twitterers are saying R Hewlett was the abductor

Apart from him not matching the two sightings on the night or any others around the time, what evidence do these people think exists?

he was 60 plus old, sick, had a new life, left his old life years ago, despite some papers posting his photo from 1970 or so instead of what he actually looked like in 2007,and his disgusting perv previous form was with teenagers NOT toddlers

No proof he was anywhere near PDL at the time

the fantastic Mccann detectives cowley and edgar went to interview him on his death bed and apparently he and the hospital didnt agree, and after he agreed they could not be bothered go back to see him cos they had a plane go catch

Its quite sad this patsyhunting

WHERE is ANY credible evidence or ANY evidence he was involved

From what I have read this story as well as the Cooper womans [strike]proven[/strike] lies stories have been totally fabricated by the Sun and NOTW

Still,no evidence but hearsay about a previous convict without an MO MUST be stronger thanCADAVER dogs alerting to the last place Madeleine was seen, NOT

Interesting to have these new tweets, can we do one on Saville? Let's go for Saville, that'll go viral in minutes. He was alive in 2007 - that's the only qualification one needs to have apart from being a paedo or a gipsy or simply foreign.

At the same time we get new 'information' from posters with material lifted verbatim from STM where they've had to invent myths in order to discredit them. As an example: saying that Wright never said the car door was left open due to the smell.
a) he never said anything about the car door - there is no issue here so pointless to discredit.
b) he said plenty about the smell - it's on record.
c) he had the same 'explanation' as TM for the smell - a pair of chavvy doctors who routinely had leaking nappies and rotting meat in the boot in a hot climate. Remind me never to go to Glenfield hospital.

So back to the timely tweeters and new 'information' from some new members. (Not all new members) Kate said in an interview with Lorraine Kelly:

KM: But having said that I mean I think there’s just a small minority now [/b]and you know there’s a certain group out there who, this is their job really, is to pick on a vulnerable family and I’m sure after us they’ll move onto another family and...unquote

If KM thinks it's a job for the people 'picking' on them can we assume that people defending them at such appropriate times too are gainfully employed?
The next question is 'who is paying them?'

tigger wrote:Interesting to have these new tweets, can we do one on Saville? Let's go for Saville, that'll go viral in minutes. He was alive in 2007 - that's the only qualification one needs to have apart from being a paedo or a gipsy or simply foreign.

At the same time we get new 'information' from posters with material lifted verbatim from STM where they've had to invent myths in order to discredit them. As an example: saying that Wright never said the car door was left open due to the smell.
a) he never said anything about the car door - there is no issue here so pointless to discredit.
b) he said plenty about the smell - it's on record.
c) he had the same 'explanation' as TM for the smell - a pair of chavvy doctors who routinely had leaking nappies and rotting meat in the boot in a hot climate. Remind me never to go to Glenfield hospital.

So back to the timely tweeters and new 'information' from some new members. (Not all new members) Kate said in an interview with Lorraine Kelly:

KM: But having said that I mean I think there’s just a small minority now [/b]and you know there’s a certain group out there who, this is their job really, is to pick on a vulnerable family and I’m sure after us they’ll move onto another family and...unquote

If KM thinks it's a job for the people 'picking' on them can we assume that people defending them at such appropriate times too are gainfully employed?
The next question is 'who is paying them?'

I don't think you could find a LESS vulnerable pair of alleged victims if you scoured the entire planet!

As vulnerable as a pair of spitting cobras............

Jean wrote:As vulnerable as a pair of spitting cobras............

you do make me laugh jean. such a sweet, benign, innocuous photo and yet such verbal imagery. A true classic. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I have temporarily changed my avatar to match the occasion. If anyone knows who the actress is whose image I normally use, I'll be grateful.

Some people have assumed it's me but sadly it isn't.

Apologies to any cobras whose feelings may have been hurt. I don't want them slithering to Carter-Ruck to complain that I have damaged their reputation!

Jean wrote:I have temporarily changed my avatar to match the occasion. If anyone knows who the actress is whose image I normally use, I'll be grateful.

Some people have assumed it's me but sadly it isn't.

Apologies to any cobras whose feelings may have been hurt. I don't want them slithering to Carter-Ruck to complain that I have damaged their reputation!

They might bite the hand that feeds them though, if they haven't already done that.
P.S. I do think I prefer your old avatar. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I too preferred the old avatar, Jean.
Sorry to butt in, I believe your previous avatar is Kirsten Dunst in her role in the first 'Spiderman' film.

mydadsanastronaut wrote:I too preferred the old avatar, Jean.
Sorry to butt in, I believe your previous avatar is Kirsten Dunst in her role in the first 'Spiderman' film.

BRAVO mydadsanastronaut, definitely Kirsten Dunst.
And what an amazing young lady. I had not heard of her, but how balanced and lovely she seems.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
well worth a read.

....she said "I thought it was gross, that Brad had cooties. I mean, I was 10"....
I had to look the word Cooties up, never heard it before.

....she is also described "her ability to convey the impression of great age inside apparent youth.^[14"....

This bit above is for us ''young ones" Jean. We're the reverse. My grandma, when she was 96 always maintained that she was "still 18" and she always had that 'young mind and bright shiny eyes'.

She said you can be whatever age you want to be.

I think Walt Disney also said something like 'never lose your childhood innocence'... or was that Federico Felini in 'La dolce vita'. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

kim ‏@zante03

any min now we'll b getting told what a fab bloke HEWLITT the PAEDO was by the pitchforking anti #mccann s
Details
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
More

Goncalo_Amaral Goncalo_Amaral ‏@Scum_Cop_Amaral

@zante03 they do seem to want to protect the vile man. Most odd. #mccann

Reply
Retweet
Favorite
More

Most odd? No more odd than someone who wants to protect a family member, friend or person(s) they trust.

Shattering myths about child sexual abuse

9:49 AM - Feb 20, 2013

MANILA, Philippines - As children, we are taught not to talk to strangers to protect ourselves from any form of harm. But an equally important lesson, though not as emphasized, is to be careful around the people we already know, the people we trust.

“Most crimes against children are by someone they know like a family member or members of their community who have a position of favor or influence,” said Tim Gerrish, who heads the delegation of the UK-based Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP).

Or in some cases, it is a family member, like a parent.

Abject poverty and distortions of parenthood

Nancy Agaid started working as a social workers in the early 80s in Ermita, Manila back when it reigned as the city’s red light district.

“I had one case of two children aged 9 and 12 who were stuffed in a balikbayan box and delivered to a client’s room. When he would open the box, the kids would come out and do his bidding. When he was done, he would put the kids back into the box along with some money and send it back to its sender – the children’s mother,” related Agaid.

Agaid’s many years as a social worker have exposed her to all times types of child sexual abuse. Now a senior training officer for the Stairway Foundation, an NGO working with sexually abused children, Agaid said that most the cases they handle are incest.

“A 14-year-old girl was being raped by her father. When she told her mother about the abuse, her mother did not believe her. She only believed what was happening when her husband had raped the two younger daughters,” related Agaid.

“The mother told me about it, but you know what she wanted to know? She asked me, ‘Anong gagawin ko? Mahal ko asawa ko.’ (What will I do? I love my husband.)”

“Dati naniniwala ako sa kasabihan na walang magulang na gusto mapariwara ang kanyang anak. Pero hindi yun totoo; hindi laging ganoon,” Agaid said. (I used to be believe in the saying that there is no parent who does not want the best for their child. But that isn’t always true.)

In some cases, Agaid said it is extreme poverty and the desperate need to survive that pushes parents to prostitute their children. In other cases, it is a distorted sense of parental entitlement.

Citing the case of the father who raped his 3 daughters, Agaid said the victim’s father asked her, “Ano ba problema nyo, ma’am, anak ko naman yan. Hindi naman iyan 7 years old, 14 na. Ayaw niya yan, pag nag-asawa siya, alam na niya gagawin niya kasi tinuruan siya ng tatay niya.” (What is your problem, ma’am? She’s my daughter and it’s not like she’s 7 years old. She’s 14. When she gets married, she will know what to do with her husband because her father taught her well.)

Hindering disclosure

According to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), after abandoned/neglected children, sexually abused children are the second most common case they handle.

The most common form of sexual abuse is rape, followed by incest and acts of lasciviousness. The DSWD recorded a relatively large number of incest cases, 32.9% in 2009 and 37.5% in 2010. Victims are predominantly female, 97.6% in 2009 and 90.5% in 2010.

However, Agaid said that child sexual abuse is always under reported, more so in highly conservative Philippine society. Religious teachings about what constitutes immoral behavior contribute to victim-blaming and guilt. Agaid also points to another factor that impedes victim disclosure.

“There is a huge burden on the victim to come forward because of the shame that she will bring to the family by exposing a family member who is the perpetrator,” shared Agaid.

“It is a misconception that child sexual abuse only happens among the poor when in reality, it happens across all social classes. The poor are more inclined to speak up about it because they have nothing to lose. The higher the social class, the more they have to lose in terms of reputation and social standing and the less likely the victim will come forward,” said Agaid.

Scared into silence

The feelings of confusion and fear that accompany child sexual abuse are compounded by the feelings of guilt when the perpetrator is a relative.

“The child has to deal with questions like ‘how could someone that I trust to protect and take care of me do this to me?’” said Lucy Field, CEOP child protection advisor.

In addition, Field shared that the number one reason why children don’t disclose abuse to another person is because they are afraid that no one will believe them.

“Children rarely make up stories about sexual abuse,” said Field.

CEOP in partnership with the British embassy conducted a 3-day training on safeguarding children from both online and offline abuse among the various partner stakeholders in education, law enforcement and NGOs. - Rappler.com

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

Only goes to show how extremely THICK at the very best kim and zante are there

Idiotic amoebas
:bad:

Inspectorfrost wrote:Only goes to show how extremely THICK at the very best kim and zante are there

Idiotic amoebas
:bad:

But are they naturally thick, or wilfully obtuse?

I think we all know the answer to that...

mydadsanastronaut wrote:

Inspectorfrost wrote:Only goes to show how extremely THICK at the very best kim and zante are there

Idiotic amoebas
:bad:

But are they naturally thick, or wilfully obtuse?

I think we all know the answer to that...

BOTH obviously at best, involved at worst

Unless they are cult material, those nutters do all sorts because of what they believe or have been taught
to, sad all around

Inspectorfrost wrote:

mydadsanastronaut wrote:

Inspectorfrost wrote:Only goes to show how extremely THICK at the very best kim and zante are there

Idiotic amoebas
:bad:

But are they naturally thick, or wilfully obtuse?

I think we all know the answer to that...

BOTH obviously at best, involved at worst

Unless they are cult material, those nutters do all sorts because of what they believe or have been taught
to, sad all around

I totally agree with you, Inspectorfrost.

However, I rather think these twitterers are engaged in using the Hewlett issue as a "chaff" countermeasure to distract people from tomorrow's decision.

After all, they wouldn't want another " I'm Tony Bennett" style display of support on Twitter, would they. No, better to try to tarnish all those of us who wish him the best as Hewlett apologists. The usual sad, old, orchestrated smear tactics, I'm afraid.

They may call us "Pitchforkers", but at least pitchforks are sharp and have a point. Unlike the blunt butter knives of their pointless catechism.

They are just THICK ignorant and easily controlled by the thick masters

If anyone thinks hewlett is the guy they best see their shrink, verran??? LOL

its a TOTAL patsyfind100% and everyone knows it and they can never ever get away with it EVER

This article is well worth a read. Textusa puts the evidence and references right in front of our noses.
Hewlett only became the ideal abductor after his death and this tells you why. That's why twitter is being used to instill this new myth, that's why Hewlett connected to the last 'news' in Russia is headlined. The case is as good as solved........

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

In the Textusa article she quotes a comment:

I made note of some comments on blogs, some of which are now defunct, relating to the semen/saliva debate, as some people appeared to have inside knowledge. Second comment on 14.2.10. “The problem with the case is the amount of support given by the very top of the British Government. They will ask for a review, not a re-opening of the case by the British Police. There is one DNA sample described by the FSS as allegedly matching a profile from another crime, but could not be pinned on a name. Once they have the authority to review the case, this will be attributed to Raymond Hewlett and the case will be solved” This second commentator seems to have had the gift of foresight! ………..
unquote

Note the date of this comment......14th February 2010. This is before david cameron was prime minister and over a year before the review was asked for! Roll forward 3 years and we are at this stage. This is why this hewlett story has resurfaced now imo. We are being prepped for the next big and final revelation that the DNA sample by the now defunct FSS matches the profile from a dead hewlett past crime. This will end the story with no where to go as there is no FSS and no hewlett..

All imo of course

Hi tigger maybe you can answersthe question that I do not understand about the dna.

The dna sample they have which could possibly match hewletts from another crime - where did it come from?

plebgate wrote:Hi tigger maybe you can answersthe question that I do not understand about the dna.

The dna sample they have which could possibly match hewletts from another crime - where did it come from?

Textusa does it far better! You'll have to click on the link. The sample was not attributed to Hewlett and don't forget Hewlett submitted voluntarity to a DNA test in 2007 so they'd have an excellent reference sample.

As is often done in films, various endings are filmed depending on the reaction of the public in early screenings. The most suitable one is then selected.
Can't think of a better one that can be swallowed hook, line and sinker by a well-prepared public. Known paedo, ruled out, ruled in, DNA evidence gone, FSS gone. All solved.

However, I find the link to a previous crime (not specified) interesting. Likely to be a British crime since FSS found the link? They'd have had the full DNA profile of Hewlett and could have said it had elements of his DNA but they didn't.

Thanks for reply tigger. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Reading my post I can see I wasn't clear as to what I actually can't work out about the dna sample.

Hewlett gave a voluntary dna sample so that's on record.

If they are to prove that Hewlett abducted Maddie through dna evidence wouldn't they have to have a sample of his dna which was found at their holiday flat? If they haven't such a sample and I have not heard that they did have then it cannot possibly be proved that Hewlett abducted her.

As far as I remember any dna samples taken from the holiday flat were lost by the FSS.

Anyway will go read the link to Textusa but sometimes I can't follow those posts.
Hope you can follow this one of mine now. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Just to add I took at look at Textusa's blog. Very clever but it's lost me unfortunately.

If the police had the voluntary sample given by Hewlett before he died one would presume that they had checked it against any possible dna sample they had on file before he died and they would have announced he was the abductor before his death.

As I say I am a pleb and do not understand the dna aspects of the case so would be grateful if anybody could give me an answer.

plebgate wrote:Just to add I took at look at Textusa's blog. Very clever but it's lost me unfortunately.

If the police had the voluntary sample given by Hewlett before he died one would presume that they had checked it against any possible dna sample they had on file before he died and they would have announced he was the abductor before his death.

As I say I am a pleb and do not understand the dna aspects of the case so would be grateful if anybody could give me an answer.

Textusa writes in a very convoluted way - on purpose I would think.
But the way I interpret it is:
DNA was found from semen and saliva.
It was possible that the saliva sample belonged to a small boy who'd stayed there at some time. (despite washing the sheets - apart from that do the sheets go back to exactly the same beds after washing? V. strange)
I take it that the same applies to the semen stain except it wouldn't be from a small boy of 5.
The DNA profile of this stain was not conclusively linked to anything - only possibly an old crime. So no match.

The West Yorkshire police visited Hewlett in Germany when he was dying from throat cancer. The tabloids were full of this despite the fact that the WYP said they were there in connection with a crime from 1976. Nothing to do with the McCanns.
The 'suspicious' man of whom a drawing was made available at some time by TM was almost identical to an old photograph showing Hewlett.
TM were very keen on Hewlett as the abductor from time to time.
So now that he's been dead a while, Hewlett is now being touted as having been instrumental in Maddie's emigration to Russia (still alive, Fund operational).
If SY want to close down the review on an 'open' verdict, Hewlett is ideal, dead, an indeterminate sample which has now been destroyed. A confession on paper also destroyed, but luckily a son with an excellent memory.

You're right plebs, that had there been a part-match with Hewlett that would have been in the FSS report but it wasn't. That wouldn't stop claims to the contrary. All crucial evidence has been destroyed.

tigger wrote:

plebgate wrote:Just to add I took at look at Textusa's blog. Very clever but it's lost me unfortunately.

If the police had the voluntary sample given by Hewlett before he died one would presume that they had checked it against any possible dna sample they had on file before he died and they would have announced he was the abductor before his death.

As I say I am a pleb and do not understand the dna aspects of the case so would be grateful if anybody could give me an answer.

Textusa writes in a very convoluted way - on purpose I would think.
But the way I interpret it is:
DNA was found from semen and saliva.
It was possible that the saliva sample belonged to a small boy who'd stayed there at some time. (despite washing the sheets - apart from that do the sheets go back to exactly the same beds after washing? V. strange)
I take it that the same applies to the semen stain except it wouldn't be from a small boy of 5.
The DNA profile of this stain was not conclusively linked to anything - only possibly an old crime. So no match.

The West Yorkshire police visited Hewlett in Germany when he was dying from throat cancer. The tabloids were full of this despite the fact that the WYP said they were there in connection with a crime from 1976. Nothing to do with the McCanns.
The 'suspicious' man of whom a drawing was made available at some time by TM was almost identical to an old photograph showing Hewlett.
TM were very keen on Hewlett as the abductor from time to time.
So now that he's been dead a while, Hewlett is now being touted as having been instrumental in Maddie's emigration to Russia (still alive, Fund operational).
If SY want to close down the review on an 'open' verdict, Hewlett is ideal, dead, an indeterminate sample which has now been destroyed. A confession on paper also destroyed, but luckily a son with an excellent memory.

You're right plebs, that had there been a part-match with Hewlett that would have been in the FSS report but it wasn't. That wouldn't stop claims to the contrary. All crucial evidence has been destroyed.

I think the word 'counterpane' was used meaning bed-spread rather than sheet. Possibly the bedspreads are not washed each time, and would therefore remain in place for several weeks, just the sheets being changed each week.
Regards a confusing finding of semen and saliva, the saliva being from the boy of 5 but the semen obviously not, was it ever stated that the two fluids were found in exactly the same sample.
If they were found in the same sample, either that is an amazing coincidence of chance or one would have to consider two other possible explanations.
One being that the counterpane was quite randomly dirty, and the one liquid had arisen in exactly the same spot but independently of the other, or two, that such an event could have occurred simutaneously as a result of interference in a child-molesting context.
It does need to be indicated from inspection of the DNA report findings if the two liquids were considered independently or simultaneously staining.
It would be good to be able to dismiss the second option.

tigger wrote:

plebgate wrote:Hi tigger maybe you can answersthe question that I do not understand about the dna.

The dna sample they have which could possibly match hewletts from another crime - where did it come from?

Textusa does it far better! You'll have to click on the link. The sample was not attributed to Hewlett and don't forget Hewlett submitted voluntarity to a DNA test in 2007 so they'd have an excellent reference sample.

As is often done in films, various endings are filmed depending on the reaction of the public in early screenings. The most suitable one is then selected.
Can't think of a better one that can be swallowed hook, line and sinker by a well-prepared public. Known paedo, ruled out, ruled in, DNA evidence gone, FSS gone. All solved.

However, I find the link to a previous crime (not specified) interesting. Likely to be a British crime since FSS found the link? They'd have had the full DNA profile of Hewlett and could have said it had elements of his DNA but they didn't.

Have you got a link to RHs dna being taken in 2007 with regard to the MM case?

IIRC Brit Police were allowed by the German authorities to take a dna sample in 2009? relating to a case in the UK. Nothing to do with MMs case. Well, according to the precious tabloids.

Inspectorfrost wrote:

tigger wrote:

plebgate wrote:Hi tigger maybe you can answersthe question that I do not understand about the dna.

The dna sample they have which could possibly match hewletts from another crime - where did it come from?

Textusa does it far better! You'll have to click on the link. The sample was not attributed to Hewlett and don't forget Hewlett submitted voluntarity to a DNA test in 2007 so they'd have an excellent reference sample.

As is often done in films, various endings are filmed depending on the reaction of the public in early screenings. The most suitable one is then selected.
Can't think of a better one that can be swallowed hook, line and sinker by a well-prepared public. Known paedo, ruled out, ruled in, DNA evidence gone, FSS gone. All solved.

However, I find the link to a previous crime (not specified) interesting. Likely to be a British crime since FSS found the link? They'd have had the full DNA profile of Hewlett and could have said it had elements of his DNA but they didn't.

Have you got a link to RHs dna being taken in 2007 with regard to the MM case?

IIRC Brit Police were allowed by the German authorities to take a dna sample in 2009? relating to a case in the UK. Nothing to do with MMs case. Well, according to the precious tabloids.

There are quite a few topics on Hewlett, this one below is highly informative. The PJ also checked him out twice. His DNA (he volunteered) was taken in May or June 07 or at any rate at the time the PJ interviewed him.
He doesn't fit the profile as he was 'interested' in teenage girls for a start.

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

If you just type in Hewlett in the search box, you'll get a dozen or so more topics.

Thanks Tigger

Did the Portuguese Police follow up the Raymond Hewlett lead?

Yes, they interviewed him twice.

Did they take any forensic evidence from him?

Yes, they took a DNA swab, wit6h his co-operation.

I am after the source for this, only because I have never seen it