Statement Analysis by 'Hobs' and Peter Hyatt

Monday, May 23, 2016

The Possible Dry Run By The Alleged Abductor That Possibly Caused The Alleged Crying Incident.

If what kate claims is true and she then wondered if someone had tried the night before or made a 'dry run', why then did they still allegedly leave their children home alone again?

They didn't.

All the children were being babysat by the missing adult from the table each night.
They had to claim they were neglectful and leaving their children home alone each night in order for there to be an opportunity for an abduction.

She also fails to explain why, if they allegedly left the children home alone each night, the alleged abductor would do a dry run.

An abductor is not going to go into the apartment, find the child they want to abduct, then leave without said child.
They are not going to do a dry run and think yep, we can do it in the time they leave between checks, we will do the real abduction tomorrow night.
They will not know if the parents are going to be responsible for once and either take their children with them on the last night of their vacation to the tapas bar, hire one of the creche workers to babysit the children, leave the children in the evening creche or have dinner in the apartment.
Any of those options would remove the chance to abduct Maddie.

If they made all the effort to get into the apartment the night before and see their target in bed sleeping and no adults around, and they know the next check is not likely for X amount of minutes, they are going to take the opportunity and abduct Maddie there and then.

They come up with an explanation for something, be it to explain away the alleged crying, the stain on the t shirt, the checks etc and because it is deceptive, it leads to other questions being asked which they then need to explain away.

They came up with an explanation as to why Maddie asked why they didn't come when she and Sean were crying the previous night. They wondered if it was when they were being bathed etc failing to realize that if it were the mccanns bathing them and putting them to bed then the question would not have arisen as they would have heard them crying whilst they were bathing them and putting them to bed.

This then points to the children being either in another apartment whilst kate and gerry were in 5a getting ready or, ALL the tapas children being in 5a whilst kate and gerry were elsewhere.


Interview broadcast: 01 May 2008

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

Note the self editing here, was gerry going to say "OTHER CHILDREN, realized he was going to drop them right in by revealing all the children were in one apartment and thus changed it to OTHER TWINS.

The problem here though is there were no other twins, only Sean and Amelie.

However we do have leakage of a marble.

'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired.'

Had it been kate and gerry doing it then the question would never have arisen since they would have heard it.
Since the question did arise then we know kate and gerry were not bathing them and putting them to bed.
Since they heard nothing we then have the following questions:

Who was bathing them and putting them to bed?

Where were the mccann children and where were kate and gerry?

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

Then we have a change in what they claimed in 'Madeleine: One Year On' documentary, 30 April 2008

Kate McCann: Well, I... I can't remember if we'd just had breakfast, it was rou... it was, sort of, fairly early in the morning and she just very casually, really, said: (mimics Madeleine's voice) 'Where were you last night, when me and Sean cried?' and we immediately looked and said, you know: 'When was this, Madeleine? Was this when you were going to sleep?' and she didn't answer and then she just carried on playing, totally undistressed..

Gerry McCann: Madeleine's very articulate and, errr... for her age, and, errm... you know, it's unlike her, if she's got something to say, to drop it. She just did... literally, dropped it, errm... and we both, kind of, looked at each other and said: 'Was it when we had just put them down?'

Since they told us they made sure the children were asleep before they went to the tapas bar, this version doesn't make sense.

Gerry tells us 'Was it when we had just put them down?'

Had that been the case, the mccanns would have heard them and the question would not have arisen since the would have heard them cry and, I would hope, gone into their bedroom to see why they were crying and to reassure them.
The only other option was put them to bed and then run like heck out the apartment to the tapas bar.

Kate asks if it was when you (Maddie) was going to sleep?
Had this been true, then kate and gerry would have heard her crying since it would have been kate and gerry putting her to bed and then waiting until the children were asleep before going to the tapas bar.

Since kate asks Maddie if it was when she was going to sleep then we have a problem.

Kate and gerry never heard the crying and asked when it was, this means that kate and gerry, unlike their story did not bathe the children nor put them to bed.

Since the mccanns heard no crying we have two options.

1) The children were bathed by someone other than kate and gerry and put to bed by someone other than kate and gerry in an apartment that was not 5a, IE one of the apartments occupied by one of the tapas friends.
Kate and gerry stayed in their own apartment getting ready to go to the tapas bar meaning they would not have heard any of the children crying.

2) Madeleine and her siblings as well as the other children were all in apartment 5a being babysat by whichever parent was missing from the table, allegedly due to illness.
Where then were kate and gerry that they never bathed the children nor put them to bed?
In whose apartment were they and why?

The mccanns never say anything without a good reason, either to explain away something they did or did not do or to preempt something seen or heard by another.

Was the 'crying incident' created to explain away the crying heard by Mrs Fenn (if what she said she heard was true)

Was it said to set the scene for the alleged abduction?

Was it said to indicate Maddie was alive the night before the alleged abduction, especially if she was not seen by independent witnesses during the Thursday or there was no definite, verified reliable sighting of her such as at the creche etc, the alleged sighting by payne can be discounted as he is not independent.

It would also indicate she was alive during the week even if the creche workers did not remember seeing her, especially when the image they released of her was an old photo and she looked nothing like that during the vacation.

Remember Thursday night was the only night where others from the tapas group checked on the mccann children, the only night where the routine changed.

Apart from the Sunday morning, there are no definite independent sightings of Maddie, even at the creche, the staff would not have known Maddie long enough to say for sure she had been present, especially with the old photograph of Maddie that was released to the media and public so people knew who and what to look for in their searching.

They would only know someone had been presented to them as Maddie.

Why would the mccanns tell us about the alleged crying incident, knowing that by doing so would make them appear even more neglectful?

Why did they tell us about the alleged crying incident that happened the night before Maddie was allegedly abducted knowing that by doing so, and then saying they decided to keep more regular checks on the children (if half hourly was more regular checking, what were the time gaps before the Thursday night?) it would make them appear heartless and negligent?

Why, knowing the children had allegedly cried the night before and they hadn't checked on them did they still decide to leave the children home alone rather than make use of the free evening creche, use of the babysitting facility, taking the children to the tapas bar with them or, staying home and either having a take away or cooking their own dinner, again making them look heartless, uncaring and negligent.

Knowing that the public would consider them to be heartless and negligent, the damage to their reputations and that they could face charges of negligence and the risk of losing their children (perhaps even the other tapas members since they too were leaving their children home alone) why did they consider that to be the least damaging option?

What was so bad that they were willing to risk losing their children, possibly their jobs as well as their social standing, their family and friends, everything they had worked for, to be forever remembered as negligent parents rather than tell the truth?

Had it been an accident why lie?

Accidents happen all the time, even with the parents right next to the child.

Accidental overdose could have been explained away as them not knowing Maddie had eaten some pills thinking they were candy and they only found out the next day when they found her dead in bed.

Had Maddie fallen and died behind the sofa they could have said they were drunk enough that they never heard a thing once asleep, and only when they went to wake her in the morning and she wasn't in bed and on searching, they found her dead behind the sofa again either having eaten pills or not.

They had a reason to be deceptive.
They had a reason to claim they were neglectful parents.
They had a reason to hide a corpse and file a false police report.
They had a reason to make sure an autopsy could not be performed any time soon.

What would an autopsy have revealed that could not be explained away as accidental?

What would an autopsy have revealed that could not have been blamed on an abductor's actions within a couple of days or so?

Was it something the mccanns had done to their daughter?
Was it something the mccanns had allowed to be done to their daughter?
Was it something they could not have denied knowing about, something done that was so blatant that they could not have pleaded ignorance?

The mccanns had a reason to introduce the crying incident.

Learning the reason may well reveal who Maddie's killer is and their accomplices.

Monday, May 2, 2016

Signs Of Desperation?

Regarding the 'news' that Dr. Amaral wanted all links to the translations of his book into English removed smacks of a pro kate and gerry supporter trying to get the links removed to stop people learning the truth of the lie.

It may have been on the orders of the mccanns themselves directly or via a third party.

It could have been some zealous supporter doing their little bit threat wise, hoping the threat of being sued would have the desired effect of 'banning' the English translation of the book they have repeatedly failed to have banned in Portugal.

As i have said before, when the mccanns and chums start shouting and distracting attention, there is a reason for it.

The reason is almost always because something has come out or will come out that paints saints kate and gerry is a bad light.

