A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns

I was just browsing here to see if I could find the original link and read this link fr1om Matthew

http://www.forensic-access.co.uk/cell-site-analysis-mobile-phones.asp

I remember the Portugese Prosecutor going to Court to get permission to use the information they had from the McCanns phones. The Court ruled it was "too intrusive".........it would be interesting to know just what information the PJ had. They also were denied 6 months copies of the McCann Bank statements by the Home Office , the Detectives didn't receive much help did they

I'm using the back of the pages I printed for scrap , just came across this snippet.
 
13 May 2011
 
Kate McCann: I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken .....goes on to say she had to check the twins were breathing.
 
"How then are we to make sense of this?
 
"Firstly we note that on occasion the question being asked is whether the children were sedated, but the McCanns answer a totally different one. The Parents deny sedating the children themselves , but often do not address the question of whether they were sedated by someone else.
 
Some forensic linguistics analysts have proffered views on why this might happen.
 
It is also striking that we are never told of the laboratory which performed the analysis on the hair samples, we are never shown the results , and in fact we have to turn to an INDIAN newspaper to find these details. Here it is stated that a company called TrichoTest performed the analysis.
 
And yet even then we have this strange passage.
"All the Hair samples produced negative results. While this didn't totally exclude the possibility that the children had been sedated, given the time that has elapsed , IT MEANT NOBODY ELSE (INCLUDING THE PJ AND THE MEDIA) COULD PRIVE OTHERWISE.)
 
The emphasis is not on the twins welfare or whether some noxious substance had been administered. Kate McCann is purely concerned with whether there is sufficient "proof" AGAINST THE PARENTS. But at the same time she is by implication admitting that the twins might have been sedated.
 
Maybe the Portugese Police should have requested a test at the time when everyone noticed how the twins slept through everything. The McCanns could hardly refuse .

What happened to the 15 of 19 markers Stuart Prior said was enough to charge the McCanns???
 
I do wonder why the Portugese gave the go-ahead for the case to be opened .....will they make any charges???? Otherwise, what is the point of this expensive investigation.

thats the thing panda they can twist as much as they want even all put their hands up now and said they all lied no checks at all was done for abduction to happen - they can say the dna was planted - but 15 out of 19 markers how the hell can sy or anyone explain that unless they KNOW the mcanns was set up and how the hell would they get so close a match dna

cass wrote:thats the thing panda they can twist as much as they want even all put their hands up now and said they all lied no checks at all was done for abduction to happen - they can say the dna was planted - but 15 out of 19 markers how the hell can sy or anyone explain that unless they KNOW the mcanns was set up and how the hell would they get so close a match dna

Morning cass, at the end of the day, after all the money spent by SY and the Portugese , nothing has been proved, the McCanns won't get charged with anything so the only thing they have to worry about is losing the Libel case , the Trial isn't exactly going Amaral,s way and it is going to take a while for it to end.

Panda wrote:the Trial isn't exactly going Amaral,s way

What makes you say that, Panda?

Iris wrote:

Panda wrote:the Trial isn't exactly going Amaral,s way

What makes you say that, Panda?

I'd say considering all the publicity and negative reporting about the PJ is to take the spot light off the libel trial!

None of that has got anything to do with Buzzards circling over the mccanns heads.

All members here have had their chance to comment about 'Buzzards' circling and the demise or not of the mccanns.

Think this thread has served its time and discussions about the Trial should take place in the 'Trial' threads.

And discussion about 15 of 19 markers should take place in that thread.

etc etc.

I think the Buzzards are worn out and other important debate is getting lost in here.

Lioned, this thread is about the McCanns and the EBook , since nothing is happening on the Trial and it is postponed until January , what is supposed to be discussed???

You will need to change the title then or use the thread titled Mccanns and the Ebook.

Otherwise no one will know what its about.  

Lioned wrote:You will need to change the title then or use the thread titled Mccanns and the Ebook.

Otherwise no one will know what its about.  

 
I think you are being pedantic Lioned , but to humour you I have amended the Title.

Panda wrote:I'm using the back of the pages I printed for scrap , just came across this snippet.
 
13 May 2011
 
Kate McCann: I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken .....goes on to say she had to check the twins were breathing.
 
"How then are we to make sense of this?
 
"Firstly we note that on occasion the question being asked is whether the children were sedated, but the McCanns answer a totally different one. The Parents deny sedating the children themselves , but often do not address the question of whether they were sedated by someone else.
 
Some forensic linguistics analysts have proffered views on why this might happen.
 
