What I Believe May Have Happened To Madeleine McCann

I believe that Maddie died sometime during the vacation before Thurs may 3rd.
That cadaverine was found behind the sofa means she lay there for at least 90 Min's if she died in the apartment since that is how long (depending on the manner of death and the environmental conditions - temp, humidity etc)
This would blow away their claims of 30 min checks on the children that night since they clearly didn't notice her missing for at least 90 Min's.
Given also the fact the apartment was almost forensically cleaned, to the extent there was little evidence there were 3 children present and we all know how wet and sticky children can be especially at their ages, there was little to no DNA that Maddie was ever present.

Forensics look for what is there that shouldn't be and, just as importantly, what isn't there that should be.

This tells me that time had to be taken to clean the apartment, something not possible in the time frames given for Thurs, May 3rd.

This then tells me Maddie died sometime earlier in the week.
Looking at the statements and how much is written concerning each day of the trip, I and others have noticed there seems to be a lot missing from one day of the week (it might be the Mon or Tues, i can't recall off the top of my head)
 
This is noted in all the statements from the group.
We go from quite detailed to obfuscation and i can't remembers, which makes the day sensitive and thus requiring further information as to why the sensitivity.
If she died much earlier in the week as is probable, then there is plenty of time for the clean up, laundering and hiding of the body.

Think about this for a moment.

Thursday was the very last night they could have had the abduction, since on Friday they would be on their way home.

They would not have announced it earlier since they needed time for the cleanup, sorting out time lines and concealing Maddie's body.
 
Also, since this is the mccanns and chums, why spoil a good vacation by calling out the faked abduction any earlier?
Thus Thursday was the only day they could have used.
They knew they would have to stay in Portugal, the interviews by the PJ, the alleged searching plus the free accommodation for desperate ' innocent' parents and it also meant they could fly family and friends out for a freebie as well under the guise of helping and support.

Now, Why did the mccanns act the way they did?
Innocents parents act a specific and expected way.
Guilty parents act a specific and expected way (as in unexpected for innocent parents)

The two are mutually exclusive.

Innocent parents, had there been an accident, would have called 911 even, if she was long dead.
The parents are in denial and will always hope for a miracle.
 
Even though they are doctors, they would have still called 911 simply because a hospital has the equipment and staff, something the parents and chums didn't have.

The fact they didn't call 911 means that there was something they could not explain away as accidental.
If they found her dead, there was evidence that could not be explained away as accidental.

This could be current injuries, old and healing injuries, evidence of sedation (especially long term sedation - think Shannon Mathews and the hair tests) and signs of sexual injuries and abuse either old or new.
If injuries then if old, medical records would show if she had been treated in hospital or by a GP.
If signs of long term drugs, then medical records would indicate if they had been prescribed and who by.
Sexual injuries would result in a lot of darn awkward questions as to who had access to the children and when, any criminal records or history if not charged)

If it had been, for example, drug ingestion then they could have claimed she found the 'candy' and ate it and they didn't notice and only realised when they found her unresponsive or dead the next day. 
This though would have meant them calling 911 as would be expected, since they didn't know or hear anything and thus could not have been charged.

If she had fallen and banged her head and died, again they could have claimed to be sleeping the sleep of the intoxicated and only found her the next morning dead behind the sofa.
Again the expected would be they called 911, since they didn't know or hear anything and thus could not have been charged

They didn't call 911 so this begs the question why not?

What was done that they could not explain it away as an accident either falling whilst they were asleep or eating medication again whilst they were asleep.?

The obvious conclusion is that they could not allow an autopsy because of what would be revealed.

Evidence of physical injuries, sedation or sexual abuse would result in arrest and prosecution since none could be explained away.
This would also account for why the medical records were not released.
Evidence of injuries, UTI's etc and no visits to the hospital or GP.
The GMC would also be involved if they were self medicating and self prescribing.

If sexual abuse was present (likely the most obvious reason) then it points straight to gerry and also to the men of the tapas group and, given the previous statements from the Dr's Gaspar, david payne would be high on the list as well as matthew oldfield since he too checked on the children that Thurs. night (allegedly)

If it was recent then they could have blamed the paedophile abductor if Maddie had been found within days and, again, dependant on the condition of the body.

If the injuries were old and Maddie was found within a few days, again it points straight to gerry and anyone who had access to the children.
It would not account for a paedophile abductor since the injuries would be older than the timeline could account for.

