Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.
Madeleine is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her.
She is very young and vulnerable and needs our help.
We love her dearly and miss her beyond words.
Firstly: Who are they asking the question of?
Are they asking themselves why they continue?
Why would they even need to aak this question of themselves?
If they were innocent then they would continue searching till they find her or till they die, it is a natural instinct, one that does not need to be questioned.
Are they asking us?
That they are asking it makes it sensitive to them.Is the sensitivity due to guilt or something else?
Guilt would be the main reason since why would a guilty person search for their victim when instinct would be to distance themselves from the dump area.
The exception being those who want to make sure nothing has been disturbed either by weather or predation or other environmental concerns, another would be to gloat, to relieve the crime perhaps even to commit further abuse.
Other to dump their next victim.
Some perhaps even to apologise or celebrate a life event such as the killers of Kiesha Abrahams who went to her dump site to wish her a happy birthday.
The killers were her mom and stepdad.
It it perhaps sensitivity due to them not having physically searched as per kate mccann's interview.
Thier subsequent refusal to take part in police reconstructions or fully co-operate with the PJ or, in kate's case, the refusal to answer the 48 questions despite admitting on question 49 when told by not answering the questions she was hindering the investigation, to which she replied "Yes, if that's what the investigation thinks"
There is also the sensitivity about the fund.
Is the only reason they are continuing is so they can continue to get donations and live the lifestyle to which they would like to become accustomed?
If they discontinue then the fund comes to an end.
No more donations.
No donations and a bucketload of legal fees to pay off means pauperville in their eyes
Secondly: Absolutely is a qualifier, a word that when removed, doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
Here they claim there is absolutely nothing to suggest Madeleine has been harmed.
This
is a blatant lie since Maddie is still missing plus we have the reaction of the cadaver dogs in the
apartment and hire and to items of clothing and cuddlecat.
We also have the presence of blood and body fluids in the apartment as well as her DNA in the hire car.
Blood which would cause an innocent parent to fear their child was injured.
Body
fluids which would also cause an innocent parent to not only fear their
child had been injured but would also cause them the terror of
wondering if their child had been killed and if they had suffered.
Instead
we have them coming up with implausible explanations for why blood and
body fluids and DNA were found from nosebleeds, to sweaty sandals,
rotting meat, fish, dirty diapers and kate dealing with several corpses
before the vacation.
Madeleine was harmed simply by being removed from her family. they claim absolutely no evidence of harm despite acknowledging the
blood and body fluids and DNA in the hire car by coming up with
explanations
WE have kate relaxing when she saw the dogs reacting and telling us it was junk science.
This is unexpected.
The expected from an innocent parent would be to ask what it meant?
Did it mean their child had been hurt?
Did it mean their child was dead?
It would cause hysteria as the innocent parents confronts their worst fears.
Instead we have kate ignoring the reactions and responses and thus the implications.
Why would she do this?
Is it because she knows what happened to Maddie and seeks to minimise and ignore the reactions of the dogs?
This is the behavior of the guilty or those with guilty knowledge.
Demean and pour scorn on the investigators and the investigation.
Thirdly: We then have them telling us SOMEONE needs to be looking for her.
This is telling in that they they don't say they (WE) need to be looking for her.
The onus is not on the parents to keep looking instead it is on the wider world to look.
Someone needs excludes themselves which is unexpected.
Why would they not need to be looking for their daughter?
Is it because they know where she is and thus they do not need to look?
Is it because looking for her would result in consequences to them?
If she were found dead and they were innocent, there would be no
consequences to them, they would be able to give her a dignified burial and be allowed to grieve.
If however she were found dead and they were guilty, then there would be consequences.
it would explain their passivity and non urgency in relation to searching.
It would also explain their non co-operation and rampant litigation.
The
finding of Maddie brings consequences to the mccanns and probably the
tapas 7 as well, along with clarrie for perverting the course of
justice and obstruction at a minimum.
They could also possibly faces charges of accessories after the fact.
Fourthly: They tell us she is young and vulnerable and needs their help.
Yet they have done everything in their power not to help.
They refused to cooperate with the police.
Refused to answer 48 questions - kate
Refused
to take part in a police reconstruction via the tapas 7 setting so many
demands and restrictions it was not possible for it to take place.
Ran back to the UK as soon as they were made arguidos and promptly hired high class and expensive extradition lawyers.
Sued or threatened to sue anyone who didn't agree with their version of events.
If that is them helping, i would hate to see what their hindering would be like.
Finally We love her dearly and miss her beyond words.
Actions speak stronger than words.
If they love and miss her so much, why have they done everything they can to hinder and obstruct the investigation?
If they love her and miss her so much, can we expect them to answer all questions asked of them including the 48 kate refused to answer despite admitting by not answering it hindered the search?
Can we expect them and all the tapas 7 group to take part in a police reconstruction?
Can we expect them to cooperate unreservedely with the PJ and Scotland Yard?
Can we expect to actually physically search for their daughter?
Can we expect them to use the fund to put up a reward for the recovery of Maddie dead or alive and/or the arrest and prosecution of those involved in her murder, disposal of her remains and subsequent cover up?
Currently i do not think there is any reward since the NOTW went bosoms up and they provided £250,000 of it with the rest of the £2.5 million coming from Richard Branson, Steven Winyard, Sir Philip Green and Everton FC owner Bill Kenwright.
It was also reported that the NOTW gave the money from the reward to the fund in April 2011
From a press officer
Thank you for your enquiry.
I can confirm
that the funds raised by the appeal were donated in April this year
(2011) to the official Madeleine Fund and the fund created by News of
the World is no longer active.
Since the reward was donated to the fund, why has the fund not used said money to offer a reward?
Is it because the fund is instead being used to pay all their legal fees and also possible fines and compensation from their failed lawsuits?
The Thoughts And Ponderings Of A Hobnob
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
5J and the Rotting Meat and Vegetables - A Possible Explanation?
Subject: Report of Searches Related to the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Annex B – Report on the Sniffer Dog Search and Rescue Team
I. Methods used
The sniffer dog search and rescue team of the GNR was sent to Vila da Luz in the attempt of locating Madeleine McCann, aged four, of British nationality, who disappeared on the night of 3rd May, from apartment 5 A, Block 5 of the OC resort, the team was composed as follows:
Sargeant Silva – Dog: Timmy
Cabo (Officer) Cortez – Dog: Sacha
Cabo (Officer) Sousa – Dog: Kolly/Cookie
Cabo (Officer) Rosa – Dog: Oscar
Sold. (Soldier) Martins – Dog: Fusco
Sold. (Soldier) Fernandes – Dog: Rex/ Zarus
II Description of action
After the first three members of the team arrived at the scene, the officers gathered some information from the girl's parents about the places they tended to frequent with the children during their stay in Praia da Luz up until now, the parents replied that the only areas that their daughter would frequent since their arrival, was Praia da Luz beach, always accompanied by babysitters and resort pool area, where there was also a playground.
After this, at about 08h00 the three search and rescue sniffer dog teams (Silva with Timmy, Cortez with Sacha and Sousa with Kolly and Cookie) who had arrived at the site, began searching, leaving the resort in the direction of the beach.
During the entire morning, searches were made of the beach and rocks, from Rocha Negra to the area of Ponta da Gaviota (an approximate area of 2 km). During the morning searches were also made of the areas surrounding Praia da Luz, with a radius of about 300 metres, as well as some abandoned houses, wells and plots of land inside Praia da Luz.
After an evaluation of the situation in the field, it was decided to request two more search and rescue sniffer dogs from the GNR Queluz station, given the extent of the terrain to be searched, whilst the hypothesis that the girl could have left the apartment on foot was not discarded.
During the afternoon of 4th May, more searches were carried out around Vila da Luz and were extended to a radius of approximately 600 metres, including the surroundings of the EN125 in the stretch closed to Praia da Luz.
