Thursday, 1 December 2016


UPDATE  03:12:16

Tania Cadogan, the batshit crazy, right wing apostle of Peter Hyatt has reported back on that creepy meeting: 

Firstly, statement analysis is not a recognised science, there is no quick, sure fire way of establishing guilt on words alone, the claims are outlandish and ridiculous given the complexity of semantics. 

Hobs claims in Court, 'the analyst is classed as an expert' - the typo and clumsy wording indicates deceit.  Anyone can be classed as an expert in Court if that is what they call themselves.  See the evidence of Alan Pike, psychologist to the McCanns.  These detectives, psychologists, social workers and the like (how unethical) went over the interview with one aim, to see if there was evidence of sexual abuse or not.  Hobs then claims the McCanns spoke freely using their own personal internal dictionary.  Actually they didn't.  They were being interviewed on camera for a national news channel - their language and behaviour could not have been more fake, or strained.  Can she not hear the nervous tremble in Kate's voice? 

They concluded at the end of their 6 hour (ye Gods) meeting, that there was evidence of sexual abuse.  This group of experts, supposedly professionals, have reached a conclusion without ever having met any of the people they are discussing and knowing little if anything about the case.  They certainly seem to have overlooked the  fact that this is a live criminal investigation and the way in which their 'analysis' will affect the innocent people involved.

Peter Hyatt is using this case to sign gullible people up to his online 'lie detection' course.  Kudos to him on his business plan, but it is wrong on every level to go around accusing people of child abuse based on their words alone.

As for doors, windows, hygiene etc, all indicated for sex.  What a load of rubbish.  The doors, windows etc, were important because they were crucial to the abduction story!  Kate found the window open, that's how she know Maddie had gone.  She was also trying to establish just how normal and ordinary that evening was - hence the jammies, the story telling, the tooth brushing. That is the usual routine in homes with young children. 

The 'treats' were separate to the crisps and biscuits so were probably sedatives, conclude this little gathering of 'experts'.  Seriously, these parents gave their children vile tasting tablets and told them they were treats?  That's what they came up with?

In response to a comment on 'Embedded Confessions'. 

Thank you for your comment 00:16.  Like yourself I found Hyatt's statement analysis absolutely compelling.  But if Mr. Hyatt had any form of professional integrity, he would keep his expertise on child sexual abuse in this case to himself as most professionals do. He will not be discussing Child A, or Child B, he will be discussing very real kids who's names are known by way too many on the internet.  He has no Doctorate, but ffs, first do no harm! 

If anyone close to the McCann family read my blog,  I hope they will constantly reassure those kids that these creepy sexual allegations are coming from, to use Kate's words, a very small percentage, of frankly, very unpleasant people. People who, for whatever reason, believe there is a nasty undercurrent of deviant sex that permeates our society.  My 'instant summation' of them, is that they have lived very sheltered lives.  Girls, and indeed boys (perhaps more so), just wanna have fun, and I'm talking about the grown up variety, and with each other.  And for most people having fun doesn't include children's bedrooms, or a gimp costume and a horse whip.  It usually consists of getting drunk, flirting outrageously and confessing to having sex between stations with someone who's name you didn't quite catch. 

I just don't buy into the 'fact' that there are secret little cliques of child molesters and wife swappers living, working and sharing their family photos with registered sex offenders.  It just doesn't ring true, and I speak as someone who has led the opposite of a sheltered life - I was always up for a party!  I also had a tendency to corrupt and lead astray, almost everyone I worked with and for.  In retrospect, most were quite right to sack me, I would have brought to them to  bankruptcy. 

Unfortunately, our society stills carries the legacy of News of the World headlines. It brings back happy memories of Sunday mornings leering at all the smut and filth going on in the lives of the rich and famous, whilst tucking into a bacon sarnie.  The reality is, it was mostly news fodder for the plebs 1984 style, with the bonus of great opportunities to blackmail those in power.  Eg. closet homosexuals and those with a penchant for a good lashing at the local massage parlour.  There was a time when a tabloid front page could ruin lives.

This century's witches are the Paedophiles. We are all pretty much agreed, we hate them the most. However, because the majority of us find the subject just too yucky, those with the least amount of knowledge and their own agenda, get to make the batshit crazy rules. People daren't take pictures at the school nativity play, and youngsters are being registered as sex offenders for sending their own pictures to themselves. 
The hysteria around the 'P' word is based on something that isn't real. A sort of updated bogeyman the authorities want to protect us from.  The truth is, hardly anybody sees children as sexual, even if they are wearing badly applied lipstick and mummy's high heels.  As darn right cute and scrumptious little ones might be, playing itsy, bitsy spider over and over and begging and pleading with the little tyrant to go to sleep, can break even the strongest spirit.  I used to go and lock myself in the bathroom as soon as daddy got home, screaming, you fecking take over!  I would then lay in the bath plotting murder whilst listening to the strains of Maria Callas singing One Fine Day!  

As for all the red flags.  I can imagine the Gaspers were more shocked than most when they heard of Maddie's disappearance, simply because they knew them personally.  Trauma tends to unleash the wilder side of our imaginations, we are in a state where it is easy to make mountains out of molehills.  I expect Dr. Gasper (the Mrs) spent many tormented nights asking herself if she knew something, anything.  A good detective would quickly be able to discern between rational statements and those given with confirmation bias. Common sense dictates we should keep an open mind.

As for the other 'indicators', words, as demonstrated by Peter Hyatt, are open to interpretation. All and any discussions around the 'P' word are deemed peculiar. Society has made it so taboo, nobody knows anything about it, and dare not speak it's name.  Anyone discussing the topic without demands for blood, is seen as an appeaser, whilst those flinging a rope over the hanging tree are applauded.  Rational discussion is virtually impossible. 

What is blatantly clear and beyond question, is the McCanns and their friends went out of their way to enjoy the ADULT side of that holiday.  That is, the sports during the day and the relaxed grown up conversation in the evening. They were passing their kids over to 'strangers' at every opportunity. And I don't blame them for that!  Those of us, who are honest, wept buckets over the nights out we missed because of our kids.  When we are thirty something, we are at the height of our need to socialise and mix with our peers, but we are tied to gogglebox or the company of just one other (who we may or may not, want to attack with an ice pick), and crying out for some stimulation of the brain! 

The biggest, and some might say, proven allegation against the McCanns and their friends, is neglect.  Neglect is the word they have been fighting for nearly 10 years, because it implicates all of them.  And it is a serious enough criminal charge on it's own, without dragging in one of the rarest group crimes known to society. They have never admitted neglect in any way, shape or form.  On the contrary, they succeeded in convincing, almost everyone, that their form of childcare that night was within the bounds of responsible parenting.  The parents statements are littered with key words and tells, even the untrained, can pick out the McCanns' priorities.  'We hope for a successful outcome for ourselves.....  and err, Madeleine'.  Madeleine's outcome cannot be changed - it's already happened. 

Paedophiles are, by the heinous nature of their crimes, very secretive 00:16, there is always the danger that they will be strung up from the nearest hanging tree by an angry mob, especially in areas with a high volume of British tourists. They don't sit around a table discussing their darkest fantasies with their mates and people they hardly know.  What they do goes on behind locked and bolted doors.  I actually cringed and slunk down in my chair as Richard Hall demonstrated the knob in mouth action and nipple twiddling, that may have been the point for me, where all credibility went out the window. 

Any kind of sense, common or otherwise, would beg the question, why would a group of attractive, bright, highly sociable and competitive adults, want to shut themselves away with the kids (for which there is no evidence whatsoever) to do, gawd knows what with them?  I don't even want to go there. 
For the wannabe statement analysts out there, the clue was in Kate's 'we were really into each other'.  That is, they were doing what every thirty something longs to do - they were enjoying the company of their peers rather than trapped in the apartment with demanding toddlers playing what they want to play and fending off tantrums. 

We cannot interpret anything from the CATs reference number!  It tells us nothing other than a box was ticked. The pact of silence I agree flags up deception, but there are many good and valid reasons for deception outside of the 'P' word. 

Photos, where Madeleine is 'objectified' is a whole new area for debate. Sometimes a spoon is just a spoon.  For most of us, the pictures look perfectly normal, we don't see any 'signs' and actually think it quite cruel that some people spend so much of their time looking for them. As if they can solve the mystery by spotting a displaced elbow. As for the way in which Maddie ate ice cream being some sort of signal to perverts - now that's creepy. 

It's been nearly 10 years, where arguably, the McCanns have lived under constant scrutiny. The idea that all these institutions would have left all these children at risk is unthinkable.  And it should be born in mind that the ones being hurt the most by these cruel and frankly disgusting, allegations, are those living children linked to this case through no fault of their own.  It is for good reason that many of the antis are seen as 'haters'. 

Having lived through the trauma of standing in a witness box having my parents accused of heinous crimes, my heart goes out to them.  I came away almost broken, many who went through the same experience went on to commit suicide.  It is possibly one of the cruellest forms of torment.  As illustrated when I flew off the handle with Bennett when he insulted my mother. 

I find the idea of a group of 'experts' discussing and accusing these named parents of child sexual abuse, absolutely abhorrent!  Especially as they talking about a live criminal investigation, and worse those children involved are reaching an age where access to the internet is becoming easier.  How would anyone feel, at the age of 11/12, if a group of 'experts' held a public debate on whether your mummy and daddy had abused you?  These people clearly have no moral boundaries, let alone common sense.  And I am not saying that as defender of the McCanns, I am saying it as a wake up call to those who have crossed that moral and ethical line when making fanciful accusations against these parents.  Do they honestly believe their 'research' is helping those kids?

All those who genuinely care about Madeleine, should show equal care towards her brother and sister, those who are and will be, affected by their ill chosen words. That they so casually discard the feelings of those children, says more about their own motives, and they are not altruistic.  Justice for Madeleine mustn't come at any cost.  Rational, intelligent people know this inherently.  They think about the effect their words may have on others.  As Maya Angelou said far more eloquently than I, it is never forgetting the way those words made you feel.   

I may not be fighting for justice for Madeleine, in the sense of researching and 'exposing' the intimate lives of those poor sods unfortunate enough to be named in this case and making accusations against them.  But I am fighting, in my own way, to keep discussion about this case in perspective and within the realms of reality.  I see this case, and the way in which it has progressed, as a huge learning curve, it has, if you like, as it has opened my eyes to so much in our society that is cruel, and dare I say it, just downright evil. Look out much Chilcott revealed, yet our MPs just voted overwhelming not to bring any charges.  If we look back at the Blair administration, how far up (or down) would be the mysterious case of one missing child by on cover up scale?  Especially at a time when his new best buddy Dubya, was scooping up suspects and subversives  from all over the globe and sending them off to enjoy the sado/masochist delights of Guantanamo Bay? More sado, than masochist it must be said.  It is not child abuse that is rotting society from the inside out, it is greed and lust for power. 

Having said all that, my own quest for justice (staying online) is threatened by my beloved laptop nearing it's end of days!  I'm already losing volumes every time I inadvertently pull the charger out, and the keys look as though they have been trodden on by a herd of elephants.  I learned to type on a 'manual' and pound the keys like a psychotic Beethoven, or on occasion, a particularly flamboyant conductor of an orchestra.  I call it exercise, lol.  But I jest, if you enjoy my blog and want to make a small contribution to the piano on which I will write my next Masterpiece, please feel free to use the donation button! 


  1. Sexual abuse of children does exist. I'm not sure it is even that rare. Probably much rarer now but decades ago I think people in positions of authority can and did get away with it.

    I know people who have been sexually abused as children by family members and also by teachers and I wound't say I know particularly deviant people.

    What I don't understand is why would Kate herself make so many comments about it in her book to the extent of describing a shocking image of Madeleine's private parts. I mean - Madeleine's own mother has committed that image to print for the whole world to read.

    Why on earth would she do that? Why not think about the effect these horrible descriptions might have on the twins.

    I think her whole book in a disgrace. Despite her claim it is a book of 'the truth' I think the opposite is the case.

    The pair should have shut up and disappeared into obscurity, imo. If only for the sake of their children.

    But their hubris was such that they could not stop when they should have done. They alone have created the mess. They courted the media and did not protect the anonymity of the twins. By doing this they opened themselves up to public scrutiny.

    1. I agree sexual abuse of children does exist, but it is usually within the home, or by someone known by the child, and it is all very murky and secretive. The kids do not mix with other kids.

      It was of course far more prevalent years ago, especially with those children imprisoned in institutions with criminally insane religious fanatics.

      You are probably right, in that had they retired from public life and kept their heads down, they might have got away with it. However their need for revenge against Goncalo Amaral seems to have overridden their sense of survival. As you say, they only have themselves to blame.

    2. @ Ros 01.04

      "You are probably right, in that had they retired from public life and kept their heads down, they might have got away with it."

      What are you on about - got away with what? They have never been arrested - let alone charged, tried and convicted of any offence.

      The only people who think they have "got away with it" are the saddo online posters and bloggers who think they know better, but who quite frankly know bugger all and just guess and use fake qualifications to try to impress/influence others.

      Taking simple words and phrases out of context and analysing them to the nth degree leads nowhere - CMOMM is a prime example but it goes on on all the Mccann sceptic forums and blogs.

    3. “The only people who think they have "got away with it" are the saddo online posters and bloggers who think they know better, but who quite frankly know bugger all and just guess and use fake qualifications to try to impress/influence others.”

      Food for statement analysis!

      Why bother 13:19? Please enlighten us.

  2. Who is promoting Hyatt as the new messiah?

    CMOMM, Peter Mac and R D Hall.

    Can Hyatt's professional credentials stand up to scrutiny - no but he is a likable con man.

    RD Hall pretends it is a new investigation he is pursuing but his interview with Hyatt is a re-hash of another journalists work in 2012.

    Same questions, same answers.

    And Peter Mac, what a plonker. He adds three new chapters to his book and boldly states, Hyatt knew nothing of the tapas group's statements, or their rogatory interviews and little of the Mccann case in general.

    Why then in May 2014 did Hyatt analyse in depth David Payne's rogatory interview?

    Why in 2014 did Hyatt state he had studied the Mccann case in some detail.

    Hyatt has spent an awful lot of hours on the case over a number of years (look up Tania Cadogan)

    Wyatt knew of the "swooshing curtains" in 2012.

    Why does Peter Mac lie over these facts. what is the agenda?

    Are all the stalwart members of CMOMM nasty, spiteful, vindictive, sexually repressed people, who make things up just for their sense of fun, or is there a paid agenda?

    Why is the CMOMM behind and promoting so many of the lies smears and innuendo?

    1. Many thanks for that JJ, it appears the interview began with a few giant porkies!

      I know people will moan at my tendency to judge a person by their political beliefs, but experience has proved it again and again. CMoMM is filled with extreme right wing hill people who probably have inbred relatives locked up in the basement.

      Petermac once sent me a long, in depth, email pointing out all my faults as a member of CMoMM and the human race, lol. I'm the very worst kind of liberal, stoner, feminist etc, apparently.

      These are people who believe in the lash, and not in a fun way. They are the party of law, order and extraordinary rendition. Anyone not the same as them, should be caste out of society and stoned - again not in a fun way.

      When I think of CMoMM, I kind of picture a bunch of toothless hillbillies sitting around a fire, passing jugs of moonshine and shouting 'yee hah, we're going have ourselves a hanging'. There is no sign of any schooling there.

      I think the answer to your final question is madness JJ. People who go to such much trouble to cause misery for others, have a great deal of misery within themselves. Many are totally unaware of what they are projecting.

    2. CMOMM reminds me of haemorrhoids
      Angry twisted pustules of bad blood gathering together in useless bunches enveloping themselves in shit!

  3. Luckily - after about 7 million posts of detailed analysis, there are some (but not all) posters on CMOMM that have come to the incredible conclusion that - yes - Madeleine has real ears.

    Ya couldn't make the stuff up that they write on there - oh hold on - they DO make it up!

    1. Real ears eh! Have they sent a report to Operation Grange? I'm guessing yes, lol.

  4. Ros you can't really criticise other people for introducing the P word when it's quite clear that it has been put there deliberately by the parents themselves and their buddies. What do you think Mrs Gasper was at ........she was helping to build the narrative of P. These people where close enough to the McCanns to go on holiday with them and then without a second thought makes a statement where she discribes a couple of situations which are totally unbelievable. I mean what was she describing, jees nobody with half a brain regardless of how evil their mind was would do what she said he done. People need to catch a grip not to recognise she was working with them to create the P narrative. I unlike most people think the Gasper statements were withheld by the Leicester police because they feared that the statements were made in order to be a distraction to the case and didn't,want to muddy the PJ waters. There was so many rumours about ithem they finally had to send them. The accusations made by Yvonne Martin about David Psyne are false of that I have no doubt. David Payne has 2 young children and he practices as a doctor. Does anyone really believe that British society is that flippant about P that in such a high profile case social services would just ignore these accusations. Those accusations would have been well investigated and discounted. Gees if they weren't we have learned nothing from the exposure of historic CSA. Personally what I think you should be saying in your blog is stop falling for this P scam it's being pushed and accepted because there is something else being covered up and concentrating on this and the rest of the freak show that they have exposed us to over the past 9 plays into their hands. I actually enjoyed Mr Hyatts analysis I thought he really nailed it on their story telling and wasn't his words almost like the Portuguese policemen at the court case when he says that the story was child like ( I'm using my own words). In 20 years time people I think will look at the interviews that they gave and think that people in Britian must have gone through a bit of a mental meltdown to have believed anything that came out of their mouth let alone raise millions to support their defense fund. like you I have no interest in Mr Hyatt exploring the P angle For me the child is more likely to have been abducted than been subject to P and I think there is more chance of aliens invading Britian than her having been abducted

    1. I agree it was the McCanns who brought in the 'P' word 21:57, but they had very clear objectives. They wanted to steer the blame for Madeleine's disappearance away from themselves. They didn't even mention kidnapping for cash, and in those very early hours that was just as likely a scenario.

      I see where you are coming from however. Bringing in the 'P' word raised the possibility that they 'had to hide the body', that her body may have revealed sexual abuse.

      However, they were very limited on reasons for Maddie to disappear whist trying desperately hard to cover up their own neglect. Kidnapping was out, because there would never be a call, so too abduction for a childless couple because there were two babies in the same room. Sexual deviancy was the only thing left.

      However, it is far more likely that Maddie had sedatives within her body, and possibly injuries sustained as a result of an outburst of temper or fall.

      I too enjoyed Peter Hyatt's statement analysis, but I can't at the moment gauge how accurate he is, because I don't know enough about it.

      Totally agree that when people look back on the events of 2007 and indeed many years after, they will be astonished at how easily they were fooled. The interviews haven't stood the test of time, and when you take away the circus and the sideshows, you can exactly how disingenuous they have been.

  5. Rosalinda, as you know, I don’t believe the ‘sexual abuse theory’, but in my view the McCanns themselves or whoever advised them are the instigators of those rumours. One would almost think it was the least of their worries.

    Like poster 1.12 @18:18 said “Why not think about the effect these horrible descriptions might have on the twins.”

    and the other ‘Tapas’ children.

    Kate in ‘madeleine’:

    “Alan Pike talked to us about the twins, of course (and although we weren’t aware of it at the time, he had a session with our friends, too, about what they should and shouldn’t say to their kids).”

    How altruistic of Alan Pike. That aside, why would Kate mention such irrelevant details? Who cares and why are 'our friends' silent as the dead.


  6. If statement analysis is a proven dynamic tool of crime detection, it is a surprise RDH had to fly to the USA to find an expert.

    Surely there must be dozens of accredited UK experts who could have given an unbiased opinion on the Mccanns.

    Who suggested Hyatt to Hall and why?

    How many UK Universities offer accredited courses in Statement Analysis?

    We are told Hyatt is an internationally acclaimed expert. How many UK law enforcement agencies have engaged him in a professional capacity to assist their investigations?

    Peter Mac states Hyatt is by trade a Statement Analyst but there is considerable evidence Hyatt is by trade a teacher of the guitar, which is true?

    Questions to ponder?

    1. JJ 2 December 2016 at 10:14

      “If statement analysis is a proven dynamic tool of crime detection, it is a surprise RDH had to fly to the USA to find an expert.”

      Jurisdiction and The First Amendment?

      “Surely there must be dozens of accredited UK experts who could have given an unbiased opinion on the Mccanns.”

      “…must be…”?

      “Who suggested Hyatt to Hall and why?”

      Perhaps Hobs, directly or indirectly, whose veracity, impartiality and competence are questionable on the basis of several of her statements on CMoMM forum and elsewhere.

      “How many UK Universities offer accredited courses in Statement Analysis?”

      None AFAIK, but why is it relevant?

      “How many UK law enforcement agencies have engaged him in a professional capacity to assist their investigations?”

      I don’t see how one can ascertain that.

      “Peter Mac states Hyatt is by trade a Statement Analyst but there is considerable evidence Hyatt is by trade a teacher of the guitar, which is true?”

      Does Peter Mac say how he ‘knows’ that? BTW, Richard Feynman, the physicist, was also a bongo drums player. From what I know about Richard Feynman and music, I guess he could have been an exceedingly good bongo drums teacher.

      However. Your finger points at the messenger, not at the message.

      Statement Analysis appears to be incapable of being refuted and therefore may be viewed as non-scientific. Thinking pragmatically, this, by itself, is not a good enough reason to reject PH’s analyses out of hand. It seems very likely that if one were to calculate PH’s success rate, having taken the outcome of various cases in which he had done statement snalyses into account, one would find it significant. (Our two lovable dogs’ work is a very good example of such significance. I understand one of them passed away…).

      I recall that ‘Kim’ Philby, having found himself in rather grave circumstances, passed a lie detector test with flying colours. I do not doubt that PH would have no difficulty with defeating any attempt at statement analysis of what he says if he were minded to be untruthful. If I’m correct on this, then the 100% Statement Analysis accuracy, as propounded by Hobs, must be ignored.

      Statement Analysis is a useful auxiliary investigative tool. The same goes for lie detector tests and our two dogs.


    2. Let's face it JJ no British expert on anything is willing to be Carter Rucked. I understand why Richard Hall had to go to America .
      Like every other poster on here and that includes both JJ and Ros, I do not KNOW the truth of the Mc Cann affair . I only have informed theories. One of those theories definitely includes paedophilia since Gerry brought it up first and many reports surrounding the sorry saga definitely refer to it. It would be totally incompetent to ignore it. However having said that I have to ask myself why, if he was implicated on a personal level, would Gerry focus our questions on that? He said it for a reason. Everything Gerry says or does, is for a reason. I believe he was giving some sort of warning when he said '' the paedophiles have taken her.'' Sort of on the lines of, '' Help me out of this mess or I'm talking.'' He obviously KNEW something and by golly, wasn't the help forthcoming? I believe that from this mild blackmail his hands were clean as far as paedophilia was concerned anyway. So why lie and LIE he most certainly did? I think she died from an accident in the apartment which could have led to charges of negligence and all that would entail. Possibly the removal of the twins into Social Care and an end of a glittering career.( One has to ask the question of course, how could such a mediocrity stand head and shoulders above far abler medical personnel? But that is a question for another day ) The 'make up' photo that is the centre of all this angst could be nothing more than a photoshopped effort put out there to reinforce the paedophilia angle. Why were the dogs sent in 5A so late in the day? Was this to let Professor McCann ( no less , these days ) know that the cards weren't ALL stacked in his favour? I wish Agatha Christie were still around to give us a heads up but who knows. maybe SHE was part of the establishment as well.

    3. Hi JJ, regarding your statement there must be dozens of accredited experts in statement analysis, I agree. But they probably use statement analysis of part of their overall training and qualifications. That is, they do not 'judge' based of their words alone - it would be unprofessional and indeed unethical while there is a live criminal investigation.

      I am sure many people who have a psychology degree have learned tricks along the way that they have tried out on their family and friends. My favourite was space invasion - try standing too close to someone or putting your coffee cup in their allotted part of the table. Nb. Make sure you know them! As much fun as it is astounding and pissing off those close to you, it is but a very small part of everything you are learning. But you don't stop there and start planning a circus act.

      The problem with focussing on the words alone is that you are not factoring in everything else that is going on. For example, any conversation they may have had before they sat on those interview chairs. We know they had gone in there to lie, therefore their usual vernacular, body language will be unnatural. Does he know what was going on in the background, what headlines there might have been that day. How about any words K&G might have to send signals to each other. How about the way in which they responded to the interviewer - empathy makes all the difference in the world, they were totally different characters when interviewed by Sandra Felgueiras. Who's interviews btw would have been way more informative because she broke their guard down.
      PH's claims that he can spot lies in the words people use is for me, beginning to sound a bit like a line from one of those old snake oil salesmen. I can spot lies, and you can too.

      I think it is one of those things where if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. I mean, wouldn't we all love to be able to spot lies in an instant, just by the words? There would be so many benefits, it would probably explain the mad axe murder of a husband in bed after saying the wrong name at a crucial moment. Wadda ya mean Cindy, I'm fecking Moira.

      Actually, the more I think about those interviews, the less merit I attach to them. If Mr. Hyatt had any knowledge of language, or psychology, or indeed creative writing, he would know how crucial the circumstances in play at the time are, to the way in which the characters behave. EVERYTHING matters, the way in which they are dressed, they way in which they move, every micro expression. Are they distressed, are they buoyed? Anxious or confident? How about the tone of their voices, are they monotone or animated? And how can he tell if they are normal, or abnormal, he doesn't have a baseline!

      In focussing on the words alone, Mr. Hyatt, is shutting off 84% of the communication that is coming from the McCanns who are sat in front of him shifting, scratching, touching and acting normal for the nice lady.

      Trying to reach a conclusion using only line of research would make no sense in a laboratory and it makes no sense here. He uses his 'lack of knowledge' about this case as a selling point! He is bragging, hey guys, I didn't bother looking at anything else (how tedious), but take my word for it, they are guilty of [fill in the gaps]on their words alone.

      In this interview the parents are putting on a show, as indeed they did in all their interviews. And all of us with or without qualifications can see that. The credible experts, the professionals, are probably itching to analyse this pair, but are far too ethical and compassionate to do so.

  7. I don’t know so much about Peter Hyatt, but I do know that a lot of important stuff can go missing in a statement analysis, unless the transcript includes information about intonations, pauses (especially the lengths of them), slow and fast speech. Hyatt’s analysis could perhaps be useful if it were to be complemented with lie-detection methods, based on body language and facial expressions, not just speech. Perhaps the fraud examiner Pamela Meyer would be able to add something to Hyatt’s “research”. Sorry J. J. she’s American as well.

    Unfortunately, she hasn’t yet, as far as I know, taken any interest in the Madeleine case. If she would, she should first of all focus on Gerry’s smirking smile and uncomfortable posture during interviews, which Hyatt does not, as far as I know. Gerry, always reveals a lot about himself, when talking to journalists (Kate does as well) and it’s definitely not honesty. So maybe it can at least be established, that the McCanns are not telling the truth, anyway not the whole truth, but still their guilt has to be proved in court and based on concrete facts in the investigation. In my opinion, one should not expect that an expert, of any kind, could reveal a person’s sexual or criminal orientation by analysing his/her speech, but it is certainly possible to detect a few lies.

    1. I too am a huge fan of Pamela Meyer, she is incredible, the difference between a real expert and the charlatans! I think she is far too ethical to do anything like that Bjorn. What too many people fail to understand is that they discussing REAL people, and quite possibly affecting the lives of real children. What we think of them doesn't matter, we are not judge and jury, and as my dear old dad used to say, never hurt someone just because you can.

      For me those clinging onto those creepy sexual allegations have crossed a line. And with this case there is a very thin line between wanting justice and vigilantism.

      They, just like the McCann supporters, have latched onto the paedophile allegations and are using it as a banner for abused children everything. It terrifies me that so many people out there are prepared to believe anything as long as it supports their cause.

      This isn't a child abuse case. Gerry raised the subject of Paedophile gangs, because he needed a darn good excuse for his daughter's disappearance.

      The antis used it, because they cannot comprehend that a group of adults could be so crass about the child minding, ergo something else MUST have been going on.

      In 10 years there hasn't been any evidence of the 'P' word from the Pro or the Anti side. No children taken into care, no wild groups of doctors running round the countryside in the nip.

      Frankly, I find it terrifying, that so many, otherwise intelligent, adults would accept the frankly, flimsy, evidence of the Gaspars and Yvonne Martin without question. I do hope none of them are ever called as jurors.

      The problem with the 'P' word is it's tendency to kick off hysteria. It is an almost guaranteed way in which to drum up an angry mob. Those who have made Paedophilia or Swinging, their 'thing' cannot let it go for fear of losing face, ditto all those who have clung to their every word. I see I have now been chucked out of the Abduction or Scam group. I mention this merely as an example of closed mind mentality.

      Your post Bjorn, actually made me see the wood for the trees - using only one line of research is ludicrous!

  8. bennett Today at 14:13 - the compulsive liar deliberately misleading people again. He says:

    "A comprehensive analysis of the original interviews, plus an analysis of the evidence in the case as a whole, can be found in the interim report of Inspector Tavares de Ameida, dated 10 September 2007."

    No bennett you are wrong as usual - the legal summary which was issued at the archiving of the investigation (not an interim report) is available here

    It states "The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code."

    But of course a lot of people think they know better!

    1. And a lot of people do know better 18:52!

      I actually take my hat off to the compiler of that load of old tosh, and the McCann spin doctors who were able to make so much of so little. What exactly is article 277, no. 1 of the Penal Process Code? And are there also no indications of the practice of any crime for articles 1 through to 277, and beyond?

      You see words can mean just about anything we want them to, and the same goes for the way in which we interpret them, which is lawyers get paid so much and
      another reason Peter Hyatt talks nonsense.

      The entire abduction story has more holes than a colander, and people are more likely to go with their own instincts than the small print that is designed to confuse them.

    2. There are more holes in the accidental killing/hiding of the body theory.

      How was Madeleine hidden in the apartment?
      How was her body kept until disposal without its smell alerting people?
      How was it possible for the McCanns under the spotlight of the worlds press and Portuguese police able to move the body and then dispose of it?
      How was it possible for persons with very little local knowledge of the area to dispose of a body without any discovery of remains?

      And please don't bring up the cadaver dogs - those same dogs failed at Haut De La Garenne in Jersey, selling cadavers that weren't there.

    3. @ Ros 11.27


      It means there was no evidence found that would enable any charges to be brought and referred to court.

      You may not like it and may stamp your foot and want to twist the words to read something different - but to me it is very very clear and backed up by the fact that the Mccanns have never been arrested, charged and taken to court.

      If you find "small print" (actually significant print) difficult to understand maybe you should not be commenting on the case at all.

    4. I spent nearly 30 years working as a legal secretary 15:19, I know more about the small print than most.

      There are dozens if not hundreds of cases worldwide where prime suspects have not been charged because the police do not have enough evidence. Especially 'child abduction' cases, such as Sabrina Aisenberg, Lisa Irwin, Isabel Celis. The Madeleine case is far from unique.

      Unfortunately for the McCanns there has never been anything to rule them out. Ten years on there is still no evidence of an abduction or an abductor.

      Many unsolved cases have detectives who will never give up, even if it takes years or decades. In some cases advances in science and technology can provide that vital evidence. Those 'suspects' who 'got away with it' are never off the hook.

    5. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton3 December 2016 at 16:54

      typing words that do not mean anything seems to be your favourite pastime.

      Instead of saying boo-hoo there is no evidence of abduction (something that the Mccann haters have been repeating for over 9 years) why don't you say exactly what you believe happened - but more importantly what evidence you have to support your belief?

      It is easy to say "I don't believe them" and sit back smirking. Put you opinion and proof where your mouth is for once.

    6. From all the evidence available, I think the closest we have to what happened is the theory of Goncalo Amaral - a very experienced detective who was actually there on the ground. And of course the interim report of Tavares De Almeida of 10.9.2007.

      I should add, I have tried every which way but loose, to find an explanation that exonerates the McCanns and their friends, but even with my creative writing background, I am stumped.

    7. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton3 December 2016 at 18:41

      ah so now you are with bennett preferring to use the interim report and not the final report. The reason being because it suits your purpose better.

      The Mccanns are ALREADY exonerated - remember your 30 years as a legal secretary - they have never been arrested, charged and have never been found guilty.

      You are stumped because you want them to be guilty but you can find no evidence whatsoever.

      I notice that earlier you used the lack of evidence in two ways to suit you. Lack of evidence does not in your eyes mean they are innocent. Lack of evidence of abduction means everything in your eyes. Your can't have it both ways.

    8. Ah ha, pressing my buttons by comparing me to Bennett, nice try, lol.

      Actually there is an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that implicates the parents. Where do I begin? There was no break in and the stories changed. Jane Tanner didn't mention to the searchers 'the abductor went that way', the lack of searching, the kids were returned to the crèche - wtf? The 48 questions unanswered by Kate......

      It may not be DNA or a smoking gun, but every sign points towards the parents and the tapas group.

    9. @ Ros 19.21

      so after your intense research of everything over the last nine years you have absolutely nothing to add to what has been said a million of times by all the Mccann sceptics.


    10. I'll save it for when the time is right 20:59. At the moment this is a story without an ending, and I'm not just going to make one up.

    11. Anonymous 3.12 @13:41

      "And please don't bring up the cadaver dogs - those same dogs failed at Haut De La Garenne in Jersey, selling cadavers that weren't there."

      I doubt you'll have any more success peddling your puerile point of view.

    12. It was a typo. I meant to say smelling, not selling.

    13. Unfortunately it's not only the 'typo' that's a nonsense.

      If you thought just a little more about it, you'd realize that dogs are not the only species to communicate through scent.

      Every animal that does so will recognise the odour of others that are no longer there. If it were they'd see each other, and there'd be no need to leave a scent 'message' in reply.

      Do you suppose all these creatures to be failures?

    14. ?? I don't understand what relevance the senses of other animals has here. These dogs were supposed to be specifically trained to find cadavers. They failed in Jersey by alerting to where there were no cadavers. There is therefore a reasonably good chance that these same dogs made the same mistake in Portugal.

    15. "I don't understand what relevance the senses of other animals has here."

      Sadly, lack of understanding permeates this case like a fungus.

      The dogs deployed in Portugal, and elsewhere, were NOT trained to 'find cadavers'. One was trained to detect human blood residues, the other to indicate the presence of a scent associated with a decaying corpse.

      A facet of that training involved the use of stale pork (being a close approximation to human flesh under the circumstances).

      The same dog was once 'tested' with a miniscule amount of material derived from a mummified corpse and buried in sand. He did indeed find that.

      Now you're surely not going to respond that the dog was therefore trained also to 'find' pigs and 'mummies' are you? I hope not.

      A 'cadaver dog', so-called, does no more than localize a scent to which it is particularly sensitive, whether the original source of that scent is present or not. To use your own turn of phrase, tracker dogs also respond to something that 'isn't there', although its scent is.

      A dog's sense of smell is more wonderful than you can imagine, hence it should come as no surprise that even a few teeth, and/or a small portion of a human skull, would have brought about a reaction on Jersey. And before you join the throng of idiots who bleat 'coconut' at every opportunity, the presence of collagen in the relevant sample rules that crass, yet deliberate misinterpretation out at a stroke.

      Gerry McCann's 'the dogs are incredible unreliable. Sandra' was no more than wishful thinking predicated on the thoughts of an equally ignorant judge in the USA.

      Ask yourself this: If in future an 'explosives' dog suggests 'bomb', whilst the airline rep. says it's perfectly safe to fly, who are you going to believe?

    16. Quote

      It seems to me that 'time allowed to search' is the obvious discrepancy between searches of anything McCann related - and other searches.

      It's plain from the videos that the dogs do not always go in and immediately identify and make a beeline for a place or object that has been contaminated.    If that was the case then surely Eddie would have immediately alerted to Cuddlecat - and Keela would have alerted to the white curtains on her first search - and Eddie would have alerted to the keyfob on his first encounter with the Renault.

      The dogs obviously need time.   

      The longest time spent on any of the other cars was around 30 seconds - and no alerts were made.   After the same amount of time i.e. 30 seconds was spent on the Renault  - no alerts had been made.   It was only after being given a lot more time and encouragement regarding the Renault that Eddie finally alerted.     What would have happened if all the other cars had been given the same amount of time and attention?


    17. A lengthy quote and clearly the opinion of an experienced specialist dog handler (NOT)

      Would you care to identify the source?

      On second thought, if Anonymous 13:05 = Anonymous 10:09 don't bother. Board the plane instead!

  9. from CMOMM an example of pure hatred of the Mccanns:

    " Cmaryholmes Today at 7:20 pm. I agree that 'I can see your wings' sounds really creepy and seedy, but that may be simply because everything Gerry does or says now is tainted by the knowledge that he has lied outrageously over the years to save his own sorry skin. He will live out his life under the most terrible suspicion, he and his wife, and there is nothing he can do about it now. I haven't noticed the Mccanns responding to the Peter Hyatt interview"

    1. Unfortunately, there isn't anyone sane left on there to point the creepy figment of their imagination right back at that.

      To be fair, all adults sound creepy (not so sure about seedy) when speaking to small children. We bring our vocabulary down to their level and add a high pitched lilt to our voice, especially with a video camera running.

      The McCanns seem to be laying low, no sign of new campaigns, sightings or suings. I think they are probably treating Peter Hyatt in the same way as they treated Birch - 'Who is he!'.

  10. “This isn't a child abuse case. Gerry raised the subject of Paedophile gangs, because he needed a darn good excuse for his daughter's disappearance.”

    I go along with you Rosalinda except for ‘good’ in the literal sense of the word. Raising the subject of paedophile gangs has caused a lot of misery, not only for the McCanns themselves, but also for their children and the other ‘Tapas’ families, not to mention completely innocent (sighting) children and their families around the world.

    Thinking of and mentioning paedophile gangs when you find your daughter gone and nobody was thinking of or asking for an excuse at that moment, I really cannot see any sense in that.


    1. It probably reflects the panic and the desperate situation they were in NL. The first question the police and everyone would be asking was 'Why would anyone steal Madeleine' and the McCanns felt they had to suggest a 'good' reason.

      If you look at the case of Jeremy Bamber, when the police arrived, he told them 'exactly what had happened' - that is, his sister had gone crazy and killed the family. He was establishing the motive and the narrative while exonerating himself.

      The McCanns were doing the same, helpfully adding the 'P' word and supplying a reason for anyone asking the 'why' question. Shelia Bamber killed the famiy, 'why?', because she was crazy. Madeleine was abducted, 'why' because there are real life bogeymen out there and Warners, the police and Portugal did not protect Madeleine.

    2. Thank you for your response Rosalinda, but “there being paedophile gangs in Portugal” sounds to me like foreknowledge, not necessarily about the existence, but at least Gerry had sort of inside information.

      Unless one day the truth will come out, I’m afraid that we will never agree on that aspect of the case.

      Nevertheless, kind regards (and I agree with T, you are a gifted writer).


    3. We will have to agree to differ NL, I think Gerry was clutching at straws. The parents were desperate to steer the blame away from themselves. If they had been in Leicester or the Holy City itself, they would still have to provide a reason for Maddie disappearing.

      As Jon Corner said, while asking God to forgive him, perhaps it was because Madeleine was 'special'. Just think about the connotations of that for a moment. to be continued,,,,

  11. Opinion seems to believe it was Gerry who first brought up Madeleine was taken by Paedophiles.

    If anyone could tell me where I can find Gerrys quote I would be very obliged


    2. If my child disappeared from her room while on holiday, my worst fear too would be that she'd been abducted by paedophiles.

    3. Really? Wouldn’t you think ‘wandered off’?

      Don’t you find it strange that, while everyone else was searching at 11pm, Gerry McCann was on his mobile telephone telling someone that he feared M had been taken by paedophiles?

      If you found your child gone at 10pm while on holiday in France (or whatever country), would you inform someone at 11pm by saying “there being paedophile gangs in France” (or whatever country)?

    4. When you put it like that 06:35, it does indeed sound absurd. Did someone between 10.00pm and 11.00pm say to Gerry, 'this place is full of paedophile gangs'? In my opinion it is highly unlikely, and indeed a very insensitive thing to say to the father of a child who has just gone missing. And if he knew before [that the place was full of paedos], why take his young family there?

      I think most parents in that situation would be clinging onto hope. That is they will be envisaging their child in all sorts of situations where they are 'safe'. Perhaps in the apartment of a 'kindly' neighbour, hiding in bushes as she had previously, or lost on the holiday complex unable to find her way back. To assume the very worst at the early stage is of course a huge red flag. So too, Kate becoming hysterical in her need to speak to a priest.

    5. @ Anonymous5 December 2016 at 06:35

      Really? Wouldn’t you think ‘wandered off’?


      Not after finding the window in the bedroom open.

    6. Mathew Oldfield in his 2008 rogatory statement said that "all of us" had fears about the child being in paedophile hands in the hours following the disappearance - though none of the eight others mentioned the word paedophile in their interviews.

      He linked this comment to having witnessed Gerry McCann hysterically screaming in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance about the child's "innocence" and that "some bastard" now had her.

      So it looks like that was the first recorded mention, even though Oldfield paraphrased rather than quoting verbatim.

    7. Possibly, but in this case only Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on the window.

    8. Comment 18:22 as a response to 17:17

    9. Good to see you John :)

      I suspect 'suggest paedophiles took her' was all part of the collective decision John. They were desperate to convince the police Madeleine had been taken. Establishing the word 'abduction' in the minds of the police and the public, making 'Abduction' the breaking news, the first 'official' story out there, is the one that sticks.

      Whilst words are the current topic, lol, it is strange that 'abduction' was used, in preference to 'kidnapping', although the word kidnapping doesn't necessarily imply anything sexual, our thought process turns immediately to 'ransom'.

      This does of course, add further fuel to the sexual deviancy lobby, but it is more likely the connotations of the word 'abduction' take the incident further afield, and imply maniac 'bogeyman' rather than career criminal.
      Naturally, both words, like ALL words are open to interpretation!

    10. Ros says:
      "Whilst words are the current topic, lol, it is strange that 'abduction' was used, in preference to 'kidnapping', although the word kidnapping doesn't necessarily imply anything sexual, our thought process turns immediately to 'ransom'.

      This does of course, add further fuel to the sexual deviancy lobby, but it is more likely the connotations of the word 'abduction' take the incident further afield, and imply maniac 'bogeyman' rather than career criminal.
      Naturally, both words, like ALL words are open to interpretation!"

      I see that you are another one that has gone into "statement analysis mode" because it is flavour of the month.

      Give it up and just look at the facts of the case.

    11. I've always had a love of words 19:17, it's new to me!

    12. John Blacksmith @18:20

      Your first sentence is intriguing for its reference to Oldfield's use of the phrase 'all of us'.

      This very evening an American TV crime documentary (Unusual Suspects) told of a seven year old 'cold case' finally broken by a 'rookie' investigator, whose scrutiny of the earliest witness statements led directly to the culprits.

      Two seemingly insignificant details ultimately proved to be anything but:

      One witness spoke of going 'immediately to bed', which the detective found disturbing. (Why the need to recount urgency?)

      Another mentioned that they were 'all on foot', when ostensibly talking about only two people.

      A supposedly absent third party was in fact the victim of homicide, perpetrated, as it turned out, by these very witnesses.

      It is clear from this one, very real example, that paying attention to the detail of peoples' statements can indeed pay dividends.

    13. Oops, that should have said NOT new to me.

  12. McKenzie one of the Brits. searching that night outside the apartment when mccann is on his mobile

    quote: from his police statement
    ''Mr McCann was absolutely distraught telling the person receiving the call that he feared 'she (Madeleine McCann) had been taken by paedophiles' ''

    Well worth following the link and reading his whole statement.

    This is why, people like myself follow the case.

    Ask yourself this, where would you be, if you daughter was missing, what would you be doing, and would you within in few hours with your mates be turnning in for the night.


    1. Hi Puddleduck, nice to see you :)

      Your final sentence I think sums up the astonishment of all of us 'would you, with your mates, be turning in for the night'. It was things like that that aroused so much suspicion, even more than Goncalo's book.

  13. Copied from your update.
    "The 'treats' were separate to the crisps and biscuits so were probably sedatives, conclude this little gathering of 'experts'. Seriously, these parents gave their children vile tasting tablets and told them they were treats? That's what they came up with?"

    Luckily this story came out first.

    1. Yes outrageous isn't it, front page news?

      It is because it is a 'one off' that we are all so appalled 09:12, and is perfectly obvious, Kate is not a heroin-methadone-ketamine addict! Can you not see how comparing the two cases is absurd? Can you imagine Maddie telling the nanny, her crackhead mother gives them sweets to make them sleep?

      Have a reality check!

  14. Expect a lengthy epistle from Bennett any time soon, doors and windows indicate sexual abuse
    So double glazed windows are a sure fire indicator of a paedophile gang
    Have the Mccanns ever met anyone in double glazing?

    In Murats police statement he admits to having a BATH and arranging for bottles of WATER to be left for the Press and PJ.
    Can there be any clearer indicators of involvement with paedophilia?
    Not according to Hyatt and his gang of nutters

    1. Wish I'd been introduced to that lot when I was selling double glazing JJ, it would have been a doddle, lol.

  15. Hyatt is a complete and absolute fake. A very dangerous person.

    1. Oh my, but he revels in the lemmings hanging on his every word.

  16. Update 03.12.16

    "Hobs claims in Court, 'the analyst is classed as an expert' - the typo and clumsy wording indicates deceit."

    What 'typo'? Or do you mean this one:

    "Kate found the window open, that's how she know Maddie had gone."

    Rather more than a simple 'typo' in fact. The letters 'o' and 'e' are at opposite ends of the keyboard, under different hands!

    The small matter of 'tense' aside, do you believe Madeleine McCann was abducted? If not then you must believe her to be dead. In which case Kate McCann most certainly did not know her daughter had 'gone' on finding an open window!

  17. Christ Almighty - Hyatt has written the longest load of garbage ever written about the case Sunday, December 4, 2016
    What Is An Embedded Confession?

    I am sure he has taken lessons in "How to Bore People and Uninfluence Them" from bennett.

  18. UK Justice forum used to be a place where there was some sensible discussion (apart from the bore steph's repetition). However a post made on there just proves how some Mccann sceptics think:

    about Hall

    " xtina
    what i like about him Stephen ...[i agree some of his stuff is a bit weird]..........but he does not believe maddie was abducted..."

    You see how easy it is to influence people on the internet - despite being an absolute nutter - cut out the things you don't like as irrelevant and then jump on and support the parts that you want.

  19. IMHO, there is very little point or purpose to 'analysing' the 'statement analysers', lol.

    I was also interested in the facts of the bigoted Cadogan's responses to Mr Hyatt (as well as others'), so wished to see for myself what would come through with Hyatt's 'live analysis' (euphemism for snake oil?), with all the accompanying click bait gimmicks you'd expect ("you need an invite", "don't miss the opportunity", "allow us to answer your queries" [as if!] etc etc. So I read AorS's 'running commentary'; and what actually happened during Friday last's BIG EVENT??

    Pretty much a reprise of everything which was said in his *very* recent Hall videos, only with added confirmation bias.

    When the fella has something new, as well enlightening to say, could someone please let me know? I won't hold my breath. TIA

    1. After the marathon 3 hour interviews with Richard Hall, I am not sure I have the stamina or inclination to watch/listen to them JNH. Why do they all have to drag everything out so blooming much! Some of us have the attention span of a goldfish, lol. I don't know if it is vanity or their being overly pedantic nitpickers, and I would imagine nitpicking would be top of the list of desirable qualities for a statement analyst.

