Prime Suspects Ambassador for Missing People Kate McCann, and Professor at Leicester University Gerry McCann of 5 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicester have committed some of the worst crimes against a child in recent British history

Kate McCann (Ambassador for Missing People) and Gerry McCann (Professor of Cardiology at Leicester University) both of Orchard House 5 The Crescent, Rothley, Leicestershire, LE7 7RW, have committed some of the worst crimes against a child in recent British history - and the UK Government and Police are letting them get away with it.

See here for a full explanation of why the McCann's are not innocent of the disappearance of Madeleine:

FACT: The Portuguese Supreme Court have deemed them NOT INNOCENT in the death of their child, Madeleine Beth McCann, and of concealing her corpse and faking her abduction. Kate and Gerry McCann KNOW that Madeleine is dead. They have NEVER searched for her, and the money they have taken from kind-hearted members of the public for pretending to search for her is FRAUDULENT. The Fund is FRAUDULENT.

FACT: Kate and Gerry McCann never co-operated with the Portuguese Police investigation. They refused to answer police questions. They, and their friends, refused to take part in an official reconstruction of the night they pretended Madeleine was abducted.

FACT: British sniffer dogs alerted to places and items concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other places or items. The alerts allow a short and tragic story to be told. Behind the sofa, on Kate's trousers, on cuddlecat, to a shelf in the parents' bedroom, where a blue tennis bag had been photographed, then in the boot of the car, and on the key fob. The sequence is not difficult to follow!

FACT: The Last Photo was not taken on Thursday 3rd May as the McCann's claim.
FACT: Kate and Gerry McCann accepted public donations that was intended to search for Madeleine but, instead, used it on legal fees for suing people who do not believe them. They took legal action against former Portuguese Police Inspector, Gonçalo Amaral, for eight years, forcing him to get divorced so they could seize his assets, breaking up his family of young children, making him homeless - legal action they ultimately LOST.

FACT: They have used YOUR money for paying their own mortgage.

FACT: Kate and Gerry McCann have lied to the POLICE in both countries, changed their fabricated stories in statements, have misled the UK media by planting false stories via their government-appointed spokesman, CLARENCE MITCHELL.

FACT: Kate and Gerry McCann are NOT INNOCENT of covering up the death of their own child in order to avoid an autopsy on Madeleine's body. Therefore, they are GUILTY of perverting the course of justice.

FACT: The UK government and Police are allowing this to happen by interfering in the Portuguese Police investigation.

Links: Dr Gerry McCann and Dr David Payne suspected of paedophilia

A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

Retired Police Superintendent, PeterMac's FREE e-book: 'What really happened to Madeleine McCann?'

Now, for the sake of justice for Madeleine Beth McCann, aged three, ask yourselves WHY this is being allowed to happen.  
Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann forum


Retired Police Superintendent, PeterMac, and retired Portuguese DCI, Gonçalo Amaral to collaborate with new private Maddie McCann investigation

Retired Portuguese DCI, Gonçalo Amaral: "It is time to transform the PJGA initiative” (set up to help him pay his legal costs) “into PJMM, Projecto Justiça Madeleine McCann”

“With the collaboration of retired Portuguese and British police”, PJMM could “advance with a real, objective, independent investigation to investigate the causes of the mysterious disappearance, search for the child and identify those responsible”, he said.

Maddie disappearance “pretty much solved”, say sleuths pushing for “new remit”

A little over a month since the world’s press went into overdrive commemorating the 10 years since Madeleine McCann vanished during a family holiday in Portugal, campaigners doggedly researching the case insist it has been “pretty much solved”.

It is simply a question of doing away with the “expensive farce” that Operation Grange - the British police investigation into the mystery -“has become”, and opening the field to an “unlimited remit”.

Volunteers running The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann (CMoMM) forum contend that “ten years of the UK Police and government deliberately looking in the wrong direction is criminal”.

Thus, the group that includes retired police officers has approached Prime Minister Theresa May and Metropolitan Police chief Cressida Dick with a renewed call for action in the form of a six-page letter setting out all their reasons.

CMoMM leading light Jill Havern - formerly attached to RAF military police at USAFE, Alconbury airbase in the UK - told the Resident that she suspects “something very wicked lies at the heart of this case”, bearing in mind that the forum’s repeated approaches to the authorities “always fall on deaf ears”.

“We have written Petitions, submitted FOI (Freedom of Information) requests… All replies are written from the same script. It doesn't matter from which department.

“Basically people want to prevent our research”, she continued.

Right now, “CMoMM is being mercilessly attacked by nameless faceless entities on the internet”, she added.

There have even been “death threats” aimed at a forum member whose book: “"What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann: 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted" was ‘silenced’ in 2009 by lawyers working for the McCann parents.

But adversity has not deterred campaigners from pushing for what they believe to be the truth to be allowed to come out.

Thus last month’s media razzmatazz - and three key developments that it threw up - have been seized in this latest bid for “a new unlimited remit”.

Havern actually dubs the moment “urgent”.

She explains in the letter sent to Downing Street and the Met that Portugal’s highest court in the land has ruled in favour of former Maddie investigator Gonçalo Amaral - bringing his court wins in the bitter legal case brought by the McCanns to three (click here), and dispensing with any further chances of appeal.

In a rejection of the McCann’s ‘last pitch’ at litigation in Portugal, the Supreme Tribunal reiterated that the couple had not been cleared of involvement in their daughter’s disappearance (click here).

And in interviews with Sky News and “an Australian news source” former Metropolitan Police Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton dropped the bombshell about being warned off leading Grange “by a very senior Met police officer” as he (Sutton) “wouldn’t be able to go where he wanted to”.

Havern quoted Sutton as saying: "Operation Grange's narrow remit to focus only on the theory that the four-year-old was abducted from the family's holiday apartment in Portugal was unusual and a 'missed opportunity'..."

Reminding the prime minister of a previous letter from the forum, pushing for true transparency, openness and thoroughness - to the point that detectives are free to go “wherever the evidence leads them” - CMoMM said that it hopes a new remit would also give a green-light to investigate “all aspects of the operation of the Find Madeleine Fund, including:

investigating the actions of all of its Directors,

the funding of the private investigations,

whether or not funds have been used to pay the McCanns’ legal fees and expenses,

why it was necessary for a separate account to be set up last year, to be controlled by the McCanns and not the Directors,

and accounting for all monies paid into and from the Find Madeleine Fund since it was set up in May 2007.”

So, does Havern think she will get answers?

The amateur sleuth is not holding her breath - particularly as Theresa May is “up to her ears in problems” right now.

“Ultimately, we will have to make a Misconduct in Public Office complaint”, she told us. “But that cannot happen until Grange is concluded”.

Indeed, there are those who believe the only reason Grange remains open is to stave off the effects of its closure - both in UK and Portugal - bearing in mind it has spent around €15 million without producing any answers.

Here, for example, a vindicated Amaral is still adamant that the Supreme Court victory should impel the PJ to “once and for all start investigating” (click here).


Amaral, who has a second book in hand - ready for publication once Grange is wound-up - believes it is “high time to channel efforts into what’s important”: getting to the truth.

In an interview with the Resident shortly after his third legal victory in the battle for his right to freedom of expression, he said “perhaps it is time to transform the PJGA initiative” (set up to help him pay his legal costs) “into PJMM, Projecto Justiça Madeleine McCann”.

“With the collaboration of retired Portuguese and British police”, PJMM could “advance with a real, objective, independent investigation to investigate the causes of the mysterious disappearance, search for the child and identify those responsible”, he said.

“An independent investigation that doesn’t look at names but looks at evidence and facts - without worrying about the position of anyone - is possible”, he believes, though the quality of journalism over the last 10 years has clearly left him unimpressed.

“Not one organ of communication bothered interviewing the companions of (Madeleine’s) parents”, he told us.

“They should be bombarded with questions, but no one questions.

“In the front line appears the parents, with the friends in silence...It is strange, very strange”.

A former British police superintendent, member of CMoMM and author of the ebook “What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann?” put the forum’s new initiative into three simple sentences:

“This is not about any kind of personal vendetta against the McCann parents, it is a search for the truth of what happened to Madeleine”.

“If the McCanns, any of their detectives, the PJ or Grange can come up with a cogent, coherent and credible story about what happened between 9pm and 9.50 pm on 3/5/2007 then we all want to hear it.

“But each bit of what we have been told has been proved to have been wrong, mistaken, irrelevant, or a simple lie”.


Madeleine McCann case: The letters to the Prime Minister and Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick were posted on Tuesday (12 June). I have also sent a copy to the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.

Prime Minister, Theresa May, introduces Prime Suspect, Kate McCann,
to Royalty: The Duchess of Gloucester

The letters to the Prime Minister and Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick were posted on Tuesday (12 June) and I am awaiting replies which I shall post here. I have also sent a copy to the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.  

From: Ms Jill Havern and members of ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’
[address withheld]

Rt. Hon. Mrs Theresa May
Prime Minister
10 Downing Street

Commissioner Ms Cressida Dick
Metropolitan Police
8-10 Broadway,

Monday 12 June  2017

Dear Prime Minister and Commissioner Ms Cressida Dick

NEW DEVELOPMENTS SINCE September 2016: The conduct of the Operation Grange investigation into the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann

As before, I write on behalf of the members of my forum ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’, whose membership has grown to 7,645 since my previous letter.

I now write to you again on your re-election as Prime Minister and as before wish you well in that capacity.

You and the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ms Cressida Dick, will recall that nine months ago, I wrote to you in robust terms about the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. I gave you, in particular, detailed evidence about the misconduct of the various private detectives and agencies used by the McCanns. They had used a series of discredited or bogus investigation agencies - and at least four of their detectives had been imprisoned for criminal offences after they had been engaged by the McCanns. Two of their investigators, Kevin Halligen and Antonio Giminez Raso, each served four years in jail. Yet Operation Grange has deemed that the material collected by these criminal or discredited investigators is somehow worthy of consideration.      

I suggested to you previously that the expensive farce that Operation Grange had become should be ended, and that you should set up a fresh inquiry team, with an unlimited remit, which could investigate whether the McCanns were directly involved in any way in the reported disappearance of their daughter.

There have been at least three major developments since I last wrote to you, which fully reinforce what I said back in September - and make it more urgent than ever that Operation Grange is ended and a new inquiry set up with an unlimited remit.

These are:

(1) The original Portuguese police investigation co-ordinator, Dr Goncalo Amaral, winning, in January this year, the libel case brought against him in June 2009 by the McCanns

(2) The clear declaration by the Portuguese Supreme Court, announced in February  this year, that the McCanns had been wrong to claim that they had been ‘cleared’ by the Portuguese police investigation. The Court ruled (a) that the McCanns had NOT been cleared, (b) that the alleged criminal offence of the McCanns, i.e. having hidden Madeleine’s body, was still being investigated, and (c) that proceedings  against the McCanns could still be taken if new and credible evidence of their involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance were to emerge, and

(3) The revelation in April this year by a former senior Metropolitan Police officer, Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton, that he had been advised by a very senior Metropolitan Police officer that he should not accept the recommendation of the former Head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Service, Jim Gamble, that he (Sutton) should head the proposed Operation Grange Review - because it would have a strictly limited remit and he would “not be able to go where he wanted”.    

