Comments

View comments: 126 to 96 - 95 to 66 - 65 to 36 - 35 to 6 - 5 to 1
1. 94 Maria says:
   May 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 pm

   Hi Cheryl,

   Don’t suppose you have a link for that video, do you?

   Thanks if so.

2. 93 Cheryl says:
   May 22nd, 2009 at 4:33 pm

   Good Morning to All. Woke up to the news on MSNBC over here re Hewlett as a ‘person of interest.’ By the way, it is still being carried on the news over here every half hour. Two retired British Detectives are making more progress in what: one month than the jokes for boys in blue did in four months and now two years later In fact, I may be mistaken but I do believe I read on here a couple of weeks ago a not real nice remark made by someone on here about those two Detectives when it was announced they were now handling the case for the McCanns. This may not be the right person but those Detectives deserve high accolades for even finding him for other cases he has been searched for.

   Quite interesting for a couple of reasons the alleged remarks made by sicko to the couple who met him. My feeling on those remarks were ‘cya remarks’. But what is even more interesting since sicko was wanted in other cases how in the hell he was overlooked in the investigation from the moment that young child went missing - Tanner described him, didn’t she? Oh that is right her description was not paid much heed to and didn’t appear in the newspapers at the time! In fact, when it was finally released - by the McCanns correct? People ridiculed it, isn’t that right? How many months went by wasted that should have been in full swing in a serious search for that child and a perpetrator, or should I say possible perpetrator?

   So, we have to be careful what we say now about the Sainted One since I read he is threatening law suits? Oh well, guess I’ll be patient and have to wait for a rocky mountain oyster feast.

   Garth and Real Stig, re the dogs searching the apartment go way back and find the videos showing them in the apartment. Look at them carefully. Back then I did and made a comment about something I saw and was immediately moderated over my comments. Thus, sorry no hints just go look.

3. 92 The Real Stig says:
   May 22nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm

   Lyn

   The sighting you refer to was not of gypsies, they were Moroccan villagers:

   http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/20080641285900

   There were some other gypsie related stories, however. She was spotted on the back of a cart with a group of Gypsies and:

   “A retired South African pilot saw Maddie in a camp of gipsies located at 25 km of the place from where she had disappeared. A gipsy woman at the airport of Faro told him that she would now have her hair cut short and dyed in black.”

4. 91 June says:
   May 22nd, 2009 at 9:10 am

   Here’s the source for the photo of Hewlett
   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

5. 90 June says:
   May 22nd, 2009 at 8:35 am

   

   Not a lot like spotty/ugly or eggface.
   But this is Hewlett

6. 89 lyn says:
   May 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am

   Interesting that Hewlett mentioned the gypsies wanting to buy his daughter. Some gypsies were photographed walking along a road with a child similar to Maddie on the back of a woman. After press interest the child was producted. Could have sworn the childs face looked like Maddie as did a lot of people. Doesn’t explain the cadaver scent though in the apartment.

   Moderator - At a distance the child looked like Maddie, not so up close. That was made clear by the Police

7. 88 Garth says:
   May 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 am

   http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Madeleine-McCann-British-Paedophile-Raymond-Hewlett-Named-As-Person-Of-Interest-In-Case/Article/200905315286548

   Interest’ In Maddie Case
   Breaking News

   4:26am UK, Friday May 22, 2009
   A convicted British paedophile has been named as an “individual of interest” in the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

   Raymond Hewlett

   Raymond Hewlett has served several jail terms for child sex crimes

   Sky News sources say Raymond Hewlett was living in Tavira, a coastal town between Faro and the Spanish border, when Madeleine disappeared on May 3 2007.

   Tavira is about an hour’s drive from Praia da Luz, where Madeleine vanished while on holiday with her family.

   It is understood the former soldier was tracked down in Germany, where he was being treated in hospital for cancer.

   Reports said Hewlett, 64, has a long record of sex attacks on young girls and is wanted by police in the UK and Ireland.

   Since Maddie’s disappearance he has gone back on the run, it is claimed.

   Hewlett has reportedly been jailed several times for sexual offences against young girls.

   Gerry and Kate McCann are being kept up to date with the development, their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said.

   He told Sky News Online: “We are aware of Raymond Hewlett and the claims that are being made in some newspapers about him.

   “The investigators searching for Madeleine are currently looking into the circumstances surrounding these claims.

   “Mr Hewlett is an individual of interest to the Madeleine investigation.

   “However, I would stress that it’s just one line of inquiry among several, other than that I can’t go into further detail.”

   Madeleine McCann as she was aged three, and how she might look now, aged six

   Madeleine and how she would look now aged six

   The alarm was raised about Hewlett by a couple who met him while on holiday in Portugal, the Daily Mirror said.

   When Alan and Cindy Thompson met the convict, he was living with his wife and six children in a converted Dodge truck travelling from campsite to campsite.

   Mr Thompson told the Mirror: “Hewlett befriended us but kept quiet about his terrible past.

   “We were mortified and disgusted to discover the truth.”

   They also described a conversation in which Hewlett said he was approached by some “Gipsy tourists” offering to buy his daughter just before Madeleine went missing.

