Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Madeleine McCann: Nanny's Statements

The complete article is at Crimeonline.com with an article written by Ellen Killoran. Below are the quotes with analysis following.  I left in short commentary by Ellen, as it is relevant in terms of the original article from "The Mirror."


The unnamed nanny did not babysit Madeleine and her siblings on the night in question.  

If you had interviewed her, what would be the one question that needs answering?

**************************************************


[Kate] She was crying, but almost in a catatonic state, and Gerry was very distressed. That’s the one thing I really remember from him, looking under the cars. I can’t forget that.

First note that she "was crying" is met with the word "but."

The word "but" is used to emphasize the wording that follows it.  The word "but" minimizes (and sometimes even negates) the information that preceded it. 

Why would she need to challenge "crying" by a mother who's child has just been 'kidnapped'?

In her language, she set up a "versus" situation:  "crying" versus being "catatonic state", that is one in which there is no reaction or response.  

"and Gerry was very distressed."  

Any father of a missing child would be "very distressed."  Yet, she has the need to not only tell us that which is unnecessary, but continues with detail including that it is "one thing", with "remember." 

"I remember" and "I really remember

Next, please note that in an open statement, a person can only tell us what they remember.  This is an indication that she is suppressing information. 

The point in the article from The Mirror is that although she was not there when the disappearance took place, she could tell, later, that the McCanns had nothing to do with the disappearance, based upon their reaction.  

The subject, who is not named, is not telling us all she knows.  It is not just that she "remembers" but she "really remembers" which further tells us that she is not telling us all she knows.  

This means, at the time of the statement, she is actively engaged in thoughts that she does not want to share.  

"I know" in an open statement.  Could you tell something you "don't know"



I know I didn’t step into that apartment but pretty much everybody else did. So, evidence gone, nothing.

Again, an honest person speaking in an open statement can only tell us what they know.  Here, she feels the need to emphasize knowledge unnecessarily with "I know", followed by telling us what she did not do.  This is called the "rule of the negative."  

What is it about this portion of what happened that would cause her to think of something she does not want to share?

Yet, she inserts the word "but" which refutes or minimizes by comparison what preceded it.  She "knows" she did not "step" into that apartment but... What follows "but" is important:

"pretty much everybody else did."

"So":  This is to explain why:
"evidence gone; nothing. 

Since she began with the unnecessary "I know", we must explore for the suppressed information.  

Note two things in particular:

1.  She feels the need to explain why there is "no evidence; nothing."  
2.  She uses a broken sentence in doing so. 

She does not claim the evidence is ruined or contaminated but in a broken sentence she says "evidence gone; nothing."

That she felt the need to explain "why" (indicting police?) is sensitive but it follows the negative and the self editing. 

Self editing (the broken sentence) is to stop oneself from making a complete thought:  withholding information.  

                            What does this mean?

It means the police should explore with the nanny what she is specifically concerned about here that she does not want to say.  She is withholding information, even if it is irrelevant to the investigation; she believes to the contrary.  

Nanny sees herself aligned with the McCanns. 


There was nobody there to say, ‘We need to lock this off now.’ The police didn’t get there for ages, maybe an hour and a half, so we were looking for her. And at the end of the day, no matter how much you’ve been trained with ­children, we were children, mainly ­teenagers, we’re not police.

Here she explains why they looked for her.  

Would you need to explain why you looked for a missing child?

Would they have not looked for her had the police gotten there earlier?

Here we see, now, the indictment of police.  This shows a need to shift blame. 

First, "everybody" and now "police." 

It began with the weak assertion of contamination of evidence where she was unable to bring herself to use a full sentence about evidence. Then she went to the police in her conclusion.  



“I think a lot of things should’ve happened differently,” she said. “Unfortunately the effects were catastrophic.

If the effects were catastrophic, would you only "think" a lot of things should have been done differently?

Recall, she used the wording "I know" in the interview.  Is this something she does not "know" but only "thinks"?

Why the weak assertion?

"Things should have been done differently.  Unfortunately, the effects were catastrophic." 

This would show congruency between the assertion "Things should have been done differently" and the "effects" that followed. 

This is a subject who appears acutely aware of the controversy around her.  She did not search for Madeleine with the McCanns, but "we" searched, highlighting her unity with them.  

Here is what Ellen wrote.  I appreciate her framing the context.  

A former Portuguese police chief, who was involved in the missing persons investigation in its early stages, published a book alleging that Maddie died accidentally while she was left alone with her siblings in the resort apartment, and that her parents covered up the death.

The Mirror interview does not address why no one at the resort had been hired to look after the McCann children if child care workers were available that night, though the nanny did tell the newspaper it was “normal” for vacationing parents to spend time on resort grounds while their children were sleeping in their rooms.

Analysis Conclusion:

The Nanny struggles with her own words.  She does not commit to a belief of a kidnapping, and is aligned with the parents.  She may possess some information about the McCanns, however, that has brought suspicion to her mind, but does not want to share it.  

She does not believe evidence of a kidnapper was destroyed.  

Next up:  McCann Brother-in-law statement to police 

55 comments:

John mcgowan said...

Madeleine McCann's nanny thinks 'best-case scenario' is she was 'snatched for a rich couple who couldn't have children'

UPDATED14:39, 18 APR 2017

A nanny who once cared for Madeleine McCann has said the "best case scenario" is that she was taken by a childless rich couple.

Speaking out 10 years after Madeleine's disappearance, the former nanny said the thought of Maddie being happy with a wealthy family is the only place she can go in her mind.

She said: "Think possibly is the wrong word, but hope. I hope she is still alive.

“It’s probably very naive, but the best case scenario of a very horrible situation, is that she was procured and taken for a rich person who didn’t have children.

“I can’t go anywhere else in my head. I can read it about other people and know how horrible that seedy world is where children are sold. But my brain won’t go there with her. I just switch off.

