The Thoughts And Ponderings Of A Hobnob
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Kate's Accidental Leak Of What Really Happened To Maddie.
Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police:
“They want me to lie – I’m being framed.
“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.”
First she says:
"I'm being framed."
"I'm being framed."
This then implies that evidence exists proving Maddie is dead.
This evidence has then been found by someone, probably the PJ, and then placed in locations and on items that would link kate to a dead Maddie.
The only evidence found that would frame kate are the body fluids in the hire car and in the apartment behind the sofa,and the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs.
The cadaverine scent could come from any dead person, dogs cannot tie a specific cadaverine scent to a specific person.
The body fluids are a different matter.
They can be tested and blood group and DNA learned.
Even in cases where the sample isn't ideal, a lot can still be learned to exclude certain groups of people, male or female.
In this case we learned that 15 of 19 markers showed it could have come from Maddie, 4 markers were too damaged to be conclusively identified.
This does not exclude Maddie as being the donor despite what their supporters claim.
This does not exclude Maddie as being the donor despite what their supporters claim.
This was a big help to the mccanns.
Portugal requires a 15/15 match.
Only a select number of STR markers are used in forensic DNA profiling (10 in the UK and 13 in the US)
Portugal requires a 15/15 match.
Only a select number of STR markers are used in forensic DNA profiling (10 in the UK and 13 in the US)
In the UK they would now be cooling their heels in a prison cell.
Kate tells us though that she is being framed.
This means that she has told us that the evidence found in the apartment and hire car does in fact belong to Maddie.
This also tells us that, at that point, Maddie was in a physical condition that would allow for samples to be taken and then placed in the hire car and apartment.
What would not be known is when said samples were obtained from Maddie's remains.
They could have been obtained at some point early in the investigation within a couple of days of her alleged abduction or, they could have been obtained any time up to the point the cadaver dogs were brought in.
The problem here though is, if the samples had been obtained early on within a couple of days, how would they know to plant the incriminating evidence in the car which would become the car the mccanns hired 25 days later?
The police could be the ones who planted the evidence.
However, it could also be gerry or another member of the tapas 7.
Even gerry's family admitted they were expecting charges to be filed against kate.
It would suit his needs perfectly and fit his personality if he planted the evidence on kate's pants, the child's red t shirt and cuddle cat as well as in the apartment and hire car.
Should arrests be made then kate was the fall guy, the evidence implicated on her as nothing was found on any of his clothing.
If the samples had been obtained early on in the saga, how would the samples have been placed where they were found without attracting attention, especially the hire car?
The first thing done would be to see who had hired said car previously and who had access to it.
It still doesn't explain why if the samples were obtained to frame kate, why no mention was made of finding her remains or anything relating to Maddie
What would not be known is when said samples were obtained from Maddie's remains.
They could have been obtained at some point early in the investigation within a couple of days of her alleged abduction or, they could have been obtained any time up to the point the cadaver dogs were brought in.
The problem here though is, if the samples had been obtained early on within a couple of days, how would they know to plant the incriminating evidence in the car which would become the car the mccanns hired 25 days later?
The police could be the ones who planted the evidence.
However, it could also be gerry or another member of the tapas 7.
Even gerry's family admitted they were expecting charges to be filed against kate.
It would suit his needs perfectly and fit his personality if he planted the evidence on kate's pants, the child's red t shirt and cuddle cat as well as in the apartment and hire car.
Should arrests be made then kate was the fall guy, the evidence implicated on her as nothing was found on any of his clothing.
If the samples had been obtained early on in the saga, how would the samples have been placed where they were found without attracting attention, especially the hire car?
The first thing done would be to see who had hired said car previously and who had access to it.
It still doesn't explain why if the samples were obtained to frame kate, why no mention was made of finding her remains or anything relating to Maddie
Since this is what kate is claiming, why then did the PJ not go the whole hog and announce they had found Maddie's remain and that charges would now be filed against those involved in her death and subsequent disposal.
If the PJ had found Maddie's remains, why did they then conceal her remains again after getting a few samples and then plant said samples to frame kate?
The case would have been solved within days or weeks.
Millions would not have been wasted on chasing imaginary sightings or following a specific remit limiting the investigation of both the police and private investigators to that of an abduction of a live child.
Kate would be cooling her heels in prison, gerry gets custody of the children and probably a book and movie deal, maybe more.
He disappears into the sunset, away from public view perhaps to be tempted out and back into the limelight with a role on some important board or maybe with a political role, maybe even a position in the House of Lords, an institution worthy of his knowledge and expertise.If she tried to implicate him, he could plead that he was as deceived as us, he was shocked when he learned the truth, or, that he lied to protect his children and kate's mental health issues.\
The case would have been solved within days or weeks.
Millions would not have been wasted on chasing imaginary sightings or following a specific remit limiting the investigation of both the police and private investigators to that of an abduction of a live child.
Kate would be cooling her heels in prison, gerry gets custody of the children and probably a book and movie deal, maybe more.
He disappears into the sunset, away from public view perhaps to be tempted out and back into the limelight with a role on some important board or maybe with a political role, maybe even a position in the House of Lords, an institution worthy of his knowledge and expertise.If she tried to implicate him, he could plead that he was as deceived as us, he was shocked when he learned the truth, or, that he lied to protect his children and kate's mental health issues.\
Alternatively.\
He tried to get her the help she needed figuring that since Maddie was dead, no good could come from admitting what really happened.
He was doing what any loving father and husband would do.
Cue the tears and a new fund to provide the twins with a secure future and perhaps a new book or movie deal showing how much he suffered yadda yadda.
We know the PJ have made no such announcement then or since.
We still get so called sighting cropping up in the media which are swiftly debunked, usually when something that paints the mccanns in a bad light or is sensitive to them such as Dr. Amaral's damages case.
Since the PJ have not announced finding her remains nor produced her body, the obvious conclusion is that kate was not being framed as she claimed.
She has admitted that the evidence found, specifically the body fluids, are in fact from Maddie, the child they claim was abducted and is still alive contrary to all the statistics.
“Police don’t want a MURDER in Portugal"
This is the big open mouth insert feet moment.
The leaked admission of what happened to Maddie.
The mccanns and chums, their extended family and not forgetting clarrie, all claim Maddie is still alive and not seriously harmed (what do they think paedophiles will be doing to Maddie if she were alive?)
Now, if Maddie was still alive as alleged, what kate would and should have said if she was innocent of any involvement is:
“Police don’t want AN ABDUCTION in Portugal".
An abduction is what was alleged to have happened and would be at the forefront of kate's mind.
Since she has already told us there is evidence to show Maddie is dead and that the Police are framing her with said evidence, the next expected statement would be:
“Police don’t want a DEATH/CHILD'S DEATH in Portugal"
This allows her to admit Maddie is dead and that evidence exists proving such.
It allows for her to claim it was an accidental death, a death allowed for by Dr. Goncalo Amaral.
This could be that she fell off the sofa after being sedated, banged her head or broke her neck or whatever and died.
They found Maddie dead, panicked because of what an autopsy would reveal (long term sedation or signs of abuse of some kind) and concocted a plan to fake an abduction.
An autopsy would reveal things they didn't want revealed, things that could result in loss of the twins, loss of their medical licenses, their jobs, their home, their friends and status.
Better to admit to a lesser crime and, if needs be try and wangle a plea deal than have the truth come out.
Reputations though damaged would eventually be repaired, they would be just another footnote in the pages of history.
Forgotten by the public in the next big story involving a child, more so the more years that pass.
Perhaps a passing mention in future media stories decades down the line..
Reputations though damaged would eventually be repaired, they would be just another footnote in the pages of history.
Forgotten by the public in the next big story involving a child, more so the more years that pass.
Perhaps a passing mention in future media stories decades down the line..
However kate didn't say that.
Kate leaked the truth of what really happened.
Kate told the world it was a MURDER.
Not manslaughter.
Not negligent homicide.
Not a death caused by accident, such as kate and gerry having yet another row and when it got physical (remember all the bruising on kate's wrist and arms?) and Maddie just didn't get out the way quick enough, was hit, punched or roughly shoved resulting in her falling and banging her head or breaking her neck.
Not negligent homicide.
Not a death caused by accident, such as kate and gerry having yet another row and when it got physical (remember all the bruising on kate's wrist and arms?) and Maddie just didn't get out the way quick enough, was hit, punched or roughly shoved resulting in her falling and banging her head or breaking her neck.
MURDER.
We don't know if this murder was preplanned, especially given the demeaning language when referring to Maddie.
The distancing language by apparently the family and extended families.
This would provide a motive.
Maddie was no longer wanted, no longer considered a apart of the family.
She was perhaps considered a burden,
This would provide a motive.
Maddie was no longer wanted, no longer considered a apart of the family.
She was perhaps considered a burden,
The fact that Maddie's body had to be disposed of.
The fact that kate refused to answer the question about handing Maddie's care to another family member.
Or.
If her murder was a direct result of another crime being committed against her such as physical or sexual abuse.
Perhaps kate had simply had enough of a demanding, attention seeking Maddie, a child who may have pressed one of kate's buttons once too often and kate lost it and lashed out in the temper we know she has.
We know Maddie was a victim of murder, of a homicide, whether deliberate or accidental for kate has told us so:
"all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they’re blaming us.”
Their laws are lax, this is a given, however the UK also has a dubious track record for dealing with paedophiles, especially high ranking ones such a politicians, celebs, sports stars, the media and such like.
Kate has to blame it on Portugal in order for the abduction claim to have any chance of being believed.
The mccanns have to blame anyone except themselves and members of the tapas 7.
The publicity strangely enough has pretty much all come the mccann camp.
We were being responsible parents by allegedly leaving our toddlers home alone in an unlocked apartment and it was Portugal's poor laws that allowed a paedophile to get into our unsecured apartment and abduct Maddie.
It is all Portugal's fault not ours.
So is used to explain something was said or done.
Here she is blaming the Portuguese for what happened to Maddie rather than accepting any kind of responsibility.
Responsibility is something neither of the mccanns nor their chums have accepted or admitted to.
The mccanns even claimed they were advised that they were being responsible parents.
They have, to date, declined to tell just which esteemed and expert personage told them this.
Perhaps they shopped around until they found someone who, given enough incentive, said what they wanted.
Kate is preempting the question she thinks is coming, she is using words thought by the mind a microsecond before being spoken.
Here she is thinking paedophile laws and how lax they are and why the Portuguese are blaming herself and gerry and possibly the rest of the tapas 7.
Perhaps this is why Portugal was chosen for the vacation, the very early season where there wouldn't be too many tourists around sticky beaking into private business and what was not their concern.
Whatever happened to Maddie, kate has admitted Maddie is dead, that it was a murder.
It is worth noting the pronouns kate uses.
I and ME in relation to lying and being framed thus taking ownership.It is first person singular.
Note the change in pronoun though when it comes to the publicity about not having paedophile laws.
Here the pronoun changes to US.
Here she indicates unity and shared cooperation.
It is a first person plural pronoun.
It is a first person plural pronoun.
It shows the spreading around and sharing of involvement or guilt.
Often seen with children and teenagers when caught and they say we all did it or everybody was doing it.It minimizes their own personal involvement whilst implicating others.
It minimizes her own personal involvement whilst implicating others.
Is this perhaps the reason for the choice of location, the time of year and the people invited to share the vacation with them?
Every time one of them speaks, they leak more marbles of truth.
I wonder if sometimes kate leaks deliberately in order to hasten the end of all the stress, the lies and to allow her to grieve openly and publicly as Maddie then gets her dignified burial.
Even though she is involved, she can begin the process of healing as can the twins, who will have to deal with the emotional fallout of knowing their were lied to for the last 9 years by their parents, their extended family, those they trusted
I hope all concerned accept the help that is offered.
It is the first step to healing.
The first step in the process of being allowed to finally grieve.
It is the first step in finally accepting responsibility for their actions and accepting the consequences.
It is the first step in beginning a new future.
It is the first step to healing.
The first step in the process of being allowed to finally grieve.
It is the first step in finally accepting responsibility for their actions and accepting the consequences.
It is the first step in beginning a new future.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
About Maddie - The Bewk And The Website
The mccanns, kate in particular, have a huge problem with the bewk.
The bewk specifically pins her to a particular story and timeline.
It was written using the process of free editing and as such has to be taken as kate speaking the truth.
It is the be all and end all of her version of events prior to,during the vacation and in the days, months and years subsequently.
As we all know, kate refused to answer 48 questions asked of her by the PJ at the behest of her attorney and answered the 49th
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks
In actuality, she refused to answer 59 questions since several of them were compound questions (a big no no in statement analysis)
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?The one question she did answer:
49. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks".
Many of the questions were innocuous and bore little or no relation to the actual alleged abduction.
She was advised by her attorney not to answer the questions in case she incriminated herself.
If she was not involved in the disappearance of her daughter, there could be nothing to incriminate her.
Why then did she write a bewk?
Was she advised not to do so since it would pin her down to a story and timeline?
Did she go ahead and ignore the advice of her attorneys anyway, in pursuit of megabucks?
She refused to answer questions due to possible incrimination and then promptly answers some if not most of them in her bewk.
Was she advised (and she should have been) that by doing so she would be writing exhibit 1?
In a trial how would she resolve the obvious contradictions?
You told the officers you did this and that, yet in your book you did this and that instead, how do you explain the difference?
She either lied in the bewk or she lied to the officers.
In this case, she probably lied in and to both and what really happened to Maddie prior to, during and after the alleged abduction is something bearing no relation to any of her previous versions of events
The bewk is also pretty much all about kate and how hard done by she is.
This would explain why Maddie's name is all in lower case and kate's name is all in capitals.
It shows priority, who is more important to the author.
In this case it is kate mccann who is most important
This is supported by their previous language and statements including the initial About Madeleine page on their website
The original about Maddie section of the find Madeleine website, courtesy of The McCann Files
What the original Find Madeleine site told us about Madeleine McCann
Madeleine McCann was born 4 years ago.
She has one brother Sean and a sister Amelie.
She lives with her family in Rothley, Leicestershire.
Her father comes from Glasgow and has 3 sisters, Patricia, Jacqueline and Phil,and a brother John.
Madeleine's Grandmother, Eileen lives in Glasgow.
Her other grandparents, Sue and Brian live in Liverpool.
Both sides of the family are very close and all are working in different ways to try and help in the search for Madeleine.
Phil, who resides in Ullapool and is a teacher, has asked that the heartfelt thanks of the whole family be passed to everyone who has helped in the search so far. She said: "There have been so many messages of support and prayers from people all over the world.
We (the family) are overwhelmed with your assistance.
The media people have been wonderful and so helpful in making everyone aware of our plight.
Madeleine's family are so grateful to you all.
Please keep Madeleine in your thoughts and prayers.
We pray that she will be returned to us safe and well."
24 words out of 181 words, a mere 13.25%
3 sentences out of 14, a mere 21%
The stark lack of information about Maddie in the section meant to be about Maddie, her likes, dislikes, her character, her relationships to others, all the expected stuff to make her a real little girl, to humanise her, was missing.
It was clearly of no importance to gerry and kate.
This was picked up by those of us who doubted the abduction story from the get go and who then commented on the extreme distancing language between the parents and their missing daughter on various media forums and blogs
This was unexpected.
The mccanns or, more likely their attorneys, advisers and PR people, saw the comments pointing out the distancing language and "advised" them to change it, to make them look better, more caring regarding their daughter in the public arena.
On 01/02/08 the web page was edited.
Madeleine was born in May 2003 – a long-awaited and very much longed for little girl.
She lives in the village of Rothley in Leicester, with her mummy and daddy and little brother and sister, Sean and Amelie.
Madeleine is a very happy little girl with an outgoing personality.
She has always been a very popular little person, appealing to both children and adults alike with her funny and engaging chatter.
She has many friends who obviously miss her dearly.
Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!
Like most girls her age, she likes dolls and dresses (and anything pink and sparkly) but with a definite taste for action-adventure too!
She has an incredible amount of energy and even as a little baby, didn’t seem to need much rest.
She enjoys running and swimming and is an Everton fan like her mum and granddad.
Madeleine has always been a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to Sean and Amelie.
It was certainly not the quietest house on the planet with lots of giggling, singing and the inevitable odd bit of mischief!
For Sean and Amelie, there is without doubt, a very important person missing in their life.
Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching little person and will never fail we’re sure, to bring joy into the life of anyone she may encounter.
Maddie now warranted 228 words and 13 sentences.
A massive improvement towards making her a real little girl.
She has become humanized.
She has come alive.
Even then, there is still distancing language.
"She has always been a very popular little person"
Note the qualifier word very a word which when removed doesn't change the intent of the sentence.
Qualifier words weaken the statement.
It can also indicate some sensitivity.
Was Maddie's popularity an issue with kate?
Was kate jealous of the attention paid to Maddie?
Did Maddie prefer gerry to her or even another family member or friend?
Did kate even resent Maddie in some way?
PERSON?
This is concerning as it is distances her from Maddie.
She isn't a little girl, she isn't Madeleine, she isn't a big sister, she isn't even our daughter!
She is referred to as a person, someone denied identity or a gender.
Someone with no link to the family, someone who is apart from the family, someone who doesn't belong.
"She has many friends who OBVIOUSLY miss her dearly."
OBVIOUSLY requires that the listener/reader should accept without question that which is being said.
Why did they feel the need to tell us that Maddie was missed?
Why was it important that they felt the need to tell us, the public, Maddie was missed?
Why wouldn't she be?
Was this written as a reaction to public grumbling about the lack of emotion, the lack of even caring, shown by the mccanns and chums in relation to missing Maddie?
Why is it only friends that miss her?
Do her family not miss her?
Does her extended family not miss her?
If this is the case then it shows how dysfunctional the whole family were and are.
There are also qualifier words, words that when removes do not change the intent of the sentence.
Here we have the words obviously and dearly.
A strong sentence would be Madeleine is missed by everyone/all of us
They felt the need to tell us how much Maddie is missed making it sensitive.
Maddie being missing should be something taken as fact.
It would be unexpected for Maddie to not be missed.
It would be concerning if Maddie was not missed.
This then makes her being missing a sensitive issue.
Why?
"Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!"
Does this imply or suggest Maddie was parentified?
She was so mature, so grown up she was given certain grown up responsibilities?
Is this why they claimed the children were left alone in an unlocked apartment?
Maddie was the babysitter, the responsible adult looking after her younger siblings.
Does this explain why kate and gerry allegedly left the 3 children alone in a locked apartment safe in the knowledge that if anything happened Maddie would save the day by rescuing her siblings if there was a fire?
