References to paedophilia in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Ellie wrote:

JRP wrote:I wouldn't believe anything Michael Shrimpton says about Madeleine McCann.

Thanks JRP! I need some help here - I'm not familiar with the man and would be glad to hear some testimonials on him!  He speaks (on YouTube interviews) as if he knows everything! I've been wondering how he's got away with the things he says about people.

There is a lot written about Michael Shrimpton on the internet, which may be worth some of your time. I'm sure he has been a fine lawyer during his career, you don't get to be a QC otherwise.

He speaks very eloquently on many subjects as if he has inside knowledge, what should be taken into account is that this is what barristers do for a living, speaking eloquently and with great conviction on any subject a client of theirs is accused of, in order to convince a jury to believe what they say is true.

As far as I'm aware, his theory, (which is different to knowing everything), his theory is that Madeleine was selected and kidnapped to order, and whisked away on a boat to Morocco?

The huge holes in his far fetched theory are there is no evidence of a kidnapper taking Madeleine. No evidence to back up that she was selected by order. No evidence that she was in Morocco or anywhere else on the planet.

There is however evidence of a dead body having been in apartment 5a, and that is a point he fails to address with his theory.

How does he get away with things he says about people?
Well, Edward Heath is dead, and the McCanns wont have a problem with yet another abduction theory, however potty it is.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

He looked a little embarrassed and laughingly remarked to us that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man. It led to a conversation between the three of us about paedophiles.

Alan [Pike] got us talking, encouraging us to try to think rationally about what we were saying, and we talked a lot, for several hours. We faced our biggest fear: that Madeleine had been taken by a paedophile and killed. This was the only scenario occupying our minds just then.

This initial discussion, though, was unsettling, focused as it was on the typical profile of a paedophile. All I could think was, not Madeleine. Please, not Madeleine!

It served only to colour my judgement of Murat. They told us, for example, about a newspaper clipping they’d seized from his house, an article entitled ‘Lock up Your Daughters’, which claimed that Casanova had been a paedophile. It made us shudder. Back then we feared everything and, perhaps understandably, leaped to the worst conclusions without pausing to consider innocent explanations.

Crying in bed again – can’t help it . . . The thought of Madeleine’s fear and pain tears me apart. The thought of paedophiles makes me want to rip my skin off.

I don’t mind if it’s in nice surroundings but certainly, in the case of paedophiles, away at all times from ANY contact with children.

Early on that was all I thought, all the time: that some paedophile had grabbed her, abused her and later killed her. Then I’d begun to wonder if she was being held by pornographers, I told them, or had been taken for someone who wanted a child.

The second stemmed from the revulsion stirred up by my fear that Madeleine had suffered the worst fate we could imagine: falling into the hands of a paedophile.

When she was first stolen, paedophiles were all we could think about, and it made us sick, ate away at us.

The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn’t make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine’s abduction (and, please God, it isn’t); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out

It seemed the attacker would often lock the door to the parents’ bedroom before assaulting the child. In one case, the paedophile had put on some of the father’s aftershave in an attempt to soothe or deceive the child.

Night after night, I read of depraved individuals, British paedophiles, Portuguese paedophiles, Spanish, Dutch and German paedophiles, and of the horrific crimes they’d committed. The police went to visit some of them, looked around their apartments and recorded merely, ‘No sign of the minor.’ Was that enough to eliminate these vile characters from the inquiry? If more had been done, there was certainly nothing in the files about it. No description, no photograph, no alibi, no DNA. Just ‘No sign of the minor.’
    
He warned me that a British tabloid would be running a piece the following day about a convicted paedophile called Raymond Hewlett, who had been staying in Tavira on the Algarve in May 2007.

The proximity of Tavira to Praia da Luz and the fact that this man was a paedophile ticked all the boxes for the redtop papers, and they jumped on the story. All of a sudden, Hewlett was cast as the man who could have taken Madeleine.

We were exasperated. We now knew that there had been hundreds of paedophiles on the Algarve at that time and if, God forbid, one of them had been involved

[Excerpts for study purposes only]


----------

No neglect = no abudction = no sedation = ???

It was rather strange how a location they claimed they considered safe enough to leave three small children alone in an unlocked apartment, they then claimed to be swarming with paedophiles when they claimed Madeleine "disappeared".

