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.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by IAmNotMerylStreep on 25.07.11 12:07

I've just seen this article posted by Bishop_Basher on twitter. I hadn't seen it before but it's written by Mark Williams-Thomas, a child protection expert.

Even after the British sniffer dogs found evidence of blood and cadaver, this child protection expert was still able to conclude "This is why I believe even with such a small window of opportunity - the distance between the back entrance to the apartment and the 40 yard walk to the Tapas bar - that Madeleine became the victim of an opportunist and predatory paedophile who either lived in or had direct contacts with Praia da Luz."

Unbelievable. How can he say that? bigshock

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641314624

1:35pm UK, Thursday May 01, 2008
Mark Williams-Thomas, Child protection expert
As a criminologist, former detective and authority on paedophile crimes, I have followed the Madeleine McCann case from the very beginning.


What happened to her on that fateful night in May 2007? Where is she now, is she alive or dead? Was she murdered in her parent's apartment, and if so by whom?
Was she abducted from where she slept in between her brother and sister who remained asleep throughout?
Or did she wander out of the apartment looking for her parents and become the victim of an opportunistic predatory paedophile, who either used her for his own sexual gratification or smuggled her out of the country?
With apparent sightings in Morocco, Spain, France and the Netherlands you could easily believe the latter.
The most sinister of all these questions was whether Gerry and Kate McCann were involved with the disappearance of their own daughter.
In order to establish answers it is necessary to examine the police investigation.
The detailed examination of a scene plays a crucial part in any major investigation and after a critical incident like this, all police officers know it is vital to preserve the crime scene, build the foundations, complete forensics and identify possible witnesses immediately.
But I saw no evidence of this being done and it was without any doubt, the worst-preserved crime scene I have ever witnessed.
This investigation is like no other I have seen before or will hopefully ever see again.
For the past year the Portuguese police have had two lines of inquiry: the first, that Gerry and Kate were involved in Madeleine's disappearance and the second, that a stranger abducted her.
However, they have focused steadfastly on their first line of enquiry.
The public prosecutor's office in the Algarve believes police should keep looking for evidence against the McCanns even though doubt is being raised from other quarters, with officials in the Portuguese government asking for their arguido status to be lifted.
The investigation is all but closed and recent interviews with the 'Tapas Seven' revealed no new leads or discrepancies but did allow the police to establish the exact movements of Gerry and Kate both on the evening Madeleine disappeared and on the previous evening.
The next major development will be if Portuguese police manage to stage a reconstruction so they can examine the behaviour of all parties concerned - but this would put Gerry and Kate back under Portuguese jurisdiction.
It is quite correct for the police to consider the parents as suspects but what evidence do they have against them?
The time line is crucial. The last time Madeleine was seen by anyone independently was around 6.30pm with the alarm raised at 10pm, thus establishing a window of opportunity of approximately three-and-a-half hours.
However, both Gerry and Kate were with their friends in the tapas bar from approximately 8.30pm, only ever being away from the table for short periods of time.
So one or more of the parents did have the opportunity - but what would be the motive? Could it have been an accident or a deliberate act?
I don't believe for one minute it would have been deliberate so therefore could she have suffered an accident, causing the parents to panic?
At this point they could easily have explained away an accident.
But, if the theory is to be believed, they would have had to cold-bloodedly dispose of her body and then return to have dinner with their friends.
It is possible as most murdered children are killed by a relative or someone they know. The police are working on this premise although in this particular case this is where the theory falls down.
The police believe they hid Madeleine's body and didn't return to the location until five weeks later where - under the watchful glare of the world's media - they placed her by now decomposed body into the rear of their Renault Megane hire car before completely disposing of it.
The police have come to this conclusion because they have found partial DNA in the boot of the hire car, which I believe has either come from transfer when they moved Madeleine's clothes and belongings or even from those of her brother or sister.
While trafficking of children is a far greater problem than is acknowledged, Madeleine does not fit the profile.
Girls are trafficked for two reasons: into the sex trade as prostitutes or for domestic slavery, both with financial gain to the seller and purchaser. Who was to gain from her trafficking?
I believe the so-called sightings in other countries, although genuinely intended, are a distraction and prove to be of little value after the initial two weeks. Who is going to openly walk out with the most wanted child in the world?
I believe what happened on May 3 was that Madeleine woke up, cried for a short while, realised her parents weren't in the apartment as they had not come in to settle her, so she climbed out of bed and walked around the apartment.
She found the back patio door was insecure and partly open so she walked out, went down the small flight of steps and out of the gate, turning right down towards the entrance to the resort and the Tapas bar.
It was at this point that she was most likely abducted by an opportunistic predatory paedophile.
Interestingly the police dogs first tracked a scent down this exact route. Unfortunately, although it is within range of the supermarket CCTV it was not working.
I don't believe a paedophile was watching the apartment nor do I believe an offender entered the apartment - this would be too high-risk.
I accept that statistically the abduction of a child is very rare, with approximately six children abducted every year in the UK, but if we look at the abduction and murder of Sarah Payne we can see how my theory stands up.
On July 1, 2000, Sarah was playing a game of hide and seek in a cornfield with her sister and two brothers, received a knock on the head and decided to walk back to her grandparents' home.
She walked through a gap in the hedge with her brothers' only seconds behind - but by the time they reached the lane, Sarah had disappeared.
One of the brothers saw a white van coming down the road towards him, its wheels spinning. The driver seemed in a hurry to get away. Unknown to them, the man behind the wheel had just abducted Sarah. She was taken in a matter of seconds.
This is why I believe even with such a small window of opportunity - the distance between the back entrance to the apartment and the 40 yard walk to the Tapas bar - that Madeleine became the victim of an opportunist and predatory paedophile who either lived in or had direct contacts with Praia da Luz.
This is not a resort that you would just happen upon.
avatar
IAmNotMerylStreep

