Friday, 2 December 2016

To abuse abuse

1. Introduction 

This week we didn’t intend to write a post. South Yorkshire police was supposed to have had by the end of last month to conclude their investigation as to what happened to Ben Needham.

It didn’t and doesn’t seem to us to be a case of any extraordinary complexity taking into account that over a month ago they informed the world that it was their professional belief that Ben died as the victim of an accident near the farmhouse.

With only loose ends left to tie one would expect a swift conclusion, especially if one bases one’s assessment on the certainty shown by the South Yorkshire police on that Monday in October.

But, as we have always said, we do not have the full knowledge of facts, and so accept there must be details that we are unaware of and  which may be complicating the reaching of a satisfactory conclusion by the authorities.

While we waited, the Maddie case has experienced a sort of upheaval in the form of an interview conducted by Richard Hall with an American statement analyst, called Peter Hyatt.

In it, Mr Hyatt analyses the statements given by the McCanns in an interview given to an Australian TV in 2011, thus lending his professional expertise to the case.

Please note that this is not new. Back in November 2012, Mr Hyatt did a similar analysis and it can be read in the post “Statement Analysis: McCann Interview” in the blog “Statement Analysis”.

Without surprise, then and now, Mr Hyatt finds that the McCanns are lying, that the abduction is a hoax.

With all due respect for Mr Hyatt, there was no need, neither then nor now, for an expert in statement analysis, a subjective science, to tell us that, facts do.

We are not rejecting Mr Hyatt’s contribution, we agree fully that it’s all a narrative and if he’s able, by the use of plain, common wording which many find easy to understand and helps spread the message of truth, we welcome his efforts wholeheartedly.

We are just pointing out that it’s FACTS and nothing else that tell us clearly that the people involved in covering up Maddie’s death and body – which are many more than the McCanns – are lying.

When one hears what one desires, wishes or wants, instead of nodding in agreement one should be critical as then our ears are in such a state of eagerness that we are easily convinced and so easily fooled.

If we don’t make that effort, anything said that will validate our beliefs or confirm our suspicions will easily be assimilated as fact, and worse, will be taken as truth, without any other duly confirmation.

We, as we have repeatedly said, don’t believe that paedophilia is in any way related with Maddie’s death and that we think that paedophilia is connected with this case in terms of favour pulling after her death in the massive and widely scoped cover-up that followed (meaning only that paedos-in-the-right-places could be and were easily “convinced” to help and not that paedos ran the show) and as an effective distracting misinformation .

We have also said that we don’t shy away from any information that contradicts our thesis. Truth is what guides us and if there’s something new that shows us to be wrong, we obviously correct our course.

We hear many others say the same but unfortunately what we have witnessed is that their actions very rarely, if ever, meet their words. The usual technique is to pretend what contradicts their storyline doesn’t exist.

They pretend they haven’t read it and so they can later say they are not familiar with it and so continue to defend whatever they did before knowing – because what is known cannot be unknown no matter how much pretence is put in the process – the facts that do not support or even do  contradict their theories.

We, as we care very much about what we think about ourselves, prefer to look the contradicting information in the eye.

Mr Hyatt seems, in this interview, to be supportive that there are language indicators of abuse and/or sexual abuse in what the McCanns have said.

This would support the paedophilia theory. So, we looked at what were Mr Hyatt’s arguments to have reached such concluisons.

2. Transcription

We will fully transcribe what is said in the video to support this:

In the second video, at 10:50:

Kate McCann: My memory of that evening, it’s vivid, really vivid, I mean she was really tired but she was just cuddled up on my knee and we read a story and we also had some treats, some crisps and biscuits erm and then after they’d done the usual kind of, toilet, teeth erm we went through to the bedroom and read another story: if you’re happy and you’re know it… ermm.. yep.

Peter Hyatt: When she moves into experiential memory of what happened, she can chose anything she likes to tell us, the words she chooses are going to be important.

So, “My memory of that evening”. First of all we have the word ‘that’ which distances herself from that night, which could be appropriate because it’s chronologically is distant, she says “it’s really vivid, it’s really vivid” and that’s interesting because that type of clarification comes when there’s a hormonal increase. The fight/flight hormone that cortisone and others rise up in the body to the brain brings great clarity of thought but if this was a normal, quiet, happy evening what would cause such vividness in her memory? So this, so what she’s doing, she’s narrative building, she’s telling us that night was anything but normal.

Now, this is my assertion to the viewers: by saying it’s really vivid, she’s choosing these words, she’s telling us, she wants us to believe that her memory is very strong with details. It’s not only vivid, it’s really vivid and I believe her.

“I mean she was really tired”. Now she is using her own words, we must believe her, we must listen to her. I believe her memory of that evening is very vivid because her hormones were on super-high alert.

I believe that Madeleine was really tired and that Madeleine’s tiredness is important to this case and not that she’s mentioned it here. We should be listening and believing her.

“But she just cuddled up on my knee and we read a story and we also had some treats”. This is a portrayal of a really good mom.

I’m asking the viewers to enter not into reality but the verbalised perception of reality. She’s telling you ‘My memory is really strong’ for a reason, I believe her, ‘Madeleine was really tired’ and there’s a reason why that’s there’s here too, ‘I’m a really good mom’, she has a need to tell us this while her child is missing, this is often the indication of neglect or abuse.

There’s a correlation between mothers who, when they go for substance-abuse treatment, if a mother says in the in-screening of substance-abuse treatment ‘I’m a really great mom’ or portrays it in any way, shape or form, it’s a signal for a therapist to go into the history and find this mother has been involved with child protection services.

In other words, great moms are often too tired to talk about how great they are just from being tired, it’s the need to brag is concerning.

Now, her child is missing, at this point the self-condemnation should be through the roof instead of the boasting, it’s not a good sign.

I’m believing her as she’s guiding me, until she talks me out of it. I think, yeah, they may have read, I think they may have had some treats, in fact she’s given me exact details of the treats because she has vivid memory because the hormones are really high which is concerning.

And again what I mentioned earlier about the normal factor, here we go ‘the usual kind’, in other words, the normal usual night. The need for her to express that tells us that it was anything but, was anything but.

Now the mentioning of toilet, teeth, is unnecessary. There’s any number of things you do with a child but she chooses to include these things. These associations in language are often associated with sexual abuse.

Richard Hall: Right…

PH: In this…

RH: I’ve heard you say that before Peter, or read that, and that seems quite… I don’t understand why that might be the case…

PH: Sure and it does warrant an explanation. I was once investigating a robbery and the employees were asked to write up a statement of what they had done and one woman wrote ‘I woke up, brushed my teeth, got dressed and went to work’ and she included the brushing of her teeth and in statement analysis we believe what someone tells us. I believed she brushed her teeth. I also know that when people include brushing teeth in a statement is extremely rare, it’s important to her.

