Gonçalo Amaral book, Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie. Chapter 3

 A good friend of mine,  John McGowan sent me this and asked what i thought.
Like myself he is learning the principals of Statement analysis and also, he is very good with the body language side of things.

Take a look, and tell me what you think.

I've just started reading Gonçalo Amaral book, Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie.

I came across this in chapter 3.

There are many possible leads: voluntary disappearance - the child could have wakened and not seeing her parents, gone off to look for them; accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated; an act of vengeance; taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar.

 In Statement Analysis order is important. The subject is giving us additional information by the order they list things. Most people will mention their oldest child first and their youngest child last. This is because the oldest one has been around the longest. If a parent is talking about something that the youngest child has done, then he or she may mention the youngest one first then continue to talk about the rest of their children according to age.
Ask yourself to name some of your old school friends, there is a high possibility you will mention first the person you were closest to, and so on. Back to this paragraph from the book.
Look at the order that is at the forefront of the polices mind..It starts of with the possibility of Maddie going missing, wondering off..It then continues..accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated; an act of vengeance; taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar.
Look what they think may have happened foremost in order. Then look what they think may have happened last in order..This tells me that from the very beginning they did not believe Maddy was Abducted, and or Kidnapped, but that they were involved right from the very start.



Taken hostage followed by a ransom demand; abducted by a paedophile; kidnap or murder committed by a burglar. 

Look at this part especially.

We know there was no taken for ransom otherwise there would have been a police shutdown on it especially once a ransom note was found or delivered.
 It would have been dealt with behind the scenes rather than as we saw in the media.
All the media attention would have made it impossible for the kidnappers to get a ransom let alone collect it as everyone would be watching for them.
We would only have heard about it after Maddie was released alive or more likely found dead.
Kidnappers would see her as a liability or would be panicked and kill her.

Since we know this definitely didn't happen as the media attention would have endangered the child, anything following this possibility also didn't happen, do you follow the logic?

An act of vengeance is only likely if gerry or kate had done something to another, medical negligence perhaps.
Given their jobs this is not likely although i believe oldfield was under a malpractice investigation and gerry was helping him.
The likely target thus would have been oldfield not gerry.
Vengeance by a family member or friend is possible, again unlikely, as usually they target the responsible adult not the child.

Children tend to be victims in custody battles where one parent has custody.
The non custodial parent decides if they can't have them no one can.

In this case it is possible, as she was IVF for a donor to take action but then would they know who the recipient of their donation was?

This then is also unlikely.

This takes us then to voluntary disappearance - the child could have wakened and not seeing her parents, gone off to look for them; accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditate.

If she wandered and was taken then she would be in the immediate or local area.

If we accept the time lines from the group then Maddie would likely  have been seen by an adult from the group with all the checks or she would have been calling for daddy since he had just left her sleeping and was talking to Jez Wilkins in the street just outside the apartment

. This though means the patio doors would have been open as toddlers wouldn't usually consider closing them unless they slide closed themselves, she would have heard her dad in the street as it was quiet and voices carry and she would have been calling for daddy/mummy etc.

They would have heard her voice and gone to look.

For her to be wandering and picked up by a passing paedophile who struck it lucky is also unbelievable.
The way he has written it is clever, a possible option
. he gives the minimally possibly option which doesn't refer to any evidence and allows for the possibility she is still alive although pretty much every adult on seeing a lost child would naturally call the police.

There were no calls and given the time she was allegedly missing they would likely have found her at some point.

Accidental death and concealing of a body; physical abuse causing death; murder by negligence or premeditated.
He gives one possibility of her being alive which is what we would all hope for and would be the natural instinct, a live child is the best outcome and thus a priority, it is something he allows for as a parent not as a cop especially since no body has been found as yet which would be definitive proof of death.

 He then gives us FOUR options for a death, again he gives the parents the option of coming clean with a minimal cause of death, accidents happen and the parents panicked etc. he is giving them an out.
They admit to this, Maddie gets recovered.
The rest are plain and simple murder either premeditated or not.

This is where his real attention lies.

Murder on kate's mind

'Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: "They want me to lie - I'm being framed.

 

"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us."

