“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 :)
The Thoughts And Ponderings Of A Hobnob
Monday, October 6, 2014
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.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Thursday July 12th: I hate the person who took MY Madeleine - kate mccann
Thursday
July 12th: I hate the person who took MY Madeleine, the same one who
caused all this trouble, who made us feel worthless and mistrustful and
mainly who has frightened MY beautiful Madeleine. I will never forgive
that person/those people. NEVER
She takes ownership of the statement with the strong first person singular I.
She is speaking for herself.
She also uses the strong pronoun MY in relation to Madeleine.
This is maternal instinct speaking (apparently she does have some)
It is expected that when speaking for herself in such a stressful situation, she would take ownership of Madeleine.
She uses person which is used to conceal gender and identity.
It is unexpected given the alleged sighting of a man carrying a child away from the apartment as stated by jane tanner, one of the tapas 7 group of friends.
Why does she use person rather than the expected man, given what is already known and also given the claim Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile?
Why not say she hates the MAN who took her Madeleine?
Does she instead use the identity and gender concealing noun person because she does, in fact, know who removed Madeleine from the apartment and to reveal this would be incriminating not only to herself but to others involved as well?
Same one - She doesn't say the same person, she instead changes PERSON to ONE.
A change in language is a change in reality.
A person took Madeleine, One caused all this trouble.
This trouble. This is close, that is distancing.
She minimises the taking of Madeleine (abduction) to trouble.
What trouble does she refer to?
She doesn't tell us the trouble is making them feel worthless and mistrustful.
She tells us trouble, then worthless and finally mistrustful.
What other trouble is there then?
The trouble is, no one buys their story of abduction.
There is not one iota of evidence to indicate someone ( a man) broke into the apartment and abducted Madeleine from her bedroom.
The tanner sighting which at the time seemed unfeasible and impossible given what she claimed she saw in poor light at a distance of 50 metres, who was unseen by both gerry and Wilkins as she walked round them to go to her apartment.
There were no prints of any kind form an unknown source (the alleged abductor) no fibres, no hairs, no skins cells or sweat, nothing to indicate an unknown source removed Madeleine from her bed and away into the night.
The discrepancies in their stories regarding not only the supposed checks done nightly, but also who was doing what and when on which day, even to getting the weather completely wrong.
The breaking of the laws of physics in regard to open and slamming doors and whooshing curtains.
The refusal to answer 48 questions by kate even though she admitted that by not answering them, she was hindering the search if that's what they think.
The refusal to take part in any kind of reconstruction by the group, although the mccann's by law were compelled to.
If the tapas group refused to cooperate than by default the mccann's wouldn't have to since it was reliant on all of them being present.
The bolting back to the UK on being made arguidos and promptly hiring high priced extradition lawyers ( really? is this the behavior of innocent parents ?)
The muzzling of the media on pain of being sued and the suing of Dr. Goncalo Amaral because he dared to question their version of events.
The trouble that despite their books( i count the latest one by summers and swan as one of theirs else it would never have been allowed to be published if it didn't absolve them of any involvement) their mockumentary, their multiple interviews on TV, radio and the press, nothing clears them of involvement in the disappearance (death) and subsequent cover up of their daughter.
Even Leicestershire Police say they cannot be cleared
"Who made us feel worthless and mistrustful and mainly who has frightened MY beautiful Madeleine" .
Notice the placement of the pronoun and the name Madeleine, look at the order.
Us is the 3rd word in, it has priority, Madeleine is the last word, 15th out of 15, about as far as you can get from US.
Considering she claims this to be her main priority, why does she place Madeleine last, the lowest priority?
Her priority is them (US) feeling worthless, followed by mistrustful followed lastly by frightened and Madeleine.
No mention of harm or hurt, no mention of abduction, scared or terrified.
No mention of Madeleine being made to feel worthless or mistrustful
The trouble must then refer to something else not related to the person taking Madeleine or to them feeling worthless and mistrustful.
Madeleine is, as always, an afterthought.
All along it has been and is, all about how they feel, what they are going through, what they are experiencing.
Not once has it been about what Madeleine is feeling or experiencing or going through.
They have to be reminded to make mention of her.
There has been minimal statements made in public to Madeleine saying they are looking for her, telling her not to give up.
There has been little to no pleas made to the alleged abductor begging him to release Madeleine, to leave her in a safe place.
Why is this?
It is all unexpected.
