B via the front door with a key. ALTHOUGH Matt was supposedly sick that evening and inside the apartment.

This shows how devastating the Smith encounter was, how many "explanations" had to be created because of this stupid coincidence in a usually deserted dark alleyway.

What happened now during dinner? A time frame that had been under special scrutiny by the PJ because of the many discrepancies of those involved and the reconstruction of which had been denied by the same party.

During the day, a plan had been hatched. The kidnapping was to take place at the only time during the day when all friends would be together. At the dinner. Dianne Webster, as the only uninitiated witness, was supposed to confirm this to the police.

The plan was to remove the body from the apartment at 21:00, a time when parents, who dined at the tapas restaurant usually picked up their children from the children's club, often carrying them sleeping in their arms. Gerry had witnessed it live the night before with the parents at the next table and it would be a good disguise for him carrying Madeleine in the open. The kidnapping was planned for the period between 21:30 and 22:00, Matthew Oldfield's alleged check at 21:30 should confirm that at that time everything was still fine.The original plan possibly involved a different route to the beach, one that would be consistent with the comings and goings of parents carrying their children. Possibly through the little lanes of the "shortcut" Gerry had described to the police.

At 21:00 almost all the friends were gathered in the restaurant. Matthew, of whom Dianne Webster was not sure to have seen him there, was in the process of checking the usually deserted streets and roads around the apartment block and returned shortly after 21:00 back to the table with the message that all was clear. Therefore Gerry immediately stood up to allegedly perform another check on the children. A meaningless endeavour, if it had been true. In fact, he was now going to bring the body to a pre-defined location, reachable within 30 minutes maximum including the return trip. When he was in the garden behind the house, he noticed Jeremy Wilkins coming up the street with his son in a buggy. Matt had not seen him before as Jeremy had been circling the block while trying to persuade his son to sleep.

Gerry had to cancel his trip and layed Maddie quickly down in a flower bed under the porch where later on cadaver odour was found. Gerry stepped out of the garden gate to chat with Jeremy and to distract him. When Jeremy moved on Gerry went back to the table in the restaurant.

Now, it was Russell O'Brien's turn to search the streets for pedestrians but it was getting late. After the end of the meal Dianne Webster would be the first to go into her apartment like the evenings before and would not be available as a witness any longer. Therefore they decided to keep to the schedule of an abduction between 21:30 and 22:00 but to dispose of the body AFTER Kate's enacted discovery that was triggered by Russell's return. The schedule would not change, the "kidnapping" would still have happened between 21:30 and 22:00 with Gerry at the table during that time. Only Dianne had to be prevented from storming with the others to the apartment and seeing Gerry as he disappeared with Maddie towards the sea. Therefore, Dianne's daughter gave her the order to stay at the table in case Maddie should appear there. The whole thing went ahead shortly before 22:00 and Gerry hurried with Maddie in his arms straight into the group of the Smith family. He tried a different, more quiet route now - to no avail.

Now the situation changed radically. Gerry had no alibi any more for the time of the encounter with the family. Jane Tanner, in panic of being sued for neglect in Portugal agreed to tell the story of the hijacker who was crossing the street at exactly the time when the only independent witness was talking with Gerry. The man who thwarted the plan the first time, had now to serve as an alibi witness.

The tension that resulted from the change in plans shows clearly in the first police interview of Gerry when he erroneously told them details of the original plan, namely, that Matthew had noticed the blinds closed during his alleged check at 21:30, although under the new plan the abduction should already have happened at that time. A change in the statement was later made on 10 May. Suddenly Matt had seen a little more light in the room than could be expected with lowered shutters. A meagre attempt to change an originally positive sighting into evidence that she had already been abducted at that time.

What happened now when Gerry ran into the group of the Smith family? He could be sure that at least one of them would remember the encounter when the media reports came in the next day. Furthermore he did not have an alibi for this time because officially he was searching for Madeleine around the resort. He had to return to the apartment immediately to show himself in front of Dianne and other persons. The 30 minutes planned for the removal would be far too long, so an intermediate place had to be found that would withstand the first searches and would have been relatively close to the Smith sighting. There was an abandoned house right at the crossing that has recently been mentioned by Goncalo Amaral in a newspaper interview.