Moreover, in later remarks discussing the advice the ‘very senior’ officer had given him, Sutton stated in a SKY News documentary, and in an interview with an Australian TV network, that he had reasons for believing that the McCanns might , after all, have been involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.
In my previous letter I respectfully reminded you as follows, quote:

“Whilst you were at the Home Office you personally approved and organised the setting-up of Operation Grange in 2011 and approved its remit, which was to investigate ‘the abduction. The innocence of the McCanns in the disappearance of the daughter was assumed to begin with and so, contrary to all normal rules of police investigation and conduct, any lines of enquiry which might suggest that the McCanns knew or were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine were excluded right from the start.

“As Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016 you would have had regular briefings on the case from your most senior advisers, civil servants, and security service and police officers and you would no doubt have been fully informed of the intensive involvement of government security services and other agencies in the case from the very first day, and their continuing extensive involvement for many years later.

“You must have personal knowledge that the McCanns have by no means been ruled out of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance”.

At the end of January this year, after a legal process that lasted over 7½ years, the Portuguese Supreme Court refused the McCanns’ appeal against a ruling in the Portuguese Appeal Court in April 2016 that the original Portuguese investigation co-ordinator was not guilty of libeling the McCanns in his book on the case: ‘The Truth of the Lie’. His book, published back in 2008, had given clear evidential reasons for believing that Madeleine McCann had died in the McCanns’ apartment, and that they had covered up Madeleine’s death and arranged to hide her body.

The comments of former Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton

I now reproduce some of the statements made by former Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton. In a SKY TV documentary on the Madeleine McCann case, he said::

“I did receive a call from a very senior Met Police officer who knew me and said it wouldn't be a good idea for me to head the investigation on the basis that I wouldn't be happy conducting an investigation being told where I could go and where I couldn't go, the things I could investigate and the things I couldn't...”

In a longer interview with an Australian news source, he said:

"There were critical errors because of a high level agenda to not interrogate the child's parents...", and

"Operation Grange's narrow remit to focus only on the theory that the four-year-old was abducted from the family's holiday apartment in Portugal was unusual and a 'missed opportunity'..."

The Australian article continued: "In 2010...Sutton received a phone tip-off from 'a very senior Metropolitan police officer', warning him about the looming investigation and how it would be handled. The insider told Sutton, who served 30 years with London's Met before retiring in 2011, that the dozens of murder detectives assigned to Operation Grange would be instructed where they could and couldn't look. 'I immediately assumed that what was meant was that the [McCann] family and Tapas 7 [the group of seven friends on holiday with the McCanns] were a no-go area', Sutton said".

The article went on "...the detective's instincts were proven correct. The 'crucial phrase', as Sutton calls it, in the Operation Grange remit was a line stating the review would be carried out 'as if the abduction occurred in the UK'. That meant Kate and Gerry McCann, despite several concerning inconsistencies in their witness statements, were not to be looked at”, Sutton said. The rest of [the remit] is really of little consequence after that because that's sort of saying…we are only treating this as an abduction and we are not looking at any other scenario."

"Sutton also hit out at Scotland Yard claims that the McCanns...had been cleared...'The PJ have never cleared anyone', Sutton said. ‘Ceasing the investigation 'just meant they couldn't find enough evidence to proceed against them'."

Moreover, they quoted more statements from Sutton: “Sutton...said it was well-rehearsed, best police practice in cases such as Madeleine McCann to eliminate those closest to the child first. 'Also any kind of investigation of murder or akin to murder the other place you need to eliminate early on is those that last saw the victim alive. In this case you've got essentially the same group of people who are both close to the victim and the last to see her alive. I'd always want to start with that. I don't understand why that hasn't been done [by Operation Grange]...'."

Sutton said he disagreed with [Met Police] Asst Com Rowley's assessment. He said inconsistencies in some of Kate and Gerry's statements, Kate's 2011 book ‘madeleine’ and also some of the witness accounts of the Tapas 7 disturbed him.

"After police found no forensic evidence in the apartment to back up claims of a break in, Gerry's statements to police detailing what doors he and Kate had used while checking on their three sleeping children changed".

The article concluded: “Portugal's police also had some doubts over the accuracy of timelines provided by Kate and Gerry, and the Tapas 7, in the critical hours either side of Maddie being reported missing at 10pm.  Specialist cadaver and blood dogs were brought to Praia da Luz from the UK, and signalled hits inside apartment 5A and a hire car rented by the McCanns 25 days after Madeleine disappeared. [Colin Sutton said that] It was 'entirely possible' that some of Operation Grange's remit was forced upon Scotland Yard by government officials who rubber stamped the multi-million-[pound] funding of the investigation".

The comments of Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley

I also wish to refer to the comments made by Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley about the case in an extended interview given to the media.

He told his interviewer: “What I’ve always said on this case, and I’ve said it to Kate and Gerry as well, we will do everything reasonably possible to try and find an answer for them”. He thus confirms DCI Colin Sutton’s statements that the remit, devised originally by Detective Superintendent Hamish Campbell, excluded the McCanns from the investigation.      

In rambling responses to the interviewer, AC Rowley said first of all that: “There is still a lot unknown”, but later contradicted himself by stating: ”We’ve achieved a complete understanding of it all”. Later in the same interview he contradicted himself once again by saying: “Ten years on, we still don’t have definitive evidence about exactly what’s happened”, and further adding: “All the different hypotheses have to remain open”.  In the same vein, he continued: “This case is [one where] the evidence is limited at the moment as to which one of the [various] hypotheses we should follow. So we have to keep an open mind”.

