Cliff Richard Allegations : Everybody has an idea about everything, even if they are wrong

A statement released by Sir Cliff said:

"I  have no idea where these absurd and untrue allegations come from.
"The police have not disclosed details to me. 
I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail.
I have co-operated fully with the police, and will, of course, continue to do so.
"Beyond stating that the allegations are completely false, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further until the investigation has concluded, which I hope will be very soon.
"In the meantime, I would, again, like to thank everyone for supporting me through this unbelievably difficult period."

Never does not mean did not, it is only applicable if the question asked is have you ever...?

Assault would depend on his personal internal dictionary definition of assault.
A paedophile could pass a poly if asked if he molested little Tiffany. or Billy?
In his personal internal dictionary he didn't see it as assault, he sees it as tickling or cuddling or hugging.

A statement analyst would seek to learn his internal personal dictionary and ask questions such as did you touch...?
Did you touch them over their clothes?
Did you touch them underneath their clothes?
Where did you touch them?
How did you touch them?
With what did you touch them?
Did they touch you?
and so on getting to specifics so they have no chance to minimise or lie by omission.

"I have no idea where these absurd and untrue allegations come from".
He would have an idea where the allegations have come from, at least one that is known of, relates to a Christian rally in Sheffield in 1985 with an adolescent 15 yr old boy.
There are also the allegations of him being a visitor to elm guest house under the pseudonym kitty.
He would have been told at the time he was interviewed and his house searched on the warrant.
His attorneys would also have been told and, i presume would have then informed their client

"The police have not disclosed details to me"
They would have made him aware of the allegations against him when they paid him a visit.
Note though he doesn't say allegations, he uses the word details which means he is aware of what the allegations are but perhaps not the who is making the allegations or the specifics of the allegations.
He wants the listener/reader to believe he knows nothing about anything but he refers to details not allegations.

"I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail."
This is a weak and unreliable denial.
Never does not mean did not.
He also adds the additional qualifier IN MY LIFE which further weakens his denial.
If he has never assaulted anyone then it is a given it would be his whole life.
This is a sensitive part of his statement, he doesn't make a strong first person singular reliable denial and, if he doesn't say it, i can't say it for him.
He uses the word assault, i would need to learn what his definition of assault is.
He says assaulted and not sexually assaulted.
Assault is generally thought of as hitting or attacking someone physically, causing harm.
He may think that what he did wasn't assault as he did not hit or physically harm the victim,
He could claim it was harmless, consensual or loving, minimising the crime and the resulting emotional damage done to the victim(s) and their families and future generations

"I remain confidant the truth will prevail"
This is often used by guilty parties to convince the world they are innocent.
This can and often does change as evidence is found and charges laid.
Oft times the subject will use phrases such as fully intend to clear my name or express confidence regarding the truth only to do a plea deal when reality kicks in.
What is his definition of the TRUTH?
He uses the word TRUTH rather than i will not face charges because i did not sexually touch any child

"I have co-operated fully with the police, and will, of course, continue to do so".
Note the use of the qualifier FULLY (a qualifier is a word which when removed, does not change the meaning of the sentence)
Qualifiers weaken the statement.
It would be a given that an innocent person would cooperate with LE, why does he need to say he will fully cooperate?
Are or will there be limits to his cooperation?
OF COURSE is used to persuade the listener/reader to accept what the subject is saying without question.
He tells us he has fully cooperated with the police not that he is cooperating with the police currently.
This cooperation will depend on what LE find, any further allegations made and what his lawyers advise him to do.
Note also the dropped pronoun in relation to his continuing to fully cooperate with police.
He doesn't take ownership of continuing to fully cooperation and, i suspect, when more evidence is found / more victims come forward / further information is uncovered the cooperation will cease and he will lawyer up and say nothing

"Beyond stating that the allegations are completely false, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further until the investigation has concluded, which I hope will be very soon."
Here would be the perfect time to state he did not sexually assault/ touch any child since that is the allegation made.
If he was innocent as claimed, then there is nothing to stop him making it clear the allegations aren't true and shouting it from the rooftops day after day.
Innocent people will be loud and proud and will not stay silent if they are innocent..
 
Guilty people on the other hand invariably say they will say nothing else until the investigation has concluded / they get their day in court or the ever popular on my attorney's advice i will not be making any further comments.
Guilty people tend to want all the publicity to die down and go off the radar saying nothing or next to nothing except the usual spiel about attorneys and courts of law.

He hopes the investigation will conclude very soon which allows for it to continue especially if other allegations come to light which might be the case (elm guest house for example)
He doesn't say the investigation to conclude and me to be cleared as i did not sexually touch / sexually assault any child.
He only says conclude which allows for a number of conclusions some of which will be bad for him and good for the victims.

"In the meantime, I would, again, like to thank everyone for supporting me through this unbelievably difficult period."
Is it unbelievable because perhaps he thought he would never be caught?
Is it unbelievable given his professed Christian faith?
Is it unbelievable because he is an all round clean living good guy with a knighthood?If he were innocent of any wrongdoing then i would expect to hear a strong first person singular reliable denial
I - first person singular
Did not /didn't  - past tense
Sexually molest/sexually abuse/sexually touch  any child - event specific

Anything thing apart from those words are classed as unreliable denials
Examples could be i didn't do it -  this begs the question what is the IT you didn't do?
I  never sexually molested a child - Never does not mean did not making it unreliable.
I  would  never harm a child -  Would is future conditional, if the subject has been caught or even accused the subject may think twice about it next time
Harm is also non even specific and, for example, in the case of murder and the subject uses harm rather than kill, they minimise the crime.