The body might have been placed there or in one of the other abandoned houses, but these places would not withstand a thorough search. In any case Gerry would have to be back at the Ocean's Club and was then seen by Dianne Webster when she entered the apartment for the second time that evening. During her first visit he had not been there.

Jane Tanner had now to be informed to give Gerry an alibi for the time of the abduction. The man she was supposed to describe had to resemble Gerry enough to correlate both sightings but had to be different enough to not be Gerry. Therefore especially the hair had to be changed. Egg-man got long hair at the back that would not have been noticed by the Smiths since they only saw the abductor with the child from the front.

During the search by police, staff, holidaymakers and residents the parents must have been desperate until the search finally died down at 4 am. They had now 2 hours during which everything was quiet.

Around 5 am. Gerry and Kate headed for the beach to allegedly do their first own search after their daughter's disappearance. There is nothing in the files about the locations they went. But there is a statement made by a George Brooks who was heading by car from Lagos to Praia da Luz and saw a couple carrying a child in his headlight who took a flight towards a side street when he approached. This tallies perfectly with the statement of Yvonne Martin saying that Kate told her on the morning of May 4th that Maddie had been abducted by a couple. At this time Kate could hardly have known about this sighting by George Brooks and Gerry had been talking about a paedophile abduction the evening before.

In my humble opinion the body was now in a place that should give shelter for a longer period of time.


Edited to add:

In her book released on 12th May Kate suddenly acknowledged that Madeleine might NOT have taken part in the sailing trip. She completely contradicts Jane Tanner's statement that Fiona and herself had seen Maddie at the sailing trip and she herself now sheds doubt about Maddie's participation in the sailing trip by claiming that Fiona had only seen Ella and not Madeleine. An amazing U-turn that threatens the nanny and Mark Warner apart from again rendering Jane's statement useless. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In a court of law you will need foolproof evidence for a conviction. The terms and conditions under which this evidence is allowed in a court of law vary greatly from country to country depending on its legislature. E.g. the required number of matching alleles in a DNA sample can vary or whether dog alerts are admitted as circumstantial evidence. Sometimes it even varies from case to case as we can just witness in the trial of little Caylee Anthony's mother.

Now I am neither Judge nor Jury. My opinion does not have to follow the rules of the courts of a certain country. An opinion can be solely based on "gut feeling" but imo should at least be based on common sense and the available facts. The more facts and research are the basis of an opinion the better. I am entitled to one and I am entitled to express it publicly as long as I make it clear that it is an opinion or a theory. Slander without basis is libel but an opinion developed on facts is just that, an opinion. And we should not forget that the opinion of the PJ is close to mine, only that the evidence was not sufficient for charges in said court of law.

Having cleared that point I would like to describe how I arrived at the main point of interest in my blog, my theory regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

My interest in the case initially was minute, an abduction in a foreign country did not capture my curiosity. Only when a German journalist addressed the parents at a press conference in Germany and expressed her suspicion I got baited. How could she accuse the grieving parents?

The first year I visited the Mirror Forum and tried to get hold of the most basic facts, a difficult task because everything was tainted either by good or bad spin. Only when the files were released was it possible to form an unbiased opinion.

After wading through the translated parts and waiting for new translations it soon became obvious that there were three distinct factors apart from the complete absence of evidence for an abduction that justified the suspicion of the PJ. The dogs on the one hand, signalling at 10 different locations and items all related to the family and not once at one of the other apartments or cars. The discrepancies and changes in their statements that were so plenty and bold that they could just not be put down to translation errors or normal discrepancies. An example: If there is an initial statement that access for the check of the children was via the front door with a key and later changed to the open patio doors, then this is no mistake. One of both is an untruth.

So I started off with the statements one by one, of Kate, Gerry and the 7 friends. Especially in relation to the timeline of the evening it soon became clear that the friends had not always been telling the truth and nothing but. For example a comparison with the interior of the apartments 5A and 5D in connection with the statement of Matthew Oldfield showed the possibility that he had never been inside 5A but had used the description of 5D in his rogatory interview. One by one the accounts of the friends fell apart.