If anything happened such as the twins waking up and crying, there being a fire or something else, Maddie was trusted to come and find her parents?
Maddie was felt older than she was in reality?
Maddie was treated as someone older than her actual age?
Was she regarded as a friend, a buddy, someone to confide in rather than as the toddler that she was?
Was it a case of the parents proudly telling the world how grown up Maddie was, reading teenager books such as Harry Potter and watching programmes not really designed with toddlers in mind such as Doctor Who, how she would talk to anyone, when perhaps she had not learned the self protective 'stranger danger' behavior that makes young children instinctively cuddle into their parent/hide behind their legs when seeing someone new until they are told it is OK?
Young children have natural stranger anxiety.
Children of Neglect often have none because they have learned to get attention from wherever and whoever will offer it.
Like most girls her age, she likes dolls and dresses (and anything pink and sparkly) but with a definite taste for action-adventure too!
What did this taste for action-adventure include?
They tell us she likes dolls and dresses like most other girls, yet do not tell us what her taste of action-adventure includes.
Could this perhaps involve climbing on things?
Jumping off things?
Running up and down stairs?
Is this a deliberate omission?
is there sensitivity related to her sense of action-adventure perhaps?
She has an incredible amount of energy and even as a little baby, didn’t seem to need much rest.
Is this related to kate needing so much help with the children?
Was this perhaps related to a medical issue?
We know Maddie had a coloboma, kate and gerry told us this and made a big deal about it in their appeals They then later back tracked and claimed it was only a fleck and they hadn't made a big deal of it ( I must have imagined all the distinctive LOOK poster and banners)
Was Maddie hyperactive?
Did Maddie have other issues such as ADD/ADHD etc
Did kate have medical issues?(it would perhaps explain the medical records being sealed)
This could explain the distancing language between kate and gerry towards Maddie
Maddie was seen as a burden, a problem, hard work.
This would also explain why after Maddie vanished, kate bloomed and looked as if a weight had been taken of her shoulders.
The problem that was causing kate so much stress and possibly was causing problems in the marriage had gone.
Kate could now cope.
Is this also perhaps subtle demeaning of Maddie?
If she had been quieter, if she had been calmer, if she had been less energetic, if she had been less demanding of attention, if perhaps she had been more like her siblings then she may still be alive?
"Madeleine has always been a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to Sean and Amelie. "
HAS not IS?
Is she no longer a wonderfully loving and caring big sister?
How can she be a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to her siblings when they haven't seen her since may 3rd 2007?
Even though she is missing and allegedly alive as per the mccanns story, would she still love and care about her siblings?
Could she even remember them today if she was still alive?
This is in contradiction to her book where she refers to breast feeding one twin whilst leaving the other vulnerable to attack from a big sister.
Page 38
"I breastfed Sean and Amelie, as I had Madeleine, so there were spells when I wished I had a few extra arms, usually mid to late afternoon when I was alone with the children and Madeleine would be getting tired. I would have to feed the twins one at a time when I was on my own, which meant that as I was feeding the first, the other one would not only be getting hungry and grumpy but would also be vulnerable to attack from A big sister needing attention"
Not exactly the perfect happy, loving family image they like to portray.
I also notice that she refers to A BIG SISTER with emphasis on the article use A
Why use the article A which would suggest more than one big sister rather than the expected THEIR big sister?
Was Maddie also a twin?
Was there another big sister?
What is clear from her book is that kate had issues dealing with one baby let alone three.
Page 30Poor Gerry would arrive home from work and would hardly have a foot over the threshold before he was handed a roaring bundle while I went upstairs for a loo break, a scream-free moment and a chance to regain the use of my arms. There were occasions where all three of us were cuddled in the kitchen, crying - Madeleine with her colic and Gerry and I at the futility of our attempts to take her pain away.
.
Does this in part explain the distancing language, especially from kate?
No Maddie meant she had more control of her life, she could cope better with just the twins.
No Maddie meant no tantrums, no attention seeking, no screaming, all the normal behavior of a 3 year old.
It would also explain in part why kate had so much help, not only with family members flying down when they had the time and co opting a nursery worker to help with tea, baths and bed time?
No help meant a kate melt down.
Would this explain why Maddie isn't missed by the family and the sensitivity in the language relating to Maddie being missed by friends?
"For Sean and Amelie, there is without doubt, a very important person missing in their life."
Again Maddie is referred to as a PERSON rather than a big sister/sister to Sean and Amelie.
Heck even little girl would give her at least some form of identity, some relationship to her siblings.
Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching little PERSON.
What is with them referring to her repeatedly as a person?
Why the continual distancing of Maddie from her family?
Was Maddie not considered to be a part of the mccann family?
What made Maddie different to her siblings?
Is it hidden in the sealed medical records?"
Madeleine is a warm, life enriching little girl" would be the expected.
Heck even ."Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching child" would at least show some kind of family link, a relationship, a sense of belonging to the family unit.
Without doubt
To take for granted, to not be questioned, to be accepted as fact, the truth.
Even though they are supposed to be writing about their missing daughter, a much loved member of the family, her character, her love of life, who she is and what she means to others, they cannot bring themselves to admit her to their family, instead she is pushed to one side, stripped of identity and gender.
What is their definition of very important?
Very important to whom?
What is it about Maddie that would make her very important?
"and will never fail we’re sure, to bring joy into the life of anyone she MAY encounter."
Spot the dropped pronoun in relation to Maddie bringing joy into the life of anyone she may encounter.
Who will never fail to bring joy...?
MAY ENCOUNTER rather than the expected SHE ENCOUNTERS
Why use the word ENCOUNTER rather than the more expected and often used word MEET.
ENCOUNTER is something unexpected, a casual or unexpected meeting or even something faced which is hostile or difficult.
ENCOUNTER is passive, it happens by chance with no deliberate intent.
I Met a bear whilst walking in the woods
MEET could indicate some pre-planning, some forethought something perhaps expected
I arranged to meet my friend outside the theater.
MAY means expressing a possibility.
I may get an ice cream, i may get something else
Here it allows for the possibility is that she will encounter someone, it also allows for the possibility she won't encounter anyone.
Is there only a possibility of Maddie encountering someone?
What could prevent Maddie from encountering anyone?
If she were alive and not seriously harmed as claimed by the mccanns then surely it is a probability if not a certainty that she will encounter people at some time even if it is only her abductor. and /or people he exposes her to.
However a dead Maddie isn't going to encounter anyone until her remains are found, if this is even still possible.
Even then it will be the finder encountering Maddie's remains rather than Maddie encountering the finder
Do they allow for the possibility that Maddie would be facing something hostile or difficult?
Yes, if what they tell us is true, in that Maddie is alive and not seriously harmed, despite being abducted by a paedophile.
Who will Maddie be bringing joy into the life of?
Will Maddie be bringing joy into the life of her alleged abductor?
Will Maddie be bringing joy into the lives of her abusers perhaps?
This is almost as crass as kate telling the world that:
"I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."
What planet does kate live on that she tells the world that Maddie will bring joy to the very people who allegedly abducted her or who have her currently!!
In her bewk, Kate tells us of her fears regarding Maddie:
"I was always terrified that Madeleine would hurt herself.
I always erred on the side of caution.
I remember once when she was about 4 weeks old refusing to make a car journey with her because the baby seat appeared to be wobbling very, very slightly.
I know Gerry felt i was a bit over the top sometimes."
Then further on she tells us:
In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach.
To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us.
We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain.
A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces.
The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them.
The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn.
Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.
How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner?
I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly.
She portrays herself as the concerned and caring mother, fearing to leave her children and travel a few yards to help carry ice creams back.
She even admits to wondering why she was so concerned about leaving her three children who would be in view and yet feel comfortable leaving them alone in an unlocked apartment:"I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction.
She can't even remotely attempt to explain or justify (her behavior or attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.
If she couldn't convince herself, how could she hope to convince the police and the public?
She cannot explain something that did not happen.
The children were never left home alone as claimed.
The story as told by the mccanns and chums did not happen.
There was one adult missing from the table each night allegedly sick or looking after a sick child.
Doctors,. like any medical staff, are hyper vigilant when it comes to childcare.
They know exactly what can happen in a fraction of a second, even if the parent is right next to the child.
They simply would not leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment.
More so that a party of 4 families plus one extra adult would all decide it was OK to leave their children home alone.
Also, I am sure Diane Webster would have something to say about their alleged child care arrangement. just as any concerned mother would.
They may have been able to fob her off once maybe twice but i suspect she would have still fussed or even offered her services if all the children were in one apartment.
She would not be happy that so many toddlers and infants were being left alone and unsupervised.
For there to have been time and opportunity for an abduction to occur, they all had to claim they neglected their children, for, if there was no neglect and the children were all being babysat by the missing adult, there could have been no abduction.
No abductions means darn awkward questions regarding what happened to Maddie and where she currently is?
Instead she resorts to speaking about subconscious thoughts, telling us that leaving three wide awake and active toddlers in broad daylight to go just a few yards away was riskier than leaving three 'sleeping' toddlers in an unlocked apartment in a strange country and in the dark with 'regular checks' who were an over 100 yards walk away and some 50 yards or so as the crow flies from the tapas bar to the back of their apartment.
An apartment, the back of which was partially visible from the tapas bar in daylight and heavily obscured at night due to the lighting of the bar reflecting off the windows off the bar windows.
The bedroom where the three children were allegedly supposed to be sleeping was at the front of the apartment,and thus not visible to those eating and drinking in the bar.