It’s something we all do and 90% plus people don’t feel necessary to tell us they brushed their teeth, so why would brushing the teeth be so important to her?

So I speak to the owner of the business and said ‘I would like to speak to this young woman about the theft’, I said, ‘no, she didn’t steal but I think she’s of victim of domestic violence and she knows who did’.

And they, the owners were shocked ‘How could you possibly known that? We have met with her, she’s in a domestically violent relationship and we talked about it and have been trying to get her out of it but she won’t listen to us, how did you know?’

I said, ‘Because she brushed her teeth’, and they thought that was just crazy and I said no, what we do is that we flag personal hygiene and we ask you to consider what her life is like.

Women that are involved in domestically violent relationships are generally not subject to violence. It is the threat of violence that controls them, so in her world, when she gets up in the morning, she goes into the bathroom, she locks the door and for a few minutes she feels safe while she’s brushing her teeth and tending to herself because the rest of her life is controlled by him. He might text her at work, he might call her at work, he might control things and what I think happened there was that she allowed him and his gang to enter access into the building to commit the theft.

Brushing her teeth was something so important to her that she mentioned it. So whenever we see personal hygiene where it’s unnecessary we explore for these matters.

Now the sexual abuse comes in with water. A school teacher notices that little Johnny comes to school every day and he’s always clean but before every snack, after every snack we have to get him to wash his hands, like all little children, that’s just kind of the norm. One day Johnny comes to school and washes his hands without being asked and washes them again, washes them again and washes them again and the teacher says ‘Uh-oh, something is wrong’. It’s a dramatic change in his behaviour and has to do with water, ok, what they have to explore is the possibility of sexual abuse.

When a child is sexually abused, very early on, in the bedroom by a trusted family member, the child sensory is different and someone may be 40 yrs old and say ‘When I went to the store I opened the door and went in’. You can’t go into a store without opening the door, why would he mention door? Because in his brain there’s an association with the sound of an opening door that’s with him forever, because the opening of the door sound may be associated with when he was sexually abused, or she was sexually abused .

So we believe what everyone tells us, I believe they had this personal hygiene with every 3 yr old goes through it but her inclusion is telling me something is wrong.

Remember the context also, her child is missing, she hasn’t mentioned a thing what Madeleine is going through, but she’s talking about Madeleine’s hygiene, with detail.

So I believe what she’s telling me in that sense but I know there’s a reason why she’s choosing these words.

Then when she says the usual kind, what she’s telling you is that something unusual happened between her and Madeleine that night. 

The bit of the interview about abuse and/or sexual abuse stops at 20:03 and Mr Hyatt then goes into the possibility of a sedation scenario but returns to the topic exactly 1 minute and 30 seconds later at 21:33:

PH: Many examples of how this works out. When someone is accused of sexually molesting a child and the man says ‘I’m a normal happily married man’, what he’s saying is ‘I don’t deny the sexual molestation but I want you to think that I couldn’t have done it because I’m married’. Well, married people still sexually abuse children. So when the word ‘normal’ is used it’s an indication… and any word near that, ‘normal’, ‘usual’, ‘regular’… when it is used it means the person is thinking of something unusual, abnormal, not the norm while they’re speaking and they’re trying to deceive.

So here’s she’s revealing a knowledge, if we listen to her, that this day was, what they went through, that routine, was not normal.

Later on in the interview he comes back to the sexual abuse but we will leave this until later in the post.

3. Analogies

This description made by the McCanns of what allegedly happened on Thursday night (cannot see it to be any other night as there is no reason to describe any other night with such a degree of detail) makes Mr Hyatt deduce the following:

1. Because Kate makes an effort to appear to be a great mum, it’s indicative that there’s possible neglect and/or abuse;

2. Because Kate includes a personal hygiene detail in the description, it’s indicative that there’s possible abuse in a scenario of domestic violence;

3. Because that personal hygiene detail was a reference to brushing teeth, and because this involves water, it’s indicative that there’s possible sexual abuse;

4. Because of the above together with the facts the McCanns are trying to pass that evening as a normal night, it’s indicative, again, that there’s possible sexual molestation.

Very strong conclusions to support the paedophilia theory indeed.

Before analysing each point, we must point out that to support each one of his conclusions, Mr Hyatt uses the following analogies:

To support #1, the in-screening of mothers for substance-abuse treatment who try to pass on how great mums they are.

To support #2, the employee who is allegedly a victim domestic violence.

To support #3, Johnny the little school boy who obsessively washes his hands.

To support #4, the paedo father who claims normality.

4. Kate, the substance abuser

Unlike Mr Hyatt seems to state, it’s not only victims of abuse who boast about their parenting skills.

We are not experts in psychology but can agree with Mr Hyatt that Kate tries to pass on too much the idea of what a great mother she was that night.

We will return to this later in the post but for now we would like to say that to us this could be just to compensate a possible lack of empathy that may have existed between her and her children.

This lack of empathy between mothers and their children is unfortunately not that uncommon in many households but there are many reasons explained by psychology that explain it outside involving automatically victims of abuse.

As one of many examples, narcissistic people who desperately need outside approval may project an emotionally blissful family relationship that simply doesn’t exist.

But the fact that it doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean that a violent and abusive one does in its place, because what usually happens are just detached and unsympathetic relationships between family members.

Mr Hyatt bases his conclusion on the behaviour of mothers with substance-abuse history.

What is factual is that we have no knowledge of Kate having any sort of substance-abuse problem, so where’s the comparison? There isn’t one.

So, upfront, it seems to us that using such an analogy is not only not apt as it’s baseless and wrong because it misleads.

As it’s wrong to withdraw from it to any sort of conclusion based on such an analogy.

Until Mr Hyatt comes up with a better explanation as to why he concludes Kate is a possible victim of abuse just because she boasts what a great mum she is, we for ones are not buying it.

5. Kate, the domestic violence victim

According to Mr Hyatt, the fact that Kate says “they’d done the usual kind of, toilet, teeth” is a strong indicator that Kate would be a victim of domestic violence.

Please note that this follows an already baseless conclusion of abuse, as we showed above.

In this instance, Mr Hyatt uses the analogy of an adult woman, who refers needlessly, to brushing her teeth in the morning.

This would be important because, according to Mr Hyatt, the brushing of her teeth would represent a temporary escape from an abusive husband, as she would be alone in those minutes in the bathroom.

We agree with Mr Hyatt. But only in what concerns the employee in the analogy and no one else.

We doubt very much that an abusive husband would allow the wife to lock the bathroom door but agree that in the bathroom tending to our personal hygiene we can be alone, totally alone and so find it natural for this particular woman to find then and there a needed refuge from her abusive husband.

Problem is that this analogy has absolutely nothing to do with what Kate said.

Not even the teeth brushing, as the employee is referring to her own teeth while Kate is speaking of her children’s teeth (yes, please note the plural as it’s important).