He continued:  “As I said earlier on we have no definitive evidence as to whether Maddie is alive or dead” but then, bizarrely, claimed: “The investigation has achieved an awful lot”.

He also referred to the initial Portuguese investigation, stating that: “When we started, we started five or so years into this, and there is already a lot of ground been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start, all the Portuguese material…” This material included multiple lines of evidence that Madeleine died in the McCanns’ apartment.

He then said: “It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing, it ruled out that line of enquiry, we would look somewhere else…You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all the same enquiries again, that is not constructive… What hypotheses does it open, what does it close down…?”  

So, despite all the material in the Portuguese police files pointing to Madeleine’s death in  the McCanns’ apartment, AC Rowley admitted that Operation Grange ignored these lines of enquiry. To make it crystal clear, Rowley confirmed that “We did not interview the McCanns as potential suspects”.              

AC Rowley then developed one of Operation Grange’s favourite hypotheses over the past few years for Madeleine’s disappearance, namely a ‘burglary gone wrong’. He said:  “One of the lines of enquiry, one of the hypotheses was: could this be a burglary gone wrong? Someone is doing a burglary, panicked maybe by a waking child, which leads to Madeleine going missing”. The interviewer retorted, very sensibly: “Most burglars would just run out”. AC Rowley, aware that nothing had been stolen from the McCanns’ apartment even if this was a ’burglary gone wrong’, replied with yet another rambling, 200-word answer, and admitted that, three years after identifying three Praia da Luz residents as the possible burglars, “we have pretty much closed off that group of people”.

The arrest and questioning of these three alleged ‘burglars’ was based on records of one mobile telephone call made between two of them lasting 58 seconds at 9.51pm on Thursday 3 May, the night Madeleine was reported missing. This was the one and only piece of evidence against them, and it was achieved after Operation Grange sifted some 11,000 mobile ‘phone records obtained from some 31 countries of people known or thought to have lived in or visited Praia da Luz at the time Madeleine was reported missing. To achieve this, letters had to be sent by Operation Grange to 31 countries to obtain these records, and thousands of man-hours would have been needed to examine them all. The only result of this vast amount of expensive activity was the wrongful arrest of three local Praia da Luz residents.                      

In my previous letter, I called on you both to, quote:

1. Appoint independent assessors of proven integrity and independence to evaluate the work of Operation Grange, and make its findings public. In this respect, may I remind you of this part of the review’s remit, as determined by DCS Hamish Campbell: “The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness…” Any such report must include a full investigation into the huge involvement in this case of MI5, Special Branch and other government  or government-backed security agencies;  

2. Appoint, via the new Home Secretary, a different police force, which has the highest possible reputation for integrity and independence, to investigate the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann;

3. Ensure that any new police investigation has an unlimited remit and can therefore go to wherever the evidence leads them;

4. Order the relevant government department to investigate all aspects of the operation of the Find Madeleine Fund, including:-
investigating the actions of all of its Directors,
the funding of the private investigations,
whether or not funds have been used to pay the McCanns’ legal fees and expenses,
why it was necessary for a separate account to be set up last year, to be controlled by the McCanns and not the Directors, and
accounting for all monies paid into and from the Find Madeleine Fund since it was set up in May 2007..    

I shall again send this same letter to the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick. Again I urge you to seek an urgent meeting with her to discuss the contents of my letter.

In the three years and eight months since a BBC Crimewatch ‘McCann Special’ on Madeleine McCann on 14 October 2013, one of my members, Richard Hall, has produced five documentary films on the case lasting a total of 17 hours. These films have had over 5 million views on YouTube alone. The films developed the evidence that Madeleine did indeed die in the McCanns’ apartment and that Gerry and Kate McCann, with the help of others, hid her body. There are in addition literally hundreds of other YouTube uploads by other Google members which also develop this evidence, many of them having a large number of views.

Another member of mine, a retired police superintendent, has published an e-book documenting in detail the evidence that Madeleine died in the McCanns’ apartment. It has been re-published all over the internet and has been read by hundreds of thousands at least. In these ways, ever more people are realising, in line with what Colin Sutton was told in May 2010, that Operation Grange is a sham investigation which was deliberately designed to cover up what really happened to Madeleine.

It would surely be in your interests to admit that Operation Grange was seriously flawed from the start and must be urgently replaced with a new investigation with an unlimited remit.              

Please give this matter your most careful consideration and I shall look forward to your response in the near future.

Yours sincerely


Jill Havern

For and on behalf of the members of ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’

Posted on CMOMM forum:


Extended version Deception Indicated: Rahni Sadler to Gerry McCann: "Did you kill your daughter?"

From Peter Hyatt's blog

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Gerry McCann: Did You Kill Your Daughter

"Yes or no" Questions are generally avoided by skillful interviewers until they have first asked open-ended questions and carefully worded follow up questions, utilizing the subject's own language.  

For innocent parents, even under public pressure, the strength of truth is something instinctively protective.  

"One could never prove I killed my daughter because I didn't.  But, I love my daughter and right now, I do not know if she is being fed, and I must now..."

The language of concern for Madeleine's present state and the kidnapping itself, should dominate the language. 

In basic analysis, we will even count words. 

How many words are dedicated to:

a.  Madeleine's current health and well being in hands of a kidnapper?
b.  Touching the heart of the kidnapper to release her?


c.  How many words are dedicated to proving that which needs no proving?

This is the "Wall of Truth" that produces confidence, and sometimes, under constant accusation, dismissal.  

Dismissal in light of something quite particular:  

The innocent (de facto) father cares for little but what Maddie is going through and how to facilitate her release.  You can accuse him all day long but his words are going to either ignore or dismiss the false claim because his priority is not defense but getting his daughter back.  

