Saturday, 10 December 2016


I have never actually attempted to analyse the McCann interviews in the way that others have done, but now that my interest has been sparked, I thought I would revisit their most fraught interview, the one that didn't quite go to plan. 

I have to admit Sandra Felgueiras is one of my own feminist icons, she is a formidable woman, my highest compliment!  It is apparent from her interviews with the McCanns, that they treat her with deference, figuratively speaking, in an office situation, she is the one in the big chair behind the desk.

Sandra disarms them because they know they don't have the power to manipulate her.  She is beyond their control.  It is clear from the beginning of Sandra's interview with Kate and Gerry on 3rd November 2009, that there is a hostile atmosphere.  I would suspect words were spoken before the interview began, K&G knew this would be a tough one.  I'm guessing, 'I haven't flown all this way not to ask questions on behalf of my Portuguese viewers..... and they want to know about the stuff in their newspapers, ie. your libel battles with Goncalo Amaral'. 

But let's look at the background as to what was going on, on 3rd November 2009 (many thanks Nigel and Pamela), the bigger picture.  The first interview of the day, with the BBC, was tame, and indeed they were accompanied by Jim Gamble, then head of CEOP.  

Factoring in that 2+2 usually equals 4, it is quite clear that at the time of those interviews Gerry and Kate were under the care, control and influence of Jim Gamble, maybe they had had a falling out with Clarence.  In all of their interviews they are promoting not only their daughter, but the 'amazing' work of CEOP and the idea of a similar Missing Child network in the UK on the scale of the NCMEC in the United States. 

In promoting A Minute for Madeleine, they hoped to make missing children a priority cause in the ruthlessly competitive charity industry and the police agencies competing for funding.  I'm not sure A Minute for Madeleine went as viral as they had hoped, but I'm pretty sure Gerry and Kate had a clear agenda that day.  

Body language plays an enormous part in the way in which we communicate, so too the way in which we dress, and the way in which we strut our stuff.  Sandra is bubbling with confidence.  She is wearing a bright red dress, her hair and makeup is perfect, she oozes fabulous.  Kate by contrast is wearing a drab print top and a mumsy cardigan, her hair and makeup, modest and neat.  She never looks comfortable in her clothes, it's as though she wears what is expected from her, that is, someone in her somewhat unique position. 

Gerry is showing what a regular kind of guy he is by not wearing a tie and having his top button undone, the suit says, not a  chav.  He is far from relaxed, he is sitting upright, almost rigid, interestingly, his knee crossed towards Kate, and BOTH his hands clutching onto hers.  Is he seeking reassurance or is he pacifying Kate?  He is stroking her hand in a 'calm down' motion.

I'm afraid one of the things I dislike about Kate, is her girly adoration of 'her man' and the clingy way in which she relies upon him.  It's as if she grabbed the prize and is never letting go.  Like most women who are seriously smitten, she cannot understand why others do not see her hero in the same way that she does.  Regardless, in this interview, both are very much together, her knee too, is turned towards Gerry. 

The macho, alpha male Gerry, has very much been de-emasculated by this interview.  Not only is he turned towards his wife and clutching her hand with both of his, he is also (subconsciously) protecting his balls.  Strong women can have that effect.  I remember one class at University when the words of a particularly extreme feminist lecturer, could get all the guys in the room crossing their legs, simultaneously, lol. 

Sandra's persistence on the 'dogs' question, pushed Gerry into a corner, where, uncomfortably for all of us, the only thing he had left was flirting.  Sandra failed to laugh at his 'ask the dogs' retort, while she had him squirming, she went in for the kill.  Poetry in motion!  She was in fact asking the questions her Portuguese viewers wanted answers to, something all her British counterparts failed to do on behalf of their viewers. 

In fairness, I can see now why Peter Hyatt did not choose this particular interview. despite the fact that it was one of those rare moments when the McCann guard was broken down.  Gerry and Kate had a very clear agenda, which they stuck to through all the interviews and the tough questions.  But the chances are, the same could be said of every interview they gave, especially if we break them down and look at what was going on at the time. 

On 3rd May 2009, they had a script for every interview that was, almost verbatim, the same as that used in the video created by CEOP and which they hoped to make viral.  Their defence, could quite fairly argue, they were being used as puppets. 

Tuesday, 6 December 2016


I really did go into this subject with an open mind, and found the interviews with Peter Hyatt absolutely compelling.  But the more I think about it, the more sceptical I become. 

The beauty of language and the meaning of words lies in the fact that it is continually evolving, elst thou woudst ad infinitum be speaking middle England circa 1600.  It doesn't stand still, if it did, we would unashamedly be having wicked gay festivals every Sunday on the village green. 

Added to which we come to every text we read as a unique individual, that is we already have a fixed set of values and beliefs, and indeed prejudices, and we will take from the text we are reading, exactly what we want. 