The last person I looked at was the turning point in my research. Going through the statements of Dianne Webster I could not find any discrepancies. She even contradicted important pillars of the course of events stated by the others. I came to the conclusion that she was the one person telling the truth. With this I had the fixed point in the sea of confusion with which the case could be cracked. Her most important statement was the time she gave for her last sighting of Madeleine. Whereas the others all remained amazingly vague she was pretty sure it had been the Wednesday evening. From there it was child's play. Puzzle pieces slid into place where confusion had reigned before. All the changes in routine for the Thursday suddenly made sense in so far as to avoid Dianne noticing that one person was missing. The previously as unimportant regarded statement by Jane about a tantrum on the playground and a child having hysterics in the apartment led the way.

Having explained all this, I have still not addressed the third point that to me indicates a very probable involvement of the Tapas 8 in the cover-up of the death of a little girl. And the malice and ruthlessness frightens me. The way in which an innocent man whose only fault was his helpfulness had been drawn into the sorry saga with the help of the media, overenthusiastic profiling by CEOP and at least 3 of the friends is something that makes me shudder. My analysis of the computer logs of Robert Murat shows clearly that he was at home that evening on May 3rd when almost 2 weeks later three of the friends in a concerted effort claimed he had been at the Ocean's Club although nobody else had seen him there. And I don't give any credence to the nannie and the sisters who SEVEN months later, after having been visited by the crooks from Metodo 3, suddenly remembered having seen him there as well.

Donnerstag, 29. April 2010

Pressemitteilung aus Spanien


Nächsten Montag wird Las Mañanas de Cuatro seine 750. Sendung mit einer mehrteiligen Reportage über den Fall Madeleine McCann krönen. Ich werde versuchen, die wichtigsten Berichte und Meinungen hier zu veröffentlichen - u.a. ein 2-teiliges Interview mit den Eltern. Hier die Pressemitteilung von Las Mañanas de Cuatro:

"Da war sie, gegen mich gekuschelt. Dann nahm sie meinen Verlobungsring... Das hatte sie viele Male getan und sie steckte ihn... Sie steckte ihn als wir die Geschichte lasen... Sie ist wunderbar, was kann ich sagen. "

So erinnert sich Kate McCann an den letzten Moment mit ihrer Tochter. Nächsten Montag jährt sich zum dritten Mal das Verschwinden von Madeleine. Drei Jahre in denen ihre Eltern nicht aufgehört haben nach ihr zu suchen.....

.............

"Meiner Meinung nach ist es eindeutig dass ein Mann Madeleine mitnahm und wir müssen ihn finden um zu wissen wo meine Tochter ist. Dass die Polizei nicht nach diesem Mann sucht sondern mich und Gerry verdächtigen... Das tut mir weh. "
(Ein Mann war es also nun, kein Ehepaar? Ein Mann wie Hewlett?)

Ursprünglich war ich dieser Mainstream Pressemitteilung gegenüber skeptisch, aber gerade habe ich erfahren, dass mehrere Sendungen geplant sind und in der Studiodiskussion hauptsächlich Kriminalisten und Kritiker zu Wort kommen und vor allem die vielen Ungereimtheiten zur Sprache kommen sollen. Vielleicht wird dies einmal wieder eine McCann-kritische Veranstaltung werden. Ich werde darüber jedenfalls berichten.

Vielen Dank an Mercedes für ihren Hinweis auf die Sendung. :)

Donnerstag, 8. April 2010

Las Mañanas de Cuatro (Update)

Wie versprochen hier die mehrteiligen Videos des spanischen Programmes, das sich mit dem Fall des Verschwindens von Madeleine McCann über mehrere Tage hinweg befasst. Dank hierfür gilt Mercedes, die die Sendungen aufzeichnet und übersetzt.

Mitlerweile ist (noch unbestätigt) bekannt geworden, dass die Sendung nach 3 ausgestrahlten Folgen abgesetzt wurde. Gerüchte sprechen von Zensur bezüglich dem was die Studiogäste sagen durften. Ein Gast hatte wohl seinen Auftritt abgebrochen.



Bericht vom Montag:



Eine englische Übersetzung mit wichtigen Passagen in Deutsch wird folgen.



