50 facts about the case that the British media are not telling you - on video

SECTION A PART 1

·      The major contradictions in the statements of the McCanns and friends

SECTION A PART 2

·        The major contradictions in the statements of the McCanns and friends

SECTION B

·        The highly trained British police dogs who detected the scent of a corpse

The evidence of the cadaver dogs

One of the key lines of evidence Goncalo Amaral refers to in his book is the work of two internationally-acclaimed British police sniffer dogs, namely the two springer spaniels, Eddie and Keela, who have been trained and used by British dog handler Martin Grime. These dogs, who hitherto had a 100% track record in 200 or more cases of successfully locating where corpses had lain (Eddie) or of detecting human blood (Keela), found the scent of a human corpse in the following locations:

1.The living room of the McCanns’ apartment (5A) in Praia da Luz, on the floor next to the outside wall, behind the sofa

2.In or near the wardrobe in the McCanns’ apartment bedroom

3.On the veranda of the McCanns’ apartment veranda

4.Amongst the flowerbeds outside the apartment

5.On two of Dr Kate McCann’s clothes

6.On a red T-shirt belonging either to Madeleine or to her younger brother Sean

7.On the pink soft toy often produced by Dr Kate McCann for media photographs, ‘Cuddle Cat’

8.On the floor of the Renault Scenic, the hired car used by the McCanns, near the driver’s seat

9.On the car keys of the Renault Scenic

The presence of human cadaverine in these locations or on these items indicates that a corpse which has been dead for at least 90 minutes, usually at least two hours, has been in direct contact with these locations/items. The dogs did not find the scent of a human corpse anywhere else in Praia da Luz. Eddie was reported never to have given a ‘false positive’, i.e. a false alert, to the scent of a human corpse. His reactions to the above ten locations (he alerted to two separate items of Dr Kate McCann’s clothing) can therefore be trusted. The probability is that the only corpse that could have been in contact with those 10 locations – though it is sad to spell this out in black and white – is that of Madeleine McCann.

 

 

The 48 questions the Portuguese police asked Dr Kate McCann

The 48 questions the Portuguese police asked Dr Kate McCann

THE 48 QUESTIONS KATE DIDN’T ANSWER


1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)

3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?

5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?

6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?

7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?

9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?

10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?

11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?

12. Who contacted the authorities?

13. Who took place in the searches?

14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?

15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?

16. What does 'we let her down' mean?

17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?

18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?

19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?

20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?

21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?

22. Did you call Sky News?


23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?

24. Did you ask for a priest?


25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?


26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?


27. What was your behaviour that night?


28. Did you manage to sleep?


29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?


30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?


31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?


32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?


33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?


34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?


35. What is your medical specialty?


36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?


37. Did you work every day?


38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?


39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?


40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?


41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?


42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?


43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?


A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'


 

McCann Detective - Arthur Cowley`s bogus company

The British press would have you believe that the McCann`s have hired a team of crack detectives, in fact the they have often, referred to them as "Alpha Group Investigations". 


Alpha Investigations Group is a completely different company and have no connection with the McCanns or with their detectives.  Alpha Group Investigations does not exist. 


Shortly after it was publicly announced that the McCanns had employed a firm of private investigators, June 10 2009 to be precise, Arthur Cowley set up "Alphaig Limited" Company Registration no: 06929397 at companies house. 


Alphaig Limited, is a one man band with Arthur Cowley as the sole shareholder. 


The registered office is:


Treetops
Pant Y Gof
Halkyn
CH8 8DH


The registered office of Alphaig Limited is also the cottage pictured above


The first accounts of Alphaig Limited showed that it held fixed assets of only £630, a bank balance of £854 and made profits in its first year of £8


It should also be noted that Alphaig has no website or contact details and does not appear in any telephone directory, so anyone who is not a McCann could not get in touch if they wished to employ the services of this company.  More worrying is the fact that anyone with information on Madeleine McCann could not easily contact the private investigators, even more so because the press has very cunningly and falsly named the firm as "Alpha Group Investigations" and not "Alphaig Limited".