Still Gerry McCann insists there is no evidence she has come to any harm and according to Kate McCann 'whoever she's with she'll be giving them her tuppence worth' - or words to that effect..

They think we're all stupid enough to swallow this tripe. I don't like tripe - even if it's smothered with onion gravy - sorry jus - or is it a source?

Verdi wrote:Still Gerry McCann insists there is no evidence she has come to any harm and according to Kate McCann 'whoever she's with she'll be giving them her tuppence worth' - or words to that effect..

They think we're all stupid enough to swallow this tripe.  I don't like tripe - even if it's smothered with onion gravy - sorry jus - or is it a source?

Nor me.

If the demise of this little girl isn't about paedophilia I will spend the rest of my days in penance, mopping the steps of Scotland Yard and bulling their boots.

Guest 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.

It might well have been a favourite of Madeleine's but her mother washed it very quickly and then always paraded it on camera!   I couldn't wash my dog's bedding for weeks after he died, I didn't want to get rid of his smell etc.  So why did Kate McCann wash it so quickly - perhaps to get rid of incriminating evidence I think!!

shirleytemple wrote:

Guest 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.

It might well have been a favourite of Madeleine's but her mother washed it very quickly and then always paraded it on camera!   I couldn't wash my dog's bedding for weeks after he died, I didn't want to get rid of his smell etc.  So why did Kate McCann wash it so quickly - perhaps to get rid of incriminating evidence I think!!

 
That's a strange one.  If cuddle-cat was Madeleine's favourite toy which had become contaminated, why did they keep it?  Why not just dispose of it? 

Cuddle-cat must have been much more important and had a bigger role to play, but why wash it?

shirleytemple wrote:

Guest 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.

It might well have been a favourite of Madeleine's but her mother washed it very quickly and then always paraded it on camera!   I couldn't wash my dog's bedding for weeks after he died, I didn't want to get rid of his smell etc.  So why did Kate McCann wash it so quickly - perhaps to get rid of incriminating evidence I think!!

Except it didn't work and Eddy sniffed it out. Then of course the dogs were labelled "incredibly unreliable" by the not so wise ones.With not so wise examples desperately sought, to dig the hole deeper.

Irene 2 wrote:

shirleytemple wrote:

Guest 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.

It might well have been a favourite of Madeleine's but her mother washed it very quickly and then always paraded it on camera!   I couldn't wash my dog's bedding for weeks after he died, I didn't want to get rid of his smell etc.  So why did Kate McCann wash it so quickly - perhaps to get rid of incriminating evidence I think!!

Except it didn't work and Eddy sniffed it out. Then of course the dogs were labelled "incredibly unreliable" by the not so wise ones.With not so wise examples desperately sought, to dig the hole deeper.

Where did the press release/source close to the family/spurious crap come from that Cuddlecat was allegedly in contact with cadavers as KM came into contact with dead bodies in her role as a part-time locum?

aquila wrote:

Irene 2 wrote:

shirleytemple wrote:

Guest 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.

It might well have been a favourite of Madeleine's but her mother washed it very quickly and then always paraded it on camera!   I couldn't wash my dog's bedding for weeks after he died, I didn't want to get rid of his smell etc.  So why did Kate McCann wash it so quickly - perhaps to get rid of incriminating evidence I think!!

Except it didn't work and Eddy sniffed it out. Then of course the dogs were labelled "incredibly unreliable" by the not so wise ones.With not so wise examples desperately sought, to dig the hole deeper.

Where did the press release/source close to the family/spurious crap come from that Cuddlecat was allegedly in contact with cadavers as KM came into contact with dead bodies in her role as a part-time locum?

Wasn't it first reported by the Portuguese press?

Richard discussed the cuddle cat/Kate's work matter in his first series of films.

Start around 1:57:10 mins.




The original 'story' of Kate taking cuddle cat to work apparently originated from Kate herself. It then passed via the PJ to the Portuguese press.



Another oddity is Bridget O'Donnell's non-fictional piece about Madeleine which includes a very strange and over-dramatised passage about the abduction of young girls. How many young girls have any of us seen on the UK news, within the last twenty years, who have been grabbed and then released alive but naked and holding a £10 note (don't petrol station forecourts all have cameras?!)?



