Forensic Science Service Results - HELP WANTED

[brit1981]

From the guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ap...cann-yard-case

)
Redwood and his 37-strong team have identified 195 missed investigative opportunities in the 40,000 pieces of evidence they have examined from the Portuguese inquiry, the family's home force in Leicestershire, and the information gleaned by a team of private detectives hired by the McCann family since Madeleine went missing, aged three, from the resort of Praia de Luz on 3 May 2007.

"We are in a unique position seeking to draw together the three key strands of information about her disappearance," said Redwood.

He unequivocally dismissed the conspiracy theory – promoted by the original Portuguese lead detective Goncalo Amaral – that Madeleine's parents had anything to do with her disappearance.

He said detectives believe Madeleine was abducted in "a criminal act by a stranger".

 

[BritsKate]

Broken link, Brit.

And 'conspiracy theory' for believing the parents may be involved? Really? (I hardly think, with statistics being what they are, that it could placed in the same category as Roswell. )

 

[brit1981]

sorry about the link. Just try googling andy redwood.
I think it is fair to look at the parents initially, but now it has got conspiracy theory like. There is a group that have claimed everyone is in on it (governments, the fss, police, as well as the tapas nine), that double was used and madeleine actually died several days before the 3rd, that it is to do with the masons, that murat is in on it with the mccanns. It just gets a bit too much to not call it a conspiracy theory. The problem is if anything goes against the parent's involvement people have claimed it is because it is part of the cover-up, i.e scotland yard are part of the cover-up etc. No evidence has ever been uncovered that implicate the mccanns, or murat, the police say they believe it is a stranger, and when people start wailing about cover-ups etc it is a conspiracy theory.

 

[BritsKate]

sorry about the link. Just try googling andy redwood.
I think it is fair to look at the parents initially, but now it has got conspiracy theory like. There is a group that have claimed everyone is in on it (governments, the fss, police, as well as the tapas nine), that double was used and madeleine actually died several days before the 3rd, that it is to do with the masons, that murat is in on it with the mccanns. It just gets a bit too much to not call it a conspiracy theory. The problem is if anything goes against the parent's involvement people have claimed it is because it is part of the cover-up, i.e scotland yard are part of the cover-up etc. No evidence has ever been uncovered that implicate the mccanns, or murat, the police say they believe it is a stranger, and when people start wailing about cover-ups etc it is a conspiracy theory.

But see this is the problem with sweeping assumptions. You basically placed everyone who believes the parents may be involved, or may know more than they have admitted, into a category viewed by many as irrational and perhaps even ignorant.

I've stated before I don't believe this is a grand conspiracy, I don't believe nearly a dozen people covered up a crime either, but you can bet I do believe the McCann's may be involved in their daughter's disappearance.

I simply think a lot of people truly trust the McCann's account of events that day. I believe there was some obfuscation that hindered the Portugal police. I also know media has played a huge role in how everyone has been perceived and may have caused events to play out in a different manner than they may have had international spotlight not shined on this case.

The statements made by Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard mean as much to me as statements made by the McCann's for one very simple reason. We have no conviction for either the disappearance or death of Madeleine McCann.

As far as evidence is concerned there is nothing that I can determine that unequivocally points away from the McCann's anymore than there is evidence that unequivocally damns them.

Leaves us in a bit of a non-conspiratorial stalemate methinks.

 

[SapphireSteel]

In the absence of proof one way or the other, NO ONE can be sure they are "right" in their theory and everyone else is "wrong".

Fifty years ago the evidence compiled would have been enough to arrest and charge both parents...today, with juries suffering the CSI effect, circumstantial evidence is no longer enough.

The circumstantial evidence indicates a parental cover-up.

 

[Gem2626]

In the absence of proof one way or the other, NO ONE can be sure they are "right" in their theory and everyone else is "wrong".

Fifty years ago the evidence compiled would have been enough to arrest and charge both parents...today, with juries suffering the CSI effect, circumstantial evidence is no longer enough.

The circumstantial evidence indicates a parental cover-up.

Could you bullet point exactly what you think is circumstantial evidence please? I'm trying to stay objective and look at all evidence that supports and rebuts all theories so it would really help.

tia

 

[fabgod]

Gem2626
Can I suggest this report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

 

[brit1981]

In the absence of proof one way or the other, NO ONE can be sure they are "right" in their theory and everyone else is "wrong".

Fifty years ago the evidence compiled would have been enough to arrest and charge both parents...today, with juries suffering the CSI effect, circumstantial evidence is no longer enough.

The circumstantial evidence indicates a parental cover-up.

But there is no circumstantial evidence, and fifty years ago in the UK circumstantial evidence was not enough either. No-one has been able to come up with any hard evidence circumstantial or otherwise that implicates the parents. If they have why have they not handed it over to scotland yard or the pj.

Please could you like gem says bullet point the evidence you believe you have circumstatial or otherwise, because I cannot see any myself and as Scotland yard also appear to have missed this as thye believe it was a stranger which means they do not believe it was the parents I am interested ot see it.

I do think it is unfair that the police eliminate someone, and then people claim it does not matter if one is eliminated if no-one else has been convicted. I woudl not be happy if scotland yard stated I did not do something, and people said that was not enough to eliminate me in their eyes, they had to see someone else proved beyond all reasonable doubt before they woudl belive I had not done it.