Analysis of the McCann interview can be found in three parts.  Here is Part One.  We allow a subject's words to guide us. 

We presuppose truth and innocence.  We only conclude guilt and deception if the subject talks us into it.  

What millions have felt instinctively, we show using principles that are timeless.  

In this, the language reveals that Madeleine died an unintentional death and the parents engaged in a criminal cover up for the purpose of self preservation. 

The theme of "self" has been consistent in the decade since their daughter's death. 

In part three, you will see the scenario that the parents set up for us and how effectively they concealed their daughter's remains.  

It is within the language that we see that Madeleine was very likely sedated, regularly, but on the night in question, something went wrong.  The dosage was not correct.  She may have ceased breathing, or she may have awakened and fallen and was either deceased or beyond savings.  

The McCanns would have faced Negligence charges as well as professional consequences.  

They chose to deceive and protect themselves.  

Behavioral Analysis post crime shows the pattern of deceivers:  attacking the doubters, emotional manipulation and self promotion; all unnecessary in the "Wall of Truth" we find in the statements of the de facto innocent.  (all are judicially "innocent" under presumption).  

IR:  Did you Kill Your Daughter? 

Gerry McCann -"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 
You would have to start with Why? How? When? Who? And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things – there's nothing
to suggest anything. So no – that's an emphatic 'no'."

This is a short portion from a video.  The transcripts were posted and the accuracy of the analysis is based upon the accuracy of the transcripts.  

The question was direct:  "Did you kill your daughter?"

Statement Analysis of the interviews that the McCanns have given is consistent:

The child was not kidnapped nor missing.  

The parents' language made the case simple to follow.  Behavioral Analysis was consistent with the language.  

Parents of kidnapped children move quickly due to instinct.  This happens with or without police intervention.  

1.  They call out for their child.  This is a natural instinct.  They cannot cease thinking about the current status of their child and this will come into their language.  

2.  They will show concern for the immediate needs of the child.  In their language there will be questions about her favorite toy, food, care, medicine, etc.  

3.  They will plead with the kidnapper.  They will do exactly what a parent does when someone babysits:  ensure proper care.  

4.  They will accept nothing less than the return.  

The language will be dominant.  

5.  They will incessantly remember some small detail and facilitate the flow of information.  They will be impatient with police, searchers, etc.  

6.  They will not allow for any possibility of anything other than the truth.  This is called the "wall of truth" and is very powerful.  

They will not entertain possibilities of guilt for themselves.  See Kate McCann's embedded confession.  

In the case of Madeleine McCann, we followed the parents' words.  

People who support the idea of kidnapping will say the words the McCanns refused to say.  

Interviewer:  Did you Kill Your Daughter? 


a.  "No."  

This may exist by itself.  This would shift the burden of conversational politeness to the Interviewer because the question should be a complete disconnect from reality.  This is because the subject will be so far removed from the possibility that he or she will allow the silence to push the interviewer to find another question or rebuttal.  There is an "indifference" to accusations because it is not true.  

Yet, even further here, we have seen cases where one can say "no" because the subject did not directly cause the death.  

In one case, a man said, "I did not kill her" because he had injected his girlfriend with an unintentionally lethal dosage of heroin.  The drug killed her, not him.  

Yes or No questions are not powerful questions.  Yet, in this case, the IR felt the need to ask and we are able to analyze the answer.  

In "yes or no" questions, investigators often count every word after the word "no" as unnecessary.  

b.  "No.  She was kidnapped and we must..." moving directly into action of not giving up, finding the kidnapper, pleading for good care for Madeleine, and so on. 


a.  Avoidance
b.  Sensitivity to the question 
c.  Need to persuade
Gerry McCann  -"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 
You would have to start with why? How? When? Who? And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things – there's nothing
to suggest anything. So no – that's an emphatic 'no'."

Let's look at his answer:

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 
You would have to start with why? How? When? Who? And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things – there's nothing
to suggest anything. So no – that's an emphatic 'no'."

a.  "And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know."

First notice the avoidance of the simple word "no" making the question sensitive to him. 

Even after years of a public accusing him of killing her daughter the expectation remains that parental instinct will deny death and hold to still recovering her.  

b. "you know" is a pause, showing our second indicator of sensitivity to the question.  This actually speaks to the need to consider what to say rather than the word "no" which would then put the interview burden upon the interviewer to deal with the denial.  

The blunt "no" is used by several:

1.  The actual innocent use it.  This is especially important in the context of biological child. 
2.  Those who do not wish to facilitate the flow of information will use it when they are deliberately practicing short answers.  See 911 call of former police chief Will McCollum for an example of "pulling teeth" to get information.  

c.  "you know" is not only avoidance of "yes or no", and a pause for time to think, it is also a habit of speech that arises when a subject has acute awareness of either the interviewer and/or the interviewer/audience (TV).  

What do we do with a habit of speech?

We note what words provoke it and what words do not.

Here, the simple "yes or no" question has produced sensitivity indicators which means that the question of killing her is sensitive.  

He could have said, "no", even if they had blamed the sedation or accident on the death, yet it may be that the subject is considering himself as ultimately responsible, as a father.  

I have some concerns from their language about other activities that I did not address in the interview due to the technical nature of the principles (it would have been beyond explaining to a general audience) but even in such cases of possible sexual abuse, we find complexity.  This complexity can show itself as incongruent language;  one is a caring responsible parent at times, while a negligent, abusive parent another time.  

Here, we may consider that the subject might be considering his own culpability in her death, even if unintended as the language indicates.  

The sensitivity continues to this question:  

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

"you know"  is repeated.  This question is to be considered "very sensitive" to him. 

Now:  "And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

"there's nothing" goes immediately to proving his innocence, rather than denying any responsibility for Madeleine's death. 

This is a signal of self preservation and explains the need to pause and the increases in sensitivity: 

he must protect himself rather than deny. 

"There's nothing" (what does "nothing" look like?) is now qualified:

"with any logic"

Rather than deny killing his daughter, he now employs as a distraction, motive. 

An innocent has no need to explore motive, true enough, but so much more when we consider context:

He is using energy to defend himself by refusing to deny, but by claiming it is not logical.  Yet, the broken sentence indicates self censoring.  

Instead of saying "no" and allowing the wall of truth to leave it there, he avoids a denial and introduces the word "logic" where he should have complete linguistic disinterest.  

Even if he had been arrested, this would be something his attorney would argue while he, the innocent, would be focused upon negotiations and pleadings with the kidnapper to:

a.  return Maddie
b.  feed her
c.  give her her favorite ______-
d.  share information with the kidnapper to comfort Maddie
e. express the utter impotence that inflames parental instinct

Maddie was three.  

This means he had, from the beginning, rocked her to sleep, held her to comfort her, relieved her distress in changing diaper, making her warm, etc, and had kissed and bandaged her falls and cuts. 

Suddenly, in a kidnapping, this is all stolen from him.  It causes traumatic frustration in un fulfilled  parental instinct.  It can cause mental health issues. 

Consider the ancient wisdom about the mother bear robbed of her whelps.  

Parental instinct is powerful and creative.  

It is also missing from the language of the parents.  

Question:  How could this be?
Answer:   Acceptance of Madeleine's death.  

It is in death's acceptance that the instinctive frustration is extinguished --and even this takes time. 

The language of parents who have lost children to death reveals this frustration.  They feel guilty for not being able to intervene any longer in their child and it takes time to process and resolve into acceptance.  

Even mothers who have found their children dead will often "rub" them trying to warm their bodies, and cover them with a blanket to "protect, shield and dignify" the child.  It is heartbreaking.  

Falsely accused of missing children care little or nothing for accusers, articles, personal insults; they just want their child back.  "just" being the operative word:  the other issues pale in comparison. 

Here we see the priority of the subject come through in his answer:

Rather than denial, he indicates that he has explored various explanations in logic.  

It is like saying "it does not make sense."

Consider this statement in line with his wife's statement about normal and routine where things "did not" go wrong.  This was likely a reference to sedation.  

If you've ever had a fussy sick child, you were glad to have medicine that alleviated the symptoms and helped the child fall asleep. It is in everyone's best interest. 

Now consider an anesthesiologist as a professional and listen to the interview. 

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

It is not just "logic" but further exploration of "any" logic.  This is to broaden a personal defense rather than deny according to the question. 

"And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... 

Any logic that "could", in regard to the question of killing his daughter.  This speaks to the application of "any logic" in the future/conditional tense.  

He is addressing defense proofs in a scenario that does not exist.  he is not in court and...

his child is still "missing" and in someone else's hands, allegedly, according to the narrative.  

In what could have been a very boring question, we find a pattern emerge:

The need to persuade rather than truthfully report.  

This is the theme of his answer. 

He begins with a diversion to become argumentative in  a position where no argument is needed. 

He does not move towards Madeleine linguistically (as expected) but is in "self" mode, specifically in motive or evidence.  

Rather than deny, the sensitivity continues. 

This is an abundance of words that are employed rather than the single word "no."

You would have to start with why? 

He wants to know what "you" (interviewer/audience) thinks of motive.  

Q.  Why would he want this?

A.  so he can attempt to rebut it. 

This affirms consistency of unintended death by negligence.  The focus is upon self, not the denial and not the child.  

After "why" (motive) he now continues: 


This is the methodology that he addresses rather than saying "no."


This is the time frame of Maddie's death that is concerning to him.  


This is to answer the question "Did you...?" with a question, "Who?"

What does this mean?

Beyond the obvious "answering a question with a question" that parents of teenagers know all about, he is signaling that "did you?", singular, is insufficient. 

This is an indicator that both parents were in agreement with the sedation, neglect and cover up, and have been since.  

And there's just
simply, you know, no answer to any of these things 

Here he presents the questions and tells us in passive voice that there are "just simply, you know, no answer", which is singular. 

There are answers. 

"just simply" is to make a simple conclusion from one who has, still, refused to answer the question.  

"just" is a dependent word indicating he is comparing "simple" to "complex" (or something that is not simple). 

This comes from not a single question, but a series of questions:

1.  Why?

2. How?

3.  When?

4.  Who?

The order is important.  

None of the questions has to do with kidnapping.  All are presupposing that Madeline is deceased.  

It is interesting to note that "who" comes after "how" and "when."  This makes "who" at the bottom.  "Why?" is first.  

– there's nothing
to suggest anything. 

Here the question is about killing his daughter, not about how she was killed. 

It is not about when she was killed.

It was not about who killed her. 

It is about "you"; with "Did you kill your daughter?"

He introduces, in his answer, other questions which not only avoid the denial, but also avoid any assertion that Madeleine was "taken" from them by a kidnapper.  

This is not part of his verbalized perception of reality, nor has it been. 

From the beginning, they used language that indicated acceptance of her death. 

As parents, they showed no linguistic concern for her well being under a kidnapper, when asked.  

This is not because they are uncaring but it is because they knew she was not with a kidnapper and she was beyond the workings of parental protective and provisional instincts.  

He now gets to the answer:

So no – 

The "no" is conditional.  He answers, "Did you kill your daughter" by a conditional response:

Since he has no answers as to "how" and "when" he therefore ("so") issues "no" but immediately weakens it with unnecessary emphasis:  

that's an emphatic 'no'."