Bericht vom Dienstag:




Hier die englische Übersetzung von Mercedes mit deutschen Teilen von mir. Wie jede Übersetzung via 2 Sprachen kann es zu Ungenauigkeiten kommen.

Las Mañanas de Cuatro – 3 years without Madeleine McCann - Tuesday

Concha García Campoy:
The McCanns answer for Las Mañanas de Cuatro the most controversial issues, regarding the suspicion that has fallen on them.

Promo:

CGC: They were accused of having drugged their children

Kate McCann: It's a shame that such information has been published without any basis, it’s a lie, what more can I say?

CGC: They were accused of being responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine

Gerry McCann: The way the leaking of the accusations was handled, the lies that the media turned to give an impression that we were guilty, the disappearance of our daughter, was especially difficult.

CGC: They were accused of withholding evidence. The McCanns show their faces and respond to all these accusations in Las Mañanas de Cuatro.
Indeed, today we ask the most controversial questions, the most difficult ones. The answers here in “Las Mañanas de Cuatro”.
Jerome Boloix is here at this table and Alfonso Egea, good morning. Next we are going to show the interview that the McCanns have given us, with the most controversial questions, with the doubts that haven’t been disclosed yet, we will raise them first, are these:

Voiceover: Today, in our program, the McCanns answer all the doubts that have surrounded the case since Madeleine’s disappearance, and which point to them as suspects. Case managers in Portugal claim that there is no evidence that the child has been abducted, as argued by the McCanns.

Gonçalo Amaral (file image): The main hypothesis is that it was a domestic accident. She was a light sleeper, sedated or not by her parents, woke up, she tried to reach the window and fell off the couch killing herself.

CGC: I was very impressed that it was said at some point they had drugged the children...
Paulo Sargento: Their interpretation is contrary to the death although there is evidence, cadaver odour, the smell of human blood and there is a set of forensic evidence that indicates, unfortunately, that the child is dead.

Voiceover: Gonçalo Amaral claims that there are witnesses who saw Gerry McCann carrying a child's body the night of Madeleine’s disappearance.

GA (image file): An Irish family met with a man that was carrying a child’s body in his arms. When they saw Gerry coming off the plane also with his child, said they were sure, to eighty percent, it was the same man they had seen just after Madeleine’s disappearance.
Voiceover: There are also other questions, alleged pressure from the British Embassy to defend the abduction thesis, contradictions in the McCanns and their friends statements about what happened that night and even basic elements in any research that that even weren’t done.

GA (image file): Here there are many things left to do, if the McCann couple have so much desire to reopen the investigation, they can start with the reconstruction, they can do it both alone, it would be very very interesting.

CGC: Do you want the reopening of the investigation of your daughter’s case, of Madeleine’s case?

Voiceover: According to some members of the investigation, the McCanns are not in prison because of their political contacts

Voiceover (Paulo Sargento): I’m sure that if it were a Portuguese couple there would have been a different treatment and forensic evidence would have been formed as evidence and probably, probably, the couple would be in prison.

CGC: There was some evidence gathered in the apartment, also in the car you had rented, do you know something about the results of these tests?

Voiceover: Now for the first time the McCanns show their faces and face all these accusations

CGC: Come at once to hear the McCann’s answers to these questions, but in fact the Portuguese investigation, Gonçalo Amaral speak about forensic evidence, about evidence that they are hiding something, is it so clear?

Jerome Boloix: Let's see, there is evidence, because the dogs that went over there, which belong to the English police and not to the Portuguese police, detected without any doubt corpse odour and also the scent of human blood in certain places, behind the sofa, in the McCann’s closet and in the car they rented 25 days later. The samples that were collected are analyzed in the Birmingham’s laboratory and they replied that after analyzing the DNA from the blood that was collected there, that has to have 19 alleles, let’s say 19 meters, 15 of them, 15, have a complete correspondence with Madeleine, without any doubt.

Alfonso Egea: This is irrefutable, it’s objective science, and we're tired of saying it, now I want to invite people to think with common sense, Madeleine McCann’s mother washed a cuddly toy that was a crucial evidence, she never explained why. Madeleine McCann's mother and father were called for a reconstruction, that is the most normal thing in the world, to see what had happened that night, nothing more, but they never wanted to do it. Portuguese police goes a step further and say, okay, we cannot prove their guilt but let's use the figure of arguido, we are going to constitute them official suspects. What did Kate and Gerry McCann do immediately after leaving the police station? Leave the country, go back to England. All this, I want people to understand it, it’s not about saying that they are bad guys, that they are guilty, no, but everything that this couple does is discordant with what any other parent in a similar situation would do, nothing more than that.