 

[fabgod]

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

E.g., X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with Z. Z's fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y's bedroom. A judge or jury may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z's presence in the bedroom. Circumstantial evidence is usually not as good as direct evidence (an eyewitness saw Z in the bedroom) because it is easy to make the wrong inference

Y may have loaned Z the book and then carried it back to the bedroom herself after getting it back.

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.

copied by me from
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

Again, for anyone who has not read this
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Circumstantial evidence?

 

[Gem2626]

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

E.g., X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with Z. Z's fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y's bedroom. A judge or jury may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z's presence in the bedroom. Circumstantial evidence is usually not as good as direct evidence (an eyewitness saw Z in the bedroom) because it is easy to make the wrong inference

Y may have loaned Z the book and then carried it back to the bedroom herself after getting it back.

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.

copied by me from
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

Again, for anyone who has not read this
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Circumstantial evidence?

The problem with this report is that nothing is really explained, just mentioned. Plus I would never take one persons explanation as fact I would be trying to rebut it and then try to rebut the rebuttal.

I've found what seem to be a couple of errors already (the calpol thing being one) and he throws some things in like how he believes cuddle cat was washed straight away why does he think that? From what I see the media incorrectly reported that.

I'm working on rebutting things he's said at the moment and then i'll work on rebutting that.

So in rebutting... this is probably the best site I have come across because it has a lot of the 'myths' posted on there especially ones which have come from the media. It also explains the he said she said stuff and backs things up with sources. Definitely worth a read.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main Page

 

[fabgod]

Gem2626 posted
"The problem with this report is that nothing is really explained, just mentioned. Plus I would never take one persons explanation as fact I would be trying to rebut it and then try to rebut the rebuttal.

I've found what seem to be a couple of errors already (the calpol thing being one) and he throws some things in like how he believes cuddle cat was washed straight away why does he think that? From what I see the media incorrectly reported that.

I'm working on rebutting things he's said at the moment and then i'll work on rebutting that."

Almeida stated
"Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.

Distant in time Kate's father, the grandfather of the minor, Brian Healy, admits to the press that Kate could have administered some medication to the little girl, Calpol, to help the child (children'') to sleep, contrary to what his daughter Kate had stated.

Kate, through the PJ inspector that acted as 'liaison' with the family [NOTE: that is Ricardo Paiva], asked why samples weren't taken from the twins in order to test that hypothesis. She knew well enough at that time, more than 3 months later, that such exam would be inviable.

She went further and said that we ' the investigation ' should verify that the kidnapper had sedated Madeleine, to accomplish the action and he had also sedated the twins 'to consummate the act' however she didn't say that at the right moment.


snipped from the website you recommend above

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077700/Rebuttal of "Fact" 13#MediaMisreporting

Media Misreporting
To demonstrate how things get distorted in reporting, the above interview with Brian Healy was reported in The Sun on 7th September 2007 as:-

Quote:

"Kate may have used Calpol (to help her sleep), but it's just outrageous to think of anything else."


So Almeida is correct, the media misreported it, not him, he never stated that Brian Healy said they used calpol.
You have to remember, this report wasnt designed for media, it wasnt written to score points in public, it was the thinking of a chief inspector of the force investigating Madeleines disappearance at that time, it is used as an example of what circumstantial evidence they considered they had at that time.
Obviously it was never enough to bring charges because as history shows us, charges were never brought

 

[Gem2626]

Gem2626 posted
"The problem with this report is that nothing is really explained, just mentioned. Plus I would never take one persons explanation as fact I would be trying to rebut it and then try to rebut the rebuttal.

I've found what seem to be a couple of errors already (the calpol thing being one) and he throws some things in like how he believes cuddle cat was washed straight away why does he think that? From what I see the media incorrectly reported that.

I'm working on rebutting things he's said at the moment and then i'll work on rebutting that."

Almeida stated
"Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.

Distant in time Kate's father, the grandfather of the minor, Brian Healy, admits to the press that Kate could have administered some medication to the little girl, Calpol, to help the child (children'') to sleep, contrary to what his daughter Kate had stated.

Kate, through the PJ inspector that acted as 'liaison' with the family [NOTE: that is Ricardo Paiva], asked why samples weren't taken from the twins in order to test that hypothesis. She knew well enough at that time, more than 3 months later, that such exam would be inviable.

She went further and said that we ' the investigation ' should verify that the kidnapper had sedated Madeleine, to accomplish the action and he had also sedated the twins 'to consummate the act' however she didn't say that at the right moment.


snipped from the website you recommend above

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077700/Rebuttal of "Fact" 13#MediaMisreporting

Media Misreporting
To demonstrate how things get distorted in reporting, the above interview with Brian Healy was reported in The Sun on 7th September 2007 as:-

Quote:

"Kate may have used Calpol (to help her sleep), but it's just outrageous to think of anything else."


So Almeida is correct, the media misreported it, not him, he never stated that Brian Healy said they used calpol.
You have to remember, this report wasnt designed for media, it wasnt written to score points in public, it was the thinking of a chief inspector of the force investigating Madeleines disappearance at that time, it is used as an example of what circumstantial evidence they considered they had at that time.
Obviously it was never enough to bring charges because as history shows us, charges were never brought

But why would Almeda mention a press hypothesis in his report in the first place?

I'm not reading it as you are. The way I see it..

- He's saying the media has a hypothesis
- Then he's backing this hypothesis up by repeating what the press said the grandfather said.

