Thursday, October 25, 2018

The Disappearance of Madeline McCann


Anonymous said...

Do you think Madeleine McCann died on the 3rd of May 2007 or do you think it was a lot earlier in the holiday?

Can you tell that from the statement analysis that you have done on this case?

Bobcat said...

It would be fascinating if Madeleine's remains were discovered due in part to your efforts.

I wonder how long her parents will keep up their charade.

Unknown said...

It's all very interesting and thought provoking, but, I just cant help feel that much of this is almost " best guess" I have been following this case from day one and for me the biggest giveaway is Kate talking about Maddie in the past tense within 24 hours of her "disappearence" Gerry very abruptly squeezed her hand and corrected her! From that moment on I doubted everything. I hope someone somewhere, can get this vile couple charged.

AnneGuedes said...

The irrefutability of the abduction theory inevitably required unrecoverable remains. Arguing abduction without securing this would have been highly risky implying continuous fear. Over 11 years after we have to admit that whoever made MMC disappear was no fool.

Anonymous said...

Hello Peter,

Thanks for the video.


LuciaD said...

I’m interested in why you will search Kate’s words more than Gerry’s. Is it because he may be a sociopath? Would that affect his language or possible leakage?

Jason said...

Brilliant! Love your work. Many thousands of people in the Uk would sppreaciate this to blow the cover up!

Maddie said...

The McCanns are horrible just like the Eisenburgs. Liars. Their babies died under their care and they escape justice. Evil couples.

Martina said...

Hi Peter, thanks for this very interesting commentary. I'm very much looking forward to your analysis, hopefully you will soon post it.

Unknown said...

Regardless of the McCann's guilt or otherwise in this case, I believe they should've been jailed for child neglect at the very least.

happyuk said...

I'd like to see the sexual abuse and possible connection to intelligence services examined in greater depth. It's a fact that paedophilia is used as a means of blackmail. Is it possible that Maddie was being used for this purpose?

happyuk said...

I also agree that Kate Mccann is not sociopathic but is selfish and narcissistic and being domineered psychologically by her alpha male husband. These people not only show contempt for the British public but saw nothing wrong in trashing the law enforcement of entire country (Portugal) too

Mila said...

Please look into the karlie guse case. She went missing 13 days ago on California from her home where she lives with her dad and step mom. Her step mom has been posting live fb videos all over and youd have a field day with her. Nancy grace interviews her on her podcast/Sirius xm channel 111. She says all the things that you say an innocent parent would not say.

david said...

As fascinating as your evidence is Peter, it won't do any good. Its a side show compared to the lies given by the McCanns in their first statement regarding the shutters being forced. Its nothing to a so called frantic mother refusing to answer 48 questions. Its nothing compared to the cadaver dog barking. None of these things matter if the police refuse to ask them any questions.

Unknown said...

The father shows next to no real emotions. As a sociopath, it is easier to just disregard things. The mother is trying her best, but there is leakage due to real emotions at the forefront dying to surface. Gerry slipped a few times, admitting knowledge of her death. But overall, it is Kate worth analyzing.

Tania Cadogan said...

Off topic

The freedom of speech does not extend to include defaming the prophet of Islam, the European Court of Human rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that insulting Islamic prophet Muhammad “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace.”

The court’s decision comes after it rejected an Austrian woman’s claim that her previous conviction for calling Muhammad a pedophile, due to his marriage to a 6-year-old girl, violated her freedom of speech.

The ECHR ruled Austrian courts had “carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected.”

The woman, in her late 40s and identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl was akin to “pedophilia.”

According to Islamic tradition, the marriage between Muhammad and a 6-year-old girl was consummated when she was 9 years old and he was about 50.

The Austrian woman stated in her seminars that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a 6-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”

A Vienna court convicted her in 2011 of disparaging religious doctrines, ordering her to pay a $547 fine, plus legal costs. The ruling was later upheld by an Austrian appeals court.