In summary we have a very small company run from a private cottage in Halkyn, Flintshire with next to no assets and very little cash, in fact the company has no resources to speak of and makes no profit.  It has no website or contact details, no clients apart from the McCanns and evidently no staff.


Clearly this company does not have the necessary resources or expertise to locate a missing person.


We may ask ourselves, why does Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns and the press refer to this almost dormant company as "Alpha Group Investigations"?


How can they justify portraying this firm publicly as a "team of crack detectives"?


The McCanns claim to pay thousands to their private detectives, but we have seen that there are no resources available in Alphaig Limited to search for Madeleine, so where is this money, where has it been spent? 


Has Alphaig really received thousands of pounds to fund the search for Madeleine and made a profit of only £8 in a full year?


Kate McCann wants you to buy her new book of which she says the proceeds will go towards the search for Madeleine, she also states that the only people looking for Madeleine are their private detectives, according to them a great team of crack detectives but in reality it is Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley.


We can confirm that all McCann operations are run not from Halkyn, but from a house in Knutsford, owned by Brian Kennedy.  In fact, one of Brian Kennedy’s right-hand men, Andrew Dickman, registered the domain name www.alphaig.co.uk on 12 January 2009


You may wish to consider these facts before buying Kate McCann`s 'Very Truthful' Book

the Truth of the Lie

The Real Madeleine McCann video by Spudgun

The interim report of Tavares de Almeida of the Portuguese Police, 10 September 2007

Report for the attention of the Criminal Investigation Co-ordinator

We began with an abduction scenario:

The child’s parents immediately attributed her disappearance to the action of a third party, promoting the scenario that she had been abducted. Abduction was only one of a number of possible scenarios, but the family publicised their claim that Madeleine had been abducted in a manner that had never been seen before. On the very next day, English television stations led their broadcasts with the news of Madeleine’s disappearance. The media presented the abduction as the truth, although we were looking at other scenarios.

As time went by, the abduction scenario was not confirmed. The abduction hypothesis did not stand up. For instance, no ransom was ever demanded in exchange for information by the alleged kidnappers or for the child herself.

The McCanns worked on their account of events:

The information that was initially collected from family and friends was uncertain. In addition, the McCanns and their friends worked on their account of events in order to strengthen and defend their version of what had happened Madeleine.

The group’s programme for checking the children:

This claim, that the group had a shared programme for regularly checking their children, had the effect on English public opinion that the whole group was exonerated from any blame. Their claim meant that any abnormal event that might last longer than 30 minutes was impossible, as they all agreed that that was the interval between the checks. The group could not sustain the claim that there was checking ‘every 15 to 30 minutes’. In fact the contradictions between their statements made it easy to see that they were all lying.

The abduction claim was strongly maintained:

The fact is that the claim of abduction plus the claims of regular checking led the investigation to meander, and to waste time and resources. It is hard to understand how the abduction claim was presented at the beginning and was maintained so strongly. Anyone can see that persisting with the abduction scenario for so long harmed our investigation.

Even after all this time, both the McCanns and their friends and the general public believe the claim of abduction, while the McCanns and their friends claim that all they want to do is ‘assist the investigation’. In order to move the investigation forward, we were forced to assume that much information given to us was incorrect.

The evidence of Jane Tanner:

Continuing with our analysis of information offered to us, one of the group’s members, Jane Tanner, apparently became an important witness, due to what she told us. She said she saw someone crossing the street at dinner time from the location of the McCanns’ apartment towards Robert Murat’s house. [He was later made an ‘arguido’ (suspect)].

This information directed and occupied our work for a long time. This may be an example of how information that is not correct may not only delay the investigation but could even have led to losing the little girl. Jane Tanner insisted on the truthfulness of her account. This led to certain scenarios being developed. But these scenarios were not sustained in reality despite long and intense work being carried out.

There was a discrepancy [about the moment Jane Tanner allegedly saw an abductor] between the statements of Dr Gerald McCann and Jane Tanner. They claimed to have passed each other at only two or three metres’ distance [7 to 10 feet], yet failed to see each other.

How could they position themselves as both being together in quite a confined space, yet both fail to see each other walking by; or, more correctly, one sees the other but the other doesn’t see her? Even the exact location where they supposedly crossed each other’s paths is not very well defined by both.

