I have not had time to perform a proper investigation on the following media report, so please treat my words with some caution.
Roderick McDonald is portrayed as a convicted paedophile, who may have been in Portugal at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance, who was deported in 2010 to Australia, fled to Thailand and was convicted of offences occurring in Brighton, before fleeing to Malta. (I think that is how it goes.) He is now to be extradited to the UK.
The Daily Mirror report is at http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/convicted-paedophile-believed-been-portugal-4436989
Note the headline says ‘believed to have been in Portugal’. He seems to have raped a girl aged 8 and got a plea-deal of 6 months (what?) before being deported to Australia (why Australia?). Trying to dig through the report, I can see nothing that suggests he had a record before 2010.
In March 2014, the Daily Mirror’s paedophile focus was on David Reid, who apparently was convicted of offences in Northern Ireland before ‘fleeing’ to Portugal (later changed to moving before the paedophile register was set up). David Reid was reported as living in Carvoeiro, around 30 miles from Luz, at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance, and it seems he was dead at the time the article was written.
I have not examined the paedophile angle in any great detail yet. However, I have looked a pamalam’s “missing records” section and the main reason, by far and away, that documents were not released to the public by the PJ was purported links to paedophilia.
The explanation for not releasing this was that these links had been investigated and had been found not to be related to the Madeleine McCann case.
Whether you accept or dispute this explanation is for you to determine. Here is what the known evidence suggests.
First, the number of pages excluded from publication re paedophilia, according to pamalam’s inventory, is large. It is not a tiny fragment of the files.
Second, the document titles suggest that most of the missing documents are lists of paedophile suspects, i.e. names and addresses, as opposed to interviews or diligence conducted that excludes them from consideration. If this is correct, the number of paedophiles under consideration is large. And if so, this could turn into an endless stream of Madeleine-snatched-by paedophile stories, whether any has a grain of truth or not.
Third, it has to be hoped that Scotland Yard has access to uncensored files i.e. the full files that the Portuguese police were working with. Only then will they know whether a particular person was on the list or was not. Only then will they know whether the reason for exclusion makes some sort of sense, or whether they have to repeat this exercise in a painstaking manner.
To reiterate, I have not considered the paedophile angle in any great detail so far, therefore my conclusions are initial and subject to revision.