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.

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



The Betrayal of Madeleine McCann: Ex Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton jumps on Prime Suspects Kate and Gerry McCann's bandwagon to discredit the truth of Maddie's death

Detective Colin Sutton has drawn on his 30 years of policing to compile a list of the five most likely situations for his new book.

ByPaul Jollands
  • 23:00, 21 APR 2017
  • Updated23:03, 21 APR 2017
There are five possible scenarios that could explain Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
Colin Sutton has drawn on his 30 years of policing to compile the list.
He says: “Detectives like to put all the scenarios down in a flow chart system.
They then methodically go down each scenario and all the forks and branches that come off them.

“You go down the most likely scenario – the one likely to bring you success more quickly – and may come to a stage where you realise it’s the wrong scenario.

"Then you go back to the beginning and choose the next scenario.
“It’s like a game of snakes and ladders which carries on until you have exhausted all the options.”
The scenarios he came up with include one that she wandered out of apartment 5A by herself and had a fatal accident.
Another possibility is that a paedophile was watching the McCann family and deliberately targeted the youngster.
Here, Colin looks in detail at the five scenarios – and comes up with the most likely explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance.

1 The McCanns or the Tapas Seven

I can understand why the Portuguese police asked questions about the McCanns and the Tapas Seven.
As uncomfortable as it is, the first place I would have started looking is their group.

Without any other information to go on, the most likely scenario when a three-year-old girl disappears into thin air is that someone close to her knows what happened.
However, the police do appear to have decided quite quickly that was the only line of investigation they were going to take.
By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route.

2 Targeted kidnap by a trafficking gang

This is the most likely scenario once those closely linked to Madeleine have been ruled out.
This was not the first night that Madeleine and the twins had been left alone. Crucially there was a routine.
If you were watching you would know there were three children in that apartment and the parents were in the tapas restaurant. It would make it easier for abductors to pull it off.
Not only that, but if the Tapas group’s timings are accurate, it gave the abductor a 30-minute slot where they knew they would not be disturbed. Given all the facts we know, it’s the most likely and credible scenario.
A trafficking ring is more likely than a lone paedophile or paedophile ring. Yes there are paedophiles, yes she is a little blonde girl.
But I think six and seven-year-old girls are much more at risk from paedophiles or child abuse rings.
Looking at the trafficking angle, unless the order was specifically for a young blonde girl, why her and not one of the twins?
Babies have less memories than a three-year-old. If Madeleine is alive she will probably remember she had another mother and father and used to live in another house.
No risks of that if you take a baby. More importantly, babies have far less physical identity. They have not developed as a three or four-year-old has.
If you were stealing on spec you would have taken one of the twins. Not both, just one. So it goes back to a specific order for a young blonde girl.
Has a young blonde girl died and their parents want to replace her? Or is there another reason for stealing to order? When you pick it all apart it’s the most likely scenario.

3 She wandered off and had a fatal accident

Looking at it objectively, incidents of children wandering off are much more common than a targeted or non-targeted abduction.
This is also the scenario that police appear to have initially thought the most likely.
However Cuddle Cat is a compelling fly in the ointment with this theory.
If Maddie was as attached to Cuddle Cat as we are led to believe, she would surely have taken it with her if she had wandered on her own out of the apartment.

4 Opportunist abducted her

This is less likely than other scenarios.
The chances of a predatory paedophile just happening across Madeleine and being able to abduct her without being detected are just so remote.
Sarah Payne, right, who was eight (when she was killed by Roy Whiting in 2000), and five-year-old April Jones (who was killed by Mark Bridger in Wales in 2012) are probably the only cases that match something like that.
That shows how rare they are. Then there is the age.
It is uncomfortable to discuss, but most paedophiles are not interested in pre-school-age children. It does happen, but it’s the thin end of the tape. I don’t know of any other opportunistic abduction of a girl so young.

5 Killed as part of a burglary gone wrong

This is extremely unlikely. If you have got a burglar who has gone into the apartment for material theft, the chances are once they find there are kids in there they will run a mile.
Not only are there kids there, but they will assume an adult is also present. Going from stealing laptops, passports, etc, to taking a young child is too big a leap.
You are looking at two different types of criminals, two different types of crimes. It’s the least likely of all the scenarios.
Burglars are commonly drug addicts. They usually want something small, like cameras, tablets or jewellery, which they can easily sell for cash or even swap directly for drugs.
Junkies don’t take three-year-old girls.

  • Anyone with information about Madeleine McCann’s disappearance should call the Find Madeleine investigation line on: 0845 8384699 or email:

Surprise Surprise - paving the way for closure, for the Operation Grange 'cop-out'.  Elementary my dear Watson!

Well, well, well...this is the same ex Detective Chief Inspector who started following me on twitter a couple of weeks ago and registered on CMOMM as a member.

I sent him a direct message on twitter giving him the link to Peter's e-book and asked him if he had an opinion on the Maddie case and that was the reply he sent me. He spent many hours on the forum and the blog.

I didn't realise he meant going to the media "to take part in the discussions" and then come up with that load of crap.

I had high hopes that he joined CMOMM to help Maddie, but obviously he's got a living to earn.How many more ex Top Cops are going to tarnish their reputations by jumping on the McCann bandwagon?

I guess the clue was in his twitter bio all along - he's a crime commentator. - talking about Corrie McKeague "It's increasingly difficult to disappear without leaving a footprint...the sad truth is that the longer this goes on then the less chance there is of him being found alive"

What about the dogs and other forensic evidence, Colin?
Oh well Maddie, you win some, you lose some - despite all these top cops selling their souls to your parents and the newspapers, at least you've still got retired Police Superintendent PeterMac fighting your corner for FREE.
And a comment from CMOMM:

I'm very glad you posted that, @ Get'emGoncalo.

As a Mod, Admin informs us from time to time of things that we can't reveal on the forum.

So let me just add to what she has said by informing members and guests that Sutton joined here on 8 April and immediately logged on for a continuous period of 23 hours, 11 miutes and 53 seconds during which he spent the majority of the time reading PeterMc's e-book.

Thus this pathetic excuse for a 'detective' has absolutely no excuse for what he has written.

Clearly, the Daily Mirror editor commissioned him a few weeks ago to write a piece for him and no doubt the editor's instructions were something like: "Make sure it fully backs up the McCanns' story and Operation Grange - and make it as convincing as you can".

Rarely were the words used by 'Get'emGoncalo' "sold his soul" more appropriate. He will no doubt enjoy his ill-gotten gains, and dine out a few times on his 30 pieces of silver.

