Monday, 24 April 2017

Sunday Night's Madeleine McCann documentary 'GONE' parts 1 & 2 - EXPOSED.


23rd April 2017, and with the 10 year anniversary since the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann looming, Australia's Channel 7 aired a show on their Sunday Night programme titled 'Gone'. The show promised to give a balanced report into the case of Madeleine - what they delivered was something far from balanced, and even further from the truth. Split into 5 parts, the show was presented by Rahni Sadler, and seemingly sellotaped together snippets of interviews in the most unethical manner. Over the next two days we will be dissecting the documentary, and exposing it for the blatant McCann PR piece it was. 


7m 34s: Presenter - Rahni Sadler "The front door was locked, but the sliding patio doors at the back were left unlocked to allow easy access to check on their children"

Rahni conveniently makes no mention of the McCanns' original claims that the apartment was locked. We covered this in the following blog:

In the above link are several quotes from the McCanns' friends and family, who all stated the apartment was locked. There is also a diagram (duplicated below) that shows the routes the McCanns claim to have taken to check on the children. In the programme Rahni states that the patio door - it being the closest by some distance - was left unlocked to allow easy access to check on their children. As you will see from the above blog - which contains links to the McCanns' statements - the McCanns claim that they entered the apartment using their key, and that they didn't use the sliding door. Why would the McCanns walk twice the distance to use a locked door, if they had left another, closer door unlocked? Rahni of course, fails to mention any of these anomalies, and more.

Tellingly, Rahni also neglects to tell the viewers, that in the McCanns' original version of events, they told friends and family that someone had 'smashed', 'jemmied', and 'broken the shutters to the apartment to gain access. This was a complete lie; it was proven that their was no sign of forced entry.

9m 56s: Kate describes, how 'the curtains, which had been closed, swung open', an amazing feat given that it was a still evening, and one of the curtains - as can be seen on the photograph below - was tucked down between the wall and the bed.

Kate then tells a tale of how the shutters 'were all the way up, and the window had been pushed right across'. This is a version of events that - had this been an honest interview - should have been challenged. The shutters were designed in such a fashion, that the only way they would have stayed up, is if they had been locked in that position from the inside of the apartment. Given that there was no forced entry, it is hard - if not impossible - to believe, that had an intruder entered through an unlocked door, that they would then leave through a small window (which as can be seen by the diagram below, was adjacent to the front door), having clambered over furniture carrying Madeleine, raised a set of shutters - that made a lot of noise -, and done so without waking the twins who were sleeping in the same room. 


1m 09s: Rahni claims police didn't join the search for some 2 hours; this is a blatant lie. They weren't even contacted until 41 minutes after the alarm was raised. The first call was received at 22H41 and the GNR arrived at 23H00 a mere 18 to 19 minutes, the journey time to arrive from Odiaxere to PDL. The Statements from GNR officers Nelson Da Costa and Jose Roque are there for all to read, yet are seemingly ignored by the production team:

1m 16s: Reporter Paul Luckman - editor of The Portugal News - is next up with more misinformation; he states that police were looking for a child who had wandered away, and that 'the whole focus was on a little girl that had got lost'. If that were true (it isn't), then the police must have thought Madeleine could 'wander' at speeds equivalent to that of a motor vehicle, given that before midnight a control post had been set up on the Guadiana bridge, connecting Portugal and Spain, all police in Portugal had been informed as well as Interpol.

CCTV was requested from the two main motorways in the area. Spanish customs at two ports with links to Morocco, Tarifa and Algeciras were also alerted. Contact was made with all marinas, and video recordings, as well as registers of all boats leaving and entering within the last few days were requested.

2m 24s: Rahni Sadler claims that 'from the start, the police investigation had significant failings. Instead of closing off the apartment as a crime scene, dozens of people came and went, trampling through the rooms, and the yard, searching for any sign of Madeleine. In the process recoverable evidence was destroyed, vital clues lost forever'. Rahni then asks Paul Luckman; 'So it was not at the beginning, considered a crime?'

Luckman: 'No'.

Sadler: 'Or a crime scene?'

Luckman: 'No, no, it really wasn' the first few days...nobody even considered this could be something else'

Firstly it has to be said that the crime scene had already been compromised by the McCanns, their friends, and staff from the Ocean Club, as described by Goncalo Amaral:

"The search and examination of the scene were carried out in difficult conditions: when they arrived, the police were met with a large number of people coming and going - family, friends, resort employees, including dogs and members of the National Guard. The contamination of the premises risks bringing serious prejudice, as a consequence, to the investigation. We must ask ourselves if that contamination was deliberate or not - it can make the search for clues particularly complicated. The Lisbon scenes of crime technicians come as reinforcements to start the examination of the residence, which is from now on empty."

The window and the shutters, that the McCanns had claimed were the point of entry, had been interfered with by Gerry McCann, and others, as can be seen from Dianne Webster's rogatory statement:

“Yeah I mean I can remember going out there and in fact there was me and somebody else, I don’t know who else there was, to see if it could be raised from, from outside, I didn’t spend too long err trying it.” 

As for Luckman's totally untrue claims, that in the first few days 5a wasn't treated like a crime scene, I wonder if he could explain why during the night and into the next day, forensic testing took place:

"The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time, the location was sealed and preserved so that light conditions would permit the inspection of the residence to be finalised."

Interestingly, the only prints found on the inside of the window, belonged to Kate McCann, no wonder Rahni lied about forensics not being taken:


5….. Fingerprints….Inside interior window of the children’s bedroom…..DBT…..Suf
1. Methodology and means of operation:
2. Established number of supposed authors:
3. Abandoned objects:
4. Objects or values that were the target of the crime:
5. Importance of the damage incurred:
Observations: The fingerprint traces collected are identified as being the middle finger of the left hand (3x) and forefinger of the left hand (2x), of the missing girl’s mother.
The fingerprint inspection was only carried out on the inside of the window because it was night time, the location was sealed and preserved so that light conditions would permit the inspection of the residence to be finalised."

"On 4 May 2007, at 15:30, a Crime Scene team from the Police Science Laboratory, comprising the undersigned, went, at the request of DIC PJ Portimao, to a dwelling situated at Apartment 5A, of Block A of the tourist accommodation building, "Ocean Club" - Praia da Luz, Lagos, in order to perform a specialist examination of the location."