BBM- The two haven't been linked in anyway. They look as if they are two separate statements. If you were connecting the two you would say something like "The media has this hypothesis an example of this is the grandfather telling the press etc"

It makes no sense to put a false media hypothesis example into a report, unless you believe(d) this exact hypothesis about the calpol and hadn't investigated to find out whether it was actually true or not.

 

[fabgod]

Gem2626
Ok, Almeida is saying that the McCanns were keen to use the press reports to evolve their story or to develop the story to their needs.

In essence, he is saying that there was a report attributed to Brian Healy that reported Mr Healy as saying that Kate gave the children calpol.

We now know that Brian Healy didnt say that at all but that is not the point.

Almeida is saying that Kate McCann then goes to her Portuguese Liaison officer and asks why there were no tests on the twins to see if they had been drugged, he goes on to suggest that she as a doctor would have known that such tests would have been pointless after the amount of time that had passed before her asking.

He then states that she (Kate McCann) wanted the Investigators to decide or suspect that Madeleine and the twins had been sedated in order to further the abduction scenario which as we know. the PJ did not believe.

He isnt stating that Brian Healy said she had administered calpol, he is making a bigger point, that is plainly obvious.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Could you bullet point exactly what you think is circumstantial evidence please? I'm trying to stay objective and look at all evidence that supports and rebuts all theories so it would really help.

tia

Happy to.

The circumstantial evidence indicates that Madeleine died in apartment 5a that night and the parents covered it up. Circumstantial evidence includes -

• The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine
• The refusal to engage in a reconstruction
• The declaration they would not leave Portugal without Madeleine, only to do just that a few days later
• The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance
• The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort)
• The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a
• Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA
• Kate insisting Madeleine had been abducted from the very second she was discovered "missing"
• Gerry insisting Madeleine had been abducted on the phone to England that evening
• Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found
• Leaving their children in care for as many hours as possible
• Not accessing care for their children at all in the evenings
• The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up"
• Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child
• Jane Tanners changing story
• The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort
• The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for
• The general appearance of both parents, Gerry especially seeming unnaturally jolly and unaffected (witness his blog)
• The fact that neither twin awoke through the ruckus, and Kate was seen holding her hand in front of their faces to check they were in fact still breathing
• The washing of "cuddle cat"
• The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
• The subtle criticism of LE which began on the evening of the 3rd
• The refusal to be interviewed
• The sheer carelessness and uncaringness of leaving small children alone to cry for extended periods of time, even though they knew this had been occuring and their children had experienced fear and trauma at being alone
• Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
• The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team
• The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency
• The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds
• The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR
• The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots
• The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
• Kates cries that "we've let her down" yet later refusal to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the disappearance afterwards
• The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
• The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later
• The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
• The failure of either Gerry or Jeremy Wilkins to see either Jane Tanner or the "abductor" who allegedly walked straight past them in a small quiet street
• Kate leaving her twins alone in an unlocked room with an "abductor" nearby while she ran to the restaurant to alert of Madeleines disappearance
• The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
• Sky news were likewise informed, before LE
• The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
• The accumulation of enough evidence for the PJ to name the McCanns as arguidos
• The fact that it was the BRITISH police who first developed the evidence implicating the McCanns
• Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
• The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
• The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
• Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
• The political pressure began from the morning of the 4 May, when a British consul called the Portugese embassy to complain the PDJ were not "doing anything"
• Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
• Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
• Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.

Alone, each bullet point can be scrutinised and picked apart. Viewed together, they paint a compelling picture of what occurred that night.

Fifty years ago any combination of the above would be considered "proof" - enough to prosecute if not convict...people have been hung on much, much less.

I am not going to post links to any of the above as it is MY OPINION ONLY further all freely available through msm, various books written, and this site.

:cow:

 

[brit1981]

lets have a look at this "evidence"

Happy to.

The circumstantial evidence indicates that Madeleine died in apartment 5a that night and the parents covered it up. Circumstantial evidence includes -

• The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine
  
  What inconsistencies, I have not seen any in the files
• The refusal to engage in a reconstruction
  
  the mccanns never refused to take part in a reconstruction
• The declaration they would not leave Portugal without Madeleine, only to do just that a few days later
  How is that circumstantial evidence against them. They could not stay there unemployed forever.
• The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance
  
  no cadaver dog was used, the dog according to its handler alerts to bodily fluids including blood from a live person. both dogs alerted to the card fob which contained material belonging to gerry belived to be blood. The evrd did not alert elsewhere in the car.
• The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort)
  
  Agan there is no way of knowing what the dog alerted to as its handler states it alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living donor. We also know a previous occupant had bled in the flat. The entire resort was not searched with the dog.
• The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a
  no cadaver dog was used, the dog according to its handler alerts to bodily fluids including blood from a live person. both dogs alerted to the card fob which contained material belonging to gerry believed to be blood. The evrd did not alert elsewhere in the car.
• Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA
  That is misleading. The material found had some elements that woudl be found in madeleine's DNA, as well as her parents, grandparents, and other relatives. There is no way of knowing who the dna belongs to but given that the largerst sample was from up to five people, and fifteen of the 37 compoents were also found in madeleine's dna as well as kate and gerrys and other relatives, and madeleine was never witnessed in the car whilst her family was it is unlikely to be hers.
• Kate insisting Madeleine had been abducted from the very second she was discovered "missing"
  
