VIDEO - Documentary BANNED by the McCanns (Overturned) Truth of the Lie - Gonçalo Amaral

LJC wrote:Gerry said: When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side, the shutters almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE's bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cots. He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scenario that she found when she entered the apartment.

Then he closed the shutters, made his way to the outside and tried to open them, which he managed to do, much to his surprise given that he thought that that was only possible from the inside. They continued with searches outside, around the various apartment blocks, the deponent having asked MATHEW to go to the secondary reception in order to communicate the fact to the local police, since he had no doubt that his daughter had been abducted. He refutes, peremptorily, the possibility that MADELEINE could have left the apartment by her own means.

Nah, he closed them from inside, I think after Kate claimed she had bunged her head through the window and looked out and called for Madeleine, but the rest is rubbish about being able to go outside and open them. Nah, he closed the shutters and when the PJ arrived the shutters were indeed closed and they had probably never been opened for when he said he closed the shutters I believe he is telling porkys.

Just one of many lies spouted from Gerry's pie hole. The claim that he shut the shutters and then went outside to try and open them is just an excuse if in fact he had been seen trying to open the shutters from the outside. They also probably had to make sure that the shutters were unlocked from the inside so that they would be able to move at all. I believe that the shutters were in a partially open position when the police arrived, as this is how they are depicted in the photos. Why would Gerry be messing with a crime scene anyway?

Regarding the patio door, I agree that an "abductor" would have either left the patio door wide open as a means of exit to be used whilst carrying a child, or have shut and locked the door in order to buy him some time if someone tried to enter whilst he was attempting to carry out his crime. Just shutting the door and not locking it would be the least likely thing for an abductor to do.

If gerry tried to move the shutters up and down from the outside - why werent his fingerprints all over?????

Morning mariang,

when the PJ examined the statements and McCann Comments why didn't they DEMAND a reconstruction before the McCanns and OC staff left Portugal?

In what other major crime would you NOT get a recon? The parents and their mates should have had no option to refuse. SY should have said from the get go, 'right we NEED a reconstruction and we'll go from there'! As with any other crime of this nature! Why was this not done? It could be done now. No excuse of poor memories etc, just use their own statements from the time.
This would prove without doubt, that the whole story from start to finish is a lie!

wjk wrote:In what other major crime would you NOT get a recon? The parents and their mates should have had no option to refuse. SY should have said from the get go, 'right we NEED a reconstruction and we'll go from there'! As with any other crime of this nature! Why was this not done? It could be done now. No excuse of poor memories etc, just use their own statements from the time.
This would prove without doubt, that the whole story from start to finish is a lie!

I blame Stuart Prior to a large extent, Rachel Mapilly e-mailed him asking if they should go.His reply that nothing would be acheived is disgraceful for a senior officer is disgraceful when his remit was to help the Portugese Police. I did write to him about this......no reply.

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:In what other major crime would you NOT get a recon? The parents and their mates should have had no option to refuse. SY should have said from the get go, 'right we NEED a reconstruction and we'll go from there'! As with any other crime of this nature! Why was this not done? It could be done now. No excuse of poor memories etc, just use their own statements from the time.
This would prove without doubt, that the whole story from start to finish is a lie!

I blame Stuart Prior to a large extent, Rachel Mapilly e-mailed him asking if they should go.His reply that nothing would be acheived is disgraceful for a senior officer is disgraceful when his remit was to help the Portugese Police. I did write to him about this......no reply.

Morning Panda, yes, I agree. I remember you writing to 'Stu'.

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:In what other major crime would you NOT get a recon? The parents and their mates should have had no option to refuse. SY should have said from the get go, 'right we NEED a reconstruction and we'll go from there'! As with any other crime of this nature! Why was this not done? It could be done now. No excuse of poor memories etc, just use their own statements from the time.
This would prove without doubt, that the whole story from start to finish is a lie!

I blame Stuart Prior to a large extent, Rachel Mapilly e-mailed him asking if they should go.His reply that nothing would be acheived is disgraceful for a senior officer is disgraceful when his remit was to help the Portugese Police. I did write to him about this......no reply.