The brain thinks the word a microsecond before they are spoken or written down.
She tells us what is on the forefront of her mind as she was speaking.
She is the one who introduces the word murder in regard to her daughter during the process of free editing.
If she were innocent of involvement  and given the claims of abduction by persons unknown although paedophile is touted, why didn't she say abduction?

Abduction, if she were innocent, wouldn't be at the forefront of her mind, she would be thinking my daughter has been abducted, not, my daughter has been murdered.

She would know the fact of 'abduction', it happened.
 Maddie is not where she should be.

Murder wouldn't cross her mind if she were innocent, for, to think and say murder ends all hope of her still being alive, even if they are spouting the evidence shows the longer she is missing the more chance she has of being alive and statistics show she is alive ( yeah right, on what planet?)
Until confronted with irrefutable proof of death such as a body or other proof which shows beyond reasonable doubt she is dead ( large amounts of blood in a location which matches Maddie's DNA, items of clothing all bloodstained or cadaverine tainted or bones etc, innocent parents will believe and hope their missing child is still alive, they minimise the possible options thus they hope it is a childless couple wanting a child to love, or even a child to be used to steal or beg.
They may even go with abduction by paedophile horrible as it seems because it means their child could still be alive ( depending on the age of the child, older children  such as prepubescents and young teens stand a better chance of survival, really young children quickly grow and leave the paedophiles preferred age range and may be passed on but more often than not an abducted child is dead within a few hours.)

Children who have been found after many years are often the older ones, they learn to survive and often, particularly with girls, the abductor has a reason to keep them alive for a long period of time.

To think of their child dead is the worst scenario possible.

All hope is gone, they blame themselves and each other for not doing something different that day, for not protection their child from danger, for not being there when they were scared or hurt, for not being able to comfort them or say goodbye.

 Not having a body regardless of how much time has passed and the statistics gives them that glimmer of hope that their child could be one of the lucky ones.

If it is a custody battle their child is alive and they will fight to get them back regardless of how long since children grow up to become adults and can make their own choices.

Kate introduces murder which leads me to think accidental or pre-meditated?

We know the children were sedated.
We know the children were all in one apartment,.
When they talk about checks it is always checks on Madeleine and not checks on the children.
Gerry spoke about his checking on Madeleine and, after a pause adds the twins.
Maddie was not where the rest of the children were that night which begs the question why?
Was she already dead perhaps the night  with all the crying?
The why didn't you come was to lead us to believe she was alive the night of the 2nd.

No independent witness can positively say they saw Maddie the 3rd, cleaners were turned away etc.

Dying the night before  or earlier allows plenty of time for the cleanup and disposal, it allows them to grieve and then control their behavior to normalish (yes, people can commit  horrific murders and then carry on as normal especially if they are psychopathic or sociopathic - like kate and gerry)

Would kate think of it as murder if Maddie died of an overdose?
I think so since it wasn't accidental.

Had it been an accidental overdose, they could have claimed she ate the pills thinking they were candy, the same if it was a fall.

Whatever happened they couldn't allow an autopsy.

Why?

Signs of long term sedation,  injuries such as cuts , bruises and fractures old or new which couldn't be explained as  normal rough and tumble.
Signs of sexual abuse which could never be passed off as accidental.

We know Maddie had health problems associated with her coloboma along with the fact kate and gerry both described her as almost perfect when she was born (since the coloboma was only a fleck what else was visible that they knew right away she wasn't perfect?

 IVF babies also have a higher risk of disability and deformity)

The fact gerry described Maddie as still active, why wouldn't she be as she was 3 unless there was something wrong that meant at a future point of time she would no longer be able to be active.

The other possibility is that someone did something to Maddie that resulted in her death, again this would be murder  even if accidental as a result of something else.

Whatever it was, kate told us Maddie is dead.

What we don't know is how she died, where she died a, when she died and who was present when she died or found her dead.

We know the dogs didn't react in any other apartment only 5a.

This doesn't mean she died there, only that 90 Min's or longer after she died, she was behind the sofa and then in the parents wardrobe.

If she died elsewhere and was moved before 90 Min's had passed so detectable cadaverine wasn't left, there would be not trace in the place she died in.

