What advantage was achieved by lying about the Huelva trip?

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Alfie]

&%+((£  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? 

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Alfie]

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!

[Alfie]

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.

[Alfie]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Alfie]

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. 

[faithlilly]

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

[Brietta]

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?

[ShiningInLuz]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.