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:


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, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6256944.stm 
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. 

Monday, 31 October 2016

Forensic Science Service closes, leaving a legacy of mass failures.

Some time ago I read an article in The Guardian, dated 22nd February 2007. The article in question related to a huge number of failures from the Forensic Science Service (FSS); the Government run UK lab who, along with many others, dealt with forensics from the McCann case.


It is important to note that whilst this article predated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann by 10 weeks, the revelations dealt a devastating blow to the reputation of the FSS, and could well be part of the problems that led to the incomplete, and with regards to some samples that were tested, a total lack of DNA found.

The discovery that an estimated 2,500 samples taken from serious crime scenes, including murder, rape, and sexual assault, had been botched by the FSS, only came to light during the review into the murder of Rachel Nickell. Rachel was murdered, and sexually assaulted on Wimbledon common on 15th July 1992. The only witness to the crime was Rachel's two year old son; Alexander Nickell. Tragically, the toddler was found holding onto his mother's blood soaked body by a passer by. Alexander had even placed pieces of paper over the lifeless Rachel's wounds after she had been brutally stabbed to death in front of him.

The investigation into finding Rachel Nickell's killer was confounded by controversy. Without any real leads, and a complete lack of identifiable DNA from the FSS, police focused their investigation on a local man, Colin Stagg, who often walked his dog on the common. At this point police enlisted the services of criminal psychologist, Paul Britton, who, upon their request, created a profile of the killer; the profile, according to police, matched that of Stagg, and a plan to trap the suspect began.

With Britton's assistance, the Met briefed one of their undercover female officers. Adopting the name 'Lizzie James', the officer from SO10 began to form a staged relationship with the unsuspecting Colin Stagg. During the 5 month operation, 'James' attempted to gain information from Stagg, by discussing sexual fantasies, either by letter, through telephone conversations, or face to face. Discussions, instigated by 'James', progressed to those of a more violent nature, Stagg became worried that his new 'love' would end the 'relationship', going as far to say 'Please explain, as I live a quiet life. If I have disappointed you, please don't dump me. Nothing like this has happened to me before.'

As the pressure grew upon Stagg to fulfil the expectations of his fake lover's fantasies, he made a stupid confession. The suspect claimed he had murdered a woman in New Forest. Like the relationship though, this 'confession' was totally false. Frustrated the undercover officer 'Lizzie James' was instructed to go for broke:

'LJ' - "If only you had done the Wimbledon Common murder, if only you had killed her, it would be all right"

CS - "I'm terribly sorry, but I haven't."

Despite no forensic evidence, no confession, and no formal identification, the CPS agreed with the police, and on the 17th August 1993 arrested, and charged Colin Stagg.

The trial collapsed, and for good reason. The defence claimed the 'evidence' of Paul Britton was speculative, but worse for the police, their covert operation was slammed by the judge. Justice Ognall ruled that the 'honey trap' had been 'a blatant attempt to incriminate a suspect by positive and deceptive conduct of the grossest kind'. The prosecution admitted defeat, and on 14th September 1994 Colin Stagg was acquitted of murder.

As a side note, the acquittal sparked a massive debate as to whether judges could, or should, be relied upon to decide whether 'entrapment' had taken place. The reason for this was that by definition, entrapment is the act of inducing a person to commit an offence, that otherwise they would have had no intention to commit. Due to the fact the murder of Rachel Nickell had already happened, then it could have been argued that entrapment didn't take place, and therefore under another judge, the actions of the police could well have been deemed perfectly sound.

True to form however, I digress.

During a second inquiry of the case in 2002, the FSS retested items found at the murder scene. Once again the lab failed to identify tiny amounts of DNA taken from the body, and underwear of Rachel Nickell. The lab used a technique known as Low Copy Number DNA analysis; the very same technique they used to test a great number of the samples sent from Portugal during the McCann investigation.

As briefly as I can:

LCN testing is a form of LTDNA (low template DNA), testing, and was first introduced by the FSS in 1999.

The benefit of LCN testing, when done correctly, is that DNA can be identified from samples deemed to be too microscopic for previous testing methods (SGM+), to yield results.

The way this is done is to increase the number of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cycles.

Whereas standard testing used 28 cycles, LCN testing used 34.

The short video below explains PCR cycles, and how they copy DNA:


With that in mind, the disadvantages of LCN testing are:

Because the samples are being reproduced more, they are more prone to contamination, as well as the risk of mixed profiles being produced (ring any bells?).