Morning Panda, yes, I agree. I remember you writing to 'Stu'.

Morning wjk,

Maybe had a reconstruction been done and all the discrepancies out oin the open, some would have changed their statements, charges made and we wouldn't still be writing about this case 5 years down the line and poor Madeleine lost in all this as Blacksmith says would at least have received justice.

mariang wrote:If gerry tried to move the shutters up and down from the outside - why werent his fingerprints all over?????

Exactly. And if we can deduce that, why can`t one of the, supposed, best criminal investigation departments work it out?

"for even though they try to con us by saying the patio doors were left unlocked and THAT IS HOW HE/SHE GAINED ACCESS, they omit to think closely enough about what position an eager abductor would, in reality, do"

Now we KNOW, from their statements, given freely, that according to them, the PATIO DOOR entrance was in full line of sight from their table.
So the question is WHY would an 'abductor' enter THAT way when he/she would have been SEEN from the table they were sitting at looking at the patio door?
Second question is, as the first 'story' was that the nasty man, 'smashed the shutters and came in through the window' (KM to Jon Corner phone call) no self respecting 'intruder' would ever enter a property that way because he/she would not have a clue about what was going to be facing them from INSIDE the room he/she was entering. He/she would not know, for instance, that maybe there was an adult/babysitter dozing in the apartment who would have been alerted to the sound of shutters being 'smashed' before entry was gained.
Then it would be the 'intruder' that would be at most risk because the person inside could easily, at hearing the shutters being 'smashed', arm themself to protect themself from INSIDE the apartment before the 'intruder got in.

Back to the drawing board for the Mcs i think.

With all of the to-ing and fro-ing being done according to the T7 - when would any would-be abductor know who was in or out at any given time???? Also wasnt Jane Tanner in the apartment next door when all of this supposedly happened? Would she not have heard any 'jemmied' shutters???
The only so called evidence comes from a group of people who 'say' that there was an abductor!!!
I cannot believe that all of this money for a review was needed when its quite clear that the initial and following statements clearly raises doubts in all of their story - and I'm not a policeman with any experience!! There has to be other influences within this drama at a top level. What I cannot work out though is why this saga wasnt quietly hushed up and forgotten about. I know people think its about the money, as in the fund....but if this was a hushed up problem at a top level why havent they told the Mccanns to shut up?
All of it is a complete mystery to me!!! After all of this time _ I am still non the wiser!

wjk wrote:

Fern wrote:

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:

Perhaps they closed the Patio doors behind them and opened the front door to carry Madeleine, isn't that where Jane Tanner said she saw the Guy carrying a child , across the road from the front door entrance.

Am I right in thinking, if you close the patio doors, they are automatically locked from the outside? In which case, how could Kate have come in from those doors to do her 10pm check?

IIRC these patio doors could only be locked from the inside.

Hi Fern, right, so Kate would still be able to get in to do her 10pm check even if the 'abductor' slid the door shut behind them?

I don't see why not Wjk as unless it was locked from the inside (and the apt exited via the front door) anyone entering 5A would have simply needed to just slide the door across.

I don't have a patio door so I'm going on memory alone and IIRC in order to lock it, you would simply flick the lever up therefore no key required to lock the sliding door.

(With regards to evidence of any abductor in 5A, the patio door handle would be the obvious place for someone entering the apartment to grab hold of however when you then consider that 5A was a holiday apartment with goodness knows how many occupants over time, along with cleaners/MW staff, then how on earth could they possibly identify the fingerprints of a possible abductor ? To extend on this, lets suppose the 'abductor' had access to 5A ie OC worker and therefore had an explanation for any DNA collected internally from 5A ?......The same would also apply to any footprints..)

Overall such a difficult task for the PJ to undertake I would have thought.

mariang wrote:If gerry tried to move the shutters up and down from the outside - why werent his fingerprints all over?????

Neither Diane Webster or Fiona Paynes prints were lifted either despite them both apparantly attempting to lift it (DW managed to jam the shutter IIRC therefore perhaps this is what is shown in the PJ pic ie approx 4" open)

Panda - I blame Stuart Prior to a large extent, Rachel Mapilly e-mailed him asking if they should go.His reply that nothing would be acheived is disgraceful for a senior officer is disgraceful when his remit was to help the Portugese Police. I did write to him about this......no reply.


