The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!


Hobs: A well respected forum member

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

20180428

Post 

Hobs: A well respected forum member




Tania 'Hobs' Cadogan has been following the case of Madeleine McCann since time immemorial. Not only from the perspective of an empathetic observer but as a professional statement analyst.

Her persona is well respected here on CMoMM as it is within her own profession, you may not agree with the principle of statement analysis but nonetheless, the observations of Hobs are highly esteemed and valued here and beyond. There is always room for argument in any science or profession - how else can we learn and grow as human beings?

Was Einstein always right? Was Sigmund Freud always right - no, forget that one.

Back to Hobs....

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 10440
Reputation : 4096
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Share this post on: diggdeliciousredditstumbleuponslashdotyahoogooglelive

Hobs: A well respected forum member :: Comments

avatar

Post on 28.04.18 1:57 by Verdi

Saturday, May 30, 2015

What I Believe May Have Happened To Madeleine McCann

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

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

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

This then tells me Maddie died sometime earlier in the week.
Looking at the statements and how much is written concerning each day of the trip, I and others have noticed there seems to be a lot missing from one day of the week (it might be the Mon or Tues, i can't recall off the top of my head)

This is noted in all the statements from the group.
We go from quite detailed to obfuscation and i can't remembers, which makes the day sensitive and thus requiring further information as to why the sensitivity.
If she died much earlier in the week as is probable, then there is plenty of time for the clean up, laundering and hiding of the body.

Think about this for a moment.

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

They would not have announced it earlier since they needed time for the cleanup, sorting out time lines and concealing Maddie's body.

Also, since this is the mccanns and chums, why spoil a good vacation by calling out the faked abduction any earlier?
Thus Thursday was the only day they could have used.
They knew they would have to stay in Portugal, the interviews by the PJ, the alleged searching plus the free accommodation for desperate ' innocent' parents and it also meant they could fly family and friends out for a freebie as well under the guise of helping and support.

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

The two are mutually exclusive.

Innocent parents, had there been an accident, would have called 911 even, if she was long dead.
The parents are in denial and will always hope for a miracle.

Even though they are doctors, they would have still called 911 simply because a hospital has the equipment and staff, something the parents and chums didn't have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lori Campbell In Praia Da Luz

09/09/2007
Daily Mirror Interview.
Quote:


"They want me to lie - I'm being framed.


"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming US

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/what-i-believe-may-have-happened-to.html

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 08.05.18 22:06 by Verdi

Monday, May 7, 2018

Darn It, Nailed Again. If It Wasn't For That Pesky Sandra Felgueiras...



Oh dear kate, yet another foot in mouth moment.
This one brought to us courtesy of the lovely Sandra Felgueiras.

It is called leakage and she does say "and that is when i noticed Madeleine was there"
More leakage from you kate that Maddie is dead and you and gerry both know it.

This means that you are guilty at least of child neglect resulting in harm, possibly culpable homicide or the Portuguese equivalent.

Concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.

Then there is the financial side, fraud, obtaining money and services by deception, false representation.
Here in the UK, there is the fraudulent fund, obtaining money and services by deception, perjury (remember the Leveson Inquiry) which carries a life sentence remember, then the money obtained illegally from the media organizations whom you sued when they said you hadn't been cleared by the PJ and which later proved to be correct.

Then there is clarrie, bless him, who told us to send money in envelopes address to kate and gerry and it will get there.
I wonder how many sent cash and how much of that was actually placed in the account and declared?
I wonder if clarrie regrets that little statement.?
Perhaps he will join you in the dock since he too has leaked that Maddie is dead and he knows it whilst merrily dropping you both in it.
I would have paid to hear that chat.

Then there may well be other countries where you sought donations such as America and who do not take wire fraud lightly.

Then possibly everyone who donated via PayPal and now wants their money back because you lied and did not use the money for searching.
Then those who bought the book because they thought you were innocent or were led to believe so, then the publishers wanting there money back because you lied (more so when you are found guilty of involvement)
Then the tapas chums wanting their 'donations' back to pay their own legal fees and return of the money to the media along with costs.
Oh, and i nearly forgot, lumbering Sean and Amelie with legals fees and costs for losing your claim against Dr. Gonçalo Amaral repeatedly.
If you haven't, it will be so much fun when you finally tell them that mommy and daddy sued the now ex lead detective tasked with finding their sibling and lost, won, lost again several times and, because you were/are avaricious little buggers, added them to the suit and lumbered them with thousands of pounds in debt.
University fees will have nothing on that bill.
That you were so avaricious that you even tried to add their sister to the suit but were not allowed to.
I wonder if it was because Maddie was made a ward of court by kate and gerry?
Along those lines, i wonder if the twins are or were wards of court giving the self claimed child neglect?
That information would not be made public
Hmmm something to ponder on.

Still if you are going to commit crime then go big and make the jail time (and subsequent bankruptcy at least worth it)

That £500,000 you have ring fenced, legally the only purposes for doing so are to be used either for work tools or property and since you aren't running a business (using tools) then it looks like it relates to property will be gone, your house will be repossessed and sold, you will both be jobless and unemployable in pretty much any job in the UK and limited elsewhere in the world due to you not being granted permission to visit let alone emigrate.
That's the problem with having a criminal record, especially one so serious.

You will lose custody of the twins probably to a family member although given their enthusiasm for taking in Maddie, that may not be possible or simply because of your involvement in the homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report along with all the other charges not desirable and only when the twins reach 18 and become adults they can make the choice to visit you in jail or not, also depending which country jail you are ensconced in at that time.

We know the truth of the lie, you know that we do and trust me, you will blink first and throw one another or one of your chums under the bus to try and escape justice.

I suspect the twins know the truth or are pretty damn sure.
They aren't stupid, they will have heard your rows and that infamous temper of yours kate.

They will have seen and heard the news on TV and radio, read the papers either in print or online, they will have seen all the groups in FB and the various bloggers, analysts, experts in criminology, statement analysis, body language and profiling. The posts and comments from serving and retired police officers all revealing the truth, your dirty little secret.

You may have succeeded to some degree in policing the internet and their access to information concerning Maddie and the vacation and the subsequent years.
Kids being kids though, they will have used their friends cell phones, school computers, home computers and their own cellphones to google themselves as everyone does and then their missing sister.

I wonder, kate and gerry, what questions have the twins asked?
I know they have, it would be abnormal if they didn't.
What lies did you tell them?
Did they believe you?
Do you think they believed you should really be the question?
What happens when you slip up and leak a bit of incriminating information, something you do so frequently?

Do you think they heard it?

Do you think they realized the importance of it?

Can you really trust them to support you?

Can you really trust them not to talk to a teacher, a friend, another parent or worse, the police?

When they talk about Maddie, what do you feel inside?

Do you feel safe and secure, or is there a frisson of fear that maybe the ones you have to fear are not your tapas 7 chums or the UK police (who are really only able to nail you for the fund) but your surviving children Sean and Amelie?

What if they tell you they want to talk to a nice policeman?
What if they tell you the have talked to a very nice policeman?

What if they tell you the remember that week in Portugal and don't remember seeing Maddie anytime after say Sunday/Monday or Tuesday and before that Thursday night when Maddie was allegedly abducted?

You may have controlled them now but once they reach 18, they are adults and there is nothing you can do to control them in further.

The twins will have talked to each other about Maddie, things you don't know about, it is simply between them, the same as siblings will have discussions about thing behind the parents back.

How long can you hold the tide back ?

Unsolved homicide by whomever cases are never closed. they get shelved and reexamined every so often.
This is why we hear of homicide cases being solved decades down the line, forensics improve almost yearly and what was undetectable or damage back then is now easily examined.
A microscopic drop of blood on a jacket caught two of the killers of Stephen Lawrence

You almost cleaned up the crime scene but you could never remove every single drop of blood or body fluid.

The walls, the floor tiles, the hire car, your trousers kate, the child's red t shirt, cuddlecat, the curtains, the shelves.
Your family came up with an almost plausible excuse for the cadaverine on those black and white checked trousers of yours kate, i don't recall any plausible reason explaining the presence on the child's t shirt or cuddle cat though.

Six deaths?
So specific.

Not bad going for a p/t locum GP
Shades perhaps of harold shipman?

I wonder, as i do, what your ex employer would have to say in response to said claim?
I wonder, is this something you told your parents or something they thought up themselves?
I suspect the former.

Perhaps those excuses are still being thought out or, more likely, you have no excuse , nor do your family so instead you are staying silent and hoping we will forget about it.

Sorry darlings, no can do on that.

I would love to hear how you could explain those away, will it involve dragons perchance?

Evidence that shouldn't be there and is and, more important and showing evidence of a clean up, evidence that isn't there and should be.
Not cleaned up enough can be as incriminating as cleaned up too much.

A crime once done cannot be undone especially when a death is involved.
Words said cannot be unsaid

The voice in your head is getting louder.
All those people who see you, do you wonder what they are thinking?
Do you wonder what is being said behind your back?
We are not afraid to said it to your face.
I am not afraid to say it to your face.

I would love to have a chat, to hear what you have to say, to watch you squirm.

