The problem with cuddle cat

.

Initially we are told it was an early 4th birthday present from her uncle, thus implying she was given it immediately prior or close to the start of their vacation.
It is unlikely then to have been have favorite comforter as those are usually something given from birth or in the early months.
An attachment form between it and the child and never the twain shall part without much tears and tantrums causing parent to resort to sneaky laundering and ad hoc repairs until the child moves on.
From the pictures it would seem that the pink blanket we saw on the bed was in fact her comforter, her favorite must have.

Given cuddlecat was allegedly an early birthday present , when did kate take it into to work with her in the 2 weeks before the vacation, that she dealt with allegedly multiple corpses in her part time work as a locum, why would she then take it out on house calls to certify a dearth and how did cuddlecat come into contact with said corpse?

If as she then tells us it was an old toy and Maddie's favorite, how did she separate Maddie from her favorite toy and comforter, more importantly why? and why did she then take it out on house calls?

Was the removal of Maddie's comforter a form of punishment?
You are naughty you lose your comforter perhaps?
Was it used as a form of control over Maddie?
Good Maddie gets the toy, bad Maddie doesn't?

Neither explains how cadaverine got on it.

Having dealt with many corpses in various states of death from recent to icky to OMG it's a jigsaw puzzle ( trees and no brakes on a steep hill make for an interesting night)
Appropriate clothing is worn, and, if it is a GP certifying a death, most times they will look at the body and it it pretty obvious they are dead or they will look for a pulse wrist , neck , stethoscope on occasion.
Contact with a corpse is minimal , especially if the death is expected.

What they won't be doing is carrying around their child's alleged favorite toy and touching the body with it, especially since their will likely be relatives or medical/nursing/ carers present and they will ask what the heck are you doing with that toy? only probably not as politely.

What is noticeable is, kate has neither confirmed nor denied the claim, probably figuring out if she says nothing then it will eventually be forgotten about.

I would be interested to know what the relative who said this was told by kate, or, if it was an assumption on their part, in which case, surely they would have thought to themselves, who checks a dead body for life with a child's cuddly toy?

If we go with it being the new toy, the early birthday present, then kate is again stuck for an answer in reply to how cadaverine got on it.

Cross contamination won't work if she claims it contaminated her pants and the child's top whilst in the suitcase since, if that were the case, every item in contact with any of those items would have been contaminated and we would be looking at a suitcase full of items, which, as we know, was not the case.

If we go with her wearing the check pants and taking cuddlecat on her rounds as a GP certifying multiple deaths, how does she explain the child's t shirt being indicated for cadaverine?

There is no logical explanation.
It wouldn't fit her, and, wouldn't have been worn by cuddlecat and, who takes a child's t shirt to work and when they are certifying corpses?

What I would like to see done is luminol the whole apartment, even after this time it would/could still indicate any presence of blood and also show what clean up had been done and where.

Blood on the wall and floor can reveal a lot such as low or high velocity spread, direction, position of the body and all sorts.
Also what would show up on their clothing and in the hire car?

Luminol indicating in the hire car is a huge problem for them since it wouldn't show for sweat or meat or fish or any excuse they used.
What would Kate's pants show if she still has them/
The same for any clothing of the twins and Maddie, especially if the room is as it has been kept before the vacation.

Luminol would be very revealing and would cause them huge problems if there is a lot of blood spilt
If it revealed behind the sofa where the dogs indicated then they are in trouble, lifting all the tiles would show any spread, even if not visible to the human eye.

Slightly off topic, regarding the dog bite.
 
What treatment did kate seek given that rabies is found in Portugal although confined to bats mostly, it is still a remote possibility that a dog could be infected (personally if there is rabies in any country i will assume all mammals to be a risk such as cats and dogs, since we may not always see an infected stray cat or dog)
If it broke the skin (which would explain the bloody footprint) then there may be damage to her jogging pants, blood on her trainer and would require cleaning, possibly sutures or butterfly stitches depending on size and depth plus there would be a dressing over it, bruising and possible scarring.
 
No one has mentioned seeing any dressings or bruising on her calf nor commented on it in their rogs, and this is something worth noting, a friend was bitten by a stray dog etc etc.

Kate made no mention of her bruising until we questioned it and then it was initially via one of the tapas group.

I wonder if the tapas 7 realise they could face charges as accessories after the fact as well as perverting the course of justice, obstruction of justice, filing a false police report and lying as witnesses.

They would also be liable to face being sued for any monies they were awarded out of court, not fun if, as they claim, it was all donated to the fund and by default the mccann's pockets.
It's hard to pay back hundreds of thousands when you don't have it and they would have to then sue the mccanns for return of it perhaps claiming they were conned by them, the money was obtained fraudulently by the mccanns or it was to go only on the search etc.
It could get real messy.

Message From The mccans On Their Official Site

Official Find Madeleine Campaign

Why do we continue?
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed.
Madeleine is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her.
She is young and vulnerable and needs our help.
We love her dearly and miss her beyond words.

We still need your help in finding Madeleine. Thank you for continuing to stand by our side and most of all, for caring so much about Madeleine.

~FM Webmaster

Another open mouth insert feet moment brought to you by the mccanns's, the parents who just keep giving.

Why do we continue? 
Who is the questioned aimed at?
The public or, themselves?


 
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed. 

On first reading it sounds like a strong statement.however, it isn't.
Qualifiers are words that when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence.

Here we have the addition of the word absolutely which weakens the statement.
A strong statement would be: There is no evidence to suggest Madeleine has been harmed.
Qualifiers weaken the meaning of the sentence.

We know the statement is untrue since we have the reactions of both blood and cadaver dogs, we have body fluids and we also have the fact that Maddie is missing.
What we don't have is evidence of an abduction such as finger, ear or footprints, skin or hair or fibres, DNA from someone unknown to the group.

If a Missing child isn't evidence of harm, then what is their definition of harm?
There is evidence that Maddie has come to harm, unfortunately said evidence indicates a dead Maddie not an abducted live Maddie.