Let’s start with the fact that in the analogy the employee refers to morning and Kate is referring clearly to bedtime.

This is important because it’s not uncommon, in fact it’s usual to refer to hygiene habits when we are talking about sending children to bed so the brushing of teeth is not unnecessarily referred to as Mr Hyatt seems to imply.

Talking about hygiene habits in the morning, as the employee does, is unusual. When we talk about our morning habits we tend to focus on the kitchen.

Talking about our morning coffee when speaking of how our day starts is as natural as mentioning the kids having brushed their teeth when speaking about them when they are going to bed.

At that particular time of a day’s routine in a family with toddlers teeth brushing is as common to be mentioned as are reading a story or singing a lullaby. Kate refers to both and Mr Hyatt sees nothing relevant in these, and we agree with him.

Also, nowhere in her narrative does Kate refer being alone in the bathroom (to supposedly seek refuge from Gerry).

She even says “they’d done” which means she would be in the bathroom with the 3 toddlers, which makes it 4 people, so hardly alone.

Mr Hyatt seems to be making an inappropriate comparison between a scenario of a woman alone where there’s a woman with 3 children.

And where is it said that it was Kate who brushed the children’s teeth? She speaks of toilet, which we assume is referring to nappy changing. So, taking into account there were 3 children to put to bed, we think all the chores involved would be shared by husband and wife.

In that case of having been Gerry who brushed their teeth would Mr Hyatt imply that he was seeking refuge from Kate in the bathroom?

Nothing from employee story, however truthful it may be and which we are not doubting it is, can be applied to Kate’s narrative.

Again, until Mr Hyatt explains better why he concludes from Kate’s words why we may be before a situation of domestic violence, we’re not buying it.

6. Maddie, the sexually molested

Note, we changed here from Kate to Maddie because as Mr Hyatt is clear – “Now the sexual abuse comes in with water” – and as we can only see at this point of the narrative the only water related activity is the brushing of teeth and only the children are referred to as brushing their teeth, so the sexual abuse mentioned can only refer to one or all the toddlers.

Mr Hyatt uses the analogy of Johnny, the school boy who has a dramatic change in his behaviour and has to do with water” to illustrate how he reaches the conclusion that in Kate’s words one can deduce sexual molestation having occurred.

Here, again, we agree with Mr Hyatt. And again only with what is said in the analogy and only there.

It’s true that some child victims of sexual abuse wash themselves obsessively. This has nothing to do with water but with the cleansing that the water is supposed to bring. The child feels soiled and so seeks to wash that dirt away, and because she or he can’t, the poor child insists, insists and insists, unsuccessfully persisting to achieve a cleansing result from the act. It’s not the water that is sought but what it can do, and can’t, to clean the perceived soiling of the body.

Problem here, again, is that the analogy has absolutely nothing to do with what Kate has said.

Where is this obsessive cleansing, this “dramatic change in his behaviour and has to do with water” in Kate’s narrative? Nowhere.

So why use this analogy? We can’t see why.

Repeating ourselves, unless Mr Hyatt explains better why he sees sexual molestation – by the way a very serious allegation to make and that should NEVER be made lightly – we are not buying it.

7. The door and sexual molestation

Mr Hyatt, out of the blue and out of any context – at this point in time no one has mentioned a door – decides to tell a story of a man, supposedly sexually molested as a child, reacting to the sound of an the door he opens when entering a store.

Again, we agree with the analogy but in what pertains to the analogy only.

We sincerely don’t know why this analogy is even being brought up, or rather, we do, he wants to speak later about the door as we will see.

However, the analogy is not about the door.

Like the Johnny analogy was not about water but what the water represented, this one is about what sound the door makes when opening.

That’s what triggers the traumatic response. The man in the analogy has nothing against doors but only against a particular sound made when one is opened.

That particular door may have made that particular sound or one very similar to it, to the one made by the door of his childhood ordeal, and so he reacted to it, even if unconsciously. But it was to a similar sound of that door opening and not to all doors, otherwise this man’s life would be even more a living hell than it already was.

The analogy refers an opening of a door but could have been a squeak in the floor or the ticking of a clock or any other stimulus that would have been present when suffering the aggressions.

In this particular case it was the sound of a door opening, and not the door itself that triggered the traumatic memories in the man and we accept that did indeed happen.

But what has, in Kate’s words, represented anything similar to the triggering of a traumatic response as per represented by the sound of the analogy’s opening door?


So why mention it?

Note that this completely irrelevant and inappropriate within this context analogy follows immediately the other one, also completely irrelevant and inappropriate, about Johnny and sexual molestation.

But once heard, the door analogy does underline the Johnny one and a possible sexual molestation within the McCann household is affirmed.

Without any base whatsoever.

Both analogies are supposedly true stories and nowhere have we denied that. Not only they could be true as they are enticing in their details. The reasoning is flawless so our brains fail to process they have absolutely nothing to do with what is being analysed.

They are told in such a way that our brains fail to capture, because of our ears are avid, that neither apply to wording being looked at. That failure means that we retain that there’s a strong indication of a sexual molestation which is simply not there.

We hear 2 truthful stories out of the mouth of a supposed expert and when he ends up saying that about in Kate’s words we believe him, failing to see that just an attentive look would suffice to see clearly that nothing of the sort could be concluded.

At least not from these words from Kate and those are the ones being analysed.

At this point in time, no abuse or sexual abuse allegation has been substantiated but the paedophile subscriber viewer is convinced wholeheartedly that they were. Others who up to this point were not, are starting to wonder.

8. Gerry, the sexual molester

After a completely out of context analogy, Mr Hyatt follows with another: the molesting father who tries to portrays normalcy.

Yes, we agree that the McCanns are indeed trying to portray a normal family evening but from that to conclude that we are before a molesting father goes a distance too far. Way too far.

It only makes sense because it follows all the previous allegations of abuse/sexual abuse, which as we saw, are absolutely baseless. But, as we said, our brains did capture and validate them.

Without them, this one doesn’t make any sense. It’s absurd to allege in any way of a presence of sexual molestation against children based solely on the fact that a narrative seeks to portray a normal evening, which we agree wasn’t normal at all.

Yet, at the end of this exercise, many will be convinced that Maddie was a victim of sexual molestation and many will be convinced that Gerry McCann is a child molester.

After all, Mr Hyatt, a statement analyst expert, has strongly implied it with all the conclusions he’s made.

Note the plural, conclusions, many of them, all pointing in the same direction: sexual abuse.

But the truth is that all of these conclusions are totally erroneous and should be completely ignored.

9. Kate, the molested child

Not only are the above conclusions not ignored as they come back later in the interview with a very, very serious allegation to boot: implying strongly that Kate was molested as a child.

The transcript at 36:34:

Peter Hyatt: “The bedroom door, where the three children”, the three children, not ‘my kids’, that’s distancing language there, “were sleeping was open much further than I’d left it”. That’s not what she says, “we’d left it”. Does that mean that she and her husband, each took a hand and moved the door to a certain level together? Because that’s what she wants me to believe? She’s lying, this is deception.