“But I think the only person who knows exactly what happened is Madeleine. Can I believe it’s 10 years on? Yes and no.

Speaking of that dreadful night in May 2007, the ex-nanny –who looked after the girl several times – said: “A parent came to me and said there was something going on, and said someone’s looking for a child, I didn’t instantly think it was Maddie.

"A couple of minutes later I walked into Kate crying, friends comforting her, Gerry looking under cars, and it just blew up.

"I don’t even think she saw me. I just stood next to her and tried to comfort her.

“She was pacing up and down. The worst possible thing had just happened to her.

“I think I said something like, ‘She’ll be found, these things happen all the time.’

“She was crying, but almost in a catatonic state, and Gerry was very distressed. That’s the one thing I really remember from him, looking under the cars. I can’t forget that.

“We were told to start looking in bins in case her body was in there. It was at that point we realised this was serious.”

Along with other staff, the ex-carer, who worked for travel firm Mark Warner at the the Ocean Club resort, sifted by hand in the dark through industrial-sized bins and piping leading into the sea in their hunt for Madeleine.

They also walked Praia da Luz’s small, winding streets searching for the missing girl until they were told, against their wills at 5am, that it was time for bed.

But the woman, who we are not naming, said she is still furious with local police , who she claimed took 90 minutes to arrive on the scene.

And she told how people were in and out of the apartment where Madeleine vanished from – contaminating a ­potential crime scene.

The former nanny added: “I know I didn’t step into that apartment but pretty much everybody else did. So, evidence gone, nothing. There was nobody there to say, ‘We need to lock this off now.’

"The police didn’t get there for ages, maybe an hour and a half, so we were looking for her.

"And at the end of the day, no matter how much you’ve been trained with ­children, we were children, mainly ­teenagers, we’re not police.

Cont..

John mcgowan said...

..Cont

“That’s why police were trying to get everyone’s timelines, because they weren’t there.”

She also told how she was interviewed by officers in the wake of Madeleine’s disappearance and later detectives from ­the Met’s Operation Grange handed her two pages of statements they had retrieved from their Algarve compratiots.

Her original statement was four to five pages long, but the one the Portuguese had been working from was only two pages long – missing a number of details from her interview.

The woman claimed “whole chunks of information were missed out”.

he added: “I think a lot of things should’ve happened differently. ­Unfortunately the effects were catastrophic.”

And the carer told how she was astonished Kate and Gerry were ever deemed suspects in their own child’s ­disappearance.

She is still constantly quizzed by people about the case who ask if “the parents did it”.

She said: “I tell them no, there’s no way at all. A, timings and B, where it was, their r­eactions, the whole thing. Not a chance.”

The woman also told how Madeleine was a favourite among the child minders. Her allocated nanny was Catriona Baker, but others also got the chance to look after her.

The carer added: “I remember her character and ­temperament. She was slightly shy, very sweet. Not loud or precocious.

“We obviously give the same care to all the children, but she was a real cutie and a real sweetheart. If you asked her, ‘Can you just pass me that?’ She’d be like, ‘Sure.’

“She was easy for us, and you were happy to sit and help out this pretty little girl who’s really nice.”

While the Ocean Club was clearly popular with British holidaymakers like the McCanns, from Rothley, Leics, the former child minder claimed it was considered an unsafe place for those who worked there.

After she arrived she was stunned when a fellow nanny passed on a message from hotel staff to never venture off the site alone.

She added: “I just couldn’t get over how different it was to other Mark Warner resorts.

“We were told, ‘Here’s a rape whistle, don’t go anywhere by yourself, ever.’ There’d been a girl attacked the year or so before in Praia da Luz. It didn’t sound like a family resort to me.

“I just got the feeling the locals didn’t want us there.”

It emerged in 2014 that 11 years earlier a 10-year-old British girl had been sexually assaulted “in the heart” of Praia da Luz

The victim came forward three years ago after a Scotland Yard appeal revealed a string of potentially linked sex assaults on young UK girls across the Algarve between 2004 and 2006.

Mark Warner, which operates in resorts all over the world, quit Praia da Luz in 2015.

Madeleine vanished as her parents ate with friends at a tapas bar just 40 yards from where she slept next to twin siblings, Amelie and Sean.

But the former nanny, who couldn’t face child minding again after the Algarve horror, said dining while kids were in the apartments was “really normal” in such resorts.

And she insisted there was no evidence Kate and Gerry would ever neglect their kids.

She said: “I remember thinking, even before I knew them, how they were the picture perfect family.”


A nanny who once cared for Madeleine McCann has said the "best case scenario" is that she was taken by a childless rich couple.

Cont..

John mcgowan said...

Asked if she thinks Madeleine is still alive, the woman said: “Think possibly is the wrong word, but hope. I hope she is still alive.

“It’s probably very naive, but the best case scenario of a very horrible situation, is that she was procured and taken for a rich person who didn’t have children.

“I can’t go anywhere else in my head. I can read it about other people and know how horrible that seedy world is where children are sold. But my brain won’t go there with her. I just switch off.

“But I think the only person who knows exactly what happened is Madeleine. Can I believe it’s 10 years on? Yes and no.

No because 10 years seems like a really long time, she’d be nearly 14.

“And yes, because sometimes, when I talk about it, it feels like I’m right back there again.

“I wonder if she’s alive. Does she even remember? Does she remember her parents?

“I’m probably less harrowed by it now, but that’s just because, although it’s awful, it’s become accepted.

“‘It’s Madeleine, she’s gone missing but it would just be the best day ever if I could be told that she’s been found.”

Operation Grange, which was last month given £85,000 of Home Office funding to extend its probe until September, still speaks to witnesses.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-nanny-thinks-best-10246618

tania cadogan said...

What a load of b****cks regarding the childless rich couple.
This is the 21st century not the middle ages.

If a couple are rich enough and don't have children they can do one of the following, all legally and above board:

IVF using their own eggs and sperm or donor eggs/sperm or combination of.
Surrogacy if the mother cannot carry a child or if she simply doesn't want the bother of a pregnancy and birth.
Adoption where they can choose pretty much any age, any nationality and any skin color a la Madonna or Angelina Jolie.

What they would not do is have a child abducted and then spend the rest of their lives hiding said child and fearing arrest and all that would follow.

If a child is abducted by a non parental adult it is either a paedophile or a woman with serious mental health issues, usually either unable to conceive or who has suffered a miscarriage or multiple miscarriages.
In this case the abducted child is a newborn sometimes abducted from the maternity unit, abducted within a couple of days from the home after they have visited for some sham reason or, sadly even preborn.

Given Maddie's age no rich couple would take the risk, no woman unable to carry her own child would take the risk since she would not fit their specific requirements (hard to claim you have just given birth to an almost 4 year old, people would notice)
This leaves paedophiles in which case Maddie is long dead, parental involvement in her death which is the most likely, abduction by a family friend which would point to the tapas 7 so why would the mccanns lie, or non parental family member, possible since she was IVF and we cannot be 100% certain who the father is despite the claims of paternity by gerry.

This is simply a paid for non story paid for by the mccanns in the run up to the 10th anniversary and not unexpected given their track record, especially since the news broke about them being legally not cleared of involvement by the PJ and confirmed by the Portuguese Supreme Court.
Their non clearance also noted by Leicestershire police who said they did not take up the opportunity to clear themselves.

Lars Bak said...

It's the highly expected. The McCanns are under increasing pressure of not being believed and of accusations of neglect,colliding with the upcoming 10th aniversary of the "abduction". Here they are expected once again to come out and tell that they will never stop searching (doesn't that presuppose, that they have started?)and urge everybody else to continue.

The only interesting thing is, how much the nanny has got for it. Just listen:

“She was easy for us, and you were happy to sit and help out this pretty little girl who’s really nice.” Is that her speaking?

“I remember thinking, even before I knew them, how they were the picture perfect family.”...tsk, tsk.

It's spin

John mcgowan said...

tania cadogan said...


"What a load of b****cks regarding the childless rich couple.
This is the 21st century not the middle ages."


Hi Tania

You've made my day :)

Anonymous said...

This is Pennington. Saw everything, went everywhere and KNOWS NOTHING. IMHO

And as much as these nannies, or in particular this one, has a point of view on everything. Their career or in particular this period of their employment at a holiday resort would have been based on CARE, keeping these children safe.

Yet doesn't have an opinion about leaving these children home alone, in an unlocked publicly accessible apartment, in what she now tells us as an unsafe environment - night after night!

Wouldn't let this person look after my dog!

Anonymous said...

I feel like "evidence gone" means it was removed. If there was no evidence to begin with, how can it be gone?

-KC

tania cadogan said...

i did a rummage and this 'new interview' sounds very similar to one she did sept 2007

Kate McCann DID scream 'They've taken her' claims new nanny witness Daily Mail

By DAN NEWLING
Last updated at 16:41pm on 25th September 2007

The first eyewitness account of the frantic moments after Madeleine McCann disappeared can be revealed today.

Nanny Charlotte Pennington confirms that Kate McCann did scream: "They've taken her, they've taken her!"

The mother's precise words have become a pivotal issue in the case, with Portuguese police questioning why she would automatically assume Maddie had been abducted.

Mrs McCann's family have countered this by insisting they recall her shouting: "Madeleine's gone."

Miss Pennington, however, one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.

The 20-year-old Briton, who tended children for the Mark Warner holiday complex in Praia da Luz, firmly believes the McCanns are innocent.

Speaking publicly for the first time yesterday, she described Mrs McCann in the aftermath as "a broken woman" who was shuddering and unable to move.

"We are trained to comfort people in this type of situation but she was just inconsolable," she said.

Miss Pennington is considered a vital witness by Portuguese detectives with whom she spent more than four-and-a-half hours giving a statement.

She also claims British expat Robert Murat, the first suspect in the case, was in the area of the Ocean Club complex that night. He has repeatedly denied that he was there.

Talking from her mother's home in Leatherhead, Surrey, yesterday she told the Daily Mail: "I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone.

"When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her, they've taken her!'

"I was standing right in front of her outside the apartment's back door, in the alleyway. I was very close to her. It might not have been the first thing she said. But she definitely said it.

"I was one of three Mark Warner staff who saw her shouting it. They have all given statements to the Portuguese police saying that."

The "they've taken her" version of events was first given in the Portuguese press two days after Madeleine disappeared on May 3.

It remained unchallenged until last Thursday when a source close to the McCann family claimed Kate had actually shouted: 'Madeleine's gone!'

Miss Pennington flew out to start work at Praia da Luz on April 28 - the same day that the McCanns arrived. She had worked for Mark Warner on two previous occasions.

She was employed as a nanny in the Ocean Club resort's Baby Club, looking after children aged four to 12 months.

However, she also came into close contact with Madeleine, her two-year-old sister and brother Amelie and Sean, and their parents, both doctors aged 39.

She dismissed claims that the McCanns were not seen for six hours leading up to the disappearance.

She said: "I was helping give the children high tea. The twins were there and Madeleine and both parents.

"It was supposed to finish at 5.30pm but because they were a big group and really social, it didn't finish until about 6pm. There was nothing out of the ordinary at all."

After tea Miss Pennington went to work at the resort's evening creche, in which parents could leave their children while they went out for supper.

Just before 10pm the last mother arrived to collect her child from the creche and mentioned that she had just bumped into a man, who had been shouting a name.

tania cadogan said...

cont.

"She didn't get the name, but she said it sounded something like 'Abbey, Gabby or Maddie'. We automatically went into lost-child procedure. In these situations, the first thing we do is investigate the scene.

"We knew that one of the other nanny's charges was called Maddie. We told the head of department what had happened and she took us straight to the apartment.

"There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends.