On the subject of forensics:

"After 00.00 a team from this police force arrived at the scene and immediately began diligencies, namely fingerprint inspection which only revealed the collection of prints from people who had legitimate access to the apartment. The bedroom was also examined by Scientific Police Laboratory, which collected numerous vestiges for continuous examinations, which up until now have not contributed to a full clarification of the facts."

Goncalo Amaral discussed the forensic testing in his book the McCanns tried, and failed to ban 'The Truth of The Lie'

"Inside the apartment, police forensic specialists proceed to lift finger and palm prints, a job that is preferably carried out during daylight hours. Others look for traces of blood, samples of fibres and hair."

Yet, the documentary fail to mention any of this, instead preferring to lie, and portray the police as bungling amateurs. 

Sunday night's Madeleine McCann documentary 'Gone', Part 3 - EXPOSED

Continuing from where we left off this morning, in this evenings blog we tackle the idiocy of what was said in part 3 of Sunday Night's 'Gone', a documentary that promised so much, and delivered nothing more than lies, smears, and misinformation.


2m 32s: Rahni boldly, and incorrectly states that 'the substance behind the sofa couldn't even be determined to be human blood, let alone Madeleine's blood, and the evidence of the cadaver dogs, was questionable'

Oh Rahni, you pseudological scam artist, you make it too easy. Both Eddie and Keela alerted behind the sofa, and guess what - human cellular material was found. Swabs were taken and sent for forensic testing. Of the identifiable markers on sample 3a, all matched those of Madeleine McCann, now unless Madeleine shared the same DNA as a non human species, then perhaps you could explain how you came to the conclusion that what was found wasn't human?

John Lowe - the scientist who tested the samples taken from behind the sofa after Keela and Eddie's alerts - had this to say of a swab 3a, which was taken directly from the spot both dogs alerted to:

"However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid."

Yes he states that the cellular material couldn't be attributed to a particular bodily fluid, but given that Keela only alerted to human blood, and not other bodily fluids, and that DNA was present, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that it was human blood.

Next up on the documentary we were treated to some truly inspired words from Professor Dave Barclay, here's what Dave had to say (try not to laugh).

"I don't put much faith in cadaver dogs, they will react to any decomposing material, be it human, animal, or badger (see how Dave places badgers into a whole new category - perhaps a mineral or vegetable, I don't know. Dave is a law unto himself) or even meat that you've spilt some blood from in the boot of your car and it's then gone off"

Anybody who has studied this case, could be forgiven for thinking that Dave is clearly part of the cover up - why? Because one of the McCanns' family members - Sandy Cameron mentioned the very same thing in his statement:

"On one occasion, I believe it was on July of 2007, I took Patricia to the supermarket. We carried bags in the boot (trunk) of the Renault Scenic; bought various items including fresh fish, shrimp and beef. When we unloaded the shopping bags, we noticed that blood has run out of the bottom of the plastic bag"

The coincidence is quite uncanny, is it not.

Unfortunately for Dave, and Rahni, Eddie didn't alert to roadkill, dead animals, or indeed badgers. In fact the only things he did alert to, were the very things he was trained to alert to. Sick of the apologist's excuses, we covered, and thoroughly debunked them  in a blog some time ago:

However, seeing as Dave brought up the subject of car boots, and Rahni failed to mention what Eddie and Keela alerted to in the boot, allow me:

Both Eddie and Keela alerted to the Renault Scenic; the car the McCanns hired 24 days after Madeleine was reported missing. Following an alert to the side of the boot, Martin Grime (the dogs' handler), instructed the forensic team to inspect further.

Using the following link from the PJ files as source:

"From the observations made inside the vehicle several areas were detected containing stains that appeared to be of haematic origin, they were subjected to tests looking for peroxide existing in blood using the Kastle-Mayer test, all of them reacted negatively."

"After the examination of the vehicle was complete the human blood specialist sniffer dog was introduced along with Martin Grime of the British police who coordinated the dog?s movements. After a few moments Mr Grime informed the team that they should collect the key and other materials from zone M or from the interior of the luggage compartment given the fact that the dog in reference had identified these materials as places where eventual blood vestiges existed. The undersigned gathered these materials placing them in paper envelopes with the following references:

10. Parts of the vehicle luggage area.

12. Vehicle ignition key."


Given that Keela alerted to the boot (ref 10 on the photo below), and that Fernando Viegas Um Henriques, of the Forensic specialist team in Portugal, confirmed that areas of the vehicle contained stains that appeared to be blood, it was fair to assume that these stains/areas could have had the presence of blood. We can see from the link above, that a forensic light kit was used. This kit would have lit up bodily fluids such as saliva, semen, and vaginal fluids, as they contain natural fluorescents. This isn't the case with blood. Blood will actually show up as approximately  four times darker.

The link below has more information on forensic light kits:

Also below, using the Huber murder case as a source:

The Kastle-Mayer test, which was used in this case, whilst, not confirming the presence of blood, cannot rule it out.

As can be seen from the above link, the Kastle-Mayer test, has known to give a negative, even when blood is present. A possible reasons for this, is that the test simply isn't sensitive enough.

Here is what Goncalo said regarding the DNA samples found in the boot of the car:

"In the first case, the laboratory considers that the result of the analysis is inconclusive because the samples gathered provide very little information when the DNA comes from more than one person. But all the confirmed DNA components match with the corresponding components in Madeleine’s DNA profile!."

...and here is what John Lowe of the FSS said:

"A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.


Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample."

No misinterpretation there whatsoever. In fact, when we look at Goncalo Amaral's summary of the DNA, he confirms, exactly what John Lowe has told him:

"The preliminary results from FSS were enlightening in a way, and confirmed the information given by the EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and the CSI dog.

- The CSI dog, Keela, signaled the presence of human blood where Eddie, the EVRD dog, marked the presence of cadaver odour - on the floor tiles behind the sofa in the lounge, on the key and in the boot of the Renault Scenic that was used by the McCanns from May 27th onwards.

- the bodily fluids, according to the FSS, contain markers from Madeleine's DNA profile.

These elements do not constitute concrete proof but simply clues to be added to those we already possess. In itself, the definition of a DNA profile from LCN is not considered as evidence in a criminal investigation. In his report, the English scientist says that he cannot give answers to the following questions: when was the DNA deposited? In what way? What bodily fluid does the DNA come from? Has a crime been committed?

The scientific evidence is not enough and it has to be accompanied by other types of material, documented and testimonial evidence. It is only in this way that the entire puzzle can be reconstructed and certainties can be achieved, for the material truth to be established."

