Thursday, February 25, 2016

The Drs Gaspar statements

Regarding the Drs Gaspar statement, where the implication is that gerry and david are paedophiles.
It is disquieting in that we have heard no mention of this or a denial from either gerry or david.

Being called a paedophile is one of the worst names you can call someone particularly males.

Being called it in private is bad enough, being called it by implication in public is far worse, the revulsion caused by paedophilia is enough to cause mobs to descend even to physical violence and even death.

It is not something to be ignored if not true.

Being doctors and thus having exposure to children means being called a paedophile could have major ramifications, even to losing their licenses to practice.

As we saw with Lord McAlpine as soon as his name was mentioned in connection to paedophilia he came out with all guns firing and sued those responsible, the normal response to such a dreadful implication and accusation.

What we have seen, and which is not expected, is deafening silence from both gerry and david.

One would expect strong first person singular, event specific past tense denials.
I am not a paedophile.
I did not sexually abuse any child.
I am not sexually attracted to children and so on.

I would expect them to sue those who made such an accusation even to Mrs Amaral who wrote an open letter to kate telling her, she (Mrs Amaral) did not have paedophile friends.
It was loud and clear as to who Mrs Amaral was referring to in her letter.

What was also loud and clear was the deafening silence coming from both the mccanns and members of the tapas 7 refuting said allegation.

I would expect strong denials, particularly since Madeleine went missing, and it is well known that in missing children cases where it is a stranger abduction, the child is often sexually abused before being murdered, the longer a child victim of stranger abduction is missing the more likely they are dead.

Approximately 80% of acquaintance and stranger kidnappings are sexually motivated.

Acting quickly is critical.

Seventy-four percent of abducted children who are ultimately murdered are dead within three hours of the abduction.

This contradicts statements from the mccanns, in that the longer she is missing the more chance she is alive, and that there is no evidence she has come to serious harm (this in itself contradicts the forensic evidence of blood and body fluids in the apartment and car.

Normal instinct of innocent parents would be to demand to know if their child has been hurt by the 'abductor' and to demand faster action if dogs indicate, as well as asking what does it mean when a dog does this ot that?
What are the implications?
The parents being innocent, would be in paroxysms of agony ,afraid to know what may have happened to their missing child and, at the same time, afraid not to know.
The fear and pain of wondering if their child was hurt, if they are in pain, if they are suffering and not being able to comfort their child, to reassure them.
The fear and pain of wondering if their child is now dead, no longer suffering or being afraid and them not being able to bring their child home to give them a dignified burial.

They want to know and yet at the same time they don't.
Whilst they don't know there is always that flicker of hope, no matter how faint.
When they do know their child is dead, it is the end of their world, there is no longer any hope.
The worst has happened, their only consolation is that their child is now at peace, no longer terrified or in pain.

This is the expected.
What we saw and heard kate say was the unexpected.

We saw kate, claiming the dogs were junk science and thus relaxing rather than show concern

The fact we have heard nothing from either gerry or david in denial is telling.

Are they saying nothing in the hope it will die down?

Are they saying nothing because there is some basis for the allegation, and by responding would result in the allegations being made more public and perhaps questions and answers about the CATS file coming out?

Are they saying nothing because they have been advised not to by their lawyers due to consequences?

Sarah's Law, enables parents, guardians and third parties to enquire whether a person who has access to a child is a registered sex offender, or poses a risk to that child

How the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme works

Any member of the public can approach their local police force to apply under the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, for information regarding a specific person who has contact with a child(ren).
The police will process the application, but disclosure is not guaranteed.
Even if there are no firm grounds for suspicion, the applicant can trigger an investigation to find out if the subject (the person they are asking about) has a known history that means they might be of risk to children.

Third parties with concerns (e.g. grandparents or neighbors) about an individual who has contact with children are also invited to use the scheme.
However, where appropriate, disclosure will only be given to parents and guardians or those best placed to protect a child.