In this case, it was because his book was unbanned and is now available for sale in a variety of languages apart from English at the moment.

This will change and an English copy published.

Since they couldn't get the physical book banned and know they will lose their appeal should it even gets accepted in the first place.

Their only other option is to put it out on the net that Dr.Amaral wants links to his online English translation of his book removed.

They were trying to portray him in a bad light.

They were trying to make him look ungrateful and avaricious just like their heroes kate and gerry, making it so that people would have to pay to read his book either physically or perhaps via the internet such as an e-book.

Unlike the mccanns, Dr. Amaral has said he has no issues with links to the English translation.

What it is is, the mccanns think everybody is the same as them:
Avaricious, shallow, self absorbed, egotistic, ungrateful, and full of their own importance.
Their supporters seem to have similar characteristics to their saints.

They will now use every dirty trick in the book, and, probably come up with some new ones in order to get at Dr. Amaral.

I suspect it is kate behind all this.

She has an intense loathing of Dr. Amaral.
She wants him gone, not only from her life, also from the world as well.
She wants to destroy him and everything he stands for.
Her rage knows no bounds.
She is compelled to attack him, it is he that has thwarted what she thought would be the perfect life.

I wonder if kate lashed out verbally or even physically when she was told NO?

When she was denied what she considered to be her dues, what was owed to her, what she wanted at that moment, did she have a meltdown?

We all saw the bruises on kate's wrists and upper arms.
Those were never from hitting walls.
Had she gotten them from the alleged battering of walls etc, it would be the sides of her hands which would be bruised or swollen.

What would not be bruised is her wrists.
Try it yourself,.
Make a fist and place it on a wall, your hand is the only thing that touches the wall, wrists don't and upper arms certainly don't.

The bruises on her wrists and upper arms were restraint bruises.
Either someone restraining her from attacking them face on or pulling her away from someone (Maddie?)

Right now i have visions of her having a massive meltdown as once again, Dr. Amaral has thwarted her.
He has simply refused to do what she demands.
He has refused to kowtow to her.
He has stood against her once again and won.

How dare he.

Given her propensity for violence both verbally and physically, i wonder how much stuff kate demolished?

I also have concerns for Sean and Amelie.

When kate is in full meltdown, nothing is sacred, if it gets in her way or appears to refuse her.or says the wrong thing she will lash out.

Woe betide whoever is her target.

They could have claimed an abduction to try and explain away Maddie's disappearance (death)
The same excuse wouldn't work a second time.

The way things are now, the house being a veritable tinderbox and gerry keeping well out the way at work, it is the twins who will be on tenterhooks, i can see kate being hospitalized voluntarily or otherwise, for her own safety and the safety of others.

This victory for DR. Amaral could be the straw that broke kate's back.

If kate is hospitalized for any reason, expect all their chums and supporters to immediately blame Dr.Amaral, the so called anti-mccanns (us) and the media.

This especially if they are told they cannot appeal to the supreme court.
Since it deals only with points of law, seeking to clarify rather than criminal or civil disputes.

It will definitely be the straw that broke the camel's back.

The hundreds of thousands possibly even millions they will have to pay in court costs, both their own and for the costs of the defendants, which was already considerable from their previous attempt to ban Dr. Amaral's book.
The won the first round and his books were seized.
Dr.Amaral appealed and won and the books had to be returned, all 10,000 or so of them.
They were liable for both their own costs and that of Dr. Amaral, a not inconsiderable sum.

There will be all the legal fees for all their lawyers in both countries.
More so if they manage to retain their lawyers, who on seeing which way the wind is blowing, may decide they want some money upfront in case (when) they lose again and the mccanns may not have the money to pay.

Then there is the likelihood of the media demanding their money back, money which was awarded to the mccanns and chums in an out of court settlement.

Then will the tapas 7 who could be facing the same demands, demand the money they gave to the fund be returned so they can pay the money back to the media as well as their own costs etc?

When they and their fans start stirring and agitating, pay attention to what may be coming out that they don't want us to see or hear..

Saturday, April 30, 2016

Something For The mccanns To Think About.

HONOLULU – The parents of a Hawaii boy who has been missing for nearly 20 years have been charged with murder after authorities reopened the case and re-evaluated the evidence.
The boy's parents have long been suspects in the 1997 disappearance of then 6-year-old "Peter Boy" Kema, but prosecutors said there hadn't been enough evidence to charge them until now.
Peter Kema Sr. had told authorities he took his son to Oahu and gave him to a longtime family friend.
A grand jury indicted Peter and Jaylin Kema on second-degree murder charges Wednesday.
The boy's father is being held on $500,000 bail after being arrested Thursday on an unrelated traffic offense.
The mother was arrested in Hilo and her bail has been set at $150,000.
It's not clear whether the parents have attorneys.
The Hilo public defender's office said they couldn't confirm or deny they were representing the parents.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/29/parents-boy-who-vanished-in-17-charged-with-murder.html


Twenty years kate and gerry, twenty years.

The parents thought they had literally gotten away with murder.


Cases once opened are only closed when they are solved, however long it takes.

A crime once done cannot be undone.

Words spoken cannot be unheard.
Words spoken cannot be unspoken.
Words seen cannot be unseen.
Words written cannot be unwritten from publicly available media.

The words you have spoken using the process of free editing cannot then be changed to mean something else when you realize you have incriminated yourselves.A secret is only a secret when no one else knows about it or even suspects it exists.
Your best and most trusted friends today can be your worst enemies tomorrow.

How long kate and gerry do you think you can avoid justice?

How long can you escape the consequences of your actions?

How long do you hope your friends will stay silent?

How long can you survive the fear of every day wondering if today is the day it all comes crashing down?

How long can you continue to lie to your surviving children?

How long before your surviving children confront you with your deeds, your guilt and give you an ultimatum?

You are struggling now and it's only been 9 years.

You were struggling from the get go to convince the world of Maddie being abducted and failed miserably.

The PJ knew the truth from the beginning about your involvement in the HOMICIDE, CONCEALMENT OF A CORPSE and FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT.
Even the UK police in their home county could not be convinced:Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (2007):
“While both or one of [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance”. You may have convinced a few people of your so called non-involvement, a few wealthy donors even.

However, the people you have really needed to convince of your non-involvement are the police forces of Portugal and the UK.

These are the people you needed to convince in order for you not to be charged and then ending up spending decades in prison.

Not only for the HOMICIDE, CONCEALMENT OF A CORPSE and FILING A FALSE POLICE REPORT, something which will be what the PJ charge you both with, probably along with several of your tapas chums, also for obstruction of justice, perverting the course of justice, aiding and abetting an offender and probably to round it off, charges relating to obtaining money and services by deception.

UK police will be the ones to handle the fraudulent fund since it is based in the UK.

Since you knew Maddie was dead, the fund claiming to be used to search for Maddie, and which has generally been used to keep you in the manner to which you would like to be accustomed to, used for legal fees, paying the mortgage and possibly the extension as well as other goodies, will be revealed as a fraud, a multi million fraud.

It also means the media will more than likely sue for the return of any monies awarded to you, even if agreed out of court, those who gave money to you will also likely want their money back.
The same applies to the tapas chums who will likely need to hand back the money they got.
The money they allegedly gave to the fund.

Boy that will be fun as you all sue and counter sue each other in an effort to pay back the hundreds of thousands and possibly even millions donated by the public who might be able to file a class action.

Heck even America could get involved since donations were requested either directly or via your website with the handy dandy dollar button.
It is called wire fraud and the Americans don't mess around when it comes to sentences.
The tide is turning kate and gerry.
The media which were once sycophants of yours, rolling over and begging for the smallest tidbit are now openly referencing Dr. Amaral's book, the story about appearing on TV with Lorraine Kelly, or rather not appearing really makes you look bad.

Instead of using the TV exposure to call out to Maddie and tell her you will continue to look for her (even though you have never actually physically searched in the first place, something we learned about from you kate, dearest) you are having a sulk in case you get asked questions relating to losing the damages case against the man who did search for Maddie.

Right there your priorities are revealed, you first, Maddie last.

I suggest you silence clarrie since he is the one dropping you both right in it.

Is he perhaps, on seeing which way the wind is blowing and standing up to his knees in water as the big ship mccann, which whilst initially taking on water with the pumps managing to keep the ship afloat, has now become a rapid sinking with all the rats leaving, taking the only rubber life ring and throwing you to the circling sharks?

