A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence

**candyfloss** Tue 11 Apr 2017, 1:06 pm

Tuesday, 19 May 2009

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence

The Interesting Whiteboard & “New Witnesses”

Messrs Edgar and Cowley have not named the supposedly new witnesses but screenshots from the Channel 4 programme shows that they are:

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+03

The Sightings White Board

The whiteboard lists three supposedly independent sightings on Wednesday 2^nd May 2007 implying that “Pimple Man” was lurking for a period of almost 4 hours on that critical day but making himself obvious. This “evidence” is misleading because Mr Flack was not sure whether the date was 2^nd or 3^rd May 2007. Mr Edgar and Mr Cowley seem to have dramatically improved Mr Flack’s statement by arbitrarily removing his uncertainty and thereby making the suspicions much more dramatic.

It should also be noted that the whiteboard does not refer to the sighting by the Irish family. This is strange when it featured so strongly in the Channel 4 program.

Mr Edgar (frame 16.36 of 47.57 of the Channel 4 program) states that sighting 3 (by Tasmin Sillence) is the most important (besides Jane Tanner’s) “because it links them”. Mr Edgar implies that all of the witnesses saw the same person (ie “Pimple Man”) watching the McCanns’ apartment and states at frame 11.24 that the abduction was “done by an individual on his own: most likely by an individual who has links to Praia da Luz which is why we have focused all of our efforts really on – most of our efforts certainly -on Praia da Luz”. Perhaps Mr Edgar changed his phrasing from “all” to “most” to conceal the restricted scope of his mandate and the fact that he is focused exclusively on an “abduction”. In any event, he confirmed his lone abductor theory in an interview reported by Dominic Herbert in the News of the World published on Sunday 10^th May 2009.

Basics of the Sighting by Jane Tanner

Miss Tanner’s initial description of the abductor she supposedly saw carrying a child on the night of 3^rd May 2007 was given to the PJ as follows:

“Brown male between 35 and 40, slim, around 1.70m. Very dark hair, thick, long at the neck. (Noticed when the person was seen from the back). He was wearing golden beige cloth trousers (linen type) with a "Duffy" type coat (but not very thick). He was wearing black shoes, of a conventional style and was walking quickly. He was carrying a sleeping child in his arms across his chest. By his manner, the man gave her the impression that he wasn't a tourist.”

Her description has changed significantly over time, to the “Egg Man”, “Monster Man”, “Bundle Man”, “Cooperman” and “Nose Man”. She also picked out Robert Murat as the villain and maintained this allegation until withdrawing it in April 2008 in an interview with the Leicestershire Police. Miss Tanner’s abductor had long hair, short hair, wore glasses, didn’t wear glasses, had a nose or didn’t have a nose, had a moustache or was clean shaven. He strode “purposefully out” or “ambled along”. So it is not at all clear what Miss Tanner’s final position is but she obviously supported the “reconstruction” on the Channel 4 program and the image of the “purposefully striding Bundle Man”:

Jane Tanner’s Sighting from “Madeleine Was Here”

Note the clothing of “Bundle Man” and the way he is carrying the child

Whoever Jane Tanner saw (if anybody) on the night of 3^rd May 2007, he is nothing like “Pimple Man” and thus for her evidence to have any credibility there must have been at least two people involved in Madeleine’s abduction. This conflicts with Mr Edgar’s theory of a lone abductor but supports everyone’s hero – Clarence Mitchell.

Attention to Detail

The Channel 4 program implies that Mr Edgar is not overly distracted by detail. One of the big problems with Jane Tanner’s sighting, and thus her credibility, is that she states that on 3rd May 2007, immediately prior to seeing the “person carrying a child”, she had walked past Gerald McCann and Jez Wilkins, another Ocean Club guest, who were talking on the very narrow pavement immediately adjoining Apartment 5A. She told the Leicestershire Police that, as she walked past them, Gerald McCann must have had his back to her as otherwise she would have caught his eye and would have said something to him. She said the same on the Channel 4 program, adding that she would have chided him, by relaying Kate McCann’s complaint that he had prolonged his check (he left the Tapas Bar at 9.05 and returned at just before 9.20) to watch the “footie”.