 
Madeleine is still missing and someone needs to be looking for her. 
Notice they say someone needs to be looking for her and not the expected WE need to be looking for her or the stronger yet WE ARE STILL LOOKING FOR HER. 
Clearly the someone doesn't include her family, the tapas 7 or their friends in general.
Why the need to distance themselves from looking for their child?
This is unexpected in innocent parents and a red flag.
 

She is young and vulnerable and needs our help. 

Yes she is but apparently our help doesn't include her parents actively searching for her from the moment she went missing.

 
We love her dearly and miss her beyond words. 

Not dearly enough to actually go out actively searching for her from the get go.
Not dearly enough for kate to answer the 48 questions.
Not dearly enough to go back and do a police reconstruction then or now.
Not dearly enough to assist the police rather than suing the ex lead detective who actively searched for her and spent many hours, days and weeks trying to find her or those who harmed her.
They love her dearly for the money she brought in.
 

We still need your help in finding Madeleine.  

Why?

When you had the chance to keep the case open you refused to demand it be kept open.

You hired people who were skilled in money laundering and who were involved in drugs.

You hired con artists and bumbling ex coppers who had no idea how to run a basic missing persons case.

You hired anyone except those who were expert in finding missing persons.

You have never looked for your daughter, instead preferring to sit round the pool making merry or going jogging or on world trips, visiting places where Maddie was not sighted and ignoring those possible places where she might have been.

You sat on e-fits for several years because the e-fits looked just like gerry.

You spent only a tiny proportion of the funds on actual searching , with the vast majority going on the mortgage, legal fees (really? If you are innocent why the need for lawyers?) travelling round the world and suing anyone who disagreed with your version of events.

What you should have said is:

 "WE STILL NEED YOUR HELP TO KEEP US IN THE STYLE TO WHICH WE HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED" 


Thank you for continuing to stand by our side and most of all, for caring so much about Madeleine. In statement analysis, order is important.
It tells us what the subject considers as their priority.
Here we have their priority as us standing by their side supporting them followed by caring so much about Madeleine.
They tell us most of all for caring about Madeleine, yet, put caring about her behind standing by the mccanns side.

What is missing from all their statements  and press releases are messages to Maddie telling them we are searching for her and to be brave and strong, we will find her.

Instead all the talk is about them, how they feel, how victimised they feel when pulled up on the language and behavior.

It is all about them rather than about their daughter.

They don't talk to Maddie or reassure her they will find and rescue her because they know she is dead.

They themselves have told us she is long dead.

They don't talk to her because they know she will never see or hear or read it.

Corpses are beyond the reach of communication.

‘Mommy got a spanking with the belt’: North Carolina boy, 3, says boyfriend attacked mom before she disappeared.

‘Mommy got a spanking with the belt’: North Carolina boy, 3, says boyfriend attacked mom before she disappeared

The little boy was reportedly interviewed by Charlotte-Mecklenburg police after his 31-year-old mother, Bianca Tanner — who had recently moved in with her boyfriend, Angelo Smith — disappeared on June 7. Police have since made the case a homicide investigation.

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday, June 16, 2014, 1:37 PM

209

29

Share this URL


  Facebook Bianca Tanner’s 3-year-old son told cops that her boyfriend ‘kicked mommy’s butt and made her cry’ before she was reported missing on June 8.

The 3-year-old son of a missing North Carolina teacher told investigators that he hadn’t seen his mother since her boyfriend “kicked mommy’s butt and made her cry,” it was reported Monday.

The little boy was interviewed by detectives after his mother, Bianca Tanner, 31, disappeared from her Charlotte home on June 7, WSOC-TV reported.

Tanner had recently moved in with her boyfriend, Angelo Smith, after getting a job with Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, the news station reported.

Smith told investigators that he had an argument with Tanner when she was drunk before she left the apartment carrying a bag, according to warrants obtained by the news station.


But the case turned into a homicide investigation after cops talked to Tanner’s son, who said his mother was attacked.

  Facebook Bianca Tanner, 31, disappeared just weeks after she moved in a Charlotte apartment with her boyfriend, Angelo Smith.

“Mommy got a spanking with a belt,” the unidentified child told police, the documents show.

“Angelo kicked mommy’s butt and made her cry.”

The toddler later said that “Angelo is mean to mommy and hurt mommy in the face.”

Court papers show that investigators are searching for a belt or paddle, cellphones and the clothes Tanner was wearing during the alleged assault, WSOC-TV reported.

  WBTV/WBTV Police say Tanner disappeared from her Charlotte apartment just weeks after she moved to the area.

Police are also searching for any evidence of blood inside the Druid Circle apartment.

Smith — who had an outstanding warrant for domestic battery in Arkansas after trying to smother his girlfriend during a fight — was not named as a suspect in Tanner’s disappearance, the news station reported.

Tanner moved in late May from Greensboro, where she taught second grade at Reedy Fork Elementary School in Greensboro.

jkemp@nydailynews.com


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/north-carolina-boy-3-mommy-spanking-belt-disappeared-article-1.1831577#ixzz350iv2yNu




So, a three year witness to a crime was gently questioned by police and he told them what he saw in his own words and clearly speaking from personal experience

“Mommy got a spanking with a belt,” the unidentified child told police, the documents show.
“Angelo kicked mommy’s butt and made her cry.”

A spanking to you and i would be with the flat of the hand on the butt, here he tells us spanking is with a belt.
That's not spanking that is beating or whipping.
This would lead to the question being asked what is a spanking?
Get the child to describe what spanking is, in his own words.

He introduces kicked mommy's butt, this is something he heard used probably frequently and in relation to domestic violence either on or to himself or his mother.
This would suggest physical assault especially when coupled with the statement he hurt mommy in the face.

The police having listened to the child have turned the case from that of a missing person to that of a homicide.

Using analytical interviewing techniques and using only words introduce by the subject to describe what is meant by a certain word or phrase, the answer to which is used to guide the interviewer and thus get to the truth.

This was a 3 yr old little boy.

