Through the magic of WordPress, I have been able to see where this post has gone, and what feedback it has generated. I decided to make this blog post as a kind of response, as I cannot reply everywhere.
I want to put the reminder out that what I presented is a theory – I do not state anything as fact. It is a theory and I have floated it to see how it is perceived, in particular pushback. Healthy debate is valuable and this medium has, to my surprise, opened me up to a wider group of voices, many of whom have knowledge greater than mine in this case. This is invaluable to me, and I want to thank everyone who has made comments, good or bad. It has introduced me to forums I never knew existed.
I encourage healthy debate from any and all comers – I do not engage in ‘anti vs pro’ nonsense, nor forum politics/fracas. These are irrelevant distractions.
This is how the referrals for December 28th looked;
Unfortunately, the thread on MMM is not accessible without signing up.
I want to thank ShiningInLuz for their insightful comment on the ‘Miscarriage of Justice’ forum, snark aside;
Any contemporary memory of the building/area is valuable. There were/are also kennels within a short distance of the ‘toilet seat’ villa. The nature of concealment would therefore be important. As mentioned there is a cavity after the building is demolished, so there would’ve been an area beneath ground, perhaps a basement or septic tank.
I don’t for a second think it is possible her body was there when the building was demolished. I think I made it clear in the article that she would’ve been moved BEFORE the demolition, not left in the rubble. That idea is highly implausible
I want to thank the wonderful Lizzy Taylor (aka Hideho) for providing me a video showing the McCanns’ arrival in Morocco. They were in fact not dressed in black on arrival;
Also, to correct myself – I wrote that the Morocco trip was care of Phillip Green, but in fact that was the visit to the Pope, not the Morocco trip.
The relevance/existence of Kate’s dream, and the value of Danie Krugel, were both mentioned in a couple of places. The blog says right at the start that Danie’s ‘credibility’ was irrelevant to where my research led me. I simply laid out how I got to the property.
As to Kate’s dream, Gerry McCann makes a clear statement about it outside court -so doubting its’ existence because it wasn’t mentioned in a twitter summary of the court session is illogical. The ‘dream’ event was reported in the press both in UK and Portugal. Doubting press stories is, unfortunately, par for the course with this case (particularly since the Goncalo Amaral trials). However this landed before the press changed their tune abruptly and did away with negative stories about the McCanns. Additionally there was never any retraction of the words, never a peep from Ricardo Paiva saying he’d been attributed to false quotes.
In other words, arguing that it didn’t really happen is a moribund avenue.
Moving to CMOMM, there are several posts/arguments which warrant response. Begining with BlueBag;
I don’t believe that at all. Harrison arrived before the dream (June 21st). This is a strawman argument. And again, Krugel’s credibility is and wasn’t the point of my article.
Harrison was brought in to investigate ONE avenue of possibility, that Madeleine had been murdered. Therefore his methods would have been what they were whatever happened. The dream may have psychologically spurred the investigation, but it did not affect an ongoing investigation which was already looking at the possibility of her death and concealment.
As to self incriminating, I do not profess to know what Kate was pointing toward, but the timing and corrollary with Krugel/Harrison makes me believe there was SOMETHING that was ‘meant’ to be found. What that was, again, I don’t know. Certainly her body was not at the construction site.
There is another evidence of ‘planted’ evidence in Russell O’Brien’s Aljezur ping and the De Telegraaf search, but this is another blog post in itself. Press incorrectly attributed an ‘incriminating’ call on June 10th to Russell (note again the timing of this) – it was in fact a call with David Payne.
Another criticism on CMOMM was that I don’t provide evidence of calls and pings. I have sheets and sheets of the call records and have identified all the numbers that I can. Here is an example – this corroborating the David Payne correction. A page full of these sheets would make eyes go fuzzy (speaking from experience!).
So I don’t fill up pages with these records, but can easily post them if requested. Saying I am ‘inventing’ these calls is a ludicrous ad hom.
As a rule I do not engage in debate when people resort to ad hominems, especially when that is their first port of call.
I was initially pleased Tony Bennett entered the debate (note – my username on CMOMM is April28th);
Unfortunately, with the greatest respect for Tony, this is not an argument. This post simply implies that because it doesn’t match his confirmation bias, it’s wrong. In all my research, I have not found anything directly incriminating about Robert Murat. I do think there are questions to be asked about his lies and changing statements, but, not to lower the tone here, it is right there in the files that while people were searching for Maddie on the fateful night of May 3rd, Robert Murat was..
Yes – watching pornography. So much for the idea he was out and about. And his activiy the previous days implies normality.
As Murat goes, perhaps I should make a separate post, but I think if he was involved it was in a peripheral, proxy way – oblivious. Whether it was arranging a car or access to a property it’s not possible to say. But I have seen absolutely no reason why he should be incriminated.
Many others could have been used in the same way. There are a number of people related to property in Gerry’s call records. As mentioned in the article there are names like Michelle Chessman, Duane Wessells, John Hill (manager of Ocean Club), Peter Dodwell (contact with Jensen) etc. Murat is NOT the only one related who had access to properties and is not the only one who could’ve been duped by proxy.