It is also striking that we are never told of the laboratory which performed the analysis on the hair samples, we are never shown the results , and in fact we have to turn to an INDIAN newspaper to find these details. Here it is stated that a company called TrichoTest performed the analysis.
 
And yet even then we have this strange passage.
"All the Hair samples produced negative results. While this didn't totally exclude the possibility that the children had been sedated, given the time that has elapsed , IT MEANT NOBODY ELSE (INCLUDING THE PJ AND THE MEDIA) COULD PRIVE OTHERWISE.)
 
The emphasis is not on the twins welfare or whether some noxious substance  had been administered. Kate McCann is purely concerned with whether there is sufficient "proof" AGAINST THE PARENTS.  But at the same time she is by implication admitting that the twins might have been sedated.
 
Maybe the Portugese Police should have requested a test at the time when everyone noticed how the twins slept through everything. The McCanns could hardly refuse .

The bit in red is entirely in keeping with the behavior that had Amaral, and has had many others including myself, suspicious from the beginning. the tendency to protect themselves and see how a piece of evidence would correspond with keeping them safe, never mind if their children are safe or the needs of the investigation are being served.

The cadaver findings same thing - oh, sure they could be there from the fact that the dogs are no good and they react to the handler, or to Sea Bass and fish blood and etc. All about how to explain it away not as evidence but as evidence worth looking at as it could lead to them being in the wrong - Kate's checking of cadavers on her rounds, etc. Where's the outrage and terror that cadaver evidence was scented? Or that drugs were probably used on these kids?

McCanns seem to feel, it's okay if they are drugged, as long as it wasn't us that was doing it. How could Kate know just because the twins were breathing that they hadn't been drugged? She's mre worried about herself than getting them checked!

And then much later when we're safely at home we can have them privately tested to prove our innocence - how about doing that when it could have made a difference and possibly changed the course of the investigation - or even saved the twins' lives??!

Well a drug test is like the dogs in some ways. They can say what happened,  but not who did it/when. Still in both cases it's telling and worrying that the parents are constantly and continuously (even before they were arguidos) in CYA mode. as with LDT - that could prove them innocent and help focus PJ in the right area but oh dear it could also prove they feel guilty and so therefore, too risky.

Amaral pondered in his book, why they would be changing stories and behaving as they did if it was an effort to make themselves look good and not neglectful. The cops weren't bothered by that as much initially - they had bigger fish to fry or so they thought! catching the abductor - and clearly the outcome (missing kid) proved that the parents were NOT good and attentive care givers since the child disappeared while they were out and there's no fudging that fact.

that leaves the other thesis - that the parents did something or played some role in her disappearance, which in fact fits the behavioral evidence better. You WOULD like to protect yourself especially if your child was dead.

the notion of parents who would check to see if the kid is breathing and if so then that's fine we'll worry more about showing we didn't dope them up rather than what that could mean - ie that the parents were NOT and the friends were not in there checking for at least an hour and someone COULD have drugged the kids and had time to do so. Surely that as a MO would be worth following up on --  as it means some professional child napping with at least two people if not more who knew the kids were unattended and would be so for some time...

Hi widowan, we have been running around in circles for the last 6 yrs,theorising, analysing , pontificating , yet still we are no nearer finding out the truth and probably never will . This Trial will be the last attempt to vindicate Amaral and in so doing , undernine the confidence of the McCanns, not to mention the cost they will have to pay.

Panda wrote:Hi widowan, we have been running around in circles for the last 6 yrs,theorising, analysing , pontificating , yet still we are no nearer finding out the truth and probably never will . This Trial will be the last attempt to vindicate Amaral and in so doing , undernine the confidence of the McCanns, not to mention the cost they will have to pay.

I'm not sure we're no nearer... if you look at it, the case has brought SY out of the woodwork, Pat Brown is on it, Kate's written her book, we've discovered that the nutters were right all along and Tanner man was NOT the kidnapper, which then ought to help the investigators take a better look at the prime suspects - since all those changed stories were there either purposefully or subconsciously tweaked and aligned to make it possible for Tanner man to have taken Madeleine. And get people looking, all this time, for the wrong guy while they buried the efit of the guy who looked just like Gerry.

I am so curious as to whether SY just waved all of that away - oh, certainly you'd lie and stage a scene because your daughter had been taken and it's all so confusing, you were afraid you'd be unfairly fitted up  - it is hard to believe that what we see, and what Amaral and the PJ saw would simply be explained away by TM in a way that allows SY to ignore parents and friends as the primaries here. their witness statements need going over again, WITH them. No wonder Matt had a breakdown.

