OMG Mirror Front Page tomorrow!!! Raymond Hewlett again

The Daily Mirror claims police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are looking once again at convicted sex offender, Raymond Hewlett.

I think even the dimmest of the dim DM readers is going to find this a bit too much.

I'm losing the will to live ...
No ... not really, of course. But OMG, what's next again ..?!

Isn't he dead? Cue perfect neat ending to SY investigation and easy get out clause. "Dead paedophile responsible for Madeleine's disappearance."

You couldn't make it up. Oh, wait...

It's like being stuck in a time warp, this story published here in 2009......



By David Jones


Created 7:49 PM on 29th May 2009

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189597/Portrait-paedophile-So-did-Raymond-Hewlett-snatch-Maddie.html#ixzz2D5MUwNyN



Can't wait for the re-hashed version tomorrow!

Despite the deliberate selection of a photo of Hewlett to look like the sketch (in the mail article), he was supposed to be 62 at the time of her disappearance. There is no way the mysterious sketch man is that old!

candyfloss, thank you for alerting us.

There is more than a hint in the Daily Mirror article that after £4 million and nearly 2 years of the Scotland Yard Review, D.C.I. Redwood is going to come up with: "It was Raymond Hewlett, or someone connected with him".

Some of us guessed long ago that this might be the way in which the story of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann could be quietly buried: "The secret of Madeleine's disappearance will never be known; the secret died with Raymond Hewlett.

Partly with that in mind, I set about writing the complete story of Raymond Hewlett and how his name was dragged into the story of madeleine's disappearance. I was prompted by one of the most absurd articles ever published on the Madeleine McCann case, the article in The Sun on 1 September 2010.

That article said that Wayne Hewlett (who had been estranged from his father Raymond for 20 years) had burnt a letter which contained the secret of where Madeleine had been taken. He said it had been given it by 'a mystery man'. Apparently, the 'mystery man' had obtained it from the dying Raymond Hewlett, who had written it on his deathbed. It was an unlikely story, incapable of being proved.

I have reproduced the entire, 20,000-word long article on another thread. It is intended to be a reference point for material on Raymond Hewlett, not least for the mainstream media - if, that is, there is still a journalist and an editor anywhere in this land who might recognise that the attempt to link Raymond Hewlett to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was utterly threadbare.

I say I have reproduced the article. I have left out 5 sentences which the McCanns said were libellous, and which are part of the High Court action against. These sentences were about 170 words or less than 1% of my article. They agreed there was no libel in the other 99%.

I know my article was very long and some of you will not be able to find the time to read it. I hope some of you will find the time to do so over the next few days. I suspect that this is by far from being the last that we shall have heard of Raymond Hewlett and his alleged connection to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Link to the Hewlett article here: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6028-did-paedophile-raymond-hewlett-really-know-what-happened-to-madeleine-mccann

Here is the story 24th November 2012....

New Madeleine McCann sensation: Cold case cops investigate paedophile in search for Maddy

24 Nov 2012 00:00

The child molester, who has a string of child sex convictions, was living on the Algarve when the youngster vanished from her holiday home

Child molester Raymond Hewlett went to his death refusing to speak to investigators hunting for Madeleine McCann after he was sensationally linked to her disappearance.

But police have now turned their attention back to the notorious paedophile who has a string of child sex convictions and was living on the Algarve when the youngster vanished from her holiday home in May 2007.

Scotland Yard detectives who opened a review into the Madeleine mystery want to speak to a couple who befriended the former soldier while they were on holiday in Portugal.

They were told by him he had been approached by gypsies wanting to buy one of his six children.

Alan and Cindy Thompson met pervert Hewlett, his German wife Mariana Schmucker and their kids.

It was only after they returned to Britain they learned from a fellow holidaymaker that the seemingly harmless drifter had been jailed three times for vile attacks on young girls.

The couple raised the alarm after ­realising he and his family had been staying in their converted truck at a camping site near Praia da Luz at the time three-year-old Madeleine disappeared as her parents Kate and Gerry dined out with friends nearby.

Speaking after making the link Alan, 59, said: “Hewlett befriended us but kept quiet about his terrible past.”

The sex beast told the Nottingham couple how he was approached by some “gypsy tourists” offering cash for his own daughter.

Like Madeleine, she was blonde-haired and blue-eyed. He said he refused.

Cindy, 50, added: “We didn’t think too much of this at the time.

"Ray and his family led a desperate hand-to-mouth lifestyle and someone may have thought he’d be tempted to sell one of his six children.”

Hewlett, once on a ­Crimestoppers list of most wanted ­paedophiles, bore a striking resemblance to a suspect seen lurking outside the McCanns’ apartment.

He also repeatedly refused to give an alibi.

Described as “cunning” and a “danger to children”, it is feared the pervert might have kidnapped Madeleine to sell to the gypsies or even smuggled her into North Africa.

He admitted leaving Portugal for Morocco three weeks after she disappeared.

The 64-year-old was tracked down by investigators Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley, who were working for Kate and Gerry, before his 2010 death from throat cancer.

But despite being confronted on three occasions, he refused to speak to the private detectives about the case.

Former Scots Guard Peter Verran, 46, shared a Moroccan campsite with Hewlett between June and November 2007.

He said: “He told me gypsies wanted to pay good money for his daughter and he’d met some who traded in children and sold them to paedophiles.”

Another former pal in the ­Portuguese town of Tavira – where Hewlett’s family used to park their truck – revealed how he developed a close friendship with two gypsy families.

US-born artist Leonardo Leopoldo, 79, said: “No one spoke to the gypsies apart from Ray.

"He was always talking to them. There was talk in the area they sold children to ­paedophiles.

“By the time, Madeleine was snatched, he was very friendly with them.”

The Thompsons recalled Hewlett telling how he had gone to Morocco with his family to make a sale.

He did not elaborate but said it was “a good business trip and he made a profit”.

There were numerous sightings of a girl matching Madeleine’s description in the North African country after she was taken.

Alan and Cindy contacted Hewlett in September 2009 to ask him about any link to her disappearance.

When quizzed about his Morocco trip he replied ­sarcastically: “Yes, so? That makes me guilty then?

"In Morocco, everything’s worth ­something. You can get 25 euros for an old bike.”

Speaking after he and Mr Cowley tracked Hewlett down to Germany, Mr Edgar said: “It would appear certain now that he does not want to talk to us.

“We want to know where Hewlett was when Madeleine McCann went missing.

“Does he know anything about Madeleine and will he speak to us? This is the first named person we have flown out to see.

“We want to eliminate this man from our inquiries as quickly as possible.

"His evidence could be crucial but we won’t know until we’ve spoken to him.”

German newspapers quoted police sources as saying the pervert boasted he had seen Madeleine twice before she died.

And in a deathbed letter to estranged son Wayne, he claimed to know what had happened to the youngster.

Hewlett denied having anything to do with her disappearance but said he knew she had been stolen to order by a gypsy gang.

Detectives are also looking at interviews Hewlett gave before his death in which he admitted being in the Algarve when Madeleine was snatched.

He told the Sunday Mirror: “It’s obvious why they’re ­interested in me. But they can all think what they like.

"I didn’t kill the McCann girl. It’s the truth and it’ll never change.

"I know I didn’t do anything wrong, but if people aren’t listening, what can you do? I didn’t kill the McCann girl.”

Before his death Hewlett claimed he was with an unnamed woman in Fuzeta, 30 miles from Praia da Luz, on May 3, 2007 – the day Madeleine went missing.

He said she would remember because she shot a home video of him and his family at a flea market in the town.

But Mariana later revealed the friend could not remember where he was.

She said: “The truth is, she can’t remember where Ray was. She can’t give him an alibi. No one can.”

Before he died, Mariana challenged Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leicestershire, to come to see her.

She said: “I know about my Raymond’s past and it is forgotten. He is a changed man. I know that he didn’t take Madeleine.

“He is a very sick man and has said to me he will do anything to prove he is innocent, even take a lie detector test.

“Let the parents of Madeleine come here and ask him face-to-face if he had anything to do with their child going missing.

"My husband has nothing to do with little Madeleine. He’s an innocent man and he’ll prove it.”

Reports in Portugal claimed Hewlett was grilled by local detectives but later ruled out as a suspect.

But yesterday, the Policia Judiciaria refused to confirm if the paedophile had ever been questioned.

Hewlett gave a sample of his DNA to police in Germany from his hospital bed before he died.

But a German police spokesman said the DNA sample related to two 1975 child abuse cases in Britain – and not Madeleine’s disappearance.

British police wanted to interview him about a sexual assault on a child in West Yorkshire in 1975 and the murder of 11-year-old Lesley Molseed that same year.

In 1972, he abducted and ­sexually assaulted a neighbour’s six-year-old daughter and was sentenced to 18 months behind bars.

In 1978 he attempted to rape a nine-year-old girl and was jailed for four years.

And in 1988 at Mold, Flintshire, he kidnapped and assaulted a 14-year-old girl and was jailed for six years.

Last night Scotland Yard said: “We are not prepared to discuss any particular lines of enquiry.”

Rush of new clues in fresh look at case

The renewed investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance uncovered 95 potential new leads in its first year.

Scotland Yard launched its £2million Operation Grange in May 2011, three years after the official inquiry ended, at the request of Home ­Secretary Theresa May.

By May this year the team of 29 detectives from the Met’s highly skilled Homicide and Serious Crime Command unit had sifted through 40,000 pieces of information in the case.

They are being led by Detective Chief Inspector Andrew Redwood, who previously caught murderer Miguel da Silva – convicted of strangling a mum-of-two – after a cold case review.

Last December, police said were examining up to eight “very important” new leads after meeting Barcelona private investigators Metodo 3, who spent six months working for Kate and Gerry McCann, Madeleine’s parents.

They urged their Portuguese counterparts to re-open their search for the youngster, who vanished in May 2007.

The Portuguese police refused, but Madeleine’s dad Gerry said he had “no doubt” they would re-open the investigation to check new leads uncovered by the ­Scotland Yard team.

Former Met detective Peter Kirkham said the renewed investigation could still uncover new clues.

He said: “They bring fresh eyes to the case to ensure nothing has been missed.

“Forensic science has moved on and re-examination of the original exhibits may reveal new clues.

“If the police go knocking on doors again someone may now be willing to talk.

“Just one piece of information could help reveal what happened to Madeleine.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-search-paedophile-raymond-1453749

candyfloss wrote:Here is the story 24th November 2012....

New Madeleine McCann sensation: Cold case cops investigate paedophile in search for Maddy

24 Nov 2012 00:00

The child molester, who has a string of child sex convictions, was living on the Algarve when the youngster vanished from her holiday home

Child molester Raymond Hewlett went to his death refusing to speak to investigators hunting for Madeleine McCann after he was sensationally linked to her disappearance.

But police have now turned their attention back to the notorious paedophile who has a string of child sex convictions and was living on the Algarve when the youngster vanished from her holiday home in May 2007.

Scotland Yard detectives who opened a review into the Madeleine mystery want to speak to a couple who befriended the former soldier while they were on holiday in Portugal.

They were told by him he had been approached by gypsies wanting to buy one of his six children.

Alan and Cindy Thompson met pervert Hewlett, his German wife Mariana Schmucker and their kids.

It was only after they returned to Britain they learned from a fellow holidaymaker that the seemingly harmless drifter had been jailed three times for vile attacks on young girls.

The couple raised the alarm after ­realising he and his family had been staying in their converted truck at a camping site near Praia da Luz at the time three-year-old Madeleine disappeared as her parents Kate and Gerry dined out with friends nearby.

Speaking after making the link Alan, 59, said: “Hewlett befriended us but kept quiet about his terrible past.”

The sex beast told the Nottingham couple how he was approached by some “gypsy tourists” offering cash for his own daughter.

Like Madeleine, she was blonde-haired and blue-eyed. He said he refused.

Cindy, 50, added: “We didn’t think too much of this at the time.

"Ray and his family led a desperate hand-to-mouth lifestyle and someone may have thought he’d be tempted to sell one of his six children.”

Hewlett, once on a ­Crimestoppers list of most wanted ­paedophiles, bore a striking resemblance to a suspect seen lurking outside the McCanns’ apartment.

He also repeatedly refused to give an alibi.

Described as “cunning” and a “danger to children”, it is feared the pervert might have kidnapped Madeleine to sell to the gypsies or even smuggled her into North Africa.

He admitted leaving Portugal for Morocco three weeks after she disappeared.

The 64-year-old was tracked down by investigators Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley, who were working for Kate and Gerry, before his 2010 death from throat cancer.

But despite being confronted on three occasions, he refused to speak to the private detectives about the case.

Former Scots Guard Peter Verran, 46, shared a Moroccan campsite with Hewlett between June and November 2007.

He said: “He told me gypsies wanted to pay good money for his daughter and he’d met some who traded in children and sold them to paedophiles.”

Another former pal in the ­Portuguese town of Tavira – where Hewlett’s family used to park their truck – revealed how he developed a close friendship with two gypsy families.

US-born artist Leonardo Leopoldo, 79, said: “No one spoke to the gypsies apart from Ray.

"He was always talking to them. There was talk in the area they sold children to ­paedophiles.

“By the time, Madeleine was snatched, he was very friendly with them.”

The Thompsons recalled Hewlett telling how he had gone to Morocco with his family to make a sale.

He did not elaborate but said it was “a good business trip and he made a profit”.

There were numerous sightings of a girl matching Madeleine’s description in the North African country after she was taken.

Alan and Cindy contacted Hewlett in September 2009 to ask him about any link to her disappearance.

When quizzed about his Morocco trip he replied ­sarcastically: “Yes, so? That makes me guilty then?

"In Morocco, everything’s worth ­something. You can get 25 euros for an old bike.”

Speaking after he and Mr Cowley tracked Hewlett down to Germany, Mr Edgar said: “It would appear certain now that he does not want to talk to us.

“We want to know where Hewlett was when Madeleine McCann went missing.

“Does he know anything about Madeleine and will he speak to us? This is the first named person we have flown out to see.

“We want to eliminate this man from our inquiries as quickly as possible.

"His evidence could be crucial but we won’t know until we’ve spoken to him.”

German newspapers quoted police sources as saying the pervert boasted he had seen Madeleine twice before she died.

And in a deathbed letter to estranged son Wayne, he claimed to know what had happened to the youngster.

Hewlett denied having anything to do with her disappearance but said he knew she had been stolen to order by a gypsy gang.

Detectives are also looking at interviews Hewlett gave before his death in which he admitted being in the Algarve when Madeleine was snatched.

He told the Sunday Mirror: “It’s obvious why they’re ­interested in me. But they can all think what they like.

"I didn’t kill the McCann girl. It’s the truth and it’ll never change.

"I know I didn’t do anything wrong, but if people aren’t listening, what can you do? I didn’t kill the McCann girl.”

Before his death Hewlett claimed he was with an unnamed woman in Fuzeta, 30 miles from Praia da Luz, on May 3, 2007 – the day Madeleine went missing.

He said she would remember because she shot a home video of him and his family at a flea market in the town.

But Mariana later revealed the friend could not remember where he was.

She said: “The truth is, she can’t remember where Ray was. She can’t give him an alibi. No one can.”

Before he died, Mariana challenged Kate and Gerry, of Rothley, Leicestershire, to come to see her.

She said: “I know about my Raymond’s past and it is forgotten. He is a changed man. I know that he didn’t take Madeleine.

“He is a very sick man and has said to me he will do anything to prove he is innocent, even take a lie detector test.

“Let the parents of Madeleine come here and ask him face-to-face if he had anything to do with their child going missing.

"My husband has nothing to do with little Madeleine. He’s an innocent man and he’ll prove it.”

Reports in Portugal claimed Hewlett was grilled by local detectives but later ruled out as a suspect.

But yesterday, the Policia Judiciaria refused to confirm if the paedophile had ever been questioned.

Hewlett gave a sample of his DNA to police in Germany from his hospital bed before he died.

But a German police spokesman said the DNA sample related to two 1975 child abuse cases in Britain – and not Madeleine’s disappearance.

British police wanted to interview him about a sexual assault on a child in West Yorkshire in 1975 and the murder of 11-year-old Lesley Molseed that same year.

In 1972, he abducted and ­sexually assaulted a neighbour’s six-year-old daughter and was sentenced to 18 months behind bars.

In 1978 he attempted to rape a nine-year-old girl and was jailed for four years.

And in 1988 at Mold, Flintshire, he kidnapped and assaulted a 14-year-old girl and was jailed for six years.

Last night Scotland Yard said: “We are not prepared to discuss any particular lines of enquiry.”

Rush of new clues in fresh look at case

The renewed investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance uncovered 95 potential new leads in its first year.

Scotland Yard launched its £2million Operation Grange in May 2011, three years after the official inquiry ended, at the request of Home ­Secretary Theresa May.

By May this year the team of 29 detectives from the Met’s highly skilled Homicide and Serious Crime Command unit had sifted through 40,000 pieces of information in the case.

They are being led by Detective Chief Inspector Andrew Redwood, who previously caught murderer Miguel da Silva – convicted of strangling a mum-of-two – after a cold case review.

Last December, police said were examining up to eight “very important” new leads after meeting Barcelona private investigators Metodo 3, who spent six months working for Kate and Gerry McCann, Madeleine’s parents.

They urged their Portuguese counterparts to re-open their search for the youngster, who vanished in May 2007.

The Portuguese police refused, but Madeleine’s dad Gerry said he had “no doubt” they would re-open the investigation to check new leads uncovered by the ­Scotland Yard team.

Former Met detective Peter Kirkham said the renewed investigation could still uncover new clues.

He said: “They bring fresh eyes to the case to ensure nothing has been missed.

“Forensic science has moved on and re-examination of the original exhibits may reveal new clues.

“If the police go knocking on doors again someone may now be willing to talk.

“Just one piece of information could help reveal what happened to Madeleine.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-search-paedophile-raymond-1453749

I have highlighted three items above which refer to the current Scotland Yard investigation.

So, we're told, 'last night' Scotland Yard is alleged to have said: “We are not prepared to discuss any particular lines of enquiry"”

But how is it, then, that the Daily Mirror can tell us that: "...police have now turned their attention back to the notorious paedophile...Scotland Yard detectives who opened a review into the Madeleine mystery want to speak to a couple who befriended the former soldier while they were on holiday in Portugal".?

Could this be an early and deliberate leak by the men of the Met...trailing their eventual conclusion:

"We will never know the truth because the secret died with Raymond Hewlett".



NOTE: The Mirror piece seriously suggests that the Met 'want to talk to' Alan and Cindy Thomson (as if they don't know where they are and have not already spoken to them).

If you want to look at more about this couple, I have covered issues surrounding Alan and Cindy Thompson and their supposed evidence (a) towards the end of PART ONE and (b) in the very first few paragraphs of PART TWO of my long article on Raymond Hewlett (to save you looking through the entire article).

tigger wrote:I think even the dimmest of the dim DM readers is going to find this a bit too much.

tigger, I rarely disagree with you. But on this occasion, I do.

Tony Bennett wrote:

tigger wrote:I think even the dimmest of the dim DM readers is going to find this a bit too much.

tigger, I rarely disagree with you. But on this occasion, I do.

I think you're right, I'd forgotten that 'burnt' letter. The mention of 'Cold Case' is sure to given readers the idea that Sue Johnston and Trevor Eve have been working tirelessly behind the scenes. Making life imitate TV.

uppatoffee wrote:Despite the deliberate selection of a photo of Hewlett to look like the sketch (in the mail article), he was supposed to be 62 at the time of her disappearance. There is no way the mysterious sketch man is that old!

***
I may be completely wrong, but I've always had the impression that the sketch was based on that photo, not that the photo was selected to match the sketch ...

PeterMac wrote:WHY ?
What is going on in the background.
This story has been planted to divert attention from something else.
What is that something else ?

***
It looks indeed like there's something going on elsewhere.
Re-hashing this story now and so massively is a big red light.

Châtelaine wrote:

uppatoffee wrote:Despite the deliberate selection of a photo of Hewlett to look like the sketch (in the mail article), he was supposed to be 62 at the time of her disappearance. There is no way the mysterious sketch man is that old!

***
I may be completely wrong, but I've always had the impression that the sketch was based on that photo, not that the photo was selected to match the sketch...

It looks indeed like there's something going on elsewhere. Re-hashing this story now and so massively is a big red light.

Be careful, Châtelaine. It was for remarks not totally dissimilar from that that I was accused of being in breach of one of my undertakings. In other words, you're edging close to being libellous.

So, here we go .... the herald before the conclusion .... just a bit of a primer to get the attention of the sheeples` minds. And, of course, timed nicely just prior to Leveson`s report on Thursday.

Timing is everything.

What kind of subliminal message does the above article embed in its witless reader?

How long ago was it that KM and others were wheeled out in support of the three political leaders and Leveson?

Was KN's inclusion as widely and well approved as the gov't hoped? I'm sure I don't know but I find myself wondering.....

So if this is the trailer to what would be a shameful conclusion – and frankly I wouldn’t bet against it – then the cynic in me leans to an official announcement around Xmas time but certainly before the forthcoming court cases of GA and Tony......

Châtelaine wrote:

PeterMac wrote:WHY ?
What is going on in the background.
This story has been planted to divert attention from something else.
What is that something else ?

***
It looks indeed like there's something going on elsewhere.
Re-hashing this story now and so massively is a big red light.

The fund/book, we're in a recession and it's a month to Christmas.

My comment posted on the daily mail site.

What's the betting it gets removed and i get yet another snotty email from the paper telling me off.



Same ol' same ol'.
Let's assume tanner actually told the truth (stop sniggering at the back) she described a dark haired man in his 30's/40's this guy was 62 grey haired and not well.
This does not explain the cadaverine in the apartment & the hire car which the mccanns coiuldn't explain away , especially when the cases used to prove the dogs were wrong actually proved the dogs were correct (Zapata).
It also does not explain their behavior telling us Maddie is dead ( kate- and you just want to press a button, and we're ALL gone, and it's ALL finished, and we're ALL TOGEATHER and gone.) the key word here being ALL. If she pressed a button & Maddie was still alive she has just made Maddie an orphan, it only makes sense if she knows Maddie is dead.
Also what innocent parent relaxes & claims junk science when a dog reacts indicating their child could be hurt or dead? They demand to know what it means rather than claiming the dogs are wrong. Guilty parents however say that.

Hobbs, that’s an interesting quote from KM where did it come from?

In view of the Kate only checking on her two comment just posted on another thread perhaps we should lump them all in one place, a slippy tongue thread? Is there already one in existance Admin?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237700/Did-Maddies-secret-grave-Police-reopen-investigation-paedophile-living-Algarve-vanished.html

Daily Mail cant even spell Maddies name correctly, with regards to the comments seem like the McCanns have loads of people still believing in their pack of lies.

It's easy to pin this crime onto a dead man . It will save the government a lot of money and Scotland Yard will be spared the humiliation of not finding answers .

candyfloss wrote:

The Daily Mirror claims police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are looking once again at convicted sex offender, Raymond Hewlett.

Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann? The police are not actively investigating the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann, not in the UK nor in Portugal.

Oh well, maybe it's the FBI.

Hi Monkey Mind

It came from an interview by CTN interview, Informe Especial - Late AugustE

PublishedAOct. 5, 2007

The full quote is:

Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

What is interesting here is the use of the word ALL, and the use of this single world tells me that kate knows Maddie is dead and she has guilty knowledge of it.

Think about it.

If we go with the claim by both kate and gerry that Maddie is alive and not seriously harmed, that they had no involvement in her disappearance or the subsequent cover up, then the mom's maternal instinct would automatically preclude her from ever considering giving up let alone pressing any button and ending it all.

Her only concern isand should be finding her missing child, co-operating fully with any investigation and answering any an all questions regardless of how probing or embarrassing.

By using the word ALL in relation to pressing a button and ending it all. she tells us Maddie is dead, if she pressed a button and ended it and she knows Maddie is alive, hen she has just made Maddie an orphan, smething no mom would ever consider Not only that she has told us she is prepared to kill her remaining children in order for them to ALL be togeather.

This is deeply concerning in regard to her mental state.

No innocent or sane mom would ever consider killing her own children regardless of the reason.

Where we have seen children murdered by their mom (or dad) they have been out of their minds with anger, jealousy or fear.

They have murdered their child to prevent the other parent gaining custody of the children, in extremes even to gaining visitation with the children.

They have done it out of anger as we have seen all too often in cases of abuse, often i is just one child that bears the brunt of the abuse and when killed a faked abduction is staged.

They have also done it out of fear of having their children removed by CPS as an example and here we see a case of if i can't have them, nobody can. This can also apply to custody battles.

The problem here is if Kate can kill her own children so they can all be togeather then it indicates quite possibly that the taboo of child death either deliberately or by accident has been crossed, they in fact have nothing left to lose so to speak.

If i were to see this comment and i was with social services or even her doctor i would be extremely concerned with regard to the safety and well being of her children and would have in fact removed them either to a trusted family member or, if there could be no guarantee of their dafety should the mccanns visit a foster family until the case had been resolved.

it may also be the straw that breaks the camel's back, fear of losing all the children, never to see them again or have contact with them could be nough to get to th truth of what happened and then perhaps at some point in the future the parents could be allowed contact with the twins. better to confess and have some hope than be deceptive and lose all hope.

THE FULL INTERVIEW BEFORE THEY WERE MADE ARGUIDOS

(CBS) "Every day, it's very hard without Madeleine, and we all miss her so much. It certainly feels like there's a big void in our life without her."

Little Madeleine McCann's mother, Kate McCann, summed up the feelings of her and her husband, Gerry McCann, Madeleine's father, in an interview in late August. It was done in Lisbon, Portugal, with reporter Mirna Schindler of Chile's Television Nacional, for "Informe Especial" -- their 60 Minutes.

Madeleine vanished from her parents' vacation villa in Portugal five months ago, and Kate and Gerry, who live in England, have been named suspects in the disappearance by Portuguese authorities. They adamantly deny any involvement.


The Television Nacional interview was the last they gave before being named suspects. British and Portuguese law bars them from granting interviews, now that they're officially under suspicion. But they did give an interview to a local British newspaper recently.

The Early Show has exclusive United States rights to the Chilean network's interview, and is showing it in two parts. One aired Friday, and the other will be broadcast Monday.

Gerry McCann told Schindler, "I'm sure most people can imagine how bad it was that first night ... how terrifying it was and, as most parents would say, the parents' worst nightmare.

"The key thing that we're trying to do is trying to channel all of our emotions and energy into influencing a search for Madeleine, and that's what drives us forward."

Madeleine is "pretty," Kate said. " ... She's very sociable, very engaging. She's bright and funny. She does have a sense of danger there."

"Mm-hmm," Gerry agreed.

"Even though she's very young," Kate continued. "She does have a sense of danger."

"We're clearly biased," Gerry admitted, "but Madeleine is as close to the perfect child as you could get, you know, for someone who is so young, less than four when she was taken. She really is amazing. Nothing like this has ever happened -- and I mean, going with anyone she didn't know, for example."

The McCanns say they had left Madeleine and her younger, twin siblings asleep in the rented villa while they had dinner nearby. Despite an extensive search and international publicity effort led by Kate and Gerry, no confirmed trace Madeleine has turned up.

What, Schindler asked, was the first thing that crossed their minds when they came back to the room from dinner and realized that Madeleine wasn't there?

"I knew straight away she'd been taken," Kate replied.

"At the first moment?" Schindler asked.

"Well," Kate responded, "put it this way: I mean, she hadn't walked out of the apartment."

"When I got there," Gerry said, "and Kate told me, and when I looked at the scene as well, I had absolutely no doubt. But, you know, our immediate reaction was to double and triple check, and we did do that, both in the apartment and in the vicinity. And then we said, 'Call the police.' And one of our friends alerted both the resort manager and the police."

Are they relying on the expertise of Portuguese police?

"Well, we have to rely on them," Gerry answered. "They are the investigating police force. Of course, the investigation, we've stated all along, has the most likely chance of us finding her.

"There's still no evidence of serious harm to Madeleine that we know of, and that gives us hope and gives us hope that she could still be alive."

Kate said, "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

Kate constantly carries around a stuffed animal she said "was Madeleine's favorite cuddly toy, and, you know, she took it to bed with her every night, or if she was tired or not feeling very well, she always had it as a comfort. And, I suppose, it was special to Madeleine, so it's special to me, really, and I just feel a bit closer to her" holding it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(CBS) "Every day, it's very hard without Madeleine, and we all miss her so much. It certainly feels like there's a big void in our life without her."

Initially this sounds like a strong statement yet it isn't.

I would expect to see the strong Personal I since a mom's bond with her child is very strong. Instead there is the pronoun WE which shares or minimises.

Note also the qualifiers used in regard to a big void in our life.

Qualifiers are additional words in a sentence which if removed do not affect the meaning of the sentence.

qualifiers weaken a statement, each additional word making the statement weaker.

Note that she doesn't tell us there is a big void in our lives, ONLY that it FEELS LIKE there is a void. If it only feel like something then it isn't an actuality. She doesn't tell us there is a big void in their lives so we can't do it for her either.

Gerry McCann told Schindler, "I'm sure most people can imagine how bad it was that first night ... how terrifying it was and, as most parents would say, the parents' worst nightmare.

Most parents?

I am sure having a child go missing is every parents worst nightmare.

If it is something that most parents would say is their worst nightmare, what is the worst nightmare for the rest of the parents?

He also uses MOST when referring to parents imagining how bad it was, why not all parents?

Are there some parents who can't imagine how bad it was?

Who are these parents?

Parents who perhaps aren't innocent?

"The key thing that we're trying to do is trying to channel all of our emotions and energy into influencing a search for Madeleine, and that's what drives us forward."

We is used to share responsibility and/or guilt.

I look for where the pronouns are, which ones are used and where and also where they aren't.

Trying doesn't mean succeeding, it can be limited by lnowledge or consquences.

Trying to channel doesn't mean they are channeling, there are limitations, what are those limitations and why are there limitations in what they can do if they are innocent?

Order is important, it tells us the priorities of the subject at the moment they speak, each word is spoken a microsecond after being thought.

Here he places emotions first before energy.

Why are emotions more important than energy, thinking more important than doing?

Now we have a strange sentence which tells us a lot about what he was thinking.

The keyword here being influencing.

He doesn't tell us they are searching for Madeleine physically or helping the search, rather he uses the word influencing.

Why would he need to influence the search for his daughter?

What did the influencing of the search involve and whom?

Was the influencing to help find Madeleine or to control how the search was done in order to not find Madeleine?

If i were interviewing i would spend time asking what he meant by the word influencing and what it pertained to.

Innocent parents don't have a reason to spend time influencing the search, they are out there searching and co-operating with LE.

Parents who have guilty knowledge on the other hand, have a reason to influence the search, away from them and away from finding the child.

What drives them forward is not finding Madeleine, rather it is influencing the search.

Madeleine is "pretty," Kate said. " ... She's very sociable, very engaging. She's bright and funny. She does have a sense of danger there."

A good interviewer will not introduce new language ino an interview, rather they will allow the subject to guide the interview.

They will note when new language is introduced.

Also pay attention to the tenses, parents of missing or dead children, especially mom's use presnt tense refusing to acknowledge their child is dead, this can often persist even when the child has been dead for many years.

Here we see kate introducing a sense of danger.

Why did she need to introduce this? Because it is on her mind.

Order is important.

here Pretty is first, showing kate prioritises looks first.

Next comes sociable, engaging, bright funny and finally a sense of danger.

"Mm-hmm," Gerry agreed

Gerry cannot bring himself to agree with kates description of Madeleine, why?

If he can't say something, we can't do it for him.

I would be interested to see what the family dynamics were in relation to gerry and Madeleine in comaprison to gerry and the twins

"Even though she's very young," Kate continued. "She does have a sense of danger."

Here we see kate repeating sense of danger making it sensitive.

Why is it sensitive?

Would this explain the reaction of the cadaver dog behind the sofa, the laundered curtains and fluids on the apartment floor?

Is it possible Madeleine and her sense of danger caused her to have an accident?

I would be asking more questions in relation to this sense of danger, what she meant by it and what caused her to have this impression?

"We're clearly biased," Gerry admitted, "but Madeleine is as close to the perfect child as you could get, you know, for someone who is so young, less than four when she was taken. She really is amazing. Nothing like this has ever happened -- and I mean, going with anyone she didn't know, for example."

We're is used to share responsibility or guilt.

But negates the previous sentence which in this case is "clearly biased".

Parents will always call their child perfect, even when it isn't due to perhaps a disability, What is gerry's definition of the perfect child?

Note the article he uses which is THE rather than the expected A.

Note also the pronoun he uses, he says YOU rather than the expected I or WE.

You is 2nd person distancing. he distances himself from the statement close to perfect.

He tells us how we would describe her not how he would describe her.

This tells me that the relationship between him and Madeleine was perhaps not as good as he made out.

Could the fact she be IVF be a source of the problem?

YOU KNOW shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince or convey.

We don't know so tell us.

TAKEN is an interesting prhrase to use as it has several different conotations.

Why does he not use the word abducted or kidnapped?

Is it because she wasn't and taken in fact means died?.

We often hear it at funerals or in obits, xxx taken too soon.

She really is amazing.

She is amazing because she was taken?

Nothing like this has ever happened --

He stops himself before finishing the sentence, what was he going to say Nothing like this has ever happened -- before?

Broken sentences mean the subject is self editing.

Why is there a need to self edit if they are innocent?

This is close, that is distancing so he is close to what happened.

Nothing cannot happen, anything in the negative is sensitive.

If nothing like this has ever happened, then there must be a something else that has happened.

What has happened before that isn't like this?

and I mean, going with anyone she didn't know, for example."

She went with anyone she did know?

Is he telling us she went willingly with whoever it was because she knew them?

Is this subtle demeaning?

She vanished because she went with someone she knew?

What, Schindler asked, was the first thing that crossed their minds when they came back to the room from dinner and realized that Madeleine wasn't there?

A good question. he lets the subject choose where to start on the question. Compound questions are bad as it lets the subject pick and choose what to answer and we can't always tell what question they are actually answering.

"I knew straight away she'd been taken," Kate replied.

"At the first moment?" Schindler asked.

It would have been better if he hadn't prompted her, subjects don't like silence and will fill it often revealing more than they intended.

"Well," Kate responded, "put it this way: I mean, she hadn't walked out of the apartment."

Well is used to buy thinking time.

This is close, that is distancing.

Anything in the negative is sensitive.

How could she be so sure she hadn't walked out of the apartment?

"When I got there," Gerry said, "and Kate told me, and when I looked at the scene as well, i had absolutely no doubt. But, you know, our immediate reaction was to double and triple check, and we did do that, both in the apartment and in the vicinity. And then we said, 'Call the police.' And one of our friends alerted both the resort manager and the police."

Kate told him what when he got there?

She had allegedly shouted from the balcony "They've taken her", another version has her running to the tapas bar and shouting Madeleine was gone.

Is this a 3rd version of when he found out?

Note the use of the qualifier ABSOLUTELY, not only did he have no doubt he had absolutely no doubt which weakens the statement.

You know shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince and convey.

I pay attention to see where such phrases occur to see if it is a pattern of speech that crops up frequently. or if it only crops up occasionally in which case it should be flagged.

Here, it has cropped up when telling us how Madeleine was close to the perfect child and now when he talks about their immediate reaction.

Why does he need to convince us?

Why reaction and not response?

THAT is distancing, THIS is close.

WE did that, What is the THAT they they did?

Why does he feel the need to convince us they double and triple checked, it would be a given.

Is there a need to tell us this is what they did because they in fact did something else?

What was the something else they did?

He tells us WE checked the apartment and the vicinity.

Who is the We that checked?

He doesn't tell us so we can't assume?

And then we said, 'Call the police.

And indicates missing information, what happened between the we checked and the we said call the police?

Did they both say call the police and to whom or did only one of them say call the police.

We indicates shared responsibility or guilt.

Who did he say to call the police?

'And one of our friends alerted both the resort manager and the police."

And indicates missing information, what happened between the request being made to call the police and the friend making the call?

Note he says One of our friends (shared friendship) why doesn't he say who made the call?

Is there a need to conceal the identity of the caller?

Order is important.

The resort manager before the police.

Given that kate knew immediately Madeleine had been abducted, why was time wasted double and triple checking not only the apartment but the vicinity as well?

Why was the resort manager contacted before the police?

He says to call the police yet the resort manger and police are alerted, what prompts the change in language?

Are they relying on the expertise of Portuguese police?

I would prefer to have heard the exact question

"Well, we have to rely on them," Gerry answered. "They are the investigating police force. Of course, the investigation, we've stated all along, has the most likely chance of us finding her.

Well is used to buy thinking time, why does he need to think about an answer in regard to relying on the police, who else would they rely on?

Have is an interesting word to use in relation to relying on the Portugues police, it implies reluctance perhaps.

Would he prefer an investigation by another police force? This is interesting given they weren't exactly on speaking terms with the police by this time.

Of course is used to convince and convey.

We've indicates shared responsibility.

Note, it is not the police running the investigation that has the best chance of finding her rather it is US that has the best chance of finding her.

"There's still no evidence of serious harm to Madeleine that we know of, and that gives us hope and gives us hope that she could still be alive."

Note he weakens the statement with the qualifier Still indicating there could be evidence in the future of serious harm.

Also note the qualifier Serious in relation to harm which again weakens the statement.

Note also he weakens it further with the qualifiers WE KNOW OF.

Is there evidence of serious harm they don't know of?

How does he define serious harm as opposed to harm?

I would ask him to define serious harm and what evidence would be needed to prove such? ( especially since the cadaver and blood dogs reacted not only in the partment and to clothing, they also reacted to the hire car)

This is close, That is distancing

Is there then evidence of harm.

he distances himself from evidence of serious harm, would that explain they thorough cleaning job even to washing the curtains?, Remeber We look not only at what is there that shouldn't be, we also look at what should be there and isn't, A criminal can clean a crimes scene too weel which is just as revealing.

He distances himself from hope there is no evidence of serious harm leading me to conclude there is ( the dogs and fluids)

He also distances himself from hope Madeleine is still alive. This is unexpected as am innocent parent will continue to believe their missing child is alive until proven otherwise (Ben Needham as an example)

Hope is repeated twice making is sensitive.

Note also he uses the word us which shows unity.

Kate said, "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

Note the qualifier REALLY in relation to coping. Additional qualifiers weaken the statement, remove them and the sentence still works.
Anything in the negative is sensitive, here she weakens her statement of it not being easy to cope.

What isn't easy coping?

Some days are better than others. ...

What days are better than others? what happens in the good day, what happens in the bad days?

There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone.

Shetells us there are days when you think which allows for others to think otherwise.

Her pronouns are all over the place here, she uses a lot of we and you and very few I so we note where she does take ownership.

She tells us what we think not what she herself thinks, if she can't tell us we can't assume.

'I can't do this anymore,'

Anything in the negative is sensitive,

This is close, that is distancing.

What is the THIS she can't do any more?

She doesn't tell us so we can't assume.

Could it be the searching, the charade, the media interviews, the doubters, the pretending to be a happy wife to gerry?

I would ask her what is the THIS

and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone

Again she tells us what we want, not what she wants.

There is a lot of distancing when kate is asked about herself.

This is concerning.

Pressing a button would indicate perhaps suicidal thoughts except she uses the word we which indicates unity.

She also uses the word ALL which is inclusive.

we're all gone and we're all together and gone.

This is repeated making it sensitive.

Why would she want to have them all gone?

It also tells me she knows or suspects Madeleine is dead.

Logically, if she knew or suspected Madeleine was alive, pressing a button so they would all be gone togeather would make Madeleine an orphan if she were alive.

Why would an innocent parent contemplate not only suicide, rather, a murder suicide since she would be killing the twins and gerry.

Since she is allegedly a practising catholic she is also committing mortal sins.

It only make sense if Madeleine is dead, only then could they all be togeather.

One then as to ask why she would go so far as killing her remaining children if she were an innocent parent?

Yes, she would feel guilt that Madeleine is dead and that if they had done things differently she would be alive and all would be well in the mccann household.

Innocent parents would cherish and protect the children they have left and perhaps become an advocate for children in the world.

Now, guilty parents may decide that the net is closing in, they don't want to lose their remaining children which is why they lied and deceived, and if they can't have them nobody can.

After all they have nothing to lose, they will lose custody of Sean and Amelie, they will lose their jobs, their family and friends and they wouldn't be the first nor the last to go out with a bang. (josh powell)

Wherever.

An interesting word to use. I would have asked what she meant by wherever.

As catholic who just commited a murder suicide, she knows she would go to hell, Her children as victims and children and being innocent would go to heaven, gerry would be with kate.

Now, does she think she and the children would be togeather in heaven?

Does she think the children would be with her in hell? not very nice for her innocent victims and a tad unfair.

Does she think they will all end up in purgatory?

Where does she think Madeleine is that they would all be togeather?

But you can't, you know.

Anything in the negative is sensitive.

She tells us we can't not that she can't.

It is something she has seriously considered, i wonder if she had mental health issues prior to Madeleine going missing?

You know shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince and convey.

Who is she trying to convince, the interviewer or herself?

Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

Just is a minimising downwards word, here it is an additional qualifier which weakens the statement.

She doesn't take ownershop instead she uses the pronoun YOU which tells us we may have a bad day, not that she has a bad day.

Broken sentences indicate a reason to self edit. Words are spoken a microsecond of being thought.

Why does she feel the need to edit what she says? Knowledge or consequences?

What was she going to say?

Notice also she weakens it with the qualifier IF.

She doesn't tells us there are bad days only there might be, even then she tells us again we might be having a bad day not that she herself has a bad day. Note also yet another qualifier REALLY, which further weakens the statement concerning a bad day.

Now look at it again and you can see how weak her statement is about having a bad day.

She doesn't have a bad day you do, not only is it a bad day it is a really bad day, if inded it was a bad day at all.

If it isn't a really bad day what is it?

If it isn't a bad day what is it?

What is the opposite of bad?

If she can't take ownership of these days, we can't do it for her.

-- if you're having a really bad day, which we do.

We is used to share responsibilty or guilt. She says YOU'RE instead of i which is expected.

Does she not have bad days? Why not?

If she does, when are those bad days?

"And you can't help but think that."

And indicates missing information.

Again she tells us what we can't help thinking, not, what she can't help thinking.

What is the THAT that can't be helped thinking about thinking about?

Is is concerning that she has contemplated to some degree what amounts to murder suicide.

She is a risk to not only herself, also her children, When would she feel pressured enough to press the button?

If she and gerry are truly innocent and Madeleine is found alive as she believes why would she consider doing what to any parent is unthinkable?

Yes, there would be guilt that Madeleine was harmed and they should have done things differently, it doesn't warrant thinking about pressing any button.

Granted they may not get Madeleine back, either because of what she endured and she needs years of treatment, because the authorities feel the parents are in part responsible and thus should not be trusted with her care or, that Madeleine herself refuses to go back to their care.

Again it doesn't warrant pressing any button,

Now, Guilty parents on the other hand would and do consider pressing a button (josh powell as an example)

If Madeleine is found alive and points the finger at kate and gerry for what happened, they would lose custody of their remaining children face serious jail time in Portugal and probably in the UK as well for things such as fraud, obtaining money and services by deception, wire fraud, lying to police and so on. they would also lose theor medical licences, their family and friends and supporters and also probably be sued by those they previously sued or threatened to sue.

If Madeleine is found dead and there is evidence incriminating kate and gerry, see above.

If Madeleine is dead and there is evidence incriminating a person or persons unknown and it is proven kate and gerry had knowledge of such and conspired to hide the evidence and lie to police see above.

If Madeleine is found dead and there is evidence incriminating a person or persons known to the mccann ie a tapas 7 member see above. they would have known or at a minimum suspected, hence the need to be deceptive.

If Madeleine is found dead and there is evidence incriminating a person or persons unknown to the mccanns or the tapas 7 then they couldn't face homicide charges. However, one would have to ask why, if they were innocent of involvement, they had the need to be uncooperative with police in two countries, refuse to answer questions or do a reconstruction and generally act like a guilty parent. it would lead me to ask if they are deceptive, they have a reason to be deceptive and i would be asking some real interesting questions.

Given the behavior of the parents (and the tapas 7) i would discount the latter option, the perpetrator was known to Madeleine and also to kate and gerry.

Kate constantly carries around a stuffed animal she said "was Madeleine's favorite cuddly toy, and, you know, she took it to bed with her every night, or if she was tired or not feeling very well, she always had it as a comfort. And, I suppose, it was special to Madeleine, so it's special to me, really, and I just feel a bit closer to her" holding it.

Note the tenses, lots of past tense which is unexpected.

Was not is Madeleine's favorite toy? Is it not anymore?

YOU KNOW shows awareness of the interviewer and is also used to convince and convey.

Note when the language changes from Madeleine to she or her.

And indicates missing information.

She doesn't tell us it was special to Madeleine, only that she supposes it was.

I would ask more questions about cuddlecat, such as when she got it, who got it for her, why dogs reacted to it, why she washed it, why it wasn't kept as evidence due to DNA on it.

Just is a minimising downwards word, she doesn't feel closer to Madeleine holding it, notice also the additional qualifier of really in relation to it being special to kate which weakens the statement.

Since she washed it, and thus lost Madeleine's smell. i wonder what part of it makes her feel closer to Madeleine and where it is these days since it seems to have gone awol.

There are multiple red flags in this short interview, there are also warning signs should the investigation start getting too close to the truth of the matter.

My concern is the twins are at risk should the case be reopened, something the mccanns refused to do when offered the chance to keep it open and currently when by answering the 48 questions or taking part with the tapas 7 in a police reconstruction they could have it opened for the price of a stamp or a quick phone call.

Innocent parents act in a certain and specific way.

Guilty parents also act in a certain and specific way,

There is no book per se ( as such,yet) that says how a parent should act when their child goes missing.

Innocent parents cooperate fully and completely with police, they take polygraphs so they can be immediately cleared from the investigation.

They constantly call police with ideas and suggestions, the smallest memory or bit of information could find their child.They almost camp at the police station.

They show emotion in pressers simply because they love their child dearly, they talk to their child promising to find them, they don't care about any abductor getting their jollies, they want their child to know they are searching for them.

They don't have to be prompted to talk to the media and call out to their child.

They can't be kept quiet such is their determination to get their child home.

They don't threaten to sue anyone who disagrees with their version of events, go travelling the world meeting celebs.

Their child is first and foremost their priority, nothing else matters.

They look like crap, they don't eat or sleep, they don't care how they look, their child is all that matters.

They are out physically searching till they drop

Guilty parents refuse to cooperate with the police, they find excuses not to take polygraphs or polygraph shop john and patsy ramsey) or take drink or drugs in an effort to pass (billie dunn & shawn adkins)

They don't talk to their child reassuring them they will be found.

They show no emotion in relation to their missing child but woe betide anyone who disparages them.

They are concerned more with their own reputation than finding their child.

They have to be prompted to call out to their child (sergio and becky celis)


They hire defence lawyers.

They have a need to hire PR spokesment to control the flow of information.

They don't search, instead they stay at home (debbie bradley and jeremy irwin) or go jogging (kate and gerry mccann) or hide away saying nothing to anyone (even to the extent of losing visitation with their daughter so as to not incriminate themselves- terri horman) or go out partying and having fun (casey anthony)


In cases of missing children in relations to statement analysis, assume the parents are being completely honest, look for the expected (how you would react, what you would sayin the same situation) and note anything that is unexpected.

This way the unexpected will stand out. if you assume they are being deceptive then the unexpected doesn't stand out clearly and can be overlooked.

Hobs,

Thank you very much for providing that excellent analysis, very insightful, very professional it would appear.

I’ve read it twice and would like to make an observation. Following your logic and train of thought and taking the two following points which follow on from one another in the interview....

“It certainly feels like there's a big void in our life without her.”and

Gerry McCann told Schindler, "I'm sure most people can imagine how bad it was that first night ... how terrifying it was and, as most parents would say, the parents' worst nightmare.”

Following your logical presentation, this would certainly seem to point away from an accident would it not? I can’t relate an ‘accident’ to this situation at all, and forensic analysis as carried out by yourself of those two sentences would tend to point away from one also would it not?

monkey mind wrote:Hobs,

Thank you very much for providing that excellent analysis, very insightful, very professional it would appear.

I’ve read it twice and would like to make an observation. Following your logic and train of thought and taking the two following points which follow on from one another in the interview....

“It certainly feels like there's a big void in our life without her.”and

Gerry McCann told Schindler, "I'm sure most people can imagine how bad it was that first night ... how terrifying it was and, as most parents would say, the parents' worst nightmare.”

Following your logical presentation, this would certainly seem to point away from an accident would it not? I can’t relate an ‘accident’ to this situation at all, and forensic analysis as carried out by yourself of those two sentences would tend to point away from one also would it not?

Hi Monkey mind.

Exactly.

If it was a total accident, parental instinct would have been to treat her if she were still alive and call 911.

Parental instinct is so strong that even if the child was clearly dead, they refuse to accept it , call 911 and demand the medics do everything in their power to ave their child ( it is the same with a close loved one, instinct is to deny deny deny)

The fact that multiple doctors did the unexpected is a massive red flag imo.

Regardless of the consequences, they would and should have dialled 911, their priority being saving Madeleine imo.

The fact they didn't indicates a reason they could not imo.

What could be so bad that they overode parental and medical instinct?

Simple sedation would not be career ending, if they tested Madeleine, Sean and Ameliethey may have been given a formal warning, perhaps needing retraining or supervision and carried on as before, it happens all the time.

Remember oldfield was allegedly facing a malpractice suit.

Sedation resulting in harm to Madeleine?

That could be explained away as she got into the medicine bag without them noticing, they went out and bang Madeleine died.

Kids getting into pills happens all the time, we see it almost daily in the news and ER see it daily. It happens move along nothing to see and life carries on, maybe they felt a bit of guilt otherwise life goes on.

Sedation resulting in harm to Madeleine and the twins getting tested.

This is harder to explain away, it is remotely feasible Madeleine got into the pills and shared them, the twins survived, she didn't. This could result in sanctions from the GNC, maybe not career ending but it would affect any future promotions, grants etc.

Te obvious conclusions imo is something happened that couldn't be explained away, that they couldn't allow an autopsy to take place.

They could have claimed someone broke in attacked Madeleine and left her for them to find.

This would result in child neglect charges and possibly neglect resulting in harm with a max 10 stretch.

This would be a career ender.

This would be harder to explain away if traces of sedatives were found in her body indicating sedation prior to them leavng or repeated sedation, a lot of awkward quetions and possibly jail time and loss of licence.

Kate i think tells us why they couldn't allow an autopsy with her graphic description of Madeleines genitals.

This is highly unexpected, no parent wants to think of it happening, let alone broadcasting it to the world.

The description of her lying cold and mottled on a cold slab is very visual and an accurate description of a body that's been dead for a few days ( blood settles to the lower areas due to gravity, it is a good indicator of how the body lay and very helpful in teling if the body has been moved)

Is this the last time she saw Madeleine and it is indelibly writ large across her mind?

The fact that there is no body. the Drs Gaspar reported seeing a discussion between gerry and david payne involving inappropriate behavior and Madeleine is a red flag.

The fact allegations have been made about payne liking to bathe other peoples children.

The fact a social worker recognised payne in relation to her work but couldn't remember whst his involvement was.

The fact there has been deafening silece about the allegations of paedophilia, allegations which are possibly the worst thing you can call a man.

An inncoent man would be shouting loudly from the rooftops denying such allegations and suing imo.

What we have seen is no mention of these allegations, rather them suing the mdia and the public over allegations madeleine is dead and they are involved.

The case number for a child abuse file that seems to have been cleared of any files.

I suspect that Madeleine's death, and yes she is dead imo, the cadaver dogs didn't lie, couldn't be explained away as an accident.

Whatever happened, they had to hide the body to prevent discovery imo,( if she had been raped and abducted why could they have not blamed the 'abductor')

I believe, Whatever happend all or most of the tapas 7 know and have an urgent need to cover up imo.

I wonder, if social servics were called to examine all the children of the group, if they would find anything of interest?

Sadly we cannot find out if any of them have a record unless they have unsupervised contact with your child or children, and even if you knew you couldn't divulge this information due to human rights laws and other carp.

What is clear is they do not miss Madeleine imo.

They have the perfect family, a boy and a girl, a goodish income, fame (or notoriety depending on your point of view)

I wonder if Madeleine has the same parentage as the twins, who were the real donors ( there are several possible options which i went into in detail on another forum doing a crash course on genetics 101)

Hobs,

Very astute. But the analysis of the phone records and creche records by the ex intelligence officer whilst not contradictory to your own analysis point to something one step beyond your last post. I know many find his conclusions a little hard to swallow, but in a case where nothing is quite as it should be, I find them most compelling......

Nottingham couple Alan and Cindy Thompson 'to be quizzed' by Madeleine McCann case detectives

Monday, November 26, 2012

Nottingham Post

DETECTIVES investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are
set to interview a Nottingham couple who may have more information
about the case, according to reports.

Alan and Cindy Thompson are due to be asked about ex-soldier
Raymond Hewlitt, who is thought to have been staying 30 miles away from
Praia da Luz, Portugal, when Madeleine disappeared in May 2007.

1. ​
   
   Madeleine McCann
   

According to a national newspaper, Scotland Yard
detectives want to speak to the couple, who Mr Hewlitt befriended
during a holiday and who allegedly claimed that gypsies had approached
him, asking to buy his children.

Mr Hewlitt, who died of throat cancer in 2010, told the couple
that he refused to sell one of his six children to "gypsy tourists".

The Nottingham couple only discovered Hewlitt's criminal
background – he was imprisoned three times for attacks on young girls –
when they returned from holiday.

Officers from Scotland Yard are said to be investigating the
movements of Mr Hewlitt in Portugal in May 2007, when Madeleine was on
holiday with her parents, Gerry and Kate McCann, of Rothley,
Leicestershire.

Scotland Yard declined to comment.

A pink aspect to this definitely.

What is curious is: if this is just a load of carps from team Mccanns, aren't they worried about SY's reaction to their spin?
So WHAT is going ON?

[quote]

DETECTIVES investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are
set to interview a Nottingham couple who may have more information
about the case, according to reports.

Alan and Cindy Thompson are due to be asked about ex-soldier
Raymond Hewlitt, who is thought to have been staying 30 miles away from
Praia da Luz, Portugal, when Madeleine disappeared in May 2007.



They were in the news back in May 2009. Surely when spoken to they would have given ALL information. Edgar and Cowley would have had these names, surely they would have spoken to them and got all the info, and it would be in their files, the Thompsons were in all the papers around that time. How could they have more information now........????