   Mrs Thompson said: “We didn’t think too much of this at the time.

   “Ray and his family led a desperate hand-to-mouth lifestyle and someone may have thought he’d be tempted to sell one of his six children.”

   They also recalled him mentioning a “business” trip to Morocco where there were several alleged sightings of Madeleine in the months after her disappearance.
   —————–

8. 87 Bat E Bird says:
   May 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pm

   I know what you mean Yampster.

   It’s especially annoying when you’re in a rush.

9. 86 yampster says:
   May 21st, 2009 at 9:43 am

   Except for the mysterious delay in posts appearing. You are just about to give up when 3 or 4 come along together

10. 85 coolandcalm says:
    May 21st, 2009 at 9:31 am

    Morning everyone. Just like the good old days!

11. 84 June says:
    May 21st, 2009 at 8:24 am

    Garth

    I resent being accused of lack of integrity, and as for cheap retorts I know you of old ,and you throw them in 3 for a 1p.

    Moderator - I have already warned Garth on personal attacks

12. 83 lyn says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    Garth, struggle at what?

13. 82 June says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    Garth

    Then you musn’t judge either, after all none of us are perfect, and I have never claimed to be perfect, but then again I don’t leave my small dependent children unattended.
    Granted that has nothing to do with perfection, but responsibility.
    And that is what I do not like about the McCanns

14. 81 Garth says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    lyn

    It’s no wonder you struggle!

15. 80 Garth says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    6 Bat E Bird says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    Garth, you’ve said the Smith sighting was only a short time after Jane Tanner’s.

    According to their statements, there is approx. 45 minutes between the two.

    You’re not telling me that someone would abduct a child and then wander around town for at least 45 minutes with the child on full display.
    ——————————

    Bat E Bird

    I’m not telling you anything, you’ll have to do a little thinking for yourself. And it shouldn’t take too many brain cells to understand how a little ambiguity regarding the time lines can occur.

    Stig

    I whole heartedly agree with you regarding the dogs. The case against the McCanns has nestled in the lap of Martin Grimes. He has a lot to answer for.

16. 79 lyn says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    A vital witness a close friend of the McCanns says she was on her way to join Madeleine’s parents for dinner at the tapas bar when she was a man with a blonde girl wrapped in a blanket. She was wearing “distinguishable” pink pyjamas. The woman told police. Just read this on zimbio. Its also on Google.

17. 78 The Real Stig says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    June

    “If JT was so certain it was MM (with her clear and wonderful hindsight) why didn’t she raise an alarm then?”

    In the Channel 4 documentary, Madeline Was Here, Jane explains her thinking at the time and berates herself quite mercilessly and gives every indication of being, very, very upset.

    If you are UK resident, you can watch it again here:

    http://www.channel4.com/programmes/madeleine-was-here/catch-up#2917244

    Maria, Garth - Amaral doesn’t have anything up his sleeve, otherwise he would be guilty of withholding evidence from a criminal investigation.

    As for the dogs, their behaviour needs explaining, both in Jersey and Praia da luz, but not in the context of actually detecting anything they were supposed to, but in terms of why they have been giving positive indications which can be shown to be clearly and unambiguously false! Perhaps their handler would like to provide the explanations.

    And on the topic of dogs, I find Amaral’s theories lack credence, the PJ and GNR employed several trained sniffer dogs extensively, in the apartments and all over the resort, so why did they fail to finger (nose) the closet or find anything at the beach? He’s clearly barking up the wrong tree, I’m afraid.

18. 77 Bat E Bird says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    Garth, you’ve said the Smith sighting was only a short time after Jane Tanner’s.

    According to their statements, there is approx. 45 minutes between the two.

    You’re not telling me that someone would abduct a child and then wander around town for at least 45 minutes with the child on full display.

19. 76 Garth says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    74 June says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    Garth

    Lets not forget the chappie /gorilla who leaned over the window ledge ….. just how gullible were you? and how emphatic were you that actually happened?
    ——————————-

    I don’t recall ever mentioning someone leaning over the window ledge. What I did do was try to piece together something that may have happened based on the information before us. And has it been disproved? You talk as though you know something I don’t. Were you there………..as you put it?. No you weren’t you bleedin hypocrite.

    However, you make a claim about the blanket. I’ve just proved you wrong.

    June, with respect, I know you don’t like the McCanns but if I were you I wouldn’t pass judgement. You’re far from perfect!

    Moderator - Garth, you are here to debate the McCann case not to pass judgement on your fellow debators.

20. 75 June says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    Garth

    Lets not forget the chappie /gorilla who leaned over the window ledge ….. just how gullible were you? and how emphatic were you that actually happened?

21. 74 Garth says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

    June

    an extract of her statement made on the 4th May.

    “However, she spotted a man (*) who was going along at a fair speed with a child in his arms (*) with the child in pyjamas without a blanket, which attracted her attention”.
    ———————————

    Can you see the confusion over the blanket? I would suggest you get your facts right.

    Hopefully that should put a cork in it, you cynical old moo!