Have a nice day kate and gerry, you may not have many left.

https://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 12.05.18 1:26 by Verdi

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

About Maddie - The Bewk And The Website

The mccanns, kate in particular, have a huge problem with the bewk.

The bewk specifically pins her to a particular story and timeline.

It was written using the process of free editing and as such has to be taken as kate speaking the truth.

It is the be all and end all of her version of events prior to,during the vacation and in the days, months and years subsequently.

As we all know, kate refused to answer 48 questions asked of her by the PJ at the behest of her attorney and answered the 49th

Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks

In actuality, she refused to answer 59 questions since several of them were compound questions (a big no no in statement analysis)

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?The one question she did answer:

49. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks".

Many of the questions were innocuous and bore little or no relation to the actual alleged abduction.

She was advised by her attorney not to answer the questions in case she incriminated herself.

If she was not involved in the disappearance of her daughter, there could be nothing to incriminate her.

Why then did she write a bewk?

Was she advised not to do so since it would pin her down to a story and timeline?
Did she go ahead and ignore the advice of her attorneys anyway, in pursuit of megabucks?

She refused to answer questions due to possible incrimination and then promptly answers some if not most of them in her bewk.

Was she advised (and she should have been) that by doing so she would be writing exhibit 1?

In a trial how would she resolve the obvious contradictions?
You told the officers you did this and that, yet in your book you did this and that instead, how do you explain the difference?

She either lied in the bewk or she lied to the officers.

In this case, she probably lied in and to both and what really happened to Maddie prior to, during and after the alleged abduction is something bearing no relation to any of her previous versions of events

The bewk is also pretty much all about kate and how hard done by she is.

This would explain why Maddie's name is all in lower case and kate's name is all in capitals.

It shows priority, who is more important to the author.
In this case it is kate mccann who is most important

This is supported by their previous language and statements including the initial About Madeleine page on their website

The original about Maddie section of the find Madeleine website, courtesy of The McCann Files


What the original Find Madeleine site told us about Madeleine McCann

Madeleine McCann was born 4 years ago.
She has one brother Sean and a sister Amelie.
She lives with her family in Rothley, Leicestershire.

Her father comes from Glasgow and has 3 sisters, Patricia, Jacqueline and Phil,and a brother John.
Madeleine's Grandmother, Eileen lives in Glasgow.
Her other grandparents, Sue and Brian live in Liverpool.

Both sides of the family are very close and all are working in different ways to try and help in the search for Madeleine.

Phil, who resides in Ullapool and is a teacher, has asked that the heartfelt thanks of the whole family be passed to everyone who has helped in the search so far. She said: "There have been so many messages of support and prayers from people all over the world.
We (the family) are overwhelmed with your assistance.
The media people have been wonderful and so helpful in making everyone aware of our plight.
Madeleine's family are so grateful to you all.
Please keep Madeleine in your thoughts and prayers.
We pray that she will be returned to us safe and well."

24 words out of 181 words, a mere 13.25%
3 sentences out of 14, a mere 21%

The stark lack of information about Maddie in the section meant to be about Maddie, her likes, dislikes, her character, her relationships to others, all the expected stuff to make her a real little girl, to humanise her, was missing.
It was clearly of no importance to gerry and kate.

This was picked up by those of us who doubted the abduction story from the get go and who then commented on the extreme distancing language between the parents and their missing daughter on various media forums and blogs

This was unexpected.

The mccanns or, more likely their attorneys, advisers and PR people, saw the comments pointing out the distancing language and "advised" them to change it, to make them look better, more caring regarding their daughter in the public arena.

On 01/02/08 the web page was edited.

Madeleine was born in May 2003 – a long-awaited and very much longed for little girl.
She lives in the village of Rothley in Leicester, with her mummy and daddy and little brother and sister, Sean and Amelie.
Madeleine is a very happy little girl with an outgoing personality.
She has always been a very popular little person, appealing to both children and adults alike with her funny and engaging chatter.
She has many friends who obviously miss her dearly.
Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!
Like most girls her age, she likes dolls and dresses (and anything pink and sparkly) but with a definite taste for action-adventure too!
She has an incredible amount of energy and even as a little baby, didn’t seem to need much rest.
She enjoys running and swimming and is an Everton fan like her mum and granddad.
Madeleine has always been a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to Sean and Amelie.
It was certainly not the quietest house on the planet with lots of giggling, singing and the inevitable odd bit of mischief!
For Sean and Amelie, there is without doubt, a very important person missing in their life.
Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching little person and will never fail we’re sure, to bring joy into the life of anyone she may encounter.

Maddie now warranted 228 words and 13 sentences.
A massive improvement towards making her a real little girl.
She has become humanized.
She has come alive.

Even then, there is still distancing language.

"She has always been a very popular little person"
Note the qualifier word very a word which when removed doesn't change the intent of the sentence.
Qualifier words weaken the statement.
It can also indicate some sensitivity.
Was Maddie's popularity an issue with kate?
Was kate jealous of the attention paid to Maddie?
Did Maddie prefer gerry to her or even another family member or friend?
Did kate even resent Maddie in some way?

PERSON?
This is concerning as it is distances her from Maddie.
She isn't a little girl, she isn't Madeleine, she isn't a big sister, she isn't even our daughter!
She is referred to as a person, someone denied identity or a gender.
Someone with no link to the family, someone who is apart from the family, someone who doesn't belong.

"She has many friends who OBVIOUSLY miss her dearly."
OBVIOUSLY requires that the listener/reader should accept without question that which is being said.
Why did they feel the need to tell us that Maddie was missed?
Why was it important that they felt the need to tell us, the public, Maddie was missed?
Why wouldn't she be?
Was this written as a reaction to public grumbling about the lack of emotion, the lack of even caring, shown by the mccanns and chums in relation to missing Maddie?
Why is it only friends that miss her?
Do her family not miss her?
Does her extended family not miss her?
If this is the case then it shows how dysfunctional the whole family were and are.
There are also qualifier words, words that when removes do not change the intent of the sentence.
Here we have the words obviously and dearly.
A strong sentence would be Madeleine is missed by everyone/all of us
They felt the need to tell us how much Maddie is missed making it sensitive.
Maddie being missing should be something taken as fact.
It would be unexpected for Maddie to not be missed.
It would be concerning if Maddie was not missed.
This then makes her being missing a sensitive issue.

Why?

"Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!"
Does this imply or suggest Maddie was parentified?
She was so mature, so grown up she was given certain grown up responsibilities?
Is this why they claimed the children were left alone in an unlocked apartment?
Maddie was the babysitter, the responsible adult looking after her younger siblings.
Does this explain why kate and gerry allegedly left the 3 children alone in a locked apartment safe in the knowledge that if anything happened Maddie would save the day by rescuing her siblings if there was a fire?
If anything happened such as the twins waking up and crying, there being a fire or something else, Maddie was trusted to come and find her parents?
Maddie was felt older than she was in reality?
Maddie was treated as someone older than her actual age?
Was she regarded as a friend, a buddy, someone to confide in rather than as the toddler that she was?
Was it a case of the parents proudly telling the world how grown up Maddie was, reading teenager books such as Harry Potter and watching programmes not really designed with toddlers in mind such as Doctor Who, how she would talk to anyone, when perhaps she had not learned the self protective 'stranger danger' behavior that makes young children instinctively cuddle into their parent/hide behind their legs when seeing someone new until they are told it is OK?
Young children have natural stranger anxiety.
Children of Neglect often have none because they have learned to get attention from wherever and whoever will offer it.

Like most girls her age, she likes dolls and dresses (and anything pink and sparkly) but with a definite taste for action-adventure too!
What did this taste for action-adventure include?
They tell us she likes dolls and dresses like most other girls, yet do not tell us what her taste of action-adventure includes.
Could this perhaps involve climbing on things?
Jumping off things?
Running up and down stairs?
Is this a deliberate omission?
is there sensitivity related to her sense of action-adventure perhaps?

She has an incredible amount of energy and even as a little baby, didn’t seem to need much rest.
Is this related to kate needing so much help with the children?
Was this perhaps related to a medical issue?
We know Maddie had a coloboma, kate and gerry told us this and made a big deal about it in their appeals They then later back tracked and claimed it was only a fleck and they hadn't made a big deal of it ( I must have imagined all the distinctive LOOK poster and banners)
Was Maddie hyperactive?
Did Maddie have other issues such as ADD/ADHD etc
Did kate have medical issues?(it would perhaps explain the medical records being sealed)
This could explain the distancing language between kate and gerry towards Maddie
Maddie was seen as a burden, a problem, hard work.
This would also explain why after Maddie vanished, kate bloomed and looked as if a weight had been taken of her shoulders.
The problem that was causing kate so much stress and possibly was causing problems in the marriage had gone.
Kate could now cope.
Is this also perhaps subtle demeaning of Maddie?
If she had been quieter, if she had been calmer, if she had been less energetic, if she had been less demanding of attention, if perhaps she had been more like her siblings then she may still be alive?