He even employs the word "emphatic" as a need to persuade.  

Analysis Conclusion:

The question "Did you kill your daughter" is given enough sensitivity indicators to conclude:

Deception Indicated

This indicates parental responsibility.  He is not one who has utterly divorced himself from it.  This should be understood in light of being a father:

His daughter was supposed to be in the hands of a stranger, yet as a father, he gave no linguistic concern for her well being, nor attempts to retrieve her. 

By the time he gets to a denial, he has already given us an abundance of information, particularly, that Madeleine was never "missing" and "alive" via the presentation of questions. 

The questions are designed to divert, but the specific questions chosen reveal his own thinking.  

Even when deceptive people speak, we must listen as their words reveal content.  

Here, his words reveal careful consideration to potential criminal litigation against him rather than assertion of both innocence and the kidnapping of the child.  

This is consistent with the McCanns' statements throughout the years, as well as their media campaign and attacks upon those who refuse to believe them. 


By Mark Saunokonoko

Previously unseen footage of Gerry McCann being asked if he killed his daughter justifies taking a closer look at his possible role in Madeleine's disappearance, according to a law enforcement expert who specialises in detecting deception.

Mark McClish, a former US Marshall and Secret Service agent, has analysed Mr McCann's unedited 25 second response to an Australian reporter in 2011 asking him and his wife, Kate: "Did you kill your daughter?"

In his reply (which can be viewed above), Mr McCann used 51 words, often "rambling on in his denial", when just a succinct response was necessary, Mr McClish told

"He spends a lot of time trying to convince us why he would not kill his daughter," Mr McClish said.

Mr McClish, who now trains police and military interrogators in the art of statement analysis, said Mr McCann's body language in the footage was also a possible area of concern.
Kate and Gerry McCann said Madeleine vanished from their holiday apartment on May 3, 2007. Source: AFP
"He displayed some non-verbal gestures that indicate possible deception," Mr McClish said.

"When Gerry was first asked, 'Did you kill your daughter?' he looked down and brought his left hand up to his nose as he answered, 'No, no never.' Not being able to look the interviewer in the eyes while giving a specific denial is an indication of deception."

If someone brings their hand up to their mouth or nose while answering a question it is also a deceptive indicator, Mr McClish said.

The documentary footage is remarkable for more than just the confronting question posed so directly to Kate and Gerry McCann.
Madeleine Beth McCann: Missing for 10 years, would now be 14 years old. Source: Getty

Mr McCann's denial was first aired in 2011 by Australia's Channel Seven, but his response – as is now apparent – had been heavily edited by the broadcaster.

In the 2011 version, Maddie's father's answer to the question appeared to be a simple: "No, that's an emphatic no".

However, those who follow the case closely were shocked to see Mr McCann's full and unedited answer on a Channel Seven documentary Gone in May this year, which marked the 10th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance.

Doctors Kate and Gerry McCann have always strongly denied any involvement in the disappearance of Maddie, who vanished from a Portugal holiday apartment in May, 2007.
The McCanns were involved in a long-running, bitter court battle with a Portuguese detective who wrote a book saying the parents had disposed of their daughter's body. Source: AFP

Statement analysis is not admissible evidence in court, but police can use it as a tool to assist investigations and zero in on potential lines of inquiry.

For nine years Mr McClish was lead instructor on interviewing techniques at the U.S. Marshals Service Training Academy in Glynco, Georgia. Mr McClish categorised parts of Mr McCann's reply as "a weak denial".

"There are enough deceptive indicators within his answer which would justify taking a closer look at his possible role in Madeleine's disappearance," Mr McClish said.

The McCanns were considered formal suspects by the Portuguese police until the investigation was shelved and their "arguidos status" was lifted.

Earlier this month, Assistant Commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police Mark Rowley was asked in a media briefing if Kate and Gerry McCann had ever been questioned as potential suspects by Scotland Yard detectives.

"No," he replied.


Gerry McCann's 'weak denial' in new footage has some hallmarks of deception, expert claims


Mark Saunokonoko: UK police guilty of flawed tunnel vision in hunt for Maddie McCann answers, says former top cop Colin Sutton

UK police guilty of flawed tunnel vision in hunt for Maddie McCann answers, former top cop says

Prime Minister Theresa May - A member of the 'Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum sums up what the Maddie case is all about


Ex MET murder cop, Colin Sutton, blows the whistle on Operation Grange's corrupt remit to "investigate abduction" in Madeleine McCann case

UK detective refused to head up Madeleine McCann probe because 'Scotland Yard would order him to prove Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignore other leads' 

  • Colin Sutton said he was warned by senior friend in the Met about case in 2010
  • Friend said he would be told 'who to talk to and what to investigate', he claimed
  • 'Narrow focus' would be to prove Kate, Gerry and Tapas Nine innocent, he said 
  • Spoke on Sky Documentary based on leaked Home Office report that revealed 'turbulent relationship' between McCanns and police in London and Portugal 

A detective tipped to head up the Madeleine McCann probe was warned he would be ordered to prove she was abducted and ignore other leads. 

Colin Sutton said a high-ranking friend in the Met called him and warned him not to lead the case when Scotland Yard announced it would get involved in 2010.

The source warned that he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives to the abduction theory, he claims.

Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said he was warned he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives theories

Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said: 'I did receive a call from a very senior met police officer who knew me and said it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to head investigation on the basis that I wouldn’t be happy conducting an investigation being told where I could go and where I couldn’t go, the things I could investigate and the things I couldn’t.

Asked to clarify what he meant, he added: 'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'

The Tapas Nine refers to the McCann parents and the seven friends they were out to dinner with when Madeleine disappeared in 2007.

They were interviewed by Portuguese Police, who have always worked on the basis that Madeleine was abducted from her room, but Mr Sutton said other possibilities should be entertained.

Speaking on Searching for Maddie, which looks at the case ten years on from her disappearance, he criticises the narrow focus of both Portuguese and British police.

He added: 'If you are conducting a re-investigation you start at the very beginning. Look at all the accounts all the evidence all the initial statements and go through them and make sure they stack up and they compare.'

The documentary revealed details from a Home Office report on the case, ordered by then Labour minister Alan Johnson before the 2010 election, seen by Sky News' Martin Brunt.

The report shows that Gerry and Kate McCann's relationship with Portuguese police after they closed the investigation into her disappearance.

The Met took the unusual step of getting involved in the case in 2010 after the report was compiled, and recommends police collaborate with private investigators hired by the McCanns because of the 'unique nature of the case'.

However, it also reveals that much of the information gathered by investigators had not been shared with police investigating the case so far.


Madeleine McCann milestone: Gonçalo Amaral agrees “some things we did weren’t right”


As mainstream media in the UK continues to churn out thinly-disguised ‘rehash stories’ on the world’s most famous missing person, here in Portugal the media circus has been much more demure as we approach the date on which exactly 10 years ago three-year-old Madeleine McCann simply vanished.

No wild exclusives pointing to new “prime suspects” or landmark television events, rather a backward view at a case that may have been set up from the very beginning to remain an eternal mystery.

Keeping an incredibly low profile since his double victory at the Supreme Court in the tortuous legal battle with Kate and Gerry McCann, former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral has finally given interviews to journalists working for the Cofina group, which publishes Sábado weekly magazine, and ‘people’s daily’ Correio da Manha.

And, for reasons that have nothing to do with the insults regularly thrown at him by British tabloids, the quiet-spoken, reserved 57-year-old agrees there were some things that from the outset Portuguese police did not do right.

“I should not have allowed us to be put under pressure”, he told CM’s Sunday Magazine, adding that when the McCann family finally left Praia da Luz in September 2007, the British police that had come over to assist the Portuguese investigation also left - leaving the “sensation that they were only here to protect the couple”.

Amaral said that another mistake came in the way “the group of Brits” now known as the Tapas 7 was included in on meetings with the PJ, “to know what was going on”.

“I went to one of the first meetings and decided that I would never do that again”, he explained. “In normal conditions, in an investigation like this one, they would have been straight away considered suspects”. Instead, the way the group was brought into developments “prejudiced the investigation”, he said.

“There is an issue that the Portuguese police have to start adopting in these (kind of) cases”, Amaral added.

“Instead of leading a question and answer interrogation in which the person (being questioned) is relaxed, waiting for the question to answer, it would be better if they adopted the way of the FBI: “Here is a pen and paper, and you are going to write down, in your own time and words, everything that you did, where you went, who you were with, etc., from the moment you got up to the moment the day ended”.

The current form of interrogation used by Portuguese police “could lead people, and indicate where we (the police) want to go”, he explained.

Over various pages in both Sábado and CM, Amaral was given time to revisit his ‘politically incorrect’ theories, reasons for coming to them and suggest other lesser known ‘mistakes’ - like the failure to check CCTV cameras on the road in which an Irish family said they saw a man carrying a child in pyjamas down towards the sea.

By the time investigators realised the sighting might be crucial, the CCTV images had been recorded over.

The “Smith sighting” as it has become known could be one of the most crucial moments in the evening of May 3 before Madeleine was reported missing - yet the family never returned to Portugal to make formal statements because, in October 2007 “Amaral was removed from the case after talking to Diário de Notícias”, explains Sábado.

And here, Amaral says came another major mistake.

“I should never have retired from the PJ”, he told interviewers, stressing that instead he should have “written and published the book” (Maddie: The Truth of the Lie, which led to years of “brutal” litigation with Madeleine’s parents) as a member of the PJ Judicial Police.
“We were just too honest”, Amaral concluded. “And we paid for it as a result.

“For example, we sent forensic material to a British laboratory, when the testing could have been done at a Portuguese laboratory, so that we would not be accused of manipulation in the final result.

“We were naive and too diplomatic”, he said - adding that in his opinion, the ‘abduction theory’ adopted within days of Madeleine’s disappearance is a “lack of respect” to what should have been an “objective investigation”.

“If the investigation ever reaches its end and if it can be proved that the parents had nothing to do with it, then fine”, Amaral stressed - much as he has always maintained. It is simply the fact that no other hypothesis other than abduction has appeared to be allowed consideration (click here).

But while Amaral ‘returned to Praia da Luz’ to give his view of the 10 long years since Madeleine vanished, the missing girl’s parents gave an interview to the BBC in which they insisted they will be appealing the Supreme Court decision that should have handed the former police investigator back his assets, after eight years in which they were ‘frozen’.

Gerry McCann explained that what he called “the last judgement” - the ruling that upheld Amaral’s right to freedom of expression, and refused to accept the McCann’s insistence that they had been considered innocent in their daughter’s disappearance - is, in his opinion, “terrible”.

“We will be appealing”, he told the national news service.

The Daily Express suggests the couple plan to appeal “all the way to the European Court of Human Rights”, though there is still no certainty that this can be done - particularly as Supreme Court judges Roque Nogueira, Alexandre Reis and Pedro Lima Gonçalves released their 75-page ruling making references to tenets set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In other words, Amaral’s ‘win’ relied heavily on three judges’ interpretation of laws that the ECHR has been set up to protect.

Photo by Bruno Colaço for Sábado which carried a six-page spread on "The Inpsector's return to the scene of the crime", while CM's title for the anniversary edition was "The dead end where Maddie McCann is hidden"