References to paedophilia in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

REFERENCES TO PAEDOPHILIA IN RELATION TO THE DISAPPEARANCE OF MADELEINE MCCANN Paedophilia and paedophiles are words from which we naturally recoil. It is by no means a new phenomenon. There are many other words we use to refer to paedophiles: kiddie-fiddlers, nonces, child sexual abusers, child sex offenders and so on. Some of the crimes committed by paedophiles are scarcely believable in their brutality; other offences by them are mercifully less serious. One thing seems certain, such crimes are on the increase and are often severe in their long-lasting effects on those abused. There is widespread agreement that the internet is a major cause of any increase in this vile crime. It is an unpleasant fact that the subject of paedophilia has frequently been associated in some way with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, very regrettable though that is. Here, for the record, we give a brief summary of some of these references: 1. Dr Gerry McCann said on the day Madeleine was reported missing that Madeleine had been taken by a paedophile Leaving aside for a moment the lack of direct evidence that Madeleine was abducted at all, there clearly is also no direct evidence whatsoever that, if Madeleine was abducted, that it was a paedophile who took her. Yet the McCanns themselves, on the very evening that Madeleine was reported missing, claimed she had been snatched by one or more paedophiles. That was a remarkable thing for them to say right from the first minute they reported Madeleine as missing. She might for example have wandered out of her room and out of the flat. 2. The McCanns and their team repeatedly said that Madeleine had been taken by a paedophile or a gang of paedophiles In the months that followed her reported disappearance, the McCann Team made numerous references, counted in dozens, to the probability that Madeleine had been abducted by paedophiles. 3. One of the McCanns’ close friends, a General Practitioner, said that on a previous holiday together, one of Dr Gerald McCann’s best friends, Dr David Payne, had made sexualised remarks and gestures about Madeleine On 16 May 2007, just 13 days after Madeleine disappeared, Dr Katarina Gaspar made this statement: “One night, when all the adults, that is, from those couples I have mentioned above, were all sitting around on a patio outside the house where we were all staying. We had been eating and drinking ‘Berbers’. I was sitting between Gerry and Dave and I think both were talking about Madeleine. I can't remember the conversation in its entirety, but they seemed to be discussing a particular scenario. I remember Dave saying to Gerry something about ‘she’, meaning Madeleine, ‘would do this’. “While he mentioned the word ‘this’, Dave was doing the action of sucking one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, while with his other hand he was doing a circle around his nipple, with a circular movement around his clothes. This was done in a provocative way. There seemed to be an explicit insinuation about what he was saying and doing. I remember being shocked by that. I always felt it was something very weird and that it was not something anyone should say or do. I looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to gauge their reactions. “I looked around as if saying: “Did someone else hear that, or was it just me?”. The conversations stopped for a moment, then we all began conversing again. Moreover, I remember Dave doing the same thing on another occasion. In saying this, I want to mention once again that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary scenario, although I’m not sure. “He again stuck one of his fingers in and out of his mouth and with the other hand he once again drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual way. I think he was referring to the way she, that is, his daughter Lily, would behave or what she would do. I think he did this later during this same holiday, but I'm not sure. “The only time since then that I have been in the company of Dave and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I met Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona in a restaurant in Leicester. I’m sure that he said what he said and made the gestures I have related, but [the second time] it could have happened in the restaurant in Leicester, although I do think it was in Majorca that I heard Dave say and do this for the second time. After the second occasion [when he made these gestures] I took it more seriously. “I remember thinking whether he would look at my daughter and other little girls in a different way than I or others do. I imagined that he had perhaps visited internet sites related to little children. In a word, I thought that he could be interested in child pornography on the web. During our holiday in Majorca, each parent would bath the children in turn. I was keen to stay near the bathroom if Dave was bathing the children. “I remember I said to Savio to be careful and to be close by if Dave was helping to bathe the children and my daughter in particular…” 4. Dr Katarina Gaspar’s husband, also a General Practitioner, Dr Arul Savio Gaspar, confirmed this event: “During the period we stayed at the villa I remember a gesture made by David Payne. I do not remember the context of the conversation between David and Gerry, but I do remember seeing David use his left index finger to rub his nipple, using circular movements, whilst he put his right index finger into his mouth, touching his tongue. This happened during a meal, at the end of the day, in the villa. I do not remember the time or the date, but we would usually dine between 7.30pm and 9.00pm every day. I think this happened in the middle of the holiday. “I remember that when I saw this gesture, I immediately thought it to be in very bad taste, independently of the context of the conversation they were having. We were sitting around a white plastic table in the villa. I don’t know if anyone else saw the gesture, apart from my wife Katherine”. 