Thursday, 12 August 2010

HOAX 2 – The Fear

Jeremy and Bridget both work in television, Jeremy producing documentaries and Bridget worked on Crime Watch.

Once again, in this police statement, we are reminded by the couple that they chose that particular week as it was the cheapest week of the season.

They flew to the resort on April 28th, 2007. Whilst on the plane they came into conversation with O’Brien and Oldfield. The reason, their children were of the same age and were playing together.

They were also aware of the presence of their partners, Jane Tanner and Rachael Manpilly.

For anyone who has flown on a ‘bucketshop’ flight, the planes are cramped, there is no leg room and the aisle is very narrow. BUT here we have children playing. Where were they playing? Was 8 month old Jeremy’s son crawling up and down the aisle? Maybe pushing the drink cart back and forth…

Flight attendants would be walking up and down with food and drinks. I’m sure the parents would have been told to keep their children under control apart from the fact they may hurt themselves.

I believe rather that the children may have been “used” just to justify how the couple got to know the Oldfields and O’Briens.

Not the first time in this story the children have been used to cover for the parents, and if they needed to lie about that, then a few questions need answer: where and when did they effectively meet and why this need to cover that up?

According to Jeremy, he first met Gerry at a tennis coach lesson held by staff associated with the Mark Warner resort on the first Monday of their holiday, April 30th.

He found Gerry to be amicable and willing to chat. He paired with Gerry for part of the lesson and described him as ‘Good company if not a little gregarious’.

He did not see Gerry again until Tuesday May 1st. This, you will remember was the night Mrs. Fenn stated that she heard a child screaming “Daddy, daddy” from the McCanns apartment.  

Jeremy, during another tennis lesson met some of the group and only then did he realize that the people he met on the plane were Gerry’s friends.  

Jeremy recalled also this same day walking to the Crèche with Gerry around 12.30 hrs because Madeleine had spent the morning there. Jeremy does not mention if he saw Madeleine.

Jeremy seemed eager, in his statement, to explain the Crèche and how it functioned. The evening Crèche seemed more important to him than the daytime. Jeremy said the children would be left with staff and most would be picked up before 10pm.  

Notice the time, 10 pm.

IT WAS NOT an unusual sight to see people walking at night with children in their arms asleep.

The Crèche would also supply a blanket to cover the child if required. Wilkins noticed the group appeared to be boisterous when in the Tapas with Gerry playing centre stage ‘Almost holding Court’.

They also noticed the behaviour of David Payne, he seemed to be ‘playing up’ to Gerry. Maybe this game of theirs is what ended the friendship between the McCanns and the Gaspars.  

Jeremy and Bridget back up the McCann’s version of leaving the children alone and doing regular checks. It’s quite a coincidence that on the evening before the abduction they decided to talk to two couples who arrived 45 minutes after them and by coincidence sat next to them, and by coincidence again happened to be the McCanns and the O’Briens.

And who could have guessed that on that night when chatting about everyday things the subject would turn to childcare and then to, by coincidence certainly, checking children systems? Which, they, the Wilkins did not use. Life is made of coincidences, we all know.

It’s just a coincidence that there were so many coincidences that night, as Textusa would say.

But as many coincidences happened that night, they were too few compared with happened the night after, as we all know so well.

We then come to May 3rd 2007. Jeremy went to play tennis at 10.30 hrs, Gerry was there, they chatted, also present was a female member of the group but apparently could not recall her name.

After tennis they all went to the pool. Who is all? Jeremy, Gerry and the woman without a name? By this time Jeremy states BOTH Gerry and Kate were now present and spent time talking with the female tennis coach.

A little confusing here and I am surprised Jeremy was not asked to clarify, was Kate already at the pool?

At 12.30 hrs Jeremy and Bridget went to collect their children from the Crèche. They did not see the group anymore that day.

That evening, their son of eight months was unable to sleep, about 20.15 hrs Jeremy took him in the pushchair for a walk. Jeremy, walking on the right side of the road passing the Tapas Bar on his left. The street lighting was not good but clear enough to see. As he approached the corner of the McCanns apartment he saw Gerry appear from the area of the gate.

At this time they stood with Gerry’s back to the building near to the gate and Jeremy facing him. Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva was about 10-15 meters to his right and the pathway leading to the front of the apartment blocks about 5 meters to his left.

