McCanns in Australia

I doubt they say it because they think they can get away with it in Australia. I believe they are just that hardcore stupid.
It's the same level of stupidity as 2 doctors saying a fleck is just a coloboma, or the other way around.

Invinoveritas wrote:
P.S. did you know that Tony Blair is on a speech tour of Australia at the moment, now that is a coincidence

Everyone in Australia, - collecting money.

Has it been established that the McCanns actually are in Australia? The programme there said that they were touring in Europe but there's been no other reports of them being in either place.

If its true that they are in Australia and supposed to be touring Europe, is GM still working or is the Find Madeleine Fund now funding their lifestyle?

Ollie wrote:If its true that they are in Australia and supposed to be touring Europe, is GM still working or is the Find Madeleine Fund now funding their lifestyle?

he could be taking his annual holidays to spread the gospel to the Aussies.

Are the twins with them, or left at home. But maybe nice uncle Brian and Auntie Janet are looking after them.

but we can be sure that the Fund is paying lots of dosh for this jaunt.

Does anyone know the reaction of the Aussie media to their visit. they must have been there long enough to do the interview in which they were asked if they killed Madeleine. Unless that Australian interviewer flew to them with her camera crew.

Ollie wrote:If its true that they are in Australia and supposed to be touring Europe, is GM still working or is the Find Madeleine Fund now funding their lifestyle?

Maybe the person who keeps on insisting borders within the Schengen Europe can be closed, thinks that Australia is in Europe, or the other way around??

ETA some words.......

Marian,

I´ve checked the tabloids in German speaking countries and they are not reporting a tour of the Mccanns to Europe

I don't think the Australian programme was ever done in Australia. The woman reporter/interviewer went to Portugal and the interview was done there and they edited it at Channel 7 back home

It looks a PR exercise to raise as much for the fund and all the questions were very carefully scripted...and everything in that programme has been asked/said already before from interviews here in the UK...not to mention the shutters lie resurfacing again!

I never saw any shots of Australia on the programme so wherever the McScams are, it isn't Australia...the are probably camped out on the sofa in their lawyers office trolling the internet for anyone or anything they can sue and close down, leaving no stone unturned...all under the guise 'in their search for Madeline'

jd wrote:I don't think the Australian programme was ever done in Australia. The woman reporter/interviewer went to Portugal and the interview was done there and they edited it at Channel 7 back home

It looks a PR exercise to raise as much for the fund and all the questions were very carefully scripted...and everything in that programme has been asked/said already before from interviews here in the UK...not to mention the shutters lie resurfacing again!

I never saw any shots of Australia on the programme so wherever the McScams are, it isn't Australia...the are probably camped out on the sofa in their lawyers office trolling the internet for anyone or anything they can sue and close down, leaving no stone unturned...all under the guise 'in their search for Madeline'

I am Australian and I agree with you. I would love to be able to contact that reporter and tell her the truth. However, I have connected with her on twitter but she rarely tweets.

Source: http://www.mccannfiles.com/


EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
28 July 2011



SO NOW WE KNOW

They haven't got a clue down under - literally. The reporter fronting the recent Seven on Sunday programme announces an exclusive interview with Kate and Gerry McCann thus:

"Kate and Gerry McCann have lived a never-ending ordeal and they still don't know when, or if, it will ever end. It began on a family holiday in Portugal when Madeleine, their four-year-old daughter, simply vanished. She hasn't been seen since. Tonight the mystery deepens. You are about to see home video never shown before and learn the vital clue Madeleine left behind."

Unfortunately for the expectant viewers, they never get to learn what that vital clue is. Personally, I don't think it's Natasha Kampusch's psychological recovery from trauma. There are however other clues which, thankfully, did not drift onto the cutting room floor.

(Voice over): "On Thursday night, Kate put her daughter to bed for the last time."

KM: "My memory of that evening is really vivid. I mean she was really tired, but she was just cuddled up on my knee. We read a story, mmm...had some treats, some milk and biscuits, errm... and then after they'd done the usual 'toilet-teeth', errm... we went through to the bedroom and read another story 'If You're Happy And You Know It', errm... (long pause)...yep..." (silence).

And there it ends. No description whatsoever of actually putting the children to bed, despite Kate's 'vivid recall' of that evening. The account simply stops dead without a conclusion. This is a classic example of an unbalanced story, and one that's easily viewed with suspicion. Put very simply, if a story does not have a conclusion then there isn't one.

Kate next tells us that when the curtains blew up, they revealed that the shutter was 'all the way up' and the window had been 'pushed right across.' One of several highlights from the Channel 4 documentary (Madeleine Was Here) to be spliced into the proceedings, viewers are treated anew to the episode of the door being 'open much further than we'd left it.' Strange how Matthew Oldfield didn't notice the cold air inside apartment 5A, the various doors and windows having been open for twenty minutes by the time he is said to have peered into the children's bedroom from the lounge. Even stranger that Kate didn't notice the drop in temperature a further half-hour after that. (It was cold enough for Jane Tanner to have borrowed a fleece before setting off up the magic path of invisibility).

But the best is yet to come.

"Did you kill your daughter?" asks the lady journalist. Gerry answers:

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous."

Let's take this a step at a time.

"Did you kill your daughter?"

"No. That's an emphatic 'no.'"

This is Gerry speaking don't forget. For any other innocent mortal 'Absolutely not' would have been a sufficient response. Not for Gerry though. Despite his subsequent claim, he gives a decidedly unemphatic answer - 'No.' What follows is meta-language, where he is describing his earlier articulation of a word and does not address the underlying semantics in any way. Incoherent and unnecessary expansion then takes us away from the original question, referencing what has been 'purported' in Portugal, namely that 'Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.'

Next comes a cunning locking of the incident to a specific time frame, with the suggestion that Madeleine could only have had an accident when unattended. But Gerry slips up in questioning how it would have been possible for them to have disposed of Madeleine's body. In immediately substituting the phrase hidden her body he has already told us what in fact happened. Excitedly he goes on to ask why the parents should have covered up an accident. Why indeed.

It hardly comes as a surprise that Kate leaps in at this point, before Gerry's mouth can write any more bad cheques. She loses no time in elaborating upon the 'hide-and-seek' scenario played out that Thursday night, and the 'ludicrous' idea of their hire car being involved afterwards. But the damage has already been done.

The script, charitably outlined by Goncalo Amaral and fleshed out here by the McCanns, so as to exonerate themselves, depends entirely for its effect upon the premise that little Madeleine disappeared inexplicably that Thursday night; a premise that becomes less clear the closer it is examined. And Gerry is right. It wouldn't make sense to conceal an accident

Edited to add Dr Martin Roberts name and here is correct link

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

toilet-teeth:

Must be a long wait for all 3 to toilet their teeth with the same brush. Wonder how other personal care task would have toiletted.

Said Kate Mccann: the 'ludicrous' idea of their hire car being involved afterwards.
You may not know that "afterwards" does not necessarily mean 3 to 4 weeks later, when their hire of the car was documented. The car-hire records show an unexplained gap between 12 April and 8 May. It's my belief that this period of hire has been kept back from the public domain. It's a Rolls Royce to an electric phut-phut machine that somebody interesting hired that car between at least 28 April and 8 May, when it went back into general service.

kikoraton wrote:Said Kate Mccann: the 'ludicrous' idea of their hire car being involved afterwards.
You may not know that "afterwards" does not necessarily mean 3 to 4 weeks later, when their hire of the car was documented. The car-hire records show an unexplained gap between 12 April and 8 May. It's my belief that this period of hire has been kept back from the public domain. It's a Rolls Royce to an electric phut-phut machine that somebody interesting hired that car between at least 28 April and 8 May, when it went back into general service.

Very interesting, I wasn´t aware of that and it strengthens my personal opinion that Madeleine didn´t see the light of day on the 3rd of May

LJ, you have created images in my head involving toothbrushes and toilets that I really would rather not have had! Kate's attempts to portray herself in her book and interviews as a wonderful caring mother are sickening but there are countless people, including normally sensible journalists, who have fallen hook, line and sinker for this absolute codswallop.