He may be your PR man (and a poor one at that) his only concern is his own skin and his own brand.
If he thinks he can make a bucket load of money out of you, he will.

He will have made copious notes and meticulous record keeping which will lead to a nice book deal relating how he was conned by you and as soon as he realized the truth, he did his good deed and informed the authorities.

Heck, even Sean and Amelie will have the option of some super duper book deals and even a movie, revealing how they suffered at your hands, emotionally and perhaps even physically given your temper kate.

It seems everyone will get something out of this including and especially Maddie, whilst you are left with the ashes of what was once a successful career, a good life, high ranking friends and contacts and social standing, unable even to get a job as a shelf stacker or behind the counter of a fast food establishment.
If you thought the last couple of years were bad and this year, even worse since Dr. Amaral won his appeal and his book was published and available to the world.

It is going to get a lot worse and time passes and the guilt eats away at you.
You are visibly aging due to the guilt and stress, kate, you in particular.
Can you manage:

10 years?

15 years?

20 years?

A lifetime?
The net s closing kate and gerry, it is now time to come clean.

Confess the truth and redeem yourself in some small way to your children, your families, your friends, your few remaining supporters, the world and your god.

If you do it now it will be to your benefit, it will help your case.
If you don't then the consequences will be truly harsh.

You want to talk.
We are listening.

Come forward and speak the truth and it will be alright.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Once More The Sound Of Rattling Sabres To Indicate The Presence Of The Panicky McCanns

It is all well and good the mccanns rattling their sabres and threatening to sue anyone who sells the book in the UK, how do they propose to fund the costs for such litigation?

They already owe hundreds of thousands, if not millions in legal costs, even the twins are liable for costs thanks to kate and gerry.

I am sure the twins were ecstatic when they found out mom and dad had left them a doozy of a legacy

They lost this last appeal and are liable not only for all their own costs, they are also liable for all the costs incurred by the multiple defendants in the various cases..

This is on top of their outgoings to the pink princess and carter-ruck, whom i cannot believe would do pro bono work for people suspected of homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report along with said clients self professed claims of nightly child neglect, regardless of the clients jobs, fame or infamy.

It boils down to money.

As long as you can pay they will do your work, if you don't have the money,or are likely to be unable to pay then it is no thanks and on your bike.

Given the rapidly mounting costs, i suspect carter-ruck are only used as and when the mccanns need an official letter.

I do wonder about all their other lawyers, the extradition ones, the Portuguese ones though.

Are they on a retainer?
Are they paid on an as needed basis?
I suspect so with the extradition lawyers.

All the mccanns had to do was have a nice chatette with a lawyer and make it known they 'hired' said lawyer (it was actually just a what can we do if they call us back chat)

Ditto for the Portuguese ones though they may have ID on a fixed fee and making sure they are getting their monies worth.

She may have initially seen it as a platform to get her name out there and get a lot of business as a result thus she would charge a reduced/discounted rate.

What about dear old clarrie, who has suddenly gone very quiet?

Is he on a retainer to get wheeled out every so often at anniversaries or when anything painting the mccanns in a poor light is about to come out?
Is he seeking legal advice regarding his own rather precarious position regarding the fund?

Remember the comment on the radio show regarding donations?



“Just put money into an envelope and send to Kate and Gerry McCann, Rothley, it’ll get there”.

Obtaining money by deception, even if for a 3rd party is very naughty, especially if it doesn't go through the banks or directly into the fund.
After all, who would find out how much was donated that way?

Then we have the perverting the course of justice and obstruction of justice when he opened mouth and inserted feet comment we he told us:

"I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine's death"

As well as all the back tracking regarding the alleged smashed shutters, door hanging off details as uttered by various family members and friends.

The mccanns simply do not have the money to sue anyone.

The fund was stated not to be used for legal fees at its inception.
This lead to a very annoyed gerry who  complained about having all this money and not being allowed to use it

By Sarah Nuwar
09 September 2007


Extract:


The McCanns now fear the cops may be about to arrest and charge them. Gerry told us: "Our lawyer said the weight of it is that, under the Portuguese legal system, they've got enough to move forward against us."


Then he revealed they may consider flying in a crack legal team from the UK to assist their Portuguese advisor.


But he confessed he is frustrated they are not allowed to use any of the £800,000 Madeleine Fund— boosted by celebrity appeals including Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling and soccer star David Beckham—to pay their mounting legal bills.


"It seems like a disaster that we've got this huge donated fund and now we're not allowed to use it for legal costs because we're under suspicion," said Gerry.


This may have changed since the mccanns had a clear out of directors and pretty much now has them doing what he tells them or else.

There would be public outrage about them using the fund for legal fees as well as all costs to date.
Remember the outrage when it was leaked they took 2 months mortgage payments?

At this time, the mccanns really won't give a chit, it is all or nothing now.

They effectively bankrupt, they have and will lose everything.

They have nothing left to lose and they know it.
The question is, do they have a backer who will pay their not inconsiderable legal fees and costs plus compensation?

Will the backer also pay back all the money obtained fraudulently, the awards made to the media out of court, the very media who will now demand their money back plus interest?

What about the tapas 7 who allegedly gave their awards to the fund?
Will the tapas 7 now demand the return of their money in order to pay back their own money plus interest to the media as well as all the court costs etc?

I am not talking a few thousand or even a few hundred thousand.

This is likely to run into millions.
Is there seriously going to be some mega rich benefactor who will cough up multi millions to protect the mccanns?

WHY?

Possibly if the mccann's have something on said benefactor and threatens them.

However, depending on the reason, said benefactor could say"sod that for a game of soldiers", refuse the money and whatever happens will happen.

I do expect to see the ol' begging bucket back out in force appealing for money to fight their battle against the nasty ex detective who is trying to make their two surviving, innocent children homeless.

Forcing them to live on the street, wear rags and live on a diet of pot noodles and crisps.

Their hypocrisy would be simply astounding if they went down that route, given that was exactly what they were trying to do to Dr. Amaral, even to suggesting he get divorced.

I also fear that the mccanns, now painted into a corner of their own making, especially kate, to perhaps looking to press the button she spoke of, killing the twins, gerry (justifiable) and herself.

The game is coming to a close and they know it.

Everything they worked for is down the pan.
Kate is unemployable in any medical position and probably in any skilled or unskilled role given she is a self confessed child neglector and a suspect in the death, disposal and coverup of her daughter Maddie.

Gerry's ego knows no bounds,when push comes to shove, it is him in the lifeboat first.

I fully expect him to throw kate and the tapas 7 under the bus, whilst painting himself as the heroic father trying to keep his family together despite his wife's mental issues (not guilty by reason of insanity, or not guilty due to (insert mental disease here)or not guilty due to diminished responsibility.

Kate goes to a hospital or maybe prison.
He is viewed as the loving, protective and caring husband who fought to keep his family together, even to covering up for his wife (and chums?)

He gets custody of the twins, a book and movie deal, possibly roles on boards, maybe political office when the furor dies down and finally an honor or two for services to whatever.

Will it come to first past the post wins the prize?

Will divorce rear its head?

If it does and there is a custody battle, then the fun will start as they blame each other for whatever happened to Maddie.

They won't stop to think or to listen to their lawyers.

It will be "there is no way you are getting the kids" and possibly (though i hope not) "If i can't have them, nobody can", particularly relating to kate.

We know she has a vicious and violent temper, the bruises on her wrists and arms from allegedly beating the wall, the kicking out and smashing of furniture showed us that.
Personally i saw them as restraint bruises on her wrists and upper arms.
How would she manage to get them in those locations from beating a wall, a wall which apparently had fingers.

Will she open mouth and insert feet not caring about the consequences.
She won;t mind doing time if it means gerry does as well and he doesn't get the kids.
The grandparents can fight it out between them.

Time will tell.
I see this are coming to a conclusion sooner rather than later.
I hope the tapas 7 are seeking advice regarding their legal position in relation to the events that week in PDL and subsequently.
How much they could be liable for.
If they can arrive at some kind of deal perhaps to minimize the impact on their finances and their lives.

I have a front row seat and plenty of popcorn.
The support acts have been and gone, it is almost time for the main feature.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

They've taken her! Shouted kate

They've taken her!

OK Kate, which her would you have been referring to, since you allegedly had two girls sleeping in the same bedroom?