The fact she’s using door for deception is because she’s building a narrative about a kidnapping. The need to build a narrative about a kidnapping says the child wasn’t kidnapped, that plainly.

“And literally as I went back in the curtains of the bedroom, which were drawn, were closed, it was like a gust of wind blew upon them”. She’s asking you to enter into an emotional fictitious account, this is writing fiction, this is something that even statement analysis 101 would be able to grab on. So I conclude here, deception indicated from this alone.

Richard Hall: And you mention here again, doors and windows are often found within languages of sexual abuse…

PH: Yeah, I’m concerned, I’m concerned, this is not a normal family. There are verbal indicators, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that Madeleine was a victim of sexual abuse, what it could be is in the language of Kate that she was sexually abused while she was growing up. This would leave her vulnerable for things such as neglect.

That’s, and if you take that the next step, someone that has been sexually abused in the childhood was now vulnerable to neglecting her own children, possibly even failing to protect them, if someone else, like her husband, was involved in sexual abuse.

Note how it is Richard Hall who brings back the sexual abuse theme into the interview.

As we saw by the analogy of the man going into the store, and unlike Mr Hall says, doors and windows are found within languages of sexual abuse but not as inanimate objects but because of the traumatic responses they provoke.

Because most of this kind of abuse happens in the bedroom it is expected to find that doors and windows are often mentioned. But, we repeat, it is what represents the action involving those objects and not the objects themselves.

It’s only when such an object is mentioned out of context in a conversation (and that is one very subjective judgement to make) should it be considered of interest.

Is Kate’s mentioning of the door out of context? To us, it seems clearly it is well within context.

In her narrative, she wishes to explain why she thought something was wrong and that something was the door was positioned. How on earth can she convey that without mentioning the door?

Did the reporters from the tabloids who invented the preposterous story of the abductor being behind the bedroom door when Gerry was supposedly in the apartment have sexual molestation issues in their childhood as well because they mentioned a door?

The fact that one mentions a door in a conversation, or a window, doesn’t mean one is necessarily confessing to have been sexually molested as a young child.

By the way, where is the reference from Mr Hyatt that windows represent in any way sexual abuse during or in the context of this interview? We fail to see any. So why does Richard Hall say Mr Hyatt says they do?

What we seem to be witnessing is Richard Hall bringing back the sexual abuse theme solely based on the erroneous conclusion made by Mr Hyatt from the door opening man analogy that anyone mentioning a door in a conversation means that there is some sort of sexual abuse in the background.

So, it seems that for Mr Hyatt, the simple fact that Kate mentions a door, perfectly within context, he strongly implies that she was sexually molested as a child.

Was it her father, her uncles, her grandfathers? It could have been a neighbour or a teacher, who knows.

To be fair, Hyatt doesn’t say a male relative abused Kate, as he doesn’t mention anyone but that’s the first thing that people are likely to assume. And within the male relatives, the father will be the first person people will assume abused her. That’s the first image his words evoked for us.

That is one very serious allegation to make. Much more serious when it is based on absolutely nothing, as this one is unless Mr Hyatt has other reasons to make it that we don’t know.

10. Normalcy

Where we agree with Mr Hyatt is that the McCanns seem in this interview to be pushing hard, too hard, to portray a normal family evening and that noticeable effort should make us all question seriously if it was anything but normal.

We absolutely share Mr Hyatt’s belief that Thursday evening wasn’t a normal evening. That it was anything but.

But we disagree with Mr Hyatt when he says “when she moves into experiential memory of what happened” as he’s implying that Kate is speaking from experience about what happened on that night.

We disagree, we think she’s being completely fictitious.

Yes, we agree that she desires to portray a normal family evening but not because she lived anything similar to what she’s saying but because the reason she knows that night had not been normal was because by when she starts the tale, by bedtime, Maddie was already dead.

Mr Hyatt seems to be assuming that during the time portrayed the children were indeed being put to bed, or in other words that Kate is simply distorting reality in her favour while we, on the other hand, say she’s inventing a total new reality, one in which Maddie is to be believed that she’s still alive and all was absolutely and completely normal.

11. Conclusion

We ask readers to be very critical when listening to what “appeases” their suspicions.

As we saw people being wrongly influenced by Mr Hyatt’s words that Maddie could have been indeed a victim of sexual molestation, we felt it was our duty to intervene.

We continue to consider that much more important at this moment is the South Yorkshire police conclusions to the Ben Needham investigation.

That, we believe, has serious implications to the Maddie case. We continue to be anxiously waiting for them.


  1. The opening/ closing of doors, windows and curtains is all part of the contradictory narratives attempting to explain how the abductor/s did it.
    As the abductor theory was challenged, it became necessary for them to defend it.

    What Hyatt may not be aware of is that Payne describes seeing the children dressed in pyjamas, looking angelic, when he visits before actual bedtime.
    In this scenario, Kate has done all the bedtime preparation, as Gerry is playing tennis.
    The account Hyatt hears in 2011 may lead him to conclude both parents were in attendance because Kate uses "we", which could mean her and children or Gerry and Kate with the children.
    I accept statement analysis deals with statements, without full knowledge of cases, merely indicating areas which merit further investigation because they point to sensitive areas. That's fine, but at the stage of analysis reached here, it needs an investigator to look at the in-depth information and determine WHY doors, windows and curtains were so sensitive, as they clearly were.
    Hyatt seems to have strayed from statement analysis into other case to use as comparisons, but he's not comparing like with like in the abuse examples.
    I believe Op Grange has been sent this Information, so they can, if they wish, use this information against what is known, both in PJ files and whatever else they have investigated since.
    IF they wish!

  2. I find it strange that Hyatt focuses on Kate because he analyses her words, but doesn't question whether she implies Gerry was also there. If she is sensitive about that night's bedtime routine, what was Gerry's role? Does Hyatt think Gerry was there or not?

  3. Great as usual ladies...i was thourghly captivated by the long discourse between "Rich" and Mr Hyatt. As i said elsewhere he pushed all the correct buttons....regarding what happened.
    I did feel however we needed to take care and read between the usual you have been far more insightful than i. What is the game? Is it to divert by pointing the wrong way? Or is it to push us "forkers" into making ever more ludicrous on line statements.
    Keep on straightening these bends on the road!!


    1. textusa , i enjoy your contribution and insight on the Maddie case but you seem to be working very hard in this instance.

      To quote your latest article , at the start ...With all due respect for Mr Hyatt, there was no need, neither then nor now, for an expert in statement analysis, a subjective science, to tell us that, facts do.

      Where are the facts that support "swinging".

      You sound rather sanctinomnious. I find your musings on the case no less valid than Mr Hyatt's.

    2. You make a very valid point regards swinging and the lack of facts that supports TextUsa's theory. In saying that I think they have made valid points in this article

    3. Anonymous 2 Dec 2016, 11:30:00 and Anonymous2 Dec 2016, 18:50:00,

      In order to please you could you please detail what you would consider, specifically, what "facts that support swinging" would you expect to find (and obviously haven't) and that would convince you of it.

      Thank you.

    4. The fact I would expect to find is that someone involved ( you seem to think there was a fairly large number in the overall 'group) actually stating that's what was going on. This piece of information is pretty valuable and no doubt someone would 'cash in'. There is however not a shred of actual evidence which supports swinging, it's just a theory based on guesswork.

    5. nonymous 2 Dec 2016, 21:12:00,

      Thank you for your reply.

      Do you consider, when PJ writes, within this investigation about the diligence they did in Quinta de Sto Phunurius (somehow related with Robert Murat) that “in conversation with various locals [populares] residing in the same area it was possible to determine that is it is a Quinta property of English citizens and that would have management by an individual of American nationality with residence in (…), having the locals [populares] further referred that the Quinta is used for “PARTIES” of sexual nature” that it is someone, using your words, "actually stating that's what was going on”?

      By the way, could you if you don't mind, tell us which theory is there about what happened to Maddie that is supported on "someone involved actually stating that's what was going on"?

      We would be curious to know.

      Thank you, once again.

    6. So somehow related to Robert Murat but no evidence of McCanns being involved there? It was one of the group of swingers 'cashing in' I was referring to. After nearly ten years you would have thought that at least one would be willing to sell their story considering they have done nothing illegal but maybe embarrassing for most.

    7. Anonymous 3 Dec 2016, 00:06:00,

      Our sincere apologies. We thought the point of this entire exercise was about, using your words, "you seem to think there was a fairly large number in the overall 'group'" and not only about the McCanns!

      Noticed that you did not answer the question about what other scenario is there about what happened to Maddie that is supported on, your words, "someone involved actually stating that's what was going on".

      As we are certain that when you demanded us that, you demanded that of yourself first. That scenario, or theory, would be, we think, what you support and we are indeed curious to know what it is.

  4. Thankfully you are the voice of sense,diligent and measured in your approach.I've spent time reading many of your older blogs and each one is like a stepping stone,for which I'm certain you are on the right path


    Craig Murray states categorically that there was no paedo ring in PdL: "For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe there was a high level paedophile ring involved. I make no such argument."

  6. This is the version that should be used for comparison. Lies, explaining inconsistencies, K only saying ‘M’ not ‘the children’!

  7. To me it seemed in the first instance the word Abuse was being used in general with no pacific sort mentioned, but Mr Hall jumped on this & kept pushing for the sexual abuse option at Mr Hyatt who then obliged.
    Maybe it was physical abuse and the reason she fell?.

    1. Care Ren,

      We agree, in the sense that any act resulting in even the unintentional death of a child is abuse.

    2. I don't agree with that, Textusa, I think that any act resulting in an unintentional death isn't abuse but lack of imagination.

  8. Reviews to Hyatt's book

  9. Great post ladies,I definitely agree there's no paedophilia connection to Madeleine or sexual abuse prior to her death
    I get frustrated that people like Richard Hall push their own theories he conveniently left out sedatives for a valid reason for not wanting autopsy only pushing abuse,he also quoted the Gasper statement as fact that Mrs G knew they were discussing Madeleine instead of quoting correctly she believed they were.
    I have my own beliefs in this case and no one has persuaded me different and probably never will.
    I give credit to Hall he's spent time and money travelling to Portugal and America if that is where the interview took place and Hyatt has given the case another boost and hopefully being a professional will open more people up to face the facts that Madeleine McCann's death is a cover up here in the uk all publicity is welcomed.
    Obviously many of us know there's certain individuals following and reporting on this case who have hopes of some kind of recognition but that's for them and their egos lets face it honestly no one has really shared anything we haven't already found for ourselves since the release of the police files but anyone who gets it out there for me is great. X

    Mc FB page seems to have gone!

    1. Sorry, just looked and it's back.

      False leads!!
      I thought that's what Mcs specialised in.
      How does a webmaster know if a lead is false? Only if they know if M is dead.

  11. Thank you. You have picked up on issues I find frustrating with statement analysis. In statement analysis there appears to be heavy reliance on particular words, or particular uses of words, always meaning the same thing in each and every criminal case. Every English literature student knows this is not the case. The same words can be used in a variety of ways, in a variety of contexts, and in order to unlock their meaning in specific cases/texts it has to make sense to that specific case/text. It would not make sense to assume the way the words are used in one text means they are being used identically in this one.

    In order to analyse a transcript of Kate, one would have to look at the purpose and function of the transcript. In the case of this recent video, the 'statement' analysis is not of a police statement at all, but of a video of an interview. Therefore the purpose and function are very different. This is not a blow-by-blow factual account by a witness shortly after the event to Police in a crime investigation but an interview by a journalist or broadcaster for television for a public audience, for public consumption, a long time after the event. this will change the content and style of this 'statement'. The context of this 'statement' is very different. Kate's use of 'that' in 'that night' is not necessary distancing, although if it is, it is understandable - this was a long time ago. It is my belief she is responding to a question by the journalist something along the lines of, 'Tell us what happened that night', so she is merely echoing the question in her response. Similarly, when she lapses into 'you', she is not necessarily distancing herself for the reasons asserted by the statement analyst but possibly because of the context/purpose of the interview: she is being led by the interviewer to give the 'human story' to the interested public who have never experienced something so harrowing. It appears to come from a 'Tell us what it's like to lose a child' type of question. So perhaps Kate is changing her language to the second person here in order to help the audience personalise this experience. Also, in the statement analysis by an American, it is possible there is some misunderstanding of British idioms. 'How we left it' (the door) does not mean 'we both touched it and pulled it to like that' but could be the British 'Royal we', i.e 'I left it', or could refer to her memory of how it was when 'we' collectively left the apartment. it is is very English to say 'How we left it' if 'we', collectively, left a dwelling. (I'm not saying here that the Mccanns are innocent, that they did leave the apartment that night, or that they did leave the door exactly ajar as they said they did, I'm just pointing out that the statement analyst could be jumping on certain uses of words inaccurately. There does seem to be an inconsistency in the stories around the door, because Kate - being the last to 'check' in their timeline version of events - should not have expected the door to be left exactly as she or 'we' had left it, because she can't know how the others checking before her left it. So the statement analyst may be correct in picking up on this inconsistency, but perhaps not for the right reason.

  12. Cont...

    The statement analysis in terms of the windows and doors suggests to me a possible injection of (Sigmund, not Clement) Freud into the mix (doors and windows being openings). In my opinion this weakens statement analysis, again because there is over-reliance on words always meaning the same thing in every context. In my work I have listened to people for thousands of hours. Each person's individual words have particular meaning to them and have to be understood in that context, in the logic of their world. Even Freud would say sometimes a door means just a door. You are quite right to point out there is good reason for Kate to be talking about windows and doors. She also has reasonable grounds for talking about toilet and teeth if she is asked to run through the events of 'that night'. Again, I'm not saying she is speaking the truth, or that other things didn't happen that night, merely agreeing teeth and toilet with small children can mean teeth and toilet. There may be other reasons why she is drawing particular importance to these things - to draw the audience's attention to the normality of that evening, to suggest she was a good mother with a disciplined hygiene routine etc., so it is fair an analyst would draw attention to it, but the domestic abuse case he alludes to is a stretch too far. The bathroom may well be sensitive - something may well have taken place in there that night and that is why it slips into Kate's language - but that bathrooms always mean sexual abuse or domestic violence is unlikely and makes me question statement analysis as a discipline.

    1. Anonymous 3 Dec 2016, 08:40:00,

      Thank you for taking the time to write such a considered reply!

      As the apartment shows clear signs of having been cleaned up for traces of blood and as we also believe Maddie's body was also cleaned up before being removed from apartment, we think that the bathroom did play an important role that evening.

  13. DO NOT PUBLISH Anonymous at 3 Dec 2016, 08:17:00,

    No, we didn't. Thank you.

    1. DO NOT PUBLISH Anonymous at 3 Dec 2016, 12:01:00,

      Thank you again and we will have a look!

  14. British use the plural - they - quite often to describe an unknown person/people.
    Coming back to a burgled house
    "We've been burgled. They've left a terrible mess."
    It could be 1 man or 1 woman 2 men, 2 women, or 1 of each
    So they covers wider possibilities
    K's shout of "they've taken her" didn't necessarily refer to more than 1 person, in my opinion - it's just a common expression.
    Likewise, the door where we'd left it can mean where G left it and she's expressing agreement with him as a unified we when speaking in TV interview.
    If she'd said that to pJ immediately, it's less likely to have same meaning, as she should have said, it wasn't in the same position as G left it.

    It doesn't need statement analysis to detect an inconsistency in accounts.
    Why would in be in the same position if Matt had looked in on the kids after K and G left at 8.30.
    When G returned at 9.05, seeing the door in a different position wouldn't mean anything.

    1. We agree that we vs I is not relevant when responding to n interview 4 years after events happened and it would only be important when questioned immediately or a little after them.

      The couple by then had gone through so many interviews and experiences related with Maddie's disappearance that it would be expected they would have created a "we" persona about many things related to that.

      As we showed in our post "Kate McCann confesses, finally" in May 2009, the importance of the "as we left it" is not the 'we' part but the fact that recollection ignores completely both Gerry's 'proud moment' and Matt Oldfield's presence in the apartment.

      The 'we' part of that statement is as natural as saying 'locked the door' which doesn't specify who of a couple did indeed lock the door.

    2. I'm very pleased to read what I've been trying to say for years. The use of the plural "they" to describe an unknown number of unidentified persons isn't specific to English. It exists in Romanic languages like French and Portuguese. Its advantage is to allude to undetermined persons excluding you and me.

  15. I'm not one to focus too much on the words of people, I'm sure there is a good science to it but if I was sitting on a jury and if they allowed statement analysis to be presented I certainly couldn't convict people based only on the words they speak and someone's analysis of what they mean. I watched Mr Hyatts videos with interest and could see with the exception of the P angle where he highlighted the words they spoke exposed their lies. However as Textusa says the truth has exposed them for the lies they told so these interviews while interesting to watch told us nothing different. However is saying that one of the most telling part of the whole case was imo the "they have taken her " from Kate I don't agree with you annon 11:17 that it's " just a common expression" it tells us exactly that she knew that there were more than Gerry McCann involved that night in the moving of the child's body and that she knew it was going to be moved. She was traumatised others were taking over and organising what was going on she knew the body had to be moved she knew that Gerry and others were organising it but the shock of finally realising that it had actually happened was too much for her and she ran from the apartment with no thought for consequences of Blurting out what she said. Over the years she has stuck to the line I just knew they had taken her in an attempt to convince people that when she said taken her she meant abducted when infact she meant removed her body. On a lighter note wasnt it laughable how RDH keep trying to flog the death earlier in the week theory until finally Mr Hyatt obliged by interpreting Kate saying that they moved the body in the car they hired 3 weeks later as an indication that they might need to revised the timescale?????? Even RDH wasn't buying that conclusion yet it the possibility of death earlier in the week ended up as one of the key observations at the end.

    1. I'm 11:17
      "They've taken her"
      Agree it could be plural, but just pointing out that it can't be assumed.
      However, I would have expected her to shout, Maddie is gone, or Maddie is not in the apartment, not They've taken her. The brain would only process so much information in the shock of the moment.
      Not curtain and door positions.
      The rest of the comment I also agree with.

    2. Anonymous 3 Dec 2016, 19:06:00,

      A friend of ours has said it best about Richard Hall coming to the conclusion that Mr Hyatt has in anyway acknowledged that death was before Thursday night: poetic licence.

      We disagree with friend. As we are on statement analysis topic, not being experts nor claiming to be ones, it seems very clear to us that a reply of “it’s possible” is dismissive and certainly not at all affirmative.

      A simple admission of not having enough elements neither to deny nor to answer the question with certainty so one opts for an uncompromising leaving of all options open.

    3. It's strange that Peter Hyattes analysis of the-activities of the last evenings bedtime routine has been given so much positive review by people who think she was already dead days earlier.

  16. What needs to be established is how much Hyatt knew of the case before the interview. Showing he didn't know about car shows he doesn't know important details of the case. And also how much of what he knows was given to him by Hall.


    1. We would like to highlight the following in this article.

      First to be noted is that it’s not written by Lazzeri.

      About the content:

      Title: Cops given cash (…)

      “SCOTLAND Yard has been given more money (…) in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

      The development is being taken so seriously that senior Whitehall officials have been briefed by the Met on its progress.”


      The search for Madeleine has been extended by months after Scotland Yard was given more cash.

      But senior cops admit the investigation (…) is the “last throw of the dice” in their hunt.

      The Met is taking the development so seriously that leading Whitehall officials are being briefed on its progress.


      Retired Yard detective Colin Sutton said the extra money for the last line of inquiry means “there must be something worthwhile”.


      The last-ditch move to discover her fate comes eight months after Met commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe predicted the force’s £12million Operation Grange probe was coming to an end.

      He had said that it was likely to conclude within a few months after a final matter was checked out.


      The source said: “There is specific information which is being investigated.

      “The team is trying to confirm or disprove it and will exhaust every possible avenue of information, as they always promised Mr and Mrs McCann they would.’’

      The source said: “The Home Office has agreed to continue funding the police work until it is completed.

      “At present, funding is due to run out next April when it will be reviewed again.”


      The Home Office granted the inquiry another £95,000 in April to continue for a further six months.

      Sources say that has now been matched with a similar sum.

      A family source said: “Kate and Gerry will not comment on any part of Operation Grange.”

      The Met Police also declined to comment.


      Overall, we would say good news.

      Please note that from now won, Scotland Yard has been “downgraded”. Things are at Whitehall now.

      Even the rest we cut out which is quite pretty insulting to anyone’s intelligence and that does not make anyone be more sympathetic towards the couple, does it?

    2. We would like for someone to clarify this statement from article:

      "In 2011, police in Portugal smashed a trafficking ring snatching young women and underage girls in the Algarve and Aveiro, in the north of the country."

      We have no recollection of anything similar.

      Also about "Anti-child trafficking charity ECPAT International said Portugal was “attractive to traffickers” because of the ease in which children can be driven through borders" doesn't differentiate Portugal from the others EU countries on this subject, so no reason to be especially appetising for this sort of crime.

      A statement filled with xenophobia.

    3. The team is trying to confirm or disprove it and will exhaust every possible avenue of information, as they always promised Mr and Mrs McCann they would.’’
      The source said: “The Home Office has agreed to continue funding the police work until it is completed.
      “At present, funding is due to run out next April when it will be reviewed again.”

      So no archiving .........truth or 3rd option

    4. Anonymous 4 Dec 2016, 09:34:00,

      For those not familiar with blog and Third Option:

    5. And we would also like to highlight the following from our "Sagresman" post:

      "Wojciech Krokowski and his wife weren’t seen setting foot in Praia da Luz. If they did, they did like we did, they just passed through the town.

      Knowing that, the following passages of said article are for us very interesting:

      “But Mr Krokowski, who describes himself as an “obsessive photographer” told us he still had every single picture he took the day Madeleine vanished and handed them over so we could pass them to Operation Grange.


      Speaking about the photos from his holiday in 2007, Mr Krokowski said he was happy to hand them over.

      He added: “We are not the type of people to lie on the beach so we travelled a lot in that area between Sagres and Burgau and I have plenty of photos from our time there but the police never asked for them.

      “I thought once maybe I should show those photos. They are not just ¬landscapes, there are lots of people. Maybe something in there could be helpful.

      “I collect all my photographs, I still have them from that trip, of course you can have them if they could help in anyway.””

      There are only so many pictures one can take of the Praia da Luz beach. We were there so we know that for a fact.

      Let us just highlight the following fom the quotes above:

      “he still had every single picture he took”

      “was happy to hand them over”

      “we travelled a lot in that area between Sagres and Burgau and I have plenty of photos from our time there”

      “they are not just ¬landscapes, there are lots of people. Maybe something in there could be helpful”

      But what we really, REALLY want to highlight are the following 2 paragraphs of the article:

      “Officers are scouring ­dozens of images from the camera of businessman Wojciech Krokowski, from Poland.

      They are focusing on those he took while in Praia da Luz around the time Madeleine went missing – on May 3, 2007.”

      So he was in Praia da Luz after all. And if the pictures he supposedly took there were only of the beach and its scenery would they be the focus of anything?"

    6. Is some one in your opinion pushing the third option as a last throw of the dice because the truth is now the more likely outcome?

      Desperate times.

    7. Anonymous 4 Dec 2016, 12:53:00,

      On the contrary, this is not a move from the desperate ones. This, in our opinion, is a move from government.

      The entire article can de summed up in 2 main ideas "Whitehall" and "Final ditch".

      The rest is just decoration around these 2 messages.

      Whitehall is clearly stepping in.

      Now one just has to pick a pencil and paper and do the math and calculate what would be the odds for Whitehall to call upon itself the Third Option which is a highly questionable theory to say the least - definitely a very risky one - when it could have left the hot potato in the Scotland Yard's hands.

    8. Textusa,
      This is the 2011 trafficking ring article mentions

    9. Anonymous 5 Dec 2016, 19:06:00,

      Thank you for your link. Effectively, as the article you linked, clearly shows that there was trafficking ring dismantled in Portugal.

      As we said, we didn’t recollect it.

      A few passages from the article:

      “Na sequência da operação Roadbook, vieram a ser identificadas 30 mulheres, todas romenas, que eram obrigadas a prostituir-se. Muitas delas estavam incluídas num circuito que incluía casas de alterne em Espanha, Itália, Inglaterra e Alemanha.”
      "Não se limitavam a retirar-lhes os passaportes. Há conhecimento de inúmeros espancamentos e de maus tratos psicológicos, sobretudo com as mulheres que estavam viciadas no consumo de droga", disse ao PÚBLICO fonte conhecedora do processo.
      "Vinham da Roménia a troco de uma vida melhor, de promessas de muito dinheiro. Acabavam instaladas em casas arrendadas, tanto na zona de Aveiro como no Algarve e eram espancadas de cada vez que se recusavam a ser transferidas para outro local ou quando protestavam por causa do dinheiro que, muitas vezes, não lhes entregavam"

      Women (and girls, some minors) were convinced to come out of Romania and after having their passport seized, were forced into prostitution.

      Unfortunately, not that of an uncommon crime worldwide.

      These criminals do not abduct 4 yr olds for prostitution. To use link this crime with that of Maddie’s is just loathsome.

    10. Anonymous 5 Dec 2016, 19:06:00,

      The ring was dismantled in 2011 and brought to trial in 2012. Case totally closed.

      Some of the prostitution was a rod-side one.

      The minors had with them false ID papers stating they were adults.

      Again, to bring this up and link it to Maddie is beyond any shame.

  18. Here we go again....

  19. To add to the collection:

  20. Sorry to comment off topic, but can I ask whether the authors have any insight as to when an outcome to the McCann/Amaral case is happening (or has it happened and gone unreported)? I thought it was expected to be resolved in the autumn.

    1. We have been for years linking a British closure of the Maddie affair, whichever way, until after the Lisbon trial opposing the McCanns and Mr Amaral.

      It is on its final straight and we have been hoping that the decision from the Portuguese Supreme Court to happen before Christmas and that hasn't happened.

      Our hopes, we must confess, are dwindling away, so we are now pointing for early 2017.

  21. Unpublished Anonymous at 4 Dec 2016, 14:09:00,

    We prefer not to publish anything which mentions those brothers or food products.

    1. Food for thought:

      "Users of 4chan and another message board Reddit claimed that words in the emails, such as cheese, hot dog, and pizza, were code for young children and sex acts"

      We live in an age where everything, under the penalty of one feeling unintelligent before one's peers, has to mean something dreadful or fearful.

      Baseless conclusions are very quickly assimilated as facts which in turn serve as the base for the next batch of fake news.