The woman argued her comments fell within her right of freedom of expression and that religious groups must tolerate criticism. She also argued her comments were intended to contribute to public debate and not designed to defame Muhammad.

The ECHR said the Austrian court’s decision “served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”

The court also said the woman’s comments were not objective, failed to provide historical background and had no intention of promoting public debate.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Now it seems to be criminal to call islam's prophet what he is, a PAEDOPHILE!

Anonymous said...

OT: Stepmother video regarding missing Karlie Guse

Karlie missing 10/13/18
Video filmed later sometime later that day and posted at 4:39 AM on Fox LA facebook.

[Drinks water from glass.] "Ahem. Hooo. My name is Melissa Guse. Um, if you’re going to watch this video, please do not have the kids around. Hooo. Karlie Lain Guse [rubs eye] is missing. Still. She’s been missing since – hoooo. Breathe. [drinks water from glass] Mmmm. She’s been missing [hand over mouth], since, 6:30 am. The last time that I spoke to her was 5:30. She didn’t take her cell phone. We’re coming up on, ah, ten hours, m-, h-. And now is the part, where, I’m saying, I have to do something because we’ve had, CHP fly over. We’ve had the Inyo and county-, Inyo and Mono County shar [covers mouth] uh Sheriff’s flying over-er. Ohhh. Bishop PD; CHP flying over. They had their copter today. Thank you, to CHP. Love you. And um, we are going to potentially have – the helicopter did the search over a very large area so far, all the way around us, all the way down to Lake Laws. And, they’re amazing. And, um, several of Mono County Sheriffs and – I see all your faces popping up and it makes me want to cry. I love you guys. And, I’m putting this out there because, um, it’s going on, ten hours, that, she’s been missing. And I want to put this on blast because, I don’t think she’s out in the desert. I think that, she could have been abducted or taken. Because we do live by a highway, and it happens. And I’m being real. And I just want to let everybody know – Alicia, you’re calling me. Are you watching the video? She’s not watching the video. That’s OK. I want to put this on blast because I don’t know what to do, to consider her a missing person. Um, you can’t do an Amber alert because she didn’t leave in a car and I don’t have a physical description of a vehicle. She is five foot seven. Hold on. Let’s do this good. Wait, there she is. She is five foot seven, about a hundred and fifteen pounds. She has blue eyes, and the cutest little nose, and a great smile. And her hair goes all the way down, past her, like, to her belly let’s say. Midway. And, this was last year’s picture. She was, she was a little bit different but, not much. She’s still, like, adorably cute. She doesn’t wear makeup and everything. She left in her jeans, um, and a tee shirt. So, I’m, putting it out there, and- Just go for it. Everybody help me out here. I love you all. Everybody please watch. Share. Your friends share. My friends share. Everybody just share the shit out of it. Alright. Thank you."

Unknown said...

Would be nice to keep comments on topic.

rjb said...

That's what the "OT" is for!

OT: Peter, I hope you are going to cover the second season of Making a Murderer.

Anonymous said...

Its as obvious as the nose on my face that The McCann pair know what happened and where they his their child, they never even looked for her just making excuses, They will face Judgment from God , and i hope from the ones covering it up will get common sense and tell the truth, look at the last pictures of kate , she looks 60 all from guilt, he is snug and the video of him laughing a the appartment door is enough to know , God help the twins , they will find out the truth, im sure there not stupid .
May God forgive them pair.
99% of people know their guilty of lies and more

Anonymous said...

Its as obvious as the nose on my face that The McCann pair know what happened and where they his their child, they never even looked for her, just making excuses, They will face Judgment from God , and i hope from the ones covering it up will get common sense and tell the truth, look at the last pictures of kate , she looks 60 all from guilt, he is smug and the video of him laughing at the apartment door is enough to know , God help the twins , they will find out the truth, im sure there not stupid .
May God forgive them pair.
99% of people know their guilty of lies and more
No Justice but Justice from God they will face soon enough.