Ia it because there was no abductor and the Madeleine is dead?
They know this and so there is no point making pleas and requests for her safe return or reassuring words to let her know they will find her, why waste valuable publicity time on the impossible when the time can be better utilised to get money from the gullible and sympathy for their own situation.
Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2007): “While both or one of [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance”.
What it boils down to is the trouble being they cannot clear themselves of involvement in the death, disposal and subsequent cover up of their daughter Madeleine McCann.
They cannot clear themselves because the forensic evidence points to a death in the apartment, their daughter is missing, there is no evidence of any kind to indicate abduction except the discounted word of one of their own group who could not have seen what she claims from where she claimed, circumstantial evidence points to the involvement of one or more members of the group being involved including the parents, including statements from the Dr's. Gaspar regarding a conversation between david payne and gerry mccann suggesting sexual activity with a child possibly Madeleine Mccann, their own statements which have told us Madeleine is dead.
The trouble is of their own making, the fact they are not believed by law enforcement and a large majority of the public.
Order is important
.
Here she puts herself and gerry as the priority.
He made them feel worthless and mistrustful.
As her second and last priority she mentions Madel
AND MAINLY who has frightened my beautiful Madeleine.
Madeleine should be her priority since it is she whom is the victim, yet here she puts the feelings of herself first.
She puts her feelings of being worthless and mistrustful over that over Madeleine being frightened..
Note the order here.
First comes worthless lastly comes mistrustfulThis is unexpected.
I would expect her to say mistrustful first since he allegedly abducted their child from an area, an environment they felt was trusted, was safe.
Instinct would cause them to doubt anyone who had access to their children, this would include each other, the tapas 7 friends, OC staff, other guests, locals and expats, in fact anyone within a drivable distance who could have had access to their apartment and their children.
Matt oldfield would by default be the obvious first suspect since he was the last one to check the children allegedly visually.
Before that it would then have been gerry, as the last parent to see the children and who took longer than expected on the supposed check.
Before that it would have been kate and david payne and their 30 second to 30 minute get together ( a couple Min's discrepancy would be expected over a longer visit, 30 seconds would literally have been hi are you coming down with the kids? No )
The fact there is such a huge discrepancy requires further investigation ( it would also explain why kate had both a shower prior to payne's visit and and bath when gerry got back)
Note also the minimising word frightened.
No mention there of who has abducted Madeleine, who has harmed Madeleine, who has terrified Madeleine.
Is this because she has to stick to the script that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm?
To admit to her being more than frightened, giving she was allegedly abducted by a paedophile, would be to indicate serious harm, given what paedophiles do to their victims.
She isn't terrified, or scared, she is merely frightened.
As always it is me, me, me, kate and how she is feeling, what she is experiencing, that gets priority over that of her missing daughter.
I will never forgive that person/those people. NEVER.
She claims she will never forgive that person/those people. NEVER.
Yet, she forgave the abductor and took out her rage and spite on the cop who was trying to find her daughter.
Never clearly has a time limit for kate.
We know they aren't devout catholics, they admitted as such.
It isn't unknown for the extremely devout to forgive the perpetrator, they however bear no grudge towards the cops who are trying to solve the crime, even if it takes years, or sadly never to solve the case.
They feel no anger as they know the cops are doing their best.
Any anger felt is towards the person(s) that committed the crime against their loved one.
Here though, we have kate who later forgave the 'abductor' venting her spleen and raging against the one guy who was doing his best for Madeleine, who was trying to find her missing, allegedly abducted daughter, and reuniting them.
WHY?
It simply makes no sense.
An innocent parent will not blame those helping to find their missing child, they will lay the blame solely on the perpetrator.
A guilty parent, scared of being caught, will blame the cops, will blame those seeking their missing loved one.
They will block all attempts to help, refuse to cooperate, pour scorn on, deride and smear and yes, even take legal action against those who are seeking justice for the missing child.
For the guilty parent to remain free they have no option than to smear and obfuscate and lie and sue and use any method possible to hinder the search and paint the lead detectives in as bad a light as possible.
Only that way can they hope to evade detection and arrest.
Kate and gerry exhibit the classic behavior of narcissistic sociopaths involved in the death of their daughter.
Every time they open their mouths or put finger to keyboard for the blog or website they reveal their guilt, they reveal their priorities, they reveal their narcissism.
From the get go, they have admitted their priority was and still is, themselves,
If Madeleine hurt herself, how was it their fault?