Gerald McCann strongly disagreed with Miss Tanner’s evidence and says he was standing, talking to Jez Wilkins on the opposite side of the road and that he did not see Miss Tanner walking by. Jez Wilkins told the PJ that as he was walking home, with his child in a pushchair, he spoke to Gerald McCann and he agreed with Miss Tanner they were on the narrow pavement on the apartment side of the road, but added that he did not see her. The northerly direction that Mr Wilkins was believed to have been headed suggests that during their conversation Gerald McCann would have been facing south and could not have missed seeing Miss Tanner.

Mr Edgar lightly dismissed these significant discrepancies by saying:

“The most important thing, Jane, is not where Jez and Gerry were actually stood because there are inconsistencies in every major investigation. The only thing that matters is that they did not obstruct your view of the man you saw”.

This is sloppy work because the inconsistency undermines Miss Tanner’s credibility and raises the question of how she could walk within 18 inches of Gerald McCann, who was most probably facing her, and not even acknowledge him. If she cannot get this simple matter right, why is her sighting of the “abductor” to be believed? Also, the fact that on three occasions she walked within feet of the open shutters and window and did not notice them throws Miss Tanner’s powers of observation into further doubt.

Why Gerald McCann Disagrees

The obvious conflict of evidence raises the question of why Gerald McCann should disagree with Miss Tanner and Mr Wilkins and be so dogmatic that he was on the side of road opposite to Apartment 5A. To throw light on this, we have to examine the corner into which –slowly but surely - the McCanns and their friends have painted themselves:

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+06

The Window of Opportunity

Red cells indicate doubts about the sequence and inconsistencies

For this sequence to be even marginally credible, the abductor must have kept observation to make sure Gerald had gone from the apartment. Would he risk making a forced entry if Gerald McCann was inside or standing within 30 feet of the rear patio doors? It is more likely he would wait until he knew the coast was clear. This probability would further limit the “abductor’s” window of opportunity.

At one point Gerald McCann, probably realising the improbability of his timetable, suggested the abductor had been hiding in the apartment as he was making his check. He does not appear to have maintained this hypothesis which, given the size of the apartment and the fact he was in it for at least 10 minutes, is incredbible.

At best the “abductor” had less than 5 minutes to break into the apartment, snatch Madeleine and make his escape. And if the bedroom door had slammed shut when he opened the shutters and windows (as the laws of physics suggest it would) wouldn’t the sound have been heard by Gerald McCann if he had been standing talking to Jez Wilkins right outside the apartment? And wouldn’t the banging have wakened the twins?

Our forensic advisers believe a proper reconstruction would prove that the bang of the closing bedroom door is unlikely to be missed by anyone in the position Jez Wilkins says (and Jane Tanner corroborates) that he and Gerald McCann were standing. It would have been less audible from the opposite side of the road. Is this the reason Gerald McCann is sticking to his story? Is it because he knows Jane Tanner’s evidence (of passing him within inches and saying nothing) is incredible? Does he wish to leave open the possibility that the abductor entered through the patio doors, while his back was turned talking to Mr Wilkins on the opposite side of the road? Does he want to distance himself from Miss Tanner’s evidence, perhaps suspecting her alleged check at 9.15pm could be disproved by a cctv camera or other evidence? Or is he is being truthful? For the moment we do not know.

Defects and Spin in the Investigation

Interestingly the white board now describes Jane Tanner’s suspect as a “UK Male”. How the investigation team arrives at this conclusion is a mystery. She has never said this.

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+07

The Whiteboard with lots of “UK Males”

Also, the whiteboard shows Matthew Oldfield’s check as “MO says he checked 5A”. The use of word “says” suggests that even the McCann investigators have their doubts about him. But the main bone of contention with Mr Edgar’s investigation is his obvious dedication to the “abductor” theory and his failure to critically test the McCann’s story. This should have been his starting point. He told Channel 4 that there was no evidence of the McCann’s involvement: oh no? But where is there a shred of evidence that Madeleine was abducted? There is no evidence of the shutters and windows being forced, no marks on the bedding, or tiles, no fingerprints or DNA, no scrapes on the window sill, no footprints: nothing. The only fact is that Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on the window in a position that showed she had opened it.

The New Witness “JW”

There is nothing in the CD released by the PJ to identify the witness “JW” who allegedly saw “Pimple Man” standing lurking (not “ambling along”) around Apartment 5A on Sunday 29^th April 2007 at 08.00 and on Wednesday 2^nd May 2007 at approximately 15.00. She stated on the Channel 4 program that she would describe the lurker as “very ugly”. This is not the most discrete description as it fails to exclude 90% of the world’s population.

Channel 4 (probably inadvertently because many names and details had been redacted) revealed that “JW”, who has two daughters, was staying at the Ocean Club. The reference to “apartment 1”, on the following screenshot, is not believed to be the actual designation but an indication that earlier in the document two apartments had been referred to (Possibly one occupied by JW and another by her friends)

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+08

It appears that in two statements (presumably made to Mr Cowley) JW was not sure whether she had seen “a suspect male ambling along” from a position in her apartment, from another apartment , tennis courts, pool or from the road. The information is further confused in the Channel 4 program because it implies that on two occasions, while she was walking in the street, JW saw “Pimple Man” standing watching Apartment 5A and not “ambling along”. Also the screenshot suggests a sighting by “JW” on 30^th April 2007. This did not feature in the Channel 4 program.

Light was thrown on the identity of “JW” in an article in the Sun on 12^th May 2009 by Antonella Lazzeri (another McCann close confidante) who stated:

She is a 36 year old mother of two: one a 3 year old girl
She rented an apartment 3 doors away from Apartment 5A
She reported her suspicions to her local police – in Wiltshire – in May 2007

Analysis of the Ocean Club Booking records indicates that “JW” may be Mrs J Weinburger, who travelled to Faro from Belfast on 28^th April 2007, and stayed in Apartment “G4” (ie 3 doors away from the McCanns) in Waterside Gardens for seven days with her husband “P Weinburger”, a 3 year old daughter and an 11 month old infant. There is no trace of this family on the UK’s Electoral Roll, and no recorded directorships: this is fairly unusual for a British citizen unless there are security or other reasons for redaction.

However, a “Paul M Weinberger”, who works for Enigma Diagnostics Limited is now based in Porton Down, Wiltshire. This is a private company, founded in 2004 as a joint venture between the UK Government - through the top secret Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down -and the private venture capitalists Porton Capital Technology Fund. Mr Weinberger was previously employed as Director of Business Development for Roche Diagnostics, the world’s largest diagnostic company. Mr Weinberger specialises in “in vitro diagnostics” and is a member of the Executive Committee of the “British In Vitro Diagnostics Association”.

Porton Down is an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Defence and the site is said to be one of the UK’s most sensitive secret government facilities for military research especially related to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (Here we go again!) weapons.

It is not certain that Mr Weinberger, of Enigma Diagnostics, is the man who stayed at the Ocean Club in May 2007, but it looks that way. Another link between the Weinbur or Weinbergers and Wiltshire is the fact that they made dinner bookings at the Tapas Bar with Dr Julian Totman who is also from Salisbury in Wiltshire.

Miss Lazzeri reported that JW, on returning from Portugal, in May 2007, informed her local police – based in Wiltshire (and thus a link to Paul M Weinberger in Wiltshire) who advised the Leicestershire police who

“failed to follow up her lead. It was only when she received an emotional phone call from Maddie’s mum Kate nearly two years later (thus in April or May 2009 possibly to get a bit more spice for the Channel 4 program) that a photofit based on her description was put together…. When Kate asked me to help, I agreed immediately. But the police should have asked 2 years ago. It was only after Kate got in touch that the woman learnt two other witnesses saw an identical man… I can’t believe our three sightings weren’t linked earlier”

The problem is, which “JW” was not told, that the descriptions given to the PJ by the “two other witnesses” were nothing like “Pimple Man” and that their reports had been fully investigated, the suspects identified and eliminated. But failure to act on “JW’s” evidence adds to the Leicestershire Police’s record of tardiness in its delayed handing of the statements of Kate and Arul, photographs of potential suspects: not to mention a recent detailed report on the crèche records. Can any police force be that bad? Or was Leicestershire’s job simply to kill the investigation, possibly on Home Office instructions, whose political intervention – in such cases as Damian Green – are so worrying? And if “JW” attached any importance to her sighting why did she do nothing further about it for 2 years, especially when it might have qualified her for a large reward? And why did Kate McCann leave it until the last moment to call her? The bottom line is that “JW’s” “evidence” justifies very close scrutiny.

The 12 Year Old Schoolgirl: Tasmin Sillence

The next sighting, which Mr Edgar states is the most significant, was made by a 12 year old schoolgirl named Tasmin Sillence. Her evidence is in the CD (Volume III Pages 800 -804) where she describes the person she saw on:

30^th April 2007 at 08.00am leaning on the wall at the back of Apartment 5A (Point A)
2^nd May 2007 at 12.25pm standing on the pavement opposite the apartment (Point B)

as:

Caucasian race, light skin so he wasn't Portuguese but could be British according to criteria. Approximately 180cm tall, pale complexion, 30 to 35 years of age. Short hair, light shaved with a 1 cm length and fair but she isn't sure if it was blonde because the sun was reflecting and made perception more difficult. She didn't see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour with the structure of a thick frame. He had a large forehead. Nose of normal size, a bit pointy and sharp. Large ears close to the head. Mouth with thin lips, she didn't see his teeth. Chin pointing up, which stood out on the face that she describes as sharp. No beard, no mustache: a clean shave. No other special signs except from some small pimples on the face as a result on shaving. He looked ugly, even “disgusting”

Miss Sillence said that the first time she had seen the man he had been wearing a sports style jacket of thin black leather, with a zipper and several pockets with similar zippers in silver. The jacket was open and she saw a white t-shirt with a dark blue label near the waist. She thinks he was wearing worn out blue jeans and black and grey sports shoes.

The second time she saw him he wore the same jacket zipped up. He had a pen with a string attached to one of the pockets.

In May 2007, the PJ prepared an efit based on Miss Sillence’s description as follows:

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+09

The First efit.

On 5th August 2008, Sara Nuwar, reporting in the News of the Word, stated that Gail Cooper had come face to face with Madeleine’s suspected kidnapper and, at the request of the McCann’s backer – Brian Kennedy – had produced an efit called “Cooper Man”.

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+010

“Cooperman”

Doesn’t look much like “Pimple Man”; does he?

Miss Nuwar continues:

“Two of her sightings were also witnessed by her husband. And we can also reveal that a NEW witness, a 12-year-old girl, has come forward to back up her story.”

For sure there are a lot of 12 year old girls in Praia da Luz, but was this Miss Sillence just trying to be helpful by agreeing to almost anything or is another 12 year old involved in this tragic case?

The PJ followed up Miss Sillence’s sightings which led to the identification of Michael Anthony Green (see Volume III pages 632 to 726. The PJ and Leicestershire Police cleared Mr Green of any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance. However, all information relating to Mr Green was withdrawn from the CD at the request of the British police, who were concerned, among many other things, that information on British paedophiles should be protected. Don’t you just admire the way the British police protect the vulnerable?

Derek Flack and Christine Dale

The fourth sighting of the lurking “Pimple Man”, who appeared to be the owner of a white van, was supposedly made by a “couple from Cheshire” who can be tracked in the PJ files as Derek Flack, aged 64, and his partner – Christine Margaret Dale, who at the time lived in Ilford in Essex. (Volume 1 folio 145 and Volume 4 folio 833 et seq). Mr Flack described the man he saw at around 11.30 on 2^nd or 3^rd May 2007 to the PJ as follows:

1.7m tall, dark skinned appearing to be Portuguese, with a one day stubble, with short thick hair that stretched down to collar level at the back and wearing a solid yellow t-shirt. He appeared to be the driver of a white van.

Interestingly Mr Edgar’s whiteboards describe Mr Flack’s suspect as a “UK male” (not, as he said Portuguese) and the sighting he made as being on “2^nd May 2007” rather than on “2^nd or 3^rd May 2007”. The McCann investigators say nothing of the fact that Mr Flack told the PJ he did not believe he could identify the “lurker” if he were to see him again. Again the evidence has been seriously misrepresented.

In an article in the “Daily Mail” on 7^th May 2009, Vanessa Allen and Peter Allen, devoted supporters of Mr and Mrs McCann, stated:

“A couple from Cheshire then saw the man on either May 2 or 3 staring at Apartment 5A, and standing near a parked white van. An artist’s impression of the man, commissioned by the “Find Madeleine Fund” shows a dark haired, heavily scarred man (ie “Pimple Man”)

So it appears that the “Pimple Man” sketch was based on the description given by Mr Flack and Ms Dale.

The Channel 4 program also confirmed, probably unintentionally, that the Cheshire couple were in fact Mr Flack and Ms Dale because when referring to sighting 4 they produced the plan attached to Mr Flack’s statement:

The Plan Attached to Mr Flack’s Statement

The descriptions Mr Flack gave to the PJ in May 2007 resulted in the PJ preparing the following efit:

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+012

Original efit Based on Mr Flack’s Sighting.

Doesn’t look much like Pimple Man: does he?

This led to the tracing of Barrington Godfrey Norton (Volume 3 folio 704 and 709) a musician living in Praia da Luz. The PJ and Leicestershire Police cleared him of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance (Volume IV pages 833 and 834)

The Sighting by the Irish Smith Family

Although there is no mention of it on Mr Edgar’s whiteboard, the Channel 4 program referred to a sighting by the Smith family of a man carrying a small child on the night of 3^rd May 2007. The CD issued by the PJ shows that at around 21.50 on the night Madeleine was reported missing, a large family from Drogheda, Ireland -including the father Martin Smith – was walking back to their apartment when they passed a man carrying a child

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+013

Location of the Smith Sighting

On 6^th May 2007 the Smiths gave the following descriptions:

The man was Caucasian, around 175 to 180m in height. He appeared to be about 35/40 years old. He had a normal complexion, a bit on the thin side. His hair was short, in a basic male cut, brown in colour. He cannot state if it was dark or lighter in tone. He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache.

He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not see his shoes and cannot describe the colour or form of the same.

The child was female, about four years of age as she was similar to his granddaughter of the same age. It was a child of normal complexion, about a meter in height. The child has blonde medium-hued hair, without being very light. Her skin was very white, typical of a Brit. He did not look at her eyes. As she was asleep and her eyelids were closed. She was wearing light-coloured pajamas. He cannot state with certainty the colour. She was not covered by any other cover or sheet. He cannot confirm whether she was barefoot but in his group, they spoke about the child having no cover on her feet. The individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual’s shoulders to the right of the deponent (ie over the man’s left shoulder). He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position.

Mrs Smith confirmed the above and stated

She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position against the individual. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her body and were not around the individual's neck. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin. She believes she was white.

Members of the family returned to Portimao on 26^th May 2007 and clarified their evidence – which Dr Gonçalo Amaral, who was then leading the PJ’s investigation, considered very important.

On 9^th September 2007, the McCanns returned to the UK and BBC News showed them getting off an Easyjet flight. The Smith family saw the program and, from the way Gerald McCann carried his son with the child’s head over his left shoulder with hands hanging down, recognised him as the person they had seen on the night of 3^rd May 2007. On 30^th January 2008, Mr Smith made a further statement confirming -with 60-80% certainty – that the man he had seen carrying a child on 3^rd May 2007 was Gerald McCann. Mr Smith’s wife corroborated his evidence.

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+014

How Mr McCann carried Sean Jane Tanner’s “Bundle Man”

The McCanns seem to have totally ignored the Smith family’s evidence for the past 18 months, and have never issued a photo fit of the man they saw. However, Metodo 3, the discredited investigation firm previously retained by the McCanns, spoke to the Smiths and did little but worry them.