I am still waiting for him to make a strong reliable denial regarding the allegations, sadly it is not yet forthcoming.
I do expect his sexuality to finally come out possibly to divert attention from the allegations.
It is an open secret and possibly he maintains the facade due to the age of his fan base and also due to his professed Christian beliefs.

Way back when he first started, homosexuality was taboo and even up until fairly recent times it was the secret no one talked about although these days it seems everyone is jumping on the gay bandwagon if it will sell records or get them 15 minutes of fame.His fan base, like most boy bands even today are the young girls of the time, girls who will buy his records, go to his concerts, buy memorabilia and generally scream and swoon at the feet of their idol, do their best to meet their idol or even jump into bed with them (back then they were called groupies)
Even today, boy bands tend to keep their sexuality hidden along with any significant others such as girlfriends or wives at the behest of their management.
Single boys and men mean more sales of records and memorabilia.
Having a significant other means reduced sales by girls who hope one day they may become their significant other and, who can get really jealous and angry even to making threats if their favorite gets a girlfriend, married or has favorite girls he hangs out with.
Cliff was portrayed and sold  as the UK version of Elvis Presley

I wonder if we will hear anything from his live in companion (an ex priest whose mom elliptically told a newspaper in 2006: ‘He left for the same reasons so many of them leave. I know about his new life and Sir Cliff, of course. I hope they are happy'

Read more  )

I think there is a lot more to come out, especially since his name being on the Elm Guest House  list  along with his nickname of Kitty is open knowledge.
Elm Guest House has links to  paedophile parties  where underage boys were sexually abused by people in power or money or fame.
It will be interesting to see if he makes any mention of this in the coming days and weeks.
 
He has alluded to in in an earlier statement without getting into specifics

Aug 14 2014

"For many months I have been aware of allegations against me of historic impropriety which have been circulating online.

"The allegations are completely false. Up until now I have chosen not to dignify the false allegations with a response, as it would just give them more oxygen.

 

 

"However, the police attended my apartment in Berkshire today without notice, except it would appear to the press.

"I am not presently in the UK but it goes without saying that I will cooperate fully should the police wish to speak to me.

"Beyond stating that today's allegation is completely false it would not be appropriate to say anything further until the police investigation has concluded."
It is strange that, given the  allegations being made, and considering  how paedophiles are reviled, that rather than make a strong reliable denial  in relation to said allegations and that being called a paedophile directly or by implication is probably the worst thing you can accuse someone, particularly a man of, why not say I am not a paedophile, i did not visit Elm Guest House at any time, I did not attend any parties where underage children were sexually abused etc, he instead decided to say nothing.


This is unexpected and has caused me, and likely many others, to ask why won't he make a strong reliable denial?

Is this akin to by not answering the question you are answering the question?

By implication alone the questions running through the minds of the public are:
Are you a paedophile?
Have you sexually abused a child or children?
Did you attended parties where sexual abuse of underage boys took place?

These are not questions that will go away.
These are questions that demand an answer.

It reminds me of david payne and the Drs Gaspar statements and the common knowledge he liked to bathe other peoples children.
A child, Madeleine McCann, goes missing on a vacation where he is also present  and yet despite the allegations and all they imply, rather than make a strong reliable denial, he says nothing.
In such cases, given their nature, saying nothing is not an option.
Staying silent only fuels the fire.
Questions are asked as to why they aren't denying the allegation  which then leads to the logical conclusion that they aren't denying it because there is some truth to it.

Cliff has made no strong reliable denial, nor has he responded to the allegations regarding Elm Guest House (something LE will be well aware of)
By saying nothing, people will then ask why isn't he denying it?
Is there some truth to these allegations?

I await with interest any further statements he or his attorneys decide to make

Question: Kate introduces MURDER and Framed

AnonymousFebruary 21, 2015 at 3:59 AM

Hi Tania!

I've seen where you have replied to "anonymous" ;) claims where Maddie's death was not an accident.

Here's where I'm so confused and it would be nice to understand better thx in advance)!

You told us kate "herself" told us poor little Maddie was "murdered" because she chose the word. The quote comes from a Daily Mirror interview where she is addressing CLAIMS that she murdered Maddie. If she's responding to claims of murder, doesn't that mean somebody else brought up murder before she did? And she also brought up the word framed. If leaking a word gives it importance why so much emphasis on her responding to others' claims of MURDER but you completely dismiss

To ask it another way- you dismiss accidental death above so presumably you think it's murder. So if km were to respond to your accusation, and used the word "murder," you would then say- look- she used the word murder, so she must have murdered Maddie.

Anywho, that's where I'm a tad confused. Any help is appreciated!!!

* waves *

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

If she is responding to a question in which the word murder is used such as did you murder Madeleine and her reply was "no, i did not murder Madeleine", in statement analysis this is known as an unreliable denial as she is reflecting the language of the interviewer (which is why when interviewing a subject,you do not introduce new language)

 A good example of this is gerry's response on being asked "did you kill your daughter? He replies No, and that's an emphatic no and then goes beyond the bounds of the question by explaining how he could not have killed his daughter making it not only an unreliable denial but also extremely sensitive.

GM"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous.

If she is asked to make a comment  such as why were you  called in to the police station? and she replies using the process of free editing where the words are thought of a microsecond before being spoken, then murder is on the forefront of her mind and she leaks that thought in her reply.
Since they are telling the world she was abducted and knowing how muzzled the UK media is and how supportive of the couple they were, would a journalist ask directly did you murder your daughter and risk their ire?
At best they would have used a less provocative word such as kill (see gerry's answer)  or are you involved in the death of your daughter?
A strong reliable denial would be I did not kill Madeleine.
She doesn't reflect the language of the question

She uses the strong first person pronoun I
Past tense DID NOT
Event specific  KILL MADELEINE.

If she said  i didn't do it, i did not harm Madeleine, i would never harm/hurt my daughter, then it would also be an unreliable denial as it violates the principals of a strong reliable denial.
It - she doesn't say what IT is
Harm/hurt is to minimise the crime
WOULD is future conditional, and since Maddie is already dead, she can no longer be harmed.

Kate and gerry have been telling the world for 8 years Maddie was abducted, if this were true and they were innocent then they would only use the term abducted as this is what is on their mind unless they have knowledge or have been given to believe she is dead.

If they were innocent, they would have fully cooperated with LE in regard to reconstructions and interviews, they would have physically searched and they would have answered every question put to hem, the expected behavior of innocent parents.

AS we know, they refused to co-operate, lawyering up almost immediately.
They refused to physically search.
Kate refused to answer 48 questions.
They have sued or threatened to sue anyone who disagrees with their version of events.
They also hired investigators with no experience of finding missing persons, but who were experienced in financial crimes, money laundering and the like.
After 8 years, there is still not one iota of evidence to indicate an abduction, which, even you have to admit, is rather telling.

Regarding the word framed.
She introduces this as she was made Arguido.
To be framed would imply there was evidence that proved they were involved.
Evidence would be planted to implicate the subject.

This then tells us there is evidence that has been found which would implicate one of both of them in the death of their daughter.
This despite their oft repeated claims there is no evidence that Maddie is dead.

We know this is untrue since blood and body fluids were found in the apartment and hire car, cadaverine was found in the apartment and hire car as well as on items of clothing and cuddle cat.
There has been to date no evidence indicating abduction.
Excuses were thought up to explain away this 'non existent' evidence such as kate handled multiple dead bodies before the vacation, Sean had developed a taste for sea bass( reputed to give off the scent of cadaverine) and the classic dirty diapers, rotting meat and fish and sweaty sandals.

We also have clarence telling us:

  "Any evidence they may or may not have found which gave them cause for suspicion of Gerry and Kate can be wholly and easily explained should it come to that."

Given we know the evidence found includes blood and body fluids which in the initial FSS report indicated they belonged to Maddie before it being minimised and which could not and did not exclude Maddie as being the donor, the question arises, if they claim they are being framed and the fluids belong to Maddie, why the have they not been arrested and charged?
It would mean that someone had access to Maddie's remains and obtained samples of blood and body fluids and went to the apartment and placed said fluids behind the sofa on the floor, in the parents wardrobe on cuddlecat, kate's pants and the red child's t-shirt and then knew which hire car they were going to rent and places fluids and hairs in that.

Since the house was being watched as were the couple and LE were everywhere how did said person get in to contaminate the apartment, get access to the clothing when they were in the new apartment and get access to cuddlecat which appeared to be surgically attached to kate.
How then did they get access to the hire car?
If they got samples from Maddie's remains, why was it not reported to LE?
Who would find a body and not report it especially in a case like this?

Do you see how implausible all their excuses and explanations are?

Kate used the word murder which would exclude accidental death.

Accidental death could have been Maddie falling and banging her head.

Maddie being hit during a row and being fatally injured

Maddie being  injured  whilst kate and gerry rowed, with one of them lashing out and hitting Maddie instead.

Maddie dying of overdose when she found pills or medication or drugs

Maddie dying during/ as a result of being the victim of another crime such as being sexually abused.

Kate doesn't allow for the above options as she would have said accidentally died.
She uses the specific MURDER

This could be premeditated which would fit with her having issues with Maddie and not bonding with her as per her book.

It could be due to altruistic reasons such as Maddie had serious health issues which were life shortening so she was killed as a kindness to end her suffering.

It could be down to jealousy as we know kate was an only child and perhaps resented Maddie getting attention (especially if she was a daddy's girl)

It could be down to anger, Maddie was the scapegoat for all the family problems, financial issues (struggling to pay the mortgage) when things went wrong, Maddie was blamed,  marital issues.

It could be that  Maddie wasn't gerry's bio child whereas the twins are and when they arrived she was  regarded as disposable, she wasn't part of the family ( we have seen in their comments over the years that there is no bond between kate and Maddie and kate in particular has real problems talking about or referring to her as part of their family)

It could be that she died after some other crime was committed and they wanted to stop her talking as she was now of an age where she could talk and tell what was happening.

It could have been accidental homicide, something happened and they did not seek treatment and as a result she died.

It could have been the result of accidental overdose/over sedation.

Whatever the reason, they could not allow Maddie to be autopsied as the  results would be hard if not impossible to explain away as an accident.

Kate used the word MURDER for a reason.
It was at the forefront of her mind the moment she spoke and she leaked marbles

Question: Could it have been an accidental death?