As for Snr. Amaral referring to the sample from the boot as blood, consider this:

Keela (blood only dog), alerted to the boot; specifically the area marked 10.

It was also visually thought to be blood.

DNA confirmed by John Lowe of FSS.

DNA can only come from tissues such as blood, sweat, skin, semen, saliva etc.

As all other fluids from the body would have glowed under inspection, anything other than blood can be ruled out.

The assumption that the sample was in fact blood, is a perfectly reasonable one to make.

Oh one more thing...

Stuart Prior of Leicestershire police force, who was with Goncalo Amaral, at the time they were discussing the DNA results, stated that in England, the results would have been enough to arrest the McCanns.

3m 30s: Back to Paul Luckman now, who when discussing Goncalo Amaral, had this to say 'I think he was fixated on one single solution when, clearly you have to look wider'

Oh dear oh dear, Luckman is again wrong. Goncalo Amaral did consider all possibilities, and discussed them in his book:

"At this stage of the investigation, the hypotheses are numerous, and each one must be considered. It is necessary to locate and identify all the paedophiles who live in or who have passed through the Algarve, in order to check that they were not in the proximity of Vila da Luz on the days preceding the disappearance.

The idea of a robbery gone wrong is not to be ruled out either. During the holidays, burglaries are not rare, and the police are not always informed, because hotels avoid spreading this kind of information. Even if the examination of apartment 5A reveals no trace of a break-in - contrary to what the parents insist and that Sky announced - we have to take stock of the petty crimes committed in the seaside resort and at the tourist complex. We are counting on the management of the hotel so that no incident of this nature remains hidden. Even if we don't have much belief in the scenario of a burglar who enters the apartment for a burglary and leaves it with the child, dead or alive, this hypothesis, as ridiculous as it may be, must not be neglected."

4m 47s: Rahni discusses a sighting from an Irish family, of a man carrying a small child toward the beach. What Rahni fails to say, is that the father of the family, Martin Smith, was between 60% and 80% certain that the man he saw was in fact Gerry McCann, and said so in his statement below:

5m 14s: Dave Barclay is back, this time with a theory that Madeleine could have 'gone into the street, and just been knocked down by somebody who was drunk driving, that's an incentive for him to pick the body up and conceal it somewhere'

So Dave doesn't trust cadaver dogs, but is happy to throw a theory out there that has no evidential basis whatsoever. Nobody reported a noise, there was no report of blood out in the road, no reports of anyone driving erratically, nothing. Yet here we are, with Dave throwing it out there.

5m 45s: Here we have the introduction of criminal profiler Pat Brown. What is blatantly obvious to me, and many others, is that Pat's words were cut, swapped around, and she was misrepresented. The degree of which is utterly disgusting. I won't say any more on that matter as Pat Brown has announced that she intends to sue the production company, in a statement I will copy below:

"Pat Brown’s legal counsel, Attorney Brian Close, has identified multiple claims against Rahni Sadler and Seven West Media – including intentional misrepresentation, false light, and defamation - based on the portrayals that took place in the Sunday Night promotional video and in the piece itself. He states: “The misleading edits portray Pat Brown in a false light by contorting her statements and changing their substance, and the broadcasts and publications have done and continue to do damage to Ms. Brown’s professional reputation wherever they are viewed around the world."All I will say on that matter is that whilst I don't know Pat personally, I wish her the best of luck, and hope she succeeds with her law suit. This entire documentary was an absolute disgrace, and those who made it should be held accountable.

Unfortunately (for the blog, and not for anybody outside of Australia), the production company have now pulled parts 3, 4, and 5. I will try to get a transcript of part 4 though, as it too has some whoppers included. For now though, I will leave you with the above. Please feel free to tweet the blog to @RahniSadler, and post it on the production team's facebook page

Enjoy your evenings, and remember - beware of badgers.

Updated to include: Whilst writing this blog, I considered that Professor Dave Barclay may have also been misrepresented in the same manner that Pat Brown, Colin Sutton, and others were. In fact I'm sure the quotes used were presented in a way that suited the agenda of the production team. I sincerely hope if that is the case, Professor Barclay speaks up - as Pat and Colin have - and gives a full, frank explanation of the context of his comments. The media have twisted the words of the truth to such an extent, that this case has become a tangled web of deceit and lies.


Sunday, 23 April 2017

Former Senior Investigating Officer speaks out about McCann case

As you will all be aware the mainstream media are desperately trying to convince the nation of any theory - other than parental involvement - as to the circumstances under which Madeleine McCann disappeared in May 2007. In an article published on the 21st April 2017, The Daily Mirror were doing just that. The Mirror ran a story that included quotes from Colin Sutton, a former Senior Investigating Officer, who worked on the murder squad for the Metropolitan Police.

Using Colin's words, the article indicated that the former officer's most likely theory was that Madeleine was snatched by a trafficking gang; crucially however the paper misrepresented Colin. Writing on the CMoMM forum yesterday (22nd April 2017) Colin clarified what he actually said:

"This (the theory that Madeleine was kidnapped by a child trafficking gang) is the most likely scenario once those closely linked to Madeleine have been ruled out.

That is an important part of the quoted piece to keep in mind.

My view, as I gave to The Mirror, is that they have not been ruled out, either by the PJ or Op. Grange.  However the editorial slant given to what I said to the reporter has pushed this to the very back of the piece.

I have taken part in three pieces for the 10-year anniversary - the Mirror, the Australian TV film and the Sky TV film.  

The Australians never told me they had 'new evidence', I don't know what this is but I was asked about police procedures in these cases and not asked to give an opinion as to what actually happened.  

The Sky film will be, I hope, a much more balanced piece than anything else in the mainstream media.  I am sure you will have a view once you see it -as will I, as once again it has to go through an editing process, but in what I have recorded I have tried to deal with some of the inconsistencies, to point out that the Portuguese investigation was nowhere near as bad as it is painted, that the McCanns have never been eliminated and that Grange was too restricted either to do this or to have a meaningful impact on the case.

I am sceptical about abduction being the only valid scenario and will continue to be so. In taking that view in the mainstream media, one is subject to legal and editorial restrictions which of course do not exist on a forum. My choice therefore is either to give up and not take part or to do so and try to push the boundaries each time so that the concept of alternative theories can gradually be published more widely. I chose the latter.  

I am cross that The Mirror piece has been adjusted so much that it gives precedence to a hypothesis which I don't feel is the most likely. It is the first time I have done this sort of work for that paper and this is an outcome which has not happened when working for others. No newspaper or TV company has ever told me what conclusion I should come to and if they did I would run a mile. Once I have told them what I think, though, I am at their mercy as to what they use and do not use."