Bridget tells us:


'I once worked as a producer in the BBC crime unit. I directed many reconstructions and spent my second pregnancy producing new investigations for Crimewatch. Detectives would call me daily, detailing their cases, and some stories stay with me still, such as the ones about a girl being snatched from her bath, or her bike, or her garden and then held in the passenger seat, or stuffed in the boot. There was always a vehicle, and the first few hours were crucial to the outcome. Afterwards, they would be dumped naked in an alley, or at a petrol station with a £10 note to "get a cab back to Mummy". They would be found within an hour or two. Sometimes'.

How many young girls have any of us seen on the news in the last twenty years who have been abducted and killed - an unfortunate few, but the vast majority of children who go missing or who are killed are the victims of parents/other family members/persons known to the child or parent. Infact, Goncalo Amaral tells tells us some very interesting statistics passed on to him by murder/abduction/search expert, Mark Harrison:

AMAZING STATISTICS

Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.

The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.

AMAZING STATISTICS

.....The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.

This is illuminating in itself

Might aswell add Nigel Nessling to this thread now. Yet another nonce associated with Team McCann.

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

By no means a casual correlation but the paedophile and masonic links surrounding the case of Madeline McCann (and possibly not just surrounding it) are manifold.

Polyenne's post reminded me of this.
From David Payne's Rogatory of the "nothing you could hide a tennis racket in" fame, does anybody know what this could be about? 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
1485 "Is there anything that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth''
 Reply "Err the, there are a few things but I don't think this is the right forum for bringing those up.'

1485 "Okay"

polyenne wrote:By no means a casual correlation but the paedophile and masonic links surrounding the case of Madeline McCann (and possibly not just surrounding it) are manifold.

The number of references to paedophilia in the Madeleine McCann case was increased by one last year when it was revealed that the McCanns' friend Sir Clement Freud was a serial child sex abuser.

We will have to increase this number by one more, now that prominent McCann fund-raiser and McCann supporter Nigel Nessling from Ipswich has been convicted of possessing over 43,000 images of child sexual abuse, including 804 moving and still images in the 'most serious' Category A, which consists of images of young children being tortured and raped.

Cry, cry, weep and weep again for the poor, innocent children so cruelly abused to satisfy exceptionally perverted adult lusts

Here is another McPaedo that many of us may not know about

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

I found this interview yesterday - it gives some insight into the sort of pressure dedicated and honest, lower rank officers in the police force in the UK are under when they try to investigate child abuse.

 
Dc John *****, amongst others, is a brave and determined man whose professional life has been destroyed because he was simply too good at his job and too principled to stand back and let children suffer.
 
Bullying and harassment of police officers is rife – the senior officer who feigned some concern and asked John to fill in a complaint form and then went on to say that when he received it he would throw it in the bin in the corner of his office needs a kick somewhere painful (I’d happily do the honours).
 
All the very best with the rest of your life John.
 
The final few minutes of John’s comments are crucial :–
 
‘Why do you think these people did this?’   (covered up/bullied)
 
‘Because they’re involved! There is a cover up and these people are appointed into these key positions where they have total governance of all these allegations, so they can’t be dealt with by any other unit other than these specialist units, there’s like a filter they go through and then internally in this unit they will be filtered again, what gets proceeded with and what doesn’t, so that they have total autonomy over what they deal with and what they don’t deal with. So these people are put in place to make sure these allegations don’t get out.
And it’s not just that, all them years that I worked urm in this remit we would get what they call referrals – now referrals could come through from schools, referrals could come from playgroups, from wherever.  And all the years I worked on child abuse investigations I was aware of only once a referral coming through from NSPCC, only once, now bear in mind they’ve got Childline and all those kids that would be ringing up Childline specially when Jimmy Savile got nicked and everything else - why didn’t they ever come through, why didn’t they ever come through? And, these people are filters. And my opinion is they are filters that these people are deliberately put in there to protect those who are involved. Deliberately’.
 
By these people, I understand that John is referring to senior officers but perhaps there is also a blockage in organizations like the NSPCC.

My dear God, I suggest there are a vast number of people out there, in elevated positions, who need to take a long hard look at themselves and what they are facilitating (if they're not actually doing it themselves).

If they have children themselves, how would they feel if some of the abuse that appears to be happening on a daily basis was inflicted on their child ? Even belonging to and ascribing to the rules of Masons, Jehovah's Witnesses or any other organization that might somehow condone this abhorrent behaviour, surely doesn't override your own moral compass.......or are these people so brain-washed that they cross to the other side of the road and turn the other cheek ??

Are we breeding monsters ? I find it difficult to comprehend but then my parents only showed me unconditional love & affection the like of which I can only hope I've passed on to my own children.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - yes, the whole thing is quite depressing and beyond comprehension. 

From experience, I am aware that only 'yes men/women' (or possibly those with secrets themselves) are promoted to positions (in many organisation) where being corrupt is part of the job spec. Weak or sick minded characters in other words. It is a club. Life is a club.

How does anything ever get put right if the only ones in a position to make change are embroiled themselves? I think the only way is for people to wake up to what is going on and once they have woken up, not to stick their heads back down under the parapet for the sake of an easier life.

The only thing any individual can do at the moment is keep their own children safe from harm and to act immediatley when they suspect any other child is coming to harm. 

I was surprised the other day to find out that the police force has its very own Pagan officers Association - to support witches in the police! I can't confess to know much about paganism, but it raised my eyebrows.

Apologies if this seems OT but I think the way paedophilia seems to be dealt with by some of our police is relevant to any investigation involving a missing child. Particularly as the above whistle blowing officer was in the MET.

skyrocket wrote:
I found this interview yesterday - it gives some insight into the sort of pressure dedicated and honest, lower rank officers in the police force in the UK are under when they try to investigate child abuse.

 
Dc John *****, amongst others, is a brave and determined man whose professional life has been destroyed because he was simply too good at his job and too principled to stand back and let children suffer.
 
Bullying and harassment of police officers is rife – the senior officer who feigned some concern and asked John to fill in a complaint form and then went on to say that when he received it he would throw it in the bin in the corner of his office needs a kick somewhere painful (I’d happily do the honours).
 
All the very best with the rest of your life John.
 
The final few minutes of John’s comments are crucial :–
 
‘Why do you think these people did this?’   (covered up/bullied)
 
‘Because they’re involved! There is a cover up and these people are appointed into these key positions where they have total governance of all these allegations, so they can’t be dealt with by any other unit other than these specialist units, there’s like a filter they go through and then internally in this unit they will be filtered again, what gets proceeded with and what doesn’t, so that they have total autonomy over what they deal with and what they don’t deal with. So these people are put in place to make sure these allegations don’t get out.
And it’s not just that, all them years that I worked urm in this remit we would get what they call referrals – now referrals could come through from schools, referrals could come from playgroups, from wherever.  And all the years I worked on child abuse investigations I was aware of only once a referral coming through from NSPCC, only once, now bear in mind they’ve got Childline and all those kids that would be ringing up Childline specially when Jimmy Savile got nicked and everything else - why didn’t they ever come through, why didn’t they ever come through? And, these people are filters. And my opinion is they are filters that these people are deliberately put in there to protect those who are involved. Deliberately’.
 
By these people, I understand that John is referring to senior officers but perhaps there is also a blockage in organizations like the NSPCC.

Thank you for bringing this to the forum.

In my limited investigation of some cases which involve police corruption, l know that corrupt police officers, whether into child sexual abuse other forms of corruption (usually corrupt relations with major career criminals) are routinely promoted senior positions. Not in all forces. But in too many.

In the case of the death of Lee Balkwell, which I have investigated for years, the first senior copper on the scene was Inspector Richard Croft sent there by a very senior officer.

At the inquest into Lee's death, local newspapers broke this story:

Paedophile police inspector Richard Croft is jailed for five years ...

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

 › News › UK News

2 Feb 2012 - Police inspector jailed for five years for sexually abusing schoolgirl

Essex Top Cop Paedophile convicted for 6 years

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

1 Feb 2008 - Richard Croft, 50, formerly of St Charles Road, Brentwood, subjected ... Croft, who has resigned from his job as an inspector with Essex Police ...

Madeleine McCann arrived at the Ocean Club resort, Praia da Luz with her family on Saturday 28th April 2007 and vanished sometime in the week before the family's scheduled return date of Saturday 5th May 2007.

Without delay, as soon as they were alerted, the Portuguese police commenced a thorough investigation into Madeleine's disappearance leaving no stone unturned, to coin a phrase, in accordance with standard policing protocol, contrary to UK media reportage.  Following the PJ's initial diligence, they found no evidence to support the hypothesis of forced entry;  stranger intrusion;   burglary;   abduction;  abduction by paedophile or paedophile gang;  abduction by child traffickers;  child wandering off alone.  Ostensibly Madeleine just disappeared off the face of the earth - no body, no remains, no confirmed sighting across the continents to this very day.

Why then, from the very beginning, was the Paedophile element introduced by the parents McCann and their group of friends, including David Payne. 

In May 2011, Madeleine's mother, Kate McCann-Healy, published a book entitled 'madeleine'.  In this book, on no fewer than 16 occasions, the author refers to the word paedophile/s..

He looked a little embarrassed and laughingly remarked to us that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man. It led to a conversation between the three of us about paedophiles.

We faced our biggest fear: that Madeleine had been taken by a paedophile and killed. This was the only scenario occupying our minds just then.

This initial discussion, though, was unsettling, focused as it was on the typical profile of a paedophile.

They told us, for example, about a newspaper clipping they’d seized from his house, an article entitled ‘Lock up Your Daughters’, which claimed that Casanova had been a paedophile.

The thought of Madeleine’s fear and pain tears me apart. The thought of paedophiles makes me want to rip my skin off.

I don’t mind if it’s in nice surroundings but certainly, in the case of paedophiles, away at all times from ANY contact with children.

Early on that was all I thought, all the time: that some paedophile had grabbed her, abused her and later killed her.

The second stemmed from the revulsion stirred up by my fear that Madeleine had suffered the worst fate we could imagine: falling into the hands of a paedophile.

When she was first stolen, paedophiles were all we could think about, and it made us sick, ate away at us.

The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn’t make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine’s abduction (and, please God, it isn’t); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out of my mind. Tortured as I was by these nauseating images, it’s probably not surprising that even the thought of sex repulsed me.

In one case, the paedophile had put on some of the father’s aftershave in an attempt to soothe or deceive the child.

Night after night, I read of depraved individuals, British paedophiles, Portuguese paedophiles, Spanish, Dutch and German paedophiles, and of the horrific crimes they’d committed.

He warned me that a British tabloid would be running a piece the following day about a convicted paedophile called Raymond Hewlett, who had been staying in Tavira on the Algarve in May 2007.

We now knew that there had been hundreds of paedophiles on the Algarve at that time and if, God forbid, one of them had been involved, Hewlett seemed a less likely candidate than a lot of others.

The proximity of Tavira to Praia da Luz and the fact that this man was a paedophile ticked all the boxes for the redtop papers, and they jumped on the story.

So, in the absence of any evidence to suggest stranger abduction by a paedophile or paedophile gang, I can only conlude that if Madeleine McCann was the victim of sex abuse, as so widely thought by the parents McCann and  their support network - then it could only have  been in-house !!!

Since there has been some recent interest in the McCann association with paedophile Sir Clement Freud and the conviction of McCann supporter & troll, Paedophile Nigel Nessling, I thought that I would bump this thread.

At risk of being repetative..


So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that.


Jon Corner



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

Dear McCanns,

I have a house in P da L, been ashamed of the intrusion to your lives by our media . . . and if you would care to come to lunch/dinner at any time before Wednesday next, do ring and let me know.
I cook decent meals.

Sincerely,
Clement Freud

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Verdi wrote:At risk of being repetative..


So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that.


Jon Corner



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

What in God's name could possibly make a man describe Madeleine in such terms? Other adults around her described her as liking role play and you could really interact.

It's not normal for men to describe a child in that way.

aquila wrote:

Verdi wrote:At risk of being repetative..


So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that.


Jon Corner



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

What in God's name could possibly make a man describe Madeleine in such terms? Other adults around her described her as liking role play and you could really interact.

It's not normal for men to describe a child in that way.

Neither is it normal for the parents to accept it.

And what about the resident suspect paedophile who liked to bathe the children?

aquila wrote: It's not normal for men to describe a child in that way.

And there lies the major clue as to the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance!

So beautiful - astonishingly bright - charismatic - special quality ??? 

No adult would use such adjectives to describe a child.  Even a mother wouldn't use such words to describe her own child .

:puke: