UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on January 14, 2017, 11:40:28 PM
-
What advantage was achieved by lying about the Huelva trip? What is known about this trip?
Issue raised "http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7870.msg375890#msg375890
Research.
The postponement:02 August 2007 http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-huelva-trip/
[From ‘Madeleine’ by Kate McCann: “We’d never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn’t seem to have a choice… As it happened, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip.”]
-
For context full passage.
'That morning Gerry and I, along with Jon and a colleague, were preparing to drive to Huelva in Spain to put up posters of Madeleine. Jon was intending to do some filming and several of the British journalists were going to join us there, on the give-and-take principle: it would give them a story centred on Madeleine, rather than on us, and this in turn would publicize our efforts. As I was dropping Sean and Amelie off at Toddler Club, I had a phone call from Gerry. The police wanted to come over at 10am. Something to do with forensics, they’d said. Great timing. And forensics? What was that all about?
We’d never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn’t seem to have a choice. As it happened, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn’t feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa? We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.
My mum, dad, Brian and Janet set off for the town to get out of the way before the police arrived. Ten o’clock came and went, as did lunchtime, then the afternoon. It was 5pm when they eventually showed up. They told us they wanted to shoot some video footage of our clothes and possessions. The forensics people would then take these away and return them the following day. They offered no explanation as to why they were doing this. Gerry and I just assumed it was on the suggestion of the British team, who had no doubt pointed out that it should have been done much earlier. We could kind of see the point: after all, the abductor could have brushed against some of our belongings and left traces of his DNA. Even at this late stage, it might be possible for some vital information to be retrieved. We were even quite pleased this was happening, that something was happening which might help find Madeleine.'
-
The McCanns were bound by judicial secrecy at the time, so could not reveal the real reason for the cancelled trip. Some think that when asked the McCanns should have said "no comment" which was an option, but they chose to use Gerry's genuine earlier tummy upset as a "temporary holding measure" against an inevitable upsurge in scurrilous speculation. The fact that Kate McCann subsequently explains all in her book (something she was under no pressure to do) speaks clearly of her basic honesty and desire to set the record straight.
-
The McCanns were bound by judicial secrecy at the time, so could not reveal the real reason for the cancelled trip. Some think that when asked the McCanns should have said "no comment" which was an option, but they chose to use Gerry's genuine earlier tummy upset as a "temporary holding measure" against an inevitable upsurge in scurrilous speculation. The fact that Kate McCann subsequently explains all in her book (something she was under no pressure to do) speaks clearly of her basic honesty and desire to set the record straight.
She admits to a lie. Who can she possibly be described as honest?
-
She admits to a lie. Who can she possibly be described as honest?
She is honest because she admits to it, unless you're claiming she's lying when she said she told a lie? She had no need to write about this detail in her book so why did she, apart from a desire to tell a truthful account?
-
She is honest because she admits to it, unless you're claiming she's lying when she said she told a lie? She had no need to write about this detail in her book so why did she, apart from a desire to tell a truthful account?
If she was honest she wouldn't have had to admit that she lied.
-
If she was honest she wouldn't have had to admit that she lied.
So, do you think that because she told this lie, then admitted she lied in her book (when she was under no obligation to refer to the lie) that this basically proves she is a dishonest person?
-
She admits to a lie. Who can she possibly be described as honest?
Oh come off it Faith - the reason why the phrase 'pulling a sickie' is so well known is because so many people have done it in their time. It's wild exaggeration to say all those people should be branded as DISHONEST people for the rest of their lives.
We all lie for various reasons - usually to be diplomatic or because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings.
The McCanns are no different IMO. They had had made arrangements which involved other people and didn't want to cancel them - and so they pulled a sickie - which made no difference to what happened with the PJ - except that it happened at a later time.
Nothing 'sinister' in any of that IMO - but then I'm not poring over every word they spoke specifically looking for ANYTHING - no matter how small - to find fault with.
-
Oh come off it Faith - the reason why the phrase 'pulling a sickie' is so well known is because so many people have done it in their time. It's wild exaggeration to say all those people should be branded as DISHONEST people for the rest of their lives.
We all lie for various reasons - usually to be diplomatic or because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings.
The McCanns are no different IMO. They had had made arrangements which involved other people and didn't want to cancel them - and so they pulled a sickie - which made no difference to what happened with the PJ - except that it happened at a later time.
Nothing 'sinister' in any of that IMO - but then I'm not poring over every word they spoke specifically looking for ANYTHING - no matter how small - to find fault with.
Faithlilly's hero Blacksmith is always harping on about this detail as if it tells us everything we need to know about the McCanns - his blog is littered with references to it. If this is all the [ censored word ]s got, then they aint got alot!
-
Oh come off it Faith - the reason why the phrase 'pulling a sickie' is so well known is because so many people have done it in their time. It's wild exaggeration to say all those people should be branded as DISHONEST people for the rest of their lives.
We all lie for various reasons - usually to be diplomatic or because we don't want to hurt someone's feelings.
The McCanns are no different IMO. They had had made arrangements which involved other people and didn't want to cancel them - and so they pulled a sickie - which made no difference to what happened with the PJ - except that it happened at a later time.
Nothing 'sinister' in any of that IMO - but then I'm not poring over every word they spoke specifically looking for ANYTHING - no matter how small - to find fault with.
No matter which way you slice it Benice Kate lied because if the fact that the PJ were doing forensics on their villa got out then the world and his wife would know that they were under suspicion of playing a part in their daughter's disappearance. It was a face-saving excercise, no more, no less. And if they can use that tactic once........!
-
In my opinion people who use this passage in Kate's book as evidence of the McCanns alleged dishonesty generally are really incredibly stupid and / or malicious people. Just sayin' like.
If you have to resort to name calling I'm afraid you've lost the argument Alfie.
-
If you have to resort to name calling I'm afraid you've lost the argument Alfie.
I didn't call anyone here a name, just stated my opinion.
-
No matter which way you slice it Benice Kate lied because if the fact that the PJ were doing forensics on their villa got out then the world and his wife would know that they were under suspicion of playing a part in their daughter's disappearance. It was a face-saving excercise, no more, no less. And if they can use that tactic once........!
And she admitted it in her book, proving what an honest woman she is, keen to set the record straight.
-
Instead of making up a story of fiction the McCann's should have embraced the event if they had nothing to hide and reveal publicly to the press what was going on. Unfortunately, we have seen throughout the original investigaation an arrogance seldom seen in missing child cases and it is this arrogance which tends to lead police down a particular road.
If my child was missing I would have been a police HQ every day conversing with those leading the enquiries and giving every possible assistance to them. Not so in this case apparently?
-
Instead of making up a story of fiction the McCann's should have embraced the event if they had nothing to hide and reveal publicly to the press what was going on. Unfortunately, we have seen throughout the original investigaation an arrogance seldom seen in missing child cases and it is this arrogance which tends to lead police down a particular road.
If my child was missing I would have been a police HQ every day conversing with those leading the enquiries and giving every possible assistance to them. Not so in this case apparently?
so you think the McCanns should have breached judicial secrecy about the case to the world's press do you?
-
so you think the McCanns should have breached judicial secrecy about the case to the world's press do you?
Behave Alfie. They breached officially secrecy again and again. You know it and I know it. Kate texted what she was being asked while she was being questioned. This was a face-saving exercise, no more, no less.
-
Behave Alfie. They breached officially secrecy again and again. You know it and I know it. Kate texted what she was being asked while she was being questioned. This was a face-saving exercise, no more, no less.
I wasn't addressing you, I was asking John who said that in his opinion the McCanns should have "embraced the event" of their property being searched by dogs, and reveal publicly to the press what was going on. That woud certainly have been a flagrant brief of judicial secrecy, so clearly that is what John thinks they should have done, ie: risk facing criminal charges for breaching judicical secrecy to tell the world's media that the police were sending in the dogs. Yes, a very wise move all round, I'm sure!
-
I wasn't addressing you, I was asking John who said that in his opinion the McCanns should have "embraced the event" of their property being searched by dogs, and reveal publicly to the press what was going on. That woud certainly have been a flagrant brief of judicial secrecy, so clearly that is what John thinks they should have done, ie: risk facing criminal charges for breaching judicical secrecy to tell the world's media that the police were sending in the dogs. Yes, a very wise move all round, I'm sure!
This is a public forum and therefore I will reply to any post I chose.
As to your point even Kate admits that breaking judicial secrecy was a secondary consideration to keeping the public in the dark.
'We didn’t feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa? We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.'
-
Everything you need to know about this event is here:
As it happened, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn’t feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa? We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.
1) Gerry DID have a mild stomach upset, so whilst not the main reason for not going, was still not a lie.
2) Judicial secrecy DID prevent them from giving the main reason
3) Yes, the advantage of not breaking judicical secrecy (apart from not facing charges for doing so) is that it potentially kept the speculation at bay - a tactic which failed miserably anyway.
-
Everything you need to know about this event is here:
1) Gerry DID have a mild stomach upset, so whilst not the main reason for not going, was still not a lie.
2) Judicial secrecy DID prevent them from giving the main reason
3) Yes, the advantage of not breaking judicical secrecy (apart from not facing charges for doing so) is that it potentially kept the speculation at bay - a tactic which failed miserably anyway.
Were they so naive that they thought hiding the imminent inspection of the villa from the worlds press would go unnoticed?
-
Simple question - does telling a lie once to get out of doing something ("pulling a sickie") mean that one is not to be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all, for the rest of one's life?
-
Were they so naive that they thought hiding the imminent inspection of the villa from the worlds press would go unnoticed?
What other explanation have you got? I notice you didn't respond to my question above. You think they should have held a press conference to reveal details of the case and break judicial secrecy, correct? What advantage would that have conferred on them, in your opinion?
-
Everything you need to know about this event is here:
1) Gerry DID have a mild stomach upset, so whilst not the main reason for not going, was still not a lie.
2) Judicial secrecy DID prevent them from giving the main reason
3) Yes, the advantage of not breaking judicical secrecy (apart from not facing charges for doing so) is that it potentially kept the speculation at bay - a tactic which failed miserably anyway.
They didn't need to break judicial secrecy. They were not beholden to give the press a reason for not going. They chose to lie.
-
They didn't need to break judicial secrecy. They were not beholden to give the press a reason for not going. They chose to lie.
And? They told a white lie (which Kate later comes clean about in her book) and from this we can conclude...?
-
Simple question - does telling a lie once to get out of doing something ("pulling a sickie") mean that one is not to be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all, for the rest of one's life?
This was not 'pulling a sickie'.
-
This was not 'pulling a sickie'.
What was it then?
-
Simple question (revised) - does telling a lie once to get out of doing something mean that one is not to be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all, for the rest of one's life?
-
And? They told a white lie (which Kate later comes clean about in her book) and from this we can conclude...?
We can conclude that even when there is no need to lie the McCanns will do so to mislead the public and protect their reputation.
-
Another question:
this supposedly monstrous lie the McCanns told (that they later came clean about anyway) - who or what did it harm? Lies often have harmful or hurtful consequences (unless they are white lies) so what were they in this case? The only harmful consequence I can see is that it (the lie) has been used as ammunition against the McCanns for years, since it was first revealed in Kate's book.
-
We can conclude that even when there is no need to lie the McCanns will do so to mislead the public and protect their reputation.
If that is the case then why did Kate McCann write about it in her book at all?
-
Simple question - does telling a lie once to get out of doing something ("pulling a sickie") mean that one is not to be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all, for the rest of one's life?
Certainly not but in the circumstances revealed a propensity to lie when the need presented itself.
