Thursday, March 31, 2016

Cuddlecat. A Favorite Toy Or An Early Birthday Present? And Introducing A Child's T shirt And Those Checked Pants

What was cuddlecat?
A new toy bought by an uncle and given to Maddie as an early birthday present just before she went on vacation


Her favorite toy that she had had for a long time?

It cannot be both as they are mutually exclusive.

If it was a new toy as claimed, an early birthday present from an uncle i believe, how could it have been contaminated with cadaverine?

Was it from kate taking it to work with her in the week or weeks prior to the vacation?
Was it given to Maddie and then confiscated, perhaps as punishment by kate who then took it to work?

If it was an old and favorite toy as was claimed to be by the parents, how did it become contaminated with cadaverine?

If it was an old and favorite toy, why was kate carting it around her work?

Why was it not with Maddie or in  the house awaiting Maddie's return?

Who thinks to take their child's favorite toy to work with them?
Was it perhaps confiscated by kate as punishment for some perceived crime and then taken to work by kate so Maddie  couldn't get access to it?

Was it confiscated out of spite?
It would fit in with the family dynamics, especially kate's anger issues.
best, they would have a screaming child who won't go anywhere without it and has a meltdown until reunited with the toy.
At worst,
it ran the risk or being lost along the way, or damaged by the working environment such as a factory floor, chemicals etc.
As kate was only a part time locum 1.5 days a week, how often did she come into contact with a dead body, especially as it was claimed by family members she had had contact with 6 corpses prior to the vacation.

Who told her family she had been in contact with 6 bodies before the vacation?

When were they told?

Who tells family members they have had to deal with dead bodies that week?

It isn't exactly dinner table conversation?

"You'll never guess what I had to deal with this week, 6, count 'em 6 bodies.
Dropping like flies they were.

The nursing home seemed to be having its spring clear out.
I had barely got home after certifying one.
I was sitting down to a nice cuppa and a couple of cookies and bam, blow me down if I didn't have to go off and certify another one.
Still they weren't going anywhere so I told the staff cover them up and I'll be down in a bit.
One goes, they all want to go, it's like they were gonna miss out on something exciting like bingo."

It's not something you ring your mom about and let slip  you have had a busy week dealing with a surfeit of dead bodies, especial if you are only part time doing 1.5 days a week and not on maternity leave as has been suggested.

I doubt even harold shipman had that much nerve.
How many deaths were there in the short period of time that kate had access to prior to the vacation?

Is it a case of the surgery ringing up and asking kate "to do them a favor and nip over to whoever's place and confirm a death for us please?"

If she was on maternity leave as has been mentioned, how did she come into contact with a corpse, let alone several corpses?

Why would she come into contact with corpses?

It couldn't be from gerry since his patients tended to arrive alive and leave alive after a consultation.
Questions also have to be asked as to why kate would be carrying around Maddie's favorite toy whilst she was at work, and exposed to corpses should she not have been on maternity leave?

What was she doing to the said alleged corpses that resulted in cadaverine contaminating her daughter's favorite toy?

According to BMA guidelines:

This guidance aims to clarify the distinction between confirming and certifying death in relation to GPs’ obligations.

English law:

does not require a doctor to confirm death has occurred or that “life is extinct”
does not require a doctor to view the body of a deceased person
does not require a doctor to report the fact that death has occurred
does require the doctor who attended the deceased during the last illness to issue a certificate detailing the cause of death

If the death occurs in the patient’s own home, it is wise to visit as soon as the urgent needs of living patients permit.

If the death occurs in a residential or nursing home and the GP who attended the patient during the last illness is available, it is sensible for him or her to attend when practicable and issue a MCCD.

If an “on-call” doctor is on duty, whether in or out of hours, it is unlikely that any useful purpose will be served by that doctor attending the nursing or residential home. In such cases we recommend that the GP advises the home to contact the undertaker if they wish the body to be removed and ensures that the GP with whom the patient was registered is notified as soon as practicable.

Unexpected (“sudden”) deaths

If death occurs in the patient’s home, or in a residential or nursing home, we recommend a visit by the GP with whom the patient was registered, to examine the body and confirm death, although this is not a statutory requirement.

Unlike expected deaths, in the event of an unexpected death out-of-hours it would be helpful if an OOH GP does attend, therefore helping to prevent the potentially unnecessary attendance of the emergency services.

The GP should then report the death to the coroner (usually through the local police).

In any other circumstances, the request to attend is likely to have come from the police or ambulance service. It is usually wise, and especially in the case of an on-call doctor, to decline to attend and advise that the services of a Forensic Medical Examiner police surgeon be obtained by the caller.

Basically, kate would have little to no contact with an actual dead body.
How then did she get cadaverine on her vacation pants (the checked ones) and cuddle cat?

If it was a new toy, given to Maddie just prior to the vacation, kate would not have been in contact with any dead bodies (especially if she was on maternity leave)
How then is there cadaverine on cuddlecat?
What was the source of the cadaverine it became contaminated with?

Did she lend it out so someone  who was coming into contact with dead bodies?
Were there corpses lying around the nursery, children who had been sent to the naughty corner and forgotten about or had got stuck in the Wendy house and was now part of the fixtures and fittings?

A genuine skeleton in the cupboard perhaps, you know how it is with medics especially medical students.

Had it been in contact with a dead body prior to it being given to Maddie as a birthday present?
That's a whole new slew of questions.
I would love to hear the answers to those.

Then we have the little problem of the child's red t shirt.
It certainly wouldn't fit kate, no matter how scrawny she got.
It would be way too big for cuddlecat and cuddlecat is not exactly built to wear t-shirts, unlike dolls and teddies.

Perhaps she took the t shirt to work with her and it got contaminated that way, except, wouldn't someone have noticed kate brandishing a red t shirt and asked what the heck was going on?
Was it part of some new way to confirm death?
Touch the corpse with either cuddlecat or a t shirt ( it has to be red, to hide any blood or body fluids you see) and if the body moves because it tickles, then the person is still alive.
If they don't react, then the person is dead and come back tomorrow for another try.

Instead of cuddlecat, did she perhaps take one of the children wearing said red t shirt to work with her, one of those 'bring your child to work days' and said child was introduced to the wonderful world of the GP certifying a death.

Just what would that entail?

"Here honey, touch the dead person, they won't bite, especially if they don't have their teeth in.
See how cold they feel?
See how cold they are compared to mummy?
What else can you tell me is cold?
What color is their skin?
Is it the same color as your skin?
Can you see where the skin is a different color?
It is  is where they are lying down.
It is when the blood collects in the body when the heart has stopped beating for a while.
It is caused by gravity pulling the blood downwards, just like when you throw a ball and it falls to the ground.
Can you see if they are breathing?
Put your hand on their chest and see if the chest moves.
If it isn't moving then they are not breathing.
See how stiff they are.
This means they have been dead for a while.
If they have been dead for a while, the body becomes all limp again.
All these things put together mean the person is dead.
They are not alive like you or me.