Depending on cause of death, we know there was leakage of blood, what i would suggest is luminol every apartment the tapas group had access to.

Washing and bleach doesn't remove it as we have seen in multiple crime scene photos where there has been a clean up yet when luminol is used we see where the blood was.

If it revealed  larger areas of blood than could be expected from a nosebleed or small cut then they have some interesting questions to answer, the same if there is blood splatter in unexpected places like walls, furniture even ceilings and also the pattern, again it  interesting questions to be asked, for example if there is a spray pattern on the wall or ceiling it could indicate a striking  action, with blows the first blow is free, subsequent blows cause the blood to splatter. the angle and direction indicating who was where.

Kate was thinking of murder, was it at someone else's hand or her own?
If her own did she think her actions caused it and if so, what were her actions?

Kate has a temper and anger issues  as she tells us in her bewk and witnessed by others, Maddie had a temper as well, did kate lash out in anger and thus she thinks murder because she didn't stop?

Time will tell.

kate mccann "The dread of knowing what happened"

from a statement kate mccann made at a missing people fund raising dinner

At the gala in London Kate, who is an ambassador for Missing People – a group led by Jo Youle – said: “The highs are when you think there is news. And the lows… the dread of knowing what happened and the dread of not knowing what happened.”

We all know order is important, it tells us the priority the subject has for what happened, what they know, who they know and how they feel.

What caught my eye was the above telling comment, in particular

the dread of knowing what happened and the dread of not knowing what happened.”

Innocent parents would say this in reverse, the dread of not knowing what happened to their loved apart from the fact they are missing, knowing what happened would be to them they were somewhere and they didn't come home, or they were at home and then they weren't.
The dread of not knowing is their priority, they think the worst and pray for the best,

Here kate tells us she knows what happened and she dreads it.
Given it was an alleged abduction despite no evidence, forensic evidence of a death in the apartment and a corpse in the hire car, tainted clothing and child's toy.

Previously they have told us they don't know what happened (this never makes sense if they have reported a missing child as abducted, this means they know (believe) what has happened.

She talks about the dread of knowing what happened, how can she know this, if , Maddie was abducted all kate knows is that an alleged someone took her daughter, she cannot know what has happened since.
To know is to state something as a given fact, otherwise words like think or believe appear which allows others to think or believe otherwise.

Kate knows what happened, she doesn't think she knows what happened, or believe she knows what happened, these would be weak statement.

Kate knows the dread of what happened.
There are no qualifiers, no ifs' maybes, thinks or believes all of which would weaken her statement.

Kate knows what happened and it is eating her alive.

She explains the last few months as rough due to sleep deprivation, which coincides with the reopening of the case in Portugal, a new investigation from the Met and the libel trial.

The excuse isn't due to waiting waiting on news ( the highs - what does she mean news? news about what? not being made arguido, not being hauled in for questioning, not being arrested? any day they aren't arrested etc is a good day)

 She and gerry are facing a 3 pronged attack whereas before it was only 1.

The libel trial is going down the pan hence their previous attempts to buy Dr. Amaral off which he refused, the crime watch programme backfired on them spectacularly, tanner's sighting was explained away which promptly blew gerry's alibi out the water and the Smith's e-fit looked like gerry.

It also came out they had sat on this evidence for 5 years.
Does this count as hindering the search along with the 48 question?.

We have not been informed if the mccann's are now arguidos, i suspect they are since the case was reopened and thus it would naturally be reimposed on them to give them legal protection.

They can't spin this in any good way,, it means they can refuse to talk about the case citing judicial secrecy, it means though they are now considered 'suspects' which means no donations, thus we have silence and old sightings and suspects rehashed.

Kate McCann reveals she's "exhausted" as renewed hope of finding daughter Madeleine means she can't sleep.

In statement analysis everything the subject says is important.

In statement analysis everything the subject says is important  whether it be vague, I got up went to work  went home etc or if it goes into minutiae, I got up i went to the bathroom, I washed my hands etc.

When we talk or write we self edit, erasing the pointless trivia we do each day and talking about what is actually relevant to what is being discussed.

When we analyze we look for the important things in relation to the subject not ourselves.