AnonymousFebruary 16, 2015 at 10:08 PM

Tania, thank-you for taking the time to reply to my post at 8:25 AM, although I didn't know Madeleine, I find myself getting upset thinking how she must have suffered in her dying moments if no-one was there to help her, and the fact that her parents could be involved in her disappearance.
I did wonder if she had woken-up and left the apartment to look for her parents, and maybe fell in the pool, and when discovered she was carried back to the apartment to try and resuscitate her but it was too late. I also wondered if she'd fiddled with beads on that elastic in her hair, and maybe choked on those? 

If they really were left on their own in the apartment without any supervision, do you think rather than own up to finding Madeleine dead/dying they just panicked and decided to dream up the abduction story?

 Not particularly thinking straight, and being worse for wear, after boozing all night.

Thank-you for your interesting opinion on this very weird/baffling case.

Goodnight..

Hi Anon (please choose a name  even if a disposable one)
If she left the apartment and fell into the pool why would they then carry her back to the apartment to try and resuscitate her?
There would have been a high risk of being seen for a start either when they were out looking for her in which case Maddie would likely have been found in the pool by a member of staff, one of the searchers or one of the tapas (who would then have to explain why they carried her back to the apartment to resuscitate her rather than starting CPR by the pool as would be expected, especially since there were several doctors in the group.
If Maddie drowned, it would then be an accident and the mccanns would have sued the pants off Mark Warner for not  making sure the pool was safe at night.
There would be no reason to conceal an accidental death, especially if they thought they would get compensation ( possibly even from their travel insurance if they took it out)

Regarding your second suggestion.
Choking on a hair bead would again be accidental death.
Why would they need to conceal her death if it were accidental?
They could claim they checked and they were all sleeping safely and when they woke up in the morning she was dead behind the sofa having woken in the night as shown by her chart on the fridge and gone to get a drink/use the bathroom/play in the living room/look out the window.
She  pulled her hair bead out  as children are wont to do and put it in her mouth, again as children are wont to do, and, fell and swallowed the bead causing her to choke.
This would allow them to claim they weren't neglectful as they were in the apartment sleeping when the accident happened.

Since the coroner would have been able to pinpoint the hour of death, they could have claimed they got home and quickly peeked into the dark bedroom and, on hearing no noise went to bed assuming all 3 children were sleeping when in fact, Maddie had fallen behind the sofa the previous night.and died.
Heck, they could even claim they didn't do a final check as there was no noise coming from the bedroom so they assumed all was well.
Only in the morning when they saw Maddie wasn't in her bed would they have done a search of the house, to find her dead behind the sofa.
Cue the calling of 911 weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Cue the onrush of public sympathy
Both are plausible excuses if not believable.
Finding their child dead or severely injured would have an immediate sobering effect and, if injured accidentally and they were drunk, why would they need to come up with an implausible and impossible abduction.

When someone is deceptive, they have a reason to be deceptive, and in the cases where someone is killed or goes missing, especially a child, innocent people have no reason for deception.
Those who are guilty or have guilty knowledge will have a reason to deceive, that is, fear of the consequences of their actions.

It still wouldn't explain why cadaverine was detected in the parents wardrobe as dead people don't walk about except in the movies.
If it were accidental and they could explain away the cadaverine  behind the sofa and on kate's pants, cuddlecat and the red child's t shirt which they could have claimed she was sleeping in, they still have to explain why there was cadaverine in the wardrobe and then subsequently in the hire car.

If it were accidental, they likely would not have faced charges if using the above excuses, yes they left the children alone (personally i don't buy this) but she died whilst they were sleeping.
Cue lots of sympathy, 15 mins of fame and life moves on.

Since they did none of the above and the group have said they would have reported an accident, the conclusion has to be it was none accidental.
She either died due to something happening to her such as over sedation or perhaps being pushed or slapped by an angry parent - negligent homicide or she was physically or sexually abused and died as a result of said abuse non premeditated homicide or, she was deliberately murdered - first degree homicide.
if it was non accidental and likely a result of physical/sexual abuse or deliberate homicide it would explain their behavior.it would explain why her body could not be allowed to be autopsied.
The injuries could not be explained away as accidental, especially sexual injuries, especially old injuries which would mean the abuse had been ongoing.
Old injuries,scars would lead to questions as to her medical history, was she treated in hospital perhaps and if no, and the injury is of a type that would have warranted a visit such as a fracture awkward questions would be asked indeed as to why she wasn't treated at hospital and who treated said injury  especially as they are doctors.

Kate herself told the world the Portuguese didn't want a murder in their country, a statement which is damning and incriminating.
She doesn't tell us it was an abduction, she doesn't tell us it was an accident, she doesn't tell us it was due to their negligence, she uses the word MURDER.

The brain thinks of the word a microsecond before it is spoken.

Murder is what was at the forefront of her mind as she spoke.
She tells us right there Maddie is dead and it was murder.
What we have to learn is who murdered her?

If it was was at the hands of one of the tapas 7, most likely to be payne, why would they cover it up?
Even if they were involved in other crimes, murder beats them all.
They would do time depending on the crimes and their severity, they would lose their licenses to practice and their children, their friends and likely their home however, they would get released at some point.
They could even sue him though they would likely get little or nothing if it can be shown they played a part in their daughter's death at the hands of another.
Since it is unlikely they would cover for a murderer, either they themselves committed murder or they were participants/observers and that makes them accessories.
This would explain their language and behavior, their non searching, the pact of silence within the group, the voracious greed in relation to money and air time and attention.
Their insatiable need to litigate and muzzle anyone who hints at the truth and denies their version of events.

