It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Madeleine McCann: Paedophile Spills Bean

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 08:08 PM
Deceased paedophile Raymond Hewlett has had a "deathbed" letter delivered to his estranged son Wayne, someone who has hated him for twenty years. In it, Hewlett apologized for the trouble that his life of crime caused to his estranged wife and son. He also claims that he had nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

But he does say that a good friend of his, a gypsy, got drunk one night and told him that he and gypsy friends of his, kidnapped Madeleine to fill an order for someone desiring a child. He says the crime had nothing to do with paedophilia and was part of an underground commerce in stolen children.

Wayne Hewlett, believes that the letter is genuine and very possibly true. Unfortunately, his revulsion for his father led him to burn the letter. It only came to light after a friend of Wayne, unknown to him, went to the Sun newspaper.

Now, detectives working for the McCanns want to speak to Wayne.

Wayne, who had no contact with Hewlett for nearly 20 years, said his father's letter seemed "very genuine".

He added: "I don't know if this is what happened to Maddie or not, but it does make sense. I can't believe he'd go to those lengths to make up some elaborate lie when he was so weak and ill."

This could be a very important break in this case, since police or detectives may be able to pursue leads among known friends of Hewlett, in attempting to locate the gypsy who told him this story.

Of course the gypsy could have been spinning a tale, but Hewlett senior, who knew the gypsy well, believed him.

My intuition tells me that this might be an important development. Aside from the sniffer dogs and the Smith family there are precious few dependable witnesses in this case.

It's a pity that Hewlett didn't name the gypsy. But that would be ratting.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by ipsedixit]

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:43 PM
Interesting, but if true, how did the police detect traces of a dead body (or was that discredited? I know there were issues with the investigation).

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 10:51 PM
You imply that there was anything credible in that investigation. I think Inspector Clouseau would have done better.

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:01 PM
It certainly left more questions than answers, but it does raise the question of how they found what they found.

Even if an investigation is completely screwed up, I'm not aware of any creating evidence that didn't exist; only failing to find evidence that actually existed...

[edit on 1-9-2010 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:37 PM
WhyTF would you go to the SUN!?!?!! Utter BS!

[edit on 1-9-2010 by Frakkerface]

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:50 PM
The sniffer dog evidence is the most perplexing part of this case. It is important to remember that the English sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela, searched Apt. 5A at the end of July of '07 almost three months after Madeleine disappeared.

The cadaver scent was found on articles of Kate's clothing, an article of Madeleine's clothing, on "Cuddle Cat", behind a couch near a window in the living room, in a cupboard in the parent's bedroom, in a flower bed at the bottom of the stairs to the sliding doors of Apt. 5A, in the "boot" of the rented Renault Scenic and on a key to the same vehicle.

The scent was not found on anything of Gerry's. It was not found on any of the beds in 5A. It was not found on any of the furniture in 5A.

In a scenario where Madeleine died in the apartment, in the presence of one or both of her parents, I would expect a different distribution of the cadaver scent. Surely it would be on something of Gerry's. Surely it would be on a couch or on a bed.

Could the scent have come from somewhere else? It's a murky area. Most jurisdictions will not accept cadaver scent as evidence of a corpse, where the whereabouts of a body is unknown. It is an investigative tool, which may lead to discovery of a corpse and then to supplement other evidence regarding the likely handling of a corpse.

By itself, it is not a specific enough indicator, to rule out all but one interpretation of it's presence.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by ipsedixit]

posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 11:56 PM
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

I doubt those "detectives" could find their backsides with both hands. Perhaps they found evidence and misinterpreted it? Perhaps they found nothing and fabricated it? Perhaps they knew exactly what was going on but feigned ineptitude because they're in on it. There are any number of explanations for what happened - or didn't. One thing is fairly certain: No genuine investigation happened.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 12:11 AM
There is no question that the Portugese police botched the case badly and that the British police came under strong government interference in the matter.

Getting back to the cadaver scent. How does one account for it's presence on the key to the Renault Scenic?

The Portugese Police would have us believe that when Kate or Gerry loaded Madeleine's body into the car, they plopped the car key down onto her and then retrieved it when they went round to the driver's seat, or some variation on the theme. Is that or anything like it, likely? I don't think so.

Well then maybe the driver of the car handled Madeleine's body and then transferred the scent of death from their own body to the car key, without Madeleine having touched it directly.

That scenario allows for indirect transfer of the death scent and once you open that door, you must allow that the scent could have been carried into the apartment from outside by Kate or just about anybody with access and from any dead body contacted, not necessarily Madeleine's.

In that case the cadaver dog evidence goes right out the window.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by ipsedixit]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 01:55 AM
Such an interesting and baffling case.

A story that I have looked into when ever any new information has come to light.