We look for pronouns, where the subject takes ownership of what is being said (I) we look for where they go missing or change and if the change is warranted.

We look for omissions in time (temporal lacuna) where they occur and if the gap is relevant or not (gap in time during a crime or event is important, gap in time going to sleep and waking up is expected)

We look at the order of things, order is important, where does the subject start their statement (this is important to the subject) what order does he place things (family, friends, workmates etc, the order tells us what is important to the subject, if he says family, friends, wife then it is probable things aren't great with the marriage)
We look for chronological order, an event will follow a certain path, beginning, middle, end, if the subject jumps around say middle beginning end or things are out of chronological order (i gave him CPR, the shock hit him and he collapsed, he wasn't breathing i couldn't feel a pulse. You get the drift)
We look for the expected  thus the unexpected will stand out.
We assume the subject is telling the truth thus anything  unusual or unexpected will stand out.
We know fairly well what we would do in a certain scenario (in my case  see a spider, I watch it closely whilst I grab the nearest spider eating cat if it is within reach or they are around, if they aren't,  depending on location it is the slipper, if it is big and high it is the Dyson of doom, the fastest and scariest ride the spider will have.)
We know to a great extent how things will go in order of priority, family, friends etc.
With children we usually go in order of age, this can change depending on topic to boys/girls, girls/boys, trouble/not in trouble, talent/no talent.
We know thus anything out of order will catch our attention, it may be something innocuous and relevant only to the subject and will make sense in context.
It may be something  incriminating, say a man with a missing wife will put a close female friend before family, friends etc. it gets our attention because it is unexpected, we would put family as more important than friends or an individual.
She isn't a family member, is a friend, yet warrants priority over both, she is important to him , enough that he gives her priority.
Later we see he killed his wife and was having an affair with the woman.

What is interesting in gerry's blogs are the priorities.

On first publishing, on the page that was supposed to be all about Maddie, we would expect to hear about her character, her likes and dislikes, a description, things that were important to us to help find her, a description to humanize her, describe her as a little girl needing to be back with her family rather than a body.

She warranted a whole 7 words which was entirely unexpected and a huge red flag to me.

The rest of it was about the twins, gerry and kate.

It was as if she was nothing to the family, a pet, an object rather than a living breathing, loving little girl.

Obviously gerry was paying attention to blogs as I and many others commented on this glaring red flag and subsequently amended it.

Gerry is very aware of what is said about him and will change things where possible to paint him in a good light.
Where he can't enable a change, he will minimize, redirect attention to someone else or sue or threaten to sue to have the comments removed.
Classic narcissistic behavior.
I suspect at home as the baby he was spoiled and as he grew up blamed everyone else and their dog when he was naughty or something didn't get done.

What I note in the blogs is how little is about Maddie and how much is about him, the twins and kate.
How he goes into minute detail about irrelevant stuff, how anyone helping out is minimized or downplayed whilst he does the great I am.
I did all these meetings, spoke to all these people, oh and family members cooked dinner after a really long day.

I wonder if he even wanted kids?
Kids are selfish little buggers, gerry is a big selfish bugger.
It would have been chaos in the house with 3 small toddlers and a big one all making demands, it is no wonder kate obsessed about sleep.
Kids would be competition for  kate's attention, and competition against gerry.
I wonder if kate wanted children and gerry didn't?
When they found out they couldn't conceive naturally, was gerry relieved I ask?

Who pushed for IVF?

I wonder who was at fault for the infertility?
Kate would feel guilt (not a perfect woman, catholic doctrine even if not a devout one it would be in her psyche)
If gerry then would he feel anger rather than guilt (huge blow to ego that he wasn't a man's man, he wasn't perfect, he who demanded perfection from everyone and everything, who always got his own way couldn't father children naturally)

IVF is hard on the woman physically and emotionally, hugely expensive especially with multiple cycles, stressful waiting for a positive on the test.
How many cycles did she go through before each success, what type of IVF did they have?
Were donor eggs or sperm used?
Are the parents of the twins the same parents of Maddie?

There are various combinations of egg and sperm from kate and gerry and donors.
I would be interested to know what type of IVF were used and who provided what since it could provide a motive for one and explain the distance between kate and gerry and the twins.