5. One of the suspects in the case, Robert Murat, was accused by two witnesses of having paedophile tendencies A couple of days after Robert Murat was taken in for questioning by the Portuguese Police and formally declared a suspect, Dr Gerald McCann was asked: “Did you already know Robert Murat?” Dr McCann brushed the question aside impatiently and said: “I am not going to comment on that”. That led many to consider that the two men did previously know each other. It is a very reasonable inference to draw from his evasive comment. Two witnesses claimed that Robert Murat had paedophile tendencies. One of them, who knew Murat well, made a detailed statement with some very graphic comments about Murat’s sexual preferences. The links for these statements are given on our website in a lengthy feature article about Robert Murat. The Portuguese Police discovered encrypted material on Murat’s computer after they seized it. Encryption is often used by those who view, download or exchange child pornography. Murat said he had ‘no idea’ why there was encrypted material on his computer. 6. Murat’s friend Sergei Malinka was also said to have child pornography on his computer A witness told Portuguese Police that Sergei Malinka, a friend of Murat who had worked on Murat’s website, also had an interest in child pornography and had child pornography on his computer. But the police found he had wiped all the data on his hard drive before the police examined it. 7. Jim Gamble, the Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), used the Madeleine McCann disappearance to highlight the danger of paedophiles Despite the high degree of uncertainty about what really happened to Madeleine, highlighted by their own spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, saying in March 2010 that her disappearance was ‘a complete mystery’, Jim Gamble, head of CEOP, relentlessly associated Madeleine with CEOP.  This was despite the obvious fact that the McCanns on their own admission had left three young children, all aged under four, in a vulnerable situation - for six nights in a row - and clearly failed to protect them. Many questioned why an organisation with the words ‘Child Protection’ in its title should feature the McCanns so heavily, given their failure of child protection. Gamble, from 2007 onwards, heavily featured Madeleine on the CEOP website and in various CEOP publications. Around the time of the second anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance (17 months previous to the date of this article , he appeared together with the McCanns in a so-called one-minute ‘viral video’, strongly emphasising that Madeleine was still alive and needed to be found. Later he also appeared on morning news shows side by side with the McCanns. Still more significantly, he invited Dr Gerald McCann in January 2010 to be the keynote speaker at a conference on the abduction of children by paedophiles. Why Dr McCann was considered by Gamble to be qualified to contribute to that conference, never mind being the ‘keynote speaker’, given the raft of uncertainties about the circumstances in which Madeleine disappeared, has never been explained either by the McCanns or by Jim Gamble. Furthermore, it was reported - and confirmed by a Home Office Freedom of Information Act request - that in October 2009, the McCanns had a private interview with the McCanns. Following that, several press reports (not denied) indicated that the Home Secretary asked Jim Gamble to recommend a new British police force to carry out a review and possibly a re-investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. Some reports suggested that he had recommended West Yorkshire Police to carry out such a review. But the Home Office was unwilling to confirm or deny this. It was baffling why the Home Secretary, knowing Jim Gamble’s extreme closeness to the McCanns, should choose him to recommend who should carry out any review into Madeleine’s disappearance. 8. In the days before this article was written, Jim Gamble told the Home Secretary, Theresa May, that he was resigning from his post as CEOP Chief Executive, a resignation she swiftly accepted. The McCanns put out statements strongly supporting him, thanking him for his work on their behalf, and querying the Coalition government’s decision to incorporate CEOP within the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). They described his departure in graphic terms as ‘a huge loss to child protection’. These comments pointed inexorably, once again, to the conclusion that there was a very close ‘tie’ between the McCanns and Jim Gamble.   