CGC: Now let's see the concrete answers but José really as forensics, forensic evidence as one part of the Portuguese police say, not all, but an important part of those who led the research, do they exist?

José Cabrera: Objective and conclusive forensic evidence, really as such at 100 percent don’t exist, because otherwise the judicial process would have advanced. What happens is that in the absence of a body ... DNA is an 80 percent, they say dogs can do mistakes about body odour...

Cristina Fernández: We also don’t have Marta del Castillo’s body and we have two people in prison, then in the absence of bodies are not always... but if the prosecutor, I’m reading, you have all the documentation in the world but I understand, as someone with no expertise, that if there is evidence, DNA, scent of corpse, evidence against the parents, witnesses contradictions, these Messrs. should have been charged.

CGC: Let's leave these questions for now because they will receive responses from the McCann’s and we will analyze them here.

Replay Promo...

CGC: I'm still here at the table with Jerónimo Boloix, Cristina Fernández, Alfonso Egea, José Cabrera. Indeed, we have asked some of the most controversial questions to the McCanns, this is their most sincere interview.

Sign in video interview

CGC: Ich würde gerne zwei oder drei Fragen stellen bezüglich der Zweifel, die wärend der polizeilichen Untersuchung aufkamen, ich verstehe dass das ein wenig schmerzhaft ist, es wird gesagt, dass Sie nicht an der Rekonstruktion der Fakten mitgewirkt haben, genauso wenig wie Ihre Freunde.

Gerry McCann: Gerade einige unserer Freunde, wenn wir uns anschauen wie sie behandelt wurden, sie waren der Meinung dass diese Rekonstruktion nicht dazu beitragen würde, Madeleine zu finden. Es wäre an die Medien gelangt und unsere Freunde wollten keinen Medien Zirkus.

Kate McCann: Keiner schlug die Möglichkeit vor eine Rekonstruktion mit Hilfe von Schauspielern zu machen. In England gibt es ein Programm das heisst Crimewatch, das Schauspieler nutzt um Verbrechen zu rekonstruieren weil es schädlich ist, Menschen, die so eine traumatische Erfahrung durchlebt haben, zu bitten dies noch einmal zu erleben.

CGC: Einige Beweise wurden im Apartment gefunden, auch im Mietwagen, kennen Sie die Testergebnisse?

GM: Das Wesentliche ist, dass sie nichts beweisen, es gibt DNA Spuren, von denen die forensischen Experten sagen, sie kämen von fünf verschiedenen Leuten. Der forensische Bericht war vollkommen klar, er sagte aus, dass keine dieser Proben ein Beweis für irgendetwas waren, es wurde gesagt, dass Blut vorhanden war, das aber nicht identifiziert wurde. (Gerry kratzt sich am Kopf)

CGC:Warum glauben Sie, dass der frühere Untersuchungsleiter, Goncalo Amaral, beweisen will dass sie schuldig sind?

GM: Um ehrlich zu sein möchte ich darüber nicht sprechen weil man über seine Motive spekulieren kann, aber wichtig ist, dass es keine Beweise gibt, dass Madeleine tot ist und dass wir involviert sind. Was Amaral sagte und seine Karriere sprechen für sich.

End video

CGC: These are some of the most remarkable questions, what do you think? Perhaps the part of the reconstruction... Why don’t they want to do the reconstruction? It particularly struck me as one of the weakest parts; I think that at some point you have to be there, right? Even though there is a media circus that nobody has started.

JB: No, no. Yes, the parents started it, they stared it. This is a media and global disappearance because the parents, from the outset when the girl disappeared, allegedly, the first call they made was to Sky News not to the police. From there on we all know what...

CGC: They say that is not true.