Back to the Rachel Nickell inquiry now, and as I stated earlier, the tests carried out by the FSS failed to find tiny amounts of DNA. Had a DNA match been found, it would surely have snared Rachel's killer. The case may still have been unsolved to this day, had it not been for Scotland Yard sending the samples to a private lab. The change of lab proved pivotal; as well as Rachel Nickell's DNA a male sample belonging to Robert Napper was found. The match probability of this result, was approximately 1 in 12 million. At the time of the discovery, Napper, a paranoid schizophrenic, was being held in Broadmoor for the murder of Samantha Bisset, as well as the murder and sexual assault of Bisset's 4 year old daughter. Tragically, the attack on the young mother and daughter took place 16 months after the murder of Rachel Nickell. Had the police been looking at the right man, instead of following a wild goose chase, Samantha Bisset and her daughter may have still be alive today.

In 2005 Tony Lake, chief constable of Lincolnshire police and the Association of Chief Police Officers' spokesman on forensic issues, was given the task of reviewing exactly what went wrong, why the FSS failed the victims of Napper. When Lake made the shocking discovery that the FSS had made a mess of over 2,500 samples, he, and many other police forces were furious. Lake had this to say:

"This is about not getting results when it might be expected that there was DNA, rather than getting a result that was wrong. This type of DNA analysis of tiny amounts of DNA is carried out normally in the most serious crimes. We were not best pleased. We were not impressed. We rely on our forensic providers to have the highest standards."

Lake contacted every chief constable in the country, asking that all forces check their files between the years 2000 and 2005; in particular the forces were to report back any negative results from samples sent to the FSS, where a positive result had been expected. Tony Blair's government and the police kept the massive faillings secret for as long as they could, prompting David Davis, the shadow Home secretary to accuse Blair and his government of a cover up. This was strenuously denied of course; Blair never was a man to admit his lies.

Despite the findings, the FSS continued to handle forensic evidence, and in 2007, were used to test all samples from the McCann case. We all know how that went:

DNA NOT found from samples it was expected to have been found in.

Mixed samples.

Incomplete samples.


With the form the FSS had, is it possible the lab made a pigs ear of the testing again?

To further add to the FSS' problems, in December 2007 LCN testing was suspended, after Justice Weir expressed concerns the FSS had botched samples from the 'real IRA' bombing in Omagh.

Not exactly covering themselves in glory were they.

In December 2010, the government announced that they were to close the FSS down; the reason for this was said to be purely financial. In light of the lab's dreadful track record, could it be that money wasn't the only reason, (if it was a reason at all), for it's closure. Or could it be that the staggering amount of failures, had brought the government to a position where the FSS was fast reaching an untenable position.


According to the article o the link below, the estimated cost of the FSS closure, was between £300 - £350 million. That's not pocket change, and given the laboratory's multiple failures, the question has to be asked...

What was the real reason for the closure of the FSS?

Some useful reading:

National Police Improvement Agency; homicide and major incident investigation:


Offender Profiling in the Courtroom: The Use and Abuse of Expert Witness; by Norbert Ebisike

Saturday, 29 October 2016

Kate McCann's Freudian slip.

Whilst gathering some information for another post, and getting lost down a rabbit hole (no pun intended), I came across a quote that I just couldn't leave.

The following exchange took place at the trial McCann V Amaral, 8th July 2014:

Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro - "Do you recall an  interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã on 24th July 2008 called Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold."

Kate Healy (McCann) - "He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later [sic, car was rented 24 days later]."

"Exaggerated", not lied, not fabricated, but "exaggerated".

An example of exaggeration is provided within Kate's reply, when she states Goncalo Amaral claimed Madeleine's body was "taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later"

Snr. Amaral actually said "twenty something days after"

In that instance, a foundation of fact is present (car we had rented), but the length of time (seven weeks later), is "exaggerated" by Kate.

Snr. Amaral's claim consists of two elements:

"...the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold"

"Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car"

Of those two elements, I wonder, which does Kate believe was the factual foundation, and which went on to "exaggerate" the fact?

Kate McCann - guilty of sabotaging her own claims.

I'd like to tackle a delicate subject that has bothered me for two years. Ever since the damages trial at Lisbon in July 2014, I have played one particular part over and over in my head. To explain my thoughts properly, I will start at the beginning, the moment Kate and Gerry began this particular litigation against Goncalo Amaral.

