Thursday, February 26, 2015

Cliff Richard Allegations : Everybody has an idea about everything, even if they are wrong

A statement released by Sir Cliff said:

"I  have no idea where these absurd and untrue allegations come from.
"The police have not disclosed details to me

I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail.
I have co-operated fully with the police, and will, of course, continue to do so.

"Beyond stating that the allegations are completely false, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further until the investigation has concluded, which I hope will be very soon.
"In the meantime, I would, again, like to thank everyone for supporting me through this unbelievably difficult period."

Never does not mean did not, it is only applicable if the question asked is have you ever...?

Assault would depend on his personal internal dictionary definition of assault.
A paedophile could pass a poly if asked if he molested little Tiffany. or Billy?
In his personal internal dictionary he didn't see it as assault, he sees it as tickling or cuddling or hugging.

A statement analyst would seek to learn his internal personal dictionary and ask questions such as did you touch...?
Did you touch them over their clothes?
Did you touch them underneath their clothes?
Where did you touch them?
How did you touch them?
With what did you touch them?
Did they touch you?
and so on getting to specifics so they have no chance to minimise or lie by omission.

"I have no idea where these absurd and untrue allegations come from".
He would have an idea where the allegations have come from, at least one that is known of, relates to a
Christian rally in Sheffield in 1985 with an adolescent 15 yr old boy.
There are also the allegations of him being a visitor to elm guest house under the pseudonym kitty.
He would have been told at the time he was interviewed and his house searched on the warrant.
His attorneys would also have been told and, i presume would have then informed their client

"The police have not disclosed details to me"
They would have made him aware of the allegations against him when they paid him a visit.
Note though he doesn't say allegations, he uses the word details which means he is aware of what the allegations are but perhaps not the who is making the allegations or the specifics of the allegations.
He wants the listener/reader to believe he knows nothing about anything but he refers to details not allegations.

"I have never, in my life, assaulted anyone and I remain confident that the truth will prevail."
This is a weak and unreliable denial.

Never does not mean did not.

He also adds the additional qualifier IN MY LIFE which further weakens his denial.
If he has never assaulted anyone then it is a given it would be his whole life.
This is a sensitive part of his statement, he doesn't make a strong first person singular reliable denial and, if he doesn't say it, i can't say it for him.
He uses the word assault, i would need to learn what his definition of assault is.
He says assaulted and not sexually assaulted.
Assault is generally thought of as hitting or attacking someone physically, causing harm.
He may think that what he did wasn't assault as he did not hit or physically harm the victim,
He could claim it was harmless, consensual or loving, minimising the crime and the resulting emotional damage done to the victim(s) and their families and future generations

"I remain confidant the truth will prevail"
This is often used by guilty parties to convince the world they are innocent.

This can and often does change as evidence is found and charges laid.
Oft times the subject will use phrases such as fully intend to clear my name or express confidence regarding the truth only to do a plea deal when reality kicks in.
What is his definition of the
He uses the word TRUTH rather than i will not face charges because i did not sexually touch any child

"I have co-operated fully with the police, and will, of course, continue to do so".
Note the use of the qualifier FULLY (a qualifier is a word which when removed, does not change the meaning of the sentence)

Qualifiers weaken the statement.
It would be a given that an innocent person would cooperate with LE, why does he need to say he will fully cooperate?
Are or will there be limits to his cooperation?
OF COURSE is used to persuade the listener/reader to accept what the subject is saying without question.
He tells us he has fully cooperated with the police not that he is cooperating with the police currently.
This cooperation will depend on what LE find, any further allegations made and what his lawyers advise him to do.
Note also the dropped pronoun in relation to his continuing to fully cooperate with police.
He doesn't take ownership of continuing to fully cooperation and, i suspect, when more evidence is found / more victims come forward / further information is uncovered the cooperation will cease and he will lawyer up and say nothing

"Beyond stating that the allegations are completely false, it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further until the investigation has concluded, which I hope will be very soon."
Here would be the perfect time to state he did not sexually assault/ touch any child since that is the allegation made.

If he was innocent as claimed, then there is nothing to stop him making it clear the allegations aren't true and shouting it from the rooftops day after day.
Innocent people will be loud and proud and will not stay silent if they are innocent..

Guilty people on the other hand invariably say they will say nothing else until the investigation has concluded / they get their day in court or the ever popular on my attorney's advice i will not be making any further comments.
Guilty people tend to want all the publicity to die down and go off the radar saying nothing or next to nothing except the usual spiel about attorneys and courts of law.