If all else fails blame the subconsciousness.
Could this be a part of any future defense?
No matter how she tries to explain things away and reconcile timings, who checked what and where.
It will not work.
Clearing up one issue results in other issues being revealed.
For the abduction to have occurred as claimed, they would have to come up with a story, a scenario that on initial inspection would seem plausible, believable.
They would worry about details later hopefully the police and public would buy their story and then after x amount of time they would be just another statistic.
Something changed, something unplanned which derailed any original planning they had.
MONEY.
A lot of money, hundreds of thousands of pounds going into the millions.
Greed and the fame (infamy) weaved its magic and now they are trapped.
The bewk specifically pins her to a particular story and timeline.
It was written using the process of free editing and as such has to be taken as kate speaking the truth.
It is the be all and end all of her version of events prior to,during the vacation and in the days, months and years subsequently.
As we all know, kate refused to answer 48 questions asked of her by the PJ at the behest of her attorney and answered the 49th
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks
In actuality, she refused to answer 59 questions since several of them were compound questions (a big no no in statement analysis)
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?The one question she did answer:
49. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks".
Many of the questions were innocuous and bore little or no relation to the actual alleged abduction.
She was advised by her attorney not to answer the questions in case she incriminated herself.
If she was not involved in the disappearance of her daughter, there could be nothing to incriminate her.
Why then did she write a bewk?
Was she advised not to do so since it would pin her down to a story and timeline?
Did she go ahead and ignore the advice of her attorneys anyway, in pursuit of megabucks?
She refused to answer questions due to possible incrimination and then promptly answers some if not most of them in her bewk.
Was she advised (and she should have been) that by doing so she would be writing exhibit 1?
In a trial how would she resolve the obvious contradictions?
You told the officers you did this and that, yet in your book you did this and that instead, how do you explain the difference?
She either lied in the bewk or she lied to the officers.
In this case, she probably lied in and to both and what really happened to Maddie prior to, during and after the alleged abduction is something bearing no relation to any of her previous versions of events
The bewk is also pretty much all about kate and how hard done by she is.
This would explain why Maddie's name is all in lower case and kate's name is all in capitals.
It shows priority, who is more important to the author.
In this case it is kate mccann who is most important
This is supported by their previous language and statements including the initial About Madeleine page on their website
The original about Maddie section of the find Madeleine website, courtesy of The McCann Files
What the original Find Madeleine site told us about Madeleine McCann
Madeleine McCann was born 4 years ago.
She has one brother Sean and a sister Amelie.
She lives with her family in Rothley, Leicestershire.
Her father comes from Glasgow and has 3 sisters, Patricia, Jacqueline and Phil,and a brother John.
Madeleine's Grandmother, Eileen lives in Glasgow.
Her other grandparents, Sue and Brian live in Liverpool.
Both sides of the family are very close and all are working in different ways to try and help in the search for Madeleine.
Phil, who resides in Ullapool and is a teacher, has asked that the heartfelt thanks of the whole family be passed to everyone who has helped in the search so far. She said: "There have been so many messages of support and prayers from people all over the world.
We (the family) are overwhelmed with your assistance.
The media people have been wonderful and so helpful in making everyone aware of our plight.
Madeleine's family are so grateful to you all.
Please keep Madeleine in your thoughts and prayers.
We pray that she will be returned to us safe and well."
24 words out of 181 words, a mere 13.25%
3 sentences out of 14, a mere 21%
The stark lack of information about Maddie in the section meant to be about Maddie, her likes, dislikes, her character, her relationships to others, all the expected stuff to make her a real little girl, to humanise her, was missing.
It was clearly of no importance to gerry and kate.
This was picked up by those of us who doubted the abduction story from the get go and who then commented on the extreme distancing language between the parents and their missing daughter on various media forums and blogs
This was unexpected.
The mccanns or, more likely their attorneys, advisers and PR people, saw the comments pointing out the distancing language and "advised" them to change it, to make them look better, more caring regarding their daughter in the public arena.
On 01/02/08 the web page was edited.
Madeleine was born in May 2003 – a long-awaited and very much longed for little girl.
She lives in the village of Rothley in Leicester, with her mummy and daddy and little brother and sister, Sean and Amelie.
Madeleine is a very happy little girl with an outgoing personality.
She has always been a very popular little person, appealing to both children and adults alike with her funny and engaging chatter.
She has many friends who obviously miss her dearly.
Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!
Like most girls her age, she likes dolls and dresses (and anything pink and sparkly) but with a definite taste for action-adventure too!
She has an incredible amount of energy and even as a little baby, didn’t seem to need much rest.
She enjoys running and swimming and is an Everton fan like her mum and granddad.
Madeleine has always been a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to Sean and Amelie.
It was certainly not the quietest house on the planet with lots of giggling, singing and the inevitable odd bit of mischief!
For Sean and Amelie, there is without doubt, a very important person missing in their life.
Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching little person and will never fail we’re sure, to bring joy into the life of anyone she may encounter.
Maddie now warranted 228 words and 13 sentences.
A massive improvement towards making her a real little girl.
She has become humanized.
She has come alive.
Even then, there is still distancing language.
"She has always been a very popular little person"
Note the qualifier word very a word which when removed doesn't change the intent of the sentence.
Qualifier words weaken the statement.
It can also indicate some sensitivity.
Was Maddie's popularity an issue with kate?
Was kate jealous of the attention paid to Maddie?
Did Maddie prefer gerry to her or even another family member or friend?
Did kate even resent Maddie in some way?
PERSON?
This is concerning as it is distances her from Maddie.
She isn't a little girl, she isn't Madeleine, she isn't a big sister, she isn't even our daughter!
She is referred to as a person, someone denied identity or a gender.
Someone with no link to the family, someone who is apart from the family, someone who doesn't belong.
"She has many friends who OBVIOUSLY miss her dearly."
OBVIOUSLY requires that the listener/reader should accept without question that which is being said.
Why did they feel the need to tell us that Maddie was missed?
Why was it important that they felt the need to tell us, the public, Maddie was missed?
Why wouldn't she be?
Was this written as a reaction to public grumbling about the lack of emotion, the lack of even caring, shown by the mccanns and chums in relation to missing Maddie?
Why is it only friends that miss her?
Do her family not miss her?
Does her extended family not miss her?
If this is the case then it shows how dysfunctional the whole family were and are.
There are also qualifier words, words that when removes do not change the intent of the sentence.
Here we have the words obviously and dearly.
A strong sentence would be Madeleine is missed by everyone/all of us
They felt the need to tell us how much Maddie is missed making it sensitive.
Maddie being missing should be something taken as fact.
It would be unexpected for Maddie to not be missed.
It would be concerning if Maddie was not missed.
This then makes her being missing a sensitive issue.
Why?
"Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!"
Does this imply or suggest Maddie was parentified?
She was so mature, so grown up she was given certain grown up responsibilities?
Is this why they claimed the children were left alone in an unlocked apartment?
Maddie was the babysitter, the responsible adult looking after her younger siblings.
Does this explain why kate and gerry allegedly left the 3 children alone in a locked apartment safe in the knowledge that if anything happened Maddie would save the day by rescuing her siblings if there was a fire?
If anything happened such as the twins waking up and crying, there being a fire or something else, Maddie was trusted to come and find her parents?
Maddie was felt older than she was in reality?
Maddie was treated as someone older than her actual age?
Was she regarded as a friend, a buddy, someone to confide in rather than as the toddler that she was?
Was it a case of the parents proudly telling the world how grown up Maddie was, reading teenager books such as Harry Potter and watching programmes not really designed with toddlers in mind such as Doctor Who, how she would talk to anyone, when perhaps she had not learned the self protective 'stranger danger' behavior that makes young children instinctively cuddle into their parent/hide behind their legs when seeing someone new until they are told it is OK?
Young children have natural stranger anxiety.
Children of Neglect often have none because they have learned to get attention from wherever and whoever will offer it.
Like most girls her age, she likes dolls and dresses (and anything pink and sparkly) but with a definite taste for action-adventure too!
What did this taste for action-adventure include?
They tell us she likes dolls and dresses like most other girls, yet do not tell us what her taste of action-adventure includes.
Could this perhaps involve climbing on things?
Jumping off things?
Running up and down stairs?
Is this a deliberate omission?
is there sensitivity related to her sense of action-adventure perhaps?
She has an incredible amount of energy and even as a little baby, didn’t seem to need much rest.
Is this related to kate needing so much help with the children?
Was this perhaps related to a medical issue?
We know Maddie had a coloboma, kate and gerry told us this and made a big deal about it in their appeals They then later back tracked and claimed it was only a fleck and they hadn't made a big deal of it ( I must have imagined all the distinctive LOOK poster and banners)
Was Maddie hyperactive?
Did Maddie have other issues such as ADD/ADHD etc
Did kate have medical issues?(it would perhaps explain the medical records being sealed)
This could explain the distancing language between kate and gerry towards Maddie
Maddie was seen as a burden, a problem, hard work.
This would also explain why after Maddie vanished, kate bloomed and looked as if a weight had been taken of her shoulders.
The problem that was causing kate so much stress and possibly was causing problems in the marriage had gone.
Kate could now cope.
Is this also perhaps subtle demeaning of Maddie?
If she had been quieter, if she had been calmer, if she had been less energetic, if she had been less demanding of attention, if perhaps she had been more like her siblings then she may still be alive?
