Statement Analysis: Diary of Kate McCann

by hawkmoth 04.03.17 12:17

Statement Analysis: Diary of Kate McCann

The following is analysis of the diary of missing Madeleine McCann's mother's diary.

A diary is a form of communication, therefore, it is subject to analysis. Anything that is intended for communication can be set to analysis.

Statement Analysis, in all its forms, is not wooden, but it is fluid. Local dialect, expressions, education level, and so on, are all part of the analysis; but none of these things exempt the subject from analysis. Many seek to excuse or 'give a pass' of one way or another, by employing one of these topics. If someone communicates through sarcasm, we will recognize not only the sarcasm, but the words chosen, as they do not come from a vacuum.

In texting, we are able to employ ongoing techniques of analysis, recognizing patterns.

Please note that everyone has an internal, subjective, personal dictionary, and it is the SCAN technique of Statement Analysis that seeks to 'break the code' of the internal, personal, subjective dictionary, for the purpose of understanding.

Here is an example of applying principle in a fluid manner:

When a statement begins without a pronoun, it is very likely to be a deceptive statement. This is something police find regularly. "Went to the store..." begins without a pronoun, and it is an indication that the subject wishes to distance himself from the topic.

In texting or emails, we find that pronouns are often missing.

Does this negate analysis?

No.

Since texting or emailing often does not use pronouns, but abbreviations, our principle of analysis is always to note the pronouns.

If an email, for example, begins without a pronoun, we will not flag this for deception but we will note when a pronoun does, actually, appear, as highly significant.

In diary writing, we note names, spelling, and abbreviations.

When Kate writes, "M" referring to her daughter, we should seek to learn what causes her to write out the full name of her daughter in other entries. Pronouns (and proper names) remain important, as we seek to identify the subject's baseline of writing. If, for example, the email is known to have few pronouns, we recognize that this can be the norm; so that when a pronoun does suddenly appear, it should be flagged as important.

Education, intelligence, dialect, culture, and so on, does not negate analysis. Nor does writing styles.

Next, we know that pronouns and verb tenses are learned very early in life, with some pre dating speech ("my, mine" can be communicated from very young children even before annunciation is clear). By the age of 5 (or an adult with cognitive disabilities who functions as a 5 year old) understands past, present, and future.

We may make adjustments as we go along, but if the purpose of the writing or speaking is to communicate, analysis can be done.

In understanding this case, we will be doing over time, more analysis, particularly if the original interrogation transcripts become available.

Some of the analysis questions:

Why was the diary written? What is its purpose?
When was the diary written?
Intended audience?

We will note such principles as order, priority and substance.

Diary Notes - May 2007
Autumn on Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:22 pm
THURSDAY, MAY 3: Milk and biscuits for the kids. I left them with this and books and games and went to have a quick shower/wash my hair. M tired—sitting on my lap—I read the story of Mog.

Note "left" as a verb; generally speaks to as missing information, 70% time, 30% sensitive. The 70% time usually indicates a sense of rushing or being hurried. The 30% sensitive is the unknown. The context here shows a slight increase in tension.

Note "sitting"; When body posture enters a statement, there is often an increase in tension, therefore, we flag "sit, sat, stood, standing, sitting" and so on, as sensitive for a possible increase in tension. She "left" them with milk and biscuits;
Next note the inclusion of "shower/wash" in a statement often is associated with sexual abuse. Please note that this is not a statement, but a diary. Therefore, we ask, "why does the subject feel it is important enough to mention? Is this a theme? Does a pattern emerge?

We will call attention to things regarding statement, then seek to learn why they are in a diary. Was the tension due to rushing through the shower, washing of hair, and reading to M?

Note the children are referenced first by "kids".
Next, note "M" is the initial of her daughter. Note where she is called "M"

Note, however, that no other child is specified by name nor initial.

Brush teeth. To the bedroom with the kids. M pulls away and puts her head on pillow. Kisses goodnight for M. Pulled the door to as far as possible without shutting it. Silence.

Dry hair. Put make-up on. Glass of wine. Restaurant.

Note that "brushing teeth" is rarely found in statements and usually indicates withheld information about personal relationship; often domestic violence.

Why the need to include brushing teeth in a diary, since brushing teeth is something always done by all of us?

This should be considered sensitive.

Note "kids" mentioned again, but no name of the kids other than "M"

Why are the other children not mentioned by name?

Note what did not happen as important: she finds it important to tell us that she did not close the door.

"M pulls away" is interesting. Why did M pull away? From whom or what did she pull away?
"Kisses goodnight" is something to be noted. In domestic homicides, we flag greeting/salutation as possible time of death. Here it is in a diary. Why the need to tell us she was kissed goodnight? Were the other children kissed goodnight? In statements, kisses goodnight or good morning greetings are often indicative of a poor relationship when a spouse mentions it. What is its meaning here?

Why do the other kids not have names or initials used?

Note that dry hair, make up and restaurant all have to do with subject; not child.

FRIDAY, MAY 4: No sleep, Gerry and I started looking through the streets around 06.00 as it was starting to get light. Nobody around. Why not? Desperate.

Minutes seem like hours. Outside of the apartments masses of people asking questions about that night and for descriptions of Madeleine. Long day.

Note "Gerry and I" is used. Since this is a diary, why not use the pronoun "we"?
Note all the dropped pronouns as a consistent pattern. Diary writing is brief, so we will assume that the shortest sentence is the most likely, including dropped pronouns. Therefore, why "Gerry and I"?

Next note that something is reported to have started ("started looking" and "starting to get light") but without completion.

Note as important, the name "Madeleine" is used here, rather than "M". What is the contextual difference?

"M" is at home, read to, put to bed.
"Madeleine" is missing.

Note people asking questions should be something natural and expected.
Note "long day" as unexpected. It is unexpected that a mother of a missing child would have thoughts on her own care with the words "long day" rather than what Madeline might be going through.

Nobody from the police introduced themselves. Nobody offered us a drink or food. All the police dressed informally and smoking. No sympathy was shown and far from inspiring.

Note the order:

1. Nobody from police introduced themselves.
2. Nobody offered her drink or food.
3. The clothing/appearance of police, and their habit of smoking
4. No one offered sympathy.
5. Far from inspiring.

As yourself: if you were writing a diary about your missing child, what might be the first thing you write about? What might not enter into your thinking?

The order above suggests a very strong concern about the subject herself.

I believe my statement would have been around 15.00 and such. They allowed G to come in with me but seated behind me. Translator present.

The police officer who took us by car to the station was the one asking the questions and afterwards typed the answers on a typewriter. Morose.

Note "G" is used here for Gerry, using the shortest possible.
Note the asking of questions has now been repeated in the short diary, making question asking a sensitive topic.
Note "with" between people shows distance;
note the body posture mentioned.

We left the police station around 7.30pm to 8pm. After 15 minutes we received a call from the PJ saying we had to go back but they didn't tell us why. We turned around and flew back at around 200 kilometres an hour. Once again frightening. Did they find her? Please God. Is she dead? Prayers. We arrived—they showed us a photo of a girl they'd forgotten to show us from the close circuit TV footage. Not M. Devastating.

Note the entrance of the pronoun.
"We left..." rather than the usual short, "Left". Note in this entry how pronouns return to use:
the word "we" has a heavy usage here. Why the need for emphasis now?
Note that Madeleine is now "M" again as referred to incorrectly as a picture.
We continue to note the context. While being fed, or put to sleep, and regarding a photo: M
When missing, Madeleine.
Note the questions as important:
Did they find her?
Is she did?