He hopes the investigation will conclude very soon which allows for it to continue especially if other allegations come to light which might be the case (elm guest house for example)
He doesn't say the investigation to conclude and me to be cleared as i did not sexually touch / sexually assault any child.
He only says conclude which allows for a number of conclusions some of which will be bad for him and good for the victims.

"In the meantime, I would, again, like to thank everyone for supporting me through this unbelievably difficult period."

Is it unbelievable because perhaps he thought he would never be caught?
Is it unbelievable given his professed Christian faith?
Is it unbelievable because he is an all round clean living good guy with a knighthood?
If he were innocent of any wrongdoing then i would expect to hear a strong first person singular reliable denial
I - first person singular
Did not /didn't  - past tense
Sexually molest/sexually abuse/sexually touch  any child - event specific

Anything thing apart from those words are classed as unreliable denials
Examples could be i didn't do it -  this begs the question what is the IT you didn't do?
I  never sexually molested a child - Never does not mean did not making it unreliable.
I  would  never harm a child -  Would is future conditional, if the subject has been caught or even accused the subject may think twice about it next time
Harm is also non even specific and, for example, in the case of murder and the subject uses harm rather than kill, they minimise the crime.

I am still waiting for him to make a strong reliable denial regarding the allegations, sadly it is not yet forthcoming.
I do expect his sexuality to finally come out possibly to divert attention from the allegations.
It is an open secret and possibly he maintains the facade due to the age of his fan base and also due to his professed Christian beliefs.

Way back when he first started, homosexuality was taboo and even up until fairly recent times it was the secret no one talked about although these days it seems everyone is jumping on the gay bandwagon if it will sell records or get them 15 minutes of fame.
His fan base, like most boy bands even today are the young girls of the time, girls who will buy his records, go to his concerts, buy memorabilia and generally scream and swoon at the feet of their idol, do their best to meet their idol or even jump into bed with them (back then they were called groupies)
Even today, boy bands tend to keep their sexuality hidden along with any significant others such as girlfriends or wives at the behest of their management.
Single boys and men mean more sales of records and memorabilia.
Having a significant other means reduced sales by girls who hope one day they may become their significant other and, who can get really jealous and angry even to making threats if their favorite gets a girlfriend, married or has favorite girls he hangs out with.
Cliff was portrayed and sold  as the UK version of Elvis Presley

I wonder if we will hear anything from his live in companion (an ex priest whose mom
elliptically told a newspaper in 2006: ‘He left for the same reasons so many of them leave. I know about his new life and Sir Cliff, of course. I hope they are happy'

I think there is a lot more to come out, especially since his name being on the Elm Guest House  list  along with his nickname of Kitty is open knowledge.
Elm Guest House has links to  paedophile parties  where underage boys were sexually abused by people in power or money or fame.
It will be interesting to see if he makes any mention of this in the coming days and weeks.

He has alluded to in in an earlier statement without getting into specifics

Aug 14 2014

"For many months I have been aware of allegations against me of historic impropriety which have been circulating online.
"The allegations are completely false. Up until now I have chosen not to dignify the false allegations with a response, as it would just give them more oxygen.
"However, the police attended my apartment in Berkshire today without notice, except it would appear to the press.
"I am not presently in the UK but it goes without saying that I will cooperate fully should the police wish to speak to me.
"Beyond stating that today's allegation is completely false it would not be appropriate to say anything further until the police investigation has concluded."
It is strange that, given the  allegations being made, and considering  how paedophiles are reviled, that rather than make a strong reliable denial  in relation to said allegations and that being called a paedophile directly or by implication is probably the worst thing you can accuse someone, particularly a man of, why not say I am not a paedophile, i did not visit Elm Guest House at any time, I did not attend any parties where underage children were sexually abused etc, he instead decided to say nothing.

This is unexpected and has caused me, and likely many others, to ask why won't he make a strong reliable denial?

Is this akin to by not answering the question you are answering the question?

By implication alone the questions running through the minds of the public are:
Are you a paedophile?
Have you sexually abused a child or children?
Did you attended parties where sexual abuse of underage boys took place?

These are not questions that will go away.
These are questions that demand an answer.