"Madeleine has always been a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to Sean and Amelie. "
HAS not IS?
Is she no longer a wonderfully loving and caring big sister?
How can she be a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to her siblings when they haven't seen her since may 3rd 2007?
Even though she is missing and allegedly alive as per the mccanns story, would she still love and care about her siblings?
Could she even remember them today if she was still alive?
This is in contradiction to her book where she refers to breast feeding one twin whilst leaving the other vulnerable to attack from a big sister.

Page 38
"I breastfed Sean and Amelie, as I had Madeleine, so there were spells when I wished I had a few extra arms, usually mid to late afternoon when I was alone with the children and Madeleine would be getting tired. I would have to feed the twins one at a time when I was on my own, which meant that as I was feeding the first, the other one would not only be getting hungry and grumpy but would also be vulnerable to attack from A big sister needing attention"
Not exactly the perfect happy, loving family image they like to portray.
I also notice that she refers to A BIG SISTER with emphasis on the article use A
Why use the article A which would suggest more than one big sister rather than the expected THEIR big sister?
Was Maddie also a twin?
Was there another big sister?
What is clear from her book is that kate had issues dealing with one baby let alone three.

Page 30Poor Gerry would arrive home from work and would hardly have a foot over the threshold before he was handed a roaring bundle while I went upstairs for a loo break, a scream-free moment and a chance to regain the use of my arms. There were occasions where all three of us were cuddled in the kitchen, crying - Madeleine with her colic and Gerry and I at the futility of our attempts to take her pain away.
.
Does this in part explain the distancing language, especially from kate?
No Maddie meant she had more control of her life, she could cope better with just the twins.
No Maddie meant no tantrums, no attention seeking, no screaming, all the normal behavior of a 3 year old.
It would also explain in part why kate had so much help, not only with family members flying down when they had the time and co opting a nursery worker to help with tea, baths and bed time?
No help meant a kate melt down.
Would this explain why Maddie isn't missed by the family and the sensitivity in the language relating to Maddie being missed by friends?

"For Sean and Amelie, there is without doubt, a very important person missing in their life."

Again Maddie is referred to as a PERSON rather than a big sister/sister to Sean and Amelie.
Heck even little girl would give her at least some form of identity, some relationship to her siblings.

Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching little PERSON.
What is with them referring to her repeatedly as a person?
Why the continual distancing of Maddie from her family?
Was Maddie not considered to be a part of the mccann family?
What made Maddie different to her siblings?
Is it hidden in the sealed medical records?"
Madeleine is a warm, life enriching little girl" would be the expected.
Heck even ."Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching child" would at least show some kind of family link, a relationship, a sense of belonging to the family unit.

Without doubt
To take for granted, to not be questioned, to be accepted as fact, the truth.
Even though they are supposed to be writing about their missing daughter, a much loved member of the family, her character, her love of life, who she is and what she means to others, they cannot bring themselves to admit her to their family, instead she is pushed to one side, stripped of identity and gender.
What is their definition of very important?
Very important to whom?
What is it about Maddie that would make her very important?
"and will never fail we’re sure, to bring joy into the life of anyone she MAY encounter."
Spot the dropped pronoun in relation to Maddie bringing joy into the life of anyone she may encounter.
Who will never fail to bring joy...?
MAY ENCOUNTER rather than the expected SHE ENCOUNTERS
Why use the word ENCOUNTER rather than the more expected and often used word MEET.
ENCOUNTER is something unexpected, a casual or unexpected meeting or even something faced which is hostile or difficult.
ENCOUNTER is passive, it happens by chance with no deliberate intent.
I Met a bear whilst walking in the woods
MEET could indicate some pre-planning, some forethought something perhaps expected
I arranged to meet my friend outside the theater.
MAY means expressing a possibility.
I may get an ice cream, i may get something else
Here it allows for the possibility is that she will encounter someone, it also allows for the possibility she won't encounter anyone.
Is there only a possibility of Maddie encountering someone?
What could prevent Maddie from encountering anyone?
If she were alive and not seriously harmed as claimed by the mccanns then surely it is a probability if not a certainty that she will encounter people at some time even if it is only her abductor. and /or people he exposes her to.
However a dead Maddie isn't going to encounter anyone until her remains are found, if this is even still possible.
Even then it will be the finder encountering Maddie's remains rather than Maddie encountering the finder
Do they allow for the possibility that Maddie would be facing something hostile or difficult?
Yes, if what they tell us is true, in that Maddie is alive and not seriously harmed, despite being abducted by a paedophile.

Who will Maddie be bringing joy into the life of?
Will Maddie be bringing joy into the life of her alleged abductor?
Will Maddie be bringing joy into the lives of her abusers perhaps?

This is almost as crass as kate telling the world that:

"I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."

What planet does kate live on that she tells the world that Maddie will bring joy to the very people who allegedly abducted her or who have her currently!!

In her bewk, Kate tells us of her fears regarding Maddie:

"I was always terrified that Madeleine would hurt herself.
I always erred on the side of caution.
I remember once when she was about 4 weeks old refusing to make a car journey with her because the baby seat appeared to be wobbling very, very slightly.
I know Gerry felt i was a bit over the top sometimes."

Then further on she tells us:
In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach.
To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us.
We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain.
A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces.

The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them.
The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn.
Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.

How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner?
I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly.

She portrays herself as the concerned and caring mother, fearing to leave her children and travel a few yards to help carry ice creams back.
She even admits to wondering why she was so concerned about leaving her three children who would be in view and yet feel comfortable leaving them alone in an unlocked apartment:"I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction.

She can't even remotely attempt to explain or justify (her behavior or attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.
If she couldn't convince herself, how could she hope to convince the police and the public?
She cannot explain something that did not happen.

The children were never left home alone as claimed.

The story as told by the mccanns and chums did not happen.

There was one adult missing from the table each night allegedly sick or looking after a sick child.
Doctors,. like any medical staff, are hyper vigilant when it comes to childcare.
They know exactly what can happen in a fraction of a second, even if the parent is right next to the child.
They simply would not leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment.
More so that a party of 4 families plus one extra adult would all decide it was OK to leave their children home alone.
Also, I am sure Diane Webster would have something to say about their alleged child care arrangement. just as any concerned mother would.
They may have been able to fob her off once maybe twice but i suspect she would have still fussed or even offered her services if all the children were in one apartment.
She would not be happy that so many toddlers and infants were being left alone and unsupervised.

For there to have been time and opportunity for an abduction to occur, they all had to claim they neglected their children, for, if there was no neglect and the children were all being babysat by the missing adult, there could have been no abduction.

No abductions means darn awkward questions regarding what happened to Maddie and where she currently is?

Instead she resorts to speaking about subconscious thoughts, telling us that leaving three wide awake and active toddlers in broad daylight to go just a few yards away was riskier than leaving three 'sleeping' toddlers in an unlocked apartment in a strange country and in the dark with 'regular checks' who were an over 100 yards walk away and some 50 yards or so as the crow flies from the tapas bar to the back of their apartment.
An apartment, the back of which was partially visible from the tapas bar in daylight and heavily obscured at night due to the lighting of the bar reflecting off the windows off the bar windows.
The bedroom where the three children were allegedly supposed to be sleeping was at the front of the apartment,and thus not visible to those eating and drinking in the bar.

If all else fails blame the subconsciousness.
Could this be a part of any future defense?

No matter how she tries to explain things away and reconcile timings, who checked what and where.
It will not work.
Clearing up one issue results in other issues being revealed.

For the abduction to have occurred as claimed, they would have to come up with a story, a scenario that on initial inspection would seem plausible, believable.
They would worry about details later hopefully the police and public would buy their story and then after x amount of time they would be just another statistic.

Something changed, something unplanned which derailed any original planning they had.

MONEY.

A lot of money, hundreds of thousands of pounds going into the millions.

Greed and the fame (infamy) weaved its magic and now they are trapped.
Posted by tania cadogan at 3/08/2016 08:01:00 PM

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 13.05.18 0:43 by Verdi

Sunday, December 22, 2013

The Mccanns' Annual Christmas Message, Wherefore Art Thou?


Once again another year has passed and we await expectantly the mccann's annual Christmas message to the world.

Yet, we have heard nothing, not a whisper, not even the slow quiet hiss of a leak from a family friend or trusted supporter.

The shop is still shuttered up on their page, awaiting forlornly something that was promised to be delivered  within hours and still hasn't arrived.

The donation button which had been reinforced specially to handle the torrent of donations they plead for every year, telling us how low the fund is and how they can only search for another couple of months, despite the fact they never searched in the first place and, apparently neither did their private investigators.

Claims that no one was searching for Maddie bit the dust when both Scotland yard and the PJ started or  reopened the investigation thus negating their cry for donations to fund the non existent search.

We haven't even heard of donations for gifts for Maddie , which should she not be found alive be handed on to some nice charity preferably one created by themselves.

Are their supporters still donating money? If so how and more to the point , why? especially after the car crash that was their appearance on Crime Watch.

Are their supporters instead donating gifts to a long dead child?

Are they age appropriate as in Maddie would be 10 or are they still sending toys suitable for a 3yr old?