When making the supposed “reconstruction”, Channel 4, if it was to maintain even the slightest veil of credibility, had no option but to refer to the Smith sighting. But the way they spun the evidence by suggesting it supported Miss Tanner and cleared Gerald McCann was disgraceful.

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+015

The Smith’s Evidence as Portrayed on Channel 4

It is thus no wonder that the two sightings appear to corroborate each other when Channel 4 used the same child and actor for both, dimmed the Smith scene into almost total darkness with strong back lighting -while improving that for Jane Tanner - and failed to accurately represent the way the family stated the child had been carried or what the man had been wearing. Another example of twisted evidence?

At the time Dr Amaral was dismissed, he was planning to return the Smith family to Portugal to obtain further evidence from them. His successor, Mr Rebelo, failed to do this and to this day the sighting is unresolved. There is nothing in the CD to indicate that Gerald McCann was eliminated as the man the Smith family had seen.

The Smith sighting, which was some 35 minutes later than Jane Tanner’s, was around a mile away from the Ocean Club, to the South and West. It is difficult to imagine that Miss Tanner’s abductor would have turned back, passing the Ocean Club, to be in a position where he was seen by the Smiths. At best, the two sightings, if either took place, are unrelated but the fact that the McCanns now link them, to support Jane Tanner’s evidence is disingenuous.

Total Spin and Total Blindness

Anyone would be forgiven for concluding that the Channel 4 program was a cynical and misleading attempt to sway public opinion in favour of the McCanns, against an incompetent Portuguese investigation and to applaud Mr Edgar’s great work and “new witnesses”. The program was pure spin with research conducted in Portugal by none other than my old pal Brendan de Beer and directed, in fact, by Clarence Mitchell! Its object was to promote the story of the McCanns’ innocence and their determination to find Madeleine and, of course, to collect further contributions to the “Find Madeleine Fund”. It was not the “reconstruction” promised.

In fact, the critical sequences involving the American comedy actress – Lisa Donovan – who, at considerable expense, played the part of Kate McCann was cut from the final version of the Channel 4 program because “the representation of what Kate had done on the night that Maddie disappeared was not convincing and raised some doubts”. This is hardly surprising given that Mrs McCann’s story, which is analysed later, is not credible.

Also for the explanation given by the “Tapas 9” to be true:

At around 9.15pm, just after seeing the “abductor”, Jane Tanner must have walked within feet of the open windows and shutters of Apartment 5A. She did the same when she returned to the Tapas Bar at around 9.20pm
At around 9.25pm Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield walked within feet of the windows and shutters of Apartment 5A but did not detect that they were open. Mr Oldfield did precisely the same when he returned to the Tapas Bar
At around 9.55pm, Jane Tanner failed to notice the open windows when she went to “relieve” Russell O’Brien, who was looking after their sick daughter, and he did the same when he returned to the Tapas Bar

Thus on seven occasions, involving three different people, we are supposed to believe that no-one detected that the windows and shutters of Apartment 5A had been forced “wide open” by the “abductor”.

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+016

The Shutters of Apartment 5A

On seven occasions members of the “Tapas 9” walked within feet of these shutters and did not notice that they were open

In none of the interviews with the Leicestershire Police was any of the “Tapas 9” confronted with this glaring oversight and it does not appear to have caused Mr Edgar to fret: strange, don’t you think?

The proposition that “Pimple Man”, was identified by five independent witnesses is an illusion that can only be supported by twisting evidence in a manner reminiscent of the worst of old-time British policing when suspects were “fitted up” with false testimony or “winged” by having words they did not say put into their mouths. Is it a case of spin being taken too far?

Kate Says Far Too Much

The most interesting facts to emerge from “Madeleine Was Here” are the opening shots of Kate McCann describing how she discovered that Madeleine was missing and how she knew “straightaway” that she had been “abducted”. This, and the Oprah Winfrey show, were the first occasions that Mrs McCann provided any detail and reliable sources suggest that Kate McCann’s cameo was a last minute alternative when the sequences filmed of Miss Donovan had to be cut.

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+017

Kate McCann

I did my check at about 10 o’clock, went in through the sliding patio doors, and I just stood actually and I thought all quiet and to be honest I might have been tempted to turn round and I just noticed that the door, the bedroom door where the three children were sleeping, was open much further than we'd left it and

Comment

The tone of her voice is spookily rhetorical: permission seeking rather than being confident and assertive. Forensic Linguistic analysis shows that words such as “just”, “actually”, and “to be honest” in historical narratives are usually associated with deception.

What appears to be superfluous information about entering through the patio doors is very important because it pre-empts questions about Kate McCann not seeing the open bedroom windows as she walked past them to enter the apartment through the front door. In his original statement to the PJ, Gerald McCann said that his wife had entered the apartment through the front door.

Forensic Linguists also recognise the importance of thought processes. Liars frequently introduce these, unnecessarily, to give themselves time to think and to avoid commitment. Kate McCann refers to a lot of thought processes, mainly when addressing to topics directly related to the critical events on 3^rd May 2007. Under stress, Gerald McCann pulls his right ear lobe

Mrs McCann’s observation that “the door…. was open much further than we’d left it” was supposedly the reason she decided to check further. Yet at the time she had every reason to suppose that Matt Oldfield or Gerald had opened it when they carried out their checks. Thus her thought process is not consistent with the circumstances and are possibly drawn from imagination (usually untruthful), rather than from memory (usually truthful)

Further if the abductor had “jemmied” the shutters, as she, her husband and relatives originally stated, it is most likely that the door would have been blown closed before Kate McCann’s arrival at 10.00pm. Further, how could the curtains be static if the window was open and a wind blowing? Mrs McCann’s story does not stand scrutiny

In his Channel 4 interview, Matthew Oldfield implied that when he did his check at 9.25 (which if Jane Tanner’s evidence is correct was after the shutters had been jemmied, the window opened and Madeleine taken) the bedroom door was wide open (he told the Leicestershire Police it was 45 degrees open) and he could see the twin’s cots from the lounge-hallway area. He says nothing of seeing the curtains flapping wildly, as they must have been if the window was open.

The dynamics of Madeleine’s bedroom are such that if the door was at less than a 90 degree angle the strong draught (from a 17mph north by north-west wind blowing that night) would have blown it closed or caused it to oscillate: if the angle was greater than 90 degrees the door would have been blown open against the wall. But in all cases, it is inconceivable that the curtains would not have been seen flapping wildly during the whole time the window was open.

The bottom line is that if the draught was sufficient to blow the curtains – “whoosh” -when Kate McCann opened the door, they could not have been still when Mr Oldfield made his check or when she first looked into the room.

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+018

Kate McCann

I went to close it to about here and as I got to here it suddenly slammed and as I opened it … it was as I suddenly thought I would look at the children and I saw Sean and Amelie in the cot and then I was looking at Madeleine's bed, which was here, and it was dark and I was looking and I was thinking is that Madeleine or was that the bedding

Comment

“I went to close it” is what is known in forensic linguistics as a “non-action” and is therefore questionable. The change of tense (from past to present) within the same sentence is not consistent with a truthful recall of a past event from memory.

Is it likely that the twins would not have been woken by the slamming door or that Gerald would have heard nothing if he had been standing on the pavement right outside the apartment?

Kate McCann

I couldn't quite make her out and it sounds really stupid now but at the time I was thinking…. I didn't want to put the light on as I didn't want to wake them and literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom which were drawn

Comment

Self deprecating phrases such as “it sounds really stupid” or “I know you won’t believe this” are frequently associated with deception. Again note the switch to the present tense and the superfluous word “literally”. But more important is the phrase “went back in”. According to her statement she had not previously entered the room. Again imagination seems to be playing its part

A “Disgusting” Episode of Distorted Evidence IMG+019

Kate McCann

Were closed….. Whoosh…. A gust of wind just blew them open… Cuddle cat was still there and her blanket was still there and I knew straight away…. She'd been taken…. You know

Comment

When she reconstructs the “whoosh” of the curtains, Mrs McCann is standing outside the room, yet her previous words imply that she was inside the room when this happened. Such discrepancies – between oral communications, body language and proximetrics- are usually a classic sign of deception

Kate on Oprah Winfrey

Kate McCanns’ account of the sequence of events was somewhat different: the important differences are underlined:

Kate: I went at ten and I went into the apartment and there was no crying. I stopped and there was no crying. And then I just noticed that the door was quite open

Oprah: Which door?