Congratulations (insert childs name here) you have just done your first confirmation of death.
Now sign this bit of paper here and off we go to the next one.

A whole new meaning to playing doctors
.I can't wait to see the mccann version of Operation!

No more believable than kate attending 6 corpses prior to the trip and that is how her pants, cuddlecat and the child's red t shirt got contaminated, especially if she was on maternity leave as has been claimed.

The other obvious conclusion which everyone supporting them is desperately trying to ignore is:

Maddie was wearing said red t shirt for whatever reason and died whilst wearing it.
Since the 'abduction had to occur at night, was she swapped out of the t shirt into something else or just left naked (especially if they were going with the paedophile abductor claim)
Questions would be asked as to why Maddie was in a t shirt rather than the expected pajamas.

Maddie had cuddlecat with her either at her death or at some point later and it became contaminated after 90 minutes had passed and cadaverine had been produced enough for a trained dog to detect

If it came into contact with her corpse, was this when she was dead and it lay in situ until Maddie's body was found?
Was it when Maddie was moved and became contaminated that way?
Was it placed on Maddie's body at death or when she was subsequently found to act as a comforter perhaps before her final disposal?
A comforter for Maddie or for kate, who perhaps had a maternal moment.maybe?

Was kate wearing said checked pants when she was with Maddie, either immediately prior to, during or after Maddie's death and after a minimum of 90 mins, long enough for the scent to develop and contaminate, or did the contamination occur at a later date, perhaps when she was moved to her final resting place or when the pink blanket/blue bag went walkies.

Perhaps this could explain the alleged crying Mrs Fenn heard for 75 mins, another 15 mins and we then have enough cadaverine to be detected by a trained dog.
If kate was wailing and crying Maddie, only calming down enough not to be heard whilst still holding Maddie's body, it could explain the cadaverine.

This could also explain those interesting bruises on kate's wrists and arms, having to be restrained or perhaps dragged away from her dead daughter.

What would be interesting to know is, when was kate ever seen wearing those distinctive pants?

They are a poor fit lengthwise and who would wear pants that looks like something a chef would wear?

Would she seriously wear them to work?
I know i wouldn't be impressed if my doctor turned up wearing chefs pants that didn't even fit properly.

They are unforgettable as well as unforgivable.

The days she was seen wearing them, especially that week could be very revealing.
They indicated for cadaverine, therefore they came in contact with a corpse.
What day was she seen wearing them?
Did she change into something else that day?

When did she wear them prior to being made an arguida?
Who was with her on those days or at those times?
Where was she seen wearing them?

What is clear is, the excuses put forward by the mccanns, chums, spokesman and families to explain the dogs reactions and the blood and body fluids found in the apartment and the hire car do not match the forensic evidence.

Monday, March 28, 2016

Islam, The West Minimises Or Ignores The Truth Behind The Ideology.

No one will say the 'dirty word' muslim.
No one will blame the 'dirty word' islam

As always, it will be minimized and blamed on radicalization, a couple of extremists who do not represent what islam is and what muslims believe.

As always it will be the left wing, the liberals, the do-gooders who will blame everyone except the ones who should be blamed.

As always The West is to blame.

If we hadn't done this or that, then muslims would not be killing people.

They are only defending themselves against the great satan which is The West

They fail to mention that the Middle East has been at war with itself for millennia, long before The West even realized there were other countries.

Blaming Christians for crimes committed during the crusades (so helpfully pointed out by muslims who refer to crusaders and the crusades today) whilst failing to point out that the Christian church in its various names and denomonations has reformed and today preaches love and tolerance, whilst islam which is still living 1400 years in the past,  will not and cannot reform, ever.

Maybe they think if The West bows down to islam and muslims, accedes to every demand, lets sharia law become the norm etc, that islam will become peaceful.

What they can't and won't accept that in islamic countries where islam has become the dominant religion, there is anything but peace, love and tolerance.
Instead they simply turn their rage, their ire, their hatred on muslims from another sect.

How do they think we will manage, how we will survive, if muslims can't even tolerate other muslims of a different sec,t let alone a different religion or no religion at all?

I wonder, if nazism came about today, hitler was doing his thing in Europe, genocide, war crimes, invading countries and so on, would we be accepting of what he was doing to millions of Jews and thousands of gypsies, homosexuals, disabled etc?
Would we be saying , "oh it's only a few extremists committing the atrocities, it's their culture, it's all the Jews fault  for being greedy, manipulative, the Germans are only defending themselves from other nationalities, If we hadn't had world war one then Germany would have been a peaceful nation.
We deserve it because of what we did to them, and other excuses and blame shifting."

Would we be accepting nazi migrants knowing they wanted the destruction of pretty much everyone except aryans?

Would we be clamping down on far right extremism, deporting them, banning them from entry to our country or would we welcome them in knowing they wanted us dead?

Nazism is an ideology.
Islam is an ideology.

They are the same.

This is world war three.

It was thought that Russia would be the one to fight against us, the Eastern bloc then it became, China, even North Korea with its saber rattling was considered.

Instead the enemy is the one we have welcomed with open arms, it isn't even a country.

It is an ideology.
We minimize it and blame the atrocities on a few extreme people.
An extremist religious belief.

It works, as it is portrayed as a fewrogue muslims against Christians.

The issue is that it isn't religion, it is an ideology.

It covers every aspect from birth to death.

Pretending it is a religion achieves nothing, it enables more atrocities.

Germany is screwing itself into the ground and getting nowhere.
The scars left by world war two, the extermination of millions of Jews and other 'undesirables' prevents them from action.
To make up for the guilt caused by the war, they now submit, bellying up to islam.
It has paralyzed itself due to guilt.
It cannot and will not do anything for fear of being seen as what it was under hitler.

The only way this will ever end is with the complete obliteration of islam.

I got into a debate as i suggested bombing the *&(& out of Syria, wiping out everyone.
They said what about the innocents?
What about the children?

I asked if they had seen what daesh children were doing, decapitations, warfare, explosives and so on?

