If Only....!

[ferryman]

She was not offered a deal. Her solicitor himself said it was a misunderstanding. She was told what would be the punishment if she admitted to accidental death. That was not a deal that was simply making her aware of the facts hence her solicitor's use of the word misunderstanding. Still it seems you have already decided where the truth lies so no need for discussion.

The lawyer said they were not offered a plea-bargain, which they weren't ....

But they were emphatically and unreservedly offered a deal.

Mark Harrison's reports confirm it (even though he played no part in the nefarious double-dealing of certain members of the PJ).

[mercury]

If only the Portuguese had taken this course of action when Kate McCann claimed she had been offered a deal by them.

http://news.sky.com/story/1499912/amanda-knox-faces-trial-in-italy-for-slander


15

You want to read the facts on the Blacksmith Bureau, he nailed it all in one in this situation

[faithlilly]

But....but.....but even though her lawyer said it was simply a misunderstanding it must have happened because Kate says so.

[ferryman]

But....but.....but even though her lawyer said it was simply a misunderstanding it must have happened because Kate says so.

Broadly correct!

It wasn't a plea-bargain!

But it was emphatically and unreservedly (at least the offer of) a deal!

[faithlilly]

Broadly correct!

It wasn't a plea-bargain!

But it was emphatically and unreservedly (at least the offer of) a deal!

The quote in context :

'Inside the drab, tile-clad police station in Portimao, there is a television tuned to Sky News. Officers are monitoring the UK news network, which has mounted rolling coverage of the case they are investigating, for one reason: they want to know what the world is saying about them.

That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.

On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.'

[ferryman]

The quote in context :

'Inside the drab, tile-clad police station in Portimao, there is a television tuned to Sky News. Officers are monitoring the UK news network, which has mounted rolling coverage of the case they are investigating, for one reason: they want to know what the world is saying about them.

That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.

On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.'

Tremlett (who wrote that article, which I have read carefully) didn't take account of the full context.

[faithlilly]

Tremlett (who wrote that article, which I have read carefully) didn't take account of the full context.

Tremlett was perfectly aware of the full context of the proceedings and for you to pretend that your knowledge  gives you greater insight is frankly ridiculous.

[ferryman]

Tremlett was perfectly aware of the full context of the proceedings and for you to pretend that your knowledge  gives you greater insight is frankly ridiculous.

If Tremlett was aware of the full context, then his article was mendacious.

But I'm sure it wasn't ...

[ferryman]

Here is the full aritcle:

With prejudice
Unofficial sources and the demands of 24-hour news have led to a media storm around Gerry and Kate McCann that gets darker by the day
Giles Tremlett
Monday 17 September 2007 08.02 BST

Inside the drab, tile-clad police station in Portimao, there is a television tuned to Sky News. Officers are monitoring the UK news network, which has mounted rolling coverage of the case they are investigating, for one reason: they want to know what the world is saying about them.

That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.

On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.

That did not mean, of course, that Philomena McCann - one of many people speaking for what might broadly be called "the McCann camp" - was wrong about the rest of it. Portuguese police do seem to be considering accidental death followed by disposal of the corpse as a possibility in this most bizarre of cases. In this story without on-the-record sources, however, they have not even publicly confirmed that much.

It now seems incredible, however, to recall that the McCanns started suing Portugal's Tal & Qual magazine for saying just that a little over two weeks ago: Philomena McCann's statement gave British journalists the green light to start reporting the allegations against the McCanns - even though, if they are found not guilty in any future trial, editors could be sued.

The scene inside the police station helps explain something of the nature of what has become one of the world's biggest media storms. The journalists watch the police, the police watch the journalists and the world watches them all - showing an insatiable appetite for even the flimsiest reports about the McCann case.

Stir into the mix the relentless demands of 24-hour rolling journalism and some bitter, nationalistic warfare between sections of the British and Portuguese press and you get a messy, and occasionally nasty, story.

"The British press ... treats Portugal as a place full of incapable, careless incompetents," complained Francisco Moita Flores in Correio da Manha after a recent round of criticism of the Portuguese police.

Frustration reigns among journalists covering the case. Everybody who knows anything worthwhile is bound by Portugal's judicial secrecy laws not to talk. That includes the police, lawyers, court officials, the McCanns and almost anyone who has given evidence. That has not, of course, prevented the media providing a daily feast of "details". So where do these come from?

Kate and Gerry McCann might not be able to talk, but their extended family and a network of friends can, and do. Philomena, with her colourful Glaswegian vocabulary and willingness to attack the police, is among the most quoted - but there are many more.

The Portuguese police also talk, though the few gruff words issued by official spokesman Chief Inspector Olegario de Sousa rarely add anything to the story. Like any police force, however, they leak - especially to Portuguese journalists. Unfortunately the things they leak are often contradictory. For every "police source" claiming the evidence against the McCanns is strong, for example, another is ready to say it is not.

The McCanns have their own favourite journalists. Gerry McCann, for example, likes Sky's Ian Woods - who conducted the first television interview with them back in May. It was Sky who told the world the McCanns were leaving Portugal on September 9.

Although many commentators have professed amazement at the McCanns' supposedly skilful media management, this has, at times, proved chaotic. It was naive, for example, to believe that the respect showed to them in the days immediately after three-year-old Madeleine vanished would hold.

Muck-raking stories

In the early days the McCanns were allowed to set the rules for the press. They decided what happened, and when. The British media succumbed, largely, to a bout of communal sympathy. Police had said it was a kidnap. Robert Murat, an expatriate Briton, had been declared a formal suspect. He, as the McCanns do now, denied any involvement. That did not stop, however, pages and pages of muck-raking stories about him from appearing in newspapers in both Portugal and the UK.

The McCanns' early success with the press can be put down, in part, to the media experts they found working alongside them. The Mark Warner company, whose holiday apartments they had been staying in, already had a deal with PR company Bell Pottinger. That meant that Alex Woolfall, the company's crisis management head, was in Praia da Luz the day after Madeleine disappeared. When Woolfall left 10 days later, the Foreign Office stepped in. Media handlers arrived from London. They included former Daily Mirror journalist Sheree Dodd and, later, former BBC man Clarence Mitchell. Both Woolfall and Mitchell are remembered by reporters as key and immensely helpful sources as the McCann phenomenon took off.

After they left, however, things started going wrong. Portuguese newspapers started to publish unsympathetic stories at the end of June. As Portuguese journalists caught the mood music from police the relationship disintegrated further. Sandra Felgueiras, a feisty state television journalist obsessed by the family's supposed use of Calpol, became a particular bete noire.

Some Portuguese commentators are aware that their press, like some of their British counterparts, have gone too far. "The crowd now wants the parents to be the murderers because they are British (and, therefore, not Portuguese) and so that the worst of the British press has to surrender to the worst of the Portuguese press and admit that the latter were right," commented Mario Negreiros in Portugal's Jornal de Negocios.

Justine McGuinness, the campaign manager who took over after Mitchell left, stood down from the job last week; she is understood to have been exhausted by the intensity of the campaign. The McCanns have talked to, among others, former News of the World and Hello! editor Phil Hall about their future media needs, but seem to be finding it hard to hire a permanent replacement. Hanover PR, run by John Major's former press secretary Charles Lewington, was taking calls over the weekend, but stressed it was not working for the McCanns permanently.

It is hard to overestimate the global reach of the McCann story. The Associated Press, which rivals Reuters as the world's biggest global news agency, took reporters away from a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in northern Portugal to cover the McCanns' sudden change of fortune at Portimao police station. The decision paid off. The AP story was the most-read story on many US newspaper websites that day.

The strain on journalists in the Algarve has been immense. Working days have stretched for up to 18 hours or more. The McCann story has provided the British print media with the same test of modern, 24-hour, seven-day web-driven journalism as Virginia Tech gave their US counterparts.

Editors at newspaper websites realised back in May that McCann stories quickly shot to the top of their "most read" rankings. The best summary of the McCanns' current situation came from a Portuguese commentator, Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."

The media, said McCann lawyer Pinto de Abreu, may be doing even more damage than that. "The media coverage could prejudice not just people's reputations but also the investigation itself," he told journalists last week.

[faithlilly]

Here is the full aritcle:

With prejudice
Unofficial sources and the demands of 24-hour news have led to a media storm around Gerry and Kate McCann that gets darker by the day
Giles Tremlett
Monday 17 September 2007 08.02 BST

Inside the drab, tile-clad police station in Portimao, there is a television tuned to Sky News. Officers are monitoring the UK news network, which has mounted rolling coverage of the case they are investigating, for one reason: they want to know what the world is saying about them.

That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.

On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.

That did not mean, of course, that Philomena McCann - one of many people speaking for what might broadly be called "the McCann camp" - was wrong about the rest of it. Portuguese police do seem to be considering accidental death followed by disposal of the corpse as a possibility in this most bizarre of cases. In this story without on-the-record sources, however, they have not even publicly confirmed that much.

It now seems incredible, however, to recall that the McCanns started suing Portugal's Tal & Qual magazine for saying just that a little over two weeks ago: Philomena McCann's statement gave British journalists the green light to start reporting the allegations against the McCanns - even though, if they are found not guilty in any future trial, editors could be sued.

The scene inside the police station helps explain something of the nature of what has become one of the world's biggest media storms. The journalists watch the police, the police watch the journalists and the world watches them all - showing an insatiable appetite for even the flimsiest reports about the McCann case.

Stir into the mix the relentless demands of 24-hour rolling journalism and some bitter, nationalistic warfare between sections of the British and Portuguese press and you get a messy, and occasionally nasty, story.

"The British press ... treats Portugal as a place full of incapable, careless incompetents," complained Francisco Moita Flores in Correio da Manha after a recent round of criticism of the Portuguese police.

Frustration reigns among journalists covering the case. Everybody who knows anything worthwhile is bound by Portugal's judicial secrecy laws not to talk. That includes the police, lawyers, court officials, the McCanns and almost anyone who has given evidence. That has not, of course, prevented the media providing a daily feast of "details". So where do these come from?

Kate and Gerry McCann might not be able to talk, but their extended family and a network of friends can, and do. Philomena, with her colourful Glaswegian vocabulary and willingness to attack the police, is among the most quoted - but there are many more.

The Portuguese police also talk, though the few gruff words issued by official spokesman Chief Inspector Olegario de Sousa rarely add anything to the story. Like any police force, however, they leak - especially to Portuguese journalists. Unfortunately the things they leak are often contradictory. For every "police source" claiming the evidence against the McCanns is strong, for example, another is ready to say it is not.

The McCanns have their own favourite journalists. Gerry McCann, for example, likes Sky's Ian Woods - who conducted the first television interview with them back in May. It was Sky who told the world the McCanns were leaving Portugal on September 9.

Although many commentators have professed amazement at the McCanns' supposedly skilful media management, this has, at times, proved chaotic. It was naive, for example, to believe that the respect showed to them in the days immediately after three-year-old Madeleine vanished would hold.

Muck-raking stories

In the early days the McCanns were allowed to set the rules for the press. They decided what happened, and when. The British media succumbed, largely, to a bout of communal sympathy. Police had said it was a kidnap. Robert Murat, an expatriate Briton, had been declared a formal suspect. He, as the McCanns do now, denied any involvement. That did not stop, however, pages and pages of muck-raking stories about him from appearing in newspapers in both Portugal and the UK.

The McCanns' early success with the press can be put down, in part, to the media experts they found working alongside them. The Mark Warner company, whose holiday apartments they had been staying in, already had a deal with PR company Bell Pottinger. That meant that Alex Woolfall, the company's crisis management head, was in Praia da Luz the day after Madeleine disappeared. When Woolfall left 10 days later, the Foreign Office stepped in. Media handlers arrived from London. They included former Daily Mirror journalist Sheree Dodd and, later, former BBC man Clarence Mitchell. Both Woolfall and Mitchell are remembered by reporters as key and immensely helpful sources as the McCann phenomenon took off.

After they left, however, things started going wrong. Portuguese newspapers started to publish unsympathetic stories at the end of June. As Portuguese journalists caught the mood music from police the relationship disintegrated further. Sandra Felgueiras, a feisty state television journalist obsessed by the family's supposed use of Calpol, became a particular bete noire.

Some Portuguese commentators are aware that their press, like some of their British counterparts, have gone too far. "The crowd now wants the parents to be the murderers because they are British (and, therefore, not Portuguese) and so that the worst of the British press has to surrender to the worst of the Portuguese press and admit that the latter were right," commented Mario Negreiros in Portugal's Jornal de Negocios.

Justine McGuinness, the campaign manager who took over after Mitchell left, stood down from the job last week; she is understood to have been exhausted by the intensity of the campaign. The McCanns have talked to, among others, former News of the World and Hello! editor Phil Hall about their future media needs, but seem to be finding it hard to hire a permanent replacement. Hanover PR, run by John Major's former press secretary Charles Lewington, was taking calls over the weekend, but stressed it was not working for the McCanns permanently.

It is hard to overestimate the global reach of the McCann story. The Associated Press, which rivals Reuters as the world's biggest global news agency, took reporters away from a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in northern Portugal to cover the McCanns' sudden change of fortune at Portimao police station. The decision paid off. The AP story was the most-read story on many US newspaper websites that day.

The strain on journalists in the Algarve has been immense. Working days have stretched for up to 18 hours or more. The McCann story has provided the British print media with the same test of modern, 24-hour, seven-day web-driven journalism as Virginia Tech gave their US counterparts.

Editors at newspaper websites realised back in May that McCann stories quickly shot to the top of their "most read" rankings. The best summary of the McCanns' current situation came from a Portuguese commentator, Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."

The media, said McCann lawyer Pinto de Abreu, may be doing even more damage than that. "The media coverage could prejudice not just people's reputations but also the investigation itself," he told journalists last week.

So what difference does the rest of the article add to our knowledge with regard to de Abreu's statement and Tremlett's ignorance with regard to context ?

[Alfred R Jones]

How on earth does Amanda Knox defend herself on this charge?  It is her word against the word of the police, how can she hope to prove that they did coerce her?  This court case is a disgrace and the police should not be allowed to sue for slander, else no one would ever dare call them to account for anything that takes place behind closed doors in a cell or interview room.

[Brietta]

Here is the full aritcle:

With prejudice
Unofficial sources and the demands of 24-hour news have led to a media storm around Gerry and Kate McCann that gets darker by the day
Giles Tremlett
Monday 17 September 2007 08.02 BST

Inside the drab, tile-clad police station in Portimao, there is a television tuned to Sky News. Officers are monitoring the UK news network, which has mounted rolling coverage of the case they are investigating, for one reason: they want to know what the world is saying about them.

That explains the outrage 10 days ago, on the evening that Gerry and Kate McCann were declared formal suspects, or arguidos, in the disappearance of their daughter. Police were still questioning Gerry McCann when, already, his sister Philomena was telling Sky they had offered Kate McCann a reduced two-year sentence if she admitted to killing her daughter accidentally, hiding the body and then secretly disposing of it weeks later.

On this occasion the police officers were right to be angry. Like many things said about the McCann affair over the past days and months, the story was wrong. There was no offer of a plea bargain. It had all been "a misunderstanding", the McCann lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, explained the following day.

That did not mean, of course, that Philomena McCann - one of many people speaking for what might broadly be called "the McCann camp" - was wrong about the rest of it. Portuguese police do seem to be considering accidental death followed by disposal of the corpse as a possibility in this most bizarre of cases. In this story without on-the-record sources, however, they have not even publicly confirmed that much.

It now seems incredible, however, to recall that the McCanns started suing Portugal's Tal & Qual magazine for saying just that a little over two weeks ago: Philomena McCann's statement gave British journalists the green light to start reporting the allegations against the McCanns - even though, if they are found not guilty in any future trial, editors could be sued.

The scene inside the police station helps explain something of the nature of what has become one of the world's biggest media storms. The journalists watch the police, the police watch the journalists and the world watches them all - showing an insatiable appetite for even the flimsiest reports about the McCann case.

Stir into the mix the relentless demands of 24-hour rolling journalism and some bitter, nationalistic warfare between sections of the British and Portuguese press and you get a messy, and occasionally nasty, story.

"The British press ... treats Portugal as a place full of incapable, careless incompetents," complained Francisco Moita Flores in Correio da Manha after a recent round of criticism of the Portuguese police.

Frustration reigns among journalists covering the case. Everybody who knows anything worthwhile is bound by Portugal's judicial secrecy laws not to talk. That includes the police, lawyers, court officials, the McCanns and almost anyone who has given evidence. That has not, of course, prevented the media providing a daily feast of "details". So where do these come from?

Kate and Gerry McCann might not be able to talk, but their extended family and a network of friends can, and do. Philomena, with her colourful Glaswegian vocabulary and willingness to attack the police, is among the most quoted - but there are many more.

The Portuguese police also talk, though the few gruff words issued by official spokesman Chief Inspector Olegario de Sousa rarely add anything to the story. Like any police force, however, they leak - especially to Portuguese journalists. Unfortunately the things they leak are often contradictory. For every "police source" claiming the evidence against the McCanns is strong, for example, another is ready to say it is not.

The McCanns have their own favourite journalists. Gerry McCann, for example, likes Sky's Ian Woods - who conducted the first television interview with them back in May. It was Sky who told the world the McCanns were leaving Portugal on September 9.

Although many commentators have professed amazement at the McCanns' supposedly skilful media management, this has, at times, proved chaotic. It was naive, for example, to believe that the respect showed to them in the days immediately after three-year-old Madeleine vanished would hold.

Muck-raking stories

In the early days the McCanns were allowed to set the rules for the press. They decided what happened, and when. The British media succumbed, largely, to a bout of communal sympathy. Police had said it was a kidnap. Robert Murat, an expatriate Briton, had been declared a formal suspect. He, as the McCanns do now, denied any involvement. That did not stop, however, pages and pages of muck-raking stories about him from appearing in newspapers in both Portugal and the UK.

The McCanns' early success with the press can be put down, in part, to the media experts they found working alongside them. The Mark Warner company, whose holiday apartments they had been staying in, already had a deal with PR company Bell Pottinger. That meant that Alex Woolfall, the company's crisis management head, was in Praia da Luz the day after Madeleine disappeared. When Woolfall left 10 days later, the Foreign Office stepped in. Media handlers arrived from London. They included former Daily Mirror journalist Sheree Dodd and, later, former BBC man Clarence Mitchell. Both Woolfall and Mitchell are remembered by reporters as key and immensely helpful sources as the McCann phenomenon took off.

After they left, however, things started going wrong. Portuguese newspapers started to publish unsympathetic stories at the end of June. As Portuguese journalists caught the mood music from police the relationship disintegrated further. Sandra Felgueiras, a feisty state television journalist obsessed by the family's supposed use of Calpol, became a particular bete noire.

Some Portuguese commentators are aware that their press, like some of their British counterparts, have gone too far. "The crowd now wants the parents to be the murderers because they are British (and, therefore, not Portuguese) and so that the worst of the British press has to surrender to the worst of the Portuguese press and admit that the latter were right," commented Mario Negreiros in Portugal's Jornal de Negocios.

Justine McGuinness, the campaign manager who took over after Mitchell left, stood down from the job last week; she is understood to have been exhausted by the intensity of the campaign. The McCanns have talked to, among others, former News of the World and Hello! editor Phil Hall about their future media needs, but seem to be finding it hard to hire a permanent replacement. Hanover PR, run by John Major's former press secretary Charles Lewington, was taking calls over the weekend, but stressed it was not working for the McCanns permanently.

It is hard to overestimate the global reach of the McCann story. The Associated Press, which rivals Reuters as the world's biggest global news agency, took reporters away from a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in northern Portugal to cover the McCanns' sudden change of fortune at Portimao police station. The decision paid off. The AP story was the most-read story on many US newspaper websites that day.

The strain on journalists in the Algarve has been immense. Working days have stretched for up to 18 hours or more. The McCann story has provided the British print media with the same test of modern, 24-hour, seven-day web-driven journalism as Virginia Tech gave their US counterparts.

Editors at newspaper websites realised back in May that McCann stories quickly shot to the top of their "most read" rankings. The best summary of the McCanns' current situation came from a Portuguese commentator, Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."

The media, said McCann lawyer Pinto de Abreu, may be doing even more damage than that. "The media coverage could prejudice not just people's reputations but also the investigation itself," he told journalists last week.

Thanks for that, Ferryman. 

The quote made by Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha reinforces my opinion that the McCanns were made arguidos with malice aforethought with it known exactly how it would be perceived.

There are those whose opinions have been formed taking the arguido status as their benchmark despite the fact there was neither charge or prosecution; but looking on the bright side ~ it did help to sell a lot of books.


**snip
"The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."

[ferryman]

Remove it you wish!

But here is the low-down on plea-bargain (as it relates to the McCanns) ....

http://amaralfiction.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/plea-bargains-and-lies-but-not-lies-you.html

[faithlilly]

Remove it you wish!

But here is the low-down on plea-bargain (as it relates to the McCanns) ....

http://amaralfiction.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/plea-bargains-and-lies-but-not-lies-you.html

I much prefer Blacksmith's compelling narrative :


    

An interlude The Blacksmith Bureau

By John Blacksmith
Friday, 5 August 2011 at 16:46

John Blacksmith writes: Before returning to the exoneration question we need to spend more time on the critical meetings between the police, parents and their lawyer on the night of September 6 2007. Twenty four hours later Gerry McCann outlined a plan for he, his wife and their their children to flee across the border by car. What had happened?
Carlos Pinto de Abreu

Carlos Pinto de Abreu. He knows.

Something doesn't add up

Many readers have been puzzled by pages 240 – 245 of Kate's book which describe the meeting with their lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, and the police interviews which preceded it. Some have said that they can't make any sense of the meeting, others that there is something strange or "wrong" about the section. To sum up, the lawyer's supposed words and the McCanns' actions and emotions don't seem to match up.

The Bureau suggested that Gerry McCann had "wanted" to confess and that he changed his mind and argued instead that they should tough it out hoping that the evidence against them was too weak to gain a conviction. That is the only interpretation that appears to make sense of what we know; as a Lisbon judge might say, however, it is only an interpretation.

Deal or no deal?

But first of all, what, in essence is Kate McCann's claim? It was expressed by Philomena McCann when she contacted the news media under instructions from Kate McCann on September 7.

"They tried to get her to confess to having accidentally killed Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer - 'if you say you killed Madeleine by accident and then hid her and disposed of the body, then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less,'"

This was no vague media report: as Kate McCann describes on page 246 of her book she and her husband were on the phone for around two hours that morning "calling family and friends to make them aware of the situation and to give them the green light to voice their outrage and despair if they wanted to. Nobody needed a second invitation". Philomena McCann gave the same version to all the major news media.

And the official police version? They stated publicly and categorically that it was untrue: the Portuguese police do not make deals. There is a clear conflict therefore – once again – between the police version of events and the claims of the McCanns. Either the police version is untrue or that of the McCanns is untrue and there is no possibility of reconciling them. For those who believe the McCanns were the victims of a police conspiracy throughout the affair that is no problem; for the rest of us the claim needs to be looked at carefully.

The missing evening

According to Kate McCann's book she went into her police interview at 2.55 PM on September 6. Apart from a fifteen minute break at 5 PM the questioning went on until 7.50 that evening in an atmosphere that was "quite amenable". There was a break, following which, she writes, her lawyer "disappeared into a meeting" with several of the PJ officers, leaving her feeling "upset and frustrated". As you would if your lawyer had gone off without instructions or any warning and left you for over two hours. If.

"At last," says Kate McCann, "Carlos re-appeared." The time, therefore, would be just after ten. She then adds that the questioning finally finished as 12.40. What happened during those two and a half hours? Kate McCann has nothing whatever to say except for one ten second snippet – that in the corridor outside a room one of the officers, Paolo Ferreira, told her that she should listen very carefully to what her lawyer had to say since it was very important.

According to the police records of her statement:

"At this moment, and because it is late, 11 p.m., the interview was interrupted and will be continued the next morning. She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the interpreter and the defence lawyer." Significantly,perhaps, the questioning had ended at this point:

"At 10 p.m. she got up from the table, as it was her turn after having been replaced by Matt. She entered the apartment by the balcony door which was closed, but as already said, not locked."

It should be clear by now that Kate McCann has deliberately made no attempt to describe what actually happened on that critical evening, in stark contrast to her descriptions of the August 8 interview, which cover pages 212 to 214 of her book. There is no description of the attitude or demeanour of the police so graphically described in the August 8 pages, almost none about her state of mind, almost nothing about her discussions with her lawyer; the only time she quotes a police officer – out of many hours of questioning – is the Ferreira comment above which just happens to fit in with her "deal" claim and which just happens to have taken place in a corridor away from the stenographers and witnesses.
Kate McCann and Carlos Pinto de Abreu

He won't testify. But he talks.

Crunch time

And so we come to the discussions in the villa later that night. To make any sense at all of Kate McCann's description the reader has to bear in mind that both the lawyer, who has a record of this discussion, and a second witness, his assistant, were present, thus putting certain constraints on what she can claim Abreu said. This is the reason for the apparent senselessness that so many readers have noticed in the section, as though the records of two different conversations have been mixed up. The chronology is quite unclear and the reader has to study the text very closely indeed to know just when Kate McCann is addressing Abreu (rarely) and when she is talking rhetorically and melodramatically to the reader.

First, Abreu's description of what the police had said, as mediated by Kate McCann in the book. Does it match what Kate McCann claims?

It does not. Here is Philomena with the authorised version again:

"They tried to get her to confess to having accidentally killed Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer - 'if you say you killed Madeleine by accident and then hid her and disposed of the body, then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less." [my italics]

We do not have a similar public record of what her lawyer actually said in quotes; we have Kate McCann's paraphrase of what he said:

If Kate McCann admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment and
If she confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body then
The sentence she would receive would be much more lenient than if she was "charged" [sic] with homicide.
Well yes, it would be wouldn't it, for Christ's sake? What else could it be?

Nowhere does she quote Abreu – who as I say has a record of the conversation – as saying what Kate McCann claimed via her relative on September 7, "if you say you killed Madeleine by accident". That is an invention by Kate McCann passed on to Philomena McCann to be given to the media.

Nowhere does she quote Abreu as saying that the police said "then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less." That is an invention by Kate McCann passed on to Philomena McCann to be given to the media.

And that's it. Kate McCann, four years later and now having to give a description of the "proposal" for the first time, has completely withdrawn her initial claims (in italics above). But without those claims what she describes is not a deal! It is a statement of fact. There is no carrot and stick: no reward is being offered to her on the one hand and no threat is being made on the other.

A pity it took four years for it to come out.

How dare they!

Following her lawyer's factual statement Kate McCann then goes off into transports of shock and indignation, how dare they, this tactic isn't going to work with me, blah, blah. Trouble is, there is no record that she actually said this to Abreu – who, I repeat, has a record of the conversation – rather than to the pages of Madeleine four years later.

And try as she might to take the couple of sentences she claims to be quoting from Abreu out of context and chronology to maintain the fiction of a proffered deal,with her earlier claims deleted they now make no sense. "You need to think about it," Abreu says at one point, though Kate McCann uses the word "insisted". Think about what? Since no deal has been offered he cannot be talking of acceptance of a deal. And, "it would be only one of you. Gerry could go back to work". Yes, he could. So what?

There is no point in going through the rest of this lamentable chapter to see the various ways in which Kate McCann has endeavoured to complete the impossible task of quoting Abreu more or less accurately when the original claims which justified it being called a deal have been deleted. The reader merely has to check. Her ringing  peroration, "do you want me to lie? What would you do, Carlos?" again makes no sense with the revised wording: the police haven't asked her to lie, her lawyer hasn't brought her a message asking her to lie. And nor does Gerry's tearful collapse and cries of "we're finished, our life is over" immediately following her description of the harmless non-proposal make any sense.

But of course it wasn't a reaction to a non-existent, gun to the head deal, was it? Because a page earlier, before the "deal" was mentioned, Kate McCann was writing, "I could see by this time that Gerry was beginning to crack". So what was it that made him first "crack" and then, eventually, collapse?

He began to crack, according to his wife, as his lawyer finished outlining the apparent strength of the case against them, given on the same page. That certainly does make sense and so does his eventual recovery from despair after he's thought the evidence through, recovered himself and made the judgement that, despite what his lawyer had told him, there was a good chance that if they hung on and admitted nothing the evidence might not be strong enough to convict either of them of anything.

Which is exactly what they did.

Doing what you know

In conclusion the reader may note what happened next, after they took the decision not to confess and Gerry asked their lawyer "whether he was up to the job" of defending them on the new basis.

On a previous occasion, the McCanns, having made up their mind about events, made desperate phone calls in the middle of the night seeking assistance from those they thought might help them, followed by calls to friends and family asking them to contact the media with their version of events ahead of that of the police.

That was on the night of May 3 and the morning of May 4 2007.

On the night of September 6 and the morning of September 7, Gerry McCann rang the British police officer Bob Small and desperately sought his help, after which both parents made calls to friends and family asking them to contact the media with their version of events ahead of that of the police.

Enough said. The evidence shows – and Abreu knows – that no deal was ever offered.

[ferryman]

I much prefer Blacksmith's compelling narrative :


    

An interlude The Blacksmith Bureau

By John Blacksmith
Friday, 5 August 2011 at 16:46

John Blacksmith writes: Before returning to the exoneration question we need to spend more time on the critical meetings between the police, parents and their lawyer on the night of September 6 2007. Twenty four hours later Gerry McCann outlined a plan for he, his wife and their their children to flee across the border by car. What had happened?
Carlos Pinto de Abreu

Carlos Pinto de Abreu. He knows.

Something doesn't add up

Many readers have been puzzled by pages 240 – 245 of Kate's book which describe the meeting with their lawyer, Carlos Pinto de Abreu, and the police interviews which preceded it. Some have said that they can't make any sense of the meeting, others that there is something strange or "wrong" about the section. To sum up, the lawyer's supposed words and the McCanns' actions and emotions don't seem to match up.

The Bureau suggested that Gerry McCann had "wanted" to confess and that he changed his mind and argued instead that they should tough it out hoping that the evidence against them was too weak to gain a conviction. That is the only interpretation that appears to make sense of what we know; as a Lisbon judge might say, however, it is only an interpretation.

Deal or no deal?

But first of all, what, in essence is Kate McCann's claim? It was expressed by Philomena McCann when she contacted the news media under instructions from Kate McCann on September 7.

"They tried to get her to confess to having accidentally killed Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer - 'if you say you killed Madeleine by accident and then hid her and disposed of the body, then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less,'"

This was no vague media report: as Kate McCann describes on page 246 of her book she and her husband were on the phone for around two hours that morning "calling family and friends to make them aware of the situation and to give them the green light to voice their outrage and despair if they wanted to. Nobody needed a second invitation". Philomena McCann gave the same version to all the major news media.

And the official police version? They stated publicly and categorically that it was untrue: the Portuguese police do not make deals. There is a clear conflict therefore – once again – between the police version of events and the claims of the McCanns. Either the police version is untrue or that of the McCanns is untrue and there is no possibility of reconciling them. For those who believe the McCanns were the victims of a police conspiracy throughout the affair that is no problem; for the rest of us the claim needs to be looked at carefully.

The missing evening

According to Kate McCann's book she went into her police interview at 2.55 PM on September 6. Apart from a fifteen minute break at 5 PM the questioning went on until 7.50 that evening in an atmosphere that was "quite amenable". There was a break, following which, she writes, her lawyer "disappeared into a meeting" with several of the PJ officers, leaving her feeling "upset and frustrated". As you would if your lawyer had gone off without instructions or any warning and left you for over two hours. If.

"At last," says Kate McCann, "Carlos re-appeared." The time, therefore, would be just after ten. She then adds that the questioning finally finished as 12.40. What happened during those two and a half hours? Kate McCann has nothing whatever to say except for one ten second snippet – that in the corridor outside a room one of the officers, Paolo Ferreira, told her that she should listen very carefully to what her lawyer had to say since it was very important.

According to the police records of her statement:

"At this moment, and because it is late, 11 p.m., the interview was interrupted and will be continued the next morning. She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the interpreter and the defence lawyer." Significantly,perhaps, the questioning had ended at this point:

"At 10 p.m. she got up from the table, as it was her turn after having been replaced by Matt. She entered the apartment by the balcony door which was closed, but as already said, not locked."

It should be clear by now that Kate McCann has deliberately made no attempt to describe what actually happened on that critical evening, in stark contrast to her descriptions of the August 8 interview, which cover pages 212 to 214 of her book. There is no description of the attitude or demeanour of the police so graphically described in the August 8 pages, almost none about her state of mind, almost nothing about her discussions with her lawyer; the only time she quotes a police officer – out of many hours of questioning – is the Ferreira comment above which just happens to fit in with her "deal" claim and which just happens to have taken place in a corridor away from the stenographers and witnesses.
Kate McCann and Carlos Pinto de Abreu

He won't testify. But he talks.