So, kate and gerry, Why did you refuse to let trained police gently question the twins as to what they did that day, what they saw, what they heard?
Whilst you were away getting happily smashed ( if we go along with your neglect claim on leaving the children home alone and the abduction claim) who is to say they didn't wake up between checks, that they didn't see something or hear something?
You allegedly weren't there all night just the occasional brief visit, who knows what they did.
Common sense  and innocent parents would have demanded to have their children checked out in a hospital especially since they slept through the whole damn thing.
Common sense and innocent parents would have begged the police to ask if their children saw anything, hell even you would have asked them if they saw or heard anything, right?

Now.

kate and gerry, you didn't demand they be taken to hospital and checked over for sedation or signs of abuse, you may have been doctors along with the rest of the motley crew but you didn't have the equipment or facilities to make sure they were unharmed in all ways.
Despite being a trained anaesthetist kate simply stuck her fingers under their noses and placed her hand on their backs to check respiration.
I don't think that is part of medical training.

If i didn't know better kate and gerry, the reason you didn't have them checked out in a hospital was because you knew exactly what they had been given and when.
You didn't have them checked out in hospital because you knew they had not been abused by any abductor.
Given payne's predilections for bathing other peoples children and that interesting discussion between gerry and payne regarding what Maddie would do, as witnessed by the Dr's Gaspar is it possible that another reason they weren't allowed to be checked is that possible signs of abuse would have been revealed?
If new then you could blame the abductor, if old, then you have some very awkward questions to answer.
The problem with blaming the abductor is given the time between alleged checks and the alleged sighting by tanner of a man carrying a bundle which morphed in a man carrying Maddie, a window which even kate admitted was brief, the old whoosh cluck, a window of approximately 90 seconds, it would have been impossible for the man to break in, sedate the children abuse the children, grab Maddie and exit stage left without leaving an iota of forensic evidence, not a fingerprint, not a footprint, not a hair or skin cell, absolutely zilch, bugger all. nothing.
Forensically cleaning the apartment on top of all that would make even superman knackered.

Now, we know the children were babysat each night by the missing adult, even you and gerry have told us this when, in reference to the crying incident, you wondered if it was when they were being bathed or put to bed, questions which would not have arisen if you were the ones doing the bathing and putting to bed.

If they were being babysat then there was no neglect

If there was no neglect then there was no abductor.

No abductor means awkward questions as to what you did with Maddie and game over.

You bang on about pieces of information, pieces of the puzzle, someone knows what happened and they need to come forward.

Well kate, you have 48 (technically 56 questions, damn those compound questions) when can I expect you to answer them?

When will you and gerry and chums do the full police reconstruction in PDL?

When will you allows specially trained officers to talk to Sean and Amelie and see what, if anything they remember?

You, yourself, told us how shocked you were at what they remembered from the vacation.
Did they perhaps remember sleeping in a different bedroom with their friends?
Did they remember perhaps bath times with payne?
Did they remember perhaps being put to bed and watched by aunty or uncle...?

Is it possible your downfall could be at the hands of Sean and Amelie?

That would be quite ironic and wonderfully delicious karma.

After your public tantrum outside the court, you made it quite clear what and who your priority was and is.

It wasn't and isn't and never will be Maddie.

It was and is and always will be, your own slimy skins.

The public saw the real you outside court and it was sickening.

All the money spent on spin doctoring and high priced lawyers went down the pan the moment you whined about having to organise childcare.

You claimed he had postponed it 4 times, nice try at spinning.

Tthis was Dr Amaral's first time, other times were for legal and medical reasons and were times when you weren't even required at court.

You turned up on the off chance you could be allowed to testify after the car crash of your witnesses, despite knowing you would be refused due to not having given sufficient notice, and then kate dearest, when you were allowed to, you wanted to testify by letter, so desperate were you to avoid actually having to take the stand and answer questions.

That was a huge red flag.

The other huge red flag was the fact you refused to return to Portugal whilst the police searches were going on, despite the fact Maddie allegedly could have been found alive at any moment or her remains found.

Ben Needham's mom went back to Greece when they searched again for her son, even after all these years.

However, you couldn't get there fast enough if you thought a million quid would be in your grubby little paws.

Once again your priority is revealed and it is Money not Maddie.

Not even your tapas chums came out to testify on your behalf or to offer support, just how close are you these days?

Couldn't you afford to bribe,  pay for them?

Are they even talking to you these days?

Why would they?

You cost them tens of thousands when they settled out of court and they 'donated' the money to the 'fund'
The fund meant to find Maddie and which, instead has been used to keep you and gerry in the manner to which you would like to become accustomed.

What happens if they get sued by the press and have to repay the money plus interest and legal fees?

Will you return it to them from the fund, or will you batten down the hatches and pretend they don't exist, just like you pretend there was no cadaverine or body fluids found by the dogs and forensic science officers, whilst at the same time coming up with excuses as to why they exist.

That just screams desperation darlings.

One day the twins will reach the age of majority and then watch out, you may find yourself being blackmailed by your own children, do this pay that or else, or, they may decide they want justice for their elder sister and tell LE what they know.

Imagine all the conversations and rows etc they have heard over the years, things you thought only you and gerry know about.
Well guess what, children hear everything and they remember, especially the fights and rows.

What will you do if you learn the twins are going to talk to LE?

Press a button?
Have a convenient abductor to hand and, oh woe we were targeted again, cue fund mark ll?

Remember, 

WE ARE WATCHING, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO UNTIL MADDIE IS FOUND AND CHARGES LAID AGAINST THOSE WHO KILLED HER.

Tick Tock

Would You Be happy With Their Behavior And Inaction If It Were Your Daughter The mccanns Lost?

I have read in a certain forum (hello fans, coooooooeeeeeeeeeee) that the mccanns have the full PJ files, translated at a cost of £100,000 pounds etc and that the PJ files we, who aren't buying the abduction story, have read that has been translated by our Portuguese friends at no charge and with ample goodwill and are taking our facts and theses from are wrong due to mistranslation, cherry picking of details etc.

This got me thinking, as is my wont.

We all know how litigious the mccans are along with their chums, surely if our translations were wrong, translations the media have been using are also wrong then why have the mccanns never corrected any of the files which have been wrong translated?

As it stands our translations of the rog statements, witness statements etc have proven their statements etc to be highly contradictory or down right impossible.