John Hill remained in contact with Gerry throughout the time in Portugal. Altruism or self preservation?
The issue of hairs and haplotypes is a debate I can’t pretend to be knowledgeable on. It’s my understanding that the hairs matched Murat and Tanner, but could also belong to thousands of others. The implication is that he’d be a willing patsy and get a big payoff from the press when it blew over.While I believe there were certainly ‘conspiratorial’ events, this one stretches credulity for me.
Sharonl posts the following quote from the Sunday Express, dated December 2nd, 2007;
Dr Russell O’Brien, 36, has come under investigation after a team of telephone surveillance officers highlighted a mobile call made to the missing four-year-old’s father more than a month after she disappeared.
Portuguese detectives are now working on the theory that a call made between Gerry McCann, 39, and Dr O’Brien is the missing link that could help them find Madeleine’s body.
Investigators are focussing their inquiry on the exact whereabouts of Dr O’Brien when the call was made on June 10.
Gerry McCann said the call was made within four kilometres of the Mark Warner resort.
But technicians have now dismissed his claim after examining data records taken from specified areas near to where the child went missing.
It is understood key words aroused police suspicions.
This goes back to the issue of Russell and his Aljezur ping. However the article is inaccurate as the June 10th call was David Payne. Gerry called Russell on May 7th, at 22:34. I suppose I should include the sheet showing this, lest it be suggested I am ‘inventing’ something;
I was pleased to receive praise from Dewi Lennard, aka Kikoratton, on twitter. It’s my understanding that he has spent as much, if not more time on the phone records as I have. I would be interested in working with Kiko in future, as it’s possible we each have numbers the other couldn’t identify.
But back to debate. The following is from Tony Bennett;
The aztec rug/Arao search/Stam statement/De Telegraaf hitting the press with the story all happened on June 13th. I made no suggestion that this was the building atop Rocha Negra, and I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. These are separate events, but both linked. The Arao/Telegraaf search and Stam statement came on exactly a week after the McCanns left Amsterdam, and Gerry had a lot of contact with Dutch friends on that day (yes I have phone records for that day).
As to whom I spoke to, I believe in confidentiality, I am awaiting permission to name the person in question. If I threw out names not I would swiftly lose the trust of those talking to me. My efforts are to reaching the truth, and one day getting Madeleine the proper burial she deserves. Sacrificing this for forum politics would be ludicrous. So I await the ok from said person.
I have now been given permission to mention the name. It is Susan Puren who I was talking to and who provided the information here.
The fact that I ‘successfully’ helped remove a nonsense rumour that harmed an innocent family (not the Naylors by the way) should not be a source of suspicion. I fail to see the correlation. That for me was a case of morality. Posting photos of children puts them in danger.
I am proactive in contacting people. Sometimes they want to talk, other times they simply don’t reply. The fact others (not Tony) find it objectionable is completely irrelevant to me. Lauding your own sensibilities is not an argument.
I will show here again the phone tower map showing how Russell could easily have visited Arao or Barragem da Bravura before or after he pinged Aljezur. To correct the image – I DO now have the time of the ping before Aljezur, it was Luz at 13:28.
Proof of above statement;
Map (note the above correction);
Then I have the following challenge:
I have already provided plenty of phone evidence here, but yes, you are correct that she is in Gerry’s call records. The fact noone has publicly mentioned this is not an argument.
I am rather disappointed in the reaction of Tony Bennett. ‘Privately’ I have shared a lot of my research with him and even tried to debate via email. Tony has an open line of communication with me. But rather than contact me, he chooses this avenue, as if he is unaware of the work I’ve done and that he has access to. I find this behaviour odd. I have never had a personal problem with Tony, and I have all the respect in the world for him. But this has been detrimental to my willingness to share research and work with him in future, and I think that’s a shame.
Another one from Blue Bag:
Again, a strawman. I said the family were pinging in the triangle on that day. Sagres and Budens.
*Correction on image, it was not the first time they went West, they had previously visited Sagres
Hortas do Tabual chapel sits right in the middle.
On to Facebook.The following are from the group ‘Madeleine McCann – Abduction or Scam?’. The lovely Charlene Kane asks some good questions;
Looking at the photo, it is hard to judge (again I am unable to post the image unless I get permission). To me it looks more like a towel, but it is dirty and hard to really tell.There is also a can on the floor beside it, suggesting maybe people have been sitting on it while drinking. So I am reticent to make any judgements on it. The location it was found is a few metres from the precipice.
Having now gained permission to share it, here’s the image, judge for yourself..
Kate mentions going to the ‘high part’ of the cliff on the day she was surrounded by dogs. If we are looking for leakage, here it is.
Janine Bresnick brings up Father Haynes Hubbard:
I have tried to find out where this house was without success.There was a place in the Club Phase area (next to the Millennium) owned by a couple whose surname was Hubbard, but that is not near Rocha Negra and it’s very loose to assume they are related. Maybe a good area to research in future.
The following are from the Hideho CONTROVERSY of Madeleine McCann group. Riley Marilyn shares some very interesting quotes from Kate’s diary;
And Karen Bayliss gives an interesting suggestion re the white structure beside the chapel;
Comments and corrections are welcome…