This may have already been discussed so sorry if I am repeating, Kate acted out in her mockumentary (shown in the Australian interview) that when the door slammed she opened it and the curtains whooshed. In the Piers Morgan interview in May she says the curtains whooshed when she went back into Madeleines bedroom after searching their bedroom, not when she opened the door after it slammed. The more they tell the story the more inconsistencies.

It is hard for liars to keep up the lies so after 4 years you would expect the stories to change somewhat. Mind the McCanns & T7 couldn't get their stories straight from the start.

Also you may see my name on here has changed from honeybunch. This is because I have been outed (by a hater LOL) on twitter & wanted to make more sense with my posts now.

Gillyspot wrote:It is hard for liars to keep up the lies so after 4 years you would expect the stories to change somewhat. Mind the McCanns & T7 couldn't get their stories straight from the start.

Also you may see my name on here has changed from honeybunch. This is because I have been outed (by a hater LOL) on twitter & wanted to make more sense with my posts now.

I wondered how you had managed to accumulate `174 posts

[quote="candyfloss"]

Gillyspot wrote:
I wondered how you had managed to accumulate `174 posts

Well I type really fast

Jean wrote:LJ, you have created images in my head involving toothbrushes and toilets that I really would rather not have had! Kate's attempts to portray herself in her book and interviews as a wonderful caring mother are sickening but there are countless people, including normally sensible journalists, who have fallen hook, line and sinker for this absolute codswallop.

he, the toilet - teeth association came really from Kate

so is the info of just one toothbrush for all

the rest are our dirty minds.....


and as you know: a dirty mind is a joy forever

(one of the many variations on "a thing of beauty is a joy forever")

I must admit when KM said toilet-teeth I did think yuk! what a thing to say to your children, like so many things this felt odd

I didn't read this toilet-teeth thingie.
But I expect that, equally, she used to order Gerry "shxx -shower-shave".
The thought that two GPs' kids would share a toothbrush is totally bizarre and incredible.

The shared toothbrush story has in my opinion surpassed all Kate's silly stories to try to explain away the problems in her version of events. How she manages to keep a straight face when she comes out with this drivel I don't know. Give that woman an Oscar for her acting skills!

Marian wrote:The shared toothbrush story has in my opinion surpassed all Kate's silly stories to try to explain away the problems in her version of events.

I agree, but I would also award a prize to these two statements:

Her correction to the Australian interviewer when talking about the distance between the Tapas Bar and the apartment - 49.2m not 50m. As if this .8m matters! Just ignore the minor detail about the swimming pool and the wall between the two.

Or 'to be honest, we never made much about her eye.'

Both equally silly although not as gross.

How she manages to keep a straight face when she comes
out with this drivel I don't know. Give that woman an Oscar for her
acting skills!

another interesting one

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2847-our-needs

about the pathetic parents "needs", and certified by a professional....

Miraflores wrote:

Her correction to the Australian interviewer when talking about the distance between the Tapas Bar and the apartment - 49.2m not 50m. As if this .8m matters! Just ignore the minor detail about the swimming pool and the wall between the two.

Or 'to be honest, we never made much about her eye.'

Both equally silly although not as gross.

yes this 49.2 was a total sarcastic remark to have a dig at all the doubters to their made up story. You would think not only should they make much of the eye but also the rare birthmark on Maddies's left knee. I only found this out from reading their statements. Why don't they ever mention Maddie birthmark to the public? If anyone saw who they thought might be Maddie then this would be a strong indication it is her and the chance of anyone having both the eye and knee birthmark is extremely remote....But the McScams clearly do not want Maddie to be found

Why are they looking at photos of the girl in India and not checking these 2 marks? How would they know from photos its Maddie anyway as she has grown 4 years older since they last saw her, so even they could not be sure what she looks like now.....the whole world is confused to what Maddie actually looks like from all the different photos they have released of her