Unfortunately nothing has ever substantiated into anything solid.

No doubt that the investigation was badly performed and that the police tried to strong arm the parents into a confession, while letting real leads go cold.

Its a shame no real solid evidence has ever come to light to really find out what happened to that poor girl

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:02 AM
reply to post by ipsedixit

The criminal code of not ratting does not include people taking children
,any hardened criminal would tell where little maddie was in a second!!

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:07 AM
reply to post by Frakkerface
i agree did he want money or to help? I wont answer that mate
probably some waster trying to make a few pound with some made up story!! but lets all hope it is not!!

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:09 AM
This case absolutely disgusts me and I find it impossible not to comment!

I believe the McCanns should be prosecuted for leaving their daughter (and other children) - full stop. It's disgusting that they have not been taken to task for neglect. I am not convinced they killed their daughter, but they are certainly complicit through their neglect.

I also believe that the letter the paedo sent to his son is nothing more than a dying man trying to make his son think better of him. He was a know abuser in the vicinity - he would naturally come under suspicion.

The media hype surrounding the case and any suspects would mean that any mud thrown would stick - even if the man was innocent of the madelaine kidnap.

The letter is a salve between father and son. It's not a lead.

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:31 AM
Yeah! the Madeleine McCann story is a very interesting story with a lot of twists and turns for sure.

I mean, wasn't the father a Scotish Templar Knight?

Now you all of a sudden also have child stealing Gypsy traffickers thrown into the mix as well!

This story is getting better and better! - and more crazy!

I don't know what to believe?

Poor Madeleine though - whatever the truth and her destiny is/was!

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Chevalerous]

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:42 AM
this is a conspiracy in intself and is just another attempt from the McCanns to use something else as a scapegoat to deflect the real reason behind their daughters "dissapearance"....

their daughter died in that apartment and they know how. whether it was accidental or not they are trying to cover it up....

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:51 AM
All right stop; hammer time!

We have a dead man who, for obvious reasons, cannot verify the claims his 'estranged' son is supposedly making.

We have a supposed letter which 'went up in flames' and as such cannot prove that any such statement was ever made.

We have a mysterious 'gypsy' who are by nature off the grid and cannot be traced easily (if at all).

This information came to light through a 'friend' disclosing it instead of the actual 'estranged' son himself.

And finally we have this published by The Sun newspaper of all papers.

Ok, ok, ok.

Is it at all possible that this is a pile of bovine excrement and contains no information of any possible use to anyone other than The Sun and this friend making a few bob from the story?

Whilst I agree that it's an interesting case, neglect would certainly have been a charge pressed on a less socially classed couple and that thousands of other cases of kidnapping and child abuse go on every year without a hint of the attention this one gets - would you really trust this story if you were in a position of trying to get to the bottom of this case.

I'm sure the police will investigate - it will turn out to have been crosswires in communication and a tiny retraction will be issued by The Sun in a number of weeks but doesn't this automatically stink of a deliberate and dishonest hoax??


posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:59 AM
I have kind of a problem believing this.
If you wanted to steal a child for money then their are plenty of places in the world where it is extremely easy to do it, places where children roam the streets unwanted and unprotected, where no one at all is ever going to miss them if you take them. Why in the world would you do it in a well off European country that is actually going to make some kind of effort to find you, why take that kind of risk if it's just unnecessary.

Also, if for example I was looking to pay someone to steal a child for me the last person I would think of to ask is a Portuguese Gypsy, it just doesn't make any sense. Why not go to a country that has a large established human trafficking problem already and get one the easy way

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:27 AM
It's well established that the parents neglected their children while at dinner with their friends, virtually every night. There is no doubt a lower class couple who did the same, with the same consequences, would have lost custody of their children or have faced a lifetime of child protection services interference in their lives. There is no doubt that a day care service who treated the McCann children the way that their parents treated them on holiday would have been sued back to the stone age by these same parents and undoubtedly would have faced prison terms.

That's all taken for granted, but getting back to the letter. Two intriguing possibilities come to my mind.

1. Raymond Hewlett expected his letter to fall into the hands of the police eventually so left clues or perhaps the actual identity of the gypsy kidnapper coded into the letter. Why? Because he didn't trust his son to do the right thing.

2. The mysterious person who delivered the letter to Wayne Hewlett was actually the gypsy kidnapper, doing Raymond Hewlett a favor, in his travels, and unaware of the contents of the letter he was carrying.

Either, or both might be true. Too bad Wayne burned the letter. I wonder if anyone else actually saw it.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by ipsedixit]

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by ipsedixit

if this is/was a hoax, it is/was a very sick one indeed.

if this is her, i wish her and her family well, and a quick reunion.

thanks for posting this,

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

new topics

top topics


log in