The McCann Team in conjunction with Jim Gamble of CEOP published a video about Madeleine and circulated it round the internet which many believed showed her inappropriately posed in heavy make-up In 2010, Jim Gamble once again co-operated with the McCanns to make a another video about Madeleine. The video in question featured three images of Madeleine. One very striking one shows her in an unusual pose, shot by the photographer from well below her face, wearing make-up, including much blue eyeshadow, lipstick and jewellery, and looking unhappy. The McCanns publicly claimed that ‘the photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing box’. However, it is very unlikely that Madeleine could have put the necklace on herself, nor applied eyeshadow in the manner shown in the photograph, nor applied the pink bow to her hair. The evidence from the photograph suggests that an adult made her up and of course an adult was on hand to take that particular image of her. The McCanns did not say who took the photograph. Even if Madeleine had ‘raided the dressing box’, as claimed, it is one thing to take a photo of something like that for your family photo album, but altogether another matter to release it for millions to see.   The McCanns explicitly approved the very public release of this video and the images on it. As one newspaper reported: “Parents of Madeleine McCann, who went missing three years ago, have released a new video and photo of their missing daughter to mark the third anniversary of the girl's disappearance”. The photo the McCanns specifically chose to highlight in the video was the one with Madeleine wearing heavy make-up, apparently applied by an adult and not by herself.   There was strong adverse reaction by many members of the public to this image being used in connection with a missing child. Not least was the opinion of Mr Mark Williams-Thomas, a former police detective and now leading criminologist and child protection expert, who has often in the past spoken with strong sympathy and understanding for the McCanns. His unambiguous reaction to this particular photograph, promoted on his ‘Twitter’ blog, was that it was ‘so inappropriate’ and ‘so damaging’. We agree with him. The McCanns have from the day Madeleine was reported missing claimed explicitly and on many occasions that Madeleine must have been abducted by a paedophile, or paedophiles, often described by them as ‘predatory’, ‘evil’, or ‘ monsters’. Yet the photo of Madeleine featured by her parents shows a child looking much older than her actual three years, due to the make-up and jewellery, as all the news media quickly picked up the following day. The McCanns said a number of times that they were advised by the police ‘not to show any emotion’ in front of the cameras. One newspaper reported, around the time the McCanns appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show:  “The couple also admitted they had been advised not to show any emotion while in front of the media, because any potential abductor ‘may get a kick out of it’.” It was all the more surprising, therefore, that the McCanns should use this short video to project and promote an image of Madeleine which might well appeal to certain paedophiles, some of whom are unfortunately attracted to young children.     One person commented on ‘Twitter’ about the direct promotion of this video by CEOP Chief Executive Jim Gamble, writing: “If CEOP endorse this type of public relations for a supposed missing child, then their role in child protection has to be questioned!”   9.  The McCann Team have highlighted the possible involvement of a named paedophile, Raymond Hewlett, in the disappearance of Madeleine First they suggested that Hewlett was involved in Madeleine’s disappearance; latterly they have claimed that he gave an account of his knowledge of Madeleine’s disappearance in a letter he dictated to hospital staff in the weeks before he died. The claims made about this letter are highly improbable and we suggest that they are a complete fabrication. They have however been deliberately promoted by the McCann Team for 18 months. 10.  The connection between Ray Wyre, paedophile ‘expert’ and the McCanns We’ve highlighted the connection between the late Ray Wyre and the McCanns in another article on our website, titled ‘Ray Wyre and the McCanns: What was the connection between the McCanns and the late paedophilia ‘expert’, Ray Wyre? There are at least four questions we would ask about this connection: Why was Wyre so keen, in two articles published four and seven days after Madeleine was reported missing, to insist so adamantly that she had been abducted? Why, in addition, did he emphasise the possibility that she had been snatched by a paedophile? Why did the McCanns agree to meet the Wyres at the their Buckinghamshire home? Was that meeting really much more about producing a helpful Sunday newspaper article than, as was claimed, about starting a new organisation for missing children?  11. (NEW - UPDATED 15 June 2016) The McCanns’ friend, Sir Clement Freud, exposed as a serial paedophile Following the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the McCanns had dinner with the late Sir Clement Freud and his wife, Lady Freud. They had a villa in Praia da Luz, Portugal, where the McCanns had been holidaying. They became friends with each other. There had been strong rumours for years that Clement Freud was a paedophile. These have now been confirmed in an article for the Daily Telegraph on 14 June 2016, in which it was stated that Lady Freud apologised for her husband;s conduct and that Operation Grange would now investigate links between Sir Clement Freud and the McCanns.  Sir Clement died in 2009.  Article filed by Tony Bennett, Secretary, The Madeleine Foundation, 10 October 2010 and updated by a Moderator on 15 June 2016

12. Nigel Nessling  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

thanks for that very informative post Tony, I think it shows that there is every reason to suspect that paedophilia may be involved in this case imo. The suspected use of sedatives on the children may also be relevant. imo

I think this kind of post hits a nerve with the McCann supporters.

Within seconds of tweeting your post there were these responses:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and of course one from a McCann supporter who is more disgusted with the forum than the possibility that Madeleine was subjected to abuse:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

".....when I read your book, I understand that David Cayne, David Payne, pardon, looks very much like a paedophile. You don't write the word "paedophile," but you hint that he has inappropriate gestures related to children.
38.57 Gonçalo Amaral : No, I don't use that word. I talk about his obscene gestures in relation to Madeleine McCann. It's an accusation that had been made on May 16th 2007, in England, 14 days after the disappearance, and which only got to the PJ on October 26th, after I had left. And nothing was done about it.

39.23 Jacques Pradel : OK.

39.24 Gonçalo Amaral : So, other than that gesture, if you look carefully at what is written, he was bathing the children in a certain inappropriate manner. It was he who was bathing the children and I wonder if he didn't do that with her, with the little girl that day of May 3rd.

39.43 Jacques Pradel : OK.

39.44 Gonçalo Amaral : It's an accusation but there is no investigation in England. Meanwhile, they say they no longer have the paperwork for this accusation.

Strangley, some people think that paedophilia is quite normal

We have Clarence Mitchell and Gerry McCann announcing that Madeleine was taken by a gang of paedophiles, and shortly after we hear:-

Gerry - "there is no evidence to suggest that she has come to any harm"

Kate - "Whoever she is with she will be given them her tuppence worth"

OH, so that`s ok then - she will be safe with the paedophiles

Then we have some catholic priest from Germany who claims that he belongs to a humantarian group who believes that paedophillia is normal.

On top of that, the McCanns thought that the lolita photo was normal.

Something seriously amiss here.

sharonl wrote:Strangley, some people think that paedophilia is quite normal

We have Clarence Mitchell and Gerry McCann announcing that Madeleine was taken by a gang of paedophiles, and shortly after we hear:-

Gerry - "there is no evidence to suggest that she has come to any harm"

Kate - "Whoever she is with she will be given them her tuppence worth"

OH, so that`s ok then - she will be safe with the paedophiles

Then we have some catholic priest from Germany who claims that he belongs to a humantarian group who believes that paedophillia is normal.

On top of that, the McCanns thought that the lolita photo was normal.

Something seriously amiss here.

I put this on the other posts where you posted this and i shall repeat it

SharonL how can someone saying that she is giving them her tuppence worth be construed that she is safe with paedophiles? I take that saying (and it is a saying) that she is giving them a earful or a ear bashing. Why are some people making inappropriate references to things that are clearly not there. I have said it before comments like these do more harm than good to the good work the Foundation is doing.

I have always found KM's comment "Whoever she is with she will be given them her tuppence worth" strange. She is referring to a child of not yet four whom has allegedly been snatched away from the security of her family and placed in heavens knows what situation with heavens knows who....and KM says..."Whoever she is with she will be given them her tuppence worth". Odds are that Madeleine would have been feeling lost, confused and terrified at best, I very much doubt she would be emotionally capable of giving her abductors "her tuppence worth". What does that comment say about KM's views of Madeliene?

Still has no sexual overtones though

Agreed.

BBC2 Documentary -

The Paedophile Hunters, on now

A disturbing programme documenting the work of the Ice programme of American police officers who are hunting the American paedophiles who are abusing children abroad, some as young as 4. The hotspot at one time Thailand, now seems to be Cambodia, with many of the Cambodian people selling their children, and finding children for those who will pay them money to have sex with children.

What came out loud and clear was that America seemed to be the only force which actively pursued American residents for abusing abroad. they felt it was Their responsibility to bring these residents to account for their crimes in America.