"Madeleine has always been a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to Sean and Amelie. "
HAS not IS?
Is she no longer a wonderfully loving and caring big sister?
How can she be a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to her siblings when they haven't seen her since may 3rd 2007?
Even though she is missing and allegedly alive as per the mccanns story, would she still love and care about her siblings?
Could she even remember them today if she was still alive?
This is in contradiction to her book where she refers to breast feeding one twin whilst leaving the other vulnerable to attack from a big sister.
Page 38
"I breastfed Sean and Amelie, as I had Madeleine, so there were spells when I wished I had a few extra arms, usually mid to late afternoon when I was alone with the children and Madeleine would be getting tired. I would have to feed the twins one at a time when I was on my own, which meant that as I was feeding the first, the other one would not only be getting hungry and grumpy but would also be vulnerable to attack from A big sister needing attention"
Not exactly the perfect happy, loving family image they like to portray.
I also notice that she refers to A BIG SISTER with emphasis on the article use A
Why use the article A which would suggest more than one big sister rather than the expected THEIR big sister?
Was Maddie also a twin?
Was there another big sister?
What is clear from her book is that kate had issues dealing with one baby let alone three.
Page 30Poor Gerry would arrive home from work and would hardly have a foot over the threshold before he was handed a roaring bundle while I went upstairs for a loo break, a scream-free moment and a chance to regain the use of my arms. There were occasions where all three of us were cuddled in the kitchen, crying - Madeleine with her colic and Gerry and I at the futility of our attempts to take her pain away.
.
Does this in part explain the distancing language, especially from kate?
No Maddie meant she had more control of her life, she could cope better with just the twins.
No Maddie meant no tantrums, no attention seeking, no screaming, all the normal behavior of a 3 year old.
It would also explain in part why kate had so much help, not only with family members flying down when they had the time and co opting a nursery worker to help with tea, baths and bed time?
No help meant a kate melt down.
Would this explain why Maddie isn't missed by the family and the sensitivity in the language relating to Maddie being missed by friends?
"For Sean and Amelie, there is without doubt, a very important person missing in their life."
Again Maddie is referred to as a PERSON rather than a big sister/sister to Sean and Amelie.
Heck even little girl would give her at least some form of identity, some relationship to her siblings.
Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching little PERSON.
What is with them referring to her repeatedly as a person?
Why the continual distancing of Maddie from her family?
Was Maddie not considered to be a part of the mccann family?
What made Maddie different to her siblings?
Is it hidden in the sealed medical records?"
Madeleine is a warm, life enriching little girl" would be the expected.
Heck even ."Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching child" would at least show some kind of family link, a relationship, a sense of belonging to the family unit.
Without doubt
To take for granted, to not be questioned, to be accepted as fact, the truth.
Even though they are supposed to be writing about their missing daughter, a much loved member of the family, her character, her love of life, who she is and what she means to others, they cannot bring themselves to admit her to their family, instead she is pushed to one side, stripped of identity and gender.
What is their definition of very important?
Very important to whom?
What is it about Maddie that would make her very important?
"and will never fail we’re sure, to bring joy into the life of anyone she MAY encounter."
Spot the dropped pronoun in relation to Maddie bringing joy into the life of anyone she may encounter.
Who will never fail to bring joy...?
MAY ENCOUNTER rather than the expected SHE ENCOUNTERS
Why use the word ENCOUNTER rather than the more expected and often used word MEET.
ENCOUNTER is something unexpected, a casual or unexpected meeting or even something faced which is hostile or difficult.
ENCOUNTER is passive, it happens by chance with no deliberate intent.
I Met a bear whilst walking in the woods
MEET could indicate some pre-planning, some forethought something perhaps expected
I arranged to meet my friend outside the theater.
MAY means expressing a possibility.
I may get an ice cream, i may get something else
Here it allows for the possibility is that she will encounter someone, it also allows for the possibility she won't encounter anyone.
Is there only a possibility of Maddie encountering someone?
What could prevent Maddie from encountering anyone?
If she were alive and not seriously harmed as claimed by the mccanns then surely it is a probability if not a certainty that she will encounter people at some time even if it is only her abductor. and /or people he exposes her to.
However a dead Maddie isn't going to encounter anyone until her remains are found, if this is even still possible.
Even then it will be the finder encountering Maddie's remains rather than Maddie encountering the finder
Do they allow for the possibility that Maddie would be facing something hostile or difficult?
Yes, if what they tell us is true, in that Maddie is alive and not seriously harmed, despite being abducted by a paedophile.
Who will Maddie be bringing joy into the life of?
Will Maddie be bringing joy into the life of her alleged abductor?
Will Maddie be bringing joy into the lives of her abusers perhaps?
This is almost as crass as kate telling the world that:
"I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."
What planet does kate live on that she tells the world that Maddie will bring joy to the very people who allegedly abducted her or who have her currently!!
In her bewk, Kate tells us of her fears regarding Maddie:
"I was always terrified that Madeleine would hurt herself.
I always erred on the side of caution.
I remember once when she was about 4 weeks old refusing to make a car journey with her because the baby seat appeared to be wobbling very, very slightly.
I know Gerry felt i was a bit over the top sometimes."
Then further on she tells us:
In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach.
To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us.
We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain.
A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces.
The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them.
The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn.
Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.
How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner?
I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly.
She portrays herself as the concerned and caring mother, fearing to leave her children and travel a few yards to help carry ice creams back.
She even admits to wondering why she was so concerned about leaving her three children who would be in view and yet feel comfortable leaving them alone in an unlocked apartment:"I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction.
She can't even remotely attempt to explain or justify (her behavior or attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.
If she couldn't convince herself, how could she hope to convince the police and the public?
She cannot explain something that did not happen.
The children were never left home alone as claimed.
The story as told by the mccanns and chums did not happen.
There was one adult missing from the table each night allegedly sick or looking after a sick child.
Doctors,. like any medical staff, are hyper vigilant when it comes to childcare.
They know exactly what can happen in a fraction of a second, even if the parent is right next to the child.
They simply would not leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment.
More so that a party of 4 families plus one extra adult would all decide it was OK to leave their children home alone.
Also, I am sure Diane Webster would have something to say about their alleged child care arrangement. just as any concerned mother would.
They may have been able to fob her off once maybe twice but i suspect she would have still fussed or even offered her services if all the children were in one apartment.
She would not be happy that so many toddlers and infants were being left alone and unsupervised.
For there to have been time and opportunity for an abduction to occur, they all had to claim they neglected their children, for, if there was no neglect and the children were all being babysat by the missing adult, there could have been no abduction.
No abductions means darn awkward questions regarding what happened to Maddie and where she currently is?
Instead she resorts to speaking about subconscious thoughts, telling us that leaving three wide awake and active toddlers in broad daylight to go just a few yards away was riskier than leaving three 'sleeping' toddlers in an unlocked apartment in a strange country and in the dark with 'regular checks' who were an over 100 yards walk away and some 50 yards or so as the crow flies from the tapas bar to the back of their apartment.
An apartment, the back of which was partially visible from the tapas bar in daylight and heavily obscured at night due to the lighting of the bar reflecting off the windows off the bar windows.
The bedroom where the three children were allegedly supposed to be sleeping was at the front of the apartment,and thus not visible to those eating and drinking in the bar.
If all else fails blame the subconsciousness.
Could this be a part of any future defense?
No matter how she tries to explain things away and reconcile timings, who checked what and where.
It will not work.
Clearing up one issue results in other issues being revealed.
For the abduction to have occurred as claimed, they would have to come up with a story, a scenario that on initial inspection would seem plausible, believable.
They would worry about details later hopefully the police and public would buy their story and then after x amount of time they would be just another statistic.
Something changed, something unplanned which derailed any original planning they had.
MONEY.
A lot of money, hundreds of thousands of pounds going into the millions.
Greed and the fame (infamy) weaved its magic and now they are trapped.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
The Drs Gaspar statements
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
Regarding the Drs Gaspar statement, where the implication is that gerry and david are paedophiles.
It is disquieting in that we have heard no mention of this or a denial from either gerry or david.
Being called a paedophile is one of the worst names you can call someone particularly males.
Being called it in private is bad enough, being called it by implication in public is far worse, the revulsion caused by paedophilia is enough to cause mobs to descend even to physical violence and even death.
It is not something to be ignored if not true.
Being doctors and thus having exposure to children means being called a paedophile could have major ramifications, even to losing their licenses to practice.
As we saw with Lord McAlpine as soon as his name was mentioned in connection to paedophilia he came out with all guns firing and sued those responsible, the normal response to such a dreadful implication and accusation.
What we have seen, and which is not expected, is deafening silence from both gerry and david.
One would expect strong first person singular, event specific past tense denials.
I am not a paedophile.
I did not sexually abuse any child.
I am not sexually attracted to children and so on.
I would expect them to sue those who made such an accusation even to Mrs Amaral who wrote an open letter to kate telling her, she (Mrs Amaral) did not have paedophile friends.
It was loud and clear as to who Mrs Amaral was referring to in her letter.
What was also loud and clear was the deafening silence coming from both the mccanns and members of the tapas 7 refuting said allegation.
I would expect strong denials, particularly since Madeleine went missing, and it is well known that in missing children cases where it is a stranger abduction, the child is often sexually abused before being murdered, the longer a child victim of stranger abduction is missing the more likely they are dead.
Approximately 80% of acquaintance and stranger kidnappings are sexually motivated.