Words once said cannot be unsaid.

Excited utterances are admissible in court.

You may have thought you could cover any oopsies by changing your statements and alleged utterances when you realized how incriminating they were.

You found it clearly impossible to remember who told what to whom and when, hence all the changes and 'corrections' in the media and during subsequent interviews.

Your actions however are too late.
We saw and heard what yours and gerry's initial words were.

We saw, and heard the almost word for word identical statements from family and friends who you called in those first few hours.

We saw, and heard them telling the open window, shattered shutters and open door version of events, something they had all had to have been told, since no way would they have all come up with the same scenario on their own.

The PJ saw immediately the lie you were telling, as did MW when they checked.

No shutters were smashed open, the window was closed and the door was undamaged and not hanging open.

Crisis moment.
It was all going to come crashing down if you didn't get the all new and shiny 'corrected version' out, and blaming your families for getting it so wrong, when in fact what happened was...

Even with the now amended story, it still didn't work.
Even clarrie was forced to admit that maybe it hadn't been a forced entry after all, and kate was reduced to admitting maybe it was a red herring (never a truer word spoken there kate. Man, i love leakage)

Perhaps you thought the media wouldn't interview the families, the families wouldn't open mouth and insert feet (philomena i am talking mostly to you)

Maybe the grannies saw the truth of the lie and had to be exiled back to the UK to stop them asking awkward questions, or worse, opening mouth to the PJ and the Media.
Especially when mom healey called you out on it and said she could shake you (as you so wonderfully demonstrated when you spoke about Maddie allegedly crying and asking why you didn't come, and then she dropped it. Such wonderful parenting skills there kate.)

I wonder, kate did you inadvertently show us what you did to Maddie?
As a GP you would be well aware of shaken baby syndrome.
It can affect children of any age.

Perhaps it may be why you never returned as a GP?

Did you resign your part time job even though you were in financial straits?

Did they ask you not to return given you had allegedly left your three children home alone every night for a week and then losing one whilst not admitting any guilt?

I bet that went down well with the staff at their next meeting.

Do we really want to employ a self confessed child neglector, who may come into contact with abused and neglected children in the line of her work?

What would happen if she reported a parent for neglect as obliged by law ,and the parent then uses the excuse , well the doctor did it and she lost one?

Not good for business that.

Was it a case of jump before we push you out?

Is this perhaps why you have let your license lapse?

It would be hard to find any practice that would take you on, and what to do if a parent complained?

It's a shame really.

All those years of hard work, studying hard at school to get the grades and then Uni and then all the on the job training, getting experience and specializing all for it to go poof.

Unemployable in the healthcare system in pretty much anywhere in the world (maybe some of the poorer nations might be willing to take a chance)

Everything you worked for is gone, never to return.
Now you are famous but for all the wrong reasons, or should that be infamous?

Not a world renowned doctor, or a world class GP

Not the go to specialist for difficult anaesthesia cases.

Not even a bog standard doctor who did OK in the practice.

Instead, you and gerry are famous the world over for allegedly leaving three children home alone every night (which i don't believe but you had to claim it to allow for an abduction)

For you, kate, refusing to answer 48 questions despite admitting it would hinder the investigation.

Both of you refusing to cooperate in a police reconstruction even though you were legally compelled to.

Instead, you got your tapas chums to set all sorts of impossible demands knowing if they didn't take part, you wouldn't have to either.

Running straight back to the UK on being made an arguido and then hiring expensive extradition lawyers.

Suing pretty much anyone who didn't buy your story.

Threatening anyone else when money was tight and complaining to the Leveson inquiry and anyone else you could get to when people were posting and commenting on every discrepancy in your story and inconveniently pointing out how good cadaver dogs are when they find bodies in canals or hidden under a dead pig several feet below

I won't even go into the emotional damage you have done your surviving children (though i believe emotional abuse is now a crime)

What a legacy to leave behind, forever the black sheep of your families through all the decades and generations to come.

Now is the time to come clean, before it is all taken out of your hands and things end up worse than you could ever possibly imagine.

Saturday, April 2, 2016

The Creche, The Records, An Intent To Deceive And By Whom?

Cat Baker's comment in her 6 May statement:

'When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service. She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.'

MBM was shown as attending on Sunday morning, whereas Ella is shown not attending.

Jane huffs and puffs a lot when asked about Sunday in her rogatory, and seemingly the only thing she does remember (or knows she's supposed to remember) is that Ella didn't attend in the morning:

“Yeah I think that first Sunday Ella didn’t go to the kids club straight away purely because it’s the first day there and obviously because she had been poorly the week before we thought we’d just see how she, how she is you know before she goes, so she didn’t go, she didn’t go to the kids club. I can’t remember if Evie did, I think she probably did, I mean I can’t see any reason why she wouldn’t have done so I think she probably went to the kids club in the morning err I honestly can’t remember what we did that morning. I don’t know, I don’t think, I think the tennis lesson, I can’t remember whether the tennis lesson started that day or the next day but err so I think, no I can’t remember apart from the fact I know Ella didn’t go, so I presume we stayed with Ella or either Russell or myself you know stayed with Ella by the pool because there’s like a park area by the pool, so.”

This is incoherent even by the mccann and tapas7 standards.
Lying is stressful.
The brain doesn't like stress and will try to tell the truth to ease the stress.
Outright lying is unusual, people would much rather minimize or omit what really happened than create a whole new reality (approx 10% of people will create a new reality)

Tanner shows she is being deceptive.
A simple question about whether her children were at the creche on Sunday produces a lot of evasion and confusing language.

It was their first full day, a parent would know if their children went to the creche on the first full day or not.

It is an easy question to answer.

They would have met the staff as they dropped the children off and the same when they collected them at lunch time before dropping them off again in the afternoon and collecting them at tea time.

It is not a once a day event which could have been overlooked whilst lots of other things were going on.

There would have been 4 points of contact which either one or both parents would have been present.

Instead we have tanner being evasive with her responses.
She can't even say she specifically remembers doing this or that and screws herself into the ground in an effort to avoid being pinned down to a specific event or a specific time or even a specific memory.
This is highly sensitive to tanner, a cluster of blues, which is unexpected, especially since it was the first full day of their holiday.

We have repetition of things in the negative, telling us what didn't happen as opposed to what did happen.

Because/ so is used to explain why something happened, it answers an unasked question, a question the subject thinks will be asked.

You know/obviously is used to convince and convey, to accept without question, it also shows awareness of the interviewer.

How could she not remember if Evie went to the kids club?

She has two children, the maths is not that difficult unlike if she had a dozen or so.

She tells us what she can't remember as opposed to what she can remember.
In order to not remember something, you have to have an idea of what was supposed to be remembered, in this case attending the kids club on the Sunday.
She can't even be pinned down to who was actually with Ella, who, she eventually remembered, didn't go to the club.

It was the first full day of the vacation, she has two children, yet she cannot remember who did what with whom and where.

You would remember looking after at least one child on your first full day of your vacation.

Looking at this statement from tanner, all the sensitivities, i am wondering if something happened on the Saturday night, early Sunday morning that resulted in her going to pieces and contradicting herself, and avoiding anything definite on what should have been a normal Sunday, the first full day of the holiday.

I can recall what i did, where we went on my first trip to Houston in 2006.

Why was tanner so incoherent on the first full day of her vacation in a statement taken so close to the alleged abduction?

I would imagine, given the traumatic alleged event that took place, that every member would have remembered exactly what they did and when during that week, we are talking days or weeks not years and decades here.


It doesn't answer the question asked, it lets the interviewer answer it themselves.

Regarding the creche and remembered seeing whom and when.

There is a thing called false memory.

There was a TV episode on it a while back and it also gets repeated.

A group of people were taken into the desert and during the trip came across a group of soldiers protecting something, allegedly a UFO.
Nothing was said and the group carried on as normal after being asked to move along.
A few weeks later, members of the group were asked individually about the trip and what they had seen.
They remembered seeing guns and other things, things that were never there using the process of free editing.

It is possible that the same thing could happen with the creche.
Given the age of the children in the group and knowing they would be using the creche facilities, it is entirely possible that the creche staff are remembering something that did not happen.

The obvious conclusion is that if the twins were at the creche, so then was Maddie, after all, why would a parent of three children drop the twins off and not drop Maddie of as well?
The records are a mess and it would not be the first or last time that someone has signed someone in or someone out because the parents forgot to.
The staff would not have known that at some point during that week, that one of their charges would allegedly be abducted and the records would become evidence.
They would not be able to identify a particular child out of a group unless they stood out, such as the twins.
Maddie was just another little girl in a group of many.

The creche workers would not have been familiar with the parents in the group as pretty much the only time they would see them is at drop off and collection and when it is busy, kids running around doing what kids do, the parent is just another face.
Also, if multiple parents collected their children at the same time or dropped them off, who would remember which child belonged to which parent?

The records were not like a school register where, if a child is absent, the creche contacts the parent to ask where their child is, their concern is just a paper record for the boss as to who dropped their kids off and who collected them, and also to help with billing at the end of the vacation if more use was made of the creche than was agreed upon at the time of booking.
It was not compulsory for the parents to sign though they were told to sign in and sign out their children, it was just to cover their backs if something went bosoms up whilst the kids were in their care, who to blame and to make sure everything was paid for regarding trips etc.
What went on when the kids were with their parents was none of their concern.

I do wonder if there were other records for when the parents made use of the evening creche or the babysitting facility.
If so i wonder how those looked?

The only evidence we have that Maddie attended the creche every day is a slapdash sign in/out sheet for supposedly morning and afternoon, signed by the parents not the creche workers.
A parent could claim their child was present at a certain time on a particular day because they had signed the sheet.
Even if the creche worker had said, "i don't recall seeing child XYZ at a certain time on a particular day", the parents just have to say" my child was there, see, i signed them in and out. Why would i do that if they weren't there?"
Paper evidence would trump memory, after all, no one would expect parents to be deceptive about dropping off and collecting their children each day.
You must have forgotten seeing her because she was behaved etc, see here is the evidence she was there.

The staff are not going to say hang on that child wasn't there that day and i forged the parents signature on the sheets, it would cause all sorts of issues for the member of staff, MW etc, as well as giving the parents something to hold over their heads, especially in today's litigious society where people sue at the drop of a hat.
MW would take the word of the parents over that of the creche worker.
Worker gets sacked, possibly prosecuted or sued and the parents get away scot free due to all the muddying of the water.

Maddie was at the creche every day as she was signed in and out in the mornings and afternoons.
The twins were the creche every day as they were signed in and out in the mornings and afternoons.
If Maddie had not been 'abducted' the creche sheets would have been irrelevant, they would not have been needed to prove someone was present or not.
The twins may have been a bit more memorable simply because they were twins, although none identical.
Had they been identical, they would have been very memorable.
Had a twin gone missing then despite what the sheets were saying, a creche worker is going to far more certain if one had not shown up.
Maddie was just another little girl in a group of similar looking little girls.

Whether the sheets were taken into account prior to Maddie going missing, i don't know.
What i do know is, that the slapdash signing in/out worked to the mccanns favor.
It was a paper trail showing Maddie was alive on particular days at particular times.

No one is going to ask why would the parents sign their child in when said child wasn't there, and sign them out when the child was never there.
Why sign a non existent child in and out?
They had booked their child(ren) in for a week all day every day, why would they then not make use of the facility they have paid for and keep their child(ren) at home with them?

The creche workers were fed a false memory and when questioned talked about something that never happened.
The paperwork would back up the said false memory simply because it would not cross anyone's mind that the signing in and out was for a non existent child.
Maddie was there only because the paperwork, the creche sign in/out sheets said she was.

How else could the discrepancies and contradictions work?
One claimed certain activities took place one one day and someone else said it was a different day.
She was there, she wasn't.
She was in this group, she wasn't.
The tennis ball photo is a good example, they couldn't even agree which day it took place on let alone what time.

The creche workers are going to go with what the parents are claiming simply because
A) They are professional, doctors. Doctors would have no reason to lie.
B) The parents version of events, especially given their daughter was allegedly abducted, is going to be believed over that of a creche worker.
C) Why would the parents lie over such a trivial matter (when the trivial matter conceals a none trivial matter with bad consequences)
D) Agreeing with the parents version of events because they cannot remember anything of the week regarding which children were where and when.
D) Agreeing with the parents version of events as disagreeing will have consequences such as being sacked and getting bad references since clearly as a creche worker they were terrible and the bosses will back the parents rather than them.

No one can definitively say, nor is there any actual evidence, that Maddie was alive the whole week up to the Thursday night.
All we have to show that Maddie was alive that week is slapdash creche records with inconsistent signatures and even names, vague memories of her being at certain activities which did or did not not happen on the day or times claimed, vague witness statements from staff and the public seeing someone who may or may not be Maddie, a couple of photos which could have been taken on days other than when was claimed (the pool and the tennis balls) and contradictory statements from the parents and members of the tapas 7.

There is no independent witness, no independent evidence that shows Maddie was alive at any time after she arrived at MW on the Saturday or after Sunday AM.

We have an incoherent statement from tanner regarding the Sunday, a day which should have no reason to cause sensitivity regarding who did what and where.
Something happened the Saturday night/Sunday morning to cause tanner to go into a verbal meltdown when there was no reason to do so.
That she is almost incoherent would cause me to delve deeply into the Saturday night/Sunday morning to learn what really went on.

I can recall what i did, who i was with on the first day of my vacations to Canada and The States.
Heck i can even remember what i did at the airports here and abroad, the passengers on the plane ( it was talk like a pirate day and it all got very silly)
This was from 2006 and 2008.
How come tanner could not recall a particular day days or a few weeks after?

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Cuddlecat. A Favorite Toy Or An Early Birthday Present? And Introducing A Child's T shirt And Those Checked Pants

What was cuddlecat?

A new toy bought by an uncle and given to Maddie as an early birthday present just before she went on vacation

OR

Her favorite toy that she had had for a long time?

It cannot be both as they are mutually exclusive.

If it was a new toy as claimed, an early birthday present from an uncle i believe, how could it have been contaminated with cadaverine?

Was it from kate taking it to work with her in the week or weeks prior to the vacation?
Was it given to Maddie and then confiscated, perhaps as punishment by kate who then took it to work?

If it was an old and favorite toy as was claimed to be by the parents, how did it become contaminated with cadaverine?

If it was an old and favorite toy, why was kate carting it around her work?

Why was it not with Maddie or in the house awaiting Maddie's return?

Who thinks to take their child's favorite toy to work with them?
Was it perhaps confiscated by kate as punishment for some perceived crime and then taken to work by kate so Maddie couldn't get access to it?

Was it confiscated out of spite?
It would fit in with the family dynamics, especially kate's anger issues.
At best, they would have a screaming child who won't go anywhere without it and has a meltdown until reunited with the toy.
At worst, it ran the risk or being lost along the way, or damaged by the working environment such as a factory floor, chemicals etc.
As kate was only a part time locum 1.5 days a week, how often did she come into contact with a dead body, especially as it was claimed by family members she had had contact with 6 corpses prior to the vacation.

Who told her family she had been in contact with 6 bodies before the vacation?

When were they told?

Who tells family members they have had to deal with dead bodies that week?

It isn't exactly dinner table conversation?

"You'll never guess what I had to deal with this week, 6, count 'em 6 bodies.
Dropping like flies they were.

The nursing home seemed to be having its spring clear out.
I had barely got home after certifying one.
I was sitting down to a nice cuppa and a couple of cookies and bam, blow me down if I didn't have to go off and certify another one.
Still they weren't going anywhere so I told the staff cover them up and I'll be down in a bit.
One goes, they all want to go, it's like they were gonna miss out on something exciting like bingo."

It's not something you ring your mom about and let slip you have had a busy week dealing with a surfeit of dead bodies, especial if you are only part time doing 1.5 days a week and not on maternity leave as has been suggested.

I doubt even harold shipman had that much nerve.
How many deaths were there in the short period of time that kate had access to prior to the vacation?

Is it a case of the surgery ringing up and asking kate "to do them a favor and nip over to whoever's place and confirm a death for us please?"

If she was on maternity leave as has been mentioned, how did she come into contact with a corpse, let alone several corpses?

Why would she come into contact with corpses?

It couldn't be from gerry since his patients tended to arrive alive and leave alive after a consultation.
Questions also have to be asked as to why kate would be carrying around Maddie's favorite toy whilst she was at work, and exposed to corpses should she not have been on maternity leave?

