Since first learning of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on May 3rd 2007, I have been intrigued by the development of this case and as such have participated on a few well known forums with posters that shared the interest. Sadly, leaked misinformation via the Portuguese media in the early stages of the investigation had turned many people against the McCanns. That was all the bait that was needed.What was firstly considered undesirable babysitting arrangement were quickly changing peoples opinions and now the McCanns were facing taunts of child neglectors. This was the spring board of a hate campaign and websites were soon popping up to vilify them. If the loss of a child wasn't enough for the McCanns to deal with the hate mongers were soon adding to the McCanns already unimaginable stress and were now casting their assertions via these forums and labelling the McCanns as vermin. This was the start of a trend which would highlight the ugly side of human nature. And before long these low lifes were gathering momentun and the 'vengeful' army of posters were building forces.

On a personal level and I have to admit, have found a need to defend them against the tirade of abuse by these posters on some of these forums and as a result have been banned. In the early days, it appeared that you couldn't say anything in defence of the McCanns without being given a quick exit. Fortunately, those forums have gone but many of the hate mongers still lurk. Unfortunately, some don't just lurk but still throw the same old taunts of 'they shouldn't have left them tots on their own' or 'Madeleine was left to babysit'. This, for them, is enough to question the McCanns every action. To them they are guilty at all costs and loosing a child is not merely enough punishment. It gives them good reason to question their every utterance and if an answer is not to their liking or how they would have reacted in such a situation, then the conspiracy to cover up the death of their own daughter becomes even more compounding......well at least to them. This thought process has seen an ex solicitor fail miserably in his attempt to press charges against the parents for child neglect in this country. His icon and no doubt mentor, one Goncalo Amaral, a Portuguese investigator dismissed as head of the initial investigation, wrote a book off of the back of this tragedy.

Many are inspired by the ex-chief investigators book 'The truth of the Lie' which circulated the internet. To them, he raises serious questions about the actions of the McCanns or moreover, claims that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment and that the parents are involved in a cover up to conceal her death. And so, because as yet, I have seen no questions being asked about the content of this book and its claims by anyone, I myself will put questions to his claims to see how reasoned his thesis stacks up.

So, to start, Mr Goncalo Amaral claims that the parents of Madeleine McCann are involved in a conspiracy to cover up the death of their little girl. Not only that, they have concealed her body somewhere and transported her little body in a car hired some 25 days later, to an unknown location. Mr Amaral believes that an abduction was faked. He believes that Madeleine McCann died in the apartment due to an injury which caused blood to be spattered in the living room of apartment 5A. He believes the evidence of the sniffer dogs, eddie and keela, picked up a cadavar scent which led to blood being found behind the settee and on the curtains and traces in other areas. At this stage, I'm not going to question these minute specks of blood because reasons have been given, however, for the purpose of this excercise we will assume he is right. He believes that once dead, she was then removed from the apartment to an unknown location. Between the time of that 'temporary' location she must have been put into some sort of refrigeration unit (fridge) until finally being removed some 25 days later. This of course, being with the full knowledge (or involvement) of the parents. He also believes that the sighting by Jane Tanner (one of the friends of the McCanns) was a deliberate attempt to detract attention away from Gerald McCann whom he believes was the man spotted carrying a child by independent witnesses. So, in short, he believes the conspiracy goes beyond the involvement of just the parents. He believes the friends (or at least some) are in some extraodinary way complicit.


