Raymond Hewlett Saw Madeleine McCann Alive
MADELEINE McCann Watch: Anorak’s at-a-glance look at Madeleine McCann in the news - Raymond Hewlett says he saw Our Maddie alive…
The Sun: “Brit paedo: I did see Maddie”
Harry Haydon hears from Raymond Hewlett, the man billed as the “Maddie Paedo”.
FUGITIVE British paedophile Raymond Hewlett has sensationally claimed he saw missing Madeleine McCann TWICE before she disappeared.
Now this is interesting.
Pervert Hewlett — who is undergoing cancer treatment in Germany — is said to have told reporters: “Yes - I have seen Maddie.”
Before or since?
He even remembered the distinctive flaw in her right eye, it is said. And a source close to the investigation said Hewlett had apparently told British police that he HAD been to the Ocean Club where the McCanns where staying when the tot vanished.
At the same time as the McCanns were there?
He told British police that he went to the Ocean Club and had seen the missing child? And the British police – not those bungling Portuguese cops the tabloids love to laugh at – were happy to let him go.
They said: “He said he had seen her at least two times. He said he had wandered around the complex several times.”
Which means?
His lawyer Thomas Dahmen told German newspaper Bild that doctors have given him just a few weeks to live after surgery for throat cancer.
Are the tabloids looking for a death bed confession?
The Mail: “Paedophile Raymond Hewlett ‘admits he saw Madeleine McCann twice’ before she disappeared”
Yesterday Bild newspaper, Germany’s biggest paper, claimed to have discovered that Hewlett admitted he saw Madeleine twice and described the mark in her right eye, although it did not reveal how it got the information.
He has previously insisted he was miles away from the family resort - but yesterday he reportedly changed his tune and implied he had been close enough to see Madeleine’s eye, where the pupil runs into the blue-green iris.
So..?
He has spent the past few days telling private detectives employed by the couple that he will only reveal where he was the night Madeleine vanished if they pay him thousands from the Madeleine Fund.
They have flatly refused, but now wonder if Hewlett could be tormenting the McCanns by claiming he saw their daughter during their family holiday on the Algarve.
Could. Sorry, make that “Could.”
A source close to the couple said: “He is playing a very dangerous game.
“He may think he is about to land the jackpot but if he is putting it about that he saw Madeleine, he might find some big policemen banging on his door instead.”
Well, if there is evidence against him than there will be a policeman at his door, or bedside, no
Clarence Mitchell, the McCann’s spokesman, said: “In the light of the Bild piece, this makes it even more imperative that Mr Hewlett gives any credible information that he may have about Madeleine to the investigators as a matter of priority.
“We hope that he and his representatives will see sense and facilitate this interview in the near future.”
We hope the man we want to talk to and ask if he kidnapped Madeleine McCann will “see sense” and talk to us because otherwise he will be portrayed as a very bad man…
That it?
Posted: 5th, June 2009 | In: Key Posts, Madeleine McCann, Media Comments (56) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- leesmith on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- magnetite on Church Gives Soul Tattoos To Worshippers
- Evie Walton on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- yampster on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- yampster on Join The Campaign For Straight Gay Marriages
June 9th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
You are welcome. Here is a newspaper article that I had found and read early on that is rather an ‘eye-opener’.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/portugals_elite_linked_to_paedophile_ring.html
June 9th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Cheryl
Thanks for the link. I’ll read it. I have read stuff about Casa Pia but certainly don’t remember the details.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Maria, yes the case and alleged Government officials and other public persons involved in it; (you do know that case was finally brought to court and when I recently checked not completed yet and many people left off the hook and charges dropped?) Report on Portugal done by the U.S. State Department back then, which I read very carefully; other newspapers articles from Portugal back then I pulled up and read; they do not register paedophiles; paedophile activity in surrounding countries; then when I read about the UK’s paedolphiles going over there. I just shook my head in disgust.
Here is a link to the Reports for 2006, 2007 and 2008.
http://portugal.usembassy.gov/policy/state-department-reports/
June 9th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Cheryl
Of course I agree about the late start made to any proper investigation. It’s shocking and shameful when one thinks of time being wasted in the crucial early days and weeks of such a crime.
