Sunday, 27 November 2016


UPDATE 29.11.16

I haven't even attempted putting this blog onto any of the 'anti' Facebook pages that actually allow me to be a member because I know it will be rejected. Most Facebook pages follow their own accepted party line, and alternate views are strictly forbidden. 

The majority of antis accepted without question, the final verdict of Peter Hyatt, and anyone who didn't was a spoilsport at best or a shameless scavenger (courtesy of the charmless Ben), at worst.  Not to mention a defender of the parents. 

All these people who run the Facebook pages and the Forums and tweet on the #McCann hashtag all day, it seems, are happy to accept absolutely anything at face value if it is critical of the McCanns.  Questioning it's validity or source is seen as an act of treachery. They have in fact gone full circle and become blind believers like those on the other side.  Once again, they have been left with the customary egg on their faces, still arguing on the trail about whether to follow the shoe or the gourd.    

Though I have many reading and commenting, I have only had one retweet of this blog, because I have now become the enemy!  As I have said many times, I am beyond the point of reasonable doubt where the abduction story is concerned, but I find the 'new' allegations from the armchair detectives abhorrent.  They are not introducing new evidence, they are trying to sex the case up because the facts just aren't juicy enough. 

Those who are members of the large Facebook pages and Forums should ask themselves why I'm barred, and why my blogs are rejected?  Are those the actions of people who are genuinely seeking the truth?  People like Ben, or as I like to think of him, 'Tony Bennett - the Early Years', who rages against me on twitter and gawd knows where else? 

Just to be clear, I'm no fan of Kate and Gerry's, and I doubt they like me very much either, but just as their being 'nice' put them above suspicion, their being horrible doesn't make them guilty of EVERYthing that is thrown at them.  Unfortunately,  it is because of those who are so quick to believe the very worst that there has never been any credible opposition to Team McCann.   


If I were Gerry and Kate McCann, I wouldn't be worrying too much about the 3 hours of statement analysis given by Peter Hyatt in Richard's Hall's continuation of the Madeleine McCann saga.

As interesting and lucrative as Mr. Hyatt's hobby might be, it is a not recognised as a legitimate science and he won't be called to a witness box anytime soon.  Turning the tables on Mr. Hyatt, in his opening statement to Richard Hall, he relates how his hobby became his business.  He started by reading a few books, then in his employment he was given 200 hours of training.  Ok, let's stop there.  What kind of training?  What, if any, university?  Then he states, he went onto more formal training.  Again, who with? what qualifications did he achieve?

Though vague, he is actually describing his employment history as social work, he is not part of law enforcement.  He yadayadas his way through his achievements and employment history, in the same way we all do when we have to account for missing years on our CVs.  However, regardless of not producing anything of substance, such as letters after his name, he still manages to put forward a reasoned argument to back up his own thesis. 

I have to admit I was mesmerised the clarity of Hyatt's explanations and his own 100% belief in his work, His enthusiasm for his subject is so strong, he is disturbingly convincing.  He leaves no room for doubt.  And this is where I have a problem. All the academics and scholars I have ever known always leave a little grey area for doubt, aware that others may come along with further knowledge and more advanced theories.  Those who have reached that point where they are right, dead right, have stopped learning. 

In fairness to Mr. Hyatt, he does say that statement analysis is an ongoing learning process, but regardless, with only the statement analysis skills he has acquired thus far, and without reading the police files, he claims to have solved the Madeleine mystery solely by analysing the words used by the parents. That is quite a grandiose claim, but one of many made throughout the marathon interview. 

I have to say I came away from the videos wondering how such an apparently educated and sane chap could be associated with Richard Hall, Tony Bennett and the Cesspit.  It didn't take too much 'research' (ha ha) however, to discover Mr. Hyatt's degree is actually in bible studies and like his protégé Hobbs, he is scarily anti Islam.   

The reality is, the statement analysis doesn't reveal anything new.  Many of us without expert knowledge, have seen through the lies of Gerry and Kate for many years.  Their lack of concern for Madeleine's fate hasn't passed us by either.  The conclusions reached by Peter Hyatt, are almost identical to the conclusions reached by Goncalo Amaral in his book and documentary The Truth of the Lie.  Madeleine had a fall, it was accidental, the parents hid the body. 

I am not dismissing statement analysis as mumbo jumbo, far from it, the study of language is my own particular passion, but it is a huge leap to assume guilt on words alone.  Much as I hate to burst a few more bubbles, those getting carried away with this supposedly damning evidence, really ought to have done a few cursory checks. 


I'm afraid that I was so traumatised by the vicious backlash with the paypal button that I never actually activated it!  Many thanks to those who have contacted me, your kindness has lifted my head back up above the parapet. The button is now working for those who understand the life of a struggling writer! Many thanks. 


  1. What exactly is your agenda Linda ... have you actually heard yourself .. did you even bother to watch the videos .. or were you too busy counting your pennies in paypal ... you sound like a mccann supporter

    1. Ahh, I knew this accusation would come up. Having spent way too much of my life getting all excited about nothing, and sometimes sleeping with them, I have finally learned that all that glitters is not gold.

      As interesting as the videos were, and I was glued to them, I'm just not prepared to leap on in and proclaim a new messiah. We had the same hysterical backlash when I advised caution with the Richard Hall videos.

      First of all the idea that anyone, not in full possession of ALL the details of the case, and without a trial in front of a jury, can pronounce guilt or innocence, is an abomination to our justice system. That doesn't make me a 'McCann supporter', that makes me a democrat.

      In fairness to Peter Hyatt, he stresses throughout that it is only his opinion. He does however make his opinion sound more worthy than it actually is. Again, can't blame him for that, he is a salesman and a Republican, grandiosity is what they do.

      I am not advising people not to watch the videos, the opposite in fact, they are absolutely fascinating. All I am saying is, watch them with an open mind.

      Regarding counting my pennies - I never actually went ahead it with it, but I have now.

  2. IMHO There is no bubble to burst. Merely another look at the case.

    He was calm in his explanation and appeared to support his own thesis, fair enough.

    Yes you are right, we have all come very much from the same conclusions.

    But we must remember Hyatt only did analysis of the actually WRITTEN word (from spoken transcript)of one interview. Not the spoken and not the visual behaviour. And it was from a documentary, that was 1000 days after Madeleine disappeared.

    Therefore the interviews would have beeen conducted in the PAST TENSE, rather the excitement\response from the police interviews or within the first few days (raw behaviour).

    Equally, he did have some ambiguity around the use of certain words, implying disassociation, YOU (your), rather than me or I. Cultural linguists, and analysis the written (from spoken) rather than direct spoken are all very different. Than merely analysis someone's own hand written statement; which might indicate more of the intellect, etc.

