6 Comments

John Stalker – The truth – He thinks Madeleine was ABDUCTED

john stalker

Well let us put paid to this, before it grows arms and legs and becomes fact in the anti-McCann world of hounding the parents of a missing child.

Once again a tweet appears on twitter and the link sends you to the Daily Mail article about comments said in an Express article written by John Stalker.

The Daily Mail article says:

Kate and Gerry McCann are hiding a “big secret” about the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, according a former police chief claims.

John Stalker, who headed a famous inquiry into whether suspected IRA men were killed by RUC officers, is suspicious of their silence.

The former Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police told the Sunday Express: “My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up.

“I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag out for six months.

“One thing above all worries me: Why have the McCanns and the seven other members of their group ‘the Tapas Nine’ remained so silent?

“Unlike other high-profile cases I have worked on, not one of them has been prepared to break ranks or really come out and support each other.

“After all this time and pressure, I cannot believe that nobody wants to speak.

“I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth. There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about”

Well let us look at what John Stalker actually told the Sunday Express (screenshot), he said:

MCCANNS ‘ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET’
Sunday October 28 2007
By John Stalker

I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag on for six months.

One thing above all worries me: Why have the McCanns and the seven other members of their group – the Tapas Nine – remained so silent? My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up.

Unlike other high-profile cases I have worked on, not one of them has been prepared to break ranks or really come out and support each other. After all this time and pressure, I cannot believe that nobody wants to speak.

Their answer has always been no comment but there is surely some division between them. So what are they hiding? I have a real suspicion that we are not being told the whole truth.

There is something else there, some issue that members of the party are embarrassed about.

While they continue to refuse to talk it is unlikely that we will find out what it is for a very long time but one thing is certain – it will eventually come out.

The sad fact is that we still have a missing girl and I believe the investigation will be focusing on the theory that she is dead.

The likeliest scenario is that her abductor panicked when he realised the attention the case was creating and killed her days after snatching her.

My fear now is that unless we find her body or her killer strikes again we will never know what really happened to that tiny child.

My instinct, based on years of policing similar cases, is that we are looking at an abduction where the child was targeted in the days before her disappearance.

On the night she vanished it is likely that her abductor simply spotted his opportunity and struck while he could.

I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing.

The investigation does not seem to have taken a step forward from where it was in the first week after she went missing. I cannot believe that the Portuguese only sent selected DNA samples to the forensic science lab in Birmingham.

There is absolutely no sense in that whatsoever. To fully evaluate poor-quality DNA traces, as we believe these were, forensic experts need to see the whole picture.

In the past, when I have dealt with traces of bodily fluids, it is very difficult to establish how they got to be where they were.

All DNA is highly transferable and that is the most likely explanation for the alleged traces found in the McCanns’ hire car and on her mother’s clothing. Robert Murat, the other suspect, was seen close to the apartment the day after Madeleine disappeared and freely admits having helped police as a translator.

If he was in that apartment, or anywhere near it, ther is no doubt he would have transferred some of Madeleine’s or the twins’ DNA on to his clothing.

I don’t believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.

All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister.

Yes, they have had more doors opened for them than other people would have in similar circumstances, but their main aim is to discover what happened to Madeleine. That should be the aim of all concerned.

But my gut instinct still forces me to wonder: What is the secret that the Tapas Nine are so carefully hiding?

So the truth is John Stalker thinks the investigation was a shambles and that Kate and Gerry McCann were not involved in what happened to Madeleine.  And he thinks that Madeleine McCann was abducted.

Nothing like what the anti-McCanns want you to believe over that link posted on twitter is it?

Just one more thing, I wonder if John Stalker thought the reasons why the Tapas 7 never broke ranks was a) fear of breaching Judicial Secrecy and ending up with 2 years in jail and b) there might not actually be anything to break ranks over?

Advertisements

6 comments on “John Stalker – The truth – He thinks Madeleine was ABDUCTED

  1. Brilliant find, Bren, well done. I have no recollection of the Express article. I must be guilty of  having only clicked on the link shoved in my face in that instance, i.e., the DM one,; or else, at the time, I may have assumed that they were all copying each other and didn’t take the time to check through the two. 

    I’ve noted a few details:

    – The date of the article: in October 2007, the McCanns had only officially been made arguidos around 7 weeks previously, and there were no official documents to consult at that time. In the Express article, Stalker would therefore have been taking a rather large risk in terms of credibility in stating  his opinion that the investigation appeared to be a shambles and that the most likely scenario was an abduction (my paraphrasing, not his words), if he did not sincerely believe that to be true. 

    – No byline on the DM article. Now why would that be? I also notice that the direct quotes were truncated and assembled in a particular way. Hmm.

    NB: Bren, yes, I agree that judicial secrecy would have been an issue, plus the fact that the T7 really didn’t need to be hassled by the media frenzy and that they must have realised early on that anything they did say would be sensationalised (e.g., Pact of Silence headline) and no doubt didn’t want to say anything that could be misconstrued as it would only damage the search for Madeleine. 

  2. It was the classic Carana, take out the crux of what John Stalker said and make it look as if he was implying something else.

    Unfortunately at the McCanns expense, all the papers that went with the headlines that the McCanns were involved, sold copies.  It was not about truth, it was about revenue.

    Just think of the Express and how much revenue they got in during their media blitz and then the damages they actually paid out.  I bet they still walked away with a tidy profit on those papers they sold.  

    And that is why they settled out of Court, because if they had gone to Court the damages would have been higher and would have eaten well into the profits made.

    I always remember Roy Greenslade saying that if he blogs about the McCanns he gets the hits.  

    As for the Tapas group, they had witnessed first hand what happened to their friends.  They saw the media turn on the McCanns and it is very understandable why they have never courted the media. 

    They knew for a fact, the media wanted to sell papers, what they actually said might not read the same once in print.  And who knows better than Redsquare for that.  Remember when the Sun did the dirty on him.

    • “I always remember Roy Greenslade saying that if he blogs about the McCanns he gets the hits.”
      Reminds me of an article – no idea whether it was by RG or not, nor which paper it appeared in, too long ago. 

      The article in question was about how many keywords one could cram into a single article and (if memory serves me right) that there could be financial bonuses involved as a result. 

      I found it both hilarious and sad. Hilarious, as the article deliberately used every single hot topic keyword guaranteed to maximise hits; sad, because it cynically showed the business dynamics behind reports of “true facts”. 

  3. 2007 article, yeah right.
    get a life Bren.

    • Not sure what the problem is.

      Some people keep repeating 2007 articles as if they were factually correct. On the whole, most of the so-called facts turned out not to be true, or were half-truths taken out of context.

      As far as I can see, this is not what Bren was trying to point out: it was rather how “information”, in this case Stalker’s article, got mangled by a different press outlet to convey a totally different meaning. 

      As an example of deformation, it doesn’t really matter if the subsequent, deformed, version had been published 100 years ago or yesterday. 

      Edit: I take one thing back: I believe the DM version of the Stalker article is also an illustration of half-truths taken out of context.

      • Exactly Carana, the truth of the matter is some people love to quote old articles, but when it doesn’t suit their purpose, they tend to get rather shirty.  

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: