After Six Years the Only Sign of Not Being Involved

[Redblossom]

Is the Mccanns continuing their campaign, so those who say how could they just pretend for so many years, have a point, for me, its the only point from everything I have seen and heard

then again if you were complicit in any crime, would you  ever stop trying to evade it?/consequences
 >@@(*&)

[sadie]

Once you've lied about something, you're bound to lie for ever. The secret is to repeat and repeat your lie, taking care not to vary too much.
Lying and not saying the truth shouldn't be confounded. Lying supposes an intention. The liar knows he lies, does it intentionally to mask the truth. How could he confess without being terribly humiliated ?
Not saying the truth isn't intentional but the effect of ignorance or disinformation. To admit it doesn't affect your pride.

Seems you are an expert on lying.

You have already recorded on this forum that you would lie to save a friend from conviction.

[Albertini]

Well i would argue they couldn't have withdrawn from the limelight even if they wanted to.

In 2007, it was about clearing their name and "expunging" as that Lovely Mr smethurst put it.

Then in 2008 it was about cleaning up the fall out from the Rogatory letters, their failed attempt to take Leicestershire Police to court and get their hands on the latter's evidence, and then the Eurostart trip to spin the archiving report to get their favoured "no evidence" claim in the public domain.

Then of course the Truth of the Lie came out and then with that, there was no chance of them ever being out of the limelight or taking a backseat.

Here's some evidence to support:

Madeleine, page 190, "We had made a strategic decision to signal to the media that we would be withdrawing from the spotlight."

Gerry McCann STV interview August 24 2007, "We could not avoid the publicity; we never asked for it, we never wished we were in this situation. What we've done is to try and use it in a positive way to affect the outcome. In terms of the campaign, we said 60 or 70 days ago that we would be stepping back from it, and we've done very very little offensive media in terms of us coming out to campaign for Madeleine."

Project Expunge, Smethurst on BBC Panorama transcript, winter 2007. See Assange extradition proceedings for examples of how, despite the theoretical limitations on the right to challenge a European Arrest Warrant, public opinion can be used to pressure or delay a verdict up to cabinet level.

High level media spin for the Eurostar Brussels trip complete with photographs of KM on the railway platform before departing. "It just so happened," writes KM in Madeleine, page 298, "that the PJ's trip to the UK [for the rogatory interviews] coincided with our visit to Brussels." Indeed.

Connoisseurs of McCann-speak will relish KM's description of the origin of those interviews. Rather than the culmination of a lengthy and complex stage in the investigation into the two arguidos, prepared over months by the Portuguese prosecutors' department and established under international treaty agreements, we have her breezy version of how they really came about earlier on the same page 298:

"You'll recall that, back in October, we had supplied the Portuguese public prosecutor with a list of people whom we felt statements should have been taken. In response the Portuguese police had decided to come to Leicester to be present while the British police interviewed Fiona... [and the others]. The questions to be asked were those Gerry and I had suggested to the prosecutor (obvious and pertinent ones, I hasten to add) with a few additions from the PJ."

Yes we have a claim from Kate that it was her and Gerry who decided the witnesses and the questions as part of the Rogatory interviews!

Oops! Another lie there Kate, to add to the list!

[Rachel Granada]

No veronal, no phenobarbital, no valium ! Like a log !

What is your secret Anne!  I find it hard to nod off most nights!

Sorry folks, back on topic now!

I'm having a think about points in this thread, but can I just start with this one:

Would guilty people be stupid enough to sue the press, Amaral and Bennett?  I think not.  It would be gaining money by deception and if they were guilty and it came out they would be in even more trouble. 

[Rachel Granada]

I am repeating myself here so apologies in advance folks, but I will say it again:

Would guilty people ask for a SY review?  Who would want the Yard poking around?  It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Just going to make a strong coffee then will be back with more thoughts and opinions! 

[faithlilly]

What is your secret Anne!  I find it hard to nod off most nights!

Sorry folks, back on topic now!

I'm having a think about points in this thread, but can I just start with this one:

Would guilty people be stupid enough to sue the press, Amaral and Bennett?  I think not.  It would be gaining money by deception and if they were guilty and it came out they would be in even more trouble.