They need to keep on the offensive since to stop would mean the public and LE looking closely at their version of events and find it lacking and when that happens it is game over.
They have painted themselves into a corner and this is when they are likely to be a danger to their children and themselves (kate telling the world about her pressing a button and them all being together)

A trapped animal with nowhere to go will go on the attack, is this the reason why the mccanns are so litigious and aggressive towards those who don't buy their version of events?

How Did Shrien Dewani Manage To Walk Free?

His defense played a clever game and it paid off, he walked.

All long he denied he was gay, right up the the opening minute of the trial.

His team knew the prosecution would bring up his sexuality as a motive for having his wife killed, and, given his culture, it was a big no no.

Knowing this, the defense decided they would pull the rug from under the prosecutions feet by having him admit , albeit minimising, his sexuality.

Rather than admit he was homosexual with no interest of any kind in women (plus it would also show why he cancelled his first engagement) they minimised it to him being bisexual, (though i would like to know if he has had sex with a woman or even got to first or second base with one)

At a stroke, it meant all the evidence which pointed to his sexuality and thus a whopping big motive for murder was stopped dead.

His previous male lovers, the texts, the visiting of gay dating. contact sites was  ruled irrelevant and thus not heard nor open to cross examination.

It meant that Anni who it is clear had learned of his sexual orientation would tell not only her family but his family as well and the resultant shame etc that would come from  him being outed.

It also meant she would likely sue him for divorce ( although how that would work out since they weren't legally married AFAIK).

It also meant that should she walk away, both he and his family would be liable to repay a huge chunk of money to her family for the cost of the wedding.

Him being outed would bring cultural shame on his family and also would result in a large payout  to Anni and her family.

By admitting to being bisexual, he pretty much  ended a huge chunk of the prosecutions case, he and his team stopped a huge part of the motive being introduced and cross examined.

Given this, it was not unexpected the case would fail since legally there was no motive.

His motives were shame  to himself and his family for being gay and he had to stop that happening.
Being gay was his dirty little secret.

There was the money side of things - he could face a huge payout for the cost of the wedding and also compensation to Anni ( also likely a payoff to keep her quiet about his sexual preferences)

Sex and money are pretty big motives.

Take them away and there were only the words of those who did the deed.

He knew he was safe when his defense team said he would take the stand, promised he would take the stand to explain everything away.

They knew without the sex and money motives the case would be tossed.

The CCTV was incriminating in that. given the guy was the driver in the taxi that his wife was driven off in and subsequently murdered, why would he contact the guy and pay him money owed?

Normal and expected behavior would be you wouldn't pay money owed, you would be demanding the police arrest the guy.

Even his initial statements as revealed by independent witnesses showed he was deceptive.

His suit was immaculate, not dirty or ruffled or messy as if dragged out a car and thrown into the dust.

His inital words to a witness were polite and showed no haste or anger or fear.

(‘He said to me, “Excuse me, is there a nearby police station where I can report a hijack because my wife and I were hijacked”, ’ said Mr Matokazi.)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333717/Anni-Dewani-tears-honeymoon-flight-shot-dead-says-father.html#ixzz3O4QwA9Rr

Shrien dewani arranged for his wife to be murdered so he could continue with his seedy lifestyle.

I just hope her family can  file a civil suit against him.

Since SA has double jeopardy, he could now stand and declare his guilt, his involvement and he could not be retried.

If he does, he would wait until any civil suit had been dealt with.

Maddie's 4th Birthday As Per The Bewk

"The Mark Warner staff had brought over stacks of food for us.
The men organized a barbecue and there was wine and beer.
We ate mostly in silence, concentrating on the kids.
 I couldn’t eat much, and alcohol was completely off my agenda.
Fiona recalls that Gerry and I were completely shut down that day, barely able to talk, and although our friends tried to remain cheerful and behave normally to get us through it, they all felt awkward about being at this lovely villa, in the sunshine, in these circumstances.
There was no cake.
Gerry did attempt a toast but he was visibly upset and couldn’t manage much more than ‘I can’t even say happy birthday to my daughter . . .’ before choking up.
The physical loss was more intense than ever. I ached for Madeleine."

Interesting and telling.
 
They found time to organise a bbq with food and beer, in other words a party, even though there was no cake, yet they couldn't find time to actually go out and physically search, neither the mccanns themselves, or their family and friends.We ate mostly in silence, concentrating on the kids.
 Mostly is a qualifier, , what were they talking about when not being silent?
How did they concentrate on the kids?
What kids were present?
Who else was present?

 I couldn’t eat much, and alcohol was completely off my agenda. 
Couldn't  not didn't? Note the qualifier completely in relation to alcohol and her agenda
This tells us alcohol was not off the agenda of others, again telling us this was a party.
She doesn't tell us she didn't drink alcohol, only that it was completely off her agenda


Fiona recalls that Gerry and I were completely shut down that day, barely able to talk,
She doesn't tell us she and gerry were completely shut down, only that their tapas friend fiona recalls they were completely shut down.
Recalls not recalled.
She speaks in the present tense not past tense which can be indicative of story telling not speaking from experiential memory
Notice also the dropped pronoun in relation to barely able to talk.
She doesn't take ownership of being barely able to talk either as first person singular I or in this case  first person plural WE

She doesn't even say fiona told us or said, she tells us what her friend remembers.