-
What other explanation have you got? I notice you didn't respond to my question above. You think they should have held a press conference to reveal details of the case and break judicial secrecy, correct? What advantage would that have conferred on them, in your opinion?
&%+((£ let's see...honesty?
-
Another question:
this supposedly monstrous lie the McCanns told (that they later came clean about anyway) - who or what did it harm? Lies often have harmful or hurtful consequences (unless they are white lies) so what were they in this case? The only harmful consequence I can see is that it (the lie) has been used as ammunition against the McCanns for years, since it was first revealed in Kate's book.
It had neither harmful or hurtful consequences but does give us an insight into the lengths the McCanns will go to to hide something which might be injurious to them and their reputation.
-
Another question:
this supposedly monstrous lie the McCanns told (that they later came clean about anyway) - who or what did it harm? Lies often have harmful or hurtful consequences (unless they are white lies) so what were they in this case? The only harmful consequence I can see is that it (the lie) has been used as ammunition against the McCanns for years, since it was first revealed in Kate's book.
If she had nothing to hide then why didn't she cooperate fully when being interrogated instead of pulling the 'no comment' stunt?
-
This is a public forum and therefore I will reply to any post I chose.
As to your point even Kate admits that breaking judicial secrecy was a secondary consideration to keeping the public in the dark.
'We didn’t feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa? We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.'
So you think Kate and Gerry should have willingly assisted the press to carry on with the vicious smear campaign against them - by handing them ammunition on a plate. Really?
They were well aware of how the press had behaved - and did not want to aid and abet them in producing even more 'scurrilous' headlines - and then added to that there was the risk of being accused of breaking the secrecy laws.
So they exaggerated Gerry's tummy upset and pulled a sickie rather than throw themselves to the wolves (the press) and also leave themselves open to accusations of breaking the law. Perfectly understandable IMO.
Anyone knowing the reasons for that white lie are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if they then try to use it as proof that the McCanns are massive liars. Nitpicking on a major scale IMO.
It seems that the only people who 'suffered' from that lie were the press who had to wait a bit longer before they printed 'scurrilous' headlines. Poor dears.
IMO
-
So you think Kate and Gerry should have willingly assisted the press to carry on with the vicious smear campaign against them - by handing them ammunition on a plate. Really?
They were well aware of how the press had behaved - and did not want to aid and abet them in producing even more 'scurrilous' headlines - and then added to that there was the risk of being accused of breaking the secrecy laws.
So they exaggerated Gerry's tummy upset and pulled a sickie rather than throw themselves to the wolves (the press) and also leave themselves open to accusations of breaking the law. Perfectly understandable IMO.
Anyone knowing the reasons for that white lie are really scraping the bottom of the barrel if they then try to use it as proof that the McCanns are massive liars. Nitpicking on a major scale IMO.
It seems that the only people who 'suffered' from that lie were the press who had to wait a bit longer before they printed 'scurrilous' headlines. Poor dears.
IMO
The McCanns didn't need to say anything other than the trip was postponed until the next day. They had no duty to give the press a reason.
-
The McCanns didn't need to say anything other than the trip was postponed until the next day. They had no duty to give the press a reason.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Quote from Kate
We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.'
Unquote
-
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Quote from Kate
We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.'
Unquote
Nothing to do with hindsight. They told a lie to deflect attention away from what was really happening when they could just have said nothing.
-
Simple question (revised) - does telling a lie once to get out of doing something mean that one is not to be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all, for the rest of one's life?
It's an indication of an individual's moral compass.
-
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Quote from Kate
We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.'
Unquote
So if they had known their lies wouldn't work they wouldn't have lied.
-
It's an indication of an individual's moral compass.
Was it an indictable offence which might have left them open to criminal charges being brought against them?
-
Was it an indictable offence which might have left them open to criminal charges being brought against them?
What has that got to do with my post?
-
Simple question - does telling a lie once to get out of doing something ("pulling a sickie") mean that one is not to be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all, for the rest of one's life?
It is harsh but yes.
-
And? They told a white lie (which Kate later comes clean about in her book) and from this we can conclude...?
She isn't quite an angel but she is pretty damn honest.
-
Simple question (revised) - does telling a lie once to get out of doing something mean that one is not to be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all, for the rest of one's life?
I think you would always be under increased suspicion.
-
We can conclude that even when there is no need to lie the McCanns will do so to mislead the public and protect their reputation.
Are there other humans who wouldn't do that?
-
&%+((£ let's see...honesty?
Your reply doesn't make much sense tbh. You think honesty would be the advantage conferred on the McCanns by breaking judicial secrecy?
-
For context full passage.
'That morning Gerry and I, along with Jon and a colleague, were preparing to drive to Huelva in Spain to put up posters of Madeleine. Jon was intending to do some filming and several of the British journalists were going to join us there, on the give-and-take principle: it would give them a story centred on Madeleine, rather than on us, and this in turn would publicize our efforts. As I was dropping Sean and Amelie off at Toddler Club, I had a phone call from Gerry. The police wanted to come over at 10am. Something to do with forensics, they’d said. Great timing. And forensics? What was that all about?
We’d never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn’t seem to have a choice. As it happened, Gerry had a mild stomach upset which we used as an excuse to postpone the trip. We didn’t feel good about this at all, but even if the judicial secrecy law had not prevented us from giving the main reason, can you imagine what would have happened if we’d announced to the journalists heading for Huelva that the police were coming to do some forensic work in our villa? We were not to know our excuse would prove to be no more than a temporary holding measure. If we had, we wouldn’t have bothered trying to keep the scurrilous headlines at bay.
My mum, dad, Brian and Janet set off for the town to get out of the way before the police arrived. Ten o’clock came and went, as did lunchtime, then the afternoon. It was 5pm when they eventually showed up. They told us they wanted to shoot some video footage of our clothes and possessions. The forensics people would then take these away and return them the following day. They offered no explanation as to why they were doing this. Gerry and I just assumed it was on the suggestion of the British team, who had no doubt pointed out that it should have been done much earlier. We could kind of see the point: after all, the abductor could have brushed against some of our belongings and left traces of his DNA. Even at this late stage, it might be possible for some vital information to be retrieved. We were even quite pleased this was happening, that something was happening which might help find Madeleine.'
From that it sounds like the Police lied too. They said they would be there at 10:00 but didn't arrive till 5:00 PM.
Also did they openly tell the McCanns what they were dong there? Doesn't sound like they did. The PJ Probably lied about that too.
Your reply doesn't make much sense tbh. You think honesty would be the advantage conferred on the McCanns by breaking judicial secrecy?
Could they be honest when they didn't honestly know what was going on?
-
It had neither harmful or hurtful consequences but does give us an insight into the lengths the McCanns will go to to hide something which might be injurious to them and their reputation.
Except the lengths didn't go as far as the book Kate McCann wrote in which (without any need to explain their actions) she explained exactly what happened. In fact the book demonstrates the exact reverse of what you are accusing her of - she revealed something which you believe is injurious to their reputation!
-
If she had nothing to hide then why didn't she cooperate fully when being interrogated instead of pulling the 'no comment' stunt?
What has your question got to do with the supposed lie about the Huelva trip? Please try and stay on topic.
-
It's an indication of an individual's moral compass.
Is it? So if you tell one lie what's your moral compass saying, and does it remain unchanged therefore for the rest of your life?
ETA: Have you ever told a lie to get out of doing something, and if so how we judge you now?
-
Tell me. Since they didn't do the trip that day the journalist stuck around PDL instead. Was that an advantage to the McCanns somehow?
-
Except the lengths didn't go as far as the book Kate McCann wrote in which (without any need to explain their actions) she explained exactly what happened. In fact the book demonstrates the exact reverse of what you are accusing her of - she revealed something which you believe is injurious to their reputation!
Oh your back Alfie. I take it you found your happiness pretty quickly?
Back on topic. Gerry made a point of posting about his stomach bug as an explanation for not going on the trip in his blog. When the files were released it was obvious that they'd lied and the reason for that lie. She revealed nothing. She merely offered an explanation for something that was already being discussed.
-
Is it? So if you tell one lie what's your moral compass saying, and does it remain unchanged therefore for the rest of your life?
ETA: Have you ever told a lie to get out of doing something, and if so how we judge you now?
I went through a phase where my moral compass changed. Life is easier when you lie. I think people lie to make their life easier.
-
Oh your back Alfie. I take it you found your happiness pretty quickly?
Back on topic. Gerry made a point of posting about his stomach bug as an explanation for not going on the trip in his blog. When the files were released it was obvious that they'd lied and the reason for that lie. She revealed nothing. She merely offered an explanation for something that was already being discussed.
She told the truth in her book. She didn't even have to mention it. It's not like the entire world was waiting for her explanation for the cancelled Huelva trip. Please try and have a little understanding and little bit of proportion and perspective. This is a classic case of making mountains out of molehills. They told a white lie, in the same way that millions of people have, including (I have no doubt whatsoever) every single person on this forum - it harmed no one, it had absolutely no impact on the case, or on the investigation, it was perfectly understandable in the circumstances, and the only reason it is of such importance to you is that it is the ONLY verifiable deliberate "lie" told by Kate that you are able to cite despite years upon years of McCann study. Claiming that this is indicative of a pattern of deliberate deceptions and lying to protect their reputation is both libelllous IMO and completely unevidenced.
-
Gerry's blog from 2nd of August.
Day 91 - 02/08/2007
Thursday
Today was a bit of a write off for me as I was laid low with a probable viral illness which meant I could not stray too far from the house! I did manage to get through some e-mails, telephone calls and some paperwork. Feeling a bit better tonight so hopefully be back to normal tomorrow. Kate did manage to put up some of the new Madeleine posters in shops around Praia da Luz.. It is noticably busier, now that we are in August, with lots of tourists many of whom are from Portugal.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm
-
What has that got to do with my post?
You have mentioned 'moral compass' in relation to the McCanns. What I have asked is everything to do with the thread title and indeed in relation to your post.
You of course immediately jumped to an assumption, I believe.
Did you think I was making reference to an individual who has stamped his mark all over much of the misinformation bandied about regarding the couple who have been branded liars because ...
- they had a convenient ... and true reason for not drawing attention to the police investigation which they may still have believed was aimed at finding their daughter
- they were staying within the law by not releasing details of that investigation
or did you assume I was referring to that individual's criminal conviction for perjury?
The McCanns had one of two choices here.
One was breaking the Portuguese Secrecy Law ... the other was taking the opportunity to avoid a possible embarrassing en route dash to a public convenience with the world's press in attendance.
Again I ask ... which was an indictable offence? Which would have broken Portuguese law?
-
She told the truth in her book. She didn't even have to mention it. It's not like the entire world was waiting for her explanation for the cancelled Huelva trip. Please try and have a little understanding and little bit of proportion and perspective. This is a classic case of making mountains out of molehills. They told a white lie, in the same way that millions of people have, including (I have no doubt whatsoever) every single person on this forum - it harmed no one, it had absolutely no impact on the case, or on the investigation, it was perfectly understandable in the circumstances, and the only reason it is of such importance to you is that it is the ONLY verifiable deliberate "lie" told by Kate that you are able to cite despite years upon years of McCann study. Claiming that this is indicative of a pattern of deliberate deceptions and lying to protect their reputation is both libelllous IMO and completely unevidenced.
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the Huelva trip and the associated circumstances one of the hot topics prior to the release of Kate's book?
-
She told the truth in her book. She didn't even have to mention it. It's not like the entire world was waiting for her explanation for the cancelled Huelva trip. Please try and have a little understanding and little bit of proportion and perspective. This is a classic case of making mountains out of molehills. They told a white lie, in the same way that millions of people have, including (I have no doubt whatsoever) every single person on this forum - it harmed no one, it had absolutely no impact on the case, or on the investigation, it was perfectly understandable in the circumstances, and the only reason it is of such importance to you is that it is the ONLY verifiable deliberate "lie" told by Kate that you are able to cite despite years upon years of McCann study. Claiming that this is indicative of a pattern of deliberate deceptions and lying to protect their reputation is both libelllous IMO and completely unevidenced.
Did I mention a pattern of deliberate deceptions? They told a lie in order to hide from the public what was really happening within the investigation. We have no reason to believe they wouldn't do it again if the need arose.
-
You have mentioned 'moral compass' in relation to the McCanns. What I have asked is everything to do with the thread title and indeed in relation to your post.
You of course immediately jumped to an assumption, I believe.
Did you think I was making reference to an individual who has stamped his mark all over much of the misinformation bandied about regarding the couple who have been branded liars because ...
- they had a convenient ... and true reason for not drawing attention to the police investigation which they may still have believed was aimed at finding their daughter
- they were staying within the law by not releasing details of that investigation
or did you assume I was referring to that individual's criminal conviction for perjury?
The McCanns had one of two choices here.
One was breaking the Portuguese Secrecy Law ... the other was taking the opportunity to avoid a possible embarrassing en route dash to a public convenience with the world's press in attendance.
Again I ask ... which was an indictable offence? Which would have broken Portuguese law?
Three choices actually. Simply say nothing.
-
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the Huelva trip and the associated circumstances one of the hot topics prior to the release of Kate's book?
It was indeed.
-
Gerry's blog from 2nd of August.
Day 91 - 02/08/2007
Thursday
Today was a bit of a write off for me as I was laid low with a probable viral illness which meant I could not stray too far from the house! I did manage to get through some e-mails, telephone calls and some paperwork. Feeling a bit better tonight so hopefully be back to normal tomorrow. Kate did manage to put up some of the new Madeleine posters in shops around Praia da Luz.. It is noticably busier, now that we are in August, with lots of tourists many of whom are from Portugal.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INSPECTION_SITES.htm
The next day Gerry writes "It is exactly 3 months since Madeleine was abducted. Kate and I had an early start as we drove to Huelva, 50Km over the border from Portugal in Southern Spain. We were meant to go yesterday but had to cancel because I was ill.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/gerrys-blogs-days-59-120-julaug-2007/
And that just so happened to be the day they did the forensic examination of their villa. Did they need to be there for that?
-
If she had nothing to hide then why didn't she cooperate fully when being interrogated instead of pulling the 'no comment' stunt?
She evidently was advised by her lawyer and did exactly the right thing
-
She evidently was advised by her lawyer and did exactly the right thing
Why was that the right thing to do?
-
Why was that the right thing to do?
To understand why you first need to ask why her Portuguese lawyer who understood the system advised her not to answer
Answer that question then we can move forward
-
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the Huelva trip and the associated circumstances one of the hot topics prior to the release of Kate's book?
Hot topic where exactly? I do recall it being suggested online at the time that the McCanns went to Huelva to dispose of the body, is that what you mean?
-
Did I mention a pattern of deliberate deceptions? They told a lie in order to hide from the public what was really happening within the investigation. We have no reason to believe they wouldn't do it again if the need arose.
We have no reason to believe that they have told any other lies however, so it must have been a one off 8(>((
-
We have no reason to believe that they have told any other lies however, so it must have been a one off 8(>((
How do we know? We didn't know about this lie until the release of the files.
-
Hot topic where exactly? I do recall it being suggested online at the time that the McCanns went to Huelva to dispose of the body, is that what you mean?
The trip was delayed by just one day or was it more? So they now dispose of a body during that delayed trip. That is a remarkable story for it must have meant that the body had been transferred to another vehicle without the PJ knowing. When did they transfer it? Was it that morning? Amazing this is getting exciting!
-
The McCanns lie was nothing compared to amaral
Yet his is constantly excused on this forum
-
How do we know? We didn't know about this lie until the release of the files.
There is no reason (files or no files) to believe they lied about anything else. No evidence presented of lies. You can choose to believe they have lied about other things but you have no evidence of it - it's simply pure speculation on your part. That's why this Huelva trip thing is so special to you. It's your once proven "McLie" - what a whopper it was, eh? HUGE!!! Think of the mountains you can make from it.
-
There is no reason (files or no files) to believe they lied about anything else. No evidence presented of lies. You can choose to believe they have lied about other things but you have no evidence of it - it's simply pure speculation on your part. That's why this Huelva trip thing is so special to you. It's your once proven "McLie" - what a whopper it was, eh? HUGE!!! Think of the mountains you can make from it.
And, with their previous dishonesty in mind, we have every reason to believe that if the need arose they would lie again to protect themselves.
Alfie it is not the person who points out the the lie but the person who lies in the first place who deserves your disdain.
-
And, with their previous dishonesty in mind, we have every reason to believe that if the need arose they would lie again to protect themselves.
Alfie it is not the person who points out the the lie but the person who lies in the first place who deserves your disdain.
I have absolutely no disdain for someone who tells a harmless white lie, even if it is to protect themselves from sensational headlines in the press. We've all told harmless white lies from time to time. I do however have disdain for those who use this harmless white lie as evidence of bad character, and to suggest that it indicates a propensity to lie and deceive in order to harm and hurt. That in my opinion is simply malicious, making something out of nothing in order to hurt and harm others.
-
The trip was delayed by just one day or was it more? So they now dispose of a body during that delayed trip. That is a remarkable story for it must have meant that the body had been transferred to another vehicle without the PJ knowing. When did they transfer it? Was it that morning? Amazing this is getting exciting!
Be careful where you are going on this, Robbity. The McCanns had other people in their car on that trip so body disposal comes under the heading of scurrilous rumour and libel.
The fact is many scurrilous rumours circulated at the time.
IMO, the Huelva entry in Kate's book looks and smells like PR, which, unfortunately I have seen and smelled far too often in my career.
I was simply trying to clarify if Kate's book was the first time this tale had been told. Clearly it wasn't. Anyone with a brain and access to the PJ Files would have been able to match up the intended date of the trip to Huelva and the search of the villa.
The one and only issue I can see is why they chose to manage the villa search in the manner they did. This thread has covered a number of options as to why they picked the approach that was used. Since I have no evidence to offer on this, I can only offer my opinion, and IMO the approach selected was a poor choice.
Do not stretch what may or may not have been a poor decision into a scurrilous rumour such as body disposal.
-
And, with their previous dishonesty in mind, we have every reason to believe that if the need arose they would lie again to protect themselves.
Alfie it is not the person who points out the the lie but the person who lies in the first place who deserves your disdain.
So they should have called a press conference to explain why they were not going to Huelva? Hmmm &%+((£ ... yeah, I can see that would have gone down really well with the Policia Judiciaria.
I think one of the party being ill was all the explanation required.
I find it risible that it has been found necessary to latch onto such a non-event to find something ... anything ... with which to castigate the McCanns. Very sad really.
Please note
- 2nd August scheduled trip to Huelva cancelled
- 2nd August Gerry records in his blog being unwell
Which rather negates any suggestion his illness might have been a damage limitation exercise.
-
Be careful where you are going on this, Robbity. The McCanns had other people in their car on that trip so body disposal comes under the heading of scurrilous rumour and libel.
The fact is many scurrilous rumours circulated at the time.
IMO, the Huelva entry in Kate's book looks and smells like PR, which, unfortunately I have seen and smelled far too often in my career.
I was simply trying to clarify if Kate's book was the first time this tale had been told. Clearly it wasn't. Anyone with a brain and access to the PJ Files would have been able to match up the intended date of the trip to Huelva and the search of the villa.
The one and only issue I can see is why they chose to manage the villa search in the manner they did. This thread has covered a number of options as to why they picked the approach that was used. Since I have no evidence to offer on this, I can only offer my opinion, and IMO the approach selected was a poor choice.
Do not stretch what may or may not have been a poor decision into a scurrilous rumour such as body disposal.
The bit highlighted in bold - what do you mean by this? Kate is very honest about the incident in her book, or do you think otherwise?
-
The bit highlighted in bold - what do you mean by this? Kate is very honest about the incident in her book, or do you think otherwise?
The bit highlighted in bold was "IMO, the Huelva entry in Kate's book looks and smells like PR". I have given my opinion, and clearly described it as IMO.
You asserted that Kate had no need to discuss the Huelva trip. And consequently she is to be lauded for doing so. It has been ascertained in this thread there were good reasons for Kate to discuss the Huelva trip in her book. And that what really happened about this trip was in the public domain no later than the release of the PJ Files.
The issue in the thread appears to be why the McCanns picked the option they did.
-
The bit highlighted in bold was "IMO, the Huelva entry in Kate's book looks and smells like PR". I have given my opinion, and clearly described it as IMO.
You asserted that Kate had no need to discuss the Huelva trip. And consequently she is to be lauded for doing so. It has been ascertained in this thread there were good reasons for Kate to discuss the Huelva trip in her book. And that what really happened about this trip was in the public domain no later than the release of the PJ Files.
The issue in the thread appears to be why the McCanns picked the option they did.
What good reasons would that be, beyond simply giving a true record of the facts? Do you actually seriously believe that if Kate had simply ignored the cancelled trip to Huelva in her book that it would have made the blindest bit of difference to her, or to anyone reading the book (who didn't already have an agenda to sniff out something, anything that they perceived as fishy to use against the woman)?
-
You have mentioned 'moral compass' in relation to the McCanns. What I have asked is everything to do with the thread title and indeed in relation to your post.
You of course immediately jumped to an assumption, I believe.
Did you think I was making reference to an individual who has stamped his mark all over much of the misinformation bandied about regarding the couple who have been branded liars because ...
- they had a convenient ... and true reason for not drawing attention to the police investigation which they may still have believed was aimed at finding their daughter
- they were staying within the law by not releasing details of that investigation
or did you assume I was referring to that individual's criminal conviction for perjury?
The McCanns had one of two choices here.
One was breaking the Portuguese Secrecy Law ... the other was taking the opportunity to avoid a possible embarrassing en route dash to a public convenience with the world's press in attendance.
Again I ask ... which was an indictable offence? Which would have broken Portuguese law?
What are you going on about? I make a simple statement and you start reading all sorts of things into it. Says a lot really.
-
To understand why you first need to ask why her Portuguese lawyer who understood the system advised her not to answer
Answer that question then we can move forward
If only the lawyer in the civil case had been as sensible.
-
What good reasons would that be, beyond simply giving a true record of the facts? Do you actually seriously believe that if Kate had simply ignored the cancelled trip to Huelva in her book that it would have made the blindest bit of difference to her, or to anyone reading the book (who didn't already have an agenda to sniff out something, anything that they perceived as fishy to use against the woman)?
It obviously did make a difference to her, given that she wrote about in her book.
As to anyone reading the book, one can but speculate. For the record, you used 'agenda' and 'fishy'.
-
Be careful where you are going on this, Robbity. The McCanns had other people in their car on that trip so body disposal comes under the heading of scurrilous rumour and libel.
The fact is many scurrilous rumours circulated at the time.
IMO, the Huelva entry in Kate's book looks and smells like PR, which, unfortunately I have seen and smelled far too often in my career.
I was simply trying to clarify if Kate's book was the first time this tale had been told. Clearly it wasn't. Anyone with a brain and access to the PJ Files would have been able to match up the intended date of the trip to Huelva and the search of the villa.
The one and only issue I can see is why they chose to manage the villa search in the manner they did. This thread has covered a number of options as to why they picked the approach that was used. Since I have no evidence to offer on this, I can only offer my opinion, and IMO the approach selected was a poor choice.
Do not stretch what may or may not have been a poor decision into a scurrilous rumour such as body disposal.
That basically was my point; how odd to suggest it was done with other people on board (I'm not suggesting anyone else knows about it or were involved.)
"On 6 August they (the PJ) took the Renault Scenic the couple had hired 24 days after Madeleine went missing." Wikipedia
But the video of the Huelva trip (3rd of August) wasn't in the Renault from memory.
"It is exactly 3 months since Madeleine was abducted. Kate and I had an early start as we drove to Huelva, 50Km over the border from Portugal in Southern Spain. We were meant to go yesterday but had to cancel because I was ill."
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/gerrys-blogs-days-59-120-julaug-2007/
Does that mean the dogs went through the villa on the 2nd of August? There are reports in the file but Grime hasn't put any dates on them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm#mg2473
So was the trip on the 3rd in the Renault? We do get some views of the inside of the vehicle. Do you recognise the model of vehicle?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBXB_cvdxME
-
What are you going on about? I make a simple statement and you start reading all sorts of things into it. Says a lot really.
A simple statement indeed but in my opinion a pejorative one which in my opinion gives no thought to thinking anything through.
Sceptics seem to have a way of looking at things ofttimes making assumptions to suit their own particular predilections and I think the misinterpretation milked and nurtured of every aspect of the McCanns' being is proof of that.
For example everything is viewed through a prism of hindsight in which omniscience is deemed mandatory for the McCanns to explain whatever the current buzzwords may be ... in this case the trip to Huelva.
I quite honestly ask for the simple reason that I don't know the answer.
The McCanns requested a reappraisal of the available information regarding Madeleine's disappearance including inspecting the apartment she vanished from and the use of sniffer dogs.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime
Did they know that the dogs had worked in the apartment and what is the likelihood that they were aware that the dogs were being brought to work the residence occupied by them, despite Madeleine never having set foot in it.
Indeed is there any evidence they were even aware that the dogs were in Portugal? Apparently they were only presented with a search warrant when the police arrived.
I think it feasible that they cancelled the Huelva trip because they may have thought the police were moving forward with their inquiry and could only want to visit the villa with information concerning Madeleine which was far more important to them than taking a trip which could be done at anytime.
-
So they should have called a press conference to explain why they were not going to Huelva? Hmmm &%+((£ ... yeah, I can see that would have gone down really well with the Policia Judiciaria.
I think one of the party being ill was all the explanation required.
I find it risible that it has been found necessary to latch onto such a non-event to find something ... anything ... with which to castigate the McCanns. Very sad really.
Please note
- 2nd August scheduled trip to Huelva cancelled
- 2nd August Gerry records in his blog being unwell
Which rather negates any suggestion his illness might have been a damage limitation exercise.
Not what I said Brietta and I'm not sure why you are consciously misrepresenting what I have posted.
The McCanns didn't have to tell the press anything. The trip to Huelva was cancelled because the McCanns had been told that the PJ were coming to carry out some forensics on their villa, it was NOT cancelled because Gerry had a slightly sore stomach.
-
We can conclude that even when there is no need to lie the McCanns will do so to mislead the public and protect their reputation.
All this indignation about the so called lying
Two or three years ago, on this forum:
Was it you Faith, or was it Anne G. who sneered at me because I said that I wouldn't tell lies in Couirt to defend a friend ? I dont think that it was anyone else, but who ever it was, said that they would ... and sneered at me.
I am not about to go searching for a cite but maybe Elaenor or Ferryman or someone else will remember ... and if it was not you, then I apologise.
-
A simple statement indeed but in my opinion a pejorative one which in my opinion gives no thought to thinking anything through.
Sceptics seem to have a way of looking at things ofttimes making assumptions to suit their own particular predilections and I think the misinterpretation milked and nurtured of every aspect of the McCanns' being is proof of that.
For example everything is viewed through a prism of hindsight in which omniscience is deemed mandatory for the McCanns to explain whatever the current buzzwords may be ... in this case the trip to Huelva.
I quite honestly ask for the simple reason that I don't know the answer.
The McCanns requested a reappraisal of the available information regarding Madeleine's disappearance including inspecting the apartment she vanished from and the use of sniffer dogs.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime
Did they know that the dogs had worked in the apartment and what is the likelihood that they were aware that the dogs were being brought to work the residence occupied by them, despite Madeleine never having set foot in it.
Indeed is there any evidence they were even aware that the dogs were in Portugal? Apparently they were only presented with a search warrant when the police arrived.
I think it feasible that they cancelled the Huelva trip because they may have thought the police were moving forward with their inquiry and could only want to visit the villa with information concerning Madeleine which was far more important to them than taking a trip which could be done at anytime.
Then if everything was as innocent as you intimate why didn't the McCanns simply say that that was why they cancelled the trip?
-
That basically was my point; how odd to suggest it was done with other people on board (I'm not suggesting anyone else knows about it or were involved.)
"On 6 August they (the PJ) took the Renault Scenic the couple had hired 24 days after Madeleine went missing." Wikipedia
But the video of the Huelva trip (3rd of August) wasn't in the Renault from memory.
"It is exactly 3 months since Madeleine was abducted. Kate and I had an early start as we drove to Huelva, 50Km over the border from Portugal in Southern Spain. We were meant to go yesterday but had to cancel because I was ill."
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/gerrys-blogs-days-59-120-julaug-2007/
Does that mean the dogs went through the villa on the 2nd of August? There are reports in the file but Grime hasn't put any dates on them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm#mg2473
So the trip on the 3rd was not in the Renault. Do we agree on that?
We get some views of the inside of the vehicle. Do you recognise the model of vehicle?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBXB_cvdxME
The trip on the 3rd was in the Renault Scenic.
http://www.wishtube.xyz/v=Zqoj-pfBUnY
-
The trip on the 3rd was in the Renault Scenic.
http://www.wishtube.xyz/v=Zqoj-pfBUnY
How did they organise the filming of their own car zooming down the highway?
Jon Corner seems to say there was the 4th person in that car. "Me and my cameraman" https://youtu.be/Zqoj-pfBUnY?t=2258
-
Not what I said Brietta and I'm not sure why you are consciously misrepresenting what I have posted.
The McCanns didn't have to tell the press anything. The trip to Huelva was cancelled because the McCanns had been told that the PJ were coming to carry out some forensics on their villa, it was NOT cancelled because Gerry had a slightly sore stomach.
I replied to what you said. Nor have I lifted a word of it for the purpose of 'misrepresenting' what you said. I have however refuted what you posted for the simple reasons ...
- I disagreed with what you posted
- and I found the content distasteful and not couched in language I would choose to replicate
So not a parrot of what you said or even a paraphrase ... merely a reply which repudiates. It is known in some circles by the word "debate".
Go on though, surprise me with a cite for "the McCanns had been told that the PJ were coming to carry out some forensics on their villa".
-
How did they organise the filming of their own car zooming down the highway? That car being filmed has different detail to the car being poured over by the PJ earlier in the documentary.
If you play the video on the link from around 35m I hope it will be clearer to you.
What detail are you seeing as different?
-
Then if everything was as innocent as you intimate why didn't the McCanns simply say that that was why they cancelled the trip?
£4%4£ Secrecy laws
-
I replied to what you said. Nor have I lifted a word of it for the purpose of 'misrepresenting' what you said. I have however refuted what you posted for the simple reasons ...
- I disagreed with what you posted
- and I found the content distasteful and not couched in language I would choose to replicate
So not a parrot of what you said or even a paraphrase ... merely a reply which repudiates. It is known in some circles by the word "debate".
Go on though, surprise me with a cite for "the McCanns had been told that the PJ were coming to carry out some forensics on their villa".
I will not react to your unnecessary slights Brietta, we are, after all, grown-ups but simply leave this with you from Kate's book.
'That morning Gerry and I, along with Jon and a colleague, were preparing to drive to Huelva in Spain to put up posters of Madeleine. Jon was intending to do some filming and several of the British journalists were going to join us there, on the give-and-take principle: it would give them a story centred on Madeleine, rather than on us, and this in turn would publicize our efforts. As I was dropping Sean and Amelie off at Toddler Club, I had a phone call from Gerry. The police wanted to come over at 10am. Something to do with forensics, they’d said. Great timing. And forensics? What was that all about?'
So from Kate's own pen the McCann party were preparing that morning to go to Huelva (it appears Gerry's stomach wasn't bothering him too much at that point). It was only after the police had told them they were coming to do forensics their plans changed.
So it would appear that Gerry's stomach was never the reason they cancelled the trip but was simply used to mislead the journalists.
Of course they didn't owe the journalists an explanation and could simply have said that the trip was cancelled.
-
£4%4£ Secrecy laws
Then they could have simply said the trip was cancelled without giving an explanation. Wouldn't that have been better than lying?
-
I replied to what you said. Nor have I lifted a word of it for the purpose of 'misrepresenting' what you said. I have however refuted what you posted for the simple reasons ...
- I disagreed with what you posted
- and I found the content distasteful and not couched in language I would choose to replicate
So not a parrot of what you said or even a paraphrase ... merely a reply which repudiates. It is known in some circles by the word "debate".
Go on though, surprise me with a cite for "the McCanns had been told that the PJ were coming to carry out some forensics on their villa".
Kate says Gerry told her the PJ were coming at 10:00 so we assume someone told Gerry for they didn't arrive till 6:00 PM.
That gave Kate plenty of time to put clothes in the washing machine. Why did they get so much warning?
Who warned them?
-
I will not react to your unnecessary slights Brietta, we are, after all, grown-ups but simply leave this with you from Kate's book.
'That morning Gerry and I, along with Jon and a colleague, were preparing to drive to Huelva in Spain to put up posters of Madeleine. Jon was intending to do some filming and several of the British journalists were going to join us there, on the give-and-take principle: it would give them a story centred on Madeleine, rather than on us, and this in turn would publicize our efforts. As I was dropping Sean and Amelie off at Toddler Club, I had a phone call from Gerry. The police wanted to come over at 10am. Something to do with forensics, they’d said. Great timing. And forensics? What was that all about?'
So from Kate's own pen the McCann party were preparing that morning to go to Huelva (it appears Gerry's stomach wasn't bothering him too much at that point). It was only after the police had told them they were coming to do forensics their plans changed.
So it would appear that Gerry's stomach was never the reason they cancelled the trip but was simply used to mislead the journalists.
Of course they didn't owe the journalists an explanation and could simply have said that the trip was cancelled.
Was investigative journalism really that dead in 2007? No-one would have enquired the reason why they cancelled a trip one day only to embark on it the following day?
Thank you for the cite.
Which confirms that the McCanns knew nothing about why the police wished to see them precipitately. They did not view if as an investigation into themselves but still under the delusion they were concentrating on looking for Madeleine. Their happiness to cooperate has been noted.
Definitely more important than their Huelva trip and definitely covered by judicial secrecy however you may feel about full disclosure of the investigation.
Never heard the phrase "killing two birds with one stone"? Gerry's illness was expedient both from the arrangement with the police and it not being a good idea to be in transit while unwell.
-
Then they could have simply said the trip was cancelled without giving an explanation. Wouldn't that have been better than lying?
As I have said before ... not keeping journalists informed is not an indictable offence ... breaking secrecy laws is. Any journalist worth his or her salt would immediately go into overdrive at the lack of explanation for a cancelled trip which was rescheduled for the following day.
-
If you play the video on the link from around 35m I hope it will be clearer to you.
What detail are you seeing as different?
I was getting mixed up with a different car they had when they got back to England. If there were more in the car it is possible they filmed it from another vehicle.
Not sure how they organised that though.
Jon Corner seems to say there was the 4th person in that car. In the back of the car was "Me and my cameraman" https://youtu.be/Zqoj-pfBUnY?t=2258
-
I was getting mixed up with a different car they had when they got back to England. If there were more in the car it is possible they filmed it from another vehicle.
Not sure how they organised that though.
Jon Corner seems to say there was the 4th person in that car. In the back of the car was "Me and my cameraman" https://youtu.be/Zqoj-pfBUnY?t=2258
See post #92. Journalists have cameras as well. ?{)(**
-
See post #92. Journalists have cameras as well. ?{)(**
I think it is just another Renault Scenic that passed them and they filmed it. What I noticed was the Scenic back in PDL had Find Madeleine stickers on the windows and that one doesn't.
-
I think it is just another Renault Scenic that passed them and they filmed it. What I noticed was the Scenic back in PDL had Find Madeleine stickers on the windows and this one doesn't.
You cannot be serious.
ETA The stickers were only in the Scenic when Eddie performed his routine; they'd been removed by the time Keela did her examination.
-
You cannot be serious.
ETA The stickers were only in the Scenic when Eddie performed his routine; they'd been removed by the time Keela did her examination.
You can't be serious, didn't I get the dates right? The trip to Huelva was before Keela and Eddie go through the Scenic on the 6th or the 7th August.
Check on Villa 2nd August
Trip to Huelva 3rd August
Car Renault Scenic taken for Eddie's check: "On 6 August they (the PJ) took the Renault Scenic the couple had hired 24 days after Madeleine went missing." Wikipedia
Keela's check date. "and another sniffer dog inspection that began at 03.49 on 7th August by the dog KEELA, which detected human blood remains, the following results were noted:
03.53: the dog "marked" a zone on the right inferior side of the inside of the luggage compartment of the vehicle;
04.11: the dog "marked" the compartment on the driver's side, which was seen to contain the vehicle's key, of a plastic electronic card type, with a key ring from the Budget car rental agency.
With the aim of confirming whether the dog had effectively "marked" the vehicle's key, which was inside the compartment on the driver's side, at 04.13 the key in question was removed from the vehicle and hidden in a place far from the vehicle on the third floor of the underground car park.
At about 04.14 it was observed that the dog "marked" the area of a box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which, effectively, the vehicle's key had been hidden."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
I can hardly believe it that Martin Grimes can write a report that does not have any dates and times on it.
-
this thread is just another's example of what the know-it-alls think the McCanns should have done in order not to receive endless criticism from the same know-it-alls. The reality is, if they'd done what the know-it-alls say they should have done, they would have been criticised for lying by omission, or something else, for sure.
-
You cannot be serious.
ETA The stickers were only in the Scenic when Eddie performed his routine; they'd been removed by the time Keela did her examination.
So that was the day after Eddie did his check. Maybe the PJ took them off the windows so they could see more clearly into the booth while Keela was searching the interior..
-
Kate says Gerry told her the PJ were coming at 10:00 so we assume someone told Gerry for they didn't arrive till 6:00 PM.
That gave Kate plenty of time to put clothes in the washing machine. Why did they get so much warning?
Who warned them?
b
Ah but cadaver odour can't be washed out.
-
As I have said before ... not keeping journalists informed is not an indictable offence ... breaking secrecy laws is. Any journalist worth his or her salt would immediately go into overdrive at the lack of explanation for a cancelled trip which was rescheduled for the following day.
Exactly Brietta,
Why is this thread even here, Kate explained why they had to call off the trip, then she openly admits what they did, if she was a liar then she wouldn't have put it into her book.
I call a liar someone who lies in court, now that's someone you need to be wary of.
-
b
Ah but cadaver odour can't be washed out.
I've handled hundreds of cadavers and yeah sure my hands would be smelly but after sometime later the cadaver odour washed out. It is so silly to think that after several washes all traces of cadaver odour wouldn't be washed out.
-
Exactly Brietta,
Why is this thread even here, Kate explained why they had to call off the trip, then she openly admits what they did, if she was a liar then she wouldn't have put it into her book.
I call a liar someone who lies in court, now that's someone you need to be wary of.
Does it seem sensible to drive all that way to put up some posters? OK it is the largest city to the East of PDL with the shortest route to Spain. It has some publicity value. The trip in itself seems unbelieveable.
Why was the car taken for examination 4 days later (4 days after the villa) and not immediately?
The logic of that delay seems is really questionable.
-
Was investigative journalism really that dead in 2007? No-one would have enquired the reason why they cancelled a trip one day only to embark on it the following day?
Thank you for the cite.
Which confirms that the McCanns knew nothing about why the police wished to see them precipitately. They did not view if as an investigation into themselves but still under the delusion they were concentrating on looking for Madeleine. Their happiness to cooperate has been noted.
Definitely more important than their Huelva trip and definitely covered by judicial secrecy however you may feel about full disclosure of the investigation.
Never heard the phrase "killing two birds with one stone"? Gerry's illness was expedient both from the arrangement with the police and it not being a good idea to be in transit while unwell.
They did not have to give any reason for the cancellation and if someone did ask they could just have answered 'no comment' as they did when asked if they knew Murat.
When you said precipitously you gave no timescale. They certainly knew about it hours before it happened. As to their happiness to cooperate i believe, like here if the police have a warrant to search your property, they wouldn't have had a choice.
The forensics being carried out were certainly of more importance to the McCanns than the Huelva trip but still no need to tell the press anything.
One thing we do agree on though is that Gerry's 'illness' was expedient, well certainly after the police rang up, warning them that they were coming to the villa to do forensics. It seems to have been nonexistent before that. In fact they were all packed, ready to go, before it if Kate is to be believed.
-
As I have said before ... not keeping journalists informed is not an indictable offence ... breaking secrecy laws is. Any journalist worth his or her salt would immediately go into overdrive at the lack of explanation for a cancelled trip which was rescheduled for the following day.
And?
-
And?
Salt and pepper.
I think there is another side to this trip. Did the PJ try to stop the trip to Huelva by doing all the searches that basically found nothing in the end.
-
I've handled hundreds of cadavers and yeah sure my hands would be smelly but after sometime later the cadaver odour washed out. It is so silly to think that after several washes all traces of cadaver odour wouldn't be washed out.
Silly to send cadaver dogs in after three months then wasn't it? The floor would have been washed a few times by then.
-
Silly to send cadaver dogs in after three months then wasn't it? The floor would have been washed a few times by then.
It is a strange story when the PJ say they brought the dogs in because of what Danie Krugel revealed with his "funny apparatus".
-
They did not have to give any reason for the cancellation and if someone did ask they could just have answered 'no comment' as they did when asked if they knew Murat.
When you said precipitously you gave no timescale. They certainly knew about it hours before it happened. As to their happiness to cooperate i believe, like here if the police have a warrant to search your property, they wouldn't have had a choice.
The forensics being carried out were certainly of more importance to the McCanns than the Huelva trip but still no need to tell the press anything.
One thing we do agree on though is that Gerry's 'illness' was expedient, well certainly after the police rang up, warning them that they were coming to the villa to do forensics. It seems to have been nonexistent before that. In fact they were all packed, ready to go, before it if Kate is to be believed.
They did what they thought was best at the time in order to minimise speculation from the press. Claiming that as a major crime simply doesn't stand up IMO. You also seem to be criticising them for not doing what you think they should have done. They are not you.
Poring over and dissecting every word - trying to blow this trivial event up into proof that the McCanns are massive liars is barmy IMO. The phrase .... 'Is this the best you can do?' ......springs to mind.
IIRC - when Gerry did say 'No Comment' - all kinds of wild interpretations/connotations/accusations were applied to those two words by sceptics, who chewed it over for years - also desperately trying to make something 'sinister' out of nothing.
AFAIAC - this is just another example of the 10 year old mantra diligently followed by some sceptics. i.e.
''Everything the McCanns do is wrong and Everything the McCanns say is wrong'.
IMO
-
They did what they thought was best at the time in order to minimise speculation from the press. Claiming that as a major crime simply doesn't stand up IMO. You also seem to be criticising them for not doing what you think they should have done. They are not you.
Poring over and dissecting every word - trying to blow this trivial event up into proof that the McCanns are massive liars is barmy IMO. The phrase .... 'Is this the best you can do?' ......springs to mind.
IIRC - when Gerry did say 'No Comment' - all kinds of wild interpretations/connotations/accusations were applied to those two words by sceptics, who chewed it over for years - also desperately trying to make something 'sinister' out of nothing.
AFAIAC - this is just another example of the 10 year old mantra diligently followed by some sceptics. i.e.
''Everything the McCanns do is wrong and Everything the McCanns say is wrong'.
IMO
What springs to mind for me is the phrase "the devil makes work for idle hands (and minds)"
-
They did what they thought was best at the time in order to minimise speculation from the press. Claiming that as a major crime simply doesn't stand up IMO. You also seem to be criticising them for not doing what you think they should have done. They are not you.
Poring over and dissecting every word - trying to blow this trivial event up into proof that the McCanns are massive liars is barmy IMO. The phrase .... 'Is this the best you can do?' ......springs to mind.
IIRC - when Gerry did say 'No Comment' - all kinds of wild interpretations/connotations/accusations were applied to those two words by sceptics, who chewed it over for years - also desperately trying to make something 'sinister' out of nothing.
AFAIAC - this is just another example of the 10 year old mantra diligently followed by some sceptics. i.e.
''Everything the McCanns do is wrong and Everything the McCanns say is wrong'.
IMO
I have no doubt that they did what they thought was best at the time but their actions were dishonest and unfortunately that leaves people wondering that if they have lied before to cover up something they knew would reflect badly on them would they do it again?
Actions have consequences and if people don't trust the McCanns because they have lied to them, irrespective of the number of times, that is the fault of the McCanns not the people they lied to.
-
What springs to mind for me is the phrase "the devil makes work for idle hands (and minds)"
I prefer "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” 8(0(*
-
I prefer "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” 8(0(*
No one has been fooled. We all know what happened, it's just that you prefer to view the white lie as evidence that the McCanns are habitual liars, whereas I view it for what it is - nothing more, nothing less.
-
No one has been fooled. We all know what happened, it's just that you prefer to view the white lie as evidence that the McCanns are habitual liars, whereas I view it for what it is - nothing more, nothing less.
So what's the difference between an ordinary lie and a white lie Alfie?
-
So what's the difference between an ordinary lie and a white lie Alfie?
A white lie isn't as bad as a lie. If you say your friend looks nice in something when she doesn't, that's a white lie, but if you said your friend is a thief and she isn't , that's a lie.
The McCann's told a white lie, because they didn't want to try and explain why they couldn't go on the trip, it was a white lie as Gerry did have an upset stomach and could have been unwell enough not to go.
-
So what's the difference between an ordinary lie and a white lie Alfie?
I've already spelt that out. A white lie is essential harmless and hurts no one, unlike a lie which can hurt and harm.
-
A white lie isn't as bad as a lie. If you say your friend looks nice in something when she doesn't, that's a white lie, but if you said your friend is a thief and she isn't , that's a lie.
The McCann's told a white lie, because they didn't want to try and explain why they couldn't go on the trip, it was a white lie as Gerry did have an upset stomach and could have been unwell enough not to go.
It's amazing that anyone here would not understand the difference between a lie and a white lie and would need to have it explained, IMO.
-
I've already spelt that out. A white lie is essential harmless and hurts no one, unlike a lie which can hurt and harm.
Slippery slope.
-
I've already spelt that out. A white lie is essential harmless and hurts no one, unlike a lie which can hurt and harm.
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.
Antonyms: truth.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4.
the charge or accusation of telling a lie:
-
It's amazing that anyone here would not understand the difference between a lie and a white lie and would need to have it explained, IMO.
This is the search warrant for the villa;
Before proceeding to effect the search, copy of the dispatch attached determining who had access to the place, mentioning that they can be present during the search and be accompanied or substituted by someone of confidence will be delivered. If the persons in reference are not present, copy of the dispatch can be delivered where possible to a family member, neighbour, caretaker or whoever acts as substitute, article 176, n 1 and 2 of the CPP.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm# p8p2085
This is what Kate said;
we were all asked to leave the villa. It was early evening and we had to find somewhere to go with two tired and hungry toddlers in tow. [Madeleine]
Did none of them read the paperwork saying they could stay, was it a misunderstanding, or is it another little white lie?
-
Slippery slope.
I notice you did not respond to my previous post addressed to you. Have you never told a white lie yourself, or are you whiter than white?
-
noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.
Antonyms: truth.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4.
the charge or accusation of telling a lie:
Now post the definition of white lie.
-
This is the search warrant for the villa;
Before proceeding to effect the search, copy of the dispatch attached determining who had access to the place, mentioning that they can be present during the search and be accompanied or substituted by someone of confidence will be delivered. If the persons in reference are not present, copy of the dispatch can be delivered where possible to a family member, neighbour, caretaker or whoever acts as substitute, article 176, n 1 and 2 of the CPP.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm# p8p2085
This is what Kate said;
we were all asked to leave the villa. It was early evening and we had to find somewhere to go with two tired and hungry toddlers in tow. [Madeleine]
Did none of them read the paperwork saying they could stay, was it a misunderstanding, or is it another little white lie?
Perhaps the people who asked them to leave the villa hadn't read the paperwork? Or perhaps when the team got there they realised that searching a villa with dogs with two toddlers present might not be a great idea.
Jesus, you people must spend your entire lives cross-referencing Kate's book with the files searching out every minor discrepancy going. If only it was a worthwhile occupation you'd be given medals for dedication beyond the call of duty!
-
Now post the definition of white lie.
Why? I don't believe it was a white lie. It was simply a lie.
-
Perhaps the people who asked them to leave the villa hadn't read the paperwork? Or perhaps when the team got there they realised that searching a villa with dogs with two toddlers present might not be a great idea.
Jesus, you people must spend your entire lives cross-referencing Kate's book with the files searching out every minor discrepancy going. If only it was a worthwhile occupation you'd be given medals for dedication beyond the call of duty!
The paperwork was for them, not those who conducted the search. If they had read it they could have declined to leave even if asked.
I read the details because others don't, they rely on their own opinions and say things like 'perhaps' and 'maybe'. I look at the facts first, I try not to invent reasons for things. That's how I discovered Stuart Prior's request that his liaison officers should not be asked certain questions.
-
The paperwork was for them, not those who conducted the search. If they had read it they could have declined to leave even if asked.
I read the details because others don't, they rely on their own opinions and say things like 'perhaps' and 'maybe'. I look at the facts first, I try not to invent reasons for things. That's how I discovered Stuart Prior's request that his liaison officers should not be asked certain questions.
Do you have a link to the English version of the warrant the McCanns were given?
-
This is the search warrant for the villa;
Before proceeding to effect the search, copy of the dispatch attached determining who had access to the place, mentioning that they can be present during the search and be accompanied or substituted by someone of confidence will be delivered. If the persons in reference are not present, copy of the dispatch can be delivered where possible to a family member, neighbour, caretaker or whoever acts as substitute, article 176, n 1 and 2 of the CPP.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm# p8p2085
This is what Kate said;
we were all asked to leave the villa. It was early evening and we had to find somewhere to go with two tired and hungry toddlers in tow. [Madeleine]
Did none of them read the paperwork saying they could stay, was it a misunderstanding, or is it another little white lie?
If what the McCanns got was a copy of the warrant in Portuguese, I would venture it would be difficult to understand, unless they had access to the document with sufficient lead time to nab a translator.
If the relevant law requires that such documents are translated for non-speakers of Portuguese, then they should have understood their rights. Ditto if they accessed a lawyer.
As to exactly how this 'leave proposition' would have been put to the McCanns, surely that is speculation. But the team inspecting would be the dog(s), Grime, the video recorder person, presumably at least a couple of PJ officers, and possibly someone to translate between Grime and the others. Two parents, two very young children, and wasn't Jon Corner a guest at the time? That is hardly a mix conducive to the type of search to be conducted. It would make sense to request that some of them leave, particularly the twins.
-
Why? I don't believe it was a white lie. It was simply a lie.
And people on here have the cheek to accuse me of being black and white!
-
Apparently a lie is a lie. So, if I tell you your bum doesn't look big in that dress (it does) that's a lie, and that makes me a liar, having lost my moral compass and on the slippery slope to (for example) committing adultery with someone with a smaller bum. *&*%£
-
Does this moral decline after telling any lie include the very big lies which most parents repeat several times each and every year at that special time of the year?
Should I review my opinion of my now deceased parents whom I always admired for their honesty and extremely strong moral compass?
-
Apparently a lie is a lie. So, if I tell you your bum doesn't look big in that dress (it does) that's a lie, and that makes me a liar, having lost my moral compass and on the slippery slope to (for example) committing adultery with someone with a smaller bum. *&*%£
It sure as hell ain't the truth........................Or Is It ? [cue Man Alive music]
white lie
noun
noun: white lie; plural noun: white lies
a harmless or trivial lie, especially one told to avoid hurting someone's feelings.
OK now define harmless and trivial.
-
This is the search warrant for the villa;
Before proceeding to effect the search, copy of the dispatch attached determining who had access to the place, mentioning that they can be present during the search and be accompanied or substituted by someone of confidence will be delivered. If the persons in reference are not present, copy of the dispatch can be delivered where possible to a family member, neighbour, caretaker or whoever acts as substitute, article 176, n 1 and 2 of the CPP.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm# p8p2085
This is what Kate said;
we were all asked to leave the villa. It was early evening and we had to find somewhere to go with two tired and hungry toddlers in tow. [Madeleine]
Did none of them read the paperwork saying they could stay, was it a misunderstanding, or is it another little white lie?
Or was it a PJ tactic to break the McCanns? They were hoping to turn up there on a day they were going to be away in Huelva. Once they turned up and found the McCanns had 2 people there doing videoing, no wonder they wanted them to leave.
-
And people on here have the cheek to accuse me of being black and white!
The McCanns told the world that they had cancelled a trip because Gerry had a stomach virus, a virus which he seemed not to have had in that morning. The lie, we later found out from Kate, was to cover up the fact that suspicion was beginning to fall on them and forensics were being done to that end. That was not a white lie but an absolute whopper. It proved that they were willing to lie in order to misdirect and we have no reason to believe they would not use the same strategy again, if the need arose.
-
I notice you did not respond to my previous post addressed to you. Have you never told a white lie yourself, or are you whiter than white?
I sure I have in the past but I try to avoid it, I have seen what happens when people tell little white lies and then forget which ones they have told to which people.
-
The McCanns told the world that they had cancelled a trip because Gerry had a stomach virus, a virus which he seemed not to have had in that morning. The lie, we later found out from Kate, was to cover up the fact that suspicion was beginning to fall on them and forensics were being done to that end. That was not a white lie but an absolute whopper. It proved that they were willing to lie in order to misdirect and we have no reason to believe they would not use the same strategy again, if the need arose.
Frustratingly, I can't lay my hands on my copy of Kate's book.
From memory, she said something about not being keen to advertise to the world that police would soon be crawling all over the apartment they had hired for the holiday.
Is that right?
If it is, then I defy anyone here, if they were falsely accused of killing their eldest daughter, wanting to broadcast to the world that police were about to invade the place they last lived with said daughter before she vanished.
-
The McCanns told the world that they had cancelled a trip because Gerry had a stomach virus, a virus which he seemed not to have had in that morning. The lie, we later found out from Kate, was to cover up the fact that suspicion was beginning to fall on them and forensics were being done to that end. That was not a white lie but an absolute whopper. It proved that they were willing to lie in order to misdirect and we have no reason to believe they would not use the same strategy again, if the need arose.
Gerry did have a mild stomach upset so to call the "lie" an absolute whopper is utterly absurd. It was an excuse, yes, but you are deliberately blowing it up out of all proportion to further for your own malicious agenda. It's very sad IMO.
-
Frustratingly, I can't lay my hands on my copy of Kate's book.
From memory, she said something about not being keen to advertise to the world that police would soon be crawling all over the apartment they had hired for the holiday.
Is that right?
If it is, then I defy anyone here, if they were falsely accused of killing their eldest daughter, wanting to broadcast to the world that police were about to invade the place they last lived with said daughter before she vanished.
Whether falsely accused or guilty I can understand why they would not want the world to know they were under suspicion. Why not then simply keep quiet?
-
I sure I have in the past but I try to avoid it, I have seen what happens when people tell little white lies and then forget which ones they have told to which people.
So, you have lied in the past? Oh dear, that indicates to me that you have lost your moral compass and are on the slippery slope. Never mind that it was in the past and you say you prefer now to avoid lying, we must always judge you by your past actions and show no understanding or have any sense of proportion about them. Once a liar, always a liar, eh?
-
Whether falsely accused or guilty I can understand why they would not want the world to know they were under suspicion. Why not then simply keep quiet?
I think the question is whether to go on the trip and be away or to stay under the excuse that Gerry felt ill.
Frustratingly, I can't lay my hands on my copy of Kate's book.
From memory, she said something about not being keen to advertise to the world that police would soon be crawling all over the apartment they had hired for the holiday.
Is that right?
If it is, then I defy anyone here, if they were falsely accused of killing their eldest daughter, wanting to broadcast to the world that police were about to invade the place they last lived with said daughter before she vanished.
Madeleine had never living in the Villa.
So, you have lied in the past? Oh dear, that indicates to me that you have lost your moral compass and are on the slippery slope. Never mind that it was in the past and you say you prefer not avoid lying, we must always judge you by your past actions and show no understanding or have any sense of proportion about them. Once a liar, always a liar, eh?
So we are as bad as each other are we!
-
Whether falsely accused or guilty I can understand why they would not want the world to know they were under suspicion. Why not then simply keep quiet?
Because it is easier to make a lame excuse like a tummy bug than to say "no comment" and be badgered for an explanation, or to see your "no comment" reported by journos with accompanying speculation about your refusal to comment. It's really not that difficult to work out!
-
Gerry did have a mild stomach upset so to call the "lie" an absolute whopper is utterly absurd. It was an excuse, yes, but you are deliberately blowing it up out of all proportion to further for your own malicious agenda. It's very sad IMO.
Rather handy that Gerry's stomach upset seemed to have developed straight after he was told that the PJ was going to carry out forensics on the villa.
It was not an excuse, it was a lie and a lie told to the world and demonstrates starkly just how far the McCanns will go to to cover up information they do not want the public to know.
-
Because it is easier to make a lame excuse like a tummy bug than to say "no comment" and be badgered for an explanation, or to see your "no comment" reported by journos with accompanying speculation about your refusal to comment. It's really not that difficult to work out!
Gerry managed a 'no comment' when asked about Murat so why not now? Surely it would have been better than lying?
-
So, you have lied in the past? Oh dear, that indicates to me that you have lost your moral compass and are on the slippery slope. Never mind that it was in the past and you say you prefer not avoid lying, we must always judge you by your past actions and show no understanding or have any sense of proportion about them. Once a liar, always a liar, eh?
Nothing as serious as about the reason for not going somewhere due to the police visiting.
-
Rather handy that Gerry's stomach upset seemed to have developed straight after he was told that the PJ was going to carry out forensics on the villa.
It was not an excuse, it was a lie and a lie told to the world and demonstrates starkly just how far the McCanns will go to to cover up information they do not want the public to know.
"Just how far"??! "Cover up"??! Get a grip woman. "I've got a tummy upset" is not the deception of the century. You're really making a fool of yourself now IMO.
-
Because it is easier to make a lame excuse like a tummy bug than to say "no comment" and be badgered for an explanation, or to see your "no comment" reported by journos with accompanying speculation about your refusal to comment. It's really not that difficult to work out!
Even easier to say that the police needed to see them.
-
Nothing as serious as about the reason for not going somewhere due to the police visiting.
You've never made an excuse for not going somewhere? So tell us about the lies you have told and why they are no where near as bad as saying you've got a tummy bug and can't go on a planned trip.
-
Rather handy that Gerry's stomach upset seemed to have developed straight after he was told that the PJ was going to carry out forensics on the villa.
It was not an excuse, it was a lie and a lie told to the world and demonstrates starkly just how far the McCanns will go to to cover up information they do not want the public to know.
That would give you the shits wouldn't it. Your stomach would go into overdrive on news like that. But somehow they say it was a "virus". What sort of virus Kate?
-
"Just how far"??! "Cover up"??! Get a grip woman. "I've got a tummy upset" is not the deception of the century. You're really making a fool of yourself now IMO.
Was it not to cover up the fact that the PJ were doing forensics?
-
Gerry managed a 'no comment' when asked about Murat so why not now? Surely it would have been better than lying?
Good example. What happened when Gerry said "no comment" in that instance? A whole new conspiracy was born!
-
Was it not to cover up the fact that the PJ were doing forensics?
And who did this really serious and terrible "lie" harm or hurt?
-
You've never made an excuse for not going somewhere? So tell us about the lies you have told and why they are no where near as bad as saying you've got a tummy bug and can't go on a planned trip.
Not to the press.
-
Even easier to say that the police needed to see them.
Which would have led to frenzied speculation about why the police wanted to see them so urgently they had to cancel a planned trip.
-
Not to the press.
So lying to the press = bad, lying to friends and family = not so bad, is that your position?
-
Nothing as serious as about the reason for not going somewhere due to the police visiting.
So I'm right.
The McCanns were not keen to advertise to the world that the place they last lived with their daughter before she vanished was about to be invaded by police.
I defy any, here, in identical circumstances, to say they would be.
And I will call into question their honesty.
-
So I'm right.
The McCanns were not keen to advertise to the world that the place they last lived with their daughter before she vanished was about to be invaded by police.
I defy any, here, in identical circumstances, to say they would be.
And I will call into question their honesty.
Apartment 5A had already been checked by then.
So your slur on their honesty fails.
-
Or was it a PJ tactic to break the McCanns? They were hoping to turn up there on a day they were going to be away in Huelva. Once they turned up and found the McCanns had 2 people there doing videoing, no wonder they wanted them to leave.
The search warrant was applied for and obtained on the same day the search was carried out. Do you have evidence they were asked to leave? There were 6 family members plus Jon Corner and, I think, a cameraman. I think some could have gone off with the twins leaving at least a couple to stay if they had wanted to, don't you?
-
The search warrant was applied for and obtained on the same day the search was carried out. Do you have evidence they were asked to leave? There were 6 family members plus Jon Corner and, I think, a cameraman. I think some could have gone off with the twins leaving at least a couple to stay if they had wanted to, don't you?
It is on the Panorama documentary Jon Corner states it on video from memory. Unfortunately it is an hour long. Some one mentioned it on the forum that they were told to leave.
It was you http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7877.msg376221#msg376221 ??
OK so we have it from Jon and Kate they were asked to leave.
-
It is on the Panorama documentary Jon Corner states it on video from memory. Unfortunately it is an hour long. Some one mentioned it on the forum that they were told to leave.
It was you http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7877.msg376221#msg376221 ??
OK so we have it from Jon and Kate they were asked to leave.
BILTON: He was right to sense a change. On the day filming was due to start the police arrive at the McCann villa. As they pictures show, they would return.
CORNER: They took most of their clothing, they were taking even the wet clothes out of the washing machine. I was aware that the cuddlecat was boxed up and we were asked to leave the villa.
BILTON: The crew?
CORNER: Everybody.
-
BILTON: He was right to sense a change. On the day filming was due to start the police arrive at the McCann villa. As they pictures show, they would return.
CORNER: They took most of their clothing, they were taking even the wet clothes out of the washing machine. I was aware that the cuddlecat was boxed up and we were asked to leave the villa.
BILTON: The crew?
CORNER: Everybody.
How did you do that so quick? 8((()*/
-
How did you do that so quick? 8((()*/
google "mccanns were asked to leave villa for the dog searches" 8)--))
-
google "mccanns were asked to leave villa for the dog searches" 8)--))
OK so they didn't lie about that, unbelievable isn't it. Yet the search warrant states they are allowed to stay, well at least one of them was. Shame Jon Corner didn't stay and video them setting up the ruse I believe the PJ set up using Cuddle Cat.
But we know now Cuddle Cat was clean as a whistle.
-
OK so they didn't lie about that, unbelievable isn't it. Yet the search warrant states they are allowed to stay, well at least one of them was. Shame Corner didn't stay and video them setting up the ruse I believe the PJ set up on Cuddle Cat.
But we know now he was clean as a whistle.
Maybe Jon Corner lied about it as well. You do know that it's not just the McCanns who lie don't you? It's all their family, friends and supporters too. They just lie, lie, lie, almost continuously all day long, about everything. It's weird.
*Note to Mods ^^^joke, not libel.
-
Maybe Jon Corner lied about it as well. You do know that it's not just the McCanns who lie don't you? It's all their family, friends and supporters too. They just lie, lie, lie, almost continuously all day long, about everything. It's weird.
*Note to Mods ^^^joke, not libel.
I was taking you quite seriously till I got to the end.
-
BILTON: He was right to sense a change. On the day filming was due to start the police arrive at the McCann villa. As they pictures show, they would return.
CORNER: They took most of their clothing, they were taking even the wet clothes out of the washing machine. I was aware that the cuddlecat was boxed up and we were asked to leave the villa.
BILTON: The crew?
CORNER: Everybody.
It appears they were never told that according to the search warrant, there was a right to have an observer present during the search.
A lie of omission on the part of the Policia Judicairia?
-
It appears they were never told that according to the search warrant, there was a right to have an observer present during the search.
A lie of omission on the part of the Policia Judicairia?
Omission. Paiva was one of the officers who arrived at the villa at 6pm. He spoke English & would have known the McCanns rights, especially being their FLO.
Murat was able to stay in his mother's villa when the PJ searched with the dogs.
-
Omission. Paiva was one of the officers who arrived at the villa at 6pm. He spoke English & would have known the McCanns rights, especially being their FLO.
Murat was able to stay in his mother's villa when the PJ searched with the dogs.
I'd say it was the video cameras and two camera men that were the issue.
-
Good example. What happened when Gerry said "no comment" in that instance? A whole new conspiracy was born!
So the McCanns were adjusting their behaviour so the sceptics had nothing to gossip about. Is that what you are saying?
-
So I'm right.
The McCanns were not keen to advertise to the world that the place they last lived with their daughter before she vanished was about to be invaded by police.
I defy any, here, in identical circumstances, to say they would be.
And I will call into question their honesty.
I always lie.
-
So the McCanns were adjusting their behaviour so the sceptics had nothing to gossip about. Is that what you are saying?
I'm saying that whatever the McCanns say or do you will harshly criticise and then tell us what they should have said or done instead. It's tiresome, childish, and very predictable.
-
Omission. Paiva was one of the officers who arrived at the villa at 6pm. He spoke English & would have known the McCanns rights, especially being their FLO.
Murat was able to stay in his mother's villa when the PJ searched with the dogs.
In other words a coach and horses was driven through the McCann's legal rights if the truth was not disclosed to them.
There was obviously no language barrier because Paiva was one of the attending officers. Therefore it seems the failure was intentional and was done intentionally to deprive the McCanns of their legal rights.
It was a lie. A very serious lie at that, as the comparison with the Murat search makes clear.
-
In other words a coach and horses was driven through the McCann's legal rights if the truth was not disclosed to them.
There was obviously no language barrier because Paiva was one of the attending officers. Therefore it seems the failure was intentional and was done intentionally to deprive the McCanns of their legal rights.
It was a lie. A very serious lie at that, as the comparison with the Murat search makes clear.
If it was done you have no evidence it was intentional.
Anyway look on the positive side, were it to finish up before a judge any halfway decent brief would be able to make capital out of it so not too much lost eh?
-
I'm saying that whatever the McCanns say or do you will harshly criticise and then tell us what they should have said or done instead. It's tiresome, childish, and very predictable.
You really have to make your mind up Alfie. Either the McCanns have absolutely no interest in what sceptics say, bigger fish to fry bladdy, bladdy blah or they hide things in case sceptics question their actions. Which one is it ?
-
In other words a coach and horses was driven through the McCann's legal rights if the truth was not disclosed to them.
There was obviously no language barrier because Paiva was one of the attending officers. Therefore it seems the failure was intentional and was done intentionally to deprive the McCanns of their legal rights.
It was a lie. A very serious lie at that, as the comparison with the Murat search makes clear.
The keyword is "if".
The rest is speculation.
-
The keyword is "if".
The rest is speculation.
Portuguese justice system has an odd way of allowing an arguido to watch the PJ search his property but kicking the victim's parents out of their residence for the same purpose.
-
I always lie.
yep, we noticed.
-
yep, we noticed.
I am sure if you ask Slarti nicely he will explain it to you as he seems to be the only one who has ever cottoned on when I have posted that; it is a sort of intelligence test...................................... @)(++(*
-
I am sure if you ask Slarti nicely he will explain it to you as he seems to be the only one who has ever cottoned on when I have posted that; it is a sort of intelligence test...................................... @)(++(*
Hahaha
You are so funny .... NOT
-
I always lie.
Then why did you tell us the truth paradoxically.
-
You really have to make your mind up Alfie. Either the McCanns have absolutely no interest in what sceptics say, bigger fish to fry bladdy, bladdy blah or they hide things in case sceptics question their actions. Which one is it ?
I don"t have to do carry out orders from you, that's for sure!
-
I don"t have to do carry out orders from you, that's for sure!
It's not an order I'm merely requesting some consistency from you.
-
It's not an order I'm merely requesting some consistency from you.
It was an order - you told me what I had to do, and demanded an answer. Tell you what, I'll overlook your rudeness and give you an answer. Do you agree that over the course of 10 years of being slagged off in the media and online that the McCanns may have grown a hardened carapace to criticism, and that back in the Summer of 2007 they may still have been deeply distressed and hurt by the speculation, which these days they can shrug off more easily, or do you disagree with this premise? If you do disagree then that would explain why you see an inconsistency. Anyone with any understanding would see it differently.
-
The keyword is "if".
The rest is speculation.
Likewise it is speculation that the truth was disclosed to the Mccanns.
It works both ways SIL
.... and judging by the way that on that day of the many questions, Amaral told Gerry untruth/s to try and make him confess, I have little faith that Amaral would hesitate to hide things from Gerry and Kate. These were untruths implicating Gerry that he KNEW were not true. At that stage Gerry must have finally totally understood that they were in great danger of being framed.