Crunch time

And so we come to the discussions in the villa later that night. To make any sense at all of Kate McCann's description the reader has to bear in mind that both the lawyer, who has a record of this discussion, and a second witness, his assistant, were present, thus putting certain constraints on what she can claim Abreu said. This is the reason for the apparent senselessness that so many readers have noticed in the section, as though the records of two different conversations have been mixed up. The chronology is quite unclear and the reader has to study the text very closely indeed to know just when Kate McCann is addressing Abreu (rarely) and when she is talking rhetorically and melodramatically to the reader.

First, Abreu's description of what the police had said, as mediated by Kate McCann in the book. Does it match what Kate McCann claims?

It does not. Here is Philomena with the authorised version again:

"They tried to get her to confess to having accidentally killed Madeleine by offering her a deal through her lawyer - 'if you say you killed Madeleine by accident and then hid her and disposed of the body, then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less." [my italics]

We do not have a similar public record of what her lawyer actually said in quotes; we have Kate McCann's paraphrase of what he said:

If Kate McCann admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment and
If she confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body then
The sentence she would receive would be much more lenient than if she was "charged" [sic] with homicide.
Well yes, it would be wouldn't it, for Christ's sake? What else could it be?

Nowhere does she quote Abreu – who as I say has a record of the conversation – as saying what Kate McCann claimed via her relative on September 7, "if you say you killed Madeleine by accident". That is an invention by Kate McCann passed on to Philomena McCann to be given to the media.

Nowhere does she quote Abreu as saying that the police said "then we can guarantee you a two-year jail sentence or even less." That is an invention by Kate McCann passed on to Philomena McCann to be given to the media.

And that's it. Kate McCann, four years later and now having to give a description of the "proposal" for the first time, has completely withdrawn her initial claims (in italics above). But without those claims what she describes is not a deal! It is a statement of fact. There is no carrot and stick: no reward is being offered to her on the one hand and no threat is being made on the other.

A pity it took four years for it to come out.

How dare they!

Following her lawyer's factual statement Kate McCann then goes off into transports of shock and indignation, how dare they, this tactic isn't going to work with me, blah, blah. Trouble is, there is no record that she actually said this to Abreu – who, I repeat, has a record of the conversation – rather than to the pages of Madeleine four years later.

And try as she might to take the couple of sentences she claims to be quoting from Abreu out of context and chronology to maintain the fiction of a proffered deal,with her earlier claims deleted they now make no sense. "You need to think about it," Abreu says at one point, though Kate McCann uses the word "insisted". Think about what? Since no deal has been offered he cannot be talking of acceptance of a deal. And, "it would be only one of you. Gerry could go back to work". Yes, he could. So what?

There is no point in going through the rest of this lamentable chapter to see the various ways in which Kate McCann has endeavoured to complete the impossible task of quoting Abreu more or less accurately when the original claims which justified it being called a deal have been deleted. The reader merely has to check. Her ringing  peroration, "do you want me to lie? What would you do, Carlos?" again makes no sense with the revised wording: the police haven't asked her to lie, her lawyer hasn't brought her a message asking her to lie. And nor does Gerry's tearful collapse and cries of "we're finished, our life is over" immediately following her description of the harmless non-proposal make any sense.

But of course it wasn't a reaction to a non-existent, gun to the head deal, was it? Because a page earlier, before the "deal" was mentioned, Kate McCann was writing, "I could see by this time that Gerry was beginning to crack". So what was it that made him first "crack" and then, eventually, collapse?

He began to crack, according to his wife, as his lawyer finished outlining the apparent strength of the case against them, given on the same page. That certainly does make sense and so does his eventual recovery from despair after he's thought the evidence through, recovered himself and made the judgement that, despite what his lawyer had told him, there was a good chance that if they hung on and admitted nothing the evidence might not be strong enough to convict either of them of anything.

Which is exactly what they did.

Doing what you know

In conclusion the reader may note what happened next, after they took the decision not to confess and Gerry asked their lawyer "whether he was up to the job" of defending them on the new basis.

On a previous occasion, the McCanns, having made up their mind about events, made desperate phone calls in the middle of the night seeking assistance from those they thought might help them, followed by calls to friends and family asking them to contact the media with their version of events ahead of that of the police.

That was on the night of May 3 and the morning of May 4 2007.

On the night of September 6 and the morning of September 7, Gerry McCann rang the British police officer Bob Small and desperately sought his help, after which both parents made calls to friends and family asking them to contact the media with their version of events ahead of that of the police.

Enough said. The evidence shows – and Abreu knows – that no deal was ever offered.

There can be no dispute that Mark Harrison was tasked -- by the PJ -- to consider that Madeleine had been murdered. 

His report says so.

Why is that, do you suppose?