But his conscience will get to him. In his heart of hearts, he must know the strength and force of what PeterMac has written, and I predict that what he has written will become a continuing curse for him. His own soul and conscience will keep telling him that he has done wrong - and all for his tacky 30 pieces of silver.

Sutton's last visit to the forum was on Thursday. He has made no posts. He made a pretence of being geninely interested in the case. One more ex-detective willing to sell his soul.

Discussion on CMOMM:



Does Tracey Kandohla want to be sued by Prime Suspects Kate and Gerry McCann by referring to "the anniversary of Madeleine's DEATH"

Screenshots taken from this article:

Just goes to show that Tracey is monitoring us though, as she's now changed it.

Richard D. Hall: 'Madeleine McCann: Why the cover-up?'

First part of this new film has now been uploaded to Youtube.

UPDATE: This film has been removed from youtube, but can still be seen here:

Clear evidence that Prime Suspects Kate and Gerry McCann know that Maddie is not coming back

"We want a big event to raise awareness that she is still missing (...) I think it would be later this year (...) It wouldn’t be a one-year anniversary, it will be sooner than that."
Sunday June 3, 2007
By Jason Groves
Daily Express

 Image result for lord bell mccanns paid me £500k

 If Kate and Gerry truly believe Madeleine is still findable then why are they planning so far in advance for events, media stories and bids for exclusives?


New Madeleine McCann book - Nick Van Der Leek: 'Two Sides to the McCann Story – or more?'

“Every truth has two sides; it is as well to look at both, before we commit ourselves to either.”  — Aesop
“No matter how flat you make your pancakes, it still has two sides.” — Daniel Tosh
“In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.” — Walter Cronkite

Having covered half a dozen high-profile criminal cases, some of them very difficult and very complex cases, we believe we’re ready to investigate Madeleine’s story.

If there are two sides to Madeleine’s story, then there’s certainly an opportunity for even more sides to the story merely on the McCann’s side alone. This is in terms of Kate’s version of events vis-à-vis Gerry’s.

There is also the possibility that Kate’s version may deviate from “the McCann’s” narrative or that Gerry’s might.  By McCann narrative, I mean their common cause.* If and when we find these deviations, we will find signature cracks to this case.

When dealing with the possibility of more than one suspect [and at one time** police believed both Madeleine’s parents were prime suspects or “arguidos”], there is not one arch narrative mirrored by one opposing narrative.  When there are several suspects*** there are typically several opposing narratives, each claiming to be the definitive narrative.
In other words:
Kate McCann narrative vs Counter narrative
Gerry McCann narrative vs McCann narrative
Kate McCann narrative vs McCann narrative

The counter narrative is effectively the narrative the McCanns wish to oppose, control or discredit.  Typically the counter narrative confronts the opposing narrator as a suspect, where he or she, or both, are seen as a protagonist(s) in his or her, or their, own invented spiel.

If it sounds complicated at a single glance, it is.  It’s much simpler to sample one piece at a time, and then piece the whole thing together and see how it fits.

Having written one book short of three trilogies on the unsolved JonBenét Ramsey case, we hope the readers will allow us, through the course of this narrative, to make certain linkages between both the Ramsey case and the McCann case as they come up. It is also useful to draw similarities and inferences from various other cases.

These intertextual similarities help us to develop confidence in what’s there, and to notice what’s far more important: what isn’t there.  The absence of evidence is sometimes the more compelling evidence.  It is the nature of true crime that information is missing and not merely missing, but hidden.  More often than not these holes in the true crime narrative are found by inference.

We will use various data mining techniques to filter through this enormous narrative.  What we’re hunting for are inconsistencies in the narrative cosmology.  The dissimilarities help us to see the idiosyncrasies of a particular case on their own terms. So, for example, we might ask:
What do abductions of small children typically look like? 

Do abductions look any different when they happen in foreign countries? 
What sort of profile can we draw up based on an abduction scenario and does that profile fit this case? 
If so, how so?
If not, why not? 

On the other side of the narrative divide we might ask simple questions like:

What kind of people are doctors?
What kind of parents are doctors?
How are doctors different [as people and parents] from others, if at all?

Simple questions in true crime often have difficult answers.

I might as well be upfront right now and make it emphatically clear that the PR surrounding this case is absolutely staggering.  Given that no criminal trial specific to this case, or a trial for those thought to be directly involved ever occurred, the intensity of the coverage is even more mind-boggling.

However, the saturation media coverage surrounding this unsolved case is something the McCann and the Ramsey cases [a case twice as old as the McCann case] have in common.  There are two sides to saturation media.  There is the hijacking of a particular narrative one way or the other in the media but not necessarily by the media, and then there is the repeated laying down of a narrative – of a version of events – by the suspects themselves.

The effect of these repeated assertions and also counter-assertions by other players and responses to these – in the media – is similar to making sworn statements in court and then being cross-examined in court.  The only difference is, in the media there are far more opportunities and potential players who can control, influence or steer a narrative.

While the media can be an effective tool, it can also turn on its masters.  Give someone enough rope to hang themselves and invariably they do, don’t they?

Just a year or two ago, we likely would not have thought a cogent analysis of this case would be possible without court documents, which necessarily are a detailed public record of various positions, including expert testimonies and detailed outlays of forensic evidence.  The Ramsey case, I believe, provides a prescient example where more than sufficient narrative has been laid down [even in the media, especially in the media] despite the absence of a trial.  In addition to these “unofficial” narratives are countless depositions and police statements.

In both cases, many additional narratives have emerged through alternative sources. There are countless interviews which form part of a public record.  There are also several books, not merely those by the [former] prime suspect/s but also by the investigator in charge of the case.

In the Ramsey case, both parents were suspects and both parents wrote a book to “set the record straight.”  In the McCann case both parents were suspects at one time, but it was Kate McCann – the more media shy of the couple – who elected to tell her story.

In the spirit of two suspects and two sides to a story, the DOUBT narrative is a two [possibly three] part series.  The second narrative interrogates the events and players crucial to what happened on May 3rd in sharp detail. The second narrative attempts to provide a cogent scenario for who, why and when Madeleine was killed, and what happened to her remains. The second narrative also deals more particularly with Gerry and Kate.

