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.
The Thoughts And Ponderings Of A Hobnob
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
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 :)
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Why Were The mccanns Never Charged With Neglect?
They were never charged with neglect because, as the PJ said, they
didn't know what crime(s) had been committed.
Also, if charged with neglect, they could not then have been charged with homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.
The mccanns and the rest of their group never left their children home alone any night, medical people tend to by hyper protective when it comes to childcare since they know what can happen in a fraction of a second, even whilst standing next to their child.
Each night, an adult member of the group was absent, allegedly with an illness or looking after/changing a sick child.
Oldfield on his check, described a completely different apartment.
I wonder which apartment fitted his description?
The twins were missing initially when the alarm was raised according to at least one witness and were reported in one of the 'rogs' as being taken back to their apartment (how can you take someone back to their apartment if they are already there?)
Also their bedding was noticed to be missing.
We also have statements from gerry of them sleeping on a bed, as well as them being in cots, so, which is it?
If the children were being babysat each night by one of the adults , then there could not have been an abduction.
No abductor is going to break into an apartment to abduct a child and come face to face with a parent.
For there to be an abduction as claimed, they had to claim neglect , as in leaving the children home alone and doing checks.
No neglect - no abduction.
No abduction - What did you do to Maddie?
If the PJ had gone for neglect then the following is what would have likely happened.
Charged with neglect the mccanns and chums appear in court,
The mccanns and chums plead not guilty.
Trial commences.
The mccanns and chums stand up and openly admit they didn't neglect the children, they were all in fact sleeping in one apartment each night watched by an adult member of the group.
Verdict is NOT GUILTY since there was never any neglect.
The mccanns and chums walk free.
The mccanns cannot then be charged with homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.
They walk away free and easy
It is a risk they are and were prepared to take.
Their lawyers would have advised them admit to the minimum offense and we can probably plea deal down to probation and a fine or minimal jail time.
They get a fine and possibly sanctions on their medical licenses which could include retraining and/or supervision.
It is unlikely they would lose their licenses,
I am not sure if the UK police could bring charges since they were already tried in Portugal.
This would be something they would look into,
If no charges could be laid, they could publicly announce Maddie did die in their apartment, they panicked and hid her etc and nothing would happen.
Nothing could happen.
Those who are pro Maddie will not change their minds so they don't count.
Those who support the parents may or may not change their minds, they don't matter either.
What matters is they have a nice little fund.
If they could face charges in the UK then they may decide to risk the child neglect trial and whatever outcome as it would still be less than homicide etc in the UK.
Basically win win for the mccanns.
They were never charged because you cannot charge them on the basis they have done something but you don't know what, nor how, why, when, with whom or where.
Currently this is as best a position they can have since no one knows what the truth is or isn't and confusion reigns which as gerry says is good.
Also, if charged with neglect, they could not then have been charged with homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.
The mccanns and the rest of their group never left their children home alone any night, medical people tend to by hyper protective when it comes to childcare since they know what can happen in a fraction of a second, even whilst standing next to their child.
Each night, an adult member of the group was absent, allegedly with an illness or looking after/changing a sick child.
Oldfield on his check, described a completely different apartment.
I wonder which apartment fitted his description?
The twins were missing initially when the alarm was raised according to at least one witness and were reported in one of the 'rogs' as being taken back to their apartment (how can you take someone back to their apartment if they are already there?)
Also their bedding was noticed to be missing.
We also have statements from gerry of them sleeping on a bed, as well as them being in cots, so, which is it?
If the children were being babysat each night by one of the adults , then there could not have been an abduction.
No abductor is going to break into an apartment to abduct a child and come face to face with a parent.
For there to be an abduction as claimed, they had to claim neglect , as in leaving the children home alone and doing checks.
No neglect - no abduction.
No abduction - What did you do to Maddie?
If the PJ had gone for neglect then the following is what would have likely happened.
Charged with neglect the mccanns and chums appear in court,
The mccanns and chums plead not guilty.
Trial commences.
The mccanns and chums stand up and openly admit they didn't neglect the children, they were all in fact sleeping in one apartment each night watched by an adult member of the group.
Verdict is NOT GUILTY since there was never any neglect.
The mccanns and chums walk free.
The mccanns cannot then be charged with homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.
They walk away free and easy
It is a risk they are and were prepared to take.
Their lawyers would have advised them admit to the minimum offense and we can probably plea deal down to probation and a fine or minimal jail time.
They get a fine and possibly sanctions on their medical licenses which could include retraining and/or supervision.
It is unlikely they would lose their licenses,
I am not sure if the UK police could bring charges since they were already tried in Portugal.
This would be something they would look into,
If no charges could be laid, they could publicly announce Maddie did die in their apartment, they panicked and hid her etc and nothing would happen.
Nothing could happen.
Those who are pro Maddie will not change their minds so they don't count.
Those who support the parents may or may not change their minds, they don't matter either.
What matters is they have a nice little fund.
If they could face charges in the UK then they may decide to risk the child neglect trial and whatever outcome as it would still be less than homicide etc in the UK.
Basically win win for the mccanns.
They were never charged because you cannot charge them on the basis they have done something but you don't know what, nor how, why, when, with whom or where.
Currently this is as best a position they can have since no one knows what the truth is or isn't and confusion reigns which as gerry says is good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)