Even if both were the parents, the fact that IVF was used could be a motive, there was no 'bond' so to speak, and, given that she was born almost perfect, we have motive for her death and also an explanation for their distancing from her.

She wasn't perfect, she was conceived in a test tube so not 'really ours' she had health issues (the eye) behavioral issues (temper, demanding attention, screaming possibly autism spectrum perhaps?) 
Imperfect was not acceptable especially to gerry. 
Maddie demanded and got attention whilst gerry didn't.
Over time this can build up resentment, anger and ...

The sedation was perhaps kate's only way to maintain her sanity.
A sleeping child is a safe child, she can concentrate on gerry and a happy gerry means a safe kate.
 A safe kate is a happy kate.

We know he chased her all the way to NZ to woo her, I wonder if perhaps she went to the other side of the world to escape him?

These are all suppositions of mine, my own opinion on the family dynamics.

What is clear is that this is a family in a toxic relationship, kate has warned us of her possible intentions. 
It could be said she meant nothing by them, this is wrong.
She meant what she said otherwise she would not have said it.

The Freudian slips where they talk about murder and death, these are what is at the front of their minds when they are talking.
The mind thinks the words a microsecond before before spoken or written, it is what they are thinking of when they speak.
It is the brain speaking the truth despite them trying to prevent it doing so and self editing.

Lying is stressful and the body doesn't like it thus the brain will do it's best to relieve the stress by telling the truth.

Frequently when a suspect in a crime finally admits the truth, they speak of the immense relief, the load has been lifted from their shoulders, they feel so much better.

Listen to what they say, read the words they write, don't assume they meant something else or it was a misspeak, it isn't and wasn't, it is the truth leaking out.

Kate and gerry tell the world Madeleine is dead. Why isn't the world listening?

The brain knows what it knows, it knows the truth after all it was there when the deed was done.
Lying is stressful, we all know this thus we try to avoid it either by omission or minimising or in rare cases creating a whole new reality.

When we speak, the words spoken or written down are though of a microsecond before they are spoken or written, from these words we can see what is at the forefront of the subject's mind, what they are thinking about as they speak or write.
The brain wants to tell the truth, it wants to speak what it knows to relive the stress.

If we take the time to listen and look at the words from the subject we can see the truth be it a tiny marble or nugget or a full confession.

Kate and gerry have told us on multiple occasion that Madeleine is dead, that, despite their utterances to the contrary, they know she is dead, how and when she died, even why she died.
Despite their falling back on judicial secrecy to maintain the charade, the use of 3rd parties to leak information and divert attention, their desperate attempts to control the media and interviews, placing restrictions on questions that can be asked and ridiculous demands, even to hamstringing their pi's with a limited remit on what they can look for and do and a nice gagging clause should they come up with anything that even vaguely  points a finger at the mccanns, as we found out recently when it was revealed they had sat on e-fits for 5 yrs and their pi's had noted inconsistencies etc.

Is this the behavior of innocent parents or more the behavior of parents with guilty knowledge and desperately trying to avoid prison?

Let's look at what the mccanns have told us.

Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that.

It is fascinating to listen to kate talk, she uses a lot of 2nd person pronoun, a lot of you rather than the expected I.
When she speaks there is a lot of distancing, this leads me to wonder if she is the submissive in the relationship.
What is clear there is a great reluctance to take ownership of what she says and does.
if she can't take ownership, i can't do it for her.
What caught my eye here though was not the pronouns rather one single word which told me she knew Maddie was dead.

What is the word?

The word is ALL

All means everything, all inclusive.
She uses it not once but twice making it sensitive.
She refers to wanting to press a button and they would ALL be together they would ALL be gone.

Think about it for a moment.

If Kate pressed a button and they would all be gone, they would all be together then she has just told us Maddie is dead. it is the only way they could all be together.
If Maddie was alive, kate has just killed her remaining two children , gerry and herself and made Maddie an orphan.
Is this the behavior of a rational mom?
Do you know of any mom who would kill her remaining children because she lost a child?
We hear of children being murdered by a parent either because of a custody battle ( if i can't have them no one can) out of altruism (disabled child put out of it's misery often with the parent)  out of religious belief (they won't go to heaven if they grow up so I'll kill them now and they will) or a parental psychosis such as post natal depression or mental health issues. 
We also hear of parents killing a child by accident, through abuse or even  premeditated because they don't want the child.