For those interested in deconstructing literature, there is a very important essay by Roland Barthes entitled 'Death of the Author' which basically raises the question of whether the text is influenced by the author's life.  Do they bring their own lives into the words they are writing?  Well clearly they do, Charles Dickens exposed the cruelty and injustice of Victorian values by recreating his own poverty ridden childhood.  Charles Chaplin through his tramp and underdog.  They created fictional characters to attack the 'system' - writers, artists, musicians have historically expressed the pain of the common man through their art.  It is a safe way to throw a custard pie at the establishment.

But I digress, the point I am trying to make, and struggling it must be said, is that language, like art, is in the eye of the beholder.  When we are staring at that painting on the gallery wall, our brain, at the speed of light, is sifting through every memory it has trying to find a match, something that will explain what we are looking at.  Mostly it is seeking pleasure signals.  Ergo, what is seen in the eye of every beholder will be entirely different. 

I am only touching the surface of the study of language.  Whilst I pretend to be interested in the linguistic and cognitive science work of Noam Chomsky, the truth is, it is way above my head! 

Every word is open to interpretation, and the most important part of comprehension is understanding the context in which he word is used.  As my dear old dad got older (and grumpier), he became obsessed with quality of his socks.  To stress his point, he explained some socks became so tight around the ankles they became ferocious!  From then on all socks purchased had to be strictly of the non ferocious kind.  Did his use of the inappropriate 'ferocious' reveal his hidden serial killer?  Not at all, Christmas was on the way and he was very particular about his socks. 

Those defending the statement analysis by stressing Peter Hyatt's lack of knowledge about the case are doing him less favours, not more.  No credible scientist would go into research saying only tell me that bit, nothing more.  It would be reckless at the very least and would leave their theory wide open to attack.  As has happened.   

But lets return to Mr. Barthes, can you separate the analyst, Mr. Hyatt, from his work?  He is a religious zealot.  He believes, he, and his kind, will be raised to heaven on the day of Judgement and the rest of us, will, quite rightly, burn for all eternity in the fires of hell.  Some could interpret that as despising anyone who is not like himself. 

Now, is it really a good idea to have people who hold those kind of lunatic beliefs working within Law Enforcement?  He, like Bennett, believes there are all sorts of sexual shenanigans going on in the suburbs all round him, to which he is excluded.  And like Bennett, he wants to root them out and start their own personal bonfires in this life.  I have always wondered how to sum up pure evil, but that need to witch hunt nears the top of the list. 

But here is a direct challenge.  Who, apart from Peter Hyatt and Tania Cadogan would say doors and windows signal child abuse?  Especially in a case where it is alleged the crime scene was staged and the doors, and window especially, played a vital part in the collective alibi.  Their interpretation is fanciful on their part, and loaded with their own prejudices (everyone is at it, bar them) and they want to add a juicy aspect to this case, and sign people up for the course. 

Having lived with, and alongside, children who were regularly being abused, these claims by so called 'experts' as to how abused children act, sicken me. They are clueless, and their claims are not only disgusting, but absurd.  Most of what they allege happens, is a product of their own sick imaginations and bears no resemblance to reality. 

It is clear to everyone in the world, the real experts, their family, their friends, their teachers, their doctors, and the clearly, bright, outgoing, kids themselves, that they are not now, and never have been abused.  And it is unethical and immoral to suggest they have been.  We are each responsible for our own behaviour on the internet, we answer only to ourselves.  We can't censor Hyatt or Bennett, nor should we.  But we can counter their distasteful accusations with sanity and common sense. 

Thursday, 1 December 2016


UPDATE  03:12:16

Tania Cadogan, the batshit crazy, right wing apostle of Peter Hyatt has reported back on that creepy meeting: 

Firstly, statement analysis is not a recognised science, there is no quick, sure fire way of establishing guilt on words alone, the claims are outlandish and ridiculous given the complexity of semantics. 

Hobs claims in Court, 'the analyst is classed as an expert' - the typo and clumsy wording indicates deceit.  Anyone can be classed as an expert in Court if that is what they call themselves.  See the evidence of Alan Pike, psychologist to the McCanns.  These detectives, psychologists, social workers and the like (how unethical) went over the interview with one aim, to see if there was evidence of sexual abuse or not.  Hobs then claims the McCanns spoke freely using their own personal internal dictionary.  Actually they didn't.  They were being interviewed on camera for a national news channel - their language and behaviour could not have been more fake, or strained.  Can she not hear the nervous tremble in Kate's voice? 

They concluded at the end of their 6 hour (ye Gods) meeting, that there was evidence of sexual abuse.  This group of experts, supposedly professionals, have reached a conclusion without ever having met any of the people they are discussing and knowing little if anything about the case.  They certainly seem to have overlooked the  fact that this is a live criminal investigation and the way in which their 'analysis' will affect the innocent people involved.

Peter Hyatt is using this case to sign gullible people up to his online 'lie detection' course.  Kudos to him on his business plan, but it is wrong on every level to go around accusing people of child abuse based on their words alone.

