About Maddie - The Bewk And The Website

The mccanns, kate in particular, have a huge problem with the bewk.

The bewk specifically pins her to a particular story and timeline.

It  was written using the process of free editing and as such has to be taken as kate speaking the truth.

It is the be all and end all of her version of events prior to,during the vacation and in the days, months and years subsequently.

As we all know, kate refused to answer 48 questions asked of her by the PJ at the behest of her attorney and answered the 49th

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

In actuality, she refused to answer 59 questions since several of them were compound questions (a big no no in statement analysis)

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?The one question she did answer:

49.  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".

Many of the questions were innocuous and bore little or no relation to the actual alleged abduction.

She was advised by her attorney not to answer the questions in case she incriminated herself.

If she was not involved in the disappearance of her daughter, there could be nothing to incriminate her.

Why then did she write a bewk?

Was she advised not to do so since it would pin her down to a story and timeline?
Did  she go ahead and ignore the advice of her attorneys anyway, in pursuit of megabucks?

She refused to answer questions due to possible incrimination and then promptly answers some if not most of them in her bewk.

Was she advised (and she should have been) that by doing so she would be writing exhibit 1?

In a trial how would she resolve the obvious contradictions?
You told the officers you did this and that, yet in your book you did this and that instead, how do you explain the difference?

She either lied in the bewk or she lied to the officers.

In this case, she probably lied in and to both and what really happened to Maddie  prior to, during and after the alleged abduction is something bearing no relation to any of  her previous versions of events

The bewk is also pretty much all about kate and how hard done by she is.

This would explain why Maddie's name is all in lower case and kate's name is all in capitals.

It shows priority, who is more important to the author.
In this case it is kate mccann who is most important

This is supported by their previous language and statements including the initial About Madeleine  page on their website

The original about Maddie section of the find Madeleine website, courtesy of The McCann Files


What the original Find Madeleine site told us about Madeleine McCann

Madeleine McCann was born 4 years ago.
She has one brother Sean and a sister Amelie.
She lives with her family in Rothley, Leicestershire.

Her father comes from Glasgow and has 3 sisters, Patricia, Jacqueline and Phil,and a brother John.
Madeleine's Grandmother, Eileen lives in Glasgow.
Her other grandparents, Sue and Brian live in Liverpool.

Both sides of the family are very close and all are working in different ways to try and help in the search for Madeleine.

Phil, who resides in Ullapool and is a teacher, has asked that the heartfelt thanks of the whole family be passed to everyone who has helped in the search so far. She said: "There have been so many messages of support and prayers from people all over the world.
We (the family) are overwhelmed with your assistance.
The media people have been wonderful and so helpful in making everyone aware of our plight.
Madeleine's family are so grateful to you all.
Please keep Madeleine in your thoughts and prayers.
We pray that she will be returned to us safe and well."

24 words out of 181 words, a mere 13.25%
3 sentences out of 14, a mere 21%

The stark lack of information about Maddie in the section meant to be about Maddie, her likes, dislikes, her character, her relationships to others, all the expected stuff to make her a real little girl, to humanise her, was missing.
It was clearly of no importance to gerry and kate.

This was picked up by those of us who doubted the abduction story from the get go and who then commented on the extreme distancing language between the parents and their missing daughter on various media forums and blogs

This was unexpected.

The mccanns or, more likely their attorneys, advisers and PR people, saw the comments pointing out the distancing language and "advised" them to change it, to make them look better, more caring regarding their daughter in the public arena.

On 01/02/08 the web page was edited.

Madeleine was born in May 2003 – a long-awaited and very much longed for little girl.
She lives in the village of Rothley in Leicester, with her mummy and daddy and little brother and sister, Sean and Amelie.
Madeleine is a very happy little girl with an outgoing personality.
She has always been a very popular little person, appealing to both children and adults alike with her funny and engaging chatter.
She has many friends who obviously miss her dearly.
Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!
Like most girls her age, she likes dolls and dresses (and anything pink and sparkly) but with a definite taste for action-adventure too!
She has an incredible amount of energy and even as a little baby, didn’t seem to need much rest.
She enjoys running and swimming and is an Everton fan like her mum and granddad.
 Madeleine has always been a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to Sean and Amelie.
It was certainly not the quietest house on the planet with lots of giggling, singing and the inevitable odd bit of mischief!
For Sean and Amelie, there is without doubt, a very important person missing in their life.
Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching little person and will never fail we’re sure, to bring joy into the life of anyone she may encounter.