    So, it really just adds to just another ball in the air!

  3. Seriously, he only has a degree in Bible studies?

    That doesn't inspire me with any confidence in his abilities whatsoever!

    1. I was a little alarmed by that too Janet, lol. The only other person I know with similar interests, is you know who, ha ha.

    2. AndJanet27 November 2016 at 08:53
      “Seriously, he only has a degree in Bible studies?

      That doesn't inspire me with any confidence in his abilities whatsoever!”

      JS Bach composed for the Glory of God. Let’s expunge his compositions from the ‘menu’ therefore?


  4. A 'tweet' predicted very early on that Hyatt, not his methods, would soon come in for personal criticism. Ain't that the truth!

    "he won't be called to a witness box anytime soon"

    No earlier than any 'sniffer dog' in fact. Did you not hear him explain that his findings are advisory not evidential?

    "regardless of not producing anything of substance, such as letters after his name."

    A review of your own 'substance' might be of interest to some.

    "All the academics and scholars I have ever known always leave a little grey area for doubt, aware that others may come along with further knowledge and more advanced theories."

    How many academics/scholars might that be...really? You're way too young to have met Mendeleev, who published his periodic table of the elements, complete with gaps, in the certainty that others would discover the missing elements before they discredited his table.

    "The conclusions reached by Peter Hyatt, are almost identical to the conclusions reached by Goncalo Amaral in his book and documentary The Truth of the Lie."

    And this 'without reading the police files' or, presumably, Amaral's book (I doubt he spends even half the time obsessing over the McCann case as yourself). Do you not find that result intriguing?

    Your last paragraph would appear to encapsulate your personal resentment:

    "I am not dismissing statement analysis as mumbo jumbo, far from it" (No, you are just keen on shooting the messenger).

    "...those getting carried away with this supposedly damning evidence, really ought to have done a few cursory checks."

    To what end? So that they might 'crow', as you are doing, about the man's 'qualifications'?

    I am reminded of a story years ago, when the UK had its very own 'Bird man of Alkatraz'.

    A reformed prison inmate became, over time, a world authority on a particular kind of fish (tilapia). On his release no academic or other scientific body would employ him (although they were happy to turn to him for advice when it suited them). He just didn't have the qualifications you see.

    Perhaps you numbered some of those open-minded academics in your own social circle once upon a time.

    1. My famous thought on the so say, EXPERTS. No one would give an opinion on the sinking of Herald of Free Enterprise, Zeebrugge 1987. All channels, had every expert, none of them would give an honest opinion, until the FACTS were in.

      So, they came up with a old long tooth Sea Dog, who appeared like something from yester-year!

      ''Her sailed with the bow doors open''

      Yep, they all laughed at him. How dare he use his experience and know how .... rather than academic knowledge and know why & or be an expert.

    2. I have a huge amount of respect for Peter Hyatt's diligence and skills, and I think this is an exciting development in lie detection. What I am reluctant to do is condemn anyone solely on one person's thesis.

      I have studied human behaviour and psychology for as long as I can remember, I rather jokingly consider myself a 'mentalist' much to the amusement of my sons. I study the areas that interest me rather than the boring bits demanded by accredited courses.

      Although I do have a minor diploma in psychology obtained many years ago at Goldsmiths University, in no way would I describe myself as a psychologist. My knowledge, such as it is, is mostly self taught which is why I make no claims to be an expert.

      My degree btw, is in Humanities, I studied writing, literature, culture, politics, history, psychology etc, and I have been studying the same intently ever since. I'm not sure that qualifies me for anything, but I'm great at Trivial Pursuit :)

      I have nothing but respect for the self taught, but unless theses are rigorously tested by an audience of peers in an academic environment, I cannot accept them as gospel. For every expert who reaches a conclusion, there is usually another with an opposing view.

      Which is why, if you are searching for TRUTH in this case, it is essential to look at every angle, even those that don't fit your own perspective. Whilst it is gratifying to say 'I knew it' or 'I told you so' when an individual says something that confirms our own thinking, we have to examine how they reached that conclusion. If you begin an investigation with confirmation bias, all your research will be flawed, it is inevitable, because you have shut off all other possibilities.

      The cesspit went doolally, almost from the moment it opened. They began with 'here's what happened, and we'll tell you why'. They made no allowances for the way in which this case would grow and evolve, they are spreading their own version of the truth, and it is set in the same stone as the Ten Commandments.

      I personally find the twists, turns and new revelations compelling, I'll admit, I'm hooked, this is a real life soap opera. How will it end. I have never, however, been stupid enough to trap myself into an 'I'm right, dead right' situation where backing down would make me look like a disingenuous twat.

    3. All of us have it within us the ability to judge human behaviour. We know when something is right or some thing wrong in the behaviour of a person, either in what they say or how the present, or rather BOTH.

      The only thing that really bothers me about Hyatt is the TRANSCRIBED word, this could lead to many anomalies IMHO.

      It would be interesting using YOUR skills, to take the same video interview and analyse it.

      Personally, as a former Psychiatric nurse & basic studies in Psychology, I have never liked the McCanns performance & friends, but we have to remember it's on camera & therefore playing to the gallery.

      Like everyone from the start of this case, we never liked what we saw & heard. Nothing has the right FEEL about it. We know, even if we can't explain, something is quite wrong.

      Also, I hate that everyone these days seem to think that all roads lead to a from sexual abuse. Nearly ten years has passed and nothing has ever really been made of the Gaspars statements, but what we do know is someone again, DIDN’T LIKE WHAT THEY SAW.

      Which is why, so many of us have followed this case for so long.

    4. I would have gone with the old sea dog 13:52, though I do agree with, some academics are so far up their own behinds, they cannot see what is in front of them!

    5. Mean't to say, eg. Friedrich Nietzche with that great big hairy caterpillar on his top lip who bemoaned his lack of a girlfriend. Didn't he have a mirror?

    6. I agree with every word 15:32! We all have that ability which is why so many thousands flocked to the internet for answers in 2007. What the McCanns were saying just didn't gel with our natural instincts.

      I cried along with Sara Payne, Denise Bulger, Coral Jones, Kerry Needham, and so many other genuinely grieving parents, I could physically feel their pain and I shared it with them.

      I am, I admit, very easily moved to tears, but I couldn't feel any empathy whatsoever with Kate or Gerry. Maybe it was because they were asking me to feel sympathy for them, rather than their missing daughter.

      Every genuine parent grieves for the child, both on and off camera, their pain lies in the life their child did not have. They blame themselves and nothing anyone can say, will relieve them of that irrational conclusion. As fellow human beings we can see and share their pain, we are compelled to reach out and offer them what solace we can.

      The genuinely bereft are physically stricken down by their loss. They are incapable of interacting with anyone, certainly nobody beyond their immediate family and friends. In loss, we want/need to be alone. When I lost my dear old dad, I stayed in my bedroom for a week, watching back to back episodes of Seinfeld and Father Ted whilst knocking back vodka. I spoke to my friends and even strangers (Samaritans)for hours on end on the phone, for which I cannot thank them all enough, but the thought of anyone actually seeing the unkempt, deranged, mad woman I had turned into, terrified me.

      That Kate and Gerry were able to be proactive in the search for their daughter by Day 3, was a lot more than a courageous feat. It has never been done before by (genuinely) grieving parents because they would have been physically and mentally incapable. It is not so much bravery as psychopathy!

      Anyway, thank you for your suggestion, I might well do an analysis myself, could be an interesting new angle!

      Ps. I note you are a retired psychiatric nurse. My beloved, and very enlightened, old dad, was the same for many, so Respect!

  5. I see what you’re saying Rosalinda, but, irrespective of our personal views, I think this fragment is spot on:

    from 32:25 to 37:46

    36:00 (Peter Hyatt):

    “This [Kate] is not a sophisticated liar. This is a silly story where my child is missing and I’m talking about the curtains and blowing and all sorts of emotions, that’s where someone who is a police officer, even without terrific training, will say: ‘this is story telling’.”

    Alas, the follow-up (from 37:47) on the concerns about sexual abuse (“doors and windows are often found within language of sexual abuse”) sounds like nonsense to me.

    Nonetheless, interesting interview, particularly so as Richard Hall is allowing Hyatt to speak and he is listening (so we can listen) to what he has to say.


    1. There is much in what Peter Hyatt says that I would consider spot on NL! That is why this interview is so compelling, I actually watched all 3 videos back to back, like yourself I was much relieved that the bumbling Richard kept his interrupting to a minimum. I wanted to hear every word Peter had to say.

      Everything he said sounded completely credible, but I don't know enough about statement analysis to make any judgement. I did however find Peter Hyatt highly intelligent and well informed. It is clear that he has spent a great deal of time studying his craft, he is not a blaggard.

      He has a huge understanding of human behaviour and psychology, he has done his homework, and then some. However, before taking on any new Gurus, life has taught me to always make a few rudimentary checks. I want to know where they are coming from and what's their angle.

    2. Thank you for your response Rosalinda. I agree, except for ‘the bumbling Richard’. Although ufology is beyond my comprehension, I find Richard Hall intelligent and charming (subjective I know, but aren’t we all biased one way or another, lol).

      Have a nice Sunday!


    3. OL NL. I'm ashamed to say that as mother and as a teacher, I come from the 'ffs spit it out' school of thought, and I get less patient as I get older. Small children get a whack around the ear, and with older people, I switch off. I jest of course, before anyone reads that as confirmation of child abuse.

      To be fair, I am a big old hypocrite. I once spent an entire night watching Marlon Brando (who is a God) interviews. I don't know if it was the length of time he took to reply to each question, or the delicious insight of his words, but I was still watching them as the sun came up and the birds starting singing!

  6. So Hyatt says:

    "In a sense, Maddie McCann is the UK's version of the Jonbenet Ramsey murder. This coming week, I am asking a team of experienced analysts to jointly work through the language seeking to uncover a single indicator: Was Madeleine McCann a possible victim of sexual abuse. This will be done live on Thursday, November 30th, over a period of 6 hours online. I hope to post the results of this analysis on Friday, December 1st, as well as put together a written report."

    In the real world 30 November is a Wednesday not Thursday. He is going to do an analysis of sexual abuse live on the internet!!!!

    He is just a con artist trying to make a living on some stupid analytical nonsense. He first wrote the analysis back in 2011 or 2012.

    1. Oh dear, that has got the hairs on the back of my neck standing on end! Many thanks for letting us know 15:22.

      I'm not comfortable with this at all. Especially as there are surviving children in both cases, with the McCann children being at a particularly vulnerable age.

      If he were a psychologist or medical doctor, he would have taken the oath, First Do No Harm. Discussing the alleged sexual crimes of a group of adults who's vulnerable children have full access to that discussion is abhorrent. Not to mention it is off the scale creepy!

      If Peter Hyatt want to be accepted as a credible expert in statement analysis, he needs to show at least some professional ethics!

    2. "He is just a con artist"

      Says someone who appears not to understand what he reads.

      "He is going to do an analysis of sexual abuse live on the internet!!!!"

      No, he's going to co-ordinate 'a team of experienced analysts to jointly work through the language'

      Get it?

    3. @ Anonymous27 November 2016 at 16:42

      said "No, he's going to co-ordinate 'a team of experienced analysts to jointly work through the language'

      Get it?"

      Oh yes I get it alight - did you miss the bit that says "This will be done live on Thursday, November 30th, over a period of 6 hours online." (ignore the wrong day/date)

    4. 'did you miss the bit that says "This will be done live on Thursday, November 30th, over a period of 6 hours online."'

      No. But I did miss the bit that said he was going to analyse sexual abuse. Perhaps that's because it isn't there?

    5. Anonymous27 November 2016 at 16:42, 2125



  7. I noticed Richard couldn't resist bringing NASA into it at the end. It should be obvious to everyone now that Madeleine is dead and Louis Armstrong never went to the moon.

    1. LOL, it did kind of lower the tone 15:34. Poor Richard, just as he had gotten us hooked in, he went and spoilt it all by reminding us he believes he aliens.

    2. "he went and spoilt it all by reminding us he believes he aliens."

      Aliens. Is that a new verb?

    3. Could be, lol, in my head I was singing Frank Sinatra's 'Something Stupid' and went adrift :(

    4. For Richard D. Hall, it began one lost night on a lonely country road, looking for a shortcut that he never found. It began with a closed deserted diner, and a man too long without sleep to continue his journey. It began with the landing of a craft from another galaxy. Now Richard D. Hall knows that the Invaders are here, that they have taken human form. Somehow he must convince a disbelieving world that the nightmare has already begun.

    5. Ahha many thanks 12:54, using Hyatt's technique the key word there is 'shortcut'. Methinks he may have been looking for that shortcut all his life. I cite his immediate acceptance of the preachings of Tony Bennett and Peter Hyatt without question. He is so desperate to prove his madcap theories right, dead right, that pretty much anything goes.

      Digressing slightly, while watching an alien documentary with SAS (smart arsed son), asked the poignant question, why would superior alien beings, travel zillions of light years to hide that woman's fags?

      Richard Hall appeals to a very niche market, but he doesn't have the charisma or speaking skills of David Icke and Alex Jones. He is not selling his beliefs because he doesn't look as though he believes them himself. He is trying to straddle the cult audiences of Icke and Jones and the mainstream audience, neither an 'impartial' reporter of the news or full on preacher. He has to find a shortcut (via others), because he has neither the commitment nor the ability to fully research his subject from every angle.