Jeremy is adamant he neither saw nor heard anyone. The conversation lasted at most about three minutes. Gerry was chatty, his normal self.

The couple woke with a knock at the door around 01.00 hrs. On answering they spoke with the resort manager and a member of the group known as Matthew. It was then they heard Madeleine was missing.

Several weeks later, Jeremy received calls from Gerry, he wanted permission to use his name in a Portfolio of evidence being compiled by the McCanns.

They were very persistent and made several attempts to contact him both at work and at home. They had no objection to being included but were concerned as to the method being used.

 So, there we have it, word for word Jeremy Wilkins' statement to the Leicestershire Constabulary.

Jeremy Wilkins no longer recalls seeing Tanner earlier, in her purple dress. Jeremy and Bridget no longer recall May 3rd watching children from their child’s Crèche playing tennis, including their own daughter ‘Madeleine must have been there, they were all pink and blonde’.

Bridget lied, the tennis lesson was NOT May 3rd.

Much explained as to why Bridget wrote her anxious article in The Guardian about her friend ‘Kate McCann’. Butter wouldn’t melt in her mouth, Katie.

The couple was being pressured by Gerry McCann. It was very important to Jeremy where he stood when talking to Gerry. VERY important, so he detailed it, very clearly near or in front of the gate.

It was also important to Jane Tanner so much so she burst into tears after being publicly contradicted as lightly as with "a natural" and expected "discrepancy".

BUT of no importance to Gerry McCann,  

Gerry would decide where his bit part actors were to stand and so should stand. After all this was HIS version of events.

The fact that HIS version prevailed is very telling of his dominance on what was told, or told to be said, happened that night by some.  

Jeremy also wanted to make it VERY clear there would be nothing strange in seeing a man with a sleeping child before 10.00 pm.  

Bridget feeling she had to explain in her article Jeremy had walked home the night of May 2nd with their sleeping son in his arms, wrapped in a blanket.

The couple must have known and realised something was dreadfully wrong.

And I truly believe Bridget was afraid. Afraid or not, one thing I do know, Jeremy Wilkins has a deep dislike for Gerry McCann.

As always many thanks to PAMALAM


  1. With many thanks to Jane Tanner she CONFIRMS the 4 minute abduction.

    From Tanners Police statement.

    Normally, every 15 minutes a member from each apartment would go and check the bedrooms of the respective children to see if everything was all right.

    During dinner everything went well. Everyone was in a good mood.

    She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant (3) to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.

    She passed by them knowing that Gerry had already been in the apartment (1) to check his children.

    Meanwhile a man appeared ( * ) carrying a child (**), with a hurried walk, it being this detail together with the fact that the child dressed in pyjamas, without being wrapped up in a blanket, that caught her attention. She only managed to see him from the side, with the child in his arms. She noticed the individual’s presence exactly when she had just passed by Gerry and Jez who were talking, having seen this person step off the pavement that borders on the apartment block where they were staying and rapidly cross the road.

    The entrance to the apartment building (1) is exactly at the place (street) where the individual appeared from.

  2. Anon,

    One way to the truth is through a liar's mouth.

    Wilkins is the only one speaking truthfully about this encounter, in my opinion. The picture not only shows that GM is lying, as, as I'll later show, is JT.

    The remainder of the Wilkins' statements are basically in synch with "the script". One important difference though, as Iron, correctly points out: at first, they all in with the thing, but later, DEFENSE is the key.

    One only feels that one should defend when one feels attacked or afraid of attack...

  3. Paul Gordon stayed in apartment 5a the week before the McCanns arrived.

    Pauls statement would have been so 'helpful' to the Mccanns. It was Paul who bled in the apartment, it may well have been his blood the dog picked up on. Marting Grimes said his dog picked up on old and fresh blood.

    It was later proven the blodd was not Maddies.

    How outraged McCann must have been he could explain away the blood found in the apartment BUT this would mean proving the dog was right and if one dog was right then the cadaver must also be right.

    Paul ,like Jeremy heavily pressured by the McCanns, he makes it clear here in his witness statement.

    Paul Anthony Gordon said,

    To the best of my knowledge I never met the McCann family and never
    delivered the key to anyone other than the staff of Mark Warner.
    The holidays were good, the children enjoyed themselves at the nursery
    and we had no worries of any kind while they were there. The resort was
    affordable and was well located. Our opinion has changed only after the
    disappearance of Madeleine.
    I want to add that since January this year I have received numerous
    phone calls, messages and visits from the press regarding the collector
    of donations, which in turn put me in contact with other people such as
    Brian Kennedy, Kate and Gerry McCann. I feel that this is a constraint
    that makes it difficult to take the more correct decision.
    I tried always to cooperate with the police in every way possible,
    telephoning them at the first available opportunity as soon as the news
    broke about the disappearance of Madeleine. There are certain times when
    I feel like a pawn in chess.

  4. A psychopath is without emotion and impossible to speak from the heart.

    Many people may now begin to understand why Dr.McCann only read from prepared scripts and they were scripts, the words carried no meaning, why would they? he knew where Madeleine was, but even so he must 'playout' the grieving father.

    The first speech, notice Dr.McCann holds a prop, a torch why would he need a torch? he admits they did not search. Dr.McCann the following day has another prop , another torch , a different colour torch..this is to show, in his mind, people will think the battery has gone(from all the searching) and so I needed to replace it, well yes, why not just replace the battery, but the psychopath ALWAYS goes too far. The torch must be changed to PROVE how hard he searched.

    10.00pm, Friday 04 May 2007

    "Words cannot describe the anguish and despair that we are feeling as the parents of our beautiful daughter Madeleine.

    We request that anyone who may have any information related to Madeleine's disappearance, no matter how trivial, contact the Portuguese police and help us get her back safely.

    Please, if you have Madeleine, let her come home to her mummy, daddy, brother and sister.

    As everyone can understand how distressing the current situation is, we ask that our privacy is respected to allow us to continue assisting the police in their current investigation."

  5. Hello Iron and Tex., great piece as usual.

    A comment by Payne I always found strange.

    David Payne is a senior research fellow at Leicester University. he helped run the Find Madeleine campaign. Last week he spoke for the first time to say: "We know they didn't do it. One of our party saw Madeleine being abducted.


    WHAT, what did'nt they do?

  6. @PJudiciaria LISTEN very carefully to Kates words...WE means no check LOOK PROOF The McCanns did not check children

    Have just seen this on twitter, lets hope they bother to check.

  7. Excellent article.
    It is obvious, it's Gerry McCann's version. Could it be that the reason of Jane's tears is the fact that at the moment Gerry decided which side of the road she was walking that night, she did realize Gerry took over the direction and he didn't care about her at all. That must be frightening, I suppose Jane could not afford to discuss this and had to admit.

  8. Blacksmith has been very busy in the last few days writing about Tanner.

    Tanner in the back of a van and saying she recognised it was Murat because of the way he walked.

    Here we have from Tanners statement May 4th.

    When asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.

  9. Why has Gerry & Kate Macann names appeared on a child abuse register.

  10. Interesting that all the characters on Maddie saga know the Mccann's. From where and when come that 'amitie' which they all insist and want to appear as accidental and circumstantial, is the point.
    The Resort, in the cheapest week of the season was full of British? There is no any client from another nationality? Hard to believe.
    Why Mccann's bring to their saga, only British people? Because they are easy to be manipulated and controlled, under the circumstances and the media coverage the Mccann's manage to achieve. They are all affraid about what they can lost on their jobs in UK, if they play at the wrong side.
    The all story was a fabrication this is why is full of British. Any real abduction will have other nationalities coming forward to say what they really saw. Will be impossible for any abductor to take a girl from the bed of a Resort with Resort full of clients and not be seen by workers and others then the characters signed to the movie, by the Mccann's.
    Soon their PR machine realise that they involved many British in the story and tho credit their fantasy, they need some people from other nationalities. Then came the sights and the abductor witnesses. Again a mistake, because the case hapenned in Portugal but Mccann's feel very uncomfortable to pull locals to their saga. Dangerous or the portuguese were not easy to buy as fake witnesses?
    Will be laughable if the case was not about a death little girl, which just by coincidence is their own daughter. Even the lady who came to the TVs saying at the first time that she saw Madeleine in Moroccos, was British and connected with Mccann's. Her husband know Gerry before May 2007. She was very active before the media reported that connection and fade in the air after the world know the truth. It is hard to believe and look at all that connections as coincidences and accidental.