As for doors, windows, hygiene etc, all indicated for sex.  What a load of rubbish.  The doors, windows etc, were important because they were crucial to the abduction story!  Kate found the window open, that's how she know Maddie had gone.  She was also trying to establish just how normal and ordinary that evening was - hence the jammies, the story telling, the tooth brushing. That is the usual routine in homes with young children. 

The 'treats' were separate to the crisps and biscuits so were probably sedatives, conclude this little gathering of 'experts'.  Seriously, these parents gave their children vile tasting tablets and told them they were treats?  That's what they came up with?

In response to a comment on 'Embedded Confessions'. 

Thank you for your comment 00:16.  Like yourself I found Hyatt's statement analysis absolutely compelling.  But if Mr. Hyatt had any form of professional integrity, he would keep his expertise on child sexual abuse in this case to himself as most professionals do. He will not be discussing Child A, or Child B, he will be discussing very real kids who's names are known by way too many on the internet.  He has no Doctorate, but ffs, first do no harm! 

If anyone close to the McCann family read my blog,  I hope they will constantly reassure those kids that these creepy sexual allegations are coming from, to use Kate's words, a very small percentage, of frankly, very unpleasant people. People who, for whatever reason, believe there is a nasty undercurrent of deviant sex that permeates our society.  My 'instant summation' of them, is that they have lived very sheltered lives.  Girls, and indeed boys (perhaps more so), just wanna have fun, and I'm talking about the grown up variety, and with each other.  And for most people having fun doesn't include children's bedrooms, or a gimp costume and a horse whip.  It usually consists of getting drunk, flirting outrageously and confessing to having sex between stations with someone who's name you didn't quite catch. 

I just don't buy into the 'fact' that there are secret little cliques of child molesters and wife swappers living, working and sharing their family photos with registered sex offenders.  It just doesn't ring true, and I speak as someone who has led the opposite of a sheltered life - I was always up for a party!  I also had a tendency to corrupt and lead astray, almost everyone I worked with and for.  In retrospect, most were quite right to sack me, I would have brought to them to  bankruptcy. 

Unfortunately, our society stills carries the legacy of News of the World headlines. It brings back happy memories of Sunday mornings leering at all the smut and filth going on in the lives of the rich and famous, whilst tucking into a bacon sarnie.  The reality is, it was mostly news fodder for the plebs 1984 style, with the bonus of great opportunities to blackmail those in power.  Eg. closet homosexuals and those with a penchant for a good lashing at the local massage parlour.  There was a time when a tabloid front page could ruin lives.

This century's witches are the Paedophiles. We are all pretty much agreed, we hate them the most. However, because the majority of us find the subject just too yucky, those with the least amount of knowledge and their own agenda, get to make the batshit crazy rules. People daren't take pictures at the school nativity play, and youngsters are being registered as sex offenders for sending their own pictures to themselves. 
The hysteria around the 'P' word is based on something that isn't real. A sort of updated bogeyman the authorities want to protect us from.  The truth is, hardly anybody sees children as sexual, even if they are wearing badly applied lipstick and mummy's high heels.  As darn right cute and scrumptious little ones might be, playing itsy, bitsy spider over and over and begging and pleading with the little tyrant to go to sleep, can break even the strongest spirit.  I used to go and lock myself in the bathroom as soon as daddy got home, screaming, you fecking take over!  I would then lay in the bath plotting murder whilst listening to the strains of Maria Callas singing One Fine Day!  

As for all the red flags.  I can imagine the Gaspers were more shocked than most when they heard of Maddie's disappearance, simply because they knew them personally.  Trauma tends to unleash the wilder side of our imaginations, we are in a state where it is easy to make mountains out of molehills.  I expect Dr. Gasper (the Mrs) spent many tormented nights asking herself if she knew something, anything.  A good detective would quickly be able to discern between rational statements and those given with confirmation bias. Common sense dictates we should keep an open mind.

As for the other 'indicators', words, as demonstrated by Peter Hyatt, are open to interpretation. All and any discussions around the 'P' word are deemed peculiar. Society has made it so taboo, nobody knows anything about it, and dare not speak it's name.  Anyone discussing the topic without demands for blood, is seen as an appeaser, whilst those flinging a rope over the hanging tree are applauded.  Rational discussion is virtually impossible. 

What is blatantly clear and beyond question, is the McCanns and their friends went out of their way to enjoy the ADULT side of that holiday.  That is, the sports during the day and the relaxed grown up conversation in the evening. They were passing their kids over to 'strangers' at every opportunity. And I don't blame them for that!  Those of us, who are honest, wept buckets over the nights out we missed because of our kids.  When we are thirty something, we are at the height of our need to socialise and mix with our peers, but we are tied to gogglebox or the company of just one other (who we may or may not, want to attack with an ice pick), and crying out for some stimulation of the brain! 

