What advantage was achieved by lying about the Huelva trip?

[faithlilly]

so you think the McCanns should have breached judicial secrecy about the case to the world's press do you?

Behave Alfie. They breached officially secrecy again and again. You know it and I know it. Kate texted what she was being asked while she was being questioned. This was a face-saving exercise, no more, no less.

[Alfie]

Behave Alfie. They breached officially secrecy again and again. You know it and I know it. Kate texted what she was being asked while she was being questioned. This was a face-saving exercise, no more, no less.

I wasn't addressing you, I was asking John who said that in his opinion the McCanns should have "embraced the event" of their property being searched by dogs, and reveal publicly to the press what was going on.  That woud certainly have been a flagrant brief of judicial secrecy, so clearly that is what John thinks they should have done, ie: risk facing criminal charges for breaching judicical secrecy to tell the world's media that the police were sending in the dogs.  Yes, a very wise move all round, I'm sure!

[faithlilly]

I wasn't addressing you, I was asking John who said that in his opinion the McCanns should have "embraced the event" of their property being searched by dogs, and reveal publicly to the press what was going on.  That woud certainly have been a flagrant brief of judicial secrecy, so clearly that is what John thinks they should have done, ie: risk facing criminal charges for breaching judicical secrecy to tell the world's media that the police were sending in the dogs.  Yes, a very wise move all round, I'm sure!

This is a public forum and therefore I will reply to any post I chose.

As to your point even Kate admits that breaking judicial secrecy was a secondary consideration to keeping the public in the dark.

'We didn’t feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa? We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.'

[Alfie]

Everything you need to know about this event is here:

 

As it happened, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn’t feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa? We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.

1) Gerry DID have a mild stomach upset, so whilst not the main reason for not going, was still not a lie.
2) Judicial secrecy DID prevent them from giving the main reason
3) Yes, the advantage of not breaking judicical secrecy (apart from not facing charges for doing so) is that it potentially kept the speculation at bay - a tactic which failed miserably anyway.

[John]

Everything you need to know about this event is here:

 
1) Gerry DID have a mild stomach upset, so whilst not the main reason for not going, was still not a lie.
2) Judicial secrecy DID prevent them from giving the main reason
3) Yes, the advantage of not breaking judicical secrecy (apart from not facing charges for doing so) is that it potentially kept the speculation at bay - a tactic which failed miserably anyway.

Were they so naive that they thought hiding the imminent inspection of the villa from the worlds press would go unnoticed?

[Alfie]

Simple question - does telling a lie once to get out of doing something ("pulling a sickie") mean that one is not to be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all, for the rest of one's life?

[Alfie]

Were they so naive that they thought hiding the imminent inspection of the villa from the worlds press would go unnoticed?

What other explanation have you  got?  I notice you didn't respond to my question above.  You think they should have held a press conference to reveal details of the case and break judicial secrecy, correct?  What advantage would that have conferred on them, in your opinion?

[faithlilly]

Everything you need to know about this event is here:

 
1) Gerry DID have a mild stomach upset, so whilst not the main reason for not going, was still not a lie.
2) Judicial secrecy DID prevent them from giving the main reason
3) Yes, the advantage of not breaking judicical secrecy (apart from not facing charges for doing so) is that it potentially kept the speculation at bay - a tactic which failed miserably anyway.

They didn't need to break judicial secrecy. They were not beholden to give the press a reason for not going. They chose to lie.

[Alfie]

They didn't need to break judicial secrecy. They were not beholden to give the press a reason for not going. They chose to lie.

And?  They told a white lie (which Kate later comes clean about in her book) and from this we can conclude...?

[faithlilly]

Simple question - does telling a lie once to get out of doing something ("pulling a sickie") mean that one is not to be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all, for the rest of one's life?

This was not 'pulling a sickie'.

[Alfie]

This was not 'pulling a sickie'.

What was it then?

[Alfie]

Simple question (revised) - does telling a lie once to get out of doing something mean that one is not to be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all, for the rest of one's life?

[faithlilly]

And?  They told a white lie (which Kate later comes clean about in her book) and from this we can conclude...?

We can conclude that even when there is no need to lie the McCanns will do so to mislead the public and protect their reputation.

[Alfie]

Another question:
this supposedly monstrous lie the McCanns told (that they later came clean about anyway) - who or what did it harm?   Lies often have harmful or hurtful consequences (unless they are white lies) so what were they in this case?  The only harmful consequence I can see is that it (the lie) has been used as ammunition against the McCanns for years, since it was first revealed in Kate's book. 

[Alfie]

We can conclude that even when there is no need to lie the McCanns will do so to mislead the public and protect their reputation.

If that is the case then why did Kate McCann write about it in her book at all?