When you talk about discovering things about Portugal, are you thinking of stuff like the Casa Pia case? I don’t know enough about it to say whether there is more or less of that sort of crime in Portugal than there is anywhere else. I’m afraid it happens everywhere. I believe I read that Portugal does not have lists of people involved in these crimes but I don’t know if that’s true. As you say, the UK seems to have lost certain paedophiles from its radar, anyway.
I so much hope that you are right in your more positive feeling about the case!
June 9th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Maria, I haven’t given up on this case being solved. Now, I have that hope because I personally feel the investigators now are on the right path to solving this case and, also, of the many cases over here that are solved in 2 or 3 years or even after 20 - 30 years later.
What did great damage to this case is the first five months was an absolute shambles and a tunnel-visioned investigator who focused soley on the parents, imo. Rebelo did a good job under the circumstances considering he had to start five months later as if the disappearance had just taken place. However, much of his focus had to be placed on either proving the parent’s involvement or finding no facts to substantiate those allegations by Amoral, since they had been made arguidos.
These investigators, who believe Maddie was abducted as many of us have all along, can focus on that theory now. It is a disgrace that they have to go through volumes of files to find leads of potential suspects from that area, many which were not followed up on and just discarded into the files to collect dust. Only problem is the whoever or whoevers involved in a possible abduction have had two years to ‘disappear’ from the area. Look at how long Mr. Hewlett disappeared from radar in the UK and then found in another country!
What is very puzzling to me is that it took me exactly 5 minutes the day that case broke in the papers to research Portugal and find what I was looking for, but yet it wasn’t even given a thought as a possibility, or if it was it was not acted on, as why that child disappeared in the first five months of the investigation of that case.
June 9th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Garth
Appreciate your efforts in trying to improve my education. After all , you are never too old to learn.
For your information, I have never believed there was a conspiracy to protect the McCanns - after all, what evidence is there to make me believe that. I do feel
some of their behaviour has been strange (for example failure to agree to a reconstruction, coming out with bizarre reasons for forensics, later dismissed, but stated to have been in their car, apparent difficulty in providing full cooperation to the police, etc, etc). Therefore at worst, I fear their are two people with something to hide - hardly a conspiracy.
The abduction theory has as little evidence to be supported as has any involvement by the McCanns.
Therefore I keep an open mind and hope against hope that the little girl will be found unharmed.
The sensationalist coverage by the Press from day 1 has made this less and less likely if she was abducted.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Cheryl
Yep! Some journos are a bit slooowww….or just desperate for copy. Looking for a change from the MPs’ expenses scandal and Brown’s potential downfall, probably.
Sadly, I doubt if anything definite will emerge from all this but I just keep on hoping. (Maybe there IS something going on but they’re managing to keep it out of the media.) I have no idea how thoroughly the PJ investigated but I would think, at least once Rebelo was on the job, they were pretty determined to find out what happened. The eyes of the world were on them after all. What a coup if they had found the culprit(s). If they found nothing then, how likely is it that investigators will find anything now, especially without the active cooperation of the local community, which they DID have in the early days? And people’s memories fade. The reconstruction should have happened when they asked for it; right at the beginning.
I don’t blame the Mcs for continuing the search; I hope I’d have the determination to do the same. But I’m not very optimistic. Hope I’m wrong.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Just seen this report (not MM)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8090790.stm
June 9th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
43 Clive says:
June 9th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I accept that Garth acknowledged source of his comment - what I was trying to remark on was that it was not his original thoughts but those of someone obviously
much more intelligent.
————————————————
Only its a shame that you haven’t the intelligence to realise who the conspiracy theorists actually are.
It might be a good idea if you pay particular attention to conspirafools guide no 5.
The answers in there, but you’ll have to concentrate.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Clive, maybe at last a lid has been put on the ongoing tragedy and no one is talking. This he said, they said and newpapers recklessly reporting their own versions without checking true facts has sort of thrown this case in even more chaos, imo. Hewlett allegedly said he saw her, then he denies he ever said that. The newspapers are the ones who reported he said it without checking out the facts. And the person who said he said it is supposedly a ’source’ with the police department…From the beginning of this case, ’sources’, Amoral’s leaks, etc have been quoted in the headlines of the papers are facts and bible! One would think by now not only the newspapers but the public would have learned only believe half of what you see and nothing of what you hear!