The ambit of this narrative is to briefly introduce the characters involved [such as the Tapas 9], to contextualize the massive media coverage, to meticulously locate the case on a beach in Southern Portugal and to resolve the greatest mystery of all bedevilling this case: the motive surrounding Madeleine’s death.
If Madeleine did die, how was her death and disposal covered up?  The Ramsey case provides, I believe, very useful reference material in terms of the first part of that question.  Some elements of the second are also there. However, what isn’t found in reference cases is part of the unique terrain of this case and we make no bones about it, these are very difficult areas to intuit and interrogate.  It can be done but requires precision analysis, absolute concentration and an absorption of all the available data.  All of these then feed into an attempt to try to interrogate a compelling psychology surrounding the disposal of one’s child, if that is what happened.

Part of how we intend to achieve this is by trying to understand the McCanns themselves.  This discussion spans both narratives, but starts off with a broader focus which becomes more targeted and more surgical as the narrative progresses. Although we begin with a particular end in mind, we must let the evidence and the actors guide us.  The difficult part is deciding what to use to guide you and what to discard as mischievous malingering.

What is DOUBT?

DOUBT is like a raven that doesn’t belong in a cloudy sky. It flies low over tawny terrain and crawling, baby blue waters of the North Atlantic. Like a black dagger cutting across white limestone, it searches across many paths for the true story of a solitary little girl.  The path to the doctors’ daughter requires a bold line of inquiry, so how about this:

What if the whole world thought Madeleine McCann was missing when she was never abducted to begin with?
What if Madeleine was murdered?
This book occupies itself primarily with the first question.

*Common cause is also known as a “shared purpose.”  In the legal sense it is the set of facts agreed on by both the prosecution and defense.
**On September 7th 2007 the McCanns were formally identified as suspects in their daughter’s disappearance. They were accused by police of killing Madeleine, hiding her for several weeks and then secretly disposing of Madeleine’s body.
***High-profile cases involving more than one prime suspect include the JonBenét Ramsey case, the Amanda Knox case, Steven Avery and the West Memphis Three. Ultimately the prosecution, or prosecution failures, in all these cases were arguably far from adequate.

More here:



Prime Suspects Kate and Gerry McCann: This was not true

From PeterMac's FREE e-book: 'What really happened to Madeleine McCann?' : This was not true


I have tried to draw up everything that follows into an “Executive Summary”, hoping to encapsulate in as few words as possible the essence of what has emerged during this long analysis of the available evidence.

Interested and discerning readers are urged to follow to the fuller articles here, and to access the references, and then to research further for themselves.

Now that the total and repeated falsehood of the claim the McCanns were “not suspects”, and that they had been ‘cleared’ has been specifically rejected first at the Appeal Court, and then by the Supreme Court in Portugal, might it perhaps now be time to consider other things they said.

They said to relatives the shutters had been forced and brokenThis was not true
They said the curtains were wide openThis was not true
They said the closed curtains had blown in the wind and the door had slammedThis was not true
They said the group had been checking every 30 minutesThis was not true
They said Gerry had entered through the front door using his keyThis was not true
They said they could see the apartment from the Tapas barThis was not true
They said they had been watched during the weekThis was not true
They said they did not know Robert MuratThis was not true
They said there was no blue tennis bagThis was not true
They said the blood and cadaver dogs were ‘incredibly unreliable’This was not true
They said they believed Madeleine could be in MoroccoThis was not true
They said they had an experienced private detective company searchingThis was not true
They said they had a second, more experienced detective company searchingThis was not true
They said they had a third, yet more experienced detective company searchingThis was not true
They said that a detective agency had not said they would find Madeleine by ChristmasThis was not true
They said they had no more photos in their possessionThis was not true
They said the Last Photo was taken on Thursday 3rd MayThis was not true
They said the Tennis balls photo was taken on Tuesday or Wednesday or ThursdayThis was not true
They said they had cooperated fully with the Portuguese policeThis was not true
They said they had answered all questions truthfullyThis was not true
They said they had not deleted phone messages and recordsThis was not true
They said they would not leave Portugal until Madeleine was foundThis was not true
They said they would take a Lie detector testThis was not true
They said they had never lied to anyone, police, media, or anyone elseThis was not true
They said they had not discussed the case with the Tapas 7This was not true
They said they had been offered a “Plea Bargain”.This was not true
They said their reputations had been damaged by Dr Amaral’s bookThis was not true
They said they were not suspectsThis was not true
They said the shelving of the enquiry had ‘cleared’ them of suspicionThis was not true
They said the “Fund” would not be used for legal expensesThis was not true
They said the “Fund” accounts would be transparent and openThis was not true
They said the “Fund” was for searching for MadeleineThis was not true
They said they never called Madeleine - “Maddie”This was not true
They said they had not placed much emphasis on the colobomaThis was not true
They said they believed in and supported Free Speech and “purporting theories”This was not true

Is it now time for us all at least to be allowed to contemplate the following . . .?
They said Madeleine Beth McCann, aged 3 years, was taken from her bed
in the front room of Apartment 5a of the Mark Warner Ocean Club in
Praia da Luz on the Algarve in Portugal, during the evening of
Thursday 3rd May 2007, and was abducted by an unknown personThis was not true


Geneticist explains why there is no evidence AT ALL that substantiates the abduction of Madeleine McCann

Explanation of the DNA Analysis as detailed in the forensic report by John Lowe


We all have 2 copies of every gene/stretch of DNA – 1 inherited maternally, the other paternally.

At some genetic sites, there are short, repetitive motifs called markers. Each marker will contain a variable number of repeated motifs. In diagrammatic form, a marker pair at any one site, could be represented like this, where the letters, ACGT, are the 4 bases which make up DNA (AAGTC is an arbitrary motif);

Paternally inherited marker AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC|AAGTC| 4

So, at this marker site, the repeat pair values would be read as 8,4
This would be shown as 2 peaks on a readout, at that site with relative heights on a compter-generated graph as 8 and 4.

A second site could be represented as follows (where CCGTCTA is an arbitrary motif);


Paternally inherited marker CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| CCGTCTA| 5

So, at this second site, the computer readout would be 9,5

As you can see, the exact sequence of the DNA is irrelevant. It is just the number of motif repeats that is of significance. Therefore, any reference to a small chance of errors occurring during amplification of the DNA ie bulking up Low Copy Number (LCN) by copying a small amount of starting material, is irrelevant. The actual DNA code (ACGT) is of no interest, as long as the repeats of varying lengths, are present. Even if say a C is erroneously copied as an A, G or T (which is how errors can occur with individual letters) it does not affect the validity of this technique. It is akin to spelling the word “THERE” of 5 letters long and erroneously transcribing it as “THEIR”. The second spelling has a different meaning but all we are looking at here, is, how long is the word and how many times is it repeated? We don’t care about the meaning for this kind of analysis.