    6. Anonymous 27 November 2016 at 15:34

      “I noticed Richard couldn't resist bringing NASA into it at the end.”

      How discerning of you! Must have been hard work to notice THAT!

      “It should be obvious to everyone now that Madeleine is dead and Louis Armstrong never went to the moon.”

      Perhaps it should be but is it (obvious to everyone now)?

      And your answer is..?

    7. 14:28 It's always hard work to watch one of Richard's lengthy videos all the way through without losing the will to live. Like so many other people, the only reason I stayed to the end was in the hope that we might get an update on Kate and Gerry's sex life, which has also been missing for many years since they announced its disappearance in the national press. Thanks for your interest and let's hope it's found one day.

    8. I'm a current student of Peter Hyatt's course and I think it's worth pointing out here that 14:28 rhymes with 'Kate'. This is how easy it is to catch people out when you know what you're doing.

  8. I have a PhD. In my experience the most intelligent people are those that 'think outside the box' and their brains are usually so active they can rarely focus long enough to do any official courses resulting in any formal qualification. For myself, I'm reasonably intelligent, have a very good memory and find studying a doddle. Hardly ground breaking material but qualified ? Oh yes!

    1. I am in awe at those with PhDs 16:19, you have my utmost respect!

      And I agree, the most intelligent are always on constant alert for new information! For me, among the most intelligent are those who are able to take in the entire situation within seconds, and then deliver a quick, one line summation, often witty. Probably why Twitter is so popular.

      I have always been a fan of, and collector of great quotes. Those few, life changing words, that stay with you forever, and lead onto yet more voyages of discovery.

      As mentioned in another reply, I once spent many hours listening to the ramblings of Marlon Brando (a God), completely captivated by the way in which he thought outside the box. Ok, I was completely smitten anyway (Streetcar), but he was such a deeply kind and thoughtful and humanitarian man, who's genius I hadn't known about previously. From watching Marlon, I went on to study the culture and lives of the American Indians, and those fighting against the Dakota pipeline have my full support and sympathy.

      Geniuses (or should that be genii, lol)have no problem with the introduction of new or unknown topics. They welcome them, it is simply more information fodder for their voracious appetites.

    2. "To be fair, I am a big old hypocrite" (27@16:29)

      It would appear so.

      "using Hyatt's technique the key word there is 'shortcut'. Methinks he may have been looking for that shortcut all his life. I cite his immediate acceptance of the preachings of Tony Bennett and Peter Hyatt without question. He is so desperate to prove his madcap theories right, dead right, that pretty much anything goes." (28@14:57)

      "I am in awe at those with PhDs 16:19, you have my utmost respect!" (27@17:39 in reply to anonymous above: "I have a PhD").

      Your own immediate deference reflects your taking anonymous' claim at face value. How do you know he/she has a PhD? How do you know they are not a Doctor of Divinity (aka 'Bible basher' in your parlance). That would compromise your 'respect' at a stroke would it not?

      The answer to these questions is that you don't know. But it does not matter in the slightest, one way or the other, any more than Peter Hyatt's religious fervour (if such it be) or his homophobia (as you put it), neither of which form the basis of any acceptance of his statement analysis techniques or otherwise. You might as well suggest that lovers of Tchaikovsky's music are all homosexuals, because he was.

    3. Touche, I'll give you that one, got the same comment from SAS (Smart Arsed Son), lol.

      Actually most of us, probably without realising it, have the ability to gauge an author's level of education and intellect from the written word.

      For example, those who simply tell me to 'fuck off and die', are uneducated and possibly morons. Those who give me reasons and over used clichés probably have O levels, and those, such as yourself, who use reductio ad absurdum, eg.'lovers of Tchaikovsky' probably have a degree, but didn't really take it in.

      One of my pleasures in life however, is enjoying the eloquent prose of most of my contributors, and I appreciate the time and thought given to their replies. Not only are they interesting and thought provoking, they are often enlightening.

      I should add though, that I am no snob when it comes to the written word. If I followed the 'Rules' myself, I would still be working on Blog One. My grammar (and spelling) often flies out of the window, but thanks to the Grammar Police who patrol here regularly, I am hoping it has improved!

    4. "those, such as yourself, who use reductio ad absurdum, eg.'lovers of Tchaikovsky' probably have a degree, but didn't really take it in."

      Oh, I 'took it in' alright.

      I do not know whether Peter Hyatt's methods are uniquely his own invention or inherited from others. Again it scarcely matters. It is the efficacy of what he does which should be evaluated, not its origins.

      The late Richard Feynman literally invented a way of characterising the behaviour of sub-atomic particles, so as to facilitate his and others' academic work in quantum mechanics (Feynman diagrams).

      No one called him a charlatan. They awarded him a nobel prize instead.

    5. Ah, you are science, I am arts, we are chalk and cheese. I get no respect for my tree hugging degree at home either, lol.

      How can we judge the efficacy of what he does if there isn't a benchmark? If his theories haven't been tested in a scientific environment? Snake oil salesmen were able to make all sorts of wild claims about their products, but not so much these days.

      Respect to the late Richard Feynman who was no doubt able to demonstrate his theory in front of a jury of peers. As to the rest of that paragraph it might just as well have been in Double Dutch (was it?), lol.

    6. Anonymous29 November 2016 at 10:57, 13 :07


      You are not a Doctor of Medicine, indubitably. This helps.

      When the moustached grey-haired guy in the photo on the right of this page wrote a paper on photoelectric effect, he was not a Doctor. His doctorate was awarded consequently as was the Nobel Prise years later.

      Not to appear schismatic, I notionally offer both Rosalinda and your good self a rose each from my winter garden.

      Peace. Always.


    7. "we are chalk and cheese"

      It seems so, although I too have hugged a few trunks over the years.

      "How can we judge the efficacy of what he does if there isn't a benchmark?"

      The first thing to do is dissociate the practitioner from the method, of which Hyatt is not, in fact, the originator (I am reminded of the work of Mark McClish, whose 2001 book, 'I Know You Are Lying', is a forerunner).

      Whatever you may think of Hyatt, law enforcement agencies in the USA would not look to statement analysts for confirmation/rejection of their suspicions if there were nothing to be gained either way.

      "Respect to the late Richard Feynman who was no doubt able to demonstrate his theory in front of a jury of peers".

      The nobel prize confirms as much, although what he introduced was an analytical technique, not a theory. Statement Analysis, whether practised by Peter Hyatt or A.N. Other is likewise a method of evaluation, the results of which must correlate reliably and positively with the evidence-based conclusions arrived at by prosecutors or investigators wouldn't bother to refer to it.

      The same could be said of indices derived from sniffer dogs.

    8. Two points. First of all Law Enforcement Agencies (who are stumped) will try anything. Some have been known to listen to mediums and psychics (not many).

      Point 2, 'must correlate reliably' - indeed. It must be supported with evidence based conclusions.

      Peter Hyatt is doing a 'blind' reading, that is, he claims not to know the full details of the case, his findings are based solely on the words used by the McCanns.

      That's fine, as you say it can only be indices, like the sniffer dogs. However, as is usual with the over enthusiastic, they are claiming this analysis as proof positive. Don't worry about the rest of the evidence or a trial, this nails it.

    9. My use of the phrase 'must correlate reliably' was as a historical observation, not a procedural obligation, i.e. the techniques have proven dependable hitherto.

      As to the 'over enthusiastic claiming this analysis as proof positive'...

      The fault clearly lies with the over enthusiastic, much as it does with the idiots who seek to disparage the performance of sniffer dogs on the grounds that they have only 'found' this, that or the other spurious item, when in fact they have done no such thing.

      The dog does no more than localize a scent. Should the origin of that scent be misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, that is no fault of the dog's.

      Hyatt's and others' formal analyses are suggestive readings based upon statistically verified trends in the use of language. They offer clues an investigation might consider taking into account, not evidence a prosecutor can bring before a court of law.

      El Cojones (28@01.00) summed it up nicely I thought.

  9. I wonder about the comparison of the McCann case with that of the Jonbenet Ramsey (strange, I'll not correct my words, why McCann rather than Madeleine McCann... !! - blame the media ;) ) That aside, when you think of creepy behaviour that just doesn't hang right, then it is that of Jonbenet's brother both as a child in interviews & the most recent. Yet, I've not seen anyone analyse it fully.

    Wherever this case eventually goes, I just hope it never has the lasting effects on her brother and sister. But it would be impossible to believe they will not have some legacy.

    1. I think you are right to be concerned about the children, now more than ever they are reaching an age where they will access to the internet.

      However, it is ridiculous to imagine that legislation can be brought in to protect this family alone. Anyone in the public eye will be discussed on social media and not even then Queen can demand that it is all favourable.

      The burden of the responsibility lies with the parents. It is up to them to be truthful with their kids and prepare them for anything unpleasant they may read. It doesn't really matter how strict parents are with their kids, they know more about the internet than we do, and if they want information, they will find it. Kids who feel loved and secure will not be afraid of what they read on the net. Trying to protect them from it will only increase their anxiety as their imaginations will fill in the bits you leave out.

    2. On May 1, 2008, Kate said: “I've got my journal but we took advice and have done everything that we thought was best for Sean and Amelie. A psychologist we spoke to said basically be honest. The problem is you haven't got a story to tell and can't fill in the facts."

      Surely Antonella Lazerri can help them. In addition, they can turn to Internet for information or read books (whether or not translated). In an interview in Amsterdam (June 2011), Gerry McCann himself told us that they were looking at new strategies, in the digital age with a whole new generation of kids coming through. Oh, the joys of living and searching in the digital age.

      Moreover, Theresa May has given the McCanns fresh hope. She has given Met Police an extra £95,000 to help keep the search going.

      What could possibly go wrong?


  10. (a little bit off topic perhaps)
    A socio-linguistic approach to the McCann’s speech, reveals a lot about their dishonesty, or maybe we shall call it their self-deception, but their falsehood can just as well be viewed and understood from a general human perspective.

    Oddly enough, Kate is able to put aside her own agony, from time to time to help other families, whose children have gone missing, or those who fear that something may happen to them. Such commitment to others may, by many people, be seen as very admirable and self-sacrificing. However, from a socio-phenomenological perspective, such activities, by people, who still desperately look for their loved ones and sincerely hope to find them, are most unusual. On the contrary, people who have given up their struggle in their personal case, or have, at least, got complete clarity about what has happened, can do so, perhaps more often than not, in one way or another.

    Kate, so she says anyway, has neither given up on Madeleine, nor has she accepted, that her daughter is not findable. Yet, she gets herself involved in other people's problems, and she is also honoured for doing so. Either she is so damn good and strong, or so she fakes.

    1. Good point Bjorn, almost immediately they were looking at the wider picture and the problems of children going missing and human trafficking. Quite bizarre, it's amazing that they could think of anyone other than their missing daughter!

    2. I don't think there is anything bizarre at all in getting involved with people who unfortunately are in a similar situation.

      After all Ros - you are using your experiences from way in the past to try to help CSA victims - is that bizarre or not?

    3. @Björn S. at 21:53

      This is an interesting issue you raised.

      “Either she is so damn good and strong, or so she fakes.”

      Or something in-between?

      Kate knows M is dead, but she doesn’t know where M's body is?

      Anyway, I think Kate doesn’t have choice.


  11. I notice that bennett is keeping a sharp eye on the viewing stats.

    I wouldn't be surprised if he is getting some financial payout from this.

    1. He's an alien

    2. No. He only 'believes he aliens'. (He's not sure).

    3. Possibly part Mekon:

    4. Maybe a Mekon/mantid hybrid?


  12. The value of Peter Hyatts analysis is simple enough for anyone to understand. Yes, we have all witnessed the odious couple lying through their teeth from the outset but what Peter has done is explain in simple terms, WHY we believe they are liars rather than getting bogged down with the lies themselves. Very useful indeed.
    The bottom line is also simple. Unless you have anything that can successfully contradict Peter's conclusions, better to be quiet. "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. My thanks to Mark Twain.

    1. Well said, sir!

      As the blog host said earlier:

      "For me, among the most intelligent are those who are able to take in the entire situation within seconds, and then deliver a quick, one line summation"

      O.k. so it took you just a little more than one line, but we can put that down to 'artistic licence' I'm sure.

    2. Yeh, I'm not sure you are using the Mark Twain quote in the correct context 01:00. I'm pretty certain he wasn't telling his audience to accept everything they are told without question. Sadly, it is the lack of questioning, that allows people like Trump to get into power.

      As a child, I couldn't and wouldn't believe in God, no matter how many times I was rapped on the knuckles with a ruler. And as nice as the Jehovah's witness on the doorstep or the thought of how carefree and spiritual communal living might be, I've never actually packed my bags.

      To be honest, it is astonishing, and frightening, how quickly the majority of the antis declared Peter Hyatt the new Messiah. However, it shouldn't really be a surprise because they hold the same extreme, biblical, right wing values, though I fear for some, it might have been an Oops, knee jerk reaction because Hyatt came across as so believable.

      Take another look at what Mark Twain said El Cojones, it was a 'one liner' putting down 'one liners', you get a 'E' for comprehension!

    3. At least El Cojones merits a classification. He might score higher if he goes on to achieve agreement between article and noun (Los Cojones). His point however is perfectly valid.

    4. "those getting carried away with this supposedly damning evidence, really ought to have done a few cursory checks."

      It might be prudent for all those interested in the credibility or otherwise of Peter Hyatt's methods to consider the following:

      "Many investigators use a technique called “statement analysis” to discern the truth in statements...In statement analysis, investigators examine words, independent of case facts, to detect deception. They also remain alert for information omitted and question why the suspect may have done so. Investigators then analyze the clues unintentionally provided by a suspect and use this insight during the subsequent interview."

      - Susan H. Adams, M.A.

      The quote is taken from an article originally published in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 1996. At the time of its 2013 reproduction on the web site 'Crime and Clues', Special Agent Adams was teaching statement analysis as part of interviewing and interrogation courses at the FBI Academy.

    5. Apologies for an omission in my 29 November 2016 at 14:46 post which should have been as follows:

      Anonymous 28 November 2016 at 18:05



  13. Ros, you wrote: “I have to say I came away from the videos wondering how such an apparently educated and sane chap could be associated with Richard Hall, Tony Bennett and the Cesspit”. Let me see. Richard Hall has produced four penetrating documentaries that have enlightened millions about Maddie’s disappearance. Tony Bennett had the guts to write a book about the case and has exposed two other ‘hoax’ cases – the deaths of Stuart Lubbock and Lee Balkwell. The forum you keep on referring to as ‘The Cesspit’ has now been going for 7 years and is by a huge margin the best-read Maddie forum on the net. In the past, you have had a pop more than once at HideHo, who has pumped out dozens if not hundreds of Maddie videos, again seen by millions on YouTube. Coincidentally, all four are now saying that Maddie probably died on the Sunday that week. There is one very obvious reason for your attacks on them. You are simply jealous of their success. Are you able to admit this?

    1. Couldn't have put it better, myself. What a vitriolic, jealous woman this so-called "author" is. How many books has SHE published? Just the one??? How many newspapers or magazines does she regularly write for? None, I hear you say. Get over yourself, woman. You are a nobody wanting to be a somebody, and if it wasn't for your constant attack on Anthony Bennett, you wouldn't have a blog. Look how many post on here. Most of the posts are from YOU!

      Post this on your forum. I doubt you have the guts to do so, Christobel UNBOUND!

    2. Making up lies that people want to hear is a good way to win the popular vote - see Donald Trump.

      However, I'm searching for the truth and so too are those who read and contribute to the discussion here.

      Fanciful discussions about paedophile rings and swinging holidays may provide the titillation that appeals to the baser instincts of many of who follow the Madeleine case, but it has little to do with reality.

      I could increase my audience by pumping up the hate and making outrageous claims such as 'I know exactly what happened', but I would never be so crass. I write with honesty and integrity, which is why I am unemployable. If I were looking for popularity I would have changed or given up long ago.

      I've always been an outsider and befriender of the underdog, it's my automatic stance and has been since childhood. One of the first records I bought and danced like crazy to was David Bowie's 'Rebel Rebel'! Looking at the alternate, least popular stance is seemingly what I do, lol.

      I criticize, or should I say attack, the popular leaders because they have taken ignorance and bloody mindedness to a new level. They are not looking at the wider picture they are looking at one narrow tunnel and have been for the past 10 years. I still hold a grudge for the time I spent reading and watching their nonsense. And for any nuns reading this, yes siree, the pride and the arrogance is still going strong.

      At the heart of everything I say and do is education and enlightenment. For those looking for the truth behind Madeleine's disappearance, always keep an open mind, read everything you can, and for your own sakes and to save you much time, avoid tub thumping lay preachers who claim to know what happened. The bible bashing Peter Hyatt is also a homophobe, what a coincidence.

      As for being jealous of their success, I guess that depends on how you quantify success. If I had only one person left reading my work, I would consider that a success! And there have been many times in my life when I have been down to just one person believing in me, strictly speaking, it wasn't a person, it was the mutt, and I'm pretty sure that's only because he was sharing my Dine in for Two.

      The problem I have with those you name, is the fact that they claim to have solved the Madeleine mystery (from their armchairs), and they are closed off to anything that contradicts their own particular theories. Those with open minds who ask awkward questions are swiftly banned from their forums and facebook pages.

      Those who read here are looking for the truth as much as I am, and won't settle for anything less. And, I'm very proud (again with the pride!), of the calibre of readers and contributors my blog attracts. I feel humbled that I am read by the intellectuals and people who hold PhDs and who take the time to send me their thoughts, and I beam from ear to ear when I think of what my Dad's reaction to that would have been! In my own personal (and often angry) class struggle, I finally feel like an 'equal'. That to me is success!

    3. Modest with it:)

    4. Anonymous @07:01 and Anonymous @12:33

      Don’t you know: Two wrongs don't make a right.

      Cristobell @13:16

      In spite of our disagreements, Wow! Absolutely Wow!


    5. There you go 12:33, you said those magic words 'you haven't go the guts' and triggered a Marty Fly moment, lol. I've been 'discovered' several times actually, but it's never worked out, ce la vie.

      Jealousy, I have covered in my reply above, and vitriolic I would argue, is in the eye of the beholder. I got myself into this mess because I have zero tolerance for lies, no matter which side they come from. Not only are they intrinsically evil, they have the potential to turn good people bad.

      Here's an example, no-one throughout the entire anti group, no matter what faction, would accept anything put out by the McCanns at face value. It would be deconstructed, analysed, and held under a microscope before moving onto the intimate, personal and financial lives of anyone unfortunate enough to be named.

      With Peter Hyatt however, they are prepared to accept at face value and without question, anything said by this new prophet on the scene as absolute gospel because he is echoing exactly what they thought complete with hints of sexual deviancy. He thinks what we think so he must be right! And thus spoketh the Lord.

      I accept I am a nobody wanting to be a somebody, tis my dream to leave my mark on this world. I hope that my casual, free thinking, libertarian style of writing will catch on, and that grannies and grandads will sit down and write letters to their grandchildren and future generations to come.

      Many of us are lucky enough to come from families who have preservers of the immediate family history. Those who take the time and trouble to pass on not only their memories but the memories of those who went before them. They are amazing people to listen to at family gatherings.

      Of course I want to be a 'somebody' - is that a bad thing? lol. Its this backwater 'the hills have eyes' mentality that holds people back. Do you jeer at X factor contestants who say 'I want this more than anything in the world?'.

      How about all those writers and artists throughout history who wanted to change the world in some small way. What of those trade unionists, those suffragettes, Nelson Mandela, was he too uppity?

      As for my attacks on Tony Bennett, he does tend to unleash the bitchier side of my sense of humour, but come on, what's not to attack? lol



    7. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 November 2016 at 13:16

      Rosalinda: “Making up lies that people want to hear is a good way to win the popular vote - see Donald Trump.”

      T: Making up lies that people want to hear is a good way to win the popular vote - see every politician.


  14. Completely off topic.

    You couldn’t make it up!

    That girl is Megan Rouse’s daughter. Megan Rouse is John Podesta’s daughter.

  15. Anonymous 28 November 2016 at 12.33

    Instead of anonymously attacking Rosalinda, you could reveal your own identity, and criticize those who really deserve to be criticized, that is, people in power in your country, who have deliberately perverted the course of justice in another EU country, among them are, not just politicians and police officers, but also a few beloved celebrities. As for myself, I do not hesitate to say, that Gordon Brown and his successor David Cameron committed serious crimes, when they sided with the McCanns, and both of them should be taken to The European Court of Justice, as should the whole Madeleine case, unless the Operation Grange could give us a comprehensible reason, as to why they got involved in the first place, and why they didn’t allow the Portuguese P J to solve the case instead.

    In want of any knowledge about international law and completely lacking common sense, Brown and then Cameron have managed to sabotage the whole legal procedure. In doing so, they threaten(ed) the legal systems of all European states, then, now and in the future, and, to be honest, none of them deserve our respect. We all want justice for Madeleine, don’t we? So why not attack Theresa May and those, who have no other arguments for sympathizing with the McCanns, but their collegial friendship, and loyalty to them, much of it based on class affiliation, and who, at any price, are prepared to protect them from being further investigated. Here I fail to find appropriate words in your language to express what I really feel about it deep inside.

    Anyway, such people are not just nasty, but they are in my opinion society’s real scum. They are completely ignorant of facts in this case, and unfortunately there are quite a few of them. So I kindly ask you to challenge them, as soon as you get a chance to do so, because you can do it much better than I can, as I’m not British, but Swedish. Thank You.

  16. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 27.11.16 at 05:14

    I disagree with many of your views, yes, but you are a very gifted writer and reading you is always quite an experience

    “The button is now working for those who understand the life of a struggling writer!”

    The button is of no use to those wishing to remain anonymous. I am unable to contribute therefore.

    Moreover, your blog settings do not allow (users of ‘out-of-the-box’ TOR for instance) to post anonymously.

    Keep going..

    Good wishes.



    1. Many thanks 'T', your 'very gifted writer' line (aw shucks) has put me on cloud 9, probably for the rest of the day/ week, so I forgive ya!

      I don't really know how 'paypal' or 'comments' sections work from the 'other side', only I can see the name on the paypal (which I suppose takes away the anonymity), but nothing at all on the comments. I can't edit or censor comments, if I publish they must be in full.

      Again, many thanks, and compliments of the coming season to you!

    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 29 November 2016 at 10:37

      “Many thanks 'T…”

      Not at all. I speak as I find.

      “…many thanks, and compliments of the coming season to you!”

      And the same from me to you, Rosalinda.


  17. Talking about anonymity, I respect those who wish to remain so. However, in the view of those in power, it can be used as an argument to discredit facts in a case, just because it is said by a “nobody”.

    Personally, I have no particular confidence in people, just because they are officially recognized and respected in society. Too many Messias have misled people, through our modern history, by making their admirers submit to their ideas, dogma and ideologies.

    1. An uncomfortable fact of life is that psychopaths make their way towards position of power Bjorn. Arguably those who reach the top are there because of their psychopathy.

      Unfortunately, 12:33 is right, I am a nobody, but I am one of those nobody's brave enough to speak out against this blatant miscarriage of justice. Those who do have a voice, those senior police officers, crime experts, newspapers, editors, television programmers etc are too slash chicken/tame/ complicit.

      The voice of the actual detective who conducted the original investigation, is deemed worthless by the British media, so where does anyone go from that.

      Even if there were a politician out there brave enough and honest enough to ask questions about this case in the HOC, it will be just another injustice among many others.

  18. Björn S.29 November 2016 at 11:25

    “…it can be used as an argument to discredit facts in a case, just because it is said by a “nobody””

    No: Not facts.

    Yes: ‘Kill the messenger’.

    “I have no particular confidence in people, just because they are officially recognized and respected in society.”

    Neither have I.



    Yorck, Karlsruhe
    Well sorry guys, but the last news in Germany about this, several weeks ago, was that the police used contaminated measuring equipment while surveying the crime scene and thus accidently placed Bönhardts DNA there. Does the Daily Mail have new information or are you just rehashing old faulty news for shock value?


    Something to do with 'German Madeleine McCann' perhaps?

    1. Here we have another mysterious case about a missing child, though she is found of course, but dead. If Uwe Bonhardt’s DNA has really been found, on the remains of Peggy Knobloch’s body/remains, or on some item belonging to her, as Mail Online says, one wonders of course on what grounds this other guy was convicted for murder, who, if I’ve understood this correctly, spent many years in jail before he was released.

      It’s also also rather odd, that the former lover of the deceased Uwe Bonhardt (Beate Zschaepe) comes forward now to tell her new story. The German police as well as the Met in the UK seem to have a habit of making suspects out of dead people. If there is anything we may learn from this German case, it would be that Peggy Knobloch’s body was found near the place where she lived/stayed at that time (just 50 yards), and I’ve personally always believed that Madeleine’s body, whoever is responsible for her death, is not much further away from the place where she was last seen. Neither is Ben Needham.

      PS. I’m not so well informed about this case, but I’ll learn more about it later on.

    2. We are thinking along the same lines Bjorn. It is bizarre, that the search for Madeleine crossed borders so swiftly. In fact, being taken across a border was the LEAST likely scenario. 99 times out of a hundred they will be within the same area, or within driving distance from it.

      In addition, the abductor who was seen, was on foot! He walked past a car park and a sidestreet to get to wherever he was going and was still wandering about (on foot) 40 minutes later! He was hardly rushing towards the border.

      For the McCanns, it was look anywhere but here, where we are staying and enjoying quite a nice holiday, go and dawn raid murky internet users in Morrocco. And can you pass me the Factor 5. Quite a tan they got there, the kind you have to work on by turning over every half hour.

      Taking the search away from PDL was ludicrous by anhyone's standards. The vists to Rome, Amsterdam, Edinburgh and Washington, was pure show manship. As long as there were 'sightings' all over the world, the circus played on. And would probably play on still if it were for those darn police.

      When the PJ shelved their files they were telling the world Maddie was dead and they were not looking for an abductor. (eat your heart out Peter Hyatt). Neither the Portuguese police, nor indeed, the police of any country, would leave a child predator on the loose. It just doesn't happen, all their children are at risk.

