Final Conclusion

The purpose of this investigation was to show that all of the storytellers (everyone involved) are working together to manipulate the audience into believing that Madeleine McCann died and that the parents are in some way responsible.

This is what happens in most detective fiction – or any kind of fiction when a protagonist is seeking justice against an increasingly sinister enemy. As these kinds of narratives progress, an audience will sympathise more and more with the hero character whilst simultaneously anticipating the fall of the increasingly unlikable antagonists. The story will reinforce this agenda throughout until the audience becomes polarised.

This polarisation divides the audience into two distinct groups:

1: The Anti-McCanns: Those who believe the claims of Goncalo Amaral or other proponents of the death theory.

2: The Pro-McCanns: Those who believe the parents and the abduction scenario.

In the next article we will look at how both of these groups have been cultivated and manipulated by a virtual army of false amplifiers. This is especially true for the Anti-McCann group, who are the target audience and are baited by the storytellers at every opportunity. The beliefs of the Anti-McCanns are continuously reinforced until followers of the story become absolutely convinced the child died and the parents covered it up.

These two groups debated and argued every single day for seven years. The storytellers provoked and baited the audience (Anti-McCanns) until tensions reached boiling point, culminating in one of the biggest news stories of 2014 – The Story of Brenda Leyland – a news event that was front page news and further polarised the opposing groups. The build-up, story and aftermath will all be deconstructed in part three.

I hope you have found this investigation informative and interesting.

Thank you for reading.

Peter James Cullen.


1: The Protagonist

2: The Antagonists

Final Conclusion