It may be that inquiries have been made by members of the public in regard to gerry and david, they cannot however broadcasts that information (human rights act and all that crap)

Saying nothing is unexpected and should therefore be red flagged.

One red flag or two does not mean the subject is being deceptive about the event concerned, it could be sensitive due to something else, an affair, financial worries,  alcohol or substance abuse, even that checks weren't done as claimed.
However, multiple red flags indicate deception and then we need to probe further on why they are being deceptive, guilty knowledge or fear of consequences?

Listen not only for what is being said and how, also listen for what is not being said and when.

The subject will tell us the truth even if they are trying hard not to.
Look and listen to only the words spoken.
Do not interpret them.
Do not excuse what is being said to that's not what they meant.
If you interpret what you think they meant, you end up analyzing yourself.

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Innocence and Deception, The Truth and The Lie.

In cases of a missing child or loved one, innocent people will have the memories burnt into their minds if they are innocent.
They will remember what they experienced that day, the exact moment they found out, what happened afterwards.
They will be able to retell their statement forwards, backwards and from any time point.
There will be minor discrepancies, perhaps a few minutes out time wise, what they did just prior to and on learning what happened as shock kicks in.

Guilty people have NOT experienced the event they are talking about, if they are proclaiming innocence and why they couldn't have done it, when in reality they did the deed.

They have to create an event, a timeline to show how they couldn't have done it, they have to create alibis, timelines, locations of an imaginary event.
They have to come up with explanations as to why they wouldn't have done it.
Since they are creating a fictional story rather than telling of an actual event they have experienced, the discrepancies are more pronounced.

There are temporal lacunae, there are truth shaped holes and minimization and the ever popular "I don't remember".

When a truthful person is interviewed, by multiple people at different times and after periods of time have passed, the story will stay the pretty much the same, sometimes with a bit more clarification as they remember seeing or hearing something, perhaps jolted as a memory on hearing a song, seeing a picture, a particular smell.

It will however, be consistent, even when years and even decades have passed.

Deceptive people have no such recall, they struggle to remember who they told what to, who and what they saw, what they heard, timelines etc and, when said discrepancy is pointed out, they then change their version of events to explain away said discrepancy whilst revealing a discrepancy elsewhere.

They will be inconsistent.

As time passes their stories change, often drastically, as they struggle to remember what their initial version of events was, who they told said version of events to, where they were at what time.
It is hard enough to remember their story after days or weeks have passed.
As months pass, inconsistencies stand out as the guilty subject leaks marbles, perhaps marbles such as subtle demeaning of the victim, blatant demeaning of the victim although this is less common (tammy moorer speaking about murder victim Heather Elvis)
Marbles such as denying responsibility for the victim's death whilst telling the world their daughter is still alive and findable.

Originally there is denial of being at a certain place, making a certain call, owning certain items, seeing certain people or things.

As time passes and the stress of being deceptive takes its toll, the guilty subject will want to tell the truth as per the brain which hates being stressed yet, at the same time, they need to remain deceptive to protect themselves from the consequences of the deed.

The subject finds themselves in conflict with themselves.

With truthful people, the jigsaw puzzle pieces will fit exactly and the picture of the truth is revealed and the subject is shown to have no involvement.

With deceptive people the pieces won't fit or the wrong piece fits in the space and thus stands out as unexpected.

The picture of the deception is revealed in all its disjointedness.

Many pieces will fit together exactly, however, the pieces concerning the event will be the wrong pattern, the wrong color, the wrong shape and, no matter how much they try to get the piece to fit, it won't.

It can't.

They can try and replace a specific piece with what appears to be the exact same piece from another puzzle, it won't work.

There will be subtle differences in the pattern, the shade of color, a minute difference in the shape of the piece, either too small or too large.
The deceptive piece has a minute gap which is detected and then investigated or it is a  fraction to big and has to be squeezed into a too small space.