This is scary as it tells us if the net closes in kate will possible commit murder suicide.
She has nothing left to lose except her children and if she can't have them no one can.

It is also interesting that kate distances herself from her comments in anything sensitive and relating to Maddie. Why doesn't she take ownership of her daughter like any mom?
Given that we know she struggled with Maddie from the get go, is this emotional gulf a part of why she died?

There was never a maternal bond when she was alive and it manifests itself more blatantly now she is dead.


Another comment she made:

'Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: "They want me to lie - I'm being framed.

"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us."'

The brain leaked another marble of truth.

She introduced murder in her statement because it was at the forefront of her mind.

Why did she not say an ABDUCTION?

This was what the PJ were basing their investigation on (despite there being not one iota of evidence) and what the mccanns, family and friends were shouting from the rooftops.

Murder slipped in because Maddie is dead.

Is kate telling us it was a murder and not an accidental death?

This would explain why her body could not be allowed to be autopsied.

What would an autopsy reveal that couldn't be explained away as an accident?

Long term sedation perhaps? 

This would explain kate's obsession with sleep patterns, a sleeping child is a quiet and safe child.

It would mean a loss of her license for a start and possibly her children if it got out she was drugging them, especially given she was an anaesthesiologist. (is this why she refused to have the twins checked in a hospital the night may 3rd? she knew what they had been given and how much and why she kept checking them?)

  Now let's look at gerry's foot in mouth statements.

GM:Identifying that person is what we have to do at this stage but whoever took Madeleine is still out there, so other children are at risk. And how could we [unclear] at a time when we weren't there, sort of thing. The leaks, smears and lies that were put in the media to try and, errr... convey, errr... an image that we were guilty of our own daughter's disappearance, errm... was particularly hard but the m... it wasn't as bad as the night we found her

10 damning words that reveal the truth.

Not the night we found her missing, or anything else.

Not a misspeak.

What he said and what he meant.

The night WE found her.

Notice the pronoun WE which indicates sharing, unity, co-operation.

Not he found her or kate found her, the night WE (kate and gerry) found her

If they found her and it was bad then she couldn't have been abducted.

If it was bad why did they not call for help? 
They were doctors as were others, they could have done CPR till the ambulance arrived.

If she was long dead (beyond resuscitation) accidents can and do happen, we read about it all the time in the media, they may face charges , in such cases though the courts are lenient.

This brings me back to why would they hide her body so as to prevent an autopsy?

 "I think the most important thing to say is that the evidence that's been presented by the PJ and the Prosecutor to the Judiciary and the judiciary, having reviewed all of the evidence, have said that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's no evidence to implicate us in her death and that's the message really which we fully expected to come out after the files were published and from our perspective, the most important thing is that Madeleine probably still is alive."

Oh dear gerry, this is a huge slip of the tongue.You have just told the world Maddie is dead and that you were both involved.

Innocent parents would have said no evidence to implicate us in her DISAPPEARANCE since she was allegedly abducted and could still possibly, though unlikely, be alive.

She is dead and you have told us there is no evidence to implicate you in her death.
Why then was there the rush to hide her body. set up a fake abduction, a fund and outright refusal to co-operate or have kate answer those 48 questions.

There is evidence Maddie died in the apartment though.
The cadaver and blood dogs reacting behind the sofa and in the wardrobe in your bedroom gerry, kate's pants, a child's red t shirt, cuddle cat, the key fob and the hire car, a car hired 25 days after Maddie went missing.
Evidence of a death in the apartment despite no record of anyone every dying there.
Evidence of a death and a missing 3 yr old toddler.
No evidence of anyone entering the apartment and abducting Maddie despite your claims.
The  smashed open shutters and jemmied window and the door hanging open as your called your family that night and told them what had happened.
Sounds good, except it wasn't like that, hell even the pink princess had to admit there was no evidence of an abduction.