  22. Latest news from the FindBenNeedham page:

    Help Find Ben Needham added 2 new photos.
    2 hrs ·

    All it takes is ONE person, ONE phone call , ONE anonymous tip sent to South Yorkshire Police. PLEASE help us find Ben and end this horrific torment now. 25 years is too long to hold this secret. WE WONT GIVE UP OR GO AWAY.

    We would like to highlight the following comments and replies:

    Janine Humphries How come there's been no official statement from the police since they came back from Kos
    Like · Reply · 2 · 1 hr
    Help Find Ben Needham
    Help Find Ben Needham They are still getting everything together , shouldn't be long now. There's still plans behind the scenes , don't worry. We aren't going anywhere til Ben is found xx
    Like · Reply · 27 · 1 hr · Edited

    Louise Chickadee I thought they had given a final answer as to what happens to Ben? Although I never thought it was acceptable or enough for his family.... I thought that they had come the the conclusion he had been accidently killed by that farmer??
    Like · Reply · 1 hr
    Help Find Ben Needham
    Help Find Ben Needham That is the conclusion and we won't give up til Ben is found xx
    Like · Reply · 3 · 1 hr

    1. Farmer? I assume they are talking about Dinos? Well the SYP statement doesn't name Dinos or anyone else. Every single media outlet have put the blame on Dinos, however.

      Also why this plea for one call/person/tip if there are plans in place by SYP ready to go soon and not to worry?

    2. @17:22
      Noticed that too. Farmer, not digger driver.
      Maybe things going towards farmhouse owner who ate lunch with them?

    This is the info today's articles refer to. This is re-cycled rubbish
    John Shord from Met Police vice squad was the person behind the Belgian paedo ring story in 2008, sent to PJ and in files
    Who is John Shord in terms of credibility? The Vice squad had a terrible reputation.
    I think someone should question Met officer John Shord, formerly of Braintree Essex.
    All discredited by Rebelo
    Who paid him for this info?
    Vice Squad - well named!



  26. About the articles above, we would like to ask readers to make the following comparison between snippets (our caps) we took from the Express article - the Metro one is just the usual echo:

    “Portuguese police chiefs HAVE SAID they are “completely in tune” with British detectives following a tip that a gang of European traffickers snatched Madeleine McCann.”

    “Policia Judiciaria (PJ) bosses SAY their relationship with the Scotland Yard team given fresh cash to investigate the new lead is “easy and fluid”.”

    “The COMMENTS, made by a Lisbon-based senior officer, will give missing Madeleine’s parents fresh hope of answers to the near-ten-old mystery.”

    “A senior Lisbon-based PJ officer, SPEAKING ON CONDITION OF ANONYMITY…”

    With this:

    “The Policia Judiciaria DECLINED TODAY to make any official comment on the weekend trafficking claims”

    And this:

    “A spokesman for Portugual’s Attorney General’s office CONFIRMED TODAY the first of the six letters was returned on November 26, 2014 after being completed.

    The remaining five were returned between January 12 last year and October 25 this year, when the final one which is thought to have contained the results of DNA tests from Portugal’s Police Scientific Laboratory, was sent back to the British authorities.

    The content of the letters has not been made public.”

    1. And from the above, we would like to highlight the following:

      “A spokesman for Portugal’s Attorney General’s office confirmed today the first of the six letters was returned on November 26, 2014 after being completed.

      The remaining five were returned between January 12 last year and October 25 this year, when the final one which is thought to HAVE CONTAINED THE RESULTS OF DNA TESTS FROM PORTUGAL’S POLICE SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY, was sent back to the British authorities.

      The content of the letters has not been made public.”

      We will be curious to find out if the DNA tested by the IMNL matches those from the "European trafficking gang" whoever they may be.

    2. And from the article itself, we have to, obviously, point out this:

      "The PJ made no secret of their rejection of the theory championed by former Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood about Madeleine being kidnapped from her Algarve holiday flat by a gang of thieves during a bungled burglary."

    3. And on a less serious note, please do compare this:

      "A senior Lisbon-based PJ officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “Although we are talking from a formal point of view about two different investigations which are independent of each other, the contacts between the two teams are easy and frequent.

      “The high-ranking meetings at the PJ HQ in Lisbon, which worked to establish models of co-operation are no longer needed.

      “Since the Operation Grange leadership changed, the relationship is easy and fluid and conducted by phone."

      With this:

      “He [A Faro police source] said: "We maintained regular email correspondence with the team but reached a point where they kept saying 'We are re-evaluating our investigation.'

      "As they expressed the need for further questioning, we have been expecting a new rogatory letter, but it never arrived"

      “The last letter of request was answered, once we received the remaining requested results.

      “That was our task, to answer the letters of request about everything requested and allowed by Portuguese law.

      “Now, we have no more contact with the British authorities unless something new is requested, which hasn't happened yet".”

      Lisbon phones working better than Faro mails?

  27. PJ talking to Brit tabloids about the Maddie case makes as much sense as Hillary Clinton giving inside scoops to Fox News about her emails!!


    1. John Blacksmith,Blacksmithbureau,latest article,Clarence Mitchell,the source?

    2. No, of course not. Mitchell out of the picture a long time ago and out of it "officially" recently.

      But it is interesting how some continue to persist about his supposed impressive powers.

      The oh-so-powerful one who, apparently accepts to be humiliatingly fired in front of the public without so much as a whimper, continues, apparently again, to serve those who have rendered his services useless. Or should we say his masters? Go figure.

      Not surprised. Some people like to say something is red today and green tomorrow and then later brag about how they have always said that something was the colour which is convenient, then, for them to have said it was.

    3. Hi,Textusa,so it could be a well protected couple or their close accolytes,Green Ink person,then?

    4. Anonymous 6 Dec 2016, 13:10:00,

      The game is being played way above the paygrade of whoever is paying him.

  29. Textusa, do you have any more detail on the court appeal decision as your comment @4 Dec 2016, 16:13:00 on the subject suggested you might?

    1. Anonymous 6 Dec 2016, 12:47:00,

      What we know is that process submitted in September (which means it was accepted) and distributed to a judge in October.

      The judge has since then to have analysed the process, and as all Supreme Court Decisions are from a collective of judges, a meeting is to be set up to discuss and decide.

      Then, the decision has to be written up on the respective Supreme Court dispatch, after which different parties are informed of it.

      Only analysis of decision reached, not gathering further evidence.

      Our opinion is that it’s unlikely to happen before Christmas now. Hopefully we’re wrong.

  30. Another update on FindBenNeedham FB page:

    Angie Jane Webb Are they following up ALL information given, even other sightings,.I would like to know???
    Like · Reply · 1 · Yesterday at 08:27

    Help Find Ben Needham
    Help Find Ben Needham Yes, the case is still receiving tips
    Like · Reply · 2 · 14 hrs

    Angie Jane Webb
    Angie Jane Webb Thank God x
    Like · Reply · 8 hrs

    1. Ns don't deny anything about sightings!
      One would think they would confirm they are only seeking info about B's remains


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.