Surely they would point out the inconsistencies and say we didn't say this we actually said that and it proves we did this, or said that and didn't do this or didn't say that.

It would be in their interest to correct any mistranslations if it would put them in the clear or show their innocence in a particular event or prove they did what they said.

Instead we have heard nothing from them, nothing to say the files released to the public and translated by fluent Portuguese speakers are erroneous, not even a threat to sue if said translation isn't retracted/corrected.
Instead we have a deafening silence, which must mean the translated files we have and use are in fact correct in all details.

If the mccanns don't sue or threaten to sue then they totally ignore in the belief it will go away, a kind of if we can't see it, it doesn't exist.

As soon as they had arguido status lifted they could have spoken yet didn't.

David payne has been outright accused of being a paedophile, both from the Drs. Gaspar statements, his bathing of other peoples children and a social worker involved in child abuse cases who recognized him in relation to her work but she wasn't sure in what capacity either as a witness or a perpetrator.

This is pretty much the worst thing you can call a man and yet he stays silent not even making any kind of denial or even reference to the allegations.

Is it because if he responds, checks can and will be made and the truth or the lie will come out?

 Remember also under Sara's law anyone whose children he has contact with can ask if he is registered offender even though they cannot divulge that info to the public.

Come to think of it the same can be applied to all the group including gerry and kate.

Perhaps this explains their CATS file (19309)

It would be interesting to ask if innocent parents of a missing child have had a CATS file allocated to them, if not, then we have an answer.

We also have payne's interesting statement describing Maddie where, apart from using past tense, which is unexpected and a huge red flag, given the length of time she had been missing and the fact they were claiming it was an abduction, she was alive and no evidence of serious harm befalling her.
 (What is their definition of serious harm if abduction by a paedophile doesn't count?)

We have interesting descriptions of Madeleine and what fun can be had with her!

In statement analysis we say by not answering the question you have answered the question.

By the way, the website with a paltry few members, instead of snickering and name calling as you do, why not explain why you believe the mccanns and chums are innocent of involvement?

The rest of us explain why we believe in their guilt/involvement, referring to the files and their own statements, press releases including those from clarrie aka family friend, source close to them, police source and their interviews to support our belief.

You don't do anything except name call and snicker like kids behind the bike shed or in the playground

I wonder if you would let your kids sleep over at the mccanns house or any of the tapas 7?

Would you let any of the group baby sit your kids?

Would you go on holiday with them with your young children and let them do their checks as they claimed?

Would you leave your toddlers home alone in an unlocked apartment whilst you made merry out of sight and sound of your children, even to going to Chaplin’s?

Would you do all that or would you use the evening creche or babysitter or take them with you or even eat in?

If kate and gerry were looking after your kids for several days whilst you had a long weekend break, you come home to find one of your children missing and learn that kate and gerry had gone to the pub down the road and popped back to check every 30 mins or so would you be happy with them?

Would you be blaming some alleged abductor who left not a trace of his existence, no prints, no hairs, no fibers no anything?

You find the curtains have been washed and the mccanns standing around calling sky news and their family and then sitting in the house not helping to search whilst you are scouring the streets even though it is dark, calling your child's name fully co-operating with police, giving them every detail of where you went, what you found when you came home, what the mccanns were doing which is claiming they were being responsible babysitters and everyone does it.

OR,

Would you be screaming for their blood, demanding to know what they have done with your child, why they went out leaving your children home alone in an unlocked house whilst they were getting drunk,

Demanding they help search and answer every damned question the police were asking.

Would you be happy with their explanations?

Would you be happy if they refused to answer all the questions?

Would you be happy if they refused to do any physical searching?

Would you be happy if they refused to do a police reconstruction on the grounds of it wouldn't be of any help?

Would you be happy if they went traveling the world at your expense, meeting celebs and the Pope?
Would you be happy if they hired expensive lawyers?

Would you be happy if they sued you because you claimed they were involved in the disappearance of your daughter?

Would you be happy if they gagged you so you couldn't say anything in regard to their behavior that night or their poor babysitting skills?

Would you be happy if you found out they let one of their friends bathe your children, a man you barely knew by name only?

Would you be happy if your children were staying over with them and one said why didn't they come when she and her sibling were crying last night and when you ask kate and gerry, they reply maybe it was when they were being bathed or put to bed, whereupon you ask if they were doing the bathing and bed then they would have been be there and they would know why they cried and the question wouldn't have arisen?

Since it did arise and they told you it might have been when they were being bathed and put to bed and it wasn't them, then who was bathing them and putting them to bed?

If on hearing that and they spoke of it as a passing remark and they would watch more carefully next time and then your child goes missing the very next day, would you be oh that's alright then?

Would you be happy if on arriving home to one of your children missing and your remaining children sleeping through all the noise and lights etc and the mccanns said oh don't worry they have been sleeping really deeply here, they don't need to go to hospital, they are fine?

Would you be happy to accept their version of events even though there is no evidence to show an abductor ever existed?

Would you still be happy if blood and cadaver dogs were brought in and the dogs reacted to a wardrobe in their room, behind the sofa, in the garden, on kate's trousers, your child’s top and cuddly toy and you know no one has died in that house?

Would you be happy if they found traces of body fluids and it had a 15/19-marker match to your missing child?

Would you be happy to find blood from your child on their walls?

Would you be happy if body fluids were found in their car and the blood and cadaver dogs had reacted to it 25 days after your child had gone missing?

Would you be asking why they had to keep the trunk of their car open every night due to the smell, something observed by their neighbors and commented on by passengers in their car?

Would you believe them if they said the dogs reacted to dirty diapers, rotting meat, sea bass and sweaty sandals?

Would you be happy if they then ran to a foreign country and hid behind lawyers and refused to help in any way shape or form whilst their PR spokesman told the world how good they are as parents and babysitters and sued anyone who disagreed?

Would you be happy if millions were donated to a fund they set up supposedly to find your missing daughter and then learn it was spent on paying their mortgage, travel expenses, legal bills etc and in the event of your daughter not being found, used to support their family in any way they saw fit?

Would you be happy to learn they had a CATS file on them and that it had magically been emptied, even though they claim every missing child case has a CATS file allocated just in case?

Would you be happy to have the boss of an organization that supposedly is meant to help and protect children from abuse and neglect publicly supporting the babysitters who have admitted to neglecting your children every night?

Would you be happy to have them dump your children in a creche the very next day whilst they went off playing tennis and lounging by the pool?

Would you be happy if all their family came over to stay and not actually do any searching?

Would you be happy if you saw them out traveling the world at the expense of others and jogging and then boasting on their timeline about how well they did' whilst you and a myriad of strangers, friends and LE are out searching fields and beaches and everywhere no matter how unlikely it is she could have gotten there by herself?

What would you be thinking if you found out your missing child had in fact ran away on a previous occasion and hid for half an hour when you know your child has never done that before.

Would you be happy to hear that your child, who normally wakes during the night as children do and wants to come into your bed for comfort because she is scared suddenly goes to sleep by 7.30 pm every night and doesn’t wake up even to go to the toilet or ask for a drink of water?

That the babysitters boast of how they got the children in bed and asleep by 7.30 pm when you know it is at least 8pm after stories and drinks and all the usual palaver that children do, especially when they are staying with other family members or on vacation and are excited?

Would you be surprised to find that all the activities they had done on the visit such as painting and making models and stuff that they bring home weren’t actually available, the drawing she allegedly did that she would bring home for you to stick on the fridge door with pride, doesn’t actually exist?

Would you be happy to hear that apart from the day you dropped your children off with the mccanns, no one independent can verify they actually saw your missing daughter, and the ladies at the crèche fudged their records to cover up not only poor record keeping but also the fact they don’t actually remember seeing your child, and the ones that do sort of remember her, remember her having a totally different character to how you know she is?

Would you be happy to see the photo used to publicize your missing daughter is an old one not a recent one and the last photo allegedly taken by the pool on a warm and sunny day, couldn’t have been taken when claimed as the only sunny day was the beginning of their stay and the last day was cool and overcast?

Would you be confused when the poster has a picture of your young child and yet on the same trip there is a picture of a very much older and totally different looking child holding a bunch of tennis balls, this picture being more like your missing daughter?

The world is looking for a young girl who doesn’t exist, your child looked like that a year ago, the real child is much older looking and yet posters don’t show it.

Would you be happy to watch them snicker and smirk when asked about sightings of your child almost as if they knew there were no sightings of her because they know what happened to her?

Would you be happy to hear kate call the policeman who is searching for your daughter a f***ing tosser?

Would you be happy to hear kate grumping because the police car she was in had to turn around and speed back to the station because of some breaking news?

Would you be happy to see them grinning and laughing as they came out of church on what would have been your child’s birthday, looking almost as if they had just gotten married what with all the balloons and flowers and cheering crowds?

What would you think if the Vatican, which had had a picture etc of your missing daughter on their site, suddenly and with no explanation, removed it?

Would you be happy to hear the mccanns are suing the lead detective who is searching for your missing child because he says your daughter died in their home and they concealed the crime, disposed of her body and then filed a false police report, even though he allows for it to be accidental?

Would you be happy to hear kate mccann refused to let the police have her medical records even though it may have a bearing on the case, the same with their financial records?

HELL NO!

I suspect you would be camped outside the police station demanding answers and constantly contacting the police with anything no matter how trivial if it would find your daughter.

You would be camped outside their door day and night demanding they talk and give answers to what they did with your daughter.

Them doing nothing to actually help the search and everything to cover their butts would not be an option..

You would be physically hauling them out to search, in their face demanding answers, doing everything you physically could to find your daughter.

What you wouldn’t be doing is supporting them, telling the world they were well within the realms of responsible babysitting and giving them money to carry on as they did before and that you are behind them 100% of the way and anyone who says they were involved based on their statements and behavior and the forensic evidence is a hater and a ‘forker who must be silenced and punished.

Even now, I wonder, how many parents in Rothley let their children go visit Sean and Amelie, how many let their children go over for tea or a sleep over, how many parents have Sean and Amelie over for tea, playtime or a sleep over?

How many parents let their children go to Sean and Amelie’s birthday party?

Are the twins allowed to have birthday parties they can invite their friends to or is it like Madeleine’s where it is only close family and friends of the mccanns?

Note the deafening silence from Rothley in relation to the mccanns. How no one talk about their friendship with them etc.

In such cases we hear from family and friends, old school and university friends about how they knew them, what they are like etc.

Instead we had a brief page or so about ‘Hotlips’ healey and New Zealand and that is it.

WHY?

Some notes from Kate McCann's diary

Some notes from Kate McCann's diary.
"Left a message for Gordon Brown to call us in order to increase the political pressure" – Kate McCann, 23rd of May
"Gordon Brown called and spoke with Gerry – very sympathetic and gave strength. Somewhat emotive feeling afterwards" – Kate McCann, 23rd of May
"Clarence spoke to us about a possible visit to the Vatican. Rome is already preparing itself. Francis Campbell was spoken to" – Kate McCann,
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id166.html


Francis Campbell was spoken to" << An interesting turn of phrase.

Spoken to implies perhaps a telling off, a verbal punishment.

'Police captured the suspect and he was given a talking to before being sent on his way'

"Left a message for Gordon Brown to call us in order to increase the political pressure" – Kate McCann, 23rd of may

Notice all the dropped pronouns.
Even though it was in her personal diary, use of pronouns is instinctive especially pronouns such as i, me, mine.
She knows how to use them.

Why would they need Gordon Brown to get involved and apply political pressure in a criminal case, a purported abduction.
This was not a civil case it was a criminal case.
Why the need to demand political pressure be applied?
What kind of pressure and applied where?

Did the mccanns realize the PJ weren't buying their version of events and were looking at possibly arresting and charging them?
Was this a case of calling in favors to protect their sorry asses or else they will take others with them, perhaps those that would be embarrassing to brown.

"Gordon Brown called and spoke with Gerry – very sympathetic and gave strength. Somewhat emotive feeling afterwards" – Kate McCann, 23rd of May.