What was she doing to the said alleged corpses that resulted in cadaverine contaminating her daughter's favorite toy?

According to BMA guidelines:

This guidance aims to clarify the distinction between confirming and certifying death in relation to GPs’ obligations.

English law:

does not require a doctor to confirm death has occurred or that “life is extinct”
does not require a doctor to view the body of a deceased person
does not require a doctor to report the fact that death has occurred
does require the doctor who attended the deceased during the last illness to issue a certificate detailing the cause of death

If the death occurs in the patient’s own home, it is wise to visit as soon as the urgent needs of living patients permit.

If the death occurs in a residential or nursing home and the GP who attended the patient during the last illness is available, it is sensible for him or her to attend when practicable and issue a MCCD.

If an “on-call” doctor is on duty, whether in or out of hours, it is unlikely that any useful purpose will be served by that doctor attending the nursing or residential home. In such cases we recommend that the GP advises the home to contact the undertaker if they wish the body to be removed and ensures that the GP with whom the patient was registered is notified as soon as practicable.

Unexpected (“sudden”) deaths

If death occurs in the patient’s home, or in a residential or nursing home, we recommend a visit by the GP with whom the patient was registered, to examine the body and confirm death, although this is not a statutory requirement.

Unlike expected deaths, in the event of an unexpected death out-of-hours it would be helpful if an OOH GP does attend, therefore helping to prevent the potentially unnecessary attendance of the emergency services.

The GP should then report the death to the coroner (usually through the local police).

In any other circumstances, the request to attend is likely to have come from the police or ambulance service. It is usually wise, and especially in the case of an on-call doctor, to decline to attend and advise that the services of a Forensic Medical Examiner police surgeon be obtained by the caller.

http://www.bma.org.uk/support-at-work/gp-practices/service-provision/confirmation-and-certification-of-death

Basically, kate would have little to no contact with an actual dead body.
How then did she get cadaverine on her vacation pants (the checked ones) and cuddle cat?

If it was a new toy, given to Maddie just prior to the vacation, kate would not have been in contact with any dead bodies (especially if she was on maternity leave)
How then is there cadaverine on cuddlecat?
What was the source of the cadaverine it became contaminated with?

Did she lend it out so someone who was coming into contact with dead bodies?
Were there corpses lying around the nursery, children who had been sent to the naughty corner and forgotten about or had got stuck in the Wendy house and was now part of the fixtures and fittings?

A genuine skeleton in the cupboard perhaps, you know how it is with medics especially medical students.

Had it been in contact with a dead body prior to it being given to Maddie as a birthday present?
That's a whole new slew of questions.
I would love to hear the answers to those.

Then we have the little problem of the child's red t shirt.
It certainly wouldn't fit kate, no matter how scrawny she got.
It would be way too big for cuddlecat and cuddlecat is not exactly built to wear t-shirts, unlike dolls and teddies.

Perhaps she took the t shirt to work with her and it got contaminated that way, except, wouldn't someone have noticed kate brandishing a red t shirt and asked what the heck was going on?
Was it part of some new way to confirm death?
Touch the corpse with either cuddlecat or a t shirt ( it has to be red, to hide any blood or body fluids you see) and if the body moves because it tickles, then the person is still alive.
If they don't react, then the person is dead and come back tomorrow for another try.

Instead of cuddlecat, did she perhaps take one of the children wearing said red t shirt to work with her, one of those 'bring your child to work days' and said child was introduced to the wonderful world of the GP certifying a death.

Just what would that entail?

"Here honey, touch the dead person, they won't bite, especially if they don't have their teeth in.
See how cold they feel?
See how cold they are compared to mummy?
What else can you tell me is cold?
What color is their skin?
Is it the same color as your skin?
Can you see where the skin is a different color?
It is is where they are lying down.
It is called POST MORTEM LIVIDITY.
It is when the blood collects in the body when the heart has stopped beating for a while.
It is caused by gravity pulling the blood downwards, just like when you throw a ball and it falls to the ground.
Can you see if they are breathing?
Put your hand on their chest and see if the chest moves.
If it isn't moving then they are not breathing.
See how stiff they are.
This means they have been dead for a while.
If they have been dead for a while, the body becomes all limp again.
All these things put together mean the person is dead.
They are not alive like you or me.

Congratulations (insert childs name here) you have just done your first confirmation of death.
Now sign this bit of paper here and off we go to the next one.

A whole new meaning to playing doctors.I can't wait to see the mccann version of Operation!

Ridiculous?
Unbelievable?
No more believable than kate attending 6 corpses prior to the trip and that is how her pants, cuddlecat and the child's red t shirt got contaminated, especially if she was on maternity leave as has been claimed.

The other obvious conclusion which everyone supporting them is desperately trying to ignore is:

Maddie was wearing said red t shirt for whatever reason and died whilst wearing it.
Since the 'abduction had to occur at night, was she swapped out of the t shirt into something else or just left naked (especially if they were going with the paedophile abductor claim)
Questions would be asked as to why Maddie was in a t shirt rather than the expected pajamas.

Maddie had cuddlecat with her either at her death or at some point later and it became contaminated after 90 minutes had passed and cadaverine had been produced enough for a trained dog to detect

If it came into contact with her corpse, was this when she was dead and it lay in situ until Maddie's body was found?
Was it when Maddie was moved and became contaminated that way?
Was it placed on Maddie's body at death or when she was subsequently found to act as a comforter perhaps before her final disposal?
A comforter for Maddie or for kate, who perhaps had a maternal moment.maybe?

Was kate wearing said checked pants when she was with Maddie, either immediately prior to, during or after Maddie's death and after a minimum of 90 mins, long enough for the scent to develop and contaminate, or did the contamination occur at a later date, perhaps when she was moved to her final resting place or when the pink blanket/blue bag went walkies.

Perhaps this could explain the alleged crying Mrs Fenn heard for 75 mins, another 15 mins and we then have enough cadaverine to be detected by a trained dog.
If kate was wailing and crying Maddie, only calming down enough not to be heard whilst still holding Maddie's body, it could explain the cadaverine.

This could also explain those interesting bruises on kate's wrists and arms, having to be restrained or perhaps dragged away from her dead daughter.

What would be interesting to know is, when was kate ever seen wearing those distinctive pants?

They are a poor fit lengthwise and who would wear pants that looks like something a chef would wear?

Would she seriously wear them to work?
I know i wouldn't be impressed if my doctor turned up wearing chefs pants that didn't even fit properly.

They are unforgettable as well as unforgivable.

The days she was seen wearing them, especially that week could be very revealing.
They indicated for cadaverine, therefore they came in contact with a corpse.
What day was she seen wearing them?
Did she change into something else that day?

When did she wear them prior to being made an arguida?
Who was with her on those days or at those times?
Where was she seen wearing them?

What is clear is, the excuses put forward by the mccanns, chums, spokesman and families to explain the dogs reactions and the blood and body fluids found in the apartment and the hire car do not match the forensic evidence.

Sometimes investigators and analysts will ask for a sample of a truthful statement or of an innocent mother's statement to compare to others, including Kate McCann.

There are not many found online because they do not create news. Here is a very short statement by the parents of a missing child in which the father did not give us enough to go on, but the mother showed indication of concern for her child, which suggests belief that the child is alive. Regrettably, the child was raped and murdered and the killer found. News:

Kyle Parker, 23, who was charged with murder, rape and a slew of other felonies in the girl's death. Of the three people questioned with polygraph machines, two failed.

That left one option: Offer a plea deal.

Owen Circuit Court Judge Lori Thatcher Quillan accepted the agreement after a hearing during which she expressed disgust for Parker, but said the risk that he could walk free was too great if she rejected the deal.

Quillan sentenced him to 60 years in prison, per the agreement. Parker pleaded guilty earlier this month to murder and kidnapping, and will serve 60 years for the murder and 16 for the kidnapping. He will serve the sentences simultaneously. The plea agreement also stipulates that Parker will register as a violent offender, but not as a sex offender.

Consider mother's statement compared to DeOrr mother and father. These are limited statements. Even in a single statement, the mother expressed concern, not for herself, but for what her child might be experiencing. This was not heard from in other cases, including, Madeleine McCann, Baby Ayla, Lisa and above mentioned DeOrr, in spite of his parents speaking extensively in an interview. Neither expressed any concern over DeOrr's condition or care.

