Imo this is eerie!

by zodiac 22.02.11 13:33

I felt

watching from 4.55 secs she talks about income generation then at about 5.03/4 secs she talks about finding the abductor. It imo is eerie!

Watch it and observe her face from 4.55 secs onwards without looking away! It is when she says: the person who's taken her. Imo this is eerie! 643235

I watched the video on youtube where the screen is bigger probably best watching it there first.

I would love to know what Prof Paul Ekman would make of that!

I saw the above video thanks to newperson on TMCF.

by littlepixie 22.02.11 13:47

I've never liked that male TV presenter (can't think of his name) but I get the distinct impression that he didnt believe a word Kate McCann was saying.
You would not believe Mrs McCann was talking about her own daughter would you - its all about money.
I watched it again without sound. Losts of eye twitches and rapid, manic smiles.

by zodiac 22.02.11 13:54

Hi littlepixie,

I think that both the interviewers look uncomfortable. I noticed that most of the time he does not even look at the camera to ask her the questions!

by kangdang 22.02.11 14:04

Nothing eerie about the clip at all. Kate's body language is congruous throughout, there are no hot spots. As for the interviewers, I would imagine interviewing the parent of an alleged missing child is never a comfortable situation.

by Guest 22.02.11 14:15

When asked about the 'fund' Kate replies:

As Directors of the fund, obviously there are many directors, one of our roles is income generation really. We have to try and fulfill the objectives of the fund which is obviously to find Madeleine, but also to find the abductor, the person who has taken her who is still out there (Adrian Childs buts in "ok" but Kate determined to get the last word which is) - so we always have to think about income generation.

How very sad that the first thing in Kate's mind, the first thing she mentions is INCOME GENERATION, not one of our roles is to use the fund to find Madeleine, one of our roles is to use the fund to get the case reopened, one of our roles is to use the fund to go back to Portugal and do a reconstruction,but no, one of our roles is INCOME GENERATION.

by Guest 22.02.11 14:26

Cherry wrote:When asked about the 'fund' Kate replies:

As Directors of the fund, obviously there are many directors, one of our roles is income generation really. We have to try and fulfill the objectives of the fund which is obviously to find Madeleine, but also to find the abductor, the person who has taken her who is still out there (Adrian Childs buts in "ok" but Kate determined to get the last word which is) - so we always have to think about income generation.

How very sad that the first thing in Kate's mind, the first thing she mentions is INCOME GENERATION, not one of our roles is to use the fund to find Madeleine, one of our roles is to use the fund to get the case reopened, one of our roles is to use the fund to go back to Portugal and do a reconstruction,but no, one of our roles is INCOME GENERATION.

I really cant imagine any other distressed mother who has lost a child talking in terms of Income Generation, this imo shows me that this appears to be more about a money making business rather than concern for a lost child. But then we have already seen that through the marketing website selling Madeleine merchandise, which imo is clearly exploiting Madeleine's name.

by Autumn 22.02.11 14:48

I found this chilling to watch. Kate appears totally devoid of any emotion and anyone who knew nothing about this case would be excused for thinking it was some politician prattling on about a financial company. I really don't think viewers, whatever they think has happened, would connect to Kate in this vid - if nothing else, this interview has hi-lighted to the public just how cold, calculating and emotionally detached Kate McCann is.

by Guest 22.02.11 14:50

zodiac wrote:
I saw the above video thanks to newperson on TMCF.

Hi Zodiac. If you don't mind me asking, what is TMCF?

by Guest 22.02.11 15:01

Hi Stella, I think TMCF is The Maddie Case files forum.

by Guest 22.02.11 15:09

Oh silly me, of course it is. Thank you Cherry Imo this is eerie! 725573

So Newperson has resurfaced again over there, well that's interesting !!

by Guest 22.02.11 15:14

You're welcome Stella.

I think newperson has been back for a while on there now, I know she left at one time but came back.

by aiyoyo 22.02.11 15:36

kangdang wrote:Nothing eerie about the clip at all. Kate's body language is congruous throughout, there are no hot spots. As for the interviewers, I would imagine interviewing the parent of an alleged missing child is never a comfortable situation.

Excuse me for asking: is that interview recent?

No prize for deducing who initiated that interview I suppose!
Else why would media continue to be interested in interviewing the mccanns when there are plenty other missing children/people cases.

I agree her body languauge is congruous throughout but her message is incongruous. Her eyes twitches throughout and she wasnt looking directly into the camera throughout. In fact her eyes were diverted and looked downward a lot especially when talking about the fund.

Interviewing the parent of missing child is not easy but the sort of question asked to a large extent reflects interviewers' opinion of it all. IMO, they didnt believe KM and didnt understand her harping on about the review. 3-1/2 and all stones unturned by now and still zilch, nothing; yet the mccanns want a review and NOT reopening. A review of what actually?

by zodiac 22.02.11 16:35

cherry wrote: "this appears to be more about a money making business"

I agree Cherry and imo when hindering the search is used it probably means hindering money coming into their Company.