    What hapenned to Madeleine must be a serious crime. The case went too far to be only a domestic accident. Maybe behind it there is a ring and an organized crime involving top people in UK. A kind of Casa Pia with a bad end- One of the childs died before the organization and the crime being exposed.
    The British comunnity in Algarve and around PDL must know a lot about Madeleine saga. And Murat, even if he is innocent, must come to his aknowledge a lot of information after May 2007, via the British comunnity. Why is he not framing the Mccann's and not bringing to media attention his case against Jane Tanner?
    Madeleine could be just the edge of a tremendous iceberg involving many British people with high positions.

  11. Hello, IRONSIDE and TEXTUSA!

    A nice day.

    I read , well ( please use the translator , only few words)

    1º - "The Resort, in the cheapest week of the season"

    além de ser época baixa , as fotos mostram mobiliário muito barato e aqueles estores de fita da idade média.

    2º - li já várias vezes que a pobre da Jane se preocupa muito com as calças de ganga, porque:

    além do filme "panorâmico" no qual foi protagonista, pergunto se para além deste e dos outros infelizes " papéis esquizóides" , esta " brilhante " protagonista terá desempenhado UM PAPEL IMPORTANTE ainda não revelado:

    3º - assim, pergunto : terá sido ela AINDA MAIS uma das " vagabundas das ruas naquela noite", OU

    4º as ditas jeans terão estado em contacto com um corpo morto?

    Os fluidos desse corpito ( pobre Menina) terão escorrido para cima das calças dela?

    Proponho ao Black. que se preocupe com este assunto e o deslinde.

  12. Great piece, as usual textusa...

    This actually has made me begin to wonder whether or not Gerry had help in removing Maddie's body that night and whether Jane Tanner did see another (different) person carrying Maddie, perhaps her own husband or one of the other Tapas men.

    It would explain the very strange announcement Kate made "THEY've taken HER"...if Kate did not realise Maddie would be removed from the apartment at that time.

    May 1 is key - and I think both of your recent articles support the theory many of us have that Maddie was either mortally injured or died after Kate's reaction to the attention Gerry was given the extremely buxom "Quiz mistress".

    There is no doubt in my mind that Kate and Gerry's "closeness" is a fabrication - the bus video makes it clear that they were (when not playing to the media) already estranged. Kate sat with the children, Gerry sat alone and was in a nasty mood. It was only after the "abduction" that they began all the hand-holding etc. - all for the cameras, not because there is any love there.

    When someone is harboring a secret, and when the secret is as horrible as this one, the secret itself has such power that it finds ways to leak out in gestures, statements and choices people make. Freudian slips, odd details given, hands to the hair and face etc.

    Early on there were articles regarding Kate's comment that if she had been more "maternal" looking, she would not be the victim of suspicion all around the world (as she still is).

    In my opinion, that was so odd and so telling - Kate being thin and flat chested, the Quiz mistress being curvy and extremely buxom - to the extreme, actually.

    The horrible truth may boil down to this: jealousy, rage and an innocent child in the way. Given the amount of alcohol consumed by this party of "responsible" parents, one could also reasonably add that to the mix and the potential that Madeleine was known to have problems sleeping (the star chart at home) could have combined to cause the accident.

    Without a doubt witnesses have been intimidated by people working for the McCanns and therefore when it is finally disclosed who among that party had the type of connections that could frighten witnesses to the extent that has occurred, we'll know the truth of the matter.

    I'm sure you are right that Wilkins dislikes Gerry, and yet that alone would not explain why his wife wrote that ridiculous "romance novel" style article about Kate McCann. Not only was it stomach turning in terms of its childish prose, it was so over the top in support of the McCanns that Bridget lost all credibility as a writer (if she ever had any, which in my mind is doubtful.)

    The channeling of photos through CEOP adds to the evidence that the British government is involved in covering up the truth. In my opinion, this was done to ensure no intelligence agents could be identified in the photos, as I believe the person helping Gerry was possibly one of them. If not on the night, if not as part of the staged abduction, then certainly in the days that followed, the British authorities are up to their necks colluding with the crimes that took place.