      With the use of words, the McCanns were able to convince the world, that Madeleine and the abductor 'were still out there'. And so bad were the police, that they couldn't be arsed to look.

      The truth is there, in front of us, just as Peter Hyatt says, there is no need to go along with fairy tales of far off lands and a kindly couple desperate for a child to love.

      And it doesn't take any special gift or years of dedicated education, those with the survival gene will quickly spot the deception. Unfortunately, the psychopaths and those thinking 'what's in it for me' will be way ahead of them, such is life!

      Many thanks for your insightful contributions Bjorn, they are much appreciated.

  20. Hyatt:

    "On Friday, December 2, at 12PM Eastern Time (NY Time), we will host a Q & A Discussion on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

    **Space may be limited so please reply in the comments section if you plan to attend. If you use "Anonymous", please add a nickname to your post.

    This will be by invitation to "Go To Meeting" and will allow for both Question and Answers about:

    Analysis of the case"

  21. I find Hyatt's statement analysis compelling and very thorough. There are other excellent statement analyses available on this case which reach similar conclusions. A suggestion of much deception and indicators that child abuse is a feature of the case.

    I would agree. Commonsense would tend to suggest that the Gaspers were on to something. Social worker Yvette Martin was onto something. The beyond-weird conversation about paedophiles with a fellow holiday-maker who I think caught TM filming his child in a clandestine manner is a huge red flag, imo.

    AS is the fact that TM themselves thought Madeleine had been abducted by paedophiles. That is fact - it is in Kate's book. Why was this uppermost in their minds?

    You would hope that your child would be found alive and well, especially in the early minutes and hours. You wouldn't 'know' what had happened, as Kate claims, unless you did actually know what happened. Which I think TM did, but they claimed it was something else.

    There is GM's empty CATS file, DM's pact of silence, the creepy photos where Madeleine is objectified, imo.

    Many red flags there. The Madeleine was Here series depicts home life chez McCann as quite weird.

    I think the swinging thing is a non-starter.

    1. @00:16

      Personally, I don’t believe the ‘sexual abuse’ theory (I think M died due to medical negligence or medical malpractice), but I can’t dispel your suspicions. You also pose a good question: “Why was this uppermost in their minds?”

      Kate in ‘madeleine’:

      “Night after night, I read of depraved individuals, British paedophiles, Portuguese paedophiles, Spanish, Dutch and German paedophiles, and of the horrific crimes they’d committed. The police went to visit some of them, looked around their apartments and recorded merely, ‘No sign of the minor.’ Was that enough to eliminate those vile characters from the inquiry? If more had been done, there was certainly nothing in the files about it. No description, no photograph, no alibi, no DNA. Just ‘No sign of the minor.’”

      And we are supposed to believe that this has been written by the mother of a missing child. Missing!

      Whatever the theories, for me there is no doubt that the McCanns know more than we do. So do both governments (UK/PT) and the MPS.


    2. Good morning NL. I actually find Kate's words very unnerving, she must just as well have urged the public to get their pitchforks out and target misfits and loners.

      She is redirecting the anger - it's not us who committed a crime - its the bad people hiding in our midst. Those who live outside the normal 2.4 children, church going respectability of the McCann family.

      She is expressing real anger against the 'perverts', she has experienced the same rage the rest of us have, when a child has been murdered. But her idea of the 'enemy' is vague and generalised, she is detaching their heinous crimes from her own daughter. Something she would not be able to do if Madeleine were in their grasp. I agree with PH, it has always been clear that Kate and Gerry know Madeleine is beyond their reach. I don't believe any mother, not even Kate, could function if they believed their child was in the hands of monsters.

      As for your final paragraph, I hear you NL!

    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 December 2016 at 09:50 says:
      "She is redirecting the anger - it's not us who committed a crime..."

      Yes - there is no evidence that she or Gerry committed any crime - therefore why shouldn't she direct her anger to those that possibly did?

      It is simple to read something into anything the Mccanns say when you come from the position that they are guilty of something and therefore trying to lay the blame somewhere else.

      Try reading what they say from the position that they are not guilty of any crime and it will open your eyes.

      "There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See"

    4. Kate is very insecure and far from convinced that her lies are being believed. She has to reassure the audience that she and her husband did not commit a crime, the abduction story on its own just ain't cutting it. She might just as well have said, stop looking at us, look for the abductor.

      Those who can see through the lies are not the ones wearing the blinkers.

  22. Does anybody seriously believe Peter Mac has sent a copy of the Hall/Hyatt interview to OG.

    It would simply confirm to any 'proper' copper Hall, Hyatt and Peter Mac are barking mad or is that the agenda, to show that anybody still following this case, is not to be taken seriously, they have mental issues.

    5 minutes research will tell you they are con men and liars and still the gullible lap it up.
    Maybe they should analyse the statements of Fiona Payne and Rachael Oldfield "He came up to me shook me by the hand and said I am Robert Murat" or Lori Campbell lying through her teeth but no, just the usual CMOMM guff.
    Why is that?

    1. Amen to that JJ! They are always 'investigating' people on the periphery rather than those directly involved.

  23. Hi, Rosalinda

    I don’t know where to post this on you blog. Please deal with it as you like.


    Several questions have been puzzling me.

    For instance.

    1 In an attempt to explain away the presence of cadaverine odour on her garment(s?), Kate referred to her having certified, before the holiday, the deaths of several patients.

    Kate’s alleged visits to the diseased patients, if true, would necessarily have been known to others within the establishment she was working for (she surely wasn’t a medical ‘lone ranger’).

    How then can the apparent continued silence of the people who know whether Kate made up the death certificates tale be explained? (In England, all death are registered and the registry is (was a few years ago) available on demand to anyone to view and copy (for a fee)).

    A general statement: dogs are both reliable and do not ‘lie’.

    Eddie and Keela (search dogs) had been known to have never given a false indication.

    2 Presuming the couple had been receiving high-calibre professional advice (I do not doubt they had), why was it decided that they would vocalise their opposition to the dogs’ indications in the way they (K&G) have been doing (‘urinating against the wind’ when they could have continued with the ‘have no idea‘ stance initially assumed by Gerry IIRC)?


    1. They have been operating in self defence mode from day one T. I'm not sure I fully accept the six bodies statement allegedly made by Kate. It would be so disrespectful to turn up at the homes of the recently deceased dressed in gawdy holiday trousers. In any event, it was among many highly unlikely scenarios being floated by Team McCann at that time.

      Ditto the dogs. Gerry and Kate know that a death could not have occurred in the apartment without them knowing about it. Therefore, they have had no option but to dispute the findings of the dogs.