Yet Again the McCanns Hide Behind Others When Called to Account

[faithlilly]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425994/Madeleine-Fresh-agony-for-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann

Notice in the whole article there is not one direct quote from Scotland Yard and it also seems the McCanns's family are allowed to heap scorn on the Portuguese police but not the McCanns themselves.

Is this an extra fast spin cycle set on colours, mainly pink ?

[stephen25000]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425994/Madeleine-Fresh-agony-for-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann

Notice in the whole article there is not one direct quote from Scotland Yard and it also seems the McCanns's family are allowed to heap scorn on the Portuguese police but not the McCanns themselves.

Is this an extra fast spin cycle set on colours, mainly pink ?

Indeed, it is an act of moral cowardice as to why they are not there.

The pretense of not drawing attention is a joke , given their behaviour over the last 6 years.

It is more to do with the simple fact that Mitchell will not be able to control press 'interviews' as he does over here.

 

[Benice]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425994/Madeleine-Fresh-agony-for-Kate-and-Gerry-McCann

Notice in the whole article there is not one direct quote from Scotland Yard and it also seems the McCanns's family are allowed to heap scorn on the Portuguese police but not the McCanns themselves.

Is this an extra fast spin cycle set on colours, mainly pink ?

Why are you holding the McCanns responsible for something written in a newspaper?   The only credible comment is the following - the rest are from unnamed 'sources' which means they are probably fabricated.

Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said yesterday: “The court process in Portugal is in the hands of Kate and Gerry’s lawyers and is purely a matter for them to proceed with.”

What is there to criticise in that comment?

[ferryman]

What is there to criticise in that comment?

Why, that it was made by Clarence Mitchell, silly ...

[faithlilly]

Why are you holding the McCanns responsible for something written in a newspaper?   The only credible comment is the following - the rest are from unnamed 'sources' which means they are probably fabricated.

Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said yesterday: “The court process in Portugal is in the hands of Kate and Gerry’s lawyers and is purely a matter for them to proceed with.”

What is there to criticise in that comment?

So do you believe we will see the McCanns in Lisbon then Benice and the article is just more media speculation ?

[Benice]

So do you believe we will see the McCanns in Lisbon then Benice and the article is just more media speculation ?

You have missed the point.  IMO you were unfairly attributing the content of the article to the McCanns/family/friends as some sort of 'ploy' by them  - and that is what I was objecting to.     

The only credible comment is the one by Clarence Mitchell which pours scorn on no-one and merely states the facts.

[faithlilly]

You have missed the point.  IMO you were unfairly attributing the content of the article to the McCanns/family/friends as some sort of 'ploy' by them  - and that is what I was objecting to.     

The only credible comment is the one by Clarence Mitchell which pours scorn on no-one and merely states the facts.

Then we will wait with baited breath to see whether the McCanns/family/friends prove to be correct and the McCanns avoid appearing next week.

[Lyall]

You have missed the point.  IMO you were unfairly attributing the content of the article to the McCanns/family/friends as some sort of 'ploy' by them  - and that is what I was objecting to.     

The only credible comment is the one by Clarence Mitchell which pours scorn on no-one and merely states the facts.

He's a pro, there's no doubt about that.

[ferryman]

Then we will wait with baited breath to see whether the McCanns/family/friends prove to be correct and the McCanns avoid appearing next week.

Why do you warp have no need to appear to avoid appearing?

If Amaral (or particularly his legal team) fail to show that will be avoidance.

There is only one party running away from this libel trial, and it sure aint the McCanns ...

[faithlilly]

Why do you warp have no need to appear to avoid appearing?

If Amaral (or particularly his legal team) fail to show that will be avoidance.

There is only one party running away from this libel trial, and it sure aint the McCanns ...

They had no 'need' to appear in 2010 but did. Perhaps they are less hopefull of success this time eh ?

[stephen25000]

Why do you warp have no need to appear to avoid appearing?

If Amaral (or particularly his legal team) fail to show that will be avoidance.

There is only one party running away from this libel trial, and it sure aint the McCanns ...

We shall see.

Whoever loses it, presuming of course it goes ahead, will appeal.

[Carana]

They had no 'need' to appear in 2010 but did. Perhaps they are less hopefull of success this time eh ?

They didn't have the reassurance of a joint Met/PJ investigation back then, did they?

[Rachel Granada]

They didn't have the reassurance of a joint Met/PJ investigation back then, did they?

Very good point, Carana. 

Go, Isabel!

[faithlilly]

They didn't have the reassurance of a joint Met/PJ investigation back then, did they?

I can't see your point Carana. Surely if they, as you say, have the SY/PJ to back them they should be more confident of victory. Their non-appearance suggests that is not the case.

Of course it will also be hard to argue that Amaral's book is harming the search for Madeleine when the SY investgation is giving her, allegedly, the best chance of being found.

[ferryman]

Faith Lilly:

... they should be more confident of victory. Their non-appearance suggests that is not the case.

Why?