The piece gets squeezed out of shape or it bulges out slightly, breaking the smoothness of the picture.

With kate and payne and the showering, she tells us one version and he tells us one version, the time difference is too much to be explained away as a slight mis-remembering.

Kate then forgets what she has already told us and then speaks of having a bath when gerry returned along with the story time and happy perfect family moment.

I would ask kate about the bathing and to explain the discrepancies.
How could she remember they had a bottle of NZ wine but not remember she had already showered and now needed another bath?

Why has david payne remained silent over the allegations of him being a paedophile?

The Drs Gaspar reported he and gerry performed inappropriate actions in relation to a discussion about Maddie.
Being accused of paedophilia or being a paedophile is probably the worst thing you could call a man.
The connotations are so bad, the instinctive response by normal people is hatred and disgust.
Instinct would compel anyone accused of being a paedophile to make a strong first person singular, event specific denial.

I am not a paedophile.

I did not sexually touch a child

I am not sexually attracted to children

The denial would be strong and specific
Silence would not be an option.

More so given the nature of his job and the patients he would come into contact with.

Instead he says nothing,
There is an unexpected silence.

What is preventing him from speaking out?
Fear of the consequences perhaps?

What is preventing any of the tapas 7 from speaking out given the accusations flying around, the multitude of discrepancies?

After nearly 9 years why is there still silence as to who did what that night?

By not answering the questions, they answer the questions.

Why have a shower before payne visited and then a bath when gerry got home?

I would be asking (since water is mentioned) if she and payne had a sexual encounter?
I would be asking if sexual encounters between others took place.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

The True Story of Madeleine McCann - When Madeleine Died Courtesy of Richard D. Hall

Here are the links to the latest video by  Mr. Richard D. Hall

He has covered this case comprehensively and I recommend you have a look through his various videos relating to the case.
He makes it easy to follow the ins and outs of a case hindered by her parents and their chums, their hired spokespeople, the media and those in high places.

"WHEN MADELEINE DIED" is a series of 4 videos by Richard D.Hall detailing his NEW INVESTIGATION into the case. WATCH, LISTEN and DECIDE for yourselves!

The past presence of a human corpse was detected in the McCanns’ apartment and in many other places associated with the McCanns by highly trained police sniffer dogs. This clue suggests that Madeleine may have died and her body lain in the apartment for a period of time.
Assuming this is correct, what date and time did Madeleine die? The most logical way to address this question is to go back in time to determine what was the last piece of credible evidence, which proves Madeleine was alive. This film attempts to do this by forensically examining witness statements, photographs, physical evidence, police reports and media reports. In doing so the film exposes the agenda of the mainstream media which has, on the whole, helped to cover up the truth about the Madeleine McCann case

Guilt and Stress

Guilty people need to end the stress they suffer from lying, this is why we get deathbed confessions, to ease the soul of the guilty person.

A guilty person can never ease the stress they suffer, this is why, sooner or later, they confess to someone.
It eases their guilt and relieves their internal stress.

Also, a secret once shared, even if with one other person is no longer a secret.

The mccanns have the fear of not only leaking the truth themselves by accident, they also have the fear that one or more of the tapas 7 will admit what happened to ease their own guilty conscience.

None of them were close friends, at most, they were acquaintances with the mccanns.

Why would they keep such an horrific secret for 9 years?
If they had no involvement in the actual deed why stay silent?

If they were doing other stuff be it bonking each other, illegal drugs etc that would be nothing, who cares who they were bonking?

Who cares what drugs they took (Drs are well known for 'self medicating')

What if they were getting drunk every night, who cares.

None of that would be important, it might mean a few snickers from friends and neighbors and maybe a scandalised parent.

For them to stay silent for so long has to mean something more serious was taking place.

Something so serious they had to keep it silent.

What could be so serious as to silence 9 people?

Kate McCann: Maddie - Still in the Algarve

: Kate McCann: Maddie - Still in the Algarve

Interesting timing and interesting language.

