MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

by clairesy Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:35 am

A PAEDOPHILE wanted for questioning over missing Madeleine McCann has been struck dumb by throat cancer.

Raymond Hewlett’s lawyer says he can no longer speak and private investigators hired by the McCanns fear he could take his secrets to the grave.

The 64-year-old’s lawyer Detley Wagner said: “He could not talk to them even if he wanted to. He is not long for this world.”

Investigators have been trying for months to interview Hewlett, who has multiple
convictions for offences against children. Now they urgently want him to reveal what he knows before he dies.
He was in the Algarve when three-year-old Madeleine was snatched from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in May 2007.

And he resembles a suspect with a pock-marked face seen lurking around the flat at the time.

Hewlett has been quizzed by Brit police over a sex assault on a child three decades ago. But he has refused to co-operate with detectives acting for the McCanns.

When private eyes Dave Edgar and Arthur Crowley – both ex-policemen – went to see him they were turned away from the hospital in Aachen, Germany, where he was being treated.

Medics have now sent him home to die. McCanns spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Until Hewlett agrees to see our investigators he will remain of interest to them. We urge him to help.’’

Though private eyes suspect Hewlett was not directly involved in the abduction, they believe he knows who was.

by clairesy Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:40 am

I took the post above from the daily star,its new news just released.I have also got a link here for the daily express who also report on this story

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/144943/Maddie-suspect-close-to-death-urged-to-tell-all

I think he is one twisted, dirty, filthy, rotten individual who knows exactly what he is doing. People like him should be taken of the face of the earth full stop.

by Guest Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:02 pm

Deviants like Hewlett always take their secrets to the grave.
He should of been extradited cancer or no cancer and made to stand trial for the crimes he evaded for so long imo.

by clairesy Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:10 pm

HI mulleena ,

exactly,

Hewlett should never have been allowed to roam free in the first place.He was in Spain living and was known to police,living in a trailer under the noses of local police and they knew about him because they visited him just after Madeleine was taken to find out where he was.If they knew about him then why the hell didn't they tell British police he was there??After all he was a wanted man,uk police had him on their list for years.

The guys a menace.I think he is going to take what he knows(if anything) to his cold dark lonely grave with him.I hope he goes to hell.

by Rosie Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:23 pm

Clairesy,

It's worse than that, he was actually in Portugal when Madeleine was taken about 30/40 miles up the coast, at some kind of market. (So he says)

It's strange, I was just in communication with two journalists acquaintances over Raymond Hewlett, just over a week ago and up he pops like a bad penny.

They said he wasn't long for this world when he first came into the public domain, and they are still saying the same thing. I am sorry, I may be cynical, but this is just probably more lies from him.

My honest opinion is, that I believe Hewlett was involved in Madeleine's abduction and I believe his partner was too!

As low as the low-life scum bag is, I do not think he wanted anything to do with Madeleine's abduction, I think he was probably leading as near normal life as someone like him can lead, but was forced into doing it, probably he was threatened with violence and a "golden bullet" between the eyes, if he didn't.
Strange isn't it, how Hewlett did NOT appear on any sex offenders register (because his offences took place prior to the register's existence), yet when Madeleine was abducted, the PJ knew exactly where to look and what vehicle to look for, now why and how would they know this?
Apparently he was questioned and released and then he was questioned again when he was in hospital just over the border in Spain, as Clairesy has said. Two detectives went there apparently. Hewlett admits to this and says these words "they were just doing their job" mmm, I remember a very placid Murat saying that too, after being put through hell. See Robert Murat What Are You Thinking? for more details, there is a very interesting transcript of an interview there.

I believe that Donal McIntyre was correct when he said Madeleine was taken by a organised group. Someone that knew the area and knew the layout of the apartment etc (Hewlett did apparently).
Hewlett was probably paid, but I still believe he was coerced and if he did take her, it wasn't for himself, he was acting under instructions from others, someone in authority and someone else who lives locally maybe.

There are still many questions unanswered about Hewlett. Personally, I think he is terrified of speaking to the McCanns investigators, he knows that Edgar and Cowley would suss him out instantly, this is why he has been prevaricating.
Remember when he was first traced, he and his partner Mariana and lawyer said he was too ill to speak to the McCanns detectives and then the next thing, he had taken himself out into the car park and was giving interviews to journalists!

They said he had been transferred to ICU because he was too ill and not expected to live. I knew that was a complete lie, because intensive care and palliative care are two completely different things and unless they do things drastically different in German hospitals, they would not block an incredibly expensive ICU bed with someone who was dying and needed palliative care. The only reason I could see him being in an ICU bed at the time was if he had planned surgery and that they would have to keep him in a medically induced coma and intubate (life support) him for a while afterwards, but even in those circumstances, he would have only occupied that bed for a very short while before being transferred.

They said he was at deaths door, this was months and months ago and yet in the meantime he has given (paid) interviews to a journalist, yet at the same time maintained he was to weak to speak.

That picture of Mariana, was not normal, she looked absolutely terrified, that was more than a fear of the press, look at that photograph, that to me looked like a deep rooted fear of something else entirely.

MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER Marian10

MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER Marian10

Hewlett looks like the image of the man seen hanging around outside apartment 5a. The spots could have been blotches on his skin, remember he was ill then and this could have been an reaction to something, or even a symptom of the disease itself.
But Mariana? Well the more I look at her the more she resembles the efit of the man seen walking off with Madeleine.
Could be wrong and probably am, but the shape of the head, the bone structure, the eyebrows, the nose, the shape of the mouth and the *teeth* and the age looks about right too and she looks very masculine too.
If it was always planned that the abductor would walk away carrying Madeleine, disguising herself as a man would make perfect sense, if he/she was spotted, they would have probably put Madeleine down and run off and taken the male disguise off, people would be looking for a man not a woman!

Gut instinct tells me that this little set up is the actual key to unlocking Madeleine's disappearance.

What became of the blue Dodge truck that Hewlett said was in Portugal, but suddenly turned up in Germany? The German's were reported to have been carrying out forensic tests on it, or is this just more "imaginative" reporting?

The whole Hewlett story does not add up and I do not understand why the pair of them were not arrested and interrogated.

So yet again the story that would not go away then, has suddenly come back!

by Catkins Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:45 pm

I think he knows things that could help................I HATE PAEDOES....they really have a different mindset to the rest of us !!!

Btrd has nothing to lose by telling what he knows.....Maybe this is just another attempt to get money, maybe for his family........May he rot in hell inch by inch.... MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER 356737

MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER 356737

by Rosie Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:35 pm

Cat, no matter if you cut off a paedophiles bits, he would still remain a paedophile, the problem is in their head, not their others parts, they would still find ways to offend, they see nothing wrong in what they are doing. There are female paedophiles too, look at the very recent history.

I would bet Goncalo's millions that Hewlett knows something and I doubt he would talk, even if the investigators got to interview him, but they could gain a lot from his reactions when they asked the questions.
If he dies, the investigators would just have to find a way to question Mariana, without Hewlett on the scene, she could have some interesting information, don't forget, Hewlett will be an incredibly controlling person!
Every cloud has a silver lining!

by Catkins Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:15 am

True....she could cave in once he's gone to burn in hell................Fingers crossed that she has some decency.

by dianeh Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:52 am

If Hewlett is as controlling and manipulative as reported, then Mariana will not talk until after he is dead. And if she was involved, she may not talk even then. As she has a family to look after and she cant do that from gaol.

If Hewlett did take Madeleine then he probably does not know where she is now. He may not even know who he gave her to. I have wondered a few times if Hewlett went to Germany for more reasons than just treatment.

All speculation of course. But there are questions to be answered from a known paedophile that was in the general area when Madeleine was abducted.

by Rosie Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:33 am

Depends on how badly her conscience bothers her I suppose, if she was forced into doing anything, she may say once he is not around, far better that than being found out, because then there really would be no lenience for her.
She has to be suffering her own grief, she has a little boy laying in an unmarked grave in Spain, this must be causing her enormous pain. Looks like they fled Spain in a hurry, so much of a hurry they could not stay and ensure their son's grave was properly marked, for all we know she may have been forced to leave Spain by Hewlett.

Let's see what happens to him over the next couple of weeks! I hope if she knows something she will decide to speak,

by dianeh Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:55 am

Let's see what happens to him over the next couple of weeks! I hope if she knows something she will decide to speak,

I hope so too.

by clairesy Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:56 am

Hi rosie

i to think he knows something,im sickened by the man always have been.The Portuguese, as you said, knew exactly where to find him when they wanted him,how??

He was said to have bragged about a deal some gypies as proposed to him regarding the selling of a small blond child(he said was his).In morocco he never left that camping site.That other guy told how he stayed there and mnver left to go outside for anything.He talked about Madeleine to...and also about the gypies wanting to buy his small blond child.Then he stated how he had lots of cash...thousands of it.

IMO helwett knows exactly what happened to Madeleine.

My problem is though ....Im also adamant murat was up to sumut.Im not sure what.Im wondering if he just knows whats going on out there but is scared to say,or weather he to knew Hewlett and what was happening to Madeleine that night.

Something is wrong here.But i believe all of the answers to Madeleine's abduction are already right under our noses.I think the privates just need to put the pieces of this together to form a clear picture.

by bluj1515 Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:08 pm

Rosiepops wrote:
She has to be suffering her own grief, she has a little boy laying in an unmarked grave in Spain, this must be causing her enormous pain. Looks like they fled Spain in a hurry, so much of a hurry they could not stay and ensure their son's grave was properly marked, for all we know she may have been forced to leave Spain by Hewlett.