"When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her. They've taken her!'

Asked if it was the only thing she said, Miss Pennington answered: "It might not have been the first thing she said. But she definitely said it. She also repeated Madeleine's name and said: 'She's gone, she's gone'.

"I couldn't really believe what I was seeing - she was just so distraught. She was screaming out and tears were running down her face.

"Everyone else was running around trying to help.

"Kate and her friend, who was looking after her, were the only ones who weren't out looking for Madeleine."

While Gerry McCann leapt into action and began frantically searching the resort, she said his wife remained outside the apartment, shuddering with tears and unable to move.

Asked why she thought Mrs McCann might have shouted "They've taken her", Miss Pennington said:

"I'm not really sure. But maybe she saw some people looking at Madeleine earlier that day, and she immediately thought that they must have taken her."

The nanny was one of three staff who steered Mrs McCann to the nearby reception area, where they asked her to describe what Madeleine was wearing.

But she remained so hysterical that she could hardly communicate.

"We get missing children all the time, and I have seen plenty of hysterical mothers. But none of them were like Kate."

She confirmed reports from the McCanns' friends that Murat was at the scene.

"He was outside the lobby just before we started on our big search," she said.

"He was adamant that he wasn't there. But he was. He was there in the road, he was just looking. It was about 10.30. He was just watching.

"I didn't know his name then. But the next day he was our interpreter and I met him then. He didn't take part in the searches, but he was there."

Murat has insisted that he was at his home nearby throughout the evening of Madeleine's disappearance. Portuguese sources have claimed that he will soon be told that he is no longer a suspect.

Miss Pennington explained that she spent the rest of the evening searching for Madeleine, before finally going to bed at 4am.

The following afternoon she was one of the first people to give witness statements to the Portuguese police.

Since then, she said, she has spoken to a Portuguese detective once and to two British detectives.

tania cadogan said...

cont.

*

It is worth noting that this interview with Charlotte Pennington appeared just three days after a number of newspapers ran reports about a 'missing 7 hours' time period leading up to Madeleine's disappearance - a period when it was alleged that no independent witness had seen Madeleine.

Metodo 3 had already been hired by the McCanns at this point and this may well have been their first contribution to the case: Offering Charlotte Pennington to the Daily Mail, for an exclusive interview, that would dispel the 'missing 7 hours' reports.

Of course, Pennington subsequently cast doubt on this story, on the Dispatches programme aired on Channel 4 on 18 October 2007, when she admitted that the last time she had seen the McCanns, together as a family, was at lunchtime on 03 May 2007.

On the very day the Dispatches programme was aired, for which the McCanns would almost certainly have had a pre-screening, the Daily Mail reveals - exclusively - that Gerry had asked David Payne to pop by the apartment and check on Kate.

The 'source' told the Mail, "David Payne saw Madeleine at around 6.30pm. He popped in because Gerry wanted to make sure Kate was OK. Gerry was playing tennis and David said he was going past. I expect it was said (by Gerry) as: 'If you are heading back that way, stick your head in and see if Kate is all right'.

The 'missing 7 hours' that Pennington had just blown a huge hole in was instantly filled in again!

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id70.htm#13

John mcgowan said...

She dismissed claims that the McCanns were not seen for six hours leading up to the disappearance.

She said: "I was helping give the children high tea. The twins were there and Madeleine and both parents.

Whom was she helping?
If she was helping someone, then why haven't they come forward?

"It was supposed to finish at 5.30pm but because they were a big group and really social, it didn't finish until about 6pm. There was nothing out of the ordinary at all."

The normal factor. With added emphasis, ("at all") - also in the negative.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 9.48 it's me again

Pennington contributed to the headlines several times, there was the ''kicking bag'' episode she saw in boat - and was (I think) inferring it was Robert Murat

Sorry, after all these years and I have been a very close follower of the case - I really can't be bothered to resource this. But I have a pigeon hole mind and it's how I remember things.

Equally, there's the issue of 'large group' this was out of season, and it seems mostly the nannies almost outnumbered the children. Hence the reason, personally I don't care a toss about the inconsistencies in the creche records. But it's through this statement the reinforcer is there, as an independent witness to seeing Madeleine.

The IMHO of great interest to the discovery and possibly what happened next is 9.45pm to 10.15pm and there appears no record of anyone other than the McCanns in the apartment, especially the children's bedroom, where I believe Madeleine lay undiscovered. Pennington (from memory) made a big deal of searching the apartment, good for her! Madeleine was certainly long gone by then.

Pennington along with the nannies were quickly shut up. Allegedly shipped off to Mark Warners in Greece. But it was Pennington with some strange goofy (as if to laugh at her) photos that were in the media at the time.

What always rings peculiar, time and time again about this case, is those that come forward to the public domain, Edgar, Gamble ''The un-named nanny'' etc. Never the T7, close friends, other people in PDL, named witnesses. If not only to support the McCanns, but to speak of the victim, Madeleine.

Time passes the growing question is when did anyone actually speak to or photograph the McCanns. I rather think they will, certainly whilst Op. Grange continues, keep a low profile and just let the circus continue around them - like it always has.

Lars Bak said...

The smearing of the police is presumably because of Amaral's upcoming book. In the interview she says:

"The police didn’t get there for ages, maybe an hour and a half, SO we were looking for her.

Four days after the "abduction", she told the police:
"...via telephone her supervisor, Lyndsay, who informed her that Madeleine had indeed disappeared;
- After this situation, they began the "search procedure for a missing child" which consists of an organised search..."

It's spin - looking forward to the tenth celebration of not having found Madeleine.

Tiffany Gerik said...

QUOTE: She said: “I tell them no, there’s no way at all. A, timings and B, where it was, their r­eactions, the whole thing. Not a chance.”

Does she mean that the parents couldn't possibly have been involved in the death of their child because of where the crime allegedly took place--in their apartment?

What kind of reasoning is that??