At about 23h00 the extra teams that had been requested for reinforcement arrived (Officer Rosa with Oscar and Officer Martins with Fusco, both from the search and rescue unit and Officer Fernandes with Rex and Zarus from the tracking team).
After the officers had been updated about facts relating to the disappearance, they tried to reconstruct the route the girl might have taken with the two tracker dogs. For this purpose the dogs were given a blanket to sniff, provided by the parents, which had been used by Madeleine.
Beginning to follow the track using Rex, from the door of apartment 5 A (the place where the girl had been sleeping) he would always head in the direction of Block 4, leaving block 5 the dog would turn to the left, pass by a metal access door to a path existing between the apartments blocks to the leisure area (restaurant, pool and playground). Immediately another attempt at reconstruction was made using the dog Zarus, who, in general terms, ended up following the same route as Rex and having the same behavior.
It is important to state that this tracking work was carried out in an urban area and more than 24 hours after the girl's disappearance and numerous persons had passed along the path the dogs were tracking. It should also be stated that the path the dogs followed within the resort was practically totally surrounded by walls and the concentration of odors was stronger as they were protected from the wind. The searches finished at about 01h30.
On 5th May at about 08h00 after a briefing, two teams consisting of 3 dogs each accompanied by officers from Portimao, again carried out searches in the whole of the Vila da Luz area, with an approximate radius of 2 kilometres, paying special attention to the rocky areas, abandoned houses, wells, drains, road verges etc..including plots of land within Praia da Luz.
During part of the afternoon, searches were carried out in the Turiscampo camping site situated next to Espiche on the EN125 and in the Orbitur camping site next to Vila da Luz. This search operation had the objective of checking all the bungalows whose occupants had left on the day of the disappearance or on the following day as well as the adjacent areas.
During the day the searches were extended using the method of searching in file, accompanied by officers from Portimao, from the Praia da Luz area following the rocks up to Ponta da Cama da Vaca, taking in all of the northern zone to the EN125 as well as the village of Almadena, the Vale Verde zone and Quatro Estradas, some of the areas had already been searched more than once.
At about 22h00 all the vehicles parked in Vila da Luz parking spaced were checked.
On 6th May at about 08h00 and after another briefing from the Operational Command Post, it was decided that on that day they would again search all the plots of land with thick undergrowth within Praia da Luz, but that this time the search sections were divided amongst the teams. For this purpose the same teams of three dogs together with officers from Portimao who had been selected to help using the method of searching in file, carried out searches in all abandoned buildings, wells, rocks, verges of the EN125 and land surrounding Praia da Luz, in some cases reaching distances of 2 km.
On 7th May the same searches were continued, being extended to to the entire northern part of Almadena to the site of Espojeiro and the verges of the EN125 until the Boi valley.
At about 19h00 the undersigned officer, accompanied by the Commander, Officer Silva, took part in a meetings with the PJ Directorate, being asked by the PJ about the viability of giving the girl’s clothes to the dogs for the dogs to sniff again, and if by means of the odor inhaled, they would be able to mark an identical odor in one of the resort’s apartments even though its door was closed.
With regard to this task, Officer Silva referred to the fact that the time that had passed would be a crucial condition for the dogs' work in obtaining results and that the entirety of the human odors existing in the apartments and access paths could make the dogs' searches very difficult. However, in spite of not being a normal situation for tracking, it could be attempted, whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned.
In this concrete situation, the objective would be for the dogs to carry out a discontinuous search, in other words, to sniff the girl’s clothes and immediately search near to the apartments, checking to see if there was any change in the behavior of the dogs.
At about 23h00 accompanied by a PJ inspector, the searches were begun. After Rex was given the girl's clothing to sniff, he began to search on the ground floor of block 5 and when he passed the door of apartment 5A (the place the girl had disappeared from) according to his handler, officer Fernandes, the dog altered its behavior, sniffing with greater intensity than he had done before. Apartment 5J of the same block was also checked as the dog had been more agitated than before as if there were a very strong strange odor there. It was stated that this apartment had been unoccupied for some time. Afterwards, the same kind of search was carried out using the dog Zarus which in general terms showed the same behavior in the same places as Rex had done.
It was only when all the searches of the apartments in blocks 4 and 5 were complete, that the behavior described above was registered. It is certain that this kind of work does not correspond to the area that these dogs were trained in, but given that these types of dogs manage to discriminate a specific odor from others, although it could be a remote possibility that they related the odor of the missing girl with a possible location where she could have been.
On 8th May during the morning four teams returned to search all the areas around Vila, following some indications from local people who had frequently gone to the GNR Command post saying they had seen something suspicious related to the disappearance but no sign of her presence was ever found.
During the afternoon searches along the verges of the EN125 were continued from Boi valley to Figueira and the whole northern part of Budens.
On the following days the strategy adopted was to continue to extend the perimeter of the searches to the villages of Barao de S Miguel and Burgau, Barao de S Joao, Bensafrim and Salema. Searches were carried out in all of these locations, as well as adjacent land, vegetation, abandoned houses, wells and main roads.
On 10th May at about 20h10, upon the request of the PJ, searches were carried out in all of the apartments belonging to blocks 4 and 5 of the OC, two tracker dogs and two search and rescue dogs being used for this operation, adopting the same methods as those used on 7th May, just that this time the apartments were all open and searched one by one, being accompanied by a representative from the resort, who had the keys to all the apartments (apart from those not under her administration) and also with the objective of helping with the searches. The collaboration of all the guests occupying the apartments at that time was requested for this purpose and those apartments that were found to be empty were opened by the administrator.
All the apartments were searched by the dogs and when they arrived at apartment 5J they began to sniff with intensity at the entrance door. During this behavior it was noted by the PJ officers that there must be some unusual odor, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odor being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside.
After entering the apartment, it was observed that the odor came from close to the fridge, which was open and contained some rotting meat and vegetables.
During the searches carried out in the apartments no sign of the girl was found by the dogs.
On 11th May in the morning, the team went to Odiaxere to visit a forest near the Boavista golf course. The whole forest was searched using the in file method, including some abandoned houses, wells and rail track.
After lunch the team was told that the searches were concluded but that their presence in Praia da Luz would continue to be necessary according to the requirements of the PJ for any other situations that might occur.
On 15th May three search and rescue dogs returned to Lisbon (Officer Cortes with Sacha, Officer Rosa with Oscar and Officer Martins with Fusco) considering that there was no longer any need for them.
The other dogs and their handlers remained on site until 18th May when at about 19h00 they returned to Cino/EPG as their presence was no longer require in Praia da Luz, although it was determined that if their use were required in the future, they would return.
Signed
30 November 2007
Operation Commander
Major Sequeirahttp://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html
An off the wall possible explanation perhaps?
From what we know and can deduce, Madeleine was frozen or at least kept in a cold environment IE a freezer or fridge.
Is it possible that Maddie was placed in the fridge in 5j for temporary storage?
Since she would take up a lot of the space, the items in said fridge were removed and placed elsewhere in the apartment.
This would allow time for them to come up with a new location which was not likely to be searched or searched again (always the best way to dump a body is somewhere that has already been searched and cleared. If found later the police/searchers are immediately blamed for shoddy work and the defense can claim it wasn't their client since they weren't there or didn't have time to dump them at said site after the crime)
Maddie is kept cold or even partially frozen whilst the food goes off.
Maddie is then moved when they have a new dump site or think the apartment would be searched and there may be incriminating evidence on or in her body.
Once removed, the food is then replaced and the fridge turned off or, if it is knackered , left as.
The dogs react to the smell perhaps cadaverine etc and when the police look all they see is rotten meat and veg.
One would need to ask (well i would) why would there be veg and meat in an empty apartment?