Creating profiles using the technique

Because the number of repeats each of us has at each of these sites is random, we can produce a unique profile, in terms of pairs of repeat values, over several sites.

If we were to look at 10 sites, with 2 values at each site, we will have 20 values, in pairs and that is an important thing to bear in mind. The power of the technique in terms of producing UNIQUE profiles is that we are not looking at 20 random sites giving 20 random values, but 10 pairs of values at 10 sites.
As touched on earlier, the computers that produce the data, do so by giving “peak heights” according to the length of the repeat. So a repeat length of 2, has a peak height of 2 units, a repeat value of 3, a peak height of 3 units etc., etc. These are the peaks referred to by Lowe.

The table below shows the way a unique profile of a child would be inherited from a given set of parental markers. The full set of 20 markers, in terms of 10 pairs of 2 values can be called the inherited genotype or genetic profile.
In the table below, the values I’ve listed at line “possible inherited marker sets at each site (child)”, are derived by combining each maternal value and with each paternal value in turn, resulting in 4 possible combinations. I have used arbitrary numbers for illustrative purposes.

NB at marker site no.8, I’ve shown how, if both parents possess the same number of repeats at a given site, there will be a 1 in 4 chance that a child could inherit the same number twice. A child inheriting the same number of repeats from both parents, in this case 9, will produce a profile that appears with only one peak at that site and in this example, it will have a height of 9 units. Cf the Lowe report where he explains that the DNA from the Rothley pillowcase (Madeleine’s control sample) yielded an apparent complete profile of 19 markers, not 20, because at one site, there was an inheritance of the same number of repeats from both Kate and Gerry. In fact, there would have been 2 peaks, superimposed on each other so appear as 1. Therefore, when Lowe says there were 19 markers this should strictly be described as 20 but 19 in terms of peaks.

Looking at the above, to produce a unique genetic profile for an offspring during reproduction, we randomly take 1 set of marker values (of the 4 we have to choose from) at each site. I’ve randomly taken one marker set at each site to produce an example of a profile shown below. It can then be seen that if we were to analyse these marker sets, we would get 2 peaks at each site on a readout, except site no. 8 in my example below, because of the inheritance pattern explained earlier. The probability of inheriting any one marker pair from a possibility of 4 options shown in the table above, is 1 in 4 or 0.25

What is the probability that the crime scene DNA described as having a 15/19 marker match did or did not come from Madeleine?

The probability of inheritance of any single full genotype at all 10 sites, from one set of parents = 0.25 multiplied by 0.25, 10 times, so (0.25)10 = 0.00000095 which is just over 1 million to 1.

Therefore, there are just over 1 million permutations of inheritance of 10 pairs of markers from any 2 parents. It’s a very powerful technique because we look at marker PAIR values. Lowe says that we all share these repeats and if you were to look at any one person’s DNA, you would find a selection of these numbers. That is true, but the chances of any value represented along with its paired value at any single site is not at all likely. As you can see, even inheriting the same pair values at one site among siblings is a 1 in 4 chance. Looking at the population as a whole, variation in repeat values at each site is much larger.

According to Lowe, the profile of the crime scene DNA yielded 15 markers that were identical to that of Madeleine’s pillowcase DNA. He says 15/19 because 4 markers were missing due to the DNA being degraded. Because the analysis is done as pair values at each site and you can’t have half a site nor half a pair value, it should be 16/20. The pillowcase DNA did have 20 markers which looked like only 19 as described above. If you look along the profile in the table above, reading from site 1 to 8, you will see that in fact, by column 8, you have 16 markers even though 2 are identical.

In this case, the probability of inheriting those same 8 pairs of markers at those sites from the same parents is (0.25)8= 0.000015 or 66.66 thousand to 1 chance.

What is the probability that a random stranger, not related to Madeleine, deposited DNA with those exact same 16 marker pairs over the 8 sites with a complete match to Madeleine? Many million to 1.

Discussion on the CMOMM forum:

But there IS evidence of the death of Madeleine McCann in the McCann's holiday apartment.

The dogs were surely the final straw. Britain's top earning dogs, Eddie (cadaver dog) and Keela (blood dog), were taken by handler Martin Grime to an underground car park with a selection of cars and clothing. They alerted to places and items concerned with the McCanns - and importantly to no other places or items, and that fact does need to be repeated as often as we have time to do so. The alerts allow a short and tragic story to be told. Behind the sofa, on Kate's trousers (strong odour), 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! - PeterMac, retired Police Superintendent.

Prime suspects in the death of their child, Kate and Prof Gerry McCann: Their poor neighbours can't sell their homes


Prime suspects Kate and Gerry McCann's facebook webmaster, Pamela Gurney, is friends with woman setting up another fraudulent GoFundMe to scam £5k out of the public on behalf of Maddie McCann

Posted by jeanmonroe on CMOMM

What have you 'done'??

Or 'are doing'?

Surely NOT 'friends' with a 'possible' 5K scammer?

Oh, hang on, you are!!!

Taking 'advantage' of Madeleine's 'plight' is a big 'no, no'!

Ask the McCan'ts, paid over £244,000 FROM Madeleine's 'search' Fund, to date, 'spokesperson' CM.


Do the Prime Suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, Kate and Gerry McCann, feel miserable and feel fear as they wished Gonçalo Amaral would, and as their lawyers ensured he did?

Do the Prime Suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, Kate and Gerry McCann, feel miserable and feel fear as they wished Gonçalo Amaral would, and as their lawyers ensured he did?

Do Kate and Gerry McCann and Clarence Mitchell and the UK media now wonder what Dr Amaral's next move will be?

REJECTED (and still NOT Innocent of involvement in Maddie's death): Prime suspects Kate and Gerry McCann's request for annulment to Portuguese Supreme Court rejected

Copied from the pdf

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça [Supreme Court of Justice]
Descritivo: [description]
Tabela da Sessão de 21-03-2017 10:00 [ table/chart of the sitting/session on 21 March 2017 at 10.00am]
(1ª SECÇÃO) [[section 1]

Recorrente [applicant] : Kate Marie Healy Mccann
Recorrente: Gerald Patrick Mccann
Recorrido: [applied against] Gonçalo Sousa Amaral
Recorrido: Editora Guerra e Paz-Lda

decisão = [decision]
Indeferida = [rejected]


A complaint to the Academic Ethics Committee of Huddersfield University (and others) about a research paper by Dr John Synnott on ‘Anti-McCann Trolls’

A complaint to the Academic Ethics Committee of Huddersfield University (and others) about a research paper by Dr John Synnott on ‘Anti-McCann Trolls’ 

I have sent a detailed letter, on behalf of members of CMOMM, to the Huddersfield University Ethics Committee about the flawed research project of Dr John Synnott, discussed on this thread:

I have also sent it to the following publishers of the research: Nature, and Elsevier B.V. (publishers of ‘Computers in Human Behaviour’, where the full research article was published).