Kate introduced the word MURDER when using the process of free editing.
Words are thought a microsecond before being spoken.
MURDER is what was at the forefront of kate's mind when she spoke.
This then precludes an accidental death, otherwise she would have said accidental death or even death.

Lori Campbell In Praia Da Luz

09/09/2007
Daily Mirror Interview.

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

It is worth noting she takes ownership of lying and being framed ( the assumption is by the police but she doesn't tell us the police want her to lie or to frame her.
She could be referring to the members of the group including gerry)
The pronoun US shows unity and shared cooperation, often found when the guilty want to minimise their own role in the crime  and spread the guilt  - ask anyone with children and teenagers and the ever popular, everyone else was doing it as well excuse #1)

Both kate and gerry and even clarrie have told us Maddie is dead, though not how or at whose hand, that I can see, although the tapas group have indicated Maddie was bumped on the head (an active action, something done deliberately as opposed to having bumped her head which is passive and done accidentally)
They also leaked that there were several doctors in the group who could have resuscitated her.

This then indicates a violent action occurred, something that could not be explained away such as her falling and bumping her head such as off the sofa.
This would lead me to ask where the injury was, that it could not be explained away as an accident.
This would include things such as finger marks (remember the bruises on kate's arm) jewellery marks, the location of the injury etc.
Perhaps even to multiple injuries perhaps caused when someone loses their temper and beats the victim.
They may not have set out to kill the victim, they just couldn't stop themselves until they either exhausted themselves or were pulled away by someone (again the bruises on kate's arm and wrist)

Whatever the cause, whoever did it, the parents could not allow an autopsy to be performed because of the consequences to themselves.
If it was a member of the group, why would they not point the finger?
Their daughter killed by a family friend.
The guilt would lie solely with the guilty person not the parent.
They would have sympathy and even donations for the funeral.

Unless, of course they knew about said friend's 'little peccadilloes' in which case questions would be asked as to how much the knew, and why they allowed said person access to their children and then an investigation into whether they themselves had 'little peccadilloes'.
There is also the risk the guilty person would drop them in it as well, on the grounds of if I am going down, I am taking everyone else with me.

There is a huge secret being hidden, swinging it is not since no one cares what you do with your sex lives if it is legal and consensual, although you may find your friends who aren't into each other putting a lot of distance between them and you (and a good many more introducing themselves)

I am putting my money where my mouth is.

I am putting my money where my mouth is.

People tell you who they are if you take the time to listen carefully.

The mccanns have told me who they are.

The mccanns have told me the truth about Maddie, they have told the world the truth about Maddie.

 They didn't realize at the time and, they still don't realize it now.

They have told me they are users and abusers.

They have used lawyers and the media to stifle any investigation, any discussion, any questioning  of their version of events.

This is why we are here today.

They fear the truth being known as there will be consequences.
The consequences they face now  will be worse than if they had told the truth at the beginning

They have abused the innocence of their children by telling them a fairy story about a non existent stranger boogeyman and they have abused the goodwill of the public who bought into their deception at the start, believing in a faked abduction of a little 3 yr old girl.

Today,  there are still those, a tiny minority who, for reasons known only to themselves, still  buy into that self same deception.

Innocent parents behave and act in a certain way.

Guilty parents behave and act in a certain way.

The two are mutually exclusive.

We the public have become the parents, the carers, the voice to a little girl betrayed by her own parents.

We are the family she didn't know she had and never knew she would need.

We are the voice of a silent little girl with no voice of her own.

Gagged by her own parents in their quest for money and fame and desperate to evade justice.

Remember this kate and gerry.

A crime once done cannot be undone.
Words once said cannot be unsaid.

You have spoken the truth as to what happened, even though you tried not to.

Every time you try to deny, to explain away, you leak the truth.

Lying is stressful and the brain does not like stress.

The brain will try to relieve the stress by telling the truth.

We who listen, discern the truth of the lie.

Kate you even helpfully put it all in a book, a book which will become evidence against you.

I wonder if you were advised not to do so by your highly paid lawyers, who knew what would happen when justice arrives.

Did greed overcome common sense?

You refused to answer 48 questions whilst the 49th, asking if you knew by not answering the questions you were hindering the search?
To which you replied:

"Yes, if that's what the investigation thinks".

I  bet you felt smart, your lawyer advising you not to answer for fear of incriminating yourself.

Hmm, if you were truly innocent, how could you have possibly incriminated yourself?

Is this because you weren't innocent?

Only those with something to hide refuse to answer innocent questions.