It reminds me of david payne and the Drs Gaspar statements and the common knowledge he liked to bathe other peoples children.
A child, Madeleine McCann, goes missing on a vacation where he is also present  and yet despite the allegations and all they imply, rather than make a strong reliable denial, he says nothing.
In such cases, given their nature, saying nothing is not an option.
Staying silent only fuels the fire.
Questions are asked as to why they aren't denying the allegation  which then leads to the logical conclusion that they aren't denying it because there is some truth to it.

Cliff has made no strong reliable denial, nor has he responded to the allegations regarding Elm Guest House (something LE will be well aware of)
By saying nothing, people will then ask why isn't he denying it?

Is there some truth to these allegations?
I await with interest any further statements he or his attorneys decide to make

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Question: Kate introduces MURDER and Framed

Hi Tania!

I've seen where you have replied to "anonymous" ;) claims where Maddie's death was not an accident.

Here's where I'm so confused and it would be nice to understand better thx in advance)!

You told us kate "herself" told us poor little Maddie was "murdered" because she chose the word. The quote comes from a Daily Mirror interview where she is addressing CLAIMS that she murdered Maddie. If she's responding to claims of murder, doesn't that mean somebody else brought up murder before she did? And she also brought up the word framed. If leaking a word gives it importance why so much emphasis on her responding to others' claims of MURDER but you completely dismiss

To ask it another way- you dismiss accidental death above so presumably you think it's murder. So if km were to respond to your accusation, and used the word "murder," you would then say- look- she used the word murder, so she must have murdered Maddie.

Anywho, that's where I'm a tad confused. Any help is appreciated!!!

* waves *
Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: "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

If she is responding to a question in which the word murder is used such as did you murder Madeleine and her reply was "no, i did not murder Madeleine", in statement analysis this is known as an unreliable denial as she is reflecting the language of the interviewer (which is why when interviewing a subject,you do not introduce new language)

 A good example of this is gerry's response on being asked "did you kill your daughter? He replies No, and that's an emphatic no and then goes beyond the bounds of the question by explaining how he could not have killed his daughter making it not only an unreliable denial but also extremely sensitive.

GM"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous.

If she is asked to make a comment  such as why were you  called in to the police station? and she replies using the process of free editing where the words are thought of a microsecond before being spoken, then murder is on the forefront of her mind and she leaks that thought in her reply.
Since they are telling the world she was abducted and knowing how muzzled the UK media is and how supportive of the couple they were, would a journalist ask directly did you murder your daughter and risk their ire?
At best they would have used a less provocative word such as kill (see gerry's answer)  or are you involved in the death of your daughter?
A strong reliable denial would be I did not kill Madeleine.
She doesn't reflect the language of the question

She uses the strong first person pronoun I
Past tense DID NOT
Event specific  KILL MADELEINE.

If she said  i didn't do it, i did not harm Madeleine, i would never harm/hurt my daughter, then it would also be an unreliable denial as it violates the principals of a strong reliable denial.
It - she doesn't say what IT is
Harm/hurt is to minimise the crime
WOULD is future conditional, and since Maddie is already dead, she can no longer be harmed.

Kate and gerry have been telling the world for 8 years Maddie was abducted, if this were true and they were innocent then they would only use the term abducted as this is what is on their mind unless they have knowledge or have been given to believe she is dead.

If they were innocent, they would have fully cooperated with LE in regard to reconstructions and interviews, they would have physically searched and they would have answered every question put to hem, the expected behavior of innocent parents.

AS we know, they refused to co-operate, lawyering up almost immediately.
They refused to physically search.
Kate refused to answer 48 questions.
They have sued or threatened to sue anyone who disagrees with their version of events.
They also hired investigators with no experience of finding missing persons, but who were experienced in financial crimes, money laundering and the like.
After 8 years, there is still not one iota of evidence to indicate an abduction, which, even you have to admit, is rather telling.

Regarding the word framed.
She introduces this as she was made Arguido.
To be framed would imply there was evidence that proved they were involved.
Evidence would be planted to implicate the subject.

This then tells us there is evidence that has been found which would implicate one of both of them in the death of their daughter.
This despite their oft repeated claims there is no evidence that Maddie is dead.

We know this is untrue since blood and body fluids were found in the apartment and hire car, cadaverine was found in the apartment and hire car as well as on items of clothing and cuddle cat.
There has been to date no evidence indicating abduction.
Excuses were thought up to explain away this 'non existent' evidence such as kate handled multiple dead bodies before the vacation, Sean had developed a taste for sea bass( reputed to give off the scent of cadaverine) and the classic dirty diapers, rotting meat and fish and sweaty sandals.