  13. Anon @ 4:09,
    I agree with you, Kate & Gerry closeness is a fabrication. Their behaviour was programed by their adviser machines. Portuguese journalists said many times that they walk far away from each other and quick get close hand by hand when they found journalists around. Only a fake relationship, programed by others can survive the disapearence of a child in Madeleine circumstances. They have to be together to save and cover their own faces.
    If the girl was really abducted by a stranger they will broke out long ago, covered by the pain and the self incrimination for leaving her on the position to be abducted. And what normally hapenned on abduction cases is that the parents accuse each other and this lead the relationship to an end.
    They just get close after missing their daughter, because before that night the witnesses stated Gerry in the tenis lessons almost every day without Kate, and Kate in the pool without Gerry. And their childs abandonned at the hands of stranges.

  14. I hope Docmac passes through, he and I remember seeing Susan Healy on TV just after her short trip to PDL. A LIVE interview never to be shown again BUT her words were damning.

    'Kate used to sedate Madeleine,Maddie, was a sleep walker ,thats how we know she did not wander off'

    I swear on the dearest person who is closest to me, this is true.

  15. TotallyConfused12 Aug 2010, 17:21:00

    Anon timed 1:31 Pm

    You have hit on a nail that must not be touched:

    Maybe behind it there is a ring and an organized crime involving top people in UK. unquote

    I am not allowed to give the relevant names here (Although I have passed them to Ironside and Textusa)

    All I may say is that yes, there is something going on with the UK previous UK government. (and their support of the McFrauds is not coincidental)
    Role on November 8th!!!!

  16. Thanks keep us sane.

  17. Anon 4:09 and Anon 5:17 Excellent posts. You read my thoughts.

  18. McCann wanted Kate photographed in a swimsuit, and had to be persuaded otherwise. Odd idea from father of supposedly abducted child.

  19. @Anon 4:09

    This actually has made me begin to wonder whether or not Gerry had help in removing Maddie's body that night and whether Jane Tanner did see another (different) person carrying Maddie, perhaps her own husband or one of the other Tapas men.

    The wildly differing descriptions of the 'abductor' given by Tanner suggest, to me at least, that she was desperate to conceal the true identity of the person carrying the child.


    It does seem very likely that Jez and his partner were coerced, and afraid. From what you have written above, one has to question whether either of them ever actually saw Madeleine at all after the flight to Portugal. And whether this would even have mattered, until Gez bumped so unexpectedly into Jez.

    And the Susan Healey sedation interview you mention was screened - I saw it myself. And as you say, it just disappeared...

  20. TotallyConfused

    What is happening on Nov 8th?

  21. Docmac thanks for your reply.

    Tanner seems to be concerned about a pair of blue jeans, there is a photograph according to her,of her, wearing a pair of blue jeans, now, she said 'I did not take jeans with me to PDL and thats how I know the photograph was the from another time.'

    We have only seen Tanner in PDL...Press have never followed her around from another time and where is this photograph she claims was in the press?

    Remember Tanner in Panorama she sounds like she almost says 'I was carrying... ' as she holds her arms out like the abductor...

    Kate McCann said the abductor was wearing JEANS but you will have to ask Jane about it.

    Jane said the abductor was wearing beige pants. SO why did Kate mention jeans?

    What if it was Jane herself who picked up a dead Madeleine while wearing jeans...the jeans ARE important to Tanner...maybe the Mccanns have the jeans and they will of course have cadaver. They may have told Tanner they had destroyed them , BUT just suppose they did not?...Interesting theory or not?

    A touch of Blackmail to keep Tanner in line...yes why not, we have everything else.

  22. Iron

    I see where you are going with this, and I do understand why you think so.

    To me, Jane appears to have been coached, from the get-go.

    "Then, at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then
    that I remembered the pyjamas."

    I'm terribly sorry, CID do NOT "do" 'cognitive techniques'. This was psychological/psychiatric jargon made up by the kind of doctors who have no idea how to communicate with lay people - a failure that is far too prevalent in the profession, sadly. And by the type of doctors who had long since spent time in their psych lectures or tuts, imo.

    Her 'confusion', to me, represents hurried, drunken coaching which was both poorly remembered and delivered. No more, no less. I believe she saw her own partner carrying Madeleine away.

  23. Good morning Docmac, agree O'Brian has a very large role in this which is maybe why we are told to 'LOOK' at Payne.

    O'Brian lived near the Mccanns in Leicester and possibly knows the McCanns a lot better than we have been led to believe . I do not think Tanner disposed of Madeleine that would be the mans job.