The biggest, and some might say, proven allegation against the McCanns and their friends, is neglect.  Neglect is the word they have been fighting for nearly 10 years, because it implicates all of them.  And it is a serious enough criminal charge on it's own, without dragging in one of the rarest group crimes known to society. They have never admitted neglect in any way, shape or form.  On the contrary, they succeeded in convincing, almost everyone, that their form of childcare that night was within the bounds of responsible parenting.  The parents statements are littered with key words and tells, even the untrained, can pick out the McCanns' priorities.  'We hope for a successful outcome for ourselves.....  and err, Madeleine'.  Madeleine's outcome cannot be changed - it's already happened. 

Paedophiles are, by the heinous nature of their crimes, very secretive 00:16, there is always the danger that they will be strung up from the nearest hanging tree by an angry mob, especially in areas with a high volume of British tourists. They don't sit around a table discussing their darkest fantasies with their mates and people they hardly know.  What they do goes on behind locked and bolted doors.  I actually cringed and slunk down in my chair as Richard Hall demonstrated the knob in mouth action and nipple twiddling, that may have been the point for me, where all credibility went out the window. 

Any kind of sense, common or otherwise, would beg the question, why would a group of attractive, bright, highly sociable and competitive adults, want to shut themselves away with the kids (for which there is no evidence whatsoever) to do, gawd knows what with them?  I don't even want to go there. 
For the wannabe statement analysts out there, the clue was in Kate's 'we were really into each other'.  That is, they were doing what every thirty something longs to do - they were enjoying the company of their peers rather than trapped in the apartment with demanding toddlers playing what they want to play and fending off tantrums. 

We cannot interpret anything from the CATs reference number!  It tells us nothing other than a box was ticked. The pact of silence I agree flags up deception, but there are many good and valid reasons for deception outside of the 'P' word. 

Photos, where Madeleine is 'objectified' is a whole new area for debate. Sometimes a spoon is just a spoon.  For most of us, the pictures look perfectly normal, we don't see any 'signs' and actually think it quite cruel that some people spend so much of their time looking for them. As if they can solve the mystery by spotting a displaced elbow. As for the way in which Maddie ate ice cream being some sort of signal to perverts - now that's creepy. 

It's been nearly 10 years, where arguably, the McCanns have lived under constant scrutiny. The idea that all these institutions would have left all these children at risk is unthinkable.  And it should be born in mind that the ones being hurt the most by these cruel and frankly disgusting, allegations, are those living children linked to this case through no fault of their own.  It is for good reason that many of the antis are seen as 'haters'. 

Having lived through the trauma of standing in a witness box having my parents accused of heinous crimes, my heart goes out to them.  I came away almost broken, many who went through the same experience went on to commit suicide.  It is possibly one of the cruellest forms of torment.  As illustrated when I flew off the handle with Bennett when he insulted my mother. 

I find the idea of a group of 'experts' discussing and accusing these named parents of child sexual abuse, absolutely abhorrent!  Especially as they talking about a live criminal investigation, and worse those children involved are reaching an age where access to the internet is becoming easier.  How would anyone feel, at the age of 11/12, if a group of 'experts' held a public debate on whether your mummy and daddy had abused you?  These people clearly have no moral boundaries, let alone common sense.  And I am not saying that as defender of the McCanns, I am saying it as a wake up call to those who have crossed that moral and ethical line when making fanciful accusations against these parents.  Do they honestly believe their 'research' is helping those kids?

All those who genuinely care about Madeleine, should show equal care towards her brother and sister, those who are and will be, affected by their ill chosen words. That they so casually discard the feelings of those children, says more about their own motives, and they are not altruistic.  Justice for Madeleine mustn't come at any cost.  Rational, intelligent people know this inherently.  They think about the effect their words may have on others.  As Maya Angelou said far more eloquently than I, it is never forgetting the way those words made you feel.   

I may not be fighting for justice for Madeleine, in the sense of researching and 'exposing' the intimate lives of those poor sods unfortunate enough to be named in this case and making accusations against them.  But I am fighting, in my own way, to keep discussion about this case in perspective and within the realms of reality.  I see this case, and the way in which it has progressed, as a huge learning curve, it has, if you like, as it has opened my eyes to so much in our society that is cruel, and dare I say it, just downright evil. Look out much Chilcott revealed, yet our MPs just voted overwhelming not to bring any charges.  If we look back at the Blair administration, how far up (or down) would be the mysterious case of one missing child by on cover up scale?  Especially at a time when his new best buddy Dubya, was scooping up suspects and subversives  from all over the globe and sending them off to enjoy the sado/masochist delights of Guantanamo Bay? More sado, than masochist it must be said.  It is not child abuse that is rotting society from the inside out, it is greed and lust for power. 