In Cambodia if a paedophile was caught, they often got little sentence - maybe a year or less in Cambodia, if the American is rich he often buys his way of out a jail sentence. Once they have served a sentence in Cambodia the Americans then take them and try them in America where they are likely to be given for example a forty year sentence!. This is a lesson to Americans you cant go abroad and think you can get away with abusing children, because we are after you and you will also be brought to account for your crimes in America with no soft sentence! At the end of the programme they stated that Australia had announced they were adopting a similiar programme of hunting Australians abroad who abused children and bringing them to account for their crimes in Australia.

they mentioned the case of Gary Glitter that when he served his soft sentence abroad there was no British force waiting to try him for his crimes in Britain followed by a long prison sentence - he got no punishment by the British, he only got put on the Sex Offenders Register.

They also highlighted a case in Cambodia of a paedophile who raped a young child but absconded so the Cambodian police could not find him, the point was made there would be no British agents tracking him down and bringing him to trial and sentencing in Britain.

this shows once again how little British governments really care about child abuse. Not only do we have the ridiculous lenient sentences handed out by British judges which are a joke, British judges blaming children for adults abusing them, coverup after coverup of child abuse in childrens homes, protection of the Elite/celebrity paedophiles, and no British agency hunting the British paedophiles who go abroad on a routine basis to abuse children in Cambodia and other countries.

It would seem the real protection of children is way down on the list of successive British Governments.

will copy and paste it here as its elsewhere on this site, posted as soon as i joined about 10 days ago
i was struck by something in kates book that i have never heard or seen anywhere else, not in her interviews or statements.
a reference to maddies question about why she and her husband didnt respond to sean and maddies crying, 2 may night time
there is a question to maddie could it have been when they were having their bath
only inferences to draw logically is that they were either unsupervised or being bathed by some other person

This thread title is about "paedophilia" a-- nd TB was spot on that the mccanns, especially kate, was obsessed by "paedophilia activity" just going by the reference in her book page (what is it- 121 is it? ) right out of the horse's mouth itself about how paedophile deflowers Maddie.

Was it just her rich imagination? What kind of a mum think that even if their child was really taken by a sick monster?
In their case, there was no evidence whatsoever Maddie was taken, so what was Kate referring to?
What did kate know, if it wasnt that, then she has to be sanctioned under the mental act.

Aiyoyo, I can understand how someone whose child was genuinely missing could at times have dreadful thoughts and dreams as to what might have happened. However, putting them into words (page 129, that number is ingrained in my mind!) is entirely another matter, especially when it's claimed that the book was wriiten for the benefit of one's other children.

Kate's statement that Madeleine will be giving her abductor her tuppence worth concerns me. To me as a southerner, all it means is that Madeleine will be standing up for herself and not be lost for words. However, as shown in the link, "tuppence" is also a euphemism for the female genitalia. I believe that it is now dated and was more prevalent in the north of England.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can't help but wonder if Kate, raised in Liverpool, would have been aware of the other meaning of the word and, if she was, why she chose to use it.

I really don't think Kate meant anything other than she'd be kicking off when she used that expression.

However the constant mantra of there being no evidence of Madeleine having being harmed rankles. It is correct in that there is no evidence but we all know that very much harm, physical or emotional would result from being taken in the night by goodness knows who. What do they constitute as harm? They have gone on about paedophiles, and the extract from Kates book about Madeleine's privates, so in their minds is that harming a child or not? Can't run with the fox and the hounds. If they had asserted that Madeleine must be subject to great harm, physically or emotionally, would that not be more realistic and also make the police and/or public more determined for her to be found?

It seems like a weird mixed message to be sending out. Like when one of the Tapas bunch said they were waiting for something to happen, but went off and left the kids. What was that all about?

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I really don't think Kate meant anything other than she'd be kicking off when she used that expression.

However the constant mantra of there being no evidence of Madeleine having being harmed rankles. It is correct in that there is no evidence but we all know that very much harm, physical or emotional would result from being taken in the night by goodness knows who. What do they constitute as harm? They have gone on about paedophiles, and the extract from Kates book about Madeleine's privates, so in their minds is that harming a child or not? Can't run with the fox and the hounds. If they had asserted that Madeleine must be subject to great harm, physically or emotionally, would that not be more realistic and also make the police and/or public more determined for her to be found?

It seems like a weird mixed message to be sending out. Like when one of the Tapas bunch said they were waiting for something to happen, but went off and left the kids. What was that all about?