Maddie now warranted 228 words and 13 sentences.
A massive improvement towards making her a real little girl.
She has become humanized.
She has come alive.

Even then, there is still distancing language.

"She has always been a very popular little person"
Note the qualifier word very a word which when removed doesn't change the intent of the sentence.
Qualifier words weaken the statement.
It can also indicate some sensitivity.
Was Maddie's popularity an issue with kate?
Was kate jealous of the attention paid to Maddie?
Did Maddie prefer gerry to her or even another family member or friend?
Did kate even resent Maddie in some way?

PERSON?
This is concerning as it is distances her from Maddie.
She isn't a little girl, she isn't Madeleine, she isn't a big sister, she isn't even our daughter!
She is referred to as a person, someone denied identity or a gender.
Someone with no link to the family, someone who is apart from the family, someone who doesn't belong.

"She has many friends who OBVIOUSLY miss her dearly."
OBVIOUSLY requires that the listener/reader should accept without question that which is being said.
Why did they feel the need to tell us that Maddie was missed?
Why was it important that they felt the need to tell us, the public, Maddie was missed?
Why wouldn't she be?
Was this written as a reaction to public grumbling about the lack of emotion, the lack of even caring, shown by the mccanns and chums in relation to missing Maddie?
Why is it only friends that miss her?
Do her family not miss her?
Does her extended family not miss her?
If this is the case then it shows how dysfunctional the whole family were and are.
There are also qualifier words, words that when removes do not change the intent of the sentence.
Here we have the words obviously and  dearly.
A strong sentence would be Madeleine is missed by everyone/all of us
They felt the need to tell us how much Maddie is missed making it sensitive.
Maddie being missing should be something taken as fact.
It would be unexpected for Maddie to not be missed.
It would be concerning if Maddie was not missed.
This then makes her being missing a sensitive issue.

Why?

"Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!"
Does this imply or suggest Maddie was parentified?
She was so mature, so grown up she was given certain grown up responsibilities?
Is this why they claimed the children were left alone in an unlocked apartment?
Maddie was the babysitter, the responsible adult looking after her younger siblings.
Does this explain why kate and gerry allegedly left the 3 children alone in a locked apartment safe in the knowledge that if anything happened Maddie would save the day by rescuing her siblings if there was a fire?
If anything happened such as the twins waking up and crying, there being a fire or something else, Maddie was trusted to come and find her parents?
Maddie was felt older than she was in reality?
Maddie was treated as someone older than her actual age?
Was she regarded as a friend, a buddy, someone to confide in rather than as the toddler that she was?
Was it a case of the parents proudly telling the world how grown up Maddie was, reading teenager books such as Harry Potter and watching programmes not really designed with toddlers in mind such as Doctor Who, how she would talk to anyone, when perhaps she had not  learned the self protective 'stranger danger' behavior that makes young children instinctively cuddle into their parent/hide behind their legs when seeing someone new until they are told it is OK?
Young children have natural stranger anxiety. 
Children of Neglect often have none because they have learned to get attention from wherever and whoever will offer it.

Like most girls her age, she likes dolls and dresses (and anything pink and sparkly) but with a definite taste for action-adventure too!
What did this taste for action-adventure include?
They tell us she likes dolls and dresses like most other girls, yet do not tell us what her taste of action-adventure includes.
Could this perhaps involve climbing on things?
Jumping off things?
Running up and down stairs?
Is this a deliberate omission?
is there sensitivity related to her sense of action-adventure perhaps?

She has an incredible amount of energy and even as a little baby, didn’t seem to need much rest.
Is this related to kate needing so much help with the children?
Was this perhaps related to a medical issue?
We know Maddie had a coloboma, kate and gerry told us this and made a big deal about it in their appeals They then later back tracked and claimed it was only a fleck and they hadn't made a big deal of it ( I must have imagined all the  distinctive LOOK poster and banners)
Was Maddie hyperactive?
Did Maddie have other issues such as ADD/ADHD etc
Did kate have medical issues?(it would perhaps explain the medical records being sealed)
This could explain the distancing language between kate and gerry towards Maddie
Maddie was seen as a burden, a problem, hard work.
This would also explain why after Maddie vanished, kate bloomed and looked as if a weight had been taken of her shoulders.
The problem that was causing kate so much stress and possibly was causing problems in the marriage had gone.
Kate could now cope.
Is this also perhaps subtle demeaning of Maddie?
If she had been quieter, if she had been calmer, if she had been less energetic, if she had been less demanding of attention, if perhaps she had been more like her siblings then she may still be alive?