Investigators have been searching for 14-month-old Shaylyn Ammerman since Wednesday morning. Shaylyn is described as 20 inches tall, 20 pounds, blonde hair and blue eyes. She was last seen wearing white zip-up pajamas with an owl design and carrying a “Winnie the Pooh” blanket.

She was in the care of her grandmother and father Tuesday in their Spencer home, according to Indiana State Police. The mother and father are not together but share custody of Shyly.

Police say the child has now been missing for more than 24 hours and they are worried.

Tamera Sue Morgan, the girl’s grandmother, told police she put Shaylyn to bed and last checked on her around midnight Tuesday in a home in the 400 block of West Jefferson. When Morgan checked the crib in the morning, she told police the child was gone.

“The first feeling was panic,” Morgan said. “‘Where is the baby, she can’t get out of her baby bed so somebody had to take her.'”

Note the contemplation of what occurred to the baby instead of "I have no idea" which is often heard when a subject does not want to give information. We all have lots of ideas about most of everything in life. Here, the grandmother identified panic and then immediate reasoning taking into account the baby's age. This is to show alert hormonal response, even from grandparent.


Morgan said she won’t stop at anything to find her granddaughter. She was putting up signs Thursday morning. Next we see "impotence" from the parent or grandparent. This is where the parent (in this case, grandparent) has a broken pattern.

The parent feeds the child when hungry.
The parent changes the child when messy.
The parent soothes the child when the child falls.
Suddenly: the parent is left bereft of the fulfillment of natural instinct:


“I’m going stir crazy at home. I’m not getting any information whatsoever from anybody so I’m just going out and trying to spread the word as far and as wide as possible,” Morgan said. “I am very concerned. It’s been so long since we’ve seen her. I’m just so scared to death of where she’s at, if she’s safe, if she’s being taken care of.”


Police said several people were at the home the night Shaylyn disappeared. Officials said they have interviewed several witnesses including family of little Shyly. This is important when looking at the short statement of the father.

We like to hear parents express concern for what the child is experiencing at the moment the statement is made. This is the father's quote and then the mother.

“Just shocked that somebody would do this to me. I have no idea why or what’s going through somebody’s mind that would do this,” said Shaylyn’s father Justin Ammerman. “I’m going crazy. I don’t know what to think.”

a. "just shocked" is without commitment. Without the pronoun "I", we cannot say he is "shocked" since he does not say it.

This raises the concern regarding who he associates with.

He considers this done to him. He does not know what to think after telling us what he thought. He puts the brakes on thinking (unlike grandmother) by having "no idea why" someone would do this. When taken with the sentence beginning without the pronoun "I", we wonder if:

He does, indeed, have some ideas regarding those he associates with.

"To me" may indicate feeling of failure of father to protect.

No remark about care for child, but the quote is very short. From this alone, I would question his associates closely as well as explore with him why he thinks this was done as a grudge. In other words:

In his perception of reality, those near him are capable of kidnapping for a grudge.

Few of us might think this in our lives.

Ammerman said he didn’t have people over Wednesday night, and he thinks someone took his daughter from her crib in the middle of the night. He now engages the idea process.

“I don’t know who in their right mind would do this,” he said. “Somebody’s got a big grudge over us. I don’t know who it is, but they better confess and give my baby back.”

It would be someone not in their "right mind" that would do this.
Also notice that 'confess' comes before 'give' in his language.
He does not here express concern for what the child is experiencing at the moment. It was done to "him" and "better confess and give my baby back" suggests, in order, that he sees this done to him and he is responsible. He does not issue a threat, but it may be implied.

Here is the mother:

Jessica Stewart, the girl’s mother, spoke to 24-Hour News 8 Wednesday evening.
She said her daughter’s blanket and diaper bag are also missing.

Next, this mother is concerned about the baby's comfort, at this moment in time, while missing:

“I’m hoping that whoever has her is taking care of her and will bring her back home safe,” Stewart said. “I’ve got a bad feeling since talking to the cops today and I am hoping I am wrong.”

Stewart also said she knows of no one who would want to take the child. We don't have a quote, but my guess is this: her friends are different than the baby's father's friends.

“I just want her home,” she said.

Here the mother is concerned for the very thing a mother should be concerned about; in the moment. Recall in the early McCann interviews that this was missing. The same concern was missing from other parents indicated for guilty knowledge.

Next, note the dent in denial/confidence, is explicitly caused by what was said in conversation with police.

The word "just" is a comparative word of reduction, as to say "only"; her sole 'want' or desire is to have her home.

Then note the unnatural pessimism is assigned as caused by the knowledge police gave her. Yet even here, there is hope against it.

The word "just" is a dependent word in which we know the subject is thinking of something else. In context, it is related to what police told her.

This did not end well.

A sex offender was charged with the child's murder.

What did we learn from the statements?

1. Mom showed no signal of guilty knowledge that the child was dead. Instead she showed concern for the present circumstance of the child.

2. Mom assigned "blame" of pessimism upon why police told her.

3. Dad indicates some guilt over not protecting the child ("to me") and some sensitivity about those of whom he was associated with.

4. Grandmother, who was caretaker at the time, showed immediate processing of information, like a machine, to facilitate information to lead to the child's recovery.

Although these are very limited quotes, we do see, especially in the mother, a natural and expected reaction:

"I hope someone is taking care of her" which is to show concern for the child while the child is missing.

This is something that may be absent from those who know their child is beyond helping or human care.

https://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2018/06/missing-one-year-old-update.html?m=1

Friday, April 28, 2017

The Danger of Fabrication of Reality



Few people understand how dangerous one who fabricates reality is. In deception detection, we learn that less than 10% of those who are deceptive, will fabricate reality.

In live team analysis recently, we covered a statement where rent money went missing.

The subject was 100% truthful, line by line.

The statement tested to be "Unreliable" on its Form.

There was not a single lie in it.

The team rightfully concluded that the subject (author) had stolen the rent money via their analysis.

This highlights a very important principle within both lie detection and in life, itself: 90% plus of lies are via missing information rather than the fabrication of reality.

When we have one willing to literally fabricate reality, we have an unique individual who poses a threat of unknown proportion.

Lying causes internal stress and the brain becomes quite adept at avoiding this stress. The stress is not simply due to feelings of guilt, as even sociopaths, who hold no empathy for their fellow man, feel internal stress of a direct lie. Why? Because it leave them vulnerable to being caught and accused.

By what?

By their own words.

Their own words.

This is critical in understanding human nature. We are known by our words via communication, and to be seen a "liar" is not to be seen "lying" but literally to be classified, in total, as a liar. This is not something the liar likes.

Out right lies are rare and with the rent money, the analysts, both new and experienced, focused in upon sensitivity indicators and made the only reaonsable conclusion the words would allow: "Deception Indicated."

In fact, he had stolen the rent money from his two roommates and went out and purchased drugs and some new clothes with it, leaving the living status of the roommates in jeopardy.

Police asked him to write out a statement and it was very short, so the victims were told, "well, we just don't know..." and no justice was realized.

This deceptive young man gave indication of not only deception, but the language of addiction. The analysts spotted this readily.

Dangerous

When one will lie outright, he is now in the 10% category. "I didn't do it" when he did, is one thing, but to say

"I took the money and gave it to the landlord", for example, when the subject did not even meet the landlord, puts himself into a new category and it makes him a danger to all around him.

Those who lie by omission and are successful pose a risk specifically due to their success. Like a thief at work, $100 success will emboldened for $1,000 theft.

Yet, when one lies by omission, and continue in this lie, they will experience something similar to the most dangerous fabricator of reality:

desensitization.

Why is the rarer outright fabricator more dangerous?

For whatever reason, likely rooted in childhood, and fueled by success in deceiving people, the fabricator of reality has overcome the internal stress of lying.

It is here that we learn:

There is no bottom.

They are in this sense dangerous because they are not restrained as others.

You may predict their next downward step, but you cannot predict the bottom. Their potential for societal harm is only limited by their opportunities.

Even immoral people have some restraint, such as fearing being caught, and they still have the restraint of internal stress to hinder just how far they will go with deception.

When Richard Blumenthal said he was boots on the ground in Viet Nam, he fabricated reality; he never left the United States. Confronted by his own words, his response indicates who he is. His "core" identity was under attack. His response is consistent with the lack of conscience.

