The breathtaking hypocrisy of those that support the McCanns

[icabodcrane]

On page 124 of Kate McCann's book, Madeleine, she writes this:

"On the afternoon of Friday 11 May, a paralegal [unnamed], accompanied by a barrister [also unnamed], flew out to Portugal...After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to Apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'...it was reassuring to hear..."

Here's an interesting snippet

That meeting that Kate had with the paralegal  and barrister who had been flown out to Portugal was held on the  very day that 'non'  psyschologist  Alan Pike   (  who recently spoke at the libel trial   )  had   'postponed' an interview with the Police  ...  on the grounds of Kate's  'fragile'  health 

[C.Edwards]

I find it incredible that they are using one incident by some nutter to try and establish a widespread threat.

Quite.  And even more incredible that they think that the unsupported hearsay being put forward in a court of law by non-professionals is sufficient evidence of "harm".

[Angelo222]

I don't seriously think that you can believe that Kate and Gerry have not told the odd white lie along the way.
Whilst being in the glare of the public eye, as well as having their words analysed by total morons, it must be almost essential, to tell the odd lie. So what?

A good post Sika.  They have used language consistently from the beginning in order to cover up for their shortcomings as parents.  Let's face it they were shit parents regardless of their academic prowess.

[Chinagirl]

I find it incredible that they are using one incident by some nutter to try and establish a widespread threat.

But you think it's acceptable for a poster on this forum to state, categorically, that the McCanns are liars, and offer as evidence for this libellous statement a ream of opinions from those same  nutter forums??

[stephen25000]

But you think it's acceptable for a poster on this forum to state, categorically, that the McCanns are liars, and offer as evidence for this libellous statement a ream of opinions from those same  nutter forums??

Can you say with absolute certainty that everything the Mccanns have said in this case is the TRUTH ?

Have you called Amaral a liar ?

Is everything he says a lie ?

Or are you selective in your judgement ?

[Angelo222]

On page 124 of Kate McCann's book, Madeleine, she writes this:

"On the afternoon of Friday 11 May, a paralegal [unnamed], accompanied by a barrister [also unnamed], flew out to Portugal...After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to Apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting'...it was reassuring to hear..."

Who was this barrister and paralegal?  Were they parents or yet another couple of pros who thought they were parenting experts??   It would be worth knowing how much these two legal wigs were paid for their opinion that leaving three toddlers alone in an unlocked ground floor holiday apartment was reasonable parenting.  Totally deluded.

[Angelo222]

But you think it's acceptable for a poster on this forum to state, categorically, that the McCanns are liars, and offer as evidence for this libellous statement a ream of opinions from those same  nutter forums??

But they are liars China, little white or otherwise..it is all a matter of degrees.

Everyone lies and anyone who claims they don't are well...LIARS.   

[C.Edwards]

But they are liars China, little white or otherwise..it is all a matter of degrees.

Everyone lies and anyone who claims they don't are well...LIARS.   

You'll be in the bad books again Angelo... you're supposed to leap to the defence of the McCann supporters at this point, shoot me and Redblossom down in flames and state there is not a shred of evidence that the McCanns have ever lied.  I imagine that you - and this forum - are getting a serious slagging off out there in the few remaining safe havens for the McCann supporters!  Are your ears burning? ;-)

[Angelo222]

You'll be in the bad books again Angelo... you're supposed to leap to the defence of the McCann supporters at this point, shoot me and Redblossom down in flames and state there is not a shred of evidence that the McCanns have ever lied.  I imagine that you - and this forum - are getting a serious slagging off out there in the few remaining safe havens for the McCann supporters!  Are your ears burning? ;-)

love it love it love it CE.   I might even toddle down to Lisbon myself for Guy Fawkes!!

[Angelo222]

Oh for heavens sake China they admitted telling fibs to reporters for all sorts of reasons.  Doesn't make them bad people though does it?

[Montclair]

IIRC, Magalhães e Menezes stated in the archiving report that the McCanns did not tell the truth. Is he a nutter?

[blonk]

Who was this barrister and paralegal?  Were they parents or yet another couple of pros who thought they were parenting experts??   It would be worth knowing how much these two legal wigs were paid for their opinion that leaving three toddlers alone in an unlocked ground floor holiday apartment was reasonable parenting.  Totally deluded.

 

The 'paralegal' can be with reasonable certainty as Richard Jones and, again, it is very probable that the barrister is Mr Michael Nicholls Q.C.

The involvement of the shadowy International Family Law Group (IFLG) is the key here. According to page 124 of 'Madeleine', Kare McCann wrote, quote: "One of the offers of help we'd received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry's. He worked for a firm specialising in family law, the IFLG..."