The precise moment when Jane Tanner chose to make her statement about what she had ‘seen’ and the explanation for choosing that moment, is unreal. That is to say: it is not easy to accept that any witness (from the group), on seeing someone with a child in their arms walking away from the McCanns’ apartment, didn’t act and speak immediately. Then there is her description of the abductor being altered, or ‘perfected’. These reasons mean there is little credibilty in what she says.

Dr Gerald McCann:

The information from the immediate family and their group of friends which is fundamental in investigating this type of crime was always distorted.

The events of 3^rd May:

While the tennis match was taking place, another member of the group [Dr David Payne] visited the McCanns’ apartment whilst Dr Kate McCann was there. He was there for a period of 30 seconds, according to Dr Kate McCann, but 30 minutes according to Dr Payne, until Dr Gerald McCann showed up.

If it was 30 seconds, then all we can do is ask if everything is O.K. and if anything is needed - little more. But if we have 30 minutes available, then we can go ahead and do something [during that time] that may be asked of us.

Although they say in their statements that their strategic position in the Tapas restaurant allowed them, the McCanns, to see the apartment where they’d left their underage children asleep, the examination of that spot revealed their claim to be false. It must also be noted that according to our investigation, everything points to their position at the table being with their backs to the apartment.

Leaving the twins in a dangerous situation:

It must be noted that Dr Kate McCann knew that, going back to the restaurant as she did, she would leave the twins, Amelie and Sean, in the same dangerous situation. It is beyond comprehension why she didn’t use her mobile ’phone to call her husband or another member of the group or, even simpler, why she didn’t walk out on to the balcony and shout out from there, where she could easily be heard by the members of the group.

The media coverage:

The authorities, the local police force the GNR, were alerted at around 10:40pm. It was after this that the people of the village were alerted to Madeleine’s disappearance and began searching for her.

But the facts surrounding her disappearance were not kept within the proper authorities and the normal channels. On the following day, British and Portuguese television news bulletins were already broadcasting the news [as the top item in their bulletins].

The McCanns’ group of friends gathered in the McCanns’ apartment which they searched, without result. Even before any search by the authorities in the surroundings started, the news about a possible abduction was already circulating.

Misinformation:

The group’s initial informal statements given during the initial stages of the investigation immediately introduced the abduction hypothesis. But even simple things were the subject of misinformation:

1) was the window open or closed?

2) was the shutter up or down?

3) was the balcony door open or closed?

4) was the front door merely shut or locked with a key?

The McCanns suggest someone to the police who might be able to find Madeleine’s corpse:

Despite everything, until a certain time in the investigation, the family fed and sustained the theory of an abduction. However, on a date on which we cannot be precise, it was suggested by the McCanns themselves that a person should be consulted who might be able to, eventually, indicate the probable location of Madeleine’s corpse.

This suggestion was inexplicable to members of the investigation team. Why were the family themselves raising the hypothesis that little Maddie was dead?

Our decision to bring in the cadaver dogs:

A human has 5 million cells to assist the sense of smell while a dog has 200 million. We need to highlight that this kind of inspection is frequent in the U.K. and the dogs’ success rate is 100%. We need to emphasise that when the cadaver dog alerts to the cadaver odour, this does not signify that the body is in that place, but it does signify that the body has been there at some time in the past.

Among the great number of items and locations that were inspected, the dogs marked the following locations and items:

Apartment 5A, Ocean Club resort, the McCanns’ apartment from where the child disappeared: The cadaver dog alerted to the scent of a corpse in the master bedroom, in a corner, by the wardrobe; in living room, behind the sofa, and by the side window, while the bloodhound alerted to blood in the living room behind the sofa, and by the side window (in exactly the same spot that had been signalled by the cadaver dog).

Front garden of Apartment 5A: The cadaver dog alerted to the scent of a corpse on one of the flower beds.

The McCann family’s clothes and belongings: The cadaver dog alerted to the scent of a corpse on two pieces of clothing belonging to Dr Kate McCann, one piece of clothing belonging to Madeleine (a red T-shirt) and on Madeleine’s soft toy [Cuddle Cat]. The cadaver odour was detected when the toy was still inside the McCanns’ residence in July 2007; the scent was later confirmed outside the house as well.