Autumn, it is chilling viewing and I agree she does sound like she is talking about a Financial Company rather than her supposedly abducted child.

Stella, as Cherry has posted I did mean The Maddie Case Files.

by Judge Mental 22.02.11 16:40

Kate McCann is a woman far removed from the subject she is commenting on. Bring Gerald McCann in for these types of nonsensical interviews. At least we will be guaranteed a good old rib tickling laugh.

by poppydog 22.02.11 20:58

She was suppressing a smile or laugh at the words 'the person who's taken her'. I watched it closely in full screen, it's definately there.

Apart from that, it's the same thing repeated over, nothing new, give us the money. Which millions of has still not found Madeleine.

by zodiac 22.02.11 21:13

poppydog wrote:She was suppressing a smile or laugh at the words 'the person who's taken her'. I watched it closely in full screen, it's definately there.

Apart from that, it's the same thing repeated over, nothing new, give us the money. Which millions of has still not found Madeleine.

poppydog

that is what I saw. She was suppressing a smile or laugh. When I saw it I thought Imo this is eerie! 643235

that is

.

by littlepixie 23.02.11 0:49

Cherry wrote:You're welcome Stella.

I think newperson has been back for a while on there now, I know she left at one time but came back.

Who is NP1?

by **PeterMac** 23.02.11 9:05

poppydog wrote:She was suppressing a smile or laugh at the words 'the person who's taken her'. I watched it closely in full screen, it's definately there.
Apart from that, it's the same thing repeated over, nothing new, give us the money. Which millions of has still not found Madeleine.

And at 2:02 when she says the files "don't contain all the information" there is a definite smile or smirk and a look away to the left.
The clip seems to be about 3 months old, to judge by the comments section if you open it in YouTube. Which would explain the poppies on the interviewers.

by Magpie 23.02.11 9:52

Thank you for posting this gem, I had never seen it so this is getting shared. I read a lot of comments, I agree that the interviewers felt very uncomfortable. They were dying to ask her else and she was put on the spot 3 times. Whatever order they follow, the human side can't be erased from their faces, only forcing themselves to 'function' Wink

in their job. It came to only ONE point = guess what as usual, MONEY. She wasn't taking the hints but she felt them as was becoming aggressive.

She is an incurable LIAR, once again we see it here too when she says that the twins mention Maddy every day, Who is going to have that, gulb that?

- I get the feeling that we ALL want a change from now on and more and more, I am hopefull too about the 12th May, as I was reading somewhere else - just like when the McCanns were freed from arguidoship and Amaral had his book ready. It's not gloves are off now, it's masks are off, the real visage of the truth will not be pretty to see once exposed.

Cheers, Mag

by lj 24.02.11 8:52

Yep, again Kate can't hide her real feelings, I would describe it this time as delight.

Now why would a mother of a missing child feel delighted when she talks about the pedophile who took her daughter?

Great find Zodiac and np!

by Blimunda 24.02.11 19:34

Nice clip! It's good to know that Sean and Amelie keep talking about Madeleine "everyday". :puke:
Why does she feel the need to say: "....Well, Madeleine is our daughter, you know......"
Sick woman.

by Magpie 25.02.11 1:17

PeterMac wrote:
poppydog wrote:She was suppressing a smile or laugh at the words 'the person who's taken her'. I watched it closely in full screen, it's definately there.
Apart from that, it's the same thing repeated over, nothing new, give us the money. Which millions of has still not found Madeleine.

And at 2:02 when she says the files "don't contain all the information" there is a definite smile or smirk and a look away to the left.
The clip seems to be about 3 months old, to judge by the comments section if you open it in YouTube. Which would explain the poppies on the interviewers.

Excellent POINT! She did say this!!! 'the files don't contain ALL the information'

So can YOU Mrs Kate HEALY tell us and the world, and your PARENTS, WHICH other bits of info you KNOW isn't contained in the POLICE FILES?

by **PeterMac** 25.02.11 8:52

It is fascinating. Kate clearly does know something which is not in her set of files.
Police usually withold an important piece of information, which would be known only to the victim and the perpetrator.
How often do you hear, "blunt instrument", or "sharp instrument". The police know perfectly what sort of instrument it was, but they wait.
Kate has now blown the gaff. She clearly knows something more, and that poorly concealed smirk to me indicates she believes it to be something the police have not found or realised.
Perhaps it will be in the book.
Probably not.

by DocMartin 25.02.11 9:08

PeterMac wrote:Kate has now blown the gaff.

Do you think this case will ever be resolved PeterMac?

Have you ever known a case to be covered up/protected like this before?

Are we all waisting our time in these fora waiting for Judgement Day?

by theolivebranch 25.02.11 9:59

So Kate says she knows stuff that isn't in the police files. Well of course she does, she knows a lot more. She knows what really has happened to Madeleine.
No it will not be in the book, because the book is to protect them, and what she knows will blow this case wide open.