The letter has also been sent to the Chairman of the Ethics Committee of the British Psychological Society and the International Academy of Investigative Professionals, to whom Dr Synnott belongs.

The research was seriously flawed, yet was written up in one of the world’s premier scientific journals, Nature, and in several newspapers including one of the world’s leading newspapers, the Washington Post. For these and other reasons, a strong protest needs to be registered and heard.

Thank you Tony for raising this issue in the first place, and many thanks to every other member who has helped to compile what is a long letter.

I won’t reproduce all of it, just the Executive Summary and the bit about ‘Our Interest’ i.e. why we’re making a big fuss about this research. I’ll just give the headings for the rest of the letter.

I’ll keep you all posted with any replies



From: Jill Havern and members of ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’

Monday, 20 March 2017

Dear Professor Philllps, Dr Synnott and all other recipients,

The conduct of Dr John Synnott and his co-researchers in their research project on ‘Anti-McCann Trolls’ – Multiple Breaches of Academic Standards and Ethics

I write on behalf of my forum and my members to express serious concern about the conduct of two of your researchers, Dr John Synott and Dr Maria Ioannou, and a student researcher at Portsmouth University, Andrea Coulais, in the way they carried out a research project titled: “Online trolling: The case of Madeleine McCann”.

Executive Summary

This letter has been composed by and is sent by several members of ‘The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’, the leading Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet, currently with over 7,100 members. Some of the contributors to this letter have substantial academic experience. The forum as a whole doubts the McCanns’ version of events, along with dozens of other Madeleine discussion forum, blogs and websites, for very good reasons. At the same time, any abuse or hate towards the McCanns is not tolerated on our site, and on the rare occasions where such abuse has crept in, members were promptly expelled. Forum members include professionals such as police officers and experts in statement analysis and other forensic disciplines such as DNA and photography.

Dr J Synnott’s research project is seriously flawed for the following reasons, which are explained in more detail below.

1 The entire project is founded on the false claim that the McCanns have been declared, or may assumed to be, ‘innocent’. That was never the case. When the Portuguese police shelved the case in July 2008 they specifically declared that no-one was being prosecuted because there was insufficient evidence of either (a) abduction or (b) hiding Madeleine’s body. More recently, in January this year, the Portuguese Supreme Court, in deciding that the McCanns had lost their long-running libel case against the original investigation co-ordinator, Dr Gonçalo Amaral, declared that the McCanns were incorrect in claiming that the police had ‘cleared’ them.

2 The researchers wrongly assumed that there were no valid reasons for doubting the McCanns’ account of how Madeleine disappeared.

3 The value of the research project was thus fatally undermined by a theme running throughout the research project, viz.: The McCann-doubters (‘anti-McCanns’) are wrong, and therefore not motivated by seeking the truth, and are bad people, while the McCann-supporters (‘pro-McCanns’) are right, have pure motives and are good people.

4 One of the researchers, Andrea Coulias, who became a member of the #McCann hashtag on Twitter for six weeks to interact with the ‘anti-McCanns’, grossly misled the entire hashtag by falsely representing that one particular research project (Lasseter) showed that cadaver and blood dogs were ’unreliable’. She had absolutely no basis for saying that.

5 Moreover, the cadaver dog evidence in the Madeleine McCann case consisted of 17 separate alerts to either corpse scent or blood in the following locations associated with the McCanns; their apartment (lounge, master bedroom, veranda and garden); their hired car; three of their clothes, and personal items. These were carried out by a top British dog handler, Martin Grime, who was recommended by the top agency for British policing, the National Crime Agency, whose cadaver dogs did have a 100% track record of success in trials, contrary to Ms Coulias’ misinformation, and who was headhunted by the FBI in the U.S. and now works for them.

6 For these and other reasons set out below, the three researchers (and those who peer-reviewed this work) have brought the University of Huddersfield and the science of forensic psychology into disrepute.

7 In addition, on several occasions, Andrea Coulias was guilty of the very conduct she was supposed to be investigating e.g. mocking, belittling and goading the anti-McCanns.

8 Andria Coulais’ conduct undermined many of the assertions she made about the anti-McCanns’ conduct, which she grossly misrepresented.

9 Several examples of clear researcher bias are noted.

10 The researchers did not use or even mention dictionary definitions of trolls, and in any event didn’t define anywhere what they meant by a ‘troll’, once again undermining the entire research project.

11 Numerous assertions were made without any substantiation for them.

12 The entire research report is littered with tendentious subjective assessments.

13 The report is so bad that it must be withdrawn as soon as practicable.

14 The University will need to contact any and all media who published details of this seriously flawed research project and seek an appropriate correction

15 A formal apology should be made via the #McCann hashtag in respect of the misinformation she introduced on that hashtag, namely falsely accusing McCann-doubters of ‘rejecting science’.

Our interest

By way of background, let me explain our interest in that research project. I am the owner of an internet forum, the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann. I founded it in November 2009 and it has had steady growth since then. We now have over 7,100 members. I can say without fear of contradiction that it is the most popular and most-read internet forum covering the Madeleine McCann case.

Its main purpose is to search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann, by bringing together researchers who pool their information and analyses of the evidence. Our forum takes a sceptical view of the McCanns’ and the British police’s view of the case. None of my members can fairly be described, by any stretch of the precise meaning of the word, as ‘trolls’. Indeed, were I to become aware that any of my members have indulged in what might be termed ’trolling‘ behaviour, I would ban them and, on occasions, have done so. Whilst members may have robust views on certain matters and may be critical of the McCanns and their advisers and backers, it does not indulge in anything that could be described as ’hate’ or ‘abuse’. Bad language of any kind is not tolerated.

I will also add that some of my most active members are those with professional or academic qualifications who use their expertise to analyse the case in depth. They include forensics experts, photographic experts, former police officers and solicitors.

We are also part of an international effort to seek the truth about Madeleine McCann, which is concentrated in Britain and Portugal but extends to forums and internet sites in many other countries, including the U.S., Germany and the Netherlands.

Another of our concerns is what has amounted to a form of hysteria generated on occasions by constant references to ‘anti-McCann trolls’. This reached its zenith in August and September 2014, just before your researchers carried out their work in 2015. References were made at the time to a ‘dossier’ of nasty tweets and internet messages by ‘anti-McCann trolls’. The media referred to the dossier as having been compiled by a ‘McCann supporter’. The dossier was handed to the Metropolitan Police, who made public pronouncements on the dossier (I should add that, later, the police publicly acknowledged that the dossier did not contain any messages that could be drafted as constituting a criminal offence).

The media at the time (August 2014) quoted Madeleine’s father, Gerry McCann - who had been active in the ‘Hacked Off’ campaign which aimed to suppress freedom of the press - as saying that such internet trolls must be severely punished. He publicly called for prosecutions of trolls who ‘should be made an example of’.

What followed shortly after his remarks, and the news about the above ‘dossier’, was the door-stepping - by SKY News Crime Correspondent, Martin Brunt - of a 60-year-old Leicestershire divorcee, Brenda Leyland, who had been active on the #McCann hashtag on Twitter, the very area of the internet chosen by your researchers to examine, just months later. This door-stepping took place on Tuesday 30 September.

It would be right to say that some of Brenda Leyland’s tweets were abusive about the McCanns, and a few contained bad language. However, so far as I am aware, she did not contact the McCanns via Twitter or otherwise, nor make any threats against them. She was also very knowledgeable about the details of the case. She was on the #McCann hashtag exchanging views robustly with those like her who did not believe the McCanns’ account of events, and with many others who were fervent supporters of the McCanns and would brook no criticism of them. There was a degree of abuse and bad language on both sides and it would be difficult to say that either ‘side’ was worse than the other. McCann-doubters who engage on Twitter are a tiny minority of the thousands on the internet who post doubts about the McCanns’ account of events and are not representative of them

On that day (30 September 2014), Brunt having door-stepped Brenda Leyland and later interviewed her in her own home, she confided in him that she felt suicidal at being exposed as a ‘troll’. Despite this, and knowing that Brenda Leyland was a vulnerable divorcee living alone, Martin Brunt and the editors of SKY News transmitted the doorstepping episode of her every 15 minutes throughout the following day. She fled from her home the day after, staying at the Marriott Hotel, Enderby, Leicestershire, just next to Leicestershire Constabulary headquarters where, on Saturday 4 October - just two days later - she was found dead, having - according to the subsequent Inquest - killed herself with an overdose of helium gas.

So we have already had one death as a result of a hysteria about ’anti-McCann trolls’. Your research project has been featured in the scientific journal Nature and published in many newspapers in Britain and in the U.S. We do not want one more ‘Brenda Leyland’. That is one of the reasons why we on our forum require you to carry out an immediate and rigorous examination of the conduct and contents of this research. .

My other concern is that the publicity generated by your research project feeds the myth that anyone who doubts the abduction narrative promoted by the McCanns, the British police and the media, must be some kind of nasty, abusive troll. Please look at my forum and you will discover a huge volume of high quality information, research and analysis that would force any neutral individual to consider the possibility that Madeleine McCann died in her parents’ holiday apartment and that her body was hidden.

Many professionals believe that Madeleine McCann died in her holiday apartment.

I would first of all draw your attention to a lengthy article by one of the most eminent forensic psychologists in Germany, Dr Christian Ludke. In a forensic science journal, he suggested there were ‘numerous indications’ that the McCanns were guilty of covering up the death of Madeleine. Likewise, Daniela Prousa, German psychiatrist and author, wrote: Analyse des Vermisstenfalles Madeleine McCann (An analysis of the case of missing Madeleine McCann). Using what she described as ‘Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis’, she also concluded from her analysis that Madeleine McCann died in her parents’ apartment.

Another Forensic Psychologist who states that Madeleine died in her parents’ holiday apartment is Dr Paulo Sargento, a University Professor, Forensic Psychologist and author in Portugal. He has published numerous articles suggesting that the McCanns are not telling the truth about what happened to Madeleine.

You will also be aware that the original co-ordinator of the Portuguese criminal investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, Dr Gonçalo Amaral, wrote a book, ‘The Truth about a Lie’, setting out in detail the conclusions of himself and his colleagues that Madeleine died in her holiday apartment.

A noted Criminal Profiler in the U.S., Pat Brown, has published a book in the U.S. setting out the same conclusion. Another U.S. book, ‘Faked Abduction’, by Brian Johnson, sets out in 400 pages why the evidence points to Madeleine McCann having died in the McCanns’ apartment.

Many other prominent figures have also suggested that the McCanns have not told the truth about what happened to Madeleine. Here are a few examples:

John Redwood MP: “The McCanns’ theory that the girl was abducted needs evidence to support it…”

John Stalker, well-known, retired, police detective: “The McCanns are hiding a big secret”.

Wendy Murphy, former U.S. prosecutor and child protection expert: “I’m not buying it. You hire the nation’s biggest defence attorneys, PR firms, yet refuse to answer police questions?”
Christopher Friend, well-known U.S. commentator and writer: “The McCanns need to come clean now”. [ ] .

Key criticisms of Dr Synnott’s research

C1 The genesis of the article and the peer review process

C2 Was Madeleine McCann abducted? – the central assumption that undermines the entirely validity of this research project

C3 The researchers’ basis for saying that Madeleine was abducted

C4 Our response to the researchers’ basis for saying that Madeleine was abducted

C5 The Lasseter Report

C6 Challenges to the research paper’s claims about the unreliability of cadaver dogs
C6a. Evidence of the reliability of cadaver dogs:
C6b. Academic links and general references:
C6c. “Incredibly Unreliable”
C6d. Author’s observations (PeterMac’)

C7 What was Lasseter’s study all about, and how should it be interpreted?

C8 What definition of the word ‘troll’ was used by the researchers?

C9 Is ‘trolling’ illegal?

C10 The ‘anti-McCann trolls’ reactions to the researcher

C11 Bias

C12 ‘Doing harm’ – Breach of the researchers’ Code of Ethics

C13 Sampling of tweets to be studied

C14 ‘Disassociation from group’: Part & Social Indicators: Part 3.6

C15 The definition of ‘good parenting’

C16 ‘Unfounded allegations that the McCanns themselves formed part of a paedophile ring’

C17 The researchers’ interpretations

C18 ‘Unsubtantiated’ news reports implicating the McCanns in Madeleine’s disappearance

C19 Were the McCanns too controlled in their response to Madeleine’s disappearance?