Acting quickly is critical.
Seventy-four percent of abducted children who are ultimately murdered are dead within three hours of the abduction.
This contradicts statements from the mccanns, in that the longer she is missing the more chance she is alive, and that there is no evidence she has come to serious harm (this in itself contradicts the forensic evidence of blood and body fluids in the apartment and car.
Normal instinct of innocent parents would be to demand to know if their child has been hurt by the 'abductor' and to demand faster action if dogs indicate, as well as asking what does it mean when a dog does this ot that?
What are the implications?
The parents being innocent, would be in paroxysms of agony ,afraid to know what may have happened to their missing child and, at the same time, afraid not to know.
The fear and pain of wondering if their child was hurt, if they are in pain, if they are suffering and not being able to comfort their child, to reassure them.
The fear and pain of wondering if their child is now dead, no longer suffering or being afraid and them not being able to bring their child home to give them a dignified burial.
They want to know and yet at the same time they don't.
Whilst they don't know there is always that flicker of hope, no matter how faint.
When they do know their child is dead, it is the end of their world, there is no longer any hope.
The worst has happened, their only consolation is that their child is now at peace, no longer terrified or in pain.
This is the expected.
What we saw and heard kate say was the unexpected.
We saw kate, claiming the dogs were junk science and thus relaxing rather than show concern
The fact we have heard nothing from either gerry or david in denial is telling.
Are they saying nothing in the hope it will die down?
Are they saying nothing because there is some basis for the allegation, and by responding would result in the allegations being made more public and perhaps questions and answers about the CATS file coming out?
Are they saying nothing because they have been advised not to by their lawyers due to consequences?
Sarah's Law, enables parents, guardians and third parties to enquire whether a person who has access to a child is a registered sex offender, or poses a risk to that child
How the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme works
Any member of the public can approach their local police force to apply under the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, for information regarding a specific person who has contact with a child(ren).
The police will process the application, but disclosure is not guaranteed.
Even if there are no firm grounds for suspicion, the applicant can trigger an investigation to find out if the subject (the person they are asking about) has a known history that means they might be of risk to children.
Third parties with concerns (e.g. grandparents or neighbors) about an individual who has contact with children are also invited to use the scheme.
However, where appropriate, disclosure will only be given to parents and guardians or those best placed to protect a child.
It may be that inquiries have been made by members of the public in regard to gerry and david, they cannot however broadcasts that information (human rights act and all that crap)
Saying nothing is unexpected and should therefore be red flagged.
One red flag or two does not mean the subject is being deceptive about the event concerned, it could be sensitive due to something else, an affair, financial worries, alcohol or substance abuse, even that checks weren't done as claimed.
However, multiple red flags indicate deception and then we need to probe further on why they are being deceptive, guilty knowledge or fear of consequences?
Listen not only for what is being said and how, also listen for what is not being said and when.
The subject will tell us the truth even if they are trying hard not to.
Look and listen to only the words spoken.
Do not interpret them.
Do not excuse what is being said to that's not what they meant.
If you interpret what you think they meant, you end up analyzing yourself.
Regarding the Drs Gaspar statement, where the implication is that gerry and david are paedophiles.
It is disquieting in that we have heard no mention of this or a denial from either gerry or david.
Being called a paedophile is one of the worst names you can call someone particularly males.
Being called it in private is bad enough, being called it by implication in public is far worse, the revulsion caused by paedophilia is enough to cause mobs to descend even to physical violence and even death.
It is not something to be ignored if not true.
Being doctors and thus having exposure to children means being called a paedophile could have major ramifications, even to losing their licenses to practice.
As we saw with Lord McAlpine as soon as his name was mentioned in connection to paedophilia he came out with all guns firing and sued those responsible, the normal response to such a dreadful implication and accusation.
What we have seen, and which is not expected, is deafening silence from both gerry and david.
One would expect strong first person singular, event specific past tense denials.
I am not a paedophile.
I did not sexually abuse any child.
I am not sexually attracted to children and so on.
I would expect them to sue those who made such an accusation even to Mrs Amaral who wrote an open letter to kate telling her, she (Mrs Amaral) did not have paedophile friends.
It was loud and clear as to who Mrs Amaral was referring to in her letter.
What was also loud and clear was the deafening silence coming from both the mccanns and members of the tapas 7 refuting said allegation.
I would expect strong denials, particularly since Madeleine went missing, and it is well known that in missing children cases where it is a stranger abduction, the child is often sexually abused before being murdered, the longer a child victim of stranger abduction is missing the more likely they are dead.
Approximately 80% of acquaintance and stranger kidnappings are sexually motivated.
Acting quickly is critical.
Seventy-four percent of abducted children who are ultimately murdered are dead within three hours of the abduction.
This contradicts statements from the mccanns, in that the longer she is missing the more chance she is alive, and that there is no evidence she has come to serious harm (this in itself contradicts the forensic evidence of blood and body fluids in the apartment and car.
Normal instinct of innocent parents would be to demand to know if their child has been hurt by the 'abductor' and to demand faster action if dogs indicate, as well as asking what does it mean when a dog does this ot that?
What are the implications?
The parents being innocent, would be in paroxysms of agony ,afraid to know what may have happened to their missing child and, at the same time, afraid not to know.
The fear and pain of wondering if their child was hurt, if they are in pain, if they are suffering and not being able to comfort their child, to reassure them.
The fear and pain of wondering if their child is now dead, no longer suffering or being afraid and them not being able to bring their child home to give them a dignified burial.
They want to know and yet at the same time they don't.
Whilst they don't know there is always that flicker of hope, no matter how faint.
When they do know their child is dead, it is the end of their world, there is no longer any hope.
The worst has happened, their only consolation is that their child is now at peace, no longer terrified or in pain.
This is the expected.
What we saw and heard kate say was the unexpected.
We saw kate, claiming the dogs were junk science and thus relaxing rather than show concern
The fact we have heard nothing from either gerry or david in denial is telling.
Are they saying nothing in the hope it will die down?
Are they saying nothing because there is some basis for the allegation, and by responding would result in the allegations being made more public and perhaps questions and answers about the CATS file coming out?
Are they saying nothing because they have been advised not to by their lawyers due to consequences?
Sarah's Law, enables parents, guardians and third parties to enquire whether a person who has access to a child is a registered sex offender, or poses a risk to that child
How the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme works
Any member of the public can approach their local police force to apply under the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, for information regarding a specific person who has contact with a child(ren).
The police will process the application, but disclosure is not guaranteed.
Even if there are no firm grounds for suspicion, the applicant can trigger an investigation to find out if the subject (the person they are asking about) has a known history that means they might be of risk to children.
Third parties with concerns (e.g. grandparents or neighbors) about an individual who has contact with children are also invited to use the scheme.
However, where appropriate, disclosure will only be given to parents and guardians or those best placed to protect a child.
It may be that inquiries have been made by members of the public in regard to gerry and david, they cannot however broadcasts that information (human rights act and all that crap)
Saying nothing is unexpected and should therefore be red flagged.
One red flag or two does not mean the subject is being deceptive about the event concerned, it could be sensitive due to something else, an affair, financial worries, alcohol or substance abuse, even that checks weren't done as claimed.
However, multiple red flags indicate deception and then we need to probe further on why they are being deceptive, guilty knowledge or fear of consequences?
Listen not only for what is being said and how, also listen for what is not being said and when.
The subject will tell us the truth even if they are trying hard not to.
Look and listen to only the words spoken.
Do not interpret them.
Do not excuse what is being said to that's not what they meant.
If you interpret what you think they meant, you end up analyzing yourself.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Innocence and Deception, The Truth and The Lie.
In cases of a missing child or loved one, innocent people will have the memories burnt into their minds if they are innocent.
They will remember what they experienced that day, the exact moment they found out, what happened afterwards.
They will be able to retell their statement forwards, backwards and from any time point.
There will be minor discrepancies, perhaps a few minutes out time wise, what they did just prior to and on learning what happened as shock kicks in.
Guilty people have NOT experienced the event they are talking about, if they are proclaiming innocence and why they couldn't have done it, when in reality they did the deed.
They have to create an event, a timeline to show how they couldn't have done it, they have to create alibis, timelines, locations of an imaginary event.
They have to come up with explanations as to why they wouldn't have done it.
Since they are creating a fictional story rather than telling of an actual event they have experienced, the discrepancies are more pronounced.
There are temporal lacunae, there are truth shaped holes and minimization and the ever popular "I don't remember".
When a truthful person is interviewed, by multiple people at different times and after periods of time have passed, the story will stay the pretty much the same, sometimes with a bit more clarification as they remember seeing or hearing something, perhaps jolted as a memory on hearing a song, seeing a picture, a particular smell.
It will however, be consistent, even when years and even decades have passed.
Deceptive people have no such recall, they struggle to remember who they told what to, who and what they saw, what they heard, timelines etc and, when said discrepancy is pointed out, they then change their version of events to explain away said discrepancy whilst revealing a discrepancy elsewhere.
They will be inconsistent.
As time passes their stories change, often drastically, as they struggle to remember what their initial version of events was, who they told said version of events to, where they were at what time.
It is hard enough to remember their story after days or weeks have passed.
As months pass, inconsistencies stand out as the guilty subject leaks marbles, perhaps marbles such as subtle demeaning of the victim, blatant demeaning of the victim although this is less common (tammy moorer speaking about murder victim Heather Elvis)
Marbles such as denying responsibility for the victim's death whilst telling the world their daughter is still alive and findable.