Hopefully SY will be looking into Stu's handling of this case and asking the same questions as
we are!

cherry1 wrote:Panda - I blame Stuart Prior to a large extent, Rachel Mapilly e-mailed him asking if they should go.His reply that nothing would be acheived is disgraceful for a senior officer is disgraceful when his remit was to help the Portugese Police. I did write to him about this......no reply.


Hopefully SY will be looking into Stu's handling of this case and asking the same questions as
we are!

Hi cherry1, Stuart Prior was a senior Officer, Detective Inspector or something like that and he was the chief liaison officer . There was also copy of an
e-mail he received from Gerry who called him "Stu" very familiar wouldn't you say? Especially when Prior was the one who said 15 of 19 markers would have been enough to bring a charge in the U,K.

In the letter I also asked "Stu" why Brian Kennedy was allowed to sit in on a meeting between Metodo 3 and the PJ, why Leicester Police Station had a Notice in the Front Reception area at asking anyone with information to contact the McCanns with a notice on the wall giving telephone numbers.

Maybe that's why I didn't gey a reply eh?

Hi Panda,

I would say way too familiar to address a senior officer like that, I know often police play the game of friendly cop, unfriendly cop, but as a senior officer I wouldnt say that was very appropriate being addressed in that manner by people who were the last to see Madeleine and Madeleine still missing!

I guess he would have found the questions you asked, rather difficult to answer! - yes, hence no reply!.

cherry1 wrote:Hi Panda,

I would say way too familiar to address a senior officer like that, I know often police play the game of friendly cop, unfriendly cop, but as a senior officer I wouldnt say that was very appropriate being addressed in that manner by people who were the last to see Madeleine and Madeleine still missing!

I guess he would have found the questions you asked, rather difficult to answer! - yes, hence no reply!.

Well maybe while SY are sifting through the files they will come across it, that's if it wasn't binned

mariang wrote:With all of the to-ing and fro-ing being done according to the T7 - when would any would-be abductor know who was in or out at any given time???? Also wasnt Jane Tanner in the apartment next door when all of this supposedly happened? Would she not have heard any 'jemmied' shutters???
The only so called evidence comes from a group of people who 'say' that there was an abductor!!!
I cannot believe that all of this money for a review was needed when its quite clear that the initial and following statements clearly raises doubts in all of their story - and I'm not a policeman with any experience!! There has to be other influences within this drama at a top level. What I cannot work out though is why this saga wasnt quietly hushed up and forgotten about. I know people think its about the money, as in the fund....but if this was a hushed up problem at a top level why havent they told the Mccanns to shut up?
All of it is a complete mystery to me!!! After all of this time _ I am still non the wiser!

You've raised many good points Mariang.

So how would an abductor know for sure that there wasn't an adult still inside 5A ? In my opinion, this rules out opportunism for starters. There is absolutely no way could I believe that someone would be walking past 5A, hear a child crying for example, enter 5A and remove her. Why do this ????
If there was an abductor then in my opinion he/she would have at least have known the whereabouts of Gerry and Kate prior to entering 5A therefore in order for him/her to have known who Madeleines parents were, he/she would have observed the McCanns as a family beforehand.

With regards to the fund again a good point you've raised.

In my opinion, if there was ANY Government involvement that had the potential to cause them ANY sort of 'bother' then the McCanns would have been kept quiet years ago and most certainly not given support regardless of who is the current 'Puppet' (Prime Minister).

As it is, the McCanns just will not allow Madeleine to be forgotten and this does raise a few more questions.

Why would anyone constantly draw attention to a child, that according to some they were involved in her death, if they could in any way by implicated which would result in a very long prison sentance in a foreign country ???

The fund theory holds no credibilty in the slightest any more for me when you consider that not only would they lose Sean and Amilee but also spend goodness how many years 'inside'.