C20 Uncanny echoes about ‘trolls causing damage’ of Gerry McCann’s attacks on internet trolls in 2014

C21 Pro-McCann Trolls – why were they not investigated?
C22 How the University of Huddersfield research paper has been reported in the media

C22a The Nature article, 15 February 2017
C22b. The article in, 15 February 2017
C22c. The article on the Science Direct website
C22d Newspaper and internet reports of the research: Appendices 4 to 9

C23. Was there an agenda?

Attached: Appendices 1 to 11

Appendix 1: The article in Nature:
Appendix 2: The article in
Appendix 3: The article in Science Direct
Appendix 4: The article at
Appendix 5: Washington Post, 2 Mar 2017
Appendix 6: Daily Mirror, 3 March, 2017
Appendix 7: Sun, 4 March 2017
Appendix 8: University of Huddersfield
Appendix 9: Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 6 March, 2017
Appendix 10: The full article in Computers in Human Behaviour
Appendix 11: Tweets on a Forum of Pro-McCanns, August 2014

Prime Suspects Kate and Gerry McCann: On the McCanns' request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling

Courtesy of Joana Morais in Portugal

“Therefore, if the previously mentioned archiving dispatch is not in the strict sense a judicial decision, nor does it have a permanent nature, it would be even less justified calling upon the principle of presumption of innocence to restrict the freedom of expression.” “And it cannot be said too that the applicants were declared innocent through the archiving dispatch of the criminal process. In truth, the aforementioned dispatch was not issued due to the fact the Public Ministry had acquired the certainty that the applicants had not practise any crime. Such archival, as was the case, was determined since it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practise of crimes by the appellants. Therefore, there is, a distinct difference, and not merely a semantic one, between the legally admissible grounds of the archiving dispatch. It doesn't therefore seem acceptable to consider the referred dispatch, which is based on the insufficiency of evidence, to be equated to proof of innocence. Thus we consider, the invocation of the violation of the principle of innocence should not be taken into account here, since that principle is not relevant for the decision of the question that we must decide.” in Extracts from the Supreme Court's ruling

by M. Carvalho | J. Morais

In a concise manner, the grounds invoked by the Appellants come down to a technicality.

The Appellants argue the Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch filed the criminal investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) article 277.º, no.1, and that the Supreme Court's ruling states they were not exonerated within the no.2 of that same article.

In other words, they allege the Public Ministry prosecutor José de Magalhães e Menezes, and the joint prosecutor João Melchior Gomes archived the process because they were not suspects of any crimes and that, on the other hand, the Supreme Court's judgement was wrong to state that the Archiving Dispatch established that there was not enough evidence gathered to bring charges.

We will go into the legal explanations in the second section of this article, but we would like to stress that the appellants and their lawyer fully dismiss the integrant reasoning and legal groundings of the archiving dispatch, holding on exclusively to this particular article.

This is invoked by the Appellants within the framework of the presumption of innocence, despite the fact that this particular point was never in question. The Supreme Court of Justice went to great lengths to explain this point, concluding: “It should be noted that in the present process, the matter of their penal responsibility is not in dispute, that is, their innocence or culpability, concerning the facts that lead to their daughter's disappearance, so it does not have to be appreciated here. What is under discussion is, and only that, the civil responsibilities of the defendants, due to the fact that they expressed and divulged the thesis/opinion previously mentioned with respect to that disappearance. So much so that the outcome of this process is not susceptible of calling into question the extra processual dimension of the presumption of innocence. That is, even if the action (lawsuit) is rejected, that will not imply, even in the general public eye, any consideration regarding the responsibilities of the Appellants, since such an outcome can never be equated to an assertion of guilt.”

We will just stress again that the presumption of innocence assists any defendant of a penal case, i.e. of a criminal process. It must not be confused with being exonerated nor cleared.

In simpler terms, the archival of the criminal investigation does not exonerate the Appellants but these will always benefit from the presumption of innocence should criminal proceedings eventually be brought against the Appellants. Even though we believe this will never take place for lack of will and true commitment by the authorities in both countries.

Finally, the Appellants seem to have opened an unexpected Pandora's box, their actions may now force a written correction of the article that should have been used in the Archiving Dispatch .

Quid iuris?

Legal explanations with the valuable insight of a Portuguese jurist

The judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) shows that their arguments are based on two points: firstly, that Gonçalo Amaral's thesis goes against the right to the presumption of innocence that they enjoy; secondly, that there is a collision of rights between their honour and their good name and the right to freedom of expression of Gonçalo Amaral and, in this case, the later must cede the right to freedom of expression.

As it is known, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that there was no depreciation of the right to presumption of innocence, even because that issue was not in question. And, they are correct in judgement. The right to presumption of innocence is extended to all criminal proceedings, but here we are not in the context of a criminal process, but rather an action seeking to assess Gonçalo Amaral's civil liability for the violation of the McCanns' rights. Therefore, there is no connection between what Gonçalo Amaral has said and the principle of presumption of innocence in this case, since the presumption of innocence is only related to the criminal process and here we are in the context of civil proceedings. The only issue to assess is which of the fundamental rights in conflict should prevail, and from then a conclusion can be drawn as to whether or not Gonçalo Amaral has violated the McCanns' fundamental rights and therefore has to compensate them.

It should be noted this issue was started with the decision of the first instance court which one could argue had an erroneous assessment of the situation of conflict of rights - it was the first instance that messed up by accepting the argument that the principle of the presumption of innocence was in question at a civil case. Concerning this matter, see pages 68 and following of the Supreme Court´s ruling.

Then, the other question is, according to the Supreme Court's ruling (page 70), the conclusion of the Public Ministry in the Archiving Dispatch is wrong. To clarify: the Archiving Dispatch has a reasoning. Throughout that reasoning, the prosecutor goes on to say how the facts were ascertained, how blood was found in the car rented by the McCanns, that there were traces of blood in the apartment, how the most likely thesis is that of homicide, but also that it was necessary to admit the possibility of abduction. Then the prosecutor goes on to say that the canine markers were not confirmed, that no evidence of the homicide was collected, but that Madeleine could have been killed in the apartment, even though it was not possible to conclude by whom; that the abduction is a possibility to be taken into account due to the witnesses, etc. That is, the reasoning of the Public Ministry suggests that the filing is due to lack of sufficient evidence that the McCanns have committed the crime. However, upon finishing the dispatch, the prosecutor affirms that the archival is done under art. 277/1 of the CPP, which states that the archival is determined when it is concluded that the defendants did not commit the crimes.