      Peter Hyatt is actually spitting in the wind because the science of semantics is so vast and complex, all he can do is put his OWN INTERPRETATIONS (weird and freaky)onto the words HE SELECTS. As Prufrock might say, that wasn't what I mean't at all.

      For me Peter Hyatt is so low down on my viewing list, he may disappear. I am ferociously precious about my time, still haven't forgiven Mark Wahlberg for The Happening, in which nothing happened - 2 hours I will never get back! Though to be fair, Ted got him back in the good books.

      Peter Hyatt's failure to take into consideration EVERYthing that was going on behind the scenes and the entire demeanour of the McCanns throughout renders any of his 'analysis'worthless.

      Like you JNH, I won't be holding my breath.

  20. It makes you realise that when any "internet expert" is going to analyse every word and comment (which has been done for the last 9 years) that Kate was perfectly correct in taking solicitor's advice and NOT answering the 48 questions that were phrased to implicate her and Gerry.

    1. Is that why she wrote her account of the truth?

    2. Oooh, good answer 18:04, the polite response from 17:24 should be touche!

  21. "Hobs Today at 14:11 Now that Peter has indicated them for deception and also that sexual abuse is involved, he is interested in statements from the rest of the group to see who knew what, who was involved and in what way."

    hobbs needs to lay down in a dark room and quite frankly piss off from commenting on the case.

    Nothing that the fraud hyatt says has been proved to be correct - but hobbs WANTS it to be correct.

    1. She should indeed 17:32. Not content with attempting to fuck up the heads of the McCann children, she is now happy to move onto the rest of the group.

      Anyone who thinks that discussing and alleging that these living children have been abused, should hang their heads in shame. Quite clearly they do not have any childrens' interests at heart.

      These confidence tricksters need to be exposed for exactly what they are. Have these other 'experts' been named and their credentials put online? Because no credible expert or scholar would touch anything like this with a bargepole.

      The parents already have an almighty job explaining what happened in that summer of 2007. They don't need the freaky ideas of unworldly, narrow minded, bigots with sexual issues of their own, planted as false memories in those adolescent minds. To Hobbs and all the gullible idiots daft enough to subscribe to the course, STOP AND THINK WHAT YOU ARE DOING FFS! This is not justice in way, shape or form, it is rabble rousing.

  22. Hideshite has now posted a recording - I have not listened to it:

  23. (Thursday 10 May, 2007)

    “Gerry was there [police station in Portimão] for thirteen hours. When he finally returned to the apartment he related how Matt had been almost hysterical during his interview. Gerry had heard him shouting and crying. Apparently, it had been put to Matt that he’d handed Madeleine out through the window to a third party. It was like something out of Life on Mars.”

    Put down in black and white by Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’ and Matt gave his approval?


  24. It's good to see the police are investigating an important new lead. The festive season wouldn't be the same now without this Christmas tradition.

    1. Indeed 14:15. And does anyone find it worrying that a motley gang of child traffickers have evaded the police forces of two countries for ten years!

      How many children have been stolen during this time and why have we never heard of them? How many left at risk whilst Operation Grange sat reading hundreds/thousands of police files? Because from the outside looking in, the reading has taken precedence over any action.

      Have all these mysterious 'taken' children been left in situ, while governments and police chiefs played political table tennis?

    2. Indeed, it has nothing to do with Madeleine McCann. It’s just a safe home in politics. The McCanns (because they can’t turn back time) and their accomplices (because politics) will never miss the opportunity to use their “good marketing ploy” to draw attention to the EU, currently the problem of human trafficking in the EU.

      “They have researched human trafficking comprehensively since Madeleine vanished and Kate has met representatives from several charities who help victims.”, according to The Sun.

      June 16, 2007

      Kate said last week, “This is my job now. I can see this becoming my full-time career, with this whole issue of child welfare and opposing pedophiles.”

    3. Damn..I read all of this and all of the comments and replies and composed a masterpiece ( honest i did) only to exceed the word count pretty significantly. Suggestions please...

    4. That is indeed vexing Ziggy, my sympathies!

      I suggest a part 2, or continued, it happens to me as well. :)

  25. It's time to draw more than one line, in my opinion. I did have a long 'war and peace' that wouldn't fit on here but that was binned. So, what are the other lines I'm suggesting ?
    Evidence Vs Opinion / Suspicion.
    I keep reading people telling other people to 'stick to the facts '. It's best to judge how factual a fact actually is. The best way is to test it is to ask if a half decent QC could destroy it. If I took suspicious charachters to court I'd have no neighbours left. In the case in question only concrete(forensic) evidence can be advanced as a 'fact'. Anything else will be dismissed as opinion only or hearsay. Any factual evidence in this case was lost in the storm or disqualified as unreliable ( by the prosecution and UK police /intelligence service). The evidence was incriminating towards the McCanns. This is in the public domain now so they can't argue that the public are bound to be suspicious, especially as they left their children alone. Gerry's insistence that what they did was 'well within guidelines' of care only serve to look like he's researched that area. Either way, the child isn't around anymore so guidelines are pretty useless in this instance. I wonder what the McCanns and their legal and media team would have said if the cadaver dogs showed no reaction anywhere at all.We'll never know. I've browsed Pat Brown's blog. Very interesting and she knows her stuff. My problem with her stance is that she points to 'unprecedented ' involvement of the highest ranking politicians of both Britain and Portugal yet fails to see how strange it is when they also fund the family to the tune of a few million. Is it fair to give nothing to all other families who suffer the same fate ? Why is the McCann case so 'special'?

    Paedophilia is not confined to the home in most cases as it used to be. There's a mountain growing by the day and has been for the last few years suggesting it's been happening en masse in care homes and the like and that politicians,intelligence officers,and celebrities have buried it because of blackmailing threats - and the police have fallen in line.

    Everywhere I look on this blog i see the same ghost. Regardless of debate and the topic, it seems about 90% of the time it deteriorates into the TB thread. Who cares what he thinks, or his proofreader who keeps appearing like some karaoke Oscar Wilde. Yes, he's bitter, yes he's paranoid.And yes, he's determined to even the score with the legal system. If he does, he'll be rich.And who knows, his 'faithfuls' might be on a percentage.But if that ever happens( and you can bet your life it won't be allowed to) it would bring politicians, police, lawyers and media all into the glare of the spotlight and show them for what they don't want to be shown as. Why do you really think we're never going to be allowed the truth ? If the McCanns were behind it, or if abductors were procuring that night, there's a heavy weight of reasons that will hold that locked tightly in a place we'll never know about. I ask myself why the McCann team were prepared to take time, effort, media rehearsal and go to great financial expense to shut Bennet down, why have they not done it with his blog for free ? Following the court action and sentence would defamation be so hard to prove ?

    Defamation requires that four elements be met: (1) there’s a false statement of fact, not opinion; (2) that’s publicly published to at least one other person; (3) if the defamatory matter is of public concern, there’s fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) there must be damage to the talked-about person’s reputation. For celebrities and public figures, there’s an additional requirement that the statement be maliciously untrue–you knew it was false, but you said it with bad and hurtful intentions.

    Food for thought..