Having said all that, my own quest for justice (staying online) is threatened by my beloved laptop nearing it's end of days!  I'm already losing volumes every time I inadvertently pull the charger out, and the keys look as though they have been trodden on by a herd of elephants.  I learned to type on a 'manual' and pound the keys like a psychotic Beethoven, or on occasion, a particularly flamboyant conductor of an orchestra.  I call it exercise, lol.  But I jest, if you enjoy my blog and want to make a small contribution to the piano on which I will write my next Masterpiece, please feel free to use the donation button! 

Sunday, 27 November 2016


UPDATE 29.11.16

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Wednesday, 23 November 2016


Carrying on from my previous blog and the taboo subject of paedophilia, some have got the impression that I have NEVER encountered people with an unhealthy interest in children.  I have of course, especially during the 5 formative years I spent in a Catholic Care Institution.   

Apart from the malcontents trapped in Holy Orders, the stark, authoritarian convent environment attracted lay staff who make up the kind of characters who would not be out of place in the plot of a standard child in peril horror film. Most were religious fanatics, authoritarians and sadists.  It was believed at that time  (1960s) that children in care (the undeserving poor)could be rehabilitated into model citizens through discipline and religious fervour. Behavioural modification and indoctrination in the Gulag style. 

The convent I was in, St. Anne's was run the Sisters of Mercy, an Order who bizarrely believed that girls were filthy, dirty whores who should be taught to accept a life of servitude.  Scrubbing floors constantly, would apparently, remove any trace of pride we were struggling to cling onto.  We were also cared for by a deranged ex Jesuit monk who believed in the ideology of Opus Dei.  Mortification of the body, he told us, was good for the soul.  Not only should we welcome our punishments, we should thank him for them.  And he would regale us with his own suffering, with tears in his eyes and gazing up to the heavens he would recall how he prostrated himself naked in front of the altar, while his fellow monks lashed him with cat-o-9s.  He also told us about the string he had in his pocket that was attached to his genitals, which may explain the tears in his eyes. 

Though it may have been sexual for those men and women getting their jollies from the sadism, happily any, err, relief they sought, was never in our presence.
With Peter Rand, the psychopathic loon who had charge of us, he targeted the boys.  Not just the boys in the convent, as a scout leader and pillar of the community, he became the catholic mentor to turn to for your troubled (male) teen.  I saw the art of grooming first hand, though I wasn't aware of it at the time.  Whilst we girls suffered for the sins of Eve, the selected boys went on outings (to Westminster), holidays (the Vatican) and wore smart, up to date clothes.  When his personnel file was revealed at my ill chosen legal battle with the Church, that not only was he sexually abusing the boys - he was caught with a 15 year old boy in his bed, there was also financial fraud especially with a Burtons credit card. 

Rand was pure evil.  He was exactly the kind of paedophile that the authorities are protecting.  They are legally liable for employing psychopaths like Rand, but the truth is, he is but the tip of the iceberg because he represents the dominant ideology of that time.  The government were happy to turn a blind eye to hundreds, if not thousands, of children being handed over to religious institutions, with little follow up as to their well being.  That we were being raised to 'go into service' or menial labour was preventative, they didn't want us growing up feckless, like our parents. 

I feel great sorrow for the helpless boys that Rand and his kind preyed upon, and I know the experience blighted many young lives.  But I would say to the survivors, 'let it go'.  Not because I want to protect people like Rand or the evil so called carers who abused their power, but for the sake of their own mental health.  And I speak as someone who allowed my own past to screw my head up for 40+years.  Five years of which were spent in an endless exchange of legal letters (guaranteed to bring any high moods back down to rock bottom) with the click of the letterbox.  It was pure hell, followed by 1 and a half days on a burning pyre (the witness box) and the haunting memories of the Defence telling me what shit parents I had. 

For those pressing for a full inquiry, what exactly do they hope to achieve?  Some might say, it's OK for me, I had my day in Court, finally, as an adult, I got the opportunity to expose, with passion, the evils that went on in that dark satanic place.  But, given the opportunity, I would go back and say to that 14 year old self who vowed revenge, 'what the fuck are you thinking!  There's a big, wide world out there, forget those weirdos, they no have no place in your life anymore'. 

Though I hate to say it, the whole 'legal system' is designed so that the Survivors will fail, or die of old age, whichever comes sooner. Admission of liability could open floodgates.  The recent re-showing of Cathy Come Home, showed how easy it was for the authorities to seize children and the State knows best mentality that existed at that time.  There are hundreds if not thousands of deserving cases out there, but if they settle just one, then thousands more will come forward.

Out of these genuine claims, there has grown a culture of witch hunting, that I find distasteful and unnecessarily cruel.  Dragging dirty old men out of their homes and putting them up for public ridicule is almost barbaric.  What, if any, lessons are to be learned?  The truth is, most of us, if we are honest, we have been groped, or spoken to inappropriately by (mostly) drunken, adult men.  Even as children! As a young girl about town, the winks and the wolfwhistles were the highlights of my day.  One of the first loves of my life began with the words 'ever seen a builder's tool?'. 

