The case of Madeleine McCann

[mike tesko]

The discoveries made by myself during my visit to Praia de Luz, Portugal, in June 2010 appear to be significant in the grand scheme of things. For example, the use/involvement of someone using the premises of 'a derelict building' (5 Ave Dos Pescadores) in the disposal of the childs remains, seems to me to have a massive relevance in view of the recent interest  in the latest suspect (2020), Christian B, by German Authorities. We now know, for example! that the latest suspect lived in another derelict building about a mile of so, from apartment 5A of the Ocean club where Madeleine McCann seemingly vanished. He has also holed up in vacated factories and buildings in Germany, and other countries...

I am not yet convinced, that if the latest suspect had some involvement in disposing of the remains of the McCann child victim, that he acted alone! All indications that I am receiving from the 'Universal Conscienceness'' suggests that many other people were involved in the childs demise, and tragedy. If my sixth sense is anything to go by, it can't just be a coincidence that the McCann parents went and holed up inside the local church (St vincents) to avoid media attention after they reported her 'Taken' or 'gone' at around 10.00pm on the evening of 3rd May 2007, with the crucial derelict building with its net curtains was a matter of metres away across the road from the same church...

Other clues which I discovered or found inside the grounds of the derelict buildings, and its rear garden was a rather suspicious looking shallow grave the location of which was within eyesight of the village church spire and clock.

Next to the grave, was a selection of stones/rocks which somebody had laid out in some sort of symbolic gesture...

I also found human re.ains in the form of a small bone amongst the piles and piles of garden waste and general rubbish...

Rather more astonishingly, I found articles of a mans clothing which had been concealed inside the premises. Two of these articles of clothing (a pair of blue Jean's, and a dark coloured nylon kaghool) were identical to clothing that was being worn by a man acting suspiciously outside the McCanns apartment on 1st and 2and May 2007. Elsewhere a man wearing the same clothing was observed acting suspiciously outside and inside a telephone kiosk close to Kelly's bar - the suspect on these occasions. Did so at about tea time on the 1st and 2nd May 2007, and did not appear again from the 3rd May onwards..
.

[David1819]

German prosecutors say they might be charging Christian B next year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904

[Roch]

German prosecutors say they might be charging Christian B next year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55224904

Not sure what's going on but the McCann's don't seem happy with the German police remarks. 

[mike tesko]

Not sure what's going on but the McCann's don't seem happy with the German police remarks.

McCanns know that things went wrong, Madeleine was only supposed to be a symbolic sacrifice but she actually became a sacrifice, died and the satanist organisation involved with the McCann parents, and David Payne were aided and abetted by Mathew Oldfield, his sidekick, Russel O'Brien and JayneTanner, in covering up the actual day and time Madeleine allegedly went missing from apartment 5A...

[mike tesko]

McCanns know that things went wrong, Madeleine was only supposed to be a symbolic sacrifice but she actually became a sacrifice, died and the satanist organisation involved with the McCann parents, and David Payne were aided and abetted by Mathew Oldfield, his sidekick, and JayneTanner, in covering up the actual day and time Madeleine allegedly went missing from apartment 5A...

Madeleine actually was taken by prior arrangement, on the evening of 1st May 2007, from apartment 5A, whilst the McCann parents and other members of their troop were at 'Chaplin's Bar' until around midnight 'two evenings prior to the occasion they fabricated her disappearence from apartment 5A, at around 10.00pm on the evening of 3rd May 2007...

[mike tesko]

When Madeleine had not been returned to the safe custody of the McCann parents at apartment 5A by evening of 2nd May 2007, the parents, David Payne, Mathew Oldfield, Russell O'Brien, and Jayne Tanner became anxious and concerned that something serious had happened to the McCann child...

[mike tesko]

Between midnight on 1st/2nd May 2007, the McCann parents were in contact via mobile phone, and the internet with those who handled Madeleine during the symbolic ceremony that was supposed to occur on the 1st May 2007, and for that matter, during and throughout the 2nd/3rd  May 2007, which incorporated the tapas bar nonsensical visits to check of the groups children (home alone victims)...

[mike tesko]

German police (authorities), already have the mobile phone records of all those involved in 'the arrangement' covering evening of1st/4th May 2007, and beyond, and are awaiting the results of an analysis of these, before the McCann parents, and some of their companions, are officially back in the firing line'

Madeleine McCann was almost certainly dead by the morning of Tuesday, 2nd May 2007...

[mike tesko]

Madeleine McCann was almost certainly dead by the morning of Tuesday, 2nd May 2007...

'walpurgus night', or 'May day' rituals lie at the heart of the Madeleine McCann (so called disappearence)...

Madeleine McCann was a child sacrifice, and she almost certainly died as a sacrifice at around midnight (1st/2 May 2007). She did not attend the creche or take part in any children's activities during 2nd or and third May 2007..

[mike tesko]

'walpurgus night', or 'May day' rituals lie at the heart of the Madeleine McCann (so called disappearence)...

Madeleine McCann was a child sacrifice, and she almost certainly died as a sacrifice at around midnight (1st/2 May 2007). She did not attend the creche or take part in any children's activities during 2nd or and third May 2007..

She was already dead by breakfast time, Tuesday, 2nd May 2007...

[David1819]

Not sure what's going on but the McCann's don't seem happy with the German police remarks.

Since they are saying their daughter is dead, its not news any parents would be happy about. Plus they are not revealing details and thus leaving them clinging to hope they might be wrong. Which is kinda cruel if you ask me.

[handymanz]

This link here I down loaded from wikileaks, it gives a detailed analysis on why it is believed the McCanns are responsible.  https://file.wikileaks.org/file/madeleine-foundation-leaflet.doc

Contents

A. Introduction                                                                                       page 2

B. The 30 Key Reasons which suggest that
Madeleine was not abducted                                                               page 5

Reason 2: The evidence of the cadaver dogs                                      pages 6-9

Reason 4: The DNA evidence                                                             pages 11-13

Reason 7: The sheer impossibility of the abduction
  happening in the way it was claimed to have happened            pages 14-20

Reason 9: The McCanns’ false claim that the shutters
  had been jemmied open                                                                     pages 21-22

Reason 15: Making long-term plans to mark
  Madeleine’s alleged abduction                                                        pages 26-27

Reason 16: The constantly-changing stories of Jane Tanner     pages 27-30

Reason 18: The ‘Tapas 9’s ‘Pact of Silence’                                     pages 31-32

Reason 21: The dubious private detective agencies                     
  used by the McCanns                                                                        pages 33-37

C. 30 other reasons which suggest that
Madeleine was not abducted                                                             page 43


Appendix 1 - A summary of evidence of British government
involvement in the case of ‘missing’ Madeleine McCann            page 53

Appendix 2 - Sources of Information on the
Madeleine McCann case                                                                     page 60

[guest29835]

This link here I down loaded from wikileaks, it gives a detailed analysis on why it is believed the McCanns are responsible.  https://file.wikileaks.org/file/madeleine-foundation-leaflet.doc

Contents

A. Introduction                                                                                       page 2

B. The 30 Key Reasons which suggest that
Madeleine was not abducted                                                               page 5

Reason 2: The evidence of the cadaver dogs                                      pages 6-9

Reason 4: The DNA evidence                                                             pages 11-13

Reason 7: The sheer impossibility of the abduction
  happening in the way it was claimed to have happened            pages 14-20

Reason 9: The McCanns’ false claim that the shutters
  had been jemmied open                                                                     pages 21-22

Reason 15: Making long-term plans to mark
  Madeleine’s alleged abduction                                                        pages 26-27

Reason 16: The constantly-changing stories of Jane Tanner     pages 27-30

Reason 18: The ‘Tapas 9’s ‘Pact of Silence’                                     pages 31-32

Reason 21: The dubious private detective agencies                     
  used by the McCanns                                                                        pages 33-37

C. 30 other reasons which suggest that
Madeleine was not abducted                                                             page 43


Appendix 1 - A summary of evidence of British government
involvement in the case of ‘missing’ Madeleine McCann            page 53

Appendix 2 - Sources of Information on the
Madeleine McCann case                                                                     page 60

The document you link to is not the same as the contents you summarise above.  There are only 10 reasons in the document, not 30.  Section C and the appendices are not in the document.

If the linked document is anything to go by, then personally I find the anti-McCann case rather unimpressive against the extravagant claims made.

Let's look at the 10 reasons:

Reason 1: Irrelevant.  Proves nothing.

Reason 2: Unreliable and of no value without additional supporting evidence.  Probably inadmissible anyway.

Reason 3: Irrelevant.  Proves nothing.

Reason 4: Nothing presented here demonstrates that the abduction scenario is "impossible".

Reason 5: Irrelevant.  Proves nothing.  Also selective, since the McCanns have assisted the police at times.

Reason 6: Total non-point.  If the McCanns had nothing to do with the abduction, then how would they know what the abductor did in the apartment?

Reason 7: So what?  Irrelevant.

Reason 8: Proves nothing, even if true.

Reason 9: Irrelevant, and probably misrepresentations anyway.

Reason 10: If Madeleine was abducted, she had no reason to wash 'Cuddle Cat' but also no incentive to do so.  Thus, the point is neutral.  The McCanns are not detectives.

I am neutral.  I am interested in facts and evidence that could form proof.  Based on that document, the anti-McCann camp ought to temper and moderate their claims.

[handymanz]

The document you link to is not the same as the contents you summarise above.  There are only 10 reasons in the document, not 30.  Section C and the appendices are not in the document.

Sorry posted wrong link, try this.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/madeleine-foundation-book.doc


Here's the wikileak's file index where I found it.
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/?fbclid=IwAR1Jpo35xdaFKRJmxQSYmjZdG8OSxaaFV20k0TsZrcMrFbGQA6Ri6Qr2XDg
(scroll down)

[guest29835]

Sorry posted wrong link, try this.

https://file.wikileaks.org/file/madeleine-foundation-book.doc


Here's the wikileak's file index where I found it.
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/?fbclid=IwAR1Jpo35xdaFKRJmxQSYmjZdG8OSxaaFV20k0TsZrcMrFbGQA6Ri6Qr2XDg
(scroll down)

I will look at it and may comment.  It's a long document.  I've just had a skim through it and it seems pretty standard fare for Mr Bennett and friends (I assume he is the author).  Lots of conjecture based on assertions about what the McCanns did or didn't do; lots of assumptions about why the McCanns did this or that or didn't do the other; some of the usual armchair psychology; but, thin on the ground when it comes to real evidence - despite claiming otherwise. 

If I were a juror in a trial of the parents for homicide, fraud and concealment of the body, I would want to see some hard evidence.  Mr Bennett's suspicions and speculations would never reach an English criminal court - or at least, I hope not.

I am not saying there is no evidence.  That would be to go too far the other way.  There is some evidence that could - could - point to their involvement, and there are some aspects of their behaviour that do bother me. 

I think the crux of this case - at least, for the moment - is the assertion from Amaral, Bennett and others that an abduction was "impossible".  It is telling that despite all the noise, fire and smoke, we have never got beyond that question.  Based on what I know [I admit my case knowledge is limited], I do not believe "material impossibility" has been established, which is one of the reasons I am inclined provisionally to side with the parents.  Though to be fair, it needn't be impossibility.  Heavy improbability could be enough, but I don't believe that is established either.  If it were, then I agree that the McCanns could - again, only could - be convicted by default.

I have my own approach to true crime cases, which is:

(i). Start with agreed facts and common ground and work from there.

(ii). If there are identifiable suspects or a convicted offender protesting his innocence, look for innocent explanations and opportunities to give him/them the benefit of the doubt.  This allows the case against him/them to be 'stress-tested'.

(iii). Only 'convict' on solid evidence, certain that the person did it, knowing that any remaining doubt is residual and does not go to the core of the case.  A red flag is when a case relies on lots of assumptions about motives, conjectures and 'psychologising' and lots of 'fill in the gaps' arguments.  By analogy, we're told that Jeremy is a monster because he had a heavy breakfast and grinned at the funeral, which is well suspicious.  And that Hugo Boss suit!  In the matter of McCann, Bennett's scarlet memos are full of such things.  It could be that he does have something, but in my view he weakens his position with these irrelevancies.  Less is more.

Yes, they're an odd pair.  Yes, probably they've given a misleading story about their child-minding endeavours. But the question remains: Where's the beef?  At the moment, there isn't any.

You'll excuse me, but when it comes to locking people up for years on end, I have high standards.