Will the tags on the prezzies say lots of love the fund/a well wisher/ a supporter etc?

What about all the prezzies that were sent to Maddie over the years?

Are they all still stored somewhere safe and wrapped or, as is more likely, stuffed under the tree for the twins with the original tags removed as applicable after all with all their legal costs the fund must have taken a huge hit, assuming of course it hasn't been frozen.

Since they are living on one salary and they have become accustomed to the life of Riley on two incomes, gerry and the fund will we now see appeals for presents for the twins as mom and pop are piss poor after buying a couple of bottles of good quality NZ white.as opposed to their good quality wristbands?

Will we hear about them leaving their turkey home alone, apart from the twins who were left behind the Christmas tree., only to have their turkey whoosh gobble ( hens cluck turkeys gobble) by an abductor who got into their unlocked (no change there then) house raced to the oven and snatched the gently roasting bird without alerting the twins who were on guard duty, whilst they were out quaffing mulled wine with their friends in the pub only 2 streets away, well within range of hearing the twins shaking their prezzies.

Can we then expect an appeal for the return of the turkey as their stomachs are grieving their loss and them having to make do with a pile of spam kate found in the back of the PC email box marked begging letters (to send)

On boxing day will we see them speaking from a bit of wrapping paper saying they have been advised they were well within the realms of responsible cheffing and many of us have done the same thing.

Will there be descriptions of the turkey abductor, a large jolly man wearing a distinctive red suit and match hat with white trim, a large belt with a distinctive gold belt and black boots. he is expected to be local to the area as he knew the layout of the house and went straight to the oven, smashing his way in and grabbing the innocent bird from it's tray.

He was accompanied by his pets as experts found traces of hoof prints on the roof, some carrots and other veg and a pile of brown something which one of the coppers stood in. there was evidence of drag marks on the roof which could indicate a struggle from the turkey or perhaps , as is more likely his escape vehicle.

The local police have said there is absolutely no evidence of any break in although they did find traces of turkey fat near the chimney, in a wardrobe and on a pair of black and white checked women's trousers.

Sniffer dogs were brought in and initially they alerted to the oven and then led their handlers on a merry chase through the house to a wardrobe in the parents room, the bathroom, and a laundry basket.

The mccanns meanwhile have sought out the most expensive lawyers the fund could find and also contacted various animal welfare charities to support their claim they were being responsible turkey roasters.

Timelines were found to have been written on the inside cover of the new Beano annual which had been unwrapped for the occasion, with checks being made every 30 Min's to check it was basting nicely and hadn't woken up for a glass of sherry or a mince pie.

A total stranger was reported to have peered into the kitchen but hadn't noticed if the turkey was there or not due to the fridge obscuring his view.

Jane tanner reported she had seen a man scurrying across the top of the street carrying a large bulging sack, she didn't see his face but did recall his clothing, she saw he was dressed inappropriately for the night as it was very mild and he looked to be dressed for the arctic, he was wearing a heavy red suit a big hat and black boots.

Gerry who claimed he had just checked on the turkey was talking to a neighbor, she had to walk round them as they took up the whole sidewalk, neither gerry or the neighbor saw her as she walked round them or the man carrying a sack.

Due to lots of use by various family members all of whom had access to and had taken out and brought in the wheelie bin it wasn't fully examined for 25 days.

A turkey cadaver dog and turkey juice dog were brought in and both alerted to the wheelie bin ,and ,when tests were done there were traces of turkey juices at the bottom and along the lid.

When asked why the dogs had alerted to the wheelie bin, kate said no comment and gerry said ask the dogs before going on to explain how unreliable such dogs were citing a case where a husband had allegedly had a turkey 30 years previously and said turkey had not been seen since.
This backfired on gerry when it was pointed out the husband had finally admitted the dogs had been right all along when they had alerted to the oven, a roasting tin, several plates and the trashcan and that he had roasted and then disposed of the bird.

The mccanns have issued a last photo of the bird as it lay trussed and wearing an adorable bacon outfit bought from the local butcher.

A fund has been started to find the turkey and bring it home, those who wish to donate money can do so at any bank or via payupppalorelse, checks can be made out to cash and money in envelopes can be sent to kate and gerry rothley towers and it will get there.

If donating a turkey please make sure it is organic free range Norfolk bronze and 15lbs or larger fresh is preferred but frozen will be acceptable and in this case anyone wanting to donate a large walk in freezer warehouse size would be welcomed.

In the event of their turkey being found all donations will be given to turkey charities including the turkey charity they have just created by chance.

Please do not harm it, please do not scare it, leave it, take it to a safe place such as a 5* restaurant or hotel or any catering organisation.

It can be easily recognised by it's parsons nose.

Merry Christmas from kate gerry the turkey oh and the twins and forgetting, i mean not forgetting Margaret i mean Madeleine.

https://tania-cadogan.blogspot.cz/2013/

Satire at it's finest - fit for Private Eye and/or Punch any day.  Perfect for the weekend.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 23.05.18 1:33 by Verdi

Monday, December 14, 2015

She's Cowering In a Wardrobe Or Something" kate mccann on Oprah

"I had I suppose this temporary thought that perhaps she's cowering in a wardrobe or something"


COWERING?

Oh dear kate you can't help but leak marbles.

Cowering means to hide in fear from something scary or threatening or domineering.

Why did you use the word COWERING rather than the expected HIDING?

We learned that Maddie hid from you in the bushes one night, something that has yet to be explained away.

Why, do you think, would Maddie be COWERING in the wardrobe?
If she was scared of something then, on hearing you come into the bedroom, she would have called out or you would have heard her, perhaps crying and scared.

Instead you use the word COWERING.
COWERING is not something I would expect to hear regarding a child having a bad dream or simply being awake and alone in the apartment (I don't believe they were ever left alone in the apartment)

Now, a child who is terrified of being punished for something would run and COWER in a small space.
A child who is terrified of something that was being done to them or about to be done to them would run and hide, COWERING in a corner of cupboard/wardrobe.

Given that there were massive bruises on your wrists and arms kate, none of which can be explained away by punching the walls, the bruises being in the exact spots that a hand would grab when restraining someones hands or arms.

Your words leak and tell me you and gerry have anger management issues, you are always furious, raging, incandescent in your statement and even your actions (remember you shaking an imaginary Maddie when you spoke about wishing you had questioned her further about the crying?)
Normal parents don't shake their children, you, as a doctor should and would know this, yet, in your actions you leaked the truth.

You complained about how demanding Maddie was, crying non stop and you feared she would attack the twins ( it is extremely rare for a child to attack a younger child, though accidents can and do happen when the older child forgets they are bigger and stronger and knocks the younger child, or doesn't hold their younger sibling properly)

Your use of the word COWERING reveals more than you want the world to think about your family dynamics.

Remember also you spoke of Maddie's FEAR OF PAIN.
You later changed it to FEAR AND PAIN when we pointed out the leakage.

The problem though is, once words are said, they cannot be unsaid, and, once again you leaked more about your family dynamics than you wanted the world to know.

It's simple really.

The truth can be revealed in the slip of one single word out of many, possibly hundreds or thousands.One single word is all it takes.

Kate you have given us multiple examples of one single word that reveals the truth of the lie.
You have given us multiple examples of a couple or three words that tell the truth of the lie.

Remember these?

"Police don't want a MURDER in Portugal"

"and you just want to press a button, and we're ALL GONE, and it's ALL FINISHED, and we're ALL together and GONE"

"it wasn't as bad as the night WE FOUND HER".

"there's no evidence to implicate us in her DEATH"

"I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine was abducted. I would SLOW DOWN TIME. I would get a REALLY GOOD LOOK AROUND and have a REALLY GOOD THINK
And I'd think: WHERE ARE YOU?
WHO ARE YOU?
WHO IS SECRETLY WATCHING MY FAMILY?
Because SOMEONE was WATCHING MY FAMILY very, very carefully.
And TAKING NOTES.

Note the last example.
She doesn't tell us she would not have left the children alone ( they didn't, I will use her own claim)
She doesn't say she would have used the evening creche.
She doesn't say she would have used a babysitter.
She doesn't say we would have eaten dinner in the apartment.
All of which is the expected.Note the qualifier Very, which is used twice making it sensitive to kate and also weakening her statement
Instead she would simply look around and have a good think.

She has to say what she did, as whatever happened to Maddie could and would not have been prevented by turning back time and becoming a responsible parent.

Kate would you care to respond to my question regarding COWERING IN THE WARDROBE?

Perhaps you could get one of your minions to come up with a reasonable explanation, clarrie might do, he though has a habit of dropping you right in it even more than you do so yourselves..

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 23.05.18 7:46 by BlueBag

@Verdi wrote:you may not agree with the principle of statement analysis 
I mostly don't.

It's mostly a pseudo-science where "interpretation", reading what you want to read and hindsight are it's biggest assets.

There is benefit in statement analysis for lies, contradictions, literary "tics", common phrases in other writings.... provable giveaways.