Note that in these two questions, there is a change of verb tense?

Did they find her?
Was she dead? is not used, but "is she dead?"
Note "devastated" does not use a pronoun, though this entry has much used.

SATURDAY, MAY 12: Madeleine is four years old. Day at resort with holiday group. Special Mass for Madeleine at 18.00 in Praia da Luz.

Here, on her birthday, she continues to be "Madeleine" which is a longer writing in a diary than the initial "M"

MONDAY, MAY 14: I slept well last night after a not very good end of the day, frustration with the FLO asking me where would my little M be.

Note the pronoun used here to describe her sleep whereas above it is "no sleep."
Note here the use of the initial, "M"

I got up at 06.50. I dealt with some trifles and got myself ready for the statement to the press at 08.00.

Note the repeated use of "I" here; no shortcuts as before. There is an inconsistency in pronoun use.

I tried to put on a slightly more presentable and "healthy" air. Gerry again gave a great performance.

Note "I" and "Gerry", rather than no pronoun and "G"

Following on we answered about four questions. I almost responded to the first one asking how we were, but I didn't. I did answer a question on our possible return home. I replied that obviously I didn't even think about that. Anyway, it seemed to have gone well. After breakfast and our having left S and A, we went to church to pray in silence. Very good, calming.

3 lines cover answering questions.

Note "we" and "about" four questions; not an exact answer. Note the change to "I" which is stronger, telling us what wasn't done; always important.
Note that "obviously" is used when the subject wants us to take for granted something without questioning.

Note "S and A" now has the other children mentioned.

After getting back I decided to go running—for the first time since THE day (already 11 days ago). I knew that it was going to be physically difficult, but I also knew that I wasn't going to give up, because it was for Madeleine and also because the level of pain is far higher now.

No cameras or journalists, which was great. I went running towards the beach and then along it and again climbed that hill so steep —without stopping! (I carried a photo of M in my hand to keep me going.) On the last hill past the tennis courts my legs completely weak, but I managed to keep myself walking. I managed to reach the apartment then time to stop—to think—I felt really quite calm.

Note that the subject has 7 lines dedicated to her running with strong use of "I" as central. This is unexpected in a missing baby case.
Note how often the pronoun "I" is used. The context is her running and her emotions (self). This should be noted in comparison when pronouns are missing.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 23: Gordon Brown called and spoke with Gerry -very kind and giving encouragement.

Feeling a bit emotional afterwards.

Full name; important person. Note "Gerry" rather than abbreviation.

SATURDAY, MAY 26: We went to an amusement park with the kids. Some phone calls, emails etc. Not a very good day for either the two of us—some dark thoughts/ frustrations/ desperation creeping in. Some tears.

Note "kids" are now not mentioned by name.

I love you so much XXX

SUNDAY, MAY 27: Clarence spoke to us about a possible trip to the Vatican. It seems that it really is going to happen—main story on the news!

Spoke to Dad. I went for a walk to the beach with Sean and Amelie. Frozen. Beach—slippery, wet feet.

This is the first entrance where the children's names are used. Note that "I" and the word "with" show the furthest distance. The lack of mentioning of the children and now the distancing language is noted.
We all had dinner when we got back to the apartment.

We have to keep looking. We have to find you beloved xxxxx.

"We have to keep looking" is a reminder to keep searching for her child. This is also unexpected as a mother would not need to remind herself in a diary: leading us to ask to whom this is written.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 30: The kids went to bed again around 9pm!!! Low point of tonight—becoming desperate/without hope because of the lack of information. They are acting like they have no leads at all. Very worried.

Unknown as to why the sentence "the kids went to bed again around 9pm" would receive three exclamation marks.
"Very worried" has no pronoun, which is unusual since the diary uses pronouns in large amount, especially the use of "I" associated with running, above. This is unexpected and a weak assertion of being "very worried" and will cause doubt.

Tomorrow it will be 4 weeks since Madeleine was taken. Four weeks since we saw our special little girl. We are not certain that we will ever see her again, but know that we have to keep up our hope and strength—for the others, at least. Exhausted.

This is troubling:
1. Note Madeleine "was taken" is passive and not "kidnapped" which is stronger.
2. Note the absence of the pronoun, "I" in relation to Madeleine is highly unexpected by a mother.
3. Note how often "we" is used
4. Note "our" special little child uses "our", something often seen where a step parent is involved, or divorce is discussed.
5. Note that this is inconsistent: "we" are not writing the diary, but "I" am
6. Note that when the subject speaks of herself, there are more lines, but when she writes of Madeleine, there are less.
7. Note "but know" is missing pronoun: "but I know" would be stronger; here it is not even "we know"

The diary should be either written by one or written by two, and the change back and forth will cause some to question the veracity of the subject: is the subject writing to keep a record of her emotions, her activities? Is it therapeutic?

Or: Is this an attempt to persuade readership?

I love you so much, Madeleine. You must come back! X

"You" must come back; not "I" must get you back, etc

Diary Notes - June 2007

FRIDAY, JUNE 1: Quite fed up...I can't stop thinking about Madeleine, about her fear of pain. How can I go on knowing that her life could have ended like this?

It is quite unexpected for a mother who thinks her child was "taken" to accept that her life may have ended, so soon after the event. This is similar to a parent of a missing child speaking of the child in the past tense. It is one thing to have doubts and fears (see below) but this is a rhetorical question.

This week I have been quite overtaken by black thoughts. Please, God, bring her back.

Here, she asks God to bring her back, rather than direct to Madeleine to come back

Bedtime is becoming more and more of a challenge.

http://thetapas9katemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/statement-analysis-diary-of-kate-mccann.html

by **Jill Havern** 04.03.17 19:20

Good find, hawkmoth, thank you for posting.

"Bedtime is becoming more and more of a challenge...."

by **Hobs** 05.03.17 3:35

Gerry again gave a great performance.

the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting, or playing music:
a performance of Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible"

She gave a superb performance as Lady Macbeth.

a performance mainly UK informal

an action or type of behaviour that involves a lot of attention to detail or to small matters that are not important:

This is so gerry.

This was an act, a show put on to convince and convey their innocence, their concern about their missing daughter.
Expected would be comments along the lines of gerry putting on a brave face, struggling to retain his composure, being strong or determined.
Expected would be her writing about their feelings, their emotions, their concerns for Maddie what she could be enduring.
Instead she writes and tells us that gerry put on a show, a performance, an act.
What was shown by gerry was not what he genuinely felt, it was a role, the role of a desperate or grieving father demanding help to find his daughter, calling out to her, reassuring her and vowing to get the man who took her.

because it was for Madeleine

photo of M in my hand

Here we see kate using two different ways of referring to her missing daughter.
WE see her use the fuull spelling of Maddie in relation to her running, in relation to Maddie being missing.
Maddie is no longer present in kate's life, she is now an idea, a concept a thought
Then we see kate refer back to M.
M is in relation to the picture of Maddie.
M is an physical presence in kate's life at this moment in the shape of a photo.
M is is alive
Madeleine is dead.

about her fear of pain

Why was it important enough to kate to write of Maddie's fear of pain?
Every child is afraid of pain yet here Kate writes of it.
What has been done to Maddie that causes her pain.
What has been done to Maddie that kate refers to Maddie's fear of pain after she has allegedly been abducted, especially when the mccanns's kept telling us and still do years down the line that there is no evidence that Maddie has been seriously harmed.
Is the fear of pain linked to what could be being done to her by the alleged paedophile abductor?
Does this then imply that Maddie has already suffered such pain and serious harm?
Maddie is already familiar with similar pain and harm that kate admits that Maddie is afraid of it?

her life could have ended like this?

This is leakage that she knows Maddie is dead.
Since she and gerry have for the last ten years told the world Maddie is alive and findable and sued anyone who disagrees with their statement of such, why is she telling us Maddie is dead?
This is close, That is distancing.

How does she know how Maddie's life could have ended?
What is the This that is how Maddie's life could have ended?

Why does she use the passive her life could have ended like this?
Maddie would have been killed by her alleged abductor, an active action.
It was done to Maddie.
Maddie would have been murdered, killed,slaughtered.
Ended is passive, it sounds like it was accidental, non deliberate, not planned (at least by Maddie)
We speak of end of life, people reaching the end of their life, it it something that happens sometimes due to old age, sometimes due to disease.
Is this kate telling us that something was done to Maddie that had an unplanned consequence, the ending of her life?
Over sedation?
Maddie had been sedated before and had always come through it OK (that is did not kill her although there may have been other issues such as they had trouble waking her up, she gave them a scare, perhaps health injuries that may have been blamed on accidental ingestion?)
Had Maddie died as a result of some other crime being perpetrated against her?

Nothing had happened before but this time maybe someone went too far?

Had Maddie been attacked in a frenzy by kate (as per gerry helpfully telling us) and died?

Had Maddie got caught up in a fight between kate and gerry (remember those bruises on her wrists and upper arms) and when one of them lashed out or pushed at the other one, Maddie got the brunt of it and died.

Perhaps these were why they could not allow an autopsy?
Signs of recent non accidental injury.
Signs of recent sexual abuse.
Signs of old or healing injuries.
Scars or old injuries that perhaps would have warranted a visit to their GP or local casualty unit but which were treated at home (which may explain why their medical records were not handed over)

Questions would be asked as to why the expected was not done, why there had been so few visits to their GP when normally there would be a few, why there were unexplained injuries where there shouldn't be.

Drs are not allowed to self medicate although many do for minor things.
However if they were self treating their children when they shouldn't be, if they were writing themselves prescriptions then the GMC would take a very dim view and it would probably result in them losing their licenses, investigations by social services and possibly loss of their children, if they are lucky to family members or if unlucky then foster and adoption to non family members.
They would also face child abuse and neglect charges and a raft of other charges.
It would be game over, the loss of all they worked for, their reputations in tatters.

As it stands, kate has never gone back to work.
She was part time 1.5 days a week or so.
WE have not been told if she left voluntarily, unable to face going back to work or, if she was asked to jump before she was pushed.
Personally i would go for the latter, the practice would be ridiculed having her working there, especially if she had to report suspected child neglect.
Pot and kettle would be flung around and the practice reputation would suffer.
They would also likely find patients refusing to see kate or patients threatening to leave if she stayed.

By staying silent kate gives the impression she did it by choice, the same with not keeping up with license registration renewals, training etc.
She could not face it whilst Maddie was missing, the poor mother act.

I doubt she could have gotten work in any practice with the allegations hanging over hers and gerry's heads.

The practice stays silent due to privacy laws (especially given who the mccanns would probably sue them otherwise)
They give kate a semblance of dignity and keeping some kind of reputation.

Everyone is happy.

I feel for kate in that everything she worked so hard for, all the years of studying and training, the possibilities she could have enjoyed are now forever gone.
It may not be impossible but it would mean a whole lot of retraining at a minimum since she has not worked in medicine in almost 10 years

Licensing and revalidation

We introduced licensing on 16 November 2009 and revalidation on 3 December 2012. All doctors with a licence to practise regularly have to prove to us that they are up to date and fit to practise medicine.
This means that the licence to practise is no longer simply the recognition of a doctor’s qualifications at a point in time. It is becoming an indicator that the doctor continues to meet the professional standards set by the GMC and the specialists standard set by the medical Royal Colleges and Faculties. The process of checking this evidence is called revalidation.

From what i can see, she is still registered as doctor but she does not have a license to practice.
This could be because she herself decided to take this option perhaps deciding to pay a reduced fee to stay on the register perhaps with an eye to returning later or it was done to her because she failed to do that which was required to stay in good standing and continue to practice.

Statement Analysis: Diary of Kate McCann Doctor11

Statement Analysis: Diary of Kate McCann Doctor11

Statement Analysis: Diary of Kate McCann Doctor10

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/licensing/faq_licence_to_practise.asp

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/revalidation/9627.asp

Annual retention fee
All doctors pay a fee to register with the General Medical Council. Following registration you need to pay an annual fee to retain your name on our medical register

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/fees.asp

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/registration_applications/relinquish_options.asp

by Guest 05.03.17 12:15

Thank you - I find this subject very interesting - I studied English Literature and love analyzing texts. I find Kate's writing style very revealing and really quite chilling. I think, from a literary perspective, her style is like a lament, very much focused on her own grief and longing to communicate this.

by puzzled 05.03.17 14:08

Hobs wrote:

her life could have ended like this?

This is leakage that she knows Maddie is dead.
Since she and gerry have for the last ten years told the world Maddie is alive and findable and sued anyone who disagrees with their statement of such, why is she telling us Maddie is dead?
This is close, That is distancing.

I thought this was an interesting choice of words, too. To me, the most significant thing is that "could have ended" is a form we use to talk about what was possible in the past. If we speculate about what is possible now, or what will be in the future, we use "could end...." And yes, we use "that" for psychological distancing (and distance in time), and I imagine that anyone speculating about a child's death would certainly want it to be a distant possibility.

The use of the word "know"in the upper sentence is also quite interesting, as we usually use this word about certain knowledge. If it's uncertain, we are more likely to use "believe", "think", "imagine".

Strange choice of words!

by MayMuse 05.03.17 14:23

@Hobs
The analyse makes for interesting reading.
What Im confused about is that you state she isn't registered with a license to practise?

Does it not state on the GMC data "Registered with a licence to practise"
1st Sept 2016 but omits the "to" date?

And as it is in the name of Kate Marie Healy
How can KM become Kate M McCann and sign documentation in the name of McCann as she has done as a director of Madeleines fund?

Surely legal documents ( and signatories) have to be in your legal name?

Statement Analysis: Diary of Kate McCann Doctor10

by hawkmoth 05.03.17 16:37

Hobs, I'm curious about what you say here:

'Had Maddie been attacked in a frenzy by kate (as per gerry helpfully telling us) and died?

Had Maddie got caught up in a fight between kate and gerry (remember those bruises on her wrists and upper arms) and when one of them lashed out or pushed at the other one, Maddie got the brunt of it and died.

I didn't know about these rows/assaults: can you tell me where I'd find evidence of Gerry 'helpfully' telling us about them?

There's another possibility that springs to mind about sedation......it seems to me that David Payne must have been comfortable making those lewd remarks about Madeleine to Gerry (more than once), otherwise he simply wouldn't have addressed them to him. Is Gerry then of a similar turn of mind?

If there was any kind of abuse happening, could that be part of the reason that Kate felt she had to sedate the children? To stop them suffering this kind of thing? Peter Hyatt reported confronting a US doctor who prescribed cough syrup to children so they'd go to sleep and not be abused. The reason he did this was that the state wouldn't remove them from the abusive parents.

by **Hobs** 05.03.17 16:48

.

MayMuse wrote:@Hobs
The analyse makes for interesting reading.
What Im confused about is that you state she isn't registered with a license to practise?

Does it not state on the GMC data "Registered with a licence to practise"
1st Sept 2016 but omits the "to" date?

And as it is in the name of Kate Marie Healy
How can KM become Kate M McCann and sign documentation in the name of McCann as she has done as a director of Madeleines fund?

Surely legal documents ( and signatories) have to be in your legal name?

Hi Maymuse.

Validation and a license to practise is usually done every 5 years or so
If you look although it can be sooner, from 12 nov 2009 to 12 nov 2013 she had no license to practice and from that date to 01 sept 2016 she has not validated her license to practice so she stays on the register but cannot do anything a doctor can do unless perhaps in an emergency.
This is why the end date is left empty. Until she is validated and thus passed for the next whatever years which would be the end date (the empty box) she is not licensed to practice.

Revalidation is the process by which all licensed doctors are required to demonstrate on a regular basis that they are up to date and fit to practise in their chosen field and able to provide a good level of care. This means that holding a licence to practise is becoming an indicator that the doctor continues to meet the professional standards set by the GMC.
Revalidation aims to give extra confidence to patients that their doctor is being regularly checked by their employer and the GMC.
Licensed doctors have to revalidate usually every five years, by having annual appraisal based on our core guidance for doctors, Good medical practice.

Doctors can be registered with a licence to practise or registered without a licence to practise.
Registration with a licence to practise:

enables doctors to legally practise any activities in the UK which are restricted by law to those holding a licence (such as signing death certificates and writing prescriptions for prescription only medicines)
applies only to UK medical practice and has no legal standing outside of the UK
means a doctor has to participate in revalidation.

Registration without a licence:

allows doctors to show to employers, overseas regulators and others that they remain in good standing with us
is an acknowledgement that the doctor’s primary medical qualification allowed them to gain entry to the medical register in the UK.

3. What does registration without a licence allow me to do?
Being registered without a licence may suit you if you’re not practising medicine in the UK but want to keep your GMC registration.

It’s relatively straight forward to give up your licence. You just need to complete an online application. We have guidance on giving up your licence to help you make your application.

5. Can I get my my licence back if I’ve given it up?
If you give up your licence, you can apply to restore it at any time. You’ll need to make an application no more than three months before you want it back. We’ll ask you for:
- proof of identity (a copy of your current passport - and we may also ask you to attend an identity check at our offices)
- certificate(s) of good standing from other medical regulators you have been registered with
- statements from your recent employer(s) about your employment and work for them.
If you gave up both your registration and your licence to practise, you’ll need to restore both.

6. My licence was withdrawn by the GMC. Can I get it back?
Yes. You will need to apply to restore your licence. However, before we can grant your application, you will need to provide us with the evidence we asked for, before your licence was withdrawn. For example, if we asked you to undertake an annual appraisal, you will need to show us that you have done this.

Registration without a licence allows you to show to employers, overseas regulators and others that you remain in good standing with us. It is your responsibility to be familiar with Good medical practice and to follow the guidance it contains.
You can, of course, carry out activities not legally dependent on holding a licence. For example, you can continue to sign passport photographs and use the title ‘Doctor'.
You must always be clear whether you are licensed, hold registration only or neither. It is a criminal offence in the UK for a doctor to give the impression that they hold registration or a licence if they don't.
The lack of a licence doesn’t stop you from helping in emergencies – sometimes referred to as ‘good samaritan’ acts. Any concerned citizen is able to perform such acts, with or without registration or a licence to practise.
If you’re concerned about potential liabilities from helping in an emergency if you don’t hold a licence, you should speak to your medical defence organisation or insurance and indemnity provider for advice.

What is not known publicly is if kate voluntarily gave up her license to practice or if it was withdrawn by the GMC since the records don't tell us (at least on the publicly accessible parts.

5. Can I get my my licence back if I’ve given it up?
If you give up your licence, you can apply to restore it at any time. You’ll need to make an application no more than three months before you want it back. We’ll ask you for:
- proof of identity (a copy of your current passport - and we may also ask you to attend an identity check at our offices)
- certificate(s) of good standing from other medical regulators you have been registered with
- statements from your recent employer(s) about your employment and work for them.
If you gave up both your registration and your licence to practise, you’ll need to restore both.

I doubt kate would find it easy to get her license to practice back easily since she has not worked for almost 10 years so she would not be up to date on current medical practice such as medication and treatments.
She would practically have to go back to school to catch up with all the medical advances over the last 10 years.

It is sad really that after all the years of studying, training and hard work, she is currently no longer allowed to practice medicine and is unlikely to ever do so again.
Everything she worked for is gone.

by Nina 05.03.17 17:42

Hobs wrote:.

MayMuse wrote:@Hobs
The analyse makes for interesting reading.
What Im confused about is that you state she isn't registered with a license to practise?

Does it not state on the GMC data "Registered with a licence to practise"
1st Sept 2016 but omits the "to" date?

And as it is in the name of Kate Marie Healy
How can KM become Kate M McCann and sign documentation in the name of McCann as she has done as a director of Madeleines fund?

Surely legal documents ( and signatories) have to be in your legal name?

Hi Maymuse.

Validation and a license to practise is usually done every 5 years or so
If you look although it can be sooner, from 12 nov 2009 to 12 nov 2013 she had no license to practice and from that date to 01 sept 2016 she has not validated her license to practice so she stays on the register but cannot do anything a doctor can do unless perhaps in an emergency.
This is why the end date is left empty. Until she is validated and thus passed for the next whatever years which would be the end date (the empty box) she is not licensed to practice.

Revalidation is the process by which all licensed doctors are required to demonstrate on a regular basis that they are up to date and fit to practise in their chosen field and able to provide a good level of care. This means that holding a licence to practise is becoming an indicator that the doctor continues to meet the professional standards set by the GMC.
Revalidation aims to give extra confidence to patients that their doctor is being regularly checked by their employer and the GMC.
Licensed doctors have to revalidate usually every five years, by having annual appraisal based on our core guidance for doctors, Good medical practice.

Doctors can be registered with a licence to practise or registered without a licence to practise.
Registration with a licence to practise:

enables doctors to legally practise any activities in the UK which are restricted by law to those holding a licence (such as signing death certificates and writing prescriptions for prescription only medicines)
applies only to UK medical practice and has no legal standing outside of the UK
means a doctor has to participate in revalidation.

Registration without a licence:

allows doctors to show to employers, overseas regulators and others that they remain in good standing with us
is an acknowledgement that the doctor’s primary medical qualification allowed them to gain entry to the medical register in the UK.

3. What does registration without a licence allow me to do?

Being registered without a licence may suit you if you’re not practising medicine in the UK but want to keep your GMC registration.

It’s relatively straight forward to give up your licence. You just need to complete an online application. We have guidance on giving up your licence to help you make your application.

5. Can I get my my licence back if I’ve given it up?

If you give up your licence, you can apply to restore it at any time. You’ll need to make an application no more than three months before you want it back. We’ll ask you for:

proof of identity (a copy of your current passport - and we may also ask you to attend an identity check at our offices)
certificate(s) of good standing from other medical regulators you have been registered with
statements from your recent employer(s) about your employment and work for them.

If you gave up both your registration and your licence to practise, you’ll need to restore both.

6. My licence was withdrawn by the GMC. Can I get it back?

Yes. You will need to apply to restore your licence. However, before we can grant your application, you will need to provide us with the evidence we asked for, before your licence was withdrawn. For example, if we asked you to undertake an annual appraisal, you will need to show us that you have done this.

Registration without a licence allows you to show to employers, overseas regulators and others that you remain in good standing with us. It is your responsibility to be familiar with Good medical practice and to follow the guidance it contains.
You can, of course, carry out activities not legally dependent on holding a licence. For example, you can continue to sign passport photographs and use the title ‘Doctor'.
You must always be clear whether you are licensed, hold registration only or neither. It is a criminal offence in the UK for a doctor to give the impression that they hold registration or a licence if they don't.
The lack of a licence doesn’t stop you from helping in emergencies – sometimes referred to as ‘good samaritan’ acts. Any concerned citizen is able to perform such acts, with or without registration or a licence to practise.
If you’re concerned about potential liabilities from helping in an emergency if you don’t hold a licence, you should speak to your medical defence organisation or insurance and indemnity provider for advice.

What is not known publicly is if kate voluntarily gave up her license to practice or if it was withdrawn by the GMC since the records don't tell us (at least on the publicly accessible parts.

5. Can I get my my licence back if I’ve given it up?

If you give up your licence, you can apply to restore it at any time. You’ll need to make an application no more than three months before you want it back. We’ll ask you for:

proof of identity (a copy of your current passport - and we may also ask you to attend an identity check at our offices)
certificate(s) of good standing from other medical regulators you have been registered with
statements from your recent employer(s) about your employment and work for them.

If you gave up both your registration and your licence to practise, you’ll need to restore both.

I doubt kate would find it easy to get her license to practice back easily since she has not worked for almost 10 years so she would not be up to date on current medical practice such as medication and treatments.
She would practically have to go back to school to catch up with all the medical advances over the last 10 years.

It is sad really that after all the years of studying, training and hard work, she is currently no longer allowed to practice medicine and is unlikely to ever do so again.
Everything she worked for is gone.

So in 2005/06/07 Kate was registered but not licensed, so how the devil did she work for 1 1/2 days a week certifying death?

by **Hobs** 05.03.17 18:23

Hi Nina
I did a search on gerry and also doctors at my own GP practice and they all show the same as registered Oct 2005.
I suspect this is perhaps when it went online and they brought in all the validation etc requirements

by Nina 05.03.17 19:56

Hobs wrote:Hi Nina
I did a search on gerry and also doctors at my own GP practice and they all show the same as registered Oct 2005.
I suspect this is perhaps when it went online and they brought in all the validation etc requirements

Thank you for your reply Hobbs.
What I was trying to point out re Kate that though she was registered from 2005 to 2009 it doesn't say that she is licensed to practise so how was she then practising as a GP prior to this holiday and certifying death as she wasn't licensed to do so.

by MayMuse 05.03.17 21:20

Hobs wrote:Thank Gerry again gave a great performance.

the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting, or playing music:
a performance of Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible"

She gave a superb performance as Lady Macbeth.

a performance mainly UK informal

an action or type of behaviour that involves a lot of attention to detail or to small matters that are not important:

This is so gerry.

This was an act, a show put on to convince and convey their innocence, their concern about their missing daughter.
Expected would be comments along the lines of gerry putting on a brave face, struggling to retain his composure, being strong or determined.
Expected would be her writing about their feelings, their emotions, their concerns for Maddie what she could be enduring.
Instead she writes and tells us that gerry put on a show, a performance, an act.
What was shown by gerry was not what he genuinely felt, it was a role, the role of a desperate or grieving father demanding help to find his daughter, calling out to her, reassuring her and vowing to get the man who took her.

because it was for Madeleine

photo of M in my hand

Here we see kate using two different ways of referring to her missing daughter.
WE see her use the fuull spelling of Maddie in relation to her running, in relation to Maddie being missing.
Maddie is no longer present in kate's life, she is now an idea, a concept a thought
Then we see kate refer back to M.
M is in relation to the picture of Maddie.
M is an physical presence in kate's life at this moment in the shape of a photo.
M is is alive
Madeleine is dead.

about her fear of pain

Why was it important enough to kate to write of Maddie's fear of pain?
Every child is afraid of pain yet here Kate writes of it.
What has been done to Maddie that causes her pain.
What has been done to Maddie that kate refers to Maddie's fear of pain after she has allegedly been abducted, especially when the mccanns's kept telling us and still do years down the line that there is no evidence that Maddie has been seriously harmed.
Is the fear of pain linked to what could be being done to her by the alleged paedophile abductor?
Does this then imply that Maddie has already suffered such pain and serious harm?
Maddie is already familiar with similar pain and harm that kate admits that Maddie is afraid of it?

her life could have ended like this?

This is leakage that she knows Maddie is dead.
Since she and gerry have for the last ten years told the world Maddie is alive and findable and sued anyone who disagrees with their statement of such, why is she telling us Maddie is dead?
This is close, That is distancing.

How does she know how Maddie's life could have ended?
What is the This that is how Maddie's life could have ended?

Why does she use the passive her life could have ended like this?
Maddie would have been killed by her alleged abductor, an active action.
It was done to Maddie.
Maddie would have been murdered, killed,slaughtered.
Ended is passive, it sounds like it was accidental, non deliberate, not planned (at least by Maddie)
We speak of end of life, people reaching the end of their life, it it something that happens sometimes due to old age, sometimes due to disease.
Is this kate telling us that something was done to Maddie that had an unplanned consequence, the ending of her life?
Over sedation?
Maddie had been sedated before and had always come through it OK (that is did not kill her although there may have been other issues such as they had trouble waking her up, she gave them a scare, perhaps health injuries that may have been blamed on accidental ingestion?)
Had Maddie died as a result of some other crime being perpetrated against her?

Nothing had happened before but this time maybe someone went too far?

Had Maddie been attacked in a frenzy by kate (as per gerry helpfully telling us) and died?

Had Maddie got caught up in a fight between kate and gerry (remember those bruises on her wrists and upper arms) and when one of them lashed out or pushed at the other one, Maddie got the brunt of it and died.

Perhaps these were why they could not allow an autopsy?
Signs of recent non accidental injury.
Signs of recent sexual abuse.
Signs of old or healing injuries.
Scars or old injuries that perhaps would have warranted a visit to their GP or local casualty unit but which were treated at home (which may explain why their medical records were not handed over)

Questions would be asked as to why the expected was not done, why there had been so few visits to their GP when normally there would be a few, why there were unexplained injuries where there shouldn't be.

Drs are not allowed to self medicate although many do for minor things.
However if they were self treating their children when they shouldn't be, if they were writing themselves prescriptions then the GMC would take a very dim view and it would probably result in them losing their licenses, investigations by social services and possibly loss of their children, if they are lucky to family members or if unlucky then foster and adoption to non family members.
They would also face child abuse and neglect charges and a raft of other charges.
It would be game over, the loss of all they worked for, their reputations in tatters.

As it stands, kate has never gone back to work.
She was part time 1.5 days a week or so.
WE have not been told if she left voluntarily, unable to face going back to work or, if she was asked to jump before she was pushed.
Personally i would go for the latter, the practice would be ridiculed having her working there, especially if she had to report suspected child neglect.
Pot and kettle would be flung around and the practice reputation would suffer.
They would also likely find patients refusing to see kate or patients threatening to leave if she stayed.

By staying silent kate gives the impression she did it by choice, the same with not keeping up with license registration renewals, training etc.
She could not face it whilst Maddie was missing, the poor mother act.

I doubt she could have gotten work in any practice with the allegations hanging over hers and gerry's heads.

The practice stays silent due to privacy laws (especially given who the mccanns would probably sue them otherwise)
They give kate a semblance of dignity and keeping some kind of reputation.

Everyone is happy.

I feel for kate in that everything she worked so hard for, all the years of studying and training, the possibilities she could have enjoyed are now forever gone.
It may not be impossible but it would mean a whole lot of retraining at a minimum since she has not worked in medicine in almost 10 years

Licensing and revalidation

We introduced licensing on 16 November 2009 and revalidation on 3 December 2012. All doctors with a licence to practise regularly have to prove to us that they are up to date and fit to practise medicine.
This means that the licence to practise is no longer simply the recognition of a doctor’s qualifications at a point in time. It is becoming an indicator that the doctor continues to meet the professional standards set by the GMC and the specialists standard set by the medical Royal Colleges and Faculties. The process of checking this evidence is called revalidation.

From what i can see, she is still registered as doctor but she does not have a license to practice.
This could be because she herself decided to take this option perhaps deciding to pay a reduced fee to stay on the register perhaps with an eye to returning later or it was done to her because she failed to do that which was required to stay in good standing and continue to practice.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/licensing/faq_licence_to_practise.asp

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/revalidation/9627.asp

Annual retention fee
All doctors pay a fee to register with the General Medical Council. Following registration you need to pay an annual fee to retain your name on our medical register

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/fees.asp

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/registration_applications/relinquish_options.asp

@Nina

First image in Hobs post above shows license to practise as of date of search March 2017.

by Nina 05.03.17 21:51

MayMuse wrote:
Hobs wrote:Thank Gerry again gave a great performance.

the action of entertaining other people by dancing, singing, acting, or playing music:
a performance of Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible"

She gave a superb performance as Lady Macbeth.

a performance mainly UK informal

an action or type of behaviour that involves a lot of attention to detail or to small matters that are not important:

This is so gerry.

This was an act, a show put on to convince and convey their innocence, their concern about their missing daughter.
Expected would be comments along the lines of gerry putting on a brave face, struggling to retain his composure, being strong or determined.
Expected would be her writing about their feelings, their emotions, their concerns for Maddie what she could be enduring.
Instead she writes and tells us that gerry put on a show, a performance, an act.
What was shown by gerry was not what he genuinely felt, it was a role, the role of a desperate or grieving father demanding help to find his daughter, calling out to her, reassuring her and vowing to get the man who took her.

because it was for Madeleine

photo of M in my hand

Here we see kate using two different ways of referring to her missing daughter.
WE see her use the fuull spelling of Maddie in relation to her running, in relation to Maddie being missing.
Maddie is no longer present in kate's life, she is now an idea, a concept a thought
Then we see kate refer back to M.
M is in relation to the picture of Maddie.
M is an physical presence in kate's life at this moment in the shape of a photo.
M is is alive
Madeleine is dead.

about her fear of pain

Why was it important enough to kate to write of Maddie's fear of pain?
Every child is afraid of pain yet here Kate writes of it.
What has been done to Maddie that causes her pain.
What has been done to Maddie that kate refers to Maddie's fear of pain after she has allegedly been abducted, especially when the mccanns's kept telling us and still do years down the line that there is no evidence that Maddie has been seriously harmed.
Is the fear of pain linked to what could be being done to her by the alleged paedophile abductor?
Does this then imply that Maddie has already suffered such pain and serious harm?
Maddie is already familiar with similar pain and harm that kate admits that Maddie is afraid of it?

her life could have ended like this?

This is leakage that she knows Maddie is dead.
Since she and gerry have for the last ten years told the world Maddie is alive and findable and sued anyone who disagrees with their statement of such, why is she telling us Maddie is dead?
This is close, That is distancing.

How does she know how Maddie's life could have ended?
What is the This that is how Maddie's life could have ended?

Why does she use the passive her life could have ended like this?
Maddie would have been killed by her alleged abductor, an active action.
It was done to Maddie.
Maddie would have been murdered, killed,slaughtered.
Ended is passive, it sounds like it was accidental, non deliberate, not planned (at least by Maddie)
We speak of end of life, people reaching the end of their life, it it something that happens sometimes due to old age, sometimes due to disease.
Is this kate telling us that something was done to Maddie that had an unplanned consequence, the ending of her life?
Over sedation?
Maddie had been sedated before and had always come through it OK (that is did not kill her although there may have been other issues such as they had trouble waking her up, she gave them a scare, perhaps health injuries that may have been blamed on accidental ingestion?)
Had Maddie died as a result of some other crime being perpetrated against her?

Nothing had happened before but this time maybe someone went too far?

Had Maddie been attacked in a frenzy by kate (as per gerry helpfully telling us) and died?

Had Maddie got caught up in a fight between kate and gerry (remember those bruises on her wrists and upper arms) and when one of them lashed out or pushed at the other one, Maddie got the brunt of it and died.

Perhaps these were why they could not allow an autopsy?
Signs of recent non accidental injury.
Signs of recent sexual abuse.
Signs of old or healing injuries.
Scars or old injuries that perhaps would have warranted a visit to their GP or local casualty unit but which were treated at home (which may explain why their medical records were not handed over)

Questions would be asked as to why the expected was not done, why there had been so few visits to their GP when normally there would be a few, why there were unexplained injuries where there shouldn't be.

Drs are not allowed to self medicate although many do for minor things.
However if they were self treating their children when they shouldn't be, if they were writing themselves prescriptions then the GMC would take a very dim view and it would probably result in them losing their licenses, investigations by social services and possibly loss of their children, if they are lucky to family members or if unlucky then foster and adoption to non family members.
They would also face child abuse and neglect charges and a raft of other charges.
It would be game over, the loss of all they worked for, their reputations in tatters.

As it stands, kate has never gone back to work.
She was part time 1.5 days a week or so.
WE have not been told if she left voluntarily, unable to face going back to work or, if she was asked to jump before she was pushed.
Personally i would go for the latter, the practice would be ridiculed having her working there, especially if she had to report suspected child neglect.
Pot and kettle would be flung around and the practice reputation would suffer.
They would also likely find patients refusing to see kate or patients threatening to leave if she stayed.

By staying silent kate gives the impression she did it by choice, the same with not keeping up with license registration renewals, training etc.
She could not face it whilst Maddie was missing, the poor mother act.

I doubt she could have gotten work in any practice with the allegations hanging over hers and gerry's heads.

The practice stays silent due to privacy laws (especially given who the mccanns would probably sue them otherwise)
They give kate a semblance of dignity and keeping some kind of reputation.

Everyone is happy.

I feel for kate in that everything she worked so hard for, all the years of studying and training, the possibilities she could have enjoyed are now forever gone.
It may not be impossible but it would mean a whole lot of retraining at a minimum since she has not worked in medicine in almost 10 years

Licensing and revalidation

We introduced licensing on 16 November 2009 and revalidation on 3 December 2012. All doctors with a licence to practise regularly have to prove to us that they are up to date and fit to practise medicine.
This means that the licence to practise is no longer simply the recognition of a doctor’s qualifications at a point in time. It is becoming an indicator that the doctor continues to meet the professional standards set by the GMC and the specialists standard set by the medical Royal Colleges and Faculties. The process of checking this evidence is called revalidation.

From what i can see, she is still registered as doctor but she does not have a license to practice.
This could be because she herself decided to take this option perhaps deciding to pay a reduced fee to stay on the register perhaps with an eye to returning later or it was done to her because she failed to do that which was required to stay in good standing and continue to practice.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/licensing/faq_licence_to_practise.asp

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/revalidation/9627.asp

Annual retention fee
All doctors pay a fee to register with the General Medical Council. Following registration you need to pay an annual fee to retain your name on our medical register

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/fees.asp

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/registration_applications/relinquish_options.asp
@Nina

First image in Hobs post above shows license to practise as of date of search March 2017.

Sorry I must be missing something here.
It says she was registered GP entry on 31st March 2006. Also says she was registered from 20 Oct to 16 Nov 2009 but NOT licensed to practise.
She wasn't licensed to practise until 16th Nov 2009 and so on. So at a time she was said to have been working at a GP surgery, during which time she certified dead patients, hence the scent of cadaver on her trousers and the cuddle cat toy she happened to have with her, she wasn't actually licensed to practise as a GP.

by **Hobs** 05.03.17 22:28

Nina wrote:
Hobs wrote:Hi Nina
I did a search on gerry and also doctors at my own GP practice and they all show the same as registered Oct 2005.
I suspect this is perhaps when it went online and they brought in all the validation etc requirements
Thank you for your reply Hobbs.
What I was trying to point out re Kate that though she was registered from 2005 to 2009 it doesn't say that she is licensed to practise so how was she then practising as a GP prior to this holiday and certifying death as she wasn't licensed to do so.

Hi Nina i have done a history check on a number of doctors including those at my surgery and all show the same thing 20 oct 2005 - 16 nov 2009 registered.
This makes her history at that point no different to any of the other doctors, you can search for the history of your own doctors and check

http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/register/LRMP.asp

click on the Show me the List of Registered Medical Practitioners. and enter your doctor's name and surname and gender and it will show all doctors with that name then if multiple doctors appear look for the one you want and click on it and then click history.

It is worth noting that kate appears to have paid the fee to keep her license to practice in 2009 and then did not renew in 2013 paying only to stay on the register.
We will learn if she renewed her license to practice when the current term expires which will be whenever they ask for revalidation which is why the end box is empty since the time can be set as whenever the GMC decides.
Then once revalidated the end date is entered in the TO box and the new start date entered in the FROM box.

Of the doctors i have looked at all have just the one entry from 16 nov 2009 with the TO box remaining empty as they have paid the relevant fees and are licensed to practice.

Kate has multiple entries because she did not renew her licence to practice when it came due in 2013 which is why it says from 12 nov 2013 Registered without a licence to practise.
When the next renewal/validation comes along the TO date will be filled in and it will then say if she was registered to practice or not and then a new from date will be entered.

She may have thought she would return to practice in 2009 hence paying to renew/validate.
She did not return to practice either by choice or because no one would employ her as a locum GP.
Come renewal time she decided to pay only to stay on the register rather pay the higher fee to be allowed to practice ( though after 4 years of being out the loop she would have had to do a few courses and a load of studying to get up to speed on the latest medical advances in medication and treatments)

If we assume she has not actually done any practice work as GP then she has been out the loop for almost 10 years and would pretty much have to retrain, and, given she has 2 children still living with her and gerry, returning to work as a GP with all the requisite studying and retraining required, it is unlikely she will ever return to medicine.

The question is, would any medical company/hospital/practise employ her after all the self claimed neglect of the children (they weren't left home alone)
The non clearance of suspicion publicly and legally declared by the Portuguese Supreme Court.

Possibly some 3rd world country would employ her in a small community simply because some medical training is better than none.

The question is, would anyone employ kate?
The next question is, is ahe claiming any benefits and if so which ones?

by MayMuse 05.03.17 23:27

@Nina

I'm confused as the first image states at the top search made 5th March 2017 and details shown are correct at date and time of search and the status I see is registered to licensed to practise.

It shows time and date of all searches at the top of each image and the Status.

Status shows registered with License to practice.

The bottom image is each "time" covered, I think.

We know that it was a lie when Kate's mother said that her daughter had certified dead bodies, which was trying to explain away the cadaver scent hit! IMO

by **Jill Havern** 06.03.17 10:07

Kate McCanns diary in full https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3660-kate-mccann-s-diary

by Verdi 06.03.17 15:29

Sounds more like a scene from..

by **Hobs** 06.03.17 18:48

hawkmoth wrote:Hobs, I'm curious about what you say here:

'Had Maddie been attacked in a frenzy by kate (as per gerry helpfully telling us) and died?

Had Maddie got caught up in a fight between kate and gerry (remember those bruises on her wrists and upper arms) and when one of them lashed out or pushed at the other one, Maddie got the brunt of it and died.

I didn't know about these rows/assaults: can you tell me where I'd find evidence of Gerry 'helpfully' telling us about them?

There's another possibility that springs to mind about sedation......it seems to me that David Payne must have been comfortable making those lewd remarks about Madeleine to Gerry (more than once), otherwise he simply wouldn't have addressed them to him. Is Gerry then of a similar turn of mind?

If there was any kind of abuse happening, could that be part of the reason that Kate felt she had to sedate the children? To stop them suffering this kind of thing? Peter Hyatt reported confronting a US doctor who prescribed cough syrup to children so they'd go to sleep and not be abused. The reason he did this was that the state wouldn't remove them from the abusive parents.

Hi Hawkmoth

The article or an article is here

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-regrets-over-night-maddy-285440

Gerry screamed: "Kate killed her in frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs, in which case you would have thought they'd have found her body. I've heard all that.

If the Gaspar claims are true then gerry and payne are of the same mind as were the rest of the group, otherwise such comments would not have been made in earshot of the others.

If the mccanns lost their children they could kiss their careers goodbye as well as friends and their reputation

by **Hobs** 06.03.17 19:00

The to date has been left empty and when the next revalidation comes due then if she has be revalidated as licensed to practice it will say so.
If she doesn't revalidate as seems probable then it will have the to filled in and it will not licenced to practice and a new from date will appear along with a new empty to date.

Currently kate pays the reduced rate to stay on the register, i wonder if gerry will also pay a reduced rate to stay on the register and not keep his licence to practice since he is now a professor and lecturer.

I also wonder if he took this career change since he is hated in Glenfield and the staff were not allowed to talk to him and he was likely confined to the back going over scans and reports with little contact with patients.
His career was going nowhere, especially since the Supreme Court judgement.
He would be trapped in a dead end job, no career prospects, did he jump before he was pushed?
Given the chance of lecturing he could at least make some kind of progress.

I did a search but couldn't find him on any NHS consultants list not least at Glenfield.
It looks like he has left the NHS

by Nina 06.03.17 19:14

Hobs wrote:The to date has been left empty and when the next revalidation comes due then if she has be revalidated as licensed to practice it will say so.
If she doesn't revalidate as seems probable then it will have the to filled in and it will not licenced to practice and a new from date will appear along with a new empty to date.

Currently kate pays the reduced rate to stay on the register, i wonder if gerry will also pay a reduced rate to stay on the register and not keep his licence to practice since he is now a professor and lecturer.

I also wonder if he took this career change since he is hated in Glenfield and the staff were not allowed to talk to him and he was likely confined to the back going over scans and reports with little contact with patients.
His career was going nowhere, especially since the Supreme Court judgement.
He would be trapped in a dead end job, no career prospects, did he jump before he was pushed?
Given the chance of lecturing he could at least make some kind of progress.

I did a search but couldn't find him on any NHS consultants list not least at Glenfield.
It looks like he has left the NHS

And his private work for the Spires group ceased quite some time ago now also Hobbs.

by **Hobs** 07.03.17 0:54

More and more interesting especially given the news about them not legally being cleared.

Did he jump before he was pushed?
Was he given the option to jump before he was pushed?
Is his career over as a doctor/consultant so he has to take the next best thing?
Honorary consultant cardiologist doesn't have the same ring as cardiac consultant does it?

Think of all those celebs who get honoriums, honorary this or honorary that, it doesn't make them whatever it is but it looks nice hanging on the wall plus they get to be called doctor.

Now neither work in medicine, one unemployable and one now a teacher, what will he teach?
How to read an ECG, how to look at a scan?

For someone who was so driven to succeed in medicine and be top dog, is this how he saw himself when he first started out?

There are a lot of questions regarding this and its timing.
He was just a name tagged onto the end along with a whole bunch of others.

I am disappointed i never got a chance to meet him with uncle, it could have been fun

by Verdi 07.03.17 1:03

Is this the diary that upset Kate McCann so much when extracts were illicitly published by the News of the World - she claimed leaked by an unauthorised source. Or was it Clarence Mitchell that done it.

The murky Murdoch empire again? If I were of a cynical disposition smilie

I could almost be persuaded that there was some sort of obscure financial arrangement going on here - all profit to the Find Madeleine Ltd. Co. of course.

by hawkmoth 07.03.17 14:11

Hobs wrote:
hawkmoth wrote:Hobs, I'm curious about what you say here:

'Had Maddie been attacked in a frenzy by kate (as per gerry helpfully telling us) and died?

Had Maddie got caught up in a fight between kate and gerry (remember those bruises on her wrists and upper arms) and when one of them lashed out or pushed at the other one, Maddie got the brunt of it and died.

I didn't know about these rows/assaults: can you tell me where I'd find evidence of Gerry 'helpfully' telling us about them?

There's another possibility that springs to mind about sedation......it seems to me that David Payne must have been comfortable making those lewd remarks about Madeleine to Gerry (more than once), otherwise he simply wouldn't have addressed them to him. Is Gerry then of a similar turn of mind?

If there was any kind of abuse happening, could that be part of the reason that Kate felt she had to sedate the children? To stop them suffering this kind of thing? Peter Hyatt reported confronting a US doctor who prescribed cough syrup to children so they'd go to sleep and not be abused. The reason he did this was that the state wouldn't remove them from the abusive parents.
Hi Hawkmoth

The article or an article is here

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-regrets-over-night-maddy-285440

Gerry screamed: "Kate killed her in frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs, in which case you would have thought they'd have found her body. I've heard all that.

If the Gaspar claims are true then gerry and payne are of the same mind as were the rest of the group, otherwise such comments would not have been made in earshot of the others.

If the mccanns lost their children they could kiss their careers goodbye as well as friends and their reputation

Hello Hobs

Thanks very much for replying - I found the Mirror and Vanity Fair articles. As a statement analyst, what do you think of the this: Gerry screamed: "Kate killed her in frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs, in which case you would have thought they'd have found her body. I've heard all that.?

Should we 'believe him', as Peter Hyatt would say?

He did 'scream' this out, in an emotional outburst.. unusual for Mr Cool.

So....

Did Kate kill M in a frenzy? Was she sedated? Did she fall down the stairs?

I was wondering if M did wake up, somehow open the patio doors (maybe one of the Tapas lot inadvertently left them open), open or tried to clamber over the gate, and then fell down the steps. If so, I'd have thought the dogs would have picked up blood traces, but maybe bleach could have erased them. Dog evidence suggests M's body was hidden in the bushes at some point.

If sedated, as he mentions, then obviously a fall would be even more likely.

Or, did Kate lash out in exasperation at M's 'loudness', causing 'a fall'?

In terms of likelihoods, I think it's a tick for sedation, 'killed her in a frenzy', probably a cross. Fall down the steps? Not sure.

What do you think?

by **Hobs** 07.03.17 22:47

As Peter tells us believe what they tell us, assume they are telling the truth and then let them convince you of the opposite, let them talk you out of believing them.

Kate killed her in frenzy.
This is his first statement, order is important and this is what gerry tells us first and most importantly.
Then he tells us sedation and finally Maddie fell down the stairs.

This makes me wonder if kate physically abused Maddie which would explain why they could not allow an autopsy since her injuries could not be explained away.

We know the children were sedated, the mccanns finally admitted so, months down the line yet blaming the alleged abductor.
We also know the mccanns refused to have the twins checked out at a hospital which is a huge red flag and then undertook their own drug tests months down the line when all traces would have been out the system but some traces may have remained in the hair (remember Shannon Matthews)
They also introduced fitting in a haircut making hair sensitive enough to them that they had to speak of it.
We also do not know what drugs were tested for.

If they specified only drugs that they did not use then the tests would come back clear since the twins were not tested for said specific drugs.

I then wonder if it was discussed that Maddie could have fallen down the stairs causing said injuries, expolain it away as an accident rather than a physical assault.

heck it could even be that kate attacked Maddie, they were all later sedated so as not to wake up, Maddie woke and fell.
The earlier bruises etc would reveal the truth of an assault which could not be explained away as a fall.

If Maddie fell down the stairs who found her and when?
There would likely have been blood traces.
Was she found, dying, hidden behind the sofa where she died and then moved to the parents room?

Would they if Maddie was sedated, panic if she woke and fell down the stairs and conceal what happened if she was still alive rather than call 911?

They could have claimed accidental ingestion unless of course kate was prescribing sedatives that she should not have been prescribing, self medicating.
How did she come into owning xyz sedatives when she hadn't been prescribed them in which case she gets hauled before the GMC and loses her license and job and probably the children.
Gerry told us kate killed Maddie in a frenzy and that kate and gerry sedated Maddie (and the twins) I belive him and that makes it homicide, child abuse, child neglect, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.

game over for the mccanns and chums

by Guest 08.03.17 7:29

I'm sorry Hobbs, you have so much stuff out of context.

Example:

We know the children were sedated, the mccanns finally admitted so, months down the line yet blaming the alleged abductor.

We know no such thing.

They didn't admit it.

Gerry wondered it... as he was driving if I remember correctly.

You can't state "we know" as if it's a fact.

As for:

Gerry screamed: "Kate killed her in frenzy, Madeleine was sedated by us, she fell down the stairs, in which case you would have thought they'd have found her body. I've heard all that"

This doesn't even need context.. he's heard it all.... and so have we, and worse.

I'm not a big fan of statement analysis.

It's seems like a lot of confirmation bias.

Stick to the facts and awkward questions, they can't do you for that.