When asked on the forum about Eddie and Keela, the dogs that alerted to various areas in apartment 5a, Kate's clothing, the boot of the hire car, as well as Madeleine's soft toy, cuddlecat:

"I have great faith in the abilities of these dogs in general.  On the handful of occasions I used (different) dogs operationally they were reliable in that they directed us to areas where forensic material was found.  I accept that dog findings alone are not evidential.  

One of the areas of this case where my understanding is lacking is what happened after Eddie and Keela indicated - how the material was then analysed and how it came to be discounted."

Colin then returned to the subject of how the article was misleading:

"I can tell you how the Mirror piece was put together - I spent 2 days in PdL with Martin Fricker and a photographer.  I didn't, on this occasion, actually write anything - Martin interviewed me and we discussed the case and the possibilities of what had happened.  He had a list of these possibilities and I gave my view on them one by one - generically as well as how they might apply to this individual case.  I had nothing to do with the piece on Mr. Amaral; my personal opinion of it was that it was pretty unpleasant.

Most of what I said forms the 5 numbered paragraphs on the bottom half of page 4. I didn't have any control over the relative prominence given to them, had I done so then point 1 (parental involvement) would have had the greatest or at least equal prominence.

My views on the Portuguese investigation form much of what was printed on the bottom halves of pages 6 and 7.  Emphasis here on the criticisms is not mine - but we must I think accept that there are some valid criticisms to be made.  Equally I believe that we should not apply the standards we expect of British officers operating within the British culture and criminal justice system to those operating in a quite different context.

On the final page I did say that I believe that Madeleine is dead but that I understand that it is difficult for many to give up hope.  I said - as I believe - that there is/are a person/persons who know what happened to Madeleine and that I fear that now only information from one of them will solve the case.  This was written as "... if the culrprit makes a confession." Which is very similar but also can be read in a quite different sense.

Just to be absolutely clear, currently my overall position is this:

I do not know what happened to Madeleine.  I do not think the official investigations by the PJ or Scotland Yard have disclosed this either.  I have read a lot of hypothesising and logical thought by many different people - both pro- and anti-abduction -  with varying levels of experience and expertise. Much of what they say, much of the evidence which is available, can point to logical conclusions either for or against the abduction hypothesis. 

But the important point for me is that the accepted best practice in these cases is to ensure that the parents and those close to the missing child are eliminated at an early stage.  The good reason for this is that, statistically and experientially, they are most likely to be involved.  If the PJ tried to do this but could not and Operation Grange didn't actually try to as it was never a part of their remit, then I don't think it can sustainably be said that Madeleine's disappearance was investigated to the depth it ought to have been.  

Of course there are, sadly, some cases where the evidence is not to be found, where the best possible investigation will not yield the answer.  I am not convinced this case is one of those because I am not sure it has been investigated as thoroughly as it could have been.

I am certain, for a number of reasons, that Operation Grange was not a full re-investigation - and I believe it should have been.

I do not ignore the other points you mention.  They all have some credibility, in my judgement at least sufficient to warrant investigation by the appropriate authorities.  As such, they are the sort of things I would have expected a proper re-investigation to look at."

Unlike the Mirror, I haven't edited any of Colin's words regarding the interview; I haven't rearranged what he had to say; I have given no prominence to any part, or parts.

I have to say that I admire the honesty, balance, and structure of what Colin said above; what he has revealed though, raises some serious questions;

Why are our press so determined to avoid printing facts?

Just how many other people has The Mirror - and other publications - misrepresented, in an attempt to portray Kate and Gerry McCann as victims?

When - if ever - are they going to realise that the victim here was Madeleine McCann, and that by printing biased, one sided, and often totally untrue articles, they are complicit in covering up the truth, as to what happened to a 3 year old little girl who went on holiday with her family, and was never seen again?

Tuesday, 21 March 2017

Katie Hopkins - Toeing the McCann line.

Two things we know for sure about Kate and Gerry McCann:

1. They enjoy nothing more than people banging on about neglect, it is after all their alibi, and, whilst people stick on the topic of neglect, they're not discussing the more condemnatory evidence.

2. They love to play the victim. If ever we needed proof of that, we only have to look at the lies they told about Goncalo Amaral, or the dossier in 2014, that ultimately led to an innocent woman's death; a woman who, through no fault of her own was labelled a 'vile troll', and far, far worse.

So imagine the McCanns' glee when they get two for the price of one. A minor celebrity - she was in Big Brother, and is known for being a bigot; sometimes racist; sometimes crude; sometimes xenophobic; always loud-mouthed; always offensive; often vacuous, and widely regarded as someone who likes to stir up hate for the sake of a few quid, and one who believes Madeleine was neglected, and abducted.

I am of course, talking about Katie Hopkins. The 'I say it as it is' champion of the people.

One of Hopkins' early offerings regarding the McCann case, was shortly after the tragic death of Brenda Leyland. Up stepped our heroin with the following tweet:

Keyword: "Negligence"

February 2016; Hopkins writes an article in The Daily Mail about the McCanns, and her outrage at them leaving Madeleine alone. She even signed the article off with the line,

"Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found."

Click to read article

The rest of the MSM jumped on this story, labelling the article as an 'astonishing attack on Madeleine McCann's parents'.

This was perfect for Kate and Gerry. For almost 9 years, the McCanns had openly admitted to leaving their kids alone, they had also complained about abuse from 'perfect parents', and here was Hopkins giving them both these things. Confirming the McCanns' version of events, whilst whipping up a hate storm on twitter; many who were unaware of the more damning aspects of the case, were leaping to Hopkins' side, accusing the McCanns of neglect, and firing vicious verbal volleys into the ether.

Those who did have a better understanding of the case, questioned Hopkins, asking her if she was going to follow up her article with links to the PJ files, or discuss the many inconsistencies to the McCanns' version of events.

Hopkins, full of bravado, promised there would be more to come - and she was right.

June 9th 2016; Katie tells anybody who could be bothered to listen, via her podcast, that her previous article (the one about neglect), was one she had been previously stopped from writing by The Sun. Suddenly, people thought 'she's being silenced, she must be onto something, why would The Sun stop Katie writing about the case?'.

People waited with baited breath...and they waited...and they waited...

Then, in February this year, as she did with Brenda Leyland, Hopkins arrived back on the scene, riding the wave left by Goncalo Amaral's victory over Kate and Gerry in the Supreme Court.