We also have clarence telling us:

  "Any evidence they may or may not have found which gave them cause for suspicion of Gerry and Kate can be wholly and easily explained should it come to that."

Given we know the evidence found includes blood and body fluids which in the initial FSS report indicated they belonged to Maddie before it being minimised and which could not and did not exclude Maddie as being the donor, the question arises, if they claim they are being framed and the fluids belong to Maddie, why the have they not been arrested and charged?
It would mean that someone had access to Maddie's remains and obtained samples of blood and body fluids and went to the apartment and placed said fluids behind the sofa on the floor, in the parents wardrobe on cuddlecat, kate's pants and the red child's t-shirt and then knew which hire car they were going to rent and places fluids and hairs in that.

Since the house was being watched as were the couple and LE were everywhere how did said person get in to contaminate the apartment, get access to the clothing when they were in the new apartment and get access to cuddlecat which appeared to be surgically attached to kate.
How then did they get access to the hire car?
If they got samples from Maddie's remains, why was it not reported to LE?
Who would find a body and not report it especially in a case like this?

Do you see how implausible all their excuses and explanations are?

Kate used the word murder which would exclude accidental death.

Accidental death could have been Maddie falling and banging her head.

Maddie being hit during a row and being fatally injured

Maddie being  injured  whilst kate and gerry rowed, with one of them lashing out and hitting Maddie instead.

Maddie dying of overdose when she found pills or medication or drugs

Maddie dying during/ as a result of being the victim of another crime such as being sexually abused.

Kate doesn't allow for the above options as she would have said accidentally died.
She uses the specific MURDER

This could be premeditated which would fit with her having issues with Maddie and not bonding with her as per her book.

It could be due to altruistic reasons such as Maddie had serious health issues which were life shortening so she was killed as a kindness to end her suffering.

It could be down to jealousy as we know kate was an only child and perhaps resented Maddie getting attention (especially if she was a daddy's girl)

It could be down to anger, Maddie was the scapegoat for all the family problems, financial issues (struggling to pay the mortgage) when things went wrong, Maddie was blamed,  marital issues.

It could be that  Maddie wasn't gerry's bio child whereas the twins are and when they arrived she was  regarded as disposable, she wasn't part of the family ( we have seen in their comments over the years that there is no bond between kate and Maddie and kate in particular has real problems talking about or referring to her as part of their family)

It could be that she died after some other crime was committed and they wanted to stop her talking as she was now of an age where she could talk and tell what was happening.

It could have been accidental homicide, something happened and they did not seek treatment and as a result she died.

It could have been the result of accidental overdose/over sedation.

Whatever the reason, they could not allow Maddie to be autopsied as the  results would be hard if not impossible to explain away as an accident.

Kate used the word MURDER for a reason.
It was at the forefront of her mind the moment she spoke and she leaked marbles

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Question: Could it have been an accidental death?

Tania, thank-you for taking the time to reply to my post at 8:25 AM, although I didn't know Madeleine, I find myself getting upset thinking how she must have suffered in her dying moments if no-one was there to help her, and the fact that her parents could be involved in her disappearance.
I did wonder if she had woken-up and left the apartment to look for her parents, and maybe fell in the pool, and when discovered she was carried back to the apartment to try and resuscitate her but it was too late. I also wondered if she'd fiddled with beads on that elastic in her hair, and maybe choked on those? 
If they really were left on their own in the apartment without any supervision, do you think rather than own up to finding Madeleine dead/dying they just panicked and decided to dream up the abduction story?
 Not particularly thinking straight, and being worse for wear, after boozing all night.

Thank-you for your interesting opinion on this very weird/baffling case.


Hi Anon (please choose a name  even if a disposable one)
If she left the apartment and fell into the pool why would they then carry her back to the apartment to try and resuscitate her?
There would have been a high risk of being seen for a start either when they were out looking for her in which case Maddie would likely have been found in the pool by a member of staff, one of the searchers or one of the tapas (who would then have to explain why they carried her back to the apartment to resuscitate her rather than starting CPR by the pool as would be expected, especially since there were several doctors in the group.
If Maddie drowned, it would then be an accident and the mccanns would have sued the pants off Mark Warner for not  making sure the pool was safe at night.
There would be no reason to conceal an accidental death, especially if they thought they would get compensation ( possibly even from their travel insurance if they took it out)

Regarding your second suggestion.
Choking on a hair bead would again be accidental death.
Why would they need to conceal her death if it were accidental?
They could claim they checked and they were all sleeping safely and when they woke up in the morning she was dead behind the sofa having woken in the night as shown by her chart on the fridge and gone to get a drink/use the bathroom/play in the living room/look out the window.
She  pulled her hair bead out  as children are wont to do and put it in her mouth, again as children are wont to do, and, fell and swallowed the bead causing her to choke.
This would allow them to claim they weren't neglectful as they were in the apartment sleeping when the accident happened.

Since the coroner would have been able to pinpoint the hour of death, they could have claimed they got home and quickly peeked into the dark bedroom and, on hearing no noise went to bed assuming all 3 children were sleeping when in fact, Maddie had fallen behind the sofa the previous night.and died.
Heck, they could even claim they didn't do a final check as there was no noise coming from the bedroom so they assumed all was well.
Only in the morning when they saw Maddie wasn't in her bed would they have done a search of the house, to find her dead behind the sofa.
Cue the calling of 911 weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Cue the onrush of public sympathy
Both are plausible excuses if not believable.
Finding their child dead or severely injured would have an immediate sobering effect and, if injured accidentally and they were drunk, why would they need to come up with an implausible and impossible abduction.

When someone is deceptive, they have a reason to be deceptive, and in the cases where someone is killed or goes missing, especially a child, innocent people have no reason for deception.
Those who are guilty or have guilty knowledge will have a reason to deceive, that is, fear of the consequences of their actions.

It still wouldn't explain why cadaverine was detected in the parents wardrobe as dead people don't walk about except in the movies.
If it were accidental and they could explain away the cadaverine  behind the sofa and on kate's pants, cuddlecat and the red child's t shirt which they could have claimed she was sleeping in, they still have to explain why there was cadaverine in the wardrobe and then subsequently in the hire car.

If it were accidental, they likely would not have faced charges if using the above excuses, yes they left the children alone (personally i don't buy this) but she died whilst they were sleeping.
Cue lots of sympathy, 15 mins of fame and life moves on.

Since they did none of the above and the group have said they would have reported an accident, the conclusion has to be it was none accidental.
She either died due to something happening to her such as over sedation or perhaps being pushed or slapped by an angry parent - negligent homicide or she was physically or sexually abused and died as a result of said abuse non premeditated homicide or, she was deliberately murdered - first degree homicide.
if it was non accidental and likely a result of physical/sexual abuse or deliberate homicide it would explain their would explain why her body could not be allowed to be autopsied.
The injuries could not be explained away as accidental, especially sexual injuries, especially old injuries which would mean the abuse had been ongoing.
Old injuries,scars would lead to questions as to her medical history, was she treated in hospital perhaps and if no, and the injury is of a type that would have warranted a visit such as a fracture awkward questions would be asked indeed as to why she wasn't treated at hospital and who treated said injury  especially as they are doctors.

Kate herself told the world the Portuguese didn't want a murder in their country, a statement which is damning and incriminating.
She doesn't tell us it was an abduction, she doesn't tell us it was an accident, she doesn't tell us it was due to their negligence, she uses the word MURDER.

The brain thinks of the word a microsecond before it is spoken.

Murder is what was at the forefront of her mind as she spoke.
She tells us right there Maddie is dead and it was murder.
What we have to learn is who murdered her?

If it was was at the hands of one of the tapas 7, most likely to be payne, why would they cover it up?
Even if they were involved in other crimes, murder beats them all.
They would do time depending on the crimes and their severity, they would lose their licenses to practice and their children, their friends and likely their home however, they would get released at some point.
They could even sue him though they would likely get little or nothing if it can be shown they played a part in their daughter's death at the hands of another.
Since it is unlikely they would cover for a murderer, either they themselves committed murder or they were participants/observers and that makes them accessories.
This would explain their language and behavior, their non searching, the pact of silence within the group, the voracious greed in relation to money and air time and attention.
Their insatiable need to litigate and muzzle anyone who hints at the truth and denies their version of events.

They need to keep on the offensive since to stop would mean the public and LE looking closely at their version of events and find it lacking and when that happens it is game over.
They have painted themselves into a corner and this is when they are likely to be a danger to their children and themselves (kate telling the world about her pressing a button and them all being together)

A trapped animal with nowhere to go will go on the attack, is this the reason why the mccanns are so litigious and aggressive towards those who don't buy their version of events?