“I’m glad to see the law around this area is being reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing damage.”

“I’m glad to see the law around this area is being reviewed, but I do think we need to make examples of people who are causing damage.”


Will this apply to your fragrant wifey kate, who, by her own admission damaged the search for Maddie by refusing to answer the 48 questions whilst answering the 49th question?

These are the questions:

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2.  Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4.  Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13.  Who took place in the searches?
14.  Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17.  Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18.  How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40.  Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43.   In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44.   When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45.  When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46.  When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47.   When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48.   Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER

Q.  Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A.  'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.


Will this apply also to kate who called  an officer of the law a fucking tosser repeatedly?

Will this also apply to kate who wished on Gonçalo Amaral the detective who was  chosen to help find your daughter Maddie, that "He deserves to be miserable and feel fear."?

You may have muzzled the media, you cannot muzzle public opinion or free speech.
You failed when you tried to get Gonçalo's book banned and lost spectacularly.

You yourself  gerry said:
"Thank you, sir. I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we've got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up,non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence"

Apparently though freedom of speech does not apply to anyone who doesn't believe your version of events.
Anyone who points out all the discrepancies, of which there are a multitude, anyone who analyses your admissions that Maddie is dead such as kate telling the world and i quote:

"They want me to lie - I'm being framed.
"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us"

Now then, why would kate dearest introduce the word MURDER during the process of free editing (the brain thinks the words a microsecond before they are spoken or written) when you and she are both claiming abduction, not evidence of serious harm and the almost laughable the longer she is missing the more chance she is likely to be alive (despite all the statistics relating to missing children not taken  by a parent)
She used the M word because that was the thought right at the forefront of her mind.

Murder not abduction?

Then we have the extremely concerning  statement:

Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."

This is concerning because kate here openly discusses murder suicide, by pressing a button.

She also with one single word  tells the world she knows Maddie is dead.

The word is ALL.

The only way they could ALL be together when she pressed the button is, if she knew Maddie was dead.
If Maddie was alive as you both claim, then by kate pressing the button committing murder suicide, she has just made Maddie an orphan!
It also begs the question, why would an innocent parent want to press a button that would kill herself, her children and  her husband?

It is unexpected.

An innocent parent would never consider doing that, if anything they would become more protective than ever of their remaining children.

However, parents involved in the disappearance of a loved one have been known to kill their children and themselves, to avoid justice, to avoid losing custody of their child(ren) to their partner or to someone else, or to punish the other parent (often seen in custody disputes) josh powell springs to mind, the prime suspect in the murder of his wife Susan Cox, he was due to undergo a sexual psych evaluation ( his dad is a convicted voyeur taking indecent pics of the neighbors children on their toilet)
He knew the result would mean losing permanent custody and visitation right  so he fixed up a fake address, had the boys visit with their social worker, pulled them into the house locking out the social worker, attacked the brothers with an axe before blowing up the house killing himself and his sons.

So, kate,and gerry why is it instead of the expected when it comes to finding your  missing daughter, we keep seeing the unexpected?

As long as you keep talking, forensic linguists will keep analysing your statements, your words.
Body language experts will keep watching you closely.

Your own words tell the truth of what happened,

You offered to take a poly then rapidly backtracked when taken up on the offer, setting so many conditions it would have been impossible to perform.
Guess what honeys, we don't need a polygraph.
Statement analysis and forensic linguists are far more reliable than any polygraph,

Remember gerry your own words on Jan 13 2010

A thesis without evidence is meaningless

I agree,

You claim Maddie was abducted may 4th 2007, there is however, even after 7 years plus, no evidence of any kind of an abduction.
Not a finger print, fibre, footprint, skin cell, body fluid from an unknown male anywhere in what appeared to be a forensically cleaned apartment (so clean you had to go back to rothley to get a DNA sample)

By your own admission gerry, your thesis of abduction is meaningless.

However, the thesis that Maddie died  in apartment 5a sometime during that week is supported by the reaction of the blood and cadaver dogs both in the apartment, to Kate's clothes, a child's t shirt, cuddle cat and in the hire car, the blood and body fluids found on the apt. floor behind the sofa and in the hire car, the missing blue bag, the missing pink blanket, your own statements and admissions.

Therefore the thesis that Maddie died in the apartment is supported by evidence and is therefore meaningful.

have a nice day :)

Does it apply to any of this lot?
http://newsoutlines.blogspot.pt/2010/01/adjectives-used-by-british-press-to.html

too damn right. it applies to all.

Great post, Hobnob.

Statement analysis, forensic linguistics, body language - hugely important analytical tools!
And could I also chuck semiotics in there too, for good measure!

I was fortunate to do a multidisciplinary general arts/social sciences degree many moons back.
It was a tough gig, but has proved helpful in so many areas of 'real life'.
Therefore it has always, these past seven years, been a huge buzz for me to watch people online picking the bones out of, say, an over-egged McCann pudding, a weasel PR quote or a piece of slanted schmaltz from a sycophantic hack.

The sceptics are on to it all.
Every last eyelid twitch.
Every last damn phoneme.

Brilliant post Hobnob.

Excellent post Hobnob. Good to see you back.