Anonymous said...

Mike, this blog's comments have always been open to OT posts, Peter sometimes writes about other cases or topics in response to them and they are a source of info to others.

Joe said...

I totally agree, Anon @7:10, and Bobcat's OT (complete with statement for analysis) is a perfect example of a great OT.

Joe said...

Another fascinating OT. @2:39; Tania. This is mind boggling. Defamation of the dead? This isn't, and shouldn't, be considered in a legal context.
" The dead cannot currently be defamed under English law. ... The reason for this principle is quite simple: defamation is an act or statement that damages a person's reputation and once you are dead, you are taken to not have a reputation in legal terms which is capable of being damaged.


Hey Jude said...

That would be a good project; more pressure on the parents to give the truth - one day Kate might have enough of the charade.

I wonder if the twins know the truth of what happened by now; would I take the risk of giving them my version of what really happened, or let them live under the impression that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile while I was out with my mates? i think I'd tell them the truth, if that is that Madeleine fell off the sofa and broke her neck, and they didn't find her for a while, so they covered up her death to avoid the twins being taken into care - except they probably would not have been, as there was extended family to care for them... there's no way hiding Madeleine's body, and inventing an abductor, could be made to sound remotely justifiable. So no, I'd probably continue living with the lie rather than have the twins understand quite what type of parents they had. I wouldn't be too happy, if I was the twins, knowing I'd been left in an unlocked apartment and my parents found that was a risk worth taking - I'd be so suspicious of the story, and resentful of them as the years went by. I probably wouldn't believe them.

I watched the 'McCann Embedded Confessions' YouTube series again, and appreciate anew how much SA teaching they include.


OT -

Nancy Grace speaks to Karlie's step-mother and father - it's painful to listen to - as she says, "like pulling teeth". They are not helpful in giving information - so many one word responses.

I also watched the YouTube of the stepmother - it seems mainly she wants the audience to know how stressed out she is - seemed some acting with the water and telling herself to "Breathe". What would make her find a video appeal necessary after just ten hours - it was not that late in the day, and Karrie is sixteen. Why were helicopters out already - there must be more to the story than she is willing to say.

Why is she telling the CHP "Love you" and praising the search effort while Karlie is still missing - a bit like DeOrr's father? She's telling the Sheriffs that she loves them.

Interesting the first reason she gives for why she has to do something - because there are helicopters out searching. Only later does she say she's "putting this out there" because Karlie has been missing for ten hours, and because she doesn't think she's in the desert. How could she know? Does she think making a YouTube will or should change the course of the search? If Karlie was abducted along the highway, it's doubtful the helicopters are going to change course in search of vehicles that might have been on the highway ten hours ago. What's she doing there?

What about "they had their copter today" ? They could not be out looking except for today if Karlie had not gone missing until today. Is that possibly leakage? Did Karlie disappear earlier than reported - not today? Or does she maybe mean the helicopter was available today, but may not be available every day? Is she anticipating they will need to search again tomorrow?

"And I'm being real". - okay.

Hey Jude said...

Why do people say things like, "I'm being real"?

Most obvious would seem because they are not "being real" - is that too obvious, though?

Does she think people will think she is not "being real" while making a YouTube about her missing daughter - step-daughter, though you would not know it, as she doesn't say - the viewer/reader doesn't know what the relationship is. Maybe it was in the video title ? - the video now appears to have been deleted.

It's notable how she tells everyone she loves them, except Karlie, and she also doesn't appeal to her, in case she might be watching.

Maybe she is being real, all unintentionally, in not naming any relationship with Karlie, or saying that she loves Karlie, whilst apparently loving the rest of the world.

Anonymous said...

Can Peter answer my question please?

3rd or before?


John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, Peter

would you consider doing a Vt on Police Chief William McCollum 911 call given his extreme distancing language.