I also have (hilarious) memories of a caravan holiday in Great Yarmouth with a group of female pals, average age 16.  We were all smitten by the ageing crooner who performed at the clubhouse each evening, and by the end of the holiday it transpired he had slept with at least 3 of us.  Were we upset? Not a bit of it, we had a side splittin evening comparing notes and laughing at his set routines.   

But I digress.  I spent most of my adult life despising Peter Rand and the nuns, I longed for the day when I could confront him especially, as an adult and an equal.  I wanted to scream at him for the cruelty he unleashed, I wanted to call him every dirty, filthy name I could think of, I wanted to tell him how his hatred of females had made me feel.  I never got that opportunity.  At the time of the trial he was dying, cancer of the anus ironically, but he had enough breath to swear on a statement denying everything. 

The reality was, revenge wasn't sweet.  The only person I had been destroying all those years was myself.  My, much wiser, family and friends had long ago made the decision to move on.  There is a good reason for letting sleeping dogs lie, every time I think about the miserable things that happened in my past, I feel like shit.  And I have to ask, why would I do that to myself?

I would urge those survivors who are still demanding inquiries and prosecutions, what it is they expect?  From personal experience I can say there is no satisfaction whatsoever in revenge.  Whilst I am glad that Rand went to meet his maker knowing that I knew, is enough.  The moment had long since passed.  He wasn't an active threat to the community or anyone, I honestly don't know what punishment would have been fitting. 

All those resources that are being wasted on historic crimes would be better transferred to agencies that are tackling the risks faced by children now, in the present day. The refugee children in Calais, those kids here who are threatened with homelessness and hunger, their parents at breaking point by harsh sanctions.  There isn't any way to right wrongs from the past, other than to use them as lessons for the future.  The truth was, all those kids seized and taken into care, were in far more danger of encountering paedophiles, sadists and sociopaths than they ever would have in the 'outside' world. 

 The greatest thing the survivors could do is walk away, accept that they have given those vile, odious ghosts from their past, enough of their time, and look towards a more positive future.  Most of those claiming to be on their side really aren't.  They are professionals who are purportedly experts, in what, I can't imagine, but in any event, they are programmed to promote the victim's cause, or the Defendants, depending on who is employing them.  It is in no-one's interest to bring this long running saga to an end.  Not the victims who feel success in a court will somehow heal them, and especially not all the support agencies that have been created to support them.  Throw in all the legal fees and that's quite an industry, but sadly, not one that puts the good mental health and wellbeing of the survivors at the forefront.    

Monday, 21 November 2016


In response to John from previous blog:

Apologies John, I meant to add with regard to Yvonne Martin and the Gaspers. Whilst it is always possible there is a paedophile element to this case, I think it very unlikely.  There is no way these families living under police  scrutiny have kept that kind of secret for almost 10 years.  As discussed in the comments in the previous blog, these people will always live under a huge cloud of suspicion, not only from the general public, but even from their own friends and family. Whatever monstrous behaviour those focussing on the paedophile aspects suspect, simply isn't viable. Not when you apply reason and logic, which seems to be the part they haven't got to in their 'research'.  

As a survivor of a Catholic institution where abuse of every variety was available on tap, I feel pretty darned qualified to recognise abuse and to understand it. I have spent a lifetime trying to make sense of the evil that sets off abuse against the vulnerable.  How do you define abuse? Sexual always takes top spot, because it grabs headlines and provokes the most outrage.  However, those battered on a daily basis, degraded, humiliated and forced to submit to the will of authoritarians might beg to differ. Especially those toddlers who end up in the morgue and those teenagers who snap. 
Paedophiles do exist, but not in the way we are led to believe.  Sex parties in the suburbs involving parents passing their kids around are unheard of.  And the dangerous predators are not those socially inept hermits that hide away in bedsits, they are the ones who seek out opportunities where they have access to children. It is not the introverted misfits who pose the most danger, it is the sneaky, manipulative predators who worm their way into the mother's affections. Instead of worrying about Muslim jihadists talking dirty from an internet café in Bagdad, young mums should worry about the fella they picked up in the nightclub who still hasn't gone home.  

Upwardly mobile professionals like the Tapas, want the best for their children, as we all do, and they know better than most how not to raise their kids to be homicidal psychopaths.  Abused children do not thrive.  In fact, most do the opposite.  They become introverted, sullen and anti social.  They don't get shown off to friends and family.  Not only is the idea that these people were abusing their own kids abhorrent, it doesn't make any sense.  Even narcissists and megalomaniacs instinctively protect their own.  The tapas group may not be likeable, but they are parents like any other. Arguably, everything they have done has been to protect their children.    

To be fair the McCanns brought the 'P' word up first - as an explanation for Madeleine's disappearance, but there is a large group among the anti's who have latched onto the statements of Yvonne Martin and the Gaspers in order to spice the story up.  It can't just be an accident, it has to be something more, and they've had 10 years to think about it.  They have made so much of so little, they have even dragged in Cliff Richard and Clement Freud. When applying 2degrees of separation logic to their research, owning property in the Algarve implicates you, as does being Irish. 

Some have spent hours poring over the McCanns holiday snaps, seeking out little signs and secret paedo messages, every Madeleine micro expression scrutinized for evidence to back up their fantastical made up stories.  They are selling the 'P' element just as much as those trying to convince us our kids are in constant danger.  They see sexual innuendo everywhere, from a little girl dressing up to men bathing small children. Hands on childcare is what 'new' men do, they give their partners a break, get over it. 

 It seems as though those who suspect there was some of paedophile convention going on in PDL in May 2007, have made a proverbial mountain out of an unconvincing molehill.  In 10 years there has been absolutely nothing to support the Yvonne Martin and Gasper statements.  The painstaking analysis and conclusions of deranged online 'researchers' with magnifying glasses, vivid imaginations and way too much time, counts for zilch, and is actually quite funny, and also a bit creepy.

I find it incredible that anyone would think a group of attractive, very sociable, middle class professionals would have any interest whatsoever in having sex with children. Why on earth would they?  They are all confident, assertive adults vying for the alpha roles among a group of equals.  Their days were filled with running and competitive sports, and their evenings were dedicated to adult time.  Given Gerry's addiction to the tennis courts (that continued after Madeleine disappeared), its quite clear where his interests on that holiday lay, and it wasn't with the kids.  Kate drew the short straw on the 'new' man front. 

It is ridiculous to suggest that doctors spent their nights abusing toddlers then put those same toddlers into the care of professional nannies (who are presumably trained to look out for that sort of thing) the next morning.  Especially a little chatterbox like Madeleine.  Hot blooded adults are interested in other hot blooded adults, ones who will watch and applaud as they 'peacock'. As Kate said 'they were so into each other'.  And no, not in a swinging sense, like any parents of small children they were desperate for the buzz of adult company. 

The idea that our suburbs are filled with gangs of paedophiles who rape and abuse kids is nonsense.  I have led an up and down life and moved a lot, yet I have never encountered, in any environment, a single person who was that way inclined, let alone a group - has anyone?  It brings to mind the hysteria in the 1980's when the creepy, now deceased, Ray Wyre convinced the establishment that the UK was overrun with groups of Satan worshipping parents sexually abusing their kids. 
The 'Tapas' were a group of snobby professionals out to impress each other. They were also offloading their kids at every opportunity.  And I'm not even condemning them for that.  I remember as a single mum in my thirties, sitting indoors crying because I didn't have a babysitter and I couldn't go partying with my mates from work.  Being desperate for adult company is not a crime. 

The idea that PDL is some kind of haven for child predators is a myth created by a couple in a very awkward situation and by those who saw an opportunity to boost the missing child industry.  For those politicians eager to introduce ID cards, DNA databanks and stricter surveillance of the internet, the danger to children 'everywhere' was a godsend.  Even cherubic middle class toddlers could be stolen from their safe and secure bed and the public were demanding new laws and greater protection.  Sweet. The headlines might just as well have said 'Bogeyman DOES exist, read all about it'.

Those making the most lurid accusations against the McCanns and the Tapas group are not thinking about the well being of all the children involved.  The abduction story, the suspicion, the Court cases etc, etc, make it impossible for those kids to avoid the vast amount of information available on the web.  But detailed discussion of the sordid fantasies of deranged conspiraloons is unnecessarily cruel and deeply disturbing.  All those claiming to be thinking of Madeleine should stop and consider how their words affect her brother and sister. 

As to those who think believe PDL holds some sort of annual convention for those with a penchant for devious sex, I suggest they put the glass down and walk away slowly. 