22. 73 Garth says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    04.34 4078 “Which is the same as the description in your first statement. I will go through it again anyway just in case there is any discrepancies”.
    Reply “Umm”.
    4078 “’A man aged thirty-five to forty, one point seven metres tall with slim build, a good head of dark glossy hair with a possible flick of hair to the right’”.
    Reply “Yeah, I think that’s because I just saw a lot of, a lot of hair”.
    4078 “’The hair was longer at the back, not clippered or shaven. The central and the left side of the face were not seen. Full length trousers, casual in material, hanging without creases, the colour was possibly a brown or mustard, they were not jeans. A long sleeved jacket, fastened at the front possibly by a zipper, it had a gathered lower hem and was also possibly brownish in colour. The shoes may have been semi formal brogue. Whether he was wearing gloves or not could not be ascertained. He was not wearing a rucksack or any other identifiable objects. He was only carrying a child with the head against the left upper chest away from Jane TANNER and the feet to the right, i.e. cradling the child like a baby. He appeared to be walking in a rush to get somewhere. He was not someone Jane TANNER recognised from the week. He was not typically dressed for a tourist. His clothing did not seem to be of UK origin and they had rather been purchased in Portugal’”.
    Reply “Umm, yeah, not UK origin, yeah”.
    4078 “And the description of the child, ‘A Caucasian child. About the ages of three to four. Was seen to lie motionless, limp in the man’s arms, with her sleeping or possibly drugged. She didn’t seem to be wrapped up well for the time of night, wearing only pyjamas. The trousers were light coloured with a floral element, possibly with turn-ups. The top was not seen well enough, although there was thought to be another colour involved, possibly pink. She was not wearing shoes. Twenty past nine Jane TANNER then returns to the restaurant by which time Gerry had also returned. Twenty-five past nine, after the starters, Matthew OLDFIELD and’ who is ‘RJO’?”
    Reply “Russell. Russell, it’s Russell James O’BRIEN. So that’s Russell”.
    —————————
    From the PJ files. A little better than the anorak archives me thinks. Gullible? phhhhh……….. pure arrogance!

23. 72 Garth says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    69 June says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    Garth

    A healthy cynical pofv does open the debate/discussion up from a a gullible hero worship pofv.

    I was not there on that May evening in Apt 5A, were you? and more importantly the McCann parents were not either, they may know as much as I do or as much as you do.
    We none of us know she was abducted, the parents are guessing she was, no more no less.
    ——————————————-

    The above is a cop out………………. no more no less.

    Regarding the blanket, it was something that was claimed (a bit like all the other stories). She denied ever saying it.

    Talk of being gullible.

24. 71 June says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    Garth

    RE the JT ‘evidence’, what on earth are you talking about? it was she changed the details so often, check Anorak’s archives if your memory fails you.

25. 70 June says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    Garth

    A healthy cynical pofv does open the debate/discussion up from a a gullible hero worship pofv.

    I was not there on that May evening in Apt 5A, were you? and more importantly the McCann parents were not either, they may know as much as I do or as much as you do.
    We none of us know she was abducted, the parents are guessing she was, no more no less.

26. 69 Clive says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    I am not being sensitive about Amaral as I am sure he can and will take care of himself. It is the apparent double standards - I have been moderated on many occasions for expressing doubts about the MCann’s version of events but I have never been as explicit to make unfounded allegations.

    I keep an open mind and to date am only swayed by the evidence. Amaral has some, the abduction theory does not.

    Moderator - Clive, his name is Amaral, we do not want any court proceedings against us. Agreed the abduction theory is just that , a theory

27. 68 coolandcalm says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Blimey Clive, you’re being sensitive on behalf of old Amaral. Guess you’ve never been over to the other forum and really tasted libel. Against everyone!

    Moderator Amaral, his name is Amaral

28. 67 Garth says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    65 June says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    Garth

    There isn’t one iota of proof that it was Madeleine, its just assumed by some that it might be. If JT was so certain it was MM (with her clear and wonderful hindsight) why didn’t she raise an alarm then?
    And why didn’t all the other ‘witnesses’ do/say something at the time?

    With all the adjectives of the description applied later why were they not suspicious of this person then?
    —————————–

    I think you’re being a tad too cynical June.

    This person has not as yet been identified and eliminated from the enquiry. Its no use trying to palm the guilt off onto Tanner or the friends. They weren’t the investigators at the time and I don’t think were even made aware of this sighting until the McCanns themselves had been made arguidos.. With regard to your comments regarding Tanners sighting, until you’ve some good reasoning for this pretence then your comments are worthless.

    Clive

    It was a suggestion, not a claim.

29. 66 Clive says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    Garth’s comments about Amaral “planting evidence” are libellous and should have been moderated out.

    Moderator - I’ll check , have just sat down

30. 65 June says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    Garth

    There isn’t one iota of proof that it was Madeleine, its just assumed by some that it might be. If JT was so certain it was MM (with her clear and wonderful hindsight) why didn’t she raise an alarm then?
    And why didn’t all the other ‘witnesses’ do/say something at the time?

    With all the adjectives of the description applied later why were they not suspicious of this person then?

View comments: 126 to 96 - 95 to 66 - 65 to 36 - 35 to 6 - 5 to 1