Smokeandmirrors

Do you know which Tapas9 said this about "waiting for something to happen".

It sounds very much like a "slip of the tongue" - is this another JT faux pas.

Nope it was come on down.... David Payne!

"We know they didn't do it. One of our party saw Madeleine being abducted. We were waiting for something to happen but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Why was David payne  looking for Kate  on the day maddy went missing     and why kate said he was there minutes and  David payne says he was there 1/2 hour in the apartment . What was his  business with Kate  

Did kate catch David doing something to   maddy  in the bathroom ???  Was there really an "accident" in that bathroom ( with a pedophile ? )   ?   We only have kates and gerrys  word that  she was  put in  her  bed. it is possible that she was  disposed prob in the cupboard   of long  b4 they actually went to  the tapas bar  and as the room was dark a pillow could easily be  made to look like a small child in bed ans no one ever went in and inspected  the bed too make sure  she was in there   IMO  when kate said gerry was taking a long time prob watching cricket or going to the toilet he was disposing of the body of his deceased daughter    IMO    no explanation of why Gerry was missing for more than 1/2 hour 



I find it bizarre that the parents took turns in bathing each others children   bizarre     an an opportunity made for anyone with pedophile  deviant behaviour   an open invitation to abuse other ppls children
  
if anyone knows or has seen any more reference to this particular occurence can u plzz let me know    I think  it holds the  clues to madelines death  IMO 

BTW   i dont understand this sentence below  
"Furthermore, it was reported - and confirmed by a Home Office Freedom of Information Act request - that in October 2009, the McCanns had a private interview with the McCanns."

sharonl wrote:Strangley, some people think that paedophilia is quite normal

We have Clarence Mitchell and Gerry McCann announcing that Madeleine was taken by a gang of paedophiles, and shortly after we hear:-

Gerry - "there is no evidence to suggest that she has come to any harm"

Kate - "Whoever she is with she will be given them her tuppence worth"

OH, so that`s ok then - she will be safe with the paedophiles

Then we have some catholic priest from Germany who claims that he belongs to a humantarian group who believes that paedophillia is normal.

On top of that, the McCanns thought that the lolita photo was normal.

Something seriously amiss here.

Yes pedophiles are the only ppl that think its ok      Bizarre  statement that  a 3 year old will give them her tuppence worth    that is a bizarre statement shes 3  years old a little baby  what sort of weirdo  would say that          but then kate and gerry are bizarre ppl     the other parents taking turns in  bathing the kids is bizarre too    imo  david is the answer  and what ever happened that afternoon when he went to the apartment

Never thought I'd agree with Mark Williams Thomas about anything but he did criticise the make-up photo as being inappropriate - while the mainstream media described it as a normal family snapshot. 
 
What with Kate's equally inappropriate comments in her book (not just THAT one, but separate references to loving and pleasing her and giving her admiring glances) which may be as fictional as the majority of the contents, but it does give a worrying impression of what the McCanns consider to be "normal".

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Never thought I'd agree with Mark Williams Thomas about anything but he did criticise the make-up photo as being inappropriate - while the mainstream media described it as a normal family snapshot. 
 
What with Kate's equally inappropriate comments in her book (not just THAT one, but separate references to loving and pleasing her and giving her admiring glances) which may be as fictional as the majority of the contents, but it does give a worrying impression of what the McCanns consider to be "normal".

Quite. It's not just 'that' photo - it's the remarks in the book, the way Maddie - a child not yet 4 - is described as acting and reacting that's off the chart for normality.
What seems to have passed them by is the fascinating observations of a child that age. All we get are fake remarks which could have come from a contemporary of her parents but no way from a four year old. One feels it must have been seen as yet another shortcoming of Maddie to not be able to behave like her mother's 'best friend'. The last two Kate'sown words and that tells us all we need to know.

Can any mother here imagine their toddler as a 'best friend' rather than an amazing little person entitled to loving care?

I struggle with 'interacting' a word that I wouldn't use to describe my child were I asked about his personality. I struggle with 'role play' a description I wouldn't use to describe my child's personality. GM said something along the lines of 'she likes role play'. DP describes Madeleine along the lines that 'she's good at interacting' something like that. See rogatory interview and Gerry's blogs.