June 9th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Hasn’t it all gone very quiet on abduction theories and paedo suspects ?
Do you think they are actually looking for Madeleine now ?
June 9th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Yampster
Copycat!
June 9th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Garth has never had an original post…he is the ‘copy and paste’ king!
June 9th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I accept that Garth acknowledged source of his comment - what I was trying to remark on was that it was not his original thoughts but those of someone obviously
much more intelligent.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:19 am
I don’t know what that one means. I stole it from another site
June 7th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Yampster
Just cos you know some long words!
June 7th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Maria. Plagiarist!
June 7th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Yampster
Ooops! I seem to have copied some of your thoughts on Garth’s post…..and didn’t acknowledge my source! Sorry. That’s cos I hadn’t noticed your post….. even more sorry!
June 7th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Garth, loved the conspiracy theorist piece but would like to ask does Ms. Donna Ferentes have Greek or Spartan ancestry?
June 7th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Clive
Garth didn’t steal anything. Your accusation is unfounded and unsound. Almost like what a conspiracy theorist might do………
He quoted his source for the superb stuff on the methods of conspiracy theorists.
June 7th, 2009 at 7:36 am
If it wasn’t an outsider it must have been an insider.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Garth’s points on conspiracy were all credited to Donna Ferentes. It’s hardly theft when you quote your source. Or is that what conspiracy theorists do?
June 6th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Sean Schofield. WTF are you on about please!? Can’t see what all this talk about Rupert Murdoch has to do with MM, maybe I’m missing something? As far as I know, his newspapers and SkyTV, etc have done a lot to keep the story in the public eye…..
June 6th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Garth
I’m not really surprised….as I’m sure you’re not surprised to learn!
Love that stuff on conspiracy theorists! Very impressive.
June 6th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Sean Schofield + Sharon….. invaders from the Dark Side under cover of contrived bad grammar and caring / sharing!!
Must try harder.
June 6th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
well he can’t possibly be the abducter can he???? He looks nothing like Tanner’s description, almost double the age for a start…………..
June 6th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Garth made (or stole) some excellent points on conspriacy theorists. I would agree with almost all of them. The problem is to decide which is the conspiracy -
Is it to promote belief of abduction and the word of child molesters, despite total
absence of any evidence so far or, is it to retain a healthy suspicion about the
McCanns, not necessarily the other “Tapas 7″, whose behaviour has caused
this suspicion ?
My mind remains open but I can not help but feel the involvement of paedofiles
is just a smokescreen or diversion.
June 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Lyn
This paedo is a nomad. He’s certainly not involved in an ‘nest’ of paedos as you put it.
He is either the culprit or knows naff all imo.
June 6th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
lyn
I do agree with you but I hope the Mcs’ investigators would not pay money simply in order to speak to him. They are not idiots and will know precisely what his game may be. I suppose they are pretty desperate to find out what, if anything, he knows. We can only hope that, if he does have information, it will be forthcoming without payment beforehand.
However, a reward HAS been offered for information helping to find Madeleine, hasn’t it? Presumably, the value or truth of any information offered would be tested before any money changed hands.
(Not sure how this would work if anyone ever actually admitted to having taken or harmed Madeleine??!!)
June 6th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
For you to say that they are committing the very grave crimes of playing a “game”, wasting police time on a massive scale and obtaining money by fraudulent means, again on a massive scale, is certainly a very serious accusation indeed.
I’m surprised that a retired policeman doesn’t realise that.
————————–
Maria, I’m surprised you’re surprised going on some of this posters past comments, policeman or not and, its probably a good job he is retired.
Too much time spent hanging around with the wrong crowd………… if you know what I mean!
…..and hence he still believes the McCanns are involved in a conspiracy….
Sad. Very sad.
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the “official” account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the “official” account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn’t it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
June 6th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Cheryl
Re. Murdoch, I am assuming that he is the reason that there is so much manipulation in the UK press.