Note also she says gerry and i not the expected WE were completely shut down.
They were barely able to talk, not the qualifier BARELY.
This tells us they were able to talk and did so.
What then was discussed at this party?Our friends tried to remain cheerful and behave normally to get us through it, they all felt awkward about being at this lovely villa, in the sunshine, in these circumstances. 
In other words they were having a party and chatted ate and drank and generally had fun.
Given the circumstances and them feeling awkward, why then were they not out physically searching like the Police, locals, expats and tourists were doing?
That would have stopped the awkwardness.
There was no cake.
Anything in the negative is sensitive.I
Is this a complaint that the Mark Warner staff had brought over stacks of food but forgotten the cake?
Is this her trying to persuade the reader that it couldn't have been a party on what would have been Maddie's 4th birthday because there was no cake?
Gerry did attempt a toast but he was visibly upset and couldn’t manage much more than ‘I can’t even say happy birthday to my daughter . . .’ before choking up. What else did he say since he managed a bit more than "I can't even say happy birthday to my daughter"

I would take it as this wasn't them coming out to help search for Maddie or to help in other ways such as handing out flyers etc, instead they all piled in for a free all inclusive holiday.

Given that if a friend of yours had a child genuinely go missing in a foreign country, would you do all you could to help even to going out and physically searching along with the parents and everyone else, or, would you pack your swimming cossie and suncream and go over and hang around the pool eating and drinking whilst the police and locals and ex pats  searched till they dropped to find your friends missing child?

If your friend had a child allegedly abducted in a foreign country and you went over to help in any way you could, what would you be thinking if you were out at the crack of dawn along with police and locals etc searching till you dropped and you saw the parents of said missing child, lounging around by the pool eating and drinking, playing tennis and jogging as well as traveling the world at others expense to countries where Maddie is not likely to be found and meeting celebs and world leaders?

You would be thinking WTF?

Why aren't they out searching like the rest of us to find their missing child?

What would you think if you learned they refused to co-operate with the police?

What would you think if they refused to do a police reconstruction?

What would you think if you learned they threatened to sue anyone who disagreed with their version?

Would you be asking them questions regarding their behavior?

You would be looking for the expected in such a case, you would expect them to do what you yourself would do in the same situation ( even allowing for the alleged neglect which never happened)

If you bought the alleged neglect story, wouldn't you be asking them what the hell they were thinking leaving 3 toddlers home alone every night, especially given they are doctors and know exactly what can happen in a fraction of a second  even with the parents right next to them?

In missing persons cases, especially where a child is involved, you look for the expected, what you yourself would do in the same situation.

What you would say and do, cooperating with LE and taking polys and whatever else was needed.

You would call out to the missing person to reassure them, to let them know you are searching for them and will find them, telling them to try and get help/escape or whatever they can.

This is normal.

This is what is called the expected.

This is what happens in every case from innocent parents and family members.

When you see the unexpected, the non cooperation, the refusal to do reconstructions or take polys or do whatever else is needed, then you have a cause for concern.

You only see this behavior when the parents or family members of the missing person have something to hide such as guilt or guilty knowledge.

Although this is unexpected behavior, it is expected behavior from guilty parties, they act in a specific manner, appearing to cooperate whilst doing the opposite.

Such as hiring lawyers, refusing polygraphs or answering questions.

Refusing to do reconstructions or setting so many demands it cannot be done as it should be.

There is no calling out to the missing person, instead there is often subtle demeaning of the victim, it is their own fault the event happened.

Everything is about how they feel rather than what the victim feels.

The mccanns show every red flag possible regarding their involvement with the homicide, concealing of a corpse and filing a false police report.

They themselves have told the world Maddie is dead and they are involved.

The tapas 7 have told us the same  and have revealed their guilty knowledge.

Do they realise they could be charged as accessories after the fact?

They can face charges of obstruction and perverting the course of justice?

Do they understand that if push comes to shove, the mccanns will throw them all under the bus in an effort to cover their own asses?

I would suggest they get their own lawyers, one per person  and then reveal the truth of what they did and what they know.

Matt Oldfield's Alleged Last Check

4078 "So you saw the sides. Do you remember which way the children were facing in the cots?"

Reply "No, it was just, you could just see the shape and bits of breathing".

No, would be a strong answer but he then goes on to answer outside the boundaries of the question, making it sensitive.
He was asked if he remembered which way the children were facing.
He then tells us what YOU could see ( not what he actually saw)
Note the pronoun he uses.
He doesn't tell us what he could see, he tells us what you (we) could see.
He distances himself from what he could see ( as an aside kate uses the distancing pronoun you a lot rather than the expected I)
Just is used to minimise downwards.

Next he tells us the shape (singular) not the shapes (plural) which you would expect if he was referring to the twins.

Notice the article he uses.
He talks about THE SHAPE and not THEIR SHAPES.

He is talking about something he saw in the singular

He then talks about BITS OF BREATHING

This is unexpected and concerning.

Bits of breathing would imply perhaps breathing problems, struggling to breathe or perhaps the last few breathes of a dying child.

The expected would be i saw them breathing, or i saw the twins breathing since he was allegedly doing the check on the mccanns children, except this isn't what he is actually telling us.

Instead he tells us he saw a shape with bits of breathing.

This man is a doctor, surely even he must have realised something was wrong if he was presented with a patient who was a shape (under a blanket) and presenting with bits of breathing?

4078 "Okay".

