What advantage was achieved by lying about the Huelva trip?

[Alfie]

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?

[ShiningInLuz]

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.

[Alfie]

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)?

[slartibartfast]

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.

[barrier]

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.

[ShiningInLuz]

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'.

[Robittybob1]

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

[Brietta]

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.
 

[faithlilly]

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.

[sadie]

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.

[faithlilly]

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?

[misty]

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

[Robittybob1]

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 

[Brietta]

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".

[misty]

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?