In 2009, a 36 page writ detailing the McCanns' reasons for suing Goncalo Amaral was handed to The Sunday People. The accurately translated documents, revealed claims from the McCanns that the couple suffered from:

"permanent anxiety, insomnia, lack of appetite, irritability and an indefinable fear".

It also stated that Kate was:

"steeped in a deep and serious depression".

During the trial, we first see the subject of the McCanns' state of mind being questioned, on day 1 of the trial, 12th September 2013.

Susan Hubbard, the wife of Father Haynes Hubbard, an Anglican priest who was said to have consoled Kate and Gerry during their time in Portugal, was asked:

"Did they feel ashamed, anxious?"

Mrs Hubbard refused to answer the question.

Day 3 of the trial, 19th September 2013; Alan Pike, a Clinical Partner & Trauma Consultant at The Centre for Crisis Psychology, is called to give evidence. When questioned about Kate's Mental health, he states that:

"In the summer of 2009 Kate was not well at all as a direct result of reactions to the documentary."

Now before I go any further, let's just add some spice. Alan Pike has become a close friend of the McCanns. He first met the family on the 5th May 2007, after Mark Warner requested he come to Portugal, to offer the McCanns support. It's true that he's a clinical partner at The Centre for Crisis Psychology. All sounds very swish doesn't it. You would imagine he's a psychologist...right?

Pike claimed, in court, that Kate McCann suffered secondary trauma as a result of Goncalo Amaral's book.

In the following quote Pike gives his opinion on how Kate's mental health had been affected:

"The secondary trauma is sometimes more violent, more rooted and more extreme than the original trauma (Madeleine's disappearance). It is more difficult to cope with."

Poor Kate. Seemingly it WAS the book that caused the ambassador to become "steeped in a deep and serious depression".

I mean it had to be, Mr Pike, a credible witness, a psychologist, a...wait, are we sure Pike was a psychologist? Are we sure he was in a position to give a diagnosis? Let's pick up the questioning from the lawyers for Guerra & Paz (the publishers of 'The Truth of The Lie')

GP - "What exactly is your profession?"

AP - answers he is a Crisis Counsellor.

GP - asks whether he is a psychologist?

AP - says he has some competences in psychology (psychology was one of the elements in his degree).

GP - asks again "are you a psychologist?"

AP - says no.

So Pike, isn't a psychologist after all. He is in no position to diagnose depression, and in no position to give an evaluation of Kate's mental health prior to Madeleine's disappearance, after which, any pre-existing mental health problems would be masked by what a stranger could easily put down to (what Pike continually describes) as an 'abduction'.

Let's give Mr Pike credit though, he's clearly not some wide-eyed, gullible, man...

AP – They were surprised with the book because the final Report said they were innocent.

GP – Have you read the final report?

AP says "no".

GP – How do you know then what its conclusions are?

AP says the McCanns told him.

...oh he is. The final report didn't state the McCanns were innocent at all.

Next up, was the star witness (sarcasm), for the prosecution. The one and only Michael Wright, self confessed media monitor, and husband of Kate McCann's cousin..

Day 4, 20th September 2013:

Wright is questioned as to the effects of the book upon the McCanns.

"The fact that people in Praia da Luz believed the conclusions of the book was terrible for them because they were already depressed. It was a time of great anger and sadness. During the week-end we talked about the effect of the book."

Gradually Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro, is being given a picture that backs the McCanns' claims within the writ, that Kate is "steeped in a deep and serious depression".

Isabel Duarte, the McCanns' lawyer, is keen to push the matter further, as she questions Michael Wright:

"Is Kate depressed?"

At this point the plan was blatantly obvious; Wright would answer yes, and the depression angle would be firmly cemented.

However, at this point something happens that in my opinion, alters the entire case.

Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro, overrules the question, and states that this is only something that can be confirmed by Kate's doctor.

Depression isn't mentioned again by either lawyer until day 12, July 8th 2014. I had the privilege of being sat in the gallery during this hearing. I heard the Judge ask Kate McCann if she suffered from depression, this question was translated to Kate, who then answered. Kate floundered, seemingly excusing the severity of anything she may have been feeling. She began by saying:

"Depression can come in many forms"

An odd reply, given that the McCanns had based a huge part of the case upon Kate being "steeped in a deep and serious depression".

The judge then asked:

"Were you diagnosed with a clinical depression?"

Kate replied:

"No. Depression is over-diagnosed, over used term to diagnose those who feel a bit down, clinically I wasn't depressed."

Say what now?

With that one reply, Kate destroyed one of the couple's main reasons for their claim.