It was their holiday to.
It concerns me just what the atmosphere is like in their household, it will be toxic to say the least.
They have an emotionally abusive father and mother (all the lies and half truths), They have a mom who has threatened to press a button and kill them and herself and gerry.
What happens when they see a headline or a post that reveals their guilt, their refusal to cooperate?
What happens when they have a bad day in court?
What happens if they see a news item that paints them in a bad light?
What happens if Sean or Amelie ask any question relating to that vacation or worse if mom and dad are involved in some way?
What happens if they ask mom and dad why didn't you do the reconstruction?
Why didn't you answer those 48 questions?
Why didn't you search for Madeleine?
Why have you sue those who tried to find Madeleine?
Is Madeleine now a banned word?
Don't mention Madeleine or else mom will throw a massive tantrum.
I wonder if kate and gerry believe their children buy their version of events?
I wonder if they strictly monitor their web access?
I wonder if they face a grilling when coming home from school as to if anyone mentioned Madeleine?
If they looked on the Internet for anything mentioning Madeleine?
Will it be the dirty little secret between the twins, that they search their sister online though the school Internet access or friends cell phones?
Given their age they aren't stupid, they will have seen and heard things kate and gerry would rather that hadn't.
Will the twins decide to tell someone trusted such as a friend's parent, a teacher or even a cop what they have seen and heard?
Will the downfall of the mccann's be at the hands of their own children?
She takes ownership of the statement with the strong first person singular I.
She is speaking for herself.
She also uses the strong pronoun MY in relation to Madeleine.
This is maternal instinct speaking (apparently she does have some)
It is expected that when speaking for herself in such a stressful situation, she would take ownership of Madeleine.
She uses person which is used to conceal gender and identity.
It is unexpected given the alleged sighting of a man carrying a child away from the apartment as stated by jane tanner, one of the tapas 7 group of friends.
Why does she use person rather than the expected man, given what is already known and also given the claim Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile?
Why not say she hates the MAN who took her Madeleine?
Does she instead use the identity and gender concealing noun person because she does, in fact, know who removed Madeleine from the apartment and to reveal this would be incriminating not only to herself but to others involved as well?
Same one - She doesn't say the same person, she instead changes PERSON to ONE.
A change in language is a change in reality.
A person took Madeleine, One caused all this trouble.
This trouble. This is close, that is distancing.
She minimises the taking of Madeleine (abduction) to trouble.
What trouble does she refer to?
She doesn't tell us the trouble is making them feel worthless and mistrustful.
She tells us trouble, then worthless and finally mistrustful.
What other trouble is there then?
The trouble is, no one buys their story of abduction.
There is not one iota of evidence to indicate someone ( a man) broke into the apartment and abducted Madeleine from her bedroom.
The tanner sighting which at the time seemed unfeasible and impossible given what she claimed she saw in poor light at a distance of 50 metres, who was unseen by both gerry and Wilkins as she walked round them to go to her apartment.
There were no prints of any kind form an unknown source (the alleged abductor) no fibres, no hairs, no skins cells or sweat, nothing to indicate an unknown source removed Madeleine from her bed and away into the night.
The discrepancies in their stories regarding not only the supposed checks done nightly, but also who was doing what and when on which day, even to getting the weather completely wrong.
The breaking of the laws of physics in regard to open and slamming doors and whooshing curtains.
The refusal to answer 48 questions by kate even though she admitted that by not answering them, she was hindering the search if that's what they think.
The refusal to take part in any kind of reconstruction by the group, although the mccann's by law were compelled to.
If the tapas group refused to cooperate than by default the mccann's wouldn't have to since it was reliant on all of them being present.
The bolting back to the UK on being made arguidos and promptly hiring high priced extradition lawyers ( really? is this the behavior of innocent parents ?)
The muzzling of the media on pain of being sued and the suing of Dr. Goncalo Amaral because he dared to question their version of events.
The trouble that despite their books( i count the latest one by summers and swan as one of theirs else it would never have been allowed to be published if it didn't absolve them of any involvement) their mockumentary, their multiple interviews on TV, radio and the press, nothing clears them of involvement in the disappearance (death) and subsequent cover up of their daughter.
Even Leicestershire Police say they cannot be cleared
"Who made us feel worthless and mistrustful and mainly who has frightened MY beautiful Madeleine" .
Notice the placement of the pronoun and the name Madeleine, look at the order.