And finally Mariang I would tend to agree with regards to any certain conclusion. After over 5 years of following this case, when you actually consider the actual known 'facts' and by this I mean proven without doubt, we are left with very little indeed.

mariang - There has to be other influences within this drama at a top level. What I cannot work out though is why this saga wasnt quietly hushed up and forgotten about. I know people think its about the money, as in the fund....but if this was a hushed up problem at a top level why havent they told the Mccanns to shut up?


The Mccanns seemed confident in being protected by the government, it may be they have information
on prominent figures which could lead to the downfall of those figures if revealed, in return for being allowed to make as much money as possible and being protected - the Mccanns remain silent about what they know. There has clearly been government interference in the case and I would think also protection from freemasonry may play a hand.

cherry1 wrote:Hi Panda,

I would say way too familiar to address a senior officer like that, I know often police play the game of friendly cop, unfriendly cop, but as a senior officer I wouldnt say that was very appropriate being addressed in that manner by people who were the last to see Madeleine and Madeleine still missing!

I guess he would have found the questions you asked, rather difficult to answer! - yes, hence no reply!.

Maybe they knew each other well before all this, golf club maybe ? I believe golf courses are an ideal situation for private chats.

You could well be right about that marathon

There were fingerprints on the shutter, they were just all too smudged to collect evidence. My guess is that Gerry's prints were smudged intentionally if he did in fact try to open the shutter. The shutter also may not provide a smooth surface from which to collect prints.

I believe that the McCanns are getting rich off of Madeleine's disappearance and I would not be at all surprised if they did not owe any money on their mortgage. The fund has served them very well. Not only has a very small percentage of the fund been spent on searching for Madeleine, but the lion's share has been spent on suing people who question their version of events. There is no proof that any of their proceeds from the lawsuits have been deposited into the fund, nor is there any proof that any of the proceeds of the book have been deposited into the fund. It would not surprise me at all if 100% of these monies went directly to the McCanns overseas bank accounts.

The McCanns are laughing their way all the way to the bank, all because they refused to properly look after their children whilst on holiday, preferring instead to wine and dine with their friends and abandon their three young children. In the United States, this would be called profiting from a crime and would not be allowed. How the McCanns continue to live the high life off of an incident that their criminal act was directly responsible for making possible is beside me.

cherry1 wrote:mariang - There has to be other influences within this drama at a top level. What I cannot work out though is why this saga wasnt quietly hushed up and forgotten about. I know people think its about the money, as in the fund....but if this was a hushed up problem at a top level why havent they told the Mccanns to shut up?

The Mccanns seemed confident in being protected by the government, it may be they have information
on prominent figures which could lead to the downfall of those figures if revealed, in return for being allowed to make as much money as possible and being protected - the Mccanns remain silent about what they know. There has clearly been government interference in the case and I would think also protection from freemasonry may play a hand.

It is possible that the reason for keeping Madeleine in the public eye are the grandparents and the aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. I can just imagine, in my own family, if one of my children had disappeared and I had sworn publicly that this was an abduction and the child could still be alive, that I would never get a minutes peace from my own parents, from my own sisters and from my mother in law. Even if I had hoped I could gradually fade away behind the scenes, having 'got away with it', my parents certainly would not allow this and neither would my mother in law. Goodness sake, they would go on and on at me to do more to find my child, their much loved grandchild and I would be between a rock and a hard place, that's for sure.

In fact, if they had accepted the evidence gathered so far and publicly declared she must in fact be dead, and ultimately hoped to be able to gradually step back, declaring the police did everything within their powers but to no avail blah, blah, this would still not satisfy the grandparents. Why? Well, for a start off, it would not be what the devoted grandparents would want to hear, no way. Even if you wish to say she's gone for good, that's it, but the police are working hard to find out whodunnit, the grandparents would not be satisfied with this. Well, not in my family they wouldn't.

I know I am imagining now how it would be within my own family but I know my own so well, I know how they would react, my mother and father would refuse to believe that nothing could be done and so would my mother in law and, if I didn't keep the story alive, they would do it for me.