I would also have checked the use by/expiry dates to see how recent the purchases were.
I would also have checked the apartment especially the fridge for prints and DNA and also taken all the veg and meat and had that checked out for prints/DNA etc
If prints or DNA turned up from the mccanns, Maddie or any of the tapas group, i would be asking a lot of awkward questions.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Who Needs Enemies When You Have clarence mitchell On Your Side?
On
11 April 2008, Clarence Mitchell made this bold claim: “Kate and Gerry
have been utterly honest and utterly open with the police and all of
their statements from the moment that Madeleine was taken”. He later
said, referring to himself and the McCanns: ‘We have nothing to hide’.
When addressing a largely student
audience during what were called ‘The Coventry Conversations’, Mitchell
said: “We are always willing to co-operate with the Portuguese police”“Kate
and Gerry have been utterly honest and utterly open with the police and
all of their statements from the moment that Madeleine was
taken
Qualifiers are words which, when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence. here we have the qualifier UTTERLY which weakens the statement, it is repeated twice further weakening the statement and making their honesty and openness with the police highly sensitive.
Mitchell said: “We are always willing to co-operate with the Portuguese police”.
Qualifiers are words which, when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence.
Here he uses the qualifier ALWAYS as well as using the future conditional WILLING.
He doesn't tell us the mccanns are cooperating with the police, only that they are willing.
This willingness is weakened by the qualifier ALWAYS.
Anyone can be always willing to do something, it doesn't mean they will, it depends on the circumstances.
I may be willing to swim the channel, it doesn't mean i will or can.
It would depend on how fit i am , the weather, the cost, support etc.
Why does he include himself in relation to cooperating with the police?
Has he himself been questioned in regard to what he knows regarding Maddie?
As their spokesman, he would be privy to a lot of stuff the mccanns don't want the public and especially the police to know.
What they would be willing to do to cooperate with the police would be based on them not incriminating themselves, guilty knowledge or consequences to themselves and possibly others such as their children.
Given that we know they have been anything but open and honest with the police, kate not answering the 48 questions, them not doing the reconstruction despite being legally obliged to as arguidos, by getting their tapas chums to set so many demands and requirements as to make it impossible to do and thus they don't have to do it.
They lied about the checks, the neglect( the children were all in one apartment being watched by which ever adult who was allegedly sick, they withheld their medical and financial records, hired lawyers first thing and did everything they could to obfuscate, derail and generally stop the investigation in its tracks, even to suing the lead detective (now retired) when he told the world Maddie was dead and they were involved , this is despite both kate and gerry telling the world the same thing.
When they are arrested and charges are laid against them and the tapas 7 , will we see clarrie in the dock as well charged with obstruction and perverting the course of justice?
Every time they, clarrie or their tapas chums or family members open their mouths, more of the truth is leaked out., for which i and many other statement analysts and forensic linguists are eternally grateful.
Qualifiers are words which, when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence. here we have the qualifier UTTERLY which weakens the statement, it is repeated twice further weakening the statement and making their honesty and openness with the police highly sensitive.
Mitchell said: “We are always willing to co-operate with the Portuguese police”.
Qualifiers are words which, when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence.
Here he uses the qualifier ALWAYS as well as using the future conditional WILLING.
He doesn't tell us the mccanns are cooperating with the police, only that they are willing.
This willingness is weakened by the qualifier ALWAYS.
Anyone can be always willing to do something, it doesn't mean they will, it depends on the circumstances.
I may be willing to swim the channel, it doesn't mean i will or can.
It would depend on how fit i am , the weather, the cost, support etc.
Why does he include himself in relation to cooperating with the police?
Has he himself been questioned in regard to what he knows regarding Maddie?
As their spokesman, he would be privy to a lot of stuff the mccanns don't want the public and especially the police to know.
What they would be willing to do to cooperate with the police would be based on them not incriminating themselves, guilty knowledge or consequences to themselves and possibly others such as their children.
Given that we know they have been anything but open and honest with the police, kate not answering the 48 questions, them not doing the reconstruction despite being legally obliged to as arguidos, by getting their tapas chums to set so many demands and requirements as to make it impossible to do and thus they don't have to do it.
They lied about the checks, the neglect( the children were all in one apartment being watched by which ever adult who was allegedly sick, they withheld their medical and financial records, hired lawyers first thing and did everything they could to obfuscate, derail and generally stop the investigation in its tracks, even to suing the lead detective (now retired) when he told the world Maddie was dead and they were involved , this is despite both kate and gerry telling the world the same thing.
When they are arrested and charges are laid against them and the tapas 7 , will we see clarrie in the dock as well charged with obstruction and perverting the course of justice?
Every time they, clarrie or their tapas chums or family members open their mouths, more of the truth is leaked out., for which i and many other statement analysts and forensic linguists are eternally grateful.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
Something To Make You Ponder
I am currently reading the latest Terry Pratchett book A Slip Of The Keyboard and i noticed the very nice picture of Sir Terry adorning the front.cover.
In particular, it was his eyebrows.
I noticed they were decidedly bushy and, like a tree, growing up towards the light.
Like many things in life do, i got to pondering.
Why does the hair on the head of a man migrate south in the winter years of a man's life?
I can see it could be caused by gravity, gently working its magic on the hair and like many things, everything heads south over time.
This would explain the hair growing out from the ears and nose and perhaps to a beard then slowly on to the chest before wending its merry way down to the tootsies.
Gravity doing its thing and hair taking the easiest way out
Why though do eyebrows do the opposite?
Why, instead of following the usual migratory pattern of the greater bald headed homosapien, do they grow upwards and outwards, often in spectacular style, anyone remember Dennis Healey and his eyebrows?
Would we have older men walking around with eyebrows down round their chin and doing a darn good impression of an Old English Sheepdog?
This then led me along the path of what would happen if they weren't tidied up and , were in fact, left to grow au naturel?
Would there come a point where, instead of the normal comb over as often seen on men of a certain age from side to side or, in the more experienced wearer, combed not only side to side but also back to front with clever interweaving of the remain strands a la Donald Trump resulting in a helmet of hair that is virtually indestructible and also having a multitude of partings, a hairy version of Spaghetti Junction. we would see comb overs from the front to the back, making full use of the eyebrows.
Will the cleverer ones have comb overs not only from their eyebrows , but also their ear and nose hairs.
Why not make full use of any hair that is lazing around in the head region?
Heck some could even transplant some of their eyebrows to fill in the bald spots
Could we see mohican punk style eyebrows in a wide variety of colors?
The plus side though is, unlike the traditional combo over which blows around wildly on a slightly breezy day, i would not have the urge to cut the offending flap of wispy hair off and then tell the wearer to never do it again.
I figure i must drink more coffee in the morning before i start doing any thinking
In particular, it was his eyebrows.
I noticed they were decidedly bushy and, like a tree, growing up towards the light.
Like many things in life do, i got to pondering.
Why does the hair on the head of a man migrate south in the winter years of a man's life?
I can see it could be caused by gravity, gently working its magic on the hair and like many things, everything heads south over time.
This would explain the hair growing out from the ears and nose and perhaps to a beard then slowly on to the chest before wending its merry way down to the tootsies.
Gravity doing its thing and hair taking the easiest way out
Why though do eyebrows do the opposite?
Why, instead of following the usual migratory pattern of the greater bald headed homosapien, do they grow upwards and outwards, often in spectacular style, anyone remember Dennis Healey and his eyebrows?
Would we have older men walking around with eyebrows down round their chin and doing a darn good impression of an Old English Sheepdog?
This then led me along the path of what would happen if they weren't tidied up and , were in fact, left to grow au naturel?