Neither of the two men were named in Kate McCann's book, and then on page 125 of her book, she maintains this air of mystery by adding:

"At the last two meetings the barrister and legal assistant were joined by a consultant named Hugh, whose profession was not at first explained ('Just call me Hugh', he said, enigmatically). It transpired that he was a former intelligence officer, now a kidnap negotiator and counsellor...Hugh had been brought in by a firm called Control Risks Group...an independent risk consultancy...The first session Hugh attended...had something of a James Bond atmosphere to it...He told us dispassionately that [issuing a reward] would have 'put a price on Madeleine's head'. I was very upset. The thought of anything we had done jeopardising Madeleine's life was too much to bear..."

The identity of 'Hugh' has not been established AFAIK.

But we do have the following clue to the identities of the paralegal and the barrister.

On Sunday, 13 May 2007, the IFLG issued a press brief release, naming Ann Thomas, ‘Managing Partner’ as the contact person.  It stated that ‘last week’ they and barrister Michael Nicholls QC had been instructed to act for the McCanns…and that details of how contributions could be made to help get Madeleine back would be made available ‘in the next couple of days.’

Presumably Nicholls was the barrister who reassured the McCanns about their ‘reasonable’ parenting.  The press release on headed paper contained four names, each with a title, one of which was Richard Jones, ‘Family Law Executive’. 'Family Law Executive' means nothing. 'Paralegal' is also a term with a vague definition - but is usually taken to mean someone who has qualified as a so-called 'Legal Executive' - i.e. has some knowledge of legal procedures, and has passed an examination in those procedures, but is not a fully qualified solicitor.

I would suggest that Kate McCann's 'paralegal' is Richard Jones.

[icabodcrane]

 

The 'paralegal' can be with reasonable certainty as Richard Jones and, again, it is very probable that the barrister is Mr Michael Nicholls Q.C.

The involvement of the shadowy International Family Law Group (IFLG) is the key here. According to page 124 of 'Madeleine', Kare McCann wrote, quote: "One of the offers of help we'd received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry's. He worked for a firm specialising in family law, the IFLG..."

Neither of the two men were named in Kate McCann's book, and then on page 125 of her book, she maintains this air of mystery by adding:

"At the last two meetings the barrister and legal assistant were joined by a consultant named Hugh, whose profession was not at first explained ('Just call me Hugh', he said, enigmatically). It transpired that he was a former intelligence officer, now a kidnap negotiator and counsellor...Hugh had been brought in by a firm called Control Risks Group...an independent risk consultancy...The first session Hugh attended...had something of a James Bond atmosphere to it...He told us dispassionately that [issuing a reward] would have 'put a price on Madeleine's head'. I was very upset. The thought of anything we had done jeopardising Madeleine's life was too much to bear..."

The identity of 'Hugh' has not been established AFAIK.

But we do have the following clue to the identities of the paralegal and the barrister.

On Sunday, 13 May 2007, the IFLG issued a press brief release, naming Ann Thomas, ‘Managing Partner’ as the contact person.  It stated that ‘last week’ they and barrister Michael Nicholls QC had been instructed to act for the McCanns…and that details of how contributions could be made to help get Madeleine back would be made available ‘in the next couple of days.’

Presumably Nicholls was the barrister who reassured the McCanns about their ‘reasonable’ parenting.  The press release on headed paper contained four names, each with a title, one of which was Richard Jones, ‘Family Law Executive’. 'Family Law Executive' means nothing. 'Paralegal' is also a term with a vague definition - but is usually taken to mean someone who has qualified as a so-called 'Legal Executive' - i.e. has some knowledge of legal procedures, and has passed an examination in those procedures, but is not a fully qualified solicitor.

I would suggest that Kate McCann's 'paralegal' is Richard Jones.

 

Thanks for that blonk

... and they were there within a week of Madeleine disappearing  ...  and an interview with  the police was cancelled in order to meet with them 

[TTSOFAFM]

The interview system we’d encountered on our previous visit – questions asked in Portuguese and verbally translated into English; answers given in English, translated into Portuguese and typed up by the interviewing officer – was exhausting for everyone. At the end of the interview the statement prepared by the officer would be printed out in Portuguese, verbally translated, on the spot, into English, and then signed by the interviewee. It was obvious that at every stage of the process the scope for mistakes in translation and misunderstandings was considerable.

I sat in the waiting area for eight hours before I was told that it was now too late for me to be interviewed and I should go home and come back the next day. Gerry was there for thirteen hours. When he finally returned to the apartment he related how Matt had been almost hysterical during his interview. Gerry had heard him shouting and crying. Apparently, it had been put to Matt that he’d handed Madeleine out through the window to a third party. It was like something out of Life on Mars.

Alan Pike was concerned about my wellbeing and asked for my rescheduled interview to be postponed for a few days. The PJ couldn’t have considered it all that important: it was 6 September before I was interviewed again.

McCann, Kate (2011-05-12). Madeleine (pp. 123-124). Random House UK. Kindle Edition.

Well let us put into context what Kate McCann is actually saying.  She sat there waiting to be interviewed and then told to go home.  The interviews were open to misunderstandings, people seem to forget that the McCanns never spoke Portuguese.

As for Alan Pike postponing Kate's scheduled interview on the 11th May, that previous night Kate McCann was informed by her husband that he heard their friend, Matt Oldfield, distressed at the accusations being directed at him that he handed Madeleine through the window to another person.  The cold stark realisation must have hit the McCanns then that the Police were trying to accuse their friends and ultimately them of harming Madeleine.

Goncalo Amaral in Chapter 1 says this about being made an arguido

It is legally impossible to continue to take statements from someone as a witness if these statements risk later turning against him. While a witness is making a statement about an ongoing case and at a given moment it is realised that he could himself be involved in an illegal act, he is constituted arguido. Thus, from then on, he has rights and duties. Contrary to what one reads in the press - above all the English -, the arguido is protected and acquires the right to silence which no one can reproach him for - which would not be the case if he were being heard as a witness.

Now surely the question should be, if the PJ thought that Matthew Oldfield had passed Madeleine through the window to another person why wasn't he made an arguido and given his right to silence?  Or was this just another case of trying to make someone confess to something they didn't do, and then make them an arguido?

It is no wonder the McCanns accepted the offer of professional legal advice, you and I would do exactly the same thing, if something happened abroad or even on our home ground.

One of the offers of help we’d received came from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry’s. He worked for a firm specializing in family law, the International Family Law Group (IFLG). It was difficult to know what this company could do but we decided it would be worth meeting them to discuss the possibilities. So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal.

McCann, Kate (2011-05-12). Madeleine (p. 124). Random House UK. Kindle Edition.

And we must not forget that it wasn't the McCanns that approached Michael Caplan first, after being made arguidos. It was Rachael Oldfield who put them in touch with Angus MacBride and Michael Caplan once the McCanns were made arguidos. Kate clearly speaks of how they were introduced to their lawyers.

Saturday 8 September. We were on tenterhooks all day, waiting to hear whether we would be allowed to go home. Rachael had found a couple of criminal lawyers in London she was sure could help us. Michael Caplan and Angus McBride of Kingsley Napley had worked on several high-profile cases, including the Pinochet extradition proceedings and the Stevens inquiry. Gerry gave them a call.

McCann, Kate (2011-05-12). Madeleine (p. 254). Random House UK. Kindle Edition.

Rachael Oldfield is a trained lawyer and had practiced law until going into another profession.  So it is obvious she would have contacts and would know people or friends of friends, in the legal profession.  She was in a position to help her friends, who had been made arguidos, and she did exactly what any person would do, especially knowing that the PJ tried to make her own husband confess to handing Madeleine through a window.

It is hardly surprising that trust was lost between the Tapas group - including the McCanns - and the PJ.  And people wonder why the Tapas members wouldn't hop on a plane back for a reconstruction, it is abundantly clear that they feared being accused of a heinous crime.  So they did what you and I would do, they sought proper legal advice before deciding whether to return to Portugal or not.  And upon that legal advice they decided not to return.  Kate and Gerry McCannn, however, agreed to return to Portugal for a reconstruction, they knew that they were legally bound to return to Portugal as and when required, due to them being arguidos.

So the truth of the matter is this, the McCanns never went running to lawyers, the help and legal assistance came via their friends and colleagues who knew people who worked for law firms.

Chinagirl, well said.   

[AnneGuedes]

Quote from: ferryman on Today at 04:25:20 AM

    It's always struck me as strange that Almeida never made any reference in his report to 'forced' or 'jemmied' shutters, and he thought the Mccanns were guilty.
______________________________________

How could he  ?  ....  the McCanns never made any such claims to the  Police

It was friends and family who were  given that particular narrative ...   before the McCanns had  even set foot inside a police station

The relevant point here isn't so much what they told their family and friends and what they told the police, but the fact they told, at the same time, two different stories : one for a close circle that rapidly spread through media echo chamber to the whole planet in a sorcerer's apprentice way and one for the police which, knowing how these shutters work and mainly worried about Madeleine, didn't consider it seriously.
We know the first wasn't true and they had to admit the second wasn't plausible. But they couldn't erase it, so they suggested the exit story, so absurd that it could be a red herring, which it was in fact. From the very beginning.
Why ? There's the rub.