Kate: Their bedroom door sorry, and we usually have the door as Gerry said sort of not closed but ajar just so that a little bit of light gets in and it's not too dark in the room so I thought oh Matt must have gone in and left the door open

Oprah: Same thing he thought

Kate: Yeah, so I thought well I'll just close it over again, and as I went to close it over it slammed shut and I thought and it was like sort of you know a draught had caused it to shut so I turned behind me and I thought are the patio doors open and they were closed and I thought well that's strange so then I opened the door thinking I'll open it ajar a bit again and that was when I kind of looked into the room and when I just looked and it was quite dark and I was just looking and looking at Madeleine's bed and I was thinking is that her that I was looking for why isn't Madeleine there?

And then in the end I walked over and thought oh, she's not in bed and then I thought maybe she's wandered through to our bed and that's why the door's open so I went through to our bedroom and she wasn't there and then I kind of see then I'm starting to panic a bit and I ran back into their room

and literally as I went back into their room the curtains that were drawn over just "foooosh" flew open and that's when I saw that the shutter was right up and the window was pushed right open. And that was when I just knew that erm someone had taken her.

So I, I mean I ran to the window and I didn't know what I thought was going to see but I ran to the window and then I quickly hmm quickly looked through the wardrobes I had I suppose this temporary thought she was cowering in a wardrobe or something anyway she wasn't there and I just ran out and soon as... Oprah: was she in a closet, in a closet?

Kate: Yeah just in case, just in case she's hiding or something I don't know and then I just went flying out the backdoor and erm ran to Gerry and just as soon as I saw the table where they were sitting I just started shouting "someone's taken her, Madeleine's gone" you know and erm that's how it all started really but erm Oprah: Why did you feel immediately, I'd heard that you'd said "They've taken her, they've taken her"

Kate:....I didn't say that I said, said "somebody's taken her Madeleine's gone". Well from the way I found the room it was obvious because a child could not open those shutters and the window

Mrs McCann was not invited to explain why Madeleine’s bed gave the appearance to the PJ that it had not been slept in or why only her fingerprints had been found on the windows.

A Bit More on the Door and Windows

Forensic linguistics prove nothing but Mrs Mc Canns' story is incredible and defies the laws of physics:

If the window was open how come the door had not slammed before Matthew Oldfield checked and why were the curtains not flapping wildly when they looked into the room?
How come there is absolutely no evidence of an abductor entering or leaving the room?
Why are the only fingerprints on the window those of Kate McCann and in a position that indicates she opened it?
Why did Gerald McCann interfere with the shutters and window immediately he entered the room after Madeleine had been supposedly discovered missing?

Our technical advisers believe it would be impossible to simulate the sequence that Kate McCann and Matthew Oldfield gave of the window being open, the door half open and the curtains still. This is possibly the real reason that the sequences involving Lisa Donovan were cut from the Channel 4 programme and why the the McCanns refused to return to Praia Da Luz to take part in a proper reconstruction.

And if Mr Edgar is such a great cop how come he did not test Mrs McCann’s explanation because it is critical to everything else. It should have been his starting point, followed by an analysis of all of the documentary evidence, including the crèche records.

No One Prepared to Help

In another interesting sequence in the Channel 4 program, Gerald McCann acknowledged that his presence in Praia Da Luz had created hostility among the local population but he questioned how anyone (unless they had a “heart of stone”) could refuse to assist when a little girl’s life is at stake.

He conveniently overlooked the 48 questions, asked by the PJ, that his wife refused to answer including the last one which was

“Are you aware in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter”.

Her response was

“Yes, if that is what the investigation thinks”

And amazingly no where in the Channel 4 program was there any mention of the reward for Madeleine’s return. Now isn’t that a strange oversight by parents who are desperate, and will leave “no stone unturned”, to get their daughter back?

Publicada por Paulo Reis
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/disgusting-episode-of-distorted.html