Question is (I know I took a while getting there, and I thank you for sticking with this), why did Kate effectively sabotage her own case?

It's obvious from the writ, from Alan Pike, and from Michael Wright's testimony, that the plan was to push the depression element. That was, until a doctor was mentioned.

Being diagnosed with depression from a qualified doctor, would have been one of the easiest things for Kate to achieve. So why didn't she do so? Given the circumstances, a doctor would have had to take what Kate said (regarding the disappearance of Madeleine), at face value. Let's be honest, given her occupation, she wouldn't be struggling to find a sympathetic GP.

With half a million big ones at stake, a trip to the doctors would be the first thing the McCanns would have done. Given that both would have undoubtedly attended court cases in the line of their work before, they would know how the system worked.

I ask again, why didn't they secure their claims?

Would it be beyond the realms of possibility that if medical records had been requested, to prove or disprove the presence of depression, that further mental health issues would be revealed; issues that pre-dated the disappearance of Madeleine. Issues, that if read out in court, could pour more suspicion upon Kate McCann. The records would be useless as evidence had they not gone back to a time prior to May 2007, as determining when the depression started would have been paramount to the case.

With thanks to Anne Guedes, Joana Morais, and the Pamalam blog for court translations, and for avoiding the screaming banshee outside the Palacio Justiça Lisboa :D

Transcripts from the trial can be read here:


Tuesday, 18 October 2016

The McCanns and the media...

As early as 23rd October 2007, The Daily Mirror's Chief Crime Correspondent, Jeff Edwards, had this to say:

"I get pissed off with columnists who say the parents can't have had anything to do with it. All the murder squad people I know say 'don't talk to me about certain things being impossible'. There's been a certain amount of unconscious racism here about the Portuguese police. Actually, it's not a third world country."

"They may not have our level of competence but they are not stupid and they are limited by their own constitution. Whatever is said about that inquiry, everything they've done has been driven by something such as significant inconsistencies between the McCanns and their friends."

So why do our press have a phobia of writing balanced articles on the McCann case?

On October 2nd 2014, two days before the death of Brenda Leyland, Gerry McCann gave a tale of self pity, woe, and sorrow to The Guardian:

"Nearly three years ago my wife, Kate, and I appeared before the Leveson inquiry to talk about the campaign of lies that was waged against us after our daughter Madeleine went missing. We described how our lives had been turned into a soap opera so that newspapers could make money, with no regard for truth, for the distress they were inflicting, or for the damage caused to the search for Madeleine. We asked Lord Justice Leveson to ensure that in future things would be different and that nobody would ever again have to endure the dishonest reporting we experienced, or at least that there would be some quick, effective way of correcting false reports in newspapers.

Nothing has changed since then. Big newspaper companies continue to put sales and profit before truth. The protection for ordinary people is as feeble as it always was.

A year ago, when Kate and I were experiencing a time of renewed hope as the Metropolitan police stepped up its new investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, we received an email late on a Thursday night from the Sunday Times. Its reporter asked us to comment on information he planned to publish. This turned out to be a claim that for five years Kate, I and the directors of Madeleine’s Fund withheld crucial evidence about Madeleine’s disappearance. We rushed to meet his deadline for a response. In the vain hope that the Sunday Times would not publish such a clearly damaging and untrue story, we sent a statement to the newspaper. We denied the main tenet of the story and emphasised that since Madeleine’s disappearance we had fully cooperated with the police and that the directors of Madeleine’s Fund had always acted in her best interest.

However, the Sunday Times went ahead and published the report on its front page, largely ignoring our statement. We tried to settle this matter quickly and without legal action. I wrote to the editor asking for a correction, but all we got in response was an offer to publish a “clarification” and tweak a few lines of the article – but still to continue to publish it on the newspaper’s website. Indeed, further correspondence from the paper only aggravated the distress the original article had caused, created a huge volume of work and forced us to issue a formal complaint to get redress through our lawyers.

Eventually, two months after the article was published, a correction was printed, retracting all the allegations and apologising. But even then – and despite the grotesque nature of what it had falsely alleged on its front page – the apology was on an inside page and the word “apology” was absent from the headline. Since then, it has taken 11 months and the filing of a legal claim to get the Sunday Times to agree to damages, all of which we are donating to charity, and to get our right to tell the public that we had won the case. But the cost to the paper is peanuts – the fee for a single advertisement will probably cover it. And there will be no consequences for anyone working there. Nothing will be done to ensure that in future reporters and editors try harder to get things right. And so the same people will do something similar, soon, to some other unfortunate family – who will probably not have our hard-earned experience of dealing with these things and who will probably never succeed in getting a correction or an apology."

The rest of Gerry's paradoxical piffle can be read on the link below:


Apart from the obvious, and blatant hypocrisy from Gerry McCann, who has never once condemned the press for their blatant smearing of Goncalo Amaral, Brenda Leyland, or indeed Euclides Monteiro, the article above was littered with lies.

The Times didn't retract all of the accusations against the McCanns, and rightly so. Yes, the two journalists who wrote the article got some facts wrong, but not as entirely as Gerry would have us believe. In fact his own report was far more misleading than the original.

The McCanns didn't hide the efit from the police for 5 years, it was actually 11 months (still this was hardly with any urgency). They did hide it from the public for 5 years though. Scotland Yard went as far as to make it the centrepiece on Crimewatch in October 2013, describing their findings as "a revelation moment". It was hardly that, given that the efits were handed to the McCanns in November 2008, (5 years previous to Crimewatch) So we begin to see where the confusion arose. Even after the Crimewatch episode the McCanns weren't quick out of the blocks to splash this newly released efit onto their Official Find Madeleine Page.

So despite claims to the contrary (and not for the first time), Kate and Gerry McCann did suppress vital evidence. Yet, eventually, the newspaper rolled over (albeit half heartedly), handing Gerry McCann the opportunity to write his own article, telling the public how everything The Times wrote, was unfair, and untrue.

The following extract is from The Press Gazette Journalism Today, and is in relation to the above story:

"They said that the story led to them having “suffered serious damage to their reputations and severe embarrassment and distress.

They also claimed that the paper's Insight team, which wrote the story, had not told their spokesman the full extent of the allegations which were to be made against them.

The McCanns also said that the story did not include several points made to Insight by their spokesman. They said this denied them "a proper opportunity to inform the readers of The Sunday Times of the falsity of the allegations against them".


Unless the McCanns had another spokesman we don't know about, it is safe to assume that the person in question, was none other than the mendacious manipulator, Clarence Mitchell. It is clear from  the report above, that the McCanns had become accustomed to being told the foundations of a story, and would then be allowed to tweak the story to better suit themselves; something Mitchell in his pomp, admitted to in the past.

On October 18th 2007, Mitchell made a speech at Coventry University. The slippery eel talked with great bravado of how he "fed" the media stories, and of how, when the press quoted him or the McCanns in an unfavourable light he would "pull journalists to one side and say, look, if you want further co operation, this is what we said, and this is what we meant" in other words manipulating the press to favour the McCanns, in exchange for stories.


Of course, this story is just one example, but when linked with many others, illustrates the working relationship the McCanns have enjoyed with the press.

It is no secret that the McCanns paid £500,000 to Bell Pottinger. In exchange for that cash from the fund, it was agreed they would be kept on the front pages of the UK's national papers, and painted in a favourable light. Which brings me nicely onto another example of how the McCanns manipulated the media.

June 2011, and as part of another European tour, the McCanns were in Amsterdam promoting Kate's book. The Daily Express ran an article with the headline:



The article was in no way derogatory, but accompanying it, was a picture of Kate and Gerry with broad smiles. In fact, so broad was Kate's smile, that it wouldn't have looked out of place spread across the face of the Cheshire cat (and not a side-splittingly funny balloon in sight).

It was this photograph that the McCanns took exception to. The couple contacted The Express, and the offending photograph was removed.

During a phone call, the sub editor of The Express was reported as saying, "...no papers will print anything regarded as unfavourable regarding the McCanns, and that the couple's "office" had complained that a picture of them laughing was unfavourable as it is a "misrepresentation" of how they feel, which was why they insisted it should be removed."

A misrepresentation of how they feel?

Do the McCanns have a medical condition that causes them to look ecstatic, whilst actually being steeped in deep depression?

Was the grin photoshopped?

Was it perhaps the effects of elation Amsterdam is famous for?

Did the article suggest that?

That would be an "emphatic no" on all counts...as far as I know.

No, it was merely a picture of Kate McCann stood with her husband, both of whom were happy, both of whom knew it, and both of whom forgot not to show it.

Clarence Mitchell once described his work on the McCann case as, "The perfect PR campaign". With Madeleine McCann still missing, and her parents controlling what is said about them in the press, you have to ask yourself; perfect for who?