Leave "interpretation" at the door.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 12.06.18 1:08 by Verdi

Monday, October 28, 2013

GERRY MCCANN'S DIARY BLOG, day 102

GERRY MCCANN'S DIARY BLOG, day 102, said "The campaign, as planned, will enter a quieter phase again. We have always envisaged that media attention focussed on Madeleine and us would quieten down and just occasionally we would try to remind people that Madeleine is still missing and that we are still looking."

THE campaign not OUR campaign?
Why the distancing from the campaign to find their missing daughter?
Why not take ownership of the campaign either as a strong my or our to indicate unity, sharing and co-operation.

Why the campaign as planned?
How far ahead is this campaign planned given their daughter was allegedly abducted and could theoretically be found at any moment?
Why will it enter a quiet phase?
Why should it should they even contemplate it entering a quiet phase?
This is 102 days after Maddie's alleged abduction, just over 3 months ( 3 we know is the liar's number -Mark McClish) is this the liar's number sneaking in by the back door?
If anything the campaign should be at full throttle, especially as it is the peak summer vacation season with people travelling the world over and with plenty of Brits travelling around Europe.
This isn't the time to quiet things down, this should be being pushed.

He says a quieter phase AGAIN.

What is meant by again?
When was the campaign quieter, apart from the first few days until the fund was up and running and donations pouring in.
This is a missing 3 yr old little girl, at no point should the campaign be quietening down.
This, then, makes me think, why did they feel the need for things to quieten down?
What was happening around this time that they wanted less media attention, especially given all their pressers, interviews and pleas for donations?

We have always envisaged that media attention focussed on Madeleine and us would quieten down.

It happens, especially over a long period of time, not after 102 days.

Given she was a adorable little 3 yr old allegedly abducted from her bed by a paedophile
Sorry, but the taken to be loved by a childless family story isn't even remotely believable.
In such cases it is a woman, often childless who takes a child to raise as her own.
It is always a newborn sometimes sadly, sometimes, even a preborn, as they have often pretended to be pregnant and claim the newborn as their own which is far more believable than turning up with a nearly 4 yr old and saying "Hi honey i just had a baby, it's a bit bigger than expected".
Even the dimmest of men and family members would notice.
Such women have often suffered miscarriages or problems conceiving and mental issues and desperation cause them to commit an act of abduction.

Since they envisage media attention would die down over time why be so accepting, so passive?

Innocent parents would be shouting from the roof tops, fully co-operating with the police, answering all questions, doing reconstructions, practically camping out at the station for any news or to tell LE if they remember anything no matter how trivial that could find their child.

No.
We have them instead hiring lawyers and spin doctors as a priority.
Why would they need lawyers if they were innocent, unless of course they knew they could face charges, neglect resulting in harm at a minimum and homicide, concealing a corpse and filing a false police report as a maximum, along with the fraud from the fund ( obtaining money by deception)
Innocent parents would refuse to let it quieten down,
Guilty parents do, as it means the public and police eyes are not so focussed upon them.

and just occasionally we would try to remind people that Madeleine is still missing and that we are still looking.

This is quite a telling statement and indicates guilty language and knowledge.
JUST is used to minimise and weaken the statement in this case it is a qualifier word.
A qualifier is a word which when removed doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.
Here we have it next to OCCASIONALLY, a word which means infrequent or seldom and is entirely unexpected given it is in relation to finding a missing toddler.
Would is future conditional
Note also he tells us they would TRY to remind people, not that they would remind people.
Try means to attempt, it doesn't mean to succeed or complete.
They would try to remind people Madeleine is missing and THAT we are still looking.
THIS is close, THAT is distancing, why does he distance themselves from still searching?
How can they still be looking when kate has admitted they never physically searched in the first place?
Look comes across as a passive action, something done in passing ( the jogging and walks on the beach)
Search is an active word, it indicates a determination to find something that is lost.
You look for flowers, you search for a missing child.

Why would they only occassionally try to remind people Madeleine is missing?
Why not make a forceful and determined and prolonged effort to tell people Madeleine is still missing.
Why remind rather than tell?
He doesn't tell us we are looking for her or our daughter, he only tells us we are looking, he doesn't tell us what they are looking for.
If they can't tell us what they are looking for, we can't assume or do it for them.

If you look back over what they have actually done, they have asked/demanded donations to their fund , supposedly to find Madeleine , but, which has in fact been used to pay the mortgage, lawyers fees, expenses and to support the family.
It has been used to pay for dodgy to none existent private eyes, a hugely expensive website, good quality wristbands, t shirts and other memorabilia with little spent on actual physical searching, 13% in the first year out of all their expenditure
They have never searched, they have jumped on sundry charity bandwagons and missing child cases, sued anyone who disagrees with their version of eventsand generally end their financial worries.

Instead of searching they played tennis and went jogging, travelled the world. (would she be hiding under the Pope's cassock?) and generally left it up to us the public and the police to actually get down and dirty searching.

The brain knows the truth and wants to speak it.
Words spoken or written are thought of a microsecond after being thought.
The words used tell me what is at the front of their minds, what they are thinking, what is important to them.

I suspect he wanted the money to keep rolling in whilst avoiding direct media and public attention on what they are actually doing to find their daughter.

There is a lot of distancing between him and kate towards their daughter.

Why would this be the case?

Back to top Go down

Post on 12.06.18 8:24 by Crackfox

What strikes me about this blog entry above is that in each of the sentences Madeleine is the object and not the subject: the subjects being the campaign and the media. This tells me all I need to know - the focus was always the campaign and the media and after a hundred days and shed loads of money it was time to jog on.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 12.06.18 8:57 by BlueBag

We have always envisaged that media attention focussed on Madeleine and us would quieten down and just occasionally we would try to remind people that Madeleine is still missing and that we are still looking.



Isn't it strange.... Gerry is not expecting positive results from the campaign.

You know... like Madeleine being found.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 29.06.18 16:02 by Verdi

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Fraudulent Fund


Official Find Madeleine Campaign  
Thank you to those who understand.
Kate is a big proponent of supporting disadvantaged children.
We have the audience on this page to help others and we will help as we see fit.
Remove yourselves if you do not have the compassion to understand that we want to help all children.
Missing children, poor children and any child we can help to have a better life.

Apparently that support doesn't extend to Maddie, Sean and Amelie who have the disadvantage of  having kate and gerry as parents.
Who seem to think that claiming they left their children home alone every night for a week is not disadvantaging,

Who think sedating their children multiple times is not disadvantaging.

That pretty much dumping them in the creche all day on a FAMILY vacation whilst they got on with their 'me time' is not disadvantaging.
That lying to the twins about the death of their sister at the hands of her parents or tapas 7 member whether by accident or design is not disadvantaging.

That refusing to take part in a police reconstruction either by getting their tapas chums to set impossible demands as they were compelled to.

Knowing no tapas 7 = no reconstruction.

By kate refusing to answer 48 questions despite admitting it would hinder the search.

Despite convincing the twins their sister was abducted and that the boogie man is still out there and might try and get them, and numerous other examples, all of which disadvantage the twins.

Sean and Amelie will spend the rest of their lives tainted by having kate and gerry as their parents.

They will be scarred for life because of the lies they have been told (boy will they get a surprise when the twins are old enough to google their sister and see all the lies mom and dad said and start asking real awkward questions.
Kate and gerry can't control and limit the twins exposure to the internet especially once they are 18 and go to uni etc and, eventually get married and become parents themselves.

I bet, right now, the twins have been googling Maddie, their parents and their own names just like the rest of us do, they will have found the PJ files, the statements etc and seen the deception.

It may be that it is the twins who will talk to LE since adults have a nasty habit of forgetting children can hear when they fight or discuss Maddie etc.
They are like sponges, soaking up information especially information their parents don't want known.
They may also remember things from the vacation especially something so traumatic.

Should the parents think the twins will  talk to LE about what they know, what they heard etc and given kate's threats to murder-suicide, is it possible that they are at risk of 'abduction' or worse?

Once you have killed once, you have crossed the boundary and subsequent deaths are easier, as a desperate last resort. could another fake abduction be staged  gaining them public sympathy and a chit load of money whilst they blame the self same abductor who targeted them again in revenge?

https://tania-cadogan.blogspot.com/2015/08/

Back to top Go down

Post on 29.06.18 18:06 by tara

Promethazine (phenergan) ref Medline Plus:' Promethazine may cause breathing to slow or stop, and may cause death in children. Promethazine should not be given to babies or children who are younger than two years old and should be given WITH CAUTION to children who are two years old or older.'

Phenergan is available in elixir and tablets and suppositories. Perhaps this drug was used. We have no medical records for Madeleine, however, but I do wonder whether there was any misappropriation of sleep aid drugs at the practice or hospital where the McCanns worked. Did any staff notice stock shortages? Just a thought and, of course there are other sleep aids available. Just my opinion.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 29.06.18 21:50 by Verdi

There is no evidence to suggest Madeleine or the twins had been sedated, although it is a known fact that predators drug children to make them more pliable.  Not the issue here, at least not as regards the twins.

To believe the twins were sedated, you have to believe they were left unattended every night - why else would they need to sedate.  I don't believe for a second the group did leave their children alone every night, the rationale just doesn't stack-up, no level headed adult would leave very young vulnerable children under such circumstances - less still where a grandmother is around.

It would have been to the McCanns advantage to prove the twins had been drugged, in order to reinforce the abduction theory.  For this purpose they would of been only too willing to have the twins tested there and then but they didn't do that did they, instead they left it for a few months (so say a source close to the family) when they knew damn well it was too late.

I firmly believe the issue of sedation was introduced by the McCanns themselves to facilitate the phantom abductor and maybe, just maybe, to provide an explanation should Madeleine or her remains be discovered at some future time and subjected to forensic examination - an inevitable scenario.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 30.06.18 6:38 by BlueBag

@Verdi wrote:"It would have been to the McCanns advantage to prove the twins had been drugged, in order to reinforce the abduction theory. 
I have to disagree Verdi.

Type of sedation and time frame would all come into it.

Also, the twins sound like they were zonked out to me.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 30.06.18 7:42 by Jill Havern

PeterMac wrote a chapter on the subject of sedation:

In this study we attempt to answer three questions

1 Were the twins sedated on the night of 3rd May 2007?
2 If so, were they sedated by an intruder ?
3 If so, but not by an intruder, then by whom ?


1 Were the twins sedated on the night of 3rd May 2007?

The question of sedation of the three McCann children is one which has caused problems since the very beginning.

Reported facts.
Around 10 pm 3rd May 2007 Kate McCann entered the apartment in the holiday resort and reported Madeleine missing. The younger twins were still in their travel cots in the same room, and were asleep.

What followed is a matter of public record. The apartment was searched, several times, by many people, the surrounding area was searched by large numbers of police and ex-pats and villagers, and huge amount of activity was directed to discovering Madeleine’s whereabouts. All were in vain.

BUT . . . during all of this commotion -

despite a window and shutters having been open for an hour on a cold night,
despite the door slamming shut,
despite curtains blowing into the room,
despite their mother frantically opening and closing wardrobes and cupboards
despite their mother rushing out screaming for help,
despite the entire Tapas 7 group searching throughout the apartment,
despite Kate and the Tapas group shouting Madeleine’s name outside,
despite Gerry McCann’s closing and opening the shutters multiple times
despite Mrs Webster’s similarly attempting to open the shutters but failing,
despite the Police investigating the scene,
despite Gerry’s “roaring like a lion” and then prostrating himself on the floor,
despite both parents repeating this action and wailing
despite Kate’s checking the twins for vital signs,
despite the twins being lifted from their cots by people not their parents, and
despite their being carried out into the cold night air, and to another apartment. [1.1]

Despite all of this . . . the twins did not wake

Read more here:
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2016/08/chapter-5-sedation.html

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 30.06.18 12:13 by Verdi

@BlueBag wrote:
@Verdi wrote:"It would have been to the McCanns advantage to prove the twins had been drugged, in order to reinforce the abduction theory. 
I have to disagree Verdi.

Type of sedation and time frame would all come into it.

Also, the twins sound like they were zonked out to me.
Too many conflicting stories to make any firm conclusion.  Some of the versions were published by the UK media and others from the McCanns and their gang - both sources equally unreliable.

A couple of GNR officers mentioned sleeping twins in the bedroom on the night of 3rd May but the case coordinator, Gonçalo Amaral, was more than interested why there were two empty cots at the crime scene, stripped of all bedding - including mattresses. According to Kate McCann's autobiographical novel, Gerald was guarding the children's bedroom like Cerberus at the gates of hell, to stop people wandering in and out and disturbing their remaining two children.  One of the friends even confirmed Kate McCann was testing the twins for signs of life - what sort of friend would drop the McCanns in the merde like that if not told so to do?

Shutters up shutters down;  windows open windows closed;  curtains flapping curtains not flapping;  children sort of breathing children not breathing;  people traipsing around the room looking in cupboards and drawers, under beds and behind curtains people not allowed in the room - it's all fabrication.

Another factor worthy of consideration.  Under the traumatic circumstances and all the commotion it created, who in their right mind would leave two such young children in a location amidst the chaos of a missing child and the imminent arrival of the police.  Wouldn't it be instinctive to move the two children to a safe haven, like one of the friends apartments?  Jane Tanner was at a loose end, as was grandmother Dianne Webster - she could easily have looked after the children for a while.

The major question being - why would they drug the twins?  The consensus of opinion (not you BlueBag I hasten to add) is that Madeleine most likely 'disappeared' at the beginning of the week so again on the night of Thursday 3rd May - why would they drug the twins?

It'll take a lot more than the information produced so far to convince me the twins were drugged on the night of 3rd May.  I still believe the scenario was 'created' by the group to add weight to the abduction theory. Remember how the McCanns were so anxious to get the message out there that Madeleine could have been drugged - and the twins!  The McCanns never do anything without reason - aided and abetted by their media monitoring manipulator.

As an aside, I've often wondered why it's always the missus, Kate McCann, that's the centre of attention and not the ol' man.  As far as I see it, they're as bad as each other - could it be the weak unstable character being set-up as the sacrificial lamb, should circumstances require in the future?

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 30.06.18 13:29 by carole

http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20006142
This article gives an overview of all aspects of Doctors prescribing medicines for family and friends.

Back to top Go down

Post on 30.06.18 14:52 by tara

I am not suggesting that the twins were sedated. I think they were so exhausted, as young children often are after a full day on holiday, that they were simply zonked with fatigue. No, I feel that Madeleine, because of her well documented history of poor sleep patterns which generated a reward system in stars, may well have been sedated on Sunday 29th April to ensure her parents had a good night's sleep, and consequently climbed sleepily out of bed to try and find them in the new, strange environment she woke in, ( whilst they were out/asleep, depending on whether we believe they did leave their children alone or not)and fell over the back of the sofa. Whether she was simply disorientated or heard her dad's voice outside the window we cannot know, but I believe she died on Sunday 29th April and I believe she was sedated and that sedation increased the risk of her sustaining the injury which killed her. 
Either way, drugged or not drugged, she probably fell head first off the back of the sofa onto the hard tiled floor which I think is the belief of many of us who seek justice for Madeleine and certainly 'fits' the documented information we have available.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 30.06.18 15:25 by BlueBag

@Verdi wrote:

The major question being - why would they drug the twins?  The consensus of opinion (not you BlueBag I hasten to add) is that Madeleine most likely 'disappeared' at the beginning of the week so again on the night of Thursday 3rd May - why would they drug the twins?
So they didn't wake up crying at an awkward moment and be heard by neighbours during the "abduction" time frame?

By the way, I think it is possible that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week (probably before Tuesday) that necessitated Kate sleeping in the same room as her to keep an eye on her.

And it went downhill from there.

Then there was some reason that a post-mortem was to be avoided.

I don't know when she actually physically disappeared from 5A.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 30.06.18 15:29 by BlueBag

Actually, it doesn't matter what my opinion is about the scenario - it's just speculation.

What I do know is that there are a lot of questions that need answering.

Like "who was the dead body in 5A?".

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 30.06.18 15:35 by Verdi

@tara wrote:
Either way, drugged or not drugged, she probably fell head first off the back of the sofa onto the hard tiled floor which I think is the belief of many of us who seek justice for Madeleine and certainly 'fits' the documented information we have available.

The only acceptable available information is the dog alerts and that wasn't corroborated by forensic analysis. Probably is speculative, speculation is nothing more than guesswork so counts for nothing, it certainly doesn't allow for drawing a constructive conclusion about a serious crime involving the disappearance of a three year old child. Your thoughts might well be shared by others who have followed this case, not me however, for the simple reason there is no concrete or circumstantial evidence to strengthen the argument.

Sadly children are vulnerable to accidents be it it minor or fatal, there is no reason to lie about it - first action would be to rush the patient to hospital. If the patient was drugged, it could be easily explained by the child raiding the medicine bag or whatever. If the child had been neglected i.e. left alone without adult supervision, easy enough to explain - she was in the next room when the accident occured, they'd put her to bed and didin't hear anything.

What do we have as an alternative? An elaborate ill-planned abduction from bed scenario; an unconvincing story of nightime childcare arrangements; evasive and contradictory accounts of the week in general; emphasis on the nightly Tapas dining arrangement - quickly supported and covered by the UK establishment - all for the sake of a tragic accident that could be so simply explained by a few lies? I don't think so!

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 30.06.18 22:11 by Hobs

I suspect the twins were sedated and that all the children were being babysat by the missing adult from the group.
No adult wants to be babysitting  whole raft of other peoples children who if they wake will wake up everyone and spoil an otherwise perfect evening.
it would also make it easy to carry out the charade of the checks and alleged abduction.
What they would not and did not need was the risk of a child waking up wondering where mom and dad are, screaming the place down and drawing attention to themselves and the babysitting adult especially the night of the alleged abduction.
They also did not want to run the risk and an awake child opening mouth and dropping the adults in it by remembering they were with aunty/uncle/mom/dad when they should have been home alone.
Kids are well known to open mouth and drop their parents in it.
it would be hard to claim the children were home alone and regularly being checked on if one says they were with  their friends and whichever adult.
The police would be really interested and wondering why said child was saying one thing and the adults something else.
Who would benefit from lying?