None of it describes Madeleine imo. Interacting and loving role play to describe her makes me want to vomit. It's not because I think there is a sinister inference in those words but that the words are so lacking in love and warmth. There is absolutely nothing animated about people who know Madeleine. All I know about Madeleine is she had a cuddlecat that her mother carted around when she went missing. Read this and weep.

Allegedly had a toy called Cuddle Cat......apart from a baby photo with a pink toy which could have been something else, there's no proof that Madeleine was ever fond of it.

I haven't yet worked out the significance of this toy; why say it was her favourite toy if it wasn't?

As for the interacting and role playing terms, they sound creepy in conjunction with the other unsettling elements of this case but I think that they could also be formal medical parlance.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Allegedly had a toy called Cuddle Cat......apart from a baby photo with a pink toy which could have been something else, there's no proof that Madeleine was ever fond of it.

I haven't yet worked out the significance of this toy; why say it was her favourite toy if it wasn't?

As for the interacting and role playing terms, they sound creepy in conjunction with the other unsettling elements of this case but I think that they could also be formal medical parlance.

What I found very suspect was KM's statement that cadaver odour was on cuddlecat because KM took it to work with her. So, your child has a favourite toy that she cannot be without and you deprive her of it by taking it to work with you? I think not.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Allegedly had a toy called Cuddle Cat......apart from a baby photo with a pink toy which could have been something else, there's no proof that Madeleine was ever fond of it.

I haven't yet worked out the significance of this toy; why say it was her favourite toy if it wasn't?

As for the interacting and role playing terms, they sound creepy in conjunction with the other unsettling elements of this case but I think that they could also be formal medical parlance.

Cuddlecat was indispensable - it made Kate 100% certain that Maddie was abducted. Which is why I've always thought of it as a prop. If Maddie was never without it why isn't it in any photo?

Then all those photo opportunities. Good thing you reminded me as CC is one of the things that makes me literally spit wit anger. One of the lowest tricks of the whole performance.

She  was sure she'd been 'taken ' because Cuddle Cat was on a high shelf in the bedroom? The high shelf that doesn't exist. 

And the cynical placing of CC peeking out of her bag at the Portimao police station.

It does leave a nasty taste in your mouth doesn't it.


"Interacting' and 'role play' sound to have come straight out of a Powerpoint presentation!

The photos of the twins being paraded around with multiple Cuddle cats make me spit feathers!
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Role play also means to me the weird games my son used to enjoy as a teenager - along the lines of Dungeons and Dragons.

I'm surprised that Kate hasn't suggested that Madeleine was old enough for those.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Allegedly had a toy called Cuddle Cat......apart from a baby photo with a pink toy which could have been something else, there's no proof that Madeleine was ever fond of it.

I haven't yet worked out the significance of this toy; why say it was her favourite toy if it wasn't?

As for the interacting and role playing terms, they sound creepy in conjunction with the other unsettling elements of this case but I think that they could also be formal medical parlance.

The other day whilst on holiday I was chatting to a family group with a child aged 3 and a bit. This child had what looked like a grubby rag but turned out to be a soft toy dog. I discussed it with the Mum and she said he had had it since birth and was never without it though he wouldn't allow it to go into the bath with him, she'd wished he would.
Now that toy was a comforter and looked like one, some of the photographs on the link NFWTD gave it looks too new, even down to all the stitched whiskers being in place and the colour pink fresh. It certainly doesn't look anything like a nearly four year old comforter. And yes are there any photos with Madeleine with it, none, apart from one where it could be abything pink.
As a marketing ploy though, it certainly tugged at the heart strings.

My daughter had a small white bear she carried around with her everywhere. We went on holiday and sure enough that bear is on every photo, on the swing, the slide everywhere my daughter was photographed in fact.
So there must have been plenty of photos of Madeleine with that cuddlecat --------- mustn't there?

Cuddlecat was an obvious prop, it was even hanging out of the corner of Kate's bag on Arguido day.
Washing it was a big mistake, certainly a wtf moment for many people because it's just something you wouldn't do Kate. Just like sending all of Madeleine's clothes to the camp laundry, it's not a normal action imo.

They are  all  bizzare characters  .   They have thought of everything  so they think  i dont understand why they arent just called out on the inconsistencies and their lies     maddy is shark food now  

Cuddle cat is a well orchestrated  lie