"We will never give up. You couldn't settle if you thought about giving up. I want an end, an answer. Whatever that it is."
We is used to show unity and shared co operation.
She starts off with
We  and then tells us never give up.
This is to presuppose that Maddie will never be found, which contradicts all they have been telling us, that Maddie is alive somewhere waiting to be found.They could only say they will never give up if they know she will never be found?
Never give up presumes there will be no end date such as,

We will never give up until we find her.
Which indicates there is a possibility of an ending.

It is finite as opposed to infinite.

As she points out, other cases where a missing child has been found years and decades later.
What she doesn't mention is the high profile cases where children have been recovered, they were all pubescent or adolescents not toddlers.

The girls were raped and abused and forced to have the abductors children in some cases.

In cases where younger children have been abducted and later found and returned home, most if not all are parental or familial abduction rather than stranger abduction.

She doesn't tell us what they will
never give up.
Readers would assume she was talking about the search for Maddie.
She doesn't say that though.
What is it they will
never give up?
I don't know.
I suspect she is instead referring to threatening and suing anyone who disbelieves them including Dr. Goncalo Amaral.
They will
never give up protecting their reputations.
They will
never give up asking for donations to fund their non existent search for their daughter, rather the donations will be spent on protecting themselves from prosecution.

They can't give up since to do so would  likely mean the truth will come out and it's game over

Then she switches pronoun to her ever favorite 2nd person pronoun
you indicates distancing.

She doesn't tell us I (she) couldn't settle if I (she)
thought about giving up.
We know we wouldn't and couldn't settle or think about giving up.
She doesn't tell us that she wouldn't be able to settle or think about giving up.
How could she when she didn't tell us what the giving up related to

She then reverts back to first person singular I in relation to wanting an end.
Note though the dropped pronoun in relation to an answer.
There is also a dropped pronoun in relation to
Whatever that it is."
She has no need for an answer since she knows what happened to Maddie although she may not know exactly where her remains are.
I want an end is a strong statement.
She takes ownership of it with the first person singular I.

I suspect this is truthful as in after 9 years of investigation by the PJ and Scotland yard, there is still no evidence of their claim of alleged abduction of their daughter.
Not even something that indicates it could be a remote possibility.

After 9 years of investigation by 2 police forces as well as the alleged investigations by numerous private  investigators of a dubious provenance, there is still not an iota of evidence to show a stranger got into the apartment and abducted Maddie.

This is highly unusual given the mccann mantra of abduction by a paedophile.

Since there is not one iota of evidence to indicate a stranger abduction, i look for what if any evidence there is.

Surprisingly enough there is  forensic evidence.
Lots of it.
Evidence in their apartment 5a.
Evidence behind the sofa,  in the tile grouting and in the parents wardrobe.
There is also the recently laundered and still damp lounge curtains behind said sofa.

There is evidence relating to clothing and toys.
Kate's black and white checked trousers.
The child's red t shirt.
Cuddlecat, who was famously washed due to being dirty and smelling of sun lotion rather than Maddie.
All three caused a trained cadaver dog (Eddie) to react to them, a dog who cannot and will not react to any other scent.
A blood dog (Keela) also reacted behind the sofa indicating the presence of blood.

There is no record of anyone ever having died in the apartment

We then have the cadaver dog reacting in the apartment garden.
No report of anyone having died in the garden.

We then have both the cadaver dog and the blood dog reacting to the trunk of the hire car, a car hired weeks after Maddie disappeared.
We also have a reaction to a key fob.

Instead of the parents doing the expected which would be OMG is my child hurt?
Did the abductor injure her?
Did the abductor kill her?
Did the abductor use the hire car before we did?
On pages 249-250 of ‘madeleine’, for example, she writes:

“At one point [during the screening of a video of the cadaver dog Eddie alerting to the scent of a corpse in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment] the handler [Martin Grime] directed the dogs to a spot behind the conch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site.