Even if they have some kind of proof that McCanns did not harm or remove their daughter, wouldn't you want to know if she and the other kids had been sedated? Whether they actually saw Madeleine in her bed at 915 or indeed at 830, or just listened at the door? It's not like these clues wouldn't be helpful - and the stories are all so clearly there to make it seem like McCanns are innocent of doing certain things - or to show their concern for getting "proof" of their lack of involvement - rather than helping provide info to help their daughter/the investigation.

I'd just be very curious to know what the officers over there reading the early statements and the later changed statements think as to why that was done and what kind of people would spend so much time making stuff up instead of telling the truth.

Someone will have to poke that nest with a stick at some point.

Really good info.

You can see that in their insistence upon the checks, their firm belief that Tanner man was the abductor, their statements about the window being the point of entry/exit, the state of the doors (all of which are false and even the sighting by Jane and the check by Oldfield refuted by SY) that they've painted themselves into a corner.

All the pro McCann blather about "how could anyone stage this so cleverly in such a short time as the McCanns would have had to do" is nonsense as it wasn't cleverly staged and they were being found out by the minute.

Also all the insistence upon the frequency of the checks (to prove their responsibility) and the Tanner sighting (to prove the abduction and Gerry's alibi as well as Kate's since she was at the table at that time) and the drugging of the children they later insist upon - leaves them very little room to claim that this was anything other than an abduction by a professional ring of kidnappers - because who else could know when to nip in and nip out and come prepared etc, as they've had to have done, if the checks were actually done on a routine?

The idea of a professional child napping though, brings up major other issues for TM - the main one being, professionals would not target a home that was being properly watched/locked/checked as it would be clearly too risky - and then there's the fact that this ring evidently did all this major planning around the abduction yet failed to provide a car. Much less why a ring would be targeting this small resort that did not even HAVE a child listening service; you wouldn't expect to be able to find kids left alone.

Showing the ridiculous nature of the checks, if we've done nothing else but highlight that over these years, has forced the investigation to do something either very lazy and risky (if they're trying to cover up for McCanns) or something very clever, in changing these timelines.

Now we have not just Jane and Matt exposed as liars /fantasists but the entire group who relied on these inventions for their stories about how the checks were done.

Again procMcCann logic states that no one would conspire to do such a thing, how could they have done, they wouldn't have time etc however they clearly DID have time, because they did it. They agreed to sightings and checks that weren't really done. Why, we may never know.

And this is only chapter 2...
.

Chapter four about Madeleine asking them about why you didn't come when I cried, seems there for two reasons, the first, to cover the crying episode (May 1st according to Mrs Fenn) - they aren't terrible parents, in other words, they knew about this, because Maddie told them so, and it would have HAD to be only less than half an hour that she cried- because they checked that often; therefore it ended quickly, and Maddie wasn't bothered by it and it wasn't a big deal AND

2) to provide them with an opportunity to say the above and that the kids rarely if ever woke up it was so safe to leave them, therefore. FOR the record.

Of course the sleep chart on the fridge belies that story because you generally do not have sleep charts to keep kids in bed who don't have a problem staying when they are put to bed -or who rarely if ever wake up and then only in the wee hours - sleep charts are to keep kids who pop up and down when being put to bed, from doing so. they can't help it if they wake up at 3 AM after sleeping 6 hours - and a sleep chart doesn't help with that. Charts are to reward problem sleepers for staying in their bed once put into it.

This story felt hinky to a lot of people, I wasn't one of them, or at least not because I believed they were telling about this in order to "prove" that Maddie was alive the morning of the 3rd which I believe she was. But it does seem weird, and contrived, at least in Kate's book.

The relating of Madeleine's question is there to tell us all how on top of it they were - and therefore why they were so determined to check frequently that evening so that something like this could never happen.

Even if it did.

Widowan . there was British interference from day one , Foreign Office, a contingent from Leicester Police,
supposedly to help out, the Ambassador to Portugal phoned by Tony Blair to go to PDL asap,  Family Lawyers, a Fund set up and running in 12 days . This was definitely a case of who you know , the McCanns phoned Tony Blair who phoned the British Ambassador who in turn phoned Ribiero all this happened between 10pm and 11 pm.!!!!

