Madeleine McCann Books

Can you explain more, in why TB went off in another direction and spent the last couple of years and thousands of hours in doing so....

Also, who is this other person, who might of helped.,.

Cheers.

Hi Andrew.

A lot of people believe that Madeleune died earlier in the week, Tony being one and he also believes Murat was involved so I think that's why he has his theory but I'm not convinced.

The book partially names a weathly business man who lived near the McCanns but retired to Praia da Luz

Thanks, CIA.

I'm going to have to get this book ordered me thinks.

Unless you can type it all out on here. Maybe a chapter every other eve or something

There is too much in the book a lot you will already know about.  It is worth reading.   Most of it you will have read before but his theory you won't have and the witness statements where new to me.   I haven't had time but will Pm you the chapter of Irish connection chapter which I found very interesting.

Was only jesting about typing it all up on here.

Instead of a PM then maybe post the Irish bit you mentioned on here. I'm sure others would be interested in reading it and to discuss it as well...

Many thanks.

ciawoman wrote:Hi Andrew.

A lot of people believe that Madeleune died earlier in the week, Tony being one and he also believes Murat was involved so I think that's why he has his theory but I'm not convinced.

The book partially names a weathly business man who lived near the McCanns but retired to Praia da Luz

Can you name this wealthy businessman?
We know it's not Geraghty because Chateleine said so. Besides which he lived in Buckinghamshire and Belgium I believe.

I'm glad that you deleted the message you just made, dandaar.

Please, no more like that.

Freedom wrote:I'm glad that you deleted the message you just made, dandaar.

Please, no more like that.

You on the sauce,keep on the right thread.

It was you who posted on the wrong thread (here) originally.

Freedom wrote:It was you who posted on the wrong thread (here) originally.

Sorry.

Ciawoman will you PM me the Irish chapter too? Please

This is an excerpt from the chapter, 'The Irish Connection' in this book.

With gratitude to ciawoman for sending it.

Really interesting and makes lots of sense.... What do others think....


Because Gerry Suspects the PJ inspectors are beginning to believe that he and Kate are involved in the disappearance, he looks for a way to put a stop to such theories. He will have realised by the time the abduction story is for the greater part only supported by the statements made by himself, Kate and of course the statements made of Jane Tanner, who was said she’d seen the abductor. That statement by Jane Tanner confirms – not only the abduction story – but also proved, according to Gerry, that he and Kate were not involved.
For it is a fact that when Jane saw the abductor she also saw Gerry talking to Jeremy Wilkins, another holiday maker. At least that what Jane says. But it appears that Gerry isn’t satisfied with this state of affairs. He wants to find, at the very least, one more witness who would have the abductor carrying Madeleine that evening. For in that case the “abduction” would become a fact. He knows that he has been seen by a group of people (the Smith Family) when he was walking with Madeleine in his arms through downtown Praia da Luz. Why on earth haven’t these people come forward? I it possible that they have forgotten meeting him? Or don’t they see a connection with the disappearance of Madeleine?
Gerry needs their witness statements desperately, as he knows that the investigating team are increasing critical of the abduction theory. Another two or three witness who will testify that they too have seen the abductor and all doubts the abduction would appear overnight. But Gerry is waiting in can, no new statements are made, there is a deadly silence on that front. At that point Gerry decides to trick the witness in coming forward. However no doubt unintentionally , he appears to confirm his action that he was indeed the ‘abductor’, the man with the child.
Gerry writes in his blog: 9th June 2007: After returning from the beach we did the Irish version of
Crimewatch-Crimecall. There are a lot of Irish tourists in and around Praia da Luz and although the awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance in Ireland is extremely high, we want to ensure that everyone is aware of the appeal and we want the Irish public to come forward with photographs of people who they do not know who were in and around Praia da Luz in the 2 weeks leading up to the 3rd May. It is quite possible that all these specific questions he’s asked will cause the group (the Smith family) whom he met that evening, to recall something of their encounter. That they would remember the meeting and immediately contact the police to make their statements. That is what Gerry wanted to happen.

But unfortunately for him this was not the case. What he could not know when he appealed to the Irish holiday makers, was that the Smith family had already, in deepest secret, made a detailed statement regarding the accidental meeting. But that interview had been marked ‘top secret’ by the Portuguese police.