Do you remember Jeffrey Archer Rachel ?

[Rachel Granada]

Do you remember Jeffrey Archer Rachel ?

I do, but I must say that this is a bit more serious? The disappearance of a child as opposed to perjury (I think what's what Archer was jailed for?). 

Sorry, I just can't accept that guilty people would be stupid enough to sue the press, Amaral/Bennett.  In fact, if they were complicit and the truth came out they would probably get a longer sentence for the fraud agains the press etc than for being complicit in Madeleine's disappearance?

[Albertini]

Do you remember Jeffrey Archer Rachel ?

Or Jonathan Aitken for that matter.

[Albertini]

I do, but I must say that this is a bit more serious? The disappearance of a child as opposed to perjury (I think what's what Archer was jailed for?). 

Sorry, I just can't accept that guilty people would be stupid enough to sue the press, Amaral/Bennett.  In fact, if they were complicit and the truth came out they would probably get a longer sentence for the fraud agains the press etc than for being complicit in Madeleine's disappearance?

If they were to be found guilty of the child's disappearance then suing the press would be the least of their worries.

[Albertini]

I am repeating myself here so apologies in advance folks, but I will say it again:

Would guilty people ask for a SY review?  Who would want the Yard poking around?  It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Just going to make a strong coffee then will be back with more thoughts and opinions! 

Well a review of evidence gathered is one thing (which is what they asked for). We know the evidence gathered was not enough to take to a trial.

What they never can have expected, i believe, is for a SY reinvestigation as that is unprecedented. What they have now got is a foreign police force operating on Portuguese soil. When did that ever happen? Look at the furore over in Portugal about it.

So campaigning for a review of evidence gathered was in my opinion as a means to get validation for the "no evidence" claim, safe in the knoweldge that SY would not be able to investigate in Portugal.

Now that that appears to be happening i wonder if that is what the McCann's really wanted as at some point it will have to address the issues on which the Portuguese enquiry ended, i.e. around the statements and actions of the group.

[Rachel Granada]

If they were to be found guilty of the child's disappearance then suing the press would be the least of their worries.

Well yes, but there would be fraud charges too.  They would be made to repay the money too?  To me it would be madness for guilty people to go after the press, Amaral etc. 

Surely they would just slink away into obscurity, I know we have had this debate before but for me it keeps on coming back to that really.  You would heave a sigh of relief that you had got away with it and disappear into the sunset. 

[Benice]

Dont be so silly, and drop it since you have lost the argument...and no, why on earth would I take her word for anything, its not worth much in my book, or hers actually, obviously it is to you alot, but I understand

Diane Webster also looked for Madeleine.  As far as I know no-one saw her and only she has mentioned it.  If that is true then do we have to assume therefore that without witnesses - she is lying.

IMO this is just another example of petty nitpicking with hindsight    The rule seems to be that unless everything the McCanns did or said can be confirmed by independent witnesses then according to some - they are lying or it didn't happen.   We cannot possibly know every single word that was spoken or every tiny move that was made by the McCanns and their friends that night.  We only have a general idea. 

To behave as if everything they did and everything they said is recorded in the files  - and claim that if it isn't there it didn't happen, is totally unrealistic and also unfair IMO. 

[Rachel Granada]

Well a review of evidence gathered is one thing (which is what they asked for). We know the evidence gathered was not enough to take to a trial.

What they never can have expected, i believe, is for a SY reinvestigation as that is unprecedented. What they have now got is a foreign police force operating on Portuguese soil. When did that ever happen? Look at the furore over in Portugal about it.

So campaigning for a review of evidence gathered was in my opinion as a means to get validation for the "no evidence" claim, safe in the knoweldge that SY would not be able to investigate in Portugal.

Now that that appears to be happening i wonder if that is what the McCann's really wanted as at some point it will have to address the issues on which the Portuguese enquiry ended, i.e. around the statements and actions of the group.

Well I have to say that if I were complicit, I wouldn't want even a review - who on earth would want SY poking around at all?  IMO guilty people wouldn't want any LE anywhere near it?  Who's to say that even during a review the Yard could have spotted something that could have led to the McCanns being charged?

My turkey analogy comes into play again!

What furore in Portugal do you mean?

[Albertini]

Well yes, but there would be fraud charges too.  They would be made to repay the money too?  To me it would be madness for guilty people to go after the press, Amaral etc. 

Surely they would just slink away into obscurity, I know we have had this debate before but for me it keeps on coming back to that really.  You would heave a sigh of relief that you had got away with it and disappear into the sunset.

Well as i said fraud would be the least of their worries. As would repaying press etc. This is a fight for their lives.

In relation to slinking into obscurity please see my previous post. They haven't been able to even if they wanted to:

Well i would argue they couldn't have withdrawn from the limelight even if they wanted to.

In 2007, it was about clearing their name and "expunging" as that Lovely Mr smethurst put it.

Then in 2008 it was about cleaning up the fall out from the Rogatory letters, their failed attempt to take Leicestershire Police to court and get their hands on the latter's evidence, and then the Eurostart trip to spin the archiving report to get their favoured "no evidence" claim in the public domain.

Then of course the Truth of the Lie came out and then with that, there was no chance of them ever being out of the limelight or taking a backseat.

Here's some evidence to support:

Madeleine, page 190, "We had made a strategic decision to signal to the media that we would be withdrawing from the spotlight."

Gerry McCann STV interview August 24 2007, "We could not avoid the publicity; we never asked for it, we never wished we were in this situation. What we've done is to try and use it in a positive way to affect the outcome. In terms of the campaign, we said 60 or 70 days ago that we would be stepping back from it, and we've done very very little offensive media in terms of us coming out to campaign for Madeleine."

Project Expunge, Smethurst on BBC Panorama transcript, winter 2007. See Assange extradition proceedings for examples of how, despite the theoretical limitations on the right to challenge a European Arrest Warrant, public opinion can be used to pressure or delay a verdict up to cabinet level.

High level media spin for the Eurostar Brussels trip complete with photographs of KM on the railway platform before departing. "It just so happened," writes KM in Madeleine, page 298, "that the PJ's trip to the UK [for the rogatory interviews] coincided with our visit to Brussels." Indeed.

Connoisseurs of McCann-speak will relish KM's description of the origin of those interviews. Rather than the culmination of a lengthy and complex stage in the investigation into the two arguidos, prepared over months by the Portuguese prosecutors' department and established under international treaty agreements, we have her breezy version of how they really came about earlier on the same page 298:

"You'll recall that, back in October, we had supplied the Portuguese public prosecutor with a list of people whom we felt statements should have been taken. In response the Portuguese police had decided to come to Leicester to be present while the British police interviewed Fiona... [and the others]. The questions to be asked were those Gerry and I had suggested to the prosecutor (obvious and pertinent ones, I hasten to add) with a few additions from the PJ."

Yes we have a claim from Kate that it was her and Gerry who decided the witnesses and the questions as part of the Rogatory interviews!

Oops! Another lie there Kate, to add to the list!

[Benice]

Well a review of evidence gathered is one thing (which is what they asked for). We know the evidence gathered was not enough to take to a trial.What they never can have expected, i believe, is for a SY reinvestigation as that is unprecedented. What they have now got is a foreign police force operating on Portuguese soil. When did that ever happen? Look at the furore over in Portugal about it.

So campaigning for a review of evidence gathered was in my opinion as a means to get validation for the "no evidence" claim, safe in the knoweldge that SY would not be able to investigate in Portugal.

Now that that appears to be happening i wonder if that is what the McCann's really wanted as at some point it will have to address the issues on which the Portuguese enquiry ended, i.e. around the statements and actions of the group.

I disagree.  We know that there was NO evidence to take them to trial. 

Why would they want to waste years of their lives pushing for a review if they were guilty? The mental pressure alone of having to keep that charade up day in day out would be too much for anyone to endure for years.  It simply makes no sense.   If they were guilty they would have been mighty relieved that they got away with it and kept their heads down until it all faded away, which it would have done in a very short time.   Everything the McCanns have done since they returned to the UK is the OPPOSITE of what guilty people would do. IMO

And let's face it Albertini - IMO if they had not pressed for a review -  people like your goodself would be holding that up as proof that they were guilty because it they were not guilty they would be pressing for a review.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.