I know there is a history of gypsies and such in Europe but I always thought it was bizarre and weird that more didn't come from that boy's death - an investigation, child services, turned over the authorities of whatever country the children's passports are from...or birth certificate, anything.

You also have to wonder about this woman....how does she get mixed up with someone like Hewlett? Drug use, possibly?

by Rosie Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:46 pm

Bluj look at the age difference between them, especially when they first got to together, it was probably the paedophile thing in him, and of course they are controlling and exert their power and control over their victims, could be she is as much of a victim of Hewlett as the others he has raped, molested and probably murdered in at least one case. This is why I think that once the woman is free of him, she may talk, I hop[e so, because like Clairesy, I think also that Hewlett is part of the key that will unlcok the mystery of Madeleine's abduction.
Clairesy, I think that RM is involved too and nothing is going to dissuade me from this, all those eye witnesses (around 12 of them) that say they saw him outside apartment 5a cannot be wrong and then there was his weird behaviour reported by the other two witnesses after Madeleine disappeared, and also the the nannies that reported something really suspicious with him in their quarters.
How come he wasn't even questioned about this by Amaral? In fact who eaxctly did Amaral talk to personally?

Also it has come to light just a few weeks back that Amaral is a friend of Murat's and Murat will not say anything bad about him. (I have this on first hand knowledge) see what eyes for lies says about Murat BEFORE all of this!

As I said, Hewlett I believe was used for the abduction probably, as was Mariana, probably, then there was a local person involved and someone on authority, this is as far as the organised group goes!

The gyspy thing I doid not take too much notice ofm,until I saw a programme on TV that actually proved they traffic children!

by clairesy Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:52 am

Clairesy, I think that RM is involved too and
nothing is going to dissuade me from this, all those eye witnesses
(around 12 of them) that say they saw him outside apartment 5a cannot
be wrong and then there was his weird behaviour reported by the other
two witnesses after Madeleine disappeared, and also the the nannies
that reported something really suspicious with him in their quarters.

As the saying goes...safety by numbers.And i do not believe for one second that all of those witnesses were wrong.

Im flabbergasted to learn,although somewhat not too surprised that gonc was a friend of murats.Thats summed it all up for me and im now on a mission back to the start of all this when they first heard from the female journalist about her suspicions.One man said..''who him.oh yer we know about him don't worry hes already under surveillance for something else''

and then the reports about the things found on his pc??when that got out into the press police denied it.I guess the question to be answered is.Did they deny it because there wasn't anything bad on his pc,or did they deny it because they it had got leaked out and they didn't want it to be leaked out?

You see the cop who used to do the live news interviews right at the start of the case(forget his name?) was asked by journalists live on tv if it was true child porn had been found on his pc..and he answered something like...''i can confirm that we are looking into certain materiel found on a pc but cannot say what that is..

i don't recall the exact wording though grrr

but he is deffo up to something and now i know hes pals with gonc im even more so adamant

by Cath Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:18 am

"Also it has come to light just a few weeks back
that Amaral is a friend of Murat's and Murat will not say anything bad
about him. (I have this on first hand knowledge) see what eyes for lies
says about Murat BEFORE all of this!"

Good heavens another friend of GA with connections to this case? A friend who's even been an arguido?
Can I ask you Rosie when and where it came to light they are friends and if you know this 'friendship' dates from before or after RM became an arguido?

by clairesy Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:23 am

whats the guys name who is a peado and wore and santa hat??He harassed a 12 year old girl on her mobile phone with obscene txt messages??

by Rosie Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:42 am

Hi Clairesy

The name of the police chief spokesman you are thinking of is Olegario Da Sousa, I think.

I didn't see that interview where they asked him what was found on Murat's PC, but I have heard about it. If this is so, then something was found on his PC and like you say, why was it concealed? No mention of it in the files either!

It is absolutely incredible that all those witnesses gave sworn statements saying they saw Robert Murat outside that apartment and they are disbelieved. Also Clairesy, did you know that the PJ believe that Murat *WAS* outside the apartment that night? So if they believe he was, why did they let him get away with lying about his alibi? We already know he actually changed his alibi, twice and his friend Tuck Price gave him a FALSE alibi, do you remember that?

Also I remember seeing him giving an interview to the journalist from Vanity Fair, the American magazine and he told her that he went to bed around 3 am and that he had never heard any of the commotion and shouting going on right outside his mother's villa. Yet he told the police he heard nothing and went to bed at around 10pm after eating dinner with his mother.
Then there is that business of Jenny Murat telling that journalist one story while telling everyone else another story.
I also think it was very dodgy that she was allowed to set up that stall on the beach asking people to give her information of they had seen anything. What an odd thing to do, why did the police allow her to do that? How do they know that she has handed over all the information she took? She may have taken vital information with names and addresses etc and not handed it over.