For those who have not read Peter's original analysis re the above i recommend it.

Hey Jude said...

^. Karlie's stepmother and her father were, on Nancy Grace's podcast, quite similar in their responses to Chief McCollum in his 911 call after he shot his wife.

They didn't even try - it was as though they know there is no point, yet the stepmother is apparently non-stop on a private Facebook group, and mostly interested in tips from mediums.

Folly the leader said...

Sat Oct 27 2018

Erdogan, Putin, Macron, Merkel give statement following Syria summit

Merkel speaks with translator @ 29 minutes

Topic, hers to introduce, the Syrians and or persons who were displaced, who migrated, those residing in Germany, those spread out residing in the EU.

Her stated: they we(who is we they) mission is,the displaced be returned to their motherland/s. Buyers remorse ? or this too will come with a price?

Habundia said...

The past couple of weeks i've been reading through old blogtopics.
It is fascinating. There is one thing that I find confussing at the moment. It's the 'reliable denial'

One of the blogtopics reffered to the site ISISCAN
When i was reading the analysis on that site I got confussed about the Reliable Denial rule.

On different occasions the writer state 'I didn't do it' to be a 'reliable denial' or tells the reader that "the subject didn't say: 'I didn't do it'."

But reading your blogs the rule for a 'reliable denial' is:

A reliable denial has three components:
1. The pronoun "I"
2. The past tense verb, "did not" or "didn't"
3. The specific allegation.
If a denial has 2 components or 4 components, it is unreliable. The most common unreliable denial by the guilty is, "i would never..."

So when a subjects says 'I didn't do it' or isn't this considered a reliable denial?

It has been mine understanding 'I didn't do it' isn't a reliable denial, because the statement doesn't has component 3; the specific allegation, in the denial.

Can someone help me out here?
Thank you for the effort in advance!

Habundia said...

@Tania cadogan
Now it seems to be criminal to call islam's prophet what he is, a PAEDOPHILE!

October 26, 2018 at 2:39 PM

This is not something we as 'Eurepean' (Dutch) get to hear on the news about. Maybe Wilders could come up with it and share it to the public through media.

It is scary to read that there are Eurpean Courts who judge and rule in this way. Where facts......a 50 year old married to a 9 year old who have a sexual relation, would in my country, as in many others, be considered a pedofhile, who raped and abused a 9 year old. When judges rule people can't call others what they this case being a pedofile, because a religious group feels offened by it.......then what is next?
Where are the human rights for the children who have NO VOICE in this? What kind of judge from a human rights court! can be taken seriously when this is what they come up with as a judgement on that specific case?
It's scary to think these are the people who have 'the power' and use it in scary ways!

Buckley said...

I would think if the question the person is asked includes the specific allegation, then the “it” refers to the specific allegation, it’s pretty reliable.

Tania Cadogan said...

A reliable denial as you said consists of three parts:

1. The pronoun "I"
2. The past tense verb, "did not" or "didn't"
3. The specific allegation.
If a denial has 2 components or 4 components, it is unreliable. The most common unreliable denial by the guilty is, "i would never..."

If the subject says "I didn't do it" it violates the principal because they don't say what the "it" refers to.
they are hoping the listener will interpret their denial as relating to the accusation.
The interviewer should press them to learn what the "it" is or press them to make the strong reliable denial.
Innocent people will make said denial, they may need some prompting as they may not realize they are being questioned in relation to having committed an offense such as having stolen money as an example. Once confronted with the accusation an innocent person would then make the reliable denial.

guilty people would not make a reliable denial, they use future conditional tenses such as would, they could drop the pronoun not taking ownership of their words, they could skip the crime using replacement words such as IT, or they could minimize the crime for example saying they did not hurt xyz when the crime was murder, a paedophile could claim they were hugging/cuddling/tickling the child when they were molesting the child.