Sedated children allow for undisturbed babysitting, silent movement from a to b and no witnesses.
The adults couldn't get their stories straight even with sedated children, goodness knows what car crash would have ensued had the children been awake and remembering what was going on.

They only admitted the possibility of sedation when it could no longer be detected in their blood and after a haircut and when it became clear the  behavior of the twins was unexpected and concerning.
The mccanns only admit something when they are painted into a corner and have no other option.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 01.07.18 7:14 by BlueBag

@Verdi wrote:The only acceptable available information is the dog alerts and that wasn't corroborated by forensic analysis.
Arguably it was.

Back to top Go down

avatar

Post on 08.07.18 0:11 by Verdi


Tuesday, March 8, 2016

About Maddie - The Bewk And The Website


The mccanns, kate in particular, have a huge problem with the bewk.

The bewk specifically pins her to a particular story and timeline.

It was written using the process of free editing and as such has to be taken as kate speaking the truth.

It is the be all and end all of her version of events prior to,during the vacation and in the days, months and years subsequently.

As we all know, kate refused to answer 48 questions asked of her by the PJ at the behest of her attorney and answered the 49th

Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks

In actuality, she refused to answer 59 questions since several of them were compound questions (a big no no in statement analysis)

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?The one question she did answer:

49. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks".

Many of the questions were innocuous and bore little or no relation to the actual alleged abduction.

She was advised by her attorney not to answer the questions in case she incriminated herself.

If she was not involved in the disappearance of her daughter, there could be nothing to incriminate her.

Why then did she write a bewk?

Was she advised not to do so since it would pin her down to a story and timeline?
Did she go ahead and ignore the advice of her attorneys anyway, in pursuit of megabucks?

She refused to answer questions due to possible incrimination and then promptly answers some if not most of them in her bewk.

Was she advised (and she should have been) that by doing so she would be writing exhibit 1?

In a trial how would she resolve the obvious contradictions?
You told the officers you did this and that, yet in your book you did this and that instead, how do you explain the difference?

She either lied in the bewk or she lied to the officers.

In this case, she probably lied in and to both and what really happened to Maddie prior to, during and after the alleged abduction is something bearing no relation to any of her previous versions of events

The bewk is also pretty much all about kate and how hard done by she is.

This would explain why Maddie's name is all in lower case and kate's name is all in capitals.

It shows priority, who is more important to the author.
In this case it is kate mccann who is most important

This is supported by their previous language and statements including the initial About Madeleine page on their website

The original about Maddie section of the find Madeleine website, courtesy of The McCann Files


What the original Find Madeleine site told us about Madeleine McCann

Madeleine McCann was born 4 years ago.
She has one brother Sean and a sister Amelie.
She lives with her family in Rothley, Leicestershire.

Her father comes from Glasgow and has 3 sisters, Patricia, Jacqueline and Phil,and a brother John.
Madeleine's Grandmother, Eileen lives in Glasgow.
Her other grandparents, Sue and Brian live in Liverpool.

Both sides of the family are very close and all are working in different ways to try and help in the search for Madeleine.

Phil, who resides in Ullapool and is a teacher, has asked that the heartfelt thanks of the whole family be passed to everyone who has helped in the search so far. She said: "There have been so many messages of support and prayers from people all over the world.
We (the family) are overwhelmed with your assistance.
The media people have been wonderful and so helpful in making everyone aware of our plight.
Madeleine's family are so grateful to you all.
Please keep Madeleine in your thoughts and prayers.
We pray that she will be returned to us safe and well."

24 words out of 181 words, a mere 13.25%
3 sentences out of 14, a mere 21%

The stark lack of information about Maddie in the section meant to be about Maddie, her likes, dislikes, her character, her relationships to others, all the expected stuff to make her a real little girl, to humanise her, was missing.
It was clearly of no importance to gerry and kate.

This was picked up by those of us who doubted the abduction story from the get go and who then commented on the extreme distancing language between the parents and their missing daughter on various media forums and blogs

This was unexpected.

The mccanns or, more likely their attorneys, advisers and PR people, saw the comments pointing out the distancing language and "advised" them to change it, to make them look better, more caring regarding their daughter in the public arena.

On 01/02/08 the web page was edited.

Madeleine was born in May 2003 – a long-awaited and very much longed for little girl.
She lives in the village of Rothley in Leicester, with her mummy and daddy and little brother and sister, Sean and Amelie.
Madeleine is a very happy little girl with an outgoing personality.
She has always been a very popular little person, appealing to both children and adults alike with her funny and engaging chatter.
She has many friends who obviously miss her dearly.
Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!
Like most girls her age, she likes dolls and dresses (and anything pink and sparkly) but with a definite taste for action-adventure too!
She has an incredible amount of energy and even as a little baby, didn’t seem to need much rest.
She enjoys running and swimming and is an Everton fan like her mum and granddad.
Madeleine has always been a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to Sean and Amelie.
It was certainly not the quietest house on the planet with lots of giggling, singing and the inevitable odd bit of mischief!
For Sean and Amelie, there is without doubt, a very important person missing in their life.
Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching little person and will never fail we’re sure, to bring joy into the life of anyone she may encounter.

Maddie now warranted 228 words and 13 sentences.
A massive improvement towards making her a real little girl.
She has become humanized.
She has come alive.

Even then, there is still distancing language.

"She has always been a very popular little person"
Note the qualifier word very a word which when removed doesn't change the intent of the sentence.
Qualifier words weaken the statement.
It can also indicate some sensitivity.
Was Maddie's popularity an issue with kate?
Was kate jealous of the attention paid to Maddie?
Did Maddie prefer gerry to her or even another family member or friend?
Did kate even resent Maddie in some way?

PERSON?
This is concerning as it is distances her from Maddie.
She isn't a little girl, she isn't Madeleine, she isn't a big sister, she isn't even our daughter!
She is referred to as a person, someone denied identity or a gender.
Someone with no link to the family, someone who is apart from the family, someone who doesn't belong.

"She has many friends who OBVIOUSLY miss her dearly."
OBVIOUSLY requires that the listener/reader should accept without question that which is being said.
Why did they feel the need to tell us that Maddie was missed?
Why was it important that they felt the need to tell us, the public, Maddie was missed?
Why wouldn't she be?
Was this written as a reaction to public grumbling about the lack of emotion, the lack of even caring, shown by the mccanns and chums in relation to missing Maddie?
Why is it only friends that miss her?
Do her family not miss her?
Does her extended family not miss her?
If this is the case then it shows how dysfunctional the whole family were and are.
There are also qualifier words, words that when removes do not change the intent of the sentence.
Here we have the words obviously and dearly.
A strong sentence would be Madeleine is missed by everyone/all of us
They felt the need to tell us how much Maddie is missed making it sensitive.
Maddie being missing should be something taken as fact.
It would be unexpected for Maddie to not be missed.
It would be concerning if Maddie was not missed.
This then makes her being missing a sensitive issue.

Why?

"Despite her young age, it often felt like Madeleine had been on this earth before!"
Does this imply or suggest Maddie was parentified?
She was so mature, so grown up she was given certain grown up responsibilities?
Is this why they claimed the children were left alone in an unlocked apartment?
Maddie was the babysitter, the responsible adult looking after her younger siblings.
Does this explain why kate and gerry allegedly left the 3 children alone in a locked apartment safe in the knowledge that if anything happened Maddie would save the day by rescuing her siblings if there was a fire?
If anything happened such as the twins waking up and crying, there being a fire or something else, Maddie was trusted to come and find her parents?
Maddie was felt older than she was in reality?
Maddie was treated as someone older than her actual age?
Was she regarded as a friend, a buddy, someone to confide in rather than as the toddler that she was?
Was it a case of the parents proudly telling the world how grown up Maddie was, reading teenager books such as Harry Potter and watching programmes not really designed with toddlers in mind such as Doctor Who, how she would talk to anyone, when perhaps she had not learned the self protective 'stranger danger' behavior that makes young children instinctively cuddle into their parent/hide behind their legs when seeing someone new until they are told it is OK?
Young children have natural stranger anxiety.
Children of Neglect often have none because they have learned to get attention from wherever and whoever will offer it.

Like most girls her age, she likes dolls and dresses (and anything pink and sparkly) but with a definite taste for action-adventure too!
What did this taste for action-adventure include?
They tell us she likes dolls and dresses like most other girls, yet do not tell us what her taste of action-adventure includes.
Could this perhaps involve climbing on things?
Jumping off things?
Running up and down stairs?
Is this a deliberate omission?
is there sensitivity related to her sense of action-adventure perhaps?