No there is something decidedly dodgy about that whole Murat business and I haven't forgotten how Murat gets his "aunt" mixed up and how she refers to him as her cousin and then changes her mind and says he is her nephew.

by Rosie Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:17 am

Cath wrote:"Also it has come to light just a few weeks back
that Amaral is a friend of Murat's and Murat will not say anything bad
about him. (I have this on first hand knowledge) see what eyes for lies
says about Murat BEFORE all of this!"

Good heavens another friend of GA with connections to this case? A friend who's even been an arguido?
Can I ask you Rosie when and where it came to light they are friends and if you know this 'friendship' dates from before or after RM became an arguido?

Hi Cath, that is what we cannot find out, whether he knew Amaral at the time, or came to know him after Madeleine was abducted. But honestly something like this should be investigated, everything should be clear cut and transparent. instead we have an arguido that has :

Changed his statement twice
Lied about the time he went to bed
Lied about being outside the apartment
Has a friend who lied to the PJ and gave Murat a false alibi
Rented a hire car in an agitated state, despite having several vehicles at his disposal
Lied about talking to Sergy Malinka on the phone that night
Sat in and translated on witness interviews
Four of the Tapas 7 confronted Murat and swore he was outside that apartment that night
Has some very dubious things in his past which someone has actually given a sworn statement about

Now there is a chance that Murat may have known Goncalo Amaral prior to Madeleine being abducted. This whole investigation stinks to high heaven. Today I have received a letter from the House of Commons today from my MP, whom I emailed last weekend. My scanner is not working properly. I asked him to contact the home secretary Alan Johnson, because I am not happy with the replies I have been getting and having my emails diverted all over the place.

Mrs ******** ************ ....................**************** ********** MP
** ********* ********** .......................House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
********************** .......................Tel. 020 7219*
***************** ................................Surgery Appointments
*** *** ...................................................Email: *************************
................................................................**************************

Dear Mrs *******************

Thank you for your email and for letting me know about the way in which internet websites are referring to Madeleine McCann and her parents.

As requested I can confirm that I have written on your behalf to Alan Johnson MP the Home Secretary to ask him to consider the concerns that you have raised about the way in which this matter is being dealt with by both the Portuguese authorities and the British police and I will be back in contact with you as soon as I receive replies to my letters.

With very best wishes,

...................................................Yours Sincerely

...................................................(signature)

.....................................**************** **********

by clairesy Fri Dec 11, 2009 5:36 am

Olegario Da Sousa, thats the one,i i can see him now reeling off what the investigation was doing and telling the worlds media how they have taken evidence form the home and then a journalist said something about what was apparently found on his pc.He didn't say what it was,but he confirmed they had found something and was looking into it.I dont know what that something was though however at a later stage they claimed they hadn't found anything.

I wasn't aware that police now knew he WAS there that night.baffles me,if that's the case then it throws their argument that witnesses were mistaken right of the of the frigging window.

How can they say it is possible people mistook mr Murat for joe bloggs when they actually knew dam well he was there?

talk about double headers.

he not only told the police he was in bed at 10pm..he told journalists he knew nothing of Madeleine's abduction until the following morning,one report stated he told a witness that he only become aware of her abduction when he heard folk taking the next morning over the garden wall of his mums house.

So he is lying and whats worse..the police know he is lying.They have known it all along.

oh and murat asked for someone to give him an alibi aswel,but they refused.

He was suppose to have been at the club aswell ... or so tuck says,but it turned out to be a lie which came to the surface meaning murat had to explain himself out of it.
His excuse??...his mate thought he was doing him good,he hadn't asked him to say that for him although his mate felt by giving him an alibi it would help him.In actual fact it brought more suspicion on him and rightly so.

by Cath Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:15 am

Thanks Rosie. Well done for writing to your MP.

Re your remark about RM's PC : "No mention of it in the files either!"

It is mentioned in the files. Sort of cartoons as far as I've read. Never watched them myself, but I think there's a link to it on Pamalam's site.

by dianeh Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:01 am

As an arguido, RM was able to remain silent. Remember that an arguido is not required to answer any questions, but as a witness they are compelled to.

So was RM made an arguido because he was a suspect, or to allow him to remain silent. It was Amaral that requested he be made arguido after all. This is a question that I think needs to be answered.

How is it we didnt know that RM and Amaral were more than acquaintances, and that the press never picked up on it, over there in Britain.

by Sponsored content

MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER

Re: MADELEINE MCCANN: PAEDOPHILE WANTED FOR QUESTIONING STRUCK DUMB BY THROAT CANCER