Posts : 196
Reputation : 28
Join date : 2011-05-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The words of "experts"

Post by Guest on 25.07.11 12:29

I think that this is the same McCann supporter and "expert" who, to give him credit, said that he thought that the issuing of the infamous blue eye shadow photo in 2010 was a mistake. We can only hope that he might have changed his opinions since this article was written.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by Gillyspot on 25.07.11 12:35

MWT is a plonker. He blocked me on twitter simply for sending him a link to the Gaspar Statement and wasn't bothered what it contained at all. He thinks that Madeleine could have got out of the apartment closing the patio doors and both gates outside. In this I am in agreement with Kate. Would never happen. That is if the gates & patio doors were actually closed though (assuming an abduction had taken place LOL).
avatar
Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by IAmNotMerylStreep on 25.07.11 12:46

B_B has also just tweeted this article from Paulo Reis:

Mark Williams-Thomas, another key figure in the McCann Case (*)

One of the most well known faces for the viewers of Sky News, the former Hampshire CID officer Mark Williams-Thomas, is also managing director of WT Associates, a company that offers, among many other services, media handling and advice for high profile cases and “design or review organisations media crisis policy”. Mr. Mark Williams-Thomas has been one of the most violent critics of the Portuguese Police investigation of Madeleine McCann's case.

We emailed WT Associates and asked if the company “has or had any contract with Mr.Gerry McCann, or with a relative of Mr. Gerry McCann, or with any Public Relations or Media company that has any relation with Mr. Gerry McCann or any relative of Mr. Gerry McCann.” The first answer was short and clear: “Yes we have. What is it you are after?”, was the reply, from a company's email, with no name or identification of the author, but sent from a Blueberry.

When we asked to confirm two details we already had – the contract was to provide media handling and advice for high profile cases, since the middle of May – the following answer was the opposite of the first: ““We are not providing any media support to the mc cann familly. But I have been in contact with the press officers for the family. I am unclear what you are after?”

A third attempt to clarify things got a reply that seemed more an order: “Call me. 07734 4XXXXX”, always whitout identifyng the person that was sending the emails or “asking” to be called on the phone. We send a text message, with our contacts and we are waiting for whoever sent the emails, from WT Associates, to call. We emailed also Sky News, asking it they were aware of the business quality of Mr Mark Williams-Thomas, whyle they invited him in to give opinion about Madeleine McCan's case, presenting him as a "child protection expert" or a "crime expert".

Mark Williams-ThomasProfile
His expertise includes in particular risk management and assessment of offenders - he has most recently been seen providing expert commentary on Sky News from Portugal about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann - and he now owns his own Child Protection and Risk Management Consultancy - WT Associates Ltd. Prior to setting up WT Associates in 2005, Mark was a police Detective specialising in major crime. He worked on or was in charge of some of the largest paedophile and murder investigations in the country, as well as being one of only 10 specialist Family Liaison officers during his time in the police. Mark is also completing a Masters in Criminology at the University of Central England.
UPDATE: On September 18, at 13h13, Mr. Mark Williams-Thomas sent me an email, with the following statement:

"There are no conflicts of interest. WT Associates has no business connections with the Mc Cann family and Mark Williams-Thomas provides his comments completely as an individual with no bias."

(*) Published on Saturday, 15 September 2007

Publicada por Paulo Reis em 17:13:00

http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2009/12/mark-williams-thomas-another-key-figure.html
avatar
IAmNotMerylStreep

Posts : 196
Reputation : 28
Join date : 2011-05-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by puzzled on 25.07.11 12:58

@IAmNotMerylStreep wrote:
Unbelievable. How can he say that?


Unfortunately experts have all the same failings as the rest of us. They can have political leanings, prejudices, make unconscious assumptions that they may not even be aware of, and all of these things can override their professional judgement. They can even be taken in by clever manipulators, as so many people can. As a criminologist, he must know that most of the time when kids go missing, the parents are involved, he must know that if kids are abducted by paedophiles they usually kill them within hours, and he must know that 'white-collar' psychopaths exist. Yet somehow he can put all these things aside, and draw the least likely conclusion instead of what his professional knowledge tells him is the most likely. Well, it's not the first time it has happened, and probably won't be the last.

puzzled

Posts : 204
Reputation : 22
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by Guest on 25.07.11 13:24

MWT is the idiot expert who claimed on GMTV that there would be another abduction very soon (2007) in the Algarve.

I hope he gets sued for that comment.

and you were wrong MWT...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by lj on 25.07.11 13:29

And that provides the motive for the "cover up". All these experts who so strongly supported the parents in the beginning will loose a lot of their credibility, they think, by now admitting that, as usual, the parents were involved in whatever happened.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
avatar
lj

Posts : 3327
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by littlepixie on 25.07.11 16:28

I just wonder when it was that Mr Williams-Thomas declared himself a child abuse expert and why. There was a tweet last week where he seemed to be bragging about all the child-porn he had had to view.

Why was HE viewing child-porn and where did he get it? Thats what I would like to know.
avatar
littlepixie

Posts : 1344
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by littlepixie on 31.03.13 21:05

He's doing it again on twitter, saying he's had to dye his hair to "work undercover investigating" and bragging about the terrible things he has had to see.
It makes me feel uncomfortable when an oridnary member of the Public involves themselves in what should be Police business.


Why did he leave the Police if wanted to carry on being a Policeman?

Did he reach Pension age?

Why doesn't he re-apply?
avatar
littlepixie

Posts : 1344
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by Monty Heck on 01.04.13 19:38

IAmNotMerylStreep on Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:07 pm




I've just seen this article posted by Bishop_Basher on twitter. I hadn't seen it before but it's written by Mark Williams-Thomas, a child protection expert.

Even after the British sniffer dogs found evidence of blood and cadaver, this child protection expert was still able to conclude "This is why I believe even with such a small window of opportunity - the distance between the back entrance to the apartment and the 40 yard walk to the Tapas bar - that Madeleine became the victim of an opportunist and predatory paedophile who either lived in or had direct contacts with Praia da Luz."

Unbelievable. How can he say that?

The most sinister of all these questions was whether Gerry and Kate McCann were involved with the disappearance of their own daughter. So asking whether the child's parents, the last people to have seen her alive, is the most sinister of all the questions MWT came up with in this piece? An investigative approach which is the norm in every other case of this kind always is made out to be sinister, inhuman treatment of suffering parents by UK commentators. This inistence from such quarters that there is something almost evil about investigating the McCs does absolutely nothing to help their case. It is the absence of their being officially cleared, having satisfied the investigation in England and in Portugal of their innocence of any involvement, which allows suspicion to remain regarding the two.


In order to establish answers it is necessary to examine the police investigation. The detailed examination of a scene plays a crucial part in any major investigation and after a critical incident like this, all police officers know it is vital to preserve the crime scene, build the foundations, complete forensics and identify possible witnesses immediately. But I saw no evidence of this being done and it was without any doubt, the worst-preserved crime scene I have ever witnessed. COMPLETELY IGNORES EVIDENCE OF CONTAMINATION OF THE CRIME SCENE BY THE PRINCIPAL ACTORS WELL IN ADVANCE OF FORENSICS COLLECTION.

The investigation is all but closed and recent interviews with the 'Tapas Seven' revealed no new leads or discrepancies but did allow the police to establish the exact movements of Gerry and Kate both on the evening Madeleine disappeared and on the previous evening. IF THIS WERE TRUE, LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE WOULD NOT HAVE CLAIMED POST THESE INTERVIEWS THAT, WHILE EITHER OR BOTH K & G MAY BE INNOCENT OF ANY INVOLVEMENT, THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.

The next major development will be if Portuguese police manage to stage a reconstruction so they can examine the behaviour of all parties concerned - but this would put Gerry and Kate back under Portuguese jurisdiction. WHY DOES MWT FEEL THE NEED FOR A "BUT" HERE? WHY DOES HE CONSIDER THAT PUTTING G & K BACK UNDER PORTUGUESE JURISDICTION SO THE BEHAVIOUR OF ALL PARTIES CONCERNED CAN BE EXAMINED (GIVING THE LIE TO HIS STATEMENT ABOVE ABOUT POLICE HAVING ESTABLISHED THEIR EXACT WHEREABOUTS THAT EVENING) WOULD BE A NEGATIVE, WHEN THIS WOULD HAVE MOVED THE INVESTIGATION ON?

So one or more of the parents did have the opportunity - but what would be the motive? Could it have been an accident or a deliberate act?
I don't believe for one minute it would have been deliberate so therefore could she have suffered an accident, causing the parents to panic?
At this point they could easily have explained away an accident. IF THE CHILDREN OF THE GROUP HAD BEEN OR WERE SEDATED THAT NIGHT, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IF AN ACCIDENT HAD BEEN ADMITTED, SO THERE WOULD BE AN EXTREMELY STRONG MOTIVE FOR NOT ADMITTING AN ACCIDENT.

I believe what happened on May 3 was that Madeleine woke up, cried for a short while, realised her parents weren't in the apartment as they had not come in to settle her, so she climbed out of bed and walked around the apartment. She found the back patio door was insecure and partly open so she walked out, went down the small flight of steps and out of the gate, turning right down towards the entrance to the resort and the Tapas bar. It was at this point that she was most likely abducted by an opportunistic predatory paedophile. THIS THEORY LEAVES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HARM BEFALLING THEIR CHILD AS A RESULT OF THEIR ACTIONS WITH THE PARENTS. THAT A CHILD OF THAT AGE COULD HAVE LEFT AN UNSECURED APARTMENT WAS A POSSIBLITY WHICH WAS FORSEEABLE, WHEREAS ABDUCTION FROM HER BEDROOM WOULD BE MUCH LESS SO. AS IT STANDS, WE HAVE ONLY KMcC'S WORD FOR IT THAT THE STAIR GATES AND PATIO DOOR WERE CLOSED AND IT TOOK A VERY LONG TIME FOR HER TO REVEAL THAT AS THE REASON WHY SHE INSTANTLY KNEW HER CHILD HAD BEEN ABDUCTED.

I don't believe a paedophile was watching the apartment nor do I believe an offender entered the apartment - this would be too high-risk. AT LAST, A CREDIBLE STATEMENT!

Apologies for all the capitals. My laptop is dying and refused to allow continuing formatting my comments in blue.
MH

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-09-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by ShuBob on 01.04.13 19:59

IMO, MWT is not fit for purpose. He should stick to scripted tv programmes.

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by Monty Heck on 01.04.13 20:15

ShuBob Today at 7:59 pm
He certainly seems gullible or partisan, or perhaps a bit of both. Perhaps he does better with a script, indeed!

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-09-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by Tony Bennett on 01.04.13 20:17

@ShuBob wrote:IMO, MWT is not fit for purpose. He should stick to scripted tv programmes.
Ray Wyre also said he was an expert on paedophilia, child sexual abuse and the treatment of sex offenders - and many people believed him, including police forces and probation services.

And so he was, in a way.

But not perhaps in the way he meant us to understand.

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14978
Reputation : 3029
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by Olympicana_Reloaded on 27.04.13 18:39

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:IMO, MWT is not fit for purpose. He should stick to scripted tv programmes.
Ray Wyre also said he was an expert on paedophilia, child sexual abuse and the treatment of sex offenders - and many people believed him, including police forces and probation services.

And so he was, in a way.

But not perhaps in the way he meant us to understand.

Inside the mind of the paedophile - and the wife standing by him

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-463179/Inside-mind-paedophile--wife-standing-him.html

Many will find this article deeply disturbing. But as a paedophile ring is smashed, one man jailed for child porn offences gives a brutally honest insight into his warped desires... and his wife reveals why she's standing by him.

Bill Henkel and his wife Sharon sit close together on a sofa in their bright, immaculate detached home in a quiet corner of eastern England.

They are active members of their local church. They sing in old age homes and Henkel, 47, likes to help the elderly of the parish with D.I.Y. jobs.

On the surface, there is nothing remarkable about the couple. The same could be said of their home.

Observant visitors, however, might note the absence of any computers - a clue to the fact that this is no ordinary marriage.

In June 2003, Henkel was caught downloading child pornography at work. He was prosecuted, sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment in March last year and released at the halfway point in October.

In the wake of the smashing of Britain's largest internet paedophile ring, reported in yesterday's Mail, Bill's account of his desires and his battle to control them makes compelling reading. It offers a chilling insight into the mind of a paedophile.

This week a court heard how 700 paedophiles had accessed a website - set up by 28-year-old brewery worker Timothy Cox, from Suffolk - containing 11,000 images, including more than 1,000 videos of children being abused.

While Cox was given an "indeterminate sentence", Bill Henkel admits that, in his case, getting caught was the best thing that could have happened to him.

Henkel, 48, once a high-flying IT expert, had known throughout his adult life that his sexuality was warped.

His wife of 17 years, 40-year-old Sharon, had also known - after they experienced sexual problems - that her husband was sexually attracted to young girls.

But she never thought he would offend because she had accompanied him on visits to doctors, psychologists and therapists.

Numerous counsellors helped them resolve some difficulties, but each concluded they could not overcome Henkel's paedophile tendencies.

His GP told him that the only effective treatment and therapy near where he lived was for convicted offenders.

Many will question why Sharon, a former clerical worker, was prepared to remain with her husband. She has had to deal with agonising moral issues.

Would she have had any concerns, for example, if they'd had daughters of their own? How would she have felt if he had assaulted a young girl?

Yet Sharon believes that Henkel is a decent man, which is why she worked so hard to help him cope with his urges. Even so, having trusted that he wouldn't jeopardise their marriage, his conviction was a mighty blow.

Sharon says: "Of course I was hurt and angry. We'd tried to deal with the problem together for years. I'd given him all the support I could muster.

"My comfort was that in every other way he was a good man and a good husband. I thought he'd keep fighting his urges. I never feared he'd become an offender. That trust was shattered.

"I was sickened when I learned what he had been doing. I could have walked away then and left him to it, but within hours of him being found out, I could see his remorse was genuine.

"I was disgusted, but it wasn't anything like the revulsion he felt for himself. His determination to seek help was stronger than ever.

"In the end, it wasn't such a hard decision for me to stick around and help him. I'd been in that role for years."

Sharon's faith in Bill and her ability to empathise might be rooted in common experience. Both were victims of serious sexual abuse as children.

Both their abusers were convicted and jailed, and both died while serving their sentences.

Henkel, however, refuses to hook his long-standing problems on to that aspect of his childhood.

More significant, he believes, was his infatuation as a boy with a friend's younger sister. He says: "I was about 12 and she was about ten when we met.

"It wasn't just the way she looked. She was a lovely little girl, always the first to go to a younger kid in the street and help them if they'd fallen or were crying.

"Everyone loved her. I never got over the immense attraction I felt for her. I grew up and she grew up and we lost touch.

"But in my fantasies, she remained that sweet ten-year-old girl, and gradually images of other girls of that age replaced her in my fantasies.'

Henkel seems comfortable discussing the matter with Sharon at his side. She was initially reluctant about his decision to speak publicly about a subject that most people would want to bury, but Henkel persuaded her otherwise, thereby providing a telling insight into the opportunities afforded to men like him by the computer age.

He says: "I feel it's almost part of my rehabilitation to say publicly that I'm sorry, that I'm doing all I can to stop myself reoffending and, by the way, here are some measures that could be taken to stop others."

Henkel was an expert at an IT firm where he was responsible for advising on computer safety and preventing internet abuse.

After he started to view pornography on his computer, he made recommendations to the firm that would have prevented him from continuing to do so, but they were deemed unnecessary.

His viewing grew into an addiction. Bill refused to have a computer at home so that he wouldn't be tempted to look at banned images.

He knew he was doing wrong, but couldn't stop. He had to wait until he was in jail to get the support he needed.

"Getting caught and going to jail saved my life," Henkel says.

He is not exaggerating. Before his capture, he had recognised the downward spiral in which he was caught and had attempted suicide by overdosing three times, coming close to succeeding on two occasions. But he was found by Sharon who called an ambulance.

Asked whether his despair was rooted in the fear that he might eventually try to act out the fantasies he was viewing online, he pauses.

Sharon tries to answer for him: "I don't think that was ever likely. He'd been fighting these feelings for so long and he'd been open about his problems with me. I don't believe he could have hurt a child."

Yet before she can continue, Henkel interrupts and with chilling honesty says: "Sharon, you're kidding yourself. Why do you think I tried to kill myself?

"I did realise that the fantasies were getting stronger and I was becoming more and more obsessed. After a while, the material you're viewing doesn't give you the same buzz and you look for more extreme versions.

"Eventually, the most hardcore images you could find wouldn't do it for you. I recognised that my fantasies were going in a direction I didn't like and that I might not be able to control myself.

"So, yes, I think there was a danger that I might have tried to get access to a child, and I really didn't want to go there.

"At that point, I wasn't sure where it was leading, but it could have ended up with somebody hurt because the fantasy of acting out what I was viewing was getting stronger."

Henkel began working at the IT firm nine years ago. Like thousands of other people, by the year 2000 he was receiving daily e-mail invitations to view "teen hotties" and "horny college girls".

He began viewing some of the sites and within four months he had progressed from looking at legal adult porn sites to accessing child porn through news groups - internet sites where people with similar interests share information.

Bill says: "I was sucked into this world of depravity. I became totally addicted. I spent hours at work when I didn't need to be there.

"The pull of the material was so strong that on several occasions, I'd be on my way home and would call Sharon to say there was a computer virus at work, and I was going to be late. Then I'd return for another session. It took over my life."

His technical knowledge of computers enabled him to take precautions against discovery by regularly wiping the hard drive.

The same tactic was used every three months by Gordon McIntosh, the paedophile who re-established Timothy Cox's website, Kids The Light Of Our Lives, once he had been arrested.

McIntosh, 33, from Hertfordshire, admitted to police after he was arrested that he would wipe clean his hard drive regularly in a fit of remorse but, like Henkel, would re-start soon afterwards.

A week before Henkel was caught he found images of himself and his brother as children, naked and looking miserable, online.

Their abuser had photographed them and the images were on the internet some 40 years later.

The haunting experience proved a turning point. For the first time, he could empathise with the children he was looking at.

He says: "My thinking was distorted until then. I didn't see children being abused. I saw them, as I believed, enjoying sexual activity.

"But I knew I'd been abused and I hadn't enjoyed what had happened to me.

"When I saw those pictures of myself, it helped me realise that children having sex with adults were victims, and by demanding to see these images online, I was contributing to the children's abuse.

"Yet although my thinking started to become clearer, and I didn't feel comfortable with what I was doing, it didn't stop me carrying on."

A week later, Henkel downloaded erotic paedophile fiction. Without realising, he sent the story to a printer on another floor of his office building.

He wonders now whether his subconscious pushed him to end the matter. The images Henkel had recently viewed online were also discovered.

During the 21 months before the trial reached court, the couple tried to find experts to help Henkel manage his compulsions.

His GP recommended Relate, but after three months of marriage counselling, the organisation concluded that they couldn't do any more for Bill.

A Harley Street psychologist put Henkel in touch with Ray Wyre, one of the UK's leading experts on sex offending.

Wyre proved a godsend for the couple. Sharon says: "While I was trying to support Bill, I was still wondering why he had to do it.

"Ray Wyre helped me realise the highly addictive nature of computers and pornography. Those who use their computer to access porn can access a limitless supply. Fantasy after fantasy can be fulfilled.

"Ray had seen it with other offenders he had worked with - the material just sucks them in and takes over their lives. It is highly corrosive.

"I can never excuse Bill for what he did, but it was important for me to hear someone explain that internet pornography is well-known for distorting reality and ruining lives."


Henkel also received therapy in jail. "The support available inside was first-class," he says.

"Especially the mental health service and support from the chaplain and his team at Bedford prison. They developed an amazing insight into my problems.

"I was taught to challenge my behaviour and to put the needs of victims before my own desires.

"The method is not fool-proof, but as long as I want to avoid offending, the correct strategies are in place."

Henkel continues: "I've been seeing Mr Wyre at intervals since I got out of jail, and I feel that with his help and Sharon's support I'm on top of things.

"For so many years I thought that if I told people my problems and my fantasies, they would despise me. But telling therapists and doctors has been my salvation.

"I'm sitting here with my wife and we are in love and supporting each other through this. I'm not suggesting that I can be cured of my fascination, but I have learned not to act on it, and to take precautions to ensure I don't even try."

Henkel says he believes that all sex offenders should be subject to extended sentences that would involve 15 to 20 years' community supervision after release from jail.

"Human rights groups might protest," he says. "But what about a child's right not to be abused? Which carries more weight? I know from my own experience that sentences must not only be longer but more appropriate to sexual offending.

"No monitoring period should be less than ten years, and if necessary it should be for life."

Henkel believes tough legislation should be passed to force the Internet Service Providers to clamp down on illegal activity online.

He says: "We've been hearing for years that it's too big a job, but it's not true. The ISPs simply have to monitor the smaller servers, and if they discover that much of their content is illegal - be it child porn or access to illegal drugs or dangerous chemicals - they should shut them down.

"It wouldn't catch everything, but that measure, combined with stiff penalties for those providing or promoting illegal material, would make a huge difference."

Henkel is not sure what the future holds, though he says he and Sharon have a very happy and "full" marriage.

He held a senior position at his former firm, but fears that the stress of another big job with a big salary might provoke a relapse.

"I'd rather stack shelves in a supermarket, earn less money and keep in control of my problems than risk an environment where I might slip back.

"I owe Sharon an awful lot and I don't want to let her down, or anyone else who has helped me."

Sharon signals her trust with a smile and squeezes his arm reassuringly. Only time will tell if her faith is well placed.

Olympicana_Reloaded

Posts : 167
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by tigger on 28.04.13 12:25

Adding this for good measure:

Mark Williams-Thomas started a company W.T. ASSOCIATES LTD.on the 10th June 2007

as well as another company MATTERS2ME LIMITED - which was also started on the same date.

Mr. Mark Williams Thomas and Mrs. Karen Williams-Thomas are both listed as directors of both firms.

____________________

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by ShuBob on 28.04.13 12:59

@tigger wrote:Adding this for good measure:

Mark Williams-Thomas started a company W.T. ASSOCIATES LTD.on the 10th June 2007

as well as another company MATTERS2ME LIMITED - which was also started on the same date.

Mr. Mark Williams Thomas and Mrs. Karen Williams-Thomas are both listed as directors of both firms.

____________________

IIRC, MWT tried to flog some "child protection" DVD off the back of Maddie's disappearance in 2007. I don't think he sold very many copies.

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by Guest on 28.04.13 13:39

He should have asked Team McCann for advice in how to market a product successfully!

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/mark-williams-thomas-ma-pg-dip/3/884/2b5

As with it seems everyone associated with the McCanns, the details given here raise questions. What has happened to his police service prior to 2005? He mentions only that he was there for the year 2009/10 when he was self-employed elsewhere!
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by jd on 28.04.13 14:32

Apparently MWT is a freemason at St James' Lodge

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by Olympicana_Reloaded on 03.05.13 4:36

Attorney general reviews child sex abuser's sentence

A sex offender spared jail after a judge considered the "impact" on his family is having his sentence reviewed by the attorney general.

Gary Karn, 48, was given an 18-month suspended prison sentence at Norwich Crown Court for sexually assaulting two girls, aged seven and eight.

Sentencing guidelines suggest a prison term of up to four years.

Judge Mark Lucraft said he had to consider the "hardship" prison would cause Karn's wife and two children.

Karn was convicted of three offences of sexual assault following a trial and sentenced on 24 April.

'Worked hard'

His wife had written to the court saying that if he were jailed, Karn would lose his job and the family could lose their home.

Judge Mark Lucraft told Karn: "You are clearly a man who has worked hard and been in employment throughout your adult life, working for local businesses and working to support your family.

"I have to consider the impact on them: people who are not in any way at fault for what has happened, yet might suffer serious hardship."

Announcing Karn's sentence of 18 months, Judge Lucraft said he had considered whether it could be suspended.

"In the light of what I know about the impact on your family, I think it can - just," he said.

Extreme pornographic image

Karn was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work, made the subject of a five-year sexual offences prevention order and banned from working with children for five years.

Judge Lucraft said he had taken into account six counts of possessing an extreme pornographic image and one count of possession of indecent photographs of a child, with which Karn was also charged.

The Attorney General's Office said it was considering whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, which has powers to increase a sentence if it is "unduly lenient".

It said it had received a request from a member of the public for the sentence to be reviewed.


It has until 22 May to decide whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-22385464

Olympicana_Reloaded

Posts : 167
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

The Manor of St. James

Post by Guest on 03.05.13 10:42

@jd wrote:Apparently MWT is a freemason at St James' Lodge
Very interesting, if true:



Freemasons in the police

The Guardian

Published January 1997 No comments... »


Today the Guardian publishes for the first time what we believe is a unique photograph. It pierces the wall of secrecy which surrounds one of Britain’s most mysterious organisations by revealing a large gathering of London policemen wearing the white gloves, embroidered sashes and lambskin aprons of the worshipful order of freemasonry.

At the time that the picture was taken, these 60 men were members of Masonic Lodge number 9179, known as the Manor of St James, which was founded eleven years ago, on January 27 1986, for the exclusive use of Scotland Yard officers who had worked in the West End of London. The picture, which has been leaked to the Guardian by non-Masonic Metropolitan police officers, appears to have been taken at one of their inaugural meetings and includes men who then occupied some of the most powerful jobs in the force.

Since April 1985, when Sir Kenneth Newman was Commissioner, Scotland Yard have been advising their officers to stay away from the lodges. According to The Principles of Policing, which was produced under Sir Kenneth: “The discerning officer will probably consider it wise to forgo the prospect of pleasure and social advantage in freemasonry so as to enjoy the unreserved regard of all those around him. It follows from this that one who is already a freemason would also be wise to ponder from time to time whether he should continue as a freemason.”

And yet the Manor of St James is still active. On Monday of this week, a Guardian photographer caught dozens of former and serving police officers as they made their way through the crowded pavements of St James’s Street, off Picadilly. Wearing dinner jackets and carrying their Masonic regalia in flat black brief cases, they converged on number 86, an imposing sandstone building which looks like any of the gentleman’s clubs around the corner, in Pall Mall, but which is in fact the site of a Masonic temple.

Inside, they gathered to hold their annual ritual to install a London policeman as the new master of the lodge, to elect other police officers as their stewards, tylers and almoners, and to consider the names of prospective new members, all of them drawn from the past and present ranks of the Metropolitan Police, all of them willing to be blindfolded with a noose around their neck and a dagger to their heart while they are warned that if they break their vows of secrecy and loyalty, they will have their throats cut and their tongues torn out by the root. And then, until late into the night, they dined together.

The leaking of the photograph co-incides with new efforts by politicians and senior police officers to meet public concern about the role of freemasons in law-enforcement. Masons insist that they are misunderstood and that their organisation stands for service to “our God, our country and our laws”. Critics fear that the secrecy of the organisation and its stern oaths of “mutual defence and support” conflict with a police officer’s need to be seen to apply the law impartially.

The Police Complaints Authority, which says its own ranks are free of masons, is pressing for a new law to compel police masons to declare their membership on a register of interests. Last October, the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACPO, supported the move. And today (Jan 29), the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs continues its own inquiry into the issue, taking evidence from ACPO as well as from the Police Federation, which represents lower ranks and which is fighting for the status quo. Until now, the issue has been as secretive as it has been controversial.

The evidence of the membership of the Manor of St James is that freemasonry reaches high into the command structure of the Metropolitan Police. Among the founder members of the lodge was Gilbert Kelland, who was in charge of all of London’s three thousand detectives when he was the Assistant Commissioner for Crime from 1977 to 1984. He is pictured here in his regalia, in the third row back, three from the right.

Among his worshipful brothers who joined the lodge, in spite of Sir Kenneth’s request, are two Deputy Assistant Commissioners, Peter Nievens and Edgar Maybanks; twelve commanders, including George Churchill-Coleman and Jim Neville, both of whom headed the Anti Terrorist Squad, and Malcolm Campbell, who was the head of Scotland Yard’s intelligence branch; John Cass, who was a Scotland Yard commander before becoming co-ordinator for the nation’s regional crime squads; at least two dozen chief superintendents; a dozen superintendents; and more than a score from the lower ranks.

One of the few officers in the lodge who did take Sir Kenneth’s advice is Tony Speed, who is now the Assistant Commissioner for Central London. He said last week that he had followed his father and grandfather into the Craft, joining his first lodge when he was 21. “There was no furore about it in those days and I have to say that in something like 20 years as a mason I never came across anything that made me feel ashamed or that I felt was wrong. But then about ten years ago, the public perception began to change and we were advised that we should reconsider our position and so, simply because of this problem of perception, I resigned.”

Most of his colleagues in the lodge did not see it that way. Malcolm Campbell is still serving as a commander and has not resigned from the lodge but says that he no longer attends its functions. Many of the others in the picture are now retired although sources who know the Manor of St James say they have been joined by a steady stream of serving officers.

Martin Short, author of the most detailed account of modern British freemasonry, Inside The Brotherhood, estimates that 20% of London officers belong to Masonic lodges. He says there is cause for concern about this and in December, he gave evidence to the Select Committee inquiry of a case he had researched recently in Lancashire which, he told them, “demonstrates just how badly the administration of justice can go wrong when police, Crown Prosecution solicitors and private citizens are all in the same Masonic lodge.”

This story began one night in 1988 when two Leicester businessmen were taking a late-night drink in a hotel in Blackburn. A group of burly strangers in dinner jackets ordered them out of the bar. The Leicester men declined to go. The strangers then announced that they were policemen and proceeded to beat them up. They then called other police who arrested the two Leicester men and charged them with assaulting police officers. When the Leicester men were released on bail the next morning, they found that the hotel manager had seized their belongings until they agreed to pay for damage caused by the fight and that someone had let all the air out of their car tyres and removed their hub caps.

The Blackburn police and Crown prosecutors pursued the case to court, where the two Leicester men faced substantial jail sentences for allegedly assaulting policemen. But the case fell apart. The jury rejected all of the police evidence and found that the Leicester businessmen were not guilty of any offence at all. The judge signalled his own view by taking the unusual step of ordering that the defendants’ costs should be paid out of the public purse. The two men then sued for assault, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, conspiracy to injure and libel. In an out-of-court settlement, they were awarded £170,000, most of which was paid on behalf of the policemen by the Lancashire force.

Martin Short told the Select Committee that freemasonry was at the heart of this case. The two Leicester men had stumbled into the tail-end of a Masonic event, a dinner organised by the Victory lodge of Blackburn. This lodge, said Short, is dominated by police officers: the policemen who were involved in the original fight, the officer who subsequently investigated the incident, a senior official in the Crown Prosecution office which handled the case, and the manager of the hotel where the dinner took place were all members of the Victory lodge.

No-one is suggesting that all Masonic officers are corrupt or even liable to become corrupt. However, in the past, there have been occasions when Masonic lodges have acted as nests of corruption, where detectives have rubbed shoulders with professional criminals in an atmosphere of friendship and loyalty with disastrous results. When Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Squad was destroyed by scandal in the late 1960s, twelve officers were jailed for taking bribes from pornographers. All of them were masons, including the head of the squad, Detective Chief Superintendent Bill Moody, who had even helped one of the pornographers he was supposed to be arresting to become a member of his own lodge.

On the other side of the argument, there have been high-profile examples of Masonic officers fighting corruption. During the Operation Countryman inquiry in the 1980s, it was a Masonic detective chief superintendent, John Simmons, who secretly tape-recorded his brother mason, Detective Chief Inspector Phil Cuthbert, boasting of his villainy and of the involvement of other senior officers in taking bribes and setting up armed robberies. However, Simmons was later ostracised by his lodge, while Cuthbert continued to be welcomed, even after he had been convicted and jailed for three years.

Some of the most angry critics of freemasonry are police officers who do not belong to the lodges. They fear that masons may promote brother officers and conceal each other’s wrong doing and that, on occasion, they might abuse their internal powers to discipline troublesome non-masonic officers. One serving Metropolitan Police detective said: “This is a secret society at the heart of Scotland Yard. I have no doubt that some masons use the lodges to get their way and this is not acceptable for the public or for the police service as a whole.” The Police Complaints Authority says that some officers have approached them privately to voice their concerns about some masonic colleagues.

One non-masonic officer says he reported to his commander that colleagues had invented a fictitious informer so that they could claim reward money for crimes which they solved and then share it among themselves. He claims that he was moved sideways while his colleagues were allowed to carry on and that he subsequently discovered that the corrupt officers and the commander were all “on the square”. Another claims to have heard a superintendent boasting that he was recruiting a new officer to his squad and that he was shortlisting only masons.

The Police Complaints Authority has run into problems with masonic officers. On one occasion a man complained that he had been charged as the result of a masonic conspiracy. He then discovered that the superintendent who was investigating his complaint was himself a mason. The superintendent resigned and was replaced by a second officer who also turned out to be a mason. On another occasion, a provincial Chief Constable simply refused to ask whether one of his officers, who was looking into allegations about masons, was himself a member of a lodge.

Masons played a prominent part in the demise of John Stalker, the former Deputy Chief Constable of Manchester who tried to unravel a cover-up of political shootings in Northern Ireland and in the case of the Scotland Yard Chief Inspector Brian Woolard, who found evidence that his career had been blighted by senior masons after he attempted to uncover the role of civilian masons in a fraud. Masonic officers argue that policemen who want to be corrupt can make bad friendships through golf clubs or Round Table dinners, and that the lodges have no special influence.

When Sir Kenneth Newman produced his advice in 1985, his office considered all of the available evidence. The booklet which he produced acknowledged that the lodges offered friendship, a chance to mix with “some of the most distinguished people in the land” and an invitation to self-improvement. It noted that many of the allegations that were made against them were unsupported or plain wrong. Yet it concluded that some of the allegations were reliable and that the exclusivity of the lodges, the oddness of their rituals and their collection of coded signals amounted to a significant problem. “They militate against the acceptance, by colleagues and citizens alike, of an officer who is a freemason as a man on whose fairness it is possibly to rely always and unquestionably… A freemason’s oath holds inevitably the implication that loyalty to fellow freemasons may supersede any other loyalty.” The worshipful brothers of the Manor of St James disagree.

The two sides of the story came face to face late last year when the current Metropolitan Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon, appeared in front of the Select Committee which is investigating freemasonry in law enforcement. The Commissioner had reassured the committee that all was well but, as he prepared to leave, he was confronted by Chris Mullin, the ebullient Labour MP for Sunderland South, who had acquired his own copy of our photograph. Mullin pulled out the picture and told the Commissioner: “I thought you might like to have a look at your alternative command structure.”

Categories: Freemasons.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by Olympicana_Reloaded on 16.06.13 2:23

Marian wrote:
I think that this is the same McCann supporter and "expert" who, to give him credit, said that he thought that the issuing of the infamous blue eye shadow photo in 2010 was a mistake. We can only hope that he might have changed his opinions since this article was written.

Online Child Abuse: Understanding Offender Behaviour and Managing Risk

Professor Julia Davidson, Centre for Abuse & Trauma Studies , Kingston University
II^ INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE ADVANCED HIGH SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Criminal Behaviours: Impacts, Tools and Social Networks Milan, ITALY 10- 12 MAY 2013

Indecent Images: Denial of Harm

• Features of some images (smiling / happy faces) justify and help some men continue with child sexual abuse. Judicious selection to support offending:

If I saw a facial look that they were uncomfortable in what they were doing…I would filter that out……

• Some boundaries also became blurred:

At the time… I said I’m not doing any harm. Harm isn’t even being caused. Its all just pornography; its all part of the same thing.

Indecent Images: Demand & Status

• Sense of kudos / credibility being a provider of material - made some individuals feel important:

‘…it was something else I thought I was good at. I knew where to go. I would even show off to people [in chat rooms]… I became part of a club and I had more images I could show off to them’

‘I felt powerful and important knowing that people wanted access to my images. It was exciting and gave me a kick. When I logged on I would get a stream of requests ‘do you have something new for us’. I then began to abuse more frequently to meet the request for more pictures’

http://www.cats-rp.org.uk/pdf%20files/Milan%202013%20presentations/Davidson_plenary_Milan_2013.pdf

Olympicana_Reloaded

Posts : 167
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mark Williams-Thomas, child protection expert

Post by Guest on 06.08.13 22:24

Just resurrecting this topic in view of the current one on the same dodgy character.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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