    BUT she may have picked her up to hold her, Tanner in all photographs holds her children may have been a reaction, a normal mothers reaction that Katie would not know about.

    Kate would visit with Madeleine where ever they had her stashed how else would cadaver be found on clothes bought AFTER Madeleine disappeared.

    Even John McCann had a hard time explaining this one. Later he said it was because CC reeked of Madeleine.

    Tanner and her jeans, I must look deeper into why she is so concerned we not believe she took them to PDL.

    Tex have a great holiday and see you when you retutn.

    I promise not to break your train set and will put all the wheels back in their box before your retutn.



    Excellent from Dr.Martin

    'On the other hand'

  25. All,

    The date that TC has referred, Nov 8th, is the date for the High Court Operation Ore group action appeal.

    Let's hope that this enormous injustice is corrected once and for all.

  26. 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth

    Lying is hard work.

    Daunting as it may seem to keep track of all the possible signs of deception—facial cues, gestures, leg movements—think of how difficult it is to be the deceiver. To tell a convincing lie, you must keep all the details of your story straight. And not only that, you must sell it with appropriate body language, while trying to avoid leaking any emotional clues that would give the lie away.

    It’s so difficult to keep a false story going that you’d think it would be easy to catch a liar in the act. Yet it isn’t. We still catch only about 50% of lies. We’re terrible at reading facial expressions and body language. And we’re not much better at listening to the words.

    So what are we to do? Listen more carefully, for starters. While liars are more likely to rehearse their words than their body language, there are a number of telltale signs that still leak out. From word choice to vocal tone to the chronology of stories, the trained liespotter has several verbal clues with which to work. Knowing the potential slip-ups, you can zero in on suspicious language, ask questions, and spot the lies.

  27. Here are 10 common ways that liars use words to obscure the truth, so you can be on guard for deception:

    1.Liars will repeat a question verbatim. Hey Charles, did you send the email to Jackie? Did I send the email to Jackie? If this is Charles’s response, you have your answer—he didn’t send it yet. Repeating a question in full is a common stalling tactic used by people looking for an extra moment to prepare their deceptive reply. In natural conversation, people will sometimes repeat part of a question, but restating the entire question is highly awkward and unnecessary—they clearly heard you the first time.2.Liars will take a guarded tone. If Charles had replied to the direct question by lowering his voice and asking, What do you mean?, a lie may well have been in the works. A suspicious or guarded approach isn’t usually called for, and may indicate that he’s concealing something—whether it’s the truthful answer or his attitude toward you for asking the question in the first place.3.Liars won’t use contractions in their denials. Bill Clinton provides the classic example of what interrogators call a “non-contracted denial” when he said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” The extra emphasis in the denial is unnecessary if someone is telling the truth. I didn’t have sex with her is how the honest person is likely to phrase his claim of innocence. Clinton said a lot more than he realized with his words.4.Liars tell stories in strict chronology. To keep their stories straight, liars tend to stick to chronological accounts when relating an event. They don’t want to get tripped up by an out-of-place detail—there’s enough to think about already. But this isn’t how we talk when being truthful. We relate stories in the way we remember them, not in strict chronological order. That’s because memorable events carry an emotional component too. Often we’ll lead with the most searing emotional moment, and jump around in time.5.Liars love euphemisms. It’s human nature not to implicate ourselves in wrongdoing. This holds true even for liars, who will shy away from dwelling on their deception if possible. One way they do this is opting for softer language—instead of saying “I didn’t steal the purse” they may say “I didn’t take the purse.” If you ask someone a direct question about their involvement in an incident and they change your words to something softer, raise your deception antennae.