Would there come a point where, instead of the normal comb over as often seen on men of a certain age from side to side or, in the more experienced wearer, combed not only side to side but also back to front with clever interweaving of the remain strands a la Donald Trump resulting in a helmet of hair that is virtually indestructible and also having a multitude of partings, a hairy version of Spaghetti Junction. we would see comb overs from the front to the back, making full use of the eyebrows.
Will the cleverer ones have comb overs not only from their eyebrows , but also their ear and nose hairs.
Why not make full use of any hair that is lazing around in the head region?
Heck some could even transplant some of their eyebrows to fill in the bald spots
Could we see mohican punk style eyebrows in a wide variety of colors?
The plus side though is, unlike the traditional combo over which blows around wildly on a slightly breezy day, i would not have the urge to cut the offending flap of wispy hair off and then tell the wearer to never do it again.
I figure i must drink more coffee in the morning before i start doing any thinking
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Kate And The Temptation To Shout The Truth From The Rooftops. What Is Stopping You?
Page 2 of the book Madeleine
"Gerry and I have managed to dig deep and remain focused, although the temptation to shout the truth from the rooftops has always been there".
So kate, what's stopping you?
Clearly your own words tell us you have not told the truth from the get go.
You have been lying.
Why would you, as an 'innocent' mother have the need to lie about what happened to your daughter?
What have you been telling us?
That Maddie was abducted from your apartment by a paedophile.
Now if that isn't the truth dearest kate, pray tell, what is the truth?
Is the truth what we have said all along?
That Maddie is long dead and that you and gerry and your tapas chums are involved in her homicide, concealment of her corpse and filing a false police report.
Is the reason you can't and won't shout the truth from the rooftops because to do so would incriminate you all and result in long jail terms and a loss of everything including ALL the children?
The brain knows the truth and seeks to speak it, relieving the stress caused by lying.
Time and time again you leak the truth through your words both spoken and written.
You have to.
You are compelled to by your own guilt
The stress all the guilt and lies are having on you is writ clear upon your face.
Remember way back when your daughter Madeleine vanished from your apartment, allegedly abducted by a paedophile?
We saw the glow on your face.
We saw the laughter at the church on what would have been her 4th birthday.
We saw you positively beaming with delight.
You looked as if a huge weight had been lifted from your shoulders.
You blossomed.
Why? is what i asked myself, along with thousands of others.
Your daughter is missing, allegedly abducted by a paedophile, suffering unimaginable horrors yet you and gerry looked so relaxed and strain free,
Was it because the source of the problems in your family was gone?
You told us Maddie missing caused additional problems
Was it because no Maddie meant a huge weight lifted from your shoulders and life was good?
You never physically searched, you admitted that in a TV interview.
You never went out day after day with the locals, the ex pats, the tourists and all the police who walked for miles and miles in all kinds of weather looking for YOUR DAUGHTER, even to using vacation time to keep searching?
Your family and friends came over, not to actually do any searching , rather to sit around the pool and lounge around doing stuff such as cooking a meal or dropping the children off at the creche or collecting them (BTW, were the swimming costumes just in case she turned up in a swimming pool somewhere?)
You were out jogging within days of Maddie going missing, even to gerry happily bragging how good your times were to the top of the hill.
You admitted in interviews that Maddie was dead, you told the world she was dead and you knew it.
heck you even went so far as to hire some South African man with a bit of kit to find her body.
Why do that and yet claim she was still alive?
That's one heck of a contradiction dear.
You told us you saw her lying cold and mottled on a cold slab- strangely enough a vivid description of what a body looks like several days after death when they have not been embalmed.
Is this your last memory of her kate?
Is there perhaps where the pink blanket went?
Then you confided to your mom that Maddie haunted you.
Honey, live people do not haunt, dead people do.
As each day passes the stresses and strains continue to build.
You have admitted in your book you hate gerry.
Your marriage was in trouble before the vacation, perhaps you thought with the cause of the problem gone it would all be rainbows, money and fame.
Did you think you would have a quick chat with a nice police officer over a cuppa and some chocolate biscuits and then off you would jolly well go, forever the victim?
Sadly for you and luckily for Maddie and us, the police took one look at the scene and your initial stories and saw it didn't make sense, it could not have happened as claimed.
Rather than you being victims, the long suffering parents, you became the rightful suspects in Maddie's disappearance.
You are desperate to speak the truth, you tell us this, yet, still you don't.
You, instead leak marbles, the truth,. bit by bit in an attempt to ease the guilt and stress.
I know you want this charade to end.
You want your surviving children to have a semblance of a normal life, we all do.
The only way this can and will happen is if you speak the truth and bring this charade to an end.
I know you want to give Maddie a dignified burial.
I know you want to be allowed to properly grieve in the open.
Telling the truth and admitting what happened will bring this about.
Your children are of an age where they use the Internet, on their phones, at school, with their friends.
You cannot stop them looking for information about what happened.
They may well remember things you thought they hadn't seen or heard, things they shouldn't have seen or heard.
Now is the time to speak the truth.
Your children are still of an age where they can forgive you for what you did to their sister and also to themselves.
As they grow older and learn more and remember more, the less likely they will buy your minimising, your deception.
One day they will confront you with what the know.
Will they be the ones to speak to the police?
Better now to speak the truth and begin the process of healing.
The first step is always the hardest, yet, once you have taken that first step, the sense of relief will be intense.
No more worries about who will talk, after all friendships and relationships change, your best friend today can be your worst enemy tomorrow.
Once the truth is out you can grieve openly.
something you want and need to do.
It may mean walking away from your marriage, a destructive marriage based on lies and deception is no good for your or your children.
There will be consequences, but if you speak the truth, they may not be as bad as you feared.
There are plenty of people who are willing to help you, willing to listen , willing to support you, you though have to take the first step, admit the truth whatever it may be and then accept the help and support that is offered.
You tell us you want to shout the truth from the roof tops.
There is nothing stopping your from doing so except you.
"Gerry and I have managed to dig deep and remain focused, although the temptation to shout the truth from the rooftops has always been there".
So kate, what's stopping you?
Clearly your own words tell us you have not told the truth from the get go.
You have been lying.
Why would you, as an 'innocent' mother have the need to lie about what happened to your daughter?
What have you been telling us?
That Maddie was abducted from your apartment by a paedophile.
Now if that isn't the truth dearest kate, pray tell, what is the truth?
Is the truth what we have said all along?
That Maddie is long dead and that you and gerry and your tapas chums are involved in her homicide, concealment of her corpse and filing a false police report.
Is the reason you can't and won't shout the truth from the rooftops because to do so would incriminate you all and result in long jail terms and a loss of everything including ALL the children?
The brain knows the truth and seeks to speak it, relieving the stress caused by lying.
Time and time again you leak the truth through your words both spoken and written.
You have to.
You are compelled to by your own guilt
The stress all the guilt and lies are having on you is writ clear upon your face.
Remember way back when your daughter Madeleine vanished from your apartment, allegedly abducted by a paedophile?
We saw the glow on your face.
We saw the laughter at the church on what would have been her 4th birthday.
We saw you positively beaming with delight.
You looked as if a huge weight had been lifted from your shoulders.
You blossomed.
Why? is what i asked myself, along with thousands of others.
Your daughter is missing, allegedly abducted by a paedophile, suffering unimaginable horrors yet you and gerry looked so relaxed and strain free,
Was it because the source of the problems in your family was gone?
You told us Maddie missing caused additional problems
Was it because no Maddie meant a huge weight lifted from your shoulders and life was good?
You never physically searched, you admitted that in a TV interview.
You never went out day after day with the locals, the ex pats, the tourists and all the police who walked for miles and miles in all kinds of weather looking for YOUR DAUGHTER, even to using vacation time to keep searching?
Your family and friends came over, not to actually do any searching , rather to sit around the pool and lounge around doing stuff such as cooking a meal or dropping the children off at the creche or collecting them (BTW, were the swimming costumes just in case she turned up in a swimming pool somewhere?)
You were out jogging within days of Maddie going missing, even to gerry happily bragging how good your times were to the top of the hill.
You admitted in interviews that Maddie was dead, you told the world she was dead and you knew it.
heck you even went so far as to hire some South African man with a bit of kit to find her body.
Why do that and yet claim she was still alive?
That's one heck of a contradiction dear.
You told us you saw her lying cold and mottled on a cold slab- strangely enough a vivid description of what a body looks like several days after death when they have not been embalmed.
Is this your last memory of her kate?
Is there perhaps where the pink blanket went?
Then you confided to your mom that Maddie haunted you.
Honey, live people do not haunt, dead people do.
As each day passes the stresses and strains continue to build.
You have admitted in your book you hate gerry.
Your marriage was in trouble before the vacation, perhaps you thought with the cause of the problem gone it would all be rainbows, money and fame.
Did you think you would have a quick chat with a nice police officer over a cuppa and some chocolate biscuits and then off you would jolly well go, forever the victim?
Sadly for you and luckily for Maddie and us, the police took one look at the scene and your initial stories and saw it didn't make sense, it could not have happened as claimed.
Rather than you being victims, the long suffering parents, you became the rightful suspects in Maddie's disappearance.
You are desperate to speak the truth, you tell us this, yet, still you don't.
You, instead leak marbles, the truth,. bit by bit in an attempt to ease the guilt and stress.
I know you want this charade to end.
You want your surviving children to have a semblance of a normal life, we all do.
The only way this can and will happen is if you speak the truth and bring this charade to an end.
I know you want to give Maddie a dignified burial.
I know you want to be allowed to properly grieve in the open.
Telling the truth and admitting what happened will bring this about.
Your children are of an age where they use the Internet, on their phones, at school, with their friends.
You cannot stop them looking for information about what happened.
They may well remember things you thought they hadn't seen or heard, things they shouldn't have seen or heard.
Now is the time to speak the truth.
Your children are still of an age where they can forgive you for what you did to their sister and also to themselves.
As they grow older and learn more and remember more, the less likely they will buy your minimising, your deception.
One day they will confront you with what the know.
Will they be the ones to speak to the police?
Better now to speak the truth and begin the process of healing.
The first step is always the hardest, yet, once you have taken that first step, the sense of relief will be intense.
No more worries about who will talk, after all friendships and relationships change, your best friend today can be your worst enemy tomorrow.
Once the truth is out you can grieve openly.
something you want and need to do.
It may mean walking away from your marriage, a destructive marriage based on lies and deception is no good for your or your children.
There will be consequences, but if you speak the truth, they may not be as bad as you feared.
There are plenty of people who are willing to help you, willing to listen , willing to support you, you though have to take the first step, admit the truth whatever it may be and then accept the help and support that is offered.
You tell us you want to shout the truth from the roof tops.
There is nothing stopping your from doing so except you.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Is kate literally and figuratively losing her marbles?
Excerpt from Kate's bewk:
The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn't make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine's abduction (and, please God, it isn't); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out of my mind. Tortured as I was by these nauseating images, it's probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.
I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.
What strikes me as interesting is the use of the word PERSON.
Given she claims abduction by paedophile who would in all likelihood be a man, why does she use the gender neutral non identifying PERSON?
Person is used to conceal the identity of someone, most often seen when the subject knows the identity of whoever is being discussed and does not want to identify them/
Expected would be MAN
She uses the term MONSTER in relation to touching Maddie but look what she uses as a demonstrative pronoun, she uses the word THIS.
This is close, that is distancing.
She places herself close to the monster that is defiling her daughter which is unexpected.
it's probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me. I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us;
I read this and it makes me think she is referring to either herself or gerry.
Sex with gerry repulsed her and she hates the person who made her feel like that.
Did gerry do something to Maddie that repulsed her enough that she couldn't have sex with him?
the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved.
Here she tells us there were problems between her and gerry ( despite the fact she claims they never fight and are stronger than ever)
It would fit in with the make or break vacation stories that were floating around.
I would ask what problems did you and gerry have before the vacation?
What are the additional problems caused by Maddie going missing?
Do the additional problems include being suspected of the murder, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report?
Did they think there would be no police investigation?
Did they think they would have a quickie interview and nothing else?
She refers firstly to the person who did this (gender and identity concealed)
yet look when person suddenly becomes HIM
the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.
The person becomes a him immediately after she says the MAN I loved.
Note also she says the man i LOVED not the man i LOVE
This would lead me to ask if she no longer loves him?
Is she referring to gerry?
It would fit in perfectly with her following words, that she hated him, she wanted to kill him, she wanted to inflict the maximum pain on him for the misery on MY family not OUR family
I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.
What old life does she refer to?
The life she had before she met gerry?
The life she had before she had the children?
Notice she says MY old life and not OUR old life
My is personal and singular, she doesn't include her family in this statement, it is all about her.
Is she leaking regret about the choices she made?
The life she could have had not the life she has?
It seems she blames gerry for what happened.
Did he do the deed or was he the catalyst?
We know kate has anger management issues, she reveals these in her statements, she is always furious, angry, feeling hate, wishing harm.
Was Maddie the victim of a sudden loss of temper?
Was Maddie the scapegoat who once gone, everything would be perfect?
The brain knows the truth and seeks to speak it.
Kate is literally and figuratively losing her marbles
The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn't make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine's abduction (and, please God, it isn't); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out of my mind. Tortured as I was by these nauseating images, it's probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.
I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us; the person who had taken away our little girl and terrified her; the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family. I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.
What strikes me as interesting is the use of the word PERSON.
Given she claims abduction by paedophile who would in all likelihood be a man, why does she use the gender neutral non identifying PERSON?
Person is used to conceal the identity of someone, most often seen when the subject knows the identity of whoever is being discussed and does not want to identify them/
Expected would be MAN
She uses the term MONSTER in relation to touching Maddie but look what she uses as a demonstrative pronoun, she uses the word THIS.
This is close, that is distancing.
She places herself close to the monster that is defiling her daughter which is unexpected.
it's probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me. I would lie in bed, hating the person who had done this to us;
I read this and it makes me think she is referring to either herself or gerry.
Sex with gerry repulsed her and she hates the person who made her feel like that.
Did gerry do something to Maddie that repulsed her enough that she couldn't have sex with him?
the person who had caused these additional problems for me and the man I loved.
Here she tells us there were problems between her and gerry ( despite the fact she claims they never fight and are stronger than ever)
It would fit in with the make or break vacation stories that were floating around.
I would ask what problems did you and gerry have before the vacation?
What are the additional problems caused by Maddie going missing?
Do the additional problems include being suspected of the murder, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report?
Did they think there would be no police investigation?
Did they think they would have a quickie interview and nothing else?
She refers firstly to the person who did this (gender and identity concealed)
yet look when person suddenly becomes HIM
the man I loved. I hated him. I wanted to kill him. I wanted to inflict the maximum pain possible on him for heaping all this misery on my family.
The person becomes a him immediately after she says the MAN I loved.
Note also she says the man i LOVED not the man i LOVE
This would lead me to ask if she no longer loves him?
Is she referring to gerry?
It would fit in perfectly with her following words, that she hated him, she wanted to kill him, she wanted to inflict the maximum pain on him for the misery on MY family not OUR family
I was angry and bitter and I wanted it all to go away. I wanted my old life back.
What old life does she refer to?
The life she had before she met gerry?
The life she had before she had the children?
Notice she says MY old life and not OUR old life
My is personal and singular, she doesn't include her family in this statement, it is all about her.
Is she leaking regret about the choices she made?
The life she could have had not the life she has?
It seems she blames gerry for what happened.
Did he do the deed or was he the catalyst?
We know kate has anger management issues, she reveals these in her statements, she is always furious, angry, feeling hate, wishing harm.
Was Maddie the victim of a sudden loss of temper?
Was Maddie the scapegoat who once gone, everything would be perfect?
The brain knows the truth and seeks to speak it.
Kate is literally and figuratively losing her marbles
Thursday, October 16, 2014
The mccanns, Lying, Stress and Marbles
The brain knows the truth and, since lying is stressful, and people
do not like being stressed, the brain will seek to tell the truth to
release the stress.
This is leakage (leaking of marbles - if you think of thoughts as marbles, they seek to release deceptive marbles and contain the truthful incriminating ones, yet each time they open mouth and release marbles a few truthful ones will also leak out.
It's like a game of kerplunk where the sticks are the statements and the marbles are the truth which needs to be hidden, there comes a point when a stick is pulled and a few marbles fall out..
Each time they speak they release a few more marbles which in turn tell us the truth.
Kate has told us Maddie is dead, first when she talked about the Portuguese not wanting a murder in Portugal.
Murder and not abduction kate?
This is a classic open mouth insert feet leakage of the truth.
She talks about a murder because this is what was on her mind during that statement using the process of free editing (the brains thinks the words a microsecobd before they are spoken or written)
She told us again Maddie was dead when she talked about pressing a button and they would ALL be togeather.
Kate said, "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."
The keyword here is ALL.
The only way they could ALL be togeather after pressing a button (dead) is if she knows Maddie is dead, otherwise she just commited murder suicide on the remaining children, gerry and herself and made Maddie an orphan.
This is highly concerning and speaks volumes as to what she knows and her own involvement.
Why would an innocent parent of an abducted child talk openly about pressing buttons so they and their children could all be togeather?
They wouldn't.
They would, if anything, be more hyperprotective of their remaining children, trusting no one until their missing child is found and the perpetrator caught.
They don't know who abducted Maddie so would logically want them in their own care, perhaps not even trusting family members and friends with their care.
Instead we saw them dumping their remaining children in the club creche, despite claiming Maddie was abducted by a paedophile.
Why would they do that, given it could have been a member of staff in the creche or in the business that could have arranged for the abduction or committed the abduction?
Thinking logically, they would and could only do this if they knew their children were not at risk of harm from an abductor, which must mean they know who took Maddie which points to their own involvement in the disappearance and cover up or, one of the tapas group.
Since they have denied the tapas group involvement (if it was one of them, why would they protect them i would ask) then it can only mean the involvement of kate and gerry.
Gerry then told us he knew Maddie was dead when he told the world they played no part in Madeleine's death.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8270503.stm
"I think the most important thing to say is that the evidence that's been presented by the PJ and the Prosecutor to the Judiciary and the judiciary, having reviewed all of the evidence, have said that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's no evidence to implicate us in her death and that's the message really which we fully expected to come out after the files were published and from our perspective, the most important thing is that Madeleine probably still is alive."
Given he keeps telling us they believe she is alive, why then does he then tell us she is dead by telling the world, there's no evidence to implicate us in her death.
Surely it should be in her DISAPPEARANCE?
Why do they insist there is no evidence Maddie is dead when there is plenty indicating such, the body fluids, the cadaverine, the mccanns reasons for why such evidence was found ( think about it. Why explain away evidence if there is no evidence?)
Why also do they always say they will never ever give up searching?
It gives them an infinite time and a presumption she will never be found or her alleged abductor caught.
Innocent parents will always presume their missing child will be found and the perpetrator caught.
It smacks of OJ simpson and his claims he would never stop searching for his ex wife's killer.Given they refuse to take polygraphs, imposing rules and requirements which would make it impossible, plus they only work if the polygrapher asks the right questions, the next and better option is statement analysis, where the interviewer learns the subjects personal, internal dictionary and uses only the words the subject introduces to learn the truth or the lie.
As an example a polygrapher could ask a paedophile if he molested little Tiffany and the paedophile says no and passes.
This would be because the paedophile didn't think of it as molestation but rather hugging, tickling or cuddling.
A statement analyst woul seek to learn what the paedophile thinks and thus what he did, by asking did you touch little Tiffany?
where did you touch her?
Did you touch her over her clothes?
Did you touch her under her clothes?
What did you touch her with?
How did you touch her? and so on so what he did is learned.
The mccanns and their chums all need to be reinterviewed under caution, in kate's case the 48 questions asked and explanations sought for why she never searched, why cadaverine etc was found on her clothes etc
Gerry needs to be asked about the cadaverine and blood found in the apt. and hire car.
Both need to be asked why they told the world Maddie is dead ( see above)
All need to do a full reconstruction and if they refuse then charges of homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report need to be pressed upon them.
Murder convictions don't need to rely on a body.
The tapas chums need to be charged with obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice and ditto for clarrie.
Deals may be possible if the tapas group tell the truth (immunity or reduced sentence)
A deal may even be possible for the mccanns depending on the circumstances (mental health issues such as PND or other mental health issues perhaps)
If it is true that gerry has a prior conviction then no deal should be offered unless he tells exactly what happened and where Maddie was dumped, and her remains found.
This is leakage (leaking of marbles - if you think of thoughts as marbles, they seek to release deceptive marbles and contain the truthful incriminating ones, yet each time they open mouth and release marbles a few truthful ones will also leak out.
It's like a game of kerplunk where the sticks are the statements and the marbles are the truth which needs to be hidden, there comes a point when a stick is pulled and a few marbles fall out..
Each time they speak they release a few more marbles which in turn tell us the truth.
Kate has told us Maddie is dead, first when she talked about the Portuguese not wanting a murder in Portugal.
Kate tells of nightmare Daily Mirror
Lori Campbell In Praia Da Luz
09/09/2007
'Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: "They want me to lie - I'm being framed.
"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're
blaming us."'
Murder and not abduction kate?
This is a classic open mouth insert feet leakage of the truth.
She talks about a murder because this is what was on her mind during that statement using the process of free editing (the brains thinks the words a microsecobd before they are spoken or written)
She told us again Maddie was dead when she talked about pressing a button and they would ALL be togeather.
Mom: Madeleine Had "Sense Of Danger" CBS News
British Girl's Parents In Last Interview Before Being Named Suspects In Her Disappearance
Published: Oct. 5, 2007
Kate said, "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."
The keyword here is ALL.
The only way they could ALL be togeather after pressing a button (dead) is if she knows Maddie is dead, otherwise she just commited murder suicide on the remaining children, gerry and herself and made Maddie an orphan.
This is highly concerning and speaks volumes as to what she knows and her own involvement.
Why would an innocent parent of an abducted child talk openly about pressing buttons so they and their children could all be togeather?
They wouldn't.
They would, if anything, be more hyperprotective of their remaining children, trusting no one until their missing child is found and the perpetrator caught.
They don't know who abducted Maddie so would logically want them in their own care, perhaps not even trusting family members and friends with their care.
Instead we saw them dumping their remaining children in the club creche, despite claiming Maddie was abducted by a paedophile.
Why would they do that, given it could have been a member of staff in the creche or in the business that could have arranged for the abduction or committed the abduction?
Thinking logically, they would and could only do this if they knew their children were not at risk of harm from an abductor, which must mean they know who took Maddie which points to their own involvement in the disappearance and cover up or, one of the tapas group.
Since they have denied the tapas group involvement (if it was one of them, why would they protect them i would ask) then it can only mean the involvement of kate and gerry.
Gerry then told us he knew Maddie was dead when he told the world they played no part in Madeleine's death.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8270503.stm
"I think the most important thing to say is that the evidence that's been presented by the PJ and the Prosecutor to the Judiciary and the judiciary, having reviewed all of the evidence, have said that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's no evidence to implicate us in her death and that's the message really which we fully expected to come out after the files were published and from our perspective, the most important thing is that Madeleine probably still is alive."
Given he keeps telling us they believe she is alive, why then does he then tell us she is dead by telling the world, there's no evidence to implicate us in her death.
Surely it should be in her DISAPPEARANCE?
Why do they insist there is no evidence Maddie is dead when there is plenty indicating such, the body fluids, the cadaverine, the mccanns reasons for why such evidence was found ( think about it. Why explain away evidence if there is no evidence?)
Why also do they always say they will never ever give up searching?
It gives them an infinite time and a presumption she will never be found or her alleged abductor caught.
Innocent parents will always presume their missing child will be found and the perpetrator caught.
It smacks of OJ simpson and his claims he would never stop searching for his ex wife's killer.Given they refuse to take polygraphs, imposing rules and requirements which would make it impossible, plus they only work if the polygrapher asks the right questions, the next and better option is statement analysis, where the interviewer learns the subjects personal, internal dictionary and uses only the words the subject introduces to learn the truth or the lie.
As an example a polygrapher could ask a paedophile if he molested little Tiffany and the paedophile says no and passes.
This would be because the paedophile didn't think of it as molestation but rather hugging, tickling or cuddling.
A statement analyst woul seek to learn what the paedophile thinks and thus what he did, by asking did you touch little Tiffany?
where did you touch her?
Did you touch her over her clothes?
Did you touch her under her clothes?
What did you touch her with?
How did you touch her? and so on so what he did is learned.
The mccanns and their chums all need to be reinterviewed under caution, in kate's case the 48 questions asked and explanations sought for why she never searched, why cadaverine etc was found on her clothes etc
Gerry needs to be asked about the cadaverine and blood found in the apt. and hire car.
Both need to be asked why they told the world Maddie is dead ( see above)
All need to do a full reconstruction and if they refuse then charges of homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report need to be pressed upon them.
Murder convictions don't need to rely on a body.
The tapas chums need to be charged with obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice and ditto for clarrie.
Deals may be possible if the tapas group tell the truth (immunity or reduced sentence)
A deal may even be possible for the mccanns depending on the circumstances (mental health issues such as PND or other mental health issues perhaps)
If it is true that gerry has a prior conviction then no deal should be offered unless he tells exactly what happened and where Maddie was dumped, and her remains found.
The Childless Couple Scenario
The childless couple scenario just isn't remotely plausible.
Why abduct a child when there are so many options from IVF in its various types through surrogacy through to adoption and fostering?
All the above are legal and there would be no reason not to hide the child away.
Why would a childless couple abduct or cause to have abducted a nearly 4 year old child who can walk and talk, who would have to be smuggled out the country, who could never be shown in public, never go to school, visit a hospital or dentist etc?
Why if anything, not take one of the younger children, less talkative and who could possibly be explained away as an adoption if discovered?
Childless couples, invariably, it is the woman, will abduct a newborn or a preborn in some cases.
They often have a history of infertility or miscarriage or still birth
They will even go as far as to faking a pregnancy in order to facilitate their plan.
Come the day they decide on they will abduct a newborn from a hospital maternity unit or, in worst cases, their victims home, kill the mom and removed the child from their womb.
They will turn up at home claiming they have just given birth and revealing the new baby, claiming it as their own.
They will have no scans of their own, no record of pregnancy, no visits to hospital during the birth or soon after, all of which are par for the course in a normal birth when the immediate family come and visit.
They are soon caught out when a suspicious family member reports the mother and their suspicions, the mother realizes babies are selfish demanding buggers not all quiet and happy as per the ads.
Desperate wannabe moms will abduct the child they believe they can pass off as their own, it is hard to pass off a nearly 4 yr old as a newborn even with being overdue.
It isn't plausible, it's not remotely believable, it smacks of desperation when such a scenario is introduced.
Nearly 4yr old missing children are either a victim of their own parents neglect/abuse, deliberate or otherwise or a victim of a family member or family friend or, more rarely, a sexual predator, in which case they are usually found dead within a matter of hours.
There is no evidence to indicate anyone broke into the apartment and abducted Maddie.
There is evidence of a death and subsequent clean up in the apartment
.
There is evidence of blood, cadaverine in the apartment and cadaverine and body fluids in the hire car.
There is evidence of cadaverine on certain personal items of kate mccann, a child's t shirt and Cuddlecat.
In all such cases, the parents are the prime suspects and need to be cleared before the investigation moves on to the next circle of suspects.
In some cases depending on crime, location. alibi, this is instant, in others it may take a few hours or days (especially if there are family issues such as divorce etc)Next in line are those who had access to the missing person such as family members, neighbors, family friends and so on.
The parents have not been cleared and due to their own language and behavior, cannot be cleared.
This is the downside to not co-operating.
If you don't co-operate, you cannot be cleared and questions arise as to why you won't co-operate and what you are hiding.
Why abduct a child when there are so many options from IVF in its various types through surrogacy through to adoption and fostering?
All the above are legal and there would be no reason not to hide the child away.
Why would a childless couple abduct or cause to have abducted a nearly 4 year old child who can walk and talk, who would have to be smuggled out the country, who could never be shown in public, never go to school, visit a hospital or dentist etc?
Why if anything, not take one of the younger children, less talkative and who could possibly be explained away as an adoption if discovered?
Childless couples, invariably, it is the woman, will abduct a newborn or a preborn in some cases.
They often have a history of infertility or miscarriage or still birth
They will even go as far as to faking a pregnancy in order to facilitate their plan.
Come the day they decide on they will abduct a newborn from a hospital maternity unit or, in worst cases, their victims home, kill the mom and removed the child from their womb.
They will turn up at home claiming they have just given birth and revealing the new baby, claiming it as their own.
They will have no scans of their own, no record of pregnancy, no visits to hospital during the birth or soon after, all of which are par for the course in a normal birth when the immediate family come and visit.
They are soon caught out when a suspicious family member reports the mother and their suspicions, the mother realizes babies are selfish demanding buggers not all quiet and happy as per the ads.
Desperate wannabe moms will abduct the child they believe they can pass off as their own, it is hard to pass off a nearly 4 yr old as a newborn even with being overdue.
It isn't plausible, it's not remotely believable, it smacks of desperation when such a scenario is introduced.
Nearly 4yr old missing children are either a victim of their own parents neglect/abuse, deliberate or otherwise or a victim of a family member or family friend or, more rarely, a sexual predator, in which case they are usually found dead within a matter of hours.
There is no evidence to indicate anyone broke into the apartment and abducted Maddie.
There is evidence of a death and subsequent clean up in the apartment
.
There is evidence of blood, cadaverine in the apartment and cadaverine and body fluids in the hire car.
There is evidence of cadaverine on certain personal items of kate mccann, a child's t shirt and Cuddlecat.
In all such cases, the parents are the prime suspects and need to be cleared before the investigation moves on to the next circle of suspects.
In some cases depending on crime, location. alibi, this is instant, in others it may take a few hours or days (especially if there are family issues such as divorce etc)Next in line are those who had access to the missing person such as family members, neighbors, family friends and so on.
The parents have not been cleared and due to their own language and behavior, cannot be cleared.
This is the downside to not co-operating.
If you don't co-operate, you cannot be cleared and questions arise as to why you won't co-operate and what you are hiding.
Monday, October 6, 2014
“I’m glad to see the law around this area is being reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing damage.”
“I’m glad to see the law around this area is being reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing damage.”
Will this apply to your fragrant wifey kate, who, by her own admission damaged the search for Maddie by refusing to answer the 48 questions whilst answering the 49th question?
These are the questions:
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.
Will this apply also to kate who called an officer of the law a fucking tosser repeatedly?
Will this also apply to kate who wished on Gonçalo Amaral the detective who was chosen to help find your daughter Maddie, that "He deserves to be miserable and feel fear."?
You may have muzzled the media, you cannot muzzle public opinion or free speech.
You failed when you tried to get Gonçalo's book banned and lost spectacularly.
You yourself gerry said " Thank you, sir. I would like to emphasise that
I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you
have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies
and have been shown to do so, then they should be held
to account. That is the issue. I don't have a problem
with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction,
suggestions, but clearly we've got to a stage where
substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up,
non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence"
Apparently though freedom of speech does not apply to anyone who doesn't believe your version of events, Anyone who points out all the discrepancies, of which there are a multitude, anyone who analyses your admissions that Maddie is dead such as kate telling the world and i quote:
"They want me to lie - I'm being framed.
"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us"
Now then, why would kate dearest introduce the word MURDER during the process of free editing (the brain thinks the words a microsecond before they are spoken or written) when you and she are both claiming abduction, not evidence of serious harm and the almost laughable the longer she is missing the more chance she is likely to be alive (despite all the statistics relating to missing children not taken by a parent)
She used the M word because that was the thought right at the forefront of her mind.
Murder not abduction?
Then we have the extremely concerning statement:
Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."
This is concerning because kate here openly discusses murder suicide, by pressing a button.
She also with one single word tells the world she knows Maddie is dead.
The word is ALL.
The only way they could ALL be together when she pressed the button is, if she knew Maddie was dead.
If Maddie was alive as you both claim, then by kate pressing the button committing murder suicide, she has just made Maddie an orphan!
It also begs the question, why would an innocent parent want to press a button that would kill herself, her children and her husband?
It is unexpected.
An innocent parent would never consider doing that, if anything they would become more protective than ever of their remaining children.
However, parents involved in the disappearance of a loved one have been known to kill their children and themselves, to avoid justice, to avoid losing custody of their child(ren) to their partner or to someone else, or to punish the other parent (often seen in custody disputes) josh powell springs to mind, the prime suspect in the murder of his wife Susan Cox, he was due to undergo a sexual psych evaluation ( his dad is a convicted voyeur taking indecent pics of the neighbors children on their toilet)
He knew the result would mean losing permanent custody and visitation right so he fixed up a fake address, had the boys visit with their social worker, pulled them into the house locking out the social worker, attacked the brothers with an axe before blowing up the house killing himself and his sons.
So, kate,and gerry why is it instead of the expected when it comes to finding your missing daughter, we keep seeing the unexpected?
As long as you keep talking, forensic linguists will keep analysing your statements, your words.
Body language experts will keep watching you closely.
Your own words tell the truth of what happened,
You offered to take a poly then rapidly backtracked when taken up on the offer, setting so many conditions it would have been impossible to perform.
Guess what honeys, we don't need a polygraph.
Statement analysis and forensic linguists are far more reliable than any polygraph,
Remember gerry your own words on Jan 13 2010
A thesis without evidence is meaningless
I agree,
You claim Maddie was abducted may 4th 2007, there is however, even after 7 years plus, no evidence of any kind of an abduction.Not a finger print, fibre, footprint, skin cell, body fluid from an unknown male anywhere in what appeared to be a forensically cleaned apartment (so clean you had to go back to rothley to get a DNA sample)
By your own admission gerry, your thesis of abduction is meaningless.
However, the thesis that Maddie died in apartment 5a sometime during that week is supported by the reaction of the blood and cadaver dogs both in the apartment, to Kate's clothes, a child's t shirt, cuddle cat and in the hire car, the blood and body fluids found on the apt. floor behind the sofa and in the hire car, the missing blue bag, the missing pink blanket, your own statements and admissions.
Therefore the thesis that Maddie died in the apartment is supported by evidence and is therefore meaningful.
have a nice day :)
Will this apply to your fragrant wifey kate, who, by her own admission damaged the search for Maddie by refusing to answer the 48 questions whilst answering the 49th question?
These are the questions:
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.
Will this apply also to kate who called an officer of the law a fucking tosser repeatedly?
Will this also apply to kate who wished on Gonçalo Amaral the detective who was chosen to help find your daughter Maddie, that "He deserves to be miserable and feel fear."?
You may have muzzled the media, you cannot muzzle public opinion or free speech.
You failed when you tried to get Gonçalo's book banned and lost spectacularly.
You yourself gerry said " Thank you, sir. I would like to emphasise that
I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you
have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies
and have been shown to do so, then they should be held
to account. That is the issue. I don't have a problem
with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction,
suggestions, but clearly we've got to a stage where
substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up,
non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence"
Apparently though freedom of speech does not apply to anyone who doesn't believe your version of events, Anyone who points out all the discrepancies, of which there are a multitude, anyone who analyses your admissions that Maddie is dead such as kate telling the world and i quote:
"They want me to lie - I'm being framed.
"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us"
Now then, why would kate dearest introduce the word MURDER during the process of free editing (the brain thinks the words a microsecond before they are spoken or written) when you and she are both claiming abduction, not evidence of serious harm and the almost laughable the longer she is missing the more chance she is likely to be alive (despite all the statistics relating to missing children not taken by a parent)
She used the M word because that was the thought right at the forefront of her mind.
Murder not abduction?
Then we have the extremely concerning statement:
Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."
This is concerning because kate here openly discusses murder suicide, by pressing a button.
She also with one single word tells the world she knows Maddie is dead.
The word is ALL.
The only way they could ALL be together when she pressed the button is, if she knew Maddie was dead.
If Maddie was alive as you both claim, then by kate pressing the button committing murder suicide, she has just made Maddie an orphan!
It also begs the question, why would an innocent parent want to press a button that would kill herself, her children and her husband?
It is unexpected.
An innocent parent would never consider doing that, if anything they would become more protective than ever of their remaining children.
However, parents involved in the disappearance of a loved one have been known to kill their children and themselves, to avoid justice, to avoid losing custody of their child(ren) to their partner or to someone else, or to punish the other parent (often seen in custody disputes) josh powell springs to mind, the prime suspect in the murder of his wife Susan Cox, he was due to undergo a sexual psych evaluation ( his dad is a convicted voyeur taking indecent pics of the neighbors children on their toilet)
He knew the result would mean losing permanent custody and visitation right so he fixed up a fake address, had the boys visit with their social worker, pulled them into the house locking out the social worker, attacked the brothers with an axe before blowing up the house killing himself and his sons.
So, kate,and gerry why is it instead of the expected when it comes to finding your missing daughter, we keep seeing the unexpected?
As long as you keep talking, forensic linguists will keep analysing your statements, your words.
Body language experts will keep watching you closely.
Your own words tell the truth of what happened,
You offered to take a poly then rapidly backtracked when taken up on the offer, setting so many conditions it would have been impossible to perform.
Guess what honeys, we don't need a polygraph.
Statement analysis and forensic linguists are far more reliable than any polygraph,
Remember gerry your own words on Jan 13 2010
A thesis without evidence is meaningless
I agree,
You claim Maddie was abducted may 4th 2007, there is however, even after 7 years plus, no evidence of any kind of an abduction.Not a finger print, fibre, footprint, skin cell, body fluid from an unknown male anywhere in what appeared to be a forensically cleaned apartment (so clean you had to go back to rothley to get a DNA sample)
By your own admission gerry, your thesis of abduction is meaningless.
However, the thesis that Maddie died in apartment 5a sometime during that week is supported by the reaction of the blood and cadaver dogs both in the apartment, to Kate's clothes, a child's t shirt, cuddle cat and in the hire car, the blood and body fluids found on the apt. floor behind the sofa and in the hire car, the missing blue bag, the missing pink blanket, your own statements and admissions.
Therefore the thesis that Maddie died in the apartment is supported by evidence and is therefore meaningful.
have a nice day :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)