Chapter five on the sedation is very apt. If the twins were in stage six of sedation and the two doctors trained and tested in that, understanding the possible ramificaitons of that, did nothing to check these kids that's very bad! - what was going through Fiona's mind I wonder?!

the only legitimate reason, at least for Kate, who believed the kids to have been sedated, to not follow medical procedures to check them out or call someone else to do so is that she knew what they were given... and that it was not enough to harm them.

no checks for throat obstruction with a chloroform soaked cloth, for needle marks... why look, if you know they've just been given a load of Calpol in their milk? and would explain if MM was abducted why Kate was heard to be saying "we let her down" - had they sedated her to the point she would be not rousable, they'd have made the kidnappers job so easy...

the comment about the kidnapper needing nothing but a chloroform rag and a kidney tray to catch the vomit is disturbing. I do not think for one minute the McCanns administered chloroform to their children however. But even a big dose of Calpol after a big day and a pasta dinner would be enough to knock kids out for the count.

Why not do the test immediately instead of argue vehemently that there was no way they had been sedated other than to avoid the fact that if the kids were sedated it was either by their parents, bad, or by the abductor who had plenty of time to do so - also bad.

Once again, McCanns self protection comes in ahead of protecting the kids.

To that point when Kate suggests the testing Gerry calls later to cancel it... that had to be ringing some kind of bell for him, that "people will say" we sedated them. they'd rather NOT KNOW If the kids were sedated than have it be a possibility that this was done by the parents. That only makes sense if you actually did sedate them yourself. Otherwise you'd want to know and for the investigators to know, if MM was sedated, with what? Who has that kind of MO out there in the kiddie kidnap circles?

PJ should have asked for that and for maddie's day clothes and toothbrush for dna, the next day. that was a trick missed.

The BS on the checking which was changed after the in no way getting stories straight meeting is so fraught with stuff. Everyone checked their own and no one checked anyone else's and yet Russell says he checked them all... including Matt's kids the night Matt was ill and stayed home?

Matt checked McCanns the first time on the night of the 3rd, except SY says he didn't.

How can they ignore all these discrepancies to say the T 9 and McCanns are not being investigated?

They have clearly lied their arses off around the checks - will they simply ALLOW that, as acceptable CYA lies, in collusion, because it's so normal to do -when a child's been kidnapped? After all, you're busy trying to show how responsible you are?

Oh - and Gerry left the door open - to make all those checks, that were never done, easier for the others to do. Not because they couldn't be bothered to go the long way round out the front door and making it easier on themselves. Balderdash.

I honestly don't know what SY were meant to acheive. The McCanns could have been charged with neglect while they were still in Portugal, that carrie a 1 year sentence. neglect causing harm a 10 yr sentence, both lapsed.!!!

Panda wrote:Widowan . there was British interference from day one , Foreign Office, a contingent from Leicester Police,
supposedly to help out, the Ambassador to Portugal phoned by Tony Blair to go to PDL asap,  Family Lawyers, a Fund set up and running in 12 days . This was definitely a case of who you know , the McCanns phoned Tony Blair who phoned the British Ambassador who in turn phoned Ribiero all this happened between 10pm and 11 pm.!!!!

I suppose they would think of that not as interference, but as help.

I know when that girl went missing on Aruba, (Natalee?) her mom was on the phone to her state Governor and pulling every string she could because she didn't trust the locals, and they were thinking (as you might) that this girl went off on a bender the night before and just missed her plane and would be found sheepish and hung over the next day somewhere but of course she was dead that night and her body never found, killed by that psychopath Joran Van der Sloot. But I digress. There's a difference between the laissez faire attitude of little Island cops on Aruba regarding an 18 year old party girl, they must get those all the time vs a 3 year old taken from her bed.

It's not against the law to know people in high places, and it doesn't mean you are in a pedophile ring together. If you do know Tony Blair and he's the PM hell yes call him once you "know" your child has been kidnapped. Wouldn't you? I'd call the top of Scotland Yard as well if I knew him. They were frantic. I mean if she did get kidnapped, I don't see anything wrong with or strange about calling everyone on earth they think could help either with prayer, searching, pulling political strings or any other thing your job, money and position have gotten you over the years. otherwise what the hell have you been working for? what's it all good for if you can't call in favors in this situation?

How do we know that they called Tony Blair at ten PM. they rang number ten and got through? Do we have proof of this or do we just assume it because the Ambassador came to them the next day which "must mean" the Pm told him to?

Panda wrote:

I honestly don't know what SY were meant to acheive. The McCanns could have been charged with neglect while they were still in Portugal, that carrie a 1 year sentence. neglect causing harm a 10 yr sentence, both lapsed.!!!

I don't think they went into it, nor did the PJ, with "what can we charge the McCanns with" - but rather to find out what happened to madeleine. to find the abductor. The PJ wasn't certain McCanns weren't involved in some way, SY seems to be, and if that is the case then - as devil's advocate - the PJ screwed up in focusing on them so much and not following other leads, I guess you could say. McCanns certainly drove that behavior with their staging and lying, and once the dogs were involved and Kate starts refusing to answer questions, then you would indeed think these people are not clean. they know something more than they are saying, for sure.

I think for the pJ to go for neglect would cause an outcry because there was not enough evidence of neglect - if they were neglecting Maddie then all the others were also neglecting their kids and all tourists who leave kids alone for an hour and let strangers listen in on them are also guilty of that and it is just not going to fly, especially if they can successfully argue that there's no proof Maddie WASN'T kidnapped, during what is evidently a common practice in European resorts, of baby listening.

SY has some notion that mcCanns whatever else they did did not remove that body, that the girl was kidnapped - either that, or they are just saying that to get cooperation from TM and the tapas 7, or they are doing a white wash. I just don't see anyone particularly David Cameron spending £3m taxpayer money to do a white wash if the connection was Tony Blair. This is not the Kennedy assassination.  Delving into possible pedo rings based in the UK is more likely to uncover senior government officials involved in pedo rings (they certainly would find some dodgy people in that as any walk of life) rather than focusing in on McCanns.

I can't see how SY would miss all the clues that make everyone else - including profilers and top cops and normal people everywhere --suspicious about McCanns' story.

they have either decided that these people are hideously selfish and that's okay, because the main thing is finding the person who took Maddie - or they are working with them until they can find out more.

My thought is that they are working with McCanns. Their desire to protect them, if there is one, didn't prevent them uncovering and publicizing the efits and consequently the news that this info had been suppressed by TM for YEARS - while they focused on the wrong person - also uncovered by SY. SY can pitch that as "aren't we clever and didn't the PJ miss a trick" but it can't escape their notice that the tricks the PJ didn't catch - the Tanner man identity, the efit of Gerry's doppelganger - are ones that make McCanns look worse, not better.

Widowan, originally SY were reviewing the case, this would not have happened if the McCanns had not appealed, then Cameron was put in the awkward situation having to deal with an open letter from Kate via The Sun and the end result so far has been expenditure over £5 million with nothing to show .....SY know they have only "persons of interest " which is going to cost a lot more money. When the Trial in Portugal is finally over and the investigation by SY completed, I will be very very surprised if the Abductor has been found.

Panda wrote:Widowan, originally SY were reviewing the case, this would not have happened if the McCanns had not appealed, then Cameron was put in the awkward situation having to deal with an open letter from Kate via The Sun and the end result so far has been expenditure over £5 million with nothing to show .....SY know they have only "persons of interest "  which is going to cost a lot more money. When the Trial in Portugal is finally over and the investigation by SY completed, I will be very very surprised if the Abductor has been found.

You and me both.

The papers being as powerful as they are in determining the course of UK elections, that is something I would want looked at if I were the top person whether Tory or Labour, it is not good journalism nor free press to have people swaying elections for fun and profit, particularly if the threat is there because they want the McCann case to stay as top news so they can milk it.

I can see Cameron being afraid that Rebecca Brooks would do as she threatened and drag him and the Home Office into the mud if they didn't agree to look into this, because the MM story that had sold so many £s of papers, was getting stale and there was more value they could get out of it if the case was reviewed and lots of juicy Pedos and Sightings etc could be rehashed once again five years later.

However, he also has to deal with the tax payers who may feel and many do feel this investigation is highly unfair, in times of austerity, and in general that this one family gets so much attention for this child, when so many others get little to no help.

if Sy finds nothing or at least no abductor - then Cameron may feel, we've done what we can - some cases simply go unsolved and we are not throwing good money after bad to make ourselves look sympathetic. Hundreds of kids go missing in the UK and elsewhere and they are not found, sometimes until much later sometimes not at all and sometimes by some hiker stumbling over remains.

This could backfire on Cameron and on McCanns too for that matter - look at the 2 pieces of evidence they did turn up - neither one looks particularly good for McCanns. And in particular suppressing evidence of an efit that looks like Gerry - finding the report that was highly critical of them - if Amaral wins his libel trial - McCanns can complain about everyone all they want but at some point the tax payers will have had enough. You would hope.