She has an incredible amount of energy and even as a little baby, didn’t seem to need much rest.
Is this related to kate needing so much help with the children?
Was this perhaps related to a medical issue?
We know Maddie had a coloboma, kate and gerry told us this and made a big deal about it in their appeals They then later back tracked and claimed it was only a fleck and they hadn't made a big deal of it ( I must have imagined all the distinctive LOOK poster and banners)
Was Maddie hyperactive?
Did Maddie have other issues such as ADD/ADHD etc
Did kate have medical issues?(it would perhaps explain the medical records being sealed)
This could explain the distancing language between kate and gerry towards Maddie
Maddie was seen as a burden, a problem, hard work.
This would also explain why after Maddie vanished, kate bloomed and looked as if a weight had been taken of her shoulders.
The problem that was causing kate so much stress and possibly was causing problems in the marriage had gone.
Kate could now cope.
Is this also perhaps subtle demeaning of Maddie?
If she had been quieter, if she had been calmer, if she had been less energetic, if she had been less demanding of attention, if perhaps she had been more like her siblings then she may still be alive?

"Madeleine has always been a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to Sean and Amelie. "
HAS not IS?
Is she no longer a wonderfully loving and caring big sister?
How can she be a wonderfully loving and caring big sister to her siblings when they haven't seen her since may 3rd 2007?
Even though she is missing and allegedly alive as per the mccanns story, would she still love and care about her siblings?
Could she even remember them today if she was still alive?
This is in contradiction to her book where she refers to breast feeding one twin whilst leaving the other vulnerable to attack from a big sister.

Page 38
"I breastfed Sean and Amelie, as I had Madeleine, so there were spells when I wished I had a few extra arms, usually mid to late afternoon when I was alone with the children and Madeleine would be getting tired. I would have to feed the twins one at a time when I was on my own, which meant that as I was feeding the first, the other one would not only be getting hungry and grumpy but would also be vulnerable to attack from A big sister needing attention"
Not exactly the perfect happy, loving family image they like to portray.
I also notice that she refers to A BIG SISTER with emphasis on the article use A
Why use the article A which would suggest more than one big sister rather than the expected THEIR big sister?
Was Maddie also a twin?
Was there another big sister?
What is clear from her book is that kate had issues dealing with one baby let alone three.

Page 30Poor Gerry would arrive home from work and would hardly have a foot over the threshold before he was handed a roaring bundle while I went upstairs for a loo break, a scream-free moment and a chance to regain the use of my arms. There were occasions where all three of us were cuddled in the kitchen, crying - Madeleine with her colic and Gerry and I at the futility of our attempts to take her pain away.
.
Does this in part explain the distancing language, especially from kate?
No Maddie meant she had more control of her life, she could cope better with just the twins.
No Maddie meant no tantrums, no attention seeking, no screaming, all the normal behavior of a 3 year old.
It would also explain in part why kate had so much help, not only with family members flying down when they had the time and co opting a nursery worker to help with tea, baths and bed time?
No help meant a kate melt down.
Would this explain why Maddie isn't missed by the family and the sensitivity in the language relating to Maddie being missed by friends?

"For Sean and Amelie, there is without doubt, a very important person missing in their life."

Again Maddie is referred to as a PERSON rather than a big sister/sister to Sean and Amelie.
Heck even little girl would give her at least some form of identity, some relationship to her siblings.

Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching little PERSON.
What is with them referring to her repeatedly as a person?
Why the continual distancing of Maddie from her family?
Was Maddie not considered to be a part of the mccann family?
What made Maddie different to her siblings?
Is it hidden in the sealed medical records?"
Madeleine is a warm, life enriching little girl" would be the expected.
Heck even ."Madeleine is a warm, life-enriching child" would at least show some kind of family link, a relationship, a sense of belonging to the family unit.

Without doubt
To take for granted, to not be questioned, to be accepted as fact, the truth.
Even though they are supposed to be writing about their missing daughter, a much loved member of the family, her character, her love of life, who she is and what she means to others, they cannot bring themselves to admit her to their family, instead she is pushed to one side, stripped of identity and gender.
What is their definition of very important?
Very important to whom?
What is it about Maddie that would make her very important?
"and will never fail we’re sure, to bring joy into the life of anyone she MAY encounter."
Spot the dropped pronoun in relation to Maddie bringing joy into the life of anyone she may encounter.
Who will never fail to bring joy...?
MAY ENCOUNTER rather than the expected SHE ENCOUNTERS
Why use the word ENCOUNTER rather than the more expected and often used word MEET.
ENCOUNTER is something unexpected, a casual or unexpected meeting or even something faced which is hostile or difficult.
ENCOUNTER is passive, it happens by chance with no deliberate intent.
I Met a bear whilst walking in the woods
MEET could indicate some pre-planning, some forethought something perhaps expected
I arranged to meet my friend outside the theater.
MAY means expressing a possibility.
I may get an ice cream, i may get something else
Here it allows for the possibility is that she will encounter someone, it also allows for the possibility she won't encounter anyone.
Is there only a possibility of Maddie encountering someone?
What could prevent Maddie from encountering anyone?
If she were alive and not seriously harmed as claimed by the mccanns then surely it is a probability if not a certainty that she will encounter people at some time even if it is only her abductor. and /or people he exposes her to.
However a dead Maddie isn't going to encounter anyone until her remains are found, if this is even still possible.
Even then it will be the finder encountering Maddie's remains rather than Maddie encountering the finder
Do they allow for the possibility that Maddie would be facing something hostile or difficult?
Yes, if what they tell us is true, in that Maddie is alive and not seriously harmed, despite being abducted by a paedophile.

Who will Maddie be bringing joy into the life of?
Will Maddie be bringing joy into the life of her alleged abductor?
Will Maddie be bringing joy into the lives of her abusers perhaps?

This is almost as crass as kate telling the world that:

"I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."

What planet does kate live on that she tells the world that Maddie will bring joy to the very people who allegedly abducted her or who have her currently!!

In her bewk, Kate tells us of her fears regarding Maddie:

"I was always terrified that Madeleine would hurt herself.
I always erred on the side of caution.
I remember once when she was about 4 weeks old refusing to make a car journey with her because the baby seat appeared to be wobbling very, very slightly.
I know Gerry felt i was a bit over the top sometimes."

Then further on she tells us:
In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach.
To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us.
We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain.
A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces.

The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them.
The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn.
Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.

How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner?
I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly.

She portrays herself as the concerned and caring mother, fearing to leave her children and travel a few yards to help carry ice creams back.
She even admits to wondering why she was so concerned about leaving her three children who would be in view and yet feel comfortable leaving them alone in an unlocked apartment:"I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction.

She can't even remotely attempt to explain or justify (her behavior or attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.
If she couldn't convince herself, how could she hope to convince the police and the public?
She cannot explain something that did not happen.

The children were never left home alone as claimed.

The story as told by the mccanns and chums did not happen.

There was one adult missing from the table each night allegedly sick or looking after a sick child.
Doctors,. like any medical staff, are hyper vigilant when it comes to childcare.
They know exactly what can happen in a fraction of a second, even if the parent is right next to the child.
They simply would not leave their children alone in an unlocked apartment.
More so that a party of 4 families plus one extra adult would all decide it was OK to leave their children home alone.
Also, I am sure Diane Webster would have something to say about their alleged child care arrangement. just as any concerned mother would.
They may have been able to fob her off once maybe twice but i suspect she would have still fussed or even offered her services if all the children were in one apartment.
She would not be happy that so many toddlers and infants were being left alone and unsupervised.

For there to have been time and opportunity for an abduction to occur, they all had to claim they neglected their children, for, if there was no neglect and the children were all being babysat by the missing adult, there could have been no abduction.

No abductions means darn awkward questions regarding what happened to Maddie and where she currently is?

Instead she resorts to speaking about subconscious thoughts, telling us that leaving three wide awake and active toddlers in broad daylight to go just a few yards away was riskier than leaving three 'sleeping' toddlers in an unlocked apartment in a strange country and in the dark with 'regular checks' who were an over 100 yards walk away and some 50 yards or so as the crow flies from the tapas bar to the back of their apartment.
An apartment, the back of which was partially visible from the tapas bar in daylight and heavily obscured at night due to the lighting of the bar reflecting off the windows off the bar windows.
The bedroom where the three children were allegedly supposed to be sleeping was at the front of the apartment,and thus not visible to those eating and drinking in the bar.

If all else fails blame the subconsciousness.
Could this be a part of any future defense?

No matter how she tries to explain things away and reconcile timings, who checked what and where.
It will not work.
Clearing up one issue results in other issues being revealed.

For the abduction to have occurred as claimed, they would have to come up with a story, a scenario that on initial inspection would seem plausible, believable.
They would worry about details later hopefully the police and public would buy their story and then after x amount of time they would be just another statistic.

Something changed, something unplanned which derailed any original planning they had.

MONEY.

A lot of money, hundreds of thousands of pounds going into the millions.

Greed and the fame (infamy) weaved its magic and now they are trapped.

https://tania-cadogan.blogspot.com/2016/03/about-maddie-bewk-and-website.html

Back to top Go down

Post on 09.07.18 13:51 by kaz

You know I have often wondered if Madeleine   was a twin. Remember that strange remark that one of male members of the Tapas almost made on the lines of '' the OTHER  tw...............….'' being in apartment 5a ? Can't remember who, possibly O'Brien and to be honest I'm too hot to google it!! Will do so when it cools down a bit. Would certainly account for all those photographs where Madeleine's face is not quite Madeleine's face.

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum