Wednesday, January 15, 2014

The Three Little Burglars

Firstly three is the liars number (Mark McClish)

Secondly, the Met and the PJ are not going to release info as to what they are doing or who they will be arresting shortly since that then gives any guilty person a chance to leg it post haste.

The PJ operate under judicial secrecy, it is the law, they cannot, and will not, divulge any information regarding the case.

Since the PJ reopened the case on the basis of new or compelling evidence , it is also probable that kate and gerry and possibly robert murat have had arguido status reinstated, hence the silence from the mccanns.

As a witness, they cannot lie, or refuse to co-operate with any investigation on pain of jail time.
As an  arguido they are protected by law and can lie to their hearts content and refuse to co-operate with any enquiry.
What i don't know is, if it was reinstated automatically, if they requested it thus giving them protection to carry on as before, or, if the PJ reinstated it to give the mccanns their legal protection.
What it means, which, despite the mccanns protests, is they cannot say anything about the case to anyone except the police and their lawyers, it gives them a big get out clause if asked an awkward question as we saw all too often especially gerry's little tantrum, when he stomped off in a huff.

Anyone familiar with the case will know there have been leaks all over the place, from the mccanns via a 3rd party such as family member or, their beloved spokespoodle clarence mitchell.

Leaks pertaining to the upcoming arrests of 3 burglars have not come from the Met or the PJ, rather they came from a  family spokesman, IE clarence mitchell.

I wonder if he will face charges of peverting the course of justice because of all the 'leaks' and the misinformation.

Since their libel trial against Dr. Gonçalo Amaral has gone bosoms up (hence their desperate offer to buy him off and end the trial (it is almost unheard of for a plaintiff to want to drop their case) and the fact they already lost their attempt to ban his book on appeal, and then again in the supreme court (which they kept real quiet) we were expecting either a new sighting or a new suspect as per normal when things are looking bad for them.

We were treated to the Crime Watch debacle which they had demanded way back, in which it was revealed they had sat on e-fits for several years on the grounds it would confuse the public and show them in a bad light, tanner man did not exist per se and she didn't see a man abducting Maddie, and they gagged their PI's to stop them revealing their findings to anyone.

The e-fits only leaked out when the Met made a request to the fund's board of directors to get access to all the files. Tee hee(they couldn't exactly refuse now could they)

We then had a spate of new suspects in the media courtesy of the pink princess (mitchell) we had tractor man who was conveniently dead.
He was allegedly sacked from the complex and thus took Maddie as payback, just like we would do the same if we were sacked.
Rather than steal office supplies or screw up the IT we steal a non related child.
You get the point.

Except , this was a rehash of an earlier story where it was allegedly a sacked chambermaid who took Maddie.

Now, we have 3 burglars who allegedly broke in and rather than taking the valuables which would be easy to sell and would not warrant much attention from the local plods,, instead, decided to abduct a child,just  like burglars do, after noticing the children were left allegedly home alone and left the property with Maddie and nothing valuable like passports cameras, watches, cell phones etc which weren't being worn or carried on the night, all very strange, especially given all the alleged checks that were taking place and especially leaving not one iota of a trace of their presence and somehow managing to leave cadaverine and body fluids everywhere.


I know the kids weren't left home alone each night and the rest of the world is coming to realise this.

In fact gerry almost admitted this before stopping himself in the process of free editing. he leaked a lot more than he thought he did if you know where to look.

During that week there was one night, errr… and we can't give too much detail because it's part of the investigation file but there was one night where Madeleine came through and one of the other, errr… twins were crying, so, you know, and when she did mention to it… it to us and we asked her about it and she just dropped… she was completely fine and we thought, 'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired.

 Firstly  he was going to say children before realising they were supposed to be home alone so he stops just before he says the magic word and changes it to other twins.
Now Sean and Amelie were the only set of twins in the group, there were no other twins.
Next  we know that one adult was missing each night due to being sick.
That adult was the babysitter thus the children were not left alone.

Gerry tells us this is so when he refers to  Madeleine asking why they didn't come and it is highly damning.

 'Was it when they were bathing, getting them, you know, first putting them down in that period when they're really tired.

 Now, if Maddie cried and they didn't hear her (which is why she asked the question) who was bathing her and the twins?
Who was putting them down for the night if it wasn't kate and gerry?
(this also makes kates story about the bedtime book etc a load of bollocks, the perfect emotions in the perfect place.)

We have a few options here.

If the children were in 5a and kate and gerry never heard her crying where were they?
Who was in 5a bathing the children and putting them to bed since it clearly wasn't kate or gerry, if it were them then the question would never have arisen?
I'm looking at you david payne.

If the children weren't in 5a and kate and gerry were, in whose apartment were they and again who was bathing and putting them to bed (david payne yet again?)

What is obvious is all the children were in one apartment

Gerry mccann : The twins were still sleeping in their cots. So... you'd be trying to leave it as undisturbed as possible, and they slept very soundly until we moved them out of the cots into their own apartment which does make me wonder about whether there was any substances used to keep them asleep.

This is telling.
He just told us they moved them out of the cots (Not their cots?) into their own apartment.
Since their own apartment was 5A whose apartment did they move them from?

Since all the children were in one apartment and being watched by an adult there could be no abduction.

If there was no abduction , how do they explain their missing daughter?

No paedophile is going to try and take a child whilst there is an adult watching their possible victim, they are not going to risk injury or being caught, arrested etc.
They will leave and perhaps try somewhere else or go home.

As the children were being watched, there was no abduction and thus a whole bunch of awkward questions as to what they did with Maddie.

The mccanns and chums had to claim neglect to allow for there to be an abduction.
The charges could result in a max 10 stretch, possible loss of their licences  and perhaps their children or at least they would be monitored on the at risk register.

A good lawyer could plea bargain down to maybe a couple years max or probation and a fine.
This was the best option given they could be facing homicide charges as well as concealing a corpse and filing a false police report.

When found guilty it would mean serious time, loss of their licences and children, loss of everything.

They had everything to gain by claiming what they did and nothing to lose.

This explains why they were never prosecuted.

Firstly if charged with neglect they could not then be charged with homicide etc.

Secondly, there was no evidence of an abduction, no body, yet cadaverine was detected as were blood and body fluids.

The PJ did not know what if any crimes had been committed and they couldn't charge them for a crime they couldn't decide on or prove happened.

This was a damn good reason for them to scarper back to the UK and hire expensive extradition lawyers.
If they were going to be charged, they were going to make it hard as possible to be extradited back to Portugal.

When they did return it was on the proviso they would not be rearrested.

Maddie died in the apartment sometime during the vacation.
No one can officially say they saw her anytime after the Sunday, the creche records are a mess with parents signing each others children out and fake signatures,

Maddie dying before the 3rd (the mccanns have the anniversary as 2nd may which is interesting)  would allow time for their panic to die down, for them to forensically clean the apartment and dispose of her remains temporarily and then move her again 25 days later to what was presumably her final resting place.

Anything you read in MSM  will be coming from the mccanns and the pink princess, not the Met or the PJ and as such must be taken with a mountain of salt.

Thursday, January 9, 2014

"Taken A Little Girl Away From Her Family'? - Why The Distancing kate?

'it's not us that's committed a crime, it's the person that's gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family'?
A crime and not THE crime?
Was there more than one crime and if so what crimes were committed?
A crime implies there was more than one crime.
Abduction is a crime, neglect is also a crime, something they admitted to in order to facilitate the the theory of abduction.
There could be no abduction if all the children were being watched by an adult.
 No abduction leaves them trying to come up with an explanation for their missing daughter.

This is close, that is distancing.
For there to be a that there has to be a this.
Why distance themselves from the apartment?
Why use the article THAT rather than the expected OUR apartment?
Was Maddie not in the apartment as claimed by the parents?
This would fit in with all the children being in one places watched by the missing member of the group each night.

It would explain the lack of evidence Maddie had even been in the apartment that week, in fact there was barely any trace of 3 toddlers ever having been there it was so forensically clean.
It would also explain the confusing statements about the twins being on the bed, in travel cots (plural) and cot singular, the missing bedding, the comment of moving them back to the apartment, the statement from oldfield in which he says he saw things in 5A that weren't there but rather another apartment and so on.

One has to wonder, given the lack of forensic evidence ( apart from cadaverine and body fluids in several spots) if the mccanns actually stayed in the apartment at all.

Is it possible they swapped apartments between the group according to their needs rather than as booked and that another apartment would show evidence of the mccanns staying there?
It would explain a lot of the discrepancies and statements.

"taken a little girl away from her family'?
This is concerning, there is a huge amount of distancing language here which is unexpected especially coming from a mother.
Why does she say A LITTLE GIRL rather than the expected MY DAUGHTER/ OUR DAUGHTER or even MADELEINE?
Why does she not take ownership of Maddie?
Such distancing language such as child/little girl etc can be an indication of abuse.
It doesn't mean there is, it must however be noted and probed deeper.
We need to see where the language changes, if it does, and if it applies to one child or many.

A parent distancing themselves from their child is never a good sign, especially in missing child cases.

IVF can be stressful for the prospective parents and expensive.
The resulting child may not be as they expected, especially if there are health issues, something which is common in IVF.
The parents may struggle to bond with their child as it may not be fully biologically theirs depending on method of IVF.
There is also a huge financial cost which some parents may regret or in effect blame the child for any family problems.

The fact she had at least 2 rounds of IVF and probably more means a lot of expense, a lot of stress,  fluctuating hormones and the blame game as to who is at fault.

It could be that Maddie was a twin since most clinics implant a max of 2 eggs to ensure a good chance of pregnancy, clearly this was the case with Sean and Amelie,

Is this perhaps why they refused to handover the medical records for the family , as, again, it could lead to awkward questions if Maddie had in fact been a twin.

Questions such as where is the other one?

Was Maddie really Maddie etc. 

Unlikely but given the circumstances, the non co-operation, the discrepancies etc it cannot be discounted.

"From her family'? 

Who is HER family?
Why the distancing language referring to HER family  rather than OUR family or the closer US 

Does kate not think of her, gerry and the twins as part of Maddie's family?
If so, why not?
Again this leads then to who is Maddie's family if not the mccann's?
Was Maddie the  'red haired step child'?
The odd one out, after all, Sean and Amelie were the perfect family, it fitted in with their perception of the perfect family.
Blondie haired boy and girl twins, 2 good jobs, a big house, a high social class.

Maddie was the odd one out.
In their own words , she was born almost perfect, not unexpected in an IVF child.
She had a coloboma, something they said used as a good marketing ploy, despite being told it could put her at risk.
First it was noticeable then minimised as a small fleck by the parents and if true not something they would notice the moment she was born.

Gerry made a comment that she was still active, something strange to say the least, given she was still a toddler.
Why would she not be active in the future unless there were other health issues, hence the refusal to hand over her medical records.

We also know she had a temper, was demanding and could be a screamer.

This is very concerning when parents and family demean a missing person, it is unexpected.

It is akin to blaming the victim for what happened to them or as gerry said so succinctly "
The situation Madeleine finds herself in"
It also provides a possible motive as in altruistic murder, where the killer feels they are putting the victim out of their misery, preventing further suffering.
It is not unknown for the parent to give the child a last happy day, this would fit in with kate's reference to Maddie saying she had the best day ever.

This would explain why she had to disappear and the abduction story dreamt up.
No body , no autopsy.

This leads then to consequences.
Is it likely kate killed Maddie?
Her own words tell me kate knows Maddie is dead and it was non accidental
Remember kate's own words spoken using the process of free editing

"They want me to lie - I'm being framed.

"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us."'

Not the order and pronouns, I'm being framed, not, WE'RE being framed.
Then she introduces MURDER making it sensitive.
Why bring in murder when they were claiming abduction and the PJ were investigating an abduction in public.
Why would the Portuguese blame the mccanns for Portugal not having paedophile laws?
Given they were claiming abduction by a childless couple etc why does she introduce paedophilia, again making it sensitive?

Why the s change in pronoun from I'M being framed to  blaming US indicating unity or shared co-operation

Is this in relation to the actions of payne and gerry as reported by the Dr's Gaspar?
Is this relating to payne being recognised by a social worker in relation to child abuse?Is this isn relation to payne liking to bathe other people's children?
Is this in relation to payne outright being called a paedophile, including in a letter from Dr Amaral's wife Sofia.
Why has payne stayed silent given such allegations given they are pretty much the worst thing you can call someone?

Is it because there is a basis of truth and to deny would open a large can of worms including what did the mccann's and the rest of the group know oe suspect, and if they knew or suspected, why let him  near their children?

Was Maddie killed by accident such as a fall or accidental ingestion of pillsas often happens? 
Was she  a victim of an assault gone
to far, such as loss of temper?
Was she a victim of accidental overdose of sedation either coming round and falling or she simply stopped breathing
Was she the victim of sexual abuse which could not be explained away as accident and so she had to vanish?

 Was she killed for an altruistic motive ( which could lead to time in a hospital rather than jail) 
To prevent her suffering etc

Or for another reason?

Only the mccanns know the truth and possibly one or more of the tapas group.

A crime once done cannot be undone.
It then becomes a case of WHEN it is solved, not IF?
Modern science and forensics are advancing in leaps and bounds

It may be tomorrow it could be  weeks, months, years, decades or even centuries.

The truth will out,

Criminals such as murderers and rapists cannot escape, even after death.
Look at jimmy saville as a prime example.

The mccanns will face justice, it is a given, as will their friends and anyone else involved in the cover up or the fraudulent fund if they knew or believed Maddie was dead.

Whether they bite the bullet and admit the truth to spare the twins or if they are woken by an early morning knock on the door and an invitation to visit the local nick.

I don't know,