QUOTE: “It’s probably very naive, but the best case scenario of a very horrible situation, is that she was procured and taken for a rich person who didn’t have children.

Such an interesting choice of word. "To obtain something especially with great care or effort".

QUOTE: "A couple of minutes later I walked into Kate crying, friends comforting her, Gerry looking under cars, and it just blew up."

She walked into them....as in physically? She walked into a room with them? An area? A lack of details here!

QUOTE: “She was easy for us, and you were happy to sit and help out this pretty little girl who’s really nice.”

Yet, I recall Gerry, the father, stating in one of the first interviews how Maddie had that "McCann level voice", which was almost disparaging of her.

Amyl Nitrite said...

Sorry about OT, but I think I found a great example of the premise that a liar cant lie twice on the same lie. At the 14:19 mark at link a person asks AMy Schumer if she stole her jokes. She responded sarcastically but framed the words, "I stole those jokes".
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/amy-schumer-stealing-jokes-megamix-need-see/

Esme Phe said...

OT
Pedro Hernandez confessed to killing Etan Patz.

Etan's body hasn't been found. How do we know he's really dead? I read that Hernandez said Etan was alive when he stuffed him in a box and left him on the curbside. What if Etan was picked up by someone else? Do pedophiles use teenagers to help abduct their victims?
Has SA been done on the confession?

Esme Phe said...

He said that he asked the boy if he wanted a soda, and he brought him down the steps into the basement, where he started to choke him. At one point, Mr. Hernandez imitated the sound he remembered the boy making as he strangled him. He put his body in a plastic garbage bag and then the bag inside a box. But, he said, he believed that the child was still alive. “I know he was,” he said. “I didn’t actually kill him.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/nyregion/etan-patz-murder-case-pedro-hernandez-confession.html


Anonymous said...

Off Topic: Re: Marcotte case

I feel almost 100% confident that the guy they arrested (and have only charged with A&B and intent to rape) had to have been framed by the real killer. Anyone following this story?

A tip was called in by a man doing "errands" who claims to have seen a dark SUV parked on side of Brooks Station Road w the hood up, guy says he slowed down to offer help but saw the driver on his cell phone so he kept driving. On his 2nd pass down the street he sees the dark colored SUV still there w doors shut, hood down, no driver. What are the odds that the killer would allow his vehicle/lic plate to be seen by countless people and to potentially attract a cop car? Then also walk. In full view down that road to the road into the woods?
Marcotte was not raped. Her private areas were left exposed. The killer strangled and burned her.
The guy they arrested was spotted by a cop as being a Latino driving a black SUV, and the cop was actually at that time en route to deliver OTHER DNA SAMPLES related to her case!!!! He claims he wrote down the lic plate and went to the guys home and that the man willingly gave a DNA sample that they are saying is a "close match". This guy does not speak English but is saying through translator that he did not know Marcotte and did not have any physical contact with her.

Thoughts? What is going on with this case?
I feel like the guy was framed. The cop who spotted him as being a Hispanic driving a black SUV was transported other DNA samples related to the case?! Am I crazy to be thinking what Im thinking???

Anonymous said...

What sorts of people will pull over to a vehicle stopped on the side of the road too see if they need assistance?

Anonymous said...

Ok so now they are developing the theory that the suspect posed as a stranded driver....BUT the guy who called in the tip who was doing "errands" says he saw the SUV "stranded" on side of the road w the suspect at the car a half hour before Marcotte even left her mothers house to go on a walk and then he sees the SUV still there 2 hours later about 20 min after Marcotte's cell phone powered down. The SUV was allegedly there for hours BUT ONLY ONE PERSON CALLED IN TO SAY THEY HAD SEEN IT THERE?!?! Right on the main section of road and noone else noticed it?!?! Thoughts?

Hey Jude said...

QUOTE: She said: “I tell them no, there’s no way at all. A, timings and B, where it was, their r­eactions, the whole thing. Not a chance

She doesn't say she believes what she tells them, just what she tells them.

I thought it was interesting she said, (I think it's in the crimewire story), she 'didn't instantly think' it was Madeleine who was missing - sensitive. Strange thing to have not instantly thought - strange to say.

Anonymous said...

OT:
http://whotv.com/2017/04/18/13raw-interview-with-accused-madison-county-arsonist-before-charges-filed/

Interesting interview of an arsonist BEFORE he was caught.

Karl

Tiffany Gerik said...

OT - A Champaign County eighth grader accused of killing his dad’s girlfriend details how she died in a revealing 9-1-1 call obtained by the Springfield News-Sun.

Donovan A. Nicholas, 14, has been charged with murder and aggravated murder in connection with the death of 40-year-old Heidi Fay Taylor, according to the Champaign County Sheriff’s Office. He remains in a juvenile detention center.

QUESTION: Is this boy telling the truth? Does he have a separate personality named "Jeff" inside him that killed his father's girlfriend?

Dispatcher: 9-1-1, where’s your emergency?

Clark County Dispatcher: It’s Clark County with a transfer. He’s at … Valley Pike. Sir, go ahead.

Nicholas: I just killed my mother

Dispatcher: What happened, sir?

Nicholas: I just killed my mother and I need to go to the hospital.

Dispatcher: And you’re at … Valley Pike?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: And what happened?

Nicholas: It wasn’t me who, who, it wasn’t me who killed her. It was Jeff.

Dispatcher: What happened? Who did it?

Nicholas: Jeff. I’m sorry. This is going to be really hard to explain but I kind of have another person inside me. Like.

Dispatcher: OK. Are you OK?

Nicholas: No, I stabbed myself.

Dispatcher: You stabbed yourself?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: What happened to your mom?

Nicholas: He killed her. He snapped.

Dispatcher: OK. What’s your name?

EARLIER COVERAGE: Boy, 14, charged with murder in Champaign County

Nicholas: My, mine is Donovan Austin Nicholas.

Dispatcher: Donovan Nichols?

Nicholas: Nicholas.

Dispatcher: All right. Are you able to say who’s with you?

Nicholas: I am by myself. Me and Jeff.

Dispatcher: OK. And what happened to your mom. What did you do?

Nicholas: He, he stabbed her. Then he shot her.

Dispatcher: All right. So he, he stabbed her?

Nicholas: Then he shot her. But —

Dispatcher: Where did he shoot her?

Nicholas: In the head. But I swear it wasn’t me. It was Jeff. Jeff is inside me.

Dispatcher: Jeff is inside you?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: OK.

Nicholas: He, he, sometimes takes, he sometimes takes control and I have no control. I have no control over him. It’s not fair.

Dispatcher: Where are you hurt sir?

Nicholas: On my thigh. No, no my leg.

Dispatcher: Your leg? You stabbed your leg?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: Do you have any towels or anything on it, that you can put on it?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: OK you did? All right now, why did you hurt your mom, or why did Jeff hurt your mom?

Nicholas: He was always tired of her. She always, she always did drugs and she totally like ignored me. Like, once she hit me and she was just — she was done.

Dispatcher: Sir, where is the gun and the knife?

Nicholas: The knife I don’t know.

Dispatcher: You don’t know, where are they?

Nicholas: The gun is in the bedroom. I, I am down, I’m downstairs. I don’t have any, I don’t have any weapon on me.

Dispatcher: OK. So the gun is upstairs in the bedroom?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: What kind of gun is it? Is it a long gun, a short gun?

Nicholas: It, it, it is a 9 mm.

Dispatcher: It’s a 9 mm?

Nicholas: Yeah.

Dispatcher: And you’re downstairs correct?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: Where is the knife at sir?

Nicholas: I don’t know.

Dispatcher: You don’t know where the knife is?

Nicholas: No. I can’t walk.

Dispatcher: You can’t walk?

Nicholas: No.


CONT'D...

Tiffany Gerik said...

QUESTION: Is this boy telling the truth? Does he have a separate personality named "Jeff" inside him that killed his father's girlfriend?

Dispatcher: Are you in the living room?

Nicholas: No. Kitchen. Is somebody on their way, like an ambulance or something?

Dispatcher: Yes, sir, I’ve got you help sent out, OK?

Nicholas: OK. I swear it wasn’t my fault. Just —

Dispatcher: Are you doing OK?

Nicholas: It hurts really bad.

Dispatcher: You hurt?

Nicholas: Mmm hmm.

Dispatcher: Do you have any animals in the house with you, or …

Nicholas: No.

Dispatcher: No?

Nicholas: No.

Dispatcher: OK. Is your house, is it far off the road, is it up close to the road?

Nicholas: It’s close.

Dispatcher: OK.

Nicholas: I’m, I am so scared. I didn’t — I — I didn’t want to kill her. I hate Jeff so much. He’s — he — he’s going to make me die in prison.

Dispatcher: Is this Jeff you’re talking about?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: Yes?

Nicholas: He couldn’t have taken somebody else. No. He took me. He needs … (inaudible) … to be a stupid person

Dispatcher: Sir, can you see the front door from where you are right now?

Nicholas: It’s not the front door but it’s the door we always use.

Dispatcher: All right, sir?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: So, so can you see the front door from where you are in the kitchen?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: Yes? How far away do you think you are from the front door?

Nicholas: I don’t know.

Dispatcher: About 20 feet? 30 feet? Somewhere around there?

Nicholas: The size of a normal kitchen.

Dispatcher: I know you’re in your kitchen. Um, are you very close to the door?

Nicholas: No, I am against the back wall.

Dispatcher: OK.

Nicholas: Am I going to get in trouble? Well yeah, obviously.

Dispatcher: We’re going to get you help out there, OK? I know you’re hurt, all right. I know you’re hurting. Is your leg, do you still have a towel or anything on your leg?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: OK. Can you, can you press it down on there that way it stops the bleeding, can help stop it? Just press it on there hard, OK?

Nicholas: OK. Um, Um uh, I’m sorry, I stutter.

Dispatcher: No, that’s fine. That is perfectly OK, Donovan. That’s OK. OK?

Nicholas: OK. Is … is the people that are going to be in my house, are they, are they going to hurt me?

Dispatcher: Sir, nobody is going to hurt you, OK. Nobody wants to hurt you all right?

Nicholas: OK.

Dispatcher: Nobody wants to hurt you. They just want to help you, OK?

Nicholas: Just no Tasing or pepper spray or nothing like that? I swear I am not going to hurt anybody else. It wasn’t my fault. I’m just hurt.

Dispatcher: Are you doing OK?

Nicholas: It hurts.

Dispatcher: It hurts really bad? What kind of knife did Jeff use?

Nicholas: A kitchen knife.

Dispatcher: He, he used a kitchen knife, was it a big one?

Nicholas: It was a medium-sized one. It’s bigger than a steak knife but smaller than a bread knife. Ow. I’m just so scared. I don’t want to die in prison. I swear it wasn’t my fault.

Dispatcher: You said Jeff did it. Is Jeff there? Is he still there with you?

Nicholas: Well yeah, he —

Dispatcher; Yeah?

Nicholas: Yeah, he’s always, he’s always inside me. He always talks to me, he, well — here, here they are.

Dispatcher: Where, who’s there?

Nicholas: The police or the people —

Dispatcher: The people to help you?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: All right. Are you still sitting on the ground?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: OK.

Nicholas: They just walked past my door.

Dispatcher: OK. Did you — all right and your leg, do you still have that towel on that leg?

Nicholas: Yes.

Dispatcher: OK, you do?

Nicholas: Yes. Why are they just standing there?

Dispatcher: You’re just sitting there? You’re against the back wall? Are you, OK? Donovan?

Deputy: You, OK? Anybody need help here?

Nicholas: My mom.

Deputy: (inaudible) Hands behind your back. Don’t move. Who’s out there?

-----

General P. Malaise said...

Tiffany Gerik said...
QUESTION: Is this boy telling the truth? Does he have a separate personality named "Jeff" inside him that killed his father's girlfriend?


he is just trying to escape the consequences of his actions blaming a second personality. they don't exist, there are crazy people but the split personality is TV screen play only..

he sated the .."I killed my mother" ....

General P. Malaise said...

from zerohedge

While it is hardly the last thing Bill O'Reilly will say on the matter, in his official parting statement over his Fox News termination, while O'Reilly slams the decision by Murdoch to terminate him, saying "It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims" he leaves on a high note, saying "I wish only the best for Fox News Channel."

Statement from Bill O'Reilly

Over the past 20 years at Fox News, I have been extremely proud to launch and lead one of the most successful news programs in history, which has consistently informed and entertained millions of Americans and significantly contributed to building Fox into the dominant news network in television. It is tremendously disheartening that we part ways due to completely unfounded claims. But that is the unfortunate reality many of us in the public eye must live with today. I will always look back on my time at Fox with great pride in the unprecedented success we achieved and with my deepest gratitude to all my dedicated viewers.

I wish only the best for Fox News Channel.

Peter is that statement a high note ..."I wish only the best..." doesn't only remove or distance o'really from the best??

Bobcat said...

OT: Please review this brief amateur analysis of a statement by Amber Wilkinson, sister of Amanda Blackburn.

http://case-discussions.blogspot.com/2017/04/11132015-public-facebook-statement.html

All feedback will be appreciated.

Nic said...

John mcgowan said...

She said: "I was helping give the children high tea. The twins were there and Madeleine and both parents.


So the children and parents. Madeline and her siblings. The kids and their parents.

Roll call. NTP.

jmo

Anonymous said...

@Bobcat, what does that mean "often the introduction of a phone connects the perpetrator to a crime"? What does that mean? Just the mention of a phone, meaning any phone???

Nic said...

And "high tea" is ritualistic considering they're all on vacation. Is this suppose to make the day look "normal"?

Are they vacationing at a resort that observes "high tea"?

I know I'm late to the party. As always. This is the first I've heard of "high tea". It's also the first time I've heard that there was a nanny.

Anonymous said...

It's a good analysis of Amber! Good job!

Regarding "intro of phone" rule: In the Marcotte case, the tip caller who claims he was doing errands says he saw a dark-colored SUV on the side of the road with hood up, he slows down to see if the guy needs help, but then sees him on a phone, so keeps driving. I believe the tip caller either made up the fact that he saw an SUV pulled over on the side of the road with a guy who was talking on the phone OR that the guy was having car problems or out of gas and the tip caller pinned the crime that he, the tip caller, actually commited on him.

BUT, would the phone rule apply in this example re Marcotte case? Like would the tip caller introducing a phone connect himself to the crime? CAn someone answer this?

a.n.o.n. said...

Nanny said she was in the apartment in the first interview, then is adamant in the recent interview that she never entered that day.

Anonymous said...

Noone here thinks that is weird that a cop transporting DNA samples related to the Marcotte case picks out a random Hispanic driving a black SUV in city traffic in a city where there are tons of Hispanics and that the man who does not speak English and who freely gives a DNA sample that is supposedly a "close match"???

Noone thinks it's weird the anonymous tip caller who was supposedly doing errands says he saw a dark colored SUV with hood up on the side of the road said that he spotted the vehicle there a half hour before Marcotte even left her house? And that the random tip caller introduces the word "Phone"???

Noone thinks it's weird that the tip caller says that he saw the car on side of the road still there over 2 hours later yet NOONE else called in a tip about seeing the dark colored SUV on side of the road???

How is it humanly possible that the cop transporting DNA samples related to the case just happened to zero in on the perp by picking a random Hispanic in a black SUV. In the first story I read it said that the cop followed him home and attained a DNA sample from the man and that would have been while he still had other DNA samples related to the case in his car!!!!!

This is literally the strangest arrest of a perp I have ever heard about nevermind by a cop who is transporting DNA samples for the case and who attains a DNA sample from a HIspanic man who does not even speak English!!!

Oh also, the supposed perp's mother is a police officer!!!

The story about the cop with the DNA samples picking out a random Hispanic and getting him to give him a DNA sample has so many red flags sticking up it is not even funny.



Anonymous said...

Literally that could be the plot out of a movie about a bad cop. Not saying for sure the guy was set up, but geez, you could sure use that as a very good storyline about someone being framed badly!!!

Anonymous said...

Why would a cop even be transporting DNA samples related to a murder case? Like was the cop going to certain people's houses who were possible suspects and getting DNA samples? And then just decided oh gee, there's a HIspanic, let me get his while I"m at it?!?! Wouldn't these samples be taken at the police station and put into a secure area and then be picked up by the company that tests them???

Also, shouldn't DNA in a murder case be an exact match with the perp? Not a "close match"? If it is his DNA shouldn't it be an exact match???

Anonymous said...

Also they refused to say where they got the original DNA from the crime scene for 9 months.. Only after they had this supposed perp in custody did they finally say that they allegedly got it off her hand. Their reticence to say where they attained the initial DNA from is unsettling bc it could have been planted at the crime scene in the form of a cigarette butt or something or water bottle. If they got it from her hand, why would they refuse to say that for 9 months, they were asked many times and would not say.

Anonymous said...

The whole thing just seems so sketchy. It sounds like they were desperate for answers (understandably) and may have used DNA from unreliable sources like cig butt or water bottle that could have been planted. And that is so fishy about the sci-fi DNA profile and the DNA transporting cop who randomnly picks out a HIspanic and gets his DNA and it is a close match?!

Anonymous said...

