Portugal MADELEINE McCANN: Missing from Praia da Luz, Portugal - 3 May 2007 - Age 3 (1 Viewer)

Madeleine Beth McCann (born 12 May 2003) disappeared on the evening of 3 May 2007 from her bed in a holiday apartment at a resort in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of Portugal. Her whereabouts remain unknown.[3] The Daily Telegraph described the disappearance as "the most heavily reported missing-person case in modern history".[4]

Madeleine was on holiday from the UK with her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann; her two-year-old twin siblings; and a group of family friends and their children. She and the twins had been left asleep at 20:30 in the ground-floor apartment, while the McCanns and friends dined in a restaurant 55 metres (180 ft) away.[5] The parents checked on the children throughout the evening, until Madeleine's mother discovered she was missing at 22:00.

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Scotland Yard Reveal Latest Findings in Search for Madeleine

In a world exclusive with the BBC, Scotland Yard reveals their latest findings in the search for Madeleine McCann

findmadeleine.com

MADELEINE McCANN: Missing from Praia da Luz, Portugal - 3 May 2007 - Age 3

Madeleine Beth McCann (born 12 May 2003) disappeared on the evening of 3 May 2007 from her bed in a holiday apartment at a resort in Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of Portugal. Her whereabouts remain unknown.[3]

www.crimewatchers.net

 

[Guess Who]

Latest update.

Alleged stalking did not impact McCanns daily lives says defence

The defence case for Julia Wandelt and Karen Spragg has been set out at Leicester Crown Court.

www.bbc.com

Isaac Ashe
Leicester

• • Published
    4 November 2025

The alleged stalking campaign of a woman who believes she is missing Madeleine McCann had little real impact on the day-to-day lives of Gerry and Kate McCann, her defence team has argued.
Addressing the trial at Leicester Crown Court, Tom Price KC, representing Polish national Julia Wandelt, said his client only approached the McCanns as a last resort.
He said: "It's a tragedy of this case that the McCanns have had to live with interference in their lives since 2007, but when you examine what impact her actions have had you will see it wasn't that much."
Both Miss Wandelt and co-accused Karen Spragg deny stalking Gerry and Kate McCann.
Mr Price said the first contact made by his client to Glenfield Hospital and Operation Grange in June 2022 did not affect the McCanns, and was made with a genuine hope to answer "complex questions about her background".
He said Miss Wandelt had contacted 23 different organisations including in the UK, Poland, and Portugal including police and Interpol, missing persons charities and the Find Madeleine website.
He said: "When she contacted the McCanns, she had tried everyone else. This is a woman at the end of her tether."

He argued the Metropolitan Police's Operation Grange did not treat her approach seriously, with his client ruled out within 24 hours of contacting them.
"She just wants the certainty of a DNA test, it could have been done, it was not done," he said.
There was no concern relayed to police by the McCanns when they became aware of Miss Wandelt's claims through a routine operational meeting, Mr Price said.
After messaging became direct, Mr Price said there was never "malevolence" and that all the numbers she contacted were publicly available after being leaked in the Portuguese police files.
He said: "We never see, do we, any threats of violence, there's no swearing, nothing of that type.
"This is not wicked. This is the confused behaviour of a rather sad and pathetic young woman."
e source,PA Media
The disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007 has never been solved

When she visited the public vigil for Madeleine McCann in May 2024, she was "polite" he said, and the following day she visited a police station, "not the behaviour of a woman who's done something wrong".

When Kate McCann raised the matter with police after her visit to Rothley, it was two years on, Mr Price said, while police had also taken no formal action.
Before the visit to the McCann's home in December 2024, the victims were "just getting on with things" he said.
He argued that when confronting the McCanns at their family home alongside co-defendant Karen Spragg, his client "didn't shout, didn't swear" and when Mrs Spragg raised her voice "she said don't speak to her like that".
He added that "half an hour later" the victims had "waited for them to clear off" and were "in a car going to a party".
Mr Price said: "It doesn't sound as though it is something that is disrupting their lifestyle."
He said Miss Wandelt's actions had not been for any personal gain, other than to find out her identity.
"She's somebody who's absolutely ripe to be taken advantage of. And what has she got out of it? All she's got out of it is a period in custody and a restraining order," Mr Price said.

'The lost Madeleine'​

Karen Spragg's solicitor Simon Russell Flint KC said his client's "sole purpose once she became involved was to find out whether Julia Wandelt might be the missing Madeleine McCann, the abducted Madeleine McCann, the lost Madeleine McCann".