This isn't as good as it sounds.
With indicates distance, normally we would expect to see something like Gordon Brown talked to gerry, indicating closeness.
Notice also the distance between Gordon Brown and gerry, this meeting wasn't all niceness and light happy clappy.
I suspect it ended with heated words and possibly even threats.

Notice the dropped pronoun in front of very sympathetic.
Who was very sympathetic?
Kate doesn't tell us so we can't assume
She also doesn't say who gave strength and again we can't assume.

It may have been Brown, it could just as well have been gerry reassuring Brown that he would say nothing.

She doesn't tell us who was emotive afterwards nor what kind of emotions they were,
It could have been reassurance or i suspect, more likely anger.

Note also she says "somewhat emotive".
Qualifiers are additional words that when removed do not change the meaning of the sentence.
She doesn't say he or she were emotive nor that brown was emotive, only that 'someone' was somewhat emotive (somewhat - a little, a bit, a little bit, to a limited extent/degree, to a certain degree, to some extent, to some degree, (up) to a point, in some measure)
Somewhat is a minimizing word.

Why would a phone call from Brown make them feel somewhat emotive?
Was it good or bad?
Would he help or would he distance himself from the case?

Why would he help a couple of doctors suspected of involvement in the disappearance of their daughter?
Why would he help suspected criminals?

What would he gain by helping criminal suspects , by applying political pressure in a criminal case?

Someone with something to hide may be persuaded (blackmailed?) to help cover up a crime especially in a foreign country.

Would Brown be willing to face obstruction of justice charges or perverting the course of justice charges just to protect 2 doctors who are involved in the disappearance of their daughter, of whom there is a CATS file number and another of the group who liked to bathe other people's children, who was overheard and seen making inappropriate comments about Maddie and who was recognized by a social worker working in child abuse cases.

Since the case was reopened in Portugal and also opened by NSY, all their celeb supporters have gone real quiet,
The mccanns clearly struggled to find witnesses to testify for them in court.
Not even tapas 7 members were called to testify.
Why was this?

Did the tapas 7 refuses on the grounds of perjury in court would mean a long jail sentence.
Were they, like the mccanns, averse to actually going into court to testify and be cross examined?

We know everything would go bosoms up under cross examination, heck, even those who did testify needed crib sheets and prompting and still managed to screw it up.

I wonder how close they and the tapas 7 are currently?
Do they still visit and call each other or are the tapas 7 distancing themselves, preparatory to perhaps securing a deal?
Immunity from prosecution or minimal time for whatever part they played in the disposal and subsequent cover up.

They know if push comes to shove , the mccanns will toss them under the bus without a second thought, especially gerry.
One or more of the tapas 7, if they haven't already, will have talked to their attorneys to see where they stand and what kind of deal they could get if they co-operated.

Kate so kindly helped the prosecution by writing her bewk, which has been and will be, compared to all her Rog statements and also all the interviews etc.

Have the mccanns been made arguidos now the PJ reopened the case?

 Have the mccanns been made Arguidos now the PJ have reopened the case in Portugal?

I can't be sure, but, based on the fact the PJ reopened the case based on new and compelling evidence (they said the case could and would only be reopened on new and compelling evidence) then i would assume arguido status would automatically be  reinstated.
It was only suspended when the case was shelved IRRC.

This would explain the deafening silence from the mccanns.

They are not going to announce the status has been reinstated since that paints them in a really bad light, as we saw when it came out the first time round.

Given they are so fixated on their public persona and how they are perceived by the sheeple, they are not going to announce they are arguidos since they know we will see it and think aha, suspects in the case of their missing daughter.

We saw how the public and media responded, donations plummeted and much muttering went on.

Rather than lie to the public  since lying is stressful and the fact that under pressure they leak bucket loads of marbles, rather than say anything in relation to their status, which would be checked by the media (I am not sure if the PJ would say they are arguidos since they won't discuss anything to do with the case in public) Rather than being caught in an outright lie, no we aren't, only to have the PJ say yes they are, they are staying silent.

Their own lawyers announced they had been made arguidos first time round, probably because all the media were aware they had been called in by the PJ and they would be asking awkward questions, it also meant they could hide behind the status when asked awkward questions which could result in incriminating comments from them.

It was a two edged sword, on the plus side it gave them protection legally since they could now lie and refuse to co-operate without fear of penalty whilst as witnesses they had to answer all questions and co-operate on pain of jail.

I don't know if their lawyers made the request or if the PJ did it as a matter of course, the moment they refused to answer a question (or 48 in kate's case)

The minus side is it now made them appear publicly as suspects since clearly they weren't talking or co-operating, which given the nature of the crime was entirely unexpected as parents of a missing child.

Unless someone asks them outright if they are now arguidos, they are not going to say, the same goes for their lawyers.

The fact they are silent is telling, especially given how they behaved once the case was shelved.

They are now in effect hiding, in the mistaken belief out of sight out of mind.

It doesn't work that way.
Their silence speaks volumes, given when things were going bad we had statements from them spinning their story and sightings and new suspects.
None of us were buying the spin and eventually, they had to capitulate and try something different, something the public would buy.
Sightings weren't doing the job any more.

This is why i think we had the gamut of new suspects, an effort to divert attention away from what was going on in Portugal with the libel case, the reopened investigation and also the SY investigation.

A battle on 3 fronts.

We know the PJ won't say anything in relation to the case due to their laws and also because they want to see what the mccanns are driven to do when they don't know what the PJ are doing, who they are talking to or what info they have now gotten access to such as medical records, cell phone records, financial details etc.
They do know the PJ have new and compelling evidence, they don't know what that evidence is and it is driving them nuts.
They don't know if anyone has talked and if so who.
Although the PJ cannot offer deals, the prosecutors can and there is the fear that one or more of the tapas 7 may have taken one up and talked.

Scotland Yard is not going to say what they know, who they are talking to, what new information they have and from whom and what the PJ have told them.
SY will also be investigating the fund as part of the case, they may not be able to nail them for homicide etc but if they can prove the mccanns knew Maddie was dead (and the mccanns have told us repeatedly she is by word and action) then they can prosecute on fraud charges etc.