Innocent people declare their innocence and will not accept their innocence being questioned or doubted.
Guilty people declare their guilt via language, they can accept that others might find them guilty, they talk the listener who is presuming their innocence, out of their innocence.

Innocent people shout it from the rooftops that they are innocent, there is no legal reason for them not to speak publicly of their innocence and they will not be told to stay quiet by their lawyers.
Guilty people are told by their lawyers to say nothing even if they don't do as they are told and start talking. They will say they are prevented from speaking or that the truth will come out during the forthcoming trial.
Their language and often that of their lawyers will reveal their guilt, their lawyers in their belief of guilt about their client.
They will use phrases such as vigorously defend, intend to defend, plan to defend and so on only to later seek a plea deal or confess.
Lying is stressful and the human body does not like stress and seeks to end/avoid it.
We may not have an out and loud direct admission of their guilt, we will however hear it in their language, the words used as well as the words not used.
The expected as well as the unexpected both for innocence and guilt, innocent people will speak one way, guilty people another way.

In some cases such as the mccanns, it has gotten to the stage that regular viewers and listeners can almost predict verbatim what they will say, when they will say it as well as alleged sightings such is the predictability of language and behavior of guilty persons. It is almost a standing joke that on such and such a day this statement will be made or there will be a new sighting in abc or some person will claim their child was almost abducted by one of the multitude of descriptions of alleged abductors years before Maddie went missing and the police weren't interested at the time or remembering seeing someone suspicious on such and such a date and they have only just remembered, a favorite along with the sightings of 'Maddie' in some airport but the subject only bothered to report it after their return home after a 2 week vacation, and so on.

Mary said...

Holy cow. She tells CHP "Thank you, I love you guys," and tells the Mono Sheriff's Dept "I love you guys," and although she has no idea what happened to Karlie, she says she thinks she was abducted "because it happens. I'm being real," and obviously wants focus on abduction and not the desert. And then in the middle of what should be a soul destroying plea that she never gets around to, she stops to announce Alisha is calling, asks if she's watching, and answers!

Disturbingly, she says "She was, she was a little bit different but, not much." Was = past tense. And who describe their daughter this way? Different?

I'll have to research this case bc until reading this transcript, I hadn't heard about Alisha's disappearance bit sadly, it doesn't look good.

Anonymous said...

Earth to Peter?

1st comment here. Can you answer it please?

(and for future reference do make sure you spell Madeleine correctly)

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...
Earth to Peter?

1st comment here. Can you answer it please?

that is addressed in the 3 part video with Richard Hall.

Coletteski said...


Anonymous said...

And the answer is?

Anonymous said...

Your work is outstanding. I'm sick to death of this being covered up. And to Pamela Gurney and Co, you help them continue their lies. It is obvious Madeleine was murdered in a satanic ritual. Much the same as Jonbenet Ramsey, same bastards involved in all these things. Gerry McCann is clearly a Mason & possibly opus dei or knight of Malta, she's clearly under some kind of programming akin to mk ultra, possibly been abused herself. Gerry will never crack but she might. This charade has gone on long enough . Let Madeleine rest in peace you sick bastards. Feel free to do a dossier on me, I'd love Martin brunt on my doorstep ��

Lettice said...

Wow, you have lost a lot of weight, Peter. Good for you! (If that is what you wanted, that is)

Anonymous said...

Why were three royal Sirs despatched to support the family in Portugal? (Green, Branson & Hunter)

LuciaD said...

Did you listen to them both talk about Karlie using pot the night prior to her disappearance? Very sensitive for sure.

Ria said...

They would use children with no ties for this kind of blackmail. Women are held captive to breed children. I think it’s more likely that they shared their children amongst the group. Did you know Gerry was, I believe a Non Exec Director of a board that Gordon Brown’s brother was also on. So this (almost proven) conspiracy went all the way to the prime minister himself. Do you think it will ever be solved knowing this?!