After reaching out following Miss Wandelt's appearance on a YouTube broadcast in September 2024, she "supported" and "believed" Miss Wandelt and wanted to know the truth of her claims - but did not "encourage", said Mr Russell Flint.

He said: "If you ask how a child can disappear, seemingly into thin air, are you then a conspiracy theorist?"

He said Mrs Spragg's "purpose was not to cause upset to the McCanns" and when she became involved in 2024, there was no DNA evidence to disprove her theory.
Mr Russell Flint said: "It was not until after Julia Wandelt's arrest, nearly three years after she had first asked and months and months after others started asking, police finally did what they had been asked.

"Before that nobody could have stood up and said with complete certainty and said Julia Wandelt is not Madeleine McCann, and that's a real irony of this case.
"It's the very test that Julia Wandelt, Karen Spragg and others had been begging to be carried out."
ge source,Joe Giddens - WPA ool/Getty Imag
Mr Russell Flint said it was "obvious" that his client posed no risk to the McCanns, as she was only arrested when Miss Wandelt flew back into to the UK in February.

Julia Wandelt, 24, of Jana Kochanowskiego in Lubin, Poland, and Karen Spragg, 61, of Caerau Court Road, Cardiff, deny stalking the McCanns causing serious alarm and distress between June 2022 to February 2025.

The trial continues.

How tone deaf can they be?

 

[Tresir]

How tone deaf can they be?

Who are you talking about? Their lawyers?

 

[Guess Who]

Who are you talking about? Their lawyers?

Her lawyers.

 

[GrandmaBear]

So the previous post sums the facts up well.

Julia went to the vigil, which was a public event so that cannot be stalking. Karen had not even contacted Julia at that point.

In Dec '24, the two met and visited the McCann's house. After half an hour the McCanns left to attend a function.

In February '25, when Julia returned to the UK, she was arrested and imprisoned. So there were no further incidents.

This doesn't seem to amount to stalking IMO but as she has already been in prison for 10 months, I think whatever the verdict, she will be released.
I think Karen may be found not guilty.

I therefore don't think there will be any jail time.

Waste of the court's time IMO.

I can't agree with you on this one. They were calling and messaging, at times nonstop.

When one is being stalked or harassed by an unwelcome individual, it is life affecting. You wonder if it will be them again on the other end of the phone, you are scared to check your messages because what will be next, you wonder if they are watching, following, will show up. They messaged their daughter, stalked their social media.

It might be stalking, or harassing, but regardless of what it fits, it is wrong.

 

[Guess Who]

I can't agree with you on this one. They were calling and messaging, at times nonstop.

When one is being stalked or harassed by an unwelcome individual, it is life affecting. You wonder if it will be them again on the other end of the phone, you are scared to check your messages because what will be next, you wonder if they are watching, following, will show up. They messaged their daughter, stalked their social media.

It might be stalking, or harassing, but regardless of what it fits, it is wrong.

Yes. When you are told to leave and don't come back, the proper thing to do is to leave and don't come back, and not to have to repeatedly be told to do so

 

[Tresir]

Her lawyers.

What about Spragg's lawyer?

 

[Tresir]

I can't agree with you on this one. They were calling and messaging, at times nonstop.

When one is being stalked or harassed by an unwelcome individual, it is life affecting. You wonder if it will be them again on the other end of the phone, you are scared to check your messages because what will be next, you wonder if they are watching, following, will show up. They messaged their daughter, stalked their social media.

It might be stalking, or harassing, but regardless of what it fits, it is wrong.

We'll see what the jury think. It shouldn't be long now. Either way she has already served her sentence. I think 6 months is the recommended sentence for a first offence. Not sure about Spragg, as she has a conviction for slapping someone, although the jury won't know about that, it could affect sentencing.

 

[Tresir]

Her lawyers.

She doesn't have multiple lawyers. They have one lawyer each AFAIK.

 

[Tresir]

I can't agree with you on this one. They were calling and messaging, at times nonstop.

When one is being stalked or harassed by an unwelcome individual, it is life affecting. You wonder if it will be them again on the other end of the phone, you are scared to check your messages because what will be next, you wonder if they are watching, following, will show up. They messaged their daughter, stalked their social media.

It might be stalking, or harassing, but regardless of what it fits, it is wrong.