Gerry appears to have made a very big mistake with this broadcast. This appeal, unlike others which would be broadcast in Britain, was made only in Ireland. At Gerry’s special request. And that is strange. For why should this message only reach the Irish population? And not the English or the Scots? This is where Gerry makes his mistake, it suggests the nationally of the group of people who had met the ‘abductor’ that evening. The abductor, Gerry himself, knows this because he heard them talking amongst themselves when they passed him and recognized the Irish accent. The family Smith is indeed from Ireland. (See the chapter ‘Forgotten witnesses’) Only the ‘abductor’ could have known this, for he would have heard them talking. At that moment of the broadcast only the police was aware of this Smith family from Ireland.

The question arises: why only an appeal to the Irish and how can Gerry have known that an appeal to the Irish holiday makers would be all that was needed? Perhaps because he knew that they were Irish? Or was the TV broadcast aimed at the Irish viewers only, just pure chance? But even so, this is not the end of this matter as far as Gerry is concerned. For when the PJ – much later – confront him with the statements of the Smiths, and suggest that the description given by the Smith’s firs Gerry’s appearance excellently well, he suddenly realises the danger he is in. For the testimony which should have confirmed the abduction now points in exactly the opposite direction.
As a last resort Gerry tells the police that Robert M., the first suspect in the case, also fits the description given by the Smiths. Robert M. has been made ‘arguido’ in May 2007 which in Portuguese Law is the status of suspect with certain rights such as having the advice of a lawyer during interviews.
An intensive investigation by the PJ revealed that Robert M. had nothing to do with the abduction. By now Gerry had run out of options and he keeps asking for more thorough investigation into Robert M. But… once again Gerry is unlucky. For the Smith family happen to know Robert M. and they are absolutely certain in their statements that the man with the child was not Robert M. They are sure. The question remains: how did Gerry, if he wasn’t the ‘abductor’, know that the group of people he met were Irish? How can he have known that? There can only be one answer to this question: Gerry was the abductor. For how can it be otherwise?

The 3 Smiths gave their statements in the morning on 26 May. In the afternoon Gerry read out a statement which mentions Tannerman but no description yet.

Gerry McCann reads a prepared statement on 26 May 2007
Gerry McCann reads a prepared statement with details of a man sighted in Praia da Luz

Saturday 26 May 2007

Gerry: "Good afternoon.

We are very much... welcome the decision of the Portuguese authorities to release details of a man seen by a witness, here in Praia da Luz, on Thursday the 3rd of May - the night of Madeleine's disappearance.

The release of this important information followed an earlier meeting that we had with senior Portuguese police officers. A meeting that Kate and I both found to be amicable... amicable and very constructive.

We feel sure that this sighting of a man, with what appeared to be a child in his arms, is both significant and relevant to Madeleine's abduction and we would appeal, once again, to anyone who may have seen him or anything else suspicious, on or around the 3rd of May, to come forward and tell the police.

For instance was this man seen anywhere else in or near the town with a child, or what appeared to be a child? Which direction was he heading in? Did he have a vehicle?

Whether you're a local resident or a holidaymaker who has since returned home from Portugal, any information, no matter how unimportant you may think it could be, may be vital in helping the Portuguese and British police to find our daughter.

As we said yesterday, we wish for nothing more than to bring Madeleine home with us safe and well.

Kate and I would also like to make it clear that, as this is very much an ongoing police investigation, we will not be making any further public statements for the time being.

Thank you."

I would say he was on a fishing exercise there.

From the statement chirpy posted:

Gerry McCann " The release of this important information followed an earlier meeting that we had with senior Portuguese police officers. A meeting that Kate and I both found to be amicable... amicable and very constructive."

They just can't help themselves can they?

It's so important for Gerry to emphasise that they are on friendly terms with the Portuguese police that he uses the word amicable twice. It doesn't occur to him that parents who should be frantic with worry over their child who has been missing for over three weeks really wouldn't give two hoots over whether the police are being "amicable" or not.

And yes, the statement does look like a fishing exercise and most likely after a less than amicable meeting with the police.

I'm still waiting for Chateleine's review of the improved version of Scharrenberg's book. But don't think it's forthcoming.
I'm not impressed with the English translation of the Irish chapter, so might order the Dutch version.
Is it available in digital format btw?

@S.

I actually thought the snippet (assume it wasn't all) of the Irish chapter was quite interesting, which logically made some sense. (to me anyway).

Don't know about an online format. If you find one then do let us know. And likewise.

Sorry to keep you waiting, Seahorse.
I cannot give you a review, as I haven't read the book. Just bits and pieces fed to me.
You see: my pseudo is Châtelaine, because I am one. And believe me, that's quite a "job" ;-)

I know that the Dutch original has been completely redacted, impurities removed, more info, facts and evidence added, whilst it was translated into English by well-versed forumites, some bilingual, some perfect in English, some with quite some expertise in "crime", others from many other ways of live and experience. As soon as my 5 hectacres are under control again [after the strangest of winters and the wettest of spring], as well as the "house" and the dogs, when my guests have left so I only cook and care for myself, I'll be back :-)

Do you live in a French castle, C...

A big MMM party at yours when all this farce is put to bed.

Thanks Châteleine. Do you know Scharrenberg? I think Parapono was wondering how come you received a copy before her, since you live in a chateau in France and she lives in the Netherlands. Scharrenberg is based in Amstelveen I believe.

The content of the Irish chapter is interesting. Just poorly translated imo. And since I speak Dutch as well I might order the Dutch version. Do you know if it's available in digital format?

Yes, I do, Andrew.
And I've been promising since years on my favorite discussion fora, that I WILL throw a party :-)
As things are now here, I can put up 25 people to sleep, most of them with private WC and bathroom ...
So I'll have to be choosy ;-)

Châtelaine wrote:Yes, I do, Andrew.
And I've been promising since years on my favorite discussion fora, that I WILL throw a party :-)
As things are now here, I can put up 25 people to sleep, most of them with private WC and bathroom ...
So I'll have to be choosy ;-)

Châtelaine, I love dogs

Châtelaine wrote:Yes, I do, Andrew.
And I've been promising since years on my favorite discussion fora, that I WILL throw a party :-)
As things are now here, I can put up 25 people to sleep, most of them with private WC and bathroom ...
So I'll have to be choosy ;-)

Looks as if I'm not going to be invited then

seahorse wrote:

Thanks Châteleine. Do you know Scharrenberg? I think Parapono was wondering how come you received a copy before her, since you live in a chateau in France and she lives in the Netherlands. Scharrenberg is based in Amstelveen I believe.

The content of the Irish chapter is interesting. Just poorly translated imo. And since I speak Dutch as well I might order the Dutch version. Do you know if it's available in digital format?

***
I haven't seen Parapono on line for quite some time, after she wrote her "review". In fact the book was sent to me by a friend [non French nor Dutch] and I was very much surprised by that. I don't know whether the Dutch version has been "corrected" meanwhile. The "official" English version has. What I like about the book is the low "instap", which makes a lot of information and theory accessible to people, who've heard about the case, but never got into detail.

I don't know Scharrenberg, but have been talking to him occasionally. I do know the people, who contributed to the English version very well, though.

Excuse me, if I don't divulge any more information for the moment ...

Satsuma wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Yes, I do, Andrew.
And I've been promising since years on my favorite discussion fora, that I WILL throw a party :-)
As things are now here, I can put up 25 people to sleep, most of them with private WC and bathroom ...
So I'll have to be choosy ;-)

Looks as if I'm not going to be invited then

***
Well, let's be honest: you're not high on my list. But, you know, sometimes, I do like a challenge ;-0

Châtelaine wrote:

seahorse wrote:

Thanks Châteleine. Do you know Scharrenberg? I think Parapono was wondering how come you received a copy before her, since you live in a chateau in France and she lives in the Netherlands. Scharrenberg is based in Amstelveen I believe.

The content of the Irish chapter is interesting. Just poorly translated imo. And since I speak Dutch as well I might order the Dutch version. Do you know if it's available in digital format?

***
I haven't seen Parapono on line for quite some time, after she wrote her "review". In fact the book was sent to me by a friend [non French nor Dutch] and I was very much surprised by that. I don't know whether the Dutch version has been "corrected" meanwhile. The "official" English version has. What I like about the book is the low "instap", which makes a lot of information and theory accessible to people, who've heard about the case, but never got into detail.

I don't know Scharrenberg, but have been talking to him occasionally. I do know the people, who contributed to the English version very well, though.

Excuse me, if  I don't divulge any more information for the moment ...

OK thanks for that. The English version it is then :-).