Could we ever trust a child who has been trained to kill every non believer?
Who is trained from birth to hate everything non islamic?
Who are trained from birth  to happily rape young girls when the boys have grown up, safe in the knowledge that sex slaves are a reward from allah.
Who are trained from birth to have hatred for women, even their own mothers and sisters, who see women as 3rd class citizens to be used and abused.
Where domestic violence is the norm rather than the exception.
Who are trained from birth to accept sex is linked to violence  and, violence is linked to sex.
Where violence is rewarded with sex, either ibn this life or in their paradise when they are rewarded with 72 perpetual virgins
Who are trained from birth that paedophilia is accepted and even demanded.
Who would turn their parents in for some perceived or imagined crime?
That their prophet  was the perfect man and thus, all men must emulate him, be like him. (Cross dressing paedophile, although the cross dressing bit might not go down too well in certain locations)

The same goes for those who want to return.
Can they be trusted or, would we be suspicious that they have been trained and will commit atrocities if given the chance?
Should we be suspicious?

Especially since we know they will lie, it is demanded and expected of them.

Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them.
There are several forms:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression.

Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

Time and again we are told terrorists are radicalized, they are a minority, islam is peaceful.

Islam is anything but.
In countries where they are the minority, they make vocal demands continuously in order to get more power and more control.
As they gain power and become the dominant group, they then ignore all demands from the now minority host citizens and eradicate anything non islamic, religions,
laws, buildings, everything.
We see this in the middle east where christianity and other non islamic religions are crushed and eradicated to almost extinction.

Christianity and other religions have reformed and what was is the beginning such as the Old Testament, was overwritten by the New Testament.
The laws and demands of the Old Testament which was all hell fire, damnation and an angry , jealous god, became the New testament of peace, love, tolerance of all others, charity and all things nice.
Islam is not like this.
The koran starts off backwards to our eyes.
It was peace and tolerance whilst mohammed was powerless and up and coming.
As he became more powerful, a warlord,  the rules and demands of the koran became more violent and intolerant.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
There is no time limit on what it says and demands.
What was done 1400 years ago is still to be done today and until the Earth is a cinder circling the ember that is left of our son.

We think islam can be reformed, that if we show them love, tolerance and charity, they will do the same to us.
Islam regards all other religions as weak, to be exterminated or used as a source of income and slaves.
Muslim countries will not send aid to other muslim countries as either the country is regarded as a land of infidels, they are going to hell so why waste money on them, or, the country is islamic but allah sent the disaster as a punishment , therefore aid will not be sent as it would offend god.

We ignore this mass invasion at our own peril.
There will come a time when they take control  and it will be game over.
It will be too late to do anything when we realize what is happening in our own countries.

We are expected to follow the laws etc in islamic countries, no matter how onerous.
They follow their own laws etc in western countries, Non islamic laws are ignored.

We see a pattern in Europe where sex crimes have exploded as islamic males of fighting age rape, abuse women and children because they can do so according to islamic law.
We see demands for better food, better housing, n more money, more this, better that.
They are not and never were refugees.
They are economic migrants at best and an invading force at worse.

Please note there may be some graphic images on the below links, images the government and media want to ignore or minimize.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Yet Another muslim Atrocity. Much Handwringing And Words Yet No Actual Action Will Be Taken As Per Usual.

Yesterday, there was yet another terrorist act by muslims.

Straight away came the platitudes from our governments.
Lots of words telling we, the public that such acts are by extremists, islam is a peaceful religion and so on.

Donald Trump went on
ITV's Good Morning Britain and said;"When they see trouble they have to report it. They are not reporting it. They are absolutely not reporting it and that is a big problem."Absolutely is a qualifier word, a word which when removed makes no difference to the meaning of the sentence.
Absolutely can mean  completely,
used for ​addingforce to a ​strongadjective that is not usually used with "very" or to a ​verbexpressingstrongemotion
Here he uses in relation to muslims seeing trouble and not reporting it.
They are not reporting it.He then repeats the words with the addition of the qualifier They are absolutely not reporting it
Making the non reporting of trouble sensitive.
He then explains the sensitivity by telling us
that is a big problem.For there to be a that, there has to be a this as THAT is distancing and THIS is close.
Given he is still campaigning for the Republican nomination, it could explain the distancing language.
If he were the President, then he might have said THIS as he would now be privy to information he is currently not privy to and could take action as he deemed fit.
He tells us not only that it is a problem, it is a BIG problem.
He is aware of  what is happening in the muslim community, that muslims are protecting their own.
It is a them and us situation.

We then had our very own Teresa May then tell us, via the commons:

"I understand he said that Muslims were not coming forward in the United Kingdom to report matters of concern.
This is absolutely not the case - he is just plain wrong."

Firstly this is a weak denial.

She takes ownership of her words and understanding what Mr. Trump has said which the inclusion of the first person singular pronoun Absolutely is a qualifier word, a word which when removed makes no difference to the meaning of the sentence.
A strong sentence would be "This is not the case, he is wrong"
I would then expect a reason explaining why this is not the case.
Instead she weakens her denial with the qualifier word
absolutely.May is minimizing  the allegation that muslims are not coming forward.
Why would she need to do so?

What would be the consequences of the public learning that muslims are withholding information that could prevent atrocities being committed in this country?
Civil unrest?
Legal action from victims of such atrocities blaming the government for doing essentially nothing?

Legal action from muslim groups claiming for hurt feeling, racism, 'islamaphobia'?
Islamaphobia (
dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.) bandied about by apologists, the liberal left, Guardian readers and pretty much anyone unwilling or too scared to speak out about all that islam and muslims are doing and demanding in this country.

How come we never hear of Christianityphobia?

How come it is deemed permissible for muslims to publicly revel in their dislike and prejudice of Christianity, Christians, especially as a political force?
Allowances are demanded by muslims and we bow down and allow them for fear of offending someone.
Christmas becomes holiday, Easter eggs become eggs, halal meat is served in state schools without notifying parents and pork is removed from the menus , again without notifying parents and asking if that is OK with them?
Fast food chains in certain areas serve halal meat and no pork products are permitted even if the rest of the customers aren't muslim.
Schools are taken over by muslims staff and indoctrination begins, lessons become sharia based and genders are segregated.
All this and nothing is said or done.
Secondly,  we then have two more qualifier words JUST and PLAIN
Just is a word which is used to to compare and minimize downwards.

If i wanted to sell you a car i would show you a more expensive car which would be out of your price range, eg. $20,000.
I would then say i have this car here which is just $15,000 which would be more likely to be in your price range.

She then goes on to tell us he is not JUST WRONG which minimizes downwards his being wrong, he is JUST PLAIN WRONG.She weakens her statement regarding Mr. Trump's assertions as being wrong (strong) to the considerably weaker JUST PLAIN WRONG.
She doesn't tell us what she is comparing his assertion to in order for it to be just plain wrong.
I would expect  examples to disprove his comments.

I would expect her to give anonymous (for obvious reasons since a muslim speaking against another muslim to the hated Christian guaranteeing an interesting and painful death) examples of when  a muslim gave information that prevented an atrocity or reported suspicions about a fellow muslim.

In fact i would demand to know of examples  when muslims have reported other muslims?

I suspect she would find few if any such examples.

If Mr. Trump is so wrong, i would expect May to tell us why she is so right.

As it stands Europe is being invaded by millions of people who want us all dead.
Europe doing nothing will soon no longer be an option.

We would clamp down and jail/deport nazis for their ideology why not islam which is also an ideology, one  which has not changed in 1400 years nor will it ever reform.

It cannot reform, for to do so would be against everything islam and it's prophet stands for.
It is an ideology which links sex with violence and violence with sex.
Commit jihad and you get rewarded with 72 perpetual virgins who never drink, cry, excrete or anything a normal woman would do.

Basically 72 mobile sex dolls.
No other genuine religion rewards violence with sex.
No other genuine religion rewards sex with violence.
No religion allows, nay demands the death of every non believer.
No religion permits and demands paedophilia.
No religion permits or allows for slavery.
No religion demands the death of the person if they wish to leave said religion.
No religion subjugates women to the extent that are to be used and abused, are worth less than a man.
Their prophet is deemed to be the perfect man, a man that every muslim male aim to be, wants to be.
He was a paedophile cross dresser and every muslim male wants to be just like him?
The paedophile bit?
The cross dresser bit?
When muslims are in the minority they make demands after demand until they pretty much have taken over their host country, whereupon they then ignore,refuse and crush any demands by other minorities.
Why is it when disaster hits a muslim nation, other muslim nations do nothing?
It is the west that sends aid.
The reason is, if it is a non islamic country hit, then, as  they are infidels and going to hell anyway. why waste money?

If it is an islamic country, then it was allah's will that the country be punished, hence the natural disaster.

Why is it every muslim immigrant wants to live in the west and yet do not seek refuge in neighboring muslim countries?
Why will no muslim country accept refugees?

We need to deport every single muslim regardless of age or gender, close and demolish every mosque, ban islamic clothing such as veils, niqabs and burkas, ban the koran, ban halal and ban the islamic ideology.
If you wish to be a muslim then you can do it in an Arab country.
If we don't then we will be exterminated by the very ideology we permitted free reign to.
Commit a terrorist act, mandatory death no appeal.
Support a terrorist organization in any way, mandatory death no appeal.

Many thought world war three would be between The West and Russia.
Heck, even China was a possibility.
North Korea is doing a lot of sabre rattling and aggressive rhetoric and we pretty much pat them on the head,  stop pocket money for a week and tell them not to be silly.
Iraq and Iran had a squabble for a while then settled down, before Iraq decided it wanted to own Kuwait which is where we came in, well the first time round.

I hear bleating about the situation in the Middle East all being down to us naughty people in  The West, the great Satan as they refer to us.
How if we had not interfered it would be happy families all round.


 Muslims have been at each others throats, committing all sorts of atrocities against other muslims since islam was created.

Mohammad showed up on the scene and went from mild mannered man with no power to a tribal warlord with an interesting predisposition regarding little girls and women's clothing and then to the big I am prophet of a violent ideology (a so called religion)

It was neighbor against neighbor.
Village against village.
City against city.
Tribe against tribe and so on up the scale to today's  situation of them against the rest of the world and then one sect against another sect until, finally, one sole survivor who will die of some interesting disease, starvation or drought.

Islam tells us exactly what it means, what its intentions are and how it will get what it wants.

Burying our heads in the sand, kowtowing to their demands in the hope they will play nicely.

They won't

The so called extremists are not scorned or disowned, they are praised and held up as examples of what every muslim must be.

Every muslim is permitted and, in certain situations, expected to lie.

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity.

Kitman - Lying by omission.

Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression.

Would you trust someone who speaks nicely to your face, when you know that behind your back they are wanting to either kill you outright, enslave you if you are a woman or girl for sex, or force you to become muslim.

Could you ever trust anything a muslim says when you know they are expected to lie to non muslims?

If you were a muslim of one sect would you help a muslim of another sect, sunni and shia as examples?

Islam is stuck in the 7th century and always will be.
They are forbidden to reform.
This in their mind is a continuation of wars that happened centuries ago, hence their language and referring to crusaders.
For them, the war never ended, will not end and cannot end until islam is the only religion.

We ignore and minimize the threat to us today at our own peril.

Out of all the so called 'refugees' that are in Europe today, better labelled as migrants, how many terrorists are there?
How many supporters are there?
All the hundreds of thousands of men of fighting age pouring into Europe.
How many home grown terrorists are there waiting in the wings?

All those who head to syria wishing to join daesh, should have their passports and citizenship immediately revoked.
They can stay there.
How could we trust someone regardless of age or gender, who returns from syria claiming they were wrong?
Can they ever be rehabilitated as some claim they are trying to do?
What would being seen as rehabilitated involve?
Can you truly undo the ideology of someone has been brought up from birth in said ideology?
Can you ever rehabilitate someone who is brainwashed?            << This site can contain some graphic images            << This site can contain some graphic images

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Falling, Bumping Heads And Leaking Marbles By kate

Hi Tania

Could the 'leakage' implicating 'falling off things' have perhaps been deliberate? The situation is nowhere described as 'she might have bumped her head' (i.e. her own head, herself).

Rachael Oldfield: "...if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head (passive voice) or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child."

So, if something (or someone) had accidentally bumped Madeleine on the head (active voice - not appropriate to inert things, e.g. window sills), there were those present who could have tried to revive a child (but without necessarily succeeding).

Russell O'Brien: "You're far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some', you know, 'random stranger'

Hi Martin, thank you.

When someone seeks to deceive, the subject they want to be deceptive about is at the forefront of their mind.

They then have to think about what they are saying or writing looking for anything that would reveal the deception.

This results in slower than the norm in their rate and rhythm of speech, nonsense sounds and stuttering, something we have seen copious amounts in the rogs and unscripted answers where they are using the process of free editing.

On non sensitive topics their speech is fluid with little evidence of stuttering, self editing or nonsense sounds such as er, umm, tch, tut etc.

Once we get to something sensitive, then their speech becomes disjointed and loses its previous fluidity.
Rather than a regular rhythm tum ti tum ti tum, it now becomes tum ti... tum...tum ti tum.....tum..ti.
It is almost painful to hear someone mangling speech so badly it becomes almost incoherent, more so if the subject is educated, professional or used to speaking to multiple people such as public speaking.

As well as self editing, the subject also has to remember what they have said previously, when it was said and to whom.
This results in self referral

"As i said previously"
"As i said before"
"I already said this"
"My answer is already on record"

Which then puts the onus on the interviewer to make the connection, rightly or wrongly.

Since deception is stressful and the brain hates stress, it seeks to ease the stress by revealing the truth.
At the same time the subject doesn't want to reveal the truth due to guilt, guilty knowledge  or fear of the consequences.
This causes internal conflict which is revealed in the speech, the writing and the body language.

To avoid leaking the truth, the subject will often omit the sensitive bit, temporal lacuna is a favorite, or minimize their own role when they have no other option.

To avoid revealing the truth, the subject will become evasive and surround  the truth with deception, this however reveals a truth shaped hole.

The trick is to spot the truth shaped hole that is revealed by the sensitivity and probe deeper to see why it is sensitive.

Often, the subject is asked to write down everything they did on the day of the event from waking up to going to sleep.

Once done, the investigator will go through the written statement, noting pronouns both present and missing, tenses, articles, changes in language, introduction of people, even the form of the statement can give an idea of truth or deception.
This will also give the investigator an idea of what is and isn't sensitive, what is missing that should be there and temporal lacuna and so on.

During interviews, the subject is the one that leads the investigator to the truth.
Being asked a single question such as,

 "What happened?"

Then allowing the subject to speak freely and without interruption, choosing the starting point  which they decide is the priority to them, that which is most important to them.

The investigator takes copious notes on things such as pronouns, tenses, articles, where the language changes and if the change in language is warranted by a change in reality.

Once the subject has answered as much as they want to, the next question should then be

"What happened next?"
Further questions are then asked using only the words introduce by the subject, if they say tickle as an example, the questions would be,
"What is a tickle?"
"How do you tickle?"
"Where do you tickle?"
"What do you tickle with?"

You learn what a specific word means to the subject.
To you it may have one connotation, to the subject it means something else.
This can happen with slang, social status, education, English as a second language, location, even local dialect.

One i see and hear often is I SEEN rather than I SAW
Someone with a poor education, lower social class, will use words differently to someone well educated and of a higher social class

In bill clinton's case  sexual relations meant full intercourse not oral sex.
He would have passed a poly because to him it was not sexual relations.

In kate's case, she tries to avoid mention regarding what caused Maddie's death, her brain though is saying i don't like being stressed i want to tell the truth and feel better.
When kate refers to falling, bumping their heads, tins of beans falling (the visual is telling, in that a tin of beans that gets dropped or falls often has a noticeable dent )it is because at that specific moment she is recalling what happened, what she saw and then tries to not mention it.

However the truth will leak out in marbles.

Like a Kerplunk game with all the marbles sitting on sticks which are then removed.
As the subject speaks a stick is removed.
Sometimes they are lucky and no marbles will fall, the subject relaxes believing they have gotten away.

The next question or time, the subject answers a question, a stick is removed and a marble will shift.
The alerts the subject and we see the self editing, stuttering and nonsense sounds show up.

Further along another question, another stick is puled and this time a marble falls out, a marble which reveals a bit of the truth.
Sometimes the subject doesn't realise they have leaked, especially if the interviewer doesn't show they spotted it and shows no reaction.

A bit further along, a question, a stick and a marble falls out and the subject realises it.
Usually they either clam up and the interview is ended, become aggressive and angry and the interview is ended or they then try and explain away what they just said, which can lead to more leaked marbles.

It may be that kate is subconsciously trying to leak the truth without saying it outright.
This could be fear of gerry, fear of others or fear of the consequences.
She is under a great deal of stress and it shows.
Nine years is a long time, the twins are getting older and now have access to the internet.
They will be asking questions and, once they reach 18, they are adults and no longer under their parents control.

Kate wants to talk.She will talk.
She wants the stress to end.

The truth coming out will be a big relief to her as she can grieve openly and get any help she needs.

The question is, who will she confess the truth to?

Friday, March 18, 2016

From The Moment Madeleine Had Gone"

Kate cannot help but leak the truth of what happened to Maddie, every time she opens her mouth, another nugget of truth springs forth.

"From the moment Madeleine had gone, I'd turned instinctively to God and to Mary, feeling a deep need to pray, and t
o get as many other people as possible to pray, too."

It is the first 6 words that speak the truth.

"From the moment Madeleine had gone"

There we have it, Maddie is dead.

Given that the mccanns claim Maddie is an alive and findable little girl, not suffering serious harm whilst she remains missing, why then, does kate dear not say the following, more accurate phrase?

From the moment Madeleine WAS ABDUCTED.

Language such as gone or taken can be taken as either moved away, removed from OR no longer alive.
Often we hear and read phrases relating to death in the media, hospitals and hospices, obituaries and funerals.

Phrases like:

Taken too soon.
Gone from this life to sit by God.
The Dr said it was too late, she was gone.
God has taken him for his own purposes.

You get my drift.

Kate cannot, and does not say abducted or even kidnapped, it was not on her mind, she told us that which was on her mind using the process of free editing, where words are chosen from a personal dictionary of approx. 25000 words a microsecond before being spoken.

Even if kate uses the word GONE in relation to Maddie being abducted and alive, it gives the impression that it was Maddie who had made the conscious choice to go.

After Bill had, gone, the atmosphere in the room became calm again.

It is as if kate is blaming Maddie for making the decision to go.
Maddie became responsible for what happened to her.

Subtle demeaning of the victim is never a good sign, especially if it is a parent talking about their missing child.
There is noted distancing between kate and her family against Maddie. Language including subtle demeaning such as describing her as loud, having a temper, being demanding, attention and even reference to Maddie attacking a sibling.
All of this language is unexpected, language especially in relation to a missing child and a huge red flag.
The expected is to refer to the missing person in positive terms.
Even if the missing person was a complete bastard, people will always seek to find something positive to say about them, "he was kind to pets", "she always said hello" kind of words.

Kate tells us Maddie is dead, this explains why she turned to prayer.
She wasn't praying to find a live Maddie, she was prating for the soul of Maddie and to ease her own guilt.

' Please keep them all safe. It must be said that when I'd prayed for their safety I'd been thinking: please don't let them fall off something and bang their heads, or please don't let them be involved in a car accident.

It is also worth noting the 2 specifics she refers to in her above 'prayer' particularly the order.

'please don't let them fall off something and bang their heads, or please don't let them be involved in a car accident,'

Falling off something and banging their head is more important to kate than them being involved in a car accident.

This is at the forefront of kate's mind as she speaks.
What would her to rate falling off something as more important than a car accident?

Why such specifics?

Is this because kate is telling us exactly what happened to Maddie?

Previously we have heard mention from the tapas 7 of Maddie "being bumped on the head" (active action in that it was done to Maddie not a passive action of bumping her own head accidentally)
Knowing how to "revive a child"

Courtesy of rachel oldfield
1578 “Okay. Did you want to mention something about Doctors in the group”?

Reply “Yeah I was just going to say that, you know Kate and Gerry are both Doctors and you know there were three other medics in the group, erm four others actually sorry, four others, erm you know so if by any chance they’d accidentally done anything to Madeleine or she was ill or erm you know something wasn’t quite right, I mean they wouldn’t have just left her and sort of tried to cover it up as an accident or you know, they would of sort of you know, come and got Matt and Russell and Dave and Fi, erm I mean you know, not just because they are Doctors, because you know they’re parents and you’d kind of go to anyone to see who could help but if you’ve got, you know Doctors as friends who were there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there who if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child, erm”.
Reference to a tin of beans falling off a shelf.

Madeleine by kate mccann page 75

"Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’ I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf. I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point."
Falling crops up more than expected.

This is leakage.

What is yet to be learned is if Maddie fell and banged her head, why was she in a position to do so?
Had something been done earlier than allowed for a fall to be able to happen (sedation?)
Who was present at the fall?
Who was present when she was later found?
Was the fall due to something else happening such as a fight between kate and gerry or kate and Maddie?
What was done when Maddie was found?
What was not done when Maddie was found?
Why was action taken?
Why was action not taken?
Who made the decisions?
Who helped after the decision was made?
Why did they help?
Did anyone not help?
Why did they not help?
Was there anyone not told the truth regarding Maddie?
Why were they not told?
What steps were taken after Maddie was removed from the apartment to another place?
What steps were taken to conceal the fact Maddie was no longer alive?

Kate is repeatedly telling the world Maddie is dead, why is the world not listening?

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Ponderings On Those Famous Pajamas And That Stain

                                                    Something to ponder.

Clothes based on a specific age range can be a bit hit and miss as children rarely follow a sizing norm.
As Martin rightly points out, when it comes to buying clothes for children, parents buy to fit and allow for a little extra growing room in order that the child gets to wear it for more than a couple of weeks.More so when money is a bit tight

Some may be wearing clothes are are a couple of ages bigger, IE, a 3 year old wearing clothes meant for a 5 year old or a 3 year old wearing clothes meant for a 2 year old.
Clothes sizes can also vary due to type of material, how they are cut (as with adult clothes some can be cut giving a generous size and others can be a smaller size and less forgiving.
M&S are generous in their cuts so a size 14 lady can perhaps get into a a size 12 or even a 10 (very good and a happy lady) whereas, a designer item could be skimpy on the cut and a a size 14 lady would need an 18.(very bad and an unhappy lady)
These things matter to us ladies.

According to kate's statement

10-PROCESSO 10 VOLUME Xa (Pages 2539 to 2551)
Kate Marie Healy's statement 06/09/07 @ 3.00pm


(from DVD)

September 6/2007 3pm at Portimao

On May 3 they all woke between 7;30 and 8:00 AM; doesn't know who woke first. They washed the children and had breakfast at the apartment between 08:00 and 08:30 AM. Food bought by her and Gerry at Baptista supermarket. Previously they'd had breakfast at the Millenium, but as it was so far they'd decided to have breakfast at the apartment. During breakfast the 'crying episode', already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.

The important little bit is this

During breakfast the 'crying episode', already described, took place. She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning.
Now this was allegedly what happened during breakfast may 3rd.

Looking at the picture of the pajamas at the top of this post, there is a clear stain on the neck of the pajama top which could be from spilled tea.
On the front of the neck in line with the gap at the back of the collar

Now, as pointed out above, why would someone, nay anyone, take a photograph of a pair of pajamas showing a 'tea stain'?

What parent sees a stain on the clothing of their child and decides
"Oh i must photograph it for posterity. Another one for the family album"

Unless it is something spectacular perhaps forming the face of a dead family member, Jesus or anything else relating to people, known as face pareidolia
Perhaps she took the photo in order to make a claim on a faulty item and demanding a refund, although why not take said item back to the store on discovering the stain on arrival at home?

There is simply no reason to take a photo given the above scenarios

On the other hand, there is ample reason to take a photo if it will later be presented as an exhibit to the media and public.

There is ample reason to take a photo if there is an intent to deceive.

Why though would innocent parents go through all the rigmarole if they had no involvement in the 'disappearance' of their daughter?

The thought wouldn't even cross their mind.

Guilty people however, do things like this to either show evidence they could not have done such a crime, to mislead those investigating the alleged crime, to muddy the waters.
They would do so to preempt something else.

It could be claimed that these were not in fact Maddie's rather they were Amelie's.

How then would both Maddie and Amelie have tea stains on their pajama tops?

Kate told us that on the morning of may 3rd she noticed a tea stain on Maddie's pajama top.

She makes no mention of a similar stain being on Amelie's top.
However, kate  tells us:

"these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."

Now, if kate is telling the truth, and i have to assume she is,

How could they be Maddie's since she would have been wearing them when 'abducted'.

If Maddie had been wearing a different pair of pajamas then the question would not have arisen since kate and gerry would be holding up a different pair of pajamas, the ones similar/identical to the ones Maddie was wearing when she was 'abducted'

If these were Maddie's, why were they not 'abducted' along with Maddie since she was wearing them?

Did the alleged abductor waste precious seconds taking her pajamas off?
If so, where were they located when kate 'discovered' Maddie was missing?
How come no one noticed these pajamas lying in situ?
How come these were not handed over as evidence to the PJ who could then do all the usual forensic tests to find out what happened and perhaps who did it?

Were these actually abducted and the pink blanket left behind and said abductor managed to sneak back into the apartment which, presumably, would be filled with police, the family and anyone else remotely involved, remove Maddie's pink blanket and return her pajamas all without being seen, heard or leaving any evidence of their existence?

Out of their own mouths comes ample evidence that Maddie is dead.
They knew she was dead from the get go of the 'alleged abduction'.
They were involved in her death as were possibly one or more of the tapas men since no mention has been made of the ladies doing the alleged checks on the children.
This also means they and at least one or more of the tapas 7 took action to conceal Maddie's body and then file a false police report.

In the following years, the mccanns and chums have also committed fraud on a grand scale in relation to the fund and also to claiming and winning damages against various media.

Keep talking chums, the more you speak the more you leak.
The more you leak, the closer the PJ will be to nailing your sorry asses for homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.

The PJ may also press charges against the group and the various family members who showed up and made full use of the amenities at little to no cost to themselves, obtaining money and services by deception.

In the meantime SY would, and should go ahead with prosecuting the mccanns and chums as well as clarrie for fraud, obtaining money and services by deception and anything else to do with the fund.
Those involved in creating the fund (seriously £37000?)and running it.

I would also be interested to know if the States could also join in the fun and charge them with wire fraud, money donated to them via their website (darn that $ PayPal button.)

I then wonder that, when the stuff hits the fan and the tapas 6 (I don't think Diane Webster was awarded damages) are facing prosecution regarding the damages and are required to pay it all back along with interest and court costs, if they will demand the mccanns return the money the group so generously donated to the fund, in order to make their own repayments along with court costs etc.

Could it get to a stage where the mccanns get sued by the tapas 7, their former alibis, allies and friends?
Could it then end up with the mccanns suing the tapas7?

Could clarrie decide he is missing out and sue the mccanns?

Could the mccanns then end up suing clarrie for dropping them right in it when he opened mouth and inserted feet?

It could get quite interesting as well as messy once the infighting and blame game starts.

"So these are actually, apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
So is used to explain why something is/happened.
It answers the unasked question the subject expects will be asked.

Kate slips up here by not telling us these are identical or similar to the pajamas Maddie was wearing, she instead tells us the pajamas are the ones Maddie was wearing when allegedly abducted.
She uses the word actually which is a word indicating comparison between 2 or more items.

IE, I like vanilla ice cream, actually i like chocolate more.

This is also a sensitive statement since she uses the word actually twice.

The problem kate has is she twice tells us these are Maddie's pajamas whilst at the same time contradicting herself and telling us apart from the size and the button on the back.

As has been rightly pointed out, how can these be the pajamas Maddie was wearing when she was abducted when, presumably, said self same pajamas would have been abducted along with Maddie since she was wearing them.

Either Maddie was wearing them the night she was allegedly abducted, in which case:
How did the mccanns come across her pajamas?
When did they come across them?
Where did they find them?
Why were they not immediately handed to the PJ for testing and a fingertip search of the area conducted?

Kate and gerry removed the pajamas from Maddie's corpse before disposing of her.

Or kate and gerry are outright lying about what Maddie was wearing that night, in which case why the need to lie about something trivial unless. of course, there is something which was seen or found that would incriminate them.

With the mccanns it is always look over there not here, or look over here not over there.

There is a need to distract.

As an aside.

Eddie reacted to a child's red t shirt.
WHY would a child's t shirt be contaminated with cadaverine?

More importantly, HOW could a child's t shirt be contaminated by cadaverine?

Cross contamination perhaps if it was packed with other clothing (kate's pants) contaminated with cadaverine.

Why then only that item, along with kate's pants and no other items in the case?

Did kate take the t shirt to work with her alongside cuddlecat and it got contaminated the same way that cuddlecat did and kate's pants (allegedly according to sue healy)

The obvious conclusion is that the t shirt came into direct contact with the cadaver.
Maddie's lifeless body.
Either Maddie injured herself and died accidentally and for whatever reason happened to land on said t shirt or, and I am taking a big leap of judgement here, Maddie was actually wearing said T shirt.
A T shirt then later claimed to belong to Sean perhaps, or it was Sean's and Maddie at some point  was wearing it.

Why though was it removed from Maddie's corpse?
Was she wearing it as a pajama top perhaps?
Or, more likely, was she wearing it during the day and died due to nefarious deeds of a dastardly nature?
Since they claim Maddie was abducted at night from her bed, questions would be asked why she was wearing a t shirt as opposed to pajamas?
Yes, they could have claimed she liked it so much she wore it at night, however, muddled and panicked thinking may have been they have to show she died at night, thus claiming she was wearing pajamas.

T shirt is day wear, Pajamas are night wear

It probably made sense to them at the time.

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Kate's Accidental Leak Of What Really Happened To Maddie.

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.”

The problem is, kate doesn't leak that it was an accident where they panicked and covered up.

First she says:

"I'm being framed."
This then implies that evidence exists proving Maddie is dead.
This evidence has then been found by someone, probably the PJ, and then placed in locations and on items that would link kate to a dead Maddie.
The only evidence found that would frame kate are the body fluids in the hire car and in the apartment behind the sofa,and the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs.

The cadaverine scent could come from any dead person, dogs cannot tie a specific cadaverine scent to a specific person.
The body fluids are a different matter.
They can be tested and blood group and DNA learned.
Even in cases where the sample isn't ideal, a lot can still be learned to exclude certain groups of people, male or female.
In this case we learned that 15 of 19 markers showed it could have come from Maddie, 4 markers were too damaged to be conclusively identified.
This does not exclude Maddie as being the donor despite what their supporters claim.
This was a big help to the mccanns.
Portugal requires a 15/15 match.

Only a select number of STR markers are used in forensic DNA profiling (10 in the UK and 13 in the US)
In the UK they would now be cooling their heels in a prison cell.

Kate tells us though that she is being framed.
This means that she has told us that the evidence found in the apartment and hire car does in fact belong to Maddie.
This also tells us that, at that point, Maddie was in a physical condition that would allow for samples to be taken and then placed in the hire car and apartment.
What would not be known is when said samples were obtained from Maddie's remains.
They could have been obtained at some point early in the investigation within a couple of days of her alleged abduction or, they could have been obtained any time up to the point the cadaver dogs were brought in.
The problem here though is, if the samples had been obtained early on within a couple of days, how would they know to plant the incriminating evidence in the car which would become the car the mccanns hired 25 days later?

The police could be the ones who planted the evidence.
However, it could also be gerry or another member of the tapas 7.
Even gerry's family admitted they were expecting charges to be filed against kate.
It would suit his needs perfectly and fit his personality if he planted the evidence on kate's pants, the child's red t shirt and cuddle cat as well as in the apartment and hire car.
Should arrests be made then kate was the fall guy, the evidence implicated on her as nothing was found on any of his clothing.

If the samples had been obtained early on in the saga, how would the samples have been placed where they were found without attracting attention, especially the hire car?
The first thing done would be to see who had hired said car previously and who had access to it.
It still doesn't explain why if the samples were obtained to frame kate, why no mention was made of finding her remains or anything relating to Maddie
Since this is what kate is claiming, why then did the PJ not go the whole hog and announce they had found Maddie's remain and that charges would now be filed against those involved in her death and subsequent disposal.
If the PJ had found Maddie's remains, why did they then conceal her remains again after getting a few samples and then plant said samples to frame kate?

The case would have been solved within days or weeks.
Millions would not have been wasted on chasing imaginary sightings or following a specific remit limiting the investigation of both the police and private investigators to that of an abduction of a live child.

Kate would be cooling her heels in prison, gerry gets custody of the children and probably a book and movie deal, maybe more.

He disappears into the sunset, away from public view perhaps to be tempted out and back into the limelight with a role on some important board or maybe with a political role, maybe even a position in the House of Lords, an institution worthy of his knowledge and expertise.If she tried to implicate him, he could plead  that he was as deceived as us, he was shocked when he learned the truth, or, that he lied to protect his children and kate's  mental health issues.\


He tried to get her the help she needed figuring that since Maddie was dead, no good could come from admitting what really happened.
He was doing what any loving father and husband would do.
Cue the tears and a new fund to provide the twins with a secure future and perhaps a new book or movie deal showing how much he suffered yadda yadda.
We know the PJ have made no such announcement then or since.
We still get so called sighting cropping up in the media which are swiftly debunked, usually when something  that paints the mccanns in a bad light or is sensitive to them such as Dr. Amaral's  damages case.
Since the PJ have not announced finding her remains nor produced her body, the obvious conclusion is that kate was not being framed as she claimed.
She has admitted  that the evidence found, specifically the body fluids, are in fact from Maddie, the child they claim was abducted and is still alive contrary to all the statistics.

“Police don’t want a MURDER in Portugal"
This is the big open mouth insert feet moment.
The leaked admission of what happened to Maddie.

The mccanns and chums, their extended family and not forgetting clarrie, all claim Maddie is still alive and not seriously harmed (what do they think paedophiles will be doing to Maddie if she were alive?)
Now, if Maddie was still alive as alleged, what kate would and should have said if she was innocent of any involvement is:

“Police don’t want AN ABDUCTION in Portugal".
An abduction is what was alleged to have happened and would be at the forefront of kate's mind.

Since she has already told us there is evidence to show Maddie is dead and that the Police are framing her with said evidence, the next expected statement would be:

“Police don’t want a DEATH/CHILD'S DEATH in Portugal"
This allows her to admit Maddie is dead and that evidence exists proving such.
It allows for her to claim it was an accidental death, a death allowed for by Dr. Goncalo Amaral.
This could be that she fell off the sofa after being sedated, banged her head or broke her neck or whatever and died.
They found Maddie dead, panicked because of what an autopsy would reveal (long term sedation or signs of abuse of some kind) and concocted a plan to fake an abduction.
An autopsy would reveal things they didn't want revealed, things that could result in loss of the twins, loss of their medical licenses, their jobs, their home, their friends and status.
Better to admit to a lesser crime and, if needs be try and wangle a plea deal than have the truth come out.
Reputations though damaged would eventually be repaired, they would be just another footnote in the pages of history.
Forgotten by the public in the next big story involving a child, more so the more years that pass.
Perhaps a passing mention in future media stories decades down the line..

However kate didn't say that.

Kate leaked the truth of what really happened.

Kate told the world it was a MURDER.
Not manslaughter.
negligent homicide.
Not a death caused by accident, such as kate and gerry having yet another row and when it got physical (remember all the bruising on kate's wrist and arms?) and Maddie just didn't get out the way quick enough, was hit, punched or roughly shoved resulting in her falling and banging her head or breaking her neck.


We don't know if this murder was preplanned, especially given the demeaning language when referring to Maddie.
The distancing language by apparently the family and extended families.
This would provide a motive.
Maddie was no longer wanted, no longer considered a apart of the family.
She was perhaps considered a burden,
The fact that Maddie's body had to be disposed of.
The fact that kate refused to answer the question about handing Maddie's care to another family member.
If her murder was a direct result of another crime being committed against her such as physical or sexual abuse.
Perhaps kate had simply had enough of a demanding, attention seeking Maddie, a child who may have pressed one of kate's buttons once too often and kate lost it and lashed out in the temper we know she has.

We know Maddie was a victim of murder, of a homicide, whether deliberate or accidental for kate has told us so:

"all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they’re blaming us.”

Their laws are lax, this is a given, however the UK also has a dubious track record for dealing with paedophiles, especially high ranking ones such a politicians, celebs, sports stars, the media and such like.
Kate has to blame it on Portugal in order for the abduction claim to have any chance of being believed.
The mccanns have to blame anyone except themselves and members of the tapas 7.
The publicity strangely enough has pretty much all come the mccann camp.
We were being responsible parents by allegedly leaving our toddlers home alone in an unlocked apartment and it was Portugal's poor laws that allowed a paedophile to get into our unsecured apartment and abduct Maddie.
It is all Portugal's fault not ours.

So is used to explain something was said or done.
Here she is blaming the Portuguese for what happened to Maddie rather than accepting any kind of responsibility.
Responsibility is something neither of the mccanns nor their chums have accepted or admitted to.
The mccanns even claimed they were advised that they were being responsible parents.
They have, to date, declined to tell just which esteemed and expert personage told them this.

Perhaps they shopped around until they found someone who, given enough incentive, said what they wanted.
Kate is preempting the question she thinks is coming, she is using words thought by the mind a microsecond before being spoken.
Here she is thinking paedophile laws and how lax they are and why the Portuguese are blaming herself and gerry and possibly the rest of the tapas 7.

Perhaps this is why Portugal was chosen for the vacation, the very early season where there wouldn't be too many tourists around sticky beaking into private business and what was not their concern.

Whatever happened to Maddie, kate has admitted Maddie is dead, that it was a murder.
It is worth noting the pronouns kate uses.
I and ME in relation to lying and being framed thus taking ownership.It is first person singular.

Note the change in pronoun though when it comes to the publicity about not having paedophile laws.
Here the pronoun changes to US.
Here she indicates unity and shared cooperation.
It is a first person plural pronoun.
It shows the spreading around and sharing of involvement or guilt.
Often seen with children and teenagers when caught and they say we all did it or everybody was doing it.It minimizes their own personal involvement whilst implicating others.
It minimizes her own personal involvement whilst implicating others.

Is this perhaps the reason for the choice of location, the time of year and the people invited to share the vacation with them?

Every time one of them speaks, they leak more marbles of truth.
I wonder if sometimes kate leaks deliberately in order to hasten the end of all the stress, the lies and to allow her to grieve openly and publicly as Maddie then gets her dignified burial.
Even though she is involved, she can begin the process of healing as can the twins, who will have to deal with the emotional fallout of knowing their were lied to for the last 9 years by their parents, their extended family, those they trusted

I hope all concerned accept the help that is offered.
It is the first step to healing.
The first step in the process of being allowed to finally grieve.
It is the first step in finally accepting responsibility for their actions and accepting the consequences.
It is the first step in beginning a new future.