I'm not saying it is right but if I was on the jury, this is what i would think based on what i have heard. I don't think it amounts to stalking, maybe harassment at the most. I mean they are still looking for their daughter presumably.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I'm not saying it is right but if I was on the jury, this is what i would think based on what i have heard. I don't think it amounts to stalking, maybe harassment at the most. I mean they are still looking for their daughter presumably.

Yeah, we just don't see it the same way at all I guess.

It doesn't matter that they are looking for their daughter, she doesn't fit the bill and they are satisfied she is not Madeline. Even if they wondered if she was, it would be fine for them to want to use an in between, LE, until satisfied she was and not just some loony. None of that has to do with what they are doing. They are not on trial, she is.

I'm no McCann fan but this is still wrong. I hope they get some serious consequence from this so that they stop.

 

[Tresir]

These are the UK legal definitons of both stalking and harassment. I have bolded the special circumstances that do not seem to be present here IMO. Hence my opinion.

In the UK, both stalking and harassment are illegal courses of conduct that involve repeatedly behaving in a way that makes someone feel scared, distressed, or threatened. Stalking is an aggravated form of harassment involving a fixated, obsessive, and unwanted pattern of behavior, which can include following someone, monitoring their online activity, or repeatedly contacting them. Harassment is a broader term for a pattern of unwanted behavior, which can include sending abusive messages or making unwanted phone calls. Both offenses require the behavior to occur at least twice.

Harassment

• Definition: A course of conduct that causes another person alarm or distress.
• Examples:
  • Sending abusive text messages or images
  • Posting abusive messages on social media
  • Making unwanted or offensive phone calls
  • Repeatedly being the subject of neighbor disputes with abusive behavior
  • Repeatedly engaging in antisocial behavior

Stalking

• Definition: An aggravated form of harassment involving a persistent pattern of unwanted, fixated, and obsessive behavior that causes a victim to fear violence or suffer serious alarm and distress.
• Examples:
  • Persistently following someone
  • Repeatedly going uninvited to their home or loitering in places they frequent
  • Monitoring their use of the internet, email, or other electronic communications
  • Spreading false information or rumors about them
  • Sending unwanted gifts or messages
  • Interfering with their property

 

[GrandmaBear]

These are the UK legal definitons of both stalking and harassment.

In the UK, both stalking and harassment are illegal courses of conduct that involve repeatedly behaving in a way that makes someone feel scared, distressed, or threatened. Stalking is an aggravated form of harassment involving a fixated, obsessive, and unwanted pattern of behavior, which can include following someone, monitoring their online activity, or repeatedly contacting them. Harassment is a broader term for a pattern of unwanted behavior, which can include sending abusive messages or making unwanted phone calls. Both offenses require the behavior to occur at least twice.

Harassment

• Definition: A course of conduct that causes another person alarm or distress.
• Examples:
  • Sending abusive text messages or images
  • Posting abusive messages on social media
  • Making unwanted or offensive phone calls
  • Repeatedly being the subject of neighbor disputes with abusive behavior
  • Repeatedly engaging in antisocial behavior

Stalking

• Definition: An aggravated form of harassment involving a persistent pattern of unwanted, fixated, and obsessive behavior that causes a victim to fear violence or suffer serious alarm and distress.
• Examples:
  • Persistently following someone
  • Repeatedly going uninvited to their home or loitering in places they frequent
  • Monitoring their use of the internet, email, or other electronic communications
  • Spreading false information or rumors about them
  • Sending unwanted gifts or messages
  • Interfering with their property

Both fit this case imo.

 

[Tresir]

Both fit this case imo.

They only visited their home once. Phone calls were repetitive but werent abusive as they werent answered.

That's where we differ. My opinion is that the behaviour wasnt repeated and wasn't abusive anyway. The offence requires that, for it to be stalking and harassment.

 

[Tresir]

Jury retired 2 hours ago.

Jury retires in trial of women alleged to have stalked Kate and Gerry McCann

Leicester Crown Court has heard four weeks of evidence about the allegedly ‘cruel’ behaviour of Julia Wandelt and Karen Spragg.

www.irishnews.com

Jurors in the trial of two women accused of stalking Madeleine McCann’s parents have retired to consider their verdicts.

Prosecutors allege Polish national Julia Wandelt, 24, and her co-defendant Karen Spragg stalked Kate and Gerry McCann between June 2022 and February this year by turning up at the couple’s home, making phone calls and sending them messages.
Wandelt is accused of wrongly claiming to be Madeleine, whose 2007 disappearance in Portugal has not been solved, while stalking the girl’s parents, causing serious alarm and distress.

