Tony Bennett: More or less from Day One, I thought there was something very odd about the case.

For a start, I heard the parents were checking their children 'every 15 minutes', then 'every hour', then 'every half hour' etc. The idea that they would all be getting up in turn to check on their own children like that during a meal or drinking session struck me as strange behaviour.

Then I saw them on TV gallivanting round the world, meeting the Pope, going to America, being interviewed on German TV and so on. I wondered if their young twins were with them on these trips, and I discovered that mostly they were not. I saw one clip of the McCanns taking two very quiet and submissive-looking twins to the nursery in Praia da Luz so that the parents (their own words) could 'carry on campaigning'. I would have thought that having lost one precious child, they would want to spend every possible moment with the other two.

I thought no more about it particularly until journalists started asking questions and watched the McCanns' nervous reactions. Then as there were rumours about the McCanns becoming suspects, like tens of thousands of others I became interested in the case and wondered if the police, the Pope, and the public had all been victims of one almighty hoax. I noted that Gerry McCann was already talking about 'a long-term political campaign' and 'a 'wider agenda' and again this seemed strange, as if he never expected to get his daughter back.

And this all then began to connect with the work I had done in the past 18 months on another case where a major hoax was perpetrated - namely, the death of Stuart Lubbock at entertainer Michael Barrymore's home in March 2001. I published a book on the subject earlier in the year ['NOT AWIGHT: Getting Away With Murder] which demonstrated that Stuart Lubbock was never in the swimming pool that evening, and that the claim of a drowning was simply an elaborate hoax by those at Barrymore's house that night to cover up the awful reality of how Stuart Lubbock actually met his death.

Since then, I've researched the Madeleine McCann case avidly, and pretty soon realised that the parents - and probably their friends - knew exactly what had happened to Madeleine on 3rd May -but had perpetrated a cunning hoax on the media and the public.

TruthForMadeleine: Do you think Kate and Gerry McCann should be prosecuted for their neglectful attitude towards all of their children?

Tony Bennett: It is not so much their 'neglectful attitude' as the facts of what happened during their stay in Praia da Luz. According to public statements on TV, on the radio and in the press, and indeed in Gerry McCann's own blog, the McCanns left their children night after night on their own in Praia da Luz whilst they were out eating and drinking. Six nights in a row, and no mention of 'checking every half-hour' -until we get to what is claimed to have happened on the evening of 3rd May. These were three very young children, all aged under 4.

Anything could have happened. They could have woken up and become frightened. They could have had a fall, wandering about in the dark. Fire could have broken out. In many similar cases, the parents have been prosecuted and either fined, placed on community service orders, or even imprisoned. I cannot understand why Leicestershire Social Services and Leicestershire Police have failed to prosecute in this case.

British law which covers this is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which covers such things as leaving very young children unattended. Various categories of neglect are classed in this Act as 'child neglect' or 'child cruelty'. You can get a copy of it on the Net.

In recent weeks in the U.K, parents were successfully prosecuted for leaving a toddler alone in a car for just half-an-hour. In another case, the parents went out all night drinking leaving a 9-year-old on his own .He was found wandering the streets the next day looking for them. Again, they were successfully prosecuted. So why not the McCanns?

TruthForMadeleine: Do you think Kate and Gerry are receiving top-level support from the upper echelons of British society?

Tony Bennett: Well, we know for certain that Gerry McCann had several conversations with Gordon Brown about his missing daughter, just before he became our Prime Minister. And we learnt that it was 'only after an intervention by Gordon Brown' that the Portuguese police - most reluctantly and perhaps against their better judgment - allowed Gerry McCann to make that strange announcement of a possible description of an abductor.

Virtually all we were told by Mr. McCann was that the abductor was a man of about 5' 7" of medium build. The Portuguese police wanted nothing to do with it, as this description was based entirely on a dubious description given by his friend Jane Tanner which lacked credibility for a number of reasons. Yet it was Gordon Brown's initiative that persuaded the Portuguese police to go along with Gerry McCann giving out even this scarcely credible description.

More recently, our new Home Secretary, the inexperienced Jacqui Smith, called on the Portuguese police to 'find Madeleine' and 'focus on the search for Madeleine' etc. instead of bothering the McCanns. I found this most odd, given that the McCanns are prime suspects in what may turn out to be a suspicious death, and that the McCanns had refused to answer the police's questions, despite repeatedly maintaining to the world that they had 'nothing to hide'.

Why did she not simply say: "I advise the McCanns to co-operate fully with the police and answer their questions"?

We than have to consider that two high-profile millionaires, Sir Richard Branson and Brian Kennedy, have promised large amounts of help towards the McCanns' legal fees. On top of that, the British media has totally failed to analyse this case properly and seems to lean favourably towards the latest press releases and 'spin' from the McCanns' PR man, Clarence Mitchell. Again, another cause of concern is that prior to helping the McCanns, Mr. Mitchell was the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit at our Foreign Office.

There may be much that we don't know going on behind the scenes of this compelling drama being played out before our very eyes. But it might be a reasonable guess that the British government for one reason or another might be putting pressure on the Portuguese police to drop this case.