JB: It's true because there is a call log. But let's analyze the issue of the reconstruction. The issue of reconstruction when there are certain witnesses who did not coincide on the narrative of events, it is absolutely necessary to do it because the police and the judges will know on the spot what each one has done and they will also relate to them. It is absolutely impossible to do this with actors, these Messrs don’t have clear that this is a police and judicial investigation, not a media issue, they say there's a TV show, well, they can do all the television they want.
The police needs to do this to find evidence that some of the witnesses are lying and on the other hand, just to finish, it is striking that they have refused and their friends have refused, but they did participate in a reconstruction made for a TV documentary, they did participate in that one.

CGC: Cannot a court order be made compelling their friends and them to participate in that reconstruction in situ?

JC: If the reconstruction is ordered by a judge it’s mandatory. What happens here is that they are English in another country that is not their country and in this case the judge felt the vest before forcing them.

CF: I want to ask something else, like you see flaws in the part of the reconstruction, don’t you also see flaws in the police operation? That is, you are saying that at first they refused to do the reconstruction, and as you say at that time would have been better, weren’t there also failures when the police arrive at the apartment...?

AE: Hardly any police investigation, and that Jerónimo can attest, have a good start. I mean, you have to open the entire range of possibilities and among all the possibilities you have...

CF: Yes, but did they do it right or was it wrong done?

AE and JB: They did everything that had to be done...

CF: So OK to the Portuguese police

JB: We also have to add a rider. After 24 hours of disappearance of the girl, the English police arrive to Portugal, since then absolutely, absolutely until they (the McCanns) leave and literally flee from Portugal...

CGC: Just a moment Jerónimo, because they also told us, they told us many things because it was a lengthy interview, that it took them (the police) 50 minutes to arrive.

JB: It is possible, I have this data, it may have taken them 50 minutes to arrive. In those 50 minutes I guess that in absence of the police, they and their friends began to look for the girl, but nobody went looking for the girl, they all sat in the living room and on bed where the girl was allegedly sleeping waiting for the police to arrive. Let's put ourselves in a situation, if someone arrives to the apartment and find’s their daughter missing, they start looking for her like a madman, shouting so everyone comes to look. But on the other hand, I would like to continue underpinning that, after 24 hours the British police arrive and someone from the first instance until the last moment the Portuguese police and British police acted/worked jointly in the investigation of this case.

AE: Let's see, talking about the police taking 50 minutes to arrive, is an issue that in this particular case is not as relevant as it may seem, the actions are carried out as in any other case. To me there is something else that catches my attention watching the interview, I see a total change of registration as to gestures, tones and words they use, did you sense a change at the moment you said, be careful, I’m going on with hard questions?

CGC: Yes, and I warned them, normally in the interviews we don’t warn when we are going to launch the gun question, but in this case, obviously, I feared that they got up from the chair because there are precedents, that’s why I warned them, I’m going to ask these questions, I warn you, I warned them only for healing and health and this was they manner to get them responding it all. I would like us to see more of that interview because they insist very insistently on the theory of abduction, they "deny the greatest" (Item: Game of the Mus) about the Portuguese police thesis.

Sign in video interview

CGC: Möchten Sie die Untersuchung im Fall Ihrer Tochter Madeleine wieder eröffnen?

KM: Da ist ein verschwundenes Kind. Dieser Fall ist nicht geschlossen, es ist als ob man sagen würde, Pech, wir haben sie nicht gefunden, es ist notwendig alle Informationen erneut zu überprüfen.

GM: Ich denke nur dass es nicht akzeptabel ist, dass die Eltern eines Mädchens die Untersuchung forcieren müssen.

CGC: Ich war zu einem Zeitpunkt sehr betroffen als gesagt wurde, dass Sie die Kinder betäubt hätten, ich denke dass ist die schwerwiegendste Anschuldigung gegen Sie.

KM: Nun, wieder mal eine komplette Lüge, err eine Schande dass es veröffentlicht wurde. Sie müssen wissen, dass hierfür keine Grundlage besteht, eine einzige Lüge, was kann ich noch sagen?

GM: Es wurden Dinge gesagt, die veröffentlicht wurden und ganz eindeutig wurden einige Dinge erfunden, andere Menschen, denen ähnliche Tragödien passierten und sich den Medien gegenüber konfrontiert sehen, haben ähnliches erlebt. Früher hatte Journalismus noch Glaubwürdigkeit, aber jetzt suchen sie den schnellen Profit, egal wie sehr sie Menschen schaden.