Still, kate, you knew better, after all you are, or, should i say were, a doctor.
What a waste of all those years of hard work and study, all down the drain, as you are now unemployable by your own hand.

You always know best, isn't that what they say about mothers?

Shame you wrote the book, all the interesting nuggets of information.

Who needed the 48 questions and a bothersome attorney and their fees, when you  oh so helpfully put it all in a book and got paid for it as well.

Oh, how  i bet your lawyers laughed when they found out, Ho Ho Ho

Still kate and gerry, as i said, People tell you who they are if you take the time to listen carefully.

Dr. Goncalo Amaral has told me who he is.
His words and his behavior tell me who he is.

It is clear he loved and cared for Maddie  more than you ever did.
He has become her voice, the voice she didn't know she would ever need.
He seeks justice for her, justice she didn't know she would ever need.
She became one of his children, the moment you stopped being her parents.

Think on this mccanns.

Cold cases are never closed.
They may get shelved but the investigation will still go on, being taken from the shelf and reexamined.
Criminals being caught years, even decades down the line.
All those advances in modern technology.
Advances in science and forensics.

All it takes is a single print, a single fiber, a single hair, A SINGLE CELL.

Maddie's voice will never be silenced until her killers come to justice.

Dr. Goncalo Amaral is her voice.
We are her voice.

You cannot silence us.

You do not have the money, you do not have the power.

The only thing that will silence us is when we hear the pronunciation of guilty.

Think on this as you go to bed at night.
Think of this as you wake in the morning.
Your last thought and your first thought each and every day.

Is today the day it comes crashing down?

Dr. Goncalo Amaral has my trust, our trust.

Tell me kate and gerry, who can you trust?


Dr. Goncalo Amaral I am right with you, We are all with you.

Boa sorte meu amigo

Good luck my friend


http://www.gofundme.com/legal-defencepjga

The west, the blame game , islam and radicalization

The current blame game of the moment is blame the west for what is going on in the middle east.
Yeah right.

What is conveniently being forgotten is that the middle east has been at war with not only everyone else, it has also been at war with itself.
Vvillage against village, tribe against tribe,  religion against religion (shia versus sunni) for thousands of years.

It isn't going to stop, ever.

What is also being carefully avoided mention of, is all those poor asylum seekers coming from islamic countries who want to kill off all the infidels (you and me) and enslave those they don't kill.

However that thought is not politically correct.

We have all seen what is going on with daesh,  we have all seen what is going on in the various muslim countries.

We have all read how it is the fault of the big bad west.
Even our own leaders are saying it is our fault in a roundabout way.
It is not politically correct to point out what muslims are doing to their own people and have been doing for centuries.

If it was all the fault of the west and we are the bad guys, why are they killing fellow muslims, blowing up mosques, schools, malls and markets?

Why aren't they targeting western embassies, ex pats and the like?

We have all the do-gooders bleating about letting all the poor (alleged) asylum seekers in.
We must offer them sanctuary and protection and we must believe every claim of them facing threats etc back home.

No mention is to be made about economic migration.
No mention is made about all the criminals who are coming in and who then commit horrendous crimes and who then cannot be deported back to their home country because of their human rights.
No mention is made about terrorists coming in with intent to commit atrocities.


OK let's go with that for a minute, open borders and unrestricted muslim immigration with no checks.

We allow every one in, no checks no nothing, c'mon in the door is open as is our wallet.

Where do we put them?
where will they live?
Where will the children be educated?
Where will they get free medical treatment?
How will they survive?
Who will feed and clothe them?
Who will protect its own citizens from people who want to kill  them, enslave and rape them?
Who will protect the rights and privileges of its citizens?

Will you be a happy lil camper if you can't get a house even though you waited  umpteen years to get social housing because all the housing has gone to immigrants?

Will you be a happy lil camper if your kids can't get the school you want them to have because it is full of immigrant children and if you do get a school place, your child is a minority because they can speak English?
The food is halal and all christian festivals are out the window because it might offend a muslim?
That your child is forced to learn about islam?

Will you be a happy lil camper if you have to wait 6 months for an appointment because the surgery is swamped and your operation is cancelled endlessly because it can't cope with the demand of all the immigrants who arrived and there isn't the money to provide even basic health care due to the sheer numbers of patients making demands?

Will you be a happy lil camper when that nice job you had no longer exists, you get made redundant and then workers are hired at a fraction of the salary you were on?

Will you be a happy lil camper when you can't get benefits  because there are too many demands being made and there is no money?

Will you be a happy lil camper when taxes soar because the money to support a massive rise in population without a commensurate rise in income from taxes etc?