Since neither the PJ or SY are talking except to each other, any story that comes out in the media therefore, has to come from the mccanns via a 3rd party.

The mccanns as above cannot talk about the case as arguidos, they therefore have to leak info via a 'family friend"/source close to the family aka clarrie.

This is why we had the rehashed stories of a disgruntled ex employee  originally female than rehashed as a male, the 3 burglars according to phone ping activity (not the phone ping activity from the mccans then?) New suspects in a variety of ages, color and sex.

They weren't happy when the e-fit they had sat on for so long was released, they couldn't prevent it since the police had made a request to the fund directors for all the info and the directors are not going to say no (if they had tried then a warrant would have been issued and it would make not only the mccanns look guilty as hell for hiding info that could find their daughter, along with them not answering questions or doing a reconstruction) it would also makes the directors look bad as folk would be wondering why they were obstructing the investigation and could lead to possible charges at a later date.

The mccanns are in effect painted into a corner.

Now they are staying silent and staying hidden hoping the  public and then LE will forget about them.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Given they both love being the centre of attention as we have seen, even to the extent of hijacking charity events, this is going to drive them wild, especially gerry who i suspect has pretencions of grandeur and looking for some kind of role in politics, not as an MP, the sheeple, even the most ardent of their supporters, isn't gong to buy that.
Maybe an Honor or two or an adviser on various committees.

Kate will never return as a GP, no one will trust her especially if children are involved.
She never returned to work,and given she was only a locum doing minimal hours a week and apparently still on maternity leave, i would ask why?
Given the twins are now 8 or so she could have returned since they are at school.

I wonder if kate was 'asked' not to return?
Was she given an option of resigning before she was fired i wonder?
Did the surgery know or suspect she had issues and decided for the safety of patients she  could not be allowed to work unsupervised, especially if they read the book?
This is my own opinion of course, but it would explain many things.
Why not return given she was so determined to succeed?
Being a doctor requires determination, drive to succeed, why waste all the years she spent studying, training in hospitals etc to become a stay at home mom?
It simply doesn't fit in with her mindset, what she wants she got.

Al those years wasted, nothing to show for it.
Even allowing for a break for child rearing why not go back and carry on where she left off?
It is now nearly 7 yrs  since Maddie vanished and medicine has progressed in leaps and bounds, she would probably have to redo whole courses to get back up to date.

Is she perhaps unemployable?
Does she have issues that wold be revealed if she went back to work?
Would employing her cause loss of customers, staff or both?

We saw what happened when she became an ambassador for missing people, there is now way in hell she could work any place that involved children either directly or otherwise, would she be stuck as a shelf stacker or in a fast food place?

How has all this affected her mentally?
we saw how she looked on CW, she looked dreadful, she looked scared, she looked ready to run.
She looks now like she should have looked the day Maddie vanished (died)
She looks ready to implode, a lit fuse waiting to go bang.

Gerry looks smug, the permanent sneer on his face.
The staff where he works cannot stand him, he isn't welcome there and should he leave they would be a lot happier.
Things though aren't working out for him either.
There is a cloud of suspicion over him that will always be there until they are charged and, even then, should he be found not guilty (expect him to blame it all on unstable kate and he did it to keep the family together and he didn't know she was involved etc etc) the suspicion will still remain that he knew.

I also wonder what Sean and Amelie ask them, as ask them they will.
They will have access to the Internet, at school and with friends, at home it may well be restricted and monitored.
The twins will be told stuff by their friends, they will either ask their friends to look up something or the friends will do it off their own bat and say lookie what i found.

There will be a lot of awkward question from the twins and as we all know, kids can be persistent li'l buggers.
Will their questions cause kate more stress?
Will she lash out at them for daring to ask questions?
For not buying the truth according to mom and dad?
What do the twins remember?
What do they know that they haven't told kate and gerry?
What have they overheard or seen?
Will they talk to LE once they reach 18?

So many questions, so few answers.

Cadaver and Blood Dog Reactions Plus Inexact Science Minus Body Equals Relaxing Thoughts for kate

Dr Kate McCann, in her book ‘madeleine’,
On pages 249-250 of ‘madeleine’, for example, she writes:

“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] directed the dogs to a spot behind the conch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site.

“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”.

 An interesting comment to make and telling indeed.

 Kate spoke about junk science and relaxing when the cadaver dogs reacted. 

 If, as claimed, the parents are innocent of involvement in the disappearance of their daughter, why would kate tell us she relaxed when the cadaver and blood dogs reacted in the apartment (and subsequently the hire car)

This is highly unexpected. Put yourself in the same situation for a moment. 
Your child goes missing ( you aren't involved) blood and cadaver dogs are brought in along with normal search dogs. 

The search dogs don't react but the blood and cadaver dogs do. 
Your first and instant reaction wouldn't be oh it's junk science, nor would you relax. 

Rather than relaxing at what was indicated, the innocent parent would be terrified for their child, hysterical with the worry their child was injured and in pain or worse was dead removing any hope of a safe return


Your first instinct would be does this mean my child was hurt?
They were bleeding? 
Does this mean my child was killed in the room before being removed? 

You would be demanding they recheck, they retest. 

You would be hysterical, knowing or believing the abductor could have injured your child whilst abducting her. 

You would be hysterical wondering what was done to cause the bleeding. 

You wouldn't be oh well it was a nose bleed or a grazed knee, especially given the locations. 

You would be demanding answers and more help to find your child.

You would be out physically searching, even to looking for possible drops of blood leading away from the apartment. 

Your child was hurt and scared, they were bleeding,
You want to get to them and make everything better. 
This is normal parental instinct. 

Guilty parents on the other hand would be looking for any excuse to denigrate, demean and minimise the actions of the dogs since to admit the dogs were correct would be to implicate themselves.

 Instead we get explanations and excuses.
No physical searching.
Insults and demeaning of those trying to find their daughter.
Comments all about themselves and how they feel, what they are doing and general chitchat and drivel rather than what their daughter could have been going through. 

The guilt would be enormous that their child was abducted possibly injured and they weren't there to stop it.
But then, innocent parents wouldn't have left their children home alone in the first place. 

It is well known gerry researched cadaver dogs (why?) and pointed out in the case of eugene zapata as a false reaction and thus the dogs was unreliable. Although the evidence was excluded from Zapata's first trial, police said corpse-sniffing dogs indicated the scent of human remains at the Indian Trace home and two other homes occupied by Zapata as well as a storage locker and a rental car. Based on Zapata's statement, the locker and car indications were correct.
For more than 30 years, he maintained that Jeanette Zapata just disappeared. He kept the secret until earlier this month, when he confessed to Madison police.
Zapata's confession came Feb. 5. 2008 He gave a detailed account, as required under a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors to avoid another trial
Strange to say after that the mccanns went real quiet on cadaver dogs.

 It is interesting to note that dogs are used not only to track scents they are used to detect drugs,explosives, fruit and veg, pirated DVDs, cash, human remains, trapped people in earthquake zones as well as in avalanches and much more.
Skills which are taken for granted the world over, yet, when cadaver dogs reacted in the apartment, to clothing and cuddlecat and the hire car, rather than the expected is my child hurt? we instead see, ignore the dogs they are wrong.

Their families even went so far as to claim she had dealt with several dead bodies in the weeks or so before their vacation and had included taking cuddlecat with her (the, if they don't move when she touched them with it then they are dead school of diagnosing death) sea bass (Sean's favorite meal) which allegedly produces a smell like cadaverine, rotting meat, dirty diapers and sweaty sandals and according to gerry's sister philmacakehole i mean philomena the PJ had gone so far as to plant DNA evidence from Maddie!!

This then is the other problem. 
Medical people are hyper vigilant of their children.
They know what can happen in a split second, even with a parent right there. 

The children were never left home alone. 

Each night they were all placed in one apartment and an allegedly 'sick' adult watched them. 

The parents had to claim they were neglectful and left their children home alone in order for there to be an opportunity for abduction. 

There could be no abduction if the children were being watched by an adult. 

NO NEGLECT =NO ABDUCTION  and a lot of awkward questions. 

They knew if they claimed neglect they could plea deal down.
All the lawyers they hired within days of "the abduction" would have advised them on their options and how to minimise any possible charges.

They also knew if charged with neglect, homicide charges couldn't then be pressed.at a later date.
 It was the lesser of two evils, a risk they had to take, hence the PJ not knowing what crimes had been committed. 
 You can't charged someone with a they did something but we don't know what charge, and if you don't know what crime has been committed you can't charge them full stop.

The PJ knew the children were all together and thus no abduction was even possible let alone took place.
They knew they get only one chance so LE will bide their time and get as much evidence as possible before pressing charges, both charges in Portugal and also in the UK , probably relating to fraud in regard to the fund, plus they may also face criminal charges in relation to the payment from sundry newspapers,

Maddie is not as risk nor can she be further harmed for she is long dead. 

This then begs the question ,why could the mccann's not allow an autopsy to take place? 
What would it reveal? 
What was so damning they were prepared to risk neglect charges? 
Were there signs of neglect and/or abuse be it regular sedation/ injuries old and new/ sexual abuse? 

Sedation over a period of time would result in charges and loss of their licences, ditto for old and new injuries- her medical records would reveal if they had been treated in a hospital if applicable and if not, again the consensus would be they treated her at home to keep it secret and again charges, loss of licence etc. 

Sexual abuse they could face charges if they couldn't show it was committed by someone else who had access (especially if recent plus medical records could show for example frequent UTI, DP anyone?)

This would make the statements from the Dr's Gaspar important since it was both gerry and david payne having the conversation.

Whatever it was they couldn't allow an autopsy since perhaps it would show non accidental death. 

If it was from a drugs  overdose they could have claimed she saw the pills and ate them thinking it was candy, it happens all the time, 

They could have left her in bed  and then claimed they thought she was asleep when she was instead dying or dead when they checked.
   She ate some pills and went back to bed or even  dying from natural causes, a possibility given her health ( the coloboma and any associated health issues

Again, if a fall they could have placed her/ left her in situ on the floor etc and claimed they found her when they woke up.
Maddie was known to be a wanderer, and, in a strange place she could have climbed onto the sofa  or something high and fallen, they have the star chart on the fridge that showed she would wake and wander as proof.

It would be passed off as yet another tragic accident that no one could have foreseen or prevented.

Clearly this was not something that could be explained away easily.

How would they explain sedatives in the body or evidence in the hair that perhaps showed long term sedation?

How could injuries be explained away such as bruises that weren't commensurate with an accident such as hand or finger marked shaped bruising or perhaps shoe marks, scratches etc.

Marks around the throat or signs of an attempt to resuscitate  such as tracheotomy or broken ribs from CPR.

This would lead to questions as to why they never called 911 even though they were doctors.

There is still no explanation why the twins were not taken to hospital to be checked out for  sedation ( since they slept deeply through the ruckus and kate kept checking their breathing by fingers under their noses and a hand on their backs or for signs of molestation.

Innocent parents in a similar situation would be panicking if their children never awoke and would be demand tests to make sure their remaining children were not at risk from overdose or had been injured in any way.
They would also be asking for their children's clothing and bedding etc  examined in case their was any forensic evidence.

That the mccann's never did any of this makes me realise, they didn't need to have their children examined since they knew what they had been given, how much and when and that there would be no evidence of  abuse ( or they didn't want the twins examined in case there were signs of abuse which would lead to awkward questions since the time line for any possible abduction was mere minutes, how would any abductor have time to abuse the twins and then scarper with Maddie in his arms. It would lead to awkward questions, well even more awkward questions regarding the checks and the timings of or rather lack of timings)

 Was there involvement of CPS with the family prior to the vacation perhaps? ( is it still ongoing?) 

Were the family aware that kate seemed to not be coping and obsessing over their sleep patterns? 

Was it true they were looking to farm Maddie out to a family member? 

If so why? 

Had anyone offered to take over the care of Maddie?

We know they dumped Maddie on her grandparents whilst the twins had their first Christmas, was this to see how she coped?

Would this become a regular habit with Maddie staying for longer periods?

Was this a one off or something else?


 The medical records of both Maddie and kate have a big role in this i think.











.