Monday, 14 November 2016


With many thanks to JJ, who always manages to sort the wheat from the chaff!
Which Politicians are blocking the truth?
Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield both gave written Police statements and confronted Robert Murat directly in a Police interview that they saw Murat outside 5a that night.
The PJ investigated this extensively and found no evidence to support him being outside 5a that night.
RD Hall states in his films that they had both retracted this testimony by the end of December 2007.  Tony Bennett emphasises this retraction by the end of 2007 ad nauseam.
How do they then explain the rogatory statements of  FP and RO  in April 2008 (note the date).  Both stating:
“RM came up to me shook me by the hand and said I am Robert Murat.  I noticed he had a squint and he gave us his phone number.  I am 100% sure it was Robert Murat”.
No ambiguity.
No genuine mistake
No chance of mistaken identity
No error.
But a deliberate and malicious attempt of the crime in Portugal, of calumny and in the UK, of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Serious criminal offences punishable by jail terms in both countries.
Payne and Oldfield deliberately and maliciously implicated a man in a serious crime.  Why did they do it?  “He came up to me, shook me by the hand and introduced himself as Robert Murat. He had a squint,  he gave us his phone number.
Could they be any clearer?
There is always a concerted effort to divert attention from these actions.
If RD Hall/Bennett or anybody else can produce evidence, FP and RO have retracted their identity of Murat, will they produce it or apologise for misleading people.
Bringing the topic up with TB leads to a ban and RDH ignores all contact.
Ask yourself, why would “honest researchers” adopt this attitude.  Is there an agenda, or are they just plain stupid.
CMOMM ,Bennett and Hall have spent hundreds of hours delving into all aspects of the Smith family but key players like FP and RO are not only ignored but shielded by stating they retracted their statements by the end of December 2007 and banning any discussion of their involvement.
It is most unlikely Payne and Oldfield thought this strategy out for themselves which leads to the question who did, when and why.  Have the Police in the UK asked them, if not why not?
Their actions do not directly concern the Mccanns and surely they too must wonder at their friends actions, and if not why not?
Who assured Payne and Oldfield they would not be investigated for a serious crime?
 Is it a conspiracy, this is for the Police to investigate but they have had since 2008, surely an interview under caution would be worthwhile.
The Mccanns may or may not be able to shed light on Madeleine’s fate but Payne and Oldfield certainly can.  Why does nobody care/dare to ask them?
Four elements of this case are rarely if ever discussed.
Who authorised the Leics police to involve themselves in illegal
activity in PDL on Saturday 5th May 2007?
The role of James Landale and the BBC on the night of May3rd/4th
Lori Campbell deliberately lying about Murat and why Ian Woods of Sky, backed her up in the deception.
The blatant involvement of FP and RO in falsely accusing Murat.
There maybe in this case some honest diligent UK Policemen but can anybody find an honest UK Politician of any party?
The farce will go on. 
To be honest I am not sure what the situation is with the tapas members who lied when saying Robert Murat was outside 5A on the night.  I thought they were called into the police station and had to reiterate their allegations in front of RM - face to face that is, but I'm afraid I can't remember what the outcome was.
I do remember that Robert Murat brought, or was going to bring, a criminal prosecution against Jane Tanner for her allegations, in any event Jane Tanner has lied about exactly what went on in the police surveillance van, ever since.  In Goncalo's book, she told the British detective  (Small, I believe) that RM was the man she saw carrying a child.  This evidence doesn't appear in the police files and she has since denied it, but RM was picked up the next day and named the first Arguido.   Other members of the Tapas group then came forward claiming that after seeing RM on the TV, they too remembered he was outside 5A on the night.  To be honest, I always thought the allegations against RM were stupid - if RM had 'just' kidnapped a child why would he hanging around outside the apartment - surely he would have been otherwise occupied?
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the 'researchers'.  For whatever reason, these completely incompetent idiots (psychos) have completely ignored the lives and times of the most obvious suspects outside the McCanns, that is, the ones who had the means and opportunity (if not the motive) to assist in making a child disappear, the ones disappearing from the dinner table for long intervals with valid 'child was sick' etc excuses for their absence.   
CMoMM and indeed Richard Hall seem to be oblivious to the most clear and obvious 'suspects' - the party of 9 who are up to the necks in it.  The entire last supper is like a badly written Whitehall farce that gives all the players a speaking part, but not necessarily in the right order, or the right place.  It is botched together.  Lines were chucked in in the hope and prayer that the audience would buy them - there wasn't any time for re-writes. 
Whilst Bennett and Hall are salivating at the thought of nailing Robert Murat and every outsider who had feck all to do with Madeleine's disappearance, they are ignoring the sideshow that was created to give the abduction story it's wings.  Doh!  It still doesn't appear to have registered with them that the police, both in Portugual and the UK are stuck on the collective alibi of the entire Tapas group.  Those few scribbled lines on the back of Madeleine's colouring book have held out for almost 10 years, and notably, they still haven't done a reconstruction.  Whilst Jane Tanner was pointing the police and the public in the direction of a stranger abductor, it distracted from the fact that her own partner Russell, was missing from the table during the crucial period, and she too, was flitting back and forth.  She was saying don't look at us, look at someone else, and the police, public and members of CMoMM and Richard Hall have obliged ever since. 
In the whole scheme of things, the Tapas group have got off relatively unscathed, despite the fact that it is their collective story that has enabled this debacle to continue for so long.  That they obviously conspired to accuse an innocent man takes evil to a whole new level, are they completely without conscience?  How do you gauge the seriousness of perverting the course of justice for a decade?  How much police time has been wasted? How much public money has spent?  What of the knock on effects, the genuine charities deprived of much needed funds, all the real, live, children deprived of much needed resources?  What of the lives destroyed, those men blasted onto the front pages of the tabloid, accused (with no evidence) of being Maddie's abductor, rapist, killer?  What of the former Portuguese detective, forced out of his job and vilified by a sneering, baying, nationalist, British media? 
Many thanks for bringing this subject up JJ, like yourself, I agree the Tapas group deserve, at the very least, an honourable mention.