"Madeleine has always been a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to Sean and Amelie. "
HAS not IS?
Is she no longer a wonderfully loving and caring big sister?
How can she be a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to her siblings when they haven't seen her since may 3rd 2007?
Even though she is missing and allegedly alive as per the mccanns story, would she still love and care about her siblings?
Could she even remember them today if she was still alive?
This is in contradiction to her book where she refers to breast feeding one twin whilst leaving the other vulnerable to attack from a big sister.

Page 38
"I breastfed Sean and Amelie, as I had Madeleine, so there were spells when I wished I had a few extra arms, usually mid to late afternoon when I was alone with the children and Madeleine would be getting tired. I would have to feed the twins one at a time when I was on my own, which meant that as I was feeding the first, the other one would not only be getting hungry and grumpy but would also be vulnerable to attack from A big sister needing attention"
Not exactly the perfect happy, loving family image they like to portray.
I also notice that she refers to A BIG SISTER with emphasis on the article use A
Why use the article A which would suggest more than one big sister rather than the expected THEIR big sister?
Was Maddie also a twin?
Was there another big sister?
What is clear from her book is that kate had issues dealing with one baby let alone three.

Page 30Poor Gerry would arrive home from work and would hardly have a foot over the threshold before he was handed a roaring bundle while I went upstairs for a loo break, a scream-free moment and a chance to regain the use of my arms. There were occasions where all three of us were cuddled in the kitchen, crying - Madeleine with her colic and Gerry and I at the futility of our attempts to take her pain away.
.
Does this in part explain the distancing language, especially from kate?
No Maddie meant she had more control of her life, she could cope better with just the twins.
No Maddie meant no tantrums, no attention seeking, no screaming, all the normal behavior of a 3 year old.
It would also explain in part why kate had so much help, not only with family members flying down when they had the time and co opting a nursery worker to help with tea, baths and bed time?
No help meant a kate melt down.
Would this explain why Maddie isn't missed by the family and the sensitivity in the language relating to Maddie being missed by friends?

"For Sean and Amelie, there is without doubt, a very important person missing in their life."

Again Maddie is referred to as a PERSON rather than a big sister/sister to Sean and Amelie.
Heck even little girl would give her at least some form of identity, some relationship to her siblings.

Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching little PERSON.
What is with them referring to her repeatedly as a person?
Why the continual distancing of  Maddie from her family?
Was Maddie not considered to be a part of the mccann family?
What made Maddie different to her siblings?
Is it hidden in the sealed medical records?"
Madeleine is a warm, life enriching little girl" would be the expected.
Heck even ."Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching child" would at least show some kind of family link, a relationship, a sense of belonging to the family unit.

Without doubt
To take for granted, to not be questioned, to be accepted as fact, the truth.
Even though they are supposed to be writing about their missing daughter, a much loved member of the family, her character, her love of life, who she is and what she means to others, they cannot bring themselves to admit her to their family, instead she is pushed to one side, stripped of identity and gender.
What is their definition of very important?
Very important to whom?
What is it about Maddie that would make her very important?
"and will never fail we’re sure, to bring joy into the life of anyone she MAY encounter."
Spot the dropped pronoun in relation to Maddie bringing joy into the life of anyone she may encounter.
Who will never fail to bring joy...?
MAY ENCOUNTER rather than the expected SHE ENCOUNTERS
Why use the word ENCOUNTER rather than the more expected and often used word MEET.
ENCOUNTER is something unexpected, a casual or unexpected meeting or even something faced which is  hostile or difficult.
ENCOUNTER is passive, it happens by chance with no deliberate intent.
I Met a bear whilst walking in the woods
MEET could indicate some pre-planning, some forethought something perhaps expected
I arranged to meet my friend outside the theater.
MAY means expressing a possibility.
I may get an ice cream, i may get something else
Here it allows for the possibility is that she will encounter someone, it also allows for the possibility she won't encounter anyone.
Is there only a possibility of Maddie encountering someone?
What could prevent Maddie from encountering anyone?
If she were alive and not seriously harmed as claimed by the mccanns then surely it is a probability if not a certainty that she will encounter people at some time even if it is only her abductor. and /or people he exposes her to.
However a dead Maddie isn't going to encounter anyone until her remains are found, if this is even still possible.
Even then it will be the finder encountering Maddie's remains rather than Maddie encountering the finder
Do they allow for the possibility that Maddie would be facing something hostile or difficult?
Yes, if what they tell us is true, in that Maddie is alive and not seriously harmed, despite being abducted by a paedophile.