Some people would say their actions prove their innocence because it is fading away that makes you look more guilty but I believe they had to placate and appease the rest of the family as well, so I don't go with all this protection lark from people in high places, I am inclined to think it is much simpler that that, it is about having the nerve to look your parents in the eye and swear their grandchild is still out there waiting to be found because you know darn well that no other explanation would do for them. And you may as well declare your child is still alive because by declaring she's dead that would really set the fireworks off within the family, who would be screaming for the abductor to be found, hung, drawn and quartered. I believe the rest of the family are like us really, that they want justice for Madeleine and, for that reason, they will never let this story die, even if Madeleine sadly has.

LJC wrote:

cherry1 wrote:mariang - There has to be other influences within this drama at a top level. What I cannot work out though is why this saga wasnt quietly hushed up and forgotten about. I know people think its about the money, as in the fund....but if this was a hushed up problem at a top level why havent they told the Mccanns to shut up?

The Mccanns seemed confident in being protected by the government, it may be they have information
on prominent figures which could lead to the downfall of those figures if revealed, in return for being allowed to make as much money as possible and being protected - the Mccanns remain silent about what they know. There has clearly been government interference in the case and I would think also protection from freemasonry may play a hand.

It is possible that the reason for keeping Madeleine in the public eye are the grandparents and the aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. I can just imagine, in my own family, if one of my children had disappeared and I had sworn publicly that this was an abduction and the child could still be alive, that I would never get a minutes peace from my own parents, from my own sisters and from my mother in law. Even if I had hoped I could gradually fade away behind the scenes, having 'got away with it', my parents certainly would not allow this and neither would my mother in law. Goodness sake, they would go on and on at me to do more to find my child, their much loved grandchild and I would be between a rock and a hard place, that's for sure.

In fact, if they had accepted the evidence gathered so far and publicly declared she must in fact be dead, and ultimately hoped to be able to gradually step back, declaring the police did everything within their powers but to no avail blah, blah, this would still not satisfy the grandparents. Why? Well, for a start off, it would not be what the devoted grandparents would want to hear, no way. Even if you wish to say she's gone for good, that's it, but the police are working hard to find out whodunnit, the grandparents would not be satisfied with this. Well, not in my family they wouldn't.

I know I am imagining now how it would be within my own family but I know my own so well, I know how they would react, my mother and father would refuse to believe that nothing could be done and so would my mother in law and, if I didn't keep the story alive, they would do it for me.

Some people would say their actions prove their innocence because it is fading away that makes you look more guilty but I believe they had to placate and appease the rest of the family as well, so I don't go with all this protection lark from people in high places, I am inclined to think it is much simpler that that, it is about having the nerve to look your parents in the eye and swear their grandchild is still out there waiting to be found because you know darn well that no other explanation would do for them. And you may as well declare your child is still alive because by declaring she's dead that would really set the fireworks off within the family, who would be screaming for the abductor to be found, hung, drawn and quartered. I believe the rest of the family are like us really, that they want justice for Madeleine and, for that reason, they will never let this story die, even if Madeleine sadly has.

LJC a very good post, very sensible reasoning.

If we read between the lines with all McCann and Healy have and have not done over the years, the last significant thing they have done is flee Portugal. They, in my opinion, have done nothing to progress the search for Madeleine. They have made noises, made moves, and have gone to great lengths to appear to be doing something. They look busy, they act busy, but they are not busy. Not busy going in the right direction at any rate.

The only single thing that will move this case forward is for it to be re-opened. I might have missed it, but I have not seen any big public plea for this to happen. I am sure there are still some footballers, singers and celebrities alike that might be willing to wear a t-shirt demanding the re-opening of the investigation. I am sure Gerry could come up with another suitably eye catching slogan, it is not my forte.

No, they appear to be doing lots, it is, as you quite rightly point out, going to be expected by their families.

But none of what they are doing will find Madeleine. They ran away from Portugal and Madeleine all those years ago and they are still running away from Madeleine. All they need to do is go back. I am certain things would progress rapidly as soon as they enter the offices of the PJ.

LJC wrote:

cherry1 wrote:mariang - There has to be other influences within this drama at a top level. What I cannot work out though is why this saga wasnt quietly hushed up and forgotten about. I know people think its about the money, as in the fund....but if this was a hushed up problem at a top level why havent they told the Mccanns to shut up?