Us is the 3rd word in, it has priority, Madeleine is the last word, 15th out of 15, about as far as you can get from US.
Considering she claims this to be her main priority, why does she place Madeleine last, the lowest priority?
Her priority is them (US) feeling worthless, followed by mistrustful followed lastly by frightened and Madeleine.
No mention of harm or hurt, no mention of abduction, scared or terrified.
No mention of Madeleine being made to feel worthless or mistrustful
The trouble must then refer to something else not related to the person taking Madeleine or to them feeling worthless and mistrustful.
Madeleine is, as always, an afterthought.
All along it has been and is, all about how they feel, what they are going through, what they are experiencing.
Not once has it been about what Madeleine is feeling or experiencing or going through.
They have to be reminded to make mention of her.
There has been minimal statements made in public to Madeleine saying they are looking for her, telling her not to give up.
There has been little to no pleas made to the alleged abductor begging him to release Madeleine, to leave her in a safe place.
Why is this?
It is all unexpected.
Ia it because there was no abductor and the Madeleine is dead?
They know this and so there is no point making pleas and requests for her safe return or reassuring words to let her know they will find her, why waste valuable publicity time on the impossible when the time can be better utilised to get money from the gullible and sympathy for their own situation.
Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2007): “While both or one of [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance”.
What it boils down to is the trouble being they cannot clear themselves of involvement in the death, disposal and subsequent cover up of their daughter Madeleine McCann.
They cannot clear themselves because the forensic evidence points to a death in the apartment, their daughter is missing, there is no evidence of any kind to indicate abduction except the discounted word of one of their own group who could not have seen what she claims from where she claimed, circumstantial evidence points to the involvement of one or more members of the group being involved including the parents, including statements from the Dr's. Gaspar regarding a conversation between david payne and gerry mccann suggesting sexual activity with a child possibly Madeleine Mccann, their own statements which have told us Madeleine is dead.
The trouble is of their own making, the fact they are not believed by law enforcement and a large majority of the public.
Order is important
.
Here she puts herself and gerry as the priority.
He made them feel worthless and mistrustful.
As her second and last priority she mentions Madel
AND MAINLY who has frightened my beautiful Madeleine.
Madeleine should be her priority since it is she whom is the victim, yet here she puts the feelings of herself first.
She puts her feelings of being worthless and mistrustful over that over Madeleine being frightened..
Note the order here.
First comes worthless lastly comes mistrustfulThis is unexpected.
I would expect her to say mistrustful first since he allegedly abducted their child from an area, an environment they felt was trusted, was safe.
Instinct would cause them to doubt anyone who had access to their children, this would include each other, the tapas 7 friends, OC staff, other guests, locals and expats, in fact anyone within a drivable distance who could have had access to their apartment and their children.
Matt oldfield would by default be the obvious first suspect since he was the last one to check the children allegedly visually.
Before that it would then have been gerry, as the last parent to see the children and who took longer than expected on the supposed check.
Before that it would have been kate and david payne and their 30 second to 30 minute get together ( a couple Min's discrepancy would be expected over a longer visit, 30 seconds would literally have been hi are you coming down with the kids? No )
The fact there is such a huge discrepancy requires further investigation ( it would also explain why kate had both a shower prior to payne's visit and and bath when gerry got back)
Note also the minimising word frightened.
No mention there of who has abducted Madeleine, who has harmed Madeleine, who has terrified Madeleine.
Is this because she has to stick to the script that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm?
To admit to her being more than frightened, giving she was allegedly abducted by a paedophile, would be to indicate serious harm, given what paedophiles do to their victims.
She isn't terrified, or scared, she is merely frightened.
As always it is me, me, me, kate and how she is feeling, what she is experiencing, that gets priority over that of her missing daughter.
I will never forgive that person/those people. NEVER.
She claims she will never forgive that person/those people. NEVER.
Yet, she forgave the abductor and took out her rage and spite on the cop who was trying to find her daughter.
Never clearly has a time limit for kate.
We know they aren't devout catholics, they admitted as such.
It isn't unknown for the extremely devout to forgive the perpetrator, they however bear no grudge towards the cops who are trying to solve the crime, even if it takes years, or sadly never to solve the case.
They feel no anger as they know the cops are doing their best.
Any anger felt is towards the person(s) that committed the crime against their loved one.