Reply "I mean, I, for some reason I imagine that the children's heads were towards the, towards the window, but I don't know whether that's just because I assume that's the way I would put them down
Note here the pronoun he uses, he has changed from YOU to I,taking ownership of the statement.

Note  he doesn't tell us what he saw, only what he assumed he saw.
Note the qualifiers he uses (qualifiers are words that when removed, do not change the meaning of the sentence.

 Here we have REASON, IMAGINE and ASSUME.
Why does he feel the need to tell us that for some reason he imagined their heads were towards the window?

Surely if he checked as claimed then the would have been able to see if the blankets were at the top or the bottom of the cots  covering presumably their feet and bodies.

If he wasn't sure of the bedding was messed, then why not  rearrange the bedding to cover the children appropriately?

As written in his statement we have 3 qualifiers and the pronoun I repeated four times, thrice out of the first 7 words making it sensitive.
We also have TOWARDS THE  repeated twice again making it sensitive.

The alleged check of the children immediately prior to kate and her 'finding Maddie missing' is sensitive to oldfield.
Did the check even take place?
If it did was it in apartment 5a?
If it wasn't 5a which apartment was it (remember he described a different apartment)

The Crying Incident And Leaked Marbles

Dermot Murnaghan interview Sky News

Transcript by Nigel Moore

Interview broadcast: 01 May 2008

Gerry McCann: Anybody with young children will understand that children cry; they wake up at night. During that week there was one night, errr… and we can't give too much detail because it's part of the investigation file but there was one night where Madeleine came through and one of the other, errr… twins were crying, so, you know, and when she did mention to it… it to us and we asked her about it and she just dropped… she was completely fine and we thought, 'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired. Of course, with hindsight, in the… in the context of what had happened; of Madeleine being abducted, it's put in a very different light and it's put in a very different light to us and, of course, we emphasised that to the police.

More leaked marbles
This was gerry's response to being asked about the alleged crying incident.

He asks was it 'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired?"
Think about it for a moment.

Do you see it? 
If kate and gerry were bathing them, the question would not have arisen as they would already be there. 

If kate and gerry were in the apartment and didn't respond to the crying at bath time who was bathing them? 

If they were in the apartment they would have heard the crying and parental instinct should have made them check on the children to see why they were crying and reassure them. 

Since they never heard the crying this raises 2 questions. 

If the children were in 5a as claimed, where were kate and gerry?

 If kate and gerry were in 5a, where were the children? 

The same applies for the putting to bed.

Kate has told us this fanciful story about the bedtime routine the night Maddie vanished, sounds good except it didn't happen.

If Maddie was crying when they were being put to bed kate would know as she was present and the where were you when we cried statement would not have happened.

So, if the children were being put to bed in 5a so were all the other children as gerry already told us all the children were together, in which case again where was kate and gerry and who was putting them to bed? 

If they were all sleeping in another apartment (the twins being moved back to the apartment and no blankets) whose apartment and who was putting them to bed (david payne and his liking to bathe little children not his own perhaps?) 

Both kate and gerry have told us the children were not in 5a and that someone other than them was bathing and putting the children to bed. 

Since they were all in one place not 5a, since there was an adult present, there was never an abduction from 5a.

There couldn't have been for there were no children there and where the children were, there was an adult present.

 What should have been done was the bedding is all the apartments taken as evidence and tested for DNA.

I bet all the children would have shown up in at least one apartment. 

The PJ based their initial few hours investigation on an abduction as claimed by the parents. 

I bet there was a lot of laundry being done those first few days

Costa Condordia - Passing The Buck Using Spin Doctoring As Perfected By The mccanns

As you will know a ship sank whilst doing a salute as it sailed past an island near Italy.
The captain is currently being tried for manslaughter and various other offenses

 This got me to thinking, as is my wont

The captain of the cruise line is certainly to blame but he is probably not the only culprit.
Hence the need to reconstruct all that evening’s communications and in particular the orders given by his superiors at the Costa company.

Investigators want to know what advice Captain Schettino received when he spoke to Roberto Ferrarini, the man in charge of Costa’s crisis unit and fleet management.

                                                                   -
Me being me i couldn't help having a slight dig at the captain, the spin and buck passing that we have seen and will continue to see.
It seems to have worked so far for the mccanns, will this also work for other cases?

 I am waiting for the claim that it was some strange swarthy gypsy looking/mediterranean man who snuck onto the bridge being unseen by any member of staff (they were all helping and mingling with the passengers) who, then after abducting the ship dumped her on a reef when a crew member having returned from taking a pee (after checking the bridge for swarthy looking abductors before leaving)  caused him to flee out an open porthole with jemmied shutters with the door smashed open.

The crew member who spotted said abductor thus informed the captain who decided that he had better order his dinner and continue to chat with a lady who would later claim she was not his girlfriend or anything to do with the ship even though she didn't show on the passenger list.

She however noticed a vague figure of a man leaping from said porthole but thought maybe it was the first officer in a playful mood after a few glasses of vino.

The captain subsequently claimed that if the ship hit the reef and sank how was it his fault?
He has been advised he was a responsible captain and many other captains have done the same thing.

As for him sitting in a lifeboat whilst other passengers remained on board well, he accidentally fell in along with 2 other crew members when he was gallantly lending the lifejacket he wasn't wearing to a passenger who wasn't there.

