Madeleine McCann, plot twist, spoiler alert!

For several years, I have been predicting that missing British toddler, Madeleine McCann, will be found alive. For newer readers, I reproduce my theory below, with a new section added at the end to reflect the latest developments regarding alleged "impostor", Julia Wendell, who claims to have new evidence that she is the missing girl...

Nobody Wants To Find A Dead Cat

First published January 29th, 2024

Apologies for the rather maudlin title, but this is an ineffably true statement of fact: nobody does, including and especially when it is their own cat.

Therefore, in successfully marketing the government's new push for the mandatory microchipping of our (as the government rather surprisingly describes them) "treasured pets", they must assure us that the microchip increases the chances of finding a lost or stolen cat alive. If the chip only traced deceased animals, it would be useless.

Now, if we know anything about the government, it's that they certainly do not care about our "treasured pets". If they did, animal shelters wouldn't all be desperately overcrowded, underfunded, and bankrolled solely by charity and volunteers (with many tragically having to resort to euthanasia when they can no longer care for the animals). Animal rights' activists will tell you they petition the government constantly about these issues, only to be met with a stonewall of silence, so, no, the government is not forcing you to microchip your cat because it cares about your cat.

In addition, with the frequent press coverage demonising cats as serial killers (and, indeed, as carriers of deadly plagues), we can easily surmise that the overlords don't want us to keep cats at all ('no pets' being a key agenda item for the social engineers sculpting the future: pets eat a lot of meat and also bring love and joy to humans, neither of which, as we know, the overlords are at all fond of).

So, this being the case, why is the government making it mandatory to microchip your cat? (And, with the threat of a fine of £500 for the non-compliant, given the average cost of microchipping a cat is just £14.50, it's rather obvious what the typical cash-strapped Briton is going to opt for.)

It's because the government wants thousands of illustrative examples where this microchip has successfully reunited owners with alive cats, so that they can state: "see, microchipping your loved ones is a good idea, because if they go missing, it safely reunites you".

Once the government proves that to you about cats (and obviously, by making the chip mandatory, there will be exponentially more evidence of this, as there will be many more chipped cats - currently, more than 2 million pet cats are not chipped), it's a much easier sell to convince you to microchip your child, which is ultimately where this agenda is going and where it has always been going.

However, to make the leap from microchipping animals to microchipping children, the overlords need one final advertising push: they need to find a long-missing, presumed dead, child alive and well - so they can close the sale with, "imagine if that child had been chipped, she could have been found safe and well years ago and all this terrible heartache - and awful, scurrilous gossip about her grieving, innocent parents - avoided!".

Any ideas who that child might be?

Well, it's obvious, isn't it: the world's most famous missing child. The child who -despite having gone missing fifteen years ago with thousands of children we never hear about having gone missing since - is still making headline news all the time.

'Madeleine McCann' is an international household name and Madeleine herself as famous as any celebrity.

The establishment and international machine never (ever) makes someone quite this famous, keeping their name in the press for nearly two decades, unless they have made a huge investment in this person: an investment on which they will expect a return.

Now, I know, I know, "but the parents killed her, it's so obvious! They used their friends in high places to cover it up! There's loads of evidence!"

To which I say: hang on a minute. All the world's a stage, remember..?

We know that microchipping us, starting with children, is a major agenda item. But what's another one? Curtailing free speech and clamping down on the internet, right?

Well, how better to demonise "conspiracy theorists" and those who challenge the mainstream narrative, than by luring them into a trap: staging an event and planting 'clues' to create the illusion of guilty parents who killed their child, which thousands around the world have leapt upon and used to publicly point fingers at the McCanns... when really the parents have been innocent all along?

"Dogs don't lie", declare many, of the sniffer dogs who are said to have detected the scent of death in the McCann's apartment.

Maybe not - but they do act. There are huge casting agencies for animals, and, of course, a dog can be trained to bark on cue - just as they are in televised crime dramas.

This being the case, my question is, how do we know that the whole Madeleine McCann drama wasn't simply staged by actors (including actor dogs) and world class directors and producers, who planted red herring 'clues' to intentionally mislead us?

Although, superficially, the McCanns "act guilty", this is all pantomime villain stuff to add to the illusion (the clue may be in the word "act" guilty): look more closely, and compare to cases where parents have actually killed their child, and you will find the McCanns are not in fact behaving as guilty people do.

Contrast the McCann case to the 1989 murder of 5-year-old Justin Turner. His parents claimed to have "tearfully stumbled across his dead body", with no idea of how the child had met his death.

Nearly 35 years later, when new evidence emerged, the parents were charged with his murder.

The police weren't surprised, since after the initial investigation stalled, the parents moved hundreds of miles away and never asked for an update on the case.

“Isn’t that strange?" Said the lead investigating office. "I never got one phone call, one phone call from his daddy or stepmother. ‘What are y’all doing about my son’s death?’ Not one. What does that tell you?”

It tells you that they're guilty, of course, and that they're - literally and physically - trying to distance themselves from it in the hope it will all go away - because that's what guilty people are far and away most likely to do.

The McCanns, conversely, have behaved in exactly the opposite fashion and have done everything possible to keep the spotlight on this case for fifteen years. If they were guilty, that's the last thing they'd do. They would have crept away quietly into the shadows, praying the world would move on and forget about Madeleine. They wouldn't be doing talk show circuits and courting media attention every chance they get to make sure maximum focus remains on the Madeleine case.

I have been predicting for years that "Madeleine" (or the actress playing her) will turn up alive and well, so I wasn't at all surprised when, a few months ago, a young woman claiming to be her debuted on the world stage.

Within weeks of making her sensational allegations, Julia Wendell had risen to international media prominence, making headlines around the world, and being invited on all the top talk shows.

And the thing we have to ask is, why, when a simple DNA test could have put the matter to bed in hours and we never needed to hear this impostor's name? Why was it dragged out for weeks, why the nail-biting "is she, isn't she" drama, why have the whole nation talking about this, when, as I say, a quick, simple lab test would have rendered it a non-story in hours?

The reason for it is clear: Wendell debuted on the world stage in the way that she did in order to reframe our perceptions. To change the conversation around Madeleine McCann from "she's dead and the parents did it, it's so obvious", to "hmm, well, I guess it is possible she's still alive somewhere, living under a different name...".

Let me emphasise again that the global machine wouldn't invest the colossal amount of money and attention it has in Madeleine McCann over fifteen years, making sure millions around the world know her name, unless they expect to receive a colossal return on this investment.

If Madeleine turns up dead, they gain nothing: precisely the opposite, in fact. A dead Madeleine would ratify the conspiracy theorists, who have always said she was dead (killed by her parents), and it's a non-starter for the microchip agenda, for the same reason that a chip that only returned dead cats would have no appeal.

An alive Madeleine, though?

The return on that investment would be huge.

First of all, it would give phenomenal ammunition to the establishment to demonise "conspiracy theorists".

"Look how these crazy fantasists victimised an innocent, grieving family with their wild delusions! Those vile ghouls! Something must be done about them!" - Cue hugely increased public clamour for internet censorship and a clampdown on free speech ("imagine what those poor parents went through being targeted by these evil trolls, as if having their daughter kidnapped wasn't enough! Enough is enough and we need limits on what people can say online.").

Secondly, it would set the perfect stage for a global marketing push for a microchip for children. "Maddie's Microchip", following the successful rollout of the government's mandatory cat-chipping programme.

"Many desperate owners have been successfully reunited with treasured pets since the government's compulsory pet microchipping scheme began," some slick newscaster would tell us on television. "And after the sensational rediscovery of Madeleine McCann, safe and well after all these years, isn't it time we started microchipping all our loved ones?"

Remember that the mainstream press never gives coverage to anything they don't want you to know about (much less blanket international coverage over fifteen years). They want you to know about Madeleine McCann (whilst you don't know the names of any of the other of thousands of children who go missing every year), they want you to speculate about what's happened to her (that's why they've set the stage and planted red herring clues to make it appear "so obvious the parents did it"). They want you to scream "it's a cover-up by the evil establishment!".

To which I say... cover-up? Are you kidding me? Like I said, Madeleine McCann is an international household name. She's intentionally been made - by the establishment - into an international household name. That is literally the exact opposite of a cover-up.

Something that the establishment is actually covering up is kept out of the papers entirely, such as the case of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair's teenage daughter Kathryn trying to kill herself. The establishment gags the press all the time and has a mechanism to do it called a DSMA notice (formerly a D-notice).

With all their friends in high places, if the McCanns had really killed their daughter and wanted it covered up, they would have had the press slapped with a D-notice and we would have never heard Madeleine's name at all - just like every other missing child.

When, however, every establishment newspaper in the Western world gives headline news coverage to a story? No, they are not "covering it up", and the theory of the parents killing her is literally the least covered-up cover-up in the history of the world, as everyone knows that theory, and large amounts of people (including those who otherwise wouldn't consider themselves "conspiracy theorists") believe it.

So, no. It's not a cover-up. The parents didn't do it. She isn't dead. You're meant to believe that as you're being very deceitfully played with by top level social engineers who are manipulating you to fulfil an agenda.

Madeleine will be found alive and that will be used against those with pro-freedom convictions who said she was dead (and blamed the parents) to limit their free speech, as well as to accelerate the microchip agenda.

Of course, my theory on all this - just like the "she's dead and the parents did it" school of thought - is just a theory, and we can't know the truth for sure until Madeleine actually turns up, dead or alive.

However, having read the above, I hope you will at least contemplate my theory and consider that it does, in reality, make more logical sense - based on the goals we know the establishment have in mind relating to microchips and crushing free speech - than the dominant "conspiracy theories" that surround this case do.

If I'm wrong - if she really is dead, slain by her evil parents - then nothing in the bigger picture changes. It's just another tragic case of abusive parents murdering their child. Horrific, awful, throw the book at them and all that - but it doesn't have any wider implications for the rest of the world.

If I'm right, though, the implications are immense and potentially world-alteringly catastrophic.

That's why I think we have to be very careful about buying into conspiracy theories that are "so obvious" (as the "the parents did it and covered it up" theory is generally described by its proponents), because, often, when such a theory is "so obvious", it's too obvious. The establishment has intentionally made it too obvious, to lure us into believing it, so they can later weaponise it and use it against us.

Note that the McCanns said in a recent press release that the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance "will" yield results. Not "might", not "could possibly", not "we really hope that" - but "will".

Well, how could they possibly know that?

Because this is all a scripted, acted drama and they know (they've known from the start) what the grand finale will be.

Remember that nobody would microchip their pets without sturdy evidence the return is likely to be an alive pet.

The same is true with children, and there's only one missing child that everyone knows the name of. Only one name big enough to induce the massive perceptual shift that chipping your children is worth it.

And I think we're going to see that name - which hasn't left the headlines in fifteen years - give her career-defining performance very soon.

UPDATED 18/02/25

It's been just over a year since I wrote the above, and - as with every other year since Madeleine went missing - the story has never left the headlines for long.

While much of the recent press attention has focused on apparent suspect, "Christian B" - who, after months of speculation, prosecutors have confirmed won't be facing any charges in relation to Madeleine's disappearance - this week, we have a far more dramatic, edge-of-your-seat plot twist...

Julia Wendell - the woman who sensationally claimed last year to be Madeleine McCann - is back!

Not satisfied with the initial DNA results that alleged to prove she was "100% Polish", Wendell sought out further expertise, and is back in the papers this week - including The Daily Mail, The Metro, The Irish Star, The New York Post, and Australia's News.com - declaring that her new results confirm she is, in fact, part British and part Irish, and that there is a strong genetic link to Gerry McCann, suggesting a parent-child relationship.

The first question we have to ask, then, is: why is the international mainstream media covering this story (again)? If Julia's simply a mentally ill fantasist, why don't they just ignore her?

Remember that the mainstream media never gives prominent international attention to a story unless that story is somehow instrumental in agenda-pushing. All mainstream editors know, "there's no such thing as bad publicity", so if they wanted to quash Wendell's claims, they would simply completely ignore her, not plaster her all over the papers repeatedly.

As I pointed out last year, the Julia Wendell claims could have been rendered a non-story in hours simply by testing her DNA against that of the couple who claim to be her parents.

Yet that couple refuses to submit to DNA testing.

Hm, very suspicious, what are they trying to hide?! - is the implied message.

The McCanns also refuse to do DNA testing.

So what do we conclude from this?

That this story is being kept alive by the media on purpose as part of a gradually building story arc to develop suspense and tension for the eventual grand dramatic finale.

If you've ever watched a crime drama thriller, you know how the tried-and-tested formula goes: suspense builds gradually over several episodes, replete with plenty of red herrings and plot twists, to draw you further and further into the action, so you are completely gripped when the narrative finally reaches its explosive crescendo.

Scriptwriters know how to meticulously weave the narrative and how to frame the character development to ensure you are maximally invested in the story's ultimate conclusion.

That being the case, if someone were to come forward and claim they were Madeleine McCann, a DNA result immediately proved it, and the McCanns were happily reunited, this wouldn't pack anywhere near the same dramatic punch as someone who has to fight against the odds, be subject to hate and abuse, be deemed mentally ill and so on, to finally prove her claims...

Initially, I thought the Wendell character had been inserted into the narrative purely to reframe public perceptions: to shift the international conversation around Madeleine from "she's dead (and the parents probably did it)" to "it's actually possible she's still alive, living somewhere under a different name".

I thought that, while Wendell herself would be revealed as a fraud, she had successfully set the stage for the "real Madeleine" to turn up.

And that might still be the case.

However, the more sensationalist headline attention Wendell's latest claims are receiving - that have yet to be meaningfully refuted by either her own family or the McCanns - the more I am starting to suspect a different story arc is being built.

I think the public is largely supposed to react to the Wendell claims with, "she needs to stop this! She looks nothing like her and she's the wrong age! She's clearly a mentally ill fantasist!"

We are meant to react this way because it builds Wendell's credentials as a persecuted hero, and all heroes must go through a significant period of adversity and persecution - it is a standard part of the hero's journey - before eventually triumphing.

In other words, we are being intentionally baited to feel angry with and reject Wendell, in order to draw us more into the story, to build further tension and suspense, and to make the eventual conclusion all the more compelling.

Note the timing of Wendell's latest "bombshell claims" - just four months after the landmark court case where alternative journalist, Richard D. Hall, was defeated by alleged Manchester Arena survivor, Martin Hibbert, setting the stage for the UK's first "anti-conspiracy theory law".

While Hall was not in court for conspiracy theorising, but for harassment, his defeat enabled the establishment to conflate the two, and to claim we need legislation to protect vulnerable people from being harassed by conspiracy theorists. Upon triumphing over Hall, Martin Hibbert said:

"I will now liaise with my legal team, my media contacts, politicians and decision makers about Eve’s Law: a new law to better protect survivors of tragedies from harassment and conspiracy theories. Watch this space….!"

As I said in my interview with Iain Davis, at the time Martin made this statement, there wasn't enough public sympathy behind the idea of criminalising "conspiracy theories". The UK public is generally in favour of free speech and would reject such a law. In order to get the public behind this kind of legislation, then, we would need a much bigger, more bombastic example of the "threat" conspiracy theories supposedly pose.

How about an 18-year-old conspiracy theory that two high-profile parents murdered their child, leading them to be subject to the most vile and dangerous abuse, when in fact, they were completely innocent and she had been alive all along?

And who is one of the most renowned proponents of the "the parents did it and covered it up" theory?

Richard D. Hall.

Quite a coincidence, don't you think? That the guy who has already been instrumental in setting the stage for the UK's first anti-conspiracy theory law, has also engaged in the high-scale perpetuation of a theory that may turn out to be completely false: a theory that has led to the most hideous persecution of a - potentially - completely innocent couple.

If it is revealed that Madeleine is alive, you can immediately expect the flurry of headlines to follow:

"Vile cranks abused the McCanns for years when they were INNOCENT!"

"Conspiracy theorist, Richard D. Hall - Britain's sickest man - strikes again: Hall's sick theories caused the grieving McCanns to be targeted by evil trolls accusing them of murder. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"

"Free speech has gone TOO FAR!"

That would be the inevitable and predictable consequence of Madeleine being found alive and - in my opinion - a consequence that was always a key part of the long-game plan in staging the situation in the first place.

This being the case, it is revealing that Julia Wendell has been given the amount of press attention she has, in the absence of definitive DNA testing, which either her parents or the McCanns could easily submit to, and put the matter to bed for good.

I made this point to someone I was debating the subject with and they said, "oh, so the McCanns are just supposed to get DNA tested every time someone comes along and claims to be their daughter, are they?"

Er... yes?

How else are they going to definitively know whether it's her or not?

Literally the only thing they can do if someone makes this claim is to have the test to rule it out. It's quick and cheap, and as they have already spent nearly two decades and an enormous fortune looking for their daughter, I'm sure they can spend half an hour to nip down to a lab to submit a DNA sample.

Yet they refuse to do this, which therefore enables the press to continue reporting on the story, and bringing more and more attention - and furious debate - to Julia's claims.

It's masterful storytelling and suspense-building. Julia's currently being framed as the villain - a sick young woman weaving delusional fantasies for attention - when she could actually turn out to be the hero - an abduction and abuse survivor, bravely speaking out despite all the hate.

The "good guys" alleging to be seeking justice for a poor toddler murdered by her parents, could actually turn out to be the "bad guys" - evil trolls baselessly targeting an innocent family.

It's classic narrative flipping that gripping psychological thrillers often engage in.

While I don't know for sure how this is going to play out, I think it's safe to say that, as with any good crime drama epic - especially one that's been running for nearly twenty years - the season finale of this one is going to shock us all in ways that, at present, we can't quite imagine...

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.