  Why is that suspicious. If you know the child could not have left by themselves (the gates were still on the latch), what else was she to think? When a parent panics that is one of the first thing that jumps into their head because it is the nightmare of every parent.
• Gerry insisting Madeleine had been abducted on the phone to England that evening
  Again see above, what else woudl he think?
• Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found
  
  They did not have a personal audience with the Pope, they were going to Italy anyway and like most people of faith in a time of crisis went to st pauls, and they were fortunate in that the Pope came over to them and gave prayers for madeleine. I really see nothing suspicious about the Pope doing this.
• Leaving their children in care for as many hours as possible
  
  No they did not. The children went to childrens clubs as do thousands of children in europe. I really do not think that is evidence of a crime.
• Not accessing care for their children at all in the evenings
  
  They thought being just over fifty metres away checking every half hour was safe, as this is what nanny listening services do.
• The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up"
  there has never been any evidence they did this anywhere, and calpol is not a sedative anyway, nor does the police files state no medication was found, nor if that were the case is it suspicious.
• Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child
  Kate did call for madeleine according to witness they saw her in the car park screaming her name. There is no other unnatural language.
• Jane Tanners changing story
  She has not changed her story
• The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort
  
  No they did not. Several months after the sighting one of the smiths said tha although they never saw the mans face, did not have their glasses, and it was dark they believed it could be gerry from the mannerism but that they could not be certain. No other family member supported this and the police discounted it as other witnesses put gerry elsewhere.
• The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for
  
  The mccanns did not do this, and no-one has confirmed that it was done before being asked. But even if they did why is is suspicious, and not sensible. I woudl think it was a very sensible thing to do
• The general appearance of both parents, Gerry especially seeming unnaturally jolly and unaffected (witness his blog)
  
  Thats your opinion, not circumstantial evidence, I for one see nothing unusual about their appearence.
• The fact that neither twin awoke through the ruckus, and Kate was seen holding her hand in front of their faces to check they were in fact still breathing
  How is that suspicious, when children often do not wake thorugh noise, and of course kate was going to be paranoid.
• The washing of "cuddle cat"
  
  Why is that suspicious. It was done a good time away from any searches, and people do wash cuddly toys in the UK.
• The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
  
  That never happened.
• The subtle criticism of LE which began on the evening of the 3rd
  
  So police should be able to use the fact they have been criticized as evidence against the person doing the criticizing? The initial police search was appalling by Uk standards, so i do not blame the McCanns for being angry if they were.
• The refusal to be interviewed
  They did not
• The sheer carelessness and uncaringness of leaving small children alone to cry for extended periods of time, even though they knew this had been occuring and their children had experienced fear and trauma at being alone
  
  There is no evidence the children were crying for extended periods of time.
• Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
  there is no first hand source where kate makes this claim. Other fingerprints were found on the frame. kates were the only ones that could be indentified.
• The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team
  
  
  No the embassy gave them a spokesperson as the portuguese police did not speak for them as would be usual in the UK.
• The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency
  
  No it was not unnaturally fast, and there is transparency. They were given a huge amunt fo money by people like JK rowling and had to do soemthign with it. Their choice was to either leave it in their own bank accounts where they would be no transparency or set up a not for profit company where there would be transparency. It woudl be illegal to set up a charity.
• The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds
  
  Again this woudl be illegal under UK law, it was not their choice the charity act 2006 forbids a charity to be set up to benefit a specific person or named people.
• The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR
  
  The legal fees it paid were the legal fees for setting up the fund. There is no proof that the mccanns own lawyers were paid with it, and in fact their lawyers say they were not and used conditional fee arrangements (similar to no win no fee). The only personal expenses were two months of mortgage payments that enabled the mccanns to stay in portugal.
• The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots
  
  Nothing in the PJ files about this
• The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
  
  nothing in the PJ files about this, all it states is that a reference sample was taken from a pillow and as the sample was from a femal child of the mccanns that was not amelia it is belived to be madeleine's.
• Kates cries that "we've let her down" yet later refusal to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the disappearance afterwards
  
  how is that circumstantial evidence of a crime.
• The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
  
  Nowhere does it state it was anythign like thirty minutes. one of them said it was very brief, thrty seconds or so, the other one said it was very brief just a couple of minutes. Not exactly a thumping great inconsistency.
• The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later
  
  Nowhere in the PJ files does it state this
• The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
  
  one can see it from the restuarant.
• The failure of either Gerry or Jeremy Wilkins to see either Jane Tanner or the "abductor" who allegedly walked straight past them in a small quiet street
  
  So what if they did nto see Jane, it was dark, and she never stopped to say anything to them. Wilkins confirms he was there talking to gerry at that time, and other witness say jane left the table to go donw onto the street at that time. I do not notice every time soemone walks behind me when I am in conversation. And no-one has claimed the abductor walked right past them. Jane say a man carrying a child at the top of the street walking past the intersection. he did not walk down the stree gerry and jeremy were stood one. The only way they would have seen him was if they happened to look up in that direction for the few moments he was there.
• Kate leaving her twins alone in an unlocked room with an "abductor" nearby while she ran to the restaurant to alert of Madeleines disappearance
  Again how is that evidence aganst her. She paniked
• The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
  
  There is no evidence of this at all in the PJ files.
  