Originally there is denial of being at a certain place, making a certain call, owning certain items, seeing certain people or things.
As time passes and the stress of being deceptive takes its toll, the guilty subject will want to tell the truth as per the brain which hates being stressed yet, at the same time, they need to remain deceptive to protect themselves from the consequences of the deed.
The subject finds themselves in conflict with themselves.
With truthful people, the jigsaw puzzle pieces will fit exactly and the picture of the truth is revealed and the subject is shown to have no involvement.
With deceptive people the pieces won't fit or the wrong piece fits in the space and thus stands out as unexpected.
The picture of the deception is revealed in all its disjointedness.
Many pieces will fit together exactly, however, the pieces concerning the event will be the wrong pattern, the wrong color, the wrong shape and, no matter how much they try to get the piece to fit, it won't.
It can't.
They can try and replace a specific piece with what appears to be the exact same piece from another puzzle, it won't work.
There will be subtle differences in the pattern, the shade of color, a minute difference in the shape of the piece, either too small or too large.
The deceptive piece has a minute gap which is detected and then investigated or it is a fraction to big and has to be squeezed into a too small space.
The piece gets squeezed out of shape or it bulges out slightly, breaking the smoothness of the picture.
With kate and payne and the showering, she tells us one version and he tells us one version, the time difference is too much to be explained away as a slight mis-remembering.
Kate then forgets what she has already told us and then speaks of having a bath when gerry returned along with the story time and happy perfect family moment.
I would ask kate about the bathing and to explain the discrepancies.
How could she remember they had a bottle of NZ wine but not remember she had already showered and now needed another bath?
Why has david payne remained silent over the allegations of him being a paedophile?
The Drs Gaspar reported he and gerry performed inappropriate actions in relation to a discussion about Maddie.
Being accused of paedophilia or being a paedophile is probably the worst thing you could call a man.
The connotations are so bad, the instinctive response by normal people is hatred and disgust.
Instinct would compel anyone accused of being a paedophile to make a strong first person singular, event specific denial.
I am not a paedophile.
I did not sexually touch a child
I am not sexually attracted to children
The denial would be strong and specific
Silence would not be an option.
More so given the nature of his job and the patients he would come into contact with.
Instead he says nothing,
There is an unexpected silence.
Why?
What is preventing him from speaking out?
Fear of the consequences perhaps?
What is preventing any of the tapas 7 from speaking out given the accusations flying around, the multitude of discrepancies?
After nearly 9 years why is there still silence as to who did what that night?
By not answering the questions, they answer the questions.
Why have a shower before payne visited and then a bath when gerry got home?
I would be asking (since water is mentioned) if she and payne had a sexual encounter?
I would be asking if sexual encounters between others took place.
They will remember what they experienced that day, the exact moment they found out, what happened afterwards.
They will be able to retell their statement forwards, backwards and from any time point.
There will be minor discrepancies, perhaps a few minutes out time wise, what they did just prior to and on learning what happened as shock kicks in.
Guilty people have NOT experienced the event they are talking about, if they are proclaiming innocence and why they couldn't have done it, when in reality they did the deed.
They have to create an event, a timeline to show how they couldn't have done it, they have to create alibis, timelines, locations of an imaginary event.
They have to come up with explanations as to why they wouldn't have done it.
Since they are creating a fictional story rather than telling of an actual event they have experienced, the discrepancies are more pronounced.
There are temporal lacunae, there are truth shaped holes and minimization and the ever popular "I don't remember".
When a truthful person is interviewed, by multiple people at different times and after periods of time have passed, the story will stay the pretty much the same, sometimes with a bit more clarification as they remember seeing or hearing something, perhaps jolted as a memory on hearing a song, seeing a picture, a particular smell.
It will however, be consistent, even when years and even decades have passed.
Deceptive people have no such recall, they struggle to remember who they told what to, who and what they saw, what they heard, timelines etc and, when said discrepancy is pointed out, they then change their version of events to explain away said discrepancy whilst revealing a discrepancy elsewhere.
They will be inconsistent.
As time passes their stories change, often drastically, as they struggle to remember what their initial version of events was, who they told said version of events to, where they were at what time.
It is hard enough to remember their story after days or weeks have passed.
As months pass, inconsistencies stand out as the guilty subject leaks marbles, perhaps marbles such as subtle demeaning of the victim, blatant demeaning of the victim although this is less common (tammy moorer speaking about murder victim Heather Elvis)
Marbles such as denying responsibility for the victim's death whilst telling the world their daughter is still alive and findable.
Originally there is denial of being at a certain place, making a certain call, owning certain items, seeing certain people or things.
As time passes and the stress of being deceptive takes its toll, the guilty subject will want to tell the truth as per the brain which hates being stressed yet, at the same time, they need to remain deceptive to protect themselves from the consequences of the deed.
The subject finds themselves in conflict with themselves.
With truthful people, the jigsaw puzzle pieces will fit exactly and the picture of the truth is revealed and the subject is shown to have no involvement.
With deceptive people the pieces won't fit or the wrong piece fits in the space and thus stands out as unexpected.
The picture of the deception is revealed in all its disjointedness.
Many pieces will fit together exactly, however, the pieces concerning the event will be the wrong pattern, the wrong color, the wrong shape and, no matter how much they try to get the piece to fit, it won't.
It can't.
They can try and replace a specific piece with what appears to be the exact same piece from another puzzle, it won't work.
There will be subtle differences in the pattern, the shade of color, a minute difference in the shape of the piece, either too small or too large.
The deceptive piece has a minute gap which is detected and then investigated or it is a fraction to big and has to be squeezed into a too small space.
The piece gets squeezed out of shape or it bulges out slightly, breaking the smoothness of the picture.
With kate and payne and the showering, she tells us one version and he tells us one version, the time difference is too much to be explained away as a slight mis-remembering.
Kate then forgets what she has already told us and then speaks of having a bath when gerry returned along with the story time and happy perfect family moment.
I would ask kate about the bathing and to explain the discrepancies.
How could she remember they had a bottle of NZ wine but not remember she had already showered and now needed another bath?
Why has david payne remained silent over the allegations of him being a paedophile?
The Drs Gaspar reported he and gerry performed inappropriate actions in relation to a discussion about Maddie.
Being accused of paedophilia or being a paedophile is probably the worst thing you could call a man.
The connotations are so bad, the instinctive response by normal people is hatred and disgust.
Instinct would compel anyone accused of being a paedophile to make a strong first person singular, event specific denial.
I am not a paedophile.
I did not sexually touch a child
I am not sexually attracted to children
The denial would be strong and specific
Silence would not be an option.
More so given the nature of his job and the patients he would come into contact with.
Instead he says nothing,
There is an unexpected silence.
Why?
What is preventing him from speaking out?
Fear of the consequences perhaps?
What is preventing any of the tapas 7 from speaking out given the accusations flying around, the multitude of discrepancies?
After nearly 9 years why is there still silence as to who did what that night?
By not answering the questions, they answer the questions.
Why have a shower before payne visited and then a bath when gerry got home?
I would be asking (since water is mentioned) if she and payne had a sexual encounter?
I would be asking if sexual encounters between others took place.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
The True Story of Madeleine McCann - When Madeleine Died Courtesy of Richard D. Hall
Here are the links to the latest video by Mr. Richard D. Hall
He has covered this case comprehensively and I recommend you have a look through his various videos relating to the case.
He makes it easy to follow the ins and outs of a case hindered by her parents and their chums, their hired spokespeople, the media and those in high places.
"WHEN MADELEINE DIED" is a series of 4 videos by Richard D.Hall detailing his NEW INVESTIGATION into the case. WATCH, LISTEN and DECIDE for yourselves!
The past presence of a human corpse was detected in the McCanns’ apartment and in many other places associated with the McCanns by highly trained police sniffer dogs. This clue suggests that Madeleine may have died and her body lain in the apartment for a period of time.
Assuming this is correct, what date and time did Madeleine die? The most logical way to address this question is to go back in time to determine what was the last piece of credible evidence, which proves Madeleine was alive. This film attempts to do this by forensically examining witness statements, photographs, physical evidence, police reports and media reports. In doing so the film exposes the agenda of the mainstream media which has, on the whole, helped to cover up the truth about the Madeleine McCann case.
Guilt and Stress
Guilty people need to end the stress they suffer from lying, this is why
we get deathbed confessions, to ease the soul of the guilty person.
A guilty person can never ease the stress they suffer, this is why, sooner or later, they confess to someone.
It eases their guilt and relieves their internal stress.
Also, a secret once shared, even if with one other person is no longer a secret.
The mccanns have the fear of not only leaking the truth themselves by accident, they also have the fear that one or more of the tapas 7 will admit what happened to ease their own guilty conscience.
None of them were close friends, at most, they were acquaintances with the mccanns.
Why would they keep such an horrific secret for 9 years?
If they had no involvement in the actual deed why stay silent?
If they were doing other stuff be it bonking each other, illegal drugs etc that would be nothing, who cares who they were bonking?
Who cares what drugs they took (Drs are well known for 'self medicating')
What if they were getting drunk every night, who cares.
None of that would be important, it might mean a few snickers from friends and neighbors and maybe a scandalised parent.
For them to stay silent for so long has to mean something more serious was taking place.
Something so serious they had to keep it silent.
What could be so serious as to silence 9 people?