I cant remember what the untruth implicating Gerry was/were, but someone will remember
Personally, based on that, I think it likely that Amaral would take any advantage he could, if he felt he could nail them.
So what Brietta said seems far more likely than what you said
IMO
-
It was an order - you told me what I had to do, and demanded an answer. Tell you what, I'll overlook your rudeness and give you an answer. Do you agree that over the course of 10 years of being slagged off in the media and online that the McCanns may have grown a hardened carapace to criticism, and that back in the Summer of 2007 they may still have been deeply distressed and hurt by the speculation, which these days they can shrug off more easily, or do you disagree with this premise? If you do disagree then that would explain why you see an inconsistency. Anyone with any understanding would see it differently.
Not sure that asking you to make your mind up constitutes an order but hey who I'm I to quibble. As to your question I have no idea how the McCanns emotional development has faired over the years and neither do you but as they still seem to be taking newspapers to task over what they perceive as slights, it seems that carapace is still quite brittle.
-
Likewise it is speculation that the truth was disclosed to the Mccanns.
It works both ways SIL
.... and judging by the way that on that day of the many questions, Amaral told Gerry untruth/s to try and make him confess, I have little faith that Amaral would hesitate to hide things from Gerry and Kate. These were untruths implicating Gerry that he KNEW were not true. At that stage Gerry must have finally totally understood that they were in great danger of being framed.
I cant remember what the untruth implicating Gerry was/were, but someone will remember
Personally, based on that, I think it likely that Amaral would take any advantage he could, if he felt he could nail them.
So what Brietta said seems far more likely than what you said
IMO
It is a cops job to get to the truth Sadie regardless of who they might upset. Kate's bitching about Ricardo Paiva when she realised they had been played was interesting. Are doctors so naive?
-
It is a cops job to get to the truth Sadie regardless of who they might upset. Kate's bitching about Ricardo Paiva when she realised they had been played was interesting. Are doctors so naive?
It works better when you have cops with enough brains to understand the evidence
We know from the archiving report what evidence they had and it was all BS
-
Not sure that asking you to make your mind up constitutes an order but hey who I'm I to quibble. As to your question I have no idea how the McCanns emotional development has faired over the years and neither do you but as they still seem to be taking newspapers to task over what they perceive as slights, it seems that carapace is still quite brittle.
Here is your order again:
You really have to make your mind up Alfie. Either the McCanns have absolutely no interest in what sceptics say, bigger fish to fry bladdy, bladdy blah or they hide things in case sceptics question their actions. Which one is it ?
You asked about the McCanns' interest in what sceptics have to say - I'd say these days it's probably virtually zero (and the fact that they have taken no action against any of the leading online sceptics would seem to bear this out). In the early days speculation both in the media and online was almost certainly something they found very difficult to deal with. I'm not sure which newspapers have been taken to task by the McCanns recently but why wouldn't they want newspapers to correct false media reports? so to bring this back on topic, it's understandable on every level that they would not want have wanted to broadcast to the world that the police were sending the dogs in, the fact that you don't understand this is not my problem nor theirs.
-
Here is your order again:
You asked about the McCanns' interest in what sceptics have to say - I'd say these days it's probably virtually zero (and the fact that they have taken no action against any of the leading online sceptics would seem to bear this out). In the early days speculation both in the media and online was almost certainly something they found very difficult to deal with. I'm not sure which newspapers have been taken to task by the McCanns recently but why wouldn't they want newspapers to correct false media reports? so to bring this back on topic, it's understandable on every level that they would not want have wanted to broadcast to the world that the police were sending the dogs in, the fact that you don't understand this is not my problem nor theirs.
Oh I do understand it Alfie. I wouldn't want the world and his wife to know I was under suspicion in the disappearance of my daughter. What I still don't understand though is that instead of saying nothing, and retaining their credibility, they had to lie about it and taint everything they have said afterwards.
-
Oh I do understand it Alfie. I wouldn't want the world and his wife to know I was under suspicion in the disappearance of my daughter. What I still don't understand though is that instead of saying nothing, and retaining their credibility, they had to lie about it and taint everything they have said afterwards.
This has already been explained to you several times. The fact that you don't accept the answer is your problem, I can't force you to see sense or understand so I'm not going to bother trying anymore, otherwise we just keep going round in ever decreasing circles.
-
Oh I do understand it Alfie. I wouldn't want the world and his wife to know I was under suspicion in the disappearance of my daughter. What I still don't understand though is that instead of saying nothing, and retaining their credibility, they had to lie about it and taint everything they have said afterwards.
BTW, @)(++(* you're so funny. Had they not "lied" about the trip to Huelva then of course nothing they said subsequently would be "tainted" @)(++(* Yeah right and I'm the pope.
-
This has already been explained to you several times. The fact that you don't accept the answer is your problem, I can't force you to see sense or understand so I'm not going to bother trying anymore, otherwise we just keep going round in ever decreasing circles.
No you've excused it not explained it and when you, hopefully, see the difference Alfie then this debate can move forward.
-
BTW, @)(++(* you're so funny. Had they not "lied" about the trip to Huelva then of course nothing they said subsequently would be "tainted" @)(++(* Yeah right and I'm the pope.
Haven't you got better things to do with your time your Eminence ? 8(0(*
-
No you've excused it not explained it and when you, hopefully, see the difference Alfie then this debate can move forward.
Semantics. Let's face it we're at an impasse. The lady's not for turning! 8(0(*
-
Likewise it is speculation that the truth was disclosed to the Mccanns.
It works both ways SIL
.... and judging by the way that on that day of the many questions, Amaral told Gerry untruth/s to try and make him confess, I have little faith that Amaral would hesitate to hide things from Gerry and Kate. These were untruths implicating Gerry that he KNEW were not true. At that stage Gerry must have finally totally understood that they were in great danger of being framed.
I cant remember what the untruth implicating Gerry was/were, but someone will remember
Personally, based on that, I think it likely that Amaral would take any advantage he could, if he felt he could nail them.
So what Brietta said seems far more likely than what you said
IMO
It does not work both ways. Two wrongs do not make a right.
And you have followed that with a great deal of speculation. All that is happening is that the facts are getting clouded. Is confusion good?
What we can reasonably claim to know about PJ understanding of the dog alerts is that the Rebelo team put further questions to Mr Grime in order to clarify the capability and actions of the dogs. Thus to assume the Amaral team knew fully about the capability of the dogs is a giant leap in the dark.
I have yet to see how the dogs were brought into the PJ investigation, why Martin Grime was involved, precisely what Mark Harrison thought of Grime's actions etc. Until we have that, there is no provenance for this part of the case, merely speculation.
For the record, I have not said what happened on the day. I have merely pointed out that the logistics of a combined normal search plus dog search under video would be difficult with the McCann family plus friends present.
-
It does not work both ways. Two wrongs do not make a right.
And you have followed that with a great deal of speculation. All that is happening is that the facts are getting clouded. Is confusion good?
What we can reasonably claim to know about PJ understanding of the dog alerts is that the Rebelo team put further questions to Mr Grime in order to clarify the capability and actions of the dogs. Thus to assume the Amaral team knew fully about the capability of the dogs is a giant leap in the dark.
I have yet to see how the dogs were brought into the PJ investigation, why Martin Grime was involved, precisely what Mark Harrison thought of Grime's actions etc. Until we have that, there is no provenance for this part of the case, merely speculation.
For the record, I have not said what happened on the day. I have merely pointed out that the logistics of a combined normal search plus dog search under video would be difficult with the McCann family plus friends present.
What we know is the amaral team misunderstood the value of the alerts and in the archiving report the alerts are listed as one of the reasons the McCanns were made arguidos
No speculation a fact
-
What we know is the amaral team misunderstood the value of the alerts and in the archiving report the alerts are listed as one of the reasons the McCanns were made arguidos
No speculation a fact
That is fair enough. Being made arguido is not even the same as being arrested.
-
That is fair enough. Being made arguido is not even the same as being arrested.
And easy for people, behind the armour-plating of their computer screens, to say.
Portuguese police have named both parents of Madeleine McCann as formal suspects in her disappearance.
Gerry McCann was officially given "arguido" status about 12 hours after his wife Kate. They had been questioned separately for more than 24 hours.
No bail conditions or charges have been imposed and both deny any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance on 3 May.
Earlier, a family spokesman said Portuguese police believed Kate McCann had killed her daughter accidentally.
Asked whether the couple, both 39, were still protesting their innocence, family spokesman David Hughes said: "They certainly are."
'Very low'
Mr McCann refused to speak to reporters as he left police headquarters in Portimao after eight hours of questioning.
It is understood Kate McCann was told she would only face two years in prison if she confessed.
She underwent a second day of questioning on Friday.
Under Portuguese law, police are not allowed to publicly give details of ongoing investigations.
Jon Corner, a close family friend, said Kate McCann had told him officers had tried to "cut her a deal" where she would only serve two years in jail.
He added that she was feeling "very down, very low" and "deflated".
Another family representative said officers believed that traces of four-year-old Madeleine's blood were in the McCanns' car, hired 25 days after she vanished.
Mr McCann arrived at the police headquarters at 1535 BST. He was not questioned with Mrs McCann, who left shortly afterwards.
'Ordinary family'
The "suspect" status allows the authorities to put certain questions to Mr and Mrs McCann, and also gives them the right to remain silent.
ARGUIDO/ARGUIDA STATUS
Officially a suspect
Bestowed by police or requested by individual
Right to remain silent
Right to a lawyer
Must report to police every five days
The first formal suspect was Robert Murat, a British man living locally.
Mr and Mrs McCann have not been arrested or charged.
McCann family spokesman David Hughes said: "She is suspected of accidentally killing her daughter."
In his latest diary entry on a website publicising the search for Madeleine, Mr McCann wrote: "The suggestion that Kate is involved in Madeleine's disappearance is ludicrous.
"Anyone who knows anything about 3 May knows that Kate is completely innocent. We will fight this all the way and we will not stop looking for Madeleine."
Meanwhile, friends of the family said that Mrs McCann has been told by her lawyer that she could be charged in connection with the disappearance of her daughter.
It is understood that after questioning Mrs McCann on Thursday, police said they had 22 questions they wanted to ask her during Friday's interview.
Madeleine McCann
Madeleine was last seen on 3 May
Samples
The McCanns, from Rothley, Leicestershire, say they left Madeleine in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz while they went to eat in a nearby restaurant.
Mrs McCann had been interviewed by police the day after Madeleine disappeared, but Thursday was the first time her lawyer had been present.
In a statement released before her interview on Thursday, she appealed to her daughter's abductors, saying: "It is not too late - please let her go or call the police."
She said: "We came to Portugal an ordinary family of five. We just want to know what happened on 3 May and want to be able to go home one family, reunited."
A British sniffer dog picked up the scent of a dead body in the apartment and samples, including suspected traces of blood, have been recovered from the scene.
The UK's Forensic Science Service has spent the past month analysing them.
It's a lovely thing to be declared arguido
Breeze in the park, in fact.
-
And easy for people, behind the armour-plating of their computer screens, to say.
It's a lovely thing to be declared arguido
Breeze in the park, in fact.
I have heard Gerry saying positive things about it.
-
And easy for people, behind the armour-plating of their computer screens, to say.
It's a lovely thing to be declared arguido
Breeze in the park, in fact.
You wonder why anyone would request it?
-
You wonder why anyone would request it?
It's pretty obvious if you have paid attention to the snippets of Portuguese law we have seen here
-
....
It's a lovely thing to be declared arguido
Breeze in the park, in fact.
"Must report to police every five days" but it didn't stop them returning to England.