  28. 6.Liars overemphasize their truthfulness. “To tell you the truth…” “Honestly…” “I swear to you…” Oh, if only it were so! When people use these bolstering statements to emphasize their honesty, there’s a good chance they are hiding something. Learning to baseline someone’s normal behavior is important in situations such as this: You want to listen for normal or harmless use of such phrases. There’s no need to add them if you really are telling the truth, so be on guard.
    7.Liars avoid or confuse pronouns. We use a fair amount of pronouns in normal conversation. They are a sign of comfortable speech, and they may disappear or be misused by someone who is trying to be extra careful with his words. A liar may say “You don’t bill hours that you didn’t work” instead of making the clear first- person statement: “I don’t bill hours I didn’t work.”8.Liars use long introductions but skip over main events. When a liar wants to build credibility, she will pad her story with as much factual content as possible. The Israeli researcher Avinoam Sapir found that deceptive individuals will add more detail around the prologue of a story, but gloss over the main event where the deception comes into play. Careful listeners can pick up on this lopsided storytelling style and use the BASIC method to zero in on the missing details with specific questions.9.Liars give very specific denials. We’ve already discussed the human impulse to avoid implicating ourselves. So we can expect liars to be very particular in what they say and don’t say. Truth-tellers have no problem issuing categorical denials—I never cheated anyone in my whole life—where as the liar will choose his words ever so carefully.10.Liars hedge their statements. We hear them in court testimony, political hearings and TV confessional interviews all the time: qualifying statements that leave an out for the person on the hot seat. “As far as I recall…” “If you really think about it…” “What I remember is…” Hedged statements aren’t an absolute indicator of deception, but an overuse of such qualifying phrases certainly should raise suspicion that a person isn’t being totally up front with what he or she knows.Even without the benefit of being able to watch body language and facial expressions, the careful listener can do a fair bit of liespotting just from the words liars choose to use.

  29. Kate did not dispose the body but had to deal with it after May 3, even because they know the police don't believe on any abduction since minute one. Bringing an extra character to the scene, just to deal with the body will be to danger and the Tapas run away from PDL after giving the first statments to the police. A strange behaviour for closest friends of the parents of a child who was abducted by a stranger in a foreign country. Another friends under the same circumstances, if the abduction was real, will stay longer to support Kate and Gerry, at least emotionally and help with twins. They run away from the crime scene leaving the Mccann's to deal with body.
    Attracting the media into themselves was a strategy to keep the media and the police under control. If we look back, we see how meticulous was their strategy on the first month: announcing to the Media when they are going to the Church, when they will do jogging, when they do press conferences. Like that, nobody follow them, they became available to the press everyday, then no space for 'papparazi'. And the rest of the time was completely free for them to do whatever they have to do and keep the body away from strange eyes.
    Follow the money in their accounts and in the Fund and I think many clues and gaps will be filled in that Saga.
    They manage to involve their own family in the crime after May 3. Everybody who visited them from one moment or another was confronted with reality and pulled in as a 'cumplice'. Leonor Cipriano do the same and many criminals use that strategy to force the family to support them and keep their mouths close.
    Aunti Phill and all the rest of the family, which were very active at the begining of the case, geting suport and helping, fade in a very smooth and low profile existence, after been in Portugal. What they saw? What become to their aknowledges that made them shift 360 degrees and come back to point zero?
    The girl still missing and the Fund raising become an individual issue for Kate and Gerry and some VIP vultures who use it to feed their EGO. No family or friends in events to raise money. A strong sign showing that Madeleine is dead and there is nothing to look at.

  30. Iron @9.28

    I have been onto the McCannfiles and read Dr. Martins latest update and one thing that now strikes me about all the Statements by the Tapas witnesses and the McCanns - is how they seem unable to string a sentence together.

    Not wishing to be rude but these are educated people so why do they have trouble with "ummms" and "errrms" and "you know" etc., etc.

    Surely if they know they are to give statements and if as we think is true, they have to rehearse quite a lot, then it would come out without any interruptions. But, in fact, it would appear to be very stilted. Are they perhaps trying not to say anything which would incriminate themselves.

    If I visited a GP and this sort of conversation took place I wouldn't go back. It suggests they don't know what they are talking about - enough said!


  31. Hello Angelique, I agree they seem to want to make themselves look very stupid don't they.

    A lot of people at sometime or another have had to give a police statement whether it be as a witness to a road accident or something more serious.

    I am not sure in a statement the police would write down all the ummms and errms, I have always found this odd.

    But then Leicester Plod seem to have their own rules and the Mccanns have managed to make them look the most corrupt or stupid force we have in England.

    Neglect, or pretending to have neglected your children...if you are a loving parent must be hard to do. Pretending you have neglected your child to cover for the death of your friends child, must be the hardest thing of all.

    Saturday evening, they had dinner at the Millenium, Sunday, Oldfield I believe did not attend dinner because he was sick...but fine by Monday morning for breakfast...Monday evening another was unwell...Tuesday O' Brian said this was the ONLY night they were all together BUT then changed his mind and said it may have been Monday...Wednesday Rachel claims to have spent the evening in her apartment . Rachel also claims someone was sick everynight...but fine the next day it would seem.