“The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not what I would call an exact science”.

Why did she not do the expected, do what an innocent parent would do?
Why did she react as would a guilty person?
Where is her maternal concern for what could possibly have happened to her daughter ?

Further along the book she wrote about the cadaver and the car.

“…we were in an underground garage where eight or so cars were parked, including our rented Renault Scenic. It was hard to miss: the windows were plastered with pictures of Madeleine. In medicine we would call this an ‘unblinded’ study, one that is susceptible to bias. One of the dogs ran straight past our car, nose in the air, heading towards the next vehicle.

“The handler stopped next to the Renault and called the dog. It obeyed, returned to him, but then ran off again. Staying by the car, PC Grime instructed the dog to come back several times and directed it to certain parts of the vehicle before it eventually supplied an alert by barking…when researching the validity of sniffer dog evidence later that month, Gerry would discover that false alerts can be attributable to the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler…this certainly seemed to be what was happening here…”
Then we have the reports of the trunk of the hire car being left open nightly  to air as witnessed by neighbors and then a report by a family friend Michael Wright regarding the hire car.
I noted some disagreeable smells on a number of occasions which I judged to have come from the twins' nappies. Discarded nappies were collected in rubbish bags and held until thrown into the [rubbish] bins, [thereby] provoking smell.]
The mccanns and friends came up with explanations as to why the dogs reacted, blaming soiled diapers, rotting meat, sweaty sandals and the like.

Had the smell been down to simple garbage such as  diapers etc, the smell would have cleared fairly quickly once the source had been removed.
However cadaverine is a persistent little bugger and won't wash out.
Once something gets tainted with it, it hangs around despite laundering.

Instead of demanding to know who had access to the hire car in the weeks before they hired it, they came up with explanations.
There was also no report of anyone having died in said hire car, or anyone transporting a dead person in said hire car.

What is known is that a 3 year old disappeared from her vacation apartment.
The parents and chums lied about who was doing whom and what.
The parents refused to cooperate with Law Enforcement.
They hired very expensive defense lawyers.
Cadaver  and blood dogs reacted in the apartment, to certain items and also the hire car.
They reacted no where else, no other apartments of available clothing items.
Every indication from the forensics and statements from all parties in the group point to something happening to Maddie during that week that caused her death.
For the mccanns and chums, it became all about protecting their tainted reputations.
Cue legal suits and threats etc.
Then came the Leveson Inquiry where the mccanns made a statement  revealing their 'anguish'
However, kate being kate and a lousy liar, then promptly perjured herself in said Leveson Inquiry.
Mrs McCann says that they had no recourse and lies became facts, for example that body fluids were found in their car.

The lies became facts according to the media, yet she and gerry had come up with explanations as to why the dogs could have reacted and indicated as they did.

In other words, the dogs were reacting to something non existent and the mccanns had an explanation for said non existent things in the hire car that provoked a canine response.

After 9 years, the investigation having been reopened by the PJ and the mccanns having no clue as to what evidence the PJ have is taking its toll.

How can they defend themselves against they know not what?

The suspicion has never stopped.
The threats and legal actions against the media and even the ex lead detective who was charged with finding their daughter have not silenced the critics.
Their reputations are in tatters, kate is pretty much unemployable, after all who is going to employ a self confessed child neglector in their practice, especially should she have to report an abused or neglected child.
She would be laughed out of court, pot and kettle springing to mind.
She could never work with the public because of who she is and the attention she would bring.
Gerry i suspect is trapped in his job and location since no reputable hospital is going to employ a self confessed child neglector.

It is also likely that staff would refuse to work with him and patients would refuse to be seen by him.

I wouldn't even be sure he could be employed abroad again since he and kate have not been cleared of involvement, and no hospital is going to employ a self confessed child neglector or child killer (by accident or design)

Kate wants an end, an end to all the stress she is suffering, the guilt she is suffering.
It is eating her alive as we can see in her later pictures.
She looks now like she should have done when Maddie first went missing.

She wants an answer, but she doesn't say what to.
The answer relates to her wanting an end.
Does this relate to her wanting to press a button and they would ALL be together?

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.
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."

Whatever that it is."
The obvious answer would be what happened to Maddie and where she is.

The answer would be identifying who took Maddie.

The answer would be why did he pick Maddie and not one of the twins or another child from another family?

The answer would be how he committed the abduction without leaving any physical trace.
Why does she need to ask whatever that it is?

Does it relate to confessing the truth and accepting the consequences?
If it does it would be a relief for her and an end to the stress she is suffering and will continue to suffer until the truth comes out.
Does it relate to pressing a button?
If so then the twins are at considerable risk of harm.
Is she asking herself about wanting an end?
She wants an answer to her wanting an end?
Is she asking herself whether she could end it?
What does she mean by an end?

What does she mean by an answer?

Is this something she has discussed with someone else, such as gerry, a priest, a therapist or someone trusted?
Is she signalling she wants to come clean?
What answer would be an end?

I think kate is edging closer to a breakdown.
Trapped in a loveless marriage, a marriage that was in trouble before the vacation to PDL.
Judging by the bruises on her wrists and arms after Maddie vanished, was domestic violence involved?
She lives with the fear that perhaps one of the tapas 7 will decide to speak out (minimising their role as applicable)
Could they speak out due to guilt or guilty knowledge?
Could they speak out for a reward?
Could they speak out for immunity or maybe a plea deal?

What about their families?

Could gerry's family throw kate under the bus?

if kate was the only one charged, gerry could make millions from a book saying how he was deceived by kate, he did what he did to protect his family etc.
Act up the hardworking struggling single father  of twins.
Maybe even a movie as was previously suggested or a mini series.
All the chat shows.
Possible political role or charitable role.


Whilst she stews in a prison cell or maybe if she is lucky a suitable hospital.

Kate, you need to talk to someone, someone you can trust to do the right thing by Maddie and by you.
Someone who is willing to listen and advise.
Someone who will be right by your side as you take the first steps to bring this whole charade to an end.

Someone who will make sure the twins are cared for and that you get all the help you need.

Kate you want to talk, I and many others are prepared to listen, to be non judgemental, to advise on your options and, yes, even hold your hand as you take the first step.

Think about it please.

As gerry said

"Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand."

"An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended."
"Faced with such a situation we believe any human soul will ultimately suffer torment and feelings of guilt and fear."
He is right.

Speak out and it cannot be as bad as you imagined.

Speak the truth and we can and will forgive, for none of us are perfect.

If it was an accident, accidents happen, even if the parent is right next to the child.

Speak the truth if not for you, then for Sean and Amelie so they can grieve and move on with their lives.

Speak the truth so you can grieve publicly and start the long overdue healing process, to come to terms with what happened.

Subtle Demeaning

I have seen much subtle demeaning of Maddie from not only the mccanns, her grandparents and aunts and uncles have subtly demeaned her as well.

It would be Maddie's fault she died.

If she had only listened, done what she was told.
Didn't do what she did do.
Been quiet,.
Been obedient.
Been perfect.
Possibly been gerry's (The IVF would reveal the truth as to who was the parent to whom, this may be one reason why their medical files were sealed)
Had gone to live with relatives.
Had not had a favorite parent.
Had stayed in her room.
Had not had a tantrum.
Had not argued or any number of other excuses and reasons.

The expected when someone dies, even if they were horrible killers or something else, friends, family and neighbors will always try to find something positive to say about them, even if it was they were a quiet neighbor, they always said hello, they took in a stray/rescue etc.

With Maddie it was all about tantrums and jealousy and screaming and hitting her siblings with a toy.
Maddie is not remembered for all the positives she brought into her parents and siblings lives, she is, instead, remembered for the negatives.

This is unexpected and revealing.