Who will Maddie be bringing joy into the life of?
Will Maddie be bringing joy into the life of her alleged abductor?
Will Maddie be bringing joy into the lives of her abusers perhaps?

This is almost as crass as kate telling the world that:

"I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."

What planet does kate live on that she tells the world that Maddie will bring joy to the very people who allegedly abducted her or who have her currently!!

In her bewk, Kate tells us of her fears regarding Maddie:

"I was always terrified that Madeleine would hurt herself.
I always erred on the side of caution.
I remember once when she was about 4 weeks old refusing to make a car journey with her because the baby seat appeared to be wobbling very, very slightly.
I know Gerry felt i was a bit over the top sometimes."

Then further on she tells us:
In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach.
To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us.
We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain.
A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces.

The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them.
The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn.
Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.

How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner?
I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly.

She portrays herself as the concerned and caring mother, fearing to leave her children and travel a few yards to help carry ice creams back.
She even admits to wondering why she was so concerned about leaving her three children who would be in view and yet feel comfortable leaving them alone in an unlocked apartment:"I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction.

She can't even remotely  attempt to explain or justify (her behavior or attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.
If she couldn't convince herself, how could she hope to convince the police and the public?
She cannot explain something that did not happen.

The children were never left home alone as claimed.

The story as told by the mccanns and chums did not happen.

There was one adult missing from the table each night allegedly sick or looking after a sick child.
Doctors,. like any medical staff, are hyper vigilant when it comes to childcare.
They know exactly what can happen in a fraction of a second, even if the parent is right next to the child.
They simply would not leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment.
More so that a party of 4 families  plus one extra adult would all decide it was OK to leave their children home alone.
Also, I am sure Diane Webster would have something to say about their alleged child care arrangement. just as any concerned mother would.
They may have been able to fob her off once maybe twice but i suspect she would have still fussed or even offered her services if all the children were in one apartment.
She would not be happy that so many toddlers and infants were being left alone and unsupervised.

For there to have been time and opportunity for an abduction to occur, they all had to claim they neglected their children, for, if there was no neglect and the children were all being babysat by the missing adult, there could have been no abduction.

No abductions means darn awkward questions regarding what happened to Maddie and where she currently is?

Instead she resorts to speaking about subconscious thoughts, telling us that leaving three wide awake and active toddlers in broad daylight to go just a few yards away was riskier than leaving three 'sleeping' toddlers in an unlocked apartment in a strange country and in the dark with 'regular checks' who were an over 100 yards walk away and some 50 yards or so as the crow flies from the tapas bar to the back of their apartment.
An apartment, the back of which was partially visible from the tapas bar in daylight and heavily obscured at night due to the lighting of the bar  reflecting off the windows off the bar windows.
The bedroom where the three children were allegedly supposed to be sleeping was at the front of the apartment,and thus not visible to those eating and drinking in the bar.

If all else fails blame the subconsciousness.
Could this be a part of any future defense?

No matter how she tries to explain things away and reconcile timings, who checked what and where.
It will not work.
Clearing up one issue results in other issues being revealed.

For the abduction to have occurred as claimed, they would have to come up with a story, a scenario that on initial inspection would seem plausible, believable.
They would worry about details later  hopefully the police and public would buy their story and then after x amount of time they would be just another statistic.

Something changed, something unplanned which derailed any original planning they had.

MONEY.

A lot of money, hundreds of thousands of pounds going into the millions.

Greed and the fame (infamy) weaved its magic and now they are trapped.