A guilty person can never ease the stress they suffer, this is why, sooner or later, they confess to someone.
It eases their guilt and relieves their internal stress.
Also, a secret once shared, even if with one other person is no longer a secret.
The mccanns have the fear of not only leaking the truth themselves by accident, they also have the fear that one or more of the tapas 7 will admit what happened to ease their own guilty conscience.
None of them were close friends, at most, they were acquaintances with the mccanns.
Why would they keep such an horrific secret for 9 years?
If they had no involvement in the actual deed why stay silent?
If they were doing other stuff be it bonking each other, illegal drugs etc that would be nothing, who cares who they were bonking?
Who cares what drugs they took (Drs are well known for 'self medicating')
What if they were getting drunk every night, who cares.
None of that would be important, it might mean a few snickers from friends and neighbors and maybe a scandalised parent.
For them to stay silent for so long has to mean something more serious was taking place.
Something so serious they had to keep it silent.
What could be so serious as to silence 9 people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Something to ponder.
Clothes based on a specific age range can be a bit hit and miss as children rarely follow a sizing norm.
As Martin rightly points out, when it comes to buying clothes for children, parents buy to fit and allow for a little extra growing room in order that the child gets to wear it for more than a couple of weeks.More so when money is a bit tight
Some may be wearing clothes are are a couple of ages bigger, IE, a 3 year old wearing clothes meant for a 5 year old or a 3 year old wearing clothes meant for a 2 year old.
Clothes sizes can also vary due to type of material, how they are cut (as with adult clothes some can be cut giving a generous size and others can be a smaller size and less forgiving.
M&S are generous in their cuts so a size 14 lady can perhaps get into a a size 12 or even a 10 (very good and a happy lady) whereas, a designer item could be skimpy on the cut and a a size 14 lady would need an 18.(very bad and an unhappy lady)
These things matter to us ladies.
According to kate's statement
10-PROCESSO 10 VOLUME Xa (Pages 2539 to 2551)
Kate Marie Healy's statement 06/09/07 @ 3.00pm
TRANSLATIONS BY CARMERINA32
KATE MARIE HEALY ' STATEMENT
(from DVD)
September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao
On May 3 they all woke between 7;30 and 8:00 AM; doesn't know who woke first. They washed the children and had breakfast at the apartment between 08:00 and 08:30 AM. Food bought by her and Gerry at Baptista supermarket. Previously they'd had breakfast at the Millenium, but as it was so far they'd decided to have breakfast at the apartment. During breakfast the 'crying episode', already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.
The important little bit is this
During breakfast the 'crying episode', already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning.
Now this was allegedly what happened during breakfast may 3rd.
Looking at the picture of the pajamas at the top of this post, there is a clear stain on the neck of the pajama top which could be from spilled tea.
On the front of the neck in line with the gap at the back of the collar
Now, as pointed out above, why would someone, nay anyone, take a photograph of a pair of pajamas showing a 'tea stain'?
What parent sees a stain on the clothing of their child and decides
"Oh i must photograph it for posterity. Another one for the family album"
Unless it is something spectacular perhaps forming the face of a dead family member, Jesus or anything else relating to people, known as face pareidolia
Perhaps she took the photo in order to make a claim on a faulty item and demanding a refund, although why not take said item back to the store on discovering the stain on arrival at home?
There is simply no reason to take a photo given the above scenarios.
On the other hand, there is ample reason to take a photo if it will later be presented as an exhibit to the media and public.
There is ample reason to take a photo if there is an intent to deceive.
Why though would innocent parents go through all the rigmarole if they had no involvement in the 'disappearance' of their daughter?
The thought wouldn't even cross their mind.
Guilty people however, do things like this to either show evidence they could not have done such a crime, to mislead those investigating the alleged crime, to muddy the waters.
They would do so to preempt something else.
It could be claimed that these were not in fact Maddie's rather they were Amelie's.
How then would both Maddie and Amelie have tea stains on their pajama tops?
Kate told us that on the morning of may 3rd she noticed a tea stain on Maddie's pajama top.
She makes no mention of a similar stain being on Amelie's top.
However, kate tells us:
"these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
Now, if kate is telling the truth, and i have to assume she is,
How could they be Maddie's since she would have been wearing them when 'abducted'.
If Maddie had been wearing a different pair of pajamas then the question would not have arisen since kate and gerry would be holding up a different pair of pajamas, the ones similar/identical to the ones Maddie was wearing when she was 'abducted'
If these were Maddie's, why were they not 'abducted' along with Maddie since she was wearing them?
Did the alleged abductor waste precious seconds taking her pajamas off?
If so, where were they located when kate 'discovered' Maddie was missing?
How come no one noticed these pajamas lying in situ?
How come these were not handed over as evidence to the PJ who could then do all the usual forensic tests to find out what happened and perhaps who did it?
Were these actually abducted and the pink blanket left behind and said abductor managed to sneak back into the apartment which, presumably, would be filled with police, the family and anyone else remotely involved, remove Maddie's pink blanket and return her pajamas all without being seen, heard or leaving any evidence of their existence?
Out of their own mouths comes ample evidence that Maddie is dead.
They knew she was dead from the get go of the 'alleged abduction'.
They were involved in her death as were possibly one or more of the tapas men since no mention has been made of the ladies doing the alleged checks on the children.
This also means they and at least one or more of the tapas 7 took action to conceal Maddie's body and then file a false police report.
In the following years, the mccanns and chums have also committed fraud on a grand scale in relation to the fund and also to claiming and winning damages against various media.
Keep talking chums, the more you speak the more you leak.
The more you leak, the closer the PJ will be to nailing your sorry asses for homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.
The PJ may also press charges against the group and the various family members who showed up and made full use of the amenities at little to no cost to themselves, obtaining money and services by deception.
In the meantime SY would, and should go ahead with prosecuting the mccanns and chums as well as clarrie for fraud, obtaining money and services by deception and anything else to do with the fund.
Those involved in creating the fund (seriously £37000?)and running it.
I would also be interested to know if the States could also join in the fun and charge them with wire fraud, money donated to them via their website (darn that $ PayPal button.)
I then wonder that, when the stuff hits the fan and the tapas 6 (I don't think Diane Webster was awarded damages) are facing prosecution regarding the damages and are required to pay it all back along with interest and court costs, if they will demand the mccanns return the money the group so generously donated to the fund, in order to make their own repayments along with court costs etc.
Could it get to a stage where the mccanns get sued by the tapas 7, their former alibis, allies and friends?
Could it then end up with the mccanns suing the tapas7?
Could clarrie decide he is missing out and sue the mccanns?
Could the mccanns then end up suing clarrie for dropping them right in it when he opened mouth and inserted feet?
It could get quite interesting as well as messy once the infighting and blame game starts.
"So these are actually, apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
So is used to explain why something is/happened.
It answers the unasked question the subject expects will be asked.
Kate slips up here by not telling us these are identical or similar to the pajamas Maddie was wearing, she instead tells us the pajamas are the ones Maddie was wearing when allegedly abducted.
She uses the word actually which is a word indicating comparison between 2 or more items.
IE, I like vanilla ice cream, actually i like chocolate more.
This is also a sensitive statement since she uses the word actually twice.
The problem kate has is she twice tells us these are Maddie's pajamas whilst at the same time contradicting herself and telling us apart from the size and the button on the back.
As has been rightly pointed out, how can these be the pajamas Maddie was wearing when she was abducted when, presumably, said self same pajamas would have been abducted along with Maddie since she was wearing them.
Either Maddie was wearing them the night she was allegedly abducted, in which case:
How did the mccanns come across her pajamas?
When did they come across them?
Where did they find them?
Why were they not immediately handed to the PJ for testing and a fingertip search of the area conducted?
Or.
Kate and gerry removed the pajamas from Maddie's corpse before disposing of her.
Or kate and gerry are outright lying about what Maddie was wearing that night, in which case why the need to lie about something trivial unless. of course, there is something which was seen or found that would incriminate them.
With the mccanns it is always look over there not here, or look over here not over there.
There is a need to distract.
As an aside.
Eddie reacted to a child's red t shirt.
WHY would a child's t shirt be contaminated with cadaverine?
More importantly, HOW could a child's t shirt be contaminated by cadaverine?
Cross contamination perhaps if it was packed with other clothing (kate's pants) contaminated with cadaverine.
Why then only that item, along with kate's pants and no other items in the case?
Did kate take the t shirt to work with her alongside cuddlecat and it got contaminated the same way that cuddlecat did and kate's pants (allegedly according to sue healy)
The obvious conclusion is that the t shirt came into direct contact with the cadaver.
Maddie's lifeless body.
Either Maddie injured herself and died accidentally and for whatever reason happened to land on said t shirt or, and I am taking a big leap of judgement here, Maddie was actually wearing said T shirt.
A T shirt then later claimed to belong to Sean perhaps, or it was Sean's and Maddie at some point was wearing it.
Why though was it removed from Maddie's corpse?
Was she wearing it as a pajama top perhaps?
Or, more likely, was she wearing it during the day and died due to nefarious deeds of a dastardly nature?
Since they claim Maddie was abducted at night from her bed, questions would be asked why she was wearing a t shirt as opposed to pajamas?
Yes, they could have claimed she liked it so much she wore it at night, however, muddled and panicked thinking may have been they have to show she died at night, thus claiming she was wearing pajamas.
T shirt is day wear, Pajamas are night wear
It probably made sense to them at the time.