The Mccanns seemed confident in being protected by the government, it may be they have information
on prominent figures which could lead to the downfall of those figures if revealed, in return for being allowed to make as much money as possible and being protected - the Mccanns remain silent about what they know. There has clearly been government interference in the case and I would think also protection from freemasonry may play a hand.

It is possible that the reason for keeping Madeleine in the public eye are the grandparents and the aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. I can just imagine, in my own family, if one of my children had disappeared and I had sworn publicly that this was an abduction and the child could still be alive, that I would never get a minutes peace from my own parents, from my own sisters and from my mother in law. Even if I had hoped I could gradually fade away behind the scenes, having 'got away with it', my parents certainly would not allow this and neither would my mother in law. Goodness sake, they would go on and on at me to do more to find my child, their much loved grandchild and I would be between a rock and a hard place, that's for sure.

In fact, if they had accepted the evidence gathered so far and publicly declared she must in fact be dead, and ultimately hoped to be able to gradually step back, declaring the police did everything within their powers but to no avail blah, blah, this would still not satisfy the grandparents. Why? Well, for a start off, it would not be what the devoted grandparents would want to hear, no way. Even if you wish to say she's gone for good, that's it, but the police are working hard to find out whodunnit, the grandparents would not be satisfied with this. Well, not in my family they wouldn't.

I know I am imagining now how it would be within my own family but I know my own so well, I know how they would react, my mother and father would refuse to believe that nothing could be done and so would my mother in law and, if I didn't keep the story alive, they would do it for me.

Some people would say their actions prove their innocence because it is fading away that makes you look more guilty but I believe they had to placate and appease the rest of the family as well, so I don't go with all this protection lark from people in high places, I am inclined to think it is much simpler that that, it is about having the nerve to look your parents in the eye and swear their grandchild is still out there waiting to be found because you know darn well that no other explanation would do for them. And you may as well declare your child is still alive because by declaring she's dead that would really set the fireworks off within the family, who would be screaming for the abductor to be found, hung, drawn and quartered. I believe the rest of the family are like us really, that they want justice for Madeleine and, for that reason, they will never let this story die, even if Madeleine sadly has.

If I behaved in the way the McCanns behaved and my child disappeared, the first thing out of my parents mouths would have been...

Why did you leave our grandchild, unsupervised when you went out?

Then they would have followed on with....

Why did you not look for our grandchild?

Why did you tell lies?

They would have then read me the riot act and wherever I was, they and the rest of my family would come out to me and if I didn't want to search for my child, they would make me search and they would help me search.

This is all hypothetical, because I would never ever have left my children unsupervised when I went out and if one of my children disappeared by any other means I would have searched and searched and searched for them.

The McCanns didn't search for Madeleine and neither did anyone from their family search for Madeleine. Gerry's brother and sisters stayed over here and spoke about starting up a fighting fund less than 48hrs after Madeleine had gone missing. They could have caught a flight the morning after they heard the news and joined the police the locals and the holidaymakers, who were searching for Madeleine. At that time there was still a chance Madeleine would be found, always assuming she had either walked out of the McCanns apartment or been abducted.

I don't know how the McCanns and their family can live with themselves, they bleat on about how much Madeleine meant to them, but it is plainly obvious by their behaviour that she meant very little to them.

They would have then read me the riot act and wherever I was, they and the rest of my family would come out to me and if I didn't want to search for my child, they would make me search and they would help me search.

Yes, that's the point I make, they would search and they would go on at me to search. I am sure, privately, the grandparents have read the McCanns the riot act, I am sure they would have, and then after that they would search, by golly they would demand action, and if the McCanns tried to think they could step into the background eventually, they would not let that happen. For that reason, that is why I think the McCanns keep up this act, keep Madeleine in the public eye. They have deeply upset their families and the least they can do for their families is put on a show of continuing to do something positive to search for Madeleine, even if we are of the opinion that it is not positive enough, not how we would do it. I know we wonder at some of Gerry's family members sometimes but I would imagine it is natural to put up a defence of your own children, even in spite of the evidence seeming to point the opposite way.