Now we have an idea of what Amaral believes lets try every angle in order to make his claim stack up. In order to do that we need to know the facts that are there for all to see. The first fact we have is that Madeleine McCann was last seen by at 5.30pm on 3rd May 2007 by independent witnesses, that being the nannies at the creche. The McCanns collect Madeleine from the creche and return to the apartment. Gerry McCann then leaves to go to the tennis court at around 6pm because a lesson has been booked. This is all verified by witnesses. At around 6.30pm David Payne (a friend) returns to his apartment via the tennis court and is asked by Gerry to check in on Kate and the kids on his way back, which he does. He confirms that he saw the children in their pyjamas playing with Kate. Now at this stage one would assume that David Payne is telling the truth as there would be no apparent reason to lie. However, lets assume that he is just giving the McCanns an alibi due to the suspicions surrounding them. Although this seems a little hard to believe we will go with that notion. So he lied and didn't see Kate or the children. This then gives a bigger window for Kate to deal with the tragedy and compose herself before eventually going out to dine. We do know that Gerry returns at around 7.00pm. He then states that he reads the children a book until about 7.30pm whereby they become very tired and are subsequently put to bed. Kate and Gerry then get ready and enjoy a glass of wine on the balcony before leaving to join their friends at the tapas bar at 8.30pm.

Now, lets assume that harm came to Madeleine between the times of 5.30pm and 8.30pm. We have to assume this because the supposed scent of death (cadavarine) which was picked up by the dogs in the apartment meant that a body would have been lying around for at least 2 hours. It may well be worth mentioning at this point that a body will start to decompose immediately, however putrifaction takes between 2-4 days which will be the stage the cadaverine scent will be omitted from the body and as I understand, the scent on which a dog picks up on. However, it would appear to be an uncertainy as to what scent a dog picks up shortly after death. After all, these dogs pick up peoples scents who have been dead for years. http://tinyurl.com/368alx. So, could the scent really have been cadaverine: it looks doubtful on the linked analogy. Althought Martin Grimes, the dog handler, states that a dog will pick up on a scent of death immediatel, he doesn't actually state that a dog will pick up on a scent immediately after death, which are two different things. Can it be possible that a dog would pick up the so-called 'scent of death' immediately after someone had died? There are certainly some questions that need answering on these points. The importance of the scent picked up by the dogs and the amount of time needed is very important for this to be circumstantial evidence, let alone evidence. Madeleines body would surely have had to have been rested for a given time in a certain location in the apartment to allow the body to decompose?

This raises questions as to when the child apparently died. Was it prior to Kates and Gerrys dining at 8.30 or was the body discovered on one of the visits presumably by Gerry at around 9.00pm following an accident. If the latter were the case then how long could the little girl have been laid there before Gerry apparently moved her? If she came to a tragic accident after they had left for the tapas bar (8.30pm) and discoverd at around 9.00pm by Gerry who then moved her body later(after chatting with Jeremy Oldfield in the side street and subsequently being spotted by the Smiths) then that would mean a maximum time of around one and a half hours at best. Enough time for the scent of death? To any normal thinking mind it would also question how brazen and quick thinking Gerry McCann could have been to concoct his plan and dispose of her in such a short time, not to mention the witnesses who claim he was at the tapas bar area in and around the time of the sighting by the Smiths. But this is the thesis of one Goncalo Amaral. Another unbelievable aspect regarding this thesis is what motive would a father have to carryout such a despicable act? Merely to cover up the lack of checks that Amaral would have us believe? Really? Can you honestly believe that? I certainly dont!

Of course, we have to look at the other possible idea; that being Madeleines death happened whilst with Kate between the times of 5.30 and 7.00pm when Gerry returns. Its been said that she 'lost it' and maybe struck her daughter which caused her to have a tragic accident. Lets (for the sake of argument) assume that Kate struck her daughter and she banged her head causing her serious head injuries. How enraged must she have been to just snap and cause such an injury? And then Gerry to come back to discover his daughter dead? Not to mention to go along with a plot to cover the death up and be first at the table at 8.30pm to dine that evening. Oh, and ask for assistance from Jane Tanner.


(to be continued)


So there we have it. Not one credible, coherent account of why the parents of a middle class family with no previous background of any type which would prick the ears or raise an eyebrow, would cover up the death of their own little girl.

Of course there's not. But then I know that, you know that and most people with only a whiff of common sense knows that.

There are no questions that need answering about the McCanns innocence.

The doubters or Conspiraloons need only to look at themselves to find where the root of their problems lie.