With this by-passing of internal stress, we cannot know how low he will go, and we should not expect any basic honesty. This means that when prosecuting people for crimes, he would be at high risk to prosecute an innocent if it benefited his career.

Businesses that do not screen for deception pay a severe cost.

There are ways to spot this type of deceiver, but there is no way to strongly predict how low they will go; we can only predict the next step downward, and perhaps, the next step, but in terms of the bottom: it does not exist.

Wall of Truth

Truth is powerful and it is an invisible wall of protection.

What makes fabricators of reality so dangerous is that they do not have the same restraints as others in society. They will go increasingly further into depravity; they will graduate from lie to lie, crime to crime, inflicting costs upon any and everyone around them.

If you get in their way, they will go on the offensive.

Without the wall of truth, the 10% fabricator of reality has a need to silence opposition. It is far more than just being unable to answer truth, they cannot abide it.

Need to silence

The lack of any reasonable "bottom" is frightening enough, but when it is combined with exploitation of others, we find they possess a need to silence discussion.

Without a bottom, we now have the need to silence that is often accompanied by a pseudo-morality, which further fuels the liar into the realm of violence. We see this in the "anti fascist" socialist movement that uses fascism to silence. Socialism, itself, must use coercion to accomplish its social goals. When the "virtue signaling" begins, we have a combination of:

a. Deception that needs to silence communication
b. Intrusion of hormonal increase (emotion)
c. violence

The "science" march was a political march, not a science march, and its theme was singular and the opposite of science: silence opposition.

Anything that needs to silence scrutiny is scientifically indefensible, hence the need for coercive silence. Combine this with hormonal increase (virtue signaling) and the power is increased.

Add in male testosterone age 18 to 30 and the result can be violence that increases in both intensity and scope.

Someone wants to do you bodily harm because you disagree with him.

When one claims, for example, that a man is a woman, the absurdity, itself, can only be defended by coercion. Therefore, if you go to the delivery room and your doctor says,

"It's a boy!"

the only contrary argument would be to attack the doctor as a "bigot", "racist", "phobic, nazi" and so on, as is the popular result of identity politics today. Classify someone to avoid using logic.

Add in virtue signaling and testosterone and this can lead to violence. In untreated mental health issues, it is even worse.

Yet, those who have long recognized that one who sees something that is not is in need of mental health intervention, suddenly, in just a few short years, now defend their position by attacking discussion. Here you see even the defenders acknowledge the mental health issue justifying why one must watch his words around the sufferer of sexual dysmorphia:



The defenders are the actual insulters.

To claim a man is a woman is a fabrication of reality. Where once professionals treated such as depression, and later dysmorphia, politicians have made it a "civil right" and has led to the same results of all identity politics: division.

The lie brings loss and destruction.

Today, would any mental health professional dare attempt to treat the dysmorphia?

Yet, the 40% suicide rate remains.

Taking the same logic, what of the dangerously underweight teen who "identifies" as overweight?

Is is "respectful" to indulge her lie or should she receive help?

We are not better people or "morally superior" for maintaining a lie. Only politicians tells us that we are.


Politicians join in to exploit with the new claim: "hate speech is not free speech."

Question: Why is it so important that you change your belief and say that a man is a woman?

Answer: Because it is not true. It must be coerced, one way or another, because there is no wall of truth.

This is why liars like the McCanns must keep up the pressure and have dedicated their entire lives to this "fight." It is not a fight for Madeleine, as many note; they rarely dedicated words to her. It is about them.

People dedicate websites, not to disprove the McCann analysis but to impugn the analyst. Recently, it was "he is making money off a dead child."

What does that mean?

If a journalist covers a story and gets a promotion for a job well done, and the story is a dead child, is he making money off of a dead child?

Besides...isn't Madeleine "kidnapped"?

Free speech was part of our fabric as hate speech against tyranny. It is, in its historical sense, hate speech.

Lies must be defended by violence because it is not truth, and, the restraint of lying as taboo is not only removed, but lying now becomes "morally" correct. This is to increase fuel towards violence.

Danger: Deception + Emotion + Faux Morality + Testosterone

Young males see the videos of black hooded attackers and they see this as exciting. It appeals to violence but it is violence that is now "justified" by false morality. If a male wanted to be violent but was reluctant due to his upbringing, the false morality allows him to overcome the resistance.

Once he is in the crowd, mob psychology takes over and we see the cowardly professor hitting someone in the head, then hiding.

We can laugh when Al Gore said air conditioners led to the creation of the Islamic State (they certainly laugh) but he is a politician and politicians are adept at separating you from your money for their causes.

Yet, even a few years ago, few Americans would have ever called for the end of free speech, defining "hate speech" as anything I disagree with.
It is dangerous because it has no restraint. It is outright fabrication and with this restraint removed, it is now combined with emotion (moral narcissism or virtue signaling). Remove restraint and you get violence. This is why the fascist protesters wear masks.

Human desensitization. Fuel with false morality and the end can be dehumanization for the purpose of bloodshed. This was the argument in the French Revolution, The Marxist Revolution, Nazi Germany, and so on, and the bloodshed was severe.

Those who maintain a lie will be desensitized similar to the outright liar. Eventually, the maintained lie will lead to offensive strategy, seeking to harm others.

Example: McCann threats as the lie is perpetuated for 10 years.

Why the need to silence via lawsuit? Will any of these suits bring their child back?

Context is Key

The context is a "missing" child. If saying, "I don't believe their story" resulted in being terminated at their job because they have been portrayed as child killers, perhaps, professionally they would need protection.

The context is that they have been building a movement on a lie, and cannot let it go.

No loss of income like a tv personality falsely accused.

Those who say they do not believe the parents will not impact the issue: Madeleine.

The need to silence is the indicator of weakness.

Lance Armstrong sued people of out of business, and destroyed lives and reputations. Why?

Because they told the truth.

The list of victims is unknown. Even in his sport, what of those who rode clean and were cheated out of lawful competition? What of those who lost endorsements in their country because they could not keep up with him?

Liars take their toll on society and the more lying becomes acceptable, especially when disguised as morality, the greater the overall impact. This is the essence of "third world banana republics" in the insulting language: they are corrupt.

Language is the currency.

Deception is counterfeit currency.


An acceptance of lies leads to destruction. In Ferguson, the police officer told the truth about what happened, and eventually, witnesses came forth to say, "there was no 'hands up; don't shoot', yet an entire racist movement is underway, well financed and even received in the White House, based upon a lie. Police officers have died, particularly in 2016, because of this false narrative that came from the top, beginning in earnest in 2008.

The spouses and children will never be the same.



Anti-cheating and sportsmanship lessons were once given to children to help establish an inner point of resistance to the corruption of lying and cheating.

When you have someone who has overcome the internal stress of lying working for you, he will not "steal" from you; but he may "reimburse" himself, or even use the language of Marxism:

He will "redistribute the wealth."

There is no bottom.

This form of theft is at the heart of the socialistic ideology: successful people owe those who are not successful and if they disagree, we will coerce them. This is what we are seeing today in America, and it is based upon a lie.

The successful did not get their by hard work and sacrifice, they had to steal.

The unsuccessful did not get that way by government disincentive. It was a vast conspiracy to hold them down.

These absurdities are lies in which politicians exploit and use to create violence. This is why politicians want to control the internet.

Truth stands upon its own strength. The "need to persuade" from a liar is incessant.

If you do not believe him, it will continue to pester.

If you still do not believe him, the very weakness of a lie will force the only method of acceptance possible:

Coercion.

In any circumstance, none of us knows how low a liar will go.

Even those who may have once been honest, who will not yield from their lies, will only become more and more desensitized due to their lies.

Some comment with, "they actually believe their own lies."

No, they do not. If they did, it would not show up as deception in language and in their behavior:

If they did, they would have no need to attempt to coerce through pressure, through law suits, or through violence.

The McCanns show a willingness to destroy others careers and lives through threatened suits.

Yet, would winning a suit bring back Madeleine?

If she was their cause, they would not care who did or did not believe them.

They spent their energy attacking others and their focus upon their own selves.

Why?

Because Madeleine was never "missing."

They have lied by omission but the same pattern of desensitization is active.

This is evident from their own words, and has been consistently remained the same, for a decade.

Expect the increase in offensive attacks to continue. It is their life. Searching for Madeleine was not in their language, nor in their labors.

For them, maintaining a lie has become an industry.