Will you be a happy lil camper when your town basically becomes a no go area because of all the muslims who refuse to integrate into British society and instead  speak their own language, insist on full veil for women and anyone not dressed modestly gets attacked by gangs of men because that is their law? (it is happening already in several towns)

Will you be happy knowing gangs of muslim men are grooming and raping you r daughters because your daughter is an infidel and that is all they are useful for?

Will you be a happy lil camper when, before you know it, you are in a minority, you have to follow their rules and laws to get anything?

Will you be a happy lil camper when you find out too late that all those nice men from syria who were welcomed with open arms and no background checks decide to blow up hospitals, military bases, parliament, schools, malls etc and then tell you that you either convert or die and then kill you anyway simply because, or, if you are lucky decide to enslave you and then rape and abuse you before passing you around like a pass the parcel?

I bet right now more than a few of you are tutting and calling me rude names, that's fine, I've been called a lot worse than anything you can think of and that's in my day to day job, currently and in the past.

All the media and governments don't want you to question what is going on.
They deny it is religious terrorism when even the dumbest can see it is when they slaughter Christians because they are Christians, they enslave and rape children because they are Yazidi or Christian.

I see what is happening and it is like nazism all over again except this time it is not just the jews, the homosexuals,gypsies, the disabled and elderly being targeted, it is every single person who is not a member, follower or supporter of daesh.

How do you deal with people who want you dead simply because you are not of their faith, who will rape you even if you are a child because it says they can in the koran.
Who don't care about dying in this life if it means they get eternal paradise in the next
BTW if men get 72 female virgins if they die a martyr, do women get 72 male virgins if they die a martyr or in childbirth? (the only ways to get guaranteed paradise)
Do they get 72 female virgins?
Do they get 72 virgins of whatever is available?

Hard as it may seem, every country needs to turn back illegal immigrants as who knows who they could be letting in.
If they want to leave their country so badly because of how it is, they can change their country from the inside (rather than emigrate and change their host country into a home from home)
We need to do checks on every single immigrant so we know who they are, any criminal history and then ensure only those are allowed in that pass all the checks.

As things stand, we are heading  for WW III
We ignored nazism and we know how that panned out, we believed all the spiel from hitler and his apologists.
We do the same at our peril this time round.

This time we aren't fighting people who would rather live than die and will surrender and play nice.
We are dealing people who actively want to die and, if they do surrender, will rapidly come up with interesting ways to kill as many as possible even if it means their own death.

It scares me that people are believing all the hype about them being extremists and radicalized.

If you look at the koran, daesh are doing exactly as it commands, murder, slavery, child rape, the works.
Islam is anything but a peaceful religion.
Christianity preaches peace and forgiveness, tolerance and acceptance.
It doesn't demand its believers to kill non believers.

Islam is a religion of violence towards women and non believers.

It is a religion of intolerance.

'Moderate muslims' you will note are saying nothing, no protests or demands for it to end, they can't because to do so would be to go against their god.
For them to say and do something, they would leave themselves open to charges of blasphemy and that would mean death.

The west won't admit that Islam is a violent religion, that the acts it perpetrates against innocents are permitted and even demanded by their religion.

They talk of radicalization when in fact it is normal, expected, demanded of its believers.
Why do they minimise the  religious atrocities committed against non believers and even believers but of a different sect under the guise of sharia law?

Do governments fear the consequences if the truth were revealed?

Remember also that it is ordered that muslims lie to infidels (non muslims)
It is allowed for them to be deceitful and do things that would perhaps be frowned up as a openly devout muslim if it means the laws of islam are propagated.

They are forbidden though from lying to other muslims.

Something to ponder.

If for example  daesh succeeds,  islam becomes the rule of law and religion.
Every infidel (that is you and me) is either dead, enslaved or converted by force.
It won't end in happy families.

Oh no.

It will one branch of islam against another, until one wins outright and they stand amongst the ruin of the planet (assuming of course that  the various countries haven't decided that we are going to fall and we will be wiped out, lets take the buggers with us and then let rip with every nuclear bomb going)

Think about this if you want  unlimited immigration, open doors for all asylum seekers as it is the right thing to do.

Think about this if you agree to all the demands and restrictions from muslims in case you offend them.

At what point, after what atrocity will the world wake up and realize and accept that islam is fighting against every other religion in an attempt to wipe out every non believer?
That islam wants to kill off democracy, that islam wants to destroy equality between the sexes.

At some point, even you will have to say no more.

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?