Once aboard the lifeboat he suddenly realised that he could not get back aboard the ship as that would mean climbing a ladder and thus ruining his uniform bringing shame to the company ( no mention was made of the state of his underoos)

Faced with such a scenario he decided he would do the right thing and stay with the passengers and crew members in the lifeboat.

It would, he said, make up for the fact they would miss dining at the captains table, sailing in the captain's personal lifeboat would be far more exciting and newsworthy.

On reaching land he was contacted by some snotty nosed official who asked where he was and demanded that he then return to the ship.

Did he not understand how hard it would be to relaunch his lifeboat and get back to the ship and then attempt to re-board it whilst it was sinking.

It was dangerous and under health and safety rules he was obliged to wait until rescue services declared it safe to enter, also, his mom would get very upset if her precious li'l sailor man got hurt whilst boarding a sinking ship.

When pressed for information he admitted he may have messed up but he knows a good washing powder that will get his underoos sparkling white again as recommended by the now unemployed laundry crew.

Kate and gerry mccann have sent a letter of sympathy to the now ex captain reassuring him they would have done the same thing in that situation and they are willing to be character witnesses on his behalf at his trial.

They managed to lose a child, he managed to lose a ship, everyone can see the similarities and thus clear him of involvement.

They will start a fund up on his behalf with pictures of Madeleine superimposed on the hull of the ship asking if anyone has seen this abductor (they will squeeze in all the e fits of the suspects they can make up)

They will claim the captain was lucky because the abductor had to abandon his attempt to abduct the ship.

First Madeleine, then a ship who or what will he target next?

The Statue of Liberty, Ularu, Christ the Redeemer, the Washington Monument and the Vatican have all been put on high alert for swarthy looking strangers eyeing them up and lurking with intent possibly taking photographs and notes and acting in a suspicious type manner.

The Eiffel tower hasn't been warned (since it's French and no one likes the French) and Interpol have been told to keep an eye open but not to act if the abductor steals away France.(apparently it's abduct 2 get one free)


I will now go and sit in the corner for 5 mins to reflect on my behavior

The Dead Defense Sketch As Mangled By Me

I came across this original post by me on another blog going back some time ago.
I feel it deserves an airing since the mccanns have gone rather quiet over the festive period, which given their avarice is entirely unexpected.

Therefore in the spirit of the New Year i present to you, the Dead Defense Sketch courtesy of Monty Python and as mangled by me.

Dead Defense Sketch Mangled by Hobnob

( with thanks to Monty Python)

 The cast: The Defendants kate and gerry mccann Their Spin Doctor clarence mitchell
 -----------------------------------
The sketch: clarence enters the mccanns book signing.

clarence: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint. (the mccanns do not respond.)

clarence: 'Ello, Mister?

kate: What do you mean "mister"?

clarence: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

gerry: We're launchin' a book piss off.

clarence: Never mind that, my lass. I wish to complain about this defense what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

kate: Oh yes, the, uh, the Abductor Defense...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?

clarence: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lass. it's dead, that's what's wrong with it!

gerry: No, no, it's uh,...it's resting.

clarence: Look, matey, I know a dead defense when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

gerry: No no it's not dead, it's, it's restin'! Remarkable defense, the Abductor did it, isn't it, aye? Beautiful excuse!

clarence: The Abductor don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

kate: No no no no, no, no! It's resting!

clarence: All right then, if it's restin', I'll wake it up! (shouting at the abductor defense) 'Ello, Abductor! I've got a lovely fresh victim for you if you show up...

(gerry hits the desk)

kate: There, it moved!

clarence: No, it didn't, that was you hitting the desk!

gerry: I never!!

clarence: Yes, you did!

gerry: I never, never did anything...

clarence: (yelling and hitting the abductor defense repeatedly) 'ELLO ABDUCTOR!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call! (Takes abductor defense out of its box and thumps its cover on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

clarence: Now that's what I call a dead abductor defense.

gerry: No, no.....No,It's stunned!

clarence: STUNNED?!?

kate: Yeah! You stunned it, just as it was wakin' up! abductor defenses stun easily, major.

clarence: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That abductor defense is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged interview.

kate: Well, it's...it's, ah...probably pining for the tapas.

clarence: PININ' for the TAPAS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did it fall flat on its back the moment I got it home?

gerry: The Abductor Defense prefers kippin' on it's back! Remarkable defense, isn't it, squire? Lovely public persuader!

clarence: Look, I took the liberty of examining that defense when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its shelf in the first place was that it had been NAILED there. (pause)

gerry: Well, o'course it was nailed there! If I hadn't nailed that defense down, it would have nuzzled up to those shutters, bent 'em apart without leaving any evidence, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

kate: No no! It's pining!

clarence:It's not pinin' It's passed on! This abductor defense is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the shelf it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolic processes are now 'istory! It's off the tapas! It's kicked the bucket, It's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-ABDUCTOR DEFENSE!! (pause)

kate: Well, I'd better replace it, then.(she takes a quick peek inside her new book) Sorry squire, I've had a look 'round the index, and uh, we're right out of the Abductor did it defense.

clarence: I see. I see, I get the picture.

gerry: I got a childless mom. (pause)

clarence: Pray, will there be sightings?

gerry: N-n-n-not really.

clarence: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT, IS IT?!!???!!?

kate: N-no, I guess not. (gets ashamed, looks at gerry's crotch)

clarence: Well? (pause)

gerry: (quietly) D'you.... d'you want to come back to my place?

clarence: (looks around) Yeah, all right, sure