• Sky news were likewise informed, before LE
  
  there is no evidence of this at all.
• The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
  
  There is no evidence they ever refused to take a LDT for the police, but they are very very rare in the Uk and Portugal and in fact the police have only just started using them in the U for convicted sex offenders.
• The accumulation of enough evidence for the PJ to name the McCanns as arguidos
  
  At the time Portuguese law required very little evidence. According to the files the evidence was the incomplete dna, and the dogs alerting. But this was because the PJ misunderstood the findings. The dog alerts do not have to indicate a body as their handler states they alert to bodily fluids, and the dna could have been from any of the mccanns. The fact is the PJ also stated there was no evidence against the mccanns when they shelved the case.
• The fact that it was the BRITISH police who first developed the evidence implicating the McCanns
  
  Thats misleading. The evidence against the mccanns at the time this statement was made was the incomplete dna, and the dogs which were provided with assistance from the british police. But this evidence was not in actual fact evidence against the mccanns.
• Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
  
  what evidence do you have for this
• The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
  
  this is not CSI, what evidence would an intruder leave behind that could be identified as belonging to an intruder and not one of the hundeds of previous occupants. It also seems a contridiction to claim the mccanns should be prosecuted on circumstantial evidence, but forensic evidence is needed to doscount an intruder
• The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
  
  There is no evidence of this at all.
• Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
  
  There is no evidence or suggestion of this at all
• The political pressure began from the morning of the 4 May, when a British consul called the Portugese embassy to complain the PDJ were not "doing anything"
  
  How is that evidence against the mccanns. In europe embassies are involved right from the start if something happens involving a foreigner, and if the embassy felt the PJ were not taking the case seriously enought they had a right to complain
• Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
  
  Where is the evidence of this?
• Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
  
  There is no evidence of this, and the calls would not be deleted from the te
  lecommunication company anyway?
• Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.
  
  This is incorrect. The dog used was not a cadaver dog, and according to its handler alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living donor so there is no way to prove he alerted to a cadaver and not bodiy fluid including the blood that was there from a previous occupant.

I am not going to post links to any of the above as it is MY OPINION ONLY further all freely available through msm, various books written, and this site.

:cow:

 

[fabgod]

Happy to.

The circumstantial evidence indicates that Madeleine died in apartment 5a that night and the parents covered it up. Circumstantial evidence includes -

• The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine
• The refusal to engage in a reconstruction
• The declaration they would not leave Portugal without Madeleine, only to do just that a few days later
• The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance
• The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort)
• The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a
• Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA
• Kate insisting Madeleine had been abducted from the very second she was discovered "missing"
• Gerry insisting Madeleine had been abducted on the phone to England that evening
• Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found
• Leaving their children in care for as many hours as possible
• Not accessing care for their children at all in the evenings
• The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up"
• Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child
• Jane Tanners changing story
• The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort
• The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for
• The general appearance of both parents, Gerry especially seeming unnaturally jolly and unaffected (witness his blog)
• The fact that neither twin awoke through the ruckus, and Kate was seen holding her hand in front of their faces to check they were in fact still breathing
• The washing of "cuddle cat"
• The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
• The subtle criticism of LE which began on the evening of the 3rd
• The refusal to be interviewed
• The sheer carelessness and uncaringness of leaving small children alone to cry for extended periods of time, even though they knew this had been occuring and their children had experienced fear and trauma at being alone
• Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
• The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team
• The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency
• The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds
• The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR
• The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots
• The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
• Kates cries that "we've let her down" yet later refusal to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the disappearance afterwards
• The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
• The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later
• The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
• The failure of either Gerry or Jeremy Wilkins to see either Jane Tanner or the "abductor" who allegedly walked straight past them in a small quiet street
• Kate leaving her twins alone in an unlocked room with an "abductor" nearby while she ran to the restaurant to alert of Madeleines disappearance
• The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
• Sky news were likewise informed, before LE
• The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
• The accumulation of enough evidence for the PJ to name the McCanns as arguidos
• The fact that it was the BRITISH police who first developed the evidence implicating the McCanns
• Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
• The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
• The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
• Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
• The political pressure began from the morning of the 4 May, when a British consul called the Portugese embassy to complain the PDJ were not "doing anything"
• Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
• Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
• Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.

Alone, each bullet point can be scrutinised and picked apart. Viewed together, they paint a compelling picture of what occurred that night.

Fifty years ago any combination of the above would be considered "proof" - enough to prosecute if not convict...people have been hung on much, much less.

I am not going to post links to any of the above as it is MY OPINION ONLY further all freely available through msm, various books written, and this site.

:cow:

Its interesting to note that there has just been a big case in the USA where Drew Peterson has been convicted of murdering his third wife.

Peterson has been convicted using new legislation that has been dubbed "Drews law" which allows Hearsay and circumstantial evidence to be used in the case.

It makes the above comments more interesting when you think that laws can potentially be changed to "suit" a case in certain countries

 

[brit1981]

But I presume the circumstantial evidence in the drew case had to be true and not lies spouted on the internet. Some of the above is not only not evidence against the mccanns it is untrue. The rest is just not evidence against them circumstantial or otherwise. So unless the EU allows Portugal to use fabricated evidence against people the material above is pointless and is just rubbish being spouted on the internet.

besides in the EU circumstantial evidence is allowed to be used, and murder convictions have been obtained with just circumstantial evidence. But the important thing is that false evidence is not allowed to be used, the prosecution must not use lies. claims like the mccanns used calpol to sedate the children, there was a issing blue bag, the mccanns rfused to take part in a reconstruction, the mccanns did not alert the police straght away, the mccanns contacted the media first, the dogs only alert to cadavers, only kates fngerprints were found on the window, the smiths positively sighting gerry, etc are false stories and would never be used againt the mccanns. So far stories like this have only got people like anthony bennett in trouble.

 

[SapphireSteel]

But I presume the circumstantial evidence in the drew case had to be true and not lies spouted on the internet. Some of the above is not only not evidence against the mccanns it is untrue. The rest is just not evidence against them circumstantial or otherwise. So unless the EU allows Portugal to use fabricated evidence against people the material above is pointless and is just rubbish being spouted on the internet.

besides in the EU circumstantial evidence is allowed to be used, and murder convictions have been obtained with just circumstantial evidence. But the important thing is that false evidence is not allowed to be used, the prosecution must not use lies. claims like the mccanns used calpol to sedate the children, there was a issing blue bag, the mccanns rfused to take part in a reconstruction, the mccanns did not alert the police straght away, the mccanns contacted the media first, the dogs only alert to cadavers, only kates fngerprints were found on the window, the smiths positively sighting gerry, etc are false stories and would never be used againt the mccanns. So far stories like this have only got people like anthony bennett in trouble.

Please show me, exactly, where I have "lied"?

 

[brit1981]

I am not saying you have lied, but certainly someone who created these myths has lied as they are without basis. I do not think for a minute you personally have lied, I think you have seen them somewhere and belived the person dishing out the information.

I have taken your bullet points from above and pointed out when they are untrue or misrepresentative. A more detailed description is above though.

The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine

Untrue, they are no suspicious inconsistencies

The refusal to engage in a reconstruction

Untrue, the McCanns never refused to take part.

The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort) The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a

Misrepresentitive as the alerts do not mean cadaver scent was there as the dogs also alert to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living person. Untrue that these dogs searched the entire resort The reocvery dog only alerted to the card fob in the car, as did the csi dog (which only alerts to blood) the material on this was found to belong to Gerry

Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA

Misrepresentitive. In one area in the flat the DNA was shown to possibly belong to either Gerry or madeleine. In the car the DNA identified was found to belong to gerry and Kate. Another sample of DNA was found to belong to three to five people and whilst it did contain elements that madeleine had in her DNA these exact same elements woudl be found in the dna of her parents, grandparents siblings and other relatives. It woudl be impossible to fnd a sample of kate and gerrys DNA that did not have madeleines elements in (in fact if a complete sample of gerry and kates dna was found it would ahve had 100% of madeleine's dna elements in it).

Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found
Untrue, there is no record of kate and gerry ever having had a perosnal audience with the Pope, nor any record that they secured the Popes brief visit to them in the crowd walk. He is the Pope, and was told there were two parents of a missing child there, why would he not go over to them and offer his prayers and bless madeleine's picture.

The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up"

Untrue. calpol is not a sedative. There is no record of kate or gerry ever using sedatives on their child. kates father has never ever said they used calpol as a sedative.
Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child

Untrue, witness do state Kate was calling for madeleine.

Jane Tanners changing story
Untrue, she has never changed her story

The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort

Untrue. The smiths never positively identified Gerry. Each one of them say they never saw the mans face. Several months after the event one of them said he did not see the man's face, it was dark, he did not have his glases, but that by a mannerism it may have been Gerry but he was not positive. None of the others smiths back this up, and several other witnesses inc staff state gerry was at the resort at that time. The PJ discunted it at the time.

The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for
Untrue as there is no record of the Mccanns doing this, not a record of what exact time the timeline was made (but in these cases it is most sensible to put a timeline of what happened when as soon as possible and not everyone takes writing paper on holiday with them)

The general appearance of both parents, Gerry especially seeming unnaturally jolly and unaffected (witness his blog)
Misrepresentitive as it is not a fact, and I for one have not observed this.
[/COLOR]The washing of "cuddle cat"

Misrepresentitive as this did not occur at a suspicious time i.e just before searches, and people in the UK do wash cuddly toys.

The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
Untrue. There is no record of this happening
The refusal to be interviewed
Untrue they were interviewed.

The sheer carelessness and uncaringness of leaving small children alone to cry for extended periods of time, even though they knew this had been occuring and their children had experienced fear and trauma at being alone

Untrue as there is no record of the children crying for extended periods of time.
Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
Untrue, other fingerpirnts were found, but remain unidentified.

The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team

Untrue, there is no record of the mccanns hiring a PR team at this time (orever for themselves). The ocean club used a spoeksperson and the FO sent one over. In the UK it is normal for the police to act as spokesmen for the family, but this does not happen in Portugal.

The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency

Untrue, given the millons they received very quickly they wer enot overly fast and the company has more transparency than the other option they had - keeping it in their own accounts.

The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds
Untrue. The mccanns did not refuse to set up a charity they are barred by the law from doing so. It woudl be against the 2006 charities act to set up a charity to find madeleine. If the charities commission had given them permission to do so the cahrities commission would have been prosecuted for breaking the law, they are not allowed to make exceptions. they regulate charities, they do not make charity law.
The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR

Misrepresentitive. the fund has only paid its own legal expenses i.e those involved ins etting up the fund. they have never paid the mccanns own expenses this was paid by themselves, a donation from richard branson, and conditional fee arrangements. The only personal expenses were two mortgage payments that enabled them to stay in portugal in the summer of 2007. They have never hired their own staff or PR.
The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots

Untrue, no record of this.

The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
Untrue there is no record of this.

The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
Untrue, neither kate nor daid have ever said the visit took 30 minutes.
The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later

Untrue, there is no record of this.

The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
Untrue, one could see the flat from where they were sat.

The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
Untrue there is no record of this ad staff at the ocean club state they were bing asked to call the police very shortly after ten when the alarm was first raised.


Sky news were likewise informed, before LE

Untrue no record of this happening (see above)

The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
Untrue as there is no record of this and LDT are not normal in the UK and Portugal aside from chav TV (although five years after madeleine disappeared the UK is testing thier use in convicted sex offenders)

Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
Untrue, no record of this.

The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
Misrepresentitive as it just means the material found has been unable to be identified as belonging to any particular person who was not there. Undientified material and finerprints were found, but give it was a holiday rental it has been impossible to say where they came from.
The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
Untrue, no record of this.

Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
Untrue, there is no record of this (and if the recovery dogs were so good one would have thought they might have alerted by the trunk which they did not).The political pressure began from the morning of the 4 May, when a British consul called the Portugese embassy to complain the PDJ were not "doing anything"

Misrepresentitive as in the EU it is normal for consuls to be involved. It is also not the case that the british consul in Portgal woudl call the Portuguese embassy which is obviously not in Portugal. They normally just have a representitive speak directly with the police.
Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
Untrue when the rest of the party came into the flat they saw the open window, previous to this only kate had seen it was open and even then only when there was a breeze
Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
untrue there is no record of this and gerry would not be able to delete call records from the company

Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.
Untrue. No cadaver was located, and cadaver dogs were never used. Only a recovery dog which its handler stated alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living person, as well as actual cadavers. The dog indications do not prove a body is unaccounted for or that a person died there. It is a complete misinterpretation of the report to state otherwise.

Can i just ask where you get these snippets as they are no primary sources such as the PJ files stating these snippets are true, yet you see to be getting them from somewhere as I do not believe you personally are making them up? Is it from that anthony bennett's sites?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I am not saying you have lied, but certainly someone who created these myths has lied as they are without basis. I do not think for a minute you personally have lied, I think you have seen them somewhere and belived the person dishing out the information.

I have taken your bullet points from above and pointed out when they are untrue or misrepresentative. A more detailed description is above though.

The inconsistencies of the statement of the Tapas Nine

Untrue, they are no suspicious inconsistencies

The refusal to engage in a reconstruction

Untrue, the McCanns never refused to take part.

The location of "cadaver" scent in the Renault hired days after Madeleines disappearance The location of "cadaver" scent in apartment 5a (the only location it was found in the entire resort) The alert of the dogs to cadaver on Kate McCanns clothing, a key fob, and behind the sofa in 5a

Misrepresentitive as the alerts do not mean cadaver scent was there as the dogs also alert to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living person. Untrue that these dogs searched the entire resort The reocvery dog only alerted to the card fob in the car, as did the csi dog (which only alerts to blood) the material on this was found to belong to Gerry

Swabs and DNA testing in the areas the dogs alerted showing positive results for elements of Madeleines DNA

Misrepresentitive. In one area in the flat the DNA was shown to possibly belong to either Gerry or madeleine. In the car the DNA identified was found to belong to gerry and Kate. Another sample of DNA was found to belong to three to five people and whilst it did contain elements that madeleine had in her DNA these exact same elements woudl be found in the dna of her parents, grandparents siblings and other relatives. It woudl be impossible to fnd a sample of kate and gerrys DNA that did not have madeleines elements in (in fact if a complete sample of gerry and kates dna was found it would ahve had 100% of madeleine's dna elements in it).

Gerry and Kates highly unusual move of securing a personal audience with the Pope, thereby leaving Portugal and abandoning the opportunity to be present when Madeleine is found
Untrue, there is no record of kate and gerry ever having had a perosnal audience with the Pope, nor any record that they secured the Popes brief visit to them in the crowd walk. He is the Pope, and was told there were two parents of a missing child there, why would he not go over to them and offer his prayers and bless madeleine's picture.

The use of Calpol for sedation in England, yet no medications whatsoever were found in 5a indicating a possible "clean up"

Untrue. calpol is not a sedative. There is no record of kate or gerry ever using sedatives on their child. kates father has never ever said they used calpol as a sedative.
Language used by both, specifically Kates unnatural refusal to call for lost child

Untrue, witness do state Kate was calling for madeleine.

Jane Tanners changing story
Untrue, she has never changed her story

The Smiths positively identifying Gerry McCann as the individual they saw carrying a child away from the resort

Untrue. The smiths never positively identified Gerry. Each one of them say they never saw the mans face. Several months after the event one of them said he did not see the man's face, it was dark, he did not have his glases, but that by a mannerism it may have been Gerry but he was not positive. None of the others smiths back this up, and several other witnesses inc staff state gerry was at the resort at that time. The PJ discunted it at the time.

The destruction of the childs toy (colouring book) to create a timeline they had yet to be asked for
Untrue as there is no record of the Mccanns doing this, not a record of what exact time the timeline was made (but in these cases it is most sensible to put a timeline of what happened when as soon as possible and not everyone takes writing paper on holiday with them)

The general appearance of both parents, Gerry especially seeming unnaturally jolly and unaffected (witness his blog)
Misrepresentitive as it is not a fact, and I for one have not observed this.
[/COLOR]The washing of "cuddle cat"

Misrepresentitive as this did not occur at a suspicious time i.e just before searches, and people in the UK do wash cuddly toys.

