Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> prisonlawinsideout

International Law

: prisonlawinsideout

McCanns: If you were guilty of killing your daughter and sought to evade justice would you assist the police investigation by taking part in a reconst

By John Hirst

McCanns: If you were guilty of killing your daughter and sought to evade justice would you assist the police investigation by taking part in a reconstruction?

At approximately 10pm, at Praia Da Luz, Portugal, on 3 May 2007, Kate McCann announced publicly that her daughter, 3 year old Madeleine, was missing.

At 11.40pm, Gerry McCann phoned his sister Trish in Scotland claiming that Madeleine had been abducted, and claimed that the window in the bedroom and shutters were jemmied open.

On 4 May 2007, The Independent reports that the manager of the Ocean Club, John Hill, "said that despite the report by a family friend that the shutters to the couple's apartment were broken, there was no sign that anyone had forced their way in while the McCanns ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yards away".

The report continues: "He said detectives had not found a forced entry into the apartment but said the shutters had been slid up and the bedroom window opened since the McCanns left".

On 18 October 2007, Ch4 in the Dispatches series aired the documentary 'Searching For Madeleine'. In that documentary, it was effectively proved that there was no way anybody could break into the apartment and leave no forensic trace or damage to the lightweight aluminium shutters, which are covered with a fine coating of polyurethane paint which marks extremely easily.

They also tested the thumb prints, that showed up under the red dust of the forensic fingerprint powder, and proved the prints came from somebody moving the shutter from inside the apartment.

Again, Prof Dave Barclay said: "We must be very careful that we're not saying this is actually staging but it's difficult to see how anybody could have interefered with those shutters, from outside, without leaving some trace. In fact, having looked at them, I think it's almost impossible".

Madeleine is still missing. However, the evidence did not support the McCanns claim of a break-in. "Clarence Mitchell's statement about the McCanns reversal of their 'break in' story, came one week after Dispatches aired the documentary 'Searching For Madeleine' on 18 October 2007". I think this is what's called a damage limitation exercise. McCann family reverse story over break-in 'evidence'.

Originally, the McCanns were convinced that there had been a break-in. From the outset, the McCanns were convinced their daughter had been abducted. The McCannsfiles states that the Times article is particularly interesting because "It again highlights, despite a number of other possibilities, the McCanns immediate insistance that Madeleine had been kidnapped".

The McCanns claimed that they knew Madeleine had been abducted because of the break-in. Evidence takes away the fake break-in. However, the McCanns still claimed that the abduction took place. Now they offer this revised explanation: "Speaking to RTE's 'Prime Time', Clarence Mitchell said she could "easily" have been kidnapped by an abductor who did not leave the trail of a break-in".

And what does Clarence Mitchell base this new claim on? "I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily".

But, wasn't it Kate and Gerry who were firmly of the view that there had been a break-in? And, they firmly held that view until it was disproved by evidence. Originally, the McCanns claimed that the apartment was locked. This claim requires a break-in to explain the claim of abduction. Then the McCanns changed their story and claimed that they had left the apartment unlocked. This then allows the claimed abductor to get easy access into the apartment, and to leave just as easily.

I would have thought if you take the break-in out of the frame you also take the abductor out of the frame? What you do have in the frame is the McCanns lie about the fake break-in. Also in the frame is the original lie that they left the apartment locked. The third lie is the claim that the McCanns thought it was safe to leave a 3 year old child and 2 year old twins for hours on end without supervision. This lie is exposed if you Google the question "Is it safe to leave children under 4 years unsupervised?". None of the entries state it is a safe practice. The McCanns claim that if they had thought for one minute that it was not safe they would not have left their children in this position. It took me less than one minute to discover it is not safe via the internet. How can the McCanns legitimately claim otherwise? The answer is they cannot. Their excuse does not stand up to scrutiny. The McCanns claimed that they left the apartment door unlocked in case of fire. This indicates an element of risk. On that ground alone they should not have left their children unsupervised. I would have thought that if there had been a prowling paedophile, an unlocked door is an open invitation? The children were not safe to be left unsupervised. I did note during the last interview with the McCanns when asked about criticisms about leaving their children unsupervised Kate McCann struggled to offer an explanation but the words would not come out and she was left speechless.

It is understandable that the McCanns fled back to Britain rather than face the tough questioning of the PJ. It is also understandable why the McCanns fear returning to Portugal when a reconstruction would assist cracking the case. If you were guilty of killing your daughter and sought to evade justice would you assist the police investigation?

Full post as published by prisonlawinsideout on May 05, 2008 (boomark / email).