    The waiter can only say there were ABOUT nine people at dinner...he cannot say there were nine present.

    Therefore if someone was away from the table each evening and ALL of the children were together, say in Paynes apartment..ALL children except Madeleine...Then the only child neglected was Madeleine because who was ever away from the table each evening was with the children. I believe the baby monitor was for Madeleine..who they knew would not wake because as McCann was very quick to point out she never woke at night..or if she did it would be early hours of the morning.

  32. There was a rumour at the begining of the case ( May 2007) that the childs were all togheter in one flat ( Not Mccann's flat). All sedated. This can explain why there is no forensic evidences of Madeleine on the bed they claim she was sleeping in and the twins were in the cots without blankets . Madeleine was probably alone on Mccann's room because she had sleeping problems ( remember the stars find in a paper sticked on the fridge in Rothley as coockies for Madeleine when she gave good nights). They keep Madeleine out of the Kids group and all others togheter. Like that was easy to control them, special if medication was used to help with control. This is why the Tapas had to help with Mccann's lies. They are all on the same bunch of negligence and sedation. Easy to frame the Tapas for so long and got their support to get ride of Madeleine. If the body was found, there is no way to avoid an autopsy and any chimical on Madeleine's body will be easy to find and all childs will be sent to an hospital for Lab investigation.
    The behaviour of the all Tapas indicate a death Madeleine and sedation of all childs. This is why they leave PDL in a rush.

  33. Iron @4.36

    Right - so I shall have to read more relating to this - I am obviously missing a great deal - I am way behind you and all the others.

    I was working on the assumption that they were all sticking to 'the checking schedule' and all the children were in their respective apartments. But in reality, you are saying this is to cover up something else but they are making a right mess of it - and so the reality of what really happened is showing through.

    Thanks for putting me straight. May not be posting for while - got to get my head round all of this : )


  34. Anon@5.42

    This is terrible if what you say is somewhere near the truth. But it is corresponding with what Iron has said above. But its too terrible to contemplate - surely these parents would not be able to stomach this sort of practice that you suggest.

    Doctors are cold people I know - this lack of blankets for the twins is not surprising - it was possible that when they moved the twins they took the blankets with them.

    I find it difficult to accept that Tapas witnesses would allow themselves to be trapped in this sort of snare by the McCanns- and think of it - it would have to be for life.

    Finding it hard to accept that Madeleine could actually have died and events happened this way. I just imagined it was an overdose.............


  35. Some British papers reported also at the time that one of the Tapas ( a man, a doctor and not Gerry) had a Court case in UK against him due to medical negligence. Gerry was his defense witness. Then if we add that to the negligence and the hipothetic sedation, there is a lot of reasons to frame some of the Tapas 7 and keep them under control.

  36. No the children were not sedated,someone sat with them each night...sedation...was just that, a forum myth.. Madeleine possibly was sedated but out of kindness for her sleep walking, the twins I believe were sedated the night they planned the simulated abduction...they were sedated because they had to later be replaced back in apartment 5a. they did not want the twins to have any recall, Fiona noticed Kate kept placing her hand in front of the twins faces...Fiona did not know the twins had been drugged if she had she would not have made this remark.

    Madeleine had a sleep problem we must remember this, the star chart on the fridge in Rothley.

    An autopsy would have shown drug abuse and they would have lost the twins...why the rest involved themselves to us is a mystery but not to the group.

    It was OLDFIELD that had a charge over him for a late diagnosis. AND yes McCann was a witness for him.

  37. Iron 8:10 You read my thoughts, thank you and Textusa for all your work.

  38. Do your research, docmac. The British police DO undergo training in cognitive techniques. I know this for a fact. The evidence is also on the internet.

  39. Textusa and Iron it is brilliant the work you are doing in prol of the truth.
    I realise that many people is going back to old news looking for information or revisting issues that had been discussed already without a clear conclusion. Contrapointing the Mccann's bla, bla, bla, most of the news were accurate and true. If so, I can't wait for the papers reaction when the truth will be shown to the world... they will frame the Mccann's sueing them and asking their money back. Mitchell will be underfire because always seems that he was the guy behind all the negotiations with papers to be sued.


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.