I can't pinpoint it, but as with SA if he can't say it we can't say it for him. If they refused to say where at crime scene they got DNA for 9 months, that is very strange. If they got it under her nails, they would be happy to say "yes we have DNA it is from under her nails"...instead they wait 9 mos until alleged perp arrested and then say they got it from her "hand". No nothing shady at all about the DNA transporting cop randomnly picking a HIspanic. Why should the public have any confidence in this arrest?

Hey Jude said...

Bobcat - re:

http://case-discussions.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/11132015-public-facebook-statement.html

There is a message which says the page does not exist. Is that a mistake, or did you take it down? I wanted to read it.

Hey Jude said...

Tiffany - the boy said he did it, a couple of times, before he introduced and blamed Jeff.

He also said 'sorry' - associated with guilt when said in 911 calls, though he already confessed.

Nicholas: Jeff. I’m sorry. This is going to be really hard to explain but I kind of have another person inside me. Like.

He only 'kind' of has another person inside him. 'Like' - not that he does have another person inside him.

---

I don't know if multiple personality disorder really exists - those who claim it does usually say the person is not aware of the existence of other personalities. The boy says 'Jeff' is always there and always speaks to him, which sounds more like hearing voices/psychosis - except he already admitted clealy that he had killed his mother, not that Jeff did it or told him to do it.

Anonymous said...

The children's day ''High Tea'' oh so English and somewhat fanciful in the day of pizza and packet of crisps.

If you look at the day, (again from memory) breakfast was taken in the apartment, since it was too far to walk (no pushchairs) to the Millennium restaurant. Lunch seems to have been a quickie back at the apartment between creche sessions.

It seems the children had milk and biscuits before bedtime. So it would seem the last proper meal would have been in the inclusive meal deal ''High tea'' After all the adults ate later at the Tapas.

But hold the thought about tea. The tea stained pajamas, I'm yet to meet anyone under 18 (years) who drinks tea, yet alone near four-year-olds. Of course ''high tea'' refers to the occasion.

Bobcat said...

anon @ 11:51

It's a statistic that Peter has referenced.

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Habundia said...

I can tell you it does exist....ive been living with someone who had multiple personalities.

Anonymous said...

The fact that the Podest@ brothers look like sketch artist drawing of possible suspect(s) is so mind boggling.
I thought it was a joke at first when I first saw the article comparing the two.
http://theconspiracyblog.com/images/article_images/current_politics/hillary_clinton/multiple-reports-tie-clintons-podesta-brothers-to-child-abduction-of-madeline-mccann-012.jpg

trustmeigetit said...

The thing that will always be he biggest factor to me is that they NEVER physically searched.

We had a scare with my son a couple months back.

We were pretty sure he misunderstood and had gone to a new friends house (he was told to come get mom or dad to go to the kids house to meet he parents first) but he was late.

When he did not return as told, my husband drove with my sons friends to every house they knew, we had all our neighbor friends looking and I walked up and down every street in my neighborhood hoping to find him or his bike parked at a house.

We found him (at the friends) but the adrenaline was so strong. Even tho he may just be at the friends and had misunderstood... still my fear that maybe something bad happened was all that was on my mind.

The panic and urgency is real.

The Mccanns did not have this.

And like with Isabel Celis's parents who secluded themselves and "grieved" I involved everyone we knew to search and well, searched.

I can not imagine going home and sleeping well.
I can not imagine sitting in my room crying.

I could not just sit and wait.

So while it always seemed strange to me before, now I am even more sure that lack of searching means one thing.

You know there is nothing to search for.


Nic said...


trustmeigetit said,
I could not just sit and wait.


That's right. But what I'm learning is a cold, black heart doesn't think that way. It's like spreading the blame, except it's more in line of "downloading"/delegating the feeling of actually caring because it's not within their scope. They let others "care" for them.

jmo

Nic said...

Anonymous @ 4:15 said,
But hold the thought about tea. The tea stained pajamas, I'm yet to meet anyone under 18 (years) who drinks tea, yet alone near four-year-olds. Of course ''high tea'' refers to the occasion.


I was thinking it was from breakfast, mostly because I didn't know about the scheduled Hight Tea. I'm not sure when is an appropriate time to start drinking i.e., weak tea. I think nursery school age is a bit early, but that's me.

lulu said...

[ thought high tea is a time of day? late afternoon i believe. to hold you until suppertime.

Anonymous said...

Tea on the Pjs were, I believe connected to 'tea' from breakfast.

High tea, being an occasion.

The points are:
High Tea - places \ gives a statement of fact that this was when Madeleine was last independently seen. (I suppose)

Tea as a drink, personally with young grandchildren, this is something I never seen them drink or their friends drink, be offered or even they would ask for.

When we consider MSM news in recent weeks, nothing is new, just the way in which it is introduced to perhaps a new audience who know nothing about the case. But the thing is for sure, it's D noticed, gagged rated or RUCKED tested!



Habundia said...

The statements of the nannies from then
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic145-10.html
Interesting to read

Habundia said...

Gerry: 'No. No, never. And you know, there's nothing with any logic that could, you know... You would have to start with why, you know? How? When? Who? And there's just simply, you know, no answer to any of these things,' Gerry said when asked if he killed his daughter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4437410/Madeleine-McCann-Portuguese-resort-employee-disappearance.html

Habundia said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4438366/Madeleine-McCann-snatched-smugglers-sold.html

Habundia said...

Sorry for spamming lol

"Private detectives employed by the McCanns are examining the theory Madeleine was taken to Morocco, although it is not known if police are looking into it.

So first we had the nanny (who to me has fabricated a totally new story in comparison to what she told back then to police, see statements of nannies), she said she had been to the McCann's residence (when she saw them drive a car for the first time, I keep wondering how odd these words are, unless she was asked if she ever saw them drive a car, but I'd didn't read that question.

Then there is the "Portuguese resort employee", who has something to say and now is this private investigator (employeed by the Mc Cann's), who also finds an 'ex-police officer"
All suggesting the Mc Cann's had nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine

But still Gerry can't say "I didn't kill (my daughter) Madeleine"