CGC: Dies ist eine Frage an beide aber besonders für Kate, die portugiesischen Polizeiverhöre, waren sie besonders hart?

KM: Die Verhöre waren solche Situationen von denen ich nie glaubte jemals sowas ausgesetzt zu sein. Ein Mann hat Madeleine genommen und wir müssen ihn finden um Madeleine zu finden und die Tatsache, dass die Polizei nicht nach diesem Mann sucht, sondern mich und Gerry verdächtigt, nun das tut mir weh (Video Madeleine images)

GM: Diese Person zu identifizieren ist der erste Schritt, wer auch immer Madeleine mitnahm ist immer nocht dort draussen, und andere Kinder sind in Gefahr. Wie können wir an ihrem "Kidnapping" beteiligt sein? Wir hatten keine Fahrzeuge oder irgendetwas. Die undichten Stellen zur Presse und die Lügen die verbreitet wurden um ein Image zu erzeugen, dass wir schuldig waren war besonders schwer, aber nicht so schwer wie die Nacht ihres Verschwindens/wie die Nacht in der wir sie fanden

(Das spanische voice-over sagt eindeutig das erstere, der Originaltext von Gerry sagt das zweite, wenn beides übereinstimmen soll fehlt hier eindeutig das "we found her....MISSING". Nach Rücksprache mit Mercedes glaube ich eher dass hier editiert wurde. Die Intonation deutet nicht an, dass noch ein weiteres Wort nämlich das MISSING folgen wird. Die Nacht in der sie Madeleine fanden würde natürlich wesentlich besser passen, aber würde sich Gerry so einen Lapsus erlauben? Hört es euch selbst an, was meint er?)

End video

CGC: Well, these are testimonies that cause a different reaction in each other. What do you think?

AE: Very good everything they’ve said. In first place, reassure the public, the alleged kidnapper of Madeleine McCann has had three years of inactivity, he has not kidnapped anyone else despite Gerry McCann’s claims that there is a man without putting any evidence on the table.
There is one fact I think that sometimes has been magnified by the word that is used, drugged, is not the same to drug than to give medication to a child, Kate McCann forgets she stated to Portuguese police that that night... was your daughter being treated? “Yes, I gave her some painkillers, she has a very light sleep is a very hyper child” and all who have children and grandchildren know that there are certain medicines for children, it’s all right, you take them in a bag and give them to the kid. That's what the police really wanted to say, beware that this may have been the cause off... She converts it in a “they accuse me of drugging my daughter; I am not a black widow”. Nobody thinks on that scenario, which is also evident.

CGC: José, I’m very interested in your opinion.

JC: It's exactly as Alfonso is saying, it’s incredible, we can mourn with them, what may what you want, we may be sceptical, we may not, but the are both doctors, they said in their statements, I read them, I was in Lisbon 10 days after all happened because I was called to go to the Portuguese TV, in fact, Portuguese police cowered, that to say, the entire government Portuguese cowered because there are 400,000 English living in Portugal, that is very important, then of course, what happens here? Must we believe them or not? It’s not about believing them or not, it’s about what they say isn’t consistent with what the police investigated. It’s not consistent.

JB: It should also be noted that the start of the investigation is about an abduction, immediately after the alarm about the disappearance of Madeleine was raised police began to investigate and arrested Robert Murat, more than 100 English settlers paedophiles in the Algarve are investigated and for three months they only and exclusively follow the path of kidnapping. Until three months later, with the help of British police and also an absolutely essential element here is Mark Harrison, the head of the National Centre for Missing and Child Abuse from United Kingdom who went there, made with Portuguese police a review of the investigation and the English police issued a report that said “you have to change the line of research, that Madeleine may be dead and the parents must be investigated summing up the issue he says: “This measure seems to be a proportionate and appropriate response to the investigation”.

CGC: Well a lot of attention because tomorrow we have more data. It really has been a very thorough interview and there are very important issues that will continue. Tomorrow we will continue discussing. Thanks’ Jerome, Cristina, José, Alfonso.



Bericht vom Mittwoch