Would we finally see her dig deeper or reveal more?

That would be an emphatic 'NO'.

We were given the leftovers from her last offering; the same food, only cold, and a little past it's best. She even quoted the same line:

"You know it strikes me that in this instance, Maddie wasn't lost because someone took her. I believe Maddie was lost because she was left to be found."

Click here for LBC show.

Yet again, avoiding the main issues, whilst reinforcing the theory of an abductor taking Madeleine because she was left in the apartment to be found.

It was of course great timing...if you're Kate and Gerry. Goncalo Amaral's book had been ruled factual, and his theory of Madeleine's parents covering up her death, based upon his time on the investigation was allowed to be published.

What better time to discuss the more detailed areas of the case?

Not for Hopkins though, it was neglect leading to abduction all the way. Exactly what the McCanns said, but from someone posing as the enemy.

Next up, came a video with Jodie Marsh, and guess what, it came off the back of yet another big announcement regarding the case - quelle surprise!

It had just been announced, that Operation Grange was to be given an extra £85k to carry on the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. The metaphorical ambulance, panting on the driveway of Jodie Marsh, the soles of rent-a-gob's running shoes still hot from the chase, and their owner in yet another position to fulfil her promise of speaking out. This was a private video, no restrictions from her editor. What did Hopkins deliver?

More of the exact same nothingness. Neglect, leading to abduction.  Actually that's not strictly true, Hopkins did add something else this time, and I think it's the first time I've heard her be honest:

"I don't really mind what happened"

Finally the truth. Katie Hopkins doesn't give a what about that fateful night, as long as it serves her. She's a fake, someone out to make a name for herself by acting controversial, whilst at the same time, picking the splinters out of her backside.

I gave three examples of some of the biggest talking points regarding the case. Events that would, ordinarily have people discussing the hard facts, all of which Hopkins leapt on in a flash, and brought back around to the same tale of neglect, and abduction. She promised to give us more, she gave nothing, and now, she's at it again:

Only this time, she's using the name of a dead woman - Brenda Leyland, to get more attention. What's really sickening, is that  Brenda did discuss the real facts, both in her own name, and through her twitter account. She did it in a perfectly legal manner, as was ruled at the inquest into her tragic, and untimely death.

Coincidentally, an avid supporter of Kate and Gerry, who hounded and threatened Brenda days before her death; mocked her passing afterwards; and even had the brass neck to attend the inquest, seems rather pleased with Hopkins' input on the case...

...and well she might. Hopkins is towing the McCann line, she's feeding the public exactly what the McCanns want them to be fed.

"...Maddie was lost because she was left to be found."

There are many, many other aspects to this case:

The evidence of the EVRD dog, and CSI dog, Eddie and Keela:

The lies about a break in. Possibly one of the most fundamental points of the case. It was after all, because of this lie; passed onto the media, from Kate and Gerry, via their friends and family back in the UK, that a vast number of the population were conned into parting with their money:

That money, many believed they were donating to help find Madeleine, was spent on legal fees, and gambled on failed and obsessive law suits. It paid the annual salary of Clarence Mitchell - a cabinet office media monitor, who left his role with the Labour party, to lie to the press on behalf of the McCanns, thus creating a paradoxical circle of events. 'Give us money, and we'll feed you more lies'.

These, and many more things happened. They're documented in the files, they're facts, so when Hopkins tell us she's going to reveal more, and she won't be silenced, why does she stick to the same mantra, neglect - abduction? The McCanns' version.

The ironic factor in all of this is of course, is that there is a valid argument, believed by many who have read the PJ files, that the children weren't left alone, as one adult was missing from the tapas bar each evening. In fact it was a theory that was explored by Paulo Rebelo, the man who took over the investigation from Goncalo Amaral.

Rebelo's theory, was that apart from the night Madeleine was reported missing, the adults took turns babysitting each night:

Sunday April 29th: Matt Oldfield may not have been at dinner as he was alleged to be too ill, and did nothing on the Sunday.

"Reply 'So Sunday was pretty much a write-off and I was thinking, oh, the start of my holiday and I'm not doing anything that day'.

4078 'Yeah. So Monday was really your first proper holiday day''

Monday 30th, or Tuesday 1st: Russell O'Brien was not at dinner

Wednesday 2nd: Jane Tanner was late to dinner, as her daughter was ill.

Rachael O'Brien (Mampilly) was not at dinner as she was unwell.

Quiz mistress confirms one of the group was missing at dinner,

Due to the inconsistencies within the group's statements, the PJ requested that they take part in a reconstruction, the group of friends all refused, as detailed below in the final report:

"The aforementioned persons were interviewed carefully and in great detail, on various occasions (see index), with the intention to collect all the relevant elements that could help the investigation to uncover the truth regarding the facts.

The analysis of the grouping of these inquiries emphasized the existence of important details which were not entirely understood and integrated, which needed to be, from our viewpoint, tested and compared together [concatenated] in the actual location.

As such, a concrete understanding of the lack of synergy of some aspects of elevated relevance should be attempted through a processed diligence via the reconstitution of the facts, which, due to a lack of collaboration of several relevant witnesses, was not able to be accomplished, in spite of all the force brought by the authorities."

It is only a theory, but one that Kate, Gerry, and their friends didn't take the opportunity to rule out. Whatever the truth behind whether the children were left alone or not, the fact remains, that by getting bogged down with talk of neglect, the bigger picture is being missed completely.

There is so much more to this case than the issue of neglect.

Thursday, 2 February 2017

What next for the McCanns?

The European Court of Human Rights - ECHR:

Almost as soon as the news of Goncalo Amaral's second successful defence against the McCanns was spreading across the parallel universe that is the main stream media, mumblings, whispers and in the case of some newspapers, definitive statements were being made; "McCanns to appeal court ruling".

I was holding out for the headline, "Kate and Gerry McCann to throw yet more donated money away in obsessive pursuit of one man".


"McCanns set to gamble yet more cash, many believe is being used to search for Madeleine"

Of course those headlines will never make the front pages, despite (plans of appealing aside), being totally true. 

Kate and Gerry McCann have spent many years and a massive amount of public donations in pursuing Goncalo Amaral. 

“He deserves to be miserable and feel fear”, is one of Kate's quotes about Snr. Amaral.

All those years, all that cash, and now, if the rumours are correct, Kate and Gerry are considering appealing yet again. This time to the last chance saloon; The European Court of Human Rights. 