In short: the reasoning of the Archiving Dispatch goes in the sense of art. 277/2 of the CPP, but in the last paragraph the prosecutor states the archiving is done under the terms of art. 277/1, that is to say, the reasoning goes towards supporting that "there was not enough evidence collected to prove that it was the McCanns" but the last sentence goes in the sense of "it's archived because it was concluded that it was not the McCanns who committed the crime".

Obviously, there is a contradiction in the Archiving Dispatch. And what matters is the reasoning. And the reasoning goes in the sense that it did not collect sufficient evidence that it was the McCanns who committed the crime. This is what both the Lisbon Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Justice state in their judgements.

Now, it can only be concluded that it was not the arguido who committed the crime in two situations: when it is concluded that there is no crime or when it is concluded that the crime was not practised by the arguido, but by another person.

However, what the Public Ministry prosecutors conclude is that there was a crime (if not of homicide, at least of abduction). In this scenario, only if it was known who the real author was, that is, only if the evidence was conclusive in respect to another person could the prosecutor state "it was not the McCanns". In fact, what the Public Ministry concluded was: (1) there was a crime; (2) there is no conclusive evidence that it was the McCanns. This is the result of the reasoning of the Archiving Dispatch. Therefore, the filing was made under art. 277/2 and not of art. 277/1, as, certainly by mistake, the prosecutor affirms.

It turns out that the McCanns cling, with tooth and nail, to the last paragraph of the Archiving Dispatch and to the mention of art. 277/1 to claim that the Public Ministry states that they were not the ones who committed the crime, and that, thus the Archival Dispatch innocents them. And therefore, any claim, whatever the source, that they are guilty or have something to do with their daughter's disappearance is false and therefore offensive to their honour. This is how crafty the McCann's thesis is.

The problem with their thesis is that it expires if we take into account the reasoning of the Archiving Dispatch - that is, that there is insufficient evidence, so far, to prove that it was them. And that's where it all goes: the McCanns are not right because the Archiving Dispatch did not exonerate them (nor it could, unless it was known that the author of the crime was someone else).

The Lisbon Court of Appeals explained that the McCanns were not right and why. The Supreme Court of Justice limited itself to corroborating the position of the Court of Appeals: “It doesn't therefore seem acceptable to consider the referred dispatch, which is based on the insufficiency of evidence, to be equated to proof of innocence.”

Now, let us look at what their reasoning for the annulment of the judgement is.

The McCanns allege the Supreme Court has given as proven fact that the Archiving Dispatch, where the aforementioned last paragraph referring article 277/1 of the CPP is included, was due to the fact that it was concluded that they had not committed a crime.

Then, they argue: if the Supreme Court gave that as proven fact, it cannot then decide that the archiving was done under the article 277/2, nor it can, therefore conclude that they were not exonerated by the Public Ministry. And also, the Supreme Court cannot therefore state that their right to honour has not been violated because, if there was a declaration of innocence, any statement to the contrary violates the good name and reputation of the McCanns.

Therefore, they say, there is a contradiction between the proven facts and the decision of the judgement, which renders it null, an annulment they now request.

It is our understanding that they are not correct because there is no contradiction. The Supreme Court says that the Archiving Dispatch is based on the insufficiency of evidence and, therefore, it is not a declaration of innocence and then decides in accordance with this understanding.

What the McCanns do is to read the judgement up to that fact given as proven and then read the decision, ignoring all of the Supreme Court's arguments that will justify why the court understands that there is no declaration of innocence. They may ignore it, but it is there written, so, without the slightest doubt they will see the request for annulment rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

The Appellant's request will not be upheld because the Supreme Court has already explained in the judgement why it reaches to the conclusions established in the ruling and, as explained, there is no contradiction between the Supreme Court's reasoning and the decision, which is why the McCanns' request will be rejected.

In other words, the McCanns' request in which they seek the annulment of the Supreme Court's ruling is admissible because it meets the eligibility requirements (it was done at the right time, at the right court, it invokes an alleged contradiction between the reasoning of the judgement and its decision, which is the basis for the annulment). But the request will not be upheld, that is to say, it will be rejected, because the McCanns' argument cannot be accepted, since the alleged contradiction does not exist. This is to say that one thing is the admissibility of the request (which will occur, the request will be admitted) and another thing is the decision on the request (which will dismiss it as unfounded).

As to the hypothesis that more than a dilatory strategy, what that they want is to somehow have an argument to proceed with a complaint to the ECtHR. One could argue that there are always these tactics when we are talking about the McCanns. They are free of going to the ECtHR, of course. But if they go there, it will fall flat on its face. And for the very reasons previously invoked.

There is a “frivolity” in the annulment request that is a bit pushing what is acceptable, but still, it can be allowed in the scope of the broader freedom of expression that lawyers have when they are defending their clients.

One hopes the Supreme Court judges would state on the annulment's decision something like: “the Appellants accuse this court of frivolously drawing conclusions, but those who frivolously ignore the reasoning of this court's ruling are the Appellants”.

It should be noted that a request for the annulment of a Supreme Court of Justice ruling is exceptional, rare. And that this request has a suspensory effect. Being suspensive, means that all the consequences of the Supreme Court's ruling are suspended, that is, there is no final and unappealable decision, and therefore, the decision is not definitive and can not be fulfilled, meaning, yes, that Gonçalo Amaral will have to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court on the request for annulment.

Gonçalo Amaral was notified of the request for the annulment of the Supreme Court´s ruling. As there is always the right to adversarial proceedings, Gonçalo Amaral can respond, saying that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice does not warrant any rectification or criticism. Then all parties have to await for the ruling of the Supreme Court's conference.

The totality of the judges of the civil section is the conference, the request will be assessed by all judges of the civil section of the Supreme Court of Justice, including those who have deliberated on the judgement called into question. The mechanism should be similar to the distribution of the appeals to the Supreme Court of Justice.

As for the forecast date of the decision, in the Supreme Court of Justice the deadlines are extended. The judges will first submit the draft judgement, then the conference of judges will gather in order to assess the draft, then they will see if there are more votes in favour of or against, then it will be decided what the ruling is, after the judge rapporteur will write the final wording of the judgement according to what was decided by the conference, then the conference will reconvene for the final vote of the decision and for the presentation of the defeated votes, if there are any.

updated* corrections