The vehicle that was used by the McCann family: The cadaver dog alerted to the scent of a corpse on the car key and on the inside of the car boot, while the bloodhound also marked the car key and the inside of the car boot.

In a total of 10 cars examined [in an underground car park) the cadaver dog and the blood dog marked only the car of the McCann family.

No less relevant is the refinement of the results that point towards Madeleine’s DNA as being present in Apartment 5A, behind the sofa, a spot that was marked by both the cadaver and the blood dog. In every place marked by the blood dog, the laboratory confirmed that this DNA was present.

The McCanns evolved their story to adapt to the police questions:

The media attention that has been given to the case and the search for information by the said media has led to an evolution in Madeleine’s parents’ statements. All the information that has been made public has contributed to the McCanns rebuilding and adapting their story to fit the eventual police questions. They have attempted to explain the forensic evidence that we have collected and are collecting.

Excuses for blood in the apartment and the car:

When the media first informed the public that blood had been detected ‘in the car and in the apartment’, Dr Kate and members of her family made statements to the public with the simple excuse that it had been someone, who had access to the apartment, that had deliberately placed this evidence there.

Now they even say that it was the criminal investigation team that placed this ‘false’ evidence (i.e. blood and cadaver odour in the apartment and in the car). In an attempt to justify the finding of [Madeleine’s] blood in the apartment, Dr Kate McCann went even further, stating on that occasion that Madeleine sometimes suffered nosebleeds.

Strong evidence that the crime scene was altered:

There is strong evidence that the crime scene was altered, and some furniture was moved around. Those changes are indications that the abduction was a stage-managed simulation.

The McCanns dismissed a child care worker who wanted to help them:

In the night that Madeleine disappeared, the McCanns were contacted by a lady who identified herself with appropriate documents that credited her as somebody who worked professionally with children in the U.K, in hospitals and children’s centres.

She offered her help in whatever was needed. No doubt this person could have been of valuable help, even about such things as procedures, but she was dismissed by the McCanns, who rejected her offer of help.

The facts point to Madeleine’s death on 3^rd May in Apartment 5A:

From everything that was established, the facts point in the direction of the death of Madeleine McCann occurring on the night of 3 May 2007, inside apartment 5A, at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, which was occupied by the McCann couple and by their three children. There is a coincidence between the markings of cadaver odour and blood [by the two dogs], according to the (partial) Laboratory Report that has been annexed to the files.

The said marking occurred behind the living room sofa (cadaver odour/blood/DNA), which unarguably proves that said piece of furniture was pushed back by someone, after the death of Madeleine McCann was confirmed. Because of the few traces that were recovered on location and subject to examination, it has to be admitted as a strong hypothesis that it [the room] was subject to a clean-up operation at some time following the occurrence of death.

In the same manner, the soft toy that was used by the dead child, which was found at the top of the bed where she usually slept (see the photos from the initial inspection) reveals that someone put it there at a moment after Madeleine’s death, given the fact that the bed itself doesn’t have any cadaver odour.

This is to say, an intentional alteration of things in that apartment took place, in order to create a false scenario that doesn’t match reality, in an attempt to develop opportunities to create a bogus abduction scenario. It must be added that the cadaver dog strongly signalled the bedroom where the McCann couple slept, which may indicate the moving of the corpse from the actual death spot (the living room) into a non-visible part of the said master bedroom of the McCanns.

Furthermore, a strong marking of cadaver odour was made on Kate McCann’s clothes, which may indicate that she was in touch with the cadaver. There was also a strong marking of cadaver odour in the car that was used by the McCann couple after 27 May 2007). Taking together the blood dog’s marking, and based on the forensics that are included in the process files, which indicate the presence of Madeleine McCann’s DNA in the car boot, we cannot exclude a strong hypothesis that this vehicle may have possibly been used move the cadaver, 24 days or more after Madeleine’s death.

Conclusions:

From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:

A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007

B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place

C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted

D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann

E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;

From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.