The laundering occuring on the evening of the 3rd while the parents were supposed to be distraught/searching
Untrue. There is no record of this happening
The refusal to be interviewed
Untrue they were interviewed.

The sheer carelessness and uncaringness of leaving small children alone to cry for extended periods of time, even though they knew this had been occuring and their children had experienced fear and trauma at being alone

Untrue as there is no record of the children crying for extended periods of time.
Kates claim the window had been forced open, but only her fingerprints were found
Untrue, other fingerpirnts were found, but remain unidentified.

The almost immediate engagement of a Public Relations team

Untrue, there is no record of the mccanns hiring a PR team at this time (orever for themselves). The ocean club used a spoeksperson and the FO sent one over. In the UK it is normal for the police to act as spokesmen for the family, but this does not happen in Portugal.

The unnaturally fast setting up of a private company to administer funds WITHOUT transparency

Untrue, given the millons they received very quickly they wer enot overly fast and the company has more transparency than the other option they had - keeping it in their own accounts.

The refusal to start a charity to administer the funds
Untrue. The mccanns did not refuse to set up a charity they are barred by the law from doing so. It woudl be against the 2006 charities act to set up a charity to find madeleine. If the charities commission had given them permission to do so the cahrities commission would have been prosecuted for breaking the law, they are not allowed to make exceptions. they regulate charities, they do not make charity law.
The use of the funds to pay lawyers, staff, personal expenses, and PR

Misrepresentitive. the fund has only paid its own legal expenses i.e those involved ins etting up the fund. they have never paid the mccanns own expenses this was paid by themselves, a donation from richard branson, and conditional fee arrangements. The only personal expenses were two mortgage payments that enabled them to stay in portugal in the summer of 2007. They have never hired their own staff or PR.
The disappearance of the bedding from the twins cots

Untrue, no record of this.

The provision of a pillow allegedly used by Madeleine, yet found with someone elses hair on it and NONE of Madeleines
Untrue there is no record of this.

The unexplained inconsistency of Paynes visit to Kate, as either 30 seconds or 30 minutes
Untrue, neither kate nor daid have ever said the visit took 30 minutes.
The unexplained inconsistency that Kate claimed to have a shower on the evening of the 3rd, followed by a bath a short time later

Untrue, there is no record of this.

The statement they could "see" apartment 5a from the Tapas restaurant, later proven to be false
Untrue, one could see the flat from where they were sat.

The first call Gerry made was to a friend in England, Alastair Clarke, a diplomat friend, BEFORE the PJ were informed
Untrue there is no record of this ad staff at the ocean club state they were bing asked to call the police very shortly after ten when the alarm was first raised.


Sky news were likewise informed, before LE

Untrue no record of this happening (see above)

The statement they were happy to take a LDT, only to refuse to take one a short time later
Untrue as there is no record of this and LDT are not normal in the UK and Portugal aside from chav TV (although five years after madeleine disappeared the UK is testing thier use in convicted sex offenders)

Attempts by Team McCann to steer the investigation, from Day one
Untrue, no record of this.

The complete absence of any forensic evidence of an intruder
Misrepresentitive as it just means the material found has been unable to be identified as belonging to any particular person who was not there. Undientified material and finerprints were found, but give it was a holiday rental it has been impossible to say where they came from.
The apparent politcal intereferance orchestrated by Team McCann, resulting in (amongst other things) the PDJ not receiving basic background information from the UK
Untrue, no record of this.

Indications that something "frozen" had escaped from the Renault trunk and dripped down to the pavement
Untrue, there is no record of this (and if the recovery dogs were so good one would have thought they might have alerted by the trunk which they did not).The political pressure began from the morning of the 4 May, when a British consul called the Portugese embassy to complain the PDJ were not "doing anything"

Misrepresentitive as in the EU it is normal for consuls to be involved. It is also not the case that the british consul in Portgal woudl call the Portuguese embassy which is obviously not in Portugal. They normally just have a representitive speak directly with the police.
Only the parents saw the "open window" that evening, even though it was a cold night and presumably draughty
Untrue when the rest of the party came into the flat they saw the open window, previous to this only kate had seen it was open and even then only when there was a breeze
Gerry inexplicably erased his call records from 3 May
untrue there is no record of this and gerry would not be able to delete call records from the company

Cadaver was located in 5a - there is a dead body unaccounted for, with confirmation that no third party died there.
Untrue. No cadaver was located, and cadaver dogs were never used. Only a recovery dog which its handler stated alerts to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living person, as well as actual cadavers. The dog indications do not prove a body is unaccounted for or that a person died there. It is a complete misinterpretation of the report to state otherwise.

Can i just ask where you get these snippets as they are no primary sources such as the PJ files stating these snippets are true, yet you see to be getting them from somewhere as I do not believe you personally are making them up? Is it from that anthony bennett's sites?

You have not provided one workable link for any of your accusations or statements, and reading through this rebuttal only confirms my opinion that you actually know very little about the events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.

I could post responses all day but it is like rain in the desert...it just evaporates leaving no trace.

Every statement anyone makes is immediately dismissed as "lies" yet as no one knows what happened to Madeleine, this is opinion only.

There is absolutely no point to discussing anything at all with a party who believes everything to be "lies" apart from their own theory.