You say no evidence to IMPLICATE us in her death.
Interesting use of the word implicate, why the need to tell us there is no evidence to implicate you in her death when you just told us there was no evidence she was dead?
This makes it sensitive.
We know you know there was evidence, the claims the blood and body fluids  found in the hire care came from dirty diapers, rotting meat, sweaty sandals , oh and the Sea Bass Sean had taken a liking to.
I liked the fact you specifically stated Sea Bass as opposed to fish in general, Sea Bass can give off a tiny amount of cadaverine in the right circumstances.
If this was the case then surely your hands etc would also have cadaverine on since it doesn't wash off easily.

 You fail to explain why you had to leave the boot open every night as witnessed by neighbors (independent witnesses) and even your chum john admitted the car stank.

Remember the pink princess saying there was an innocent explanation for any evidence that may or may not be found?
Why would he need to tell us this?
If there was any evidence found, surely it would point to an abduction and the abductor, unless, there was no abduction or abductor, in which case there would need to be an innocent explanation.

"and from our perspective, the most important thing is that Madeleine probably still is alive."

 From your perspective she is probably still alive.
Let me rephrase that, from your perspective.
She HAS to be alive otherwise apart from the fund being a fraud and the charges resulting from a fraud both here but also in America (they don't take kindly to wire fraud)
There would be a lot of awkward questions and charges. 
From the perspective of others she is probably, or most definitely, dead.
Qualifiers weaken a statement, the more qualifiers the weaker.
Probably still are qualifiers, without the meaning of the statement stays the same.
When you read those last few words it sounds off, out of order. 
What would flow more easily is "is probably still alive"
This is how we would say it.
Why is gerry so disjointed when he speaks, just like kate is?
Probably still is alive sounds strange, it sounds probably still alive as to what? 
Probably still is dead?

A live Maddie means donations to the fund however small, it means the fund can be used to support the family, her family, in any way it chooses
A dead Maddie means the fund is donated to other charities as per your own  rules.

I suspect though there will be some form of get out clause perhaps you starting your own charity and then taking a salary from it, rents and bills etc, all of which soon mount up.
That is, of course if there is any money left after you have paid your lawyers and legal bills as well as any compensation to Dr. Amaral.

BTW just how do you propose to pay all your legal fees etc?
Carter-ruck aren't cheap and despite you saying they do a lot of work for free i bet there are some hefty bills.
Does Richard Branson still support you, what about brian kennedy?
Did you use their donations to your legal fees fighting fund?
Is there any money left to pay your fees?

What happens when the truth comes out, and it will?
Will all those who donated thinking your were innocent, want their money back?
Obtaining money by deception is a criminal offense, all those millions needing to be repaid.

I wonder if anything your bought with fund money will result in a proceeds of crime penalty?
Pay it all back or face extra jail time.

It started out as a faked abduction, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.
Now it also involves obtaining money and services by deception, wire fraud, perhaps even embezzlement if it turns out you used the fund for stuff it wasn't intended to be used for.

BTW what happened to a fully transparent fund as you claimed, following good practice and all that?

After the first year, and it's revealing account of where the money went, mortgage payments and £37,000 on a basic website, the fund suddenly became as transparent as a barn door.
Why was that kate and gerry?
 What were you hiding?

You see the brain wants to tell what it knows, a crime once done cannot be undone, it becomes not a case of if, rather, when, you will be caught.

Right now you are surrounded on all sides, the legal trial, the PJ investigation, the SY investigation and who knows what else and where else.

Trusted friends 6 years ago are no longer as trusted, or even friends, relationships change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

Right now the only thing linking you all is a sordid dirty little secret about the death of a little girl and the subsequent cover up.
What went on before Maddie died?
Who was involved?

Can you trust them to stay on side?
To stay quiet?

Will they do a plea deal when they see which way the wind is blowing?

Can you trust kate gerry, and can you kate, trust gerry?

What if the twins remembered things that could incriminate you?

You can stop them growing up unless you do a Maddie on them, you can't stop them reading the papers, accessing the net or listening to the news, family and friends. 

Once they reach 18 they are their own person, how will you answer their questions, explain your lies and non co-operation?
How will you explain away making Maddie a ward of court?

Keep talking mccanns and chums, the more you speak the more we know the truth.