Peter R de Vries talking about Maddie Case in Dutch prime time programe DWDD

Peter R de Vries talking about Maddie Case in Dutch prime time programe DWDD

Remember him on the Nathalee Holloway Case? He did stirr up things on that case. ( I and I strongly believe others with me informed him once about the Madeleine case) I love to see he did do some research  

Now he's talking about the Maddie Case in a Dutch prime time program DWDD (De Wereld Draait Door)
To be short: he fully underlines Goncalo Amarals' story.
He believes this appeal is to stir up "winds"  to get suspects (read the McCanns)  to move.

look from 30:48. (For me I was so  to realise that I am no nutter.)
http://dewerelddraaitdoor.vara.nl/media/302046


srry 38:30

Says that Amarals book a good book is, and that the British failed in their inquisition

I watched it too Bebootje, and indeed, he doesn't believe the parents. Isn't he the one who solved the Nathalee Holoway case in Aruba?

He is from the Natalee Holloway case indeed. PRdV is a known crime reporter. Set a trap for Joram vd Sloot.

Here a translation -in short - of the broadcasting.

PRdV says he was deeply disappointed with the broadcast, which, in his opinion contained no news and in which such ridiculous information was requested from the viewer that he thought you really think now that we are crazy, we have the brain of a goldfish?

Interviewer : The parents are all these years continued to draw attention to this matter . At the request of Cameron SY went on the case from scratch. Not the least you would still say and yet you say ...

PRdV says the only thing that is possible in his opinion - after such amount of time - is that SY has a hidden agenda with this broadcast . That from the analysis of the telephone traffic that night - an analysis recently done suspects were distilled and they play an old card that in police terms is called " making wind ". That therefore those involved start to move and betrayed themselves .

Interviewer : So we are looking at a large decoy ?

PRdV thinks so.

Then comes the part of the broadcast on the time line and Jane Tanner sighting . And that now assumes a different time when Maddie disappeared .

Interviewer : This is possible, isn’t it.

PRdV Could be but is not.

Interviewer . Why do you say that?

PRdV It is not only based on my personal opinion about the case but also based on a book of the former head of the investigation. A very revealing book. That the investigation always focused on this man as the main suspect is not true. From the beginning it was clear that the testimony about this man couldn’t be true.

Interviewer : English say that the Portuguese police have done shoddy work

PRdV does not think so. In the contrary. The investigation by th Portuguese comes to him as decent police work . In his opninion it is just the English that dropped some stitches.
Now, six years later, they come with composite sketches of a childish level and that totally not comply with the rules of art. Two completely different men . It could be just as well be a bald man and one with a ponytail. Ridiculous. This can not be a serious question .

Interviewer : So you're saying we look at a great decoy . There's something behind ?

Then the bit about Kate displaying her " whoosh " piece of staging .

PRdV It has been suggested that the parents themselves are involved. The writer of the book substantiates this by saying that the mother when she found that Maddie had disappeared, immediately concluded that she was kidnapped . That would not be my first thought .

Woman asking: But the window was open . I would also be in panic ...

PRdV points out that in the book: The window was closed and there was a shutter before the window. This could only be opened from the inside of the apartment There were no signs of forced entry . The only thing found were fingerprints in a position from which it was clear that the window was opened . The fingerprints were from the mother .

Interviewer : SY Set a trap for the parents?

PRdV do not know if the parents did it , He was not there and never spoke to the McCanns. But the book gives a lot of arguments and also the statistics to their disadvantage .

Interviewer : But these people have for years sought and called attention to the disappearance . How is this possible. How can you act that ? And why?

PRdV :I saw in my carreer al lot of great actors.

The book suggests that accident happened. The parents both doctor left their children and now one is dead. Just because of the fact they are doctors it will be gross negligence . They had to make a split second disicion to hide the child. If someone shoud hear they left the children alone and because of that one died, they would be reviled throughout our lives .

About the Smith sighting . It is not at all mentioned that the Irish family that has made the declaration . “I saw a man acting suspiciously did - nervously - with a child in his arms walking, wasn’t liked to be seen”.
The Irishman is a doctor, a credible witness. The man sees the broadcast of the homecoming McCanns months later , sees the father is in the picture with a child on his arm . Smith says , but damn this is the man I saw walking with a child.
This is completely left out.
What do they think? That we are crazy?

Interviewer: Doesn’t your investigators blood begin to cook? Do you want to do some research yourself.
PRdV thinks is too late for him to step in. Besides, everyone could now this, it is in the book.


So in short, you think it is a decoy, a trap?

PRdV believes so.