Julia Wandelt addressing jurors during her trial (Elizabeth Cook/PA)

Spragg, of Caerau Court Road in Caerau, Cardiff, and Wandelt both deny the charge against them.

​

The Crown put forward “unequivocal scientific evidence” from a forensic expert that shows Wandelt, from Lubin in south-west Poland, does not match Madeleine’s DNA profile and she has no familial link to the McCanns.

Wandelt told Leicester Crown Court she had childhood memories of being with the McCann family, including playing ring-a-ring-a-roses and feeding Madeleine’s younger brother Sean, as well as memories of being abducted and abused.

The Polish national is also alleged to have banged on the door of the couple’s Leicestershire address, attended a vigil for Madeleine, and sent social media messages to Sean McCann and his twin sister Amelie.

The day after both defendants attended the McCanns’ home last December, the couple received a letter from Wandelt which said “Dear Mum (Kate)” and was signed “Lots of love, Madeleine”, the court heard.

Spragg is accused of assisting Wandelt by leaving messages for Mrs McCann, sending emails and “confronting” the couple on their driveway.

The 61-year-old is alleged to have perpetuated conspiracy theories, including by telling police that Mr and Mrs McCann “arranged the kidnapping and the abduction” of their three-year-old daughter.
Karen Spragg arriving at Leicester Crown Court during her trial (Joe Giddens/PA)

In his closing speech to jurors, Crown counsel Michael Duck KC accused Wandelt and Spragg of trying to “impose their will” on the McCanns despite knowing their “cruel and unforgiving” actions in relation to the couple were wrong.

Wandelt’s KC Tom Price urged jurors to acquit her, arguing that she was confused about her parental background and only approached the couple demanding a DNA test when “at the end of her tether”.

Simon Russell Flint KC, defending Spragg, used his speech to submit that Wandelt was on an “increasingly desperate quest” to try to find out and establish who she is.

He said Spragg’s sole purpose had been to find out whether Wandelt “might be the missing Madeleine” and she had been “a true friend” to her co-defendant.

High Court judge Mrs Justice Cutts asked jurors at Leicester Crown Court to begin their deliberations on Wednesday.
She told the jurors: “It’s important that you try to reach a verdict in relation to each defendant which is unanimous. Please do not feel under any pressure of time.”

---

Jury retires in trial of women alleged to have stalked Kate and Gerry McCann​

 

[Tresir]

Another article re the summing up.

Woman accused of stalking Madeleine McCann’s parents ‘confused’, court told

 

[GrandmaBear]

They only visited their home once. Phone calls were repetitive but werent abusive as they werent answered.

That's where we differ. My opinion is that the behaviour wasnt repeated and wasn't abusive anyway. The offence requires that, for it to be stalking and harassment.

If my phone rang repeatedly, I would consider it harassment and an intrusion of my day and it doesn't leave your phone free either if constant.

I've dealt with such things may be our difference.

We will I'm pretty sure continue to differ in this one lol. It will be interesting to see how it ends up.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Another article re the summing up.

Woman accused of stalking Madeleine McCann’s parents ‘confused’, court told

That entire article was defense slanted and all about the defense other than maybe one sentence or so.

Rather than assuming bias, I will assume they watched only the defense talking before writing the article, and never heard the prosecution. Probably not though lol.

 

[Guess Who]

If my phone rang repeatedly, I would consider it harassment and an intrusion of my day and it doesn't leave your phone free either if constant.

I've dealt with such things may be our difference.

We will I'm pretty sure continue to differ in this one lol. It will be interesting to see how it ends up.

Yep. that counts in my book, too. ANY time you are asked to quit doing what you are doing, you don't keep doing it repeatedly without expecting consequences.

 

[Guess Who]

They only visited their home once. Phone calls were repetitive but werent abusive as they werent answered.

That's where we differ. My opinion is that the behaviour wasnt repeated and wasn't abusive anyway. The offence requires that, for it to be stalking and harassment.

Your own words...

Phone calls were repetitive

My opinion is that the behaviour wasnt repeated

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

They only visited their home once. Phone calls were repetitive but werent abusive as they werent answered.

So if someone calls your phone 50 times, it's not abusive if you don't answer it? Pretty sure you don't have to speak to the person to be harassed.