Here though, we have kate who later forgave the 'abductor' venting her spleen and raging against the one guy who was doing his best for Madeleine, who was trying to find her missing, allegedly abducted daughter, and reuniting them.
WHY?
It simply makes no sense.
An innocent parent will not blame those helping to find their missing child, they will lay the blame solely on the perpetrator.
A guilty parent, scared of being caught, will blame the cops, will blame those seeking their missing loved one.
They will block all attempts to help, refuse to cooperate, pour scorn on, deride and smear and yes, even take legal action against those who are seeking justice for the missing child.
For the guilty parent to remain free they have no option than to smear and obfuscate and lie and sue and use any method possible to hinder the search and paint the lead detectives in as bad a light as possible.
Only that way can they hope to evade detection and arrest.
Kate and gerry exhibit the classic behavior of narcissistic sociopaths involved in the death of their daughter.
Every time they open their mouths or put finger to keyboard for the blog or website they reveal their guilt, they reveal their priorities, they reveal their narcissism.
From the get go, they have admitted their priority was and still is, themselves,
If Madeleine hurt herself, how was it their fault?
It was their holiday to.
It concerns me just what the atmosphere is like in their household, it will be toxic to say the least.
They have an emotionally abusive father and mother (all the lies and half truths), They have a mom who has threatened to press a button and kill them and herself and gerry.
What happens when they see a headline or a post that reveals their guilt, their refusal to cooperate?
What happens when they have a bad day in court?
What happens if they see a news item that paints them in a bad light?
What happens if Sean or Amelie ask any question relating to that vacation or worse if mom and dad are involved in some way?
What happens if they ask mom and dad why didn't you do the reconstruction?
Why didn't you answer those 48 questions?
Why didn't you search for Madeleine?
Why have you sue those who tried to find Madeleine?
Is Madeleine now a banned word?
Don't mention Madeleine or else mom will throw a massive tantrum.
I wonder if kate and gerry believe their children buy their version of events?
I wonder if they strictly monitor their web access?
I wonder if they face a grilling when coming home from school as to if anyone mentioned Madeleine?
If they looked on the Internet for anything mentioning Madeleine?
Will it be the dirty little secret between the twins, that they search their sister online though the school Internet access or friends cell phones?
Given their age they aren't stupid, they will have seen and heard things kate and gerry would rather that hadn't.
Will the twins decide to tell someone trusted such as a friend's parent, a teacher or even a cop what they have seen and heard?
Will the downfall of the mccann's be at the hands of their own children?
Friday, August 1, 2014
"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances" ~ Kate McCann
"I
know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the
children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances" ~ Kate
McCann
So, if it wasn't when the children were left asleep, it must mean the children weren't asleep.
The children were awake.
If the children were awake, then why did they not ask the twins what they heard and saw?
If the children were asleep, how come they were so deeply asleep that they didn't wake up with all the noise and disturbance?
Notice she says asleep and not when they were left home alone and asleep or even left in the apartment alone.
The brains knows the truth and wants to spill the beans since lying is so stressful.
How do you know kate, it was under other circumstances?
What were those other circumstances if it wasn't the children sleeping in an unlocked apartment?
The only other circumstance, which you and gerry and other witnesses have said is that the twins were not left sleeping home alone in 5a as you claim, they were in fact being babysat by whichever missing adult from the tapas bar whose turn it was (as you told us)
This then means where was Maddie, whilst the twins were sleeping in whichever apartment all the children were in?
If it were a genuine abduction why not say it was in apartment whatever and the abductor snuck in to do the dastardly deed whilst the babysitter was distracted?
Unlikely but more believable that the claptrap you are currently spouting.
Since you have stuck with the abduction in 5a why are the tapas 7 backing your claim?
Surely they should have been asking where Maddie was on that night? (if we go with your abduction claim)
If she was ill. why not say, since sundry adults and children were getting sick,
Why not have her babysat in whichever apartment perhaps not with the other children?
Is it the case that the tapas 7 knew Maddie was dead at some point during the week prior to Thurs?
If this is the case why did no one call 911?
Even though they are doctors, they would not have had access to the medical stuff necessary should she have collapsed.
This implies then they knew she was dead and did nothing, called no emergency service and are thus complicit in her death as well as the filing of a false police report, the subsequent disposal and cover up.
Is this why they are silent?
At the time they didn't understand the ramifications of what they were doing, perhaps they were reassured that they wouldn't be involved etc and then, once the ball started rolling. it was too late.
They became aiders and abettors and could well face the same charges as the mccanns and the same penalties.
Is this a case of too late mate, if i go down for this i am taking you all with me.
They are scared of the consequences knowing fine well kate and gerry will blame it all on them saying the tapas 7 told them to dispose of the body and lie etc whilst minimizing their own roles.
The thing is folks, if you did not actually do the deed, if you did not dump her body, if you know or suspect were she is or was, if you know anything, then now is the time to start talking.
You may be offered a deal by the Portuguese if you can bring an end to this charade and give a little girl a decent and dignified burial.
The same goes for the UK police, they will listen and if you help them then the courts will look favorably on you.
Heck even we the public will be forgiving if you speak out and tell the truth, if you be Maddie's voice.
There will be consequences, it can't be helped.
Your reputations will be damaged, you may have social services involved to make sure your children are safe, you may face loss of your job or restrictions on it.
Better that than a long spell in jail whilst kate and gerry swan around.Better that and a clear conscience, than a lifetime of wondering when the knock on the door will be, if someone will beat you to the prize and get immunity, the fear of wondering if you will be blamed, the lies you have told your children, your family and friends.
The truth always comes out, better now than later.
Do the right thing and tell the PJ what the circumstances were since it wasn't when the children were left sleeping.
YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
So, if it wasn't when the children were left asleep, it must mean the children weren't asleep.
The children were awake.
If the children were awake, then why did they not ask the twins what they heard and saw?
If the children were asleep, how come they were so deeply asleep that they didn't wake up with all the noise and disturbance?
Notice she says asleep and not when they were left home alone and asleep or even left in the apartment alone.
The brains knows the truth and wants to spill the beans since lying is so stressful.
How do you know kate, it was under other circumstances?
What were those other circumstances if it wasn't the children sleeping in an unlocked apartment?
The only other circumstance, which you and gerry and other witnesses have said is that the twins were not left sleeping home alone in 5a as you claim, they were in fact being babysat by whichever missing adult from the tapas bar whose turn it was (as you told us)
This then means where was Maddie, whilst the twins were sleeping in whichever apartment all the children were in?
If it were a genuine abduction why not say it was in apartment whatever and the abductor snuck in to do the dastardly deed whilst the babysitter was distracted?
Unlikely but more believable that the claptrap you are currently spouting.
Since you have stuck with the abduction in 5a why are the tapas 7 backing your claim?
Surely they should have been asking where Maddie was on that night? (if we go with your abduction claim)
If she was ill. why not say, since sundry adults and children were getting sick,
Why not have her babysat in whichever apartment perhaps not with the other children?
Is it the case that the tapas 7 knew Maddie was dead at some point during the week prior to Thurs?
If this is the case why did no one call 911?
Even though they are doctors, they would not have had access to the medical stuff necessary should she have collapsed.
This implies then they knew she was dead and did nothing, called no emergency service and are thus complicit in her death as well as the filing of a false police report, the subsequent disposal and cover up.
Is this why they are silent?
At the time they didn't understand the ramifications of what they were doing, perhaps they were reassured that they wouldn't be involved etc and then, once the ball started rolling. it was too late.
They became aiders and abettors and could well face the same charges as the mccanns and the same penalties.
Is this a case of too late mate, if i go down for this i am taking you all with me.
They are scared of the consequences knowing fine well kate and gerry will blame it all on them saying the tapas 7 told them to dispose of the body and lie etc whilst minimizing their own roles.
The thing is folks, if you did not actually do the deed, if you did not dump her body, if you know or suspect were she is or was, if you know anything, then now is the time to start talking.
You may be offered a deal by the Portuguese if you can bring an end to this charade and give a little girl a decent and dignified burial.
The same goes for the UK police, they will listen and if you help them then the courts will look favorably on you.
Heck even we the public will be forgiving if you speak out and tell the truth, if you be Maddie's voice.
There will be consequences, it can't be helped.
Your reputations will be damaged, you may have social services involved to make sure your children are safe, you may face loss of your job or restrictions on it.
Better that than a long spell in jail whilst kate and gerry swan around.Better that and a clear conscience, than a lifetime of wondering when the knock on the door will be, if someone will beat you to the prize and get immunity, the fear of wondering if you will be blamed, the lies you have told your children, your family and friends.
The truth always comes out, better now than later.
Do the right thing and tell the PJ what the circumstances were since it wasn't when the children were left sleeping.
YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)