After all, Gordon Brown admitted he had discussed the case with the Portuguese government when he was in Lisbon for the European Union summit in October.

TruthForMadeleine: Do you have any thoughts or explanations as to why the McCanns would have wanted to hire Michael Caplan QC?

Tony Bennett: Michael Caplan Q.C. became famous as the lawyer engaged to represent General Pinochet, the former dictator of Chile. He was in Great Britain and the Chilean government wanted him extradited to Chile on account of those killed or missing during the repression under his government. Caplan is an expert in extradition proceedings. It is possible that the Portuguese government may require the McCanns to return to Portugal for further questioning, or to face trial.

In that case, under internationally-agreed European Union procedures, they would issue what is called a 'European Arrest Warrant'. No doubt Caplan would be about the best person in Britain to help the McCanns to resist such an application.

TruthForMadeleine: If the McCanns are charged and subsequently found guilty, what are the implications of that for the Madeleine Fund?

Tony Bennett: The 'Find Madeleine Fund' was founded on the basis that it was to help find Madeleine and then to help other abducted children. It was set up not as a charity but as a private limited liability trust - the Find Madeleine Fund Trust. It is therefore technically answerable to no-one, except that it has to file a summary of their accounts at Companies House each year - nothing too onerous.

After the McCanns had already collected a large amount of money from private donations, they then announced that the Trustees had decided that the Fund could be used to 'help the McCann family with expenses'. This has already been used to pay two of the McCanns' mortgage payments on their house, amounting to £4,000, emphatically NOT what people gave the money for.

As I understand it, the running of the Fund would be basically unaffected if they were charged with an offence; after all, you are deemed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. But if they were to be found guilty of murder, manslaughter or even lesser offences like disposing of a body or perverting the course of justice, that would suggest that the whole of the Find Madeleine Fund had been a deliberate fraud from the word 'go' (as I personally believe today).

In that case, I would expect the McCanns to be prosecuted in this country for 'obtaining money by deception'. And it's a large amount of money too. About £2 million has been donated to the Fund to date.

TruthForMadeleine: From your own independent research have you found any anomalies you'd like to share with us?

Tony Bennett: One point that sticks out a mile is the number of straightforward contradictions in the case - and the number of times the McCanns and others have had to change their stories. These are two tell-tale signs of dishonesty and a cover-up of the truth.

In recounting events of any one incident, there may of course be minor inconsistencies in people's recollections, one always has to allow for that. But not major contradictions.

To give just one example, the McCanns originally claimed to their relatives and to the police that the apartment shutter had been 'jemmied open' by the abductor. The McCanns and their spokesmen claimed at the time that the abductor climbed in through the window, after forcing open the shutters, and then unlocked the patio door and walked out of that with Madeleine.

But when it became abundantly clear from what both the police and Mark Warner's said about the shutters NOT having been forced, the McCanns craftily changed their version of events to say that they now thought the abductor came through the patio door (which they now thought was unlocked rather than locked), and climbed out of the window with Madeleine.

Moreover, Gerry McCann now claims that when he supposedly checked on his children at 9.05pm (I am personally doubtful that he did), he popped his head round the door but couldn't recall if he saw Madeleine sleeping. He now adds that he thinks the abductor was hiding behind the door, quietly, as he checked (!).

Unbelievable, really, but this change of theory was really forced on the McCanns when their original claims that the shutters had been forced open were exposed as untrue.

Either their first story was untrue. Or the 'new' story. Or, of course, both.

There were reports in September that the Portuguese police were trying to work out where Madeleine was during a 'missing six hours' between about 2pm in the afternoon and 8pm that evening. I'd advise those looking at the anomalies in this case to consider that all the reported 'sightings' we have been told about by third parties concerning Madeleine that afternoon may be untrue.

We cannot even be certain that Kate McCann's 'last photograph' of Madeleine, reportedly at 2.29pm, is genuine. There have been claims that Madeleine may have been 'added in' using Photoshop techniques, from another photograph, and even that the time may be a forgery. Nothing is quite what it seems in this bizarre case.

I would also advise that there is a high degree of probability that most of the statements made by the McCanns and the rest of the 'Tapas 9' about events from 8pm to 10pm on 3rd May are untrue. There are many tell-tale signs that their stories are made up.

Look for example at Jane Tanner's original 'sighting' of a man with an egg-shaped head, possibly carrying something in a blanket. Then, three weeks later, to suit the needs of the McCanns, she comes up with a sudden recollection of far more details than before - a child in pink pyjamas etc.

And I don't for one minute buy Dr Russell O'Brien's excuse for why he was so late at the table that night. He says that his child was vomiting so badly that he had to make sure she was all right - and order a change of sheets. Then, we are told, he comes down to the Tapas bar, to join his mates in a drinking session. Either he is lying, or he is a cruel man. And I would like to know the REAL reason why there had to be a change of sheets that night.

There are many many more anomalies in this case. Sadly, there is much more good quality information about this case on Internet blogs and forums than there is in our newspapers. No wonder their sales are plummeting.