The press, as you'd expect, lay out the news like it's a foregone conclusion; that the McCanns will simply get on the blower to Strasbourg, and coupling their usual arrogance, with a somewhat swaggering self entitlement complex, will be granted an appeal just like that. 

It isn't that easy. 

Personally, I doubt very much if the McCanns will go down the ECHR route. I'm more of the opinion that the cries of 'we'll appeal', are hollow, and that the McCann media machine is merely trying to fool whoever still believes their tripe, into believing the McCanns have been dealt a severe injustice (they haven't), and will seek to rectify it asap. 

That being said, it's just my opinion, so let's look at the ECHR, and whether the McCanns could, should they apply, be granted the right to appeal. 

- The first step for anyone seeking to apply to the ECHR, is to download an application form, and fill every section out, meticulously, and in full.

- If any parts of the form are incomplete, illegible, or incorrect, then the court could well end the claim right there. (These ladies and gents do not fuck about).

- Once the form is completed, it must be sent to the ECHR in Strasbourg. 

- Upon arrival at Strasbourg, the application form will be sent to the appropriate legal division. In this case, it would be a division that included Portuguese speakers, who also have expertise in Portuguese litigation.

- The file will then be given a number, and examined by a lawyer.

- The court may then contact the applicant, and ask for further information. If this isn't sent immediately, the court can, and will, terminate the application. 

- Other than the court requesting information, and the applicant sending it, the latter must NOT contact the court. (Can you imagine Gerry being able to adhere to that rule?)

- The court receives over 50,000 applicants a year, of those only 30 actually make it to the hearing stage. That's a staggeringly low 0.06% (You feeling lucky Kate and Gerry?)

- "If your application is clearly inadmissible because it does not meet all the required admissibility criteria, it will be dealt with by a single judge. The inadmissibility decision given by that judge is final. You will be informed by letter, but you will not receive a copy of the decision. It is not possible to challenge the inadmissibility decision or request any further information about it. The Court will close the case and the file will be destroyed at a later date"

- In all cases, once the ECHR decides, at any stage, that an application is inadmissible, or it is rejected, then that's it; game over; you had your chance; you blew it. 

Now, let's get down to some juicier bits. 

One of the questions that we've seen crop up a few times, is this:

If the McCanns begin the appeal process, will Goncalo Amaral's assets be frozen once more, and will the costs Kate and Gerry were ordered to pay, be suspended pending the outcome of the ECHR?

The wonderful news, if you're sat on the Amaral side of the fence, is that until a final verdict is reached by the ECHR, they don't have the power to overturn, suspend, or alter any decision made by the Portuguese, as confirmed by the ECHR below:

"If I apply to the Court, does it mean I do not have to
comply with the final judgement given by the domestic

No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must
comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you
lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court."

So no get out there. If Kate and Gerry were hoping to delay payment (whilst they squirrelled away more of the donations given to them to find their daughter), by slapping in an application to the ECHR, they'd better have a rethink; it won't work. 

The current backlog of cases, means that any application could take up to a year, and more, to reach the appeal stage. Plenty of time for the McCanns to pay up, or find themselves arrested. 

Another question that is included in the ECHR many information sheets, is this one:

"What is the European Court of Human Rights
not able to do for me?

The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national
courts (the Supreme Court in Lisbon being one of these); it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise
their decisions.

The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures.

As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed."

More on the how applications to the European Court of Human Rights, can be read on the following links:

So, if the McCanns are indeed having utopian ideas of starting further desperate, and pitiful attempts to destroy Snr. Amaral, I would suggest that fantasy land is where they will be born and reality be there resting place. 

My honest opinion (for what it's worth), of this entire legal battle and what should happen next is as follows. 

1. Kate and Gerry need to suck this loss up. 

2. They need to apologise, publicly, to those who donated cash they believed would be used solely for the search for Madeleine. That cash has been spent on corrupt private detectives, who (as proven in previous blogs) also channelled their efforts into destroying Snr. Amaral, instead of looking for Madeleine; it has been spent on buying favourable headlines; lawyers; PR spokesman - that's Clarence Mitchell's official title, to the rest of us, he's just a child abuse apologist, who took hundreds of thousands of pounds, in exchange for a multitude of lies, fake stories, and smears, designed to do protect his employers. 

3. They need to hand over the cash they owe Goncalo Amaral, and sharp, so that the £52,900, or the change from his defence, raised by those who wished to help Snr. Amaral, can as promised, be donated to children's charities. I would then hope that the PJGA show complete transparency, and inform us all of exactly how the money was divided up, and to which charities it went to. 

I've seen a lot of comments from people agreeing to a post, that Snr. Amaral should use that money to counter sue the McCanns. 

To those people I would say this:

Goncalo Amaral will have plenty of his own money to take that course of action should he wish to. The £52,900 was raised for him to defend himself, with the remainder to go to children's charities. If I'm honest, I find the comments that he should keep going until the McCanns lose their house etc. quite sickening. It's a baying mob mentality, and if that's what you're into, we're way off being on the same page. Kate and Gerry have two other children, do you really want to see them lose their family home, as well as their sister?

That's before I've even got on to how much good that sum will do for children's charities. I wonder, are the same people who are suggesting Snr. Amaral use that money, even be it temporarily, happy that it not be given to children who desperately need it immediately? 

Even if it were to feed, educate, keep warm, keep safe, just one child (it would help many. many more), would the lynch mobbers out there prefer it be used to pursue the McCanns?

"Ah never mind the kids Goncalo, they can wait; instead, we'd like you to spend all the cash on a big stick, and beat the McCanns with it...huh their other two kids? Nahhh, be reet, here, take the stick"

If you do, and if you got your way, would you still feel comfortable accusing the McCanns of neglecting 3 children, whilst your wish would neglect many more?

Would you feel ok about a fund set up for one reason, suddenly being used to pursue Kate and Gerry through the courts, even though that's the very thing you complain about the McCanns doing? 

"but they deserve it, but they made his life hell, but, but, but..."

...but nothing, you're blinkered, hypocritical, and totally lacking any perspective. 

Finally, it has to be said, now the dust has settled; that all of this; the lies; the legal battles; the obscene amount of money wasted, could have all been avoided. If the McCanns had looked after their kids properly, then the chances are Madeleine would still be here. If they hadn't gone on to lie through their teeth, the investigation could have run it's proper course - without hindrance. 

Madeleine McCann deserved so much better. 

She was born an ordinary girl, with her whole life ahead of her.

She became a treasure trove for those who were responsible for her death, and those who supported their lies.

Tuesday, 22 November 2016

Podesta brothers' link to Madeleine McCann - DEBUNKED.

Social media; a powerful tool when used correctly, but what if it is used to spread fake news?

Let's cast our minds back to the 7th November 2016; the day before the 58th American presidential election. News (I use the term loosely), is spreading across various social media platforms, claiming that John Podesta (chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign), and his brother Tony Podesta match the efits that were released by New Scotland Yard on the 14th of October 2013.

Scotland Yard showcased the efits on the British programme 'Crimewatch', a short transcript of which, can be read below:

23m 34s

Presenter, Matthew Amroliwala - "It was here, at 10pm that an Irish family witnessed another man, carrying a child. They saw him come down the hill, from the direction of the Ocean Club, heading that way, towards the beach. Could this have been Madeleine, and her abductor?"

DCI Andy Redwood - "He was a white man, with brown hair, and the child he had in his arms was described as being about 3 to 4 years of age, with blonde hair, possibly wearing pyjamas - a description very close to that of Madeleine McCann."
Matthew Amroliwala - "Two of the witnesses helped create efits of the man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true significance of these images"

DCI Andy Redwood - "This could be the man that took Madeleine, a very important lead, there could be an innocent explanation. The efits are clear, and I'd ask the public to look very carefully at them. If they know who this person is, please come forward"

There is absolutely no confusion there; the efit was of one person.

Still not convinced?

Perhaps a freedom of information request, sent to the Metropolitan Police Service might help:

"At Question 4 you asked: 
Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two 
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually 
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were. 
The MPS response is: 
The program was referring to members of the Irish family who created the 
At Question 5 you asked: 
Are the e-fits of the same man, or not? 
The MPS response is: 
Yes they are the same man." 

Don't take my word for it though; take the word of the witnesses. As can be seen from the family's statements below, there was definitely only one man.

Now I realise this blows the Podesta theory of two men, matching two suspects, right out of the water, but no matter how much a person may want it to be true, the basic facts are; 1 does not equal 2, it never has, and never will. 

Is it not more plausible, that in fact social media was used as a political propaganda tool?

That one day before the election, a vicious rumour was spread, in order to smear the Clinton camp, and thus convince those who were perhaps undecided, to vote for Donald Trump?

Face facts America, you've been had. You were given a seed, and without doing any research at all, you fertilized that seed, nurtured it, watered it, and watched it grow into a totally false, yet believable fact. 

If you've taken the time to read the statements, you will have seen that one of the witnesses (Martin Smith), was up to 80% certain, the man he saw carrying Madeleine toward the beach, was her father, Gerry McCann. 

There was no evidence of an abduction, ever taking place, and a whole stack of evidence to implicate Madeleine's parents. Don't take my word it though, read the true facts, with links to the police files:

Perhaps those who now realise they were duped, might delete the lies that litter their twitter timelines, and replace those lies with the above; the irrefutable truth.

Saturday, 5 November 2016

Murdered by her mother - the case of Joana Cipriano.

Goncalo Amaral, the coordinator for the original investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann, has been involved in one high profile missing child case before. That being the murder of Joana Cipriano. It was in fact the only other high profile case of a missing child that Snr. Amaral had worked on, the simple reason for this being, that there have been no missing children in the Algarve for Snr. Amaral to coordinate investigations over. Apart from what could be described as the 'normal' parental abduction cases, which thankfully are very rare and usually solved swiftly or at least identified as parental abductions, there just haven't been any missing children at the hands of a stranger.

Sickeningly, we've seen apologists make excuses for the killers of Joana Cipriano for years. They've even managed to brainwash a few, (most of whom can't even spell her name correctly, let alone quote the evidence heard in court) into believing the convictions weren't sound. Quite honestly, the contempt I have for those liars, and anybody else who knowingly defend convicted child killers to serve their own agenda, is palpable. I only hope some of those who follow their views, and unknowingly support them, will finally see through them.

I'm not going to write a narrative here, instead I will use bullet points of just some of the matters, considered to be proven in court:

Joana Cipriano disappeared in September 2004, at just 8 years old. A victim of neglect and exploitation at the hands of her mother, Joana was used to look after her two younger brothers, and was often seen in the village of Figueira running errands for her mother, Leonor Cipriano.

Joana Cipriano, was one of 6 siblings, she lived with her mother Leonor, and her 2 younger brothers. The other 3 children were given away to various family members. It was later proven to the courts that having given these children away, Leonor didn't keep any contact with them, for at least 14 years.

Leonor Cipriano, tried to give Joana away on numerous occasions, twice with the little girl's father, with whom she had had no relationship, only for him to return her. Joana was even left with a couple who were alcoholics, and had a sick child of their own.
One of the children, the fourth born, was found buckled to a chair, aged just 7 months old, whilst Leonor went out. He was later found by neighbours.

On Joana Cipriano's first day at school in 2003, her mother Leonor, left her to find her own way. Joana was found wandering, and lost by a neighbour, aged just 5 years old.

On the night Joana disappeared, her mother, had sent her daughter to the village shop, 420m away to buy groceries at 8pm.
Upon Joana's return, both Leonor Cipriano, and her brother Joao Cipriano, both beat Joana about the head, causing her mouth, temple, and nose to bleed.

Due to the severity of the beating, Joana fell and hit her head against the corner of a wall. It was this blow, that ultimately caused her death.

Both Leonor and Joao Cipriano, upon realising Joana was no longer breathing, embarked upon a plot to conceal both her death, and the body.

Joao Cipriano headed to the village, whilst Leonor cleaned the crime scene with petroleum, scouring pads, and a mop and bucket.

Traces of blood were found consistent to the attack, and subsequent concealment of the cadaver, were found in all areas described in the confessions of both killers.

Traces of blood were also found on the stem of the mop used to clean the crime scene.

The presence of ticks in the house indicated an attraction to the presence of fresh blood.

Joao Cipriano provided a confession, in front of a judge, a forensics expert, and members of the PJ, on video tape, under no duress, detailing the crime. Included in Joao Cipriano's confession, was a full description of how both he and Leonor, cut up the body of Joana into 4 parts, head, torso, and legs. The forensics expert stated that the description of the body parts that were more difficult to cut apart was anatomically accurate.

Joao Cipriano also described the implements used to cut up the body, these being a metal cutting saw, and a knife.
Joana's dismembered body was placed into 3 bags, before being placed into a freezer, where more traces of human blood were found.

Joao Cipriano stated that he didn't hurt Joana (sexually), but that he only killed her.

Joao Cipriano has various previous convictions, including one for attempted murder, whereby his victim was left blind.

Joana Cipriano's shoes were found inside the house, thus proving she had indeed returned from the shop.

Leonor Cipriano originally stated that she didn't report Joana's disappearance, due to having no credit
on her phone.

Giving testimony, António Leandro, Joana's stepfather, told the court how Leonor, had not only told him that she had been having a sexual relationship with her brother Joao, but that she also confessed to the pair murdering Joana.

Both Leonor, and Joao Cipriano were found guilty of the murder of Joana Cipriano, and the subsequent concealment of her cadaver. They were sentenced to 16 years imprisonment each.

There are so many more horrific points to this case, all of which can be read here:,06P363

As for controversy surrounding the case. Yes, there has been a certain amount of controversy. Leonor Cipriano, in a desperate attempt to withdraw her confession, accused members of the PJ, of torturing a confession out of her. Leonor accused 3 members of the PJ, and took a list of their names into court. All of the men accused were acquitted. This was because Leonor Cipriano's account of what she alleged, lacked "credibilty".

Below is an excerpt from Diario de Noticias, with thanks to Astro for the translation:

Leonor has no credibility:

"The jurors and the collective of judges at the Court of Faro considered that Leonor Cipriano's deposition had "no credibility". According to judge Henrique Pavão, "she changed her version several times" and "lightly" accused persons of aggressing her, based on a list of names that she carried into the court room. "She lied about the identification of the aggressors and she lied about other crucial aspects," the judge mentioned.

Concerning the photographs that were taken of Leonor, which were included in the process, the collective considered that they are "of weak quality" and that therefore, "it was not possible to conclude safely about what really happened".

Goncalo Amaral, who wasn't in the building at the time Leonor claimed to have received her injuries, was found guilty of falsifying a document. A little unfairly, as he was only writing what was conveyed to him by one of his inspectors. Nonetheless the law is the law, and whilst it may have seemed harsh, it was accepted. The document in question, had no impact on the investigation, and no bearing whatsoever on the conviction of Leonor and Joao Cipriano.

Still that didn't stop Marcos Aragão Correia, Leonor Cipriano's Lawyer from reporting back to Metodo 3 by exclaiming: 'Target was hit, Gonçalo Amaral was convicted'

Of course none of the above will stop the more sinister of apologists from using the murder of a little girl to smear Goncalo Amaral.

Leonor Cipriano was given 7 extra months on her sentence for lying about being tortured.

As a direct result of that conviction, Amnesty International hold no further records of the allegation:

I doubt any of the above will stop the die hard McCann fans from defending this vile monster who abused, neglected, and murdered her own flesh and blood. Still, they sold their souls a long time ago.

Friday, 4 November 2016

Man responsible for hoax sightings of Madeleine, is a McCann family friend.

On January 2013, The Daily Express ran a story with the headline "Madeleine McCann kidnap photo shock".

The photo in question was handed to detectives at Scotland Yard, and came from a man named Luiz Carlos Moreno. Moreno claims that the photo was taken in Brazil in 2007, and that it shows a man walking down the road with Madeleine McCann. He also sent police a list of demands, so he could help with the investigation (as described on the link to Pamalam's website below). 

At the request of Scotland Yard, The Express didn't print the photo at the time of the article, but described it almost perfectly. In fact the only thing they didn't mention, was the fact that the photograph in question couldn't have been evidence of Madeleine being in Brazil. Many people, myself included, believe that Madeleine died in apartment 5a, and that her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in concealing the little girl's body. That isn't however, the reason the photograph couldn't have been of Madeleine in Brazil.

The reason the photo couldn't have been taken in Brazil, was because it was taken at Ibiza airport in June 2007. A google image search of the photograph, brings up several matches; the first of which is a link to AP images.

AP images are a subscription based company, this is how they describe the services they offer:

"Simplify your image buying and budgeting with an AP PhotoChoice subscription. PhotoChoice gives you access to AP’s expansive collection of more than 34 million editorial and stock images. The collection includes AP’s wholly owned news, sports and entertainment images as well as world-class editorial, creative rights-managed and creative royalty-free images from hundreds of global photo partners. PhotoChoice lets you choose among editorial and creative images as you need them, as a simple one-stop-solution for all your imagery needs."

The second link takes us to a story that was published in June 2007, 
and discusses a security alert at an airport in Ibiza The photo accompanying the article was taken outside the airport, and is the very same one Moreno claims was taken in Brazil. In short, Moreno lied, not huge news in itself, people lie every day, granted not many do where it concerns a missing little girl. 

What makes the hoax sighting more intriguing, is that (as can be seen on the left), Moreno is a Facebook friend of Kate McCann's mother, Susan Healy, he also adds her to social media groups who promote lies about the McCann case, in an attempt to absolve the McCanns of any blame.

I discovered one of these groups Moreno had added Susan Healy to, only to find two more "sightings", of different girls, who bore no resemblance to Madeleine McCann. Upon joining the group, I asked Moreno why he posted hoax sightings, and why he would be connected to the family whilst taking part in such dishonest behaviour. His only replies were abusive, and non 
committal to the subject matter: 

Don't you hate it when people flirt with you online? Moreno left the group shortly after I told him that I would be using the comments he made in a public group, and posting them in this article. The two other photos Moreno posted (I have pixelated out the faces of those involved), are also clearly not Madeleine Mccann.

As can be seen on the above picture, not only is Moreno claiming that a little girl who bears no resemblance to Madeleine is in fact the missing girl, he also claims that the lady being pushed in the wheelchair, is her kidnapper.  

The very fact that Susan Healy, grandmother to Madeleine, is friends with a man who has posted 3 hoax sightings that we know of, and refuses to answer how many more he has circulated, should at the very least, set alarm bells ringing. We still remember how the Official Find Madeleine page promoted a picture of a girl much younger than Madeleine would have been were she alive.

A the recent article printed in The Sun, and written by another friend of the McCanns, Antonella Lazzeri, wrote that there had been 8,685 claims that Madeleine had been spotted in various countries. Despite these "sightings", Kate and Gerry don't seem to remember any of note, as can be seen on the following video:

The question remains though, why is the grandmother of a missing child, in direct contact with a man, Luiz Carlos Moreno